[0:46] >> good evening, everybody.

[0:47] I would like to get the meeting

[0:49] started.

[0:51] if you take your seats.

[0:53] welcome to the april 8th,

[0:55] 2025, planning and zoning board

[0:58] meeting.

[1:01] at this time I would ask you all

[1:02] to silence your electronic

[1:03] devices.

[1:08] can you hear me?

[1:11] okay.

[1:13] at this time I would like to ask

[1:14] everyone to silence electronic

[1:15] devices while attending the

[1:17] planning and zoning meetings.

[1:19] for the record, I will take roll

[1:20] by calling each planning and

[1:21] zoning board member's name. Please

[1:23] acknowledge your presence by saying present

[1:24] >> scottie richardson.

[1:26] >> present.

[1:27] >> kevin kofchur.

[1:28] >> present.

[1:29] >> robert gabaldon.

[1:35] >> present.

[1:38] >> andrea hankins.

[1:39] >> present.

[1:40] >> lisa hardisty.

[1:42] >> present.

[1:43] >> salvatore tortorici.

[1:44] >> present.

[1:45] >> we have a quorum.

[1:46] at this time I would like

[1:47] I'd like to ask everybody to please

[1:48] join me and stand and say the

[1:49] pledge of allegiance.

[1:55] [pledge of allegiance]

[2:21] >> okay at it time on the agenda

[2:22] I will entertain a motion to

[2:24] approve the consent calendar.

[2:26] there will be no discussion

[2:28] unless board members so requests,

[2:29] in which an item is moved to the

[2:31] discussion item on the regular agenda.

[2:33] so, a motion to approve the

[2:35] consent calendar.

[2:36] I would ask the commissioners to

[2:38] identify yourself before you

[2:40] make the motion so that the

[2:42] recording secretary can get it

[2:44] right.

[2:45] >> mr. Chair.

[2:46] commissioner richardson.

[2:48] approve.

[2:49] >> okay.

[2:50] do I have a second.

[2:51] >> commissioner gabaldon,

[2:52] second.

[2:53] >> a motion and a second.

[2:54] any discussion?

[2:56] call the roll.

[2:58] >> vice chair richardson.

[3:00] >> yes.

[3:01] >> commissioner kofchur.

[3:03] >> yes.

[3:04] >> chairman radosevich.

[3:05] >> yes.

[3:06] >> commissioner gabaldon.

[3:07] >> yes.

[3:08] >> commissioner hankins.

[3:09] >> yes.

[3:10] >> commissioner hardisty.

[3:11] >> yes.

[3:12] >> commissioner tortorici.

[3:13] >> yes.

[3:14] >> motion passes.

[3:16] moving on staff presentation report.

[3:18] we have planning and zoning monthly

[3:20] building activity report and planning and

[3:22] zoning monthly summary plat report.

[3:23] anything else, anything else to

[3:26] add?

[3:28] >> mr. Chair, these are your

[3:29] regular monthly reports.

[3:31] these are non action items.

[3:32] I will stand for any questions.

[3:34] >> thank you.

[3:38] okay public hearings.

[3:42] this meeting is going to be

[3:43] focused on the old golf course.

[3:45] two items being reviewed

[3:46] tonight.

[3:47] the chamisa hills master plan

[3:49] and the associated zone map

[3:50] amendment for the property.

[3:52] the hearing is being held in

[3:53] accordance with the board,

[3:54] commissions, committees and

[3:56] advisory boards procedures.

[3:58] that can be found on the website

[3:59] under boards and commissions.

[4:01] strict decorum will be enforced

[4:04] please reframe from clapping,

[4:06] cheering, booing or other

[4:08] disruptive behavior.

[4:10] everyone who wishes to speak on

[4:11] this item should of submitted a

[4:14] completed oath before 6:00 p.m.

[4:16] if you have not signed up please

[4:19] do so and bring it to the

[4:21] recorder on my left.

[4:23] okay.

[4:25] forms can be found at the middle

[4:26] table in the front.

[4:28] for those wishing to speak

[4:29] on-line please send a message to

[4:31] the staff and indicate if you

[4:32] will speak for or against the

[4:34] items.

[4:36] once staff starts presenting the

[4:38] items registration will be

[4:40] closed.

[4:42] the schedule for tonight's meet

[4:44] south staff will present on both

[4:46] items at once followed by a

[4:47] presentation by the applicant.

[4:49] after the presentations I will

[4:50] call for a motion and then we

[4:52] will start the comment period.

[4:55] please provide your comments for

[4:56] both items at the same time.

[4:58] this will allow us to take into

[5:01] account all comments to one time

[5:02] prior to voting on the items.

[5:04] the comment period will be

[5:05] broken into two groups.

[5:07] those in favor of the items and

[5:09] those opposed.

[5:11] there will be two separate votes.

[5:13] this will not be the last step.

[5:14] no matter the outcome of this

[5:16] meeting tonight the meeting will

[5:20] be held by the governing body on

[5:21] may the eighth for final

[5:23] approval.

[5:24] please limit your comments to

[5:26] two minutes.

[5:27] the recording secretary will be

[5:29] taking time.

[5:30] when the beeper sounds please

[5:31] wrap up.

[5:32] we have a lost people registered

[5:33] to speak.

[5:34] to make sure everyone is heard

[5:36] we need to keep it to two

[5:37] minutes.

[5:38] for those who signed up to speak

[5:40] you should have received notice

[5:42] for tonight's meeting or have a

[5:43] direct interest or property

[5:46] right that is affected by the

[5:48] decision being considered by the

[5:49] board.

[5:50] your interest must be an

[5:52] immediate and substantial

[5:53] consequence of the decision and

[5:55] not merely a nominal or remote.

[5:58] if you have submitted written

[6:00] comments prior to 4 pm today the

[6:02] board has those comments in

[6:04] their packet.

[6:06] in the interest of time I

[6:07] suggest you don't repeat written

[6:08] comments.

[6:11] please keep your comments

[6:12] addressed to the board.

[6:14] this is not a back and forth

[6:15] conversation.

[6:16] so the questions will not be

[6:18] answered during the public

[6:21] comment.

[6:22] but the board may ask either

[6:24] staff or the applicant to

[6:25] address questions during the

[6:26] discussion portion of the

[6:28] meeting.

[6:29] once the public comment period

[6:31] is closed the discussion from

[6:32] the board has begun there will

[6:34] be no further comments or

[6:35] questions taken from the public.

[6:37] once again this will not be the

[6:38] last step.

[6:40] the board is making a

[6:42] recommendation and not a final

[6:43] decision on the items.

[6:45] no matter the outcome of the

[6:46] meeting both items will be heard

[6:48] by the governing body on may the

[6:49] eighth.

[7:01] >> okay item number 4 master

[7:02] plan.

[7:03] applicant rr mesa llc through

[7:05] their consensus planning, inc.

[7:07] agent request approval of

[7:08] chamisa hills master plan for

[7:10] the property legally described

[7:11] as chamisa hills country club

[7:14] parcels 2, 3, and 5.

[7:16] chamisa hills country club west

[7:19] track a.

[7:21] chamisa hills country club north

[7:22] parcel 2, rembla at calle suenos

[7:25] track 2. Staff contact is michelle.

[7:26] castilla and staff recommends the

[7:29] planning and zoning board recommend

[7:32] approval to the governing body.

[7:33] michelle.

[7:34] >> mr. Chair this is

[7:37] commissioner gabaldon.

[7:38] >> yes, commissioner, go ahead.

[7:40] >> so, prior to the presentation

[7:42] I need to state to the chair and

[7:45] members of the board that due to

[7:48] the fact I own two single family

[7:50] homes in the affected area

[7:52] touching the golf course

[7:53] property tonight considered

[7:55] tonight in items four and five

[7:57] that I will be abstaining from

[7:59] the agenda items as well as the

[8:01] decision making and discussion

[8:03] that goes with any debate,

[8:05] deliberation, voting.

[8:08] my request is to leave the

[8:10] meeting immediately upon making

[8:11] this statement.

[8:14] so.

[8:15] >> okay.

[8:16] >> any questions?

[8:18] >> thank you, commissioner.

[8:20] >> mr. Chairman.

[8:21] >> yes.

[8:22] >> commissioner tortorici.

[8:24] I will also recuse myself from

[8:25] tonight's deliberations.

[8:28] >> okay, thank you both

[8:29] commissioners.

[8:31] at this time, michelle, it's up

[8:32] to you.

[8:35] >> good mr. Chairman and members

[8:36] of the board.

[8:37] michelle castilla.

[8:38] planner with the city of rio

[8:39] rancho.

[8:41] I will be presented items four

[8:42] and five together for the

[8:43] chamisa hills master plan and

[8:45] zone map amendment.

[8:46] however these items will be

[8:47] voted on separately by the

[8:49] board.

[8:50] the subject property is

[8:51] approximately 281 acres located

[8:53] towards the southern part of the

[8:54] city.

[8:55] commonly known as the golf

[8:56] course further

[8:57] described as the north nine,

[8:58] west nine, and east nine.

[9:00] the property discontinued as a

[9:01] functioning golf course and was

[9:03] eventually shut down in 2016.

[9:05] the city approved a zone map

[9:07] amendment for the property on

[9:09] april 18th, 2018 under

[9:11] ordinance number 4, enactment 18 06.

[9:13] changing the zoning from special

[9:15] use for golf course to special

[9:16] use for planned residential

[9:18] development.

[9:19] on august 7, 2024 the chamisa

[9:21] master plan and zma applications and

[9:23] submittals were received by the

[9:26] development serves department.

[9:29] the 2018 zoning ordinance

[9:31] specified the proposed plan use

[9:33] and development standards and

[9:35] design including access and

[9:37] landscaping.

[9:38] it also had a section for

[9:40] implementation and process which

[9:41] require the submission

[9:43] of a master plan and list of

[9:44] master plan requirements.

[9:45] other requirements restrictions

[9:48] included notification fees, out

[9:49] parcels not to be considered,

[9:51] reclaimed water usage, and open

[9:53] space construction schedule.

[9:54] development was not carried out

[9:55] under the specifications at this

[9:57] ordinance.

[9:58] the applicant zone map mod my

[10:00] cation request seeks to modify

[10:02] upon the prior zoning and

[10:03] existing ordinance used by staff

[10:05] for a reference for the proposed

[10:06] zoning ordinance.

[10:09] staff finds that the proposed

[10:10] density is similar to existing

[10:12] zoning and compatible with the

[10:14] surrounding residential

[10:15] development.

[10:16] the north line area is currently

[10:19] designated at su for prd.

[10:21] recreation for open space for

[10:22] park.

[10:23] open space and drainage.

[10:25] proposed zoning is os open space

[10:26] which is similar land use.

[10:28] the east nine is currently zoned

[10:30] for su for prd.

[10:31] recreation and open space.

[10:32] single family residential.

[10:34] the proposed zoning is os open

[10:37] space r3 single family residential

[10:39] and c1 retail commercial.

[10:41] some of the open space will

[10:42] remain as a zoned as single

[10:43] family residential.

[10:45] additional r3 proposed to the

[10:46] east of the existing single family

[10:49] residential and also to the west

[10:50] adjacent to the proposed mua

[10:52] zoning.

[10:54] c1 zoning proposed for the east

[10:56] end envisioned to be a spa scale

[10:58] business complex.

[11:03] the west nine area is currently

[11:05] designated su for prd.

[11:08] -- recreation and open space and

[11:09] single family residents.

[11:10] the proposed zoning is r4 single

[11:12] family residential.

[11:14] although the entire area is

[11:15] proposed as r4 the provided lay

[11:17] out in the master plan is

[11:19] similar to the existing zoning

[11:21] for the lots and open space to

[11:23] be located.

[11:24] also unit caps for each area in

[11:25] the proposed ordinance.

[11:28] the central portion of the golf

[11:30] course is currently designated

[11:31] as su for prd commercial.

[11:34] the proposed zoning is mua mixed

[11:35] use activity center.

[11:38] a similar land use with the

[11:39] intent of blending residential,

[11:41] civic and office uses in close

[11:43] proximity to each other.

[11:46] the master plan is made up of

[11:48] several distinct development

[11:49] areas.

[11:50] the develop areas include the

[11:52] west nine to be known as lux

[11:53] view estates.

[11:54] the north nine to be known as

[11:56] east view heights open space.

[11:58] and the east nine to be known as

[12:00] nueva esperanza, vita moderna

[12:02] and sierra vista all zoned r3 mixed

[12:04] residential and chamisa hills

[12:06] business parks zone c1.

[12:09] la jolla de rio rancho located

[12:11] in zone mua.

[12:15] lux view estimates will be

[12:16] developed in the former west

[12:17] nine area of the golf course.

[12:19] it will consist of 110 lots.

[12:21] it's approximately 74 acres and

[12:23] will be zoned r4.

[12:25] there will be 1.24 areas of

[12:27] acres of open space that will

[12:28] serve as buffer areas between

[12:29] the new homes and surrounding

[12:31] residential and maintained by

[12:32] it's own private residential

[12:34] home owners association.

[12:36] the former east nine area of the

[12:38] golf course will be three

[12:39] distinct neighborhoods all zoned

[12:40] r3.

[12:42] sierra vista is a senior

[12:43] community that will consist of

[12:45] 38 lots.

[12:46] this area will be within walking

[12:48] distance to the la jolla de rio

[12:49] rancho center with trail

[12:51] connections.

[12:53] there will be 0.43 acres of open

[12:55] space that will be maintained by

[12:56] it's own private hoa.

[12:58] vita moderna will consist of 70

[12:59] lots. There will be 0.79 acres of

[13:03] open space separating from the adjacent homes

[13:04] and governed by a private hoa.

[13:07] staff finds the acquisition of

[13:09] city property is the only way

[13:10] for the planned access to work in

[13:11] this area.

[13:12] this will require city review

[13:14] and approval for the

[13:15] reconfiguration of the drainage

[13:16] access and current city

[13:17] ownership.

[13:20] nueva espironza will consist of

[13:21] 84 town homes.

[13:22] it's the residential community

[13:24] located farthest east.

[13:25] partially surrounding the

[13:26] islands community.

[13:27] there will be 0.8 acres of open

[13:29] space again governed by a

[13:30] private hoa.

[13:32] there are two distinct

[13:34] commercial areas proposed in the

[13:35] master plan.

[13:36] chamisa hills business park is

[13:38] approximately 6 acres located at

[13:40] the east portion of the golf

[13:41] course.

[13:42] this is proposed to be a small

[13:44] scale business complex zoned c1.

[13:45] it will be governed by a private

[13:47] commercial business association.

[13:48] la jolla de rio rancho is

[13:50] 17 acres.

[13:52] centrally located within the

[13:53] golf course.

[13:54] access will be allowed north to

[13:55] south through the center but the

[13:57] road will be designed for slow

[13:58] speeds.

[14:00] this area will be zoned mua and

[14:01] also governed by a private

[14:03] commercial association.

[14:05] the east view heights open space

[14:07] encompasses the old north nine

[14:09] portion of the old golf course.

[14:10] it is approximately 62 acres.

[14:12] the master plan states this area

[14:13] will receive trail and landscape

[14:15] improvements.

[14:17] estimated at $400,000.

[14:18] through a financial guarantee in

[14:20] the form of a 5 year bond.

[14:21] it also mentions that if the

[14:22] funding is not secured from

[14:24] other monetary sources in the

[14:25] five years the bonding will be

[14:26] used as the primary funding

[14:27] source for improvements with the

[14:30] cost not exceeded $400,000.

[14:32] staff finds the proposed amount

[14:34] may not cover the necessary cost

[14:36] of the open space improvements.

[14:39] the proposed zoning ordinance

[14:41] will require the landscape

[14:42] development rehabilitation and

[14:43] revegetation plan of the open

[14:45] space areas shall address the

[14:46] current conditions and ability

[14:47] of the open space to include

[14:49] seeding, planting, and water

[14:51] maintenance until all natural

[14:53] vegetation is established.

[14:55] additionally environmental site

[14:57] assessment will be submitted to

[14:59] prior to or in connection with

[15:00] the land use applications for

[15:01] all phases of development.

[15:04] staff finds that the dedication

[15:05] and future ownership of this

[15:06] area remains uncertain.

[15:08] a requirement dictated by the

[15:10] proposed zoning ordinances that

[15:11] the land developer must

[15:12] establish and a identify the

[15:15] ownership or non profit

[15:17] organization prior to sale of

[15:19] any lots.

[15:20] there is to system proposed to

[15:21] restrict access to those not opt

[15:22] to join the master hoa.

[15:24] that may lead to complications

[15:25] with the adjacent residents.

[15:27] the proposed ordinance will be

[15:28] require a pedestrian access

[15:32] management plan established for

[15:33] open spaces to address how

[15:35] access will be regulated.

[15:36] staff also finds that the given

[15:37] lot counts may not in the long

[15:39] term be able to support

[15:41] respected residential hoas and

[15:43] master hoa for the proposed

[15:46] acreage, reoccurring maintenance

[15:47] cost and improved requirements

[15:51] for the mentions areas. A dedicated

[15:52] park of approximately 11 acres is

[15:54] proposed in the master plan.

[15:56] the park is described as open

[15:58] grass space with interior trails

[15:59] and various amenities.

[16:01] staff finds proposed amenities

[16:03] for a park this size may not

[16:04] meet the required elements as

[16:06] outlined by the development

[16:08] process manual.

[16:09] a requirement states that the

[16:11] park shall meet the requirements

[16:12] has been included in the

[16:13] proposed ordinance.

[16:15] the dedication and future

[16:17] ownership of this area remains

[16:18] uncertain.

[16:20] a requirement dictated by the

[16:21] proposed zoning ordinance is

[16:22] that the land developer must

[16:24] establish and identify the

[16:25] owner, association or nonprofit

[16:27] corporation prior to the sale of

[16:28] any lots.

[16:31] based on staff review it appears

[16:33] feasible to approve the

[16:34] applicants request and zone map

[16:36] amendment given that all

[16:38] requirements addressed in the

[16:39] zoning ordinance are met along

[16:41] with any staff comments that

[16:42] have not yet been addressed

[16:43] including the red line of the

[16:45] master plan.

[16:46] key factors that should be

[16:48] especially considered are open

[16:49] space, the park, access and

[16:50] governance.

[16:52] staff feels the main areas of

[16:54] concern can be addressed through

[16:55] the red lines provided by staff.

[16:57] through the regulations,

[16:58] conditions and standards drafted

[17:00] into the zoning ordinance which

[17:02] is more detailed than the

[17:03] typical ordinance.

[17:05] staff .therefore recommends

[17:06] planning and zoning board

[17:07] recommend approval to the

[17:09] governing body of the chamisa

[17:10] hills master plan with zone map

[17:12] amendments findings and

[17:13] conditions.

[17:14] with that I will stand for any

[17:15] questions.

[17:16] >> thank you, michelle.

[17:18] amy.

[17:23] >> mr. Chair, we had a lot of e-mail

[17:24] comments in the packets.

[17:26] I wanted to address those before

[17:28] we get going.

[17:31] I have a couple of click slides

[17:33] I want to run through.

[17:38] let's see if it, oh -- .

[17:44] seeing this from the distance.

[17:45] bare with me.

[17:47] >> so the first thing we want to

[17:48] talk about is notifications.

[17:51] so the first slide that I have

[17:54] up here is from the development

[17:57] process manual the dpm.

[17:59] in this situation it has general

[18:01] information and guidance on

[18:03] notifications.

[18:04] >> if you see in the red circle

[18:06] I have here the last sentence of

[18:08] the red circle talks about that

[18:10] reaching out to dsd staff about

[18:13] specific information related to

[18:16] notification requirements.

[18:18] everything below it is our

[18:20] general standards.

[18:23] there are each with individual

[18:26] standards.

[18:27] when we get into our municipal

[18:29] code.

[18:30] this is from our city municipal

[18:34] code chapter 150 we have a

[18:36] breakdown of applications and

[18:38] procedures.

[18:39] we have our zone map amendments

[18:42] and master plan.

[18:43] for zone map amendments we

[18:49] follow state statute.

[18:50] I want to point out the

[18:54] governing body that you have

[18:57] previously mentions.

[19:01] this is a recommending body for

[19:04] the final decision for them to

[19:06] make.

[19:07] there are a lot of other items

[19:08] the planning zoning board is the

[19:11] final decision maker just not

[19:12] this situation.

[19:13] I want to focus on section b is

[19:34] the next part I want to talk

[19:37] about and then making sure we

[19:39] are publishing our notice 15

[19:41] days prior to the hearing.

[19:43] so when we are handling that one

[19:47] we are looking at our legal ad.

[19:50] our legal ad is something we run

[19:53] in the albuquerque journal it

[19:55] has a sigh circulation in the

[19:57] city of rio rancho.

[19:59] we find it's a good newspaper

[20:02] for to us run the legal ads.

[20:04] it was ran march 24th, 2025.

[20:08] the next section talks about you

[20:13] will see I skipped a sentence.

[20:16] that was talk ing about rezoning

[20:17] something smaller than a block.

[20:20] we are rezoning something larger

[20:22] than a block.

[20:23] so we are looking sure to make

[20:25] sure our noticed are made first

[20:28] class mail to the owners.

[20:30] as shown on record with the

[20:31] county treasurer.

[20:33] we don't include right of way.

[20:35] we are looking a hundred feet in

[20:36] our, from the boundary, from the

[20:38] property line, excuse me of,

[20:40] what is being proposed for the

[20:42] zoning change.

[20:43] and then we do have -- let me go

[20:48] back.

[20:49] one of the things I wanted to

[20:51] note at the bottom of this one

[20:52] we had 685 letter noticed s

[20:57] mailed out march 17th.

[20:58] of those 685, 107 were returned.

[21:03] that takes us to the next

[21:04] portion of state statute so that

[21:07] would be the last line of

[21:08] section b.

[21:09] that talks about if we do have

[21:11] returned letters or something

[21:13] that is undelivered then we have

[21:16] to work at finding the most up

[21:19] to date address and send out a

[21:21] second notification via

[21:22] certified mail.

[21:24] so we have sent out 108

[21:28] certified letters.

[21:29] 45 of those, of those we have

[21:32] received the little green card

[21:34] that comes back with the

[21:35] signatures.

[21:36] so we just wanted to talk

[21:38] through, I wanted to talk

[21:40] through just those notification

[21:42] that's have been mailed out.

[21:44] along with the fact that we did,

[21:47] for the requirement of the city

[21:49] municipal code have signage

[21:52] placed on the property.

[21:54] so we gave nine signs to the

[21:56] applicant to put up around the

[21:59] property as many locations as

[22:02] possible to get again an extra

[22:05] level of notification out to the

[22:07] public.

[22:08] the next section we want to talk

[22:17] about, when we talk about --

[22:19] bear with me.

[22:20] sorry.

[22:21] the clicking back and forth.

[22:23] one of the other things on the

[22:24] signs that came up is that there

[22:27] was concern this was being fast

[22:29] tracked because of the fact that

[22:31] on the signage that we put the

[22:32] governing body meeting date.

[22:40] this is for larger items.

[22:43] when we have items going to be

[22:45] governing body and planning and

[22:47] zoning board is not the final

[22:49] decision maker we want to make

[22:51] sure to get out the information

[22:52] as early and as to as many

[22:55] people as possible.

[22:56] we put these on the notice

[22:58] signs.

[22:59] one of the other things to note

[23:00] is that in state statute there

[23:03] is no requirement for us to do

[23:05] the notice signs.

[23:06] this is only in city code.

[23:08] it's only required in front of

[23:10] the planning and zoning board.

[23:12] there is no other signage that

[23:13] will go up on the property prior

[23:15] to the governing body meeting.

[23:18] this is the one chance to get it

[23:20] out on the signage.

[23:21] we thought it was a good way to

[23:22] get the information out there.

[23:24] it is also very typical for us

[23:27] to schedule, I'm sorry to

[23:29] schedule the governing body

[23:31] meeting one month after the

[23:32] planning and zoning board

[23:34] meeting.

[23:35] that's the general scheduling

[23:37] rotation as we move through to

[23:38] make sure we meet all

[23:40] notification requirements.

[23:42] one thing I want to talk about

[23:46] too tonight is if there are no

[23:48] changes in the applicant's

[23:50] request or applicant this is

[23:53] scheduled for may 8th.

[23:55] if there are substantial changes

[23:57] to the application we will look

[23:59] for a postponent so we're able

[24:01] to review the changes before and

[24:04] bring it back to the planning

[24:05] and zoning board for a full

[24:07] review before it moves onto the

[24:09] governing body.

[24:10] the last two things here.

[24:19] I have a section here for the

[24:21] new mexico state statutes open

[24:23] meetings.

[24:25] so when we look at open meetings

[24:27] what we have to make sure is the

[24:30] agenda needs to be posted 72

[24:33] hours prior to the meeting.

[24:34] so, we actually aim to post our

[24:38] agendas at least a week in

[24:40] advance.

[24:41] this one we have public comments

[24:49] it was posted wednesday.

[24:51] well within the 72 hours, well

[24:54] before that.

[24:55] so I wanted to address some of

[24:57] those comments that we had

[24:59] already seen and address those

[25:02] early to focus on the items

[25:05] themselves this evening.

[25:06] >> thank you, amy.

[25:07] at this time is the applicant

[25:09] present.

[25:10] and have a presentation.

[25:31] >> thank you.

[25:34] [inaudible]

[25:45] >> does this work better?

[25:53] okay.

[25:54] alright.

[25:55] I can do this.

[25:56] I have to use both hands on the

[26:03] clicker.

[26:04] once again -- planning

[26:06] representing the project and a

[26:09] long time coming I think the

[26:10] master plan to redevelop the

[26:13] former golf course properties.

[26:15] I do have a presentation.

[26:18] I will try to go through it as

[26:20] quickly as I can.

[26:21] get this cued up.

[26:28] there we go.

[26:42] here here to talk about the

[26:43] master plan.

[26:48] -- the audience.

[26:51] alright.

[26:52] so first of all let's talk about

[26:54] the project team.

[26:55] so steve chavez is the property

[26:58] owner with rr mesa llc.

[27:00] we have myself, michael wright

[27:05] with consensus planning for

[27:08] designing.

[27:10] community design solutions are

[27:11] the civil engineers for the

[27:13] project.

[27:14] sheldon greer is here, lead

[27:17] civil engineer on the project.

[27:19] fbt architects prepared a lot of

[27:22] the master plan, design

[27:24] guidelines, and the sketches.

[27:27] the wonderful sketches in the

[27:29] document.

[27:30] some of the character studies

[27:33] done for the project were done

[27:36] by fbt architects.

[27:39] harry relkin son line helping us

[27:44] with government issues.

[27:45] kim murphy with altura real

[27:47] estate llc is on-line.

[27:50] and tierra west has done the

[27:53] traffic management report.

[27:54] I believe that terry brown

[27:56] should also be on-line relative

[27:58] to the project team.

[28:00] a be in of neighbor hood

[28:10] associations impact the project.

[28:14] I won't speak for them.

[28:16] they are here in the room and

[28:17] on-line this evening.

[28:19] alright.

[28:21] a little bit of history.

[28:25] as I mention this has been a

[28:26] long time coming to get to this

[28:29] point.

[28:30] we have the north 9 closed in

[28:34] 2013, a long time ago.

[28:38] the balance of the course closed

[28:40] in 2014.

[28:42] club house fire in 2019.

[28:46] that fire occurred in the club

[28:48] house building was raised at

[28:50] that point.

[28:51] the property cleaned up.

[28:53] the master plan, there was an

[28:57] attempt for a first master plan

[28:59] denied in 2020.

[29:01] ownership changed, mr. Chavez

[29:04] purchased the property in 2022.

[29:07] what is the master plan.

[29:11] the master plan.

[29:12] I want to make sure I know for

[29:15] the commissioners, you all

[29:17] understand this, obviously staff

[29:19] does.

[29:20] for the folks in the audience.

[29:21] so maybe part of answering what

[29:24] is the master plan is what is it

[29:26] not.

[29:27] the master plan establishes a

[29:29] framework.

[29:30] it is an aspiration al document.

[29:33] it takes the city's

[29:35] comprehensive plan and those

[29:37] goals and policies and tries to

[29:39] translate that into a project

[29:42] specific area.

[29:43] in this case the area that was

[29:45] formerly the golf course

[29:47] property.

[29:50] establishes design standards,

[29:55] anticipated product types,

[29:58] density, and what it does not do

[30:01] is prepare subdivision plats or

[30:06] site plans that are required in

[30:09] order to actually do any

[30:11] development within the master

[30:12] plan area.

[30:13] so, once again the master plan

[30:17] creates that framework.

[30:18] creates the aspiration al

[30:20] aspects of the project so that

[30:23] when future site plans and

[30:26] subdivision plants come through

[30:28] the process they are judged

[30:31] against whether or not they meet

[30:32] the standards and the goals

[30:35] established with the master

[30:37] plan.

[30:38] so we identify a number of new

[30:44] development areas within this

[30:51] property.

[30:52] the residential we have the lux

[30:53] vista.

[30:54] the single family area the

[30:56] former west 9.

[30:58] we have vida m. Sierra vista

[31:04] over fifty five adult community.

[31:07] we have nueva e that is single

[31:16] family.

[31:17] this project would allow single

[31:18] family homes to develop in

[31:20] portions of what was the golf

[31:23] course fairways.

[31:25] the town center is the former,

[31:28] the area that was the golf club

[31:32] house.

[31:33] this is mixed muse.

[31:46] this is important.

[31:47] this area is designed to be a

[31:50] gathering space, a focal point

[31:53] for the community and around a

[32:01] public plaza.

[32:02] we have worked with the city of

[32:04] rio rancho staff to make sure,

[32:07] one of the issues that happened

[32:09] when we first started the

[32:12] project was connecting the north

[32:15] and south fairways would this be

[32:17] a thoroughfare that would be a

[32:19] problem for the community.

[32:20] you can see from the plan that

[32:24] basically you come in, if you

[32:26] come from the south you hit the

[32:27] public plaza.

[32:28] it's a one way street around the

[32:30] plaza.

[32:31] there is on-street parking

[32:33] throughout the town center.

[32:34] it's really designed to be a

[32:36] place where like if you tried to

[32:40] go through here to get

[32:42] north/south as a shortcut you

[32:44] would quickly realize it's a

[32:46] shortcut that takes a long time

[32:48] to get through.

[32:49] the speed limit will be low.

[32:50] it's not a fast route.

[32:59] that's by design.

[33:01] we want people to come into the

[33:03] town center, park once, go to

[33:06] several things.

[33:07] designed for retail shops,

[33:09] coffee shops, restaurants,

[33:12] public plaza, a gym, some minor

[33:15] residential duplexes on the

[33:17] north end and second story

[33:20] residential is one of the goals

[33:21] for the town center.

[33:23] so we actually have a place

[33:25] where people live, work, shop,

[33:27] and play at the same place.

[33:31] I will talk a little about the

[33:33] public part later on in the

[33:35] presentation or the neighbor

[33:41] hood park that's adjacent.

[33:46] we plan for the parking of the

[33:48] town center for the park.

[33:49] we don't want to use valuable

[33:53] park space for parking be want

[33:56] to share with the park center.

[33:58] that's a goal for this area as

[34:02] well.

[34:03] sketches.

[34:04] we anticipate multi story

[34:07] buildings in this area.

[34:08] two and three stories.

[34:13] capture views and provide the

[34:16] focal point the heart of the

[34:18] community.

[34:19] there is also a new proposed

[34:20] business center located on the

[34:23] east end of the project.

[34:25] that has excellent access to

[34:28] high resort boulevard and new

[34:30] mexico 528.

[34:32] we anticipate single story

[34:34] offices, medical offices,

[34:36] presbyterian facility is already

[34:38] located adjacent to the

[34:41] property.

[34:42] a pharmacy and other service as

[34:44] associated with that area.

[34:46] this is a site plan that shows

[34:49] how you could access that

[34:50] property and get access to

[34:54] parking and the significant

[34:57] buffer between this development

[35:00] and residents next door.

[35:05] so the east view heights, the

[35:07] former north nine is designated

[35:10] to be open space.

[35:12] and no development is allowed to

[35:15] take place in that area.

[35:17] it will be maintained as open

[35:19] space with walking trails for

[35:20] residents.

[35:21] the goal is structured in the

[35:24] master plan is hopefully to find

[35:27] either a local government entity

[35:31] that would take that over for

[35:33] the long term or a non profit

[35:42] for that open space.

[35:44] we feel strongly that's the best

[35:45] long term solution for the area.

[35:47] since there is no new

[35:49] development going in, in that

[35:51] area.

[35:52] so it's disconnected, if you

[35:54] will, from the rest of the

[35:55] project.

[35:56] zoning, I'm skipping that to

[36:14] talk about access.

[36:16] one of the unique things about

[36:17] the project.

[36:18] it's a former golf course and

[36:20] it's basically fairways that

[36:22] extend throughout the different

[36:26] neighborhood areas.

[36:28] the access into the different

[36:30] portions of the development come

[36:32] from different streets,

[36:34] different traffic patterns.

[36:36] that's why we did, worked with

[36:37] the city staff for the traffic

[36:39] management plan that is in as an

[36:42] appendix in the document looking

[36:48] how the traffic is distributed

[36:51] around the community.

[36:52] we felt that was really

[36:53] important.

[36:54] I want to be clear part of the

[36:55] city of rio rancho development

[36:58] process is that detailed traffic

[37:02] impact studies are done at the

[37:04] time of site plan or subdivision

[37:06] plats.

[37:07] so those would be reviewed and

[37:09] that detailed traffic study

[37:11] would happen at that time if the

[37:13] city warrants a scale of

[37:16] development as needing to have

[37:17] that done.

[37:18] the report in the study looks at

[37:27] traffic system wide.

[37:29] how does it get into the area,

[37:32] streets used and making sure we

[37:34] didn't overload the existing

[37:36] streets and street network as

[37:38] part of the project.

[37:39] trails.

[37:46] there is a combination of multi

[37:48] use trails and walking paths.

[37:50] it's anticipated they would be

[37:52] pressure pine, soft surface and

[37:54] provide access throughout.

[37:57] one of the things when we talk

[37:59] about the open space and trails

[38:00] is there is the development

[38:05] areas and the individual hoas.

[38:08] when one of those developments

[38:10] takes place the construction and

[38:13] implementation of the open

[38:16] space, landscape, trails will

[38:18] take place associated with each

[38:20] of the individual neighborhood

[38:23] developments that take place.

[38:25] so there is a portion that had

[38:26] open space that is attached to

[38:28] each of those new neighborhoods

[38:30] that would come on-line when

[38:32] they development.

[38:33] that would be part of the

[38:44] individual hoa.

[38:45] as mentioned in the staff's

[38:47] presentation there is an

[38:49] anticipated over arching master

[38:51] hoa that makes sure the hoas

[38:54] are talking to each other and

[38:55] the over all maintenance and

[38:57] implementation of the open space

[39:00] and trails occurs in a

[39:02] consistent manner throughout the

[39:05] project.

[39:06] it's important to know they're

[39:17] for the individual hoas that

[39:19] come on-line.

[39:20] this is a graphic that shows the

[39:23] trails.

[39:26] along the west nine, buffer

[39:30] along the perimeter including

[39:32] walking trails.

[39:35] the multi use trail basically

[39:38] gets you through the

[39:40] neighborhood park, into the town

[39:42] center, and then from the town

[39:45] center out to high -- boulevard

[39:48] and the business area at the

[39:50] east end of the project.

[39:51] then individual walking paths

[39:55] would be developed in the

[39:57] various neighborhoods in

[39:59] addition to that.

[40:00] the idea is there is master

[40:13] association and then individual

[40:15] associations.

[40:16] the la jolla rio rancho is the

[40:21] town center with a commercial

[40:23] property a zone responsibility

[40:25] for the maintenance of the plaza

[40:27] and private parks on the entry

[40:29] of the north end, as well as the

[40:31] interior street system.

[40:33] those will be private.

[40:34] that is done because we really

[40:37] want to make sure the speed

[40:39] limit is very low.

[40:42] it will be restricted within

[40:44] that area and the same with the

[40:47] chamisa hills.

[40:49] this is a park that is more

[40:52] traditional office development

[40:54] area.

[40:55] that would have it's own

[40:57] commercial property and

[40:59] association responsible for the

[41:01] maintenance of the open space

[41:03] associated with those projects

[41:06] as well.

[41:07] you can see the various hoas

[41:11] identified.

[41:12] think of these as bulk tracks

[41:14] that would be created and sold

[41:16] to the individual developments.

[41:18] they would be then responsible

[41:20] for their associated open space

[41:22] and portions of the trail

[41:24] network.

[41:25] zoning done for the project with

[41:42] the prd, there were agreements

[41:45] made.

[41:46] the intent is to honor the

[41:49] agreements.

[41:50] so the west nine where it says

[41:54] r4 the settlement agreement

[41:57] delineates that's to be

[42:00] developed r1 standards, single

[42:03] story.

[42:04] specifies 65-foot wide buffer on

[42:06] the perimeter.

[42:07] those agreements will be honored

[42:10] with the future development of

[42:12] that area as well as the sort of

[42:16] central point with this, the

[42:19] vida m. Sub did I commission

[42:25] developed with r2 standards.

[42:28] it says I r3.

[42:33] those are lot width and a height

[42:37] limit associated with that.

[42:39] alright.

[42:46] so, the master plan, once again

[42:49] this, this graphic is aspiration

[42:52] al we feel that the lay outs and

[42:57] they're something that works.

[42:59] community design solutions,

[43:01] civil engineers, do the

[43:04] individual layouts.

[43:05] a lot of work in the city of rio

[43:07] rancho and understand the

[43:10] subdivision and platting

[43:13] process.

[43:15] but anything shown on here is

[43:18] pure aspiration al.

[43:26] coordinating with the city staff

[43:28] if traffic impact studies are

[43:30] required, grading, design,

[43:34] drainage, utility planning.

[43:36] awful that is done during

[43:39] preliminary and final plats.

[43:42] same with the commercial areas.

[43:43] those are subject to a site

[43:47] plan.

[43:48] the site plan has to be done and

[43:49] reviewed and approved by the

[43:51] city prior to building permits

[43:53] for that area as well.

[43:55] those areas as well.

[43:56] this is an annotated version

[44:06] where I noted the restrictions

[44:08] earlier.

[44:09] the lot development standards,

[44:10] height limits and buffer

[44:12] requirements that are noted as

[44:14] part of those specific areas.

[44:15] with that thank you very much.

[44:26] I know a lot of people are here

[44:28] to speak as well.

[44:29] I am available to answer

[44:32] questions.

[44:33] if there are hard questions I

[44:35] will farm those off to others on

[44:37] the project team.

[44:39] any easy ones I'm happy to

[44:41] address with.

[44:42] that thank you very much for

[44:43] your time this evening.

[44:47] we appreciate and we're excited

[44:49] to see this project before you

[44:51] this evening.

[44:52] there has been a lot of work

[44:53] that has gone into getting it to

[44:55] this point.

[44:57] I'm somema sorry it's taken as

[45:01] long as it has to get to this

[45:03] point.

[45:04] we feel good we have a master

[45:05] plan and document that we feel

[45:10] very good about and we think

[45:12] aspiration alley it sets the

[45:14] right tone for what could and

[45:16] should happen with these

[45:17] projects.

[45:18] with that thank you.

[45:19] >> thank you, jim.

[45:21] so, next, the way we will

[45:26] conduct this is entertain a

[45:29] motion to approve the master

[45:33] plan.

[45:34] we always make a motion in the

[45:35] affirmative.

[45:37] after we have a motion and a

[45:39] second then we will open it up

[45:40] for discussion.

[45:43] and again I will ask everyone to

[45:46] keyed comments addressed to the

[45:47] board.

[45:48] this is not a back and forth

[45:49] conversation.

[45:50] your questions may or will not

[45:52] be asked during the public

[45:55] comment.

[45:56] the board may ask either staff

[45:58] or the applicant to address

[46:00] questions during the discussion

[46:02] portion of the meeting.

[46:03] once the public comment period

[46:05] has closed and discussion of the

[46:07] board has begun no further

[46:10] comments or questions will be

[46:11] taken from the public.

[46:13] once again it's not the last

[46:16] step.

[46:17] the board is making a

[46:18] recommendation and not a final

[46:20] decision.

[46:24] both items will be heard by the

[46:26] governoring body on may 8th.

[46:28] at this time I would like to

[46:30] enter tan a motion to approve

[46:32] item number 4, master plan.

[46:34] >> motion to approve.

[46:38] >> a motion, richardson.

[46:39] a second.

[46:40] >> commissioner hankins, I will

[46:42] second.

[46:43] >> a motion and a second.

[46:44] at this time we will, staff will

[46:46] call the people up for -- we

[47:02] will call people up in favor

[47:04] first.

[47:06] you will have two or thee

[47:08] minutes.

[47:09] state your name, council

[47:11] district.

[47:12] >> tim burkey.

[47:28] >> scott e.

[47:57] >> okay.

[47:58] seeing no other comments in

[48:00] favor.

[48:01] we will now move onto those

[48:03] opposed.

[48:04] >> thomas wright.

[48:16] >> thomas wright district 4 --

[48:22] [not able to hear clearly]

[48:27] I have the proof here

[48:30] concerning the master plan and

[48:32] mostly -- hoa and the 110 homes.

[48:41] we're not included.

[48:42] we have never been talked to by

[48:44] anyone concerning this plan.

[48:46] we have been ignored once again.

[48:51] we are totally surrounded by

[48:53] this plan.

[48:54] one hundred percent.

[48:56] the pond remediation is not

[48:59] complete.

[49:00] our property adjacent to the

[49:01] pools haven't been repaired.

[49:03] our property markers have been

[49:07] destroyed.

[49:08] we request inclusion and

[49:10] participation by mr. Chavez and

[49:14] rio rancho to make sure -- our

[49:18] hoa4 controlling the property

[49:23] totally surrounding us.

[49:24] >> thank you for your comments.

[49:33] >> michael farrell.

[49:36] >> I can't hear him.

[49:49] [can not hear speaker]

[49:54] >> mr. Chair, I don't know.

[49:58] I think I will leave that to

[49:59] your discretion.

[50:00] >> you have two minutes to speak

[50:02] if you would like.

[50:14] >> hello, can you hear me okay.

[50:16] how about now?

[50:24] okay.

[50:25] good evening.

[50:26] thank you my name is doctor

[50:29] matthew brady h.

[50:31] I'm a new resident to rio

[50:34] rancho.

[50:35] I want to second the statement.

[50:36] we were not well informed of

[50:38] this at all in my opinion.

[50:43] beyond this, that open space

[50:45] means a lot to the people in

[50:47] that area.

[50:48] people play there.

[50:49] people walk there.

[50:51] part of the reason people have

[50:53] purchased these properties in

[50:54] the first place is for the view

[50:56] of our beautiful mountains, of

[51:01] our beautiful city.

[51:03] this project will ruin that.

[51:06] this project in my personal

[51:08] opinion degrade home values.

[51:10] I don't see it being a good long

[51:13] term invest ment for the city.

[51:15] it's certainly not a good

[51:16] investment for the residents

[51:18] that live there.

[51:19] I don't think this will engender

[51:25] feelings of trust or faith in

[51:27] our city if this just goes

[51:28] through the way it's been going.

[51:30] thank you, have a great evening.

[51:32] I appreciate the opportunity to

[51:33] speak.

[51:34] >> thank you for your comments,

[51:36] sir.

[51:46] >> jason foster.

[51:55] >> thank you, commissioners.

[52:08] I appreciate letting us know

[52:12] that everyone was notified

[52:14] correctly.

[52:15] when I asked yesterday how I was

[52:17] notified correctly.

[52:18] she ignored me.

[52:19] I assume her answer this evening

[52:22] is my response which is how was

[52:24] I notified?

[52:25] I never received first class

[52:27] mail.

[52:28] I never received a certified

[52:31] letter.

[52:32] she informed me that her, my

[52:34] mail was on her desk with

[52:36] someone else's name.

[52:38] the sandoval county is able to

[52:41] give me a property tax bill

[52:43] every single year.

[52:44] so I'm not understanding how the

[52:46] city can not take that same

[52:48] document that sandoval county

[52:51] uses to provide me with mail.

[52:53] I haven't been notified.

[52:55] this hearing shouldn't happen.

[52:57] there are dozens of others that

[53:00] haven't been notified.

[53:02] until they were notified

[53:03] socially per state statute this

[53:06] hearing shouldn't of happened.

[53:08] in terms of mr. Strozers'

[53:11] comments purely illustrative and

[53:16] aspiration al.

[53:17] that sounds like when your

[53:18] parents gave you a big box at 8

[53:21] years old.

[53:22] you asked for an rc toy and you

[53:24] opened it up and there were

[53:26] socks.

[53:27] this is shining wrapping paper

[53:29] filled with coal.

[53:30] they haven't demonstrated any of

[53:34] this stuff can be done.

[53:35] I understand y'all will approve

[53:37] it later on we will hope some

[53:40] engineering study comes out they

[53:42] can do it.

[53:43] the problem I have is y'all

[53:45] won't put restrictions on the

[53:47] new zoning changes.

[53:48] it won't allow mr. Chavez to

[53:50] essentially sell off parcels to

[53:52] the highest bidder to make a ton

[53:54] of money.

[53:55] thank you, very much.

[53:58] >> thank you for your comments,

[53:59] sir.

[54:03] >> michael --

[54:17] >> I have a couple of comments

[54:23] my name is michael k.

[54:25] >> if you state your name and

[54:27] address please.

[54:28] >> getting ready to do that.

[54:30] my name is michael k.

[54:32] I live at 3469calle -- I'm a

[54:38] member of the north nine

[54:39] neighborhood board and

[54:41] association.

[54:42] I would like to make two points.

[54:44] first I do not believe the

[54:45] ordinance should be passed onto

[54:47] the city council for approval.

[54:49] the reason why I state this is

[54:52] the master plan identifies three

[54:57] distinct areas as open space.

[55:02] while only 62 acres of east

[55:05] views heights open space is

[55:08] captured in the ordinance.

[55:09] the zoning map shows an

[55:11] additional 27 acres for the

[55:13] nueva e community.

[55:17] that acreage is not contained in

[55:19] the ordinance.

[55:20] there is also acreage for open

[55:24] space associated with lux view

[55:27] estate.

[55:28] that is not in the ordinance

[55:29] either.

[55:31] now, we need to revies the

[55:35] ordinance.

[55:36] if you go to page 47 of the

[55:38] master plan you will see that

[55:39] these communities do have open

[55:42] space identified.

[55:44] all open space should be

[55:47] codified in the ordinance to

[55:49] prevent future development.

[55:53] secondly, the master plan should

[55:55] not be passed until a detailed

[55:58] explanation of how the proposed

[56:01] pid as part of the master hoa

[56:04] will be executed and

[56:06] implemented.

[56:08] the residents of east view

[56:10] heights should be included in

[56:11] the thinking behind the pid.

[56:14] now I will say that we as a

[56:16] board did meet with steve on a

[56:18] number of occasions.

[56:20] five occasions.

[56:21] the last meeting I believe was

[56:22] in june of 2024.

[56:26] we have had no discussions since

[56:30] with conscience planning or

[56:33] anyone else about the pid, about

[56:35] the master hoa, etcetera,

[56:38] through for letting me comment.

[56:39] >> thank you for your comments,

[56:41] sir.

[56:42] >> wayne p.

[56:56] >> good evening.

[56:58] my name is wayne p.

[56:59] I'm on the board of the north

[57:01] nine neighborhood association.

[57:03] I have lived on the north nine

[57:04] for 22 years.

[57:06] as such I attended three in

[57:09] person meetings with mr. Chavez.

[57:11] he made many assertions and

[57:14] promises.

[57:15] most of which that have not come

[57:17] true.

[57:18] instead of maintaining the north

[57:19] nine in any order as he pledged

[57:23] it's been turned into a speedway

[57:25] for motorcycles, four wheelers,

[57:28] cars and trucks.

[57:29] the destruction the invaders

[57:33] have denuded some sections.

[57:41] we're left with a dust storm

[57:43] that takes professional cleaning

[57:46] to clean up.

[57:47] we requested him place no

[57:49] trespassing signs to stop some

[57:52] of the idiot see.

[57:53] this is what we got.

[57:55] look at this.

[57:56] postage stamps.

[58:07] you tell me this is how someone

[58:09] is going to maintain a property,

[58:11] how can we trust this person at

[58:12] a minimum raise that bond to 700

[58:17] grand.

[58:18] not a token 400.

[58:20] you know.

[58:21] I'm of the adage, I'm of the age

[58:24] that I believe the proof is in

[58:25] the pudding.

[58:27] I have to tell you recently I

[58:29] have listened to the shania

[58:33] twain song "you don't impress me

[58:36] much."

[58:37] how can any of us trust a

[58:39] developer who says they will do

[58:41] something they can't keep up

[58:43] simple maintenance.

[58:46] but I'm also quite puzzled as to

[58:49] how restrictions that were

[58:51] placed on this master plan in

[58:54] december of 2024 suddenly

[58:58] disappeared.

[59:01] maybe that's a question that a

[59:04] jury of our peers will up matily

[59:07] answer.

[59:09] >> thank you for your comments.

[59:12] >> david patterson.

[59:22] >> hello.

[59:23] my name is dave patterson.

[59:25] I'm on the board of the enclave.

[59:27] I appreciate your taking the

[59:30] time to answer my questions or

[59:32] hear from me.

[59:33] it's more than the developer has

[59:35] offered us.

[59:36] we have had no contact with them

[59:39] in order to help with the design

[59:40] of this.

[59:41] even though we are surrounded by

[59:43] it.

[59:44] first complaint would be the

[59:45] zoning.

[59:46] just this evening with the

[59:48] presentation he says it's r4.

[59:52] it's not really r4.

[59:53] we're going to treat it as r3.

[59:56] well if it says r4 on the

[59:59] ordinance and the plan, then

[1:00:00] that means r4 for who ever comes

[1:00:03] behind them.

[1:00:04] also the open space around our

[1:00:07] community is listed as r4.

[1:00:10] that means it can be developed.

[1:00:14] in fact eluding on page 81 there

[1:00:17] is a note that says the ponds

[1:00:19] will be remediated in accordance

[1:00:22] with epa.

[1:00:23] thus clearing the way for more

[1:00:25] development.

[1:00:26] that needs to be indicated as

[1:00:28] open space, zoned as open space,

[1:00:30] so it can't be developed later.

[1:00:32] we also have a note that says

[1:00:37] emergency access.

[1:00:38] now emergency access road has to

[1:00:44] be 25 feet wide and support an

[1:00:46] apparatus of 75,000 pounds

[1:00:49] according to the state fire

[1:00:50] code.

[1:00:51] okay.

[1:00:52] in order to do that where that

[1:00:55] emergency access road comes

[1:00:57] around on our property on west

[1:00:59] island it would mean the

[1:01:02] destruction of our island, our

[1:01:03] sign, our water meter, our trees

[1:01:06] that we have maintained and paid

[1:01:09] for over the last 30 years in

[1:01:12] order to put in a road for an

[1:01:15] emergency access.

[1:01:16] there are other alternatives.

[1:01:18] I won't go into those now but

[1:01:20] there are other alternatives

[1:01:22] that need to be considered

[1:01:23] before they destroy our

[1:01:25] property.

[1:01:26] on page 13 it states for the lux

[1:01:33] view estates.

[1:01:34] >> I'm asking to you wrap it up.

[1:01:36] >> I'm wrapping up.

[1:01:37] it states envision a new

[1:01:39] residential neighborhood that

[1:01:41] respects the past and embraces

[1:01:44] the future.

[1:01:45] the destruction of our sign and

[1:01:46] entry way is not very respectful

[1:01:49] of our past.

[1:01:50] thank you.

[1:01:51] >> thank you for your comments.

[1:02:03] >> matt d.

[1:02:04] >> everybody hear me.

[1:02:06] commissioner, mr. Chairman, good

[1:02:08] evening.

[1:02:09] after reviewing the master plan

[1:02:12] submitted by mesa I have listed

[1:02:14] a few bullet points that I have

[1:02:16] question that's need to be

[1:02:17] addressed before accepted by

[1:02:22] zoning and city council.

[1:02:25] traffic issues.

[1:02:27] first the additional homes.

[1:02:28] east lake turning lanes on 52

[1:02:33] can't absorb the traffic.

[1:02:34] no way.

[1:02:35] there are two to three areas to

[1:02:37] turn.

[1:02:38] in 2017 the city had a meeting

[1:02:41] with the hoas and the

[1:02:44] community to improve zoning on

[1:02:48] st. Andrews.

[1:02:49] why rezone additional land when

[1:02:52] rio rancho mesa purchased.

[1:02:59] drainage has not been accepted

[1:03:01] by the flood august.

[1:03:03] there is not enough access.

[1:03:05] the new mexico environmental

[1:03:07] division has not given clearance

[1:03:10] on the ponds in the whole area.

[1:03:12] after reviewing the master plan

[1:03:14] rio rancho mesa has produced on

[1:03:17] the cost of caring, maintaining,

[1:03:20] the liability of new

[1:03:21] subdivision.

[1:03:23] 400,000 won't be enough money to

[1:03:25] landscape the trails and open

[1:03:27] space.

[1:03:28] after concerning, also

[1:03:30] concerning is rio rancho mesa is

[1:03:33] attempting to do a pid and tax

[1:03:36] the hoas and existing home

[1:03:38] owners in the government

[1:03:40] cowering areas to pay for his

[1:03:42] open space.

[1:03:43] the citizens of rio, the city of

[1:03:46] rio rancho has a responsibility

[1:03:49] to protect citizens, the safety

[1:03:52] of the citizens and subdivisions

[1:03:54] after putting the additional

[1:03:55] stress on our roads and schools.

[1:03:59] they deserve equitable

[1:04:00] servitude.

[1:04:03] I'm against the zoning change.

[1:04:06] I'm against multi family zoning

[1:04:08] on the original golf course

[1:04:10] that's mu.

[1:04:11] I don't want multiple family in

[1:04:13] there.

[1:04:14] we request a full denial on

[1:04:17] rezoning requests for two and a

[1:04:19] half years he has not done what

[1:04:21] he said woe do, has not

[1:04:23] submitted an acceptable plan for

[1:04:26] the government golf course and

[1:04:30] open space.

[1:04:31] why the city accommodate one

[1:04:33] person.

[1:04:34] >> I will ask to you wrap it up.

[1:04:35] >> in my opinion he negatively

[1:04:38] impacts all home owners

[1:04:40] purchasing property on the golf

[1:04:42] course in good faith.

[1:04:43] the city needs to protect home

[1:04:46] owners not a businessman looking

[1:04:47] to make money and leave town.

[1:04:53] [ applause ]

[1:04:54] >> again I will ask people to

[1:04:55] maintain and also have two

[1:05:00] minutes.

[1:05:01] I ask to limit remarks to two

[1:05:05] minutes so everyone can speak.

[1:05:07] >> anthony a.

[1:05:16] >> good evening commissioners.

[1:05:20] I would just like to speak upon

[1:05:22] the open space.

[1:05:25] funding and the maintenance

[1:05:26] there of.

[1:05:27] $400,000 not to exceed is

[1:05:30] preposterous.

[1:05:32] 62 acres.

[1:05:33] that's a little over 6 grand per

[1:05:36] acre.

[1:05:37] can you landscape your front

[1:05:39] yard for six grand.

[1:05:41] think not.

[1:05:42] the other thing is the walking

[1:05:45] paths are very close to other

[1:05:48] homes.

[1:05:49] there should be more of a buffer

[1:05:50] zone and we shouldn't be asked

[1:05:54] to pay for any pid or any hov

[1:05:57] fees to use this.

[1:05:59] in order to use this mr. Chavez

[1:06:02] is stating that you have to be a

[1:06:06] member of the hoa and pay hoa

[1:06:09] fees to use the walking paths.

[1:06:12] that's absolutely absurd.

[1:06:16] absurd to the upmost.

[1:06:20] I don't know about that.

[1:06:21] where are the people that want

[1:06:22] to walk going to park?

[1:06:24] there will be people that live

[1:06:26] in the community that need to

[1:06:28] drive to, it's too far for them

[1:06:32] to walk to use the walking

[1:06:34] paths.

[1:06:35] so, there are other ways to take

[1:06:39] care of this.

[1:06:40] further more mr. S. Says it will

[1:06:45] be pressure pines.

[1:06:48] well people don't even pick up

[1:06:51] after their animals.

[1:06:53] trash is all over.

[1:06:54] who is going to maintain this.

[1:06:56] the pines will be destroyed

[1:06:58] immediately.

[1:06:59] I have been in the property

[1:07:00] management business for 50

[1:07:02] years.

[1:07:03] I have been on development teams

[1:07:05] for cabazon, loma colorado, high

[1:07:12] range and numerous others.

[1:07:14] I have sat in one of those

[1:07:16] chairs.

[1:07:17] I don't think it's time to

[1:07:18] recommend this to the governing

[1:07:22] body.

[1:07:23] by which the mayor has written a

[1:07:24] proclamation of approval.

[1:07:26] so I request the p&z postpone

[1:07:36] this for another meeting.

[1:07:38] let all of these people have a

[1:07:40] chance to digest this.

[1:07:44] so, I'm done with that.

[1:07:46] but open space is really

[1:07:47] important.

[1:07:48] the funding and maintenance

[1:07:50] there of is --

[1:07:51] >> I will ask you to wrap it up.

[1:07:53] >> can I drop the mic.

[1:07:55] >> please.

[1:07:57] thank you for your comments.

[1:08:00] >> jack autry.

[1:08:12] >> good evening, ladies and

[1:08:13] gentlemen.

[1:08:14] my name is jack autry.

[1:08:15] I live at 3445calle s.

[1:08:21] over 20 years ago we bought the

[1:08:23] property at a premium.

[1:08:24] it was a golf course in our back

[1:08:27] yard.

[1:08:28] since then we have lost tens of

[1:08:29] thousands of dollars.

[1:08:30] now it's a dust pit.

[1:08:32] okay.

[1:08:33] very important there are dozens

[1:08:37] and dozens of kids that live on

[1:08:40] our street.

[1:08:41] I can't imagine that the traffic

[1:08:43] that will go up and down our

[1:08:45] street, kids even shoot

[1:08:47] basketballs on our street.

[1:08:49] the next thing is someone

[1:08:51] mentioned dust.

[1:08:52] we can't even sit on our back

[1:08:55] porch and enjoy the dirt lot

[1:08:57] because of the dust that covers

[1:09:00] evening that we sit on, we have

[1:09:01] to wipe it off every day.

[1:09:03] if we open our sliding doors our

[1:09:06] house has to be dusted every

[1:09:08] day.

[1:09:09] that's are not what we paid a

[1:09:11] premium for.

[1:09:12] it's just embarrassing.

[1:09:13] I'm a ex developer.

[1:09:15] I understand the gentleman's

[1:09:18] problems.

[1:09:19] we're not getting what we paid

[1:09:21] for.

[1:09:22] I don't know how much we have

[1:09:23] lost since we have lived there

[1:09:25] over 20 years.

[1:09:27] think my two minutes is about

[1:09:29] up.

[1:09:30] >> thank you, sir.

[1:09:31] appreciate your comments.

[1:09:32] >> daniel g.

[1:09:38] >> good evening chair and board

[1:09:46] members.

[1:09:47] my name is daniel g.

[1:09:48] I represent the north nine

[1:09:50] neighborhood association.

[1:09:52] 210 home owners in an area of

[1:09:55] a -- east view open space.

[1:09:59] represent a large group of

[1:10:01] impacted residents would you

[1:10:03] permit me to speak for five

[1:10:05] minutes.

[1:10:06] >> you have two minutes.

[1:10:07] >> okay.

[1:10:08] thank you.

[1:10:09] I would like to first opt, start

[1:10:12] off I appreciate the time and

[1:10:15] effort planning staff has put

[1:10:17] into the process.

[1:10:18] my client is open to the master

[1:10:21] plan and concept.

[1:10:22] however my client opposes the

[1:10:26] master plan with several key

[1:10:28] concerns with the current draft

[1:10:31] of the master plan.

[1:10:32] particularly the long term

[1:10:34] preservation and east view

[1:10:36] heights open space.

[1:10:37] my client's primary concern is

[1:10:39] the plan lacks east view heights

[1:10:45] area is actually preserved and

[1:10:48] maintained overtime.

[1:10:49] the applicants proposed

[1:10:51] 400,000-dollar bond has been

[1:10:53] flagged as inadequate in prior

[1:10:56] e-mails and comments.

[1:10:57] my client agrees with that. The

[1:11:00] proposed bond amount covers

[1:11:02] infrastructure and not

[1:11:04] maintenance.

[1:11:05] $400,000 may not be enough to

[1:11:07] cover improvements themselves

[1:11:09] let alone maintenance.

[1:11:10] it doesn't appear the concerns

[1:11:12] have been addressed in the

[1:11:13] proposed version of the master

[1:11:15] plan before you today.

[1:11:16] there is no clear mechanism to

[1:11:18] insure a well funded hoa for

[1:11:21] future maintenance.

[1:11:23] second the proposed ordinance

[1:11:24] requires the developer to

[1:11:26] identify a responsibility entity

[1:11:30] before lot sales.

[1:11:31] that's a private transaction.

[1:11:33] this lack of enforcement kicks

[1:11:36] the can down the road and risks

[1:11:38] leaving the city and

[1:11:40] neighborhoods with neglected

[1:11:42] unfunded open space.

[1:11:43] these concerns are not new.

[1:11:45] similar issues contribute to the

[1:11:48] denial of a prior master plan

[1:11:50] application in 2020.

[1:11:52] at that time the board found the

[1:11:54] explanation of open space as

[1:11:57] inadequate.

[1:11:58] to help address the issues we

[1:12:00] have several targeted segments

[1:12:03] in the written submission you

[1:12:05] should have a copy of.

[1:12:07] thank you.

[1:12:08] >> thank you for your comments.

[1:12:09] >> pamela layer is.

[1:12:24] >> good evening pamela harris,

[1:12:28] 692.

[1:12:30] I live in chamisa greens.

[1:12:36] behind my house is a drainage

[1:12:38] ditch.

[1:12:40] the chamisa greens owns that and

[1:12:45] gave it to the city.

[1:12:46] they have a proposal that

[1:12:48] they're going to use that as a

[1:12:50] ingress and egress.

[1:12:53] they don't own all of that.

[1:12:55] they only have a small portion

[1:12:57] of it as a roadway.

[1:12:58] the city owns another part of

[1:13:00] that. Also has scafta done a

[1:13:04] research on the drainage ditch

[1:13:09] that is behind there.

[1:13:11] it was zoned for the properties

[1:13:13] that are already there.

[1:13:14] so I didn't see that on the

[1:13:16] master plan.

[1:13:17] has a traffic study been done, I

[1:13:25] don't know I haven't seen it is

[1:13:31] what about the overload of the

[1:13:32] streets and the schools.

[1:13:33] there is no plan for any schools

[1:13:35] or anything coming through here.

[1:13:38] I really think we need to not

[1:13:41] okay this plan.

[1:13:43] in my opinion.

[1:13:44] thank you.

[1:13:45] >> thank you for your comments.

[1:13:47] >> oh, by the way the sign that

[1:13:51] the people put up on the, to

[1:13:55] notify us on street was behind

[1:13:58] trees, on a fence.

[1:14:07] >> howard ballmer.

[1:14:11] >> I don't think he wants to

[1:14:14] speak.

[1:14:15] that could be a first, howard.

[1:14:19] >> michael c.

[1:14:25] >> michael p.

[1:14:53] I live on st. Andrews drive.

[1:14:56] the former -- golf course.

[1:14:59] I'm here to express my

[1:15:00] opposition to the proposed

[1:15:03] zoning change to the chamisa

[1:15:07] hills golf course.

[1:15:09] this is zoned for a golf course

[1:15:11] or park.

[1:15:13] the property has not been

[1:15:15] maintained.

[1:15:17] I have two complaints to code

[1:15:21] enforcement about the height of

[1:15:23] weeds being non compliance and

[1:15:26] no action taken by the city or

[1:15:29] owner of the former golf course.

[1:15:32] due to the negligence of these

[1:15:36] two parts there are tens of

[1:15:38] thousands of tumbleweeds

[1:15:40] creating havoc to adjacent

[1:15:43] properties.

[1:15:44] this could of been easily

[1:15:45] avoided with maintenance of the

[1:15:48] land.

[1:15:49] recent wind storms I have

[1:15:51] numerous tumbling weeds and

[1:15:53] woodie weeds in my back yard I

[1:15:55] have to dispose of.

[1:15:56] rather than managing the land as

[1:16:00] a golf course or park the city

[1:16:02] of rio rancho has let the land

[1:16:04] become a baron waste land.

[1:16:08] from my understanding the flood

[1:16:10] authority has not evaluated the

[1:16:13] proposed zoning change.

[1:16:14] this meeting is entirely

[1:16:17] premature.

[1:16:18] the only reason this is being

[1:16:23] considered is greed.

[1:16:28] -- cramming in houses adjacent

[1:16:31] to our r1 lots.

[1:16:33] the city of rio rancho will

[1:16:35] profit by assessing impact fees

[1:16:38] to these lots.

[1:16:40] the open space designation has

[1:16:43] not been shown any plans for

[1:16:45] improvements.

[1:16:47] home owners can only assume it

[1:16:49] will be weed infested with no

[1:16:53] maintenance or repercussions

[1:16:55] from code enforcement.

[1:16:57] in summary there should be no

[1:17:00] zone change permitted

[1:17:02] especially -- cfa.

[1:17:04] adjacent property owners have

[1:17:06] seen their property valuation

[1:17:10] decline due to the closure of

[1:17:11] the golf course.

[1:17:12] do not allow further devaluation

[1:17:16] permitting r3, r4, mua, c1

[1:17:21] lots --

[1:17:22] >> I will ask to you wrap it up.

[1:17:24] >> -- current property.

[1:17:27] >> thank you, sir.

[1:17:28] >> mike lindel.

[1:17:37] >> evening, mike lindel, agusta

[1:17:44] drive.

[1:17:45] I have several issues.

[1:17:46] I'm narrowing it down.

[1:17:47] traffic, there will be highways.

[1:17:51] right now my five-year-old son

[1:17:53] and I use the park at the bottom

[1:17:56] of calle s.

[1:17:59] kids play baseball and soccer.

[1:18:01] there will be too much traffic

[1:18:03] to consider with all of the

[1:18:04] brand new homes.

[1:18:05] most importantly the schools,

[1:18:07] the capacity, I had a niece and

[1:18:11] nephew just graduate from rio

[1:18:14] rancho high school they're 30-1

[1:18:19] in general studies right now.

[1:18:21] the teachers are overwhelmed.

[1:18:24] it will only make things worst

[1:18:26] with the new homes going in.

[1:18:28] lastly I will make this brief.

[1:18:30] I want to get through it all but

[1:18:32] the visibility in our yards.

[1:18:34] I have a two foot high wall.

[1:18:37] no privacy, no security.

[1:18:39] who knows, these are pretty

[1:18:42] plans.

[1:18:43] who knows when these turn into

[1:18:44] low income housing.

[1:18:47] security and crime rates become

[1:18:51] a issue.

[1:18:52] like I said I have a five year

[1:18:55] old son to worry about. I think

[1:18:57] the yeas and nays here are

[1:19:00] telling how we all feel.

[1:19:02] alright.

[1:19:03] thank you.

[1:19:04] >> thank you for your comments.

[1:19:05] >> cat farwa.

[1:19:25] >> good evening.

[1:19:26] my name is cat I live at 3601

[1:19:30] st. Andrews.

[1:19:31] I completely oppose to this

[1:19:34] master plan.

[1:19:41] I was not notified about the

[1:19:43] meeting until a friend told me.

[1:19:44] I wanted to thank the person who

[1:19:46] actually sent me a letter to my

[1:19:49] residence.

[1:19:50] I don't know who it is.

[1:19:52] agree with everything they say.

[1:19:53] this plan is a disaster in the

[1:19:55] making.

[1:19:56] the increased traffic,

[1:19:58] congestion, noise alone will be

[1:20:00] disruptive to our quality of

[1:20:02] life.

[1:20:03] adjacent property taxes will

[1:20:05] drop.

[1:20:06] initially when the community was

[1:20:07] built in the early 70s it was

[1:20:09] around a golf course.

[1:20:10] providing much open space.

[1:20:12] today it's not practical to

[1:20:14] continue with a golf course.

[1:20:16] it shouldn't be replaced with

[1:20:19] higher dense commercial

[1:20:20] activity.

[1:20:21] instead the open space zoning

[1:20:23] should be maintained.

[1:20:25] there are alternate uses for the

[1:20:28] property.

[1:20:29] tennis courts, driving range.

[1:20:31] lots of options.

[1:20:32] what is proposed in the master

[1:20:35] plan is to bring millions of

[1:20:37] dollars to profit steve chavez

[1:20:41] at the detriment to our

[1:20:42] community.

[1:20:43] I want to thank the person that

[1:20:45] sent this letter.

[1:20:46] that's why I'm here today.

[1:20:47] I bought that property thinking

[1:20:49] we didn't have an hoa.

[1:20:51] I don't want an hoa there.

[1:20:53] are a lot of changes that will

[1:20:55] happen.

[1:20:56] I couldn't sit still and not say

[1:20:58] anything.

[1:20:59] I oppose this plan.

[1:21:00] I want you to think about it.

[1:21:02] traffic, sewage, water,

[1:21:03] electricity, all of the

[1:21:04] emergency items that everyone

[1:21:06] else has been speak ing about

[1:21:08] that will be congested.

[1:21:10] it will also take time to get in

[1:21:13] those places.

[1:21:14] also I feel for my neighbors.

[1:21:16] the ones not here tonight

[1:21:18] because they didn't get a

[1:21:19] letter.

[1:21:20] I didn't get a certified letter.

[1:21:21] I would like a list of the

[1:21:23] letters that went out certified

[1:21:24] or even first class mail.

[1:21:27] thank you.

[1:21:28] >> thank you for your comments.

[1:21:31] >> mark s.

[1:22:04] >> thank you for the time to

[1:22:05] speak.

[1:22:06] my name is mark s.

[1:22:07] I live on calle -- and my

[1:22:11] property backs onto the golf

[1:22:13] course.

[1:22:15] I did get a letter from the city

[1:22:17] of course it was addressed to

[1:22:19] the previous owners.

[1:22:20] I have lived there for seven

[1:22:22] years.

[1:22:23] I have no problem getting my

[1:22:25] alarm bill from the city or

[1:22:26] water bill from the city.

[1:22:28] I don't understand why they

[1:22:30] can't get my name right on the

[1:22:32] notification.

[1:22:33] one thing that concerns me about

[1:22:36] this project.

[1:22:37] the history is each time we come

[1:22:40] down here, there is a new

[1:22:42] proposal to increase the amount

[1:22:44] of land being built.

[1:22:48] what started out simple under

[1:22:50] the original plan that I think a

[1:22:52] lot of people agreed with has

[1:22:55] now been over blown.

[1:22:57] we have commercial zones.

[1:23:01] it's just gotten crazy.

[1:23:03] I also don't agree with the pid.

[1:23:07] I'm not going to be taxed to

[1:23:08] subsidize a developer who is

[1:23:11] going to ultimately lower my

[1:23:14] property values.

[1:23:15] traffic issues.

[1:23:20] there is no concrete traffic

[1:23:22] plan at this point.

[1:23:23] I'm certain with what I'm

[1:23:25] looking at that this will become

[1:23:28] a freeway.

[1:23:32] that is not acceptable to me or

[1:23:34] I'm sure the neighborhood.

[1:23:35] the commercial developments seem

[1:23:39] odd to put in medical offices

[1:23:41] and a pharmacy.

[1:23:42] we have presbyterian and wall

[1:23:45] greens and cvs in walking

[1:23:48] distance.

[1:23:49] the plan lacks details.

[1:23:50] no concrete plans for open space

[1:23:52] management or ownership.

[1:23:55] it's empty promises.

[1:23:58] you can't approve plans with the

[1:24:00] vague details.

[1:24:03] too many details are being

[1:24:05] deferred to the individual

[1:24:06] projects or developer.

[1:24:09] right now the developer has

[1:24:10] never talked to me.

[1:24:12] I will wrap it up here.

[1:24:16] it just seems that there is no

[1:24:18] concerns for the existing

[1:24:21] neighborhood.

[1:24:22] there is only focus on the grand

[1:24:24] plan.

[1:24:30] >> thank you for your comments.

[1:24:32] >> sandra moore.

[1:24:53] >> my name is sapped era moore.

[1:24:55] I live in district four.

[1:24:57] I would like to know what the

[1:24:59] videos and cameras are used for

[1:25:02] before we go ahead.

[1:25:05] okay.

[1:25:06] which media?

[1:25:09] the name.

[1:25:10] okay.

[1:25:11] thank you for that.

[1:25:12] so I'm in district four.

[1:25:15] I'm here to oppose the plan as

[1:25:18] the previous gentleman said

[1:25:20] there is not a lot of detail,

[1:25:21] it's vague.

[1:25:22] I don't feel we should push this

[1:25:25] forward.

[1:25:26] for my perspective this is to be

[1:25:28] a walkable community.

[1:25:29] the traffic has increased since

[1:25:31] I have been here three years.

[1:25:32] I have almost been hit three

[1:25:36] times walking on east lake.

[1:25:38] increased traffic for people

[1:25:39] going to work.

[1:25:40] there is no plan on road

[1:25:42] maintenance.

[1:25:44] I haven't seen who will pay for

[1:25:45] that. I don't want to pay for

[1:25:47] that. My property taxes have

[1:25:49] already increased.

[1:25:50] the roads for st. Andrews have

[1:25:53] been paveed.

[1:25:54] torrey pines and -- has not.

[1:25:56] this doesn't give me faith on

[1:25:58] who is paying for the road

[1:26:01] maintenance.

[1:26:02] I will yield my time to someone

[1:26:05] else.

[1:26:06] thank you.

[1:26:09] >> john spire.

[1:26:27] >> hello my name is john spire.

[1:26:29] my wife and I live in district

[1:26:32] four, torrey pines.

[1:26:33] like a number of speakers we

[1:26:35] have some serious concerns about

[1:26:36] this plan.

[1:26:37] especially the nueva e. Hoa of

[1:26:47] this plan.

[1:26:48] 84 town houses.

[1:26:50] adding to traffic of over 200

[1:26:52] new working age residents to our

[1:26:55] quiet east lake drive will

[1:26:58] clearly impose a severe hardship

[1:27:01] to our neighborhood.

[1:27:02] even bigger problem is that the

[1:27:05] southern exposure or access to

[1:27:10] st. Andrews is denied.

[1:27:12] the plan calls for making the

[1:27:14] emergency access through the old

[1:27:17] east golf course extend all the

[1:27:20] way from the old club house to

[1:27:22] east lake.

[1:27:23] that will be a disaster.

[1:27:29] there is no sidewalks in the

[1:27:33] heights.

[1:27:34] we walk our dogs and the

[1:27:36] children play in our streets.

[1:27:38] if you're not familiar, I

[1:27:40] presume you r the east end of

[1:27:43] east lake drive is just a short

[1:27:45] road that has room for about 12

[1:27:48] cars to wait at the red light

[1:27:51] before traffic starts to back

[1:27:53] up, around the corners and

[1:27:54] through the stop signs.

[1:27:56] this already happens.

[1:27:58] the way things are now.

[1:27:59] there is no way to make that

[1:28:01] road bigger.

[1:28:02] so we already have a hazardous

[1:28:09] situation at the corner,

[1:28:12] especially for pedestrians and

[1:28:14] cyclists.

[1:28:18] please don't make the situation

[1:28:20] worst than it already is.

[1:28:22] thank you, very much.

[1:28:24] >> thank you for your comments.

[1:28:27] >> holly hartwig.

[1:28:47] >> my name is holly hartwig I

[1:28:50] live in district four.

[1:28:52] I would just like to say a few

[1:28:53] things.

[1:28:54] it would be really nice if we

[1:28:56] were notified by mail, I have

[1:28:59] lots of friends and older

[1:29:01] neighbors without computers and

[1:29:03] don't walk the golf course.

[1:29:06] none have been informed.

[1:29:09] even people in the islands.

[1:29:11] it would be nice to be informed

[1:29:12] by mail so people that can't

[1:29:14] walk and go to the places can

[1:29:16] see that.

[1:29:17] how we were informed was a

[1:29:19] yellow sign by my husband seeing

[1:29:22] the yellow sign on the edge of

[1:29:24] the golf course or we wouldn't

[1:29:26] know that and our neighbors

[1:29:28] didn't know about it.

[1:29:30] the other thing it's difficult

[1:29:33] to find the master plan on our

[1:29:36] gov website.

[1:29:38] that would be nice if that was

[1:29:40] easier to find it I hope you can

[1:29:42] make changes.

[1:29:44] I had to call and ask.

[1:29:45] I called the library on how to

[1:29:49] find it that was another

[1:29:50] concern.

[1:29:51] my other concern as many people

[1:29:52] here have said about the safety

[1:29:54] of the walkers and the children

[1:29:56] who play in the street in our

[1:29:58] neighborhood.

[1:29:59] with more traffic coming to east

[1:30:01] lake drive a few years ago a

[1:30:04] woman was killed on that corner.

[1:30:06] I don't want to see children

[1:30:07] killed because of more traffic.

[1:30:11] >> thank you for your comments.

[1:30:13] >> I will lay the microphone

[1:30:16] here so it's easier for people

[1:30:18] and quicker.

[1:30:19] >> thank you.

[1:30:21] >> paul c.

[1:30:35] >> mr. Chairman, commissioners

[1:30:37] my name is paul c.

[1:30:39] I'm kind of new to rio rancho.

[1:30:42] I have only lived here since

[1:30:44] 1972.

[1:30:45] the bottom line is I live in

[1:30:47] district 5.

[1:30:49] I own property at the greens

[1:30:51] condominium on country club.

[1:30:54] besides that I'm the vice

[1:30:55] president of the property

[1:30:57] management company that manages

[1:30:59] the greens.

[1:31:00] we take care of the association.

[1:31:02] we take care of the grounds

[1:31:03] keeping and maintenance.

[1:31:05] bottom line is we have faced

[1:31:07] this problem since the golf

[1:31:10] course closed.

[1:31:11] you talk about responsibility

[1:31:13] from a developer not only this

[1:31:15] developer but the one prior to

[1:31:17] him.

[1:31:18] we have approximately an eighth

[1:31:22] and a quarter of our mile up

[1:31:24] against the west nine.

[1:31:26] we have had $70,000 of

[1:31:29] landscaping damage done in the

[1:31:32] past two years.

[1:31:33] $70,000.

[1:31:37] we weren't notified.

[1:31:38] I understand a quarter of a mile

[1:31:40] isn't a big stretch.

[1:31:41] there isn't a sign out there

[1:31:42] about this meeting.

[1:31:44] there is no notification.

[1:31:46] there are 204 condominiums.

[1:31:49] you did not even give us the

[1:31:51] courtesy of listing us on our

[1:31:53] list of associations you put up

[1:31:55] there.

[1:31:56] we are 204 condos.

[1:31:59] that's probably I don't know

[1:32:01] four or five hundred voters.

[1:32:03] bottom line is we are your

[1:32:05] citizens and you answer to us.

[1:32:08] why don't you start asking us

[1:32:11] what the city can do for us

[1:32:13] instead what had the city can do

[1:32:14] to us.

[1:32:15] this is a bad idea.

[1:32:17] gentlemen, we're pretty

[1:32:19] hospitable people in rio rancho.

[1:32:23] you know what, you're not

[1:32:24] welcome.

[1:32:25] we don't want.

[1:32:27] this we want something done

[1:32:28] where we're protected.

[1:32:30] our property is protected.

[1:32:32] where our invest ment in the

[1:32:33] community is protected.

[1:32:35] a lot of us have a lot of money

[1:32:37] invested in our homes and

[1:32:38] properties.

[1:32:39] it's up to you guys to protect

[1:32:41] us.

[1:32:42] thank you.

[1:32:43] >> thank you for your comments.

[1:32:44] >> is ruby c.

[1:32:49] >> should of let her go first

[1:32:52] she is nicer than me.

[1:32:58] >> I'm ruby c.

[1:33:00] I live in district five.

[1:33:03] own numerous properties in

[1:33:04] district four.

[1:33:05] I have been the property manager

[1:33:07] of country club villas, if you

[1:33:11] want to take a note of, that

[1:33:12] it's been in existence since

[1:33:15] 1983.

[1:33:16] I have been there the whole

[1:33:17] time.

[1:33:18] we're not new.

[1:33:20] a few things.

[1:33:24] no one that I am aware of on the

[1:33:28] property known as the greens

[1:33:30] legally known as country club

[1:33:33] villas has been notified of this

[1:33:35] meeting.

[1:33:38] I own several properties there.

[1:33:40] tax bills, I got them.

[1:33:44] not one notice.

[1:33:45] I hr-ts run an office there on

[1:33:48] the property.

[1:33:50] not one letter.

[1:33:52] so it's not just a couple that

[1:33:56] slipped through the cracks.

[1:33:58] see, I can understand, I have

[1:34:01] been in real estate more years

[1:34:04] than some of you have been

[1:34:05] alive.

[1:34:06] I understand the problems of

[1:34:10] trying to develop something that

[1:34:12] was basically land locked

[1:34:14] because it was meant to be a

[1:34:20] golf course from the envisioning

[1:34:22] people that created rio rancho.

[1:34:24] however, you need to find

[1:34:25] someone or if you have a

[1:34:27] developer who here that wants to

[1:34:29] develop they can't do this type

[1:34:31] of density.

[1:34:34] I did a couple of years ago when

[1:34:38] this was brought up by scars

[1:34:41] guard I sent over a market

[1:34:45] analysis between unit 16 and

[1:34:51] chamisa hills or chamisa -- one

[1:34:55] of the developments that is very

[1:34:57] nice here.

[1:34:58] if you offer more land and you

[1:35:03] don't make it so dense you can

[1:35:06] get more for your dollar.

[1:35:09] the city can not afford the

[1:35:12] water, the roads, public safety,

[1:35:22] or the schools.

[1:35:24] number one, you know I have

[1:35:28] lived my whole life in rio

[1:35:30] rancho or new mexico in the

[1:35:32] albuquerque area.

[1:35:35] open space grows a heck of a lot

[1:35:38] of weeds.

[1:35:39] you guys don't take care of

[1:35:41] cement.

[1:35:42] I don't think you will take care

[1:35:43] of the weeds.

[1:35:44] >> I will ask you to wrap up.

[1:35:46] >> I have had people call our

[1:35:48] maintenance crews, fire hazards

[1:35:50] from the weeds that have been

[1:35:52] blown into entrances.

[1:35:55] we had to --

[1:35:57] >> your time is up.

[1:35:58] >> -- we had to remove them with

[1:36:01] pitch forks to get people out of

[1:36:04] their homes.

[1:36:05] the city can not afford.

[1:36:06] this.

[1:36:07] >> thank you for your comments.

[1:36:11] >> debora west.

[1:36:30] >> state your name for the

[1:36:32] record, please.

[1:36:33] >> debora west.

[1:36:34] panorama heights east of

[1:36:38] st. Andrews area.

[1:36:39] I want to recognize this has

[1:36:41] been long and complicated and

[1:36:44] pretentious for this land.

[1:36:48] it doesn't appear this area was

[1:36:51] engaged as the other hoas and

[1:36:54] many hoas were not engaged in

[1:36:57] these ways.

[1:36:58] we were not on the list despite

[1:37:01] 70% of our boarders were

[1:37:04] effected.

[1:37:05] internally we will be affected

[1:37:07] as well with major traffic

[1:37:10] proposed to our streets.

[1:37:11] -- this is already overburdened.

[1:37:24] it's an exit for a neighborhood.

[1:37:26] it serves at 528 adjacent

[1:37:30] businesses like natural grocers

[1:37:32] years and concerns of traffic on

[1:37:34] east lake have been raised prior

[1:37:37] to the plan and this would

[1:37:39] worsen the problem.

[1:37:44] we were built out sidewalks.

[1:37:45] we have adapted and embraced

[1:37:47] that.

[1:37:48] but it seize regular pedestrian

[1:37:51] use especially east lake with a

[1:37:54] school bus.

[1:37:55] seniors and others walking to

[1:37:57] target and the hospital, natural

[1:38:00] gross years, starbucks, it's

[1:38:03] used as pedestrians.

[1:38:05] it's the only option.

[1:38:07] no sidewalks.

[1:38:08] increased vehicle traffic is not

[1:38:10] justin convenience it's

[1:38:11] dangerous.

[1:38:12] I think that the plan needs more

[1:38:14] development.

[1:38:15] think it needs more

[1:38:16] consideration before any sort of

[1:38:17] approval takes place for the

[1:38:19] plan or zoning changes.

[1:38:20] under no circumstances should

[1:38:22] existing neighborhoods absorb

[1:38:25] internal changes and internal

[1:38:27] effects that should be off the

[1:38:29] table.

[1:38:50] >> thank you for your comments.

[1:38:52] >> -- ramirez.

[1:38:54] >> -- ramirez.

[1:38:57] 503 st. Andrews.

[1:39:00] I lived in albuquerque.

[1:39:05] it got worst and worst.

[1:39:07] looking for somewhere better to

[1:39:09] live.

[1:39:10] my wife and my mother-in-law

[1:39:11] went home to be with the lord.

[1:39:14] we still have the house.

[1:39:15] we love it.

[1:39:16] I like it because it's quiet and

[1:39:18] peaceful.

[1:39:20] family orientated, everyone is

[1:39:23] polite.

[1:39:24] it's the best place I have ever

[1:39:25] lived.

[1:39:26] I feel that, well, they're going

[1:39:28] to do this I told my wife, we're

[1:39:33] moving.

[1:39:34] y'all can have it.

[1:39:36] >> thank you for your comments.

[1:39:40] >> ophelia shaw.

[1:40:01] >> hi.

[1:40:04] my name is ophelia shaw.

[1:40:07] I am against putting housing or

[1:40:16] commercial space around the golf

[1:40:18] course.

[1:40:19] I live here 20 years.

[1:40:21] okay.

[1:40:23] my concern is if you allow this

[1:40:30] to happen we may have traffic

[1:40:33] issues, crime issues, home

[1:40:36] invasion issues.

[1:40:38] are you going to protect us, the

[1:40:41] people who live here in rio

[1:40:43] rancho for awful these years.

[1:40:45] you are going to put apartments,

[1:40:47] low income housing because the

[1:40:50] owner wants to make money.

[1:40:53] he doesn't give a -- our safety.

[1:40:58] okay.

[1:40:59] I want the city people to put

[1:41:01] serious consideration on this

[1:41:05] issue.

[1:41:07] this is my second time for the

[1:41:10] meeting.

[1:41:11] I show my support, and I show my

[1:41:15] face.

[1:41:18] I don't do the talking on the

[1:41:21] computer.

[1:41:22] okay.

[1:41:23] I really, really wish city would

[1:41:25] put consideration on the safety

[1:41:28] of the people who live here.

[1:41:31] thank you.

[1:41:32] >> thank you for your comments.

[1:41:36] >> sue p.

[1:41:38] >> I can't see -- I'm sue p.

[1:42:18] I want to quote the plan.

[1:42:20] it's for the safety and general

[1:42:22] welfare of the city providing

[1:42:24] housing and landscape

[1:42:25] improvements to meet community

[1:42:27] needs.

[1:42:28] well I'm at the esplanade.

[1:42:32] I have heard from people at the

[1:42:37] golf course.

[1:42:38] this is a community.

[1:42:39] we have country club drive and

[1:42:41] st. Andrews drive.

[1:42:42] there is a major issue for us

[1:42:47] with traffic and congestion.

[1:42:50] a couple of years ago the city

[1:42:52] was asked for about six acres of

[1:42:54] mixed use.

[1:42:55] I thought that was generous.

[1:42:57] this is for 18 acres at the top

[1:43:00] of the hill and 6 acres at the

[1:43:02] bottom of the hill.

[1:43:03] it's an obtrusive ask.

[1:43:15] -- I don't know how we can do

[1:43:18] it.

[1:43:19] I don't agree with this plan the

[1:43:21] way it's written.

[1:43:22] I think it's poorly written.

[1:43:24] they leave out a lot.

[1:43:25] they talk about on page 62 multi

[1:43:28] story buildings are encouraged

[1:43:31] up to three stories.

[1:43:32] now that was never approved by

[1:43:34] anyone I know of especially the

[1:43:36] single family homes they were

[1:43:37] suppose to design to not be more

[1:43:40] than a story.

[1:43:41] that's because we didn't want to

[1:43:42] obstruct peoples views.

[1:43:44] that's the major advantage of

[1:43:48] this place.

[1:43:49] the master plan also does,

[1:43:52] doesn't really specifically tell

[1:43:54] you about the multi, or the town

[1:43:57] houses, multi family.

[1:44:00] how many multi family homes will

[1:44:03] there be.

[1:44:04] different from the houses?

[1:44:05] senior housing.

[1:44:07] single story.

[1:44:08] single or multi story.

[1:44:09] all of these are left for us to

[1:44:11] guess.

[1:44:13] on page 15 they don't tell you

[1:44:15] the access roads.

[1:44:17] being off of country club drive,

[1:44:19] sorry that was a major issue.

[1:44:21] I think this is poorly written.

[1:44:23] thank you for your time tonight.

[1:44:25] >> thank you for your comments.

[1:44:27] >> david shaw.

[1:44:42] [laughing]

[1:44:49] >> lisa medina.

[1:44:58] >> good evening my name is leis

[1:45:00] other medina.

[1:45:02] I live at 3708 spy glass loop.

[1:45:06] my house, my husband and I live

[1:45:07] in a house that is not budding

[1:45:10] up to the golf course.

[1:45:12] just looking at this information

[1:45:15] we can see -- I was not going to

[1:45:27] speak tonight but someone left

[1:45:29] information on our doorstep.

[1:45:31] like other people I wasn't too

[1:45:33] aware of the master plan that

[1:45:34] was going on but from my

[1:45:36] perspective I'm glad I got a

[1:45:38] chance to say something because

[1:45:40] it looks like a lot of it is

[1:45:44] based on someone from the

[1:45:45] outside looking in.

[1:45:47] not all of these people here

[1:45:48] from inside looking out.

[1:45:50] because we take pride in our

[1:45:52] neighborhood, where we live,

[1:45:54] like some of them said we have

[1:45:57] spent a lot of money on our

[1:45:59] homes.

[1:46:00] we live there because of what it

[1:46:01] is.

[1:46:02] by looking at this development

[1:46:03] coming in it's definitely going

[1:46:08] to change the dynamic and what

[1:46:09] we love about our neighborhoods.

[1:46:11] just living off of double

[1:46:13] diamond.

[1:46:14] that road if you go down it

[1:46:16] right now full of pot holes.

[1:46:18] pot holes that have been filled

[1:46:19] and filled and filled.

[1:46:21] I have lived there a few years

[1:46:23] not 20 or 30 years, three years.

[1:46:25] it's never been, it's never

[1:46:27] looking good.

[1:46:28] it's pot holes after filling pot

[1:46:30] holes.

[1:46:31] all of the traffic that will

[1:46:32] come in I just don't understand

[1:46:34] where the money will come from

[1:46:36] to accommodate all of the

[1:46:38] traffic and all of the new homes

[1:46:39] and the retail.

[1:46:41] I just don't understand where

[1:46:42] it's coming from.

[1:46:43] then they said they want to

[1:46:46] implement a pid or hoa will pay

[1:46:50] for it.

[1:46:52] when are we going to be notified

[1:46:54] how that affects us and impacts

[1:46:57] us.

[1:46:58] I just think, my opinion is

[1:46:59] maybe look at this in a

[1:47:01] different angle.

[1:47:02] you know push it out a little

[1:47:04] bit more.

[1:47:05] have another meeting.

[1:47:08] >> thank you for your comments.

[1:47:12] >> is florence cunningham.

[1:47:29] >> hi I'm florence cunningham.

[1:47:31] I'm a resident of the heights.

[1:47:34] my parents and I live on

[1:47:36] st. Andrews.

[1:47:37] they are, our house sits on the

[1:47:40] golf course.

[1:47:41] I'm the current art commissioner

[1:47:43] of district four.

[1:47:44] I earned my position reading the

[1:47:47] rio rancho observer.

[1:47:51] I want to announce the

[1:47:53] disrespect posting the

[1:47:56] albuquerque journal when we have

[1:47:58] our own payer.

[1:47:59] in 2020 there was a unanimous

[1:48:03] vote not to change the golf

[1:48:04] course.

[1:48:05] based on the current city census

[1:48:07] there are 114811 residents.

[1:48:13] since we're talking about the

[1:48:16] pid I would like to acknowledge

[1:48:18] that is a one time income for

[1:48:20] the city.

[1:48:21] the whole city would be affected

[1:48:23] on 528.

[1:48:25] income adjusted by the proposed

[1:48:28] plan a good propositions would

[1:48:30] be that the city residents buy

[1:48:35] 400,000-dollar bond to come out

[1:48:39] to $3.48.

[1:48:44] >> thank you for your comments.

[1:48:46] >> lastly we have barbara

[1:48:48] cheney.

[1:49:13] >> right up to the podium, right

[1:49:16] there.

[1:49:20] >> I'm not familiar.

[1:49:21] hi I'm barbara cheney.

[1:49:23] my residents is 3592calles.

[1:49:28] I have been sitting in the other

[1:49:30] room.

[1:49:31] I look at these two empty chairs

[1:49:33] here.

[1:49:34] I notice one of the empty chairs

[1:49:35] is robert galbeldon.

[1:49:42] oh, yes in the heart where the

[1:49:44] golf course is located.

[1:49:46] I wonder where is he?

[1:49:47] is he too busy?

[1:49:49] he's not concerned or he doesn't

[1:49:52] want his vote to be recorded?

[1:49:54] that's my secret feeling.

[1:49:55] he doesn't want to be here to

[1:49:57] have it recorded.

[1:50:00] my question is about the master

[1:50:01] hoa.

[1:50:03] so we talk about this kind of,

[1:50:06] what is it called like a

[1:50:08] dream -- ambiguous master plan.

[1:50:13] what is the master hoa?

[1:50:15] will it incorporate all of the

[1:50:17] hoas in the new development.

[1:50:21] are they going to bring in the

[1:50:22] hoas a budding the golf

[1:50:24] course?

[1:50:25] I wonder when the master hoa is

[1:50:28] created it will be owned by

[1:50:30] primarily by the developer or

[1:50:32] the developers that purchase

[1:50:35] from the developer until all of

[1:50:36] the lots are sold.

[1:50:37] does this hoa, this master hoa

[1:50:40] vote in a pid request?

[1:50:43] do they vote per lot?

[1:50:45] if that's true then all of the

[1:50:47] other lots including the poor

[1:50:50] souls buying in the new area

[1:50:52] they will be out voted every

[1:50:55] time by the master hoa.

[1:50:57] we have seen that happen.

[1:50:58] and I want to say too although

[1:51:01] you stated this is nearly an

[1:51:03] advisory commission we see it as

[1:51:06] a good time for a huge number of

[1:51:07] affected current tax payers and

[1:51:10] residents to ask for your help.

[1:51:13] there are clearly many critical

[1:51:16] problems with this proposal .

[1:51:18] to kick this to the advocating

[1:51:20] bod a, why does this commission

[1:51:24] exist if not to clarify the

[1:51:26] impact of this massive

[1:51:30] development?

[1:51:31] that's why you're here.

[1:51:33] I look at los ranchos.

[1:51:36] I think one of the commissioners

[1:51:39] here is familiar are loss ran

[1:51:41] choice.

[1:51:42] they fast tracked a big

[1:51:44] development.

[1:51:45] as that thing tarted to come up

[1:51:47] and the residents started to see

[1:51:49] what they got into --

[1:51:51] >> I will ask you to wrap it up.

[1:51:53] >> -- I will.

[1:51:55] they threw out the mayor.

[1:51:57] the p&z people, got rid of the

[1:51:59] board of trustees.

[1:52:01] they were upset.

[1:52:02] they didn't feel they had an

[1:52:03] idea what was coming down the

[1:52:05] road.

[1:52:06] I am saying we should pay

[1:52:07] attention to that. I think you

[1:52:09] should look at this carefully.

[1:52:11] >> wrap it up, please.

[1:52:12] >> I am.

[1:52:13] look at this carefully.

[1:52:15] please, please table it,

[1:52:17] reconsider this.

[1:52:22] [ applause ]

[1:52:32] >> that's all that signed up in

[1:52:34] the audience.

[1:52:35] I believe we have some that are

[1:52:37] on-line.

[1:52:38] >> no mr. Chair, we do not have

[1:52:40] anyone on-line that signed up to

[1:52:42] speak.

[1:52:43] >> okay.

[1:52:48] >> so at this time public

[1:52:52] comments is closed.

[1:52:55] we will go to discussion of the

[1:52:57] board.

[1:52:58] prior to going to discussion I

[1:52:59] think I would like to take about

[1:53:01] a eight minute break and come

[1:53:04] back at 8:00 o'clock.

[1:53:07] so this time we will recess

[1:53:09] until 8:00 o'clock.

[1:53:10] thank you.

[1:59:09] [in recess]

[2:03:17] >> thank you.

[2:03:18] thank you for the feedback.

[2:03:21] okay.

[2:03:22] soy did hear kind of in

[2:03:25] to clarify nothing has been

[2:03:36] approved at this point.

[2:03:37] regardless how we vote on the

[2:03:39] master plan approval tonight it

[2:03:42] goes to the governoring body.

[2:03:44] the governor body your elected

[2:03:46] officials will make the final

[2:03:47] decision.

[2:03:48] I thought that would be

[2:03:49] important to clarify.

[2:03:50] >> thank you.

[2:03:51] >> you know I think someone said

[2:03:55] maybe at best, we fully

[2:03:58] understand this is impacting a

[2:04:00] lot of individuals.

[2:04:02] there has been a lot of

[2:04:03] discussion.

[2:04:04] a lot of ideas over the years.

[2:04:06] I think as we have heard and the

[2:04:09] community has heard I highly

[2:04:12] doubt there will be a single

[2:04:14] solution that will make everyone

[2:04:16] happy at the end of the day.

[2:04:18] you know we have seen, in

[2:04:20] addition to the comments we

[2:04:21] heard this evening.

[2:04:23] we have had a packet of comments

[2:04:25] we read through before getting

[2:04:26] here tonight.

[2:04:27] you know there is a lot of we're

[2:04:29] tired of seeing the dirt.

[2:04:31] we're tired of the undesirable

[2:04:33] landscape and views.

[2:04:35] yes we wanted a golf course.

[2:04:38] now we have dirt and weeds.

[2:04:40] please do something with that.

[2:04:42] there is undesirable activity in

[2:04:44] these a dan donned, unpopulated

[2:04:47] areas.

[2:04:48] so we hear a side too that says

[2:04:50] please do something with this.

[2:04:52] then obviously hearing the site

[2:04:54] of, but not that.

[2:04:56] you know so just want to

[2:04:58] recognize you know that we hear,

[2:05:00] we hear everyone.

[2:05:02] this is a challenge, obviously.

[2:05:05] I again highly doubt there is

[2:05:07] singular solution for everyone

[2:05:10] to agree.

[2:05:11] if we said it's a golf course

[2:05:14] should not would be unhappy with

[2:05:15] the golf course.

[2:05:17] maybe not from this group.

[2:05:20] something I saw and heard and I

[2:05:30] have a question about.

[2:05:31] we heard some hoas were

[2:05:33] involved in some discussion and

[2:05:35] we have heard that there is some

[2:05:38] impact potentially to the

[2:05:40] hoas.

[2:05:42] possibly in the form of

[2:05:43] additional costs.

[2:05:44] is there a clarification we can

[2:05:46] have around that.

[2:05:47] as to engagement with the impact

[2:05:50] of hoas and any cost impact to

[2:05:54] them.

[2:05:55] >> so, thank you.

[2:05:56] commissioner hankins and

[2:06:02] chairman.

[2:06:03] I think there is misconceptions

[2:06:07] of the potential for the bid

[2:06:12] works that's a financial tool to

[2:06:15] help support the infrastructure

[2:06:17] development that is necessary in

[2:06:19] order to develop any of these

[2:06:20] properties.

[2:06:21] as somebody mentioned the

[2:06:25] challenge of developing

[2:06:29] abandoned fairways with new

[2:06:32] development is steep.

[2:06:36] so the pid is a tool.

[2:06:38] it's a tool we plan to explore

[2:06:40] to see if it's implemented.

[2:06:45] the existing home owners will

[2:06:47] not be part of the pid.

[2:06:49] it would apply to the new

[2:06:50] development areas and the new

[2:06:52] residents only.

[2:06:53] the hoas.

[2:06:55] the question about the master

[2:06:57] hoa.

[2:06:58] once again the job of the master

[2:07:00] hoa is a coordinated entity that

[2:07:03] oversees the individual

[2:07:05] neighborhood hoas to make sure

[2:07:07] that things like maintenance and

[2:07:10] the responsibilities for the

[2:07:12] development of the open space

[2:07:14] areas that are part of each

[2:07:17] individual neighborhoods

[2:07:18] responsibility are done in

[2:07:21] concert with one another.

[2:07:24] and they're done right.

[2:07:26] the, once again the hoas will

[2:07:29] be created for each of the

[2:07:31] individual neighborhoods.

[2:07:32] they will not involve any of the

[2:07:35] existing residents outside of

[2:07:37] the projects themselves.

[2:07:40] so once again, we're actively

[2:07:46] looking at the tools.

[2:07:48] there have been changes at the

[2:07:50] state level in terms of the laws

[2:07:52] related to tifs and how those

[2:07:56] work.

[2:08:04] harry welkin is on the call.

[2:08:09] he has done this a long time.

[2:08:11] we are actively looking at the

[2:08:14] different mechanisms.

[2:08:15] trying to ultimately, the reason

[2:08:17] I think there is a change

[2:08:18] between the previous master plan

[2:08:20] and this one is really a deep

[2:08:24] dive into making sure that

[2:08:26] financially the project can be

[2:08:31] sustainable.

[2:08:32] make the developments and are

[2:08:42] supported that are necessary and

[2:08:43] the open spaces.

[2:08:45] the trails.

[2:08:47] so we don't have the problem

[2:08:50] down the road that it doesn't

[2:08:52] work.

[2:08:53] so we have really spent a lot of

[2:08:55] time on that.

[2:08:56] ken murphy who is also on the

[2:08:58] call.

[2:08:59] his analysis is included in the

[2:09:01] appendixes.

[2:09:03] that really trying to make sure

[2:09:06] we understand how the economics

[2:09:08] work.

[2:09:09] make sure the project can

[2:09:10] sustain itself going forward.

[2:09:14] does that answer your question.

[2:09:15] >> yes, thank you.

[2:09:16] I appreciate.

[2:09:17] thank you, very much.

[2:09:24] >> ma'am, public comment is

[2:09:26] closed.

[2:09:33] >> this is the developer, the

[2:09:34] applicant.

[2:09:36] we're asking him the questions

[2:09:37] you all asked. I will ask,

[2:09:43] please.

[2:09:45] public comment is closed.

[2:09:50] >> okay.

[2:09:51] so the other question I do have

[2:09:53] is, I'm not sure if this is

[2:09:57] staff or the developer, both.

[2:09:58] we did hear that you are

[2:10:00] honoring a grievance and it

[2:10:05] appears to indicate a different

[2:10:07] zoning type than what is on the

[2:10:10] proposal.

[2:10:11] is there a reason why the zoning

[2:10:12] being proposed and the

[2:10:17] agreements differentiate?

[2:10:19] >> thank you for that question.

[2:10:22] as so the zoning proposal is

[2:10:39] inclusive r6, I'm sorry r3.

[2:10:43] really the plan is to develop

[2:10:45] single family detached housing

[2:10:47] in each of these neighborhoods.

[2:10:49] think it was also comments about

[2:10:52] designating the open space areas

[2:10:55] within the neighborhoods in

[2:10:56] addition as a finer layer.

[2:10:58] we are working to straddle both

[2:11:09] the zoning originally

[2:11:10] established with the last

[2:11:12] resolution that was r4 and r --

[2:11:18] think it was all r4 at that

[2:11:20] time.

[2:11:21] so combining a combination of r4

[2:11:24] and r3 but recognizing those

[2:11:28] agreements that you mentioned

[2:11:29] that basically so the west nine

[2:11:32] development is restricted to

[2:11:34] following the r1 standards.

[2:11:36] if this commission recommended

[2:11:38] that the west, I forget the

[2:11:42] names, they get mixed up.

[2:11:45] we will call it the west nine.

[2:11:47] you know what I'm talking about.

[2:11:49] if this commission wanted to

[2:11:52] recommend r1 zoning when we get

[2:11:55] to that section of the agenda we

[2:11:57] would be fine with that.

[2:11:59] we have agreed that would be

[2:12:01] developed with r1 standards.

[2:12:03] those houses will be single

[2:12:06] story, single access off

[2:12:08] broadmore and the 65-foot buffer

[2:12:11] around that.

[2:12:12] that is a non negotiable item.

[2:12:16] we will adhere to that and a

[2:12:22] bide by that.

[2:12:23] whatever the zoning is.

[2:12:25] that's part of the standards.

[2:12:26] >> thank you for that

[2:12:28] clarification.

[2:12:30] I will go ahead.

[2:12:34] >> think commissioner hardisty

[2:12:39] touched on my question about the

[2:12:41] pid and existing residents.

[2:12:43] thank you for that. I have a

[2:12:44] question, I don't know if this

[2:12:45] is for the staff.

[2:12:46] can you tell us why the master

[2:12:49] plan was denied previously in

[2:12:52] 2020 can you shed light on that

[2:12:54] and how this plan differs from

[2:12:59] the previous.

[2:13:00] >> commissioner chair hankins.

[2:13:05] >> I have to go back to the 2020

[2:13:08] for specifics.

[2:13:09] I think in general there has

[2:13:11] been staff lack of knowledge on

[2:13:13] the open space and how it would

[2:13:15] be maintained and plans for

[2:13:16] revegetation and things like

[2:13:18] that.

[2:13:19] that has been the consistent

[2:13:20] comment staff has had.

[2:13:22] I would have to look back at the

[2:13:24] abm in 2020 to go further into

[2:13:27] detail.

[2:13:28] >> okay.

[2:13:29] thank you.

[2:13:30] that's all I have.

[2:13:32] >> commissioners to my right.

[2:13:39] >> hi, jim.

[2:13:40] so, currently the golf course is

[2:13:45] zoned su for neighborhood

[2:13:48] development.

[2:13:49] is that correct as it currently

[2:13:52] stands.

[2:13:53] >> I believe it's su for planned

[2:13:54] residential development for the

[2:13:57] residential development areas is

[2:14:03] what it is at this time.

[2:14:05] no.

[2:14:07] did I get that wrong?

[2:14:09] >> it's not su for neighborhood

[2:14:12] development?

[2:14:15] >> so, mr. Chair the development

[2:14:18] is su for planned residential

[2:14:24] development.

[2:14:25] there was underlined uses for

[2:14:28] acreage for open space and

[2:14:32] commercial.

[2:14:33] >> there was open space in that

[2:14:34] plan.

[2:14:35] >> that's correct.

[2:14:36] >> I think there are concerns

[2:14:38] about the current plan as to the

[2:14:40] delineation of open space in the

[2:14:43] zones of the existing

[2:14:45] neighborhoods.

[2:14:47] would you, it looks like in the

[2:14:52] plans it looks like open space.

[2:14:55] it doesn't look like

[2:14:56] residential.

[2:14:57] are you consideration further,

[2:15:00] going into better detail about

[2:15:03] delineating the open space on

[2:15:08] your plan?

[2:15:11] >> so commissioner kofchur and

[2:15:16] mr. Chairman, the detailed plan,

[2:15:20] there are detailed plans for

[2:15:22] each neighborhood within the

[2:15:24] master plan.

[2:15:25] those do a more precise job with

[2:15:29] lay outs of the lot dimensions

[2:15:31] and areas as well as the open

[2:15:33] space.

[2:15:34] the intent is that when

[2:15:40] preliminary plats come in they

[2:15:42] refine the drawings.

[2:15:43] the intent for the development

[2:15:45] areas for the roadways and lots

[2:15:47] and the uppers and the adjacent

[2:15:51] open space would be a part of

[2:15:54] each of those off tracks.

[2:15:59] when a development for the

[2:16:00] neighborhood comes in those are

[2:16:04] firmly did he lineated with the

[2:16:06] plat.

[2:16:07] the maintenance and ownership

[2:16:09] responsible is for the hoa

[2:16:11] within each of those

[2:16:12] neighborhood areas.

[2:16:15] those plans would be part of

[2:16:24] each of the neighborhoods

[2:16:25] developer.

[2:16:26] the intent is to implement those

[2:16:28] lay outs.

[2:16:31] to the best of our ability.

[2:16:33] we know and some of the issues

[2:16:34] that came up tonight include

[2:16:39] access, include emergency

[2:16:41] access.

[2:16:42] include a number of things that

[2:16:44] have to be worked out as part of

[2:16:46] the preliminary and final plats

[2:16:49] for the neighborhoods.

[2:16:50] I am not going to say there

[2:16:52] won't be changes.

[2:16:53] I anticipate there will be

[2:16:55] changes as we go through the

[2:16:56] process with city staff.

[2:16:58] are those changes going to be

[2:17:04] monumental or -- of the

[2:17:08] neighborhoods.

[2:17:09] I would say no.

[2:17:11] it's hard to did he lineate

[2:17:17] where the lines are exactly.

[2:17:19] those were developed by

[2:17:21] community design solutions, our

[2:17:23] civil engineer, they work from a

[2:17:26] technical stand point.

[2:17:28] they haven't been through that

[2:17:30] process yet.

[2:17:31] that is what needs to happen if

[2:17:33] this master plan is approved and

[2:17:37] they're allowed to move forward.

[2:17:38] that would be the responsibility

[2:17:40] of the individual home builder

[2:17:44] coming in with their specific

[2:17:46] plan for each of those areas.

[2:17:48] >> right.

[2:17:49] I understand this is a design

[2:17:50] standard document.

[2:17:51] that you know, what you show

[2:17:55] with the roadways that could

[2:17:56] change based on the trip counts

[2:17:58] that are generated when the

[2:18:00] design is done.

[2:18:05] >> correct.

[2:18:06] >> I do have another question

[2:18:09] about community engagement.

[2:18:11] there seems to be some

[2:18:12] questions, disconnect with the

[2:18:16] community and the groups that

[2:18:18] represent the neighborhoods.

[2:18:25] what engagement, what history

[2:18:27] was done.

[2:18:28] was there, was there meetings

[2:18:30] involved that were in place?

[2:18:33] I'm just curious as to like,

[2:18:35] maybe like the numbers of

[2:18:36] meetings.

[2:18:37] I heard some comments they

[2:18:40] haven't had discussions or

[2:18:42] meetings since maybe july of

[2:18:45] last year.

[2:18:46] I wonder if you can talk about

[2:18:47] that.

[2:18:50] >> I'm a little disadvantage to

[2:18:52] answer that question

[2:18:54] specifically.

[2:18:55] that was not part of our scope

[2:18:56] of work and responsibility in

[2:19:00] regards to the master plan.

[2:19:01] my client took that on himself.

[2:19:11] >> mr. Chavez.

[2:19:13] >> he is not here this evening.

[2:19:15] I can not really speak to that

[2:19:17] directly.

[2:19:18] that's why.

[2:19:25] >> so we don't know what was

[2:19:27] discussed to this vantage point.

[2:19:29] how he presented things in the

[2:19:31] meetings.

[2:19:32] >> I wasn't at the meetings.

[2:19:34] I was not part of that.

[2:19:36] >> I don't know, I will kick it

[2:19:48] over to scottie.

[2:19:49] maybe I will come up with

[2:19:51] another question.

[2:19:53] >> okay.

[2:19:54] I have two.

[2:19:55] one is a basic statement

[2:19:57] regarding drainage.

[2:19:59] I heard issues about drainage

[2:20:00] flow come about a few times and

[2:20:02] the photos we have the package

[2:20:05] of.

[2:20:06] I will make a statement.

[2:20:07] the drainage problem issue

[2:20:09] pretty much be mitigated once

[2:20:12] the development is complete,

[2:20:14] pretty much or in the making so

[2:20:17] to speak.

[2:20:18] >> one hundred percent.

[2:20:19] >> the other thing that popped

[2:20:22] up a few times was the cost of

[2:20:28] the landscaping of 400,000.

[2:20:31] 400,000 I can't recall if that

[2:20:34] was the minimum, the starting

[2:20:36] point or the over all budget

[2:20:38] allocation.

[2:20:39] >> so, mr. Chavez has worked

[2:20:42] with a contractor to develop

[2:20:45] that number.

[2:20:46] that did not just come oust thin

[2:20:48] air.

[2:20:49] worked directly with a

[2:20:53] contractor of what it would take

[2:20:55] to improve the trails in the

[2:20:58] north nine area as well as

[2:21:02] specific landscape improvements

[2:21:04] in that area.

[2:21:10] that I think is a base.

[2:21:12] it would take more than that.

[2:21:14] that is what the commitment is,

[2:21:16] that is the amount of money that

[2:21:18] will be bonded and made

[2:21:20] available for the improvements.

[2:21:22] if, remember the main focus of

[2:21:26] mr. Chavez' goal for the north

[2:21:29] nine is to work with grants.

[2:21:35] looking to work with

[2:21:37] potentially -- the city, other

[2:21:41] non profits and other

[2:21:43] organization that's may take on

[2:21:45] the responsibility of ultimately

[2:21:47] owning and maintaining the

[2:21:50] property in perpetuity.

[2:21:56] the commitment is if they're not

[2:21:59] successful in that effort than

[2:22:01] the $400,000 is available to be

[2:22:04] spent for those improvements.

[2:22:07] >> okay.

[2:22:08] thank you.

[2:22:09] one last comment.

[2:22:11] I guess most of the open space

[2:22:13] or walk ways so to speak,

[2:22:16] trails, are pretty much

[2:22:18] developed through crusher pine.

[2:22:21] >> a combination.

[2:22:24] I was talk with one of the

[2:22:27] gentlemen during the break with

[2:22:29] significant concerns about the

[2:22:31] pressure pines.

[2:22:32] I walk almost every week, I walk

[2:22:34] the unm golf course.

[2:22:37] I live there.

[2:22:40] that trail system was improved

[2:22:42] as a collaborative effort

[2:22:44] between the university of new

[2:22:45] mexico and bernallio county.

[2:22:49] they're all pressure pines.

[2:22:50] it's a two mile loop around that

[2:22:53] existing golf course.

[2:22:55] I walk it every week.

[2:22:59] it gets, it's incredible how

[2:23:01] much use that gets.

[2:23:03] is it perfect, no.

[2:23:05] does it need maintenance

[2:23:07] occasionally.

[2:23:08] yes.

[2:23:09] we have one of our gully

[2:23:11] washers.

[2:23:12] they have to go out and make

[2:23:13] improvements to the trail.

[2:23:15] I will tell you as a user of

[2:23:16] that trail, think my neighbors

[2:23:19] and the other people that use

[2:23:21] the trail on a daily basis would

[2:23:23] say they far prefer that then an

[2:23:26] asphalt multi use trail.

[2:23:29] we have a combination of both

[2:23:31] identified in the plan.

[2:23:32] there is a connection to the

[2:23:33] park all the way through to the

[2:23:36] high resort across the area that

[2:23:39] would be a multi use trail.

[2:23:41] that is, that is to accommodate

[2:23:46] bicycles and scooters, whatever

[2:23:47] that maybe.

[2:23:49] the majority of the trails are

[2:23:53] designated to be soft surface

[2:23:55] walking trails.

[2:23:56] we will ultimately do the

[2:23:58] analysis what that material

[2:24:00] needs to be and best treatment

[2:24:01] of that material to make sure

[2:24:03] maintenance is kept to a

[2:24:07] minimum.

[2:24:08] some of that is working with the

[2:24:10] grading and drainage plan to

[2:24:11] make sure we're not creating

[2:24:14] situations where that pressure

[2:24:16] pine traylor whatever the soft

[2:24:19] surface is, is not washed out

[2:24:22] every time it rains.

[2:24:25] there is detail to go into that.

[2:24:28] once again as a user of trails

[2:24:30] throughout the city and the

[2:24:38] whole area, my preference is a

[2:24:40] soft surface walking trail for

[2:24:42] running and walking.

[2:24:47] it doesn't accommodate bicycles.

[2:24:49] we have trails to do that

[2:24:51] outside of the walking paths.

[2:24:53] >> okay.

[2:24:54] this is a good segway.

[2:24:55] my last one is.

[2:24:57] development on new development

[2:24:59] brings about density, right.

[2:25:02] vehicles, people, right.

[2:25:07] I recall hearing a few times.

[2:25:09] I may have this wrong.

[2:25:11] along st. Andrews there is a

[2:25:13] lack of sidewalks.

[2:25:15] >> right.

[2:25:16] >> okay.

[2:25:19] has there been a consideration

[2:25:20] to address that as development

[2:25:23] grows if the project was to go

[2:25:27] along.

[2:25:28] >> I don't think it's within our

[2:25:31] ability or the developer of that

[2:25:34] individual neighborhood to make

[2:25:37] improvements to st. Andrews.

[2:25:41] the question right away making

[2:25:45] that happen.

[2:25:47] I will say all of the new

[2:25:49] neighborhoods will be developed

[2:25:51] with sidewalks, curb and gutter,

[2:25:53] and streets developed to the

[2:25:55] city standards.

[2:25:57] once again we plan a robust

[2:26:00] internal walking and multi use

[2:26:03] trail network that hopefully

[2:26:05] provides those opportunities as

[2:26:11] well.

[2:26:12] >> that's all I have.

[2:26:13] thank you.

[2:26:14] >> okay.

[2:26:15] I will switch to this mic here.

[2:26:17] I don't think that one is

[2:26:18] working very well.

[2:26:19] a couple of things.

[2:26:21] first I want to thank the staff

[2:26:23] for putting in our packets

[2:26:26] starting last week all of the

[2:26:27] comments that were coming in,

[2:26:29] written.

[2:26:30] they provided when the original

[2:26:35] packet came out on friday, again

[2:26:37] on monday, and again today.

[2:26:40] so we have received all of those

[2:26:42] comments prior to the meeting

[2:26:44] today.

[2:26:47] that is where I got a lot of my

[2:26:49] questions from is from those

[2:26:50] comments that were submitted.

[2:26:52] so I will go through these.

[2:26:54] I think I understand what the

[2:26:57] answer is but the drainage plans

[2:27:04] will have to be approved by

[2:27:07] scafta, engineers and the city

[2:27:10] prior to any development.

[2:27:11] is that correct?

[2:27:12] >> that is correct.

[2:27:13] >> the roadways and sidewalks

[2:27:15] have to be approved by the

[2:27:17] city's engineers and the city

[2:27:21] prior to any development,

[2:27:22] correct?

[2:27:23] >> correct.

[2:27:26] >> the city will look at the

[2:27:28] traffic counts and when you

[2:27:30] submit the plats and site plans

[2:27:33] and stuff, and the city

[2:27:34] transportation department will

[2:27:38] then decide traffic impact

[2:27:40] analysis needs to be done or

[2:27:42] further work needs to be done.

[2:27:44] is that correct?

[2:27:45] >> that is correct.

[2:27:46] >> there were questions about

[2:27:47] the signage throughout the

[2:27:49] development.

[2:27:50] my understanding is from the

[2:27:51] staff, any signs that are

[2:27:54] erected within that plan will

[2:27:58] have to be approved by the city

[2:28:02] and under the new city ordinance

[2:28:04] on signs passed last year.

[2:28:06] >> that is correct.

[2:28:09] >> storm water and quality water

[2:28:12] discharge has to be approved by

[2:28:14] all of the governmental entities

[2:28:17] involved in that, correct.

[2:28:19] >> that is correct.

[2:28:20] >> water, sewer, electricity all

[2:28:23] has to be approved prior to any

[2:28:25] development by the city and the

[2:28:29] state or who ever else has any

[2:28:31] control over it.

[2:28:32] >> mr. Chairman, any plat

[2:28:35] requires not only the review and

[2:28:38] approval of the technical

[2:28:39] engineering, technical

[2:28:43] engineering studies prepared,

[2:28:45] associated by the city

[2:28:47] engineering staff but also all

[2:28:49] of the private utilities, pnm,

[2:28:53] gas company, cable.

[2:28:55] awful those utilities also have

[2:28:57] to sign off on that plat prior

[2:28:59] to any construction taking

[2:29:00] place.

[2:29:01] >> okay.

[2:29:02] >> a lot of questions came up

[2:29:05] about the abandoned lakes.

[2:29:07] it's my understanding that any

[2:29:09] work that has to be done on

[2:29:11] those lakes has to be approved

[2:29:15] by the state environment

[2:29:18] department.

[2:29:19] >> that is correct.

[2:29:22] so some of that work has been

[2:29:25] completed for some of the lakes

[2:29:27] that have been remediated prior.

[2:29:35] the final are in the review and

[2:29:38] approval process today.

[2:29:39] that will be completed, that

[2:29:41] process will be completed prior

[2:29:43] to any development in those

[2:29:44] areas.

[2:29:45] >> that's all up to the state

[2:29:46] environment department.

[2:29:48] >> that's correct.

[2:29:49] >> some questions about public

[2:29:53] schools.

[2:29:56] so the public knows when the

[2:29:58] staff puts their report together

[2:30:03] they send this stuff to rio

[2:30:05] rancho public schools.

[2:30:07] I'm looking at the report and I

[2:30:10] will go through it.

[2:30:11] rio rancho public schools

[2:30:13] received a copy.

[2:30:15] no comments provided.

[2:30:17] usually in a master plan they

[2:30:23] probably don't.

[2:30:24] when they go into the site

[2:30:26] development plan that's when the

[2:30:27] agencies make comments.

[2:30:28] fire department special.

[2:30:30] >> they won't approve any site

[2:30:32] development plan, emergency

[2:30:34] gates or whatever.

[2:30:35] they will require the developer

[2:30:37] and everybody to follow their

[2:30:40] specifications and their rules

[2:30:42] and regulations.

[2:30:43] correct.

[2:30:44] >> that's correct.

[2:30:45] they will require fire one plan

[2:30:48] and then ultimately a fire two

[2:30:50] plan, I believe prior to any

[2:30:52] construction.

[2:30:53] >> I think you answered the

[2:30:55] question on the pid or any type

[2:30:57] of thing like that. That will

[2:30:59] only affect the new development.

[2:31:02] it does not affect the old

[2:31:04] surrounding areas that are

[2:31:07] already there.

[2:31:08] >> that is correct.

[2:31:11] >> think the last question that

[2:31:13] I had, you talked about the

[2:31:19] zoning and whatever everyone has

[2:31:22] agreed to on paper, that is what

[2:31:24] will you follow.

[2:31:25] so, I guess my question to staff

[2:31:27] is how do we put that in a

[2:31:31] motion or whatever to make sure

[2:31:34] that is done, so that there is

[2:31:37] no misconception down the road.

[2:31:41] it was r4 zoning, but they

[2:31:43] agreed to do the r3 standards.

[2:31:46] then they say we don't want to

[2:31:48] do the r3 standards anymore.

[2:31:53] how do we make sure that is

[2:31:55] done?

[2:31:56] >> mr. Chair, what we can do

[2:32:01] because the city can not enforce

[2:32:03] private convenance.

[2:32:05] that's a private party matter.

[2:32:07] we recommend an amendment to the

[2:32:10] proposed ordinance that we

[2:32:12] drafted to change that zoning

[2:32:14] requirement to that specific

[2:32:16] zoning type.

[2:32:17] whether that's r1 or r2.

[2:32:20] there is also the additional

[2:32:23] option the applicant can request

[2:32:25] to postpone or with draw the

[2:32:27] item making those edits and

[2:32:30] submitting a new application

[2:32:32] with the edits in place as well.

[2:32:34] there are a couple of options

[2:32:35] available.

[2:32:36] >> last question I have, roads

[2:32:39] within the master plan will

[2:32:42] those be private roads or city

[2:32:45] maintained and owned roads?

[2:32:47] >> so within the individual

[2:32:49] neighborhoods I don't believe

[2:32:51] that determination has been

[2:32:54] made.

[2:32:55] they could be private roads if

[2:32:56] they chose to gate those

[2:32:59] neighborhoods.

[2:33:00] if they don't that has not been

[2:33:04] determined.

[2:33:05] the individual home builders

[2:33:10] would likely make the

[2:33:12] determinations.

[2:33:13] we have determined within the

[2:33:15] town center where we have the

[2:33:16] plaza and one way streets and on

[2:33:19] street parking that our proposal

[2:33:21] is that those roadways would be

[2:33:25] developed as private roads in

[2:33:27] order to allow us to provide

[2:33:29] lower speed limits then the city

[2:33:33] might normally impose and

[2:33:35] different roadway standards.

[2:33:37] we understand and anticipate

[2:33:39] that the design of those

[2:33:40] roadways and that roadway system

[2:33:43] through the town center will be

[2:33:45] something that has to get

[2:33:47] negotiated and worked out with

[2:33:49] city staff prior to a site plan

[2:33:51] coming forward for review and

[2:33:55] approval.

[2:33:58] >> okay.

[2:33:59] I am just looking to see if I

[2:34:01] have more questions.

[2:34:02] again the majority of the

[2:34:04] questions I want the public to

[2:34:06] know came from comments we

[2:34:09] received written prior to

[2:34:11] tonight's meeting.

[2:34:13] at least on my point.

[2:34:15] any other questions or comments

[2:34:17] from the board?

[2:34:19] >> I have one additional

[2:34:21] question or clarification.

[2:34:22] so there was concern that if

[2:34:26] this master plan were to be

[2:34:29] approved the parcels would be

[2:34:30] sold off and used in a manner

[2:34:32] not conforming to the master

[2:34:34] plan.

[2:34:35] my understanding is once we

[2:34:37] approve a master plan that's not

[2:34:38] possible.

[2:34:39] what ever is developed there

[2:34:41] conforms to the master plan.

[2:34:43] is my understanding accurate.

[2:34:45] >> maybe a better question for

[2:34:47] staff.

[2:34:48] I will take a stab at answering

[2:34:50] it.

[2:34:51] my understanding as well.

[2:34:52] once again when individual

[2:34:54] developments come through

[2:34:55] they're evaluated based on their

[2:34:58] conformance with the master plan

[2:35:00] and as part of the review

[2:35:03] process through the city staff.

[2:35:05] >> amy, is that accurate.

[2:35:08] >> mr. Chair, commissioner

[2:35:09] hardisty, that's correct.

[2:35:13] we attach this to the property

[2:35:17] itself.

[2:35:18] even if it changes ownership it

[2:35:21] is still in place.

[2:35:22] same thing with the zoning.

[2:35:24] even when they sell the property

[2:35:25] to the new property owners that

[2:35:27] zoning would stay the same

[2:35:29] between the different owners.

[2:35:31] >> okay.

[2:35:32] thank you.

[2:35:33] that's all I have.

[2:35:36] >> any other comments from the

[2:35:37] board.

[2:35:38] >> mr. S., does the owner intend

[2:35:42] to develop the parcels or are

[2:35:47] each one done by a different

[2:35:50] element.

[2:35:51] >> my understanding is

[2:35:52] mr. Chavez is intending to be

[2:35:55] the developer of the town center

[2:35:57] and that is going to be the

[2:36:00] heart of the community.

[2:36:02] he will be taking that on

[2:36:04] himself.

[2:36:05] the individual neighborhoods

[2:36:07] would likely be sold to

[2:36:10] individual home builders and

[2:36:13] really trying to pay attention

[2:36:16] to the different products and

[2:36:19] price points.

[2:36:20] I think someone used the term

[2:36:22] "affordable housing" as a

[2:36:24] commenter.

[2:36:26] I think I can guarantee this

[2:36:29] project is not going to be

[2:36:31] affordable.

[2:36:32] >> market rate.

[2:36:33] >> they will be market rate and

[2:36:36] that's just the nature of the

[2:36:38] cost of this, this type of

[2:36:41] project and the custom sort of

[2:36:44] niches that each of the

[2:36:45] neighborhoods will fill.

[2:36:47] it doesn't lend itself to

[2:36:49] affordable product.

[2:36:58] >> any other comments from the

[2:37:00] board?

[2:37:01] any other questions.

[2:37:02] >> thank you.

[2:37:03] >> so, I guess the only one is,

[2:37:06] do we have the ability to

[2:37:07] recommend to the governing body

[2:37:12] to amend the ordinance to

[2:37:14] include those in the zoning

[2:37:15] issues talked about?

[2:37:17] >> chair, yes.

[2:37:18] I would ask for as detailed

[2:37:21] language as possible.

[2:37:23] we can put that into the agenda

[2:37:26] briefing memorandum for the

[2:37:28] governing bod.y.

[2:37:29] >> I guess I will ask the staff

[2:37:32] to start the plan in front of

[2:37:34] you where you have the

[2:37:36] highlighted areas where the

[2:37:38] agreements were reached that

[2:37:40] even though it was r4, that they

[2:37:43] would follow the r3 standards

[2:37:50] and the areas going on there.

[2:37:52] >> mr. Chairman and staff, if I

[2:37:54] might, I think the crux of it is

[2:37:56] that the west nine would develop

[2:38:01] based on r1 standards in terms

[2:38:04] of lot width and lot size.

[2:38:06] be limited to single story, and

[2:38:11] a single entrance off of

[2:38:14] broadmore.

[2:38:15] so there is an out parcel, two

[2:38:18] parcels work together.

[2:38:20] that there is a 65-foot buffer

[2:38:25] between the perimeter of the

[2:38:26] property and the houses.

[2:38:30] that is how that subdivision has

[2:38:32] been laid out.

[2:38:33] that is included in the master

[2:38:35] plan.

[2:38:36] then I think it's vida m. Is

[2:38:46] that center subdivision in the

[2:38:48] east nine.

[2:38:49] that would be developed with r2

[2:38:51] standards and limited to single

[2:38:55] story as well.

[2:38:56] >> is that good enough language,

[2:38:59] amy, making the motion with what

[2:39:02] he said?

[2:39:09] >> mr. Chair, yes.

[2:39:11] let me make sure I'm on the same

[2:39:15] page.

[2:39:16] from my understanding we

[2:39:17] st. West nine subdivision,

[2:39:19] proposed subdivision on the west

[2:39:22] nine the zoning request is

[2:39:23] changing from r4 to r1 standards

[2:39:28] and single family, single

[2:39:31] family, single story, single

[2:39:33] entrance off broadmore to be

[2:39:36] shared between both of the

[2:39:37] properties of that area.

[2:39:39] then a 65-foot buffer between

[2:39:42] the existing residential and the

[2:39:46] proposed future property lines.

[2:39:48] >> that's correct.

[2:39:49] then for the second section the

[2:39:56] vida m. Subdivision built to the

[2:39:59] r2 standards single story.

[2:40:02] I didn't hear anything about

[2:40:04] buffer standards on that one.

[2:40:05] >> I will make that motion.

[2:40:07] okay.

[2:40:13] any discussion on the motion.

[2:40:15] roll call on the motion.

[2:40:17] >> chairman radosevich.

[2:40:24] >> yes.

[2:40:25] >> commissioner hardisty.

[2:40:27] >> yes.

[2:40:28] >> mr. Hankins.

[2:40:30] >> yes.

[2:40:31] >> commissioner kofchur.

[2:40:33] >> yes.

[2:40:34] >> vice chair richardson.

[2:40:35] >> yes.

[2:40:36] >> motion passes.

[2:40:37] >> I will now entertain the

[2:40:39] motion on the floor for approval

[2:40:43] of item number 4, master plan.

[2:40:46] any other discussion on that?

[2:40:49] seeing none call the roll.

[2:40:50] >> there was a motion before

[2:40:59] public comment.

[2:41:00] the notes I have is that

[2:41:01] richardson made the motion and

[2:41:04] hankins was the second.

[2:41:11] >> vice chair richardson.

[2:41:13] >> yes.

[2:41:14] >> commissioner kofchur.

[2:41:17] >>

[2:41:18] >> yes.

[2:41:19] >> commissioner hardisty.

[2:41:20] >> yes.

[2:41:21] >> commissioner hankins.

[2:41:22] >> yes.

[2:41:23] >> chair radosvevich.

[2:41:29] >> yes.

[2:41:30] >> okay --

[2:41:31] >> I believe they're approving

[2:41:34] it.

[2:41:36] >> -- through request approval

[2:41:38] of the zone map amendment from

[2:41:41] approximately 281 acres for

[2:41:43] property legally described as

[2:41:45] rombla calle, track 2, parcel 2,

[2:41:53] 3, 5, track a, and chamisa hills

[2:41:59] north, parcel 2, su special use

[2:42:05] to open space district, pr parks

[2:42:09] and recreation district, mau

[2:42:12] mixed use activity district, c1

[2:42:16] retail district, r4 mixed

[2:42:20] residential district, and r4

[2:42:23] single family.

[2:42:25] staff contact is michelle c.

[2:42:27] staff recommends planning and

[2:42:30] zoning board approval to the

[2:42:32] governoring body.

[2:42:33] michelle, any further comments.

[2:42:35] >> thank you.

[2:42:36] no further comments.

[2:42:38] >> at this time I will entertain

[2:42:40] a motion to approve item number

[2:42:42] 5, zone map amendment.

[2:42:45] >> mr. Chair, I was going to say

[2:42:46] if we can also, because last

[2:42:49] amendment was to the master

[2:42:50] plan.

[2:42:51] if we can also make the same

[2:42:53] amendment for the zoning.

[2:42:55] >> as amended.

[2:42:56] >> correct.

[2:42:57] >> as amended.

[2:42:59] >> commissioner hardisty motion

[2:43:03] to approve the zone map

[2:43:04] amendment as amended.

[2:43:06] >> mr. Hankins, I will second.

[2:43:09] >> any discussion from the

[2:43:11] board.

[2:43:12] >> mr. Chair I actually think we

[2:43:14] need to make a separate motion

[2:43:16] to amend the ordinance.

[2:43:19] the previous one amended the

[2:43:21] master plan.

[2:43:22] this one will amend the zoning

[2:43:23] item itself.

[2:43:26] >> okay.

[2:43:29] so who wants to make the motion.

[2:43:30] >> I motion.

[2:43:31] >> to amend the ordinance.

[2:43:33] >> to amend the order.

[2:43:35] >> do I have a second.

[2:43:37] >> second commissioner hardisty.

[2:43:39] >> any discussion.

[2:43:41] seeing none call the roll.

[2:43:42] >> commissioner richardson.

[2:43:46] >> yes.

[2:43:47] >> commissioner kofchur.

[2:43:51] >> yes.

[2:43:52] >> commissioner hankins.

[2:43:54] >> yes.

[2:43:55] >> commissioner hardisty.

[2:43:57] >> yes.

[2:43:58] >> chairman radosevich.

[2:44:04] >> yes.

[2:44:05] >> pass.

[2:44:06] >> now we need to -- zone map.

[2:44:10] >> as amendment.

[2:44:13] >> approve zone map amendment as

[2:44:16] amended.

[2:44:17] >> commissioner hardisty.

[2:44:20] >> commissioner hankins I will

[2:44:23] second.

[2:44:24] >> any discussion from the

[2:44:25] board.

[2:44:26] seeing none call the roll.

[2:44:28] >> vice chair richardson.

[2:44:30] >> yes.

[2:44:31] >> commissioner kofchur.

[2:44:36] >> yes.

[2:44:37] >> commissioner hardisty.

[2:44:39] >> yes.

[2:44:40] >> commissioner hankins.

[2:44:41] >> yes.

[2:44:42] >> chairman radosevich.

[2:44:46] >> yes.

[2:44:47] >> motion passes.

[2:44:49] >> next item on the agenda

[2:44:51] discussion, deliberation.

[2:44:56] comments by members.

[2:44:58] I think the only comment is I

[2:45:00] have, I talked to staff that

[2:45:02] we're going to have informal

[2:45:05] meet and greet on april the

[2:45:08] 18th of commissioners.

[2:45:09] publicize that pursuant to the

[2:45:13] ordinance.

[2:45:14] that is all I have.

[2:45:16] any other comments?

[2:45:19] okay.

[2:45:20] public forum wishing to speak in

[2:45:22] a public forum.

[2:45:24] >> yes.

[2:45:25] >> step up.

[2:45:26] >> mr. Chair, so public forum

[2:45:28] had to be signed up for by

[2:45:30] 6:00 p.m.

[2:45:32] so if they have their notice we

[2:45:34] can go ahead and do that.

[2:45:36] if we don't have someone signed

[2:45:38] up we can't allow additional

[2:45:40] public forum.

[2:45:41] >> if you didn't sign up ahead

[2:45:43] of time we can't have public

[2:45:46] comment.

[2:45:47] >> I did sign up.

[2:45:48] I would like to thank the staff

[2:45:50] for their hard work.

[2:45:53] [inaudible]

[2:45:54] [unable to hear]

[2:46:04] >> okay at this time I will

[2:46:06] entertain a motion for

[2:46:08] adjournment.

[2:46:09] a motion.

[2:46:10] a second.

[2:46:11] >> second.

[2:46:12] >> all in favor say I.

[2:46:13] >> I.

[2:46:14] >> opposed.

[2:46:15] we are adjourned.

[2:46:16] thank you, all.

Planning and Zoning Board

Transcript