Do the Pledge of Allegiance.

Okay.

Um for the record.

I would take a roll call, take the roll by calling the each planning zone and board member name.

Please acknowledge your present by saying present.

Kevin Culture.

Present.

Rob Gabadon.

Present.

Is absent, excused.

Lisa Hardesty.

Present.

Say Toroci.

Present.

Okay.

A couple of housekeeping items before we get started.

Uh any person in person attendees.

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

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

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

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.

Any questions there?

If not, then we'll go into uh a motion to approve.

Mr.

Chair, motion to approve the consent calendar is presented.

Second.

Second.

Okay.

Any comments on the report or anything for the staff?

Uh Mr.

Chair, so these are your um yeah, if we would go ahead and call first.

Okay.

Call to roll.

Chairman Richardson?

Yes.

Commissioner Copcher.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabblet?

Yes.

Hardesty?

Yes.

Commissioner passion.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay.

Now is there any comments anything on the reports that we need to discuss?

Mr.

Chair, these are your general reports, uh, monthly reports.

They are non-action items, and I will stand for any questions.

Okay.

And before we start, I'd like to uh make knowledge that item number four and number five have been withdrawn.

But we will take a vote on as we uh get to those items.

Okay, now for uh public hearing.

Um item item number four is withdrawn.

I'm sorry, number three.

Yeah, item number four is withdrawn.

Can I get a motion to uh acknowledge the withdrawal?

Motion to withdraw item number four as requested.

How about a second?

Second.

Okay.

Number five also is withdrawn.

Can I get the motion to uh Mr.

Chair if we can do the vote?

Vote.

Can I get a uh call to roll?

Commissioner Copcher.

Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Tortoricie.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesty.

Yes.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Motion passed.

Okay.

Moving over to item number five, which is also uh withdrawn.

Can I get a motion to approve the withdrawal?

Mr.

Chair, motion to approve item number five is requested.

Can I get a second?

Second to withdraw.

Okay.

Uh call to roll.

Commissioner Tortoricie.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesi.

Yes.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabblin.

Yes.

Commissioner Kaufter.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay, moving on to item number six, which is a Barence.

And staff contacted Ben Isaacs and staff recommends denial with findings.

Yes.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and members of the board.

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

The item before you is a variance request to the minimum side setback requirements in the R1 zoning district.

The applicant is seeking a variance to section 154.50 of the municipal code, which provides for a minimum side setback of five feet in the R1 single family residential zoning district.

The subject property is located at 1576 Arlean Road Southeast and is legally described as Star Heights Unit 2, block 175 lot 3.

It is owned R1 single family residential.

This item uh was previously scheduled for the November 18th meeting, but was postponed to the present meeting at the request of the applicant.

The applicant received a code enforcement violation following a complaint from a neighbor.

The complaint received was for a newly erected shed on the subject property.

The applicant erected the shed without prior approval from the city.

A permit for the shed was sought following the code enforcement violation, but was not approved due to the size and location of the shed.

The shed is 140 square feet over the 120 square foot maximum for secondary structures to legally encroach into the setbacks.

The shed encroaches approximately three feet into the left side setback.

The applicant provided this site plan showing the location of the shed and other physical conditions on the property.

Staff found that the shed could be rotated 90 degrees and moved three feet away from the left property line to come into compliance with the zoning code.

For this reason, 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 physical condition that would prevent them from moving the shed.

I'll stand if there are any questions.

Okay, is the applicant present?

Okay, come forth and state your name and your address.

Hi, my name is Rob Spella.

I live at said address, and I helped erect that shed.

Um I allowed to speak now.

Am I speaking?

Yeah, did you state your address?

Oh, at 1576 Arlene Road is my address.

Thank you.

You may proceed.

Okay, so we built this shed.

I had no idea of what the code was.

I knew that there might be some issues with code compliance.

As far as a complaint from my neighbors go, I spoke with all my surrounding neighbors, and no one ever took an issue with me up personally and told me they had an issue with where the shed was located, or if it was like infringing on any of their property or posing a threat to any of their property or damage.

Nothing.

Even following uh my interactions with Mr.

Isaacs uh via email, I spoke to my neighbor my neighbors, all the ones I could several times, and they had no problem with it.

They had no issue with where the shed was located.

As far as it being rotated 90 degrees and move three feet away from my um my wall, that's news to me.

And that means it for them to accurately assess that they had to be inside of my property or on my property, and I have no knowledge of any assessor being on my property.

So I I'd kind of like to know where that came from.

But um, from our standpoint, from the my friend who helped me build it, it would cause great financial burden as far as uh dirt work and building of walls and moving the shed that's already built to uh relocate it anywhere to fall within that code.

It's a simple shed, it is 140 square feet.

It's replacing an old shed that was a fire hazard and an eyesore that had been on that property for 20 years in the same exact location because the way that concrete works in my backyard, that's the perfect location for it.

Anything further would hit a down slope because I have a downward gradient in my backyard.

Um the 90-degree rotation has yet to be approved, and to be honest with you, I didn't even think of that or consider that.

It might be possible, but then it would still be a financial burden for me to have to uh pay someone to do all that work.

Um as I spoke with Mr.

Isaacs before.

I don't know who represents Star Heights or who's from Star Heights, but if you're in that neighborhood, it is a modest neighborhood, and we're of modest means and modest income.

All I want is storage for my house.

It's a hundred and forty square foot storage, no fixed foundation, no electricity, no plumbing.

I'm just asking you guys, please consider that and maybe approve this variance if you would be willing.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Is there anyone present who wish to speak for or against item number two and items thatem number six?

Yes.

Come forth and state your name and your address.

Hi.

Uh council and committee.

I've lived in the Star Heights area for over 40 years.

I personally don't know the gentleman and his wife.

Um I don't really care if the shed is left there or not.

It's not a bother to me.

Code-wise, variance-wise, guidelines.

Uh, when I did a big addition on my house, I followed all those directions.

Uh, I understand the burden.

My issue is in the past, the gentleman is complained about several of his neighbors around us.

I had code enforcement come to my house.

I had the fire department come to my house because I mean I had a fire in my backyard, which was a neighbor next to me behind his house.

I mean, I had a fire in my backyard, which was a neighbor next to me behind his house.

To me, it doesn't bother me where it's at.

To me, I would recommend it is a burden to probably have it moved.

I recommend it to be left there, but he needs to mind, and I'm gonna be honest, mind his own business and his property where I can mind my business, my property, because I always follow guidelines with the city.

That's my only issue.

Yes, he can leave it where it's at.

I have it doesn't interfere with my property, it is a burden on his side.

Again, I personally don't know him, but to me, could the committee could consider leaving it there?

Uh it's like I said no interference, my property, my yard.

You know, one of my concerns real quick was I put the security light in my backyard for a reason.

We were gone five months out of the year during the summer because I was working for the state of New Mexico State Parks, and we are gone.

I've had raccoons in my backyards for the last four years.

The lights chase them off.

Again, I don't care where the shed is, it can stay there, committee consider can leave it there.

It's not bothering me and everybody else around them.

Just make sure they follow guidelines in the future.

You know, to make sure everything's in place, and again, I don't mind it being where it's at.

Uh it will probably be a burden to them.

I can see the shed from my yard.

Again, it just work with your neighbors around you, and we won't have a problem.

Okay.

Thank you for the comment.

And I just must I just need to say that uh we that you're allowed only two minutes for comment.

Yes, for speaker.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, if we can really quick, um, if we can get your uh name and address for the record, please.

Oh Kenneth Todd and 1609 1609 Brenda Road.

And again, I recommend it stay where it's at if it's up to you as a committee.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anyone else who's present who wishes to speak for against item number six?

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

Anyone virtual who wish to speak for against item number six?

Okay.

Motion to approve item number six.

Motion to approve item number six.

Can I get a second?

Second.

Any discussion from the board.

Um, I guess I'll go ahead and ask the question that the applicant posed, which was how uh and I guess this is for city staff.

How was it determined that they could move the that it would work to move the shed to rotate at 90 degrees and still meet the requirements?

How was that determined?

Uh Mr.

Chair, uh Commissioner Hardesty.

So uh staff just looks at aerials and and does their best uh determination based on what we can see on the aerial.

So nobody went on private property um or out to the site.

Uh they just went based off of the site plan and aerials to make that determination.

Okay, thank you, Amy.

And in discussion from the board.

Just wanted to verify or maybe confirm to the applicant that um the that is not on a fixed foundation.

You said correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, for the record answer was no, I don't think he was on mic.

Okay, thank you.

Any discussion from the board.

I have a question for the applicant.

Sir, um, you had said you had talked to your adjacent neighbors about the structure and they had support to this.

Um, is there any documentation that states that um uh that they have no issues with the current location or of the new of the new shed or right to approach?

Yes, okay.

So I have no current documentation.

I know that I went around a final time today and kind of gave my neighbors' letters, all the ones I spoke with were fine.

Unfortunately, I guess today was too late to admit it into a packet for you guys for this meeting.

But um, and I'm not quite sure if any of them fully um emailed Mr.

Isaacs or not.

I could secure letters from them just based on uh interactions, personal interactions with the several that I interacted with if need be.

Okay, um Mr.

Chair, if I can it it seems like uh we did receive information at 5 p.m.

Um and so uh we can um pull out those copies and and hand those to you guys, but um it didn't give us enough time.

Uh we do our last up um updates to the agenda briefings um and to the agendas at 4 p.m.

uh day of um and so uh but we did receive some information at um after 5 p.m.

And that was in support of the current location of the shed or from my understanding, yes.

Okay, okay.

I got a couple things.

Um in addition to that.

Um did you mention how many neighbors you have in your surrounding area?

I think it may be as far as within the hundred um the hundred foot limit of the property line.

I have eight.

Three three on the rear end, one on each side, and then three in the front.

Okay, and how many did we receive just one?

Okay, um I would like to see more.

You know, if you can gather more uh consent, uh that would be great.

Okay, okay.

And I take it that um was a permit requested on that uh south been that's correct, yes.

It was okay.

Okay.

Um I make I I guess we could suggest uh postponement until we get the so the requested letters from the other adjacent neighbors.

Is that seem like that'd be reasonable to you?

That that's absolutely agreeable.

Would you like me to email them to Mr.

Isaacs?

Yes.

Yes, please.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you very much for your time.

All right.

So I guess we'll have to rule on that.

Uh I guess a suggest to postpone to um our next hearing, I guess would be the first part of January.

So the date certain would be January 13th.

Okay, okay.

Um can get a motion to was it postpone?

Is that the right word to use?

Yes.

Okay.

Um chair, motion to postpone item seven.

I'm sorry, six.

It's six, it's six.

Item six, um to date certain of January 13, 2026, uh, in order to receive more documentation of support of the shed.

Okay, can I get a second?

Second.

All right.

Call the roll.

Commissioner Hardesi.

Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Klopcher.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

Commissioner Totoricci.

Yes.

Has been postponed.

Okay.

Moving on to final platform number seven, final plat.

Staff uh contact with Michelle Castile.

Myself recommends approval with findings and conditions.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Michelle Castilla, planner with the City of Rio Rancho.

This item is a request of a final plat for UNSER Pavilion West Tract A.

The preliminary plot was approved by the planning and zoning board on April 12, 2022, and received its first extension on May 9th, 2023, and received a second extension on April 23rd, 2024.

The third and final extension was approved this past April 2022 22nd uh 2025 to allow for additional time to work with development services on a possible plat amendment and or um for the dedication of right-of-way.

The subject property is located west of Unserved Boulevard Southeast, the principal arterial, and will be accessed via Well Spring Avenue Southeast from dedicated right-of-way on the proposed plat.

Um the plat is 5.5 acres in a zone C1 retail commercial per ordinance number two and acting number 19-3.

The plat will be creating one tract and dedicating pavilion way southeast has ac access to the subject property and well spring southeast from the south and west.

Staff recommends approval of the final plat with findings and conditions with that.

I'll stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Please state your name and your address.

My name is Thomas Patrick, surveyor with community sciences corporation.

That would be at uh 4481 Corralis Road in Corales.

And I am acting as the agent, and uh will answer any questions about the plant that you may have, Mr.

Mr.

Eric Springer and Mrs.

Jeannie uh Knight Springer.

Um are also available to answer questions about development if there are any.

Okay, thank you for comment.

Is anyone present who wish to speak for against item number seven?

Again, is anyone present who wishes to speak for or against item number seven?

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

Can I get a motion to approve item number seven?

Motion to approve item number seven.

Can I give a second?

Second.

Any discussion from the board.

Any discussion from the board.

Okay.

See none.

Call a roll.

Commissioner Kaufcher.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbledon?

Yes.

Chairman Richardson?

Yes.

Commissioner Tottorici.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesy.

Yes.

Motion passed.

Okay.

Moving on to number eight.

Preliminary plat amendment.

Staff contact with Tim Dvorak and staff recommends approval with funders and conditions.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Tim Davorak, planner with the city of Rio Rancho.

The item before you this evening is a preliminary plat amendment request for the Loma Cicatatus 1D phase 1A subdivision.

Concurrently, this is being heard with uh final plat request for the same subdivision.

I will present these both together, but they will be voted on separately.

This proposed subdivision is part of the Lomus in Catatis Master Plan, originally adopted in 2004.

Most recently amended May of this year.

The original preliminary plat for Loma Sincatis 1D included phase one and two.

That was approved by the board April 26th of 2022.

Subsequently extended April 11th, 2023, followed by an extended preliminary plat amendment, which was approved March 12th of 2024.

This amendment split phase one into phases 1A and 1B.

And then additionally, there was another extension for this plat, which was approved January 14th of this year.

Located on the north side of Paseo Del Bolcon, a principal arterial accessed via Camino and Catatus Northeast, a future minor arterial.

Adjacent zoning is R4 single family to the south and west, and R1 single family to the north and east.

And here is the preliminary plat amendment.

You can see the changes here.

Um as well as the tract was modified for the pond, which is now considered tract F.

Um.

And there were also um two lots added additionally for this corner up here.

That used to be a drainage tract.

It's now two lots and a landscape tract.

Um tract F, as I said, shall serve as a drainage pond to be dedicated to the city of Rio Rancho.

Um this new tract has been modified to align with current construction plans and uh approximately comprises 8.0360 acres.

Um the existing unit 20, block 155, lots 34 through 41, and a portion of lot arroyo shall be vacated and attributed to both tract F and the new tract uh 12A1A1.

Um approximately 12.6381 acres.

Lock count is now reduced to 46 lots and seven tracks, as this is now only phase one A.

Um, the final plat additionally dedicates 1.9098 acres of public street right-of-way to the city of Rio Rancho.

And this is the full plat here that you can see with phase 1A and phases 1B and 2 removed.

Staff recommends approval of both the preliminary plat amendment as well as the final plat with findings and conditions.

And with that, I'll stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Is the applicant present?

Will please state your name and your address.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman.

Brian Ottagon with Loma Syncopatus Development.

Um I just want to thank uh Tim for a great presentation there.

Going through that, that was a lot of letters that he had to spout out.

Um, but uh we're in agreement with all the conditions of approval and uh I'm available for any questions the board may have.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anyone present who wish to speak for or against item number eight?

Is there anyone present who wish to speak for or against item number eight?

Okay.

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

Okay.

Can I get a motion to approve item number eight?

Mr.

Chair, motion to approve item eight as presented.

Can I get a second?

Okay.

Second.

Okay.

And a discussion from the board.

And a discussion from the board.

See none.

Call to roll.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesi.

Yes.

Commissioner Totoricci.

Yes.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay.

Moving on to item number nine, uh, which is the final plat.

And once again, staff contact is Tim DeVork and staff recommends recommends approval with fund is and condition.

Anything else?

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, no further comments, but I stand for questions.

Okay.

Ums the applicant present would like to speak.

Okay.

So anyone present who wish to speak for against item number nine.

Motion to approve item number nine.

Motion to approve item number nine.

Can I give it a second?

Second.

And a discussion from the board.

And in discussion from the board.

I hear none, I see none.

Call to roll.

Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

Commissioner Totoricci.

Yes.

Commissioner Coffer.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesty.

Yes.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay, moving on to item number 10, master plan amendment.

Staff contact is Liz Reads Carlos, and staff recommends the plan and zoning board recommend approval of the master plan amendment to the governing body with findings and conditions.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, members of the board.

Lizarese Carlos, planner of the City of Rio Rancho.

I will be presenting the next two items concurrently, the master plan amendment and the zone map amendment for high range six.

So once again, the applicant high range six development LLC through their agent Isaacson and Arfman requests approval of a master plan amendment to the high range six master plan to incorporate four additional lots.

The lots are legally described as unit 13, block 70, lot 11, uh unit 13, block 69, lots 88, 89, and 19.

The concurrent zone map amendment to rezone the lots from R1 single family residential and O1 office to R5 single family residential is being heard concurrently again under that case number 2515.

The current high range six master plan area is bounded by Montezuma Boulevard northeast to the north, Inca Road northeast to the south, Xcaliber Street northeast to the east, and Bedebeer Street northeast to the west.

The original high range six master plan was approved on April 25th, 2024 per resolution number 35, enactment number 24-34.

And it has not been amended since its approval.

And the current boundary of the master plan will remain largely the same, but will be extended slightly to include those additional lots.

Phases 1A and 1B.

118 lots and 161 lots respectively.

Lots 88 and 89 are both addressed off Bedaver Street Northeast as well.

While lot 1919, excuse me, is addressed off of Broadmore Boulevard Northeast, a minor arterial road.

All three of these lots are zoned O1 office.

The adopted generalized land use map identifies the subject properties as low and medium density residential and commercial mixed use office.

Staff recommends the planning and zoning board find that the proposed boundary amendment is in compliance with both the comprehensive plan and the Lomas Negras uh specific area plan.

The request will enable the removal of antiquated plat lots.

It will allow for improved access to the subdivision and an overall more cohesive lot layout.

As far as the zone amendment, staff recommends that the planning and zoning board find the proposed zoning is consistent with the health safety morals and general welfare of the city.

It would bring the zoning in line with the surrounding area and high range six subdivision.

It would also further facilitate additional housing dwellings in the city, providing residents with increased housing options in a growing area of the city consistent with surrounding developments and consistent with the morals and welfare of the city.

Staff recommends the planning and zoning board recommend approval of both the master plan amendment and the zone map amendment to the governing body, subject to the following findings and conditions.

And with that, I will stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Is the applicant present?

State your name, menu address.

Yeah, just here to answer any additional questions.

I think they covered it very well in their presentation, trying to add in a uh few lots that we've picked up while we've picked up the project from the previous developers.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

So is there anyone present who wish to speak for or against item number 10?

Is there anyone virtual who's wish to speak for or against item number 10?

Motion to approve item number 10.

Motion to approve item number 10.

Can I get a second?

Second.

Okay.

Any comments from the board?

Any comments from the board?

I hear none, I see none.

Call the rule.

Commissioner Kaufcher.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabblin.

Yes.

Commissioner Torteric.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardsey.

Yes.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Okay.

Moving on to item number 11, zone map admitment.

Staff.

Staff or Leah.

Is it number 10?

Yeah.

Yeah, no number 11.

Uh recommends plan and zoning board approval to the government body.

Well, find and conditions.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, no additional comments, but I will stand for any questions.

Okay.

Is the applicant present?

No come.

Justin Simonson, Isaacson Norfman, 128 Monroe Street Northeast, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Uh, again, here for any questions you may have.

I think the application was well presented.

Thank you.

So anyone present who wish to speak for or against this item.

Senator One Virtual, who wish to speak for or against this item.

Okay, motion to approve of item number 11.

Motion to approve item number 11.

Yeah, and a second.

Any comments from the board.

Any comments from the board.

I hear none.

I see none.

Call the roll.

Commissioner Tottorici.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesi.

Yes.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabledon?

Yes.

Commissioner Kaufcher.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay.

Okay.

Moving on to number 12.

Master plan amendment.

Staff contact is Liz Raz Carlos.

Staff recommends planning.

Recommends the plan and zoning board.

Recommend approval to the master's plan amendment to the government body with five and exam conditions.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair members of the board.

Liz Rice Carlos, Planner of the City of Rio Rancho.

Again, the item before you is a master plan amendment specifically to the Papillon Master Plan.

The applicant Amarp Southwest requests approval of this master plan amendment to the Papillon Master Plan to add 97.8 acres or 104 parcels to the plan, as well as to update zoning and land uses, the transportation plan, economic development, conceptual drainage, project theming, and utility plans.

Specifically all sections included in the existing plan.

Was adopted on February 12th in 2020.

Since the plan's adoption, no amendments have been approved.

However, for a little context, the applicant did previously apply for an amendment to expand this plan boundary by a larger quantity of acreage, specifically 218.91 acres or 191 lots.

This request was heard by the planning and zoning board on July 8th this year, with the planning and zoning board voting 4 to 2 to recommend denial to the governing body.

And that request was specifically to rezone those properties to our two single family residential, our four single family residential, our one single family residential and C1 retail commercial.

That request, however, was also withdrawn before the scheduled governing body meeting.

The current application does not feature OZMA and features a smaller expansion area as part of the master plan amendment request.

The original request also included a less cohesive ownership with less than 100% of the expanded area under ownership.

This revised request does feature that 100% ownership that we were looking for.

You'll see the extension adds 54.5 acres to the north and 43.3 acres to the south.

The proposed master plan area is bounded by Ancer Boulevard to the south, principal arterial road, Miniola Road, a residential road to the east, and Mons Road a residential road to the west.

The area as it currently exists is comprised of TZ transitional zoning, OS open space, and R4 single family residential.

Staff recommends the planning and zoning board finds that the proposed amendments improve upon the existing site design by incorporating a variety of uses, both residential and non-residential, as well as by establishing a uniform character and design for those proposed uses, offering more varied housing options, and encouraging mixed use development are also goals of the comprehensive plan.

The request to expand the Papillon Master Plan will enable the consolidation and elimination of antiquated plotted lots and allow for planned infrastructure development.

Staff recommends the board finds that the amendment is in compliance with the comprehensive plan.

And here is a figure that shows the proposed land use and zoning as part of this request.

Staff recommends the planning and zoning board recommend approval of the master plan amendment case number 25-410-7 to the governing body, subject to the following findings and conditions.

And with that, I will stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Applicant present.

State your name, yeah, address.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, Commissioners.

Uh, my name is Jim Strocher, Principal with Consensus Planning, 302 8th Street Northwest, 87102 in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

I think I have a presentation.

Awesome.

Okay.

All right.

And uh I want to thank staff and you know um for their work on this as was reflected in Liz's presentation.

We this master plan was approved back in 2020.

We did come forward with an amendment in July of this year.

Um this commission uh put forth a mixed recommendation uh going forward.

We we withdrew that application to go back to the drawing board and work with staff to uh refine our request, and that's what we're here to present today.

Um is that updated request, and and we really appreciate the time and effort that that staff uh worked with us on that.

So besides the ownership of uh our client, um we have properties within the plan boundaries that are owned by SKA as well as the city of Rio Rancho.

And you can see those draw those areas uh within within the property boundary here.

Um so just wanted to make sure we were you were aware of that.

This is the existing zoning for the area.

Umce again you can see the SKFA drainage uh channels for the arroyos.

You can see the open space uh areas that are actually part of the Mariposa East community along Mariposa Parkway as well as our uh west edge, northwest edge, and um you can see that there are several uh single family homes also along that northwest edge, but otherwise the property is is is vacant and we'll talk talk to that.

So I guess we go back to that.

So those yellow lots are zoned R1, they don't have houses on them, so not all of them.

So this is the um existing zoning for the area.

You can see that there's a small area of R4, we have open space, and we have transitional zone.

So part of the purpose of this master plan will be to help facilitate future zone map amendments as development comes forward.

This uh diagram and map, I think more clearly show the existing prior approved master plan area and kind of the light blue in the center, and then the two expansion areas, one on the north side of Mariposa Parkway and one on the south edge of the property.

With regard to the GLM, um this area is um adjacent to Mariposa, Mariposa Master Plan, and was identified for future master planning.

I think that's what the previous effort to create the original master plan and this expansion both address that um desire for future planning for this area.

One of the things that I think in keeping with this area was we really looked at the need for a multimodal traffic network in in this plan area, and so that includes roadways that have bike lanes, um it includes the on the chog, I think is how you say that that road on the northwest uh portion of the site has both bike lanes and a proposed trail.

We've also identified trails and potential pedestrian bridges within the arroyo corridors.

Um we recognize that that is going to take uh additional coordination with SKFCA, but we also believe that it is consistent with their quality of life plan.

We'll work cooperatively with them to see those improvements made, and that's really going to be a very key element to this area as it develops to have those trails as part of that.

Next steps once again coordinate with Skafka on those on those trails, um getting those planned, designed, built, and um, and and part of the overall uh structure of the plan future zoning map amendments as I mentioned, and then ultimately this hopefully leads to subdivision design and plating for future neighborhoods and future residents uh within the area to help meet some of the um housing needs for this area and really build on what we're seeing out there in this area with Mariposa East and the area to the north at Mountain Hawk, the really nice additional residential neighborhoods coming online and providing um more housing and diversity of housing opportunities.

And with that, thank you very much.

We appreciate your time, and if you have any questions, we'd be happy to take those either now or after we see if there's any uh additional comments from the public.

So thank you very much.

Thank you for your presentation.

Okay, is there anyone present who wish to speak for or against item number 12?

Is there anyone virtual who wish to speak for or against item number 12?

Motion to approve item number twelve.

Mr.

Chair, motion to approve item twelve as presented.

Can I get a second?

Any comments from the board?

Any comments from the board?

No, I see none called the role.

Commissioner Hardesley?

Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Caucher.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbleton?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, we've moved on to discussion and deliberations.

Any discussion deliberations.

Okay, comments.

Okay.

If not, I'm open up for public uh form.

I hear none.

I see none.

Can I get a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

Second.