e
e e
[Music]
you're live all right good evening uh
welcome to the uh November 19th city of
Las Cruses Planning and Zoning
commission meeting we'll go ahead and
call this meeting to
order
um looking for a motion to approve
tonight's um excuse me looking for a
motion to approve uh the minutes from
the October
22nd uh planning zoning meeting Mr chair
I make an a motion to approve the
minutes as presented I
second okay this is on approval of the
minutes from 10:22 um commissioner
thirston yes commissioner Smith yes
commissioner
aosta yes um commissioner Murray yes and
chair yes all right looking for a motion
to approve the October 29th um Works
work session
minutes I make a motion to approve
October 29th uh py work session
minutes I
second okay this is for approval of the
1029 minutes commissioner thirston yes
commissioner Smith yes commissioner
aosta
I
abstain commissioner Murray yes and
chair
yes all right is there any conflict of
interest from any of the Commissioners
this evening right hearing none um we
will move to uh public participation is
there anybody in the audience who wishes
to speak on an item not related to the
realized Los Cruis development
code all right seeing No Hands um we'll
come now to uh accepting the agenda
tonight we have one item that is the um
update to the development code otherwise
known as realiz loss cruus can I get a
motion to accept tonight's
agenda Mr chair I still move to approve
tonight's agenda I second
president this is on acceptance of the
agenda as presented commissioner
thirston yes commissioner Smith
yes commissioner aosta yes commissioner
Murray yes and chair
yes all right uh we will move right into
um the main event for this evening I
just want to kind of set the stage for
folks in the audience the way that this
is going to play out tonight um we will
hear a short presentation from staff um
on some of the updates that may um have
occurred since the work session and just
a general overview of the um update to
the development code and then we will
immediately turn to um public comment um
so we'll open it up to those who wish to
speak um on this topic and then at the
end of that session we will end with the
historic preservation committee um they
wish to to give a short presentation um
and then we will conclude the public
participation session with a
presentation from the Home Builders
Association um who wishes to speak on um
one topic uh within this um um update uh
and then we will turn to just discussion
open discussion amongst the commission
um so we won't hold everybody hostage
until midnight tonight um but you're
welcome to stay um so with that we'll
turn over to staff for
presentation good evening Mr chair and
commission Sarah Gonzalez with economic
development before you is the repealing
of chapters 32 through 40 and rep
replacing them with chapters 32 through
38 of the Las Cruses municipal code and
adopting the zoning map as
presented to start the process off we do
want to you know include that we have
had multiple public Outreach and input
processes in place since this started in
2021 as far as realiz is concerned we've
had online portals where people can
provide public comment open houses and
then we've met with multiple
stakeholders our technical advisory
committee you know began the process two
years ago go and went through the code
and evaluated it we've met with Home
Builders Association League of Women
Voters Economic Development agencies
Villers associations and our engineering
and design Community to work through
some of the modifications being
presented lastly we did hold um the
October 29th planning and work uh
Planning and Zoning commission work
session to finalize some of the comments
to move
forward some of the advantages or
benefits that were outlined throughout
the process and through the public input
that staff did receive included some of
of the site design elements which
increases the density on some of these
properties reduces lot widths and
setback so it makes it more of a
community area where you can design
multiple opportunities for housing it
increased maximum Heights on development
so that way you have the ability to
build up and so that way sometimes you
can actually increase your densities
there when you have smaller Lots there's
also Street Landscaping buffers and
parking lot trees and so a lot of times
we see some of our parking lots that
don't have the vegetation that's going
to create these heat island effects and
so we're increasing the trees Within
These parking lots if they are to be
developed some of the housing
opportunities have increased to single
family homes multif family units mobile
homes manufactured homes Patty homes and
Tow houses this is to address our
missing middles and so giving
opportunities to all of our neighborhood
districts to be able to develop each one
of these types and provide to the
community in their needs we then go into
our land uses that have been very
susceptible to everyone is the accessory
dwelling units a lot of people either
want to Asian place or they want to have
the Casitas in the backyard to provide
for maybe your youth that are going
through college and maybe don't want to
live in the house or provide rental
assistance and so somebody can rent
those properties out and actually help
the people who are living on the
properties we've also increased some of
the UN intensity commercial and office
land uses throughout the neighborhood so
that we would create these walkable
communities because of what we saw
through Co and the pandemic we also not
noticed that non-conforming properties
are are very hard to come into
compliance in one year so we've
increased it to be a 2-year
non-compliance and so it gives that
opportunity for redevelopment to
actually take place and for people to
have the time to revelop properties and
not be stigment to just one year that
comes down to cost and just actual
viability on our Auto and bicycle
parking we have removed um vehicle
parking in urban areas which is what it
considered our info area mixed juuse
corridors Town centers neighborhood
centers um and we'd also include um the
industrial park as that was also
eliminated at the last Council
session one of the requirements we have
upped also is the replacement of your
vehicle parking for 50% can become
bicycle parking so we encourage you know
bicycle pedestrian traffic all modes of
transportation to be done so you can
actually substitute instead of having to
do parking lots when they're not
necessary lastly we go to some of our
roadway cross-sections we understand
that this will always be a moving Target
and a progress um we were able to
maintain at least our current maximum
width road which is our 120t
cross-section and still meet the needs
of multimodal Transportation um we first
started looking at some of these designs
we were way over 140 feet wide we were
going to create highways and so we've
worked through those challenges and came
up with a cross-section that's still
going to meet the needs but not grow any
larger than what we currently have
now to go into some of the chapters and
how this was designed um we are removing
essentially 32 through
40 33 and 35 were not part of the scope
of work when Frieza and Nichols came on
board to actually redevelop the code and
so these would be the development impact
fees and your excavation and curve Cuts
all the other chapters design chap um
design standard signs subdivision zoning
all of those related to development
standards were re reworded or
redesigned so we are proposing the new
chapters um essentially 35 was
excavation and curb cuts that will now
become chapter 32 in order to keep
essentially realized chapters which were
1 through 5 in order of 34 through 38
and so those are just going to be
renumbered and replaced into those we do
work off of the munic code and so we
have to renumber those in order to fit
back into our model so that's why
they're just being renumbered everything
that was reviewed will not be changed
all of that information will just be
transferred over and renumbered into
those
chapters here's a zoning map that is
presented that we want to move forward
with a staff and represent for the city
um as you can see um at the entrance of
the chambers we have two larger profiles
of the zoning map and we do also
encourage neighbors and the Committees
um community members to go online
realize Lo cruus still has an
interactive map this will tell you what
your property is going to be zoned and
then you can reference that in the code
to see if it's still something that's
applicable to your area um there's a lot
of parcels throughout the city limits of
Los Cruses and we try to capture
everything as far as what the Zone
should be reflected based on the current
land use maybe what it's adjacent to and
then how to move forward
one of the options that we took place
and did was creating the technical
manual and so a lot of our co- chapters
that's why you see the elimination of
essentially two chapters um this is
going to be a technical manual that will
be an ongoing process to ensure we are
using best practices meaning we want to
be able to amend them and not have to go
through City council's process because
that usually takes between 3 to four
months this will allow us to go ahead
and make modifications as we see things
coming in that are no longer going to be
necessary or not needed or maybe it's
beneficial to the actual community so
essentially your code is going to
outline what is your requirement and
then the technical manual is going to
say how do you accomplish that
requirement and this will go forward to
city council as a resolution it does not
require the Planning and Zoning
commission's approval but staff is still
in Community Development taking in
comments and so we still recommend that
comments be provided so that we we
ensure we're going forward with the best
draft that we can to city council
to start off um to overview essentially
what we did on October 29th our Planning
and Zoning work session um some of the
questions came up of how does a
transition period work or how does how
does some of these chapters come into
play so the transition period is going
to be an eight-month grace period you
are allowed to use either the existing
or the new code you get the choice if
you choose to use the existing code it
does need to be submitted in writing and
then the submitt that you provide has to
be approved within one year there will
be no extensions because we do want to
eventually move everybody into our new
code but you do have the opportunities
um staff will be tracking them as they
come in so that way we can be notifying
applic applicants of their dues or their
deadlines if they're going to get close
to where they don't meet that
requirement and have to resubmit um and
then the codes cannot be combined if you
choose to take one or the other you must
follow one or the other code we cannot
combine them as part of the
process some of the concepts that were
brought up um on chapter 2
which is our historic preservation um
chapter was a recommendation to have
deconstruction added um staff does agree
with that we do think that
deconstruction can be a possible and
viable way to restore some of our
historic buildings or use some of those
materials it may not be a requirement
but it may be something that we look
forward to in adding a definition and
say this could be your best option let's
utilize those things as far as um Mia
Park um and I believe it was discussed
as Rio Grand Valley but it's actually
elephant VI irrigation historic dist
districts these are going to be
districts that are we have no problem
prioritizing for 2025 to reach out to
the districts because we do want people
to understand that they are part of a
historic district we need to find those
boundaries we need to do public Outreach
we need to let them know what that means
for those districts because of where
we're at in this process it's very
difficult to go ahead and design and say
okay these are now going to be your
regulations and your requirements but we
do take into consideration that this
should be part of our actual code and
these districts should be
find one of the questions came up of
community development director and their
designes being defined a lot of our
positions here at the city are not
defined because we do have
reclassifications we do have positions
that may no longer exist and so they're
they're basically replaced with a
different position we don't Define
positions and codes as the Departments
and their directors are required to
provide the services for basically the
community needs and so you're going to
hire staff that's going to meet those
requirements we leave it as the Director
or their designes because we don't know
what changes are going to happen that
position goes away then that means we'd
have to come back to council to modify
that one section of code when we already
have the resources through that being
defined as your director or your
design some of the um comments that were
made through chapter three which is
going to be our zoning chapter um was to
have urban areas um reduced to Bill two
lines hunt collectors and arterials in
local streets um we did mod mod ify
those to be reduced um so we did reduce
at least the bill two lines we didn't
remove them um but I believe they were
at 25 and 15 and so they've been reduced
down to 15 for arterials and then 10 for
locals there is also to add in the
neighborhood community um overlay or
Neighborhood Center overlays Community
buildings facilities personal services
art studios and instructions We Believe
those will be viable to that
neighborhood and then actually make that
Center grow so these are a lot of things
that we we as staff didn't identify but
we actually agree with and we'll move
forward with that as a recommendation as
well um adding the note under the table
so that we people are aware that in our
urbans our downtown centers miuse
corridors no parking is required just to
reiterate that it is not required and
that way we enhance the knowledge and
the education for those are not needed
so we're living homes allowed in nh2 and
NH3 by right these are going to be more
of our r2s and r3s R four zoning
districts and so they make sense to
actually be allowed by right because it
would not be those single family
residential neighborhoods that you would
see group Child Care Homes um we did
limit them to Allowed by R in an NH3 um
because you do see that 12 or more
children it's feasible in an ag3 because
those are usually located along
arterials or collector rways and so
you're going to be able to include those
traffic areas you're going to be able to
include them for the neighborhood uses
as well campgrounds Allowed by ride in
os1 which is our open space um and so
yes they should be a able to be um
available just like a golf club or Golf
Course would be available in an
os1 and lastly it was a change from must
to be or change from must to should be
for consistency on carports I know
commissioner thirston brought up you
know how are we going to say that it's
compatible how do we know that we're
going to be able to get them through the
process and still not have to come
forward through variances and so we're
going to be as close as we can be which
should be compatible but working with
actual um community members to get get
to the best product that they can
provide in chapter 4 there really wasn't
too many comments or discussions this is
going to be our subdivision chapter and
through there the main concern was
zoning map amendments and how someone
would come forward if they were going to
amend the map and then have to amend um
Elevate L Cruz's comprehensive plan on
page 257 of the actual code for zoning
map amendments it does outline that
essentially city council would be the
defying Factor if an amendment is
required and so the zoning map Amendment
would come in we' take in the
application staff would process it the
Planning and Zoning commission would
provide a recommendation that
recommendation may include to amend
Elevate saying that it doesn't it's not
really comparable we see that it is you
know necessary but maybe not comparable
and then that request goes to city
council that time city council will say
this is minor this may be adjacent to a
land use that's already similar and say
that it may be required or not required
um they also have the ability to just
deny the zoning map request which would
be very similar to our zoning at this
point in time um last there was a
request to remove annexations where
substantial development is not
anticipated in master plans because the
idea would be is we're going to Annex in
property we're going to see the
substantial development and then it was
who was going to Define substantial
development so we've removed that from
the
code our last chapter which is going to
lead into some of the access onto the
property it's going to be traffic impact
analysis this is going to be your
roadways and then your Park design
elements
um there was a clarification and
commissioner thirst did bring this up as
well for rear alley access and so yes
the way that you read it was correct and
so staff actually modified it to where
it's going to be for lots that are 20
fet or less it won't be for 40 feet or
less because that is our minimum
standard lot size and so that's not
going to help or impact anybody if every
lot is going to have to be required to
provide Aly access so we've address that
through the code um there was a request
to add that all parking is basically
Auto parking is is required unless
you're exempt because it didn't actually
call it out through the code um that you
were exempt from the provisions of mix
ju Corridor Town centers your urban
areas um we also reflected that minimum
bike parking should be required in all
zoning and overlay districts as it was
not outlined or
clarified then there was a request to
provide a minimum of 200t of continuous
Street Frontage and this is when you're
looking at where a park is at and so by
removing the cescs because we don't
disagree that a cold theack will provide
those connections we also want to look
at how much of that Frontage is being
available in order for it to be
accessible as well um lastly it was to
delete exercise stations and with that
we actually implemented other
improvements outlined by the parks and
recs facilities because we know that
exercise facilities may not be on every
trail
system Parks was a larger discussion
from our meeting and so we'll go over a
little bit more of the slides um to
reiterate currently what's adopted in
code and then what is being proposed
through the adoption of the municipal
code that's before you currently land
dedication is not required nor is
reimbursement um generally we see um
development agreements that come in
place for reimbursement of agreed
budgeted amounts and so that is between
the developer and the actual Builders
and the parks and rec um Department land
donation has occurred but generally it's
through either an agreement it's part of
a plan unit um development or it's
actually approved through ordinance so
sometimes Council can put on to an area
that they want to see a park and
everybody has to donate to that
Park the park impact fee question came
up as far as you know where are the
funding going that's currently in the
park impact fee funding um there is for
fy2 a budget for over $8.5
million um there's currently four
neighborhood parks that are in the
pipeline that are not budgeted for that
are going to be approximately 3.6
million and then there's five planned
Community parks that are not budgeted um
and those are $3 to10 million each and
so that's where these Park impact Fe
will be assessed to other Park and fact
projects are going to be Trails Sports
Parks specialty parks and then those are
going to be budgeted at a later
time what the adoption of um chapter 38
is going to do is require a 3 Acre Park
as a dedication um but in that it's
going to have Alternatives that can be
approved by the parks and rec director
so this could be a specialy park that's
less than three acres um that could be
combination of Parkland trails and open
space so if you find something that's
maybe one and a half but you can extend
and create the 3 acres then those can be
combined um Parkland that's going to be
adjacent to develop a vacant properties
that can also be expanded in the future
that means if there is available land
that's going to be adjacent to a park
and we can combine it then we can go
ahead and say okay this is going to be
viable and that becomes the acreage
that's available um smaller acreage that
is adjacent to land um can be purchased
by the city to in order to accommodate
that as well the payment in Lu became a
conversation because we don't want this
to become the standard this is supposed
to be the alternative we want to see the
parks built and them actually developed
payment in Li is going to happen
whenever you can never meet the standard
or to meet those minimums and so with
these Alternatives it should provide
more options to where payment in L of is
not necessarily taking place as often
one of the other questions was the
noxious plant list or the plant list
that's going to be maintained by staff
in discussing it because the plant list
does change we're going to defer to just
what's provided by nemed um so noxious
plants will be the ones that are not
able to be planted onto properties if
Turf is available and you want to plant
Turf you can plant Turf we're just going
to the noxious plant list because that
is updated based on New Mexico standards
and what we actually see as going to be
hazards or
issues some of the examples that were
requested were to look for parks that
had 3 Acre parks that were within a
quarter mile radius um there are some
examples from Albuquerque and
essentially it's they're a 10- mile walk
and so 90% of the people that live
within the area are within a 10-minute
walk to their neighborhood park other
examples are Denver Colorado and then
Plano Texas and so yes these little
neighborhood parks are going to provide
to the communities that have them the
other portion is going to be is some of
the land that's not identified will be
your Industrial and Commercial land so
you're not going to expect to see and
that's why the green highlights are not
visible so with that completes my small
presentation of our overview of October
29th um and so Planning and Zoning
commission your options tonight will be
yes this will recommend approving and
repealing chapters 32 through 40 and
replacing them with 32 through 38 and
adopting The Zing map as it is presented
you vote no this will retain the current
Los crues Municipal Code chapters of 32
through 40 with no
modifications vote to amend this will
allow you to provide any amendments that
you would like to move forward to city
council um for consideration and then
vote to table this will po postpone
essentially this ordinance and then
direct staff accordingly to move forward
great thank you very much um so like I
mentioned at the outset we'll now turn
to um public comment uh so can I get
just a quick raise of hands of folks who
wish to speak on this item tonight I see
a few all right so what we'll do we'll
do something similar to October the work
session we'll just start um on this side
my my left um and just pay attention to
the people that are in front of you and
we'll just work our way through and then
we'll come over to the right do the same
thing um just a reminder the historic
preservation and the the builders Home
Builders Association we will save you
guys for the end so we'll let everybody
else go first and then we'll do historic
preservation to give a presentation and
then the home builders um you'll
conclude the public comment period with
your presentation so with
that we'll start
here and I I should mention I'll I'll
give everyone a minute and a half to
speak um with the exception of the
historic preservation and the home
builders and lucky I don't have to swear
you in so just please state your name
for the record and you may begin okay my
name is John Holzman I'm a local
resident and also the state uh chair of
the state Council of the New Mexico
chapter of dark sky International I made
some comments at the last work session
regarding the section and realize on
outdoor lightning and I followed them up
with some written comments and I
appreciate the staff response to those
which I received just yesterday morning
Unfortunately they rais my level of
concern about the proposed ordinance so
I fully believe that the implementation
of responsible lighting practice has no
downsides and significant upsides
related to safety security human health
and Wildlife among others responsible
lighting does not mean reducing lighting
where it's needed it just attempts to
avoid putting light where and when it's
not needed and to control the color of
the light to have less adverse imp uh
impacts the current draft I think needs
to be improved in some fundamental ways
it needs to apply to all lighting not
just commercial lighting the color of
the light should be controlled for all
lighting zones not just some and fixtur
should be required to be shielded at a
slightly higher level of standard than
the current proposed since the ordinance
is only apply to new lightning this
wouldn't impact anything existing just
put us on a responsible path forward
light pollution has been increasing
worldwide at an alarming rate and we
need to stop the bleeding all the issues
we face this one is actually easy we can
do this one without really pissing
anyone off I'd like to request that the
Planning and Zoning commission recommend
a revisit of section 5'9 motivated by
and taking advantage of recent
developments that I mentioned at the
work session things that were not
previously available the new ordinance
passed by Albuquerque and the release of
a new model ordinance by dark sky
International I recognize this a
non-negligible ask but I think the
potential benefits to Los cruus are
substantial thank you thank you
hi um chair members of the commission
staff um thank you for the opportunity
to comment my name is Beth Bardwell and
tonight I'm speaking on behalf of the
League of Women Voters of southern New
Mexico I want to thank staff uh for
their extensive work on reforming and
updating the Land Development code and
zoning map uh in alignment with the
city's comprehensive plan uh the League
of Women Voters of southern New Mexico
support many of the proposed site design
housing op option changes because they
provide more variety and types of
housing integrated into the Community
Helping to address the housing shortage
in Los cruus for affordable and
attainable housing thank you so
much thank
you and we'll keep working our way
towards the back
anyone in the next row next
row all right anybody else on this
side all right we'll come over to the
right and we'll start in the
front please come
forward um all
right uh Troy
Mitchell so um I come to you as a local
developer um with concern concerns uh
regarding three sections 55 56 and
57 um so our our concerns uh um as
developers and Builders we've had three
meetings with parks and and wreck trying
to uh uh discuss issues of the the parks
sections and how the the lands dedicated
or the fee in lie of um we're we're
concerned with the um how this
correlates with the uh affordability of
housing which um the presid presentation
will be in in a minute kind of to show
you um how that'll directly affect uh um
residents in in the neighborhoods um as
in new developments um so specifically
I'd like to just kind of talk about the
technical manual um the technical
manuals were uploaded I believe um two
Fridays ago uh so it's slightly
concerning it's it's another big
document that we need to dig through um
those those are some things that aren't
quite complete I do believe that these
three sections I mentioned aren't quite
complete as well I think there's a lot
more thought that needs to go in them um
in terms of uh how how parks are are
built and funded um the the new code
needs to happen and we as the um New
Mexico construction Association or lcba
um want to give our stamp of approval uh
but these sections are are slightly
concerning to us and and we'll show you
the financial repercussions
potentially thank you um
any yeah
yes I believe it was section 5-3 5-6 and
5-7 like oh 55 so 5355 57 5 just five5
five
gotcha um all right anybody else on this
side of the room who wishes to speak
good evening Mr chairman commission uh
Paul pompo for the record uh I just want
to point out that just in looking
through the technical documents the last
uh speaker just pointed out there are
numerous holes in this and numerous
inconsistencies um that just need to be
addressed I'm not against the document
at all I've set it on the T committee
but if you look at at chapter 5 on page
352 there's reference to uh FEMA flood
planes and things of that nature in the
drainage section but yet it's repeated
on page 20 or I'm sorry it's repeat it
on page four of the technical manual so
we have redundancy in these documents
you know one is open for changing
without council's uh permission one is
supposed to be able to change with you
know without so there's just cleanup
that has to happen I'll give another
just brief example on page 15 under B4
under Pond design it says it has to uh
um double the
benefit you know that was something that
was talked about that we had talked
about removing when we were on the
talking about the TAC something else
that needs to be addressed there's also
uh one other example on on ponding
there's uh ponding where it talks about
72 hours draining but in another area of
the same code it talks about 24 these
are just issues that have to be cleaned
up and so Mr chairman what I guess what
I to end what I'm asking you for tonight
on the rec record is when are these
going to be looked at when are they
going to be revised when is Staff going
to meet and you know when are we going
to do that thank you Mr
chairman thank
you anybody else on this side of the
room wishes to
speak all right uh we will go now to the
historic
preservation folks if they wish to make
a presentation you may come down
I'm working
on and we 10 minutes be sufficient
okay good even even for the record my
name is Dr Judy bman current chair of
historic preservation commission I'll be
referring to it as the HPC and I will
also be referring to chapter 2 rather
than chapter 35 because I didn't have
the current change I would like to thank
the chair for the opportunity for the
historic preservation commission to
address concerns regarding chapter 2 of
realized L crues I would also like to
thank your commission members of
Community Development the consultant and
concerned citizens for multiple
dialogues that have resulted in the
current document although beneficial
changes have been made in Chapter 2 I
will be addressing several critical
issues that still need to be addressed
so um I put up here the feeling that
realiz Los Cruses and the last point is
that the plan also affects preservation
efforts which often is not mentioned so
as noted in realized Los Cruses historic
preservation is an important comp
component within this document much of
the material found in Chapter 2
originated from chapter 4 40 which was
the ordinance
2902 with its Inception in 2019 chapter
40 has been and is still a workable
document its value is demonstrated with
the transfer of the majority of the
mandates and procedures into realized L
crues however we believe work still
needs to be done to to reflect the
original intent of the historic
preservation ordinance
as a commission and I remind you as long
as chapter 40 is still in effect we are
a commission you are being asked to make
a balanced subjective decision on
accepting revised development code in
order to meet the goals stated in
section 2.1 I'm asking the following
changes be made HBC to be retain to
remained as a commission the position of
historic preservation specialist should
be reinstated into chapter 2 there are
changes that I would like to note in the
glossery and then as previously
mentioned there are additions that need
to be due to the Legacy zoning
District before beginning this
presentation a petition signed by 181
Los crusin citizens was handed to you
earlier the issues addressed in this
position are twofold that the HBC remain
a commission and to reinstate the
position of historic preservation
Specialists these individuals that have
signed the petition have clearly shown
their concern regarding the proposed
changes that will be
discussed so the question is is HBC a
commission or are we a
committee the hvc is urging that the
title and all references to the hvc be
changed back to the original intent as a
commission as stated in chapter 40
chapter 2 it now says committee the
question that I would ask then when is a
committee a commission my answer would
simply be
never a commission refers to a body
authorized by an ordinance or federal
and state statutes to perform a
particular function in local government
in this case the historic preservation
commission was created by a city
ordinance
2902 a commission has a Quai judicial
powers and enforces regulations
administer permits and resolves disputes
related to a specific
jurisdiction why is this important the
difference between a commit committee
and a commission is not one of semantics
the historic preservation ordinance was
adopted in 2019 with the passage of
chapter 40 in this document the HPC was
and still is designated as a commission
not a committee in section two of
realized Los crues the duties and
responsibilities of HBC are outlined
along with the process the applicant
must follow if they want to appeal any
HPC decision in my belief a committee
does not have an appeal option
recommendations made by a committee can
be ignored there is no appeal process
the HPC as written has a appeal
process the role of the HPC I've listed
some of the major roles we gather
information we solicit testimony we
review the data we perform fact findings
to a standard review and the decisions
can be appealed to me that meets the
definition of a
commission examples of and I've just put
a few examples up here to again to
emphasize that as we view it the HPC is
a commission and not a committee the HBC
provides design review in the city's
historic overlay districts and reviews
and recommends approval or denial of
certificates of
appropriateness the HPC also manages and
reviews the Los cruus register of
cultural properties consults with the
City Historic preservation specialist
regarding ongoing in inventories
research and future
plans the second item that we would like
to discuss is historic preservation
specialist or an
HPS The Specialist that actual role has
been deleted in chapter two of realized
Los crues using chapter 40 as a guide
the HPC is urging that the title and all
reference to a historic preservation
specialist be
reinstated chapter 40 clearly outlines
the role of the HPS in supporting the
Citywide historic preservation and
serving as a leaon to the historic
preservation commission so terminology
as mentioned earlier by Sarah I believe
that um they're willing to put in the
verbiage that that position can either
be appointed by a community director or
the Des
the issue with this is that this is sort
of a temporary fix in terms of why um
would we want to have that position
reinstated and why is this important the
historic Specialists must meet
qualifications under State and National
preservation laws the position of a
specialist is not a journalist and
that's very important that can be
appointed as needed it requires one with
special specialized training and
experience again this is not a case of
semantics a generalist or someone
appointed as needed cannot fulfill the
duties and obligations previously listed
under chapter 40 and reiterated in
Chapter 2 as the term engineer planner
or hydrologist carries specific meaning
and training the same holds true for the
position of historic preservation
specialist
so regarding this position Dr Troy Anor
was the first and only specialist hired
in the city of Los crusis Community
Development has asked in several
meetings that the HPC hold off doing
several projects until a historic
preservationist is hired to me this
reconfirms that the work outline in
section 2.2 C should be conducted by a
historic preservation specialist and not
a
designate if this position is important
enough to be filled it should be clear
clearly listed in the glossery which is
not there and it should be within the
document outlining job
responsibilities so I have a question
regarding the glossies there needs to be
a consistency within the glossies which
it does not appear to be the goal of the
document was to have all the terms
listed in chapter one however in chapter
three additional terms are listed that
do not appear in chapter one in Chapter
2 historic preservation is a very
specific activity I believe like
engineering planning or other
disciplines those terms unique to
Historic preservation should be also
included into chapter two to make sense
and to have the community and staff look
it over so we've already um mentioned
the Legacy zoning districts my only
comment is that if the time is now and
if changes are being made I would
recommend that the two additional
National register districts be put into
to the Legacy program and that future
education could be conducted my final
statement so our final statement is that
we do have four requests one is to
ensure that the HBC is referred to as a
commission two that we reinstate the
position of a historic specialist three
that the glossery becomes consistent
that we have the the terms in chapter
one one chapter 2 and chapter 3 to be
consistent and to add MSA Park and the
Elephant but Irrigation District to the
Legacy section 3.2 so I thank you for
your time and consideration if there are
any questions or clarification I'd be
more than happy to answer them thank
you all right and finally we will go to
the
homebuilder association
it's 10 minutes okay or do you need a
little bit more a little more
okay we'll go with 13 and you can finish
up if that's not
enough good evening Commissioners uh I'm
John
Moscato by way of disclaimer I was a
member of the realized Los Cruses
technical advisory committee but I'm not
here this evening speaking on behalf of
of the
committee um as you probably know the
committee met for a period of over 18
months reviewed and commented on 400
plus pages of new codes for development
and
Zoning uh if adopted as drafted there
are some changes from the existing
codes the new code that would result in
increased cost of new
development and I I'll focus on just a
couple of those this evening uh when the
cost of development
increases those costs are passed on to
home builders who pass on the cost to
home buyers I think we're all aware of
the challenges facing affordable housing
it's not just affordable housing which
means housing for households of certain
limited area median
income but those costs extend to
attainable housing for Middle income
households uh and even market rate
typical market rate housing for general
public uh really there are few areas of
housing that are exempt from these
increased costs that we've seen go so
high over previous years
um it even
reaches multif family development uh
which is an important component uh here
locally and I would ask if if we can
limit cost increases for new development
and thereby limit cost increases for
housing why wouldn't we try to do that
why wouldn't we address that positively
in realiz L crues and I think what I'd
like to present here is to show you how
you can recommend uh limiting those
costs to new development and therefore
to
housing
so the the concept of houses being
priced out or households being priced
out of housing depends on how many
people in an in a
certain uh income level can afford
housing so neighborhood parks is a
particular area of concern as far
as um increased development costs right
now
now generally speaking the minimum is 2
Acres uh in cases where Master plans
puds and such are approved developers
donate the land developers build parks
and in all cases that I'm aware of
although maybe there are cases I'm not
aware of uh developers are reimbursed
for the cost of parks uh when developers
are reimbursed for the cost of building
the parks which developers can typically
do at a much lower cost than the city if
the city were to build those Parks uh
there's no cost to pass along to
builders development is a cost based
business uh we look at
costs calculate a return on investment
and charge builders for Lots or the
general public for Lots based on that
cost if there's no no cost because the
construction of parks is being
reimbursed then there's no cost to pass
along to builders no cost to pass along
to buyers Builders though pay the park
impact fee so uh you know the impact of
new residents in the general Community
especially for neighborhood parks uh
that's that's a cost that Builders pay
when they pull building permits and then
part of that collection of Park impact
fees is reimbursed to the developer when
they build Parks
um
typically the park impact fee collected
for a development exceeds any
reimbursement that's negotiated with
with Parks my experience has been
somewhere between 30 and 70 or 80% of
the total Park impact fee and to be
collected in an area is reimbursable
given documented cost of construction of
the parks right now the piff fund
balance exceeds $7 million so there
doesn't seem to be any shortage of if
funds now and and there hasn't been for
many many years what realiz on the other
hand recommends is a minimum of three
acre Parks I heard uh Sarah's
presentation a few minutes ago there's
that there might be negotiable sizes and
and that's a good thing uh developers
would donate the land again my
experience has been that's usually the
way it's happened for at least Master
plans and puds uh developers would build
the parks as a
requirement uh but there'd be no
reimbursement at all so as opposed to
the status quo where there's
reimbursement and therefore no cost to
pass along to builders to pass along to
buyers in this case developers would
charge builders for the parks Builders
would pass along that cost to buyers
housing prices go up uh Builders would
still pay the park impact fee uh
Builders would charge pass along the
park impact fee charge and they would
also pass along the cost of the parks
which they now bearing the the cost of
because developers aren't being
reimbursed anymore um that leads to
certain home certain households being
priced out of the housing market we
don't know what the piff fund balance
would be in the case of the
realized chapter as as written but
certainly it would it would go up at you
know $7 million now who knows how much
more it would it would be
this chart shows you the the history of
the piff fund this is from a
presentation that was given at the CIA
recently uh Park impact fee Revenue uh
has been over over $10
million uh expenditures little under $7
million excess Park impact fee Revenue
almost $4 million so
and and those expenditures are not just
reimbursements those expenditures could
be cost for the East Mesa Regional Park
and and other things so there's there's
certainly an ability within what's
collected in the form of Park impact
fees to reimburse developers and not
have that cost be passed along to
households buying homes
nahb has conducted a few studies
indicating how many households
specifically in the Las Cruses
Metropolitan statistical area would be
priced out of homes for certain price
increases so a $2,000 home price
increase 172 households priced out in
the metropolitan area or in city limits
86 households because City Limits
roughly half the population of the
metropolitan area as a whole with a
$3,000 price increase uh 130 households
priced out in Las
Cruses and $5,000 price increase
216 households priced out so those are
those are households that simply won't
have the ability to buy a
home uh and here's an an overall chart
you can see we don't know
right
now what the price increase level will
be because as as I'm sure you're aware
the
new park impact fee won't be dealt with
by Council until middle of next year so
we're really operating in the dark we
don't know whether there's going to be
an increase in the park impact fee from
2600 to 5600 or 6600 I do know that the
last time the current consultant who's
working with Parks uh recommended a an
increase it was a doubling of the park
impact fee so I wouldn't be surprised if
we're facing a
significant increase in the park impact
fee so could it be 2,000 3,000 5,000 we
don't know but certainly there'll be a
large number of area households priced
out of the market
uh this is an interesting statistic from
the uh US Government accountability
office they found that a $100 increase
in median rent was associated with a 9%
increase in estimated homelessness rate
uh right now as the realized document is
drafted uh
multifam would be required to build
Parks not be reimbursed and have to pay
the park impact fees kind of a triple
whammy and uh in talking with a multif
family developer you know typical 200
250 unit complex the increase cost when
you combine those three
factors uh donating the
land Building the park paying the fee
it's about a million half dollars which
would raise rents close to that $100
threshold where homelessness would be uh
increased uh so there are couple
Alternatives uh instead
of not reimbursing Developers for the
cost of building Parks
uh the city could continue the
historical practice of reimbursing for
that cost
uh we realize that there's still going
to be a need for Park impact fees to be
spent in other than neighborhood parks
so the reimbursement could be limited to
the lesser of the cost of Park
improvements or 50% of the piff to be
collected from the development in which
the park is built that would guarantee
that at least 50% of the park impact fee
to be collected from a neighborhood
would not be going to that neighborhood
park but could be used by Parks
Department for Community Parks Regional
Parks other uses that they that they
find uh also looking at the the impact
on
multifam uh reducing the piff by at
least 50% for multifamily that's been
the historical Norm in the city that if
a multif family development
included certain recreational amenities
as part of the project that the piff
requirement would be reduced by half
uh as far as I know that's been
typically how things have operated for
over a decade seems like that's coming
to an end as well
um and I think also to reduce the impact
of increased cost
the elimination of the requirement for
donating land cuz why would why would a
multif family development if it has
recre recreational amenities as part of
the project also need to donate land for
a 3 Acre
Park the other alternative is just
to wait and hold the section on Parks
until after the New Park impact fee is
set in the middle or later part of of
next year that way everyone can proceed
with eyes wide open will know exactly
what the impact of the cost increase
would be to builders and home buyers
would know exactly how many households
would be priced out I heard at the work
session that there's discussion about uh
revisiting realize after eight months or
a year to work Out The Kinks uh that
would be a good time to revisit the Park
section I think it could be easily
pulled out now I think it could be
justified because you don't know what
the impact is going to be you just don't
know there's no way of knowing no one
can predict what the impact fee is going
to be uh increased to
uh and Y the uh decision regarding
reimbursement could be delayed and
reducing the piff by 50% for
multifamily uh that could I think that's
a a
reasonable option to include in the uh
in the
revision thank you for for your time
hope that's been helpful and
Illuminating thank you very much
appreciate
that um okay just real quick last call
anybody who wishes to speak this evening
before we close public
comment I see one
hand possibly two
okay last chance
so do a root pra as a citizen uh
unaffiliated with any individual group
although I do consult with several
groups I want to speak to two points
regarding the historic preservation uh
presentation that Dr bman made first is
that I've spoken to a number of people
who were involved in the
original uh work to establish the
historic preservation commission that
was voted into being in
2019 including Dr Deborah Dennis who
would be here to speak to that point
tonight but she's in North Carolina
trying to mitigate storm
damage in that um leadup to the chapter
40 and the voting in of the historic
preservation commission the intent was
the original intent was to create a
commission that could work side by side
with pnz and could be in a sense
patterned after pnz as far as how it
handled itself and the authority that it
had
and uh in a shorthand sense a committee
designation gets you a seat in the room
it doesn't necessarily get you a voice
and often committees in this city are
overlooked for one reason or another
being uh designated and recognized as a
commission gets you not only a seat at
the table but also a vote and a voice
and those are significant differences it
is not simple semantic
and the second point I want to make you
might be wondering why the two historic
designations that Dr bman mentioned were
not included in chapter 40 in
2019 it was
because um well why they didn't exist at
all is the problem elephant be
Irrigation District is often overlooked
even though it's been nationally
recognized since 1997
and the msia park historic district was
not formulated until
2016 and so asking for those to be in
this document is not asking to correct a
fault in some earlier version it's
asking to recognize what are current
national designations in terms of
historic preservation and the values of
certain properties within the city
limits thank you thank
you I think there's one more gentleman
yes please come
forward Steve Green commissioner board
i' just like to just kind of go back
over a few things and with John and what
he had had to say and one is you know
you guys have heard there's multiple
inconsistencies holes and different
things parts of this um we don't know
the impact fees and we don't know lot
about the technical manuals um to me I'm
just asking you guys let's pump the
brakes for a second get the information
in front of everybody it it to me it
doesn't seem right to vote or say
anything to something if you don't know
the full understanding of everything you
are saying yes to um I think that's
important to re encourage that and
before I didn't you know voting on
something you should know that um the
other thing was we've asked staff
multiple times about the character
designations in realiz L cruus that go
goes with the new zoning and if they are
inconsistency with that how do we get
the characteristic changed we know we
can change the zoning but can you
reassess the
characteristics this is hard to
understand how that's going to be done
it's kind of been gray area like well
we'll we'll handle that when it gets
there I just feel like until we get that
written in stone that shouldn't be
approved or get go any further we need
to know that understanding um that poses
a problem down later down the road and
it's always easy to kick that can down
the road till you get to that part of
the road and then we're right back here
um my understanding is we it opens it up
to community discussion which giving
everybody in the community too many
bites at the Apple can also be
problematic too so I think there just
needs to be some more definition on that
thank you guys thank
you all right we'll go ahead and close
public comment and come back to the
commission um so I think the process
here to try to be orderly um and and be
able to move forward um we'll go chapter
by chapter uh in which case we can have
a discussion um if there's any questions
clarification um anything on your mind
we can have that dialogue staff is here
and available to answer
questions um and then if there's any uh
amendments that you wish to propose um
we can do that at that time for that
chapter
uh and then what we'll do um is we will
basically take a vote on the Amendments
so if we all generally agree that these
five amendments on this chapter are good
we can just package that all make one
vote move to the next chapter if there
of those five amendments one or two of
them there's some disagreement on uh
we'll have to vote on each one
individually um and that will decide if
it if it basically moves to the next
stage which would be city council um
we'll try to be efficient so the things
that we agree on we can package that all
together so we're not having to vote a
million different times this evening um
so we'll do that chapter by chapter and
then at the very end uh we'll take a
final vote that basically says we agree
you know we're voting on everything that
we just discussed this evening does that
make
sense see I got point of clar yes I need
to clarify one thing so the Amendments
that have already happened that um staff
has said are those those are already
going to go forward as amendments that's
going to city council correct and then
if pnz has any additional amendments
then we will add those and those will go
on to council is that is that my
understanding correct thank you
all right so we will go ahead um and Mr
chair yes may I interject one just a
second um I do want to answer um Mr
Green's question because we do have the
public here we do have the development
Community here I think it is something
that is important that we do address and
it gives that public time to understand
the question that was brought up as
regards to the character area in a
zoning change or a zoning map Amendment
um as part of that each zone is going to
be identified with the area so that is
your zone so if you are zoned nh1
Suburban that is your zoning District
you want to amend that to
nh1 say Urban then you would bring in a
zoning map amendment to City staff
they're going to process the application
as that is your Zone and your Zone
Amendment request that would move
forward to city council to address
whether Elevate would need to be amended
or if the zoning map would just be
approved or that zoning map Amendment
and so the zoning character areas are
included within the zoning districts and
so there's nothing going to be different
so if you're an nh1 Suburban nh1 Urban
and you want to modify the urban portion
or your character area that is part of
your zone so you would just come back
and amend to I want a zoning map
Amendment from nh1 Urban to nh1 Suburban
that is going to be a zoning map
Amendment there's no request to amend
Elevate at that point in time staff
would go through the process of
essentially taking it to the Planning
and Zoning commission for recommendation
to city
council I I do hope that clarifies
because I do think that it's going to be
an important movement as we move forward
with these zoning districts and
something being
new so in the in your presentation
though this evening I maybe I
misunderstood um you had said that the
the the zone change
would would be as normal so you come
before playing zoning with a zone change
and then at that time we can the
Planning and Zoning commission can add a
recommendation to change the
comprehensive plan Place
type that's not what you just said or am
I mixing something up Mr chair c for the
record um what it's going to be is
changing the entire Zone that place type
is going to be including Ed in those
zoning districts already so when you get
a proposal coming before you for a
recommendation you are going to be
changing that entire zone nh1 urban is
the Zone it's not going to be separated
or disconnected that is the actual zone
of that area and that's where the
comprehensive plan will come in to say
does it match that character area is
that you know if we're going to go nh1
suburban and we want to make it Urban
when we look at the comprehensive plan
does that match is that where we're
going to have to see that Amendment take
place so your actual zone is going to
have those character areas already
outlined so you will become nh1 Urban
nh1 or nh2 Suburban they're going to be
classified together so you would just be
bringing in a Zone modification because
essentially what's tied to each one of
those character areas is your Design
Elements and so each one gives you the
opportunity to change your density your
setbacks um your actual development
standards and that's why those character
areas are included as part of the Zone
because that tells you how to regulate
what your designs
are okay that makes sense and then that
language that'll all be spelled out in
the draft that goes to city
council Mr chair that will be correct
yes and commission that will be provided
um right now currently it says the
zoning map process is in there but all
of the zoning designations will be
labeled out as Urban Suburban character
so that way we understand that all those
districts are going to be available and
that is the actual Zone okay thank you
I'm not sure I 100% agree with
that in if you go to page 88 well my
page
88 so I I I get it as as she explained
it there for a zoning district and then
it goes to a character area so in the
booklet for B character-based zoning
districts I I can agree with Sarah on
the
the um the thought process behind it
right and saying that the nh1 rural is
the actual zoning or
NH nh1 Urban or nh1 Suburban is the
actual zoning of there I do I can I
agree with that because even when you go
on to the interactive zoning map that we
have you'll click on the different areas
and it'll still be nh1 rural nh1 so and
within that you do have your
classification but the example that I
have here on page on 88 basically says
the character area and so I do still
think that there needs to be some type
of a clarification of
uh to the general public when you come
in and want to just change the
character even though it is you're
you're not the way it's explained right
now that I and I get it is that nh1
rural that's it's the character but
that's also the zone of it but it is a
little confusing if someone's coming in
and reading this document that there's a
character but I I don't want to change
the nh1 Zone I don't want to change nh1
to nh2 I just want to change the
character I just think there should be a
little bit better of clarification of
how that's spelled out in in the process
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the
they are the rural is its own zoning I
just think it needs to have a little bit
more clarification in the book as to
what the character and and changing of a
character or whether it's simply a a
statement that is said nh1 rural is the
zoning or like an example nh1 rural is
the Zone
nh1 Suburban is the zone does that make
it just needs a little clarification is
really all I'm saying I'm not I'm not in
disagreement of the the
theory Mr chair Sarah Gonzalez for the
record um we did notice that um staff
that did review after the pnz work
session did come up with um that was a
concern as well and so on the District
page which is going to be page 87 of
your booklet it's going to be changed to
be neighborhood one Urban district and
so it's actually going to call it out as
an actual District as a whole right now
it only has
nh1 and so we're going to modify that to
where the actual character areas
included so now the district becomes nh1
Urban and that's your full District so
that would be the zone change that you
would move
forward okay I think that I think that
can help out now as far as wanting to
change the actual character of it or now
if I want to change the zoning of it
which is changing the character it has
to be tied back to
the it's not realized Los cruus what's
the what's the Elevate Los cruus so you
have to still tie it back into to
elevate Los cruus because where where we
got these designations of rural suburban
and others was from the map that was
approved on Elevate Los cruus and
so you'll have two documents in the city
that are if you get a zone change from
rural
to Suburban or rural to
Urban you're going to have a two
documents that are not consistent with
each other does that make sense and so
in order to have the
I if Elevate was passed we still have to
follow those rules because it was passed
by the city and so we're also going to
have to make sure that the realize and
Elevate both match up and so there does
need to be some type of a clarification
that it's not just a zone change you
literally are going to have to have a
change to elevate for you to actually
get a rural suburban or Urban change
does that am am I understanding that
wrong Mr chair and commission basically
if an area is already compatible with it
so if you're adjacent just by say you
are changing your NH Suburban right say
you say you're in a suburban area and
you want to do an urban model um if
you're near or adjacent that it may not
require an amendment because it could be
compatible it could say this actually
warrants an actual change or a look at
to say that this is going to be
compatible if you're changing and
wanting to go from Urban to rural there
needs to be modifications there's
probably going to be you know some
evaluations there's going to be looks as
to why it's going to change from
essentially when we're looking at our
densities from one to two a one to two
dwelling units per acre to a 40 dwelling
unit per acre and so there's going to
have to be that justification some of
the ways that we've modified that in
code is by encouraging cluster
development in rural areas and so that
way you can still get the density you
wish to use as a as opposed to changing
that character's area and so those are
going to be the modifications and so not
necessarily will Elevate be amended
every time that a zone change comes in
we currently use Elevate as our guide
whenever we bring zone changes to the
Planning and Zoning commission as well
as city council for adoption not all the
times will it match or be compatible
there are areas that may be defined as
commercial and we Zone it industrial we
tend to see that and so it's going to be
how much is that change going to be
modified from the plan that we need to
re-evaluate what modifications would
need to actually take place so it's not
always a guarantee that it would be
amended it's based on where it's going
to be located for that zoning map
amendment to take
place
so from what I'm hearing that they don't
have to be the same in Co they don't
have to be coherent with each other or
is that not the right word they don't
have to be cohesive with each other is
that I think in certain cases it's not
going to be cohesive with each other
it's not going to be the same yeah and I
I think that's currently what it is
because if you look
at uh Elevate well as cruus there's a
there's many more sort of place
types called out here than kind of show
up on the map and so I I don't think
it's as convoluted
as okay as we're making it out to be um
because there are more place
types in Elevate than what are shown on
the map and it's really just comes down
to is the proposal consistent with you
know the goals and objectives of elevate
I think would be the determinate
determining Factor okay so so do we
believe that we have everything in place
then for someone to come and just change
the character through a zoning then we
should be just fine is that what is that
my understanding Mr chair and commission
yes based on a zoning map Amendment
staff would take you through that
process would outline essentially that
process because we're only modifying the
zoning map we're modifying The Zone in
which you are proposing and that's going
to come with the details and the actual
information to move forward
with all right are we good to start back
at the beginning on chapter one and I'm
sure there might be other questions as
we get back into this chapter but
um we'll start with chapter one so this
is the general Provisions um I know
there there were some of us that weren't
present for the work session um are
there any
questions
or issues on chapter one um at the work
session this this one was pretty
straightforward for us
but give folks to look at their notes
all right no all not seeing any so
um were there was did anybody have any
proposed amendments they wanted to bring
up for chapter
one all right then we will go ahead and
since there are no amendments we won't
take a vote so we'll just go into
chapter
two this is historic preservation
I guess I can kick things off I do have
just a couple of questions um for staff
so at the work session
um
you outlined basically that the
the process I guess to some extent
the um responsibilities of the historic
preservation commission which it's now
being called that that there were there
were no changes there were no proposed
changes there um so I guess the question
I have is if if that's the case if
there's no changes and roles and
responsibilities and
obligations why the change from a
a commission to a
committee Mr chair Commissioners Chris
favor Community Development for the
record
so under the current organization of
Municipal Code they are a reviewing and
recommending body that equates to a
committee a commission is a
decision-making body such as yours so
having a commission that would have the
ability to appeal to another commission
doesn't fit within that structure
okay
so the way that it's outlined now is the
process and roles all of that stays the
same it's just allowing an appeals
process to be more in line
with I guess state law sure Chris favor
again Mr chair so yeah anything that
went through PN through HPC would then
come to Planning and Zoning if there was
an appeal for that so nothing would be
changing from what the current level of
responsibility is
now okay um and then my second question
is on the historic preservation
specialist
um are there any have we looked at any
examples where that
was in other cities where that position
was specifically called out within their
historic
preservation ordinances I tried to do a
little bit of research last night um but
that's definitely a rabbit hole that can
go down and I didn't get whole lot of
insight so I'm just wondering if the
city has explored that Avenue why the
change here if you could just kind of
explain that a little bit more sure Mr
chair Chris favor again so it's more um
looking at not necessarily other
communities outside New Mexico but
looking at what the requirements are
from the state and the state basically
requires that you have a person that has
those qualifications within your
structure there is
no requirement that that specific
position is mentioned in Municipal Code
so the city meets the standard by having
that position on
staff the intent with some of the
reignment across minod through realize
is to like Sarah stated before take
those positions out that could
potentially change at any point in time
and just reference them as a design of
the department level so it's more to
just make it um less having to come back
and and amend if certain things change
um HR department does a comp and class
study from time to time and if there's
recommendations that would require
changing throughout so we're making this
change across uh all departments
throughout uh Municipal Code so again it
wasn't so much what other cities doing
around the the country is more are we
making sure we're meeting the standard
that's required by the state and and we
are by having that position on staff
here at the city okay so then I guess to
kind of tug on that string a little bit
so the community development director
would
then be required
to um identify the historic preservation
specialist on staff as their designate
right because they're the
qualified individual to carry out or
execute certain tasks under the
ordinance Mr chair yes that is correct
it would be up to each department
director to make sure that they have
staff appropriate for any certifications
or requirements that may be um you know
uh managed through their department
whether it's public works for
engineering whether it's HPC or historic
preservation for Community Development
that would be up to the department
director to make those calls on a
staffing level okay and then
at at that point then certain actions
couldn't not be completed if there was
let's just say the historic preservation
specialist position was vacant for a
year the historic preservation
committee would then not be able to
execute their duties or I guess the city
wouldn't be able to execute the
responsibilities of the historic
preservation
ordinance or I guess chapter because
that position they wouldn't have the
qualified person to make to call the
ball on strike uh Mr chair not exactly
so the stipulation from the state is
that you have someone that meets a
variety whether it's there's a there's a
there's AR there's archaeology there's
architecture there's a there's planning
there's a wide variety of positions that
qualify plus you would have the ability
to bring on a consultant to fill that
role as well so you didn't have that
specific person for whatever reason
there is flexibility to make sure that
there is somebody on staff that can meet
those requirements that the state has so
it's not even specifically tied to that
one there's a there's a wide range of of
flexibility okay so go out to do um um
an inventory or a
survey uh the person doing that would
have to have
whatever um professional certifications
in order for that survey inventory to be
deemed
complete Mr chair potentially yeah I
think the city would need to look and
see what is the specific task that's
being asked and do we have staff
currently to meet that in the event that
there's an absence from that position or
could that be filled on a short-term um
contract basis through a consultant or
some other temporary type employment so
there's there's ways depending on what
the specific task would
be okay thank you
does anybody else have questions on
historic preservation yeah commissioner
Smith um regarding the uh historic
preservation Specialists So currently
there is not one on
staff Mr chair Commissioners yes
currently we are without and we are
going through the uh process to hire
okay so has a position been flown or you
just right now you just uh working on
the job description before you before
you fly it Mr chair Commissioners know
has actually been posted there are
candidates and there are interviews
lined up over the next couple weeks to
fill that position all right thank
you any other questions comments
concerns all right
any amendments that folks wish to
propose on chapter two before we
move
forward all right um seeing none we will
go ahead and move along to chapter 3
right so this chapter is uh general or
zoning regulations so this is where all
of our development standard or not all
the development standards but some of
the usas
standards um and the
uh the specific uses allowed within each
zoning
District um there are I believe there
are sections in here related to existing
special zoning districts those are not
part of this update so like the downtown
I think is one University Corridor um so
those we are not addressing this
evening um but anybody have questions
comments concerns on this
chapter I think I'm good with the
suggestion that St that Steph has
changed from last meeting on chapter 3
for
me yes I Echo that I appreciate the
changes that staff um is implementing uh
I have a couple I guess um
uh well actually a question maybe for
staff
on page
I think it's page
101 let get back to
that yeah page 101 in the table figure
32 uh
3-2-1 uh there's the building height men
Max but then there's only five stories
identified is that a Min a Max both
Mr chair commission um the minimum
should be actually re removed should be
at a maximum of five stories unless
recommended
otherwise okay yeah I think that's fine
just wanted to clarify that because the
way that's read now is everything would
be five
stories um is that something that we
need to actually make as
a
recommendation at this stage Mr chair to
put it on the record I would recommend
that it is so that way we can have that
documented as we have done all of our
pre meetings all of the modifications we
can up to this point and since we are
now at pnz I would recommend that it do
be placed onto there okay so it's uh it
would be recommend
remove remove the word
men from Building
height feel free if you have questions
or comments to jump in um I'm just going
through my notes
I I have a question for Staff last time
we we were
um talking about having a review time
for this because I think some of these
little clarification errors right might
well are still going to happen um do do
we have something in here that's like in
a year from now that it'll just be
brought up and we're going to have
because we're going to regardless how
many times we go over this what but I I
like the suggestion is that that are
here but like we're going to find
another one that says you know min max
it's just
a it's just an edit um do we have
something in place that's maybe six
months from now or a year from now
that's hey we're going to come back and
just change the the mess ups Mr chair
and commission um moving forward staff
has already designated that
8mon um transition period to where we
can identify anything and then bring
forward any amendments that come forth
so it's going to be any of the minor
typos or modifications that need to be
clarified as well as anything that we
have noticed throughout the process
creates either barriers or no longer
make sense whenever it actually gets
implemented that's a lot of times what
takes place so after that transition
period staff will be coming back with
any amendments that are necessary so
that'll be like eight months from
February if it passes that's the dream
okay thank
you um another I think question um this
is again the same table on page 101
um
the yes so the front build two line uh
we
already um staff had
agreed on page 92 94 and
96 to reduce the build to lines and I
think also remove the required
setback front setback at least Le
correct Mr chair the recommendation was
to reduce them when we had the
discussion on the October 29th work
session um if it's to be reduced or to
be removed that would be an amendment
made
tonight right so I guess my question
would be is there is there a reason why
staff didn't do the same change for the
Mixed use and Town Center
overlay Mr chair a lot of the
recommendations that were made during
the discussion is really what was
focused on and so that would have been a
Mist basically it wasn't brought up and
so it wasn't noticed as that would also
be something
implemented okay so I mean I guess the
question is does staff have a heartburn
with that type of change I mean would
there be a reason why we wouldn't want
to make those consistent because I think
the it's basically the urban core right
so it seems like we would Al want to
align the mixed use Corridor in the Town
Center
in the in
the case of the front build two line to
be the
same as those other zones would that Mr
chair and commission I don't think that
there's too much of a concern to mirror
them um to eliminate them though because
we do have a large area within the urban
core could produce more of an issue if
we remove them as a whole um we do look
at properties and where utilities are
ran a lot of times they run through the
front property lines um and so those may
be the inconsistencies and so reducing
them um staff's recommendation was to
reduce on local roadways down to 10 feet
and then on arterior roadways was to 15
that could be the same recommendation
for this table as
well okay so the the setbacks the
setback the front setback was not
eliminated for for page 92 94 996 that's
what you're saying Mr chair that is
correct as to the discussion it was to
reduce them and so essentially I believe
they were at 15 and then reduced down to
one question on the downtown current
downtown are we zero or do we have a
setback Mr chair and commission it is at
a zero because a lot of the buildings
that were developed in the downtown area
are to the property lines and so so we
had to evaluate that when that
development code went forward most of
the buildings are property line to
property line and so a lot of times any
Redevelopment ends up becoming an
encroachment to city
property and so it was very difficult to
align and say okay now the buildings
need to be at 12 foot because we' be
demoing all those buildings as they
redeveloped so looking at the table on
94 uh we have a fr front setback in the
urban uh 15 ft on arterials 12 ft on
locals but if we're
reducing the build two line to 15 and 10
we immediately have a conflict on the
local we have a setback of 12 but you
have to build to
10 that doesn't work um and then we have
the same the setback and the build two
line would be exactly the same so that's
why when I saw this comment I was like
oh great we're just going to use build
two lines instead of the setbacks in the
urban
area Mr Mr chair that is correct yes and
that was identified through some of the
processes um through additional staff
noticing that those needed to be
reversed because they were
counteractive um and so yes if it's pz's
recommendation to just remove and only
use the bill two lines and then reduce
the bill two lines that is an
opportunity for this evening to
recommend as a recommendation to
council Mr chairman I would highly
recommend
that yeah I I would agree with that so
um I think the
recommendation would be so on this this
piece of paper right here this proposed
amendments uh chapter 3 number one page
101 is specifically referencing the uh
mixed use in town center but I think we
want to say
for um eliminate the minimum front
setbacks
for mixed use Town
centers
and all other urban place types would
that
be would that cover everything
Mr chair you could identify it as um any
zoning District having Urban associated
with it because zoning District that's
going to have Urban could be essentially
that
District okay so we can simplify to just
eliminate minimum front setbacks for all
urban place
types including
mixed use and Town
Center use build to
line consistent with the changes that
staff has already made so 15 and
just for clarification purposes so any
any your supposing that there's a zero
front
setback on anything that's in
urban
characteristic correct so you can have
you can build anywhere within the front
build to line you can't build your your
facade would have to be within that
maximum distance
okay I I I look at it and I'm saying
okay mixed use that's good I mean it
gives it gives more flexibility as a as
a builder as a developer as other things
like that it gives you more flexibility
but uh I mean
I there's a lot of uses in urban right
you could still put a house in urban
with no
setback so I'm I'm fine with it but I'm
just saying
that's there's no setback at all in
urban yeah I think where I was coming
from in the work session is that we had
this dual things we had a big setback
and then we also had this forced build
to line so it's like your setback could
be 30 feet but you had to build to
something smaller than that it just
seemed like the two things were in
Conflict so it's like let's just pick
one or the other
um so so that would allow me if if if
I'm building in an urban area and I have
town homes and then the town homes go
into a mixed use you can keep the
consistency along the front
edge yeah okay
um I've got a few other things but um
they're the remaining comments I have
are on the um specific land uses the
land use table so before we jump over
that were there any other
comments all right um so
the the couple that I had on the
specific land uses um this is number
three on this list here under chapter 3
page 215
um I recommend requiring a special use
permit for all drive-throughs located in
the urban place type including the mixed
use and Town Center uh zones um I
believe that would um be more consistent
with trying to create this more urban
fabric walkable type of community as
opposed to hey we want those things but
then we're going to just allow everybody
to build drive-throughs without having
any additional consideration for the
context
um and the same thing would be for uh
gas pumps gas
stations
um so both
drive-throughs gas pumps car Centric um
I feel like need an extra layer of um
consideration there so um we don't have
to discuss each of those right now but
just throwing that out there um and then
the other uh um
number five is requiring a special use
permit for payday loans check cashing or
Bail Bonds in the nh2 NH3 and CR
[Music]
zones number six is require special use
permit for car washes in the NH3 and CR
zones um and then
finally
um page 221 re a special use permit for
commercial parking lots or garages in
the NH3 CR and um light industrial
zones so if anyone has consternation
over any of those feel free to chime in
I'm still trying to gather my thoughts
on on the
NH3 on
your special uses for for a car wash and
NH3 correct yeah
for staffs NH3 is supposed to
be
our uh more commerci like commercial
areas type of a deal but we also have
commercial in here but it's also kind of
mixed can you help explain that to me
one more time Mr chair and commission um
NH3 is going to reflect more of your r4s
and then it's going to include your c1s
and c2s so your neighborhood commercials
um big box stores that are going to be
limited to 25,000 sare ft or less and
then the commercial uses that are
permitted within those and NH3 is going
to provide um or I'm sorry hold on let
me Rec clarify that so R are your r1s
and your R1 a R1 BS r2s are going to be
simplified into your neighborhood
districts then you go into essentially
neighborhood 3es are going to be more of
your office 01s o2s and they're going to
be um your c1s and c2s because those are
limiting the Box and so that's where
you're going to see an NH3 as 25,000 ft
or less when you get into a CR that's
where you see the commercial development
of greater than a 25,000 ft big box
building and so you're going to just see
basically the size of buildings and
capacity on properties because they may
have larger acreage but those are going
to be your commercial zoned properties
and that's what CR is going to be
considered so we've eliminated and made
NH3 your offices your c1s and your C2
because those were considered your
neighborhood actually
um services or
providers So currently NH3 is orange on
here and that would the area that I'm
looking at is on like Renata Boulevard
where it ties into Sona Ranch so like
the Walmart and all the commercial
development that's basically being done
over there is classified as
NH3 M yes Mr chair that is correct a lot
of the development that took place out
there um is still vacant and so it's
going to have the potential of adding
those commercial uses and so it wasn't
designated on Elevate Los Cruz's
comprehensive plan as a commercial Zone
district and so that's why NH3 is still
going to give it the option to provide
commercial uses with that multif family
um as a
component and we we do have some NH3 I
believe um kind of down around off of
spruce between Spruce and Hadley and I
believe there's even
some um kind of just north of downtown
so I mean you've got NH3 and highly
urban areas that I just think again
we're kind of undercutting ourselves
it's not to say that you can't do it it
just requires an extra level of
consideration to understand the
context yeah I'm just trying to get my
head wrapped around it before I say yeah
to
that e
I I don't have any other amendments or
anything like that but I do want to just
touch on yours right here on the your
gas pumps fine without the not the gas
pumps your payday loans uh checking
cashing Bail Bonds nh2
NH3 and CR zones I think the only one
I'm going to disagree with is just the
CR zones cuz if it's commercial uh I
think we got to have some zones that
allows multiple things in there it's
going to be next to the neighborhoods
but since it's actually has the when I'm
looking at this map here in all the red
areas I think that would be probably be
a better place for that than in the nh3s
like you're like you're suggesting there
also for car washes I think car washes
are okay in a CR Zone but I would agree
with you on an NH3 Zone
so what if on the car washes we just
made it the same as the um
drive-throughs so no car washes in the
urban place urban place
types
it's theory of of in in theory of
planning of it I get it
um it's very hard for
in my opinion on planning when when we
have the future planning and I got raw
land right I got raw land I can come out
here and I can plan and I can put the
urban streets I can put the urban like I
get to start fresh right so not only in
the urban areas do I I should be able to
also shrink the streets right and and
you're trying to really create when we
talk about Urban and what what's
happening is we're trying to shrink
we're trying to create pedestrian we're
trying trying to create bike friendly
we're trying to create that type of a
deal right the mixed use we have the
offices down low we have the people
living on top and so you're trying to
really build like live work play in the
same area and so
when we don't really have that in Los
cruus so we have a downtown that's
that's work and play but there's no live
space to it right and so trying
r i I guess for planning specifically
yes it makes sense to reduce that but
then in our in our areas that's like
revitalizing downtown or revitalizing
some other areas it might be restrictive
[Music]
to areas that you still need that
flexibility versus versus the raw land
is it yeah no I understand what you're
saying I think for for this it's it's
specifically the use of a car wash and I
think what you were talking about of
kind of the the
the the vision of kind of our Urban core
is again more walkable more pedestrian
friendly and I just view these these car
they are literally car Centric there's
no other use you can't walk through a
car wash um maybe you could I don't know
if they'd let you might be weird but um
it's just fundamentally antithetical to
that concept so it's not again it's not
saying you can't do it you can still
propose it you just you got to go
through an additional
layer of um because as it's proposed
right now anyone can go into our
downtown you know downtown adjacent and
put a car wash put gas stations put
drive-throughs and that's just more of
the same um so I I mean I'm fine with
number six changing it to just um
require special use permit for car
washes in uh the urban place
type and the use in transit or not
Transit the Town Center zones that works
so Mr chair what if we on the special
use permit for car washes we eliminate
the
NH3 tell me your thoughts behind keeping
the NH NH3 on the special use
washes so I think basically that's all
already a special use permit for the
nh2 Zone uh let me double check page
221 yeah so it's already a special use
permit for the nh2 so it would just be
the NH3
did that answer your question okay thank
you let me do a little research on my
side
um so while we're kind of pondering it
sounds like just so that we can kind of
move things along we are good with uh
the changes to number
one um the change to number two which is
just remove the word men from Building
height on page
101 um we're good with number
three we're good with number four
that sound
right okay Mr chair I just one more
question on the special use permit for
car wash um I maybe this is a a question
for
Sarah I still don't understand why we're
we're putting in car washes in with big
box establishments that doesn't make
sense to me a car wash is totally
different in a big box that we would uh
require the
NH3 Mr chair commissioner Costa the
reason why um it's not necessary that
it's looped into a big box as we
continue to raise the bigger boxes are
going to be in the commercial Zone
districts when we look at an NH3 we're
looking at any of the zoning
designations that's going to be
generally located on collector or higher
roadways and so as part of the car wash
stipulation under the standard standards
it does say in order for a car wash to
go into an NH3 Zone it does have to be
located on a collector or high higher
we're doing that just because we
understand that traffic components come
into play when we start looking at
specific land uses and what they can
derail and so we don't want to
necessarily say they're going to be
permitted in an NH3 on a local roadway
because those are going to be your
general services and that you want to
provide to the community if an NH3 is
provided but we do want to say that if
it's located say um if you're looking at
lman Avenue some of that area where Mr
Car Wash just went in by The
Neighborhood Walmart that is going to be
considered an NH3 district and so by
looking at that it has two roadways that
can supply the traffic that's going to
go through there but if that was located
in the middle of a residential
neighborhood it would not be permitted
because those are local roadways and so
it's still giving a stipulation of it
doesn't require a special use permit
it's only allowed by right when it's
near a designated roadway classification
that can handle the traffic TR that
comes with
it so basically you're restricting those
in a major growth corridors right which
makes no sense to me still I'm not
understanding that because you're
restricting what I'm hearing is that you
want to restrict those to a major growth
corridors am I hearing that correctly
that's where I'm not understanding where
makes no sense to
me Mr chair and commissioner Costa I'm
trying to understand how to
so with an NH3 it's going to provide all
of your neighborhood services still in
our office ones and twos that we took
from an NH3 and our c1s and c2s there
was a limitation of essentially a 9500
foot building was your maximum capacity
in those areas and so with that they've
increased them to be where there's more
viability on them and certain land uses
were conditioned so not all land uses
will be condition so we still want the
neighborhood services to be provided to
the neighborhood so you may still see an
NH3 within
neighborhoods but there's certain land
uses that come with different triggers
or requirements as far as maybe traffic
concerns where if you're on a local
Street you put a car wash next to a
house you're going to see a lot more
generation of possibly residential
movement on a local roadway that can't
have that capacity and so the
limitations for land uses were broaden
so it's a lot more you're able to do a
lot more in each one of these land uses
but we've also designated in some land
uses that they has to be restrictions of
where the roadways are classified I
don't know if that answers your
question all right so
um there's a couple things we can do we
can kind of go through the list here
unless anyone wants to add anything to
it
um maybe just do a quick check in to
make sure that we can the things we're
good with we can group so we don't have
to do one vote at a time and then if
there's any issues where some people um
aren't quite comfortable we can take a
vote on that particular one um so again
sound it sounded like correct me if I'm
wrong 1 two 3 and four we're all
comfortable
with all
right um I'm
GNA well number five commissioner thrist
I think you had
um a question or I guess your suggestion
was to remove CR the CR Zone from the
amendment so it would just read
especially permit for the payday loans
check cashing Bail Bonds in the nh2 and
NH3 that's correct okay and we looks
like we're generally good with that so
we'll make that
change
um and
then number six if we made the
change instead of require special use
permit for car washes in the NH3 andc
zones it's requ special use permit for
car washes in the urban place type mixed
use and Town Center which would
basically match uh what we did for
numbers three and
four I would go with that I think it's
better than in taking off the NH3
definitely I think it lines up better
okay so we will make that change and
then we're in agreement there and then I
didn't hear anything on number seven um
so I'm assuming that there's agreement
there as
well explain that one to me real quick
on the commercial when it's if required
a special use permit for commercial
parking lots or garages in the NH3 CR or
Li zones so when you have a commercial
parking lot are you are you meaning like
a designated commercial parking lot or a
parking lot that Services the actual
building there my understanding is that
this would be Standalone
correct Mr chairing commissioner um thst
yes that is correct this would be a
standalone parking like if you just had
a parking lot or a parking garage if you
did a fivestory parking garage this is
no building no ancillary
structures okay thank you that helps me
out I just didn't want when I said
commercial parking lots I was I was
hoping it was being a standalone
because we're as much as we want to get
to the urban side of things we're still
such a car dependent place and so I just
didn't want us to shoot ourselves in the
foot there a little too early yep and
this is this is just changing it from by
right to special use permit so again
just allowing some more an extra layer
of evaluation I'm good with that one
then
okay all right so it looks like we're in
agreement then so we can just go ahead
and vote uh on all seven
amendments um so looking for a motion to
um approve and and just to clarify these
are amendments that will go to council
they'll have an opportunity to debate
and discuss them so looking for a motion
to approve um the seven amendments for
chapter 3 so moved I make a motion to
approve all seven amendments as
presented I second second
so this is for the seven amendments for
chapter three commissioner
thirston yes okay commissioner Smith yes
commissioner kusta yes commissioner
Porter yes commissioner Murray yes and
chair
yes okay moving on to chapter four
so this is the subdivision regulations
um this mostly just dictates the process
of how you go and subdivide things um I
if I recall correctly there was some
discussion maybe at the work session but
I think it was generally pretty light um
um so I'll open it up if folks have
questions or
comments and I'll just note I believe
staff had a few changes uh or there was
at least one um I don't know if that's
up on the slide
yeah so I I appreciate that I I agree
with those um those changes so thank you
for
that
any questions anything to discuss here
chapter
4 all right seeing seeing shaking heads
um I I don't have any amendments so
unless someone else does um we currently
don't have any amendments proposed for
this
section
so we'll go ahead and move on to chapter
five um this one I think is going to be
uh there's going to be some discussion
so I suggest we take
a uh five minute um restroom break and
we can reconvene at
806 e
e
for for
e
all right are we ready to rock and roll
right we we'll go ahead and
uh get this rolling again if we can have
uh our excellent staff come
back there are fearless leaders we're
just lost in the forest without them
so we will go ahead and um get started
again
um I think there there's going to be a
lot to unpack for chapter five um I know
they the the home the home builders
obviously made their presentation
earlier which we may have um some
comments on or some questions but I
think maybe in the interest of trying to
stay on
track um we can break we can go Section
by section of chapter 5 um but before we
do that I
think and I I don't know if this is a
good idea or a bad idea so do you tell
me if it's going to go Haywire um the
technical
manual um is something that I think we
all have a lot of questions and comments
on my understanding from staff is that
the technical manual this
evening um is not necessarily something
Something That We're voting on correct
that that that is for Council we can
certainly provide our feedback but the
technical manual we're not giving it an
up or down vote this
evening um so is that correct staff Mr
chair that would be correct yes um
because pnz does not require that vote
um it does not require to go to city
council with pz's
recommendation so with that I'm think
thinking that we can
maybe provide some initial feedback I I
don't want us to spend three hours on
the technical manual this evening even
though I think it probably needs three
hours um
so maybe we do that we can provide some
feedback on the technical manual we can
kind of have a discussion there and then
we can kind of come back and start at
the beginning of chapter 5 since there
is a lot of overlap I think hopefully it
won't distract us too much but that's
just the thought that I'm having um does
that sound
good so you want to go over the
technical manual first and then start
with 5.1 yeah I and I think if we can
just try try not to get too lost in the
weeds and the technical manual um you
know provide some high level feedback
but since we're not voting on it I don't
think we need to we could certainly
spend three hours but I don't think we
need to do that this evening Mr chair if
I can interject real quick because it's
not on the agenda it cannot be a topic
that you guys discuss you can provide
comments individually to staff but it
cannot be a discussion item for the
commission at this
time okay understood well then that
answers that question um all right so
we'll get into chapter five um can I ask
one question on the technical
manual just the what is the what is the
process that the city
council what's the process process of
that getting approved is all I'm
asking Mr chair and commission the
process of it getting approved is Staff
will compile all of the comments that
are provided um being that we did hear
from public comment that was provided
from Mr pompo those considerations do
need to be taken to you know as to
taking those comments providing them
back to city council as their
consideration when it does go forward as
a
resolution um the idea with the
technical manual though is because it is
not code Affiliated it is not being
adopted through ordinance um those
changes can be modified as we continue
to go through the process so we wouldn't
have to wait months to actually go so a
lot of the comments we want to see now
is that General feedback to see where
improvements need to be made before we
go to City Council in February um that
way we can address some of those
concerns and have those highlighted
after February then that would continue
to go through the um development Review
Committee to be reviewed and modified as
they're necessary and so once again once
those are implemented if this isn't the
best practice then we would go to the
design or development Review Committee
for review make those changes um it is a
public and open forum and so it does
allow for public input to take place
that way everybody understands what
changes are coming forward so if the
public has any comment on the technical
manuals they need to do it from now
till it goes to the city is that what
I'm understanding Mr chair and
commissioner th that is correct because
um city council would still take any
comments during um the representation of
when we bring It Forward in February um
we know that this just came out it is
something new it has been us um it has
been vetted through some of the
development communities but it's now the
final version of the document and
definitely needs that review and so
recommendation is to provide as many
comments to staff that we can review
before that time frame thank you staff I
do have a additional questions on that
will you be sending out that out to the
public so they're aware that they have
this time period U apparently just based
on some of our comments that from our
public um numerous holes in
inconsistency with this technical doc
document so will you be sending
reminders out to the public to give them
that opportunity to give you feedback up
until February so you have all the facts
Mr chair and commissioner Costa um as
part of that vetting process um we did
actually or I did two weeks ago actually
send out an email to everybody
especially in the development Community
who utilizes it and said please provide
comments here's a technical manual we
understand we can go ahead and do a
followup as well as doing probably a
city notice to where it does come out on
either our Facebook page give people the
identities so that way they can
associate there is a time frame that we
do need these comments so that way we
can actually have answers when Council
does come forward um the last thing we
want to do is present and then have to
still be answering questions and it
doesn't get adopted um the technical
manual at first was going to be adopted
after the chapters being modified but we
wanted them to coexist because they do
go hand in hand and so those just came
as part of those pitfalls that come with
development code and rewriting and so we
do want to see those comments and get
them address before we do go to council
very well thank you and I think that's
really good that we're doing that
followup at least we're doing we're
showing up our due diligence in a
followup form thank
you all right so um going into uh
chapter five um chapter or sorry section
five one uh those are just uh General
Provisions um I'm going to make an
assumption there's no comments on there
but if anyone has comments on that first
page all right all right see9 we'll move
into section
5-2 uh so this is roads rideway and
parking open it up for any comments
feedback suggested changes
I don't have anything on five
5-2 I think this is going to be one of
those chapters that in eight months
we're going to have a lot of questions
on I have a lot of questions
now um I can kind of jump in uh so this
this is basically crosssections um on
this handout that we have from staff um
I think
[Music]
the I didn't do a good job of breaking
out section by section so try to do this
systematically um so the first one
two
[Music]
three
four five
six 7
8 9
10 are related to
52 um I'll just go through them real
briefly and you chime in if you have
questions or uh feedback um so the first
one is page
301 um this is just in the this is
section A the purpose um just
recommending that we replace the word
should with shall so the sentence reads
in all transportation in all
Transportation decisions safety shall be
prioritized to ensure the well-being and
protection of every individual traveling
within the city regardless of mode of
travel um page
303 this is in the figure
5-2-1 um under travel Lan uh
recommending to amend
the um the second sentence that that
currently States for roadways with low
travel speeds a travel Lane may be may
also be used as a shared Lane to allow
bicyclist to Share the Lane with
vehicles uh my recommendation is we
amend that to say four roadways with low
travel speeds a travel Lane may only be
used as a shared Lane in combination
with other traffic caling measures to
allow bicyclist to Share the Lane with
vehicles rationale behind that is just
painting one of those little sherrow um
is proven to have no safety benefit for
cyclist so suggesting that that is in
combination with um other traffic
calming and safety
measures um page this is page 303 still
um this is under the
parking
uh row I guess um amend the the sentence
that says when parking is placed
adjacent to a bike way the Bikeway shall
be placed on the street side of the
parking Lane unless an alternative
design is approved by the DRC recommend
changing that to say when parking is
placed adjacent to a bike way the bike
way shall be placed on the curb side of
the parking Lane unless an alternative
design is approved by the DRC uh the
reason being is there's uh less risk of
being doed somebody a driver opening
your door or their door while you're
riding your bike like um not a not a fun
experience um it also adds a a layer of
protection the phys the fact that cars
are physically parked between you and
traveling um motorists uh that is in
itself uh a protective barrier um so
just making that recommendation that we
just flip the two would significantly
improve parking or not parking improve
protection for cyclists
um Can can you help me can you help me
on your clarification on that one what
uh I'm trying to look at your the
designs here on collectors and minor
materials where where would I where
would that be changing that would that
be changing only on like an avenue
street or would that be on a local
Street where where would that be
applicable so I I don't think they
actually have a crosssection for for it
um they there is no cross-section but
basically it would be if you had so
normally what we would see is you have
your sidewalk maybe a landscape strip
your curb and then your Park everybody
parks on the curb right and then you
have a bike lane and then maybe you have
some paint that separates the bike lane
from your travel Lane that's how we
would normally do it what I'm suggesting
is you reverse that so you go sidewalk
you know any landscaping or no
Landscaping curb bike lane buffer
parking then traveling so as a cyclist
you're up against the curb uh the buffer
would prevent a passenger from opening
their door um into you and then you get
the added benefit of having a two ton
hunk of Steel protecting you from a
driver they'd have to come through that
car before they get to you um it just
provides a whole new level of comfort
for
cyclists so what would you use as
the I'm trying I'm trying to Envision
that when when you park your car are you
going to double curb
it so there's a number of ways that you
can go about it it would be dictated on
the the rest of the rideway and how much
room you have you can do Flex post to
delineate so cars can't inadvertently
Park up against the curb right in the
bikee lane um you can use Planters you
can use other you know concrete bows you
could even do a full-blown second curb
and gutter um it's just up to up to what
um the the context of the roadway but
you would get the benefit of having that
that car protecting you when it's parked
there versus what it would be now where
you are at risk of getting doored and
you're only recourse is to go into
traffic to avoid that door um and you're
making a split-second decision you don't
have time to see if there's a car behind
you um it just presents a bad it
basically presents a conflict that can
be eliminated by just switching them
um going on to I think it was
number four um so this is the bike way
the bike way
um my recommendation is to um require
physical barriers within the 3-foot
buffer unless alternative designs are
approved by the DRC right now it they
have it flipped where physical barriers
are more more or less optional um again
uh just the idea that that paint doesn't
really add any protection per se um and
this just basically sets the bar at at
the safest option and if there's a need
to deviate from that you have the relief
through the DRC
um continuing on to number five this is
the Bike plus
travel
[Music]
um recommend uh
revising make sure I'm getting this
right yeah so they there's a couple of
sentences but really all they're saying
currently is that uh shero's would be
allowed um on local
streets um so this is the Bike plus
travel um my recommendation is just
making sure that those sherrow are not
approved unless accompanied by other
traffic comy measures so the same thing
we talked about on the first
one so I have I have a
question I just have a go back on number
four as far as the physical barriers I'm
trying to Envision what type of physical
barrier would be created within that
three foot
buffer so again it could be a number of
things I mean it could be Flex posts it
could be
bards um it could be uh Jersey barriers
is an example of kind of a quick quick
fix
solution um could be again a separate
curb and gutter um but it's basically
just
keeping uh
a car would have to run into something
before it gets to you as a cyclist um
and it also adds some visib some
additional
visibility um to the roadway that that
sort of slows drivers down because
there's suddenly something that you can
run into
um
for for staff do you guys do you guys
have a
like a
pitcher kind of being serious I mean I
can pull one up for you if you can cuz
so so I followed a lot of the bike
stuffs and there's there's like a a
YouTube guy that I follow and he it's
not just bikes and he does a lot of the
suggestions that you're saying right now
of getting the bike Lanes um separate
from the cars which in urban settings or
not even have to be Urban settings but
if you're actually riding a
bike it incentivizes people to actually
ride a bike if you do some of the
calming measures that you're saying
because you're not scared to get run
over and so I think you would get more
people on a bike but I just got to
understand what what I'm what my mind is
picturing versus what we're saying is
going to happen Steve bam Parks and
Recreation director I'm just going to
point out a bunch of Google
Images here is one where you have have
um paint but it's reinforced with this
physical
barrier okay
um there's one where they may do
Planters
occasionally um there's another
option there's another option so there's
just ways of um creating some type of
physical barrier is
that that's exactly what I'm talking
about
yeah so it's not prescribing what
exactly they're using it's just saying
there needs to be something other than
just paint um if we're really serious
about safety and protecting
cyclists um I mean paint has a purpose
but when it's just a you can go out on
Madrid we've got a little three- foot
paint that looks like a second bike lane
I mean truck I mean it's not even going
to slow down right um so that's just
what I think we need to just set the bar
the expectation of the safest approach
and then if for whatever reason you need
relief because the site is you have the
DRC to go make your
case so this if I'm coming over here to
principal let me just go over here
principal arterials page 304 that one
has a bike lane in it with a 9 ft minor
arterials
collectors would all require
a
buffer on all New Roads is that correct
correct so yes so the bike way that it's
defined here is um would be found
primarily on the principal and minor
arterials so it would it would apply to
those designated
roadways so what what is that going to
do to the now this is for staff what's
that going to do to the city with that
change when we have new development
tying into Old development is that going
to make us have to redo the whole city
and start adding those into the older
parts of town what what would your
suggestion in that
be Mr chair and commissioner thirst the
idea would be is that we want to move
forward with going to multimodal and so
if these are some of the recommendations
and the new cross-sections are what
we're going to implement and then we
would be working to transition those
existing roadways into the same format
and so we're going to be following more
of what we're developing new so that way
we can start that transition so we're
now including those proper or those as
whether they're CIP projects or they're
coming back and being redeveloped so
that way they include all of those
multimodal that's why we try to be
consistent with the actual roadway width
so that way we would have something to
compare to and then be able to go ahead
and redevelop at the time that we
can thank you I I personally have rode
my bike a couple of times throughout the
city and
uh I like the suggestion because when I
rode and I had my daughter on the back
it was a little electric bike and
uh the city right now does not have bike
friendly roads it just does not and so
we rode from our house all the way to
the Veterans Park and there was a couple
of spots there that I told my daughter
to turn around and say hey tell me if a
car's coming so I do like this idea of
having it changed I just trying to
figure out how we go from new to
existing and making sure those
transitions happen that was my main
concern of
it and know just little comment for you
commissioner th um I spent some time in
New York City last year and um I had pre
live previously lived there for eight
years and um and I was pleasantly
surprised how many roads and streets
they they actually converted uh for bike
traffic um a lot of it you show some
example um from Google but they had
actually used just physical barriers
they put um potted plant uh
containers um they even put some of the
just the um the like the plastic post
and and paint and I mean this is New
York City so they're not building New
Roads there um so they they did do a lot
of uh converting and um um I was I was
pretty impressed by how they made it
happen on some of those principal um
roads and just particularly in Manhattan
so it can be
done um so just continuing on so number
six um this would apply across all uh
cross-sections um but uh recommend that
travel Lanes shall not be wider than 11
ft across um for any travel Lane um in
any cross-section that um is actually a
half a foot larger than what is
recommended in the active Transportation
plan um and is actually consistent with
I believe Don County's development
standards um so that's a recommendation
there there's also um numerous studies
out there um and Decades of res search
that show that 11 ft is um when you
compare it to a standard 12T Lane which
I think is primarily what we have in the
city um that 11 feet dramatically
reduces crash rates um and serious
injury among all Road users drivers
pedestrians cyclists so um that's a
recommendation that all travel Lanes
shall not be wider than 11 feet
across um and I think we if you look at
the cross-sections we hit it almost
every everywhere there's a few that uh
are still stragglers on the on the 12T
um but I think we just make it standard
11 ft across all of
them so so that would change the
collector where it says 12 this this one
would need to be updated and uh when you
have your bus when you have what's that
one would need to be changed down to 11
ft so your principal arterior where you
have the bus on here and then also your
minor arterial on we have a 12T on that
one collector at
12 and let me look at the other
page that would be it you'd be remove
you'd only be
removing one foot off of those those two
is that correct correct yeah so
everywhere there's a 12 it would it' be
reduced to
11 um and then moving on to number seven
so this is for the local Street
cross-section this is on page
um recommendation is to
remove one side of parking as far as the
Total Asphalt width so right now it's a
50ft rideway that wouldn't change but
the way that they have it broken out is
you basically have an 8ot parking Lane
an 11t travel Lane and an 11ft travel
Lane in the opposite direction and an
8ft parking
um at least in my neighborhood and I
know in many other neighborhoods across
the city people don't really park on the
street so you're basically introducing
almost a 20 foot travel lane or more if
there's only one car and that is a
recipe for um excessive speeds even in a
local Street we can classify all we want
but if it still ends up being a
racetrack from the driver's perspective
that's exactly how they're going to
drive my recommendation would be that
there's plenty of room if you shrunk
that down to basically be um 22 and 8 30
feet of asphalt you can still Park on
either side travel traffic can still get
through um and it's going to it's going
to create its own traffic calming um
when those situations occur so I just
think
that the overall ride of way stays the
same we're just shrinking um the amount
of Asault on our local roads in our
neighborhoods and that's going to that's
going to happen by
removing one side of
parking that that that's correct you can
still Park on either side so it's not
saying oh well you can now only park on
the right or the left you can park on
either side and basically creates um
almost like um um a u what do they call
it in the design manual um it's almost
like a natural combing traffic combing
it reduces your your Speedways and
basically through through local
neighborhoods yeah because you basically
you go from oh I'm you know driving 30
miles an hour down my local Street to
hey maybe I need to slow down because
there's a car that's maybe just a little
too close to my my side mirror you have
plenty of room to get through um it's a
natural calming effect slows slows
traffic traffic down it's not working on
meas the the other positive to a smaller
um local streets is the impact it has on
cities long term so I I know one of the
things that I hear from City staff now
you're going to have to correct me if
I'm if I'm lying up here but residential
areas
don't collect enough taxes to basically
take care of
the streets utilities and everything
like that and so by Able by being able
to they love urban areas they love
commercial areas because you get enough
tax off of those to maintain your roads
but when you go out and that's why they
don't want the urban sprawl and other
things like that because it it does
cause the city to have to pay more money
to maintain things and so if it is a
narrower Street it is less money for the
city to maintain maintain
longterm is that is that a fair
statement to say
staff that's my interpretation I think
that was an affirmative
um David you want to respond to
that good evening Mr chair
commissioner thirston David CIO Public
Works director for the record so
although you are
reducing say 8 ft of
asphalt as that goes through new
development we still have existing
development so those cost for new
development may not cost as much in the
future but our existing systems that we
have to maintain currently those will
not see a reduction in cost so overall
it'll be minimal on the reduction of
cost to maintain but going going forward
you will have a
savings minimal yes but we still have
our need still
outgrows the amount of funding that we
have so I I think that does well in my
opinion that still it does show that
roads is a cost that's an ongoing cost
that it's it's tough to keep up with
them and your maintenance it's it's
tough to keep up um I think there are
funds in place there's tax dollars in
place that that does do it but I I like
the savings to the city sometimes thank
you um all right number eight is a just
a general statement that actually comes
straight out of the active
Transportation plan as a
recommendation um and that's just
recommending that road and intersection
design shall follow follow the nacto
Urban Street design guide and the urban
Bikeway design guide um there's a bunch
of guides that get thrown around in this
section um these are well at least one
of them is called out but I think
specifically just saying hey we're using
the
nacto uh guides because those have been
determined to be the most um flexible to
meet multimodal Transportation needs as
well as improved safety so my
recommendation would be following with
the recommendation in um the active
Transportation plan that we just
simplify it it's nacto and the urban um
street guide and the urban Bikeway
design guide and that would be for Road
and intersection designs across the
city and that would be new and existing
when existing in intersections are um
rebuilt
um and then the last the last two are
kind of related these are uh well number
nine is specifically the to the Tia
section it's this is Page
324 um it's just adding recommending an
an
additional um
trigger
for uh under the special circumstances
so this is um section
5-2
g3d again page
324 um so it basically the um this
section uh allows the Public Works
director um to require a TIA if there's
any of these special circumstances and
my recommendation would be to add this
additional circumstance that states the
city engineer may require an applicant
to conduct a CIA if there is a
reasonable expectation that the project
May adversely affect pedestrian and
cyclist safety within the study area um
in other words just giving an additional
uh Avenue for safety design to be
evaluated so that we're not
inadvertently building something because
a TIA said we need to do this and we're
introducing
conflict to cyclists or pedestrians in a
hazardous manner
Mr
chair is that can we ask staff for their
input on that sure Sarah can you chime
on on that one for me
please I can also redirect that one to
Mr sadio too
Mr chair and commission um I did send
out a lot of the um requirements or some
of the comments that were provided
during the work session this did come up
um this did go to the traffic engineer
and provided comments um the response
that was provided to staff is we do that
in our current code um we do it in the
proposed code and it's in the actual
technical manual so this wouldn't be an
amendment that would be harmful to staff
if we add that as number seven so we are
currently doing it and it's also
addressed within the technical
manual one concern with tias and being
allowing everyone
to allowing an additional person on
staff to require a TIA
will having past experiences they will
request a TIA every single time just
because the book says I can I can ask
for one what that does is depending on
the tias and depending on what type of a
TIA they request it can go up to
somewhere around
$50,000 so you're sometimes going to add
an additional $50,000 or whatever the
other ones are um to a project that
might not need it other than it's one
person's opinion and so you can have a
staff member um that has never asked for
a TIA and then you have
turnover and that new engineer is going
to be asking for it every single time
and so you're kind of stuck with it I I
think tias are good you know in general
but I I don't like the cost associated
with it that it will do to some
developments that's my own that's my
main
concern Mr chair if I could please Mr
chair commissioner thir
thank you for the question and yes part
of the process that we went through
realize was so that the questions
wouldn't be so broad coming from
development for tias so what we've
proposed is to give guidance on when and
at what level of the Tia is going to be
required through this process those will
be also included in the technical so
it's not going to be an arbitrary
somebody's decision to say okay we we've
changed now this person wants this we're
actually given guidance on specific
items on how those tias will be
addressed and at what
level the is there is there any reason
that we need to have the engineer to be
the one that needs to request that or
are we still okay with
just the
uh the current ones that are allowed to
ask for that right now do we need the
additional engineer
as far as the the recommendation that I
was throwing out there yes so I'm not
recommending an additional person I'm
just I'm my suggestion is just we um
make explicit that safety concerns can
be a reason that the Public Works
director can request a TIA if one isn't
already being required so that's this
section is all special
circumstances so it's just making it
explicit that safety concerns is a
legitimate reason why the Public Works
director can exercise
discretion Mr chair point of
clarification so the way the code is
being proposed will say the department
director or their designate we've
removed all traffic engineering or
traffic engineer position from there for
that reason is is this one adding it
back
in to my knowledge I don't believe it
should
be no because it's at the very beginning
of the of the section it says that the
Public Works director if they determine
that one or more of the following
conditions
exist so they already they're already
given the
discretion I'm just saying that safety
is a a legitimate reason why they could
request it Mr chair and commissioner
Thon just to clarify so this is just
going to add in that basically there are
six it items listed we're going to be
adding a number seven and it's just
going to have this provision added to it
it's something we're already doing now
as a city and it's just clarifying that
it'll be one of those special
circumstances to look at whenever
development comes
in okay let me let me see if I can
clarify what my what I'm trying to I'm
okay with the safety side of it I'm okay
with where it says you know or the
cyclist but when it says add the city
engineer I is that's just adding his
ability do you see what I'm saying so
yeah I see what you're saying and that's
my bad we can just scratch that and say
the the Public Works director so it's
consistent um I'm okay with
that all right we'll make that change um
and then the final one on this section
for me um is on page
330 so this is section 5-2 L number
one
um and and this may not be the final
official verbage but what I'm trying to
communicate here is recommend that
placement of traffic signal
or other control devices should not
shall not be predetermined based on
Rigid and inflexible design standards
prior to the preparation in this case um
I don't know if Tia is relevant here um
but basically the idea being that uh we
should look at a multitude of factors in
how we place our traffic signals or
traffic control devices and that would
include the desired roadway speed uh it
would address the question of can
bicyclists and pedestrians safely cross
existing uncontrolled Crossings or is
additional traffic control necessary uh
does the design provide accessibility to
all users particularly people with
disabilities pedestrians and cyclists of
all ages and abilities and and Signal
timing and Analysis uh shall consider uh
timing delays to cyclists and
pedestrians in other words this idea
that you know we're trying to access say
the Trav Trail across Trav but there is
no way within a half mile or further in
many cases a controlled intersection in
which you can safely get across to the
trail so the idea being that hey perhaps
there are serious safety considerations
and accessibility considerations that
would dictate us putting in some sort of
controlled um traffic signal rather than
saying hey we can't have two signals
that are within a quarter mile of each
other
this is saying that the safety concerns
would kind of trump that that standard
um it gives us a little bit more
flexibility because I think right now
when you have conversations at least in
my experience it's well we can't do uh a
traffic signal because there's not
enough car traffic traveling at certain
hours of the day at certain velocities
that's the reason we can't have a safe
Crossing for pedestrians so it's just
adding additional flexibility allowing
um some discretion and really making
sure that we have safe um infrastructure
for all users um so the the wording that
I proposed here I don't mean to think is
the final but the the idea is we need to
have some flexibility built in here and
this idea is based on um similar to what
you would see on uh
University yeah um what do you have the
crossing absolutely and even more so um
and you know maybe we there should be
multiple uh of those crosswalks along
the university as opposed to just the
one right yeah
yeah so those are all the comments or
the um recommendations I have for
Section
52 um it sounded like like we're all in
alignment there um so we can kind of
group all
those unless someone has serious
reservations about any of
them all right um commissioner thir you
look like you're about to say something
but my only thoughts are
is are any of these suggestions going to
create extra cost and that's I'm trying
to
see ultimately I just don't want us to
keep raising costs because we have new
designs I like the new designs but I am
I am nervous on a little bit of the cost
but
I'm I I I believe in the research I've
done the cost is negligible um I would
also pose out there is the negligible
cost to improve safety pretty
dramatically um worth it for all
residents of the city and my answer is
yes all right so we'll go ahead and for
the moment we'll we'll group uh numbers
one
through
10 so we'll set those aside and then um
we can move I I have one I have one on
your
number8 okay
so this is more just having uh in the
last two months I've read through the
nacto book and the suggestions inside
the nacto book are not like I went in
there because I was trying to find a new
roadway section that I could use for a
new development I'm trying to do and
there was no ride of always suggestions
in
there and cuz I was trying to find a
different way to do some development and
I was able to find suggestions but there
was
no defined actual roads and I don't know
if staff has seen the same thing because
I thought okay I'm going to buy this
nacto book there's three of them and I
was like okay I'm going to read this and
I got great suggestions and when I went
through there I came back to staff and I
said hey um
how do I figure how do I figure out what
the new rightaway is and then the
engineers that I was using they we
couldn't find anything either so that's
I don't know if it's necessarily an
alarm to bring up but it's just just to
let you know the Necto actually doesn't
have like RightWay sections in there
that that we're going to be
using unless someone else knows how to
read that book better than I do which I
don't doubt I think the the rways are
what they are they're the proposed right
of way those cross-sections the nacto is
just telling you how
how to engineer each component of that
in a way that is going to accommodate
multimodal transportation and improve
safety yeah there was there was plenty
of suggestions in nacto had to do it I
just could not find actual dimensions
that was so there was turning Lanes bike
Lanes um other things like that that was
showing you showing you how to do it in
theory but then the actual dimensions
were not existing that's that was my
that's my only feedback on that not a
positive not a negative just a
feedback all right so we're we're still
good with uh grouping all of those okay
um so we can move on to uh
5-3 section
5-3 um this is drainage and flood
control uh starting on page 342
as we go through I I don't have any
comments or um any amendments for this
section so if we if nobody else does we
can keep pushing
forward all right um going on
to
5-4 this is uh low impact development
and green infrastructure
beginning on page
363 um I'll just throw out my only um
recommendation is in the purpose section
just to remove the um final uh sentence
under
A2 um the it currently reads lad is most
appropriate for larger Green Field
developments where there's natural
hydrological functions that can be
protected or restored um my
recommendation is to just scratch that
because green infrastructure can be
widely applied Citywide um and actually
can provide some meaningful
flood
um risk improvements to to developed
areas because you can do things to rip
out impervious surfaces reduce your
total runoffs so um I think it's
appropriate Citywide not just
Greenfield that's my only comment on
this
section um if we're in agreement with
that we can move along to section 55 uh
Parks trails and open space
so this is the Parkland
dedication my page is
colorful
um there's a couple of there's a couple
of changes in here in
in the way we're going to be doing
Parks from the way that we're currently
doing parks and so there's some in my
opinion there's uh there's some
significant
changes
and I don't know how to give a
suggestion but I do think that we should
I I do have a couple that we need to
talk about here on if you go to be
applicability so we got it for single
family and for multif family
that's currently basically the same way
that it is
currently if I understand that but then
all of a sudden we're adding that the
change that's going to happen is for
non-residential
development we're going to
be if I understand this correct which
I'm totally fine being wrong um I
believe if a commercial development is
larger than 5
Acres we're going to be requiring them
to get give us some type of a
park um fee a park fee in Li so we're
going to be that's that's an
additional that's going to be additional
money going to Parks through commercial
development that's not we don't
currently have that in our um in our
code the one negative in and I I want
staff to be able to help clarify why
this is a good thing but normally a
commercial development comes in
after you have rooftops and so in my
opinion a commercial development is not
increasing the need for a park it's
normally residential that is increasing
it when you read in here it goes to
three if you go to 3A mixed use
developments May propose Parkland Trails
or open space dedication or a
combination to satisfy the requirement
of the section so that's mixed use but
it does not exempt just Reg
commercial uh so who sets that fee what
is that fee where does it come from how
does that move forward what are we doing
there um Mr thirston um commission Steve
Bingham Parks and Recreation
director I've looked at this and have
conferred with staff and our
interpretation of this is this
nonresidential development is mixed use
development where you have commercial
mixed with
residential and the fees will be related
to the residential units in the
proportion that's residential so it's in
line with the other
expectations I agree with that we just
need to have some word smithing that
goes on that state set if you guys are
okay with
that yeah
we're good with that so is it really
just instead of number three
non-residential development it really
should be mixed
use development is that what you're
suggestion
suggesting if if that's what achieves it
then I I'm not the I'm not the English
person I I will ruin this book If I'm
the one to put wording to it
so it just needs to be tied to a
residential
component in order for us to need more
Parks because Parks the Parkland
dedication and other things like that is
off of the amount of people we have so
it's like if you go down to Sea Parkland
there's a three acres times the number
of dwelling of units times the person
units divided by a thousand and so when
you put a commercial building it doesn't
have that component to it so if I mean
to make it sure if it's right mixed use
and that solves it
great yeah we we believe that we can
make that adjustment we'll put out some
words
smthing okay so the recommendation will
be
um Mr chair if I me go ahead I'm Sarah
for the record um basically what we can
do on number three is we would just
modify that to remove non-residential
development and in place of that put
mixed juuse developments that's really
what that should be interpreting
okay and we still have to that has to be
one that's in our little amendments
package right we need to spell that out
so the wording would just reflect mixed
use of elements um mixed use of
elements requirements of the section for
open space it's basically the remainder
of that sentence is all we'd have to put
into there
okay so then if you go to
exemptions so if I do a mixed use
development under 5 Acres I don't have
to give you
park when I interpret that it's saying
single lot commercial development so
that's not necessarily mixed use to me
that would be commercial so you would
need to strike that one out as well
because this also applies to the the
reason why I say it's not just mixed use
because when you read in here also in
B2 property zoned industrial is not
required projects with a master
plan you know aren't there and then
approved
puds so you almost need to just you
might need to just strike everything
under B exceptions and then just put
mixed use development will follow the
[Music]
same we we agree and we'll we'll get the
word
smithing sounds
good the next one that I have is going
to be on your Parkland dedication
the I'm fine with your the 3
Acre
um 3 Acre per
thousand however in in
multiple situations a 3 Acre minimum is
going to be very difficult to
achieve and I I got to go back and see
if Sarah had this in on
the changes I can't remember if we had
that on the changes by staff um but
there's multiple places where we need
to be allowed to go smaller than one
acre for example in in Redevelopment or
downtown or other places where we don't
have excess land it's going to be very
hard to conjure up three acres so if if
we're trying to create
more um pedestrian friendly more
healthier uh healthier Society I know
there's the studies that you talk about
parks that the more parks there are the
healthier the humans um inside those
cities and
so if I have to dedicate a 3 Acre
parcel downtown it's going to be very
hard to find that so there needs to be
some type of provision in there whether
it whether we could put in there that
says you know the parks director will
allow
under 3 Acre parks in certain situations
especially you know Redevelopment other
things like that would be uh would be
good for
us Steve Bingham Parks and Recreation
director we we feel that your suggestion
is in line and exactly kind of really
what we spelled out here with this alter
alternatives for the approval of Park
and Recreation director that can fall in
within one of those categories
okay so this wording that you have here
special Park less than three acres that
will yes that's the suggestion that
we'll be putting on for city council yes
okay kind of along those lines um and
maybe maybe it's captured here I'm not
sure but I think maybe a
blanket statement to the effect of in in
the Urban Place types so our Urban
core
there's the ability to have a
conversation and
flexibility with the parks and rec
director mainly because I know that
there's later on uh there's a requirment
I thought it was still in here maybe it
got scratched I'm not sure but it was
like 200 Frontage of 200 feet which
maybe is not a lot but when you're
talking about Redevelopment Maybe that
is significant and prohibitive so I'm
just wondering if there could be in
addition to what's stated here maybe
just a a broader statement of in the
urban core urban place type we have
flexibility across the standard so that
we we can meet in the middle
yeah we'll add a bullet point that
identifies Urban core okay thank
you I got to go back
to
multifam so I I don't know if this was
the I don't know if this was the purpose
of it but the way I read this
is that multif family residential
development the requirement of the
section for Parkland and Trail
dedication shall apply to all de
developments resulting in the creation
of new multif family residential
units there if I understand this right
which I might not are we
requiring that
multifam is going to dedicate
public
parks along with whatever amenity
they're putting in inside theirs
so if I come in with an apartment
complex you got 209 units they normally
will put their pool they'll put their
little exercise rooms they'll put their
little dog parks and they'll have their
own
amenities
so the way I read this though
is they're supposed to give up that 3
Acre
minimum for the public use as well is
that is am I in intereting this wrong no
um you're
correct um they they do have to comply
with the park dedication or the park
impact fee um to give you some
background that I think would be
helpful
um I had a request for a waiver of um
the park impact
fee and we looked at the um onsite
amenities and what they designated as
their
park um amenities on
site and it came out to
53 Square ft per
person um we looked in the same
subdivision the neighborhood and we
looked on average um a typical home
single family in that area had 1,200
square feet with so two to two and a
half people per
person you're looking at over 500 square
ft per person in a single family home of
space that would be in a yard in these
multif family unit that with the
proposal it was
53 and so though there is a requirement
to have um some recreational space on
site like you would On Any Given
yard that you you need to recognize that
typically the multifam units still have
less space per person significantly less
space per person and so the park need is
not lower it's actually higher due to
those
doors can I follow up on that thought
so in that in a scenario let's say
downtown apartment
complex multiple stories let's say 200
units odds are
there's there's no space for a public
park right so in that situation you're
likely going the
inl
route is there
any well I guess it would be exactly the
same as if you were doing a single
family subdivision your cost would be
the same well they would actually be
higher probably because your
total population
at buildout would be potentially more
than a few single
family
houses I guess my question is has there
been any analysis to kind of
understand like the cost aspect of it we
saw this evening the cost implications
for a
developer I'm just wondering has the
city also done
that and compared different types of
projects to see because the the the fear
I think across the board I think it's
with staff as well is that we put in
these
requirements to try to increase our
housing stock to bring more and
different kinds of housing
online but then we're inadvertently kind
of undercutting ourselves because now
that apartment complex it it went from a
$1 million you know development price
tag to 1.5 which that's obviously
getting passed on to renters driving so
we're basically you know canceling
ourselves
out
um it it's hard to answer hypothetical
where I'm not sure that all the
scenarios of the hypothetical are laid
out um but the base of what I understand
is is your concern is is the is the
requirement going to drive up the
cost to the point that you know you you
said 1 million to 1.5 no it's not going
to do anything like
that um but let's take for example our
current impact fee of
$2,600 the
um home builder
made a
presentation and in that presentation
they identified an interest rate of
6.75% $2
$2,600 for impact fee at 6.75 would add
a total of
$686 per month to a 30-year
mortgage and so what we're talking
about here is less than
that because the in you know as far as
the park dedication the park dedication
is for neighborhood parks and
neighborhood parks make up less
than 40% of the total impact fee so
you're getting down around 8 or $9 a
month so does it increase the cost
yes but um if you bring in that you also
need to bring in the Arial that this
research shows for
example that a
neighborhood that lacks in fact I better
pull it up I don't want to misquote
it
um according to research people living
in areas with limited access to Parks or
green space have a 44% higher rate of
diagnosed anxiety disorders compared to
those living in areas of abundant Green
Space so
44% higher well what is the national
average for um how many people are
diagnosed with an anxiety disorder per
100 people
19 so that would increase it by
approximately eight or nine people
what's the cost cost per person for
medical bills annually that's diagnosed
with anxiety disorders currently the
research shows
$1,657 per person
annually you divide
that by 12 months that's
$133 so part of the debate is is has to
do with making homes more affordable and
the question
is push
are these development costs that are
going to drive up a monthly mortgage $9
or $10 a
month
worth the impact that it saves to the
community as a whole that
10% for 100 people dropp in there's
133 and so the debate can get very
extensive and So my answer to your
question is
is yes yes it's going to drive up cost
but it's going to drive it
up uh in a very insignificant amount
when the average
mortgage is what it
is I don't know that n9ine or10 per
month per person per home not per person
per
home is
um that is that the what's going to
drive our Public Health policy within
our city
when we've got to look at the whole
picture of and that's just anxiety
disorders what about diabetes what about
cardia um you
know
heart the other type of health issues
out there and so th this debate has
housing on one side that is going to go
up but on the other side you got um
People's Health and Welfare it also has
a reduction on crime
so we can always we can always spin it
to to our own side of things also I with
with that we also have a high interest
rate right now so if I borrow money
today it's not 675 today today it's at 8
so I called my the guy who does all of
our loans and today it's at it's at 8
what What's happen
is any increase in cost
causes a project to either pencil out
and make Financial sense or you got to
throw it in the trash I personally have
had to throw one in the trash
just about four months ago 209 unit
apartment complex and I did all the
engineering did everything like that
interest rates went from three up to
eight it doesn't pencil anymore so any
increase in cost is going to be
significant to making when our interest
rate is high we're talking giving people
the open space which I agree I I love
Parks when I do developments I love
Parks I put them in but at the same time
I need people to be able to be housed
and I think a housing issue is more of a
crisis right now than having extra parks
and so I I love Parks I I really do so
you can see any new developments that I
tried I always tried to find a way to
stack and pack and try to squeeze out
another half acre here squeeze another
for some Open Spaces but people it even
if it goes up $9 we're cutting as as the
nahb shows we cut out another 89
families or whatever the number was if I
could if we had that slide it it cuts
out families that are not in it and
so what's the what's the negative impact
of of nine families not being able to
get into a house or nine families not
being able to rent a house anymore rent
went from
$900 now what are we around
$1,400 and you know and if you go in in
some of the other apartments that have
all the amenities you're at $1,800
$2,100 that I'm seeing out there so so
another $100 that comes out of a
person's pocket because of giving having
to give up
more it it just hurts and it and it
hurts the families of this of Los cruus
that need more affordable on the other
hand I agree we need more parked but we
have other we have other means that just
passed we have the tax that just passed
that is was supposed is supposed to go
for some parks so the increase in GRT
hopefully that should give us some more
funds for the parks and then with with
this um requiring so I I I just think it
requiring too much out of out of
development um I think the the the three
acres per thousand is okay but we're
we're just adding more onto that you you
have your amenities in the multi family
and then you're adding an additional
requirement you got to give to the
public and I think currently the way
that it's it's done is there's a
reduction in a fee but it's not it's not
requiring the developer to put in a
public so they put on all their
facilities and then I believe they can
get up to a reduction of about 50% so in
they City Parks still gets their if it's
20 what what are we at $2,600 so I think
city parks will still get their
$1,300 if there's a 50% reimbursement
for for Parks but the way that I I see
is a fundamental change
is you're going to put a $2,600 fee onto
every single door in an apartment
complex instead of a fee of
$1,300 per every single
door and it's just it's just causing
cost to go up the the the big shift on
this whole Parks is it's no longer
getting
reimbursed it's now just a requirement
that you put all the parks in so there's
no more
reimbursement and now in one I've been
in some meetings where they say that the
fee should drop but once again we don't
know until the study comes out it could
go up to
$3,600 so
that's we can be on that one for a while
um I don't know how to actually move
forward with this but I I have another
one that I'd like to throw in the mix of
this
convoluted can I just ask a question of
Staff how how do we
reimburse the developer for their
neighborhood park currently where does
that money come
from yes stepen bam Parks and Recreation
director we we are currently
reimbursing um Developers for the
neighborhood parks out of park impact
feas
one of the challenges we're running
into is that the vast majority of these
um reimbursements are taking between 70
and 100% of the park impact
fee and
so um Recon Hills had
221 221 Lots in R
221 lots and they were reimbursed um
$2,600 for all
221 lots and so the result was is there
was Zero impact fee left over for a
community park a specialty Park a dog
park a Trail recreation space aquatic
space all other levels of service of
recreation and park usage
so
so was there consideration or thought in
just raising the impact fee I mean why
why do this wh sale is my big question
has always been why why the change why
the shift I'm not opposed or for I'm
just trying to understand why we're
moving to this new
model yes there was consideration for
raising the impact
fee um but there there's two there's a
theory that
um the whole basis of parked education
or impact fees is new development needs
to build their system their subdivision
their portion at an equal level of what
the rest of the city has already built
to okay and not
require the rest of the citizens who's
already paid their portion to now also
pay an additional portion to subsidize
new development
and there's you can do that through
impact fees as a vehicle or you can do
that through Park dedication as a
vehicle or you can do it out both but
what you cannot do is take and have an
impact fee that has neighborhood parks
in it and also require the park
dedication to have neighborhood parks in
it you have to put that level of service
either here or you have to put it there
the benefit of taking that out of the
park impact fee area is that it now puts
it in the development and gets the park
up front or earlier in the process
instead of later in the
process the problem with having it later
in the process is inflation lowers the
buying value you cannot charge an impact
fee that exceeds at the time of the
charge
100% cost of providing that I can't go
to 110% to offset for the
inflation and so by moving it up front
it's similar to um the fire
stations you have a impact fee for
public health or Public Safety that
money a portion of it goes to build fire
stations but what they've taken out is
is the fire hydrant is the respons
responsibility of the developer and
that's what we're doing here is is we're
saying we're taking the fire hydrant out
of the impact fee and putting it over in
the development pile and so the
neighborhood parks are going from the
impact fee and they're being moved over
to this side it's only being charged
once but instead of coming out here it's
coming out on the development side like
a fire hydrant
thank you I think that's actually the
best explanation I've heard uh and I've
been asking that question I think a
couple of times so thank you I
appreciate
that so can I clarify something on the
reimbursements so reimbursements can go
up to currently they can go up to 100%
rencon Hills was a
special
um I wouldn't necessarily call it
special we got 100% of the money back on
that one but not of 100% of the money
that we had put in so we as a developers
still put additional money into that
Park if I use the calculation of
221 um houses and I put this this Park
acreage in here so I do three acres I
times that by the number of dwelling
units
221 and then I times it by the person
per unit which I believe is the
2.44 is the calculation per house is
2.44 so I'd go three times that by 221
and I times that by
2.44 and then I would divide it by the
1,000 so for my development right there
in renon Hills I would be required to
put a 1.61 acre Park in there there were
other agreements in that that there was
open space in other areas that we had um
that was just on the cliff not usable
open space it was just designated open
space in the past and so what ended up
happening is we moved that open space to
the park space so that Park ended up
turning into instead of the required 1.6
acres it actually turned into a 3.6 acre
Park and so in a normal development that
I would and
and for 40 acres and I put 1.6 I believe
that the required reimbursement would be
closer to that 50% range that the home
builders has has put out there so if it
was if I was to be reimbursed only the
50% and I put a 1.6 acre I believe as a
developer we could probably cover the
fees of that Park and still have your
reimbursement and that would still then
leave the city the
$1,300 for the community parks and other
things like that mine was just a special
case to where we the level of service
that you receive in rencon Hills far
exceeds the standard in Los cruus and so
it's per acreage it was higher and thus
the the amount received back was higher
and if you look in the surrounding areas
the neighbors there was there's not a
single Park on some of the adjacent ones
there and so the
neighbors I was not able to receive some
of the park impact fees that had been
collected by the surrounding areas that
do not have a park and it was not able
to go to the reimbursement of that so
had that actually been able to receive
some of that you could probably find out
that it that price could have probably
came back down to a 50% if you were
going to collect from all of the other
neighbors that do use that Park so it we
do have an issue here in cruus that
using a Lee a fee in L has been used
multiple times in the past and and it
has resulted in Parks not being built
and so you could find throughout the
city of Las Cruses we don't have enough
parks and and and that is true but the
Fe andl also was not used in the past by
parks to to facilitate the amount of
parks that we have needed so we have a
20-year problem that we have not kept up
with the demand of parks even though
they have received the fee inl so
there's all there you dive deep into
this and it it is it gets very
complicated but I believe that the best
solution on this is still to let the
developer receive a
reimbursement and only go up to that 50%
that way it does allow the housing to
stay at a affordable rate and we're not
going to see the increase on on the
lands side and then having to take it to
the next level to the next level but it
still allows parks to have enough funds
for the other community parks that is
[Music]
needed Stephen bam Parks direct director
I I think it's very fair that we um
point out that the reason they did get
100% was there was was an anticipation
of some you know like he mentioned other
homes that would be coming into that but
I think I need to speak clear is that
the neighborhood
portion and is taking up a much higher
percentage of what they're they should
be based on their percentage of the
level of
service so the the inl fee that's
currently being evaluated and that
timeline is sometime next year after
supposedly after the adoption of this in
February is that
correct so there is an impact study that
um is going to come forward and the
feing L will also be something that's
coming forward but
um it would be based on the you know the
POR of the neighborhood park and so say
the new fee is just
$3,000 if neighborhood parks take up 40%
of that then 40% would be pulled out and
not charged and be left to development
and so whatever the impact fee would be
and what percentage of the service it
encompasses okay so I guess my question
was really would there
be would there be an opportunity when
that part is figured out to revisit this
chapter and just confirm that
everything shakes out the way that
we would like to see it shake out
because it to me it seems
like there's no reason to throw the rest
of this thing out just because of this
one section that we we've maybe are a
little stuck on because we don't know
that other part of the puzzle so it just
seems to me at this
point we can put forward some
recommendations um as based on what
we're seeing now with maybe a some sort
of acknowledgement from staff that when
that other part is completed next year
we can come back and just confirm that
what we're doing is making sense not to
suggest that we're going to make changes
but at least have another opportunity to
have the conversation because I feel
like we can keep talking about this for
the next hour in fact we did back in
October yeah um and I think there's so
much good stuff that's in this I'd hate
for us
to put it all on pause just because we
can't quite get to the park piece
because we're still waiting on that
other piece which I think is completely
Fair like there's I think the there are
some stakeholders who would like to see
what that number is before they sort of
throw their support or not support
Behind these changes because it is a
shift from what we've been
doing
so you know I imagine city council can
go forward in however they as elected
officials choose to move forward
um the thing I think that's important to
recognize is that
um the neighborhood portion is
knowledgeably less than
40% at least less than 40% of the whole
pie the other thing is is that city
council could choose to adopt this park
dedication requirement and then they
could go to impact fees and say we're
not going to require any impact fees you
know so they could go a zero there and
you would end up lower um or they could
say no development needs to pay its fair
share and so I think by adopting this
this doesn't pigeon hole anything into
guaranteeing an increase overall cost
just this portion by itself is not going
to be more than the current impact
fee thank
you there's there's one more change to
the the process in which we're doing
things that I wanted to bring up and
that is an i alternative to Parkland
dedication
um what that does is it creates a new
fund that we currently don't have I'm
not saying this is a positive I'm not
saying this is a negative this is just a
this is just a change
a fundamental change is that what would
happen is the fee in
L based a fee set by the city counil
based on the market value of required
acreage
so they got to come up with one but then
it's going to be in
d uh is going to be called Park
fund so you're going to we're going to
create a
new
fund that they that is going to be
outside of piff
funds and so what that ends up doing is
there are the just my understanding of
it could be this so piff
funds have a lot of restrictions onto
them allowing you to do certain things
you can't raise the level of
service um of of the area you can't
improve certain things there's a lot of
other rules and and I think Steve you
could probably go on and explain to us
also what the PFF funds are are but this
one the park fund let me see if I just
understand it in theory the park fund
would be set aside in a different manner
that we would be collecting for fees and
L and that could be used
for well first it says in here that
solely purpose of purchasing or
improving land or public park and
recreation
uses that's in that's in D2 but then in
B it says that the contributing fees for
the purpose of land acquisition so you
what kind of contradicting a little bit
one says you can buy it just for you can
use it for land acquisition or you go
down to two it says you can use it for
purchasing or improving land for public
park and recreational uses so it would
be another Avenue for the parks not
saying it's a good thing not saying it's
a bad thing but it could give them extra
funds that's not tied to piff that would
allow them to come in and increase the
level of service on certain Parks is it
I I believe that is a if if Steve if you
could clarify some of the things that's
going on with the extra Park fund so our
interpretation of this is in line with
the interpretation that it would be a
separate fund accounted separately from
parking pack
fees um our
interpretation is
that the fees in
Li that would be given in lie of a
neighborhood park would need to be used
for a neighborhood
park if the fee and L is to pay because
you didn't put in a neighborhood park
then that fund needs to be used in that
manner so would you be able to use these
funds differently than then you use piff
funds I don't believe so I would need to
check with Council but um to me it would
need to be for a neighborhood park and
so for
example yeah this is solely for the
purpose of purchasing and or improving
land for public park and recreational
uses and
so I would say again that um being LOF
for neighborhood parks needs to stay in
being loose for neighborhood
parks but it wouldn't have it wouldn't
have to be used for neighborhood parks
right the intent I I get it the intent
would be to use it for neighborhood
parks but technically the way it's
written I don't have to use it for
neighborhood parks I'm just putting
myself if I if I'm the park director I
like the way that it's written because I
can use it for other needs that I need
throughout the city so I mean if if if
there's two sides of it right the one
side is some of the areas that have no
Parks
whatsoever you could possibly use this
to purchase land and put a park in so in
other districts you could use
that and I mean that could be a positive
for the city of Los Cruses I'm is thrown
out there's just there's different ways
of seeing this than just saying well I
collected it from this area now I have
to put it back into that area it's not
written it's not written out that way
fundamentally it's not written that way
so technically depending on who is in
charge at the time they can interpret
this multiple different ways so if Steve
right now interprets it as using it for
neighborhood parks then we're going to
receive neighborhood parks but when we
receive a new parks director and they
want to use it for other items they can
use it for other items that's just good
or for bad you know I'm just that's just
the way I understand
it but
wouldn't my understanding of in inl fees
is
that well I think we all would probably
well not all of us but some of us us
would prefer that the enloy is kind of
your last resort you've got a site you
just can't get the required acrd because
of an aoo a steep slope your downtown
whatever it may be you don't just get to
say oh I I'm I don't have to I don't
have to pay my fair share I don't have
to build a park the the inl fee is your
Avenue for which you're still
responsible for your part of the pie
I would think that having the
flexibility is a good thing in this fund
because let's take downtown as an
example you you're going to be hard
pressed to find a parcel that the city
can buy to build a neighborhood park
it's possible but it's going to be a lot
harder than if you're out in Sona Ranch
West Mesa East Mesa right where you have
undeveloped tracks of land that you
might be able to scoop up so I would
think that flexibility is exactly what
we want because then the city has the
abilities maybe they can't get the
land on the north side of spruce but
there's a parcel on the south side of
spruce M maybe you get able to add some
Park land to a community park that's in
the
neighborhood that that can also serve as
a neighborhood park certainly it could
give you that
flexibility the the only thing I I'm
going to rebuttal on on the thought of
when the fee and L will be used with the
current way that it is written I believe
we're going to be using that fee and L A
lot
more than we currently are let me
explain why I believe that I am supposed
to give a 3 Acre minimum and that's the
standard unless I receive some specialty
use right some special
by by the parks director that allows me
to go smaller so in order to to use the
full 3 Acre Park that that parks would
want I need to have roughly well I guess
we could probably do the M but I'm going
to just say it's roughly UH 60 I think
it was like 60 68 acres is when I would
finally have enough people to match this
this number so of the Thousand you have
to have a thousand,
people equals the
300 the equals the 3 Acre Park so in
order to get that calculation it's
probably around 60 Acres I think is what
you're going to get so if I don't
have if I don't have 60 Acres to
develop and I'm not going to be able to
get a
waiver I'm probably going to have to pay
a a a fee in Loop so everything
basically under a 60 acre I'm going to
be paying a fee in Loop if I have a 10
acre par parcel or a 20 acre parcel and
I can put a 1 acre Park in
there well that s that suffices as long
as if I if I do my calculations right so
if I I got my let me switch back to this
page real quick and let's just go off of
a a 20 acre parcel so real real quick
though we have this suggestion that
staff has already come back and said
that there's flexibility in what
you're able to provide so it seems like
it seems like
there's the outlets where they need to
be maybe I'm wrong I mean time will tell
certainly but it to me it seems like the
the reaction isn't just going to be the
en Luffy because it specifically says
that if suitable land for Park
dedication is not available you can't
just say I'm not going to develop it
like you you've got to provide some
justification I would think and there's
this Avenue that you can work with parks
and W to say hey I can't get you three
but I can give you some pretty cool two
and a half so I mean it just seems
like we can go round and round here but
I think there's Avenues here at this
stage
to well some concerns having gone round
and round with parks on on
developments it
it's not as easy as it's written here so
you do go round and round and and that's
why I the 3
Acre i i as a a 3 Acre should be the
goal but it's not always what's actual
going to be out there and the way it's
written right now is more of three acres
is what you have to do and if you don't
if you can't do that then we got to go
through in a whole different alternative
route and it just as I've I've done my
fair share of
of conversing with parks and and making
your deal with them right and and
it's I'm just saying on my side it's a
lot easier to and smoother for us to
have it worked out instead of as
a as a deal that me and Steve have to
come up with again or me and someone
else in the Parks right it's just it
makes it a little bit easier that's my
only suggestions is having having done
it it would be nice to have that acreage
or have it written in here if you have
something
under 60 Acres you're allowed to do
Under the three acres but if you have 60
Acres or
more you sorry you're going to give me
the three acres right if there was some
type of wording in there that allowed
your development to do it cuz there's a
difference there's a difference really
when you come in and master plan 100
acres like okay I'm Master planning 100
acres great fine Steve tell me I got to
give me you three acres fine I'll give
it to you right like I can move it I can
the the the percentage of land that is
needed when I have a 100 acres versus
the percentage of land when you shrink
it is is just different so if there was
wording in here that's basically says if
you have you know some exemptions an
exemption to three acres is you know
you're developing under 60 Acres you can
use this exemption without having to
have a Park Agreement without having to
go toe-to-toe and and cross your fingers
you're a better negotiator than the next
developer right like that's that's my
only issue with it that that would be my
suggestion actually is we put some type
of wording in there that allows that if
parks would be okay with something like
that I think we have the wording in
there
already um that gives us
flexibility
and you know you're you're well over 600
homes before you get to be required to
be three you know before you'd have
enough homes that would come out to
three acres and so we're going to have
to work together as we
develop the city to identify Parks Park
spaces and the feeing L is going to be a
tool to help make developers whole who
come in with Parcels smaller that will
need to have a park
so there's pros and cons of adding more
language we we feel like we're in a spot
where there's you know the appropriate
amount of flexibility
so you're you're welcome to throw out a
recommendation and we can
collectively agree or we can take a vote
on it up to you um I did have one it's
relatively minor recommendation um this
is on page
368 um uh
[Music]
G2 this is
um basically it's the land dedicated for
open space for improved Parkland or
Trails must be preserved in its
predevelopment
state my only recommendation would be
that we allow like a
restoration project to
be um acceptable pending that the
developer goes through with the
restoration but that would just be
something that I would recommend um so
not
only current state habitat good great
but hey I've got
this somewhat degraded and we're willing
to improve
it Steve B Parks and Recreation director
I I think that's a great suggestion
would be um supportive of an addition
add with an improved restoration
plan those are all my comments on the
Park section so if um anyone has any
recommendations on this that they want
to put out there go for it were you
thinking of holding the entire chapter 5
or just
55 for now just 55 and then we'll move
on to the next
section so 55 um pardon me Mr
chair um 55 would include uh revisiting
the park session and holding that PFI P
for the ne neighborhood park until mid
of 2025
would that is that part of that section
because I don't I feel strongly about
not moving forward with that until we
actually have like you mentioned before
I don't want to reiterate everything
that you said but I think that is
something we really need to consider and
not move forward on something that we
don't have that other side of the puzzle
and I think um home builders brought
that good valid
point so your your recommend you would
like to put a recommendation out there
that
we uh
uh not proceed with Section 55
until the park impact fee process is
completed at least table it up to this
point yes and I think we should further
that by saying give the city council two
options that we recommend that we table
55 um because we need more information
to determine what we want to get um for
both parties um but also add another
condition there if the city council
wants to move forward with the entire
thing so that they don't have to look
back at it that our recommendation as by
the Home Builders and um commissioner
thirston that 50% is the reimbursable
versus
none I feel very strongly we own that to
our community of Los
crues okay so I'm just making sure I've
got this straight so recommend section
55 is tabled until
after the park imp
fee is
completed and then another condition
that's
recommend city council
if they choose to
[Music]
proceed that
[Music]
50% of
the park impact fee would be waved with
the dedication of a neighborhood
park
correct it's up to you your condition
which do you
want would be
reimbursed okay
up to 50%
okay
um why don't
we why don't we just get this out of the
way why don't we do a vote on both of
those because it seems like unless I'm
wrong there's
some not a unanimous decision there
for those for those two
conditions I I personally would like to
take a vote on
that I'm good with that so um so we'll
do one at a
time um I don't know do we need to do
motions in a second okay so the first
one will be a recommendation that
section
5-5 is tabled until after the park
impact fee update is completed need a
motion in a
second
make I'll make a not a motion as
presented a
second so this is related to the first
condition um commissioner thirston yes
commissioner Smith yes commissioner
Porter yes commissioner aosta yes yes
commissioner Murray yes and chair
no so that that passed so it will carry
forward um now we'll do uh the second
recommendation which is uh recommend
that if city council or recommend city
council if they choose to proceed with
Section 5-5
that
50% of the park impact fee would
be used for reimbursement of a
neighborhood park up to 50% it am I
saying that
correctly yes that's correct okay so I
need a motion in a
second um I make a motion to vote on
that if city council wants to proceed
forward with uh section 55 um that they
recommend or that we recommend that a
park fee is reimbursable of 50% of the
neighborhood park
second so this is for the second
condition um commissioner
Thon yes commissioner Smith yes
commissioner Porter yes commissioner
aosta yes commissioner Murray yes and
chair
yes okay okay so those two will move
forward so we can now move on
to section
5-6 tree
preservation can can Steph show us what
what was changed on that I think we had
some changes to that one already right
Mr chair and commissioner thirston the
only change that we modified within
there was that the 2 in was going to a 6
in
diameter
okay any other other comments on tree
preservation I personally think we don't
need the pre the
5-6 really
the we don't have it
now I I don't see we don't have a what's
it saying if it's not broke don't fix it
we don't really have a problem with it
now we're just adding another layer of
red tape for us to have to go through
that's just my opinion so I don't think
it's we don't have trees growing here
very often that are native so it's more
of just a man-made tree that we're kind
of planting ourselves I mean very rarely
do we have some spot zones that are next
to the uh river that kind of have native
trees that grow other than that like
it's every tree you're probably going to
see in the city of Las cruus has been
planted by a man or a
woman or by Nature falling down you know
and planting a seed but it's not from
native so that
I just think it's not needed
but that's
it okay any other thoughts or comments
on pre tree preservation commissioner
Smith well I
mean as far as the purpose they're
really talking about um protecting trees
that that are current um I mean there is
a need for for trees there's a need for
shade you know we know that it provides
oxygen and also it's also helps as far
as you know the health of our population
so the way it's this is address it it's
really just looking at
um protecting preserving trees that are
already in place so it doesn't really
address um you know planning more trees
you know providing more green um because
we do live in an environment that can
sustain um types of trees that you know
that are native and used to be native to
this area before they're all removed um
so my only my only reason for making
this comment is that I don't know if we
need
to completely eliminate this section but
I think we need to possibly address it
from a um you know a planting of trees
as opposed to just
preservation I have no idea how we we
approach it but it's just um you know
from what I've read here I think that's
a perfect segue into the next section
which is
Landscaping yeah I I think we can leave
it in there if if it's left in there the
only one I would have is on E where a
tree must submit a tree mitigation plan
so we just got to figure out what a tree
mitigation plan is uh but I agree with
you keeping trees in Los cruus is good I
just didn't think we had a problem with
I don't see people going out and cutting
trees down left and right so I didn't I
didn't see that this is really going to
change much how we do something with a
tree mitigation with a what it's going
to do is having tree preservation this
is where I'm coming from is that someone
has a tree in their front yard they're
not going to go and call the city can I
cut my tree down they're just going to
cut their tree down but now it's going
to be against the law to cut your tree
down that's the but it's still going to
happen anyways so I'm fine if you just
want to leave it in in there I just
figure out what is a tree mitigation
plan another thing that that confused me
also you talked about protected trees um
I mean who
would determine and establish which
trees are protected which trees are not
um and I mean is it based
on um you know a a current list of trees
that should be protected I mean we're
we're not talking about Wildlife here
and uh that's protected and we're we're
talking about trees so I I you know in
in my my time especially as a park range
in a Wilderness Ranger I know all about
protected animals but as far as what
protected trees we have in Los Cruses
I'm just not aware
of Steve bam Parks and Recreation
director I would Advocate that you keep
the protected trees in there because
it's an effort at on the conservation
side not not just on the planting side
and
as it says there's plenty of reasons why
you can get and cut down a tree that's
over 6 in what we're asking is is if
you're going to do so that you come
forward with a proposal that identifies
how you're going to offset that so if
the tree is diseased or dead you cut it
down and there's no need for mitigation
but if it's um a perfectly healthy tree
and you feel that there's a need to
remove it so you know you bring forward
and you know propose three or four
additional tree plant be planted in the
community to offset that long
term so the definition of a protected
tree is it based on the health of the
tree
yeah it would be 6 in or larger and um
the tree is not dead or
diseased and does not create a safety
hazard if if it creates a safety hazard
is dead or is
diseased um then it's not
protected and same if it's a
noxious species is defined by the
state all right thank you
one one additional question um if we
require a tree removal permit is
obviously there's a fee for that
permit Mr chair and commission
commissioner a Costa right now there has
no been there's no fee assess to that if
we do move forward with this and it is
recommended approval by Council then we
would come forward with the fees that
would be associated with those
permits all right moving on to
Landscaping this is section 5-7 um
commissioner Smith this would kind of
address your initial thought of planting
trees so this would have those
requirements um built into
it um any immed
imediate
questions issues with this
section
um all right we can move on
to section
5-8 this is on fencing screening and
buffering any
um I
had one I think is fairly minor so this
is on page
382 uh this is under the required buffer
yards uh my
recommendation is to eliminate the
buffer requirements between the
residential and Commercial zones within
the
um Urban
Place type and the mixed use in town
center so right now if you look there's
a requirement to have an additional
buffer from
NH3 against
nh1 and a
uh and a
CR against an nh1 and
nh2 um and I'm just thinking we already
have setbacks so I'm not sure why we
would add an
additional design requirement to have
more spacing um especially in the urban
core where things are naturally going to
be closer together I think the set the
side setbacks the back the rear setbacks
are going to take care of that buffer I
don't see any reason to have additional
buffers so that's my only comment on
this section
I'm good with your with your good wasn't
sure if you were gonna say anything um
okay any
other thoughts on uh section
5-8 all right um moving on to 5-9 this
is the Outdoor Lighting section
um I agree with your recommendation and
based on the public
comment sounds good any other thoughts
on
lighting is there a way that we can
still achieve the same lighting quality
but being able to use different fixtures
that still that still meet the
requirements so there's a r random thing
that happens in this is there's a
specific light now we've dealt with us
on Commercial and other builders who
actually do commercial can explain to
you the little bit difference so there's
a specific light that's called out in
the manual that you have to use and you
have the specifications well that light
could be say
$300 but and that's the approved light
but then you can find the same light for
$50 that has the same thing but it does
not have the the light sky ordinance
stamp on it but it has the
same um outcome does that make sense and
so I know some Builders have and I have
not had to deal with it but I know some
Builders have brought that up in the
past of like hey this is a $300 fixture
for but I could buy this one for 50 and
it's the exact same thing I'm still
complying with the night sky ordinance
but it's doesn't have the stamp of it on
it and I think I don't know I could ask
staff if if you guys have dealt with
that in the past and if what what have
you done on the night sky
when have you dealt with a similar
instance Mr chair and commissioner thst
right now we don't actually have a night
sky ordinance we do not have one adopted
through the city our outdoor lighting is
just going to provide basically a fully
shielded light capacity to where it is
no longer reflecting along property
lines or adjacent properties you're
going to just be shielding it to the
ground and so those lumens or those
specifications are going to be based
based on essentially what your outscape
is and so it's just to protect Neighbors
from not having that light pollution
going into their neighboring properties
that's really what we have right now um
the recommendation that was um provided
this evening and then at the work
session the last time was to look at the
City of Albuquerque and see what you
know what we could possibly use from
that um staff has not been able to look
at that or Implement those things
through this we do have the outdoor
lighting that has been updated that is a
little bit more restricted than what a
dark sky would be um but it is a
recommendation that pnz can make to City
Council in the like I'm fine in theory
with with it I just know that there's
some these are some of the weird little
things that'll hit us as as a builder or
development that
like it can it can cause some extra cost
for no reason even though I can get the
same thing that's my only concern with
it but as far as as far as buying the
right fixture and things like that if if
it makes people happier that it's a
darker Sky that's
great yeah and I think the the
recommendation is just to give staff
more time to evaluate Albuquerque in the
dark sky Ordnance I don't know if it has
that you have to have that stamp on that
fixture to be compliant but I think it's
just
recognizing it's late in the game but
not dismissing the feedback outright so
just giving staff some additional time
and hopefully they less work because
it's possibly already written for them
up in
Albuquerque all right so I think we're
on our last section I think um which is
section 5-10 signs uh just kidding we
have one more after
this uh but any any issues with
signs all right and then finally um
everyone's
favorite uh which is I believe Wireless
Communications
Towers
511 anybody no everything everything
good all right um so just to recap um on
section or chapter
five um on the proposed amendments we
have a total
of
18 uh so we have
the uh 14 that are listed on this page
and then we
added um two
two more that were related to
um uh section 5-5 changing the
non-residential to mixed use and then
adding um a statement about Park
flexibility standards in the urban core
and then the two that we voted on um
already so uh we'll need to do a motion
to approve um amendments or
recommendations one through 16
I make a motion to approve or
recommendation to approve or moving
forward 1 through
16 I
second okay so this is for the um 16
amendments commissioner
thirston yes commissioner Smith yes
commissioner Porter yes commissioner
aosta yes commissioner Murray yes and
chair yes
all right now we need to do one final
vote that captures everything that we
already talked about this evening so
this should just be a simple well I
don't know whatever you decide but
looking for a motion
to
approve approve the ordinance as amended
I make a motion to approve the ordinance
as amended I second second
so this is to approve the ordinance as
amended commissioner point of order do
we need to provide a reason in this vote
no
no um commissioner
thirston yes commissioner Smith yes
commissioner Porter yes commissioner
aosta yes commissioner Murray yes and
chair
yes all right um that concludes our one
item this evening evening are there any
announcements from
staff there are no announcements from
staff I make a motion to
adour Second all in
favor thank you all for coming out we'll
see you December thank you so
much e