Good evening and welcome to the planning and zoning board meeting for Rio Rancho New Mexico October 28, 2025.

Please silence all electronic devices while attending planning and zoning meetings.

I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Please stand as you are able for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

For the record, I will call well take roll by calling each planning and zoning board member's name.

Please acknowledge your presence by saying present.

Kevin Copcher.

Present.

Fred Radozevich.

Present.

Scotty Richardson is absent tonight.

Excused.

Robert Gabbledone, I am present.

Andrea Hankins.

Present.

Lisa Hardesty.

Present.

She is virtual and Sal Tordorici is absent and excused.

In person attendees, please fill out a speaker form.

If you wish to speak, only individuals who have signed up may will be permitted to speak.

If you have yet to fill out a form, now is the time to do so and provide it to a recorder on my left.

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

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

Okay.

Consent calendar.

There's no discussion of these items unless any of the board members request, in which the item will be moved to a discussion item on the regular agenda.

Is there any change or comment to the consent calendar?

All right.

Motion to approve the consent calendar.

So moved.

Second.

We have motion and a second.

Please call the roll.

Commissioner Coffter.

Yes.

Commissioner Radosovich?

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesy.

Yes.

Motion passed.

Thank you.

Okay.

Staff presentations, reports, and comments.

Nothing extra tonight, Amy.

Mr.

Chair, if I can, Mr.

Race Chair Gelbadone.

Um, so real quick, I did want to give an update.

Um, so um at the uh previous governing body meeting, uh, the DPM was a uh passed in a six to zero vote.

Um based on the comments that we heard.

Uh we wanted to acknowledge uh the feedback from the board.

Um, and so we did rework our presentation.

Um and so um later tonight um or tomorrow I will send out a copy of that PowerPoint from that presentation and then a link uh to that presentation if anybody is interested.

Um but just a quick update on that one.

Very good.

Thank you, Director.

All right, public hearings.

Item number three, preliminary plat extension.

The applicant, coal bank holdings limited through their agent Isaacson and Arfman Inc.

request approval of a preliminary plat extension to a previously approved preliminary plat for the Stone Gate Phase Three subdivision.

Staff contact is Liz Ruiz Carlos and staff recommends approval with findings and conditions.

Liz.

Thank you.

Uh Lizarith Carlos, planner of the city of Rio Rancho.

Again, the item before you is a request for an extension for a previously approved preliminary plat for the Stone Gate phase three subdivision.

Uh the original.

Okay, is that better?

It's on.

Okay.

The original preliminary plot was heard and approved by the planning and zoning board at their November 19th, 2024 meeting.

Uh the plat proposes 37 lots zoned R for single family residential, and is made of approximately 8.2924 acres on the tracks legally described as Stone Gate 2, uh tract 2A1 and Stone Gate Tract 1A.

The subject properties are located within the Stone Gate Master Plan, which was adopted under resolution number 16, enactment number 11-18.

The subdivision is also within the Lomus Negative specific area plan, uh adopted as amended under resolution number 34, enactment number 24-33.

The subject properties are outlined in black in the black hatch on that map.

Uh they're located west of Edinburgh Street northeast and north of Haven Crest Avenue northeast, uh, with Dinadan Drive northeast located to the west of the subdivision as well.

Uh this extension is to allow for additional time for review construction plans, which have yet to be approved by the city.

There have been no significant revisions to the subdivision code, zoning code, or infrastructure design standard since the platform's previous approval date.

That would necessitate a second review and reapproval for the subdivision.

The development services department finds it is in the public interest to grant this extension as a results.

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

Thanks, Liz.

Is the applicant present?

Yes, I am.

Great.

Please uh actually state your name.

Actually, it would the uh staff will put up the oath.

Sorry about that since you're online.

Please read the oath, state your name, and then go ahead.

Comment.

Yes.

I Justin Simmonson, residing at 128 Monroe Street, Northeast, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108.

Do solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony I give in reference to item number three shall be the truth, and I do so under the penalties of perjury.

Great, thank you.

And please give your comments.

Yes, uh, so uh as Liz stated, we're looking to have uh preliminary plat extension.

Uh we did receive, I think the final round of comments.

There's one round of comments uh or a few uh remaining comments are just regarding street light.

Um there has been uh several um developments in the area that have constructed things and um have been in the middle of construction, so it's been a little bit of back and forth by the time we get uh comments addressed.

Um additional uh infrastructure is constructed, so we have to adjust those plan sets.

But uh at this point, I think we're very close, so uh we look forward to having uh an extension and the uh developers are eager to get uh this uh phase under construction as soon as we get that.

I'll stand for any other questions.

Thank you.

Great, thank you, Justin.

Okay, is there um anyone in the audience or online wishing to speak for item number three?

Is anyone online or in the gallery wishing to speak against item number three?

All right, I will entertain an affirmative motion to approve item number three.

I'll make a motion to approve item number three preliminary plan extension.

Second, thank you.

Motion is second.

Any discussion or comment from the board.

Seeing and hearing none, uh please call the role.

Commissioner Rodilsovich, yes, Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesi.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins, yes.

Commissioner Coffer.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Great, good luck on your project.

Thank you.

Okay, item number four variants.

The applicant Kim L.

Snyder requests approval of a variance to section 154.77, fence and wall regulations.

D2, which states walls built within the side yard setback behind the front setback to the rear setback, can be a maximum of six feet.

The subject property is legally described as Diamond Ridge, block seven lot four.

Staff contact is Ben Isaacs, and staff recommends denial with findings.

Go ahead, Ben.

Good evening, all uh members of the board.

I'm Ben Isaacs, municipal planner with the city of Rio Rancho.

The item before you is a variance request to the maximum wall height allowed in the side setback behind the front setback and to the rear setback.

The applicant is seeking a variance to section 154.77 of the municipal code, which provides for a maximum wall height of six feet in the side setback.

The subject property is located at 4305 Choya Drive and is legally described as Diamond Ridge Block 7 Lot 4.

It is also zoned R1 single family residential.

The applicant received a code enforcement violation following a complaint from the neighbor at 3401 Choya Drive.

The complaint received was for the height and structural integrity of the common wall between their properties.

The applicant claims that they increased the height of the common wall on their left property line to seven feet ten inches in 2020.

However, the city did not receive an application for the increase and cannot determine its structural integrity.

Following the code enforcement violation, the applicant sought to get the wall permitted, but was unable to do so due to the excessive height, hence the variance request.

Staff recommend that the board deny the applicant's request based on the specified findings of fact and conditions, including that their lot does not contain an exceptional physical condition that would prevent them from having the wall be six feet or less.

If the variance is approved, the applicant is part of their placement permit application will be required to submit engineering plans with structural details confirming the wall's integrity.

They will also be required to submit written permission from the neighbor who filed the complaint for the race common wall.

I'll stand if there are any questions.

Thank you, Ben.

Is the applicant present?

All right, go ahead and step on up to that first podium.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Do you need copies of this of this latest information?

I have that for you.

We've got, I think everything in the packet, Brian.

No.

You need the Lewis.

Do you have uh several copies?

No.

Okay.

I guess this is stuff we're gonna need to consider this item.

Oh my gosh.

I made up copies of this for you folks, so that you I didn't know if you had all this stuff or not.

And I thought, well, I better because I before I moved here, I worked as a superintendent of of the Palm Springs Agency in uh Palm Springs, California, and had I oversaw 29,000 acres of land, and it was checkerboard lands.

Real quick, let me stop you just for a moment.

Thanks so much for the packets of the additional information.

If you could state your name first and your address, my name is Kim Snyder.

I live at 4305 Chola Drive.

All right, thanks so much.

And go ahead with your comments.

Okay.

I'd like to start out.

Yeah, I've received this citation here.

Uh it's dated uh July 17th, 2025, and it was pasted on my garage door on August 1st.

So I'm not quite didn't quite understand why they waited so long to say, well, here's a citation and stuff.

So I have that, and then I come in and filled out an application, and that's what you have in front of me.

In front of you is my application, and then I have a letter of authorization there.

And then I basically built the wall because I have four grandchildren that goes hangs out in a backyard, and the one that had special needs, he crawled up on the wall and fell off and was injured, and so I thought I better do something to raise a wall up a little bit.

Now I didn't build all these walls.

Dr.

Horton built the walls up to about seven feet.

And that's the one on the west side.

The one on the north side is nine feet four inches.

The uh Horton built that one, the builder, and then on the east side, that wall is nine feet four inches.

And so it isn't like I was building the walls up from the ground up.

I was just putting a top on because I thought if I put the top on, I'll keep the kids from crawling over the wall and falling into the complainer's yard, then I'd really have a problem.

But with the west wall, basically it's seven foot, then it drops down.

If it gets it stair steps down to the front, so in the front yard, it is four blocks or thirty-two inches.

The west west wall.

The east wall is nine foot four inches behind that little outhouse, or and then it's stair steps down too.

So it would reach the front yard.

It is six blocks high or 48 inches.

Now with the back wall, I have those other uh little retaining walls, so it's way up there, but it's still nine foot four inches, and it goes east and west, and so it drops down about ten blocks.

So it's it connects with my west wall, and that's why I thought, well, I need to try and raise the wall up so it's kind of fits into the backyard where it's that big tall uh wall is kind of like a the side of a house.

So that's kind of where I'm at with this.

And with that's with the walls, and I just feel that with the the house itself, it's the yard is 70 feet wide, not real wide, it's long, but it has so much stuff in there that you can't really add any more architectural things and stuff, things like that.

It's long, but it has so much stuff in there that you can't really add any more architectural things and stuff, things like that.

So I thought, well, I better see what I can do to get the homeowners association.

Go I met with them and I said that I can I wouldn't kind of like to raise a wall.

They said that's not a problem.

Just submit your application to our architectural review committee.

They they'll they'll review it, they'll approve it, and you can build it.

That's what, and that's what I did.

I had no idea to go to the city because I just kind of moved there, and so I wasn't aware of all of the things that's going on.

And they said, Well, don't worry about it.

We'll have the architectural review committee approve it, and then you can go ahead and build it.

And that's how that happened.

And that was in uh May of 2020.

I submitted my application to the architectural review committee in June.

I went to the board meeting, they and the architecture review committee said your project's been approved, you can go ahead and build it.

So I went ahead and built it.

So that was five years ago, and now I'm in here talking to you folks because of the complainer.

And yet with her, she built up the wall out by her mailbox, and we don't know if that she got a permit to do that or not.

But anyway, so much for that.

And I just feel that it I've done everything I as far as I know to kind of abide by the rules and stuff like that.

Maybe not with a city so much, but I tr I tried to.

And uh I, as a homeowner, did not create the above uh circumstances, but mainly all of all three of those walls.

All I'm looking for is a not I'm not looking for special privileges inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the subject zone.

I'm only interested in receiving a favorable response uh regarding the authorization of related to raising the northern part of the wall, and not the whole wall, but just those two blocks on the north end.

And I firmly believe that uh authorizing my application will not be of a detriment to the homeowners who reside in the Diamond Ridge community, nor will it be a disadvantage to the public welfare in general.

And I should tell you mindful of code enforcement violations because as I mentioned, work of the superintendent in one of my code projects was the removal of of a leaking underground fuel tanks of the gasoline was leaking into a major parking lot, and I had to do something so I was able to move all that.

That's just one of the other things I worked on, and also the Howard Johnson hotel restaurant and hotel, and then I had to demo uh demolish a vacant hotel where a homeless person had was murdered, and so I had to wait and for the police to finish their investigation before we could do that.

And so essentially uh in conclusion, I'm just wondering why it is that I'm the only one of a hundred and or thirty-six homeowners that received the code violation.

That I don't understand.

So what I did is I went and met with the chairman of the uh homeowner association.

Uh that was about a week ago, and he stated he's not aware of anyone receiving a code violation.

So then I get back to, well, maybe it's because I'm a minority, the member of the Eastern Soshoney tribe from Wonder River Indian Reservation in Wyoming.

Maybe that's the reason why.

But that I just feel that I don't understand why I'm the only one that because I wonder measured walls over the weekend.

There's some walls that are 30 feet high, some 20, some 10.

There's walls that's even four feet high.

So it isn't like I'm the only wall that that's around in that area.

So and then the last thing I was wanted to say was I guess we're getting back to the complainer, is that she built that wall up out by the mailboxes on Rockaway, and she built it up by at least two or three blocks, and did she get a permit from the uh code enforcement office?

I don't know.

Anyway, I just thank you so much for listening to me.

Uh I don't know what else to say, but uh it was I just wanted to do something to make it safer for the our grandchildren in the back yard because two of them are 10 years older twins, and then the boy one boy that crawled up there, he's eight, and then there's other boys seven, so I have a my hands full all the time.

And so, and then their mom, she took off and went to Germany to be in the Berlin marathon here last month, and so we was taking care of the kids that take care of them.

So anyway, that's great, great information, Mr.

Snyder.

We really appreciate the completeness of your packet.

Well, wanted to give you all the information I could.

Yep.

Do you have anything to say?

The other neighbors for them.

Oh, yeah, I had the other neighbors they just four foreign neighbor, the guy lives directly behind me, the lady on the east side, and the two people across the street.

I think I think all those are in the packet.

Yeah, they wrote in support of my my wall.

I just feel that anyway.

I think that's about all I have can say.

Great.

Wish you I hope you this can look at me and say, Yes, maybe.

Well, thank you so much, Mr.

Snyder.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

All right.

Is there anyone?

Is there anyone in the audience or online wishing to speak for uh item number four?

Are you Mrs.

Snyder?

I'm hired.

He just forgot it.

Can we do everything right?

But before these people moved in, they aren't they're relatively we lived there before, and we actually when he got that permission from Diamond Ridge, we got permission from the people that lived there who had two small children, and they you know, saying they fine raise the wall.

They wanted to raise the wall too.

So I mean we got written permission and everything, and then later these other people moved in and they just don't like us very much or something.

I don't know, but I mean we got permission not only from Diamond Ridge but from the neighbor, you know, they Diamond Ridge said to get the neighbors, and they you know, they uh signed the paper saying it was great to have the wall raised because that was so much shorter than the other ones, and like they they're down further, and they had two little kids too.

I just he forgot to mention that.

Thank you.

Well, that's great.

We've good to know that.

Thank you.

Yeah, I've got so we thought everything was good.

I got the permission from the neighbors and everything, and then these people moved in later, and they already knew what it looked like, so they thanks so much for your comment.

Is there anyone else online or in the gallery wishing to speak for item number four?

No raised hands.

Anyone in the online or in the gallery wishing to speak against item number four?

Okay.

I'll motion to approve item number four.

Second.

Great.

We have a motion and a second.

Any comments or questions from the board?

So um question for the uh Mr.

Snyder.

Um little so you you sought approval from your local homeowners association, is that correct?

That's right.

So you viewed them as like the governing body of like who is going to approve this wall and nobody else.

Yeah, that's what they they I had to fill out some phones and all that, and then draw some pictures out, show them what I wanted to do and things like that.

And what they did is they took that in consideration, and it was about a month, I think.

They they took a while before they actually uh uh called me to the board meeting.

I went to the board meeting and then they told me their uh architectural review committee said, okay, we reviewed your project, it looks like a good project, it's not gonna affect anyone because your neighbor at that time was Jack Johnson, and he had provided uh a letter to them saying that he had no objections to me at raising the walls because the people that are living out didn't live there.

Right.

And who did you hire to add to your walls?

I hired the Wetchell contractors.

They're out here on fight 56, I think.

And do you know how they constructed those?

Do they just laid mortar and and put more CMU on there?

Do you know if they added any reinforcement to your walls in any way?

What they did is they put it they I think it was uh I was looking at their list of stuff.

They did the walls, they did the grass in the backyard and things like that, and put in the plant.

It was nothing in there but just like this here.

They had the planner wall and another planner wall, and then the guy is planner wall or wall in the back, and so we always seen was just rocks back there.

They had planner wall and another planner wall, and then the guy is planner wall or wall in the back, and so well we seen just rocks back or so looked for a contractor, and he was asked me, he said, Well, do you only raise that wall of a couple blocks that kind of matches up with the other walls?

I said, Yeah, if you could, and so he added, I think it was 53 or 54 of those eight-inch block.

And I think that costs around six hundred and eighty-seven dollars to do that.

And Jack Johnson, the guy on that lived next to me, he he made it the letter to leave us no problem.

So you're basically relying on the contract or input from your homeowners about what to do with the wall.

Nobody ever stated or said to you that um you might be exceeding the height of the wall by code in any way, and that you might have to have that permitted with the city.

Nobody didn't say anything.

They just said we can raise it up, and they said, Well, look at the wall on the north wall.

He said that's real life.

Because if you measure the north wall from our lawn level, it's 15 feet six inches to the top.

Because usually by by IBC code, I think that the max allowable height might be six feet.

Uh Commissioner Kaufcher, uh, Mr.

Vice Chair, yes, that is correct if it exceeds six feet.

Uh that building requires some structural review for it.

So and that's and that's typical with any um municipality, I think, within the state, because it's based off of IBC code.

Um so basically you you know you built these walls up because your you know your grandson was climbing up on it, and you wanted to kind of corral them a little bit better in the backyard, is that right?

Yeah, I just wanted to look a little better.

Right.

Um because it was just all rocks back there, and there's a place where you could put in a barbery field, but there was just nothing there but a round thing, and like with the gravel and rocks back there, the grand kids is all coming in our house and have putting band-aids on from scanning up their knees and stuff, and that's the reason why we put in a small lawn.

So we only have one complaint about this wall.

Is that is that my understanding?

Just one complaint.

Okay, and and was that person identified?

Where's the location of the comp the the next door?

Like adjacent, or is it the backyard?

Uh from my understanding, it is the uh next door uh directly west, yes, west.

Okay, and yes, the one at 4301 should okay.

And my understanding it right that they are new to your neighborhood, that they moved in with this wall already in place.

Is that is that my understanding?

Mr.

Chair, um Commissioner Coughter, that is our understanding that yes, the wall had already been in place at the time.

I mean, so it was in place, they they knew that it was there.

It's not a big surprise.

Um I don't know.

I really quick.

We're we're answering just the questions of the board member right now.

I I guess I'm just trying to see, like, you know, I mean, obviously, you were a bit misinformed about you know how to proceed with the wall, I think, in the past, and that's unfortunate.

Um but I think that I mean, I don't know.

I mean, like people tell them, you know, everybody says things, you know, and you rely on people's opinions for those things, and if you you know, you you hope they're telling you everything, you know, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, right?

But I mean, but and but not uh not everybody that you're talking to and knows exactly what they're talking about.

Um but I I think I have all the information that I need.

Um, so I have no other questions for the applicant.

Thank you very much.

Okay, any other questions or comments from board members?

Commissioner Harris has her hand raised.

Go ahead.

Yes, thank you.

I just have one question, and perhaps this is a question for Ben.

Um Ben, in your presentation, I saw there was one piece of the wall that was highlighted.

Um is that the only portion of the wall that exceeds the height, or is does the entire wall exceed?

I wasn't sure what that highlighting was intended to represent.

So um that portion of the wall was what the code enforcement violation was for.

Um I haven't been out to the rest of the property to see the rest of the walls, but this is what the code of enforcement violation was for, and this is also what the variance request was for.

Okay, so just the piece that was highlighted on your image.

Thank you.

Does that answer your question, Commissioner?

Yeah, I'm just confirming.

So this is the portion, this is the only portion of the wall that's in question.

Is this highlighted piece here?

Mr.

Chair, uh, Commissioner Hardesy, uh, yes, from our understanding, um, so that this was the only piece that had a code enforcement uh complaint, and it is the only piece in the application for the variance request that is in front of you tonight.

Okay.

Thank you so much for great.

Thank you.

All right.

Is that do it for you, Lisa?

Good.

Yes, no further questions.

Thank you.

Great.

Any other comments?

I I have a couple of comments, and it's some of these are historic because we we see these uh wall height issues from time to time.

Um, as I looked at all the pictures, and there were a bunch of pictures in two areas of the packet, which I appreciated very much.

Um, you're in a neighborhood that has a lot of varied elevation, including the you know, the homes behind you, the whole thing.

So, yeah, whereas you may look up and see a mountain peak of wall, which is 15 or 16 feet, probably from the other side, is probably six feet on the on their side of the wall or somewhere close to code.

So that happens in these kinds of neighborhoods.

I live in a neighborhood that doesn't have it that dramatically, but it's it's it's got some some changes, so the people below me out, you know, to the back, you know, you you're looking way up, and if your dog tries to hop the wall, your dog's gonna break a leg.

So that that happens a lot.

Um we also talk a lot about future neighbors moving in adjacent to a property where there's been a variance voted for or against, and so not every neighbor's gonna see that the same way going forward.

It could be 50 years from now, and somebody's gonna maybe complain about something that's not to code, maybe it's too high, or maybe it's whatever it is.

So that can happen.

Uh it sounds like it happened to you.

You had one neighbor that was friendly about it, and one neighbor that uh posted your complaint.

Well, that therein lies what I believe to be your issue, and I I think that as much uh public comment for or you know, just saying that they think your walls are okay.

I think your key is really going to be that neighbor.

So that's my comment is is that uh you and the neighbors should probably talk more ongoing about your wall height.

That's my comment.

So if there's no other comments, those are mine.

Um call the roll.

Commissioner Coffter?

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesy.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins?

Yes.

Commissioner Rudosevich?

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

So good luck on uh making better friends with the complainant.

All right.

Item number five.

The applicant, uh, Brian Mosley, through his agent Colwell Banker Legacy requests approval of a zone map amendment to amend the zoning classificate classification of the property legally legally described as Plaza Rio lot B, currently zoned SU, special use for limited commercial retail, to include multifamily townhomes as an added permissive use.

Staff contact is Ben Isaacs, and staff recommends the planning and zoning board recommend approval with findings and conditions.

Benjam Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chairman Ben Isaacs, municipal planner with the city of Rio Rancho.

The item before you is a zone map amendment request to amend the zoning classification of the subject property to include multifamily town homes as a permissive land use.

The applicant Brian Mosley, through his agent Coldwell Banker legacy, is requesting approval of a zone map amendment for the property legally described as Plaza Rio lot B.

The property consists of approximately 1.51 acres and is zoned SU, special use for limited retail commercial in accordance with ordinance 32, enactment 0731.

The subject property is located at the corner of Gulf Course Road and Gay Circle.

It is in close proximity to Southern Boulevard.

It abuts commercial and low density residential land uses.

Adding townhomes to the list of existing permissive uses is preferable to rezoning the lot to a high density residential zoning district, as it preserves the existing uses and controls the kind of high density residential that could develop in case the applicant's project were to not materialize.

The applicant proposes that the subject property would be suitable for the proposed town home use due to its location near arterial roads and that it would create a buffer between the abutting low density residential and commercial land uses.

Staff are also proposing some amendments, namely that the ordinance allow for buildings up to 32 feet or two stories tall.

This is in line with the maximum building height in the adjacent R1 zoned neighborhood.

Finally, staff propose updating language in the ordinance about the site plan requirement and parking standards so that they mirror the current addition of the city code.

Staff recommend that the board recommends approval to the governing body for the applicant's request to amend the zoning classification of the subject property as per the specified findings of fact.

I'll stand if there are any questions.

Thanks so much, Ben.

Is the applicant present?

Is the applicant present?

Okay.

Well, is there anyone in the audience or online wishing to speak for or against either way?

Item number five.

Well, hearing none.

Uh we all entertain a motion in the affirmative to approve item number five.

Motion to approve.

Item number five.

Second.

So we have a motion and a second to approve item number five.

Um any comments.

I guess we can't ask any questions of the applicant.

Uh I'm sure we have some.

So we're but what's what's decent protocol if we have questions and we can't get them answered at this point.

So uh Mr.

Vice Chair, a couple of options, right?

So one option is you can always uh postpone to the next meeting and uh staff can reach out to the applicant and see if they um are uh willing to attend.

Uh I can't always guarantee that applicants are going to attend.

Uh the other option is um if your questions are things that um are leaning you one way or another and without those answers, uh just making a determination without without those answers.

Okay.

Yeah, the packet was was good.

Um, Commissioner Hardesty or commissioners here in chambers.

Anyone have any questions that are burning that would need discussion?

This is Commissioner Hardesty.

No, I do not.

Okay.

Thank you.

Chairman, yes.

Uh I have just a couple of minor questions, but uh feel that really the applicant should be here in case we and that's that's the that's what I want to thank so much, Commissioner.

Be curious if or the can amend the motion to or make a motion to postpone it to the next meeting and ask the applicant to be present.

Let's let's do that.

Who made the motion?

Was it you?

Yeah, make a motion and amend the motion to end the motion to uh or make an amendment to postpone it until uh the first meet or the only meeting in November and ask the applicant to be present.

I'll second.

Thank you.

Are we good?

Is that good?

All right, please call a roll.

Commissioner Kaufger.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbled?

Yes.

Commissioner Ridosevich.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesi?

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Great, thank you.

Item number six, specific area plan amendment.

The applicant's Westway Homes and AMREP Southwest through their agent consensus planning ink request approval of an amendment to the northern rainbow specific area plan.

Staff contact is Liz Ruiz Carlos and stack staff recommends the planning and zoning board recommend approval to of the specific area plan amendment to the governing body with findings and conditions.

Liz.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chair members of the board.

Uh Liz Reese Carlos, planner with the City of Rio Rancho.

Again, this item is a request for an amendment to the Northern Rainbow Specific Area Plan.

Liz, really quick, excuse me.

Folks in the gallery, if you could please keep the conversation down while we listen to our presentations.

Thanks so much.

Okay.

So the request is specifically to expand the plan boundary, update land uses, update other figures, statistics, and standards throughout the plan to present current numbers and uh practices.

The expanded boundary entails 285.3 acres, and the area is bounded by Northern Boulevard Northeast, a minor arterial road to the north, 3rd Street Northwest, a residential road to the west, rainbow boulevard northeast, which is a minor arterial road to the east, and Sandia Boulevard southwest of residential road to the south, uh, with the exception of that block T on the other side of Rainbow.

The current plan currently encompasses 236 acres and was adopted on January 14, 2009, pursuant to resolution number three, enactment number nine four.

Here you'll see that expanded versus existing boundary.

Um again has been expanded to include properties on the east side of Rainbow Boulevard Northeast across from the existing area plan boundary, as well as to the west for a small area at the south end for an updated acreage of 285.3 versus the original 236.

Uh the east expansion area uh highlighted in green has a proposed medium density residential land use, allowing for R3 mixed residential zoning, and the west expansion area highlighted in blue at the southwest end of the SAP has a proposed low medium density residential uh designation as well as a drainage open space land use designation.

Uh here we will see the existing as well as proposed uh land use maps for the original boundary and the expanded boundary.

Uh you'll see that there is a shift in size or rather a reduction in size for that original intended employment center and business park area.

Um, and now the uh proposed land use map uh has a higher focus and uh higher concentration of residential overall.

Uh staff recommends the planning and zoning board find the proposed amendment to the land use map uh in the NRSAP meets the intent goals and objectives of the specific area plan in that it enables a variety of housing, accomplishing the goal to encourage the development of variety of house, high quality housing types, densities, and locations in order to provide a range of housing choices to meet the needs of present and future Rio Rental residents.

Uh specifically, uh it introduces R1 and R6 zoning and corresponding land uses in an area currently slated for R2, R3, and R4.

Um the amendment also calls for an increase in housing land uses overall as it calls for a reduction of the employment center and business park element of the plan from 96 acres to 29 acres.

Uh staff further recommends the planning and zoning board finds the proposed amendment.

Also, accomplishes several goals of the comp plan.

Um namely it promotes a variety of housing types to meet the needs of all members of the community.

Uh it also encourages mixed use and mixed income housing opportunities and designated growth nodes throughout the city.

And ultimately, staff uh recommends the planning and zoning board finds the reduction in size of the rainbow business park and change in commercial intensities as a better fit with surrounding land uses and residential densities of the area.

Uh this area of the city may not be the most optimal long-range build-out for a larger industrial business park as intended in the original plan, and proposed C2 and C1 zoning and land uses suit the needs of current residents, businesses, and the surrounding area.

Uh Dillon Services Department recommends the planning and zoning board recommend approval of the specific area plan amendment case to the governing body subject to the findings and conditions listed below, and with that it will stand for any questions.

Great, thank you, Liz.

Is the applicant present?

Mr.

Strozier.

Good evening.

Um, my name is Jim Strocher, Principal of Consensus Planning.

And uh I do have a short presentation this evening.

Um I'll try and go through it quickly because Liz did such a great job giving you all the information.

So I'm gonna go through this uh as quickly as I can.

First off is um our appreciation um to staff.

We started this project um a while ago.

Um, really and and met with staff and you know the existing land use plan and the large business park in the M1 zoning really didn't seem to fit.

I know it was a vision many years ago to try and get um some employers into this area and make that happen.

Um at the end of the day, there's one business located.

And so we we really did need to work with both our clients and the city staff to come up with a way to transition that original concept of the business park once again into more of a mixed use with higher density and appropriate density residential within the community.

And we went to the DRC several times as a part of this process and had a lot of discussion.

So we just really appreciate the collaborative effort to come up with a solution.

So next slide.

And all right.

So once again, the existing zoning, you can see that big block of M1 right in the middle of the specific area plan area sort of sticks out like a sore thumb.

The balance of the property is currently zoned R1, but the old master plan recommended different residential zones for that.

And next existing land use, once again, mostly vacant at this time.

There are some there's the one business on the kind of the west edge that was the only thing that developed as part of the business park plan and some existing single family residential houses within the within the boundaries, and those along the rainbow edge, and in the northwest corner, the specific area plan actually, the boundary went around those existing homes, and and that's uh being continued.

Um the existing plan, once again, I won't go through this uh in much more detail, but um really was focused on the creation of this employment center in the middle of the property next.

We did um we are proposing to expand the boundary, and there's a couple reasons for that.

One is that the rainbow boulevard, especially as it relates to the eastern um side of rainbow, there's an overlay that addresses um access and consolidated access to those lots that front onto Rainbow Boulevard.

And our client um owns one of our clients owns several of the lots over on that side of the street and has consolidated portions of that.

And we felt that in talking with staff that by bringing it into the specific area plan, it added another tool to the toolbox to help facilitate designs that would accommodate those shared access and accommodate what the overlay suggests.

So just another layer of adding those lots into the into the spectrum within the within the boundaries of the specific area plan, and then down in the southwest corner, the idea is that there's going to be a regional drainage facility in that area.

So once again, bringing that actually into the specific area plan was a positive at that point.

So next the proposed uses once again, really cutting back on the M1 in terms of so the M1 zoning is there.

So, but we're we really using the specific area plan to encourage some different thinking about that business park and encouraging a combination of C1 neighborhood commercial and C2, which is uh in Rio Rancho is that kind of transition between commercial and uh light industrial zoning as really being a preferred uh more appropriate use in that area, and this specific area plan doesn't change anybody's zoning, but it gives them a path uh to change the zoning if they if they so desired to something that's slightly less intense than the M1 zone, and then the residential.

We really tried to look at a combination of different residential densities within the single family arena, R3, which allows a broader mix of residential, and then some R6 within there.

So, really kind of swapping out a big part of that uh former business park with more mix of of land uses, uh, neighborhood commercial as an element that that we brought into that kind of central area and the higher density residential as well.

Next.

And here's the proposed land use plant, specific area plan, land use designations.

And one of the key things that I think this new specific area plan is going to encourage, and we're actually working on two master plans that will come in, one for the northern portion of the specific area plan, and one for the southern portion of the specific area plan that will actually bring this area that we're gonna see development and actually with those master plans uh zone map amendment request to actually implement what's on the specific area plan amendment.

So I think we're gonna see some real um activity uh take place out here, which there obviously hasn't been since the original specific area plan was adopted.

So uh next this is just a table uh that um that looks at what those changes are relative to the residential components and what that population might be if this area were to fully develop and how those changes would be impacted.

Um next um with the implementation once again we've got we're working on two master plans coming forward.

There's probably likely a third uh master plan that would um come forward in this area.

Um with those would be zone map amendments and future flats.

Um we did identify, I think conceptually we identified some some parks on that on that specific area plan.

I think you'll see those carried forward in the future master plans, uh, which is another positive um for this area and next and that's it.

So thank you.

Uh once again, we really appreciate uh staff's presentation and their work on this, and we're in agreement with the recommendation and findings of fact if you also choose to recommend this uh up to the governing body.

Thank you.

Thanks, Jim.

Thanks, Liz too.

Um is there anyone in the audience uh or online?

I'll start with the audience, and I see a hand back there to speak for or against item number I'm sorry six.

Come on up to the first podium and state your name.

You've filled out a form already, yes.

Let's get that done.

All right, that's fine.

All right.

I'd like to have a copy of the uh plans.

I've been living on the corner third, and uh hold on, sir.

Uh we need you to state state your name first and then you can go on.

Okay, Daniel Parks.

Okay, and address and 240 northern.

Thank you.

And I've been living there for about 27 years.

And I was given the last time they changed the uh zoning, I was given 14 foot easement and a six-foot wall, which really hasn't happened.

I've taken care of the 14 foot, I've never gotten the wall.

And now we're going through this change again.

I'd like to know if I'm gonna keep this 14 feet easement and find out exactly what they're gonna do behind me.

Okay, thank you for your comment.

All right.

Should she fill out the form first, Sharon?

Sorry, I didn't fill out a form.

I didn't think I was gonna have any questions.

Okay.

So we'll just have um she can just say her name and her address, and then uh when you're done, there's a form right next to you.

Don't mind out.

All right, stage name and address, and then you can walk to comment.

Um, my name is Karen French.

Um eight, block 65, lot 15.

It's at the corner of uh Third Street Northwest in Sandia.

I would like to ask possibly them or you guys, if that part is gonna be part of the drainage system that he kind of mentioned, or if it's going to be part of the residential retail or a warehouse or commerce area.

I don't know if they can answer this right now.

Or if I I don't know how this works.

Sorry, I've never done this before.

Not from here either, by the way.

All right, Mr.

Strozier, can you help us speak to that?

That's great, thank you.

So uh Mr.

Chair, generally, um, if we can, if we can take all the comments and then um have the applicant reply after Jim.

Let's let's have you stay back just for a minute.

She can finish her comments and then we'll we'll we'll once we get to our showing where okay, I got you.

Thank you so much.

No, I I called them up.

I apologize for that.

Yeah.

Um, and anything else?

Any other comments?

Uh no, that's okay.

Thank you so much for your comment.

And is there anyone else?

Let's let I'll go online in the minute.

Anyone else in the gallery wishing to speak for or against it number six?

Anyone online wishing to speak for against it number six?

Can you hear me?

Hello?

I I I see it, Thomas Gabriel.

Yes.

Hold on, sir.

Uh staff's gonna put up the oath for you, and if you'd please read it, and then you'll have a few minutes for your comment.

I Thomas Gabriel residing at 40 Field Street in Norwalk, Connecticut 06851.

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

Okay, go ahead with your comment.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I want to thank everybody at the board for uh putting this together and letting me speak.

I have a similar concern as to the previous individual.

My lot I currently own lot nine unit eight, which is abutting the proposed drainage open space area, and I don't know exactly what that is going to look like.

Is it going to look like a water treatment facility with a building?

Is it going to be just an open space with water runoff that will just sit and be there if that is the case and that water gets stagnant and causes other disruption and things like that?

I'm concerned that my property is abutting that proposed area, and I just like to understand exactly what that's gonna look like.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Thank you for your comment, and we'll uh we'll try and get your question answered during our discussion.

Okay.

Motion to approve item number six.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Second and a second.

Thanks so much.

Any uh questions or comments by the board and uh perhaps some of those questions from the gallery so Mr.

Strozier, I believe that there's been uh some questions about the drainage um of the potential development.

Do you have you provide uh I guess uh some information on what what you guys are thinking as far as like uh site drainage?

Sure.

Um thank you.

Uh Mr.

Vice Chair, uh Commissioner Copker.

The intent with the expansion of the specific area plan boundary is to bring that additional those additional lands into the into the specific area plan.

We know that there is a need in there and it's not designed yet, but we'll need to be designed in uh in cooperation with uh SKAFCA as well and follow uh the drainage requirements.

Um so part of that in answering um let's see Mr.

Gabriel's uh question is that you know it's it would be designed to be a drainage detention facility that would be um so there are regulations in terms of how long that water can be in that typically uh there's a water quality water harvesting component to a pond like that.

Once again, it's not designed yet.

Um, and then the additional flows would get metered out into the natural drainage system at historic at historic rates.

You know, our goal with this with a facility like this is to work in cooperation with Skafka and their quality of life plan uh to make sure that that drainage facility fits in with the community in the neighborhood.

The areas around it that are not and to be incorporated into the actual drainage improvements are uh residential.

So the idea would be that there would be residential, small residential developments around that drainage facility, and really help to address this safety and welfare of that entire area by providing an opportunity to control and manage the drainage flows from that area as as part of the project.

Ultimately, that will need to be designed, and that's a whole process associated with that.

We're not there yet, but I understand the concerns expressed by those neighbors, and what I can say is that when that design happens, we would reach out and uh and work with the surrounding property owners to make sure that they're informed as to the design and get their get their input as we're as that happens.

Great, thanks so much.

And would it be appropriate to also address the corner of third and northern at this time?

That that that go ahead, Kevin.

I was gonna say absolutely, yeah.

And I the notes I have is the the easement that he has from years ago, and he was wondering what's what he's gonna back up to if you can speak at all to that.

Although I will say that I I we cannot probably consider whatever his easement may have been on some other transaction.

But no, I don't know.

Yes, um, so so that that property is currently outside of the the plan boundary, but what I it is adjacent to the northern area that we're working on doing a master plan for.

We will exchange, make sure you have our contact information, and we'll make sure that we coordinate.

If you reach out to us, we'll make sure we coordinate with you.

I'm guessing, I'm not sure what that easement is related to, but we certainly can coordinate and make sure that it's that we're making sure I'm guessing it may be part of the northern um additional right-of-way.

Um, but we can we can certainly uh work with you and make sure that your your property and your easements are being uh that we're taking that into consideration as we're moving forward with the adjacent master plan.

I'm certainly hopeful that when uh we see development uh around your property that that issue is addressed and taken care of so it doesn't happen in the future.

How would you end up anything that we have?

I can repeat.

Um so the the question was related to the drainage and the improvements that were made on the front of that lot adjacent to northern, and you know, it's hard to answer that specifically now, but we will be doing uh grading and drainage plan as part of a conceptual one as part of the master plan effort, and then more detailed as we move into subdivision design for the residential development adjacent, and we can make sure that we're coordinating with you, and my hope and goal that I'll state is that we're going to by developing the properties adjacent to yours that we will be improving that drainage situation and making making that better so your flooding does not happen in the future.

That would be my that's what we would try and accomplish.

That's a good comment.

And we'll exchange and we will exchange contact information and make sure that we um let our clients and the civil engineer that we're working with on that master plan are aware of of this situation.

And before you sit down, Jim.

Um his other question was what might be behind him.

I'm assuming he's up on that northern part, looks like medium density residential.

Explain that really quickly.

Uh single family homes, part of a single family subdivision, and we can share with you the design and layout of that that we're working on right now, and that'll be coming through this process probably in a matter of months on the map with the master plan.

Good deal.

Okay, you have another an additional comment, ma'am.

What was your question?

Do that right.

So, with regard to, I think your property is adjacent is in that um so the southeast corner of the expansion area north of Sandia and West of Third, correct?

Okay.

So that area is the the I tried to address some of the questions related to the drainage pond and that and that portion of the design, but that area as part of what the what the plan says is that your lot and the lots immediately adjacent to you would remain residential and would not be encumbered by the drainage.

Um those drainage improvements would need to be designed and hopefully are designed in a way that protect and make your property more developable.

Correct.

Yes.

Okay.

Good.

Thank you.

No, I'm my question has been answered.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Strager.

Thank you.

All right.

Can I can I ask one last follow-up question if you don't mind.

Yes.

Um I think that's Mr.

Gabriel.

Is that Mr.

Gabriel?

Yes, it is.

Okay, one more question.

Go ahead.

Yes, no, I I just want to make sure I understand completely that this drainage area will simply be for a natural water runoff and will not be for any type of wastewater or any other type of commercial type of refuse water, and that it will simply be all natural water runoff into a pond and or some other type of mechanism that then will just naturally dissipate.

Okay, Mr.

Strozier's speaking now.

Go ahead.

All right.

Uh Ms.

Mr.

Gabriel, thanks for that question.

Um it I what I can assure you is the intent of that is to be strictly stormwater management.

And once again, that would include water a water quality component to make sure that anything that's coming through the drainage system and getting to that pond, that there's an opportunity for that water to be cleaned and any trash and debris settles out of that as well as managing the stormwater.

It will not be used for any type of uh water treatment other than uh natural processes and natural infiltration, and there will not be any water treatment relative to wastewater or any other types of of facilities uh in of that nature.

Appreciate that clarification, Mr.

Gabriel.

Thank you for that, and we'll consider me as your surrogate for that question.

Okay, any other comments from the board all right, please call the roll.

Commissioner Hardesty.

Yes, Commissioner Radosovich?

Yes, Vice Chair Gabbledon?

Yes, Commissioner Hankins?

Yes, Commissioner Copcher, yes.

Motion pass.

All right.

Looks like we have no discussion and deliberation items.

Um any comments by members?

I'll say that the packet was well put together tonight.

I know people in the gallery online think that we can go through these things pretty fast, and that's very true, and it's because the packet's very good.

We're able to read through those and understand most things, and we appreciate the time that staff takes.

Um any public forum that wasn't on the agenda.

All right.

I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All right, we go.