[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.