Do a pledge of allegiance.

Low disability.

Because he never saw them.

Okay.

So we have to be treated as a serious science.

A couple of housekeeping items I want to go over.

Please silence all electronic devices while attending this plan and zoning board meeting.

Please fill out a speaker form if you wish to speak.

Only individuals who have signed up would be permitted to speak.

If we have yet to fill out a form, now's the time to do so and provide it to my staff on my left.

Virtual attendees, please send a chat message to the host or use the raise hand feature if you want to provide public comment.

When I recognize you to speak, you will have the ability to enable your audio and video video.

For the record, I will call the role of each plan and zoning board member.

Please acknowledge your present by saying present.

Present Kevin Calcher is excuse.

Present.

Robert Gabadong.

Present.

Present.

And Lisa Hardesty is also excuse absence.

Okay, before we begin, administration has requested that we move item number eight and number nine to the front of the agenda.

Um so they can be heard first.

Okay.

Consent calendar, can I get a motion to approve the consent calendar?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Aye.

Okay.

Okay.

Let's move into um public hearings, and we'll start with item number eight, and we'll be presented by staff member Michelle Costello.

Uh Mr.

Chair, if we can really quick, um the staff uh reports number items number two and three.

Uh they're non-action items, they're your uh standard monthly reports.

If there's any questions, I can um answer them.

Otherwise, uh, if we can go ahead and uh just move through those items real quickly.

For the uh reports and comments to call to call a roll.

It's a non-action item, so we don't have to de roll with that one.

Okay, move it on to public hearings.

As I mentioned, item number eight is moved to the forefront.

I'm assuming that you represent Michelle.

Uh so uh Mr.

Chair, actually uh I'm gonna go ahead and present this item.

Uh so Amy Rencohen, Director of Development Services.

So good evening, uh Mr.

Chair and members of the planning and zoning board.

So uh tonight I'm actually gonna be presenting both items number eight and nine together.

Uh so this will be the resolution uh adopting or recommending adoption of the uh development process manual, and then also the ordinance uh for chapter 155, which is updates.

We're presenting both of these items together because any changes in one impact the other.

So it's really important that both of these items continue on this process together.

Okay.

So starting out, uh, just as a reminder, so this item had been postponed uh back in May, and then staff asked for another postponement um in August.

Um but just as a reminder, the purpose of the DPM is to carry out the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan is to coordinate and clarify the development processes and procedures, uh provide uniform standards for development, provide for durable future public infrastructure, provide basic criteria necessary to establish acceptable goals of performance and safety for those public facilities related to development.

Uh also assuring uh adequate monumentation and documentation of land divisions.

Um, one of the things that I really want to point out is that as developers are building infrastructure that becomes public, it's they have a one-year warranty uh period after those are constructed, but then it becomes city infrastructure.

We maintain it, we keep it.

Um, and so you'll see here tonight there's a whole other group uh that generally does not come to planning and zoning board.

These are all members of either directors, deputy directors, or the reviewers who actually look at the plans and the infrastructure that comes in, and they're the ones who, as this infrastructure comes into the city, maintain those for the life of that of that infrastructure.

So then next up, we have our DPM users.

And so one of the important things is our public and residents actually use the DPM.

It helps them outline our processes for development applications, including it helps our residents understand what step at what steps certain documents are required.

So for example, right, a lot of times here in front of the planning and zoning board, you will have a zone map application in front of you, and a member of the public will go, What about traffic?

What about the TIA?

This can help guide and has helped guide residents to understand that the TIA is a later step, and so it just helps give that information.

Developers use the DPM to provide direction on processes, design standards for infrastructure.

Staff uses it as our reference guide to apply uniform standards in a consistent manner.

So the goals that we had for updating the DPM included clarifying the organization of the book itself, improving the legibility, removing processes that are no longer relevant, updating our outdated processes and design requirements, utilizing what has been learned in the past 15 years.

So this DPM that we are currently updating was originally adopted in 2010, so we've been using it for a long time, and so there is just a lot of familiarity with things that didn't work.

And then we also wanted to make sure that we provided updates to the graphics.

Part of the DPM update process was our DPM committee.

So in chapter 150, we actually define what the process is and who should be on our DPM committee.

What you'll see in that bottom box is all of the city departments that are on the DPM committee.

And then in the teal color on the right hand side are the outside agencies.

And so what we were looking for with those was inviting we invited HBA, PWA, and NAOP, and we invited these NDC groups as a voice and the advocacy for the development community.

Quick little recap again.

So as I mentioned at the beginning of this presentation, we did have this first come in front of the planning and zoning board on May 27th.

At that time, the planning and zoning board asked us to go back out to the development community to receive additional feedback.

We had additional meetings on the 3rd and 8th of July, followed by an additional meeting to give feedback to the feedback that we received, we gave our comments back in September to those groups.

Part of your agenda briefing memorandum, there's a lot of stuff in there, but I do want to point out a couple of things.

There is comment matrix and one comment list that was for the bigger DPM itself, and then there are two separate comments matrices that came or matrices that came out of the comments from those July meetings.

Proposed changes.

So looking at we reorganized how the actual document is set up.

We have updated the graphics, we have updated the standards to reflect the national best practices and to provide consistency with SKACA requirements.

We've updated procedures to reflect current practices, clarified standards by removing conflicting requirements, updates to the master plan requirements, and updates to the park requirements.

But for chapter two, which is now our procedures chapter, one of the big changes that we made is that DRCs are not mandatory.

So our DRCs are our development review committees.

Those are free of charge.

Those are the second and fourth Thursday of the month, and it gives applicants a chance to come in and get some initial feedback before they actually submit any type of applications to us.

So we've updated that they're not required but strongly encouraged.

We also updated submittal requirements.

In our transportation chapter, we simplified language again, we cleaned up definitions, we fixed references that were mismatched, we added language to encourage traffic calming.

In our water wastewater chapter, it's largely the same.

We just updated a little bit of the standards.

For our proposed changes to surveys and permanent monumentation chapter, we simplified the language, and then we tried to make sure that we matched up standards with state statute.

For our parks and trails chapter, we made changes for the parks under three acres being HOA owned, and then having parks within a half mile walk.

Chapter 151.

This is a long list, so bear with me.

I am actually going to read the whole thing because I do find that what we did to chapter 155 is really important.

So we updated definitions.

We updated procedure guidance, including direction on when to submit master plans.

We updated the pre-application language to encourage but not require the DRC meetings for feedback.

We updated preliminary plat language to extend the length of a preliminary plat approval to two years instead of just one year to clarify the process.

We updated preliminary plat approvals to clarify the required items, updated final plat language to clarify the processes, updated final approval to clarify required items.

Updated the summary procedure to include industrial land to match state statute.

Updated requirement required improvements to remove design standards and to point back to their new location in the DPM.

We updated the chapter the character of development to clarify what that means.

We updated vacation plat language.

We added a bulk plat procedure list, we updated the design standards to clarify language, updated drainage, pointing back to the DPM, updated easements to clarify the language, we updated public sites, open spaces, so we actually renamed that section to parks and recreational spaces, clarifying the language, adding proposed standards on the parks under three acres being the responsibility of the HOA, directing the design guidelines to the DPM, clarified how fair market value is determined, clarified how transfer of parkland takes place, updated fees and penalties, and then updated the appeal process.

So one of the things I want to point out is it's a big bullet list, but a lot of those things that we're talking about in chapter 155, we removed a lot of the design language and put it in the DPM because that's where it fits better.

That was one of our goals to begin with.

Is that if we put everything in the DPM, one of the big things that we now have in the DPM, and I didn't mention it in here previously, but we now have a waiver process.

So if there is a design guideline that doesn't make sense for a specific subdivision or development, there is now a process to come back to that DPM committee and to request that waiver.

And so we tried to remove as many standards as we could from the chapter itself and put them into the DPM to create that process.

What that does is it does take it out of the realm of the planning and zoning board.

So hopefully you will not hear as many subdivision variances because those will be handled through a different process altogether.

And so out of the 37 comments that we received, staff made 12 changes.

And again, this one is is very two next matrices that I'm going to be talking about are very specific as of July.

Again, there was that bigger one for the DPM that we've been using the whole time as we've been moving through.

So a couple of the things again that made a change, extending the approval time for the preliminary plots, and any of the associated construction plans.

What you're gonna hear from me as I'm saying these things multiple times is I'm saying them multiple times because again it's in the DPM, it's in chapter 155.

That's why we're presenting them together.

One of the other things that came out of the feedback is that we did lower the certificates of liability insurance for playground manufacturer from one million down to down to one million from five million.

Um this matrix was created by AMREP.

So the first three columns are their observations, concerns, and alternative language.

The fourth column is staff's response and any of our amended language, and then the last two columns are any of the feedback that we received after our meeting in September, and then again our response.

Uh same style of matrix that again uh for chapter 155 that we did receive from AMREP, uh, same setup with how the columns are organized.

Um for this uh chapter 155, there was 25 comments, uh 15 changes were made.

Uh the biggest change was actually we updated our definition for city engineer, um, and that change in definition we felt addressed multiple comments.

Um again, preliminary plat changing uh from one year to two years, uh the DPM.

Just trying to paraphrase a couple of these things down.

We also added in uh 10% flexibility for the park acreage so that if an HOA is maintaining the park, they don't actually have to have they can get really close within 10%.

Also, it doesn't have to be contiguous property.

Um so if they want to put it in multiple areas in their subdivision, that's always an option as well.

For a couple of notable items, um just kind of circling back.

I know I'm kind of repeating, but uh we received feedback on a lot of these items throughout the process and in particular over the last year and during that final round of meetings.

We revisited, and after an internal review, uh staff stands with our recommendations from the staff perspective.

We feel that these proposed changes provide the city with the best path forward to a balance of impacts uh from development and growth, and and a way for us to make sure that we're ensuring the longevity of our infrastructure.

Um a couple of things again, master plans.

Uh, so we are actually lowering the acreage requirement from 20 acres down to 10.

Um, and any of those master plans that come in in that range between 10 to 20 acres would have reduced required documents.

Um they would also have 90% ownership, um allows some flexibility with master planning while ensuring a cohesiveness with residential design.

The request actually came in to have no master plans uh for less than 20 acres.

We had some conversations where where some people felt that uh master plans under 100 acres weren't uh weren't good.

Uh there were some conversations about having no minimum ownership.

Um I can go into further detail about why staff uh made uh our proposed changes as we go in further into tonight, but that's just kind of the high level.

We've these are the recommendations that we have.

When we're talking about parks, uh we are requesting that parks be within a half mile walk of a subdivision, that we're asking for a standardization of the construction.

Um, we're requiring that parks under three acres be maintained by an HOA.

Um, and so uh for roads, uh we have included additional standards for traffic calming.

Um any requests to lessen any of the road standards in general, we did not uh move forward with.

Um we feel that we have made great progress in our standardization of the construction of roadways, um, and so we don't want to take away from that.

Um it comes to the review period for applications for completeness for preliminary plats.

We have added in a 10-day window to review and to provide feedback to the applicant if any material is missing, um, and then to make sure that if it is complete that we are scheduling uh right away for the next PZB meeting that's available.

Um, and so we felt that the request to deem an application complete or to automatically move it forward just was not uh really moving things forward and was not something that we generally have an issue with.

Um, and so we didn't feel that there should be any need for any of those changes.

Um so again, I have another, I'll be honest, I have another 20 slides uh that we can go into and really dig deep into each of these topics.

I have everybody else here to help tonight to answer um any type of questions if we want to dig in.

Um, but I do ask uh Mr.

Chair if it's okay.

I'm gonna go ahead and pause if we can take some public comment and then I can come back and address all of those and really dig deep into those comments as we move forward.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, is there anyone in the audience who wish to speak for or against item number eight?

Now we're gonna do eight and nine separately, you should do it both.

Okay, okay.

So anyone in audience who wish to speak for against item number eight and nine.

State your name and your address.

Good evening.

My name is Nicosia Schuttelbauer, P.O.

Box 9043, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Just so I don't go over on time.

Is it permissible to have two to three minutes this evening?

Three minutes at the max.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

So, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, I'm gonna read this quickly.

But I'd like to thank you for your time this evening.

Um, I have several concerns about the proposed updates to the DPM, but I really want to focus on one issue that is critical to the future of development in Ria Rancho.

Early this year, I shared my concerns with Decker.

I spoke at the last planning and zoning board meeting where the item was discussed.

I've attended both the public input sessions hosted by development surfaces over the summer, and I do appreciate the opportunity to stay engaged, but I remain deeply concerned.

The proposed requirements for master plans to include at least 10 acres and have 90% ownership will, in my opinion, drastically slow or even halt many future development efforts in RIA Rancho.

While I understand the intent may be to promote cohesive, well-organized development, in practice, this policy is too restrictive and counterproductive.

Much of RIA Rancho is made up of what we call antiquated plats, primarily half acre parcels, assembling 10 acres with 90% ownership could require coordination with as many as 18 separate property owners.

From experience, I can tell you that this process can take years.

The complexity of these fragmented ownership patterns already makes land assembly a challenge.

These new thresholds would make it nearly impossible for developers to reply or plan new subdivisions, parks, or community spaces.

I also want to point out that the city's own comprehensive plan.

It describes master plans as tools for large areas, preferably 100 acres, and clearly distinguishes them from subdivisions.

The plan states that master plans are intended for areas that combine residential and non-residential uses.

This new DPM requirement does not align with that vision and redefines the tool in a way that doesn't match with the city's long-term goals.

I've also looked at how other cities handle this, and I can't find any municipality in New Mexico or even in Texas that imposes this kind of strict ownership and acreage requirement for master plans.

In most cities, master plans are used for large complex developments and using involved involving mixed use phasing or unique zoning, none of which are addressed in this DPM.

I'd also like to point on that at the beginning of Director Rincon's presentation.

And in the new DPM update, we're still using language like omitted per staff discretion.

And I go back to you, that doesn't give us a very clear standard as what we're supposed to be doing when we get into these small acreages for ambassador plans.

So my ask is simple.

Do not recommend approval of this portion of the TBM update.

This new section on master plans creates unnecessary barriers and will have serious consequences for the future of land development and rearrancho.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, is there anyone else in the audience who wish to speak for or against item number eight and nine?

State China and address.

Mr.

Chairman, Commissioners Jared Liker, MREP South S Southwest to 409 New Mexico Highway 528.

Really appreciate staff's um willingness to meet with us and go over a lot of items.

They did change a lot of things that I think are for the better in both the 150 FI ordinance as well as the DPM.

There's a couple items that I still have concerns about that I'd like to express.

With regards to the cash and loo requirement for parks.

I think that cash and loo essentially goes away.

Within the language of that, it says, however, all new subdivisions, regardless of size, must have a maximum of a half mile walk from the nearest park.

That does not distinguish between a public or a private park.

If I'm doing a private park because I have to do less than three acres, if I'm doing less than three acres and owned by an HOA, I don't want someone to come next to me and get that credit for my park that I built because now they're within a half a mile and do not have to build a park.

So I'd like to there to be some language change either to a private or public park in that language to interpret that half mile acre and the ability to count it between either a public or a private park for that requirement.

Um I'd like to discuss the new revision for the ownership, the 90% requirement.

Um I expressed this previously.

I'd like to see a range of that ownership requirement.

They did this similarly with the requirements for the acreages for park.

They gave us that discretion.

I think what that does for staff gives them the ability to basically make some decisions either way if you're doing a development within an area that you're trying to get ownership of half acre lots a lot of times around Rio Rancho or acre lots, having that hard line 90% versus maybe a range 85 to 95, something in there.

It gives them some discretion, gives them the ability to kind of help given the circumstances of a particular development, give them some discretion to get to a recommendation of approval of a master plan instead of a hard line 90%.

So I'd like to see that there.

Um, in the DPM, it it states that uh developer will pave roads around the perimeter of their development.

A lot of cases this is going to be a good for the development, but in some cases you're sitting next to a design or basically designated principal arterial or a collector or some larger roadway where it doesn't make sense to go and build six lanes, three lanes each way next to a development that's 20 acres.

Um, that would kill that development.

I would like that to be more specific into if they want to get away with the developer to not pave around certain or bigger roads.

Let them do the TIA, the traffic impact analysis, and let the traffic impact analysis dictate what kind of roads are needed to make sure that traffic flows the appropriate direction and gets to paved roads in the appropriate manner.

Umtimes you do a development that doesn't require a traffic impact analysis if you're under 100 trips.

If you want that requirement from the DPM to be uh subject to the TIA and you're under 100 trips, go do the traffic impact analysis and go see what roads will actually work and what what will get the residents out of that development uh appropriately and not have to pave a whole arterial.

You have three minutes pretty much expired.

That was three minutes.

Yes.

Well, it was a little longer.

So no no additional comments?

No additional comments.

Okay.

State your name, menu address.

Good evening, Chair and Directors.

My name is Carrie Plant to 809 Fifth Street Northeast Rio Rancho, New Mexico.

Um, first, I would like to thank City of Rio Rancho staff for holding these additional meetings to address the changes in the DPM and the ordinances and for allowing the input from a variety of key stakeholders in planning and engineering development and the home building industries.

Um and Amy, we do appreciate the considerations that were made thus far to the changes.

The input that was provided by many industry representatives was done so with special attention given to the items that have the greatest negative impact on potential homeowners.

Our community continues to fill the impacts of the housing crisis.

The cost of developing finished lots and building homes remain incredibly high.

The input that we have given is practical in nature, with the ultimate goal being to have reasonable standards and processes in place that allow us to design, process, and build developments that are priced in a way that promote growth and offer homes in a price range more affordable and attainable to the ultimate home buyer.

We want to be clear that the changes that we suggest are not to gain more profit for the developers and builders.

The impact of increases in cost are passed on directly to the home buyers.

Therefore, less of the working class can afford to buy a home.

What we worry about is the negative impact on our community, and that population growth may continue to decline, making Rio Rancho even less attractive to companies looking to locate and do business here.

Changes that negatively impact this community's growth should not be allowed.

So and I'm going to echo the the statements that have been made by Nicosha and the concerns brought up by Jared thus far and from the other developers that you're going to hear.

So I'm not gonna touch base on those and and just restate what's already been said.

Thank you for your time.

Okay, thank you.

State your name and the address.

Good evening, Commissioners Chairman.

My my comment this evening is gonna be a little bit different, a little bit starker.

Um I appreciate your your time this evening to hear us.

I appreciate staff's time, and I appreciate all of the staff that is here that doesn't typically get to come to these public forums.

Um my mother went to or my grandmother went to work for Amrep in 1964.

My dad built a strip center uh right adjacent to the then city uh hall in 1994.

I stood on the job site with him almost every day as a little kid, and one of the one of the items on the agenda this evening is mine.

Um to say that I'm invested in development in Rio Rancho is an understatement.

But to say that I'm that we need good uh development and to say that I'm not invested in good development is completely incorrect.

I want good development as much as anyone else in this room does.

But business developers need speed and predictability.

This legislation doesn't offer that.

In fact, it's counter to offering developers speed and predictability to make sure that Rio Rancho continues to be a place that we want to do business.

The master plans, the roadways, the parks, all of those, and many, many more.

I can't tell you everything in two minutes.

We've spent three and a half hours in the last couple months with staff discussing these items.

So to try and discuss the items in two minutes is is unreasonable.

But I'm going to encourage you to table this item and instruct staff to go back and make this legislation more business friendly.

We have an opportunity right now.

We have an opportunity to make Rio Rancho development affordable.

That doesn't mean that it's poor in quality.

That doesn't mean that it's not good development.

It means that we're at a we're at a at a crisis and and development's only getting more expensive.

We have an opportunity.

Let's keep Rio Rancho open for business.

Please defer this item or or table the item, and let's rework some of these items that that harm speed, predictability, and and the ability to do business in Rio Rancho.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Okay, is there anyone else in the audience who wish to speak for against item number eight and number nine?

Is there anyone virtual who wish to speak for or against item number nine?

Do I just go?

Okay, if we can put up the oath.

So I, Lannis Middle, residing at 903 Hopi Road, Southeast Rio Rancho, 87124, do solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony I give in reference to item 155 shall be the truth.

I do this under the penalty of perjury.

Okay, go right ahead.

Um good evening, Chairman and Commissioners, and I'm the executive vice president of the Home Builders Association, and we have been in many of these meetings and appreciate the members who have come forward and still have questions, um, as you can see.

And I don't have a specific section that I'm gonna speak on, but I do urge the group to really think about where we are right now in the housing industry, and that we need to be really careful when we're changing development ordinances that could add cost to help homes.

I mean, we all know where we are right now in the housing industry, so we need to make sure that these changes are being made for the right reasons and that they can be backed up with good policy for future development.

So just my general statement.

Um I appreciate all the time, Amy staff, everyone that they've put into this multiple meetings for sure, and I appreciate your time tonight.

Thank you.

So is there anyone else virtual who wish to speak for against item number eight and nine?

I see none.

Okay.

Can I get a motion to approve item number eight and nine?

Mr.

Chair, if I may when it comes to the motions, it'll need to be separate with two separate votes.

Okay.

So we will do two separate votes.

And Mr.

Chair, if you would like uh Director Rincon has some additional material, I would uh address the public comments.

Sure.

So Mr.

Chi uh, Mr.

Chair and PCB members, um before we get into any of your specific questions, um, as I mentioned, I do have some additional slides to kind of dig into some of the topics that we know um that we continued through uh this whole process, so not just since September, but um for for the past couple of years the the kind of uh issue points.

Um so I'd like to start again by mentioning that um we have had our current DPM in place for the past 15 years.

Um and uh as that was approved and those standards were put in place, development continued on, um, and it has uh led staff to have experience with the current standards and to know what areas need refining.

There has also been time to understand how neighborhoods and infrastructure has aged, um, and there is actually a very clear difference in the roadways uh pre-2010 when these standards were were adopted, um, and then uh how our current roadways are aging.

So um, and obviously, right, our newer roadways are newer, uh, but when you look at the same five-year span um, or you start looking at those 15-year time frames and you compare that to 15 years of of the other roadways, uh, they they age very differently.

Um we also um have had a chance as staff uh to to notice a difference in overall having less maintenance uh when we compare those time periods.

Uh we also have experience that uh as we get more infill, as we get, and I'll talk further about what we call kind of island and barnacle developments, uh, that we have had a lot of strong neighborhood uh opposition and reactions to developments at the as they've been moving forward.

So uh one of the things that came up tonight, uh I think I think a couple of people actually uh mentioned it this um and so I wanted to touch on our development pipeline.

Um so uh the city has added um a little bit over 5,200 new single-family homes since 2020.

Uh there is approximately 43,000 uh housing units in Rio Rancho.

So 12% of our housing stock has come online in the past five years.

That is a significant amount of houses in the past five years.

Uh the city uh makes up 40 percent or so, probably a little bit more of the market share of the metro region.

Um, and when we're talking about that, I'm I'm actually talking the expanded metro region, which also includes uh Santa Fe and Santa Fe County.

When we look ahead in the pipeline, um, the future for residential development, we have um what we know of at least seven and a half years worth of residential development, not including some of the bigger master plans that we have adopted as a city.

So uh when we don't take into account bigger master plans like Papillon, Mariposa West, Paseo Gateway, um any of the zone map amendments that have come in front of this board uh moving uh non-residential to residential, just what we know of right now, we have over seven and a half year lot supply.

Then when we look further uh on this chart that we're talking about, uh we have approved master plans with preliminary flats that we expect in the next two years, and then we also have in that last category those uh larger um areas that that we know are going to start coming on in the next probably somewhere three to seven year uh time frame uh for actual uh breaking ground.

Uh when we tackle big picture heavy lift type development regular uh related legislation policies and ordinances, um it is not atypical for us to hear that any of our actions are going to stifle kill restrict houses never gonna be built again, uh slow halt, all that type of language.

We hear every time that we try to do any type of of regulation that touches development.

Uh this was stated um and actually I think the board heard this for the last two impact fee updates in 2016 and 2024.

Um it was also uh a core assertion, excuse me, in the last couple of waves of zone map amendments that we need to increase density to keep building houses.

We have heard that you know that big shift from now having requests for our three and our four zoning.

We need the density to build the houses.

We need lower impact fees to build the houses.

We need lower restrictions to keep building the houses.

That is a common theme.

I think that is something that you hear very often.

And I guess to kind of put a fine point on that one, houses are still being built.

We still make up 40% of that metro region for for single family home development in that in our region.

Looking at roads, so a couple of things, right?

I have a couple of pictures on the right hand side.

I'm going to start with the one on St.

Andrew's because that one to me is just craziness on what that road used to look like.

Country Club also had a lot of deterioration to it.

Also, when we look at the standards that we're talking about, a subdivision just down the street when we're talking about northern meadows.

You look at the intersection of Woolpitt and King, not a lot of additional traffic was going in at that intersection, but it was very important from the city from the request of the residents to make some type of traffic change to change to that traffic pattern to mitigate some of the issues that were taking place.

The city adopted its first EPM in 2010.

Prior to that, the standards were varied.

In hindsight, neighborhoods were built with insufficient drainage and the roads have not fared well.

This has continued up until the adoption of the current DPM.

The 2010 DPM established development standards for modern subdivisions.

The DPM update points to design criteria to increase traffic calming by encouraging chickenes and bulbouts.

Again, that's why we put that waiver process in place.

We don't want to lessen our standards at this point in time and have everybody come in at a lower standard versus trying to adopt or or handle those one-offs as as they come in front of us.

On traffic calming, one of the things that we want to talk about, and this was something that staff added in.

This is really going to be applicable near schools, roads that become cut throughs, development configurations and street layouts in neighborhoods that lead to speeding.

And so this is different than when we look at just our trip generations and our trip calcs.

What we're talking about here is making sure that we are not creating an additional burden on our police officers when it comes to speeding and other type of traffic issues.

Oh these are examples.

Sorry, I have a lot of time.

I'm trying to, I don't want to like keep talking too much, but uh these are two examples from our traffic calming policies that just show some of the things that have been added into residential areas after a subdivision has been built when traffic issues have been when speeding issues have come up.

These are things that can be added in early in the development process and don't necessarily have to be left for the city to add in years later as as the issues rise up.

For proposed changes to the master plan, uh so yes, we are proposing uh to have master plans start at uh 10 acres instead of where they currently are at 20 acres, and we are proposing to uh an allowance of instead of 100% ownership down to a 90% ownership, um, and then adding in some of those park requirements.

Uh, one of the things that I wanted to kind of point out with master plans is where they fall into the scheme of our larger hierarchy of plans.

So uh the type of plans that the city has, uh we have a strategic plan, prioritizes our goals and objective for city operations.

Uh, that's usually on a five-year cycle.

We have our comprehensive plan, which is a 20-year development plan.

That one's coming up for updates hopefully soon.

We have our area plans, which is developed by the city to provide additional policies and further define land uses, identify infrastructure and facility projects for planned areas.

It's important to note that it is generally not included to have implementation strategies in a lot of our existing specific area plans.

Provide that next focused in detail for an overall site.

But what it does is it really helps the city and the residents understand what is happening.

So for example, a subdivision that backs up to half acres lots that were zoned R1 has a low density of, or I'm sorry, has a land use of low density, has an expectation on how it's going to develop.

And so it's really jarring for the neighborhood when you have what you expect to be these half acre lots being developed with single family homes, and then all of a sudden a preliminary plat comes in with a much higher density or a zone map request comes in.

And so we feel that that the master plans help residents understand that what everybody assumes in Rio Rancho is open space and is their access to open space and recreation is actually privately owned property.

And so and that it will be developed in the future, that's aided by master plans so that they have some further understanding of what's what's going to move forward.

Master plans also help earlier on open the discussion on the locations of infrastructure such as parks.

So at what we're seeing a lot with developments as they're coming in is that again using that open space analogy.

If you have had for the past 10 to 15 years, the R1 open space behind you, nobody's ever used it, it's a road that's not you know being maintained, you feel like that's your access, right?

That you can go out there and you can trail run and do all kinds of stuff.

Um but when the uh new development comes in, then if you don't have a park yourself and now that open space is gone, where do you go?

Where are the parks?

Where is that that type of access to recreation that you assumed was always there, right?

A lot of our residents wrongly assume that it's their open space and their access, right?

Um, because it's not, we we all know that those are our privately owned lots and that some type of development is coming, but it helps give them that heads up earlier on in the process.

Uh we also want to talk a little bit more on the benefits of master plans.

Um, so one of the master plans that you did see come before you earlier this year uh was the Chemisa Hills Master Plan at the most basic level.

The master plan is a guide on how decisions are made for a property.

Um we had the Chemisa Hills master plan coming in.

Uh one of the things that we heard a lot from the residents was what is it gonna look like?

How close are the houses going to be?

How you know how are they going to uh there was concerns about drainage, there was concerns about all of these things that it was really you're putting development in between existing neighborhoods, how is it going to fit in?

How is it going to function?

And we feel that master plans help us understand how things are going to fit in and function.

Um in the past few years, we have gotten into the habits of having our master plans and our zone map requests come at the same meeting.

Uh, really, master plans should be alone.

Not proposing we make that change, um, but I do want to acknowledge the fact that that they should be separate documents that come earlier in the process.

Um the plan should be evaluated on whether the information is provided that is provided will help a future council make a decision on a zone change or a future preliminary plat.

The next level of a master plan is how the area will plug in or function.

Um it also would be great, you know, if if in general the city had enough consolidated land to not require master plans, but we know that we don't.

We know that it takes a long time to consolidate land, and so we have been seeing smaller developments that are in those uh 10 to 15 acre sizes, um, and that those smaller uh developments are also coming in in phases, and so it's just important to understand how all of those things are going to work.

It also gives us a chance as the city when we have those master plans in to be able to understand what we need to put on our ICIP for future infrastructure as it comes in.

So I've used this term a couple of times.

It's something that we use to help us kind of understand some of the subdivisions that we see in the city.

So there is at least a dozen, what we would call like uh barnacle or island subdivisions.

Um these are neighborhoods that are located a distance away from other development are or are much smaller developments that are right next to a larger subdivision.

Um on the slide, I'm showing Chaco Ridge and Cielo Grande.

Uh Chaco Ridge is west of Enchanted Hills, Cielo Grande is south of King on UNSER.

Uh these are examples of when we think a master plan probably could have been beneficial.

Um both of these lack parks.

Um for Cielo Grande, what you'll see is that the city actually purchased the lot to the west.

Um so what happened with that neighborhood is didn't have a park.

Um the kids in the neighborhood actually went out, and somebody can tell this story much better.

But in general, the kids were out there playing with pallets and other material from the legal dump site, and uh they they needed a park, right?

And so it became on the city to go ahead and to build that park.

Um, so the city did acquire two lots to to put in that park.

One of the things that when those parks come in, uh what we notice, and and again uh everybody is here from parks, um, so I I can hand it to them too, but when you have a lot of need for a park and it's a small area, then what you see is a lot of use of the park, and then you see a lot of additional wear and tear because there are so many people utilizing that area.

So when we have a lot of people in those smaller parks, because that is all that we're able to put together, then we're we're seeing a lot of a lot of extra wear on it, which increases our maintenance.

Um talking about Chaco Ridge, um, it is a mile away from either the parks located in in Enchanted Hills, so uh about a mile away from Valencia Park and a little bit over a mile away from Mountain View Park.

Access to uh Cielo Grande is difficult because the speed of traffic onto UNSER.

Um also there is nowhere to go from that subdivision.

Uh those sidewalks do not connect uh to any other part of the city.

So you're really um that one is really an island out there on its own.

Staff looks into how these styles of neighborhoods uh function in an established area.

If an existing area was built at a service level for existing uh residents, um are these barnacle subdivisions adding to that burden when the subdivisions only met those minimum standards to begin with for master plan acreage requirement.

Um of the things uh that we talked about that I think I referenced earlier is that from that 10 to 20 uh we do have what what we're calling like a slimmed down master plan.

Um so you don't have to turn in a site analysis, you don't have to turn in design standards, you don't have to turn in phasing and financing.

Um you only have to turn in the land use if it's applicable, so if you're actually changing it, um, but you are uh providing us conceptual grading and drainage, conceptual circulation, and conceptual utilities.

Uh one of the things I also want to point out, and and we've seen a lot of these master plans in the Edinburgh Basin is that the Lomas Naker specific area plan uh calls for a trail that goes east-west.

We have five neighborhoods, I believe, uh right now that have some portion of that trail.

Um, and so to make sure that that trail actually gets implemented, that it's on the same side of the street for every development that comes in, those master plans help ensure that those those infrastructure is implemented.

All right, ownership percentage.

I promise I'm getting near the end here.

Uh so for the ownership percentage historically, there has been no ownership requirement, but we have defaulted to 100%.

We have only been in the past five years having ownership requests for less than 100% when it comes to these master plans.

That trend started in 2018 after Papillon.

The Papillon Master Plan came in.

And so staff with that proposal took that ownership from 100% ownership to less than that.

In the past couple of years, there have been more applications for developments.

Do you have master plans less than 75% ownership?

Initially, I recommended the that we should have the 75% language actually integrated into the DPM.

After we receive some of our stakeholder feedback, and we actually started digging into some of the images of what those master plans and what those developments look like, we moved that from 75% up to 90%.

And so a couple of the images that I have here are going to be for high range five and high range six.

So for high range six, uh, when they actually came and run of the planting and zoning board and governing body for adoption of their master plan, they came in with 100% ownership.

So they were not showing any of their outparcils.

They did not include their outparcels.

But if they had included their outparcels, um, they would have had 79% for lot ownership, 81% for acreage ownership, depending on on how we uh do those numbers.

And I want to point out for high range six, how many holes that still makes, right?

Um, and so there are for the first phase 57 acres uh with five out parcels, two one half acres, and two one acre parcels and a.6 parcel.

Um so the percentage of ownership for that first phase, uh, which is that southern portion, uh, would uh on your right hand side would be a 94% ownership.

Um and so if you look at the left hand side, uh there is um 29 out parcels that were not included.

Um, and if they had been included, it would have been somewhere in that 79 to 81 percent range.

Um, and so just trying to show the difference between where that 80 percent to a 90 percent um range is and and how more cohesive the design for that residential looks when you have that higher percentage.

For um let's see, high range five.

Um the plan again, they they came in for 100% ownership, they didn't include their two out parcels.

If they had included, I'm sorry, they had originally three out parcels, they absorbed one of them.

Um, but they would have had um 96% ownership when they came in if they had decided to include those.

That for us helped frame why we thought 90% made more sense uh than lowering that number.

Park standards uh we're proposing parks with a half mile walk, um and that parks under three acres or HOE maintained.

Um I'd like to show so this comes from Park Serve, and so this actually shows park deserts.

Um, and so what they did was they identified city parks and then they did a half mile walk from uh which is give or take a 10-minute walk from each of those parks, and what um houses could reach any of those parks.

Um, what you will see is that there are big what we have uh deemed like park desert, so there's big areas that do not have any access to uh to parks.

Um historically, our one lots uh with half acre or larger lots, have a lot of space for outdoor space, room to stretch, room to have your dogs running outside.

Um, as the lot sizes shrink, uh the available outdoor space shrinks, and so um staff really finds that it's important to provide uh with that higher density the access to those park spaces.

Um subdivisions without parks.

Um one of the things that we just wanted to to point to is there's a number of subdivisions without parks.

Um you do a walking map, a lot of places are are a good uh mile away.

And even if they are sorry, really quick on that one, even if if you're willing to walk that mile, can't guarantee that you have a good sidewalk that's ADA accessible or that it's a safe way to get there.

And so that's always a problem too, depending on different abilities being able to get to that space.

Park access, one of the things that is included in your agenda briefing memorandum is a white paper on just park standards in general for the city.

When you look at the city of Albuquerque, they're showing that 91% of their residents have a park within a half a mile.

When we also received in the past couple of months our citizen survey, which is a survey that goes out every two years.

So we've been doing this since 2015.

We have also found that it's a valuable tool when adopting policies.

So in previous iterations of this survey, they have asked questions about chickens and short-term rentals, geobonds, all of those types of things, and when there has been high when the survey results have been positive, there has been a also overwhelmingly positive uh voter response in that same category.

For the 10-day review period for uh preliminary plates, um, in reviewing our applications for preliminary plats for the past two years in a 10-day review period to give feedback on whether or not the application is complete.

Uh we find that we have had uh less or over 95% response date within that first 10 business days, letting our applicants know whether or not they are missing materials.

Um of the few times that that we found any type of of issue where it where something wasn't sent out in 10 days, we actually had a staffing change and it just got lost in the shuffle.

Um but uh so we don't feel that uh changes to this or or additional restrictions actually add any purpose because we don't feel like anything is broken at this point, um, and so we don't think that we need to fix anything with our current standards getting to the end.

Next steps, right?

So our next steps are uh I'm gonna do this same song and dance uh next Thursday in front of governing body.

Um, and uh that will be where we are gonna do our DPM uh update and then the first reading of chapter 155.

Any type of tax amendments do require a second reading uh which will happen in November.

Uh and if adopted and approved, uh this would go into effect July 1.

Um, and so I do have the findings for our DPM and then the findings for chapter 155.

Uh, and with that, I will stand for any questions, and then we do again have a lot of staff here and experts in their fields to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Connell.

Um I get a motion to approve item number eight.

I'll motion to approve item number eight.

I'll second.

Is there any discussion from the board?

Mr.

Chairman.

I have a few.

First of all, Amy, thank you for all your work on this.

It's uh I think a monumental task to try and put something like this together and get it done.

But uh a couple of things that that have come up in the in planning and zoning in the last seven plus years that I've served on it uh is on traffic.

Uh every time you know a new subdivision or or something comes in, everybody's worried about the traffic, the impact and everything.

And one of the and you mentioned on some of the slides there about uh traffic calming, uh that type of stuff.

So one of the questions that I have, and maybe since either Matt's here or somebody from the police department can, is when you all send out your planning reports and everything, there's always space on there for all the different departments to comment on.

Uh in seven and a half years, I've never seen one for the police department.

So I I guess my question is is how can we get them involved early on to say, hey, this is going to create a problem for us?

Uh because I will tell you, I spent 40 years in law enforcement.

I know the problems it can cause.

We've I've never had that opportunity to comment on stuff like that before, but I noticed in all the planning reports, the city allows them comments.

And to this date, I have yet to see one.

I'm just curious what why would why don't we get them and like or do we need to try and get them more involved early on to try and resolve some of these issues?

Mr.

Chair, Commissioner Rudosevich, um, so I I think uh what happens a lot of the time um is that we on staff side see a lot of police comments on our special event permits on our other types of applications.

Um and so I think when we look at some of these master plans and these preliminary plats, uh I think a lot of times we run into the it is still conceptual, it's still big picture, we haven't seen it develop yet, so it's hard to give some of that feedback early on when uh because we've received feedback on things like Arrowhead East, right?

Um having some concerns about um access onto FI28.

Um those types of comments we make sure that that we're receiving them, that we're hearing them, that we are uh taking them into account, but we're also having those discussions with New Mexico DOT on where the roadways go and things like that.

So we are receiving comments um whether they always get in front of this planning and zoning board, um, they're they're not always the I I feel like they probably get so much stuff from us that that they have to kind of sort through and and just really kind of keep it focused on some of those special event type permits and and other types of daycares and and other things that don't necessarily come in front of the board.

Again, I just think uh and like I said, I I used the one of the last ones that we had where we're gonna uh at Adelia and 528, and actually there were a couple of uh police officers that lived in the area complaining about the traffic uh and uh that the residents and saying there's too much traffic, there's we don't have enough people to handle this, whatever it may be, but I I would ask and and that we make an effort to get their input uh on these issues, and maybe that will help with some of the traffic calming and some of the other issues.

Um and we're hoping just having uh the traffic calming language in the DPM helps us open up those conversations earlier on.

Um right now uh we don't have a lot to point back to on why we ask for traffic calming.

Um now we're gonna actually have language in the DPM that will give us that ability to start those conversations.

Um and so I think we're gonna be able to do have a lot better earlier conversations than we're able to do right now.

Moving off that uh on the 10-acre master plan, what's the current ordinance or the DPM on this the requirements for a master plan currently in the ordinance or the DPM?

So currently in the DPM, I'm scrolling back.

Um let me actually go back to this one.

The the current DPM uh is a 20-acre minimum and it requires a site analysis, land use, grading and drainage, circulation utilities, design standard, uh phasing and financing.

Okay.

So you're just basically cutting it in half.

Uh yes.

So this we feel that the site analysis is probably one of the more costly portions of it.

So like your soils analysis, those types of things, uh, we feel if if those if that's not part of it, um you don't necessarily need to do design standards.

If you're doing something smaller, you can default back to city standards.

Um, and then phasing and financing, um, you're probably not coming in for a larger PID or TID or any of those types of financing mechanisms.

Okay.

And my next question is on the parks, and I brought this up in in, I believe, in May, uh, at the first hearing before planning and zoning.

Parks under three acres are going to be required to be maintained by an HOA.

Is that correct?

That is what we are proposing, correct?

So where is there an ordinance that re is gonna re that gonna require all new subdivisions to have an HOA?

Uh so Mr.

Chair, uh, Commissioner Rodosevich, no.

Uh so there is the option that they can work with a neighboring subdivision and between two subdivisions have their park requirement filled by somebody else, they could be next to an existing uh city park and and not require one.

Uh they could be of a large enough size that they can um have a park uh dedicated to the city.

Um so there are a lot of other options, so no, it it this will not require every subdivision to have an HOA.

Amy with all due respect, then I think the language needs to change because in all the languages says shall be paid for by an HOA.

In in the DPM in the 155, everything is a shall be that that needs to me, being in the business, that means there's no option.

That and so what it's telling me is then the city is gonna require all new subdivisions to have an HOA So uh Mr.

Chair, Commissioner uh Rudosevich.

So if if they are a large enough subdivision or a master planned community that has a park over three acres, um it's only parks under three acres that would be um HOA maintained.

Um, but there's there's options to work inside of that.

Matt, I'll ask you then where's the options.

Mr.

Chair, um Commissioner Radosevich, um, as Amy you know referenced, there we believe that there's options within that, and I think part of this is a a policy discussion and a policy decision for for the city to determine whether we believe our residents should have access to open space that is not open space that entails trespassing on the private property elsewhere.

Um we view it as an important piece of quality of life for our community at a city level.

We're focused on uh building our system level.

Um improvements such as expanding sports con sports complex north, um, our multi-generational facility that we're planning on northern and rock away.

So we're trying to tackle the larger needs and then looking for opportunities within the neighborhoods to have access.

You know, a lot of this is based on our observation of these, you know, these subdivisions that Amy referenced earlier in her presentation that our park deserts aren't connected to anything.

The story of the kids playing in the sand lot with the pallets, going on the TV saying how's it the city allowed a subdivision to be built without a park?

These are problems we're trying to solve, and the citizen feedback that we have have received is um is they want to they want to see these assets, right?

And so there's a side that we're trying to tackle, and there's a side that if it's small, we're looking to be taken up, you know, taken upon by the development.

This also ties in commonly with much smaller uh lots in R3 and R4 communities.

So you're increasing the density, and then there really isn't a place for you to walk your dog at the end of the day, or to go kick a little ball with you with you with your kids.

So we're not looking for large-scale pocket parks, but something where someone can get out their front door and have a little something besides their 4,000 square foot lot.

I I completely agree with you.

One 1,000 percent.

Uh uh, but nobody's answering my question.

The ordinance and the DPM says it shall be paid for by an HOA, provided that they cannot meet the half acre requirement, the excuse me, the point five half mile requirements.

If you are within in the totality of the document, that if you are within a half mile walking distance to a in an existing public park, we are not looking to, you know, to the Mr.

Likers comment.

We're not looking for anyone to trespass on to some another HOA's park.

But if you if you're able to meet that requirement of a half mile or less through another means, then you would be able to get an exemption to that that park maintained by the HOA.

I'm reading from 155.46.

Section E.

A park smaller than three acres in size shall be considered a pocket park for which the design shall be coordinated with parks and recreation community service to ensure minimum safety standards and ADA guidelines are met.

A pocket park of park shall be managed and maintained by an HOA.

It doesn't say anything about half a mile, it doesn't say anything about cooperating with the neighbors or doing whatever.

But the language says, and and again, I know I'm just being a real stickler on this, but it we're required, and I agree we need more parks.

We're requiring them, but now we're putting the burden on residents there to create their own HOA, or I guess if there's some other language, and if this in there, just please point me to it, and I'll be glad to just give it up.

Right.

So uh Mr.

Chair, uh Commissioner Rodosevich, so uh I believe Brian's looking at it right now.

So I know you were reading section E.

Um, and if we pull it out from E and look at that bigger section of 150 uh 155.46 um and read through the entire section.

I believe that's where we have our additional language and and Brian, you can Yeah, and section uh G1, which is two sections below that section F is about the city parks.

Section G1 references uh the exceptions in terms of not having to dedicate or not having to put in that park land allotment.

Um in those cases it would be if it's less than 10 acres that fee and loo which was discussed earlier.

Um and then the other part is uh all new subdivisions must have a minimum half mile walk uh via ADA accessible um via ADA accessible trails.

Um which is the section that uh that has been referenced so um just to keep moving on.

Uh I totally agree, you know, that uh extra parks are needed here in Rio Rancho, but also I think the clarification of the language of this statement probably need to be readdressed.

So I want to keep moving on so that we got a long time.

That's all the questions I have, I think.

Okay.

All right, in addition to comments from board Mr.

Chair, if I may.

Um, so I think the staff said that they addressed about 37 items.

There were changes to about 37 items based on the feedback.

Uh uh, Mr.

Chair, uh Commissioner Hinkins, yes, between the the two documents, uh probably about 37 in total.

Um a couple of those were based uh just on uh clarifying a definition um or making sure that uh that that standards were in alignment.

Okay, and I do think that when we hear resistance to development in the area, we definitely hear a lot about access to open space.

So I want to echo that that is important to the public.

We hear that quite often.

Um, but I do agree that maybe there needs to be some clarity if there is a developer that puts in a park and they're maintaining it, whether it's via NHOA or any other avenue that they choose to do that from, can another developer come in?

I think that was a big concern.

Can another developer come in?

And if it's less than half a mile, utilize that park as reference to their new development.

Mr.

Chair, Commissioner Hinkins, uh yes, that would be um what we believe G1 uh states to us, and then uh real quick, sorry, my math was wrong on that last one.

Uh it's about 27 comments uh that were addressed between both comments.

So I believe 12 and one and 15 in the other, just to clarify Mr.

Chair, if I may, um Amy, I think this G1 section, um I don't know if it would be a form of amendment at this moment or as a note that would go into the recommendation to the uh governing body, but um to insert the word public where it says 0.5 mile from the nearest park, we can insert the word public just to you know for the the abundance of clarity.

I think staff's interpretation would be a public park, but we can make sure that's abundantly clear.

And then just one more thing.

I I heard you mention 10% flexibility for the park.

Can you just expand on on that a little bit?

Uh we give a 10% on that acreage so that there's a little bit of flexibility uh to go under that required amount.

Okay, any additional comments from the board.

Any additional comments from the board?

Sure.

Oh go ahead, Robert, if you were gonna go first.

You may have to do that.

Okay, I'll go.

So uh I guess I have a couple of questions and a couple of concerns.

One being, you know, if there was 30, 37 meetings, I believe that was the answers.

37 meetings held between the development community and staff, which certainly doesn't uh doesn't show a lack of effort.

However, it seems like there's still such a massive disconnect in um what needs to be in the DPM uh as a whole.

And I'll go back and I'll reference one of the things that's a little concerning to me, and that's the ownership percentages.

I do know that at one point, you know, they were 75 percent, and then I know you mentioned the the it went to 90 percent from 75 percent, but I don't think that's true.

I think they went to a hundred percent at the last presentation, and then now it's uh it's back at 90 percent.

And you know, I I just really don't quite get why we've gone through many iterations and many communications with the development community and gotten more restrictive than you know, more amenable to um to lighten some of the regulations because I I think even from your stats that's uh that's almost unachievable.

Um and I think it would really start to hurt development um more than more than welcome it.

So um I I'll stand there, but that's it's just some concerns that I have with with how uh where we're at today.

Uh Mr.

Chair, uh Commissioner Torterici, so I disagree.

Um I think as a whole, um, and this is a large document.

Um, as a whole, I think we have agreement with the development community, except for um a handful of items uh that we have had the same conversations for the past couple of years about.

Um, and these are uh requests for from um what we have received internally as as policy shifts.

Um and so uh I think uh part of this too when we when we're talking about um the master plans for the ownership.

Um so staff did uh originally recommend back in May a 75% ownership percentage.

Um between May and now uh we did receive our citizen survey feedback.

We looked at what master plans uh that we have um had come forward.

Uh we looked at some other ones that are um in the hopper, you know, that are coming down the line, and we feel that that uh 75% was not gonna give uh good residential design.

Um and so we did increase that to 90 percent.

Uh when it comes to that 100% change, uh we never put that into uh the DPM for the ownership.

That was a uh staff decision uh because we just are getting um we we received feedback um at a couple of our internal meetings um that that percentage uh just uh there was some question about whether or not we really should be putting having public the private entities um use the public forum to change other people's land use.

Um and so um so we we took it back as we were trying to figure out what that percentage uh should be back to 100 percent, uh but that was never part of the the DPM discussion.

Um and I think I I think I answered those questions.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Gombadon, would you like to speak?

Hi, Ms.

Jarrett's Robert Gabledone.

Um just a few comments.

It's not necessarily questions because we've been through a lot of conversation this evening.

Um I believe it used to be that the master plan size of acreage was recommended between 20 and 50 acres.

It was pretty open, pretty wide open at one point.

Um I know we're saying today that oh, it's 20 and we're cutting it in half to 10.

That that may be technically true, it may or may not be technically true.

I I believe it used to have a range to it.

Uh two, um, I don't really think.

I mean, I've I've I've voiced this opinion in the past few months about uh whether 75% is the best achievable ownership amount concentration or less than that, or maybe a little more than that, but I don't know, 90 90 is not a far cry from 100, so we're really kind of making things a lot more strained.

And then for pocket parks that are under three acres, I'm still unclear as to how we're gonna pay for those.

I mean, I've heard the word um HOA or the acronym HOA a bunch of times, but those are harder than people think to uh cause to happen, be agreed upon, and to actually maintain for longer than 18 months.

That's my comments.

Okay, thank you.

Is there any additional comments from the board?

My personal opinion, I think there are a few things that probably need to be uh revisited for as language uh within the DPM.

But uh we do vote in affirmative.

So it's the time um please call the roll vice chair gabbledon.

No, commissioner Rudolcevic?

No, Torcharici.

No, Chairman Richardson, yes, commissioner Hankins, yes.

Okay, just due to vote for item number nine.

Can I get a motion to approve item number nine?

I'll motion to approve item number nine.

I'll second and a discussion from the board.

Any further discussion from the board from item number nine.

Okay, please call the roll.

Commissioner Totoricci.

No Kerman Richardson, yes, Commissioner Radosevich?

No.

Vice Chair Gabblin.

No, Commissioner Hankins, yes.

Okay.

Back to the regular agenda.

Mr.

Chair, members of the the planning zoning commission.

Um, as Director Rincone uh indicated, this will be going before the governing body on October 23rd.

Um, with your recommendation of denial.

Um I would like to highlight a couple things.

Staff has been working on this document for three years.

This team that's here today has probably a century and a half of experience of working with developers, but beyond that, owning and operating those assets that the developers build and hand to our community.

Um we have learned a lot in the last 15 years, and there's a reason why we put a DPM in place 15 years ago, because a lot of the assets were handed to us weren't that good.

And we've learned we're trying to strike the balance between development, a growing community.

We are 40, 50 percent of the market share of this metro area.

Um these are things that try to make development continue to carry forward and be balanced and be able to to navigate.

Um, you know, we appreciate the the the comments, um, but by far from any stretch, do we see the desire for a 10-acre master plan uh providing folks a place where they can lock their dog as deal breakers and grade inhibitors um to development.

And um like to thank the hard work of staff, um, and we will present this um you know to the governing body on that date.

And it's also a little um I think frustrating um to hear the development community say these are things that are gonna kill development in that Rio Rancho isn't business friendly, because on one-on-one conversations, they say exact the complete opposite of that.

Um there's only a handful of builders and developers in this room.

Uh we have uh I think nine active production home builders in this community, and I see one represented in this room this evening.

Um we have multiple developers.

Um, and so I just I I personally struggle.

I I personally struggle um with it, and um the fact of the matter is no document, a document this big, you're never gonna get it perfect.

There's an exemption process built into it.

Um that is purposeful, and the document also calls for it to be updated every two years.

Um instead of starting getting this document approved two years ago and stress testing it and figuring out what the next update would could look like.

Um we're continuing to fight over a very, very good document that I think a lot of communities probably in the state should mimic to help guide their process.

There's a reason why we're 40 to 50 percent of the market share.

There's a reason why we're seeing commercial development take place in this community because we have the right attitude, we have the right organizational culture to move development over the finish line.

And as as it as director Hinkon referenced 10 years ago, um when we had an impact fee update, that the home builders association said if you pass this impact fee, you will never see another home built in Rio Rancho.

We're 40% of the market share.

We've had 12% of the community's residential growth and housing stock has happened in the last five years.

We've had 5,000 housing units.

We know what we're doing and trying to strike that that balance.

Um it's uh it it is we'll continue to push forward and fight the good fight for what we think is you know balanced development for the community that'll allow the developers to continue to move forward, but also look at the needs of our future residents because the day we issue certificate of occupancy on that house, it starts a lifelong relationship between the city and that homeowner.

The relationship between the builder and that homeowner ends in a year or two after their warranty period comes to comes to you know the closure.

We have a lifelong relationship with it, and that's the intent of striking that balance.

So thank you.

Appreciate the opportunity to share my final thoughts.

And um, thank you.

Thank you, City.

Mr.

Chair, Mr.

Chairman, may I jump in on that?

I I really just want to comment on Mr.

Geisel's remarks because I I wanted to be clear, I completely agree with him.

I think staff has worked diligently hard.

I I would um be remiss if I didn't say from my knowledge.

This is probably the best planning zoning team staff in the state by far.

And I think we do a great job.

Um, you know, my my my comments were made for the sake of trying to get a little bit more cohesion, a little bit more clarity on some of the things that isn't very important document, but at no point would I ever want to be mis uh understood to say that I don't really appreciate that it is a good document, it is a great uh asset to the the community, and it needs to be in place.

And uh I do uh second the the comments to applaud the staff and their very long diligent hard work in the in the coming years.

And I think we will get to the resolution on this.

Um I think there's just a few little more items that that I would personally like to see ironed out before we move forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Todoric.

Okay, moving on, continuing with public hearing.

Item number four is withdrawn.

I'm looking at requested to withdraw the item.

Can I get a motion to withdraw item number four?

I'll make a motion to withdraw item number four.

Second, second.

Is there any discussion from the board?

Any discussion from the board.

Okay, please call the roll.

Yes, Commissioner Hankins.

Yes, Chair Torterici.

Yes, Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Commissioner Radosevich.

Yes.

Motion passed.

Okay, moving on to item number five, the final plat to be presented by uh staff TM DeVore.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, members of the board.

Tim's Vorec planner with the city of Rio Rancho.

Uh, this item before you this evening is a final plat request for the Los Diamantes phase three subdivision.

The subject properties legally described as LD tract 3A2 and comprises approximately 22.6295 acres.

All properties comprising this subject subdivision are zoned R3, mixed residential district.

And uh the preliminary plat um for this uh subdivision was originally approved um by the planning and zoning board August 13th of 2024.

At that same meeting, um, the board also approved a subdivision variance to allow for solely 10 foot internal public utility easements along the front of all lots.

Um and additionally, the board also approved a preliminary plat extension for this plat August 12th of this year.

Um this subject subdivision is within the Los Diamantes Master Plan as well as the Unit 10 specific area plan.

Um specifically, the subject tract is within the northwest portion of the Los Diamantes Master Plan, access via Los Diamantes Drive Southeast, a future residential street, via West Side Boulevard Southeast, a minor arterial.

Surrounding zoning is R1 single family residential to the north and west, C2 commercial to the east, R3 mixed residential to the south, and PR parks and recreation district to the west.

And here is the full subdivision plat, which will create 141 single family lots and six tracks.

Excuse me.

Of quick note, since the plat extension was approved, they did make a a little uh tweak to HOA tract six and did add a little acreage to it.

So it took from the back of lots 77 and 78.

As um this didn't fundamentally change the lot count or render these lots unbuildable.

Um staff sees this as a minor change, and um we don't see that it needs to come back for re-review.

Oops, sorry.

With that, staff recommends approval with findings and conditions, and I will stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

So anyone present, I wish to speak for against item number five.

State your name and the address.

Uh Justin Simonson, 128 Monroe Street, Northeast Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Uh I'm applicant uh with Isaac Senorfman for this project, and I just wanted to stand for any questions.

I will note the the reasoning behind that slight shift in the lot line that was noted by Tim was a result of some off-site drainage that we had to account for in that corner.

So we we did that with through an HOA tract rather than burdening the individual lots.

Um and so yeah, besides that, I'll stand for any questions.

But um, you know, last time we were here in August, you guys asked when we'd be back for a final plot.

Um said hopefully in October, and here we are.

So I want to note that.

Okay, I guess I got a little bit ahead of myself.

I should have asked a question.

Applicant present.

Still show club about the last one.

Anyway, uh is anyone in audience wish to speak for against item number five.

Anyone present who wishes to speak for or against item number five.

Anyone virtual wish to speak for against item number five.

Okay.

Can I get a motion to approve item number five?

I'll motion to approve item number five.

Second, second.

Okay.

And a discussion from the board.

And a discussion from the board.

Okay, see now call to roll.

Commissioner Hankins?

Yes.

Commissioner Tortroici.

Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Rodosevich?

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabblan.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay.

Moving on to item number six, final plat.

Um to be presented by staff Michelle Costello.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, Michelle Castilla, uh, planner with the City of Rio Rancho.

This item is a request for a final plat of Montreal phase two.

The preliminary plat for the Montreal subdivision was originally approved by the planning and zoning board on December 13th, 2022.

It did receive an extension that was approved on October 24th, 2023.

Uh, master plan for this area was approved by the governing body on June 23rd, 2022.

The plan detailed a conceptual lot layout, uh, roadway sections identified community amenities, and changed the land use designation so that it was compatible uh with the proposed residential development.

The final plat for this phase one of the subdivision was passed on just uh September 24th, 2024.

The properties approximately 8.5 acres of land located east of Paseo Del Falcon Northeast, the principal arterial.

The subject property is zoned R1 single family residential per ordinance number 21, enactment number 94-21, and a small portion of it is also done to R4 single family residential per ordinance number 10 and act number seven-13.

The Montreal Phase 2 subdivision will consist of 31 single family residential lots and one tract.

Staff recommends approval of the Montreal Phase 2 final plat with findings and conditions.

With that, I'll stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Is the applicant present?

Please stitch your name and your address.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, uh, members of the commissioning board.

Brian Audragon with uh um Los well Loma Sync and House Development Company.

Chairman uh members of the commissioning board Brian Augon with uh um los well Loma Singethall's development company better think about which one I'm with now um Miss Castilla has done a great job describing the project and uh I have reviewed the conditions uh for approval and we're in agreement with those uh and I stand for any questions the board may have thank you okay thank you so I want present wishes speak for or against item number five no no five number six yes anyone present and wish to speak for against item number six anyone virtual who wish to speak for against item number six can I get a motion from to approve item number six I'll make that motion second second any discussion from the board any discussion from the board call to roll commissioner Radosovich yes commissioner Totricies Vice Chair Gabbleton yes Commissioner Hankins yes Chairman Richardson yes motion pass okay moved on to item number seven zone map amendment and to be presented by Ms.

Tamara Martinez and she recommends denial good evening Mr.

Chair and members of the board Tamara Martinez planner with the city of Rio Rancho the item before you is a zone map amendment the applicant Cielo Bonito LLC requests approval of a zone map amendment for approximately 53.86 acres from TZ transitional zoning and R3 mixed residential to now R4 single family residential at the lots that are on your screen they are also included in your agenda briefing memorandum the subject properties are located northwest of the intersection of Lookover Drive Northeast and Shiloh Road northeast both of which are residential roads the subject properties again are currently zoned TZ transitional zoning and R3 mixed residential and are located within the Paseo Gateway West specific area plan the adjacent properties to the north are zoned TZ transitional zoning and NC neighborhood commercial TZ transitional zoning and 01 office to the east transition T Z transitional zoning R3 mixed residential and NC neighborhood commercial to the south while the lots to the west are zone TZ transitional zoning R4 single family residential and SU special use for the Northern Meadows neighborhood this is a map from the Paseo Gateway specific area plan that shows that this area is dedicated to or to a medium density residential this is what the conceptual layout over the subject properties would look like so this request involves an area of more than 50 acres um and staff has therefore required this is the middle of a master plan master plans are level four sub-area levels excuse me sub-area plans prepared for properties in single ownership or control this type of plan addresses how the future development will meet the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan by providing all um the overall site land use grading and drainage circulation utilities design standards phasings and financing to a defined area of at least 20 acres but um usually more than a hundred acres and this is per the current DPN language prior to this request the applicant submitted a zone map amendment under case number 25-100-5 which was heard and approved by this board on August 12th 2025 and uh subsequently considered by the governing body on August 14th at that meeting the item failed on a six to zero vote with council members expressing strong concerns and emphasizing that a master plan is needed in addition to the zone map amendment and must be submitted for consideration in lieu of in lieu of a formal master plan the applicant has provided a conceptual design document that provides the idea of the development but this document is not enforceable it should also be noted that between the submission of the initial and the current request the applicant has expanded the requested area by an additional point nine three six acres as the original request was for 52.94 acres um to now 53.86 acres despite the increase in acreage a master plan has not been submitted with the current request this is the um zoning table showing the R4 requirements so um staff recommends that the planning and zoning board recommend denial of the current or of the zone map amendment to the governing body subject to the following findings and with that I will stand for any questions okay thank you is the applicant present

So staff recommends that the planning and zoning board recommend denial of the current or of the zone map amendment to the governing body subject to the following findings.

And with that, I will stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Is the applicant present.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, Nicosia Shuttlebauer, on behalf of Cielo Benito Development, PO Box 9043, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

If you'll just give me one moment, I need to get the clicker from the planner.

So I'll keep this brief because this is our third time meeting about this project.

And I believe Tamra's done a great job explaining what our request is this evening for our zone map amendment.

Um but just to reiterate, we did present this in the end of June at the time without a master plan because staff's recommendation was that they would not support the master plan without a hundred percent ownership, which we do not have for the entire project.

We came back in August to represent due to noticing errors, and at both these meetings, uh we did provide the conceptual plan and you did approve or make a recommendation to go to governing body for the zone map amendment for the R3 zoning.

Um at the August 14th governing body meeting, um, we had the discussion about the concerns of not having a master plan, and that R3 zoning provided too much flexibility if the development didn't go forward.

So, you know, my understanding from the outcome of the meeting with the governing body was that they would like us to come back and ask for R4 zoning, which is what we're doing here this evening, uh, given that R4 would only allow for single family residence.

Um R4 is still part of the preferred medium density residential under the Paseo Gateway West specific area plan.

So we're still in alignment, and we will still have to adhere to all of the traffic access park requirements that are in both the specific area plan and in the current DPM.

So here's a snapshot.

We do have a slight change to the sketch plan.

We've actually added a little bit more open space as you come in on to Patrulo.

We still have the main park, which is just under that three acres at the center of phase three.

But the big thing I'd really like to highlight, I know, which was something we had a discussion previously, and also at the governing body was holdout lots, so that we weren't creating spot zoning, and that we were actually able to move forward with the subdivision with the zone map amendment request that we have on the table this evening.

So as you can see, I've circled areas that were holdout lots previously, and so the very top of whiles there we have a zoning letter from the owner.

We just weren't able to include it into this meeting because of noticing requirements.

We also have included lot seven in this specific request.

The next group over in the yellow phase is three lots.

The ownership has told us that we can move forward the zoning request for that and that we're going to be purchasing in that.

We just don't I can't provide you a signed document this evening.

Um then in the green section, that red circle, we also have the ownership entity saying we can move forward with the zoning request and the purchase.

So the only two we'll call it still hold-out lots are the ones in blue, but I'd like to reaffirm that we are in communication with those entities.

They've expressed that they're willing to sell it to us.

I just can't present a formal application today for that zoning.

But that being said, um with that development, we can with the approval of the R4 zoning, move forward with the first three phases of the subdivision, and then we'd still utilize that conceptual plan to try to work on getting those remaining lots under the R4 zoning designation so there is no spot zoning, and then it would fulfill the whole vision for the conceptual plan.

So in summary, right?

We were back here today for R4 because that was the will of the governing body to keep it to single family homes, so there was no flexibility with R3 going to detached or multifamily units.

We've completely created the conceptual plan because staff says they will not support a master plan without 100% ownership, which we do not have for the entire five phases at this time, but we are in contact with all the ownership entities.

We can build out phases one through three, which do include that.

I think it's like 2.8 acre park.

And then the R4ing designation will keep future development again to single family.

I stand for questions.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Can I get a motion to approve item number seven?

Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve item number seven.

Second.

I'll second.

Okay.

Any discussion from the board?

Any discussion from the board.

This might be a silly question, but is there a way to approve only the first three phases until they can get the complete ownership of those lots for phase four?

Is there a way to do that?

Mr.

Chair, Commissioner Hinkins?

Um, no.

So uh this is just one request for um a zone map amendment.

Um if at a future time when they come in for a preliminary plat, um there you that could be an option, um, but with this specific request, that's not an option.

Thank you.

So it's for the project as a whole.

Okay, in additional comments from the board.

Mr.

Chairman, what is the uh, and maybe this is a uh question for the applicant.

What is the current ownership percentage?

Of the entire five phases.

Yes.

Uh that's a great question.

If you want to give me a minute, I could do some quick math.

Would you like me to do that?

Yeah, if you don't mind, I think we have to do that.

So if I'm doing based on just ownership, so we have if I'm doing my math quickly on the spot here.

We have about 27 different owners, and we have about nine of them that we still would have to coordinate in phase um four and five.

So if I'm using that percentage properly, we still have about a third that we need to get on that those last two phases, so we wouldn't meet that 90% threshold.

So less than 70 percent, it'd be fair.

Yeah.

We have a hundred for the first three, though.

Yeah, no, I get it.

Thank you.

Okay, in addition to comments from the board.

Any additional comments from the board?

Okay, see now, please call a rule.

No, no.

No.

Vice Chair Gabblin.

No.

That's me, no.

Okay.

Move it on to uh public forum.

Is anyone present or virtual who would like to speak?

See none, not here, none.

Can I get a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Second.

Second.

All right.

I just want to say that it was really nice having the podium so I could actually see who's presenting.