Thank you.

Please remain standing for just a moment as we take a moment to reflect and keep our first responders and our thoughts and prayers.

And they do a dangerous job out there, and they're always putting their lives on the line for us.

So with that, just a moment of silence, please.

Thank you very much.

You may be seated.

Okay.

Uh for the record, I'll announce the names of the governing body members.

When you I say your name, please acknowledge your presence by saying present.

Councillor Dapson.

Present.

Thank you.

Councillor Lynn Tyne has been excused.

Counselor Tyler.

Present.

Thank you.

Counselor Weimer.

Present.

Thank you.

Councillor Colbreth is virtual.

Present.

Thank you.

And then Councilor List.

Present.

Thank you.

All righty.

Let's see here.

Now before we go into the agenda, I'm gonna make one quick uh adjustment to the agenda here.

Um I'm going to move R 47 and O 14 to the top of the agenda.

Oh am I good?

Am I good?

Yes, we're okay.

Good.

Uh to uh right in front of D 45.

Okay.

All right.

So with that, uh sorry, Mr.

Mayor, can you please repeat that?

I'm sorry.

Oh yeah.

Can you please okay?

So we're moving R 47 and O 14 to the to the uh to just above D45.

We're gonna move those to the top since we've got a request to postpone on those.

So we'll go ahead and dispose those uh at the top of the agenda.

Um so public uh proclamations awards of merit.

Uh we don't have anything today, and then public forum, Mr Van Horn.

Oh, there he is, and based on the number of people signed up, we'll set the time at two minutes.

Good evening, mayor, counselors.

I'd uh I've got three questions that I put before you tonight.

Um I didn't receive any answers for last time I was here to give you questions, but I do hope on the first thing that I ask.

I hope the mayor will inform the public specifically on what's the impact of the Santa Sandia Pueblo water rights judgment uh on Rio Rancho water, like to know if it could delay or stop any planned access to water for Rio Rancho, could it force changes to rearranch those plans for meeting future water needs?

And is there a backup plan for transferring the half dozen groundwater permits that have been denied?

As a former utilities commissioner, um I'm very concerned about what's happened, and I hope the all of the governing body will really look into this because this is significant.

Number two, why is the number of operational city water wells getting smaller?

In the 2023 water quality report, the city had 18 wells providing water to Rio Rancho in the 2024 water quality report.

The city had 14 wells providing water.

So what is the city doing about this?

And then lastly, is the governing body concerned about the Rio Grande drying up?

And is there any ground downstream health effects about our release of wastewater to uh a body of water that normally it dilutes it, but now it's not, and so our wastewater, it's not going very far.

If it even gets the intake for Albuquerque, I'd be surprised.

And this might be something need to look into and like to know are there any changes to our water table happening right now, and finally, does the governing body expect city water and wastewater to be issues in the next election?

Thank you all.

Thank you.

All right, moving on to comments by counselors.

See there uh anything from uh counselor colbreth?

Okay.

Just checking.

And all right.

No comments by counselors.

Uh moving on to the consent calendar.

I'll take a motion to approve the consent calendar.

Motion to approve the consent calendar.

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

Ms.

David Whoops, we already did that.

Ms.

Davis on the consent calendar, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Counselor Colbreth.

Yes.

Councillor Weimer?

Yes.

Counselor Dabson.

Yes.

Counselor Tyler.

Yes.

And Counselor List.

Yes.

The consent calendar is approved.

Uno Mas.

Ms.

Davis.

Uno Moss.

Oh my goodness.

Sorry, Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

Thank you.

Now the consent calendar is approved.

All right.

Okay.

Moving on, no boards and commissions reports.

Moving on to public hearing.

As previously stated, I'm moving R 47 and O 14 up to the top of the agenda.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone with a pecuniary interest on an item under public hearing and wishing to address the governing body?

Shall register with the city clerk.

Excuse me.

Each comment will be limited to two minutes.

This hearing will be handled in accordance with the rules of procedure, section 3.4 and decorum will be maintained.

Moving on to R 47.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, members of the governing body.

Amy Rincone, Director of Development Services.

So I'm actually going to present number items, uh items number 12 and 13 together.

There are going to be uh two separate votes though for postponement.

Um and so uh this item was heard at the governing body meeting on May 8th and postponed to the August 14th meeting, which is tonight's meeting.

Uh staff recommends that this item get postponed again to September 11th uh to allow for sufficient time for staff to review the remaining significant information that was requested by the governing body at your May 8th meeting.

Uh the applicant was originally had a deadline of July 11th to submit the materials.

Um ultimately the materials were submitted to us uh between the 11th and 28th, and so we just need some additional time.

So again, we're just asking for a postponement to that September 11th meeting.

Thank you.

All right, uh before I call for public comment.

Um, I'm gonna take a motion to postpone.

We're taking this to September 11th, is that correct?

That's correct.

Of 2025.

So I'll take a motion uh motion to postpone our 47 to September 11, 2025.

I move to postpone R 47 to September 11, 2025.

Second.

Okay, I have a motion and second.

I have some folks signed up uh to speak on this item is a public hearing.

Um Mike Lindell.

I'll save my vote.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Jason Foster.

Thank you.

Michael Farrell.

Thank you.

Jack Autry.

Thank you.

And Kathleen Frague Frog?

Thank you.

Thank you.

I apologize.

Okay.

I uh any comments by counselor on the uh motion to postpone.

Hearing none, uh R 47 motion to postpone Miss Davis.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Counselor Weimer, yes, Counselor List, yes, Councilor Dabson, yes, Councilor Tyler, yes, Councillor Colbreth, yes.

And Mayor Hall?

Yes.

R 47 has been postponed to September 11th.

Thank you.

I'll take a motion to postpone O 14 to September 11, 2025.

I'll make a motion to postpone O 14 to September 11th, 2025.

Okay, there you go.

Have a motion and a second.

Ms.

Davis.

Thank you, sir.

Counselor Weimer?

Yes.

Counselor Dabson?

Yes.

Counselor List.

Yes.

Counselor Colbreth?

Yes.

Counselor Tyler.

Yes.

And Mayor Hall.

Yes.

O 47 has been postponed to September 11th, and it is approved.

Thank you.

All right.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

Uh Counselor Colbreth.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I apologize for the interruption.

Just for the the record because I couldn't hear being virtual.

I assume that the residents who signed up to speak decided not to speak.

That is correct.

I apologize, yes.

Okay, moving on to D45, approving for approval for the neighborhood and rear rancho for a club nonprofit liquor license on-premises consumption and patio service located at 900 Loma Colorado Boulevard Ranch, New Mexico.

Ms.

Davis.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Mr.

Mayor and members of the governing body.

Tonight I bring before you two separate liquor licenses.

So the regulation and licensing department has granted preliminary approval and has sent both of these applications to the governing body for local governing body approval.

Upon governing body approval, the applications will both be sent back to the regulation and licensing department for a final approval.

Item number 10, D45 is an application for approval of a club liquor license with on-premise consumption, including patio service for the neighborhood in Rio Rancho, located at 900 Loma Colorado Boulevard.

And I stand for questions.

Thank you.

I'll take a motion to approve D45.

Make a motion to approve D45.

Do I have anybody sign up for public comment on this one?

No, sir, we do not.

Any comments by council.

Hearing none, Miss Davis D45, please.

Thank you.

Councillor List.

Yes.

Counselor Tyler.

Yes.

Councilor Debson.

Yes.

Counselor Weimer.

Yes.

Councillor Colbreth?

Yes.

And Mayor Hall.

Yes.

Thank you.

D45 is approved.

Thank you.

Moving on to D46 approval for 10 pins LLC located at 1416 Deborah Road Southeast for your ranch, New Mexico.

Transfer ownership of dispenser liquor license.

Ms.

Davis.

Thank you.

And so this second liquor license is for 10 pens, which will maintain at the same location they historically have been at, which is 1416 Deborah Road.

This is a transfer of ownership for an existing license.

So all services there will remain the same.

And I stand for questions.

Thank you.

I'll take a motion to approve D46.

Motion to approve D46.

Second.

Thank you.

I have a motion of second.

Do we have anybody signed up to speak on this item?

No, sir, we do not.

Thank you.

Any comments by council.

Hearing done.

Ms.

Davis, D46, please.

Thank you.

Councillor Tyler.

Yes.

Counselor Dabson.

Yes.

Counselor Weimer.

Yes.

Counselor List.

Yes.

Councillor Colbreth.

Yes.

And Mayor Hall.

Yes.

Thank you.

D46 is approved.

Thank you.

Okay.

Make sure I'm jumping to the right one here.

Okay, moving on to R 80, resolution amending the Quail Ranch Master Plan Addendum.

Ms.

Rincone.

And I believe you're going to present on R 80, O 19, and D40 at the same time.

So what we'll do is we'll take all comments and input on R80 and then move straight to votes on O19 and D40.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, members of the governing body, Amy Rincone, Director of Development Services.

So R80 is a resolution amending the Quail Ranch Master Plan.

O19 is going to be an ordinance actually creating an over uh expanding the overlay to allow solar in Quill Ranch.

And then D40 is going to be the associated site plan for that solar to go in place.

So this is located on the most southern western boundary of the city in Bernalillo County, but still within the boundary of the city of Rio Rancho.

What you'll see is the area on the left-hand side already has an overlay and allows for solar and solar has already been built.

And what they're doing is asking to expand to the east on the other portion of Quill Ranch to have a the same overlay in place.

Some representations of what it'll look like when it's in place.

A couple of things to note with this is we did uh put in place that the walls located inside the boundary of the property can go taller than that eight feet.

Um so what we had previously with um the the western portion of the site was when they built the substation.

Um it became evident that they needed to actually have taller walls to protect that substation, and so we're building in that those walls can be taller from from the start so that they don't have to come back for a variance in front of the planning and zoning board.

So at the June 24th, 2025 meeting, the planning and zoning board unanimously recommended approval of R80 for the actual amendment to the addendum to the master plan for Quill Ranch.

They also recommended approval for 019, which would create the overlay.

And then staff recommends approval of the site plan.

The site plan didn't need to go to the planning and zoning board.

That is just an item that comes in front of this board.

And with that, I will stand for any questions.

Thank you.

I'll take a motion to approve R80.

Motion to approve R80.

Second.

I have a motion and second.

Do we have anybody signed up to speak on this item?

No, sir, we do not.

Okay, thank you.

Any comments by council?

Hearing none, Ms.

Davis, R80.

Thank you, sir.

Counselor Colbreth.

Yes.

Councillor Dabson.

Yes.

Counselor Tyler.

Yes.

Counselor Lennon.

Excuse me, Councillor Weimer.

Yes.

Counselor List.

Yes.

And Mayor Hall.

Yes.

R80 is approved.

Thank you.

I'll take a motion to approve O 19.

Motion to approve O 19.

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

Ms.

Davis.

Councillor Weimer.

Yes.

Counselor List.

Yes.

Counselor Tyler.

Yes.

Counselor Dabson.

Yes.

Councillor Colbreth?

Yes.

And Mayor Hall.

Yes.

Thank you.

O 19 is approved.

Motion to approve D40.

I move to approve D40.

Second.

I have a motion and second.

Ms.

Davis, D40.

Thank you, Councilor Tyler.

Yes.

Counselor Jabson.

Yes.

Counselor Weimer?

Yes.

Counselor List.

Yes.

Counselor Colbreth?

Yes.

Mayor Hall.

Yes.

Thank you.

D40 is approved.

Thank you.

All right.

Moving on to O21, ordinance of the City of Reancher New Mexico amending the zoning classification.

Property legally described unit 21 block 22 and a lot of other numbers there.

So Ms.

Rincone.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, members of the governing body, immigrant cone director of development services.

So 021 is going to be a zone map amendment for approximately 54 acres.

It's 53.942 acres to be exact.

And so the request is to change that zoning from TZ or transitional zoning to R3, which is mixed residential.

So I have included here, and it was included in your agenda briefing memorandum, just a breakdown of the uses that are allowed in R3.

So R3 has three distinct types of residential development, single family detached, single family attached, and then multifamily, which would allow up to 26 units per acre with the approval of a conditional use permit.

So here you will see a location and zoning map.

So the pro the subject properties are all located within the Paseo Gateway West specific area plan and have a land use designation of medium density residential.

So this land use actually designates that there is multiple zoning districts that would be appropriate.

The specific area plan carries a lot of weight with the staff recommendation of approval, and I'll discuss that as I go along further with my recommend um presentation tonight.

So here's a snippet or a screenshot of the conceptual design.

So this was a part of your agenda briefing memorandum as a separate document.

This one would be the roadway layout.

Um for uh the traffic to go out to Wilpit and down and Patrulo and down to the King intersection.

Um there is uh infrastructure that was just put in at that traffic circle, um, but there is going to be uh additional traffic that we would see at that intersection and uh going past that school located in that area.

Uh so one of the things uh in your um in the beginning of my presentation, I referenced that the specific area plan played a major role in the staff recommendation of approval.

There's a couple of important things that I just want to make sure that we take into consideration.

So, in anticipation of the questions about the planning and zoning board meeting on Tuesday, uh staff updated the exhibit where the conceptual design was overlaid on the existing lots.

So, in your agenda briefing memorandum, we already had something like this.

Uh when we looked at it again, we saw that it was a little hard to actually see the outlying lots or the holdout lots.

Um, and so what you'll see in this one is that uh we tried to make it a little bit easier to visualize where the holdouts are located.

So the pink lots are the holdout lots, and while the percentage of holdout lots is not large, the location of the holdout lots will be challenging in implementing the conceptual design.

On Tuesday, a property owner, Mr.

Margot and his property is uh highlighted in red.

Um, he had questions about how he would gain access to his property if the zone map amendment went through and if this conceptual layout was actually to build out.

Uh so while we as staff don't specifically evaluate the buildability uh of proposed zoning changes, we do use the zone map amendment criteria in code to look at the larger fit and the function of that zoning request in the surrounding areas.

Generally, the master plan helps put together the pieces for traffic, uh looking at access, grading, drainage, uh, the the look and design of the subdivision.

Um, this application is a rezoning of approximately again 53 acres, uh, for which the master plan would be required.

Uh, but in this situation, the master plan was removed due to a lack of 100% ownership.

The conceptual design that was submitted in lieu of the master plan includes some of those details that I just listed that a master plan would include.

Um, but it's important to remember that a conceptual plan is not adopted and therefore is not enforceable in the future.

Um, a true test of bill of the true test of the buildability uh will be at the preliminary plat stage, but if additional lots are not acquired as exemplified in Mr.

Margot's statements, um, we have questions as staff on how the conceptual design will be actually realized.

As such, there would need to be a trust factor with the developer that the future subdivision will incorporate as much as possible of the conceptual design that they're presenting, and that this will build out as single family detached rather than any of the other dwelling types that are allowed in R3.

Uh so with that, uh the planning and zoning board uh did recommend approval at their August 12th meeting.

Uh, so that was this past Tuesday, uh, for and favor and uh one against.

And with that, it will stand for questions, and I do believe the applicant is ready to do a presentation as well.

Okay, we'll go ahead and hear from the applicant.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, members of the governing body.

My name is Nicosha Schuttelbauer.

I'm here on behalf of the Cielo Bonito Development.

We're here tonight to present our project vision and request a zone map amendment for the parcels within the project area.

I know Amy has given you a very thorough overview, but just to reiterate, our project is located just north of the Cielo Azul Elementary School, which is at the corner of King Boulevard and Wilpitt Drive.

This these land parcels were adopted into the Paseo Gateway West Specific Area Plan in 2008.

That plan consisted of 655 acres of land, and most of those are still zoned T Z.

So at the time that they adopted it, about 85% were TZ, and in the current GIS, it shows that most of those remain that way.

So as Amy said, the Paseo Gateway West specific area plan identifies this as area should be developed under the medium density residential, which includes R1, R2, R3, and R4.

So we're requesting the R3 zoning designation tonight.

This will permit us to build approximately 334 homes with varying lot widths of 40 to 50 feet.

I think one of the key things that I'd like to note with this is that in the Paseo Gateway West specific area plan, which I've highlighted on the bottom here, is that the proposed density is medium density residential, and that the city encouraged lot owners to consolidate in order to meet current development standards, which is what our project would achieve.

Another thing to highlight is that even though you have our justification letter in your packet, we are supporting the land use as identified in this Paseo Gateway West specific area plan and other goals that have been outlined in the comprehensive plan.

We had provided a sketch plan, drainage, access, utilities, and all of those were in alignment with the Paseo Gateway plan, which does address overarching themes of how do you access these properties.

So in summary, our zone map amendment request for the R3 zoning designation does align with the Paseo Gateway West specific area plan.

These conceptual designs were created to illustrate how the project is in alignment.

Staff recommended approval of the zone map amendment with these conceptual designs at the June 24th PZB meeting, and then the planning and zoning board also voted to approve the project.

Now, one thing I also would like to know was the question that's come up about these lots that are not a part of our formal request today.

So as you know, with these antiquated plating actions, um we have been working with a group who's been able to assemble a lot of those, but just what we've put together today, there's about 30 owners in this entire corridor that we're looking at.

So since we've started this project, and even since the last planning and zoning meeting that where we had our initial presentation, we've been able to actually include more of these ownership lots.

And because this is a phased subdivision, we feel very confident that the areas that we do have under complete ownership or have authorization thereof can move forward with this project and those outlier lots that were shown say in phase four, phase five of the subdivision.

If those ownerships do not want to be included in this project, then we feel very confidently that those conceptual plans can be addressed to address what those lots need in regards to their access points, bringing utilities and infrastructure without impacting their lots, without changing from the direction of the project as it relates to what how the Paseo Gateway West specific area plan would like this area to be developed.

So with that, I thank you for your time and I'd stand for questions.

Thank you.

And before I take public comments, I have to get a motion in a second.

So if you will bear with me, then we'll take public comment.

I'll take a motion to approve.

Uh oh 21.

Motion to approve road 21.

Second.

Okay, I have a motion and a second.

We have a few people signed up.

Well, actually, actually you just presented so uh Megan Betts.

Oh, I'm sorry.

This was handed to me for this one.

Okay, she's on Tip Tempico.

Okay, I'll hang on to that.

Thanks.

All right.

And uh let's see, nobody else signed up to speak on this item at this point.

Ums by council, Mr.

Mayor.

Counselor Tyler.

I'm gonna keep mine short, so please don't go far.

So the one thing that always makes me nervous is conceptual plans.

Makes me nervous.

Um, as I look at your traffic, can you bring back up the traffic piece?

Just the in yours.

So tell me again what your plan is for the traffic and for the roundabout and for all the increased traffic that's gonna be in that neighborhood and my favorite areas around schools, because schools and high density or a larger amount of homes doesn't seem to mesh well these days.

So tell me what your plan is.

So we will be required to do a traffic impact study given the number of homes in this area.

So once that's performed, then we'll have a better idea of the type of infrastructure we will have to put into place to accommodate that traffic.

But the way that the streets are lined up currently follow how they wanted the access points in the Paseo Gateway plan.

So they used to be called right like 34th Street, 35th Street, so that's Patrulo.

That is supposed that traffic is supposed to come out onto Wilpit to go down to King Avenue.

Now, right below where that cold de sac is, it has been a property, even though it says vacant land on this plan, it actually was developed as R4 townhouses.

And I know in past conversations with the school, they do not want traffic towards the school.

So that's why we're keeping all those access points to the north so that there is not traffic going by the school.

Um we're completely eliminating access from that road.

In fact, I think on look over at this point, the only access is supposed to be for emergency vehicles.

All traffic should be going to those willpic points as identified in that area plan.

Okay.

So just the access points concerns me.

And then I'm gonna tell you two other things.

I don't like the fact that there's no master plan on this development, and the holdout lots concern me.

Um because I feel that without complete assimilation of all these lots, it makes the whole project just a little bit iffier.

So um, and those are more of a statement than a question.

So uh with that, Mr.

Mayor, I'll yield the floor.

Council, Mr.

Mayor, Councilor Weimer.

Director Rincone, can you explain again the so as I understand this, this is strictly a zone change request for all of these acres, all of these parcels.

That is correct.

It is just a request for a zone change.

And explain or do you know why was the master plan withdrawn?

Yes.

Uh so they did originally have a master plan um that uh did include some of those holdout lots, not the ones right in the middle.

There's um like eight in the middle that were never part of the master plan to begin with.

Um, but they had uh approximately 75% or a little bit over 75% ownership.

Uh so what happened is as we've been going through the DPM process, and we're bringing that back in October, um, it we started to have some of that type of of feedback and a little bit of pushback on that 75% ownership for master plans.

Um, and so when we looked at it originally, um, and and I'm getting a little long-winded, but bear with me on this one.

When we had uh Tony years ago when um uh Papion came in, he asked them to expand their boundaries to include properties that weren't part of it to make a more complete master plan.

Um, and as we had master plans come in later, we tried to uh try to like pin down that percentage of what non-ownership number should be.

We kind of came up with 75 percent.

Um, and as we move forward with the DPM and tried to put that into the DPM, we had a couple of applicants actually uh push back on that 75% and ask for less than 75%.

We had some internal conversations where there was a um starting to be a little bit of heartburn about us having land use uh applications that didn't actually have a hundred percent ownership, um, and that it probably wasn't appropriate for us to put land uses on top of holdout lots because they were holding out for a certain reason, right?

Um, and so um what happened is in that middle of the shift um we went back or I went back and asked for all of our land use applications to have a hundred percent ownership if they wanted staff recommendation of approval.

So the applicant, because they didn't have a hundred percent ownership, uh, did go ahead and withdraw their master plan because they were not going to from staff get a recommendation of approval uh because of those holdout lots.

So I hope that answered your question.

Yes, it did.

Thank you.

Um I I share counselor Tyler's concern about not having that master plan as a part of the request.

I understand the logic.

I'm following exactly what you said.

I do have a concern.

Can you bring the ownership map up again?

That was so the concern I have with this plan, and I I get it, it's conceptual, is not so much about the holdout lots and them not being a part of the project.

We are never gonna approve master plans going forward if every lot has to be owned, it's just not gonna ever happen.

However, what this conceptual plan shows is roads going through lots that aren't owned by this by this applicant, and that I have a problem with.

So the zoning request before us without a master plan and without a conceptual plan that actually works with the holdout lots, I don't feel comfortable approving a zone change for everything, including those that don't work with a conceptual plan, and that is not tied to a master plan.

So those are my my biggest concerns about this request.

That's all I have, Mr.

Mayor.

Counselor List.

Um these gentlemen have been very thoughtful in their comments, and I I agree.

I please correct me if I'm wrong, but in looking at this, the only phase that you could actually complete would be phase two, because there are holdout lots in every other phase.

Is that correct?

Counselor List by that map or image, that would appear the case, but it's really hard for me to stand up here and tell you that we're gonna have those lots as you know, we don't have ownership or the ownership approval.

But we have made contact with almost every single one of those owners, and we are still working on having them included in the project.

So we haven't been told absolutely not, except for those two exceptions that you see in the middle.

So we feel very confident that even if you move forward with the zone map request today, that we are going to be including those lots in this conceptual design.

Right.

So logic would tell me when you have those, then you should come back to us.

But um, again, even if we were to approve this, you couldn't move forward with phases because you don't actually have anything but phase two to move forward with at this time.

Unless we change the conceptual plan, yes.

But again, I think that's right to go back to we would still have to adhere to the fundamentals that are in the Pacific Paseo gateway specific area plan, which dictate access and where utilities come from.

So it doesn't um I understand the desire for a master plan, but I think because we really have in function a master plan via the specific area plan, um, that we would able to be able to achieve what the city is looking for for the land use, and then have to just redesign that concept that obviously works with the the specific area plan and all the design and standards that would be required with traffic engineering, et cetera.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Counselor Dabson.

Um I guess what I'm trying to say, what I what I think is I'm not feeling confident about this yet either.

For a lot of the same reasons, I almost feels like um we should just hold off until you are more prepared.

That's how I feel you said that you since this had all come through that you'd acquired more lots.

Is is are there any new ones that you've acquired according to this map?

Or is this the latest acquisition?

Mr.

Mayor, sir, this is the latest acquisition, but we acquired five lots between our first presentation at PZB and then our last presentation that we had this week.

Okay.

And I do understand that the that the specific area plan sets the tone and tenor of all that, but the heartburn here uh still comes around unless you come in and do a master plan for this, uh, and we're just approving R3 zoning, and you don't acquire these lots, then you've got R3 zoning entitlements now, and at that point this conceptual plan turns into something completely different because it's what R3 allows, and that master plan would have given us that confidence that it would be kind of this R4 development, because make no mistake, I really like this.

This I think this is this is good.

I think it's very thoughtful.

I like the fact that you haven't done just all shotgun streets and they've got some curves in there and some characters.

So I think this is very well thoughtful, thoughtfully laid out.

But once again, my concern is we go in and and I think if this was if it was R4 zoning, then we'd know what that was gonna be, right?

But in this particular case, it's R3, so that opens up the door to a lot of different things without a master plan attached to it.

And the master plan normally says, hey, this is what we're gonna do in here, and this is why we want this particular type of zoning.

So it's I understand the specific area plan, I really do, but it but that that's your that's your 30,000 foot, you know, plan and the master plan gets us down to 20,000 feet so that we can give the people in the area a level of confidence of what's actually gonna happen here.

And and so I think uh that's that's where I get a little bit nervous on this.

Um and so uh so but I I I just want you to know that um I I clearly like this.

I think it's it's a good plan, and I know Bob's concerned about being around the schools, but you know, our our um uh comprehensive plan says that the closer you get to facilities like schools and stuff like that, you're supposed to see a little bit higher density so that people have a more walkable experience, and hopefully most of this neighborhood would walk to school as opposed to drive, you know, driving.

But uh this would create that kind of walkability to the school.

So uh that's just my opinion on that.

Um but I know counselor Tyler's head his life uh surrounded by schools uh and traffic around schools.

Uh but that being said, I I I would I would really feel more comfortable if we had a master plan that said, yeah, this is what we're gonna go with, and it's not gonna substantially change, but understand that if we just change the zoning, you can walk out of here today and then come back and say, well, we have R3 now, so now we can legally do this, and it's something completely different, right?

So, you know, that's where I'm at on this particular item.

Is there anything you can do to give us some level of confidence that that's not gonna happen?

Mr.

Mayor, thank you for asking that question.

That's where my head was going.

Um, would it be fair to ask the governing body that they could place certain conditions upon the zone map request approval limiting perhaps the lot size or that it must be single family homes so that there is confidence in how the project would move forward?

I'd have to ask Amy about that.

Amy, is that a condition that we could add without it going back to PCB?

Mr.

Mayor, Councilor Calbreath has comments.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Well, I still have the floor and then I'll give it to her.

Thank you.

No, I I think actually, Mr.

Mayor, please proceed with uh that line of questioning.

That would be that was right in the direction that I was planning to go.

Okay, thank you.

So Amy, is that a a condition or stipulation that could be put on there?

Because that's where my concern comes from Mr.

Mayor, um, I believe we could put uh some kind of stipulations um tying it down to single family um the R3 as a as a detached um one of the things that that I would want um I hate doing stuff on the spot, I'll be honest with you.

I don't I don't like to make changes right here in front of you because whenever we've done it, um I've had to come back multiple times.

So my preference would be if if that's uh the will of of the governing body um that we look at postponing this item for a month, give us some time to draft the language, make sure that we can uh stress test that language and make sure that it's correct and that we can meet with legal and make sure everything is good to go.

Um I I think that is a possibility.

Um whether or not we would need to take this back to planning and zoning board to have them also stress test that language before it comes back in front of you.

Um I I wouldn't know at this time uh depending on what that language itself would look like.

So um, so yes, it is an option.

Um I just ask that we don't make that as a a quick snap judgment and that you give staff time to be able to draft.

I I agree with that.

And so I would ask because of that, if we postpone this here in the governing body, then we don't have to send it back to planning and zoning board and start you all over again, and we postpone and we come up with that language that kind of locks that in and lets you work with staff a little bit.

Um for me, that would give me a little more confidence.

I can't speak for I can't speak for for my colleagues up here.

Um but uh and then also who knows, maybe you acquire three more of these holdouts in the next you know week or two, and that gives you that gives us real um kind of confidence that this thing is coming together.

I I know there's the the seven that are in the center, those don't those don't give me as much heartburn as as the ones where the road goes through them, right?

Um, and and so you've got one, two, three, four, seven, five, six, seven where the road goes, eight, eight where the road goes through them.

Oh, nine, nine, ten, ten, eleven, twelve, yeah, really.

Pretty much all the things.

Well, these are on the fruit, these are on the fringe out here.

These two.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, okay.

So um, yeah, so there's there's quite a few, and I understand.

And and uh to your point also, the antiquated plating thing is just a horrible problem that we're all having to deal with.

And I appreciate the fact that you guys work this hard to assemble this many properties.

Um hold on.

Okay.

So I I think it's great that you've worked this hard to assemble all these properties and get them under single ownership.

And it's look, it's it's looking like you guys are really gaining momentum on getting this project across the finish line.

I would like uh if we're gonna do zone change, I would like something a master plan or even uh of some sort of a document that says this is what this is what we're gonna this is what this is gonna be, right?

And and then hopefully if this moves forward, then that motivates your holdout lots to jump in as well.

So we would say there.

But that's just my thought, my opinion.

Let me check with Counselor Culbreth before I come back to you.

Yes, sir.

Okay, Counselor Colbreth, did you have anything?

Umor.

No, I I agree with many of the comments that have been uh provided.

I think my my concern lies within um the just the range of uh homes um and and types and styles that are permissible in R3.

So without having a master plan that provides a binding guidance for what would in fact be built, um given the list of options that's that's there.

Um you know anything could be built there that would be permissible in R3.

So I do think that having some additional uh conditions or parameters in place would would be helpful, most certainly a master plan is the ideal.

It is the gold standard.

Um and so I would also encourage in the time um that we have for this postponement if if that's how we move forward, uh, that the um that the developers would consider um what it may look like to also put together um a bit more to their conceptual plan, if not to develop out a full master plan.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Mr.

Mayor, Counselor Tyler.

Um Amy, just real quick.

Uh this is my feeling on this.

I feel that honestly, we need a master plan with this.

It it just needs it.

It's something that I think would help us all feel better.

I have a lot of concern with these lots that are in there with the roadways.

I almost feel that this should this should go back through the process.

The master plan, everything should be worked out, it should be re-vetted back through PZB and then come back before us in the whole entire process again to ensure that this is where we need it to be.

I think that if we postpone it for 30 days, we're gonna piecemeal stuff, we're gonna not do it to where I think it should be.

And if we're gonna do it, let's do it right, and let's make sure that I mean the project, like the mayor said, is a good project.

It doesn't mean it's gonna be gone forever, it just means we need other additional steps to be put into place so we can ensure that this project's gonna be something viable and it's gonna be what it's supposed to be down the road.

So I'm asking you, do you think that that would be a good process to work back through that way?

Uh Mr.

Mayor, Counselor uh Tyler.

So one of the things too that um the benefit to going through the process again and and I'm not the biggest fan of having to take things back, I'll be honest.

Uh because it's it's a lot, right?

But yeah, I agree with you, neither are we.

It's one of those things too that that I do think the applicant said um in the presentation that the lots are going to average somewhere between 4,000 to 5,000 square feet.

Those would fit in an R4.

Um, and so it might just be as easy as coming in with a request that's for an R4 and with a master plan.

Um if if if there is a uh and what I'm feeling from the governing body is that there is some comfort level in having not a hundred percent ownership in these master plans, and so what we can do is is we can um go back the master plan route, look if the applicant is open to it to the R4 and and go back through the process and kind of clean it up without putting restrictions on an R3, which would make it in the future a little bit difficult to track um and kind of puts it out of sync with everything else.

There would be some ways of of moving this forward and and cleaning up all of those and not like you're saying, uh piecemeal the application.

So my next question would be to you, Mr.

Mayor.

I would it be appropriate for us to just go ahead and move forward with a vote on this piece now.

Yeah, right now I have a motion on the four to the floor approved.

No, no, you're fine.

I'm sorry.

I just wanted to clarify.

Okay, unless somebody wants to do a motion to postpone that's we have a motion on the floor.

Okay.

Uh so it's either at this point that I yield the floor.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor, Councilor Weimer.

Um Amy, I I think you said it best, but I want to add something.

Even with an R3 with conditions, I don't know that I feel comfortable with that.

The concern I have is that if it says R3 and it's six months, eight months, two years down the road.

Is there a way to tie that condition to that zone?

And the only way that I'm aware to do that is to do a special use zone, and then tie that special use zone to a site plan.

There may be other mechanisms, and I know you're you're kind of being put on the spot to use your word.

So I know you need to do some research, and I appreciate that.

I just wanted to share that concern with straight R3 zoning.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Anything else, Counselor Culbright?

Okay, thank you.

All right, I have a motion and a second.

Um, and notwithstanding a motion to postpone um no further comment from council miss Davis.

Um R I'm sorry, O21.

Oh 21.

Thank you.

Councillor Colbert.

No.

Councilor Weimer?

No.

Counselor Tyler.

No.

Counselor List.

No.

Counselor Jabson.

No.

And Mayor Hall.

No.

O21 fails.

Okay.

Thank you.

Moving on to R89.

Uh resolution amending the Tampico North Specific Area Plan and the La Barranca specific area plan.

Um if I'm not mistaken, this one goes along with R90 and O22.

Is that correct?

Okay.

Mr.

Mayor, that's correct.

So I'm going to be presenting on all three items, but um each will require a separate vote.

Correct.

So I just want to make sure I state that for the record that we're taking all public comment, all council comments on R89.

Uh, along with uh any any applicant presentations, and then we'll move straight to vote on R90 and O22 after that.

Thank you.

Um R89, Miss Rincone.

Mr.

May uh Mr.

Mayor and members of the governing body, Amy Rincone Directory of Development Services.

So R89 is a resolution amending the Tampico North Specific Area Plan in the La Barranca specific area plan.

R90 is a resolution that would adopt uh the creation of the Tampico Master Plan.

An O22 is an ordinance amending the zoning classification and an official zoning map uh for the property legally described as Unit 17 block 87 tract A and then Trata De Carnado Tract B from SU special use for C1 retail commercial to R4 single family residential.

So uh what we have up here, so location map uh is gonna be the one on the right hand side.

Um so this is at the corner of Idelia and 528, just located uh a little ways in from the hard corner.

Um, and then uh on your left hand side is the land use map, um, which has a designation currently of that um commercial.

So the request uh would change this from an SU for commercial to an R4 uh to allow for a subdivision.

Uh so the Tampico master plan that would be created uh through this process.

Um so let me let me roll this back a second.

So there are two overlaying uh specific area plans.

So there is the La Baranca specific area plan, and then there is the Tampico specific area plan.

Uh this section of the property would be removed out of those specific area plans and create the Tampico master plan for for these areas to allow for that subdivision uh with the requested R4 zoning.

Um so in your agenda briefing memorandum, they did provide a conceptual lot layout and then uh conceptual roadways.

So uh under staff's review, staff did recommend approval of both um or um excuse me of all three of these items, uh, but the planning and zoning board at their July 8th 2025 meeting recommended denial uh with the following conditions and findings.

Um, and so here I have the R89 findings and conditions, the R90 findings and conditions, and then the O22 conditions and findings.

Oops.

Um, so again, originally uh a staff recommended approval.

Uh the PCB board though did recommend the governing body denial of all three items, and with that I will stand for any questions, and the applicant is here to do a presentation as well.

Okay, I'll hear from the applicant.

Okay.

So good evening again, Mr.

Mayor and members of the governing body.

My name is Nicosia Schuttlebauer.

I am here on behalf of Tampico Development.

I would really like to thank you for your time this evening and for your careful consideration of our project.

So I know Director Rincone just presented an overview of the project, but I wanted to reiterate a couple points about the scope of our request.

So as she said, the Tampico Master Plan Community is a 26.17 acre site located near the intersection of New Mexico 528 and Adalia, and we're proposing to add 118 homes to the community.

In 2002, the city rezoned the property from R1 to SU for C1 retail commercial and adopted the Tampico North Specific Area Plan.

And then in 2010, the site was also included in the La Barranca specific area plan.

Despite this zone change and the inclusion of the site into these two different area plans, this site has remained stagnant, and retail business is developed north of the area on 528.

Given the demand for diverse housing in Rio Rancho, and that the site was once zoned R1.

We believe the land use for these two parcels is best developed as a residential subdivision.

We met with city staff who recommended the R4 zoning designation because they felt it would integrate better with the surrounding area.

Today we're asking you to approve the zone change from SU for C1 to R4, adopt the Tampico Master Plan, and remove these parcels from the existing area plans.

So we presented this zone map amendment and the SAP removals and master plan at the March 25th PCB meeting.

At this meeting, there were some questions raised, which we have since addressed at the July 20 or July 8th PCB meeting, but I'd like to share these points with you as they were very important.

First was the concern is how much commercial land was going to remain at this corner because the city has identified this area for preferred future commercial land use.

With our zone change, there are still two parcels which total 23 acres that would remain commercial.

As a point of reference, an average big box retailer is between 50 to 100,000 square feet.

And a good example is up the road at Plaza at Enchanted Hills.

This site is a 24-acre site and it has a Sprouts, TJ Maxx, Michaels, Ross, Pet Smart, Turtle Mountain Brewery, the Block has many more.

So we feel that the vision can still be upheld with this request.

Staff also had asked that we provide a master plan to address items like infrastructure access and drainage, which we have submitted, and staff approved and supported at that July 8th PZB meeting.

Another concern was area drainage because of the amount of water that routes through this watershed and the fact that the existing roadways are dirt.

This property is part of the Willow Creek watershed management plan, in which the city has identified that they'd like to construct a portion of a storm drain, and it's an area need.

With our project, we would be constructing a portion of this drain, paving a portion of the roads, which would alleviate some of the continual road maintenance that the city does in this area.

In fact, I think in one of your packets letters, you will see that a neighbor says that the city's out there every week regrading those dirt roads.

I think we can also remember recent storms that caused severe flooding on the roadways and hampered emergency access.

These drainage improvements contribute to improving the water quality, general welfare, and public safety.

Lastly, there was another question on how our project would integrate with remaining commercial land.

Here's a quick little map to show the commercial corner, how we would buffer the R1 lots that are existing in the area.

In your agenda pack is also a copy of the master plan, but we have included design sheets for lot layout, park space, drainage, access, and utility.

And we have received a letter from the utility saying that they would service the project.

Based on these conversations, we want to address a couple or several key things, starting with traffic.

So the recurring theme from the community that we had received was the concern over the increased traffic in the area, particularly on the dirt roads.

We will be paving Aurora to Vitapa and extending the paving from Vitapa through the end of the subdivision.

This paving will include sidewalks, will it improve pedestrian safety, emergency vehicle access, and significantly reduce the road maintenance.

Whether children are playing outside, residents are walking in the neighborhood, or families are heading to the new park, we're including with the subdivision.

These improvements represent a meaningful benefit to the area, not a burden.

Additionally, it's important to emphasize that residential development typically generates far less traffic than commercial uses.

Under the current zoning, a large retail center, and I'm just throwing some numbers out there, a 41,000 square foot user with a couple of fast food restaurants, would produce over 4,600 vehicle trips per day, and that's just using the median number on this trip generation manual, which is what we use for traffic impact studies.

In contrast, if we use the high end of these numbers for what a residence would generate, 10 trips per day at 118 homes only generates 1,180 trips.

I would say if traffic is truly a concern, the proposed zone change to residential significantly reduces the potential traffic impact when compared to current commercial zoning.

In either scenario, though, all traffic generated is subject to review by the city engineer, and we will have to follow safety guidelines and improvements based upon our trip generation.

No project, no matter the zoning, can't move forward without complying with the requirements of traffic engineering.

So another concern that was raised was the intersection of Aurora and Vitapa.

The roadway was initially designed to meet the city safety and design standards, and we had redirected Aurora to Vitapa.

But based on feedback from the community, we have revised the original concept so that that roadway is no longer directed towards Vitapa road.

I'll show you right there.

And we are committed to addressing this concern.

I mean, we want to make the neighbors as happy as we possibly can with this development, and we would try to meet all the safety and engineering requirements that were needed to redirect this roadway.

Property values were another question.

So the proposed homes are expected to be priced between 450,000 and 620,000, which is comparable with pricing of homes in the surrounding area.

We've also received numerous comments about the hill being leveled.

It's got quite a slope on one side of the parcel.

And while we understand these concerns, I think it's really important to note that the property is currently zoned commercial, right?

So if it was developed under that condition, um it's a city requirement that we have to have a grading and drainage plan.

So the site's gonna have to be leveled no matter which direction, whether we do this project or we don't do this project, and it goes back to commercial use.

Also to note there's a 32 foot height restriction with R4 zoning where C1 has a 50 foot height restriction, which would vastly change the viewpoint.

I've included a couple renderings of the home styles that we have proposed for this project.

They are designed to meet a middle price point of the market, and based on the median household income for this area at 144,000, this actually makes the homes affordable for community members that live around here.

I think there's been questions regarding potential impacts to the community as a whole.

And I know it's important to address these things, but with every development comes impact fees.

And so with the development of 118 homes, we would generate almost 1.5 million dollars in based on the 2025 fee schedule that support key infrastructure improvements like roadways, parks, public safety services.

Additionally, with the continued growth of online retail, these new homes are expected to contribute positively to the city's gross receipt tax revenue.

Just say it'd say in summary, if we compare the site today as it exists to be developed under the C1 designation, our proposed change of R4 has a lot of the same outcomes and also a lot better outcome than what it could be, right?

Our impact to the neighborhood is actually better.

So you have the same site, you have more traffic generated with commercial versus residential.

The roadways, the grading and drainage, storm drain, um, all are requirements of development.

They would have or happen under either scenario.

Crime, you know, certain retail uses actually increase crime rates where residential density has shown to decrease crime rates.

Infrastructure, you know, impact fees are paid, expansion to utility infrastructure helps with future developments, and the city benefits with return water credits with system expansion instead of creating more and well septic systems, which are the only financially feasible way to develop this area currently.

GRT and property taxes are paid under both scenarios.

So my question would be to you today is how are these concerns being better mitigated?

Is it by keeping current C1 zoning or down zoning the land to R4?

Um we are genuinely invested in this project, and we believe it represents a positive opportunity for the community.

That being said, this is a hard decision, right?

Change is hard.

Change is hard whether it's good or bad.

And we really have made efforts to engage with the neighbors and address their concerns, but I think you'll note that a lot of the issues being raised are just unique to change in development and not specific to our use.

You know, we've recognized you're going to be receiving public comment.

You have it in your packet.

I know there are members here in the neighborhood who are going to speak out against this project, and it's challenging to support our proposal in the face of this opposition.

But we really believe our proposal offers a more thoughtful, community-friendly outcome.

And I just like to thank you for your time, your consideration, and your service to our community, and I will stand for questions.

Okay, thank you.

Before I take public comment, I do have to have a motion and a second.

I'll go ahead and take a motion to approve.

R9.

First one.

What's that?

Motion to approve R89?

Okay.

Second.

Okay, I have a motion and a second.

Let's see here.

Megan Bells.

Hi.

Hello, council members.

So I'm here as a residents of the area, really.

I just want to voice my concern for this.

I think that change isn't hard for everybody.

I don't think you can speak for everybody on that.

I love change.

I've lived in many different states.

New Mexico is my home.

I'm all for a change, but my main concern are the roads.

You know, they say they're going to pave the roads, but who's going to maintain those long term?

Is it up to us, the residents?

Is it up to Tampico?

Or is it going to be up to the city?

So I'd like some clarification on that.

I was talking to a council member, and he almost made it seem like this is kind of a done deal already.

So I don't know how much my voice is even going to matter today.

But I would challenge you guys on when's the last time you drove down 550 at 7 a.m.

or 5 p.m.

On your way to Santa Fe to go work for the state.

You know, it's it's incredible.

It's frustrating, it's taxing on your mental health, your car, your vehicle, your pocket.

Um I think there needs to be better infrastructure in place.

We need another bridge over the river.

I understand the complexities of that, but you can't keep building and building and not build more businesses in Rio Rancho as far as intel level businesses to keep the people in Rio Rancho and working in Rio Rancho.

We have to leave Rio Rancho because there are no big corporations out here to work for.

So what do you do?

Oh some challenges, and that's it.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Josh David.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Can I go ahead?

Yes, yes, absolutely.

Sounds like yes, thank you.

Um so I'm also standing opposed to this.

This is the third time that we've been here kind of voicing the same concerns.

Um I have a problem being um identified as one of the neighbors that they've quote unquote worked with.

Um, I think I received one phone call and no follow-up.

So I don't want that to be seen in something in your eyes that is that they've really worked hard at because that's a lie.

They haven't.

I spoke to them one time, got one phone call back, and that was it over four months now.

Um this is a master plan issue, I think that we're looking at, right?

And if we look at the zoning requirements, there's four requirements, and it is on the burden of the developer to justify the change in zoning.

Um, what I would say is what they're trying to justify is a short-term benefit for themselves because why are they actually building this development?

It's not for the benefit of the city, it's for the benefit of the people that are making the money, and this is a good spot.

Okay, but once you give away your zoning, from what I understand, it's almost impossible to get back in just what I've heard tonight.

So if we're looking into the future, giving away potential commercial zoning, right, to add R4 zoning, which there's plenty of R4 zoning uh within a five-mile radius of this already.

Uh I mean it it doesn't make sense, right?

At what point do we decide how far the master plan pushes forward for the health and the benefits of the city members and not for the developers that are benefiting only in their pockets?

Because the people that are here, right, opposing this are the health, right?

And what is justifiable for the city, not the developers.

So in my eyes, they haven't justified that this is healthy for our community because I live in it.

And it's not.

Yeah.

Okay.

But you good, just if you had just a few more words you can wrap up.

I yeah, yeah, I try to be a little bit flexible.

I guess I would just stand with like um one of the big big giant reasons, right?

And was was the roadways.

And I don't know if you guys have been on a row road, but I run it every day, it's less than a half mile.

Okay, so improving a road a half mile, um, which there's multiple exits out of that area, they're all dirt roads.

It's not improving.

It's not improving.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh John Clark.

Uh I'm sorry if I I'm not reading this.

Is it John Clann?

Clark.

I'm sorry.

I was misinterpreting that R as an N.

I apologize, John.

That's okay.

I script.

Mayor Hall.

Uh Council members.

Uh appreciate the opportunity to speak.

I live on 6804 of Atapa Road.

Um, I'm about six houses from the uh proposed site up the street.

And I moved here um 10 years ago, like most residents, area rancho for the city of Vision.

And the city of Vision happened to include two grandchildren.

So my wife didn't give me any choice at all.

We're moving to Riaranja.

One of the first persons I met in town was you at a barbecue.

And that impressed me.

Um I'm a retired Arizona school superintendent.

I've built some schools and I've built a few community buildings.

And one of the things that I see in this that's addressed partially tonight, is the first thing in developing the school site and would be a community site is access.

How many people are going to be streaming in and out off a dahlia, 528?

No gallus.

Uh a good example of that is to be there Sunday afternoon when three of our local churches let out, and they have a choice of turning left and taking a suicide chance on from Pascilla on to 528, or going down Nogales and Om to Idalia and hitting the street light.

And the city does a nice job every Thursday grading the roads, uh sandy, but by Sunday they're washboard.

And if you were there Sunday afternoon when all the church traffic goes across, I'll bet you hit that total of at least 500 cars that day on Mogallis.

Because they're looking for a safety access.

So the mic that concern on access is important.

The other thing looking at that site is that where's the sewer gonna go?

Is it all gonna be septic for 120 houses in that area?

Or is it gonna be pumped up to San Val County Courthouse and distributed from there?

That's moving waste uphill or upstream.

The other access would be to pump it down towards the Catholic church along 528.

The water, uh there's a big huge water main not too far from the county courthouse.

It probably could supply water, but it's gonna have to go across by dahlia.

Um but those are my main concerns, and I looked at that and I thought, my god, what a great site for a trader Joe's.

Oh no, there's all the other I'm a fan of Albertson's up there.

I know every employee in the store, trust me.

Um but I think about also what a great location for because it used to be a school at one time.

There used to be a school sitting on there.

What a great location for fire and police and other community services, and to give this away to residential, it'll never come back, and it's got that access that it's gonna be valuable to the future.

So I'm hoping that we all can apply that city of vision to this issue.

Thank you.

Thank you, Peter Webb.

Thank you, Mayor and Counselors.

I'm Peter Webb.

I live in the area and have for 23 years owned property in the area for more than 25 years.

I think I've seen a lot of what needed to be done to develop this property to begin with.

I recognize that some people like the larger lots, but with it came dirt roads and septic tanks and water wells.

I mean I'm for this uh improvement.

I think that it benefits to be able to have a buffer between the larger lots to the west and the commercial properties on the east.

I think it'll be a good neighborhood.

I just want to make sure I've expressed that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jack Galen.

Good evening, members of the board.

Let's see.

I am 200 feet from the proposed development, so I did not read receive the letter announcing this meeting or any prior meeting.

So I too feel like the developers have not exercised the outreach, neighborhood outreach that was suggested tonight.

But I too will focus on the traffic related issues.

I think the developers are a little disingenuous when they when they talk about average number of drives and whatnot, comparing comparing commercial location to the residential one that is proposed.

What it ignores is what the current traffic patterns going into and out of this two uh plots would be if they were developed as proposed as a subdivision versus a commercial thing down the road.

If you lived in the area, you would know as uh someone John I think mentioned.

There are the main traffic patterns out to Adelia, but there are also these uh unofficial cut throughs.

One was mentioned on Nogales up to this uh 200 foot long section of Atapa up Aurora, relatively short road to Adelia.

Um impact of uh additional traffic that comes out of this umdivision goes uh not only to 528, um it goes to the surrounding neighborhood roads, which are all dirt.

Uh particular traffic that flows down no gallus.

I don't uh assume that no gallus was designed with uh the volume of traffic in in mind, has no uh sidewalks, has no drainage, uh uh whatnot.

The proposal to improve the existing roads is really limited to that section of Aurora and a short section of a Tapa.

Uh as again, I think disingenuous because uh commercial uh development in that area is likely to dump traffic onto 528, maximize the number of cars getting into and out of how easy it is for them to do that.

There is no equivalent way for this uh these plots of land developed as a residential community.

There's no direct access on to a daily, it's not designed to handle that volume of traffic onto it out of a residential piece.

Uh as I indicated, improving Aurora doesn't address that at all.

Um you would really need to uh improve regales, uh the entire Vitapa.

Um and I apologize, I was letting you go a little past the two minutes there, but I've got a no, no, no, no, no.

I appreciate it.

Yeah, and uh I thank you for listening.

Okay, no, thank you very much.

Um let me see here.

Okay, that was my last sign-up sheet.

Um I would like to speak.

Uh okay.

I'm sorry.

Um I'm sorry, who's on and do uh uh who was that?

Some can my name is Kimberly Jennison sample.

Okay, all right.

I didn't see you online, and normally uh uh normally we we close the sign up on this uh before the item has been started being heard, but I'm gonna go ahead and let you uh speak on this, and uh but I need you to read this oath statement, and then we'll start that.

So go the information on the flyer was incorrect for the zoning uh for the Zoom log on and the phone number.

So I eventually found it on the website.

Um it says I uh Kimberly Jennison sample residing at 2644 no Gallas, Rio Rancho, New Mexico 87144.

Do solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony I give in reference to items 18 shall be the truth, and I do this under the penalties of perjury.

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead.

Um I just wanted to say, oops, sorry here.

Um in regards to uh what was um already reiterated by some of the other residents, but this affects us pretty directly, being the fact that we reside at the corner of the Tappa and uh Nogales.

Um I think I've actually met you two at the Donna and Pat McNeely's home.

Um we live directly across from where they used to reside.

Um this proposal does not address the increased traffic that will occur in Nogablas Road.

Nogalis is currently a dirt road, the additional traffic will have a substantial impact on its condition and the safety of those who use it.

Well, this proposal references Aurora and Pataba, it does not address Nogaras at all.

And Nogales is interconnects with Aurora and Batapa, it is within 20 feet of this uh master plan.

Um they talked about uh upgrading that road, uh, paving that road, but nothing at all about Nogales.

Um, as another resident noted when all the three churches in the area let out, or whenever there's an accident on idalia, uh Nogales experiences nonstop traffic.

Um, and this existing pattern will only be worsened by these proposed changes.

Um it it is unconscionable to me that they would think of um building 118 homes in this development, and they would only upgrade that corner of the tappa and um and aurora because there's absolutely no way that those residents will never turn on Vitappa, and the increase of that many residents going down our street um is going to damage it.

We have a special needs kiddo.

Uh we spent an exorbitant amount of money ordering a special needs all-terrain wheelchair, so we can finally take her up and down our street.

And I can imagine that there's plenty of days where we really have difficulty going up and down our street because of the rains, because of the traffic, because all the dips and ditches, even with the road maintenance every Thursday, and you add 118 more residents, plus potentially than commercial development, yeah, and there's no development on that road that's it's non-functional for us, and we've been here for 23 years.

Thank you very much.

Um, thank you very much.

And then let's see here.

Uh we had Melissa Edwards.

Hello, thank you everyone for allowing me to speak.

I know I have two minutes, so I'm just gonna be very brief.

Okay.

Um I I agree with the other statements that were said.

Change is not hard.

Um, I don't change all the time.

I think that change in this particular area with what is being proposed as hard because of the things that have been mentioned.

Um I just want to reiterate we're talking about 118 homes in a neighborhood that is conditioned to have half acre or acre lots traditionally.

So at most we'd be talking 56 homes.

That doubles that more than doubles it.

Um you add in if you have any school-age children driving.

Now those vehicles are are added to those households.

Um pedestrian safety.

I know that it was mentioned.

Well, it's gonna be safer because we're gonna have this.

It might be in that little tiny corridor of a neighborhood, but as previously mentioned, those vehicles are going to exit into our neighborhood.

Um, it will not be safe anymore because of the an amount of vehicles.

If this was a commercial property, the vehicles would not be able to even be allowed.

I would I would assume, because that's how all other commercial properties are, they wouldn't be allowed to exit into a residential area.

They would exit on those other main streets, and there would be different infrastructure for that.

Um, so that to me is a non-issue.

I'd rather have a commercial um, I'd rather have a commercial property there.

When I bought my home a few years ago, I bought it in this community knowing that I was going to get out of a neighborhood similar to what they're putting in.

Um, knowing that we were in bigger lots, less less density, less cars.

I have a special needs child as well.

Um, I have a daughter who's living with me who's a veteran, she just returned um from the Air Force.

I uh it's very detrimental to us in that community, thinking that we've moved in where we might be zoned commercially for Trader Joe's, which is 10 to 15,000 square feet.

Not that I I mean, if it was gonna be um like the block and things like that, we're still talking about a whole different scope there.

Um also the current comps 450 to 650, that might be one or two homes exiting the area.

We don't have many homes coming up for sale.

That is not my home.

Double those numbers, that's my home.

So it will be decreasing my value, which I worked extremely hard for.

I grew up homeless.

I grew up in a motel, and I worked my way up to having a million-dollar home in an area that I absolutely love without the congestion, and now thinking that it's only zoned for commercial, and now that could be changed to line somebody's pockets.

I didn't make my money off the you know, off the backs of somebody else and putting harm or um putting the burden on somebody else.

I don't want that done to me.

Um, and then the last thing I'd like to say is um actually just thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um let's see.

Was did counselor let me go to counselor culbright?

Uh did she have her hand up or no?

No, wait, that was on the previous one.

Never mind.

Everybody's trying to keep me informed of when her hands up.

Never mind.

We're trying to make sure we we uh keep you in the loop over here, counselor.

Um comments by counsel, Mr.

Mayor.

Counselor Tyler.

Um just uh Amy, real quick clarification.

Is this is there an overlay?

Does the overlay zone expand down to that?

And by changing from a C1 to R4, does that change and make this as part of that overlay zone that was I don't even know if it's goes down that far.

Uh there was an overlay zone, I think.

Yes, oh uh the unit 17.

Um so that is a great question.

Let me pull up some.

If I remember correctly, we only when we did that overlay, it was only on residential land.

So I don't believe that that uh would have uh moved down to the commercial area and but is but is my question is is that if we if we rezone it, would that legally make it fall under the overlay zone because we're moving it to a residential now?

Uh so Mr.

Mayor, Counselor Tyler, no.

Um it wouldn't automatically fall in there.

Uh that overlay had um the major component of that was not to allow subdivisions of those lots, so those lots weren't able to go uh smaller than um than half an acre um generally uh is what is in place uh currently.

Okay.

Quick question too.

So uh I would assume that that's gonna be city water and sewer, it's not gonna be on any wells, it's gonna be run straight from city water and sewer, correct?

Mr.

Mayor, Counselor Tyler, that's correct.

All right, and then as far as the 528 access, from my understanding, that's probably why this property hasn't built out commercial, is because the state of New Mexico is not gonna grant any access to 528 from this whole subdivision, is my understanding.

Am I correct on that?

Uh Mr.

Mayor, Counselor Tyler.

Um I I can't speak to what the DOT has uh granted for access to this.

Um I believe there was some early plans at their uh let me pull my here.

So uh Mr.

Mayor, uh Counselor Tyler, if you can kind of seem it's hard, but on that um map on the right hand side, uh the road um that comes down uh close to 528.

I believe that there was some early conversations that probably with DOT could meet some of the the um state access manual distances.

Uh whether or not there has been any current conversations about that or um anything moving forward, some of the earlier um permissions for that has uh it changes as the road grows and it extends.

So I'm not sure on that.

I think the applicant has an answer.

Go ahead.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Mayor, Counselor Tyler.

Um actually we did have a conversation both with David Serrano and Margaret Haynes, who is the district contact for NMDOT, and they have um expressed very strongly that they do not want to give any more access to 520.

That was not an option for us to pursue.

Yeah, that's what I was now.

Since you're there, let me ask you this where Camino Incantadas is where that it's basically a three-way now.

So the property that's gonna be commercial from my understanding is to the east of the red box, basically up there.

Would it be possible for you to extend and go down from your property on the north end within that within that commercial property and make a roadway that would actually connect to Camino and to Camino Encantadas and make that a four-way signal so that folks could use that instead of coming out on Vatapa or Aurora.

Counselor Tyler, conceivably that could happen.

However, we um don't have control of that parcel, right?

So ownership adjacent to us would have to allow a cross-access easement, and I'm not sure how realistic that would be.

You know who that owner is?

Yes.

Yes, okay.

All right.

Um and then one further comment.

The gentleman who brought up the buffer zone who was in support, I do like that, and I do think that that actually is a great comment because if commercial was going to be developed in there, and everyone's screaming about the Trader Joe's, Trader Joe's is not gonna come to Rio Rancho, so we can get that out of our minds.

And I think the traffic count would be way more than what the uh the count is for those um homes there now.

Even any commercial traffic would be way more than what those homes are gonna be from what I can kind of put together on my numbers.

But I do like the R4.

I think that actually develops a really good buffer between the residents of Atapa and Aurora and and Tomiko or Topico.

Tempico.

Yeah, I can't say it, I'm sorry.

Um I do like that.

I think that that would provide a really good buffer.

And I remember when it was a school.

I used to teach there, what it used to be a sheriff's department police academy.

And I remember that.

So when I remember when across the street used to be a shooting range.

So um a lot of things have changed over the times, but uh I I would like to maybe go down the path of looking at that intersection if we could potentially.

So I think that that's something that's all the comments I had, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you.

And I wanted to keep it short.

Mr.

Mayor, Counselor Weimer.

So I just have I I my biggest concern is just, and we and this has been discussed removal of the commercial from the city inventory.

I uh that is a concern I have.

That said, this property has sat vacant for many, many, many years.

And I think the access to 528 to Councilor Tyler's point is one of the main reasons that that's the case.

The only access that would be permitted would be off of Idalia for the commercial project.

So, well, I don't know if we'd have to get into the details, of course, because there may be other access points other in other locations, but in any event, um there would be no access to 528.

Um I do like the buffer, and I know we heard from I think it was Mr.

Webb about the buffer that this would create.

It will create a residential buffer from a commercial use, which whether you agree with the lot sizes or not, is gener is generally considered a good planning setup where you've got commercial buffered uh commercial and then higher density residential buffering, lower density rent residential.

So that that I think is a a plus to this.

Again, I I still have the concern about removing the commercial, but I think generally I'm an I'm in favor of this request.

Any other comments?

Counselor List.

Uh okay.

Um I want to also acknowledge that we received a letter from and I apologize for the name butchering, but Jack Galen and Brian Babcock or Babyak.

Um I just want you to know that your letters were received in read as well.

Um I do see a lot of familiar faces from my district in uh the audience tonight, and we have had a lot of feedback.

I want you to know that I hear you.

Um I I very much hear the struggles with the 528 and PCI, that is an ongoing uh situation.

The city is continuing to work towards some additional resolutions in that area with uh the Department of Transportation, however, it is solely in their hands, and so I just need everyone to remember and understand that the whole 528 piece, whether we're talking about Tempico or or something else, is very much out of our hands, and so all we can do is continue to advocate for the city in that area.

Um I think each and every one of you for coming tonight.

I hear you, and um I support you Mr.

Mayor, Counselor Dabson.

So um I kind of came into this with with also trepidation about losing um commercial property.

I didn't really realize it kind of didn't snap till you talked about it that there will actually be commercial property still left.

Having that buffer between the commercial property and the larger lower density homes is a I also agree is a good idea.

And also having if we do are able to get commercial business in that front part of it, um maybe we will be able to have a another way to get 528.

Obviously not direct, but um so I feel a lot better about it than I did when I was reading through it.

So I'm kind of okay.

Thank you.

Let's see.

Before I say anything, Counselor Culworth, nope, she's good.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay.

So I want to I don't know if uh Counselor Weimer covered all of these, but I did want to cover some of the questions.

Uh who's going to maintain the roads?

Well, once the master plan's done, the the the development is uh built out uh like they are in every other community throughout the city.

If it's not a gated community, then it they become the city's uh the city's obligation for maintenance, so that wouldn't fall back to anybody in this particular area.

Uh so uh so that's that I just wanted to answer that question.

Um Bob, you top you uh counselor, you touched on um the water and sewer.

This would tie into the city's existing water and sewer system, and if it if it needed a lift station, I'm assuming the developer would need to put that in.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, uh Counselor Tyler, that's correct.

Okay.

And so uh so all of that infrastructure would be on the developer to install that infrastructure and tie into the city's existing infrastructure.

Okay.

Um, Amy.

Considering the worst case scenario, C1.

Gonna go down this.

I always go down this path.

I I don't like converting commercial.

But I know a Walmart tried to go to this site years ago, and it was no no no no.

Okay.

And then that Walmart ended up in town of Burnley.

So despite what everybody's saying that we don't we don't we want commercial here, this is you've we've already come out and said we don't want commercial here.

And so um, and I don't know what the trip generation on a Walmart is, but uh I know that at the Walmart that's over at uh uh Southern and UNSER, uh it's probably a minimum of a thousand to two thousand cars a day, people coming in from all over the community, and a Trader Joe's, I don't know exactly what the trip generation is, but it's 500 to a thousand cars a day of people who don't live in the community coming in to go to that store.

So that means people from Corrales, Bern Leo, um uh all around the surrounding areas, and I can tell you if we if we did get a Trader Joe's, you would draw in traffic from all over the place.

And you'd have semi-trucks coming in day and night to offload goods.

Um so I know we say we want a trader Joe's, but what's the maximum height limit on a C1 if you had the apartment complex on top?

Uh so Mr.

Mayor, um C1 allows for uh 50 feet as a uh max height, just as a entitlement.

Um and I believe that you can with a conditional use permit go up to 78 feet.

78 feet.

78 feet.

So we have the the ability to put 78-foot tall buildings, that's the equivalent of Rust Medical Center, just to put that into perspective right here on this property.

And so I just want to look at this because if it is 118 homes and there's say an average of two cars per house.

Um uh that's uh 236 cars that of known entities that are coming and going from the neighborhood, uh as opposed to potentially a thousand cars coming into a Trader Joe's.

And if you leave this whole property commercial like this, um you could have a development that looks very similar to the block.

You the it's just and look at the traffic that's at the block.

I mean, that parking lot is absolutely full now.

So buffering from this R1 over because right now you have C1 straight up against R1.

And I don't know who did that.

That's been that way for a long, long time.

Um and I I appreciate the suggestion of well, we could put a fire department there or even a police station.

That would just take up a very small portion.

But the problem is is we don't own the property.

This is owned by private property owners.

And and so I I just point out these things because we say them, but I know before I was in office, uh, like I said, a Walmart tried to go on this corner.

And we've I know that the property owner has petitioned five uh the property owner has petitioned DOT numerous times to put access there at Vatapa, which if DOT did that, then you'd have thousands of cars coming in off of 528 onto Vitapa that would be accessing this commercial facility from that side, and then it would be pushing into that area because you would allow for uh on a commercial development, you would allow for as many access points on the perimeter as possible to allow for traffic flows.

If you go look at um Plaza and Enchanted Hills, there's access up on Lincoln, there's access on uh Enchanted Hills Drive, and then there's access.

That one has access to 528.

So that one gets out onto 528 right there.

But this one, they're not gonna allow for that access on the 528.

Um and so these things concern me, and I think the way to mitigate the traffic and to reduce it down would be to put R4 because it would be very predictable as to what's going in here as opposed to what we don't know what's going to go in here.

Now, once again, I I'm I I have actually had somebody approach me, and I don't know if you guys are gonna cringe on this, but I had somebody approach me and said, Hey, I wonder if we could put a top golf there.

Okay.

Um and then I had another person approach me and said, what if we put uh what if we put uh a Hinkle Family Fund Center there?

Okay.

Um I've I've had a lot of people over the last 11 years kind of toss out ideas on what this property could be from uh from just regular malls to this, that or the other.

I've always been extremely nervous about this because of its proximity, especially on this west side.

Um that you've got R1 right across the street of Audalia, you've got, and then R1 directly to the west, and then R1 directly to the south of this property.

And this is hard C1 property with a potential of building 78-foot buildings.

If we convert it to R4, we keep that building height to 36, and we limit the total number of I'm sorry, what's that 36 maximum?

36 maximum, it's limited there.

And um we know we have known entities who's going to be coming and going from this property.

I think it buffers the R1 to the C1 very well.

But when you look at our zoning for C1 with the with the conditional use and the special use on this particular property, I would honestly hate to see 78-foot buildings go in on this property.

I would just hate to see it.

So we always have to think what it can be or could potentially be under its current zoning, and it is downzoning the right thing to do.

And unfortunately, a lot of zoning decisions were made back in the 90s and early 2000s and uh from 2000 to 2010 with the idea of what was going to go where, but it didn't anticipate the way that we have grown.

And so I think this is one of those things that we have to look at.

You have a property owner that's willing that is that is petitioning us to give up or down zone the property, which in and of itself uh takes away entitlements uh to to the property itself.

So that being said, and I think one of the biggest drawbacks that has been to this is that your commercial developers really don't want to go on here because they can't get that access off of 528, and if they did get that access off of 528, it's gonna come onto Vitapa, and that's gonna create all even even tons more traffic because then you're gonna have even more people coming out through that neighborhood to get down to Vitapa to get onto 528 left or right, north or south.

So there's a lot of moving parts here.

And for me, uh the I I I I see this, I I see this as a buffer between that R1 and that commercial, because when that commercial comes, we're gonna be back here talking about SU permits, and we're gonna be back here talking about uh site plans, and uh and if and there's plenty of room on this remaining corner to put a Trader Joe's there or even a Walmart on that corner.

So I if we're back six months, eight months, a year from now saying, hey, we've got to do a site plan approval for this 60-foot tall building, you know, a big box building that's gonna go there.

Is everybody really gonna be back here going, hey, we're very happy about that?

I I don't I don't believe so.

I really don't.

So that being said, I just want to point those things out because the points are good, but this is C1 property, it has entitlements in it, it has it is zoned.

It this is not a surprise to anybody that lives in the neighborhood.

They've known that this corner has been commercially zoned and privately owned for years and years and years.

Um if I were if I were in one of these R1 homes, I would be saying, yeah, this would be a good thing to shelter me from a heavy hard corner, and that's what this is, a hard corner C1 property, and that's that's on a state highway that has 30 to 40 car thousand cars a day on it already.

So um that could potentially all pull into this neighborhood because there's a Trader Joe's there, or because there's a Walmart there, or some other high traffic, high volume location.

So that's just my opinion on it.

Um and that once again, I hate giving up commercial property, but this one it's gonna be problem for the area if you get a commercial with an apartment complex on top, which is what's allowable under current C1 zoning, and that's a 7070 70 plus foot tall building.

So that's where I'm at.

I'm just thinking through all of these different components as I'm hearing everybody's concerns, and I have bigger concerns, I understand the traffic.

Um we're gonna continue to grow.

Um Rio Rancho started off as 90,000 acres of R1 property with no commercial programmed in it at all.

No gas stations, no grocery stores, no anything.

So that being said, that's kind of where I'm at on this, and I just want to kind of point those in, make sure that we are addressing these questions, and they are they are uh they are good questions, but think about the block being there and not just the block.

But this would actually, if it was all commercial, it would take a lot more commercial activity than the block does, because this is a bigger parcel when you keep it aggregated than the then plaza de enchanted hills is and you can and right there you have easily 2,000 cars a day going through Plaza and Enchanted Hills with the restaurants and everything that are there.

So that all could be right here on this corner.

But I'll leave it at that.

Thank you all very much.

I just have one follow-up question, Mr.

Marion.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

Uh thank you.

On Aurora, there's gonna be homes on that that side, correct?

On on that street.

Councilor Tyler, are you talking?

I guess would that be the east side of Aurora?

Be the west side of the south, yeah.

It'd be on the west side.

Um there are some homes there, yeah.

No, no, is there there when you're yes, yeah.

Okay.

So my question is, would it be possible to put single-story homes along that side so that at least protects some of the views of the people that are across the street so that if they're looking east, they don't just see a two-story building.

So anything that's built along the uh, because I don't see the top of folks, do you have the site plan losing their views?

Do you have the the proposed layout of the of the uh neighborhood?

So we can put that up there.

I guess it is.

I'm just thinking a little bit because this is a discussion I've had with other builders in the past.

We would be more than happy to put that kind of condition to have just the single family or single story along those roadways if that would make it um more palatable, more palatable, yeah.

I would like to add that condition to it.

So I'm just thinking maybe, and then the other piece, just walk me through again.

How far are you going to pave?

Um those dirt roadways.

So from Adalia Um going down on Aurora and then redoing that intersection right now.

We think it's it doesn't mean City Sanders, right?

So we'll have to go past that and go then the bottom of the subdivision is at Vatapa.

It runs into that other commercially zoned piece, and because if you continued onwards, you'd go into 528.

So the it the roadway would have to end at the corner of that subdivision and then it would partially go up Aurora because of the storm drain that we'd have to construct.

So would it come down to Tampico and just past Tampico, so then whoever comes out from there would go directly.

I know I'm looking at it, but I'm not very smart sometimes.

You know what I'm saying?

Yeah, uh so you mean to the south of that intersection?

Tampico.

It would go, it would go to the east, correct?

Yeah.

Is everything in blue paved?

Correct.

Everything we see up there in blue is paved.

Yes.

How far up Vitapa does it go?

Because it kind of dead ends there.

So I don't know.

So uh it's hard to see that corner right there.

Um is also part of the project.

We purchased it for the drainage concerns because there is a lot of water.

So I believe that it based on what you know Scaffa comes Skafka comes back and um drainage is how far we'd have to go up that roadway to accommodate those storm drain inlets to start um slowing down and capturing that water through that watershed.

So I'm not I know that's not a clear answer.

I'm just not sure how far up that roadway will have to start the storm drain.

Okay, so it might go up to uh what is that Puebliba Pueblo or what is it?

That's right there where that cul de sac is.

Yeah, I think to that cul de sac.

So that's actually pretty big stretch of pavement.

Okay.

So right here, pick up the right here and go straight down past Tempico.

Oh, it's gonna go all the way down past Tempico to the drainage pond.

No, so it would that very bottom corner there, right?

The roadway would go to right past the horrible map.

I really can't see.

So it's tiny.

It's so tiny.

It's gonna stop.

Uh it's gonna stop basically right here at their property line, right here.

So it's gonna be right where Tampico is.

Correct.

Yes.

Because then you start getting into the commercialized zone piece.

If that roadway were to continue, then you'd go to 528.

Okay.

All right.

So those are my questions.

I just wanted to kind of see how long how big the pavement's gonna be in the the sidewalks and curb and gutter along those roadways.

That's gonna help out Aurora, whoever lives on Aurora, that's gonna benefit you big time because that's going to give you something that most everyone over there complains about, which is the dirt road.

So now you're gonna get streets, gutter, curve sidewalks, curbs for free.

So there you go.

That's a benefit.

Um that's all the follow-up questions I had.

Is there a way to actually put that condition in there, Amy, or do I need to add it as amendment, or can we put that condition of the single stories?

Mr.

Mayor, Counselor Tyler, um, so what I would suggest is that that would be an amendment to the master plan and that we make sure that the um uh I I believe the ordinance and I would have to check the zoning ordinance uh refers back to the master plan for design guidelines.

Um and so I I think that's how we'd be able to encapsulate it.

So we don't need to vote on anything or make sure that the we would need to make an amendment to the master plan to put that in the design standards.

Okay.

All right, Mr.

Mayor, I yield the floor back.

Thank you.

Anything further?

Do I need to make my amendment now?

Um so if you make the as he makes the amendment, does that have to go back or what so uh Mr.

Mayor Counselor Tyler, uh the first item in front of you right now is um R excuse me, R 89.

Um, and so that would be uh the removal of this property from the Tampico specific area plan and the La Baranka specific area plan.

So this would not be the place to make that amendment.

Um the amendment should be made with resolution number uh 90.

R90, yeah, in the master plan.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Okay, anything further?

I have a motion and a second on R 89.

Ms.

Davis.

Thank you.

Councillor Tyler?

Yes, Councillor Weimer, yes.

Councilor Colbrigh?

Yes, Councillor Dabson?

Yes, and Councillor List.

No.

Okay.

R89 is approved.

One more.

Oh, Mayor Hall.

I'm so sorry.

Yes.

Thank you.

Uh moving on to R90 resolution adopting the Tampico master plan.

I'll take a motion to approve R 90.

Make a motion to approve R90.

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

Counselor Tyler.

Yeah, I'd like to make an amendment to the master plan to require uh the builder to put single story homes along the the perimeter of the development, which would back any of the current residential homes.

Can we identify a street?

So let's say Aurora and Vitapa.

And uh Mr.

Mayor, Counselor Tyler, I would also ask that we are very specific about where we put that amendment into the master plan.

Um and so um make a make a suggestion to pull that up.

Yep.

Mr.

Mayor, Counselor Tyler, if we can recess for five minutes and then we can really sure okay.

We'll go ahead and recess for five minutes.

Thank you.

Um Counselor Tyler, you had the uh the floor.

You had the floor?

Yes, sir.

So on the amendment for R90, I just want to ask that it be requirement for all of the homes that along its Aurora and anything that's along Vitapa that backs to those two roadways be single story in height only.

Mr.

Mayor Counselor Tyler, um so up on the PowerPoint, we went ahead and drafted the specific language if you don't mind reading that and amending exhibit a uh Pico Master Plan Design Guidelines page 14 to insert a new paragraph that reads building height of dwellings abutting Aurora Road Northeast and Vitapa Road Northeast shall be single story only thank you.

Do I have a second on that motion?

Second, thank you.

Any uh any comments on the uh on the amendment?

Mr.

Mayor, yes, uh counselor list.

Uh I have some questions on behalf of the resident, but I don't know if this is the appropriate time to ask them prior to after the amendment or do the amendment and then talk yeah if it is directly related to the master plan, but not necessarily this sentence for the amendment.

Okay.

Um if it's not if it's not to the amendment, yeah, then we need to get through the amendment and then we can go back through and I can give you the floor right after this.

Thank you.

Perfect.

Um anything further on the amendment.

Hearing none, Ms.

Davis on the amendment.

Thank you, Councillor Colbreth.

Yes.

Counselor List.

Yes.

Councillor Tyler.

Yes.

Councilor Jabson.

Yes.

Counselor Weimer?

Yes.

And Mayor Hall.

Yes.

Thank you.

The amendment.

We're back to the main motion.

Counselor List.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, I have a couple questions.

I don't know if in the planning stages these have already been answered, but they were just right now asked of me, and so I'm going to ask them and hope that the developer can either give me answers or at least give some feedback to the residents going forward.

Uh, one ask or request was that it are is there any possibility of these lots being reconfigured so that they're larger so that they are closer in size to what is on the other side of Aurora.

So given the R4 zoning designation, we're trying to align with what that permits.

And so, no, we probably wouldn't go towards the one half acre lots that exist under the R1 in the neighborhood.

Um it also would complicate it, right?

Because the master plan is um developed around the size of lots that we presented, so that would we'd have to go back and redo the entire project at that point.

Okay.

Um the next question I have is uh I'm I'm sure throughout the entire process the you guys have discussed uh access points, obviously.

Um are is there a way to reconfigure or to put the majority of access points on Aurora So in the discussions that we'd had, um we obviously need to meet fire safety access, right?

Which basically dictates how far the entrances and exits have to be within the subdivision, and with that constraint and given the grading challenges, that was how we had to lay out the subdivision in order to make the site work.

So I'd be happy to see if there is any other options, but my understanding from the engineering team and also from you know fire safety and the um fire marshals that that was the requirement that we had to meet, and that there's not a whole lot of movement because of the grading.

Okay, thank you.

Um, if you would just double check on that, that would be wonderful.

Uh, there were also some questions about street width and street parking and how congested will it be?

So while a households you can assume will have two cars.

What about all the other cars and where will they go?

So if you'll just give me a moment so Aurora and Vitapa are the standard street section designs for a residential road, which I think puts the public right-away at um 50 feet.

So those would that's what those rows would be constructed to, and then the internal roadways.

Um, I believe are also at a 50-foot public right-away, which is the standard um guidelines in our DPM and from city engineering.

Um, I think that we have a lot of residents that are deflated after spending several months um opposing this, and I think they've come to a conclusion that this will likely be moving forward.

I would really, really appreciate and encourage if you guys could figure out a way to connect with the residents, and maybe now they're going to shift their line of questioning, and maybe you could help uh work through their their new concerns since this is a different direction now and and they are gonna have a different slew of questions, and maybe we can make an effort so that there can be some sort of community relationship.

Um the last question I forgot to ask was is there going to be an HOA?

Yes, um, just because of the requirements within the city currently with park space.

If it is under three acres, the city will not take it as a part of their park system, and so we would have to put an HOA in place in order to manage those public spaces for the residents in the neighborhood.

Um and then also counselor list.

I'm we would be more than happy to speak with the residents.

I really hope that I conveyed in my my presentation that we really tried to take the feedback I did receive when I met with them individually and also at the public comments to try to address their concerns that had been raised.

And I'd be happy to continue to do that.

Thank you so much.

If there's anything I can do to bridge that, let me know.

Thank you.

Okay, we're on our 90.

I have a motion and a second.

Ums Davis, R90 as amended.

Thank you, sir.

Counselor Colbranth.

Yes.

Counselor Dabson.

Yes.

Counselor Tyler.

Yes.

Counselor Weimer?

Yes.

Counselor List.

No.

And Mayor Hall.

Yes.

Thank you.

R90 is amended, is approved.

Moving on to O22.

I'll take a motion to approve O22.

Make a motion to approve O22.

Second.

Have a motion and a second.

Ms.

Davis, O22.

Councilor List.

No.

Councillor Weimer?

Yes.

Councillor Tyler?

Yes.

Councilor Dabson.

Yes.

Councillor Colbreth.

Yes.

And Mayor Hall.

Yes.

Thank you.

O22 is approved.

Okay, thank you.

That concludes our regularly scheduled agenda.

Moving on to the city manager for the city manager's report.

Mr.

Geisel.

Mr.

Mayor, members of the governing body.

Uh good evening.

And thank you.

Just a couple quick uh tidbits.

Um just a reminder that next Tuesday at 3 p.m.

we have a work session.

Um that's August 19th.

And then uh looking ahead into September on September 6th, we have our pooch plunge.

Just take your dog to the pool, and then while the dog's still wet, go to Councillor Tyler's meet and greet and see if the dog shakes on Counselor Tyler.

So I'm gonna see if I can get scooter to hold his shake for 20 minutes as we drive down the road.

Yeah.

Um and then also uh on September 13th, we have our fall community cleanup.

Please visit the city's website um to register and form your team and participate in the uh fall community cleanup on September 13th.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, that concludes our meeting and we are adjourned.

Thank you.