Good evening. I'd like to call to order
the planning and zoning commission
meeting.
Are does any member of the commission or
any member of the city staff have any
known conflict or interest with any item
on the agenda?
I do.
uh case number
the first one was 7.1 which is the case
that one
perfect thank you so much
um is there a quorum
fantastic
uh I am commissioner Crystal McCastlin
uh the chair
is there any member of the public
Oh, that's next on my agenda. Yeah,
that would like to discuss anything that
is not on the agenda this evening.
Perfect. Can you approach the podium,
please?
Thank you for accommodating me. Um,
thank you, Madam Chair. uh Gregory
Shervanic
for the public and uh I would like to
bring to your attention some resources
that you may not know about which is the
GIS mapping department of the city. Uh I
use it regularly and in December a case
came before some of you in this body.
Uh, and
I think had you had the details of that
looking at the parcel map which then
gives you a identification number to an
address
because the city owns property. It has
no address and that can be verified by
the Doniana County Assessor's Office
which that parcel number will give you a
residential number which will then give
you access to Eagle and the history of
the property. And I bring this up
because I've heard this body ask for
more information and I understand why
the city doesn't wish to give you as
much as you would desire. However, the
information is out there. The city
offers it. It even has instruments as a
slide rule. And the reason I mention
that is because, madame chair, I would
like to at least ha acknowledge publicly
right now that I would like to have the
public speak after 7.2 makes its
presentation.
Thank you very much.
Hi, thank you um for giving me this
opportunity to to uh speak to you. Um my
issue is in regard to 7.2.
Can you please state your name?
Oh, I'm sorry. Uh Daniel Burch.
Oh, Mr. Burch, I'm sorry. You can't
speak on any items on the agenda. This
is only non-aggenda items right now.
Yeah, I'm not going to. This is not part
of the agenda, but it's some somewhat
related to what is on the agenda. That's
what I was prefacing.
Okay. So, um, my concern is every
morning, uh, between 7:30 and 9:00 on
Sonoma Boulevard,
um, there is, uh, just immense traffic
and as we are putting in more and more
houses in the um, Metro Verde area, uh,
that's becoming just kind of a a big
log, a big traffic jam. And so I don't
know exactly how um what the process is
of introducing something like that uh to
this body. Um but I was and it may have
been something that has been discussed
in previous uh council meetings. Um, but
I really wanted to bring that up as an
issue that uh a lot of people in my
neighborhood have because you sit there
in traffic and it's just there's a stop
sign, there's a light down on Baton and
there's that's the only way in, the only
way out of my neighborhood. And they
continue continuing to put in houses all
the way up to uh the golf course to
Blackhawk or Red Hawk. And um and so I
was just wanted to bring that up as an
item.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
All right. Um can I get an acceptance
for the agenda?
Madam Chair,
Madame Chair,
I make a motion.
I make a motion to accept the agenda as
presented. Thank you, Commissioner
Costa.
Is there a second?
Can I get a sec? I'll get a second.
Thirst.
Thank you.
All right. This is on the motion to
accept the agenda. Commissioner Smith,
yes.
Commissioner Kaiser,
yes.
Commissioner Thirstston,
yes.
Vice Chair,
yes.
And chair?
Yes.
Thank you.
All right. Uh, there's no consent agenda
today.
New business.
Thank you, Commissioner Thirstson. We'll
see you in the in the end.
Commission Sarah Gonzalez with Community
Development. Before you is the proposed
preliminary plat for summer estates.
Sorry, Sarah, hang on just a second. Do
I have a motion to hear item 7.1?
Madam Chair, I'll make the motion to
proceed.
Second.
Thank you.
Okay, we'll go around. Sorry.
No worries. Once again, this is for the
proposed preliminary plat known as
Summer Estates. The scope of the
discussion tonight will be to review the
summer estates's preliminary plat. This
is not a zone change. The purview of the
PNZ is to focus on the subdivision
compliance, the lot layout frontage,
access the rightaway dedication, utility
extension and connectivity.
Currently on the property, it is located
south of Ingler Road and Thurman Road,
east and west side of Sailor's Pass and
Long View Lane. Property encompasses
33.023 023 acres in size and is
currently two tracks. One of them, the
larger portion is vacant. The other
track does have a residence located on
it. The property is zoned NH1 suburban,
NH3 suburban. The portion of it
is/zoning. The second portion is just
NH1 suburban. This is going to be your
neighborhood and then your small office
and commercial uses.
Here's a zoning map of the subject
property. As you can see, there is a
small portion along Ingler and Thurman
Road that are essentially the NH3. The
remaining portions that are highlighted
in blue is where you're going to see the
NH1s.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide
the two existing tracks into 29
residential lots. These lots will range
in size from88 acres to 2.749 acres. The
minimum lot frontage is going to be at
least 40 ft meeting this the basically
the zoning code. Water and gas will be
extended for the subdivision as well as
through Long View Lane. There is no
sewer as there is the slopes don't meet
for sewer to be extended. So there will
be septic on these lots. Um that is the
requirement as far as why the large lots
have to be the size they are. Per NMED
standards, you have to have a minimum of
75 acres in order to put septic onto a
property. There is dedication of Angler
and Thurman Road which is 60 feet as
this is an arterial roadway and then
there's dedication of Sor's Pass in Long
View Lane which is 42 and a half ft
following the existing collector roadway
that was basically a gap within this
area.
So at this point on Summer Street the
applicant um did go through the DRC
process. They are proposing and did get
approved for alternate crosssections.
The 40 foot wide cross-section for
Summer Street is going to connect to
Sero Court and I'll show you that on the
aerial map of basically how they're
going to connect and align with one
another. Um it will include pavement,
sidewalk, curb, gutter, lighting, and
parking on one side. That's going to be
an improvement from the original
subdivision on Carson Ranch where we do
see 4 foot wide parkways that are dirt.
We're now going to see sidewalks so it
can actually enhance that roadway and
connectivity on Ingler and Thurman Road
and Settler's Pass Long View Lane. The
improvements are proposed to be
reallocated or relocated. Um they are
willing to install the west side of
Settler's Pass and Long View Lane for 42
1/2 ft wide which would include
pavement, sidewalk, curb, gutter, bike
lane, and lighting. The reason for that
is to actually make the connectivity
from the gap we see. So to further
describe this, here's an aerial map. The
property is highlighted in blue which is
going through the preliminary plat
process. The areas in green is where the
applicant is required to provide the
required dedication. At this point, they
have dedicated the 60 ft along Angler
and Thurman. They have dedicated the 42
1/2 ft if the subdivision were to go
through. However, because there is a gap
of a dirt road, the applicant is
proposing to take the highlighted green
area and redevelop essentially or finish
that gap in yellow that is also 42 1/2
ft wide. The dedication for two of the
parcels had already been provided. So,
these two parcels were dedicated when
they were part of the county before it
was annexed in. City Council approved
the purchase of the final lot here on
May 4th for that dedication knowing that
the expansion of this road or the
extension of this road is very important
especially for the Sonoma Ranch area
being very traffic indulging
dedication as well. So this will provide
all dedication needed to at least do
half of the road. The other side on the
east side we do not have dedication at
this point in time. The city does not
control it is still private property
until at the time it is developed.
Here's the proposed preliminary plat. As
you can see on the northern lot, these
areas are going to basically create 28
lots out of the 29. They are at least8
acres in size or larger,
meeting the septic requirements. Here is
the required dedication and the required
dedication. This would be the extension
of essentially Summer Street, which
would then connect over to Sero Court.
So, you're seeing basically a mirror of
a lot of the subdivision itself. Here is
the other portion that is located which
is block B that is separate which is
providing the dedication but is a larger
lot. That's going to be your 2.749 acres
in size.
So at this point DRC did review the
subdivision from infrastructure
utilities and an improvement standpoint.
On May 6th they did approve the
alternate cross-section for Summer
Street knowing that it does align with
Sarah Court. They approved the alternate
cross-section for Southernther's Pass
and Long View Lane knowing that it is
going to provide that connecting point
that's already existing there. Um they
also did approve the payment in lie of
for parkland dedication as the size of
the park is only.19 that would be
proposed here which would not meet the
3acre minimum and so they'd be paying
the fee in L for parks um recommendation
and then recommended approval of the
actual plenary plat in its layout.
So with that staff's findings for
approval along with DRC is it does
comply with the standards within the
city of Lasusa subdivision code. Part of
the subdivision code outlined that you
just have to meet the minimum frontage
and your densities. Based on the
property, they would be allowed to have
16 dwelling units per acre. They're at
1.2 because of the large lot requirement
based on septic. It also has a minimum
requirement of the 40 foot frontage. And
so that is being met with each lot. Most
of them are about 100 ft wide.
You also have um the lot widths. That's
where I was explaining they do comply
with the 40 feet subdivision. Also
allows for large lot developments and
alternative housing. We do see a lot of
density going in, but there has been
requests for larger lots within the
community. Lastly, it will be the
extension that provides an alternative
route. Um we do see and understand that
there is concerns with Sonoma Ranch and
the amount of traffic that is going
through there from the Metro Vet
development. This will also create an
alternative path. Um we are currently
seeing that long um Las Kolinas is being
utilized. However, it is not an extended
road. It is going through private
property and so that is going to be
something that's fenced in that people
are also using that is not a dedicated
road. And so this will help eliminate
some of that traffic going through
private property, put it onto a road
that's going to be a complete paved
road.
Notice was sent to all the departments
all support of the permanent plat um and
the proposed alternate cross-sections
and connectivity. We did receive two
phone calls that supported the
connection knowing that it is needed
within the area. Um we did receive a
late email that is presented to you to
everybody in the council um our
commission up on the dasis. It came in
around 3:45 this afternoon. There were
some concerns related to the traffic,
the drainage and then the natural
habitat that's there. To address the
traffic, a lot of that traffic is going
to not necessarily be created by the
additional lots, but you're going to see
that traffic is generated as multiple
people find alternative routes. And so
that road is already being utilized at
this point. From a drainage standpoint,
um, as part of the drainage report that
the developer is required to provide and
the engineer goes through, they're
ensuring that there's onlot ponding for
any development that does come in, as
well as any historic flows are always
allowed to remain. And so you cannot
create any more area that you'd actually
have to pond. And so that's going to be
taken care of within each development.
With that, here's the commission's
options. I stand for any questions and
the applicant is here as well if you
have any for them.
Thank you so much. Does the applicant
have anything they'd like to include?
Hello. Can you please state your name?
Good evening. My name is Zach Libbon
with Libon Underwood Engineering and
Serve Inc.
Thank you, Mr. Libbon. Do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you're about
to give is the truth and nothing but the
truth under the penalty of law? I do.
Thank you.
Thank you. I don't have a lot to add uh
to Miss Gonzalez's presentation. I
appreciate her thorough presentation. Um
as noted,
uh Summer Estates is a 28 lot
subdivision
um intended to suit the surrounding area
with large lot sub lot larger lots um
and not not higher density. Um as noted,
I'm going to flip slides.
As noted, the developer is choosing to
vol or voluntarily
uh choosing to uh develop the yellow
portion of Long View Lane or Settler's
Pass there instead of the the two green
portions to improve connectivity,
vehicular, pedestrian access um and
safety there. as that yellow portion is
an undeveloped uh road.
Um maybe it's not even a road. Um barely
counts as a road, but uh the developer
is choosing to improve that. Uh there
will be paved road connecting from the
existing paved road to the south all the
way up to Ingler. Following this um
the developer and his and their team
have worked with staff to achieve this
in a in a straight manner um in a
straight path rather than deviating or
it's taken some work to to achieve a
road that's going to
do well here that'll it'll improve that
connection there for everybody and as
noted um at least for this development
take some pressure off Sonoma Ranch and
the the other paths in the area. Um
the that road there again is going
straight. It'll be two lanes. It'll be
compatible with the existing roadways
going north and south. The developer
still going to dedicate the green
portions.
Um this lot here to the left side to the
west side of Long View is included just
for that purpose of the dedication of
that rideway. so that there's not going
to be any additional lots over there
other than dedicating that rideway so
this road can go straight. And as Miss
Gonzalez noted, the southernmost lot
worked with worked with staff to achieve
uh dedication of that and the city
council approved.
Um
again, all all of these roads are going
to be developed with
u
uh sidewalks and street lights. And the
long view portion will have a a bike
lane, a six-foot sidewalk, and should
improve ped pedestrian connectivity
uh through that area there.
Um,
with that we uh stand ready for any
questions as well.
Thank you, Mr. Leven.
Thank you.
Is there any public comments on this?
All right, let's start on my left. So,
if you'd like to come forward,
good evening. My name is G. Bruce Brown.
I'm the one that owns the lot there.
Thank you, Mr. Brown. Do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you're about
to give is the truth and nothing but the
truth under the penalty of law?
I do.
Thank you.
So, uh, we have some questions. the
group of us. Um, since I now know that
I'm not going to be part of summer
estates, that's a good thing. Um, one of
the question is, and this is really for
the staffers, I guess questions. I
didn't realize I could submit questions,
so I'm going to sling them out now. Are
there standards for driveways to this
major arterial
that are they going to be able to cut
driveways for all of us residents?
Sorry, Mr. Brown, you have to ask ask
all your questions. You have two and a
half minutes remaining.
Very good. I'll get going. Um, what's
going to happen to the existing dirt
road? Right now, it's, you know, taking
all the traffic and those of us,
especially on the east side, are very
concerned that there's a lot of
four-wheeler sidebyside traffic that
comes on that road. We're afraid they're
going to come over to our side. So, I
just like to know if there's some
contingencies for that. Um, one of the
things is there's barricades on either
end. Can we have the barricades, uh,
it's like end of road. Can we have those
moved over to the dirt to help us out?
Um, another question is,
um, from we have 42 1/2 ft from our
property line to the new blacktop. Are
we responsible for that 42 1/2 ft for
the next however many years it gets
until it gets uh, paved? So then another
one would be, can we protect our
driveway from the four-wheelers and
other people getting off the blacktop?
That's one of the questions. Um,
and then the other one is what Ku uh
brought up is when people from the Red
Hawk and Sonoma Ranch world hear that
there's another, you know, a new way to
get to 70. We're very aware of the high
traffic pattern that's going to be
considering the Desert View that's going
on. There's 500 houses there. They're
going to be going that same way. And I'm
just hoping there's some contingencies
and some traffic patterns that are being
thought of. Is there a way to slow
people down? They're already going 35,
40 miles an hour on the dirt road, let
alone if this is a major arterial and
it, you know, we're very worried about
us coming out into traffic.
And I think that's about it.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else? Sure.
Come on down.
My name is George Pearson.
Hi, Mr. Pearson. Do you swear or affirm
that the testimony you're about to give
is the truth and nothing but the truth
under the penalty of law?
Yes, I do.
Okay. Thank you.
Okay. My concern is with the
cross-section for Long View. It's
showing a bike lane, but only in one
direction. Uh the history of these uh
one-sided roads is it might be another
20 years before they build the other
side of the road. So we we're building
an unsafe facility for bicyclists for
half of the travel. If somebody's using
their bicycle, maybe they've got a bike
lane, maybe going to work but going
home, they're u sharing an 11 foot lane
with traffic that is also probably being
distracted. So the um bicycle facilities
for both sides are needed. I saw in the
crosssection where there is a 5-ft
rideway still available. So there's an
opportunity to maybe put a multi-use
trail or a paved asphalt in that space
which would uh make it safer for
bicyclists. And um
we need to build roads. We need to be
building 21st century roads where we're
building roads that are safe for all
users, not just for vehicles. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Pearson.
Sure. Come on down.
Uh good afternoon, good evening. I guess
my name is William Gilman. This is my
daughter, Genevieve. I just had a couple
questions.
Hold on, Mr. Gilman. Do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you're about
to give is the truth and nothing but the
truth under the penalty of law?
I do. Yes.
Thank you.
I just had some questions. Um uh as far
as the development is concerned, is
there a plan for the developers to
implement any green space in the place?
I understand there's a splash pad up
there, but that's still pretty far away
from a lot of these homes that are going
in in the nearby homes. Uh and then
secondly, echoing some of the concerns
about bike and pedestrian safety. uh you
know making sure we have that in both
directions, but also are there plans to
make this huge road, you know, safer for
bikes with ballards or anything like
that? Uh and who is going to be paying
the expense for that? And then also, um
there was one other thing, walkability.
You know, it's great that we have those
huge sidewalks, but we always tend to
put them right next to the road where
people are going 35 miles an hour or
generally more, such as on Roadrunner.
like it would be nice if people and our
children were not 6 in away from traffic
that's going way too fast. Uh so can we
put in some trees along that have like
the sidewalk shifted over a little bit
with some trees to both provide shade
and protection and even if we need to
make the sidewalk a little smaller. I
think that is a very fair trade-off.
Those are my questions. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Common.
And I have a minute and a half left so
I'm going to
I want to talk.
Yeah. What do you got?
Miss Jennif
Okay, that's my comments. Thank you.
Is there anyone else?
Good job.
All right,
Madame Chair, Sarah Gonzalez, for the
record. um to address some of the
questions. I will answer what I can and
then defer to public works as well as um
parks and recreation department. As far
as the 42 1/2 ft wide dedication, that
is the requirement per code to provide
for a collector rideway. And so
unfortunately because the property is
located on one side, what would have
happened with the applicant's dedication
is if the screen area were to be
improved, that's all they would have had
to create was the other 42 and 1/2 ft.
That's where you would tend to see that
the full improvements for that rideway
would have only been within this area.
It would have left the essentially the
yellow line with no sidewalks, no
connecting bike lane, only the dirt p
like dirt path between Carson Ranch and
a royos at subdivision or a royos at
sellers path phase 2. And so the
dedication comes when a property owner
develops their land. City does not own
the land on the east side of this yellow
line to make improvements for the other
42 and 1/2 ft of that collector rideway.
that is owned by private property owners
until that is dedicated, developed and
then the city would accept those
improvements. At this point in time, the
city does not own it and has not
received dedication or improvements.
That's why it's only generally on one
side of the road. The way our code is
written is a developer is to provide the
local rightaways within their
development and to the full extent.
Collectors and arterials are half of
their requirement. And so you will see
half cross-sections coming in as
developers build out these properties.
um to go and defer to the green space.
Um as mentioned, the payment in lie of
was the recommended or recommendation by
the parks department knowing that the
acreage required for the park was going
to be 0.19 acres. And so that would not
be feasible for the parks department to
accept and maintain and which that's why
you're seeing a payment in lie of as
opposed to the open space. Being these
are large lot areas, you will see that a
lot of people will be utilizing probably
their properties for some of the
recreational areas. Um or you'll be
walking down to the park that's located
within a royal phase 2.
The other area um I will defer to public
works as far as driveways and the
barricades as we will have access
easements that are located on the east
side. It's not improved, but it is a
dedicated access easement through deeds.
And so I don't know if those barricades
can be moved over while we just continue
to use the one side of payment, but I'll
defer to public works
for the record. Kyle Ar with uh public
works interim director. Um
the driveways can all continue uh if you
have an existing driveway, you can
continue to have an existing driveway.
If you develop the property, then then
those terms can be uh negotiated upon.
As far as um the roadway, the applicant
worked with community development and
public works to come up with this
alternative to promote connectivity so
that we have another route to get to
those uh areas out there besides Snowom
Ranch and public works is in support of
that.
The developer is only responsible for
half the roadway and half of the roadway
is what we're getting, but it does
provide the full connection. The other
half of the roadway is not the
developer's responsibility. Those
improvements would have to come through
future development or through the city's
capital improvement plan.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, staff.
All right, commissioner. So, I have a
motion on this item.
I have questions. Can I ask?
I'll take discussion once we have a
motion that's approved.
Didn't we already make a motion?
Oh, we do. Good. Great. We're great.
Commissioner Kaiser,
thank you. Um, so a couple questions um
that kind of echoes uh what we heard
from public comments. One is uh the
pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure
here. Um I I want to applaud the
applicant for um working with the city
to uh extend uh a you know a developed
roadway of sorts uh outside of what
they're legally obligated to provide. So
I appreciate that. Um but my concerns
are around what we heard um from a
couple folks um and that there's a bike
lane going in one direction only. Um,
I'd like to know whether or not there's
any possibility to have some interim
cross-section that provides for two-way
travel for cyclists and pedestrians for
that matter while we wait for the other
uh parcels uh to acquire the rightway
needed to have a fully developed road
because as we know it could be it could
be 20 plus years before that happens.
could never happen. And so I'm concerned
that we're basically building an unsafe
infrastructure from the beginning. Um so
I'd like to know uh from staff if
there's any possibility to open that
conversation back to find a way to have
two-way um infrastructure for all road
users.
Madame Chair and Commissioner Kaiser, as
this has gone through DRC and they are
the final body for the cross-sections or
alternative cross-sections, that
discussion has been had and been
approved. There was no appeal to those
cases. The appeal process is within a 15
day of the DRC approval, very similar to
that of PNZ when a decision is made. And
so I think at this point staff would
take those considerations under review
and then see if there is an alternative
maybe through the capital improvement
program or not. The unfortunate part is
because we do not have that dedication,
it's reallocating what those numbers
would be. However, those cross-sections
have already been approved.
During DRC, was there any was there any
discussion about, hey, we we only have
sidewalk and bike lane going in one
direction?
Madame Chair and Commissioner Kaiser,
the discussion for DRC was that we
wanted an increased sidewalk. Actually
it was at that time 5 feet and so we
asked to increase that actual sidewalk
so that way it is 7 feet whenever you
look at or six feet so that way you have
um ADA compliance whenever you're going
around a light pole. The second thing
was to increase the bike lane. It was
originally four feet it went up to 5T.
Um the reason why there is a median on
the other side of the roadway right
after you have the two travel lanes you
have a median so that way there is
expected turn movements. And so that
will still be happening for any of the
property owners that live within that
area because they will be turning on
from their property to that turn lane.
Sure. And so the five the five feet
that's on I guess the northbound side
that space exists.
The five foot area is going to exist in
the cross-section. It is labeled as a
median. That was what it was approved as
only because you will still have turning
movements for property owners to access
their property on the east side. So you
cannot put a full connection necessarily
if the median is where they're going to
be turning from because you'll have
access from driveways to their basically
their access easements.
So that five that five foot on the right
hand side of the crosssection for Long
View Lane
is reserved exclusively for turning
vehicles.
Mr. Mr. Chair or Madame Chair and
Commissioner Kaiser, that is correct.
Yes, as these cross-sections have been
approved.
Uh that's very disappointing to hear. Um
once again, we we don't question whether
or not there's going to be two vehicle
lanes traveling in either direction. We
never question that. But when it comes
to pedestrian and cyclist
infrastructure,
you can get half, but then good luck
coming home.
Um, I'd like to find a way to have an
interim bike facility in that five feet
to accommodate cyclists who may be
coming northbound on Long View Lane. Um,
Madame Chair and then Commissioner
Kaiser, I think that's something we have
to look at for the entire cross-section
area because if you do notice, it goes
all the way from Angler up and through
Aoyos. There's only half of the road
actually improved. So, it's further than
what the developer is required to do at
this point in time. only half of this
roadway has ever been improved for the
developments that have come in. And so
that's consideration, which is where I
say this may be an alternative
cross-section that something city
council or staff needs to review and see
if there is an alternative, knowing that
it's not going to just be this yellow
area that the developer is putting in.
If you look at Carson Ranch, it is only
developed at 42 and 1/2 ft as well. It
does not have it. So this is where the
applicant proposed essentially the same
cross-section that has been approved
with Carson Ranch and Royos at Sellers
Pass by making that connection and so
they're aligning. However, we did
request that they widen those sidewalks
in that bike lane. And so those are
going to be the two differences knowing
that we were still constrained but that
they connect fully to sellers pass on
the south side. But there's a lot larger
area that's not just 1500 feet that
actually has the missing bike lanes or
the missing sidewalks on the east side
of the properties to consider.
So I I had a very difficult time
tracking what you were describing. If
you could pull up a map that would
I would say right here. So if you look
at this area here only the west side is
improved.
Sure.
So on this side there's no connectivity
for a bike lane. There's no connectivity
to a sidewalk. So, in reconsidering this
cross-section here as well, there's no
connectivity to the north or to the
south for either one of those
improvements. That's why staff when they
reviewed it from DRC standpoint was that
we were seeing the connectivity as a
straight shot of the sidewalk, the
pavement, and the actual bike lanes
being improved. The west side is not or
the east side is not improved at all on
the north or on the south side. But that
green section, they would be developing,
the applicant is developing the other
half.
No, they're not. They're taking those
improvements and putting it into the
yellow. So once again, we're only seeing
42 1/2 ft here being developed.
This half over here, the improvements
that they're required to put in. So
instead of getting essentially 85 ft in
this green area, these improvements are
being reallocated for the yellow.
Okay. The green is a total of like 1300
linear feet. We're looking at about 1500
feet for the applicant. So they're
extending more than what the requirement
is just to get that connection.
Okay.
So that's where I think C, you know, DRC
considered those improvements, but
understanding there was no connectivity
to the north or the south side.
Yeah, I'm tracking. But I guess my my
underlying problem is we only gave half
of the connectivity for everyone except
for vehicles.
It's kind of problematic. Um along those
lines, uh what is what is the applicant
or the city rather requiring for the
intersections of I think that is I had
it written down here. Sarah Court and
Summer Street across um
Long View and then Ingler. Is there
going to be any sort of traffic calming
or I mean you presumably are going to
have
point of order. Commissioner Kaiser,
that's not part of this discussion,
unfortunately.
I don't understand.
It's not part of this development.
That's in question.
Connecting the intersection. They're
building the road on the other side.
Does it connect, Sarah?
Madame Chair, Commissioner Kaiser, the
connection is going to be going across
to the paved area. Yes.
Yes.
It's going to connect through this area
and then go to the north side. So yes,
they would have to connect in order to
get to that paved section,
right? And then the same thing on the
north across Engler, right?
You're basically have a T intersection,
Madam Chair and then Commissioner,
correct? You're going to have to have
TE's to get actually to those
rightaways. Yes.
So So how are we addressing potential
pedestrian crossings at those
intersections? I It's a residential
neighborhood. You're going to have
residents who want to get to either
side, whether you're coming out with
bicycle. Uh, is there going to be any
kind of traffic calming measures at
those intersections to facilitate that?
Madame Chair, Commissioner Kaiser, I
will defer to public works as to what
are improvements would be required to
mitigate.
Again, Kyle Arn public works. Um, at
this point, it'd be preliminary to to
determine that. Right now, uh, we're
looking at the al alternative
cross-section, which is to provide the
connectivity, but we haven't seen the
actual details of what pedestrian
improvements might be coming across Long
View, but they will be expected to meet
ADA and ProWag.
Sorry, C, could you speak a little
closer to the mic? I couldn't catch the
last part. You said there may be they
would be expected to uh meet ADA and
PROWAG requirements for pedestrian
crossings.
Okay. So, specifically,
is that a is that a stop sign? I mean,
how how would pedestrians be able to
cross
at those locations safely?
Is the question, will there be a
crosswalk
or any kind of traffic calming in
addition to a crosswalk?
No, I don't believe that there's any
traffic coming or crosswalk shown at
this time.
Okay. Thank you,
Commissioner.
Um, those those are all my questions.
Thank you.
Um, I just had one question. This is a
photo developer. Um, I know you're
paying the $100,000 in lure fee for not
developing any type of park. Um,
and that's because it would not meet the
city's requirement for size. Um, why
wouldn't you allocate space for uh a
park? Um, I mean, you're going to have
28 lots here. Um, my guess is that there
will be younger families with children
and um, I just don't understand why that
wouldn't be part of this development
plan.
Madame Chair, Commissioner Smith, the
uh the requirement for a park
is calculated based on the number of
lots. And as noted, the number of lots
only warrants that.19
acres worth of a of a park, both land
dedication and improvements. And at that
size, the city won't take that over for
for maintenance.
So the minimum, as I understand it, the
minimum would be three acres the city
would accept for a park. It's just pure
economics why the developer is not going
to give up three acres of this
development for to give up three lots of
this for uh a park that for the city to
maintain. Otherwise, the city wouldn't
accept maintenance of that park.
Thank you.
Commissioner Costa. Um I would just like
to make a comment to the developer. Um
I'd like to applaud them for um the
alternate um route for distributing
traffic. Uh public safety is very
important. So I would like to commend
them for that.
Is there any further questions?
Yeah, I just have one clarifying
question on the zoning piece. So, that
northern portion
it appears that they're not doing
anything differently. So, how does that
come into play? Can you explain that
again,
Madam Chair and Commissioner Kaisers?
Um, basically, we do have properties
that may have dual zones. And so
whenever the new development code was
adopted, if you already had zoning that
was essentially pancake zoning, then you
had the availability to use both of
them. And so they could have developed
this property as either NH1 or NH3. They
could have used either to build out
along Angler. They could have built
commercial offices. They could have
designated the area and then did single
family or they can use single family as
single family is allowed in both zones.
And so essentially whatever the zoning
allows as far as land uses is how the
property can be further subdivided. So
they would have had either opportunity.
Thank you,
Commissioner Smith.
I have one more question. Um how long
has um
this area been zoned for development?
Madame Chair and Commissioner Smith. So
the property was annexed in 1987. At
that point in time, it was given zoning.
Right. Thank you,
Commissioner Costa.
No.
All right. Um, we'll call for the vote.
All right. This is uh on the vote for
item 7.1. Commissioner Smith.
Yes.
Commissioner Kaiser.
Yes. And I would like to encourage staff
to find some temporary solution for that
bike infrastructure.
Vice chair.
Yes.
And chair.
Yes.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for everyone's
participation in that. Do I have a
motion for the next agenda item?
So moved.
Second.
Welcome back, Commissioner Thirstston.
All right.
Sarah.
Okay. Once again, Sarah Gonzalez with
Community Development. Before I use the
zoning map amendment proposed for the
Royal Crossing area as part of the scope
for the discussion, we'll be limited to
the proposed zoning map amendment area.
PNZ's role is to be a recommending body
for approval or denial to city council.
The discussion should focus on the land
uses, the zoning capab compatibility,
density, transition, connectivity, and
consistency with adopted plans for the
proposed area. Um, this request does not
approve a final site plan, subdivision,
plat, building permit, or construction
plans. The development will still have
to meet all of the required developments
as far as access, drainage, utility
infrastructure, and permitting
requirements.
So currently the property is located
within the Royal Crossing development.
It is located on the south side of Mercy
Drive. It encompasses 22.088 acres. It
is unsub unsubdivided and is a vacant
parcel. Current zoning on the property
is NH2 urban which is encompassing about
11.19 acres in size. NH3 urban which is
5.4 acres in size. and then OS1 urban
which is our open space recreational for
about 5.41 acres. This is also located
within the Apodaka blueprint.
Here's a zoning map of the subject
parcels that we are discussing this
evening in which the purview is related
to. So the current property is zoned NH2
in the yellow. You do have the open
space recreational in green and then you
have the NH3 that is located in the
orange area. As you can see, the
surrounding property is vacant as well
as the parcels. And then you do have the
single family residential located to the
east side.
The applicant is proposing to change and
modify to NH1 urban zonings for 14.11
acres. This would change primarily the
NH2 down to an NH1 urban. The NH3 urban
is about 6.08 acres in size and then the
open space recreation will go down to 68
acres. Then you have open space drainage
down to 72 acres. There is an area
that's left over for future rightaway
and open space that will provide
connectivity to the east properties. Um
however there is no change to the town
center overlay as that is still part of
the designated overlay that was required
in elevate loss cruises.
So to further explain if you look this
is going to be your existing zoning map
that's currently here. What has been
modified is this has been expanded down.
So when I'm looking at this line here,
it has basically moved down and been
reallocated. This is already NH3.
However, it has been expanded further.
This area here, which is the NH2
designation, is being proposed in blue
to be NH1 as well as the open space. Um
the applicant did go through and update
their drainage report where it reflected
that the open space recreational area
that was also a joint drainage facility
was not necessary as they have created
on lot ponding for the properties and so
they could be reduced. So after staff's
review and engineering it was determined
that those areas could be modified if
they requested to. So now there'll be
two areas where the drainage actually is
maintained. This area is directly
adjacent to the Apadaka Park where their
drainage facility as well is located.
This will be a small retention pond
that's located within the property. This
is the area that would provide
connectivity for the future rideway. So,
as you can see, this is a lower density
than what was originally approved
through the new development code.
So, as far as recreation, there is going
to be a connection to the linear park
that is proposed on the north side of
the development. This will create a se
safe dedicated area that is non within
vehicle traffic. So this would go
through the actual development um once
the developer comes forth with the
preliminary plat. So this will be
separate from the actual vehicle roads.
Um this does fulfill a conceptual plan
that was provided in the abodaka
blueprint providing multi-use trails
that are going to get you to the
adjacent neighborhoods connecting to
Apodaka Park as well as the outfall
trail and trace channel.
So the benefits with the proposed zone
change before you is it is going to
decrease in density especially next to
the existing residential district
towards that east side. It is compatible
with the residential that is there. Um
it also does provide housing services
and recreational in a centralized
location meaning the NH3 was designated
in the blueprint as a flex district and
that actually called out where you have
different offices services that are
going to provide to the residents within
that area. This also redevelops the
infill area and the urban core. There's
a lot of focus right now on redeveloping
these existing sites so we don't
continue to sprawl out. This will also
provide connectivity between the
neighborhoods that are existing.
Staff did provide a recommendation of
approval knowing that the transition
between the existing single family
residents is more comparable to the
proposed zone change than what was
originally provided. Um it also does
provide all those services as well as
commercial needs and necessary services
that will be provided to that
neighborhood as well as whatever is
existing. Um connection through the
trails is one of the main ideas um from
the Apodaka park plan because it did
actually connect to the TE trail which
you know also has a lot of park area and
so you're connecting multiple places
within the city um and it meets the
intent of what the conceptual blueprint
plan was.
Notice was sent to all the relevant
departments um in support of the zoning
map amendment. We did receive one call
today regarding the notification
requirements. To clarify the
notification requirements per our code,
we are required to send out letters and
notification within 500 ft of the area
to be reszoned. So it will not be the
entire parcels, it's the area to be
reszoned. Um that is higher than what
the state standard is of 200 feet. So we
understand that trying to notify
everyone as well.
With that, here are the commission's
options. I stand for any questions and
the applicant's representative is here
as well.
Thank you, Sarah. Does the applicant's
representative have anything to add?
Hello, Madam Chair. Paul Pompio with
Solder Miller Associates representing
the applicant.
Hello, Paul. Do you swear or affirm that
the testimony you're about to give is
the truth and nothing but the truth
under the penalty of law?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Um, good evening, commission. uh staff's
presentation was very complete and I
don't have anything to add to that other
than to stand before you and answer any
questions that you might have. I would
also remind the commission that this
basically is a reduction of intensity.
Uh it's basically a reorganization of
our drainage facilities and the creation
of the the uh trail in the green there.
So once again, an enhancement over the
existing zoning. Um so with that, Madam
Chair, I stand for questions from this
body. Thank you so much.
We will get to you with those questions,
I'm sure.
Thank you very much.
Is there any public members that would
like to speak on this issue? Okay,
great. Would you like to approach the
podium?
Thank you. My name is Connie Potter.
Hi, Connie. live at 255 Desert Drive.
Connie, hang on just a second. Do you
swear or affirm that the testimony
you're about to give is the truth and
nothing but the truth under the penalty
of law?
I do.
Thank you.
My comments have to do with the
characteristics of the Country Club
neighborhood. For about 10 years, I was
president of the neighborhood
association. We worked very hard to make
sure that whatever happens to this
blighted property and it is blighted
um is consistent with the
characteristics of our neighborhood. Our
home density is three homes per acre. My
home is on 6 acres. My home backs
directly to this. We are all worried
about our property values. The other
thing is there are only four homes in
our neighborhood that are more than one
story. We are a one-story ranch uh
mid-century modern neighborhood and
we're working very hard to get us
designated as a historical neighborhood
mid-century modern.
The changes that have been made
may or may not be consistent with our
neighborhood characteristics because I
don't know what in whatever urban what
the density is. But if it's more than
one story, it's not. If it's, you know,
10 homes per acre, it's not. and the
connectivity to our neighborhood through
that little pathway. That is an aoyo.
That is drainage with a chain gate
that's locked all the time. It's not a
road. We don't want traffic on Desert
Drive and San Quacio. Our roads are
falling apart. Nobody's doing anything
for us as far as the roads, as far as
maintenance, as far as any kind of
improvements. We're doing them
ourselves.
So, as we look at what this is going to
do to affect one of the oldest, nicest,
most stable residential areas in this
city, we need to think about what is
compatible with the investment we have
placed in our homes, the maintenance we
have placed in our homes. We are
virtually all first and second
homeowners.
virtually all. We've lost a few, you
know, to to nursing homes, etc. But
we've been there since there was a golf
course that was promised to be there
into perpetuity
in its deed. How'd that go? So, we will
be watching. We will be very careful to
see that you respect the characteristics
of our neighborhood as you move ahead to
do something about this blight.
And I don't know if you know, but in
June of last year, in June, a year ago,
we had 20 fires.
20 fires in that property.
Thank you.
Fire department came every time.
We're grateful for our fire department.
Is there anyone else who would like to
speak?
Please approach the podium.
Can you put me on the appending
side? This one.
Thank you. Thank you. Uh,
please state your name.
Gregory Shvanic.
Thank you, Gregory. Do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you're about
to give is the truth and nothing but the
truth under the penalty of law?
I certainly do.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. Um,
mine has to do with safety.
The area on the other side of Mercy
Street, as you see in this map, is a
parking lot. And that parking lot
belongs to the medical building, which
is not the hospital. Now the parking lot
to my right of the picture which is east
in in orientation where is a large brown
square um is the parking lot for the
hospital.
This body gave to the hospital an SUP
for a helport which is not built. Now
this woman lives 80 ft from that helport
on the eastern side where the end new
access area is going to be. So the
safety becomes this. If these areas are
three stories
then we need to monitor how traffic air
traffic arrives at this helport which
isn't built yet. And to be very honest,
when this resolution,
when the commission voted to a fix the
USP for the helport, it was uh appealed
and
it's all on video. So, you can watch all
this and staff can give you all the
information concerning it. But there are
only two ways that a helicopter can land
in this area because first of all the
hospitals a tall building. Secondly,
there's high power lines that run north
and south behind the hospital. So the
entrance to this helport area is only in
two manners. So I would like the
opportunity for you to see a
two-dimensional or threedimensional
routing of how
helicopter traffic is going to fly over
possibly low income areas, high income
areas, traffic areas because you got a
road right by this helport. And so I
think in safety
and under the state law,
nobody's supposed to be landing in a
dirt lot irregardless. It's a violation
of FAA rules. And you are most welcome
to call New Mexico Department of
Transportation
in aeronautics and get all the rules
because when this body was given that
information, it was not supplied to
them. So, I would like the contractor
and developer to please show us the two
routes over this property. Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Yes, please come down.
My name is George Pearson.
Thank you, Mr. Pearson. Do you swear
affirm that the testimony you're about
to give is the truth and nothing but the
truth under the penalty of law?
I do.
Thank you. So the narrative talks about
the maltuse trails and connectivity, but
I haven't seen actually any plans on how
that works. So I'd be interested in
seeing making sure that if I'm coming
along Madrid, for example, and need to
go to the hospital, will I be able to go
through that property area on a trail?
Um it sounds like the trails might be
dedicated to the city parks. So um maybe
the parks department could do a
presentation on that. Um, I'm chair of
the MOO's bicycle and pedestrian bicycle
and pedestrian facilities advisory
committee and I would invite the
developer in city parks and wreck to do
a presentation that shows that
connectivity so that we um can make sure
that we have proper
ability to go through that area. I can
tell you that I've gone to the hospital
on my bicycle and tried to go towards
where that property is and that was an
adventure and that was before some of
the construction was done so I probably
can't even do it now but it there should
be good connectivity from the hospital
area through the property to Madrid to
south to Main Street to the outfall
channel um is promised but it's not
described so that's what I'm asking is
to see some of those plans. Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else? Yes, ma'am.
I'm Eva Navarus St. John and I also
Hi, Miss Navar. Give me just a second.
Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give is under
the is the truth and nothing but the
truth under the penalty of law? I do.
Thank you.
Um I also live in the country club
neighborhood. Um so really I don't have
a comment. I have a question. Uh what is
the developer intending to put in there
as specifically as possible? Can you
tell us that? That's what we want to
know. You know, the the kind of housing,
the number of units, that's what we need
to know. So can somebody please answer
that question?
Thank you for your question.
Yes, ma'am.
My name is Aubrey Rublish.
Say it again.
Aubrey Rubish.
Hi, Aubrey. Do you swear or affirm that
the testimony you're about to give is
the truth and nothing but the truth
under penalty of law?
I do.
Thank you. Um, just kind of the same
comment. I recently purchased my home in
the past three years and I purchased it
in this neighborhood because there isn't
a lot of highstory buildings. There is
one or two apartment complexes. Um, but
they are on Madrid, so they don't
directly affect my home. So, that is one
of my biggest concerns is if we're going
to be putting stories there because I do
like the onelevel properties.
And that's Thank you.
Is there anyone else?
All right. Sarah, would you like to
address any of that?
Madam Chair, um the first one to kind of
address would be the actual connection
that is being made um with this proposed
zone change is actually going to be here
on Martha Drive. um back in 1963,
essentially too far,
uh there was actually dedication
provided to the city of Los Cruuses to
make this improvement. And so that would
be the actual connection that staff
would be looking to see coming in with
the development as the Jo as the
developer comes in with their
preliminary plats to match that zone
change that's being proposed. Um and so
we'd want to see that that's already
been dedicated to us. It is a 50- foot
ride ofway, so we'd see that connection
to where it does provide some type of
connectivity.
Um, the other questions as far as the
actual specifics for the development, I
will go ahead and defer to the developer
to divulge any information they do or
don't have at this time. Um, as far as
the park land um, plans, there are no
trail system plans in place at this
point in time. This is only the purview
of the zone change to once zone is
established then we will probably see
the preliminary plaque coming in with
more of those details.
Good evening again, Madam Chair. Uh
basically I'm I'm going to tell you what
we're anticipating, but I want to make
it perfectly clear that uh we are not
giving up any of our rights to develop
this property under what the mapped
zoning is going to be. The area that's
kind of in a red color is right now
probably looking at uh medical office
building, other commercial uses such as
that. The blue will be residential
housing. I don't know. There are concept
plans with single family um
alternatives. There's also plans with
multif family. So, uh, at this time it
will be residential, but at this point
in time I I can't say to definitively
what those will be.
Thank you.
Yes, ma'am.
Uh, this is Katherine with uh parks and
recck department. I just wanted to um
answer some questions related to the
trail connections. um if it's
appropriate to speak at this time.
Yes, please.
Okay. Um we've had several discussions
with the developer regarding the trail.
The intent really is to be able to
connect the outfall channel trail um
into Apadaka Park and provide some
connections. Um public works is working
currently on a connection from Camino
del Rex to the Outfall channel. And this
particular trail will connect um east of
Legacy Drive from Camino del Rex uh
follow along that eastern edge and then
ultimately uh follow um along the
undeveloped portion uh once it gets
developed um then it will culminate at
the corner of Apadaka Park uh where the
access road is not at the drainage. Um
those have been the discussions with the
developer um because we have to have
people make it into the park. Um parks
and wreck is currently uh working on a
plan to create a um loop around the park
and of course that will provide
connection to Madrid and Solano. So I
thought I would outline that for you.
Thank you Katherine.
Commissioners, Commissioner Kaiser.
So along the lines of the connectivity
piece, um first I think it's great that
we're going to have this uh system, the
trail system continued connecting these
open spaces. Um but I want to know
specifically how
this connects to the interior of the
development. Um as we know, active
transportation, cycling, walking is more
than just a recreational activity. uh
it's often um a legitimate well it is a
legitimate form of transportation uh
anywhere you want to go and so I'm just
curious how how that is going to
interplay here um what is currently been
built out there under I think phase one
uh there's no cycling infrastructure
there's no bike lanes there's nothing so
if I was coming from the TV trail or the
outflow uh channel or even Apadaka Park
how do I then get into the businesses or
the residents that will be built in the
future.
Uh Katherine Harrison Rogers again with
staff parks and wreck. Um I can speak
loosely on a couple of things. However,
I'm not designing it. So I would really
defer probably to the engineer who is
designing it. But I would like to point
out um that uh there is on Samaritan
Drive actually an easement um linking
Samaritan Drive to Apadaka Park. So that
that's one. Um hasn't been constructed
yet, but there is an easement. Um and
then also the trail that's under
discussion um that leads from uh
Commamino Del Rex all the way into
Apadaka Park um does have some
connections to the interior roadways um
that have been planned. Again, this is
still under design and so I'll defer to
the engineer on that.
Madam Chair, commissioners, there and
trailing on to what Katherine said,
there's also a set aside for a an a
multi-use path or connection in this
area here, which comes along the
internal roadway and then uh from the
area in green here coming across either
the northern road here across the front
of lots one, two, three, and four of
Park Ridge subdivision and also internal
roadway here. So that's what is
currently set aside. Remembering that
the genesis of this development happened
before uh this whole area to the north
here is part of Park Ridge uh medical uh
replat number one which has the six
primary lots that hold the hospital mob
and the four uh lots to the north. All
that was subdivided uh before some a lot
of these requirements came into place.
Okay. Thank you. That that's really good
to hear. I I just hope that we commit to
that. Um I know just what's been built
out there, none of that exists. It's
just the road. So presumably it's going
to get built out as each of these lots
is developed. My concern though with
that is if the middle one goes first,
it's on an island and we're kind of have
to wait for everything else to come
together. So I would just like to see a
way to actually put that infrastructure
in earlier rather than later. um if
that's even possible at this stage. Um I
recognize that is slightly tangential to
hear but thinking through how all this
ultimately will connect is important.
Um
another
Yes. Thank you.
Sorry.
Oh, you can stay.
Thanks. Sorry. Um, I don't know if my
next questions are going to be for
staff, but um
the
the pond actually this this is a
question for you Paul. uh the ponding
issue. Um when we were first hearing
this for phase
uh one and two at the time, uh I we
asked a I asked a question about the
drainage study and how that was going to
work and making sure that we have kind
of a cohesive development and we're not
just ending up with however many lots
this is and that's how many ponds we end
up with. Um the response I got at the
time was don't worry we have a master
drainage plan and we're going to find
ways to you know kind of consolidate so
that we have we don't end up with this
hodgepodge ad hoc you know ponds on
every lot because that's really going to
be destructive to the cohesiveness of
this entire neighborhood which is
basically what we're building. Um but
now we're sounds like we're going the
complete opposite direction. So I'm just
curious why the change there.
There have been uh madam chair,
commission, there has been several
drainage reports that since that time
have that have been come up and gone
through the review process with public
works. U some of those elements of those
plans that changed over time was there
was supposed to be a major ponding area
in this in this area here which was to
take all the runoff from this side of
the development including the hospital
MO. that has changed the this ponding
area is just there's also a pond here in
front of the hospital itself
though the combination of those two
ponds takes care of the runoff from the
hospital itself but one of the elements
that came up later was the drainage on
Solano so we the developer and and in
the approval of those reports has taken
it upon themselves to have increased
ponding the onlot ponding in this end of
the subdivision which we have to do
required by code, but the combination of
these ponding areas and those onlot
ponds reduces the actual runoff that
makes it out to Solano because of the
overload that's on Madrid. So, those
changes were necessary as as we move
forward to make sure that the drainage
on Solano did not get any worse. So, it
was a it was a shift, but a basically
still a combination of both. the pond
that's in the lower corner here was
simply created because that's the
topographic location of that corner
there. Uh, also this open space uh was
supposed to be open space and ponding,
but it just because there's an ao the
royo that comes off of this this roadway
that's that's here that makes its way
through. We had to design for that. And
so this area just couldn't be we it
couldn't be used for open space because
it was going to be in a royal. So the
decision was made to not go in that
direction.
Okay.
All right. Thank you for that. Um my I
think my last question
um is on the the zoning. So the NH3
going well see um
no the NH2
becoming the NH1. This is a question for
staff. Um,
my understanding is, and correct me if
I'm wrong, that that there's no minimum
density requirement
regardless. Is that true,
Madam Chair, Commissioner Kaiser, that's
correct? The you have a maximum density
is what was placed in all of the zoning
districts. So, right now, that current
density is at 50. Based on NH2, it will
be reduced down to 40. So it is going
down to where you can reduce some of
those densities. Um not necessarily when
you start including roadways and stuff
will you see those densities actually
appear. Right. So I guess the question
that I have is why the need to
lower the zone to basically go from an
NH2
to an NH1 when you basically can do the
same in either. You can do less density,
but you also get the flexibility to do
more should the developer choose that
path at a later time. Why why the need
to actually lower the cap?
Madame Chair, Commissioner Kaiser, one
of the reasons would be is to reallocate
that area that was already zoned as that
open space for drainage and park area
facility. Um, that provides you the
density that can go there. By reducing
it, it's more compatible with the
existing east side. However, with the
town center, you do still have the
opportunities of increasing that bonus
with the density. And so, you're still
not losing necessarily that density as
it's still part of the town center. So,
if someone did come in with the
development, you can increase your
density. I believe it's by 150% if you
actually do residential units. So,
there's still that opportunity to see
the density come in and be appropriate
for the area based on the urban core was
wanting more of that density bonus.
Okay. And the bonus that they would be
eligible for is an administrative bonus
or do they have to come back before us
to request it?
Madam Chair and Commissioner Kaiser,
because the town center is already in
place, it is administrative and so they
can use that opportunity to build out
the town center and actually use um all
the commercial development, the office
as well as the residential units can you
use the town center requirements.
Okay. Thank you. Um, I'll just
editorialize for a moment. Um, it's it's
strange to me that we would sort of
handicap ourselves here in this
situation. Um, you know, we just went
through realized Los Cusus. One of the
big efforts there was trying to increase
densities in our core. Uh, this is a
major redevelopment project. um probably
one of the biggest that the cities will
ever see because of the the size of the
lot where it's located in our urban
core. Um I just feel like we're we're
sort of stepping back from that effort
by reducing this zone here. And I think
for me personally um would like I I love
everything about this. I would just ask
that we keep the NH2 NH2. That's all I
have. Thank you.
Any other questions? Commissioners,
Commissioner Thirstston,
I have a couple of questions for
clarification. Is this NH1 urban? Is it
NH1 suburban? What's the What's the
Madame Chair? Commissioner Thirstston,
this is NH1 urban. And so you do see a
higher density. You do see um maxable or
maxable densities in these areas.
Okay. The second one is
um more on a I don't know if this is
zoning if I can even ask this question
for tonight, but the secondary access
for that area
if that's if that's even applicable
right now to ask that question because
it seems like I'm on Google Earth trying
to figure out where the secondary access
off of that would be to if we're to put
a lot of homes there for the zoning. Uh
don't know if that's even applicable
tonight, but
Madame Chair, Commissioner Thirstston,
um once the zoning is established and
gone through city council to see what
those zoning designations would be, then
you would be presented with the
preliminary plat showing connectivity.
At that point in time, the fire
department does have requirements as to
how many access points you do have to
have for each units.
Um my other one is I don't know the
history the the blueprint history of
this area. Um, what I just noticed on
here was
it seems like we have 5.41 acres of open
space and then because of the ponding
and changing of ponds, um, trying to go
back to it. It looks like we have a
reduction
of open space and which is also going
into the NH1, but we have a reduction of
I think it's roughly like three 3.6 six
acres reduced in open space. Um, is
there anything in the blueprint that
would prevent us from wanting to allow
that to happen? Was is there like
certain amount of open spaces that we
were supposed to have or certain amount
of densities according to the blueprint?
Madame Chair, Commissioner, um,
Thirstston, there was a limit or a
conceptual plan that was provided. So,
when we look at blueprints, they are
conceptual. As part of that plan, it did
look to have about four acres as far as
open space, but that was going to be the
continued trail system that was going to
be any connections to the park. And so,
they'd all be encompassing. So, what you
see as part of the zone change tonight
may not be the the included amount as to
the acreage that's being presented for
the open space. The reduction in this
open space was primarily due to the
drainage structure that's no longer
needed as it's going to be used as on
lot ponding.
Okay. So for as far as the master plan
and other things like that that were
that were previously approved, we're not
by by reducing the open space, it's not
affecting any of of the previously
things that were approved. Is that
correct,
Madam Chair and Commissioner Thirstston?
That is correct. And so by moving these
ones, you're just going to see them
basically being reallocated throughout
the rest of the actual development.
I think those were my only questions I
had. Thanks.
Commissioner Kaiser,
I'd like to uh make a motion for an
amendment to
to retain as proposed but uh keep NH the
NH2 zone NH2.
Is that kosher?
Okay. Is there a second for that
amendment?
Seeing none, the motion dies. Is there
any further discussion on the main uh
motion?
All right, let's call for the vote.
This is on the vote to approve item 7.2.
Commissioner Smith,
yes.
Commissioner Kaiser,
yes.
Commissioner Thirstston,
yes.
Commissioner A Costa,
yes.
And chair,
yes.
Thank you.
Thank you. Motion passes. Is there any
staff announcements?
There are no staff announcements at this
time. Comm.
Thank you so much. I would entertain a
motion for adjournment.
Madam Chair, I make a motion.
I second.
Thank you.
All those in favor?
I
And we are journed. Thank you everyone.