Good evening.

Welcome to the planning and zoning board meeting for February 10th, 2026.

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

Call this meeting to order.

Please stand as you were able to join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I Pledge of Allegiance is a flag of the United States of America.

And you hear public original one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Okay, for the record, I will take roll by calling each planning and zoning board member's name.

Members, please acknowledge your presence by saying present.

Um I'll start with Scottie Richardson.

He's excused this evening.

Kevin Copcher.

Present.

I am Robert Gabledone.

I'm present.

Andrea Hankins.

Present.

Lisa Hardesty.

Present.

And Sal Torterici.

Great, thank you very much.

In-person attendees, please fill out a speaker form if you wish to speak during this meeting.

Only individuals who have signed up 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 the recorder to my left.

Virtual attendees, please send a chat message to the host or use the raised 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 will be no discussion of these items unless a board member so requests in which event the item will be moved to the discussion item on the agenda on the regular agenda.

May I please have a motion to approve the January 27th, 2026 planning and zoning board meeting.

Motion to approve.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Please call the roll.

Commissioner Copcher.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbleton?

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins?

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesy?

Yes.

Commissioner Totrici.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Thank you.

Item number two, planning and zoning monthly summary plat report for January 2026.

Director, any comments?

Uh Mr.

Vice Jerry, these are your standard monthly items.

If there's any questions, please let me know.

But these are non-action items.

Great.

Thank you very much.

And item number three, planning and zoning monthly building activity report for January 2026.

Same.

Thank you very much.

All right, public hearings.

Okay, item number four.

Preliminary plat, final plat.

The applicants, Pierre and Leslie Amstoy through their agent Aldrich Land Surveying.

Request approval of a preliminary final plat for the property legally described as Rio Rancho Estates.

Unit 10, block 61, lot one, dedicating approximately 0.0115 acres of right of way to the city of Rio Rancho.

Staff contact is Tim DeVorak and staff recommends approval with findings and conditions.

Tim.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chair, members of the board.

Tim Dvorak, planner with the city of Rio Rancho.

The item before you this evening is a preliminary final plat for the property of 800 Via Road Southeast.

Subject property is zoned R1 single family residential district, adopted March 23rd, 1983 by the governing body.

Surrounding land is zoned R1 single family to the north, west, and east with R3 mixed residential to the south.

And here is the subject plat.

Um the subject plat um has existing five public uh utility easements inside all existent lot lines and also provides a 10-foot private sanitary sewer easement along the southern portion of the property.

Um the applicant also dedicated an additional five feet of public utility easement to provide for 10-foot wide PUEs adjacent to all rights of way.

Um the applicant also had a discussion with uh city utilities, um, and they actually expanded the right of way dedication to the city, so it's actually now 0.0183 acres.

Um, no other changes were made to the plat.

Um obviously, future development would require um water wastewater availability and um all other requirements of development.

As such, staff recommends approval with findings and conditions, and I'll stand for any questions.

Great, thanks, Tim.

Is the applicant present?

Yes, sir.

Okay, go ahead and state your name, address, and move along.

Tim Aldrich, uh Aldrich Land Surveying Um 4109 Montgomery Boulevard, Northeast Albuquerque, New Mexico.

I am the agent for uh Pierre and Leslie Amistoy and the surveyor for this project.

I am here for any questions.

Okay, thank you very much.

All right.

Is there anyone in the audience here in chambers wishing to speak for or against item number four?

Anyone virtually online wishing to speak for or against item number four?

Okay.

Board I seeking a motion to approve item number four.

Motion to approve item number four.

Thank you.

Second.

Thank you.

We have motion to second.

Any comments from the board.

All right.

So hearing none, please call the roll.

Vice Chair Gabbledon?

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins?

Yes.

Commissioner Totoricci.

Yes.

Commissioner Calcher.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesi.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Project.

Okay.

Item number five.

Preliminary plat.

The applicant.

EcoTERRA Development LLC through their agents consensus planning inc and Bohan and Houston Inc.

requests approval of a preliminary plat for the TARRA ALTO at Mariposa Subdivision.

The subject property is legally described as Mariposa East, tracks 1A16H1 and 1A16 F, 1A16G, and 1A16I.

And is zoned MUA mixed use activity center.

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

Liz.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chair Liz Reese Carlos, Planet of the City of Rancho.

Again, the item before you is a request for a preliminary plat for the Terra Elto at Mariposa subdivision.

The subject property again legally described as Mariposa East Tracks 1A16H1, as well as F G and I.

It is zoned MUA mixed use activity center.

This item may look familiar.

It was postponed from the November 18th, 2025 planning and zoning board hearing, and then it was withdrawn at the December 16, 2025 hearing.

The proposed plat dedicates easements for the trails as they exist now.

The current application features a revised plat that creates 61 lots and consists of 44.4269 acres.

The subject properties are also located within the Mariposa Master Plan Area.

Access is provided via Mariposa Parkway, an existing minor arterial road.

Secondary access will be provided via Mariposa Loop, a residential road.

There will also be a private HOA park and recreation amenity center that will include tennis and pickleball courts, as well as a patio building that includes a lounge and kitchen and restroom.

And this is all heard the previously approved site plan.

The plot also proposes easements for several trails throughout the subdivision, including a 10-foot public trail easement along the north side of the subdivision, as well as a public trail easement over track 12 and a private pedestrian and vehicular access easement benefiting homeowners to be maintained by the HOA.

And you'll see the plat here.

Staff recommends approval with findings and conditions.

And with that, I will stand for any questions.

Thanks, Liz.

Okay, is the applicant present.

I am uh Go ahead.

Mr.

Chair, Planning Commissioners, my name is Jim Stroger, Principal with Consensus Planning, 302 8th Street Northwest, 87102, and I do have a presentation.

Well, it's a pleasure to be here uh this evening to talk about uh this project and the next steps.

Um this is Tara Alto at Mariposa, and it and we're here for consideration of preliminary plat.

Want to introduce our project team.

Many of them are here this evening.

Um so the developer, EcoTerra, Mike Cacini, he's here tonight.

Um, partnered up with Mike Feetz.

Um also Price Land Development Group is uh is an integral part of the team, and Scott Stefan is here this evening.

Uh Bohan in Houston, Yolanda Padilla Moyer is the um Moyer is the civil engineer for the project.

She had to do all the hard work to get this preliminary plat uh ready to go.

So once again, this this project was uh deferred in November, it was withdrawn in December, and then um we've resubmitted it after we went through a number of steps to address um concerns with community trails in the area, and specifically the rim trail.

So what's happened in the interim?

So we had several site visits to walk the rim trail, um, which was inadvertently left off that that rim trail was not mapped anywhere, and it basically went in and out of the public uh open space, the Mariposa Preserve, and crossed into the private property and back into the preserve.

And so we what we did was we had the surveyor go out and flag the property line, the back property line, and we walked the trail so that we could see exactly where those conflicts existed, and we mapped the trail.

There was no real good map of that existing trail alignment, so we mapped that on a photo base with topography.

Um we developed alternatives based on our site visits and analysis, and we um we worked with the master developer to actually shift some property boundaries in order for us to be able to make some of the this work.

Um you can see in that photo so that the stake with the pink flagging uh kind of in the front of the picture is the back property line of one of the proposed lots, and you can see the trail, and the folks are standing along that trail as it works its way uh through the preserve.

Um let's see if this is I can do this.

This is actually supposed to be a video, but I don't know if you can see it.

We've got we actually had video of one of the mountain bike riders when we were out there um going across the trail, and it's pretty gnarly little trail.

I'll just say that.

I was I was very impressed uh with with this guy.

He said he it was pretty windy out that day.

He got luckily he got blown into the bushes on the uphill side a couple times on his ride that day, but uh um it was uh pretty pretty impressive to watch him.

Oh, there we go, it is working.

All right, we can watch him go go across there.

Um this pretty high tech for me.

I usually don't try and do stuff like this, never know what's gonna work.

But uh so this is actually where a portion of the trail that's in the Mariposa Preserve.

So next steps.

Um again, we we presented options to the neighbors.

This we created several graphics.

This is one of them that looked at where those conflict points were between the lots and the trail, and we developed alternatives and brought those to the community, and we actually agreed on some minor changes to the existing alignment, and basically keeping the majority of that alignment intact, even where it crossed over into the private property, and um, and then we updated our site development plan and coordinated that with planning staff and Ms.

Rincone, and we we got approval for that updated site plan prior to being here this evening.

And so this is a copy of that updated site plan, and you can see that that rim trail features very prominently on the site plan now.

It was it didn't show up at all on the previous version.

So and you can see along that trail edge places where the trail encroaches onto the private property, easements were created with this plat to accommodate that trail, and those and the actual buildable areas of the lots were pulled back away from the trail, ensuring that it could take place.

There's a couple of places in the very upper right corner of this graphic where we're actually proposed to do some minor realignments of that trail, and the community agreed with those, and then we are we needed to realign the access point with that.

But that was all accommodated with the updated site plan and reflected in this um in this preliminary plat.

Um so we updated uh the plat to match the approved the updated site plan.

We accommodated the rim trail.

We accommodated the rim trail, we provided additional open space to accommodate the trail.

New easements were created for the trail where it crosses the private property.

We balance the trail protection with the new residential lots, and I think some of the neighborhood uh comments that you have in your packet packet reflect that um as well.

Um we got we ended up with neighborhood and community advocate support, staff recommendation for approval, and we agree with the proposed findings and conditions, and thank you.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Strozier.

Stay close.

Never know.

All right.

Any hard questions you have?

I'll let Ms.

Moyer answer those.

But uh otherwise, we're happy to answer any questions that you have, and uh really appreciate your time this evening.

Thank you.

Okay, is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against item number five?

All right, ma'am, go ahead and step up.

Have you failed on a form?

Great.

Go ahead and state your name and address, and then you've got 20 minutes.

My name is Christine Keelan.

I live at 6040 Redondo Sierra Vista.

Real rancho.

Thank you.

I my home is directly um about to the development, what their plan is.

My concern is that whole area that we look at, and everyone sees is very hilly.

Where is several couple of rails behind there for drainage?

My concern is that I I went out there and I measured the road and where those houses are going back.

I don't see that nearly enough room.

You're gonna you're gonna put a road in front of that big hill and put houses there.

There is not nearly enough room.

You're gonna be encroaching on our property.

Ma'am, would you please speak into the mic just to make sure we catch you?

I apologize.

I gotcha.

But I I'm saying that I don't see that there's enough room for him, the developer, to put in a road there and put homes in by that hill.

Have you been have all of you been out to that land out there and see what it's like?

But this very, very beautiful.

And I know Rio Rancho has a very big concern about keeping the terrain and topography as perfect as possible.

And any develop there, and any development there is going to hinder that.

And I'm I knew that this maybe could happen when we purchased our property two years ago, but not to this extreme.

And I'm a very disappointed, and I know my neighbors are too.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Okay, is there anyone else in the audience tonight wishing to speak for against item number five?

Is there anyone virtually or online wishing to speak for or against item number five?

Use the raise hand feature.

All right, seeing none, like to entertain a motion to approve item number five is presented.

Mr.

Chairman, motion to approve.

Thank you.

Second.

Thank you so much.

We have a motion second.

Any comments from the board.

Okay.

I just was wondering if we want to give Mr.

Strozier an opportunity to respond to the comment.

Okay.

Yeah, is there any specific comments you'd like to do?

No, though, from the All right, Mr.

Stroger would you like to have a go at it?

Uh sure, thank you.

Um I understand, you know, it's it oftentimes that you look at these at these drawings and and you're out there, and it seems like there's less space than there actually is.

And the one thing I will note is that when you look at the site plan, and maybe we could get that back up.

I could uh all right, let's see.

Whoops.

There we go.

Let's see.

Is that ah, there we go.

So a couple of things I just want to note when you look at this site plan.

So there's there's housing that's developed to the south of this property, and you can see that kind of modeled area that's in between the new lots in that area.

So there's a significant open space buffer that was created as part of this site plan between the existing houses and the proposed housing, and that kind of wraps around that entire southern area.

Um, and we did that very intentionally.

There is a an open space buffer where there's an existing trail along the south side of Mariposa Parkway that comes in kind of the main entry to the site, and then we also have buffers along the south edge in the northeast corner that create the uh an open space buffer between in that case it's kind of a shared driveway for a few of those lots and the and the home sites.

And then I'll just um say that uh Mr.

Cottini and his company, EcoTerra developed the home builder for these lots takes great care in actually siting the houses very carefully on those lots and working with the terrain and um and that's that's very important, obviously, to the feel and what gets created with this neighborhood.

And so I think that we have done a really good job of addressing the relationship between the new houses, the preserve and the trail system, as well as the surrounding homes in the area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Stroger.

And additional questions, Commissioner?

Not from me, thank you.

Okay, any other questions from the board.

All right.

Hearing none, please call the roll.

Commissioner Totoricci.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesi.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Commissioner Coffer.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Great.

Good luck with your project.

Thank you.

All right.

Item number six, master plan.

The applicant, Cielo Bonito LLC requests approval of the Cielo Bonito Master Plan at the location legally described as Unit 21, block 22, lots 4 through 30, 45 through 48, block 23, lots three through 23, 45 through 64, and block 24, lots 51 through 70.

Staff contact is Tamara Martinez, and staff recommends the planning and zoning board recommend approval of the master plan to the governing body with findings and conditions.

Tamara.

Good evening, Mr.

Vice Chairman, members of the board.

I'm Tamara Martinez, planner with the City of Rio Rancho.

The items before you is a master plan and a zone map amendment.

The applicant Cielo Bonito LLC requests approval of the Cielo Bonito Master Plan for the property located northwest.

Um just one moment.

Let's get the door shut.

After party.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

The applicant Cielo Bonito LLC requests the approval of the Cielo Bonito Master Plan for the property located northwest of the intersection of Lookover Drive Northeast and Shiloh Road Northeast, both of which are residential roads, and consist of approximately 44.

I'm sorry, 47.44 acres concurrent to this request, a zone map amendment for approximately 44.94 acres.

The subject properties are currently zoned TZ transitional zoning and R3 mixed residential zoning.

Per ordinance number 24, enactment number 02-037, and ordinance number seven, enactment number 11-08.

Adjacent properties to the north are currently zoned TZ transitional zoning and NC neighborhood commercial, transitional zoning and 01 office to the east, transitional zoning, R3 mixed residential and NC neighborhood commercial to the south, while the lots to the west are zoned TZ transitional zoning R4 for single family residential and SU special use for the Northern Meadows neighborhood.

The proposed Cielo Bonito Master Plan conceptualizes a development of 270 single family residential lots.

The main axis as shown here.

This is will be off of Wilpett Road.

The applicant's zone map amendment request is to change the current zoning of TZ transitional zoning and R3 mixed residential to R4 single family residential.

This map is from the Paseo Gateway West Specific Area Plan showing that the project is located within the medium density residential area.

Staff recommends the planning and zoning board recommend approval to governing bodies subject to findings and conditions.

And with that, I will stand for any questions.

Great.

Thanks, Tamara.

Is the applicant present?

Step on up and give us your information.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair, members of the board.

My name is Nicosia Schuttelbauer, PO box 9043, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87119.

Thank you for your time this evening.

I'll keep it brief.

Um staff has done an excellent job presenting our request.

And you've heard me speak on this project a few times.

Um so the two key points I'd like to reiterate, just very brief slideshow.

Is it popped up on your side?

Okay.

So we are requesting R4 zoning, which is consistent with that Paseo Gateway West specific area plan.

And secondly, our master plan reflects 95% ownership, which exceeds the 90% requirement outlined at the most current DPM.

And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Excellent.

Thanks so much.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against item number six?

Is there anyone online virtually wishing to speak for or against item number six?

Seeing none, I'd like to entertain a motion to approve item number six.

Motion to approve item number six.

Thank you.

Second.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second.

Any comments from the board.

All right.

Commissioner Kaufter.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesty.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins?

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbleton?

Yes.

Commissioner Tortoricci.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Great.

Good luck with your project.

All right.

On to item number eight, subdivision variants.

I'm sorry.

Item number seven, zone map amendment, excuse me.

The applicant, CLB Nito LLC requests approval of a zone map amendment request for approximately 44.94 acres from TZ transitional zoning and R3, mixed residential to R4, single family residential for the properties legal legally described as Unit 21, block 22, lots 40 or 4 through 26, 28 through 30, 45 through 48, block 23, lots three through 10, 14 through 23, 45 through 64, and block 24, lots 51 through 56, 58 through 70.

Staff contact is Tamara Martinez, and staff recommend the planning and zoning board recommend approval to the of the zone map amendment to the governing body with findings and conditions.

Tamara again.

I have nothing further on this item, sir.

Great.

Thank you for any questions.

All right.

Anyone in the audience?

Oh no, I'm sorry.

Any other uh comments from the applicant?

Sorry about that.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chair again, Nicosia Schuttlebauer.

We have no further comments, but stand for questions.

Great, thanks so much.

Sorry about that.

Anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against item number seven.

One online wishing to speak for or against item number seven.

Okay, I'd like to entertain a motion to approve item number seven.

Motion to approve item number seven.

Thank you.

Second.

We have a motion and a second to approve item number seven.

Any comments from the board.

All right.

Hearing none, seeing none, please call the roll.

Commissioner Kaufter.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabaldon?

Yes.

Commissioner Tortoricci.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesey.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Pass.

Great.

Good luck.

Now, how about item number eight?

Subdivision variants.

The applicant clean slate properties LLC through their agent CSI Cartesian surveys at Inc.

is requesting approval of a variance to the required improvements of a subdivision as outlined by Rio Rancho Municipal Code Chapter 155.

Subdivisions, Section 155.27.

Required improvements in order to subdivide a lot at the subject property of 3309-19th Avenue Southeast, legally described as Unit 16, block 14, lot 78.

Staff contact is Tamara Martinez, and staff recommends denial.

Tamara.

The request is for the proposed lot split at the subject property of 3309 19th Avenue Southeast, legally described as Unit 16 block 14 lot 78 without improvements.

The preliminary final plat for the lot split into two lots will be heard concurrent under case number 25-210-14.

The property is zoned R1 single family residential per ordinance number 81-15 and comprises of approximately 0.5 acres.

This is the subject property.

New subdivisions require access to city water sewer street lighting and sidewalks.

This lot, however, does not have sidewalks, street lighting, or access to city sewer.

As such, the lot split cannot be approved administratively.

The applicant submitted a justification narrative, which is included as an attachment, as well as a letter of determination provided by the New Mexico Department of or Environmental Department, excuse me.

The proposed lot configuration fails to provide an improved design and does not meet the requirements set out in section 155.60.

Moreover, the applicant has not provided adequate justification for the request.

As the property is a buildable lot, denial of the subdivision variants does not restrict the applicant from reasonable use of their land.

Policy A-2 of the city's comprehensive plan, specifically chapter three annexations, antiquated plating and address and addressing, excuse me, is to require appropriate development standards for infrastructure and environmental improvements for both newly platted and antiquated lots.

Staff recommends that the board find that creating an additional buildable lot in the area that lacks access to sanitary sewer is not in alignment with a comprehensive plan.

Allowing for the subdivision of a lot that does not have access to the necessary infrastructure further furthers the proliferation of substandard antiquated plating platted lots, which diminishes the overall aesthetic of the city.

Staff also finds that the subdivision variance request does not meet the criteria for criteria for a variance as provided in section 155.60 of the municipal code, as no unusual conditions exist, and a variance would not provide an improved design for the neighborhood or the city.

This is the proposed lot split.

Staff recommends denials subjects to subject to findings, and with that, I will stand for any questions.

Thanks, Tamara.

I see an applicant.

What's your name?

Yes, Sir Chairman and uh Commissioners Jared Liker, Clean Slate Properties, 409, New Mexico Highway 528, Rio Rancho 87124.

Thank you.

Um I have some a lot of information to kind of disseminate, so please uh bear with me on some of this.

Um with the lot split, we believe that the Rio Rancho GIS is not accurate, and we're actually not splitting this lot.

I think in your packet you have the warranty deed that originally split the lot in 1966.

Well, in 1966, Sanaval County came to us in I wasn't around by the way, just to be clear.

Um came to us, wanted to have a donation of the westerly half of lot 78.

We donated the westerly half of lot 78 via deed in 1966.

Um at that time, obviously, Rio Rancho was not incorporated.

Um there was no subdivision ordinance.

Um we have been paying taxes on this lot, and we have a deed that you can see that basically put the half acre into two quarter acres.

Um City of Rio Rancho Incorporated in 1981 and operated the fire station since that time.

Um so for us to go in there and ask for a building permit on a half-acre lot is not correct.

We went in and asked for a building permit on our quarter acre lot via the deed and we're denied that application.

So we went to discussions with development services and said, how do we get this done?

We want to monetize and build a home on our legacy lots, and this was one of them in unit 16.

Um in there said that we'd have to submit a plat.

We said the lots already split.

There's no need for the plat.

Um, but to appease the GIS or however it was not recorded with the City of Rio Rancho, we said, okay, we'll we'll submit that plat.

Submit that plat, and along with that, we had a memo requesting how we submitted that plat from Brian Babiac, and I'd like to read an excerpt from that particular memo uh instructing us how to submit.

So it says, and I quote, if the proposed lot split is still desired, the City of Rio Rancho Development Service Department recognitions the middle of a combined preliminary and final plat with a subdivision variance for the required sewer main.

The plot and variants would be scheduled and heard by the planning and zoning board for approval and noticed accordingly.

Similar applications in Unit 10 area have included a letter from the NMED in regards to a septic tank on the 0.25 acre lots to address the requirement outlined in 20-7-3.

This is the liquid waste disposal that Tamara mentioned.

So we submitted the plat.

We submitted a variance for the plat.

One because we couldn't get to the sewer and the sidewalk.

And two, um the second the second part of that is basically to say we had no reason to put a sewer that was 2,000 feet from Grand Boulevard in because the entire unit 16, as everyone knows, does not have Gravity Sewer at this time.

So we put that in, and we're surprised to come back and say we were denied that for a couple of reasons.

Said we couldn't antiquated plating, it wasn't in the same character as the surrounding development because it was not a half-acre lot, and we're splitting into a quarter-acre lot.

Again, we said this is already split.

We're just doing the formalities, trying to get the paperwork for the city correct, um, and putting in the plat and the variance just to get the documentation correct for the city.

Um couple of things on on the property.

Um, as you know, 19th Avenue is directly adjacent.

City had just paved 19th Avenue in 2023.

The city has an ordinance that does not allow you to cut new streets for five years.

So we can't, even if we wanted to, we couldn't get the sewer in there.

We got a letter from the MED saying that we could do advanced treatment on the quarter-acre lot, and we could put a home on there with certain specifications.

So we got that letter for them.

Um thought that was gonna be good enough.

Um obviously we were here for a denial.

We are curious to know why if we donated the other westerly half of the lot.

It appears now we're getting penalized for that donation because now I can't build a house on the lot we want to do.

Um I just wanted to be recognized that the lot was before city was incorporated, it was split.

I thought we were just getting that paperwork together to kind of get it in order, and we're surprised to see that we are recommended for denial for this plat.

So I'll stand for any additional questions you may have with me, but we would like for you guys to please uh recognize that that existed.

We provided the deed that showed it existed in 1966, and would like to ask for you to approve this variance and plat so that we could build a single family home on this property.

Thank you.

Thanks so much.

Okay, is there anyone in the audience wishing to speaks for or against item number eight?

All right, go ahead and come to the podium, sir.

Have you filled out a form?

Yes, sir.

Great, thank you.

State your name and your address, and you got a few minutes.

My name is John Betts.

Uh, address is 1820 34th Street, Southeast River Rancho 87124.

Okay.

Um, my biggest concern is the um lot being broken down to a quarter acre.

All the other lots are half acre around there.

There's plenty of other lots they can build on.

Rather than affecting our possibly affecting our property values with having a house over there on the smallest lot in the area.

So I do oppose it.

Okay, thanks for your comment.

Anyone else in the audience here in chambers wishing to go ahead, sir.

Come on up.

All right, same way.

State your name and address, sir.

Thank you for having me.

My name's Ed Pena.

Uh it's uh 1821 34th Street.

Okay.

Um go ahead.

I live right next to that lot.

Um I don't agree with them uh splitting that lot up.

Um the other thing that I was concerned on is um is that lot already sold or being sold, or what's the deal with that as far as did they purchase it?

I mean, is that still underway?

The other thing that I'd like I'd be interested in is to have a shot to purchase the quarter half acre, quarter acre, half acre, whatever it is.

Okay, well, you know, um, but as far as cutting it up, I've we've gotten with all the neighbors around, you know, pretty much on the whole block, and nobody wants anything cut up.

You know, I know some neighbors that say, well, if they're gonna cut that up, I got the rest of my lot back there that I could put a casita up and cut it up and all that, and it's like, no, we don't want to cut anything up.

So we're we're pretty much against cutting it up.

I am interested in in purchasing purchasing that property, um, you know, pending the fire department.

I don't know what they're gonna do with that, or you know, I'm I've always been uh curious on that.

I've been there since uh 2016.

I purchased the home, and you know, um I know that I kind of keep an eye on that place and stuff, but you know, some of the stuff that that you know is happening in that building there, you know, I got a branch that's falling up on on the uh wire power wires there, and nobody's addressed that.

Um we've had a few neighbors actually call on that because it does feed into um up 34th street.

Um so that's kind of one of the concerns.

But um that's pretty much all that I have.

Thank you.

Thanks for your comment.

All right, uh real quick, let me stop there for a moment.

I um I need to ask online if anyone has any uh anything to say whether they want to speak for or against item number eight.

I see none.

Um I did hear well let me let me hold on just a minute.

Uh I would like to make a motion to approve item number eight as presented.

Motion to approve.

Second, all right.

Any questions from the board?

I think we should let the applicant respond real quick at least, and then we'll let me have some questions.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you, Chairman Commissioners.

Um, just to reiterate, um, in the packet, there was the deed from 1966 that clearly described the westerly half of lot 78 and the easterly half.

I have records that in the county records of the assessors that we've been paying taxes for the easterly half.

The city has not been paying taxes, then they own the fire station on the westerly half.

So this, in our opinion, is already split, and we are just getting paperwork together for the city for their files to make everything accurate with the assessors um depiction of the lot today.

Great, thank you so much.

Mr.

Vice Chair, if I can really quick.

Um, so the city no longer occupies that fire station.

Um they have been moved out um since at least July at the at the absolute latest.

Um, and so our understanding from the city perspective is once it um no longer was um part of the city used as a fire station, um, that that would revert back to the original ownership.

Um so it is not um under uh city's ownership.

Thank you.

Could could I respond to that?

I have a question.

Can I ask a question on this?

Yep.

That's just the westerly half of this property.

That is correct.

That used to be known as um fire station one.

Um, familiar with it, yeah.

Like the first fire station ever.

So there was a piece of that that was I don't know if the right word is annexed to the city, and then when the city stopped occupying it, just came back to be part of the same lot.

So um, Mr.

Vice Chair, uh, Commissioner Torteric, so um it was actually the deed um deed it to Sandoval County, um, not to the city.

So I'll be honest, I don't know how it ever moved into city hands or or however that that functioned.

Um, but the city has not been in operation or been there for um well over half a year.

So I guess that the real question that I have, and I hope somebody can answer it, is between 1966 and when fire station ceased to operate there, current only had access to the easterly half of that.

Right?

Am I saying that?

Am I I mean that's I mean, so if you wanted to do something, it would only been able to do it on that quarter acre anyway.

Right?

Am I saying am I stating that correctly?

So they would have to get something through there if they wanted to build something approved with the conditions that it was only a half an acre that they have access to because it was the county.

Right.

But at this time they have access from my understanding.

But now it kind of came back together.

But that sort of that sort of tells me that it was already always been split.

They were only paying taxes on the easterly half, and the county was probably paying taxes on the westerly half.

Or they weren't having to pay taxes, I understand that right.

On the piece that the county had, but I would assume that you were paying taxes on your half.

That is correct.

Yeah, okay.

That's um I'm on the maybe in the wrong book, but I'm on the right page.

Okay.

But then it reverted.

I was saying on two.

If you had developed, if you had wanted to build on that lot 12 months ago, you would have been able to build a structure on that quarter acre, am I correct?

Because it's a zone or one, and you own that quarter acre, and had you built a house there 12 months ago, we wouldn't even be going through this.

Or 20 years ago.

Right.

If I may, Mr.

Chairman Commissioner, go ahead.

Um we did request this is in 2020.

We requested, we submitted for a building permit and were denied for our easterly half.

Um because in the city's GIS, it was not split.

So they said it didn't.

There wasn't a split, and I gave them the deed from 66 that described the two.

Um they've been in operation, as Ms.

Rincone said, of the property since six months ago, but it's still split, it's still owned by the city of your rancho.

So when you go and annex in 1981, all this all the public properties that were in Sandoval County, and they put the boundary of the city, uh, city limits, those just automatically go over to the incorporated city.

So the city has owned this, they've actually been in that building, they've operated it.

They actually did a budget adjustment two or three years ago to do some cleanup in that property.

So no, I could not.

I asked for a building permit for my Easterly, I was denied that.

And via Mr.

Babiak's memo, he said, do this to get all our paperwork in order.

And so that's what I now have submitted with the variance, and you can see the recommendation of denial.

So I have not been able to um build on that property when I requested yes, it has been sitting there, and we owned it.

We have identified we actually have built houses in Unit 16 in other lots that we had that were half acre.

Um got permits, obviously they're half acres.

This one was split, we were denied that building permit when we went in, um, and then were asked to do this process to get everything official and have now come with a denial for that.

So we are not able to build on it.

Okay, well, on that subject, I have a quick question if I may, if that one's done.

Um, what were can you tell us what the reasons for denial could be?

Uh Manager Badiaak or the applicant, what were the reasons of denial in 2020?

Can we get a little bit of permit because they said that the the property Easter did not exist?

So they went to their GIS, and you could see from the presentation, you click on that lot, it's a half acre lot.

Oh, and you click on the GIS.

So they said this is not what it is, and we have our building on there, and we don't want you to put it because they're looking at the GIS.

They said no.

And I said, Well, here's the deed.

It says westerly and easterly.

I mean, back in 66, they did things not as great as we do today and and clear.

Um that makes that clear for me.

Thank you for that.

Came with the plat to kind of make it official.

They then the plat's recorded, they sign off, then they put it in their GIS.

We have two quarter acre lots, which are still our one, you know, they they still match all the zoning code.

Um, I just can't get to sewer.

Um they say, you know, a monetary is not a thing to grant a uh variance.

I I tend to agree with that, but I can't my point is I can't get to the sewer two thousand feet away because I they have a moratorium on newly paved roads.

That's one that worked out for me.

That's not denying that, right?

Sidewalk, there's no sidewalk in unit 16.

Um, so we said we don't want to put sidewalk either.

Um we build on this.

We got the septic tank letter from NED, they said yes, you can put a house with the advanced treatment.

We're planning on doing that.

Um, and then you can see where we are today.

So again, one more point if I could.

When this came up and we got denied, we said, okay, city, you want to just buy the other half?

You can we'll sell it to you.

Fine.

They didn't want to buy it.

Okay.

Um I guess my comment is it almost seems, and I don't know if it's the city or the county.

It seems like it's two lots when it's convenient for the county, and it's one lot when it's not.

So and then the septic system.

I mean, I mean, that's a that's already an expense that in my opinion.

The sewers in the street.

Aren't all those houses tied into the sewer on that street already?

That was that was one of the ones they didn't do anything with.

The closest in unit 16 in general, there's no sewer anywhere in the streets.

The closest is at 19th Avenue and Grand Boulevard, which is uh two thousand feet away.

Yeah, but all the all the houses to guess would be the east of this property or on septic.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, yes, sir.

That I think more questions.

Great.

Thank you.

So uh Mr.

Vice Chair, um, if I may, just real quick.

So um, so when we do look in our system, right?

So the city does have plats going all the way back to the 60s.

So when we did look at this in um 2020, and it wasn't something that we actually had a formal plat for.

Um, it was something that that we did at the time um deny that um building permit because we Because it seemed like a half acre.

Right, because that's one of those things that we have those um those plating actions that go.

We have plating actions for a long time.

I've got the tech file cabinet on the right.

I'm seeing that there's a that there's two quarters and a half, and I think it's being batted back and forth pretty good, and there's paperwork for both.

Right, and it and it did um also, you know, um, so there was some change in ownership between um Amrep in 2020 when they submitted the building permit to now clean slate for their one of their subsidiaries now in 2021.

Sure.

Um, and so there has been um a little bit of changes, and so I don't know that we can necessarily go back to that tax history um all the way back to 66.

Um, you know, but we can for for their current ownership um agree that they have been paying taxes on that portion of the lot.

Okay, thank you.

Um any other questions from the board to my left or my right?

Yeah, go ahead.

So I think I have earlier that we've moved.

Is there any actual paperwork that now uh what happened to the who really owns that piece of the lot now?

I understand we stopped using it six months ago, but is there anything in on paper in writing as to set that says this now reverts back to your ownership, or where does that work?

Or prior prior ownership.

Right.

Do we know?

So uh part of that deed specifically says when it's no longer being used as a as a fire station and senior um agenda briefing packet that it goes back to their ownership.

Okay, um but the ownership at that time was Rio Rancho Estate, so I don't know how that exactly gets back to uh clean slate or amrip or however that would work at this time.

Further comment, yes, Mr.

Chairman Commissioners.

That that's that is incorrect.

It doesn't say it reverts back.

There's a specifically on the deed, this is what it says, which and again language from 1966.

Upon the this is donating the property.

We're saying we'll donate the property upon the completion that said land shall be used as a site for a fire station.

So we in the deed we said we will donate it to you if you use it for a fire station.

It doesn't say that it would come back to us if it's not ever used.

That can be, I mean, it can be interpreted a bunch of ways.

In our opinion, it doesn't exactly say it comes back to us automatically.

The the other thing about the fire station, you can drive by the fire station, not in good shape.

Built in probably we donated in 66, I'll tell you 68, 69.

It probably was built.

There's problems with it.

I don't want that back.

There's probably environmental problems in that building that I don't want to have to deal with, and I don't think it reverts back to me per this D.

But per this deed, it is definitely split into two quarter-acre lots.

Great.

Thanks for so much for that, Ree.

So I have one more question.

I mean, just to summarize what you're trying to do, just to simplify it for the simple-minded here.

Yes, sir, that is correct.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Commissioner Haresty, did that kind of carry through your question?

Yeah, I think so.

I'm not seeing this.

I'm not seeing the deed, um, Amy.

I'm not seeing that in the packet.

I mean, it should be part of the um preliminary final plat.

Yeah, it should be on item nine.

Part of item nine.

Okay.

All right.

Um if there's no other questions or comments this point, we can continue on after that, but I've got I've got a few comments.

Um it seems clear, unless there's something refuting it, the that it's that it's already been a pair of quarter acre lots for since 1966.

So there's that.

I understand that Rio Rancho has evolved as an you know as a as a city and and incorporated in 1981, and there was a lot of blurring between the county and the city, and probably a lot of goodwill with AMREP at the time, especially, you know, donating the at least the use of the land, if not the ownership of the land, and we don't know where that status is coming back, because I don't think we have one page that clearly says, hey, this is what happens to it, except for maybe that old page from 1966.

So anyway, we appreciate I'm sure that we had the ability to use it as a fire station.

Very good point that there's infrastructure on that lot now that anyone that would have to take that back as is would have to deal with whatever environmental with whatever uh uh demolition, whatever it is to reuse that you know, remediation, everything that had that goes with a piece of land.

Um I do appreciate the second gentleman's comment who spoke at the at the podium to say, hey, I'd like to buy the lot.

Well, that makes the point that anytime you want to really control what to do with a piece of land, you ought to own it.

That that that's for sure.

You can do anything you like as far as controlling if something happens on it or not, as far as something tries to be uh built on it.

So there is that point to be made.

So I appreciate that.

And I will recommend that if there is a conversation to be had, perhaps you do contact the owner who is standing 20 feet from you and maybe have a conversation about that.

I'm not sure what the imminent plans are for the quarter acre lot, you know, per, you know, as far as you know, a buyer or a user, but it seems to me that there are two quarter acre lots.

I'm not sure if my fellow commissioners agree with me or disagree with me, but I don't see anything refuting that that's the case because of the split tax situation.

So that's where my mind arrives, and um I think that we should I think we got enough information to take a vote unless I am missing something.

Yeah, I just want to say that I I agree with your comments.

Um that I mean there's already a structure on half of this, what's considered a half acre in some people's eyes.

So I mean we already have a structure on half of it and there's an unused portion of it.

So in reality, it's been it is two quarter lot acres.

I mean, I don't I don't see why any other way around it because you already have a building on half of it and a tax situation.

So Mr.

Vice Chair, if I can um so um the city's understanding has always been that that lot was going to that that second quarter of an acre was gonna revert back um and that it was the desire of the applicant for that portion of the property to be um to go back.

Um so um I'm gonna go ahead and if I can ask for a postponement so that we can talk with our legal team about um the ownership of that um quarter of an acre and make sure that we are all under the same understanding if it's the applicant's understanding that they do not have any claim uh to that section of property.

Director, is there any feeling whatsoever that there's a document that's gonna talk about that somewhere?

Um so I don't know that there's necessarily a document, but um I think there has been meetings between the applicant and um city administration um uh to the contrary of what um has um been spoken here, and so I I would if it's okay request a postponement until we have a chance to look further into this Mr.

Chairman Good.

It's my motion.

I don't know that I'm ready to repeal the motion and ask for postponement.

I mean I'm pretty convinced that the second lot was being taxed as a separate entity.

He's paying taxes on it for the entire time of the ownership.

If it wasn't, then I would understand that being considered one lot, and the county was either having the taxes waived, but he was paying the property tax on this thing for 30, I don't know how old is that.

40 50, I don't know.

Five I was born long after 66, I don't know.

Right.

But um so I mean I would um I'm not inclined to change my motion at this time.

Okay.

I um feel like I've heard what I need to hear based on the document we don't have our hands on, but that the applicant has referred to.

That's that's uh and then the the tax situation for you know it's 59 years seems to make sense.

Um I'm not inclined to uh not vote tonight either.

Um that's that's up to the will of the board.

I just want to clarify that from my understanding that the applicant is saying that um they don't feel that there is any reversion clause in that um deed for that one quarter of an acre um and that they don't have any expectations of taking that back over.

Um and so if I can just go ahead and and clarify that uh with the applicant um here on site, then uh we will move forward um in a different manner.

Yeah, that that seems like a separate issue.

But um sorry we had a we place where we can call the vote call the roll.

Commissioner Totoricci.

Yes, Commissioner Hardesi.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabblin.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins, yes.

Commissioner Kopcher.

Yes.

Great, thank you.

Okay, gosh, where am I?

All right, item number nine.

Preliminary final plat.

The applicant clean slate properties LLC through their agency SI Cartesian surveys is requesting approval of preliminary final plat to subdivide the property legally described as unit 16, block 14, lot 78.

Property is zoned.

Is now I need to ask a question here.

Is this um did we have to go through this again?

That's for the variance.

This is for the subdivision.

My understanding is that it's already been subdivided.

I'm just asking the question.

So I mean, I'm not I'm not sure.

From from staff staff's perspective, there hasn't been a platinum that has actually occurred with it.

All right, so we feel like I will continue then.

Uh unit 16 block 14, lot 78.

This the property is zoned R1, single family residential district, and comprises approximately 0.5 acres.

Staff contact is Tamara Martinez and staff recommends denial.

Go ahead and Tamar.

Mr.

Chairman, I have nothing further on this.

Great.

Thanks so much, Tamara.

All right.

Any additional comments from the applicant?

Mr.

Chairman, commissioners, no additional comments.

So that'd stand for any additional questions you may have.

Great, thank you.

Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against item number nine?

Go ahead, sir.

So if if his uh if that quarter acres possibly gonna be quartered, what's gonna happen to the fire department?

Was it happening in that quarter?

That's uh that's a well I'll let you continue your comment.

I can't really answer that.

Yeah, we can ask that question later to the thank you.

I appreciate it.

Um I do have interest in that whole half acre.

Um, you know, so I how do I keep get in the loop?

How how am I gonna get in the know as far as what they do with it?

You know, it'd be kind of crazy to wake up and they're mowing it down or something or whatever, you know.

It's just I'd like to be in the loop.

I'm sure Mr.

Liker over there would be happy to give you his business card for future correspondence.

So is the proper is that is the fire department fire department gonna stay with you?

Or here let's let's let's stop now.

So we can ask so we'd have to get with the city on that.

You're in the loop, that's for sure.

Commissioner Kopfcher said.

So you are standing in the loop currently.

I can ask the question what he's gonna do with that fire station after you're done speaking.

Yeah, because I mean uh I'm interested in it.

Is we understand basically saying so.

Thank you for your comment.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak for or against item number nine?

Either online or in chambers.

All right.

Seeing none, hearing none.

Uh I guess uh uh entertain a motion to approve item number nine is presented.

Motion to approve.

Second.

We have a motion and a second for item number nine.

Any comments, any further comments from the board on this item?

The question is I think my biggest concern would have been the NMED, and since they already have a plan forward as far as the septic with the advanced treatment, that would have been my only concern.

So thank you, Commissioner and Commissioner Copcher.

I was just uh gonna ask the uh applicant to come up and answer the questions.

So I guess question number, you know, I guess answer Commissioner Hard.

I think it was addressed um that you had a an advanced treatment that you guys would need to follow as far as the septic goes.

Mr.

Chair and Commissioner Hankins, yes, that is correct.

We uh have received a letter, a serviceability letter from the NMED regarding the septic for advanced treatment, and they will be reviewing the application.

We'll give them the building plan and they'll review it.

And they said it would be serviceable through an advanced septic treatment.

Okay, thank you.

And then yeah, the the question from the previous speaker was um what are the plans for the current structure that's on the west portion?

So Mr.

Chairman Commissioner Kaufcher, um, with this plat, it'll be clearly identified that that westerly half is the city of Rio Rancho, so that would be something they would have to deal with, and I would clearly, which we already believe own the easterly half, and I would be putting a single family home on that portion of the property.

Okay, sure.

So that's I'm a little confused on this item because the way the way I'm seeing this based on the previous approval, really a quarter acre lot that should probably be re-identified as lot 78 E.

Don't know what I don't care what you do with the others half of it, but or part two or B, because the way I'm seeing this, the piece of the half of this current lot that is has the fire station on it, is still the responsibility of either the county or the city, and I'm I'm not gonna adjudicate it here.

But I think what the applicant is saying is that's not his.

He did interprets it as this is not his.

He wants to build on his quarter that's clearly his that he's been paying taxes on since 1966.

And so this is stating that it's a half an acre lot, and we're asking for a preliminary plat, but that's not true.

You can tell me if I'm wrong in in all the things that I'm saying, or or Amy, you can if anybody thinks I'm I'm totally missing this.

But that's the way I'm seeing this playing out here.

Yeah, Commissioner, that that was the genesis of my comment before I I finished reading the actual item.

I don't feel like we've got something that exists here.

This isn't the right thing to be voting on, and I think the applicants explained his his case properly, as far as we understand it.

I mean, there may be more that comes out as the applicant and the city talk more about this issue with that particular piece of the of the land.

Um, but it's so Mr.

Vice Chair, if I know I feel like we're I feel like we're actually looking and reading it on something that's already been in the books for a very long time.

So, Mr.

Vice Chair, so um there is a plat um that is in front of you tonight.

Um, and so that plat um does include easements and other things that do need to go through a plating action.

Um and so um it was determined by staff that um it couldn't go through a summary process um because it would um have benefited and did benefit from uh an additional public hearing.

Um and so that plat itself um does actually um exist and need to exist for for easements and other purposes, so it is an item that does need to be um voted on tonight.

Okay, should okay.

I've I I have a uh question for staff then if we're gonna vote on this for those exact reasons.

I can appreciate that.

Should we amend somehow make a notation of the legal description that we're looking at then?

Because it just seems that we've got a half acre or a couple of quarter acres, and we're not quite Mr.

Chair.

The the Mr.

Vice Chair, the legal description that's provided um is adequate to show uh the two lots.

But if you if you look at the plant and the packet, it states a lot 78A and a 78B, delineating from one half from the other.

Okay, not just 78.

Okay, fair enough.

All right, any other comments from the board?

I don't know what I'm voting on, but I'm gonna abstain.

So uh Mr.

Vice Chair, so um Councillor Tartarici, we're we're voting on the plat itself, so there is a plat in front of you to formally uh put a lot line.

Um so yes, there was a deed, um, but there wasn't an actual lot line that split the lots, um, and so this would split the lots, change the legal descriptions very slightly, and then put in easements, and so that is what is under discussion tonight.

The only option is that thank you.

That that helps a ton.

Sorry, Mr.

Chair.

So this if this was to be approved in affirmative, then what would happen is we would have a 78A and a 78B.

And then I guess they can fight it legally over who owns A.

I don't know that I care.

Um fair enough.

Okay.

That's that's yeah, that answers my question.

Thank you, Brian and Amy.

Um anything else?

All right, what please call the roll.

Commissioner Hardesty.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins, yes.

Vice Chair Gabblan.

Yes.

Commissioner Kaufcher.

Yes.

Commissioner Hands.

Yes.

Motion passed.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right.

Item number 10.

So I see this is already being slighted to be withdrawn.

I'll read the item, hand it over to Michelle Castilla for comment.

On a moment.

Okay, withdrawn variants.

The applicant, Lomus and Contatus Development Company LLC is requesting approval of a variance to the 10-foot corner lot, side setback requirement for five feet encroachment at the property located at 4293 Mountain Trail Loop Northeast.

Legally described as Montreal phase one, block one, lot 13.

Staff contact is Michelle Castilla, and staff recommends withdrawal of the loan as requested by the applicant.

Any comments by staff?

Uh there are no comments by staff, just being withdrawn.

Thanks so much.

Um to withdraw.

Thank you.

Second.

Second, please call roll.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesy.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, item 11.

Master Plan.

The applicant, Amrep Southwest, do their agent consensus planning inc requests approval of the Vista Allegro allegria master plan comprised of approximately 78.21 acres.

Staff contact is Tim Dvorak, and staff recommends planning and zoning board recommend approval to the governing body.

Tim.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chair, members of the board.

Tim Dvorak, planner with the city of Rio Rancho.

The items that I'm presenting here will be presented together, both the master plan and the zone map amendment.

Of course, they will be voted on separately.

The applicant Amrup Southwest Inc.

through their agent consensus planning inc requests approval of the Vista Allegria Master Plan comprised of approximately 78.21 acres.

The subject master plan is within the Northern and Rainbow specific area plan.

Most recently amended November 13th, 2025 via resolution number 133, enactment number 25-132 by the governing body.

The properties are currently zoned R1 single family residential district and a M1 Industrial and Business Park District.

And subject properties comprise 100% of the proposed master plan boundary, and all are owned by the applicant.

For the proposed zone map amendments here, we have three zones that the applicant is requesting.

The first is M1 Industrial and Business Park to R6 multifamily residential district, approximately 21.0257 acres in the top portion in Brown.

Then M1 Industrial and R1 single family to R4, single family residential, approximately 44.1824 acres.

And then finally R1 single family to R3 mixed residential, approximately 13.0039 acres.

Anticipated dwelling counts for these different sections for the R4 section, approximately 310 dwelling units.

For the R3, 90, and then for the high density residential, um 1030 dwelling units.

One public comment is also included with this packet.

The Visa Legree on Master Plan identifies 3.74 acres of HOA owned and maintained parks with a proposed additional 5.4 acres of parkland in the final phase of the master plan.

Two pocket parks are proposed within phases one through five in the R3 and R4 areas.

You'll see the more centrally located one, Park A, and then park B at the southern portion.

Let's see.

Sorry.

The proposed master plan established design guidelines for home development and aesthetics, which follow the design requirements as notated in the Northern and Rainbow SAP.

Staff recommends the board find that the applicant has been able to assemble a master plan boundary, which is 100% owned by the applicants.

While it is not as contiguous as staff would prefer, staff understands the challenges of assembling contiguous ownership.

Staff also finds that the proposed master plan has integrated circulation, parks and recreational amenities, and design standards in a way which is compatible with the SAP.

As presented, the proposed parks and recreational amenities exceed the minimum per city standard.

And with that, staff recommends the board recommend approval of both the master plan and the zone map amendment to the governing body.

And I will stand for questions.

Excellent.

Thanks, Tim.

All right.

Good evening, Mr.

Vice Chair and Commissioners.

Once again, my name is Jim Stroger, Principal with Consensus Planning, and here to represent both the master plan and the zone map amendment.

And I do have a presentation that looks like it's coming up.

What?

Is that there we go?

Awesome.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Oops.

Let's see.

Did I go?

I went too far.

All right, here we go.

See if we can keep this rolling in the right direction here.

All right.

So first of all, really appreciate the time and effort that staff has put into this with us.

And you know, this we've been working on this a while, and because we had to go back and really take a hard look and revisit the specific area plan, which we brought forward through this commission and the governing body uh not too long ago.

And so I think this master plan and the zone map amendment is part of the implementation for a portion of that specific area plan.

And so what's before you this evening is in conformance with that updated specific area plan.

Uh we've provided demonstration that it's in compliance with the comprehensive plans, goals, and policies.

It includes the zone map amendment to actually take it that next step from master plan towards uh reality, and this is both of these are necessary steps to implement new housing for this part of the city.

Um real quick, this is just the cover of the of the actual document and the land use table once again has a mix of um housing densities and zoning appropriate to that.

So we have R4 single family medium density, we have R3, slightly higher single family density, and then we have an area designated R6 that would allow uh multifamily uh in this area as well.

All three of those land uses and the densities were identified in the specific area plan.

And once again, this moves that forward.

When you look at the existing zoning, so um, as as Tim mentioned, some of this is is being rezoned from M1.

There's a portion of the of the area that's kind of in the center of that uh former specific area plan that was identified for a very large business park.

Um that master plan changed the designations of future land uses for that area, and it brings that into compliance.

As you can see, most of the area is vacant in the area.

This shows a little bit larger area than the master plan boundary itself, and you can see there's a there's one existing uh industrial use uh to the north of the master plan area.

That's where once again strategically we've identified the multifamily up in that portion of this master plan area.

And so this graphic, these two graphics basically show on the left that shows the zoning that's proposed.

Uh as Tim identified in his presentation, the combination of R6, R4, and R3.

Um the graphic on the right shows the layout and the master plan lots that help to achieve uh the densities for those various zone districts, and the multifamily would come along later, and that would be through a site plan for that area.

And the multifamily would come along later, and that would be through a site plan for that area.

One of the things that Tim mentioned was that you know in the in the old specific area plan, there were a lot of design standards that were embedded in that plan.

We took a lot of those design standards out of this specific area plan so that they could be incorporated in these smaller, more specific master plan.

So that's another element that this master plan actually brings forward for the project.

And then there are a couple of pocket parks, HOA parks that are identified within the within the project.

And these are just some quick sketches of some of the amenities associated with those parks.

You can see we've got uh in parque, we've got a children's playground, a little uh ninja training ground.

We got to get some more uh new Mexicans and and Rio Rancho ones on the Ninja Warrior show.

So this will be an opportunity to get them ready for that.

Um kids bike uh track, shade structure, picnic area, um, turf area, uh you know, place for cornhole, um just in general, just you know, really nice little amenity parks for the residents it within the master plan and do.

So with uh staff is has recommended approval of of both of these actions.

We're hopeful that this uh planning and zoning board recommends approval to the governing body um for both of these as well, and then uh we'll take this before the governing body for adoption resolution and ordinance, and then we hope to move forward with uh preliminary and final plat for the actual subdivisions and then construction of new homes.

So that's where we're headed.

That's we hope uh that you agree with ourselves and with staff that uh this is a good project and should be moved forward.

And with that, be happy to answer any questions at this time.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr.

Stroger.

Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against item number 11?

I I might hear somebody online wishing to speak for or against item number.

I'm sorry, yeah, 11.

I might have been mistaken.

I thought I heard someone, but I don't see the hand raised.

Yeah, Mr.

Vice Chair, I believe we had a resident who wanted to speak on these items.

Yeah.

Are you there?

I think you have it wrong.

I my name's Elaine Shimino.

Okay, ma'am, really quick.

Uh we're gonna put it on the I was gonna speak on item 12 and 13.

Okay, that's great, ma'am.

Uh let us put up the oath.

If you could read the oath.

She's clear than 13 the next second.

Yeah, well, we'll we'll have you.

So right now it's uh it's 11.

It's 11.

All right.

Then we're go past that then.

All right.

Uh I'd like to entertain a motion to approve item number 11 as presented.

Motion to approve item number 11.

Second.

And we have a motion and a second for item number 11.

Any comments or questions by the board on item number 11.

No.

Okay.

Hearing none, seeing none, please call the roll.

Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins, yes.

Commissioner Torchovici?

Yes.

Commissioner Kaufcher.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesty.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay, thanks so much.

Good luck with that.

And uh on to item 12.

I know Tim's already presented item 12, and I read item 11.

I'm not going to read 12.

That's really long.

So if I may just forego that and uh ask uh Tim if he's got any other comments.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chair.

No further comments, but I stand for questions.

Great, thank you.

And any further comments by the applicant for item 12.

Thank you, Mr.

Strozier.

Anyone in the audience or online wishing to speak against for or against item number 12.

Okay.

Yeah, I believe so too.

So I want to you're you're on mute, Elaine, if you're looking to speak.

Hello?

Yeah.

Can you hear me now?

We can hear you, yep.

And so it's we'll go we'll go ahead and put up the oath, and then you can uh have your comment for a few minutes.

Okay, on my name, uh I Lane Chimino, residing at 907 Nyasa Road, Southeast Rio Rancho, uh New Mexico 87124.

Do solemnly uh declare and affirm that the testimony I give in reference to this item uh is truthful, and I do so under the penalty of perjury.

Thanks so much.

You've got a few minutes.

I got three minutes for you.

Okay, well, um I first read this.

Uh I thought it was connected to item 13.

So I'm concerned when I see overlays because uh sometimes they're all inclusive of things, but um I do like the fact that uh this project is uh mixed use, and so um I'm going to tell you that I am for this project.

Thank you very much.

Great, really appreciate your comment.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the audience or online wishing to speak for or against item number 12?

Okay, hearing none.

Seeing none, I uh like to entertain a motion to approve item number twelve.

Motion to approve item number twelve.

Thank you.

Second, and we have a motion and a second on item number twelve.

Any comments or questions from the board.

All right, we are quiet.

Please call the roll.

Commissioner Dotrici.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabblin.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesty.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins?

Yes.

Commissioner Kaufcher.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Thank you.

Good luck with the project.

All right, item 13, zone map amendment.

The applicant, the city of Rio Rancho requests approval of a zone map amendment establishing a corridor overlay zone for enhanced setbacks to allow for protection of future right-of-way and access management along properties directly abutting rainbow boulevard within city limits.

The corridor overlay zone shall be established or shall establish enhanced setbacks of 28 feet to 68 or to 56 feet for proposed future right of way along subject properties.

Staff contact is Tim Dvorak, and staff recommends the planning and zoning board recommend approval of the zone map amendment to the governing body.

Tim.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chair, members of the board.

Tim Dvorak, planner with the city of Rio Rancho again.

This item before you is a zone map amendment request establishing the rainbow boulevard corridor overlay zone.

As you stated, it affects all properties directly abutting Rainbow Boulevard within city limits and shall establish enhanced hand setbacks of 28 feet to 56 feet for proposed future right-of-way along all subject properties.

Rainbow Boulevard currently exists as a minor arterial road.

However, the section of rainbow along Camino Crossing, that subdivision is uh 128 feet.

Um also something to consider um this overlay zone does not affect the underlying zoning of these properties, so um it does not all alter any of that underlying zoning or permissive uses that are already on properties.

Rainbow Bull excuse me.

Rainbow Boulevard is identified by the Mr.

Cog Futures 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan as a regional regional principal arterial road.

Um as such, the City of Rio Rancho Development Process Manual identifies a principal arterial road as requiring a width of 156 feet.

Um as such, that means we need 56 feet for future right-of-way when Rainbow Boulevard becomes a principal arterial.

That would involve either placing um an overlay of 28 feet on either side or 56 feet on one side of rainbow.

This depends on development conditions, um, development subdivisions, and then of course there are some Sandoval County parcels, which also directly abuts rainbow boulevard.

Those are not affected.

Um it's only properties within city limits.

Um we also created exhibits A through T, which illustrate all these separate portions of which portions would have 28 feet, which would have 56.

Another thing as well is that this proposed overlay does not facilitate the acquisition of land.

All land acquisition for future right-of-way will occur at the development stage when sections of rainbow are due to expand.

So the establishment of staff finds that the establishment of this corridor overlay for enhanced setbacks for the protection of right-of-way is common best practice for future right-of-way acquisition and widening.

The city does have a history of providing these corridor overlay zones.

It's been seen on Wellspring Avenue Southeast as well as West Side Boulevard Southeast.

Similar fashions establishing enhanced setbacks.

And it's necessary for the city to establish said right-of-way and access provisions to ensure that future development is not conflict with or inhibit future expansion of Rainbow Boulevard.

One last thing is that with public acquisition of right-of-way, if it does make property fall below the required acreage of zone of its zoning district, and makes the lot non-conforming.

If all other standards can be met, we would still allow that lot to develop.

Otherwise, if a property is rendered undevelopable, undevelopable, excuse me, uh, due to the right-of-way acquisition, the city would take steps to acquire that property, but of course, this again would happen at the actual project stage.

And the proposed overlay does not establish any further design standards aside from uh the setbacks and access management.

With that, um staff recommends the board recommend approval of the zone map amendment to the governing body, and I'll stand for any questions.

Great.

I guess we can consider applicant uh presentation all in one.

Thank you for that.

Um we'll move along to is there anyone in the audience either online or in chambers wishing to speak for or against item number 13, the zone map amendment.

Uh sir, this is Elaine Chemino.

I'm online.

Elaine I wish to work um speak against this project.

I was gonna say, Elaine, you've already read the oath, so go ahead and with your comments.

Okay.

Um I take that you have read my letter and comments and the packet.

And uh I just wish at this point uh that you would not have heard this this evening, and that you would have waited until um we uh had a NEPA in effect for uh Project Ranger and the segmentation and predetermination that is going on with the city, county, and state.

Um we are in the process here now that the record already shows the connected actions and approvals proceeding without NEPA review.

And any remedy now requires judicial intervention.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comment.

Go ahead.

Would you like me to take the oath?

You're you're you're up.

Okay.

Uh Jared Liker for 409 New Mexico Highway 528, Rio Rancho 87124.

Um I appreciate the early planning on this uh overlay project.

Understand completely the 28 and 56 foot right-away takes uh to get that principal arterial.

Uh just had a couple questions regarding shared access.

We we own several lots that are addressed off of rainbow and have questions on the shared access.

And if we are unable to get that shared access from an adjoining lot or private owner, um, what is the I guess appropriate due diligence to try and get that worked out prior to development of that?

Um the second part is I would encourage the city to do a access road behind those properties, similar to what they did for UNSER north of Northern.

They did the same thing on northern between UNSER and I'll say Broadmoor.

They put a road behind.

Um that would take obviously all the driveways off of Rainbow if they could acquire that.

We would be willing to open those discussions and see what we could do to get that property acquired, take the 28 feet, and then potentially an access road behind.

So I'd like to see if that's an open ability to do that, considering we obviously have Vista Allegria directly adjacent to Rainbow.

Um and it's kind of in our immediate future plans to kind of be in this area uh for a longer term time.

So a couple of those questions, uh shared access and then a potential right-of-way behind, as opposed to requiring shared access if you can't get a adjacent property owner to uh join with a shared access even.

Thank you.

Thanks for your comments.

Um yes, uh, this is Carla O'Nivas, and I was had a couple of questions regarding um the um zoning on this.

Um I live at 496 Medina Meadows, uh in North Northeast Rio Rancho, New Mexico, 87144.

I do solemnly swear, declare and affirm that the testimony I give in reference to item 13 shall be the truth, and I do this under the penalties of perjury.

All right, go ahead with your comments.

Um so, like I had said, the uh we live on um off of Medina Meadows, and um if you kind of reference um item uh M of the plot area.

Um there's right adjacent to where uh the um they're they're wanting to take the rainbow road and stuff.

We uh Meadows Boulevard will be connecting onto Rainbow Boulevard, I do believe at that point.

And my concern is if they've done any kind of research or anything regarding the traffic um that would be associated with going through um Meadows Boulevard, which is right directly behind my property.

Also, to I just was kind of curious as to um when they were like looking at possibly expanding and um uh rainbow boulevard and like how far in the future this would be uh affecting me as far as um okay.

Thanks for your comments, and we'll see if we can get those answered.

Oh I have submitted the form, correct.

Yeah, my name is uh Bill Haltham and addresses 570 Black Bear Road, Northeast Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Um my wife and I own two lots adjacent to Rainbow Boulevard, and uh the lots are located uh in Rio Rancho Estates, the town of Alameda Grant, and uh County Clerk of uh Sandoval County, and uh we own uh lots numbered uh 2728 block 69 unit eight.

These are located right on the edge of Rainbow Boulevard, which we're happy to see is now going to go through all the way to the south.

So that'll be a good idea.

Uh our lots were acquired uh 20 years ago.

So we've been waiting for 20 years to do something with these lots, and uh turned down numerous uh offers to buy them because we we like the area, but it looks like uh we have some problems to discuss.

And so what I'd like to do is uh two weeks ago I got a letter from Tim in his uh office uh just two weeks ago to uh tell me that there was uh this idea of a zone map amendment and a rainbow corridor overlap zone, and I hadn't heard about that at all in the last 20 years.

Yet they want me to make a decision or help them make a decision uh within two weeks.

That it means coming before your board, and then there's another board.

So uh thank you for having me tonight.

Appreciate it, and I appreciate the way you're construct your uh inquiries and construct your business.

So you guys are very professional and I appreciate that.

Okay, thanks for your comments.

Fortunately, I'm retired, so I don't have to worry about that anymore very much.

We have an open seat.

Oh, you do I think it's vacant tonight and may stay vacant if I if you ask me to kidding.

Thanks for your comment.

But anyway, uh the uh the letter that I received, the zone map amendments, the same one that you got um from uh Tim's office, uh, to allow for uh uh protection and uh future right of way access of manage of management without our consult consultation or uh permission.

We weren't consulted at all on this.

I'm here today uh mainly to uh ask you to um uh slow down.

No, the the residents who will be affected and people that own properties will be affected, uh need to know more about what the city's uh trying to do uh on let lots that's not included in the city or land is not in the city or land is in the county.

Yet the uh office uh wants to um have permission to um uh use our lots, and they don't need our permission, they want you to approve them using uh your permission in order to uh stake out uh even setbacks that's been talked about tonight without our approval of uh 28 to 56 feet when half of our lots are free uh um for as long as the uh city wants to do things like this, but any use will severely devalue our property, and if bought uh the city would uh be the only buyer for appraised value.

Which means they can deregulate the value or amend the value uh without us being part of it.

So we'd like to slow down, have face-to-face uh actually meetings.

I've never met Tim before.

I've never met uh Brian before.

They haven't reached out to me except to say come to this meeting and let the board know what you think.

So that's what I'm here for is to let you know what I think.

Um in addition, we found out that there was someone without permission at surveyed and staked our property.

I uh brought that to Tim's uh notice and ask him if his company did that.

You know, who staked this?

Who uh who put the flags up that says where our property is?

Sir, real quick, I hate to interrupt, but we'll have to uh uh get you to wrap up.

Okay, well I'll I'll wrap up then.

Uh but the problem is that uh uh they say they they never did that, and I still don't know.

I don't have time to find out who staked the property.

And also uh if we have setbacks of 28 to 56 feet, that's half the half of the size of our 120 foot property.

So that means we can't build anything on this property until uh maybe even years from now the uh city uh actually takes it over from the county.

And so I have no I have no way to uh miss or redirect this property.

So I only ask that you defer your decision, not make a decision tonight, but uh ask uh Tim and his gang to be with me and uh see if we can't figure out what's really going on.

Okay, thanks for your comment.

Is there anyone else online or in chambers that would like to speak for or against item number 13?

Yes, sir.

I would like to speak.

I hear I hear a lady online.

We're gonna put up the oath.

Please read the oath, and you'll have three minutes.

Thank you.

My name is Tiffany Casados, residing at 73 Chimaha Corrales, New Mexico, 87048.

Do sol me declare and affirm that the testimony I give in reference to item 13 um shall be the truth, and I do this under the penalties of perjury.

Hi thank you.

Go speak up as much as you can if you if you can get into the microphone.

I'm I'm really trying, I'm gonna I'm trying really hard to see go ahead.

Anyway, anyway, um uh vice chair and board.

I um my sister is she's online as well, but um right there.

And uh I'm we're not we're not really getting any of the content of your comment just because it's probably the microphone on your device.

Okay.

There you go.

Let me try this.

Welcome.

All right, go ahead.

Okay.

All right, I'm so sorry.

Um anyway, I was saying again, just like the previous gentleman just discussed.

We just received this letter two weeks ago, and I've been in uh my property um that I have is on block AA lot seven, lot eight, unit twenty-two right there at Rainbow and King.

And I've been waiting for the appropriate time to develop that property, and it's just to where I was getting ready to do something with it.

It received this letter.

And um I just it just kind of makes me very sad.

I mean, it's they're not huge properties as it is.

I mean, I have two thirds of an acre now, and I'm just wondering what if you took that 56 feet from my side, what would that do to my property?

I mean, I really it's something I really wanted to develop all these years, and I'm just getting to the point where I could develop it now.

I don't want it to be a non-conforming property, and I really would like to um meet with Tim and see more of the plans before you guys approve this big venture that you're you're looking at.

I don't want to lose the value I have in my property.

I don't like that other gentleman.

I've we've been approached for people buying this property for years and haven't allowed it.

And I would hate to take a lesser value from the city just because now they're wanting to expand the road or widen the road.

Um but thank you for your time.

I appreciate you listening to my comments.

Yeah, thank you for your comment.

Anyone else, either online or in chambers that would like to speak for or against item number 13.

Okay, hearing no more, I'd like to entertain a motion.

Hello?

Oh, whoa.

Yes, I'm so sorry.

I I tried, but my mic wasn't turning on.

That's fine.

We're gonna put up the oath, ma'am, and we'll have you read that, and then you'll have three minutes for comment.

Yes, sir.

I'm Melanie West, residing at 1441 Jordan Crossing, New Bronx, Texas, 78130.

Do solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony I give in reference to item 13 shall be the truth, and I do under uh do so under the penalty of perjury.

So uh my name, so my name is Melanie West.

I've been um lived in New Mexico for 30 40 years.

Um recently moved to Texas.

I have owned property in Rio Rancho before that was put under imminent domain and taken under the Cabazon development.

Um my concern is that the property that I do currently have also at Rainbow and King um, let's see, it is um block AA lot six, unit 22 has also been under my family since the 1960s.

I've been paying taxes on this property for almost 25 years now.

This is the very first uh letter that I too have also received regarding um this piece, and this property was going to be turned over to my daughter to put her first home on.

So I'm also extraordinarily concerned at the lack of notification that has been sent out to property owners that have been you know investing and and paying for this property for so very very many years, and our concern of course for the risk of it going under imminent domain and and being taken um from us because it doesn't conform anymore.

So I I would like to consider um putting this on the back burner until residents are able to be more um clearly understood about what the plan is and what this does to our um intent and property value um moving forward okay, Melanie, thank you for your comment.

Thank you.

Right.

I think I'm gonna just go straight to online.

Anyone else online willing to want to speak for or against item number 13 like to entertain a motion to approve item 13 as presented motion to approve item number 13 we have a second second, okay with motion and a second lots said any comments, questions from the board.

Um I think one I'm one of my questions is kind of I know uh we had some legal commentary made in comments, and I just want to know if city staff and city attorneys have had the opportunity to review those and if there's any response or commentary to provide in that regard.

Um so Mr.

Vice Chair, uh, Commissioner Hardesty, if I can, um I can I can go ahead and try to address a lot of the comments that came out um in the public comment.

I'm gonna start if it's okay um at the start uh with Mr.

Liker's comments and then just kind of uh move through.

Um and so one of the things that uh the city has done in the past and um that we're proposing with this um overlay as well is trying to ensure that we have the proper right-of-way as we move forward as the city grows.

So um one of the things that we hear about a lot of times is why when um Broadmore was just repaved on the south side of high resort, why didn't it turn into four lanes?

We we're we're constrained, right?

There is only so much property um that we have available for right-of-way to be able to move forward.

And so some of the other projects that we've had, um, idealia um is one of the ones I think that Mr.

Liker was also trying to reference that we actually as a city when we purchased uh right-of-way, we did create um a back access road to limit those access points.

Um the city is currently in the process of um looking at uh rainbow boulevard south of Southern.

Um, so between Southern and um the city of Albuquerque connecting to Irving, so they're in a corridor study right now.

Those corridor studies um go further in depth than what we're proposing with this overlay.

So those go further into the how are we going to specifically build the road, um, what are the were the turns gonna be, um, and it goes uh a lot more into detail.

When it comes to the actual purchase of right-away for another project that we're looking at, so Unser Boulevard between Farrell and Um and here at King, that section of right-away that or PDB actually, excuse me, that section of right-of-way, it took the city and is still taking the city um over a decade uh to acquire the right-of-way.

So we're in and in no way moving forward tomorrow with acquiring right-of-way.

It's not on the ICIP to move forward.

Um, this is not going to happen immediately.

Um, right there, just right because I know you got a lot to go.

What is the time frame?

Is is it is it 10 years?

Is it 20 years?

Is it five years?

Uh we're so each portion, each section of road is going to have a different time frame.

Um, but realistically, it's probably gonna be somewhere in that 15 to 30 years before there's any large movements with it.

Thanks for that.

Um, and so the section South Southern is probably gonna move a little bit faster if we're able to to make some of those um that corridor um overlay um or I'm sorry, excuse me, the corridor study as it moves forward, but that is still probably five to ten years out, and that's probably the fastest project um as it moves forward.

Um, any of the property that is in the county uh would not be subject to this overlay zone.

Um so we do notify any of the property owners because that is our requirements for zone map amendments, uh but anything that is not within the boundaries of the city is not um under our jurisdiction, and we can't put them in an overlay.

So they are not part of this.

In theory, the gentleman who's got the the land that's not in the city limits was correct in his assumption that he's there doesn't really affect him yet.

Correct, and it is just something that we have no we have no oversight on that.

We also don't look at those building permits or or access to that property, and so that is something that um uh is not subject to this overlay but is subject to our notification process.

Thank you for that.

Um as you've gone through with like Mr.

Liker's uh uh issues and and comments, did that address the possibility of discussing a right-of-way, you know, behind access road?

Right.

So each section, each phase of the road is gonna be handled a little bit differently depending on the constraints in the property, and so there may be properties where it will be beneficial for the city to look at a separate access road.

Um, and so as the city goes into those further corridor studies, they will evaluate where those are gonna be best suited and work on um moving from setbacks in the front to um looking at right-of-way in the rear of the property.

Yeah, and so they they um will look into those depending on how the lots line up because not every area um is gonna be suitable for those um second access roads.

Uh and so it's just gonna depend as we move forward with these different areas.

Um we also wanted to make sure that we had this overlay in place because um, as you've seen tonight, and as you'll see in um future agendas, there are a lot of subdivisions coming in that are gonna be close to rainbow.

And so we want to make sure that as they move forward with their development that as they move into the phases for preliminary plats and other things and move into their traffic studies, that we have identified this roadway and what we expect the build out to be for future build so that they're able to correctly identify any of their access points and take those into consideration as they move forward with their design.

And so again, we're not looking to start anything in the near future.

This is uh long-term long range planning for transportation.

That was perfect.

Thank you for that.

Um if I may, I'll I'll start the questions.

Um just to just to continue on from the public comment on the subject of public comment.

Is this is it is it appropriate for there to be any public comment period longer than the amount of time that the letters were in hand?

I don't know if that was two weeks or four weeks or six weeks.

It seems like it might have been shorter than longer.

When when was that mailed out and and how long should public beyond these folks that spoke tonight be able to really consider this?

Or is it even important because it's gonna be 15 to 30 years out?

So um, Mr.

Vice Chair, so um we followed our standard notification process for any type of overlays and zone map amendments.

So we have over the past uh number of years done multiple overlays and had the same notification process.

Um, and so our notifications um by state statute are required to go out 15 days prior to the meeting.

Um there is also a requirement for a legal ad and then um signage on the property before the planning and zoning board meeting.

I understand for those that made the comments.

I I don't know any more about that than you did on that particular piece.

I just you know I don't I don't always know exactly the time frame, so I asked the question almost for me as well.

Um that's all I've got.

Anyone other questions from the board?

No, I think I'm just gonna go back to my initial question, which was one of the commenters had um several legal assertions in their commentary, and I just want to make sure city staff and attorneys have had their opportunity to review that so uh Mr.

Vice Chair and then uh Commissioner Hardesty.

So our legal department does um before governing body look at our ABM and look at the public comments and review any of those items.

Thank you.

I guess um one question about the I guess with the city when they go to um I guess they'll have to contact each uh property owner individually, right, to negotiate um purchase of that said right away for the from their property.

Okay, Mr.

Vice Chair Commissioner Kaufter, that's correct.

Um, and so um it is a generally uh prolonged process.

Um so again, that um uh a small section of UNSER has taken over a decade um to work through acquisition of right of way.

So um it is it is not a quick process, it's um it takes uh many years.

Right, so I guess I'm I'm struggling a little bit with the urgency to get this done.

Why are we trying to get this done so early on uh so um commissioner uh vice chair Galbadone, Commissioner uh Torterici?

Uh so this has been on our list uh for multiple years.

Um it has just we have had a chance now to as staff um there has been a teeny bit of a slowdown.

Um and so we have had staff capacity now that the DPM has been approved and we don't have anything else to be able to do some other uh long range planning and some other items.

Um we have uh multiple subdivisions and master plans in the area that are touching rainbow, um, and we've had um also a couple come in uh like rainbow canyon and some other ones in the last uh five or six years, and so um it is something that um is on the forefront of our mind along with the uh public works is doing the corridor study south on rainbow south of Southern.

So there is multiple moving pieces throughout the city touching touching rainbow, um, and it makes it a good time to uh look at this item as uh an overlay and to move it forward.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, sir, we're out of public comment now.

And I think someone online was trying to chime in.

I just I'm so sorry, we're not gonna open it back up that way.

Amy, thank you for your summaries that perfectly addressed you know the comments that were made around the room and online and it helped us understand more.

Any other comments on the board?

All right, please call the roll.

Commissioner Kaufter.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesy, yes, Commissioner Hankins, yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Weeche.

No.

Get my bearings here.

All right.

Any uh any discussion deliberation items tonight?

I don't think we have any additional comments by board members.

No, thank you very much.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Any second?

Thank you.