Planning Commission Meeting Thu, Jun 4, 2026 · Planning Commission https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1299 == Executive Summary == The Planning Commission meeting covered several routine approvals and two significant new business items. The commission approved minutes, consent agenda items, and findings and conclusions for previous cases. The main focus was on a proposed development at 1802 and 1750 Suros Road, 1361 4th Street, and 3rd Berry Avenue, which includes an indoor self-storage facility, creative office/workshop suites, a community room, and a dog park. This project, aimed at redeveloping an underutilized commercial site, generated considerable discussion regarding its compatibility with the Cerrillos Road corridor, design aesthetics, and community benefits versus concerns about self-storage saturation and traffic. The commission ultimately approved both the Special Use Permit and Development Plan for the Suros Road project, with specific conditions added regarding the reproduction of an existing mural and the creation of a new mural by a local Santa Fe artist. Additionally, the commission approved a Certificate of Compliance for 996 Martinez Lane, recognizing it as a legal lot of record after a detailed review of historical documents and subject to several conditions for future compliance and property improvements. Two other agenda items were postponed to a future meeting. == Key Decisions == - Approved the Special Use Permit (Case 2025-111756) for the Suros Road development, including conditions for reproducing an existing mural and adding a second mural by a local Santa Fe artist. - Approved the Development Plan (Case 11753) for the Suros Road development. - Approved the Certificate of Compliance for 996 Martinez Lane (Case 2025-11265), recognizing it as a legal lot of record, subject to staff's recommended conditions. - Postponed Cases 2025-1164 and 2024-9461 (both related to 1372 Boland Lane) to the June 18th meeting. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the agenda — Passed. - Motion to approve the consent agenda — Passed. - Motion to approve minutes of April 16, 2026 — Passed. - Motion to approve minutes of May 7, 2026 — Passed. - Motion to approve findings and conclusions for Case 2025-10766 — Passed. - Motion to approve findings and conclusions for Case 2025-10767 — Passed. - Motion to approve findings and conclusions for Case 2025-11625 — Passed. - Motion to approve consent case 2026-12244 — Passed. - Motion to approve Special Use Permit (Case 2025-111756) with staff's conditions, technical corrections, and additional requirements for mural reproduction and a new mural by a local Santa Fe artist — Passed unanimously (6-0). - Motion to approve Development Plan (Case 11753) — Passed unanimously (6-0). - Motion to postpone Cases 2025-1164 and 2024-9461 to the June 18th agenda — Passed unanimously (6-0). - Motion to approve Case 2025-11265, 996 Martinez Lane Certificate of Compliance, based on the staff report's findings and subject to the recommended conditions of approval — Passed unanimously. == Public Comment == Public comments for the Suros Road development included concerns about the project's compatibility with the Cerrillos Road corridor, potential for self-storage saturation, increased traffic, public safety, and the aesthetic character of the building. Some commenters argued that self-storage facilities do not align with the city's vision for a vibrant commercial corridor and that the design resembled a "suburb of Phoenix." Concerns were also raised about the 30-foot setback potentially attracting homeless encampments and the viability of proposed "flex" units. Conversely, the property owner and a real estate broker supported the project, highlighting its revitalization of an underutilized site, community benefits, and suitability compared to other permitted uses. For the 996 Martinez Lane Certificate of Compliance, a neighbor expressed strong support for the property owners, noting significant improvements to the property. == Topics == - Martinez Lane Certificate of Compliance - Empire Builder Redevelopment - Self-Storage Facility - Zoning and Land Use - Development Plan Conditions - Marriott Hotel Appeal - Monte Seno Time Extension - Planning Commission Procedures == Full Transcript == Please let us know when we are live. We are live. Thank you. Sherry, you may proceed. Vice Chair, if you could speak into the mic, please. Turn it on. Chair Clow is on the audio, so she is with us, and Sachel will be here at some point soon. Could we hear a calling the roll? Chair Clow. Present by Zoom. Thank you. Vice Chair Smith. Here. Commissioner Miranda. Commissioner Ray. Here. Commissioner Capen. Here. Commissioner McReynolds and Commissioner Barber. Here. And Commissioner McGee. Expected. Thank you. And could I hear from the members present, one of you, a motion to approve the agenda? Any changes from staff on the agenda? Vice Chair, members of the commission, no, there isn't. A motion to approve the agenda as it's presented. Second. Any conversation? Please call the roll. Vice Chair Smith. Yes. Sorry, I apologize. Chair does not vote. Commissioner McGee, I'm going to have to mark people that... See, Commissioner Capen. Yes. Commissioner Barber. Yes. Commissioner Aland. Yes. The agenda. Chair, Vice Chair, the agenda is approved. Thank you. And then we'll move on to, can I hear a motion to approve the consent agenda? Move to approve consent agenda as posted. Second. Just to be clear, my background in rules is that if you make a motion, you can then move to amend the motion or amend the agenda afterwards. So you can, but I take there's no. Okay. Please call the roll. Commissioner Capen. Yes. Commissioner Raven. Yes. Commissioner B. Yes. And Commissioner McGee. Yes. Sorry. Thank you. And you're forgetting to ask me to vote, and I vote. And you also forgot to ask me. Chair Clow, I apologize. Yes. Thank you. Excuse me. I don't vote because I'm Chair. Okay. I wanted to say we need to make that clear for the record. You are the acting Chair for this meeting, Commissioner Smith, Vice Chair Smith. Right. And Chair Clow is then a voting member. I know. I know that. But thank you for... Okay. I just want to make sure it's clear on the record. No. Okay. Thank you very much. Good for the record. Commissioner Morando and Commissioner McGee just joined us. Amazing. Could I hear a motion? We're moving on to approval of minutes. We had postponed the minutes of April 16, 2026, from the meeting in early May. They are now on the agenda for approval. Can I hear a motion to approve them? Move to approve the minutes of April 16th, 2026, which were postponed for May 7th, 2026. Second. Second. Please call the roll. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Commissioner Miranda. Yes. Commissioner Rland. Yes. Commissioner Capen. Yes. And Commissioner Barber. Yes. And Chair Clow. Yes. Chair Smith, the motion has passed. Thank you. And may I hear a motion to approve the minutes of May 7th as submitted? Motion to approve minutes of May 7th, 2026. You have a second. Second. Seconded. Please call the roll. Commissioner Barber. Yes. Commissioner Rayund. Yes. Commissioner Miranda. Yes. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Commissioner Caven. Yes. And Chair Clow. Yes. Sir, approved. We'll now move on to approval of findings and conclusions. First is case 2025-10766, 2780 South Meadows Road, General Plan Amendment. Could I hear a motion? No, we need a, we need a motion first, or do you want to make a report? Okay. I hear a motion to approve the findings and conclusions. Motion to approve. Second. Second. Any comments here? Then please call the roll. Chair, Chair Clow. Yes. Chair Commissioner Barber. Yes. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Commissioner Miranda. Yes. Commissioner Capen. Yes. Commissioner Reland. Yes. Chair Smith, the motion has passed. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Is there a way the technology could turn down the feedback or whatever is happening on the... Yeah, this mic. Mic there. Really picks it up. Not going to be able to handle that. Thank you. Next is case 2025-10767 to 2780 South Meadows Roadzoning. Near a motion to approve the findings and conclusions. Move to approve. Second. Second. Second. Thank you. Please call a roll. Commissioner, Commissioner Rland. Yes. Commissioner Cait. Yes. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Chair Clow. Yes. Chair Commissioner Barber. Yes. Did I forget anybody? Commissioner Miranda? Yes. Thank you, Chair Smith. The motion's passed. Motion passed. And finally, case 2025-11625, 1335 Camino del Yakobo Development Plan. I hear a motion to approve the findings. Motion to approve. Second. Second. Please call a roll. Commission. Commissioner Barber. Yes. Commissioner Capen. Yes. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Chair Clow. Yes. Commissioner Rland. Yes. And Commissioner Miranda. Yes. Chair Smith, the motion has passed. We move on to the consent agenda. Let me just ask, do I, we prefer a motion first, or is there a report, or is it as simple as what we've been doing? I shared there is a report for this. No, there is not one. So, you guys can make a motion on it. Okay. Hey, Commissioner Reland. In the applicant's letter, they stated that they've already made certain improvements. Is there, was nothing in the actual application that showed those improvements, roadways and such. Was that presented to staff at all? Vice Chair, members of the commission, Commissioner Ryland. This is a case that the Planning Commission saw many two, three years ago, three years ago, and they just, they, they have done some, but they haven't done a lot within the phases that they've, that they got approved. So the time ran out and they're just reestablishing that with the commission so that they can have another year, and the land use director's actually, this is their first, this is their first time extension that the land use director granted. So they have done some stuff in Montes Reno, not particular with this phase, but with other phases they have. Thank you. Are there other questions? Then may you please call the roll on this consent case 2026-12244, Cluster Housing Monte Seno Development Plan and Variance Time Extension. Motion to approve. Second. Let's call the roll. Chair Clow. Yes. Commissioner Miranda. Yes. Commissioner McGee. Yes. Commissioner Barber. Yes. Commissioner Rland. Yes. Commissioner Capen. Yes. Chair Smith. The motion has passed. Thank you. There being no old business, unless somebody baited, we move on to new business, and I'll defer to the staff on case 2025-11753, 1802 and 1750 Suros Road, 13614th Street in 3rd Berry Avenue Development Plan. Good evening. Check, check, check. Can I be heard? Any feedback there? Okay. Good evening, Vice Chair Smith, distinguished members of the Planning Commission. Chair Clow joining us. My name is George Terry, a senior planner with our Land Use Department. I'll be presenting the staff presentation on these two cases, and I'll just take a moment if you don't mind and get organized here. I'm not certain I'm broadcasting. Perhaps we have it there. Thank you for your patience again. It's an honor to be before you. My name is George Terry, and I will get started here. This item includes two coordinated requests for the former Empire Builder property and related parcels on Serios Road. Case 202511756, that's our special use permit. Case 202511753, that's the development plan. Staff will present the special use permit first and then the development plan second because that is the motion order for tonight's hearing package. Staff recommends approval of both actions subject to the conditions of approval and technical corrections in attachment A. So I will begin with the decision before the commission and the order of action. The commission is being asked to consider two coordinated actions for one redevelopment proposal. Action one is the special use permit for indoor self-storage and related storage workspace components in the C2 zoning district. Action two is the development plan which addresses the physical site plan, circulation, dimensional standards, technical review, and the conditions. This is one record with two motions. Staff recommends approval of both actions subject to attachment A. Now, before moving into the site details, I want to clarify what approval would and would not authorize. Approval would approve the special use permit and development plan, adopt staff findings and attachment A conditions, and allow later recordation and permit review if the applicable conditions are met. Approval would not issue building permits, authorize construction, waive utility, drainage, lighting, fire code, DOT or public works requirements, or remove later stage technical controls. The controlling record is the staff report attachment A, attachment C3, those are the development plans, and C4, that's the utility attachment. With that scope clear, I'll orient the commission to the site. The subject properties include 1802 and 1750 CO, 1361 4th Street, and 3rd Barry Avenue. The project area is approximately 2.72 acres in a C2 commercial corridor context. The site is the former Empire Builder property and related parcels, and the proposal is a redevelopment of an underused Crios Road corridor site with two required planning commission actions. This next slide shows existing site conditions and why the current site context matters. I hope those can be seen. The proposal redevelops a vacant former commercial and industrial site with existing building and paved areas. A key point for planning commission review is that this is reuse of an underused corridor property rather than expansion into a new undeveloped site. The public record also includes comments about corridor character, the mural, fire station proximity, and access to public materials. Staff is treating those comments as part of the record and not as issues to debate in this presentation. Next, I will summarize the zoning and overlay context and why the special use permit is required. The property is zoned C2 general commercial and is located within the Srios Road Highway Corridor Protection District Zone 1 and the Suburban Archaeological Review District. I'll read that again. The property is zoned C2 general commercial and is located within the Crios Road Highway Corridor Protection District Zone 1 and the Suburban Archaeological Review District. The future land use designation, that's the image on the right that's showing that community commercial future land use overlay. The image on the left is the current zoning overlay. The special use permit is required for the self-storage unit or the self-storage use in the zoning and corridor context. Special use permit review is not simply a zoning compliance check. It asks whether the use is appropriate here under the public interest and compatibility standards. The next slide here summarizes the proposed project program. The proposal includes 480 indoor climate-controlled storage units, 14 creative office workshop-style storage suites on site 2, community office and community room space on site one, parking, pedestrian connections, a dog park, and landscaping. No outdoor storage is proposed. The creative office workshop-style storage suites are small format individually leasable spaces associated with the storage-oriented redevelopment. Staff is not presenting them as a separate conventional office complex. This next slide explains how the project is organized across site one and site two. That image is an excerpt taken from the development plan site layout. Site one is the main 1802 Cerrillos Road property. It includes the three-story, partially underground main building, indoor storage, and community office or community room space. Site two is east of Fourth Street there, and it includes 1750 Cerrillos Road, which will remain parking, and the three one-story creative office workshop-style storage suite buildings, the dog park, and related site improvements. Lot consolidation will remain required by conditions. With the site organization clear, I will move first to the special use permit review. The special use permit is the central judgment call for the use. The use reviewed includes the indoor storage facility, the creative office workshop-style storage suites, the community office or room component, and the dog park. Staff reviewed the use as one coordinated storage-oriented redevelopment with community-facing elements and no outdoor storage. The site-specific question for the commission is whether this use can work at this location with the conditions in the record. Staff recommends that that answer is yes, subject to Attachment A. This next slide states the special use permit standards and staff findings. The staff report addresses the required special use permit findings. First, the Planning Commission has authority to grant the special use permit with the development plan. Second, and subject to conditions, the use is not expected to adversely affect the public interest. Third, the use and buildings are compatible with and adaptable to the surrounding C2 corridor context. These findings are not based on the applicant's narrative alone. They are tied to the staff report, the technical record, and Attachment A conditions of approval and technical corrections. Because public comment has focused on site-specific public interest, I want to spend one slide on that issue. Staff considered the use in this location and not just in the abstract. Supportive factors include redevelopment of a vacant corridor site, low projected trip generation, no outdoor storage, community-facing plan elements, and technical review comments carried into Attachment A. Staff also tracked issues raised in the record, including fire station and emergency access concerns, Department of Transportation and Cerrillos frontage coordination, mural and corridor character, and later-stage technical controls. Staff's position is that the record supports approval with conditions. This slide is the bridge between the public concerns and the special use permit findings. With the special use permit public interest frame established, I will summarize the development plan review next. The development plan review focuses on the physical site plan, dimensional standards, and technical controls. Staff reviewed site layout and circulation, dimensional standards and height, parking, open space, access, signage, lighting, drainage, and conditions. Key findings are that the proposed height is approximately 29 feet 6 inches below the 45-foot maximum. Parking provided exceeds the minimum. Open space percentages meet minimums, and no variances are requested. Staff finds the development plan criteria are met subject to Attachment A. I will now address design corridor character and the mural issue. Design quality matters because this is a Cerrillos Road corridor case. Applicant materials show earth-tone stucco, stone veneer, metal accents, articulated entries, and a mural or mural wall treatment in the architectural materials. The mural issue was raised during the public process and in written comments. Staff is treating the mural issue as part of the design corridor character and neighborhood context record. Staff is not presenting it as a separate historic preservation approval unless another city process does require that. Next, I will identify the community-facing elements shown in the plan. The record includes community office or community room space, creative office, workshop-style suites, a dog park and gathering area, and pedestrian and landscape improvements. They are plan features shown in the record and should be discussed as such. They support the compatibility finding, but they remain tied to the approved development plan and conditions rather than standing as free-floating promises. Next, I will address access, frontage coordination, and the fire station concern. So, access, frontage coordination, and fire station operations are related, but they are distinct issues. The site includes four vehicular access points and a Fourth Street connection between site one and site two. Applicant-provided Department of Transportation correspondence is in the record, and frontage implementation and curb ramp timing remain controlled through conditions and later coordination. Written public comment also raised emergency vehicle operations near the fire station. Staff is not presenting the impact of traffic assessment as fire operations clearance, fire review, fire code compliance, and construction access requirements remain in the record and conditions. Staff also received an additional Department of Transportation coordination update today. DOT indicated that the proposed design works with the Cerrillos roadway plans, assuming the applicant constructs the buffer and sidewalk along the Cerrillos frontage and coordinates timing with Department of Transportation curb ramp and curb and gutter work. The applicant team has also acknowledged that if future DOT work requires removal or reconstruction of frontage improvements installed as part of the project, the applicant will be prepared to reinstall landscaping and related improvements as necessary. Staff is treating that as part of the frontage coordination record and later-stage implementation controls. The next slide explains the traffic review in a narrow but hopefully accurate way. An impacts of traffic assessment was prepared and reviewed. The project projected trip generation is approximately 10 a.m. peak hour trips and 17 p.m. peak hour trips. Forgive me, I promise that's what that graph says. Wilson and Company concurred that based on the city TIA guidelines, the full traffic impact analysis threshold was not triggered, but DOT frontage coordination is separate from trip generation. But as I was informed earlier, the proposed use further reduces trip generation from previous uses. That reduction alone also contributes to the TIA not being triggered. I hope that makes sense. Next, I will summarize water and utility review. The City Water Division approved the water plan and development water budget. The approved development water budget is 1.66 acre-feet per year, which is below the 5 acre-feet per year water rights transfer threshold. Remaining requirements, including ACD, which is an agreement to construct and dedicate, AMS, which is an agreement for metered service, separate water service, irrigation meter, backflow prevention, utility agreements, and building permit review, remain later-stage conditions. This next slide summarizes the role of conditions and technical controls. Attachment A is the central control document after Planning Commission action. Before or at recordation, conditions address lot consolidations, lot one connection documentation, terrain drainage, stormwater, landscape lighting, and selected plan corrections. Before building permit or construction, conditions address that agreement to construct and dedicate, the agreement for metered service, utility service, irrigation, backflow, sign permits, signage, striping, fire code compliance, construction access, and building permit review. Approval is conditioned. Construction details are not ignored. This next slide summarizes public comments and written support in the record. Written comments and support have been logged and preserved. Laura Miller submitted an initial comment regarding public access to materials, special use permit findings, the Cerrillos Road highway corridor, and suburban archaeological review, fire review, and the mural. Her follow-up comment focused on site-specific special use permit findings, fire station and emergency access concerns, and further mural clarification. Staff also received a support letter from Max Meyers supporting redevelopment and early neighborhood engagement. These materials are part of the record and available for commission consideration. The presentation is not intended to be a point-by-point rebuttal to public comment. The purpose is to identify the comments and connect them to the record. Next, I will summarize the findings for both requested actions. For the special use permit, staff finds that the commission has authority to act, that the use would not adversely affect the public interest subject to conditions, and that the use and buildings are compatible with and adaptable to the surrounding C2 corridor context. For the development plan, staff finds that the project complies with applicable zoning and dimensional standards subject to conditions. No variances are requested, and technical review comments are addressed through Attachment A. Staff finds both requests supportable subject to Attachment A. Those findings support staff's recommendation. So staff recommends approval of both cases. First, staff recommends approval of case 2025-11756. That's our special use permit subject to Attachment A. Second, staff recommends approval of case 2025-11753. That's our development plan. That's also subject to Attachment A. The recommended motion sequence is special use permit first and development plan second. And this final slide provides that recommended motion sequence. For motion one, staff recommends approval of 2025-11756, 1802 Cerrillos Road special use permit, based on the staff report findings and subject to Attachment A. For motion two, staff recommends approval of 2025-11753, 1802 Cerrillos Road development plan, based on staff report findings and subject to Attachment A. That concludes staff's presentation, and I'm available for questions. A lot of words. Thank you for your patience. Well done, though, and clearly done. Yes, Commissioner Re. Commissioner Re: Thank you, Chair Smith. So, in the TIA's assessment, is it based on it being vacant since 2019, or is this while Empire Builders was still active on the traffic study? I believe I understand the question. Is that trip generation numbers, where did those come from? Commissioner Re: Yeah. Is it prior to Empire Builder shutting down, or is it... I think it's Mr. Chaired RIPS. Commissioner: Our traffic engineer is here if you want to direct those traffic questions to our traffic engineer. Good evening, Chair and Commissioner. We're reading directly from the traffic analysis. They are based on the land uses for the Empire hardware store. Yes. And just for the record, we're confirming that all this study is based upon the redoing of Cerrillos Road that will happen from St. Michael's to St. Francis Drive. That'll be, I think, starts in 2027. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? I have one, or two, for my own edification. There is mention in the written material and in your presentation about mural. Could you just give me a little context what the... Yes, sir. Thank you for the question, Vice Chair Smith. I believe I understand it. I would quickly say that the mural issue is in the ENN and public comment record, and it is treated as a design corridor character and neighborhood context issue. It was, I believe, on the Fifth Street side. It faces Cerrillos, and it's now going to be on the Fourth Street side, and effort is being made to reproduce that community art piece on the proposed structure. Thank you. That's what I thought. And on a lighter tone, just what are these special office spaces? I mean, are people actually going to work in there, or I mean that about— **Vice Chair Smith:** Yes, sir. I anticipated that question, Vice Chair Smith. Thank you. And it is a fascinating proposal. They are small-format, individually leasable, creative office workshop-style storage suites. A lot of words. I worked on one of these in a previous life, and they wound up being small boutique-style operating spaces for myriad operations, from a jewelry maker to a yoga instructor to an attorney. So it is a fascinating way to think about how a small space like a storage unit could be used beyond storing goods and materials. I hope that adds some clarity. It is a unique thought for sure. I knew we would have questions. Thank you. **Vice Chair Smith:** And is there a door, or do you go in through a garage door? **Vice Chair Smith:** Precisely. I believe it will resemble a storage unit space. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. **Vice Chair Smith:** Pleasure. Do we have another other testimony? Are we looking for a motion to applicate? Yes. **Vice Chair Smith:** Thank you, Vice Chair Smith. We have three of us who will be doing a presentation. Perhaps we could get all sworn together. Just make sure when each one of you will state your name and address for the record, and then we'll proceed. So please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record, and speak clearly into the mic. **Joseph KS:** Joseph KS, Summer Carson Associates, 125 Lincoln. **Drew Dolan:** Drew Dolan, DXD Capital, 816 Solomon Street, Los Ranchos, New Mexico 87107. **Lisa Martinez:** Lisa Martinez, Be Constructive, 3201C Zafferano Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507. **Vice Chair Smith:** You solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalties of perjury. Please proceed. **Lisa Martinez:** Good evening, Mr. Vice Chair and members of the Planning Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to present our project before you this evening. As has been stated, and for the record, this presentation concerns case number 2025-11753802, which is a development plan request, and case number 2025-11756802, which is a special use permit request for the properties located at 1802 and 1750 Seros Road, as well as 1361 Fourth Street and Third Berry Avenue. The applicant and property owner is Aventrren LLC, and they are being represented by Mr. Joseph KS of Simmer Karns Associates and by myself, Lisa Martinez of B Constructive LLC. As has been stated, the development plan application proposes a modern indoor-oriented storage facility which is designed to minimize the outdoor impacts while providing flexible commercial opportunities for the surrounding community. In addition to the climate-controlled storage, the project includes a community meeting space, the creative office suites which have been discussed, which is sometimes referred to as mini-office units, and they are intended to support small businesses, entrepreneurs, artists, and flexible workspace users. In addition to the community meeting space, the proposal also incorporates community office areas and a public dog park, providing an additional neighborhood amenity and creating a more active and community-oriented site design. The associated special use permit is required for the indoor self-storage use within the C2 zoning and is applicable with the surrounding commercial corridor and adjacent properties. Overall, the project represents a redevelopment opportunity which is intended to accomplish the following: revitalize an underutilized commercial property through the redevelopment of approximately 2.72 acres into a productive mix of storage, workspace, and community-serving amenities within the Serios Road corridor. It is intended to provide modern climate-controlled storage that meets the growing demand for secure indoor storage while minimizing the outdoor visual impacts. It's only going to be two stories above ground with one level below, and it clearly fits within the height requirements by being significantly lower than what's allowed. It is intended to support small businesses and entrepreneurs through the creative office suites and flexible workspace options. It's intended to expand commercial and employment opportunities by introducing a mix of storage, office, and business support uses within an existing commercial district, adding community-serving amenities through a community room, shared office space, and a public dog park, creating benefits that extend well beyond the storage use itself. It's intended to create a more active and engaging site design by incorporating community-oriented features rather than a traditional storage-only facility. The proposed site design abuts the public sidewalk improvement over the existing building whose long flat facade directly abuts the public sidewalk and creates a visually imposing streetscape. The proposed redevelopment breaks up this massing and introduces design elements that provide greater visual interest, landscaping, and pedestrian-friendly elements that enhance and provide an investment in the overall character of the Suro's Road corridor. In closing, the intent is to return these properties to economically productive uses while generating minimal impacts as to traffic generation, noise, water, sewer, and solid waste generation compared to several other permitted uses within the C2 zone. So, I thank you for the opportunity to present these points. And with that, I'd like to introduce and turn the presentation over to Drew Dolan, who will walk us through the Empire Redevelopment Project. Thank you. **Drew Dolan:** Okay. Yeah, limited hours. We do allow people to access their stuff after these hours, but really, we're trying to keep the accessibility and a lot of the traffic down to these hours. Storage is really an incredible fit for a lot of energy usage. So we put solar on a lot of our facilities. We always do rainwater harvesting. EV chargers are very common for us. We have about 1/20th of the traffic of an equivalent retail shops building that would fit on this size. So, very little traffic impact. And obviously, security is a huge concern for us because people are storing there because they want concern. I want to address a little bit of demand in Santa Fe, like why Santa Fe, why this location? So these are the two closest what I call comparable facilities, both run by Extra Space on PCO and San Mateo. One is 99% occupied, the other is 96% occupied. It is a very—we offer a commodity. If you don't need it, you're not going to take it. It is very simple supply and demand, and prices go up, occupancy goes up when demand goes up. And so to look at that a different way, I compared the rates. They're all month-to-month leases, and rates do change frequently based on demand. So what I did is I took average units for those two properties, and I compared them to two properties in Albuquerque. They're two of the highest income, highest rate properties in Albuquerque, off PO and Wyoming and Ventura. And so for an example, a 5x10 here in Santa Fe, if you can rent it, if it's available, on average it was $131 a month. In Albuquerque, it was $91. So 44% higher in Santa Fe. Taking a standard 15x10 or a 10x15, Santa Fe was $440. Albuquerque was $210. It's 110% higher. So, if there's a statement, if there's a comment of do we need self-storage, the reality is what it's going to do is lower prices because it's going to introduce competition, and it's going to introduce competition for climate-controlled storage. That is what we're building. That is a—there's obviously a demand for people that want climate and want non-climate. We're building 100% climate. So, just to go a little bit over the plan, the site plan in more detail. We talked about the lot coverage. Obviously, we're significantly below the allowable lot coverage. This is the Empire Builder footprint, about 58,400. And if you look at our footprint for just the storage, about 41,000. If you add the creative workshop space, about 12,000. So from a footprint area, we're less than what exists there today. And there was a comment and a lot of question about where that Empire building sits, and it sits very close to Serios. I don't know if anybody's walked that sidewalk. It is incredibly dangerous. And so obviously with the Serios improvements, things are going to change, which is going to be great out there. But the Empire building is 24 feet tall. Our proposed is 29 feet tall. But when we're setting it back essentially 38 feet versus the 4 feet, it's going to look a lot smaller. And that Empire building, because of the shade, there could be ice there for a number of weeks in the winter, and that's just not going to happen anymore. This is just an indication of the proposed height. The light brown is the existing Empire building, and the dark brown is our facility. This is from Cerrios and Fourth Street, significantly stepped back, which will look very different from the road. Just a couple highlights I want to hit. We've talked to Chain Breakers quite a bit about relocating the bus stop and creating kind of an atmosphere where people want to stop for the bus and it feels safe. And we've had a number of conversations. We are totally open for it. We're in for those improvements, and we're working with the city right now about that. We've got outdoor shaded areas. There is what we designed was a community gathering space. As we had these meetings with neighbors, there was nowhere to meet. We couldn't meet anywhere. And so we've done this before where you just have a community amenity that somebody can rent and use. And that's what we're proposing in here. It'll be managed by our storage operator, which will be quite simple. Good landscape buffers, parking racks, obviously, got lots of parking. We've already talked about the water harvesting. Moving on to what the look is, with our renderings. You saw a couple slides of the renderings. I just want to walk you through a couple street views. This is Fifth and Berry. That's the proposal for what it would look like. This is Fourth Street and Cerrios. There's the sidewalk of death right there. This is our proposal. Off-screen to the right is where the bus stop would be. That center piece is where the community room is going to be. This is Fifth and Serios. This is right across the street from The Pantry. And one of the letters of support we got was from Max Meyers, the owner of The Pantry, because of the positive nature this would do for his property and the surrounding neighborhood or Berry, kind of the back corner. I'm going to buzz through a couple things because I want to talk about this, like what are we doing with the creative workshop? So this is a really interesting concept that we've looked at all over the US. We've got another project we're working on it too, but essentially it's an incubator for startup businesses, and they're the kind of businesses that work with their hands. It's a WeWork for creative workers. And an example, somebody's been podcasting out of their bedroom. They need more space. They can step in and use this space. And the idea is that they're not signing a long-term lease. They're not signing a five-year lease. They're not having to set up all the utilities. They're not having to do all these major improvements. It's more walk-in-ready space where you can rent it month-to-month, where there's not these long obligations because this product, especially in Santa Fe, as we studied the demand, high demand. And what they're doing right now is having to rent too big or too small a space, sign a five-year lease, pay retail rates. Obviously, it's not great for their business as they're growing or shrinking. Woodworking, cabinet makers, very common, art studios, craft space. It's not meant to be retail. It's not a retail front. It's really meant for the person that has outgrown their garage, outgrown their third bedroom, needs a space, and really wants to kind of take their business to the next step. That's this side of the building. It's 12 to 15, depending on how we divide them up. We're still going through the studies, but they'll be around 1,200 to 1,500 square feet each. And they will have a roll-up door out front. So, they'll have a man door, but they will have a roll-up door and parking in the front because we want people to get stuff in and out very simply. Obviously, we've got ample parking because we're keeping that corner lot 100% parking. We built a crosswalk because our manager of the storage will manage this. This is not very management intensive, but we want to make sure people can go back and forth. We've got our bike racks and lockers there. This is something we heard from the neighbors, and it was like, there's just not a whole lot of community space down there. And so, as we were looking at our site plan, we've got a space that we can open up for a dog park and have it be accessible for the neighbors and have it be a space people can gather, whether you're working there or you live in the neighborhood. And so, as we heard those comments, we were excited to do something. And that's the idea of community open space. And if we can orient it toward dogs, obviously super positive, gated, secured. Talked about that. Any questions, Vice Chair, on this particular product while I'm here? Do you want to get into questions about the workspaces? Well, yeah, I just have the mural to talk about, so we can whenever you're ready. Oh, why don't you finish up, and then we'll circle back. Awesome. So, this is the mural. It was done in 1985, so 40 years. It was paint on stucco. And this is a close-up. We've had a couple of artists, local mural groups, come look at it. Everybody determined there's just no way to salvage something like this. It is flaking off on stucco, 40 years old, and in the weather, hasn't been repainted. The idea we had was, let's go and digitize that design. Let's go capture it, and then let's go recreate it so it's still out there. So, what we're working through is, do we recreate it inside the community office space? We've got a great spot on the side of our building on Fifth where we could recreate it. It won't be on Serios. But the idea is to have that thing be a very similar size, brought back to life, really honoring the artist. She has passed away now, but that mural, it's hard to see, but there was a lot of people that remember it and are very fond of it and would love us to do something to try to recreate it. That's the end of my presentation. So, happy to answer questions. Sure. Where to start? I have a lot of questions about this project. Since you just finished with the mural, I would say I think it would encourage you to put the mural outside and retain the public art feel of it for the community and the neighborhood. I guess I'll just state that on the record. Regarding the workspaces, so you were saying that with the supply and demand on storage units and the way that they function, where supply goes, like there's minimal supply, the prices go up. Is that how these workspaces are going to function too, or will they be will the rents be month-to-month? Will they go up and down based on supply and demand, or how will because you're talking about incubating small businesses, and that model where their rents are going to go up and down like that is a terrible model for a small business to start with. So, how do those work rent-wise? That's a really great question because anybody that's we want people to invest back into them because then they stay. And so, anybody that's investing back into them is not going to do it for a month-to-month rent. They can't control it. So, the way we planned it is to do up to five-year leases, but if you want to rent it month-to-month, that's available too. But if you want to rent it for multiple years and turn it into something that you want to stay, that's fine as well. And so, does that answer the question about that? I think so. I think just a quick follow-up. Do you have a sense of, based on your research, what the rent or per price per square foot are going to be for something like that? Yeah, I think when we looked at the market, it was around $14. And what we were targeting was anywhere between $10 and $15 a square foot. That's pretty typical. You said 1,200 to 1,500. Yep. Yep. And they don't have anything other than electrical and lighting in them. Yeah, they have heaters. Okay. They will be plumbed for toilets and sinks and sewer. It will really be up to the tenant or if we get somebody that really needs that to put it in, but we want the option to have it there because if we did it afterwards, it would obviously be very expensive. But obviously, the roll-up door, the heater, electrical, lighting, it is walk-in ready for somebody that wants to bring woodworking tools. That's the idea. But it's also available for somebody that wants to create a podcast studio as well. Other questions? Bishop. So, one question for you, Drew. You mentioned that facilities similar to the one that you're building usually see about 1/20th of the traffic. Is that generally for just self-storage, or is that also taking into account the dog park, the offices, office spaces, etc.? Yeah, great question. And what I was referring to is if you take that lot, that building, and if you did the equivalent of something retail, it's 1/20th. So, thank you for the clarification. It does not include the dog park and community area. Okay. Which again, and I just want to say, it's not meant to be retail. We don't want to run a retail shop there. So, I'm hoping there's going to be more traffic. But in self-storage, 33% of the renters are businesses. So, you'll have businesses that start in storage, Etsy resellers, Amazon resellers, and then as their business grows, they'll have an opportunity to go over there. Thank you. Are there other questions? Yeah. The creative workspaces, that's site one or site two? Site two. Site two. Okay. So, those creative workspaces, that's a separate thing from the storage. So, site one is storage, and that's strictly storage. Am I right? Or is the site one also available if someone wants to make a storage unit into an office space for themselves, like that's available for them? No, I mean, we're going to run it as storage where, and people do work there every day. I mean, we have medical reps that come in every day, twice a day, but the idea of somebody being there all the time is that's what across the street's for. Other questions? Thank you for the great presentation. With the dog park, is that going to be on the responsibility of your tenants, or is that going to be in-house? We will, we have the maintenance budget built in. Okay. And the operation hours for the units that you're going to be renting out for potential workspaces, are those going to have the same operating hours or? No. I mean, people are going to have their own access card. They're going to get full access. So, we're going to know who they are. We're going to know what they're doing, but they're going to be able to come just like it was their office building. It's a good question. Just for the sake of on Second Street, there's these are already present. Bruce Besser has some behind the old Solder Toyota that we actually rented from him for quite a while. So, it does help small businesses. So, thank you. Are there further questions from the commission? Okay. Thank you, sir. Do we have more? I'm sorry. Oh, Piper. Yeah, but we have another presentation, a third. Thank you, Vice Chair Smith, members of the commission, Joseph K, Summer Karns and Associates. I'm land use counsel on behalf of the applicant DXD. And I'll just spend a couple of minutes addressing a couple of items primarily having to do with the special use permit request. Initially, I want to thank the city's professional land use staff, staff in the city engineering department, the public works department, water and sewage generation, the sewer plant. We've worked very closely with them over the past several months to address concerns, refine the project, and resulting, as Mr. Terry explained, in a set of conditions of approval, which the applicants, we've all reviewed and find to be acceptable. So, I wanted to make that clear up front. As Mr. Terry explained, the staff analyzed the project and concluded the application meets all applicable city code requirements. We're not asking for any variances. And as to the SUP application, your zoning ordinance in your code requires one in the C2 zone for this use. Reading from section 143.6, special use permits, it states, "Special use permit approval is required for certain uses so that potential detrimental effects may be reduced or avoided and conflicts in land use may be prevented." Under the next approval authority section, it says, "The planning commission has the authority to hear the case and to deny special use permits when not in harmony with the intent and purpose of chapter 14." Well, Mr. Terry went through the staff report and again concluded staff, your staff has concluded that the application meets all of the chapter 14 requirements. And I want to point out that your code in the use table has many uses within the C2 district, which is the broadest commercial zone in the city, that are allowable as a matter of right. They're permitted uses. So, for example, grocery stores, restaurants and bars, hotels, light assembly, manufacturing use can be done as a permitted use as of right. The hardware store that was here historically, banks, these uses have a far higher intensity, as you've heard already, than a self-storage use. So, as far as impacts on the community go, as you've heard, this use involves minimal traffic generation, minimal water use and sewage generation, minimal noise, given that the use takes place primarily indoors, and limited hours of operation compared to other uses that could be carried out as of right. So, I ask you to take that into account in considering this, the special use permit application. Last thing I'll say is that during the ENN process, and I see Mr. Forest Thomas is here tonight. He operates a self-storage facility relatively close on the to the south of the proposed project. He expressed concerns at the ENN anyway about the impact of new development on local businesses, i.e., including his private business. I want to make clear that in considering development applications, competition is not within the scope of the city's review. Your obligation is to apply the approval criteria to the facts, and those criteria in no way involve protection of private interests. This operative provision of the code is the granting of the SUP does not adversely affect the public interest, not private interests. It's simply not the city's role to regulate or manage competition among businesses. And Drew has explained how there is a demand for this type of business. The indoor climate-controlled self-storage is materially different from the existing use that's nearby. So again, my client finds the conditions recommended by your staff to be acceptable. We look forward to moving forward and we ask for your support in approving this application. We'll all stand for any questions you may have. Thank you very much. Commissioner Ryland: Questions. So, when I was reviewing the contents, I found a thing that was conflicting. It was saying from the road to the first area. At one point, it said it was going to be landscaped, and then I saw a thing where it was a 5-foot stamped concrete. Has there been anything between staff or the applicant of what that first 5 feet is going to be? Is it going to be landscape stamped concrete off the road? Apologies for the delay, Commissioner Ryland. May I have your question again, please? So, in the report, in one section of the report, it talked about right off the roadway of Cerrillos Road, there was going to be a 5-foot stamped concrete, but then in another part of the report, it talked about a 5-foot barrier of landscaping. And then in his presentation, I saw the landscaping pushed back closer to the building. So I'm just trying to understand what exactly we're going to see from Cerrillos Road to the actual structure itself. Thank you. I believe I understand the question, and I will allow the applicant team to respond as well. Quickly, I would just say that I believe your question is related to the ongoing coordination between the applicant team and the Department of Transportation related to the frontage implementation, the curb ramp timing, their proposed future work in '27 and '28, the signage, the striping. So that coordination does remain controlled by conditions and later review. I could share the presentation. I have a drawing in here that might help. Mike, can you put the presentation back up on the screen? So, there is a landscape gravel area. It's that 5-foot section. Then you have the sidewalk. Then there's more landscaping until we get to the building. Does that make sense? In the actual materials, it was just conflicting. So this is what you guys are actually applying for, correct? Okay. Thank you. Question. Thank you. Do we have presentation from the public? Is there any public comment? Please raise your right hand, speak your name and address into the record. Sorry. Will you raise your right hands and speak your name and address for the record? Over. Then did you say my address? Yes. 550 Old Santa Fe Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalties of perjury? Yes, sir. Please proceed. My name is Frank Culver. This kind of currently owns the Empire Builders property. That property has been in my family since the late 1930s. My grandfather and a gentleman by the name purchased it, and at the time, there was a very small block. Excuse me, sir. Could you speak more closely into the microphone? Sorry. At the time, there was a very small production facility for cement blocks. My grandfather bought Juromero out and continued to produce blocks. The property and the business grew because the neighborhood behind Empire Builders was just starting to build up. People would come and they'd buy blocks and then they'd say, "Well, I need cement. Why don't you all sell cement to put my blocks together with?" Well, okay. Now you've got cement. Now, why don't you sell trowels? And so we started selling, and that's how the business grew. I'm a member of that neighborhood. My grandparents had a house on Ray Street, and my father was called away. My father became part of the business. My father was called away both in the Second World War and the Korean War, so my mom had to go to work, so my grandparents took care of my sister. So, I spent a lot of time on Braay Street, and I don't know if any of you are familiar enough with that area, but there was a little store called Johnny's Market. We would ride our bicycles to Johnny's Market, get a popsicle, sit at Young Park, and eat our popsicles, and then go home. Our parents, my best friend lived next door, and our parents said we could go as far this way as the railroad tracks. Could not cross the road. Could not cross Fifth Street. Those were our borders for our bicycle. I grew up in that neighborhood. I'm very familiar. I bought the business from my father in '89, something like that, and continued the business. I didn't have babysitters as a child. If there was nobody to take care of me, my sister and I would go to the store, and we'd hang out at the store. We'd play in the lumberyard. We'd play inside the store in these courtyards. That was our home. I purchased the business from my father. My children don't have any interest in it. That's when I decided to go ahead and sell the property. I had several people, several other independent business people, lumberyards, ask me if I was interested in selling it. And I would tell them, "Not really. I don't really want to sell it to another lumber construction outfit." I'll tell you why I felt that way in a little bit. I really wanted to close the, I wanted to keep the property, but I wanted to close the business. I wanted to retire. And like I said, my children were not interested in it. Now my sister, now my daughter works for Habitat for Humanity. So there you go. I decided to close it, and one of the biggest reasons I closed it without selling the property to another ongoing concern was because of the building. That is the ugliest building in Santa Fe. I have always been embarrassed by that building. The way it got put. We didn't put the building originally close that close to Cerrillos Road. Cerrillos Road grew towards the building. It was not anything that we did. But nobody in this room will be happier than me to see that building gone. I have always been embarrassed by that. I will be happy when it comes down. I am 70-something years old, and I didn't want to take on the demolition of the building. I did seriously, in the selling of the property, we considered where somebody wanted to put a hotel. The community behind there was against it. Somebody wanted to put apartments. That didn't fly either, and that's fine with me. I think DXD has probably the best idea for the community, and in talking with them, I can't think of a better use. By the way, my wife is friends with a woman who now lives in my grandparents' house. I can go see the house. Thank you all. If I don't know if this is proper or not, forgive me if I'm wrong. If anybody has any questions historically about the property, about Cerrillos Road, or the surrounding close area, please ask me. It was passed down through my family. I'll tell you why I know. Anybody has any question. I will add one thing. The mural, there was a push in Santa Fe several years ago to restore the murals. That mural was either the first or the second one ever done in Santa Fe. There was a study done on the mural, and the results of that study was it cannot be saved, cannot be restored because it was one of the original ones. They didn't know how to do the underlying material to make it last a long time. So the decision by the city and the people that were working for the city was to know, let's just let the mural, there's no way to. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer anything. But thank you all very. Address for the record. My name is David Barker. Address 1011 Old Santa Fe Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. Do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth, and do this under penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Please proceed. Commissioners, my name is David Barker. I'm a real estate broker here in Santa Fe. After Frank had two potential sales fall through on this property, he hired me to help him not just find a buyer, but the right buyer. You've heard his history and his connection with the neighborhood. He holds that dear to his heart and his participation as a member of the community. He was concerned about the neighbors' objections, particularly to the last proposal for a large apartment complex that I think came through lots of public hearings, went through lots of opposition about height, traffic generation. When Frank and I talked about this, you look at your zoning code. It allows for a gas station, a fast food joint, a big box retail, many things like that, which would offer a much higher use of the property and a lot more traffic and congestion. This proposal we felt like was the absolute perfect fit for the property. The developer has demonstrated how he's not acting like many developers do in a project where they maximize the height, the lot coverage, they build right up to the setback lines. I think this proposal provides lots of community benefits. The special use permit talks about not doing anything adverse to the community. This, in fact, adds to the community. It adds safety. It provides areas that are going to be able to be used by the community. And speaking about competition, the prices, you know, the housing cost in Santa Fe and the cost of living is so high, we need more competition in storage units. This will help bring prices down and keep them stable. Just look at what's happened with the cost of rental housing in Santa Fe. It was skyrocketing well above the rate of inflation. Now you have lots of apartment projects going up, and when you go out there, you see rental prices are down. Why? Because supply is up. That will be a benefit to the community at large. We haven't had, we've had very few storage projects built in the central area of Santa Fe for years. You typically have to drive way out Cerrillos Road, way out Airport Road to get to your storage unit. That means more traffic congestion. How about providing some more storage units for the people who live in this area? I urge your support of this project. Thank you. Please raise your right hand and speak your name and address into the mic. My name is Forest Thomas. I'm at 340 East Berger Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Please proceed. Thank you. Chair Smith and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Forest Thomas. I am the owner of Santa Fe Self Storage. Through my family, we have also very, very deep ties in the neighborhood. My grandfather was actually one that created the Hopewell Man neighborhood. So I share the history, the concerns, and the values for the neighborhood. And Mr. KS pointed out that certainly this is not in the purview of a self-interest or private interest, and I am not coming to you in that manner. I'm coming more in the position of equity. The special use permit is a privilege, something that you can grant or deny. It requires more than code compliance. There's been many mentions of code compliance, somewhat almost a consideration like this is going to be the best because anything else is likely to be worse. I don't think that that's necessarily the foundation to make a decision. The commission must find that this use does not adversely affect the public interest. Also that it is compatible with existing uses in the neighborhood and the desired land use patterns. That last one is where I speak of equity. I own a storage facility directly behind this property and one on Airport Road. I also own property on St. Michael's Drive and Airport Road. St. Michael's Drive does not allow self-storage to be built on the roadway, with or without a special use permit. It is not allowed by code. So this is not a question of whether or not the building is an improvement over what exists today. Certainly, as the owner has indicated, he would be proud to see anything else there in that building removed. The question really is whether or not a large self-storage facility belongs on one of Santa Fe's most important commercial corridors. The city's own policy framework answers that question. The airport overlay district that I mentioned specifically requires a minimum setback of 100 feet for self-storage, and additionally, it must be screened from the corridor by other development. The Midtown Link Overlay District goes even further and outright prohibits self-storage as a primary use. It is a prohibited use in the Link Overlay District, shared only by a very short list: industrial, because who wants a block plant on St. Michael's Drive, and sexually oriented businesses. The city has made it pretty clear it doesn't see self-storage as an overly favorable business model and certainly not something that should be part of the major public corridors, and certainly not the entrance into the historic area of Santa Fe. Cerrillos Road is identified by the code as a primary gateway and a major commercial corridor, an access gateway into the city core. It's Route 66. It's intended to welcome and emphasize the attributes of this wonderful city that we live in, and also economic vitality. A streetfront storage facility really does not advance that vision. And I admit I have a selfish self-interest that this facility will impact mine. I think that the conversations about this being a significant amenity to the neighborhood, it is a Class A self-storage. It is run by one of the largest self-storage traded on Wall Street, and they are a money-making machine. These are units that supply and demand are going to set the price, and Extra Space has gotten to the point—I'm on the New Mexico Self Storage board as well, I'm one of the founding members—they have gotten to the point where they are bringing considerations from New York and California to bring rent control to self-storage because their pricing tactics are so aggressive. Currently, there are already a dozen self-storage facilities within a one-mile radius of this location. Not a single one of those fronts on Cerrillos Road. That pattern clearly reflects a long-standing land use intent, and that's not having self-storage front straight on major commercial corridors. It is a low-intensity use. The conversations about the traffic, I think, are a bit disingenuous. The big box ordinance would require a full traffic impact study plus a financial impact study for any building that was this size, even one floor. So, the fact that that has not been included, I think, excludes some major public safety issues. And that is, you've got people driving trucks with trailers, rental trucks that they're not familiar with, and they're going to be trying to get across Cerrillos Road, which is already quite a dangerous feat with a normal vehicle. So, to be clear, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate compatibility with the public interest and the city's desired corridor pattern based on the city's own adopted overlay policies and corridor standards. That finding really can't reasonably be made here. The city has made it very clear that it does not want self-storage on major corridors and not be our welcoming gateway for visitors into our city. So for those reasons, I respectfully request you deny the special use permit and the associated development. I stand for any questions that you may have, and thank you for your time. Thank you. My name is Sean Ham. Please state your address. My address is 1600 Mystery. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalties of perjury? Please proceed. My name is Sean Ham. I'm the owner of Iconic Coffee Roasters. We have several cafes in town. I'm here basically. I was curious about the property since it stopped being Empire Hardware years ago. That was my go-to for emergency tools and everything else because it's so close to our business operation. And I guess for me, the things that I would raise are, from the renderings, it looks like something more fitting to development in a suburb of Phoenix in terms of landscaping and stuff like that. And I get that that's not final renderings and things of that sort, but it does materially change the character of that area from pink adobe to metal cacti, gravel, and the rest. The other point that I encourage you guys to think about is that 30, almost 30-foot setback that you have there. I could quickly see that being encased in some kind of fencing. We all know that there's a homeless issue in Santa Fe. And I can see that there's nothing else that has that much room in front of it in that area. So, I could easily see that being overtaken or needing to have some kind of extra protection on it. In terms of the dog park, it is a cool idea, but there's a park that's set back from Cerrillos on the other side behind the fire station. And if you have people that are trying to cross the road into that development, like we say whenever there's an event at the El Rey or something like that, it's a zoo on Cerrillos. And so I'd encourage you to think about the pedestrian issues from that as well. I think that also the proposed use, if I was getting my math correct, at $15 a square foot times 100 square feet, that's $1,500 a month for what's effectively like a storage unit with some plumbing and electrical that you can use. My expectation would be that if they can't rent those at those rates for that purpose, that they'd be easily convertible into normal storage units. So, I think I would just expect them, for decision purposes, to assume that that's a rational use for the business if they can't rent them at that, it would switch easily convert to the just regular storage usage. And then, yeah, I think the big things for me are, there are too many faceless large corporations that are moving in and setting up businesses and sort of changing the dynamic and the character of Santa Fe in general. And this would be nice for there to be a local presence or something that's not a faceless entity that's sort of there tending to not be that. So that's what I have to say, and I'd encourage you guys to vote no. Thank you. Is there any other public comment? Anyone on Zoom or? Vice Chair, we have one. Dre, I'm allowing you to talk. Please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record, and prepare to be sworn. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Great. My name is Dearra Harris. I live at 814 Camino Damonte Ray, number 222, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. And what that means is that I live within the same triangle of land that is bounded by— Let me swear you in before you— Oh, I'm sorry. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Please proceed. Okay. So, as I was saying, I live within the triangle of land that is bound by Cerrillos, St. Michaels, and St. Francis. And this triangle already has nine self-storage facilities in it. I could walk to five of them alone from my house within 10 minutes. And what that produces is a neighborhood that actually doesn't feel like a neighborhood. There are no people. There's no foot traffic. If I were to go for a walk in the evening, I am concerned for my safety because there's no one around to see anything. And I think that what our neighborhood needs is more people, not more places just for people's stuff. And I also feel that it's a great location for people to live in because its proximity is close to grocery stores and downtown. So I really think the way to reduce traffic on Cerrillos would actually be to house people in the neighborhood so that they don't need to get into their cars to go places. And that's all I have to say. And I am not supportive of putting storage at this location. Thank you. We'll have to wait for Vice Chair. Excuse me. Are there any questions? Members of the commission? Vice Chair Smith, staff would just like to take a moment to correct the record a little bit. Staff appreciates the public comment, but just quickly, the big box ordinance that was referenced, that does not apply here as the code defines that as retail, and this is not being considered as retail. And then quickly, a clarifying statement on the overlay districts that do apply. Of course, this is zoned C2 General Commercial, but the Cerrillos Road Highway Corridor Protection District Zone 1 and the Suburban Archaeological Review District are the only current overlays that apply to the subject parcel. Mr. Chair, if we're done, we're done with the public hearing portion. There's no more, nobody else in the Zoom room. Could you please speak into the mic? Thank you. I'll even turn it on. That'll help. There were previous uses attempted and applications made on this property which were not able to come through, were controversial. Is there any, can you describe what those were a little bit more, what the history is? I appreciate the question, Vice Chair Smith. As a late arrival to this case, I am unaware of that historical context. Perhaps the applicant team can speak to that. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, there was an attempt for an apartment complex, multifamily. It did not quite make it to the public hearing process. The applicant decided to drop the case. There was quite a bit of opposition for that. That was, that's been the only attempt at that building, at least since I've been here since 2005. Thank you. Thank you. Are there other, Mr. R? Thank you, Commissioner. I had one clarifying question. So, is the Culver family still the owners of the land, or did you guys? So, we will still have a long-time standing family entity that will own the property. No. So, you've outright sold the property. Okay. Gotcha. Perfect. Thank you. Yeah. Also, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, yes, I'd like to also further clarify a statement that was also presented at the podium, and I'll just read it outright, which is for the conditional use permit. And the purpose of conditional use approvals are intended to allow flexibility in providing for, regulating, or preventing specified uses within various districts as provided in Table 5-1, Summary Table of Allowed Uses. So they are compatible with existing or desired land use patterns. Conditional use approval is required for certain uses so the potential detrimental effects may be reduced or avoided and conflicts in land use may be prevented. The applicability, that was the purpose, is when a use, Table 5-1, Summary of Table of Allowed Uses, has a C in a cell, that indicates that the use may be established in the associated zoning district only if reviewed and approved as described in this procedure, which is what we're going through now. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner. Chair Smith, thank you. I guess, since I think we're close to that point of voting, I thought I might just open up a couple of topics for discussion on the case. For me, I don't mind saying that. It's difficult for me to weigh. Safe to say, I understand this is a lower intensity use. And I'll just say from this commissioner's perspective, I don't think it would have much shot of a vote if not for how the site design and the architecture present it. I think that's actually fairly well done and makes a good case for how this wouldn't affect the neighborhood. But it's a little difficult. It's a very real point that there aren't a lot of these on major thoroughfares like this. But at the same time, there's one of these farther down on Cerrillos that doesn't look nearly as good as this would. And I say that as somebody with some familiarity with that building. Would any other commissioners have any other questions for the applicant before we might? This is for the applicant. I do have some design questions, and while I think the building's attractive as a building, it feels extremely out of character for that neighborhood for me. And I understand it's allowed. But I guess I just wanted to, it feels a little more like our Railyard District than our Cerrillos Road and the Triangle District. And I guess I wanted to ask you the process around that and why you came up with that, and if you had any other ideas around it. Yeah, thank you. I mean, it's a great question. I think one of the benefits of self-storage is it can look like anything. It just doesn't have to, they don't all look the same. We did make a couple changes after a handful of our neighborhood meetings. We made color changes, we made a couple materials changes. And look, I don't mind changing the look of it at all. If somebody would say, "Hey, have you thought about this?" I mean, we've been working with local architects and local planners. And so, we want it to fit in. We want it to look nice. And we, you know, we had enough neighborhood meetings. We went to every neighbor around us and we did hear the same things of what's the value for the community, and that's where the dog park and the community room and the mural came into place. And another thing I didn't mention, that multifamily project was four stories. So there was a lot of concern about height and traffic and density, and we're going one story underground and two above. That is more expensive for us. Our preference would be to go three above without question. And so to make it fit better, to have a lower profile, to make it seem like it's part of the neighborhood, we went one story underground and we're happy to do it. And that was the feedback we got from the neighbors. And so, I just will end by saying we've spent a lot of time with the neighbors, with the community, and who knows what the next use is going to be, but will it have a dog park? Will it have a community room? Are they going to keep the mural because something else could happen tomorrow and go straight to permit? Are they going to have the things we're offering? And you know that's a coin flip. I'll just end by saying that it is, for me it's really hard to hear when it's pretty evident it's a decision, it's a question, or the opposition is, is it going to impact my business versus is it a benefit for the community? It's pretty clear to me that on the opposition it's more about business than the community, and that just doesn't seem accurate to me. Just a follow-up question. When you did meet with the neighborhood, were your renderings there of the way it ended up looking? Yeah, we had, I mean, there were versions and versions. But yeah, we had renderings the whole time. These current ones. Absolutely. Okay, yeah. This is, if you, Janet Clow, and I have a comment. You know, that area is crowded. There's a lot of housing, a lot of small businesses, and I think in my opinion that this is probably a good use of that property because it's low-key. It's set back. It's attractive. There won't be a lot of people. Having another business or an apartment or a hotel there would be probably somewhat problematic in terms of the neighbors. I mean, clearly we, there's no neighbors appearing tonight in opposition to this, which to me means that they're somewhat happy about this and probably glad that there is not going to be a continuation of a lumber business or cement business there, or a hotel there, or a four-story apartment complex there, which would be much more of an intense use of the property. And there are other storage units further down on Cerrillos Road. I don't see it as being problematic. In fact, I see it as being a good use of a rehab to this property that's been sitting empty for a really long time and is one of the ugliest places in Santa Fe in terms of the building. And so, I would encourage everyone to think about that. I mean, I don't know what would be more appropriate there in relationship to the intensity of the use, the traffic, and the neighbors. But I think it's significant that no neighbors are showing up. So, to me, it sounds like that maybe they're finally satisfied with what might go in there. And it could be a lot worse. Thank you, Chair Clow. That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Cap. Thank you. Chair Clow, I just want to point out, I don't know if I know you're on audio, and maybe not visual, but actually there were three members of the community, local community from the Triangle District here voting against it, and two that were voting for it. And the other person that spoke up online who was against it was also a resident of the neighborhood. Yes, I saw that. But you know, I'm talking about, well, I'm just speaking to you saying the members of the neighborhood. I understand. I'm talking about significant opposition. Okay. Are there other questions? Then we can, yes, Commissioner. It's not a question per se, more just a comment, like general thoughts as we discuss as a commission. Given the comments about the number of storage businesses in the area, it doesn't feel like it's the, to me it doesn't feel like it's the best use to develop yet another storage facility. I think I would say I'm not overly opposed to the project because of the community space and the dog park and the demolition of a building that no one in this room apparently appreciates, except Piper. And so, I don't know. It's, it doesn't feel like it's a slam dunk. It probably would have been a great idea to have housing in that area as an infill spot, not necessarily four-story like massive development, but I mean, I think that we all know that we need additional housing in Santa Fe. And so, I don't know, it's just, it's one that doesn't feel like a slam dunk, but doesn't feel like a terrible use either. Thank you. Other comments or, yes, Commissioner Ke. Just about done with my list, I'm sorry. This could be for staff or the applicant. On the original pictures of the building and what is currently still there, there is a fire hydrant in the middle of the sidewalk, like there are in lots of places in Santa Fe. And I am curious if that will be relocated with the new sidewalks. Is that, it will be? Okay. That will be relocated. Okay. I didn't, I forgot to look at that part of it, but I have personally hit my leg on that while on my bike. So, I just saw it on the picture. And then I just wanted to say, is it Mr. KS? Is that the owner? The previous owner? No, I'm sorry. I didn't catch your name. What was your name? Oh, I just wanted to say that I know you think the building's ugly and that's totally fine, but I want to just congratulate you and your family on the multigenerational small business, and I own a business in the district. I shopped there until the day you closed, and it was a real kind of iconic place in our neighborhood that was very beloved by the neighborhood. So I hope you and your family feel very proud of what you were able to do. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah. It's understood. I just want to say thank you. Yeah, it was, it's a, it is a very iconic spot. It'll, I know it's a big face of a wall, but it really, you know, it's a big part of our neighborhood, too. So, thank you. Are there other questions from members of the commission? Could we have the two motions that were displayed put up again? Simply so we have the language. My understanding is that 2025-111756 would be the first motion, although it is listed as B on the agenda. Yes, Vice Chair Smith, there has been an adjustment to that motion sequence. One moment and I'll have it up for you. While we're waiting, Commissioner Re. I just wanted to say, like Piper said, our business sat right behind Solder Toyota, which became Beaver Toyota. We went to your Empire Builders pretty much once a week. So, you had a great staff. You had a great, great community with you as far as that goes. Yes, uses can be flexible. Sorry to see the store go, but happy to see that it's progressing. Members of the commission, could I hear a motion for special use permit based on staff report findings and subject to attachment A conditions of approval and technical corrections to approve the case 2025-1117? I, I, I wonder, could I have a question for the applicant? You bet. I don't know if it might feel this way, but there's a little bit on the fence here on some things, at least on my end, and I'm wondering if maybe from the applicant side there might be some things that would be done that might make this commissioner feel like this meets the character, the surrounding character more from this commissioner's standpoint, and any other commissioner should follow up if they have similar or different feelings. I didn't think the landscaping was, I actually think the public comment was right on in that regard. The landscaping as rendered doesn't look, it's sort of a sore thumb. But it also, there's not much in the way of screening or really addressing the public way, the sidewalk, I guess. But what I, what I would also be interested in if could there be more specific intentions with that mural or some mural or public statement of art to replace it that could be tied into this approval? Like any specific ideas of what would, like I think what you're getting at is some more recognition, right? I mean, Well, right now it's pretty general. And, and, you know, we're talking about reproducing it maybe inside, maybe outside. If as a condition of approval it was, there is either a new mural or a reproduction of the mural integrated in the exterior, which is what showed up in the rendering and looked to me effective. But when we start talking about a squishier, "Oh, maybe it's inside, maybe it's outside," is that something? Yeah. And I'm sorry if I, I gave that impression. The mural is right there on the building. The idea is to recreate it on the building. You know, it's, and I, and I, you know, Cerrillos is not a good side because we can't get a large enough, but this is the Fifth Street Cerrillos. So, you're looking at it from the pantry. I want the mural to be there. That's exciting for us. That's great for the neighbors and that's essentially what we've, what we've told the neighbors the whole time. Let me just go back on the landscaping because I, I do appreciate your comment and I, I don't disagree with you and unfortunately I think it's the architect who did this basically just got tired of putting plants down because that's not what it looks like. I mean, I'm regretting now not paying more attention to that. It's always the architect's fault. It really is. This is the actual landscape plan, and so the idea is lots of trees, good rock. I mean, the comment about Phoenix I can appreciate, and the idea is I do not want it to look like Phoenix. So, Commissioner Capen, if you have ideas on things that would make it look like it would fit more, I hope you feel like we're open and we're listening. We do want to make it something people drive by and are excited about and say, "Hey, what mural is that?" They really haven't recognized it in 10 years because it's faded and so bad. But I really want you to know we're open to ideas. Commissioner: I guess the other question would be, and I missed this one earlier, I should have asked, but water harvesting. What water harvesting? What will we be doing there from a water harvesting perspective? The idea is to, from what I know, collect everything that comes off the roof and keep it. 100%? I don't know if it's 100%. That's a great question. The goal is to keep as much as we can with the cost of water, but you have other ideas. So it's used as gray water within the landscaping. Correct. It's for landscaping. That's exactly right. You have another question. So if we put in as a condition of approval that the mural was reproduced on the exterior, and potentially it's not really integrated into the site plan in a straightforward way, so maybe you work with staff to accomplish that a little bit more as a public use. I guess the other question I had was about the dog park. What's the infrastructure that makes that a dog park and not a dirt plot? It's a good question because we've heard comments about the homeless, and we want to make sure that it's used by people who want it. The idea is not to have water. It's not to have a fountain hose faucet. That, from what we've talked about, is kind of asking for trouble, even though it would be convenient. The question is, is it fenced or not? And when I say fenced, that means it has a sally port for dogs to go in, so it's like two fences, and so the dog can't just run out. We flip back and forth on that. I think the idea of having a fence for people that really want to let their dogs walk around is the goal. It's to put turf down. Grass will not last there with dogs. So what we've done, one of the guys on our staff ran a company called Fetch that built dog parks all over the Southeast of the US. He has the turf manufacturer, he knows the gate manufacturer, he knows how to design this sally port. So it's not like we're coming in winging it. But there are questions. To me, what we don't want it to be is a place for people just to hang out that don't have dogs. We do not want a gathering place for just people. We have other spots for that. We really want it to be an amenity for people that have dogs. Does that answer the question? It does. I guess the only thing I'd say is I don't necessarily see it in the application, so I feel like we'd potentially be approving something without the teeth of it happening. And we're more than happy to put it in there. That's easy for us. Can I just clarify? You said that you're not providing water for the dogs. You're not. Okay. And that's only to detract folks that are experiencing homelessness from coming to the property. It's a really small dog park, and I've been to dog parks that have both. I just know that water, as valuable as it is for dogs, it has a potential to create other people wanting to show up for reasons. So, I think if it was much bigger and we knew there were going to be a lot more people there and we had better eyes on it, I think it could have water, but the idea is not to. Yes, Commissioner Capen. I wanted to, I have a question about the dog park, but I also wanted to go back on Commissioner Morando's conversation about the public art. With the dog, how big is the dog park? The dimensions of it? It is extremely small. Somewhere like 2,200-2,500. Yeah. And how do you plan to secure it in the evenings? And is it going to have a time limit? Is it going to get locked up? And if that's the case, would that help with the water option situation if you were going to lock it up at night or had times where the person managing the property would be able to help with that? Yes. The idea is that it does have hours, and you know, those hours, you're more concerned about the evening hours than you are the morning hours. So there'll be posted signs typically that say, you know, sunlight till 10 or sunlight till 11, something like that. We do have a manager across the street. They are going to keep an eye on it. There will be somebody that sees it every day. It literally looks out their window, so if something bad happens, they're going to see it. And when it comes to water, we will have water. I don't know if you can see my cursor, stubbed into this building four because of what I said, we're putting the water stubs and the sewer stubs in because to go back into it afterwards is extremely expensive. So, we do have water accessibility, and I mean, we could put a faucet out there on the sidewall, and then if it does become a problem, lock it up. Or if it's in the park, is the park going to be locked up after hours? No, because there's nobody there at 12 or 11 to lock it up. Okay. It's open. It's fully fenced, but the gates are going to be open. Yes, it's fully fenced. Okay. You did just say you're going to have an on-site manager. I'm sorry. They don't live there. Good. They don't live there, but they're across the street, and somebody's there every day. And how, I mean, why wouldn't they lock it? I'm sorry. I'm not trying to get into your business, but I'm curious. Well, they'd have to lock it up at 6:00 when they leave. Oh, when they leave. Okay. You know. All right. I don't know if other commissioners have questions about that. I think if there's some way you could fit it in there somehow, it would be a nice part of the amenity because it's hot here. Dogs running around, people out there walking, whatever. Can't force you to do that. Going back to the art, the public art, is there any other opportunities for a wall, a space on this project to be available and offered to a local artist as a new piece of public art for the community? Yeah, in addition to preserving the original art, there's a lot, we have a lot of creative folks in the neighborhood and art collectives, and it would just be, that would add a lot of character and representation, I think, if it was earmarked for local artists. It's a really great comment, and this spot right here, if you can see the cursor. So this is south. This is facing east. And this was one of the thoughts of where the original mural would go, but it wasn't big enough to house the size that we needed. And so the idea would be this is another spot that we've approved. Can you see my cursor? Kind of. Will you orient us on the street? Oh, sure. I'm sorry. What street is the parking lot on? Barry. So this is Fourth. That's Fourth. Exactly. And Serios is right behind that. Yes. Serios is in the back there. Yep. Yeah. And that's the next big wall that we considered, which is available, but like I said, it wasn't as big as we wanted it to be. That other mural. So the murals do well with self-storage. That's another flexible thing we have that I think makes us a good community neighbor that we can go underground. We can make it look a little different. So, I'd love to put a piece of art there, and I'd love to have somebody. That sounds fun. We can include it in the... Yeah, please do it. Yes, Commissioner. Would the applicant be interested if a motion went forward that, let's say, it approved the special use permit and the development plan became preliminary, and you came back with more specifics on some of this? Because from my mind, everything next to this main building is a little sketchy for me. I think it's possible that we craft things in an approval that's more specific, but it's some of what I'm struggling with. What would it mean for the applicant if it became a preliminary approval instead of a final? You know, I don't mind having more conversations at all. I don't mind feedback. I do sometimes worry where it's going to end. Like, what's next after that? And you know, we have a track record across the country of doing what we said we'd do. We're not going to say this. I live in Albuquerque. I develop up here. This is a property we want to own forever with a lot of local people. I can't show up at meetings and say I'll do something and then not do it. So, I am happy to take a couple weeks, bring back some ideas, and send them to you. You know, we do have timelines. We've been working on this for 16 months. We've spent a lot of money. We've talked to a lot of neighbors. I mean, we would like approval, but I do want to let you know we want to do the right thing. Thank you. That's a good thought. So, from staff's perspective, if a motion was put forward that made this preliminary, would there be a thought of when a final would be able to be on the agenda? Chair Smith, Commissioner Mirando, the public notice is a controlling factor and also receiving updated drawings and final, provided that there's no changes to the site design, there's only changes to architecture, then there's only one review required by planning. But if there are changes to the site design and such, we have to shop it out to or send it out to all the review agencies and have to give them two weeks. So, the next public hearing is July 2nd, and we would need to have the materials two weeks in advance at least. So I would imagine that the soonest possible hearing date would be the first hearing in August, just given all of that information. Yes. Quick question. The difference between the drawing with the landscape on it and then the renderings are different, right? So, are the renderings what, they're different from each other. So, which one is it? Is it going to look like the renderings that are up there? Is it going to look like the plans that were in the landscape design? From a landscape perspective? Yeah. I mean, we're, that's what you were referring to. And the plans. So, it's a great question. Yeah. The, when we hired the architect to do the renderings, they didn't do the landscape plans. So, they do a beautiful building and then they just throw trees in there to make it look like there's something. And I think that's... I guess the only other question would be from a signage perspective. The signage that's presented on the renderings, is that the signage that... Yeah, currently it just says office. Yeah, there's another review that's required for signage. What is the process for that? Signage is conditioned. It's clearly laid out in the 43 conditions, I believe, in attachment A, and it is part of that suite of conditions. We will be tracking it for sure. And I have a question. Landscaping is also a condition that the city will be tracking too. Is that correct? I'm wondering if I really oppose bringing people back because time is money. So, I'm just wondering if some of this stuff we can make conditions and trust that staff will do a good job in making sure it happens in terms of the mural and in relationship to the landscaping. I know that the landscaping rules are pretty specific in terms of the type of planting and the number of plants and the distance between plants. So, I'm wondering if instead of holding up the development plan, we can do some sort of look at approving if that's what is the desire and then refer it to staff to follow up on the details. And I guess that's a question to staff. Staff: Thank you, Chair Claus. Staff understands. Just to add to the conversation a bit, a reminder of what approval tonight would not do, and that's issue any building permits, authorize any construction, waive any utility, drainage, signage, lighting, fire code, DOT, or public work requirements, or remove any of those later stage conditions or technical controls that are included therein attachment A. So, I'm grateful for the robust concern, the full spectrum of concerns, but I do feel staff has captured all of those in attachment A. Commissioner: We have another question or comment. I wanted to see how the rest of the commission feels about what I asked about the mural and if we want to come up with a condition on that to include in this and then move along to vote. Commissioner: You're talking about the existing mural, replicating that, or are you talking about the new project that you raised? Commissioner: I am referring, I think a little bit of both, just a confirmation on, which I think is in there, on the existing one. But the applicant agreed about the kind of earmarking a spot for a new public mural by a local artist and wanted to put that into this. And maybe this site plan helps a little bit, but this is the location. That's where we have the largest wall space uninterrupted. This is the location of the recreation of the existing mural over here because the space was just larger. That existing mural is huge. I'm not comfortable requiring them to do anything more than replicating the existing mural. I mean, I think that's over and above what would be required. Commissioner: Right. Commissioner: They've agreed to it. So, Commissioner: Yeah, I'm included. Commissioner: I'm fine with that. I'm just talking about requiring anything else in addition. Because it seems replicating the existing is probably sufficient. Commissioner: Chair Smith. Commissioner: Commissioner Hando. Commissioner: I hear Chair Cloud's point there. I think this commissioner's perspective there is because it's a special use request and there is a question of how that special use integrates into the existing fabric. I do think an additional mural would help that. So, this commissioner at least sees that inclusion as valid. Does staff, would staff see any issue with it as a condition of approval? Thank you, Commissioner Mirando. This staff member wouldn't have a problem with that condition. I do not think I'm authorized to make that kind of determination. Commissioner: Mr. Chair, members of the commission, if the applicant is amenable to a second mural, and the commissioners would like to make that an additional condition as a requirement of the special use condition, I don't see a problem with it. Everybody's in agreement. Commissioner: But Dan, are you saying that the applicant would need to be in agreement for the commission to make it a condition? Well, I am supportive of a second mural on the building. Yeah, absolutely. Commissioner: So, could I hear a motion to approve the first motion as proposed but hear an amendment to it to include the inclusion of a second mural? I don't believe we had, was one, was a motion proposed? Commissioner: Yes. Commissioner: Yeah. No, no. But I, yeah, yeah, yeah. I, so, Commissioner Smith, in case 2025-111756, special use permit, I'd like to make a motion for approval subject to staff's conditions of approval and technical corrections, additionally providing that the existing mural be reproduced on the exterior visible to the public and that a second mural be put on the exterior in whatever location is able to be worked out between the applicant and staff. Attachment. Yes. That would, in the conditions of approval and technical corrections, encompass attachment A as well. Commissioner: That's what I thought I was suggesting. Anyway, is there a second? Commissioner: You are seconding it. Commissioner: We need a second in order to discuss it. Second. Commissioner: Commissioner, yes, I would like to add a friendly amendment just that the artist is a local artist from Santa Fe and particularly from the Triangle District. And that that is something, you know, as part of this. Commissioner: You accept the friendly amendment. Commissioner: Certainly do. Thank you. Commissioner: He smiled. Let him show the record as he said that. Commissioner: Are there other questions? Commissioner: Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify. You're referring to the Triangle District as Hopewell. Hopewell, man. The tri, in my understanding, the Triangle District is St. Francis Serios to St. Michael's Drive. That triangle. Okay. I don't know if that's a formal district or is that just what we call ourselves? Commissioner: That's what I've always heard of it as. So I guess is the Hopewell, man, what are the boundaries of Hopewell, man? Commissioner: Well, I, I know, I mean, Commissioner: Can I wait? Commissioner: Yep. No problem. What we're doing is boxing this thing in so tight now that we want it to be beautiful. Santa Fe is no problem. There's a lot of artists in Santa Fe, but isolating it could be a problem. Commissioner: Okay. Commissioner: I'm comfortable with Santa Fe. Thank you. Commissioner: Are there other questions or comments? Commissioner: Would just make the correction clear then. The friendly amendment would be Santa Fe, not, yeah. Thank you. Commissioner: Let's call a roll. Commissioner: Testing. Thank you. Commissioner: Commissioner McGee. Commissioner: Yes. Commissioner: Commissioner Miranda. Commissioner: Yes. Commissioner: Commissioner Barber. Commissioner: Yes. Commissioner: Chair Claw. Commissioner: Yes. Commissioner: Commissioner Capit. Commissioner: Yes. Commissioner: Commissioner Riland. Commissioner: Yes. Commissioner: Chair Smith, the motion has passed. Commissioner: Thank you. Thank you all for your. Commissioner: We, I know just thanking people for what was an extended debate and discussion. Now the second motion, please. Chair Smith, in case 11753, the development plan with the associated special use permit, I'd like to make a motion to approve subject to conditions approval and technical corrections contained in packet A. Commissioner: There second. Commissioner: Second. Commissioner: There questions or comments on the part of the commissioner? Please call a roll. Commissioner: Commissioner Miranda. Commissioner: Yes. Commissioner: Commissioner McGee. Commissioner: Yes. Commissioner: Commissioner Railen. Commissioner: Yes. Commissioner: Co-Chair Clout. Commissioner: Yes. Commissioner: Commissioner Barber. Commissioner: Yes. Commissioner: And Commissioner Capen. Commissioner: Yes. Commissioner: Chair Smith, the motion has passed. Commissioner: Thank you. Before we proceed to case 2025-111265, I've had a concern raised that we forward what are listed on the agenda as D and E, the 1372 Boland Lane, to the second meeting here in June on June 18th as opposed to the first meeting in July on July 2nd, which I was wondering whether some people would consider that to be problematic since it's two days before a holiday weekend. Whatever the reasoning, the request has been made that we assign those two items to the agenda on June 18th. Have I got it right? Okay. Yes. Commissioner: What else is on that agenda? Commissioner: That would be it. No. Commissioner: That would, that would be the only thing on the agenda. So, Commissioner: Development code sort of reporting out of subcommittee work. Commissioner: You would be actually amending the agenda and then voting for those two cases to be postponed to a date certain, which would be June 18th. Commissioner: So moved. Well, somebody do that. Put a motion together for case 2025-1164, 1372 Boland Lane, and case 2024-9461, 1372 Boland Lane rezoning, to be switched to the June 18th hearing for both cases. Commissioner: Second. Second. Is the language sufficiently appropriate to the staff? Commissioner: And please call the role. Commissioner: Commissioner Capen. Commissioner: Yes. Commissioner: Chair Cloud. Commissioner: Yes. Commissioner: Commissioner McGee. Commissioner: Yes. Commissioner: Commissioner Miranda. Commissioner: Yes. Commissioner: Commissioner Barber. Commissioner: Yes. Commissioner: Commissioner Rland. Commissioner: Yes. Commissioner: Chair Smith, the motion has passed. Yes. Staff: And moving on, the next case we will hear is case 2025-1265996, Martinez Lane, a certificate of compliance. Staff will present. Thank you very much. I thank you very much, Vice Chair Smith. Maybe I'm having some technical, ah, there we go. Now we're up and running again. Distinguished members of the Planning Commission, privileged to be before you this evening. Again, my name is George Terry, Senior Planner with the Land Use Department. The item next here is case 2020-11265, the 996 Martinez Lane Certificate of Compliance. The request is for Planning Commission review and action on a certificate of compliance to recognize the property as a legal out of record for city land use purposes subject to conditions, of course, and staff recommends approval with conditions. I will begin with the request and the specific action before the commission. The requested action is approval of a certificate of compliance for 996 Martinez Lane. The Planning Commission is being asked to determine whether the record supports recognition of the property as a legal lot of record for city land use purposes. If approved, the certificate of compliance would be recorded after the applicable conditions are satisfied. The next slide here shows the location and current parcel context. The property is located again at 996 Martinez Lane. It is approximately 0.317 acres, zoned R5 residential and located within the historic downtown archaeological review history. This slide shows the current GIS and aerial context for the subject parcel and surrounding area to get us oriented a bit. Before getting into the evidence, I want to frame the type of case here before the Planning Commission. This is a certificate of compliance and legal lot recognition case. The issue is before the Planning Commission because the record concerns a lot created in violation of the procedural requirements of section 14-3.7 subdivision of land. The question is whether the current record is sufficient for approval of the certificate of compliance subject to conditions. That frame is important because it defines the scope of tonight's action. Approval would recognize the property as a legal out of record for city land use purposes and allow recordation of a certificate of compliance after the conditions are satisfied. Approval would not issue a title opinion, adjudicate any boundaries, resolve private ownership disputes, or approve any future development. It also would not approve existing structures or work that may require separate review. With that scope in mind, I will summarize here why the case came forward. This case began as an administrative legal lot of record or certificate of compliance request. Initial staff review determined that the original record did not explain the division of land that created the lot known as 996 Martinez Lane. Additional evidence was required to understand the historic parcel context, the current configuration, and the record basis for the requested certificate of compliance. The applicant then supplemented the record. The applicant provided additional deed, survey, title, surrounding property, and zoning compliance materials. The record includes older deed materials used as ownership control context, the 1957 Scandlin materials, the 1966 survey and plat, the 1966 and 1967 deed modern chain of title materials, and the Dalton zoning compliance letter. Staff reviewed those materials together rather than any single document in isolation. The next slide shows the historic mapping context together with the current parcel orientation. I'll take a pause and ask for a little forgiveness. This is just an attempt that I have made to produce an exhibit that has the Scandlin map in the dark lines, current parcel boundaries overlaid in the yellow, current 996 Martinez configuration outlined in red. This is only meant to give us a little bit of orientation. It is not a meaningful exhibit. It shows the present-day subject parcel outlined in red over the '57 scan mapping context. It is used to orient the commission and to explain why staff needed supplemental deed, survey, and chain of title evidence. The scan map is context only. It is not deed or survey evidence, and it is not the sole basis for the recommendation. This simple image is only intended to help show why staff was unable to make the original determination. The next slide is the reported survey evidence. The 1966 survey and plat is core geometry evidence. It was recorded January 4th, 1966, in Platbook 13, page 64, document number 289154. It identifies the tract geometry associated with the subject property and is one of the key documents that supports certificate of compliance review. The next slide shows the related deed evidence. The deed evidence includes a warranty deed from Juan B. Martinez to Patricio Luis Martinez and Isabelle Martinez. The deed is dated November 21st, 1966, and was recorded January 6th, 1967. Staff treats this as key conveyance evidence associated with the subject tract, read together with the 1966 survey and the rest of the record. Now, this next slide summarizes record continuity. The record continuity sequence is important. The older deed materials provide ownership control context in the area. The 1957 Scandlin mapping explains why supplemental evidence was needed. The 1966 survey provides recorded tract geometry. The 1966 and 1967 deed provides conveyance evidence associated with the subject tract. Modern chain of title materials connect the record to the current owners. Staff is not treating any single document as independently dispositive. The record is read as a whole for certificate of compliance purposes. Now, this next slide summarizes that staff analysis approach. Staff's analysis treats this as an integrated land use record. The historic materials explain the issue. The survey and deed materials address geometry and conveyance. The modern title materials connect the record to the current request, and the conditions limit the scope of approval. This is the basis for staff's approval with conditions recommendation. The next slide here addresses Chapter 14 compliance. The applicant's materials identify the property as R5 residential, approximately 0.317 acres, with lot coverage identified at 27% where the maximum is identified as 40%. Existing access and parking are addressed in the applicant materials. Issues such as the guesthouse or casita, sheds, portal work, utilities, access, permits, and any future development remain subject to applicable city review and are not approved by this certificate of compliance action. The conditions of approval are the main risk control tool. The conditions require recordation of the certificate of compliance, final legal description and instrument review, and recognition that approval is a limited land use determination only. The conditions preserve future Chapter 14 and historic district compliance, state that existing or future improvements are not approved by this action, and address portal or exterior work and shed resolution through required city review or code-compliant action. Those conditions support staff's recommendation. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Case 2025-11265, 996 Martinez Lane Certificate of Compliance, based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval. The action is limited to legal lot recognition for city land use purposes. This final slide provides the recommended motion for Planning Commission consideration. Staff recommends approval of Case 2025-11265, 996 Martinez Lane Certificate of Compliance, based on the findings of the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval. That does conclude my presentation once again, and I am available for questions. Thank you, Planning Commission. Thank you, sir. In this case, is there another presentation from an applicant? Hello. Well, I'm not sworn in yet. I don't have a visual presentation. I have a brief presentation. I don't have to go through it. I think if you get the picture of what's happened, we're, you know, let's swear it. Please state your name and address for the record. Victoria Dalton, 915 Mercer Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalties of perjury? Please proceed. Okay. So, if you would like me to go through my quick presentation, it's just text. I can do that. If you'd like to hear, Whatever, whatever. So, of course, I'll go ahead. So, good evening. And I know it's getting past some of our bedtimes, getting past mine. So, I would like to begin by introducing my clients. They're probably the last ones in the audience there, Joe and Elaine Foster. It doesn't look like Elaine's here, but I just want to acknowledge the extraordinary patience, grace, and resilience they have shown throughout this process, which should have been a straightforward administrative certificate of compliance review, has taken more than two years, and the Fosters have navigated every step with kindness and professionalism despite the stress and uncertainty involved that came with the property that they purchased. As the staff report explains, this case required an unusually deep investigation into historic property records. Much of the documentation relevant to this area dates back to the early 1900s, beginning around 1912. And many of those records are handwritten, difficult to read, or written in Spanish. Some are stored on microfiche, and others have been damaged or lost over time. Reconstructing the lot formation history required extensive research into deeds, surveys, surrounding property records, and chain of title materials. The applicant, along with their attorney, Joseph KS, and myself included, worked diligently to assemble the evidence needed to address staff's initial concern that the original administrative record did not clearly show how the lot at 996 Martinez Lane was created. As the staff report notes, the supplemental materials, including the 1996 recorded survey, the 1966-67 context, now provides a complete and coherent record for certificate of compliance purposes. It is also important to recognize that based on the age of the deeds and the historic mapping materials, it is very possible that the lot existed prior to the adoption of the Land Development Code in 1962. While the city cannot make the accurate title determination, the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the lot has long-standing historic origins. We appreciate staff's thorough review and the recommendation of approval with conditions. The Fosters fully support the recommended conditions and are committed to completing any required actions involving the existing sheds and existing casita. I would also like to note, we would also like to move forward with the much-needed repairs on the property as soon as possible. And I just want to thank you for your time and consideration, and I stand for questions. Are there any questions on the commission? Is there a motion? Oh, are there, excuse me, are there anyone in the public on the Zoom? There are nobody with their hands raised in the Zoom room. I can't see behind the screens. Street Santa Fe, our property. Let me swear you in. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalty of perjury? I do. Please proceed. Our house sits just above this property, and we've been there about 15 years. Our understanding in the neighborhood and from what we could observe was that this property was a meth lab before Joe bought it. And when I met him, we were really pleased to, kind of, pleasantly surprised that someone wanted to come in and deal with it and improve it. And it's been great to see it improve. And I hope, I don't know what's involved technically in approving this, but I hope that you Thank you. Is that, is that it? Could I then hear a motion? Yes. Yes. Commissioner Freeman. Yes. Oh, close the public. I close the public hearing. Vice Chair Smith, are you Chair Smith tonight? Acting Chair. Acting Chair Smith, I would move to approve Case, excuse me, 2025-11265, 996 Martinez Lane Certificate of Compliance, based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval. Second. Other questions or comments on the part of the commission? Yes, Commissioner Morendo. Oh, sorry, I just saw you turning your mic on. Okay, please call a roll or roll a call. Rolling. Commissioner Barber, Yes. Commissioner Capen, Yes. Commissioner Rland, Yes. Chair Cloud, Yes. Commissioner Miranda, Yes. Commissioner McGee, Yes. Chair Smith, the motion has passed. Thank you, sir. Moving along, are there staff communications? Acting Chair Smith, I wanted to bring to this commission's attention that the appeal of the Marriott Hotel, which was approved by the commission, Excuse me, I wanted to pass along to the commission that the appeal of the Marriott Hotel, which was approved by this commission on February 5th, 2026, is actually going to be heard by the governing body in a special meeting that is presently scheduled for June 25th. And unlike other governing body meetings that start at 5, this will start at 4:00 p.m. And that appeal was brought by the Old Santa Fe Association. And also, I wanted to thank you for allowing me to serve this commission. If all goes as planned, which can be a big if, we may have another assistant city attorney starting with the City Attorney's Office next week. She seems well-qualified. Her name is Natalie Collie, and she will, as I said, if all goes as planned, she will be taking over Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment duties. I have enjoyed serving you. I have enjoyed the very detailed and attentive discussions you have had. Thank you very much for that opportunity. Thank you and good luck. Other than other matters come before the commission from the commissioners or other Commissioner Cape, just wanted to say again, I think we keep thanking you, but your presentations are extremely thorough and very wonderful to hear from our side of things. So I just wanted to acknowledge that and say thank you. One of the nicest things anybody said to me in a long time. I really appreciate that. It's my pleasure tonight, Planning Commission. We agreed. Then I declare the meeting adjourned.