Attended Meeting The meeting I attended was the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for the city of Las Cruces. The meeting took place on 10/27/15 at 6:00 pm. Commission Members The following people make up the commission: Mayor- Harvey Gordon District 1 - William Stowe (Vice Chair) District 2 - Charles Beard (secretary) District 3 - Ruben Alvarado District 4 - Godfrey Crane (Chair) District 5 - Joanne Ferrary District 6 - Kirk Clifton Meeting procedures The meeting follows Robert’s rules of Order. Before the meeting started, the speaker would give warnings of the impending start of the meeting. Once the meeting started, the speaker presented all the commission members, including himself. He then proceeded to vote on last meeting’s approval of the “minutes”. After every member approved, the speaker moved on to new business. Two cases were presented and were voted on. Finally, after the speaker asked for comments from the public (where no one made a comment) he motioned to terminate the meeting. Discussed Issues Originally, there were 4 items on the agenda including one item of new business. However, early in the meeting, the speaker motioned to have two of the items moved to next month’s meeting. The commission voted and approved the change of date for the two items. This left only two items left on the agenda. The first item on the agenda had to do with parking spaces. The senior planner made a presentation on how beneficial eliminating parking maximums might be. The senior planner argued that parking maximums are too restrictive. Eliminating parking maximums will reduce staff time, resources (less variances) and will offer greater flexibility. After much debate, the commission decided that evaluating each case on a case by case basis was the best alternative. The next item on the agenda was about a person wanting to subdivide her 2.09 acre tract into two parcels. The actual subdivision however, would not be voted for approval at this meeting. The item on the agenda was about the owner of the land wanting road improvements, necessary to continue with the subdivision, to be waived. The senior planner, again, presented the owner’s reasoning (through PowerPoint). The senior planner argued that when the owner of the land bought the property, it was still county land. However, a few years ago the city annexed her land. Because of this, the city ordinances started to apply to her. This had an adverse effect because now the owner wants to subdivide the land, but according to city law, she must make road improvements to her land. Unfortunately her land is bordered by three different streets, so her reasoning is that road improvements would be too expensive for her, which is why she is asking for a waiver. The commission ended up approving her waiver, but they did acknowledge that this is a serious issue that will continue to crop up. For this reason, the commission also approved the creation of a work session to come up with ideas to ...

1. Attended Meeting
The meeting I attended was the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting for the city of Las Cruces. The meeting
took place on 10/27/15 at 6:00 pm.
Commission Members
The following people make up the commission:
Mayor- Harvey Gordon
District 1 - William Stowe (Vice Chair)
District 2 - Charles Beard (secretary)
District 3 - Ruben Alvarado
District 4 - Godfrey Crane (Chair)
District 5 - Joanne Ferrary
District 6 - Kirk Clifton
Meeting procedures
The meeting follows Robert’s rules of Order. Before the
meeting started, the speaker would give warnings of the
impending start of the meeting. Once the meeting started, the
speaker presented all the commission members, including
himself. He then proceeded to vote on last meeting’s approval
of the “minutes”. After every member approved, the speaker
moved on to new business. Two cases were presented and were
voted on. Finally, after the speaker asked for comments from
the public (where no one made a comment) he motioned to
terminate the meeting.
Discussed Issues

2. Originally, there were 4 items on the agenda including one item
of new business. However, early in the meeting, the speaker
motioned to have two of the items moved to next month’s
meeting. The commission voted and approved the change of
date for the two items. This left only two items left on the
agenda. The first item on the agenda had to do with parking
spaces. The senior planner made a presentation on how
beneficial eliminating parking maximums might be. The senior
planner argued that parking maximums are too restrictive.
Eliminating parking maximums will reduce staff time, resources
(less variances) and will offer greater flexibility. After much
debate, the commission decided that evaluating each case on a
case by case basis was the best alternative. The next item on the
agenda was about a person wanting to subdivide her 2.09 acre
tract into two parcels. The actual subdivision however, would
not be voted for approval at this meeting. The item on the
agenda was about the owner of the land wanting road
improvements, necessary to continue with the subdivision, to be
waived. The senior planner, again, presented the owner’s
reasoning (through PowerPoint). The senior planner argued that
when the owner of the land bought the property, it was still
county land. However, a few years ago the city annexed her
land. Because of this, the city ordinances started to apply to her.
This had an adverse effect because now the owner wants to
subdivide the land, but according to city law, she must make
road improvements to her land. Unfortunately her land is
bordered by three different streets, so her reasoning is that road
improvements would be too expensive for her, which is why she
is asking for a waiver. The commission ended up approving her
waiver, but they did acknowledge that this is a serious issue that
will continue to crop up. For this reason, the commission also
approved the creation of a work session to come up with ideas
to tackle this problem.
Once all items on the agenda were cleared, the speaker asked

3. for public comments. In this particular meeting, there were no
public comments. As a result, the meeting was adjourned at
approximately 7:07 pm.