oh
[Music]
yeah is this it
am i okay i guess so
good evening and welcome to the
june 28 2022 planning and zoning
commission meeting
before we start we want to apologize to
those who were here last month
anticipating that they would have
completed their task but we fortunately
we didn't have a
quorum
but you can see tonight we do so we will
commence to have our regular meeting
so i'd like to call this meeting to
water
first of all anybody on the commission
have any conflict of interest
all right
i'd like because we don't have minutes
from last meeting but we had minutes
from the meeting before the 26th of
april they still have to be approved
so can i have a motion to do that please
i'll make a motion to approve
i'll second
becky can you do the role
board member kaiser
yes board member smith
yes board member bennett yes
member vega yes chair gordon yes thank
you it passes okay
well we have no postponements
uh before we get into the items that we
have this evening is there anybody in
the chamber who wishes to speak
on it can speak on anything as long as
it doesn't pertain to
items that are on the agenda
anyone wishes to talk
okay then we can dispose of that
all right first item on the agenda then
is consented gender
we have item 6.1 sonoma ranch
north phase and subdivision preliminary
plaque can i have a motion please
somebody
emotion i'm sorry i missed the the full
extent of that
i need a second
so
uh i'll make a motion to approve the
consent agenda
and i second
okay becky please
boy remember kaiser yes board member
smith yes former member bennett yes
board member mega yes chair gordon
yes passes
okay
then we move to all business
we have item 7.1 which is a 1390
montevista infield development request
can i have a motion please
i said i need a motion on item 7.1
i make a motion to approve item 7.1
and a second high second commission
becky
mr chairman uh point of order do you
want a presentation on that
i'm sorry would you like a presentation
on that yes but i want to just get a
vote on my second
i'm sorry are we gonna i'd like to get a
vote on my second for this item
you have a discussion first discussion
well not the vote just to bring it up on
the agenda
okay fine go ahead vince okay
mr chairman members of the commission
vincent banegas interim planner for the
record uh here this evening to present
the case
in this case it's an infill development
process case for 1390 monte vista avenue
it involves an eight unit apartment
complex
the property is currently zoned r2 which
again is our multi-family low-density
residential district
it does involve two vacant undeveloped
parcels
and those being lots 12 and 13 of the
sage edition
resubdivided 504 subdivision
a name you're not likely to see any time
in our future this was done back in 1959
and the properties fall within our
infill development boundary and because
they are undeveloped they are qualifying
parcels
the combined acreage is
.315 acres
and we see the location of these
subject parcels
they're outlined in red here along monte
vista avenue
if i can orient you solano drive is here
plain street to the south of the subject
properties
you have
r2 zoning again our
multi-family low-density district
immediately east and immediately south
of the subject property you also have r2
designated parcels north
of the subject property and beyond that
some r3 r1a
and as you start delving south
and southwest of the subject property
you start getting into what we call our
university district
in this case you have areas
identified as
udtz that's our transition zone that
allows
some single-family multi-family
and some
limited
commercial office type uses
and then further south is your ud uaz
which is university avenue zone
which increases the level of density and
intensity that you could
be allowed to have
the aerial map shows the subject
property and again shows it as vacant as
indicated
you do have various uses single family
uses off to your east
and southeast you do have some
duplexes and some
smaller apartment
units to the south
larger apartments do north of the
subject property here
and located here and you also have some
town homes that were developed northeast
of the subject location
elsewhere on the
looking further west you do have some
single family and again you start seeing
more
[Music]
duplex type units as well
the closer you get to the university
property is when you start seeing a
plethora of residential uses and mix of
uses
as we know
so the proposal this evening
is to consider
an eight-unit apartment complex there
will be developed as
two buildings if you will two four plex
buildings consisting of a total of eight
units
on lots of 12 and 13 so four on each lot
the deviations under consideration with
this infill include
the fact that the applicant does not
wish to replant the two properties into
one which is typically required but not
always necessary
depending how development is to take
place
there's also a two foot back up aisle
deviation to the 27 foot backup aisle
required for parking stalls
in this case it affects seven of the 12
stalls that they'll have on site
and so the backup aisle as a result of
that deviation is 25 feet instead of the
27.
there's also a density
deviation
of approximately 10 dwelling units per
acre so as proposed they're seeking 25
dwelling units per acre on
the two parcels in question
and there's a four unit
maximum based on the density allowance
that is also a deviation so four
in addition to the four they're allowed
to have equals your eight units
along the side yard which i'll show you
here in a minute on the site plan
there's a two foot
side yard setback deviation to the seven
feet required so that would result in a
five foot side yard setback
the individual units themselves are
designed to be two stories each
they're approximately a thousand
thousand sixty square feet in size and
again the four plex configuration
the units will share ingress and egress
to the property parking and drainage
and as a result of that
they will have to enter into a shared
agreement
for all three of these elements if those
properties are to remain
separate
that
specific element can be handled at the
permitting stage and so is not a
significant issue for us here
this evening
there are four additional bicycle
parking
racks to the two that are required those
are for substitution
for one auto
parking stall
that could not be accommodated
and the landscape along the front of the
property there's a row of landscaping
that is being proposed to help shield
some of the parking that you'll see
from the roadway it is limited but
nonetheless an attempt to help
soften the look if you will from that
perspective
with that landscaping they will have to
be cognizant of the fact that there are
some clear sight triangles to the
ingress egress element of their
access to the property so they'll have
to be
aware of that and account for that
so that might lessen some of that
landscaping but it shouldn't be
significant
other than that all other
code requirements are to be followed and
are considered as part of this proposal
so this is the site plan
that
believe it or not this is one or the
last iteration of about three that we we
looked at the reason why this didn't go
at an earlier meeting
is at the time we drew closer to
the subject meeting several months ago
staff was still trying to
manipulate the site plan and consider
alternatives to what you see here
i indicated that there were some
landscaping that is to be located here
along monte vista lane
and as a result of that width of
landscaping that's what affects the
backup aisles for these
uh subject uh parking stalls here and
that's where you get into the 25 foot
backup pile instead of the 27 foot as
shown here
these are the drainage
ponds this one this one and right here
in this corner
that will be shared amongst the two
properties
this is a common courtyard and the
configuration of these units keeping in
mind there's two stories each unit
was to allow
some privacy in terms of the access to
them so that they're not just on a
linear
accessible fashion kind of thing
and you have your bike racks here
and
this is the side of the property where
the two foot deviation to the side yard
setback exists so that's going to be
five feet instead of the seven
everything else is compliant
with some of the earlier iterations we
tried to force these buildings up front
to monte vista but we
had several limitations number one the
configuration of the structures
this is the design element the applicant
wanted to try and retain in terms of how
they are accessed
keeping in mind there were two stories
initially staff thought well we can
stack them up and move them up and still
have plenty of room for parking
but because they're two stories that
limited
what we could do
we did have one design that kind of
separated the units as far apart as
possible allowing some
some access in the middle
that access was very limited in width
and so this
seemed to be
at least from the perspective of access
one of the more favorable site plans
that that we can come up with given
those limitations
there's no alleyway in the back that
could have been used
that would have been another deviation
from code but but that could have
allowed some
flexibility in design but again this is
what
we came up with as a result of working
with the
applicant
a couple of
drawings illustrating some of
illustrating some of their facades
both the front facade inside facades etc
in terms of analysis
staff felt that the proposal was not out
of character with the surrounding area
you do have a multitude of apartments of
various shapes and sizes
in the neighborhood and
the area is in a state of transition you
do still have some properties that are
trying to maximize some of the
development potential of the r2 zone
so from that perspective we didn't feel
what was being proposed was
something out of character
with the area and there were no health
safety or welfare issues identified as
part of the
review process with this request
public notice was provided in pursuant
to code
surrounding property owners were
notified and staff did not receive
any input on this case
so even you know as of tonight i have
not received anything
so staff recommendation is approval
based on findings of the following
findings
number one the vacant properties within
the infield development overlay
making it eligible for the infill
development process which is what is
considered this evening
it also promotes alternative housing
types and styles and living arrangements
that the comprehensive plan speaks to
it also encourages a denser
housing option
within the urban neighborhood which it
is located within
and is supported by other uh various
goals policies and actions of our
elevate las cruce comprehensive plan
so in addition to meeting the elevate
comprehensive plan purpose intent
it is compatible with the zoning
of the area it's compatible with land
uses in the area
and it certainly meets the intent
as purpose and intent as outlined in our
2001 zoning code it does fulfill the
city's infill policy plan
and is complying with the criteria for
decisions identified in the municipal
code
so your options this evening
commissioners is to vote yes
and approve the request you may vote no
and deny it and provide
findings of fact of your own that are
different than those presented this
evening
you may vote yes with conditions or vote
to table and that concludes staff's
presentation and i'd be happy to answer
any questions you may have
the applicant's representative is also
in attendance
and we'll be happy to answer any
questions you may have
thank you all right thank you
is there any questions from the
commission
commissioner kaiser
thank you i have a question about the
parking situation that maybe you could
clarify so my understanding is the
requirement is for
12 spots um or 12 parking stalls
and i count uh 11 plus the handicap
stall which would equal
are equal 12 is that
that's correct and and they're also
providing
uh additional bike uh facilities uh
racks to
as an addition to parking there's an
allowance to
require four par a bicycle in lieu of
the one parking so they meet the parking
uh as shown on the site plan
yeah i guess i'm confused because the
requirement is for 12 spots and there
they have 12 spots correct
they have um
i think i
let's see 12 stalls that's correct
they do
so
so as proposed they're not actually
they're not actually
correction commissioner kaiser they have
this is the ada loading for van
accessibility
so that's not technically a parking even
though they're it's shown as eight feet
which is a requirement of our code and
so the 12th would come in the form of
the substitution by the bicycle
absolutely okay that that makes sense so
that that's not actually a handicap
parking stall it's just for
loading unloading that they're one of
those will serve as ada uh then
accessible stall
okay
and then i guess
is it
my understanding that
off or on street parking could
be substituted for the parking
requirement was that looked at in this
particular situation the applicant and
staff did look at that as an opportunity
however in that they were able to meet
some of the
demands and the parking requirements as
stipulated
they
didn't go there
but certainly with any overflow or
visitors or that type of thing they
would take full advantage of the street
on street parking but there's no attempt
to utilize that and as a substitution
for on-site
okay and and in the
back and forth and compromises about
site design that was never
explored as an opportunity to help with
some of the things that you've discussed
earlier
mr chairman commissioner kaiser staff
did look at that in fact one of the
comments from staff is whether or not we
would support
you know considerable
adjustment to the parking
on-site parking requirements by allowing
on street there are limitations to that
and i think there's a percentage of
parking on-site parking that can be
substituted for on street
so that is another element but certainly
with the infill that could have been
accommodated
as a deviation
it's just that
this was ultimately the
the site plan that both the applicant
was happy with and and based on the give
and take staff felt
comfortable presenting at least
okay thank you and then on the
landscaping component of it so we have
that
that two-foot strip um along the
sidewalk and the the parking driveway
area
are there any requirements or proposals
to put at least one or two street trees
there
yes sir
mr chairman commissioner kaiser this row
of landscaping was just merely intended
to provide some visual relief
they are looking at
we talked about some street trees but
given the
width of the
landscape area they're probably going to
be more along the lines of the cypress
variety
but you do have opportunities and we
talked about that to provide some
landscaping in
in these limited ponding areas but the
site will comply with the 15 percent
requirement of our landscape ordinance
this is just showing that
row to again soften the parking area
okay thank you
and then i think i have
a couple of questions on the replating
so
[Music]
if if they were to re-plan would they
still require an idp for
overall density
yes the
considerations mr chairman commissioner
kaiser the considerations for
the numbers you saw in this presentation
accounted
for both of the properties being used as
one
okay thank you no further questions
is there anyone else
i have a couple
yes sir
number one i don't see any provision on
this plan and it's sort of difficult to
read sometime
for refuse where they put their
dumpsters
the dumpster location uh was discussed
and
they
last i heard is they will be looking at
some individual bins not necessarily a
community bin
and have the individuals wheel them out
just like many of us do
every pickup day
but that will be investigated at the
permanent
permit level
and with utilities
okay i'm sure that the the builder or
the owner of the apartments will handle
that
and
on the on the hand on the packet that
you provided
um
there are
apparently two contingencies here on the
back
one of them about
landscaping which commissioner kaiser
may have taken care of with shared
parking and landscaping this other one
with traffic is that just normal we'll
be taking care of a time of
permitting that's correct okay
let's see
that's it for me
okay
is there the applicant wish to say
anything
okay is there anyone from the audience
who wishes to speak
if not then we can take a vote
could i have a motion please make a
motion to approval
we already have a motion in a second for
this sir
you're putting the question
yeah
so now we're going to have a second vote
and the second section
okay then i do need a motion too
on this item
i don't think she heard you if you did
i make a motion to approve
uh 7.1
i second
board member kaiser
yes based on sas recommendation and
consistency with elevate las cruces
former member smith
uh yes based on staff recommendation
board member bennett yes based on staff
recommendation site survey meets elevate
las cruces and the neighborhood
character
board member vega
yes based on staff recommendation and it
meets elevate las cruces
chair gordon
yes i vote yes based on staff
recommendations my site physic does
comply with elevate las cruces and it
does do something for the infield
problem
so thank you
passes
all right then under
new business item 8.1
the melinda street infield development
request
okay so vincent banegas interim planner
for the record mr chairman commissioners
presenting the case this evening which
is another
infield development process
request
for property located at 585 and 595
melendra street
the
proposed use is an adult daycare with
ancillary uses
and i will go through that here
so under current conditions
we have both addresses consisting of
three properties
as per the assessor records
that are currently
the properties are developed but the
buildings are vacant and they were
originally designed as single-family
dwellings
back
upon their construction and as such
they're considered
underutilized and that they're vacant
today and have been for for a bit
the three lots involved in the request
involve lots three four and five the
subject subdivision in this case it's
a subdivision
these
four and five lots four and five
comprise 595 north malendra street
and lot three comprises 585 north
melinda street
the properties are within the infield
development boundary and because again
they are underutilized they are
qualifying parcels for the idp
the properties themselves are zoned
8003 that's our alameda depot overlay
designation area 3
which is our core residential area
and
it refers to the underlying zone
in this case it's r1a which is our
single family medium density much like
many of the properties you see
that are developed with single family
homes on them
throughout the city
the 8003
in this case as pursuant to the elevated
depot overlay in our zoning code has
restrictions on commercial and
industrial uses
and limits those to
any qualifying use
non-residential use that falls within
our home occupation and live work type
of arrangement
the total acreage or the combined
acreage of all property involved is
0.438 acres
and the zoning map
that is being shown here identifies the
parcels outlined in red
this being 595 the larger
and 585 is the smaller
you have melinda street located here
going up to picacho avenue
and if you go southward eventually
you'll be intersecting with
hadley and lowman and
amador
you have mountain avenue here
does
a dead end at this location
and you have pittsburgh avenue just to
the south of the block where the two
properties are located
there is a cul-de-sac
within this immediate block
bonita circle
but you have
much of the core area the 8003 area
identified here
and many of the underlying zone that you
see is r1a there is some r2 and some
other
underlying designations but they're all
within the 8003
again our residential core
to the north of the subject property you
have ado4
and that is
our
area that allows for both single-family
multi-family and very limited office
commercial type uses in this case
this property is lions park
has of course the aquatic or the
swimming pool component
tennis courts and often this areas
handball courts
you do have a mixture of residential
styles a lot of them being
single family in nature
further
west you have our two zone properties
after the railroad tracks which are
located here
and again you have a single family
and i'm sure some are in transition
being duplexes etc
you have 8006 down below it's a small
strip of
land use that's designated or considered
to be our railroad
subdistrict if you will
and that allows
more
dense residential uses that are
provided as part of a mixed use
component
so it's not heavy on the uses unless
it's mixed-use component or design
but it does allow
greater flexibility in terms of
commercial and then some limited
industrial uses
our aerial map shows the same properties
outlined in red again
the two lots that make up this larger
home site is here
and 585 is located here
so the proposal is as indicated on adult
daycare and ancillary support
uses all of which are considered
considered commercial again one of the
deviations as part of this request
but both properties will be used in
conduct of the proposed business
other than
improvement to the exterior facades
there won't be any significant exterior
building modifications that would
indicate it's something other than
to the extent possible a single-family
home they're trying to blend in with the
neighborhood
and trying to keep it
as as low-key as possible if you will
but still
account for the fact that they are
commercial use and they need to be
identified as such
so they will be seeking a small ground
sign
as part of their proposal
staff is recommending that it not be
illuminated to be in keeping with the
neighborhood
there are some restrictions in the sign
code related to that
so
existing on-site parking
and proposed on-street parking is being
considered with this request
the proposal falls
one stall short of meeting their
requirements
there are some interesting alignments as
it relates to the requirements but there
is a drop-off pick up for clients
in front of the 595 north melinda's
address
three
bicycle parking
facilities are required and one ada van
accessible which they will be able to
provide on site
ultimately they're looking at a maximum
at any given time maximum 50 clients
proposed for the daycare staffed
or proposed for the daycare and that may
sound
like a lot but
we've got to keep in mind that they're
going to grow with the
business and at any point in time it is
very unlikely
that they will have 50 clients because
the nature of the business is to either
drop off
clientele if i have a parent for
instance and
and i'm in need of attending a meeting
in the evening but i'm the caretaker
i would be able to
within the hours of operation drop off
my parent and
be on my way
so you're not going to likely see 50
clients coming in at any given time
so i just want to kind of clarify that
there will be some staffed
or a staffed commercial kitchen and the
idea being that when you drop off
your family member
if they are in need of a meal they will
have a chef on site or a cook on site to
prepare
whatever dish the client wishes to have
so there will be facilities for
that service and they won't be allowed
to cook but there will be someone there
to cook for them
there will be two massage therapy
stations
and two hair salon barber stations and
again these are just for the clients
it's not for anyone just coming in to
see what it's all about
so the daycare
will operate monday through friday 7 30
to 6.
the massage and hair salon barber
component of that will
also operate from a 7 30 to 6 p.m
time frame but they are being split in
terms of days of the week so your
massage is tuesday and thursday
again following the daycare hours
and the hair salon and barber is monday
and wednesday so
the intent is not to combine
all the commercial activity at the same
time it's trying to again limit
um
limit the operation beyond which is
reasonable for the for the neighborhood
it's a security-minded operation and i
was informed that some of their
some of their their rules their
operation will
require that a
wristband be provided that will help
monitor
when a client if if they are so inclined
to tend to leave the facility there will
be some method to track them and and
notify
staff of the potential exit of the
client to try and bring to mind
operation that is security minded
they will also follow a one to five
staff to client ratio as required by
state requirements so there's
at any given time
in keeping with the
50 requirement 15 staff at max
and again there will probably be a
double duty in some sense with
some of the other commercial
activities taking place and those that
run them
so you will have in summary of the
deviations
three commercial land uses going on
daycare massage salon barber
there's a request not to replat the lots
into a single lot
and
one auto parking lot to the 15 required
will be lacking and of course a request
for the ground sign
so this is
the site plan that they provided it's a
bit of an aerial shot as well
disregard some of the dimensioning
in terms of appearance they've got the
the actual numerics correct but there is
a series
of parking lots or parking spaces i
should say
right along mountain avenue that's an
existing driveway for this
residence once upon a time
they will be utilizing some tandem
parking arrangement here's two others
obviously these will be intended for
staff so that they can communicate and
work together and ensure that
ingress and egress to these stalls can
be accommodated easily
there will be some additional
on street parking here in fact that you
see three along mountain avenue
you see one beginning near the
intersection of melendres and mountain
here is the pickup
loading zone for clients
at the main
facility
and you see three other on-street stalls
here
and two via the parking or the driveway
for what used to be the 585
residents at this location
the yards will be shared in fact you can
tell that this rear yard of this
house
is rather limited but they will be
utilizing and having easy access to this
rear yard as part of their outdoor
activity
offerings
gardening and things like that even some
limited
physical activity as well
these are photos of what we see today
once upon a time they were a little bit
or i should say far more vibrant
landscaping the grass
everything was
alive and green
and throughout the years
the homes
kind of took on a different look they
eliminated obviously one of the
entrances here
painted on white they were
quite beautiful homes at one point in
time
this is the other site the 595 site it's
a very large structure but they had
trees in the front again grass etc
and throughout the years much of that
has died and they're looking to bring
some of that back and and bring
these structures back to active use as
part of this infill request
in terms of analysis
again the proposal seeks to be as
compatible as possible with the
neighborhood character there were no
health safety or welfare issues that
were identified as part of this request
and melendra street
is designated as a major collector
so the
concern that might be voiced in terms of
the roadway not being able to
carry any capacity beyond which
may be seen out there today
i think the collector
roadway designation can can allay some
of those concerns it's a unique street
and
i must admit early on i was concerned
about the potential for traffic impacts
so i asked the applicant's
representative to go out and
and kind of randomly uh monitor traffic
and do
you know it was a simplistic traffic
count but nonetheless just to gauge what
what they saw and
uh the numbers were quite telling it's
it's
it's a little bit more active than your
typical local road but it's not
significant
and so that kind of allayed some of my
concerns regarding that
the proposal itself in that it is a
daycare is not entirely out of line with
past history
in terms of
some of the earlier uses
it was used for
and
let's see i think we had if i could
remember their name
yes yes victory outreach was there and
before that it was
approved as
kind of a halfway house
early on in the in the process
so
the history is there what they're
proposing
today is is kind of in line with that it
is
far more activity for any typical home
in the area but nonetheless
something that doesn't fall necessarily
in line with
permanent residential use at least with
this request
the proposal does provide a use that is
similar to the senior citizen center
concept but is a little different in
terms of the service provided in the
personnel care aspect etc
public notice
the applicant's representative did send
out early notification to the
neighborhood back in march
of this year and
several property owners as a result of
that effort have voiced support there
were
i think one at minimum and maybe a few
that oppose the proposal
but a vast majority were in favor of it
some even indicating that this type of
use was long overdue
so the city notice was sent out in
accordance with our zoning code and
other than the
input that was received by the
applicant's representative staff was not
directly contacted
in terms of input on this case
so staff recommendation
is to
conditionally approve the case
the conditions being that lots four and
five and that's for the larger lot
the single family home straddles the
property line it is very unlikely
that that will either be
at any time be separated
to create two separate lots so staff
feels that those two lots should be
replated into one the 585 lot can still
be a standalone lot so
in in terms of that condition
if they follow through with it if it's
voted on by this commission you will
have two lots instead of the three
the applicant shall satisfy all fire
review comments prior to the issuance of
a permit or
certificate of occupancy as applicable
that's kind of a given
but there were some concerns and i know
the applicant had addressed
all the concerns to the best my
knowledge so
that's kind of just a
provision that i felt
could be included and then
the idp
satisfied the 8088 van accessible
parking requirement on site as
applicable
to our code so those were the three
conditions that staff would like for you
to consider
the findings of fact
are that the property
falls within the infield development
overlay making it eligible for this
process
the land use
and community service that they're
looking to provide is not
specifically available within our city
and is a good addition to
providing care for
our aging
family members and the proposed idp
seeks
the elderly caretaker services
while trying to maintain consistent or
compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood again they're trying to
blend in not stand out
and there are various
elevate las cruce comprehensive plan
goals
policies and actions that are that
support the request
so
here's the the information i kind of
jumped the gun the victory outreach as i
indicated
had used the facility
and there was an earlier
approval as a group home back in the day
so
in addition to meeting the elevate las
cruces plan it's compatible with the
land uses and zoning districts in the
area
it meets the
city's infill policy plan and provisions
outlined in the municipal code
in terms of purpose and intent
of decisions et cetera so that
concludes staff's presentation your
options this evening are to vote yes and
approve
the request
to vote no and deny the request and
provide
findings
to the contrary or what staff has
presented this evening vote yes with
conditions and keep in mind staff has
identified three conditions for your
consideration this evening and you may
also vote to table and that concludes
staff's presentation
on this matter and the applicant's
representative is in attendance
and is
ready willing and able to answer any
questions you may have
thank you all right thank you
are there any questions by the
commission
uh yes commissioner smith i have two um
i'm very familiar with this uh this
property i live on south molindras and
uh over the years i have watched it you
know deteriorate um so i was always
curious about
how and and when this property was going
to be
purchased and used for another
for another purpose
my two questions are regarding parking i
know that
there are
short one space
i i see looking at the plan for parking
where they have the drop-off um
which is on melindra's
that relin just north melinda does get
you know pretty steady traffic i
wouldn't say that it's not it's a
residential neighborhood so it's not
fast traffic
so i don't think it's going to be a
a problem with the drop off at that at
that location but i was curious as to
why they decided not to
have that drop off on west mountain
because if you're heading north and you
make that turn
um
the traffic is almost non-existent
because you have the uh the field and
and the recreation area there so i was
just wondering why they decided to put
it there i
might my guess is that that's the front
door there's a sidewalk there and that's
the the easiest
entry point
yes mr chairman commissioner smith a
couple of things
the drop-off location was located at
that location there off molendres
because of the building being the
primary building for the operation and
it's
ready access if you will from the
sidewalk into the property to the front
door
should they
relocate that along the mountain avenue
side
there would be less opportunity for
easy access some of these individuals
would have a certain
accessibility or ailments that would
prevent easy access to the to the
buildings themselves we even looked at
providing some parking
across the way on the
park site
there's a parking lot over there and
it's not always at full capacity
right that was actually my second
question um if they would be allowed to
use basically the overflow parking from
that uh from the pool and tennis court
area
when we looked into that it was
determined that the park itself there
was a funding mechanism that restricts
that
for whatever reason it's in place
now that's not to say that they couldn't
use it or someone coming in couldn't
park there i mean but formally we
couldn't recognize it as
overflow
or parking through any shared parking
agreement
so
i have no more questions
is there anyone else commissioner kaiser
uh i'm just curious on the the being one
spot short on the parking front would
the applicant be open to just adding
four additional bike
parking spots to make up for that i mean
this is a perfect location for staff
to to bike and it just seems like an
easy solution
sarah i think perhaps i have to swear
you in i believe so okay
you swear to affirm that the testimony
you're about to give is the truth and
nothing but the truth on the penalty of
law i do thank you go ahead i'm sarah
gonzalez with legacy acquisitions um for
the record
we would not be opposed to adding the
additional bicycle racks and we've also
worked with the adjacent neighbor
towards the west side they have actually
also given us permission to utilize any
parking we'd need to on their property
as well as in front of their property
we contacted them when we were short and
said you know would there be a problem
because we of course didn't want to
impede on their property as the process
would go forward
if the business does succeed so they
were willing to allow us to also park in
front of their property we just didn't
want to if you notice on the site plan
the ada striped area is not designated
that's very hard to do when it has to be
eight feet wide so we didn't want to
limit ourselves to not have that
opportunity
to reduce one if we could
sitting out on the property and actually
counting vehicles i was the one who did
that
you can definitely tell mountain is
definitely the drop off area
cars are definitely a lot more on
melendra's than opposed to on mountain
there was rarely any cars that came down
mountain unless they were actually going
into the park for the actual parks
facilities
also within the park you can definitely
tell there's a lot of parking lot
available
there was a tournament on one day that
was taking place in the morning and then
it's vacant a lot of the time so it was
very disappointing to not be able to
utilize that even if it was just for
staff to open up that drop-off area
knowing this is a land use that's
definitely needed in las cruces
thank you and and just to clarify i am
totally fine with one fewer parking
spots
but if we have an opportunity to put in
additional bike parking to make up for
that
i think it's a no-brainer on this
location
is there anyone else
oh
sarah stay there
uh first of all i think i would have
liked to have seen a floor plan a
proposed floor
plan as to what they were going to do
with these two buildings
especially the connectivity between the
two
for example
are both buildings going to have a
facility to provide meals or
only one building and those people in
the other building are going to have to
go to the other building to have
something to eat how is this all going
to work
okay so i do have a presentation that i
can provide a little bit more
information on
based on on the rear property as you can
see we've kind of shown them a little
bit greater
what's happened is the two sites were
originally designed to work together the
facilities that are ancillary to the
site would be utilized in the smaller
building
and i'll show you why the floor plans
would work because this is a 4 500
square foot building with no backyard
so the purpose of 585 is really for the
backyard use
so now you can put the barber shop you
can put the massage therapy and you can
put the kitchen into another building
that would actually open up the space
what is currently done this is what the
fire department had requested was the
safety plan of the curtain buildings
and they wanted to primarily look and
see how many exits were available for
the site each property has three exits
that are available for each one so that
way there is accommodating ways for
people to get in and out depending on
which room you're in
for 585 there's not as many rooms but
there are at least two restrooms and
then a kitchen area
some of the rooms will probably be
modified to be opened up so that way
there's more space because you don't
need as much room for activity centers
when you have people that are just
trying to socialize just want to be with
other people basically the same mental
health maybe
as you can see in 595 we get a lot
larger these bathrooms were already
created as ada since it was done for a
group home
it has fire sprinklers already attached
inside that's why it was very difficult
to sell this property as a single family
residence it became more of that
commercial use
and so with these floor plans now you
have all of these activity centers that
are open spaces so people can either
play chess or they can go outside and
garden but they have areas to where they
can basically meet people
possibly with the same condition they
may have or maybe just because they want
to get out and socialize
this area worked because it also helped
with the park being across the street
what i noticed when i was doing the
traffic counts is there was a tennis
tournament and every single one of the
members in the tennis tournament were
seniors
not a lot of people know about it maybe
people can't play but they'd want to go
watch so it became an accessibility to
just get out and still be taken care of
maybe not necessarily by your caregiver
who may need a break
they did a study that i had found oh
let's go back to the images this was
actually in 2011. this property looked
great
you can see where this has now been
enclosed here's a window that's been
enclosed on 585
there was landscaping i'm not even sure
where the rock went in the front of 595.
like how do you just pick that up and
take it with you
and so now we see these properties
looking like this there's your
comparison of what these properties have
the potential to be and what it can
bring to the neighborhood
when you look at the backyards these are
the backyards they are just as unkept as
before
and so now you have this area where 585
and 595 almost seemed like they were
supposed to be together there's already
a cutout in the wall right here has been
cut out so you can walk back there
it's already wide enough to provide
anybody who does need ada services to
actually get into the back for the
actual gardening
here is the front area that shows
there's an ada ramp to actually get into
the back porch from where you would get
it on the side from essentially where
you'd have two staff members parking but
essentially that other area would be
left open in case anybody wanted to get
into the back patio
but as you can tell this is their rear
yard this is the side goes onto this
side
comes up back here and then goes into
the back property
there's no rear yard for anybody to
utilize within the space so making that
other backyard
that garden or that sanctuary that place
to just hang out makes this a more
viable project
these are the street views i took at 12
o'clock in the afternoon on a tuesday
as you can see there's not very many
cars that are actually parked along the
street there were two vehicles this
one's mine there were no vehicles along
mountain and then these were passing
cars
so there's really not a lot of people
who are actually using the on-street
parking right now because that is always
the concern is how many people are going
to pull out our park and change
direction melandrus can be a faster
street to me it seems like it's more
like a through street it looks like
campo is how it works
everybody's just getting from picacho to
amador and amador to maine that is how
that road simply works
all right sarah thank you but i do have
some other questions could you go back
to the first picture that you showed
with the two houses go all the way back
right there that's far enough
this is just a suggestion and certainly
wouldn't make it a condition but it
might be a good idea for somehow or
other to put some kind of a covered
walkway
between the two buildings if someone has
to go from one to the other in inclement
weather if we ever have any
like rain
it's just a suggestion
but now i have another question
what is being provided for those who
require
very specific care like say someone who
might have alzheimer's
okay let me go ahead and bring up our
business owner who is actually going to
be the one running the facility she can
provide more information as well okay
could you just please give us your name
and then let me swear you in
certainly buffy johnson all right do you
swear affirmative testimony about to
give is the truth or nothing but the
truth on a penalty of law i do all right
thank you
so i'm asking you for example that
requires very very special needs for
someone who who is qualified to take
care of someone
who has alzheimer's
or perhaps someone who is severely
disabled requires let's say an electric
wheelchair it was unfortunately unable
to perhaps even feed themselves
will you have that type of staff
so this facility is not designed for
people with
near-end stage alzheimer's
i call it light dementia
that we would accept because it is um
not
it's a home and we're intending for it
to look like a home it is going to be
secured but is not going to be
they won't be locked in like in a
nursing home security unit
where they can't get out because the
doors are locked that's not this
intention so i do intend to take light
dementia type of clients who are able to
converse and socialize they may forget
what room they're in or where they're
going but they're not
having severe dementia or alzheimer's
issues
if it comes to that that this will
probably not be the appropriate place
for that client
as far as the wheelchair is concerned i
absolutely anticipate we'll have
wheelchairs walkers rollators all of
those good things my staff will be able
to do standby assist one person
transfers
where we help them get up and transfer
but we don't deadlift we won't be able
to do that
currently i own homestead senior care
and so it'll be very much the same as my
clients except it will be in a group
setting so that i can have people who
really
don't can't afford or don't want
one-to-one care but they want
socialization they want to go somewhere
to have care with caregivers that can
provide that
so as the the client ages in place if
you will we'll have to keep a very close
eye on the dementia situation because it
can be unsafe
in certain areas luckily i've been doing
this for 30 years so i feel very
qualified to be able to make sure
everyone is safe
and it's not a good idea to combine
dementia with physically frail those are
not the same type of people so
we want to keep a very close eye on that
if the demand in the city calls for a
more dementia type daycare
i will be happy to open up a separate
one but i will not combine them because
it's just not a very good business plan
i'm not saying that the city will
require it i mean what happens if
someone do are you going to interview
everyone when they come to the front
door and say what is the nature of your
elderly person
if they say well he has dementias and he
has alzheimer's and i need someone to
take care of him during the daytime
while i have errands to do you're going
to simply say i'm really sorry but we're
not equipped to handle it not
necessarily so what my
suggestion is going to be that we will
have an opportunity for them to come
with their loved one and do an
observation for about an hour so my
staff can observe them their family
member will be there observing them so
we can see how they're in iraq
interacting with other people
some people are not good interactors and
i'm not looking to have
anyone in there that's going to
stir it up or make it uncomfortable for
people
there is a place for that and this is
not that place so it will be very
closely watched and very closely
assessed if it comes to the point where
they can't be there i will have to let
them know they can't come anymore all
right i understand that's fair
um
what happens if there is a requirement
for a special diet
we can do that so
you're going to just have like a
standard menu and say this is what we're
serving for lunch today and if somebody
would have to tell you in advance if
they needed something like a special
diet and you would provide it
we could so we'll have an always
available menu of
you know tomato soup cottage cheese you
know peaches and you know crackers all
the things that people like the comfort
foods macaroni and cheese what not
grilled cheese things that will be
available always but if someone's on a
low sodium diet or
some other type of cardiac diet we can
accommodate that to a reasonable degree
okay and my last question is
does someone have to pay to come here
yes
and how if they can't pay how how would
you how do you handle that so it will be
initially private pay only
and
eventually i will be
applying for medicaid
that is a very lengthy process with our
state so it's not something that will be
done right away but medicaid does pay
for adult day care uh in 15 minute
increments if you will so there's a lot
to the application uh so but it will be
private pay initially and and i don't
think we'll have any problem filling
that up do you have any kind of private
funding that sort of makes up the
difference uh no
so you manage you're going to manage to
run this place based on the number of
people who come and the amount of money
you charge
to determine your overhead correct oh
good luck it'll be it'll be great
i've been doing this for a long time
this is my first rodeo so okay i think
this will be wonderful i really wish i
wish i think i think it's a wonderful
project and i think it will serve well
and as long as all these things are
taken care of there should be no problem
those are my questions
i'm sorry go ahead
hi commissioner vega um this is my
neighbor like two blocks two
houses down okay i know that we go
through this process to
get the approvals in place to then start
modifying the buildings and doing
everything we want to get you approved
so that you can
create this business
if that doesn't happen and we've gone
through all these approvals on this side
it makes me think of
the corner of maine and
70 like how we've talked about the
potential for what could happen
but if it doesn't
what could potentially happen to this
property if this business does not
flourish
i guess i'm thinking about uh
what kind of you know commercial
opportunities could it turn into
yeah my
it can't be
all right then if there are no other
questions
if i if i may i'm sorry in here i'm
sorry no that's okay um mr commissioner
uh commissioner vega or mr chairman
commissioner vega
the
infield development process once
if it gets approved here this evening
with or without conditions
it's valid for a period of time if if
all of a sudden the deal falls through
uh acquisition of the property
for whatever reason doesn't take place
and the applicant walks away
there's
in in most instances
the property will sit idle until someone
else comes along and either wants to do
something similar
or
proposes something different which case
they would be coming back
to this body for approval much like what
we're doing this evening
if if somebody wanted to occupy the
property
and
i do recognize that the 595
address that building is is large it's
very large but if someone wanted a large
home
they could certainly do that they could
certainly come and and seek
infill request for
uh a duplex for instance or a single
family with an attached interior
oriented accessory dwelling or something
something along those those lines so it
could be utilized
much like what it was originally
intended for or they can come back and
seek an alternative
proposal
okay thank you
now is there anyone else
all right then i guess we are ready for
a vote
now now
now can i have a motion please
i make a motion to approve 8.1 with
conditions one through three
seconds
did we have a second i'm sorry yes sir
all right go ahead boar member kaiser
yes based on staff's recommendation
consistency with elevate las cruces
board member smith
uh yes based on staff recommendation uh
site visit and i think this is going to
be a very good use of this property
board member bennett
yes based on staff recommendations site
survey and it meets the idp
board member vega
i vote yes based on
site visits i'm really looking forward
to seeing the block
brighten up
and the street follow
and staff recommendations
chair gordon
i vote yes based on my site visit my
staff discussion at their
recommendations
it goes with elevate las cruces it
certainly fills an infill problem
and it's going to make a wonderful
contribution to the city
motion passes
okay then we can go on to item
8.2 which is a special use permit
request
mr chairman members of the commission
my final case this evening
vince monaghan's interim planner for the
record my final case this evening is a
special use permit
as indicated for property located at
2505 missouri avenue
the current conditions are as follows
the property is zone c1
zoning that's our low intensity
commercial district or designation
originally the property was developed i
believe as a two suite
retailer service center i think way back
in the day it was a laundromat
with
either a tailor shop or some clothing
component in the smaller portion
and throughout the years it's
transitioned to a variety of uses
some of the latest being a taekwondo if
i'm not mistaken in a mobile
cell phone
store
the property is located on the northeast
corner of missouri avenue and don rooser
drive and
consists of 0.264 acres of land
the surrounding property is primarily
retail
office multi-family
with single-family
zoning and uses further north of the
subject location
and it is that single family
zoning designation that covers those
uses
that is in question here this evening
pursuant to this
sup
the supporting zoning for those uses
includes r1a zoning again our
single family medium density designation
c1
our low intensity commercial c2 our
medium intensity in c3
being our high intensity and the c at
the end of that c3 just refers to a
condition that was provided at the time
of the
properties rezoning
which is located here it's a very large
tract of land
and currently has
both office and daycare
related businesses on the property
typically in a lease environment i don't
think any of the
portions of the property have been
formally subdivided it's all through
lease arrangement
so the property in question
is situated here at the corner
northeast corner don rooser drive being
located here missouri avenue
here
you've got the interstate next to don
rooser
and
delano drive is here
just a lot over from the subject
location
and it's this r1a zoning district
which requires us to consider the sup
this evening
you do have
c2 zoning
further north of the subject property in
fact
several of these parcels here
are office or business office related
some real estate offices etc
you have a
garment or
uniform
retail establishment here it's i believe
it's called scrubs
and you have a restaurant located here
in noppalitos
now in this property directly kind of
north
east of the subject location is an
apartment complex i think it has six
units
and then residential thereafter
so you can see that there's a mix of
zoning
several
uses and kind of in the broader scheme
of things as it relates to this location
again the property aerial view showing
what i've described
multi-family here
this photo though does show
a very good representation of what
i consider to be a good physical
barrier if you will or buffer
to the single family zoning
district which comprises
this area where the cursor is pointing
out
so you have multi-family
you have other offices here
and so
before you get to that single family
zone you do have other
uses that provide perhaps even greater
impact to those residential areas
the bulk of that large tractor land as
you see here is vacant
one of our developers in in the city
owns that land and
to my knowledge
isn't necessarily interested in
subdividing it as much as leasing
space or land area to
potential businesses
so in terms of history the building was
constructed in 1977
and kind of ironically
the building was constructed on the land
but it was in 2008
as part of the muncreef
subdivision
which created the lot size that we see
today
so a little cart before the horse kind
of thing going on there but nonetheless
at the time of construction the property
met all the requirements
development requirements that were in
existence
and
back then
you didn't have our our
landscaping ordinance that we see today
uh things of that nature so it's it's
it's kind of a unique uh
setup in terms of parking in terms of
landscaping which there really isn't any
to speak of
and that sort of thing so i'd like to
keep that in mind
the property has been zoned c1 since
pre-1970
1969 serves as our kind of base year by
which all our zoning history is based on
the building itself is approximately 96
feet not quite 100 feet from the r1a
zoning district
it's required to be 300 feet
and
that's that single family r1a district
that i pointed out
so in terms of the proposal
the applicant who is here in attendance
this evening wishes to place a retail
cannabis door
at the subject location
again they're having to meet that 300
300-foot buffer requirement to the
residential zoning and they fall short
by about two-thirds of that distance
all the other distances are being met
in terms of other cannabis retailers and
or school day care property
with this
proposal
it was kind of a unique situation
because we're dealing with that large
tract of land and the daycare facility
located on more or less on the
south
east corner of that large tract
staff had to
consider
the issue of the buffer distance more
specifically as it relates to leased
area because they don't own the property
the daycare doesn't own the property
they merely lease the property so if you
pull a measurement from the subject
cannabis proposed cannabis location to
that daycare they're well beyond 300
feet in fact they're upwards of about
seven
just shy of 700 feet
to that end
we do have
support from
the daycare manager director
they were apprised of the issue by the
applicant early on
and
they did provide the applicant with a
ladder saying that they were in support
of that so
that's a very positive thing for
for this type of use
beyond that the proposed
cannabis facility or retail
store will follow all other city las
cruces
requirements
and those that are outlined by the state
of new mexico as it relates to
cannabis related activity
so here is a
a photo
looking north but at the south facade of
the subject
property
again a majority of it once upon a time
was laundromat and since then changed
use
you do see
angled parking on site
i think there's been some
reconfiguration of driving lanes along
don rooser in missouri in the form of
medians
so access to the property is still
gained from
don rooser and from missouri but
it's a little bit more difficult to get
access to it but accessibility is there
so the applicant may be looking at
reconfiguring some of the parking
that you see here but in that this
property has been in use without any
year lapse in time pursuant to our code
business can continue to
operate on the premises
and the cannabis business is just
another retail
operation in terms of our code with
exception to the fact that there's
specific provisions for it
we also have a photo looking east
at the western facade of the facility
and you see
a little bit of a shared driveway
here
which is also utilized by these offices
further north of subject property but
access to the subject property can also
take place there
and then along
which isn't shown but a little bit
further off to the uh the slide here is
access from missouri and i failed to
point that out
but at the bottom photo
you have delano drive located here
missouri of course being this larger
roadway
and this is just showing you the fact
that there's
a multi-family at this location
a uniform retail business here in that
restaurant i pointed out
beyond that is where you have the single
family
uses
so public input was sent to the
surrounding properties
and as of 2
45 or so this afternoon i had not
received any input
from the surrounding property owners
regarding this case but i did receive
one email which i distributed to you all
the gentleman indicated that he was
opposing the case but he was citing
concerns as it relates to traffic and
some of the traffic issues that they're
seeing at the
particularly don rooser
in missouri but also at delano
and missouri
intersections
to that staff has
already indicated that business activity
can continue to occur
on the premises following the
non-conforming provisions and so
in looking at or getting with our
development engineer
it's not likely that the
traffic generated by this proposed use
is going to be any significant
difference from what
any other retail
small scale retail facility might pose
so
with that in mind
you know staff's comfortable pushing
forward and
recommending what
what we're recommending here this
evening and that is approval of the case
with the findings as follows
that the single aside from the single
families owning district boundaries all
of the other buffer requirements are met
the property was developed under codes
that were applicable back in the day
and again because of non-conforming
provisions they may continue
the subject property is also designed
with a relatively high degree of
compatibility with other fronting
properties along missouri and don rooser
drive
and ingress egress
although
somewhat limited
is available from both missouri and don
rooser
and from staff's perspective
we don't feel that the proposed use will
have any significant traffic impacts to
the traffic circulation pattern in that
area
it certainly meets
section 38.2 of our zoning code
and it also
will follow all
zoning code and state of new mexico
requirements
for the intended use
there were several
goals and policies and actions that
supported the proposed use the area is a
urban neighborhood place or within an
urban a neighborhood place type
which encourages a variety of
residential housing
medium to high densities with pockets of
commercial uses which this certainly
fits the bill
mixed-use neighborhoods expanding
economic opportunities
increased employment opportunities those
are the themes of some of the
goals and policies and actions that
speak to the support element in this
case
so with that
mr chairman commissioners your options
options this evening are to vote yes and
approve the request
you may vote no and deny it and provide
findings of fact that differ from what
i've provided and vote yes with
conditions or vote to table and that
concludes staff's presentation this
evening
all right thank you
are there any questions from the
commission
uh so i just had a question with the
fire department and the the contingency
that that it put in place there the knox
box required outside the front door so
there's no other
thing in the report that has anything
about that so i just wanted to
inquire
if it wasn't necessary or
yes mr chairman commissioner bennett
the knox box is an element uh that is
required of all cannabis related uh
facilities
uh it's literally it's it's a product
and a brand
and there's only limited uh
options that our fire department allows
to be used for cannabis and it basically
stores a key
that only the fire department can access
in case of fire or some other medical
emergency in which they have to access
the premises quickly because there are
security measures in place that lock the
doors and that kind of thing thank you
are there any other questions mr kaiser
uh yeah in the staff report you talked a
little bit about the the total square
footage
i believe at one point you stated the
total square footage of the building
is just shy of 3 200 square feet
but then i guess there is a cap on the
square footage that they are allowed to
use which is 2500 square feet
can you talk a little bit about that
requirement and how exactly that would
be enforced
so
mr chairman commissioner kaiser that is
an issue that
i've talked with the applicant about
and in review of the
plans that were submitted and with the
information provided by the applicant we
have in our zoning code at present
a cap of
square footage for any single business
at the
2500 i believe that's the correct 1 2
500 square foot
limit
the building is larger than that but in
talking with the applicants
they are not looking to utilize
the additional square footage
immediately
but certainly when they submit plans for
any interior improvements that kind of
thing any interior walls any electrical
permits that that type of thing
that's when we are able to look at those
plans and ensure that they are compliant
with the c1 provisions for square
footage
the applicant was informed that in the
future as the business grows
if they wish to
utilize that square footage they're
likely looking at a zone change to c2
that would eliminate any of that square
footage cap
so would the requirement be that they
have to build an interior partition
or how exactly would we enforce that
2500 square feet in a building that's
whatever it was 3 200 square feet
the uh at
present with any permit activity we
would have to note on the plans that
that additional space is
vacant or unutilized
and there's an opportunity at the time
of business
registration issuance
and through that process
staff is on hand to ensure that that
that added square footage is not being
used
and
at any point in time they're subject to
city staff gaining access to the
property and taking a look so
there's nothing that would require a
built wall to separate the space
but
they they would be looked at on a
fairly regular basis to ensure that
didn't happen
okay so it's it's essentially the honor
code here um
i mean does the staff have the resources
to and and for i mean are there other
examples in the city where this is
a similar issue because to me it seems
like the easiest thing to do is you've
got to petition it because
i mean if that space over there in the
corner is open i'm certainly going to
start stacking stuff there yeah
mr chairman commissioner kaiser
do we have the resources to retain
routinely visit the site no
what we could do is
kind of place the applicant on the spot
and see whether or not he is willing to
provide a
a wall
not necessarily anything substantial but
a wall separating that space from from
his usable space
yeah i don't i don't think i need any
formal commitment i think i'm good with
the honor system i just
want to put that on the record that
there's an honor system here um
i guess along those lines if they do
expand eventually down the road that
triggers that rezoning would that then
trigger full compliance with the
the current development standards that
are on place since this is a currently
non-conforming use or how how would that
play out the non-conforming provisions
mr chairman commissioner kaiser the
non-conforming provisions
the the requirement to comply is
triggered with
use increases
so let's say that
intensity of use increases on the
subject property beyond which the limits
of the building allow for keep in mind
that
two businesses occupied this site
and right now one would occupy it
but even if they utilize that additional
square footage that wouldn't trigger
compliance related issues it was if if
they expanded in any way shape or form
the physical
boundaries of that building to a 10
percent i believe is the threshold
then they would be required to comply
the other mechanisms for compliance is
you know
you know if things didn't work out and
the applicant found another property
that was more suitable for his needs
uh if this property sat vacant for a
year or greater than the next person
coming in would would trigger the need
for compliance with landscaping
everything
okay i guess i'm having a hard time
seeing how
exceeding the 2500 2500 square foot
threshold isn't
increasing the intensity of the use
it in terms of mr chairman commissioner
kaiser in terms of the individual use it
is increasing but in terms of the
historical use of the building as a
whole it's it's not increasing because
you had full use of the building
for the duration of its
its life okay thank you
mr nichols you have something to say
yes thank you mr chairman uh larry
nichols community development for the
record uh mr chair and commissioner
kaiser
uh regarding your question regarding how
would we
assure that that 2500 square foot
was in place and stayed in place
to begin the once the business
registration is issued
we have two inspections
we have an inspection by the building
department and an inspection by the fire
department
and they would assure that
the
building is
according to the plans that were
presented
and then after that the fire department
does annual inspections on all
commercial buildings and they would
check it at that time as well
thank you mr chair
thank you very much
all right are there any other questions
let mr menegas speak to the applicant
and we have a discussion going on there
is there something you wish to admit
um if i could in talking with the
applicant briefly there is a wall that
separates those two uh spaces there is a
door
uh within that wall but uh
again in part it's it's it's partly on
her system but he is well aware of the
need to comply with the square footage
requirement
okay thank you
excuse me
so if there are no further questions
i think we might be ready to vote can i
get a motion
make a motion to approve
a second
board member kaiser
yes based on staff's recommendation and
consistency with elevate las cruces
board member smith
uh yes based on staff recommendation uh
site visit and also it meets a
neighborhood character and compatibility
board member bennett
yes based on staff recommendation and
site survey board member vega
yes based on site visit and staff
recommendation
chair gordon i vote yes
based on staff recommendations my site
visit and
i elevate las cruces and it'll be just
another
retail establishment opening here in the
city
so thank you
motion passes thank you
all right then that takes care of our
business for the evening is there
anybody on the commission who
would like to speak on anything
if not is there any staff announcements
thank you mr chair larry nichols for the
record
uh just a brief staff and announcement
uh the city staff and the planning
division and community development
wishes all the commission a pleasant
holiday the fourth of july coming up
and
to also inform you that
all of the issues that you've been
considering over the last several months
the development is very active in the
community
several the subdivisions are
filling out
we're getting new applications and some
medals each day
obviously those come before you
but we're still on this what i call
a exponential growth pattern that has
been going on now for about two and a
half years
but a lot of that work
and that growth positive growth can be a
tribute to the contribution you make and
thank you very much
okay in that case i'd like to have a uh
a motion to adjourn
[Music]
i make a motion to adjourn a second
a second i think we're all in favor we
adjourn
you