today uh meeting today is Tuesday,
October 28th, 2025 and approximately
6:00 p.m. Uh my name is uh Kent
Thirsten. I'm the chair. Um
first matter of of business today, we
need to have a motion. We have Janet
Costa uh online and we need to have a
motion that she can participate uh
virtually. So, we need to have a vote or
a uh a motion and a vote.
I'll make a motion till uh Commissioner
Costa to participate virtually.
I second
that rec second.
Okay. This is on the motion to allow
Janet [clears throat] A. Costa to
participate via
virtual. Commissioner Wen Aosta.
Yes.
Co. Uh, Commissioner Smith,
yes.
Commissioner Connor,
yes.
Murray, sorry. Commissioner Kaiser,
yes.
And chair,
yes. Thank you.
All right. Thank you. So, moving on. Uh,
does anybody have any conflicts of
interest for tonight other than myself?
Okay. I have I have one uh which will be
the first item that we're going to hear
today. Um, so I'll have to excuse myself
on that one. Um, going on to the next
one, public participation. Is there any
public participation that is not
concerning the uh items on the agenda
for today?
Seeing none, we will move on. Um, and
then moving on to acceptance of the
agenda.
Uh, a motion to accept tonight's agenda.
I second.
This is on a motion to accept tonight's
agenda. Commissioner Costa,
yes.
Commissioner Smith,
yes.
Commissioner Murray,
yes.
Commissioner Kaiser,
yes.
And chair,
yes.
Thank you.
Did you get
We have Janet online.
Commissioner Janet A. Costa.
Yes.
Thank you.
All right. [clears throat] Now, do we
need to do a uh
planning and zoning minutes or that goes
with the that goes with the agenda
already?
Okay. So, first item of business. Um I
guess I leave the room.
[clears throat]
All right. So, our first item of
business tonight is item 6.1, a request
for approval of a preliminary plat known
as Mesa Crossing Subdivision. Uh,
looking for a motion to uh approve this
item.
We need a motion before we hear.
I make a motion to approve as presented.
I second.
and we'll turn it over to staff for the
presentation.
Thank you, Commissioner Kaiser. Adam
Machoa, Community Development. For the
record, uh before you have a proposed
preliminary plat for what is a
subdivision that is known as Mesa
Crossings subdivisions, subject property
is uh located on the southeast corner of
Mesa Grande Drive, Peach Tree Hills,
right next to what is the city limits up
there on the northeast part of town.
Subject property encomp encompasses
20.468 acres in size. It is currently
vacant or undeveloped and made up of uh
several tracks of land. Uh this proposed
subdivision is one of our first ones
that is actually following realized Los
Cru's uh development standards and
design standards. That being said, it is
zone NH1 uh as described as neighborhood
one sub uh uh suburban in realized Los
Cruises.
Showing the subject property here uh
southeast corner of Peach Tree Hills,
Mesa Grande. As you can see, this is
just really a hodgepodge of nothing but
single family residential with a uh
differentiating in lot sizes from uh
overacre lots to to much smaller lots to
the west. So, just predominantly single
family residential area.
Showing here the aerial. You can see
again it is vacant piece of property. Uh
the city limits is literally run through
the middle of Peach Tree Hills. So this
is county to the north, city here to the
south. Everything down here is city.
So the proposed preliminary plat is
proposing 89 single family residential
lots in this subdivision. Uh it it is
all being constructed in one phase.
There'll be no phasing done with this uh
lots do range in size from about 1.24
acres to about just under 3/4 of an acre
in size. Uh the proposed subdivision
also proposes five trackcts of land. uh
two tracks for drainage purposes and
three tracks for rideaway uh dedication
and improvements that that are
associated with this subdivision. All
five tracks shall be dedicated to the
city of Los Cruus for uh ownership and
maintenance.
Showing the plat here as you can see it
has two points of entry right off of
Peach Tree Hills here, Mesa Grinded
Drive as well. It kind of loops around
within itself allowing for future
potential uh extension of what is this
[clears throat] road down here to the
south was which is essentially nothing
but easements in that area but they are
dedicating that right away there believe
that is Jameson that that I'm pointing
at here right here and then on the north
side they will be also dedicating their
prora share for [clears throat] excuse
me for uh Beachree Hills Road and their
prorite a share for what is Mesa Grande
Drive. Those roadways will be built out
to Mason Grand Drive will be built out
to city standards. Uh the development
review committee did approve a alternate
crosssection for Peach Tree Hills which
includes a trail system that kind of
mimics what is uh further west on Peach
Tree Hills closer to the schools in the
Metro Verde area to kind of continue
that that type of development along that
that roadway.
Once that further analysis, we did see
no life, safety or welfare issues with
this proposed subdivision. Uh it does
meet the objectives for of a proposed
preliminary plat as required by the
subdivision code and lots do meet the
requirements development standards of
realized Los Cruuses. Lots also meet the
requirements of the design standards of
the city of Los Cruises. Pros
development is compatible with the
surrounding area essentially [snorts]
all single family residential in the
area.
Further improvements uh provided to the
adjacent roadways which includes Peach
Tree Hills and Mesa Grander Drive will
also help with the better improvement or
or better connectivity in that area for
the community.
With that, staff did send out a public
notice per required by code to all
property owners uh as required by code.
No comments or concerns were received by
staff. uh you only questions what's
going to be developed there, how many
people are going to be living there,
just general questions, but no real
concerns or or comments.
On August 20th of 2025, the development
review committee did review the proposed
subdivision. Uh the DRC does review
subdivisions from an infrastructure,
utilities, and improvement standpoint.
After minor very minor discuss
discussion regarding the preliminary
plat, the DRC did recommend approval of
the proposed subdivision.
With that, uh staff does recommend
approval for the preliminary plant based
on the findings. Uh the Mesa Grande, uh
I'm sorry, Mesa Crossing subdivision
complies with the requirements and
standards of chapter 37, which is our
our subdivision code of realized Los
Cruuses. The preliminary plat is
consistent with existing development
found within the surrounding area. uh
residential lots comply with all
development standards of real life Los
Cusus and of course on August 20th of
2025 the DRC did recommend approval for
the proposed preliminary plan that as
well.
With that your options tonight is one to
vote yes and approve the the preliminary
plat as presented by staff, two to vote
no and deny the preliminary plat. Uh
just if denial is uh a way you want to
vote just remember uh different findings
will have to be provided since staff is
recommending in the positive for this
three to vote to amend and uh
uh add conditions to the prelimary plat
as deemed appropriate by the commission
or for table plus direct staff and the
applicants accordingly. Uh that is the
conclusion of staff's uh presentation.
Uh applicants representatives are here
if you have any questions for them and I
sign up for questions.
Thank you. Did the applicant
representative wish to make a
presentation or just standing by?
You don't have to give a presentation.
I'm just asking.
Okay. Uh any questions from the
commission?
Uh Commissioner uh A Costa online. Do
you have any questions?
I do not. Thank you.
Um I have a couple. Um
so
and my PDF got all screwed up here, so
I'm going to try to read what I wrote.
Um on the So the easement, the gas line
easement.
Can you describe how that's playing out?
It was hard to tell if that is is
cutting through individual lots or if it
is a if it is its own I guess lot for
all intents and purposes. In other
words, no lot is crossing over that gas
easement. Can you clarify that,
Mr. Chair? That is an easement. So, it
still is running through the private
lots themselves, but that is that is a
no build zone area. Uh no type of
development will be allowed on those in
that area. The only way we could remove
that from that from those lots if we
created a track to to separate it from
everything. But essentially that
easement runs as you can see north from
outside of the city limits all the way
down south through 70 and down further
south the cities of the city there.
Okay. So homeowners could landscape
there with the understanding that uh
whoever owns that could come in at any
time and rip it out and they're not
obligated to replace whatever's there.
Is that
correct,
Mr. Chair? Just like any easement,
including utility easements along your
front property line, that is correct. Uh
any type of improvements you do, if a
utility company or whoever has interest
in that easement or uh have the right to
that easement have the ability to go in
there and do whatever work they need to
in order to fix whatever issues or
problems that that is wrong with
whatever lines are underneath that
easement, sir.
Okay. I I hope people do their due
diligence when they purchase these lots.
Um my next question is on the so the
bike path that the applicants were
proposing and I guess really the the
alternative cross-section for Peach Tree
Hills. You mentioned that it's the um
the right of way is split by city limits
and then county. How is how does that
play with the cross-section
that they're proposing here? In other
words, is it going to get built out
symmetrically or is the county going to
say, "Well, our standards are a little
bit different. We have an awkward road
situation." Can you talk a little bit
about that?
Yes, Mr. Chair. Uh, [clears throat]
multiple meetings were had by the
applicant, the city and the county to
kind of discuss what is the alignment of
Peach Tree Hills. The county is actually
looking at connecting the more western
portion uh between which is Mesa Grande
and the other point further west uh road
skips my mind. and I believe it's
Hornata possibly. Uh so they are
extending their own road that way and
this roadway will essentially continue
that same alignment east uh along this
this proposed uh subdivision. And then
so that'll essentially be in the county
on the northern side and on the south
side there's area there for for drainage
issu uh for drainage uh things that need
to be taken care of for the city as well
as like a landscape uh multi-purpose
path just like what you see in the metro
area which is still in the city and the
other side of what is county right right
away.
Okay. So
I think that kind of leads me to my
second question. So what
what guarantees if any that this path
will continue to get built out and
eventually connect with and I have no
idea the distance that we're talking
about here, but I drove out there. It
seems like it's a pretty significant gap
between this interse basically the
intersection of Peach Tree and Mesa
uh Grande.
That's a pretty significant gap from
what I could tell when I was out there
and I don't know the distance, but what
what kind of guarantees are there that
this trail ultimately will connect
correctly?
Mr. Chair, what the city was pushing for
is to have that trail continue at least
in the city limits. The county
themselves, they'll be building a road
and a sidewalk on their rideway area.
So, there'll still be some type of
pedestrian connectivity at least in that
chunk of the area. But the city at least
especially from the park parks and
recreations standpoint is they would
like to see that trail system continue
at least within what is the city limits
or
Peach Tree Hill the entire way is half
in the city limits.
You're saying the county has promised to
build a sidewalk but um I guess can you
clarify who's building what and what
guarantees do we have that this is
connect going to connect? My apologies.
Yes, sir. So, to clarify, the sidewalk
is going on the actual roadway section
that the county is building, which is
within the county itself. You can kind
of see it in this white part of the
vicinity map here between Mesa Grande
and Hornatada to the west. That is what
they're building to the road. And with
that road, they're putting in a sidewalk
as well. So, that's providing out a
vehicular connectivity, but at least
some type of pedestrian connectivity as
well. Then when it comes into the city
again
right here, that's when we the city
wanted [snorts] a continuation of that
trail system at least within the city
limits. Uh this was the I guess
discussions that our parks and
recreation department had with the
applicant that they wanted to have th
that trail system continue, not just a
sidewalk. That way we could have that
multi-purpose trail in that area.
And not only that, this would set it up
for it to continue also further to the
east as more development comes in since
there is a lot of raw land to the east.
Okay. Thanks for the clarification. I
think I'm just I'm concerned that
there's that we're just going to end up
with this hodgepodge of trail network
that's not really contiguous or
meaningful in any way. I mean, I I
appreciate and applaud the applicant for
coming forward and offering this. I'm
glad the city's open to it, wants to see
it, but this piece with the county uh
makes me a little nervous that there's
there's no it doesn't appear that
there's a willingness to have uh a true
network in this part of the city. So,
that's concerning to me. It also um
based on the vicinity map, it seems like
there's at least one or two parcels to
the west
uh that may be developed in the future
where the roadway is getting improved.
uh
what um what mechanisms do the does the
city have to ensure that those
those pieces are going to be built out
consistent with what they're doing here.
So for clarification, do you mean these
lots here just on the other side of
Grande? So that is the portion that is
in the county. That is the county. So,
the county will assure that that road
gets aligned and hooks up with what the
developers developing as well.
But they're only they're only suggesting
it's going to be a sidewalk, not a
multi-use path.
Mr. Chair, that is correct. The sidewalk
is what they budgeted for because that's
they actually have it in their budget is
what the county told us and that is what
they got approved for and they're just
waiting to get that built.
Okay, that's disappointing. Um, so then
I guess my question is is was there any
conversation then of how how does this
this project fit into the larger
infrastructure trail network that we're
trying to build out? In other words, you
know, was there any discussion about,
well, if we're not going to get a trail,
you know, continuing down west to Peach
Tree that maybe we should look at
turning that corner onto Mesa Grande
that's still in the city limits. Any
conversation around that? Um, I mean,
it's great that there's a trail there,
but if that's only a section of I don't
know how long that is, I mean,
not not ideal. I ideal we've had an
interconnected network
Mr. Chair, that wasn't discussed.
Unfortunately, I believe parks and rec
was just comfortable with continuing the
Peach Tree Hills uh trail system
themselves. Uh in in lie of what it
would be just like an actual park. Uh
the actual development of Mesa Grande,
that's still up for question as well.
That could potentially be redesigned.
But Mesa Grande is already, if you
driven down Mesa Grande is already kind
of an accordion effect of different
types of roads and how it's being built.
Uh it will staff will have to wait to
see in the future when somebody comes in
to develop the rest of those properties
further south to see if something else
can happen along that. But right now
they're following the same they're
following the same u cross-section
that's already been built on Mesa
Grande. That is what they're proposing
on their side.
All right. I appreciate the explanation.
Just wish we are a little bit uh
thinking a little bit more further ahead
in our development patterns here. making
sure that we actually end up with a
interconnected network. I mean, we
interconnect our roads, no problem. We
do that in our sleep, but sidewalks,
multi-use paths, those are just
artifacts that are just sprinkled around
here and there throughout the city.
There's no connectivity. And so, I I
just encourage everyone to be thinking a
little bit more thoroughly those
regards. Um, I think those are all my
questions.
Uh, if there's no questions from
commission, I'll go ahead and turn to um
public comment. Uh, does anybody here
tonight want to speak on this item?
Please raise your hand. I see one.
All right. Come on down, sir. Give you
three minutes.
And before you speak, can I have you
state your name so I can swear you in?
Antonio Lopez. And do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you're about
to give is the truth and nothing but the
truth under penalty of law?
Yes.
Go ahead, sir.
I just had a question. Um, I live up
there on Peach Tree where the pipeline
runs in between two of my properties. I
got two homes there. Now, I didn't quite
understand from Mesa Grande to I believe
it's Mesa
Road. Is is that going to be blacktop or
they doing anything with that road
there? that dirt road peach tree itself.
Uh if you have any other questions, go
ahead and ask them now and then we'll
answer.
That's all I want to know.
Thank you, sir. We'll we'll get an
answer for you.
I believe the answer is yes, but I'll
let staff respond.
Um Mr. Chair, the road actually will not
be extended all the way east to Mesa.
They are only responsible for the
roadway that's in front of their
subdivision. So they'll be building from
essentially Mesa Grande to the edge of
their subdivision. Uh that one because
they were proposing in initially to go
all the way to Mesa, but unfortunately
because of ownership of the land
easements not existing on there and then
they I don't know if you could tell here
there are some lots here that are right
next to where that rideway would have to
go. That would have made it almost
pretty well made it extremely difficult
to build out any type of roadway without
actual takings and sulfur like that
happening. Sir
and to clarify the road that they'll
build is asphalt.
That is correct.
Yeah. Thank you.
Right. Anybody else uh wish to speaks on
this item?
All right. Seeing none, I will go ahead
and come back to the commission and if
there's no final comments, looking for a
motion to or sorry, I guess we're just
going straight to a vote.
So,
yep. This is this is on the vote to
approve item 6.1.
Commissioner Wina Costa,
yes.
Commissioner Smith,
yes.
Commissioner Janet A Costa,
yes.
Commissioner Murray,
yes.
Commissioner Kaiser,
yes.
And chair is absent. Thank you.
with Commissioner Murray departing. Do
we need to do anything or
Okay, good luck on your uh your knee
surgery.
All righty. For the next items, chair,
uh just a reminder, you will need to
suspend the rules to hear both cases
together, 6.2 and 6.3. Afterwards, then
vote to reinstate the rules as well.
Right.
Right. But first, we have to have a
motion to hear. Right. Don't we got to
have a motion to hear 6.2?
So, we need to have a motion to hear
6.2. And then after we have that, then
we need a motion to suspend the rules to
hear both of them together.
Mr. Chair, I make a motion to hear 6.2.
I second.
Okay. Now, we need a motion to suspend
the rules so that we can hear 6.2 and
6.3 together.
I make a motion to suspend the rules to
hear items 6.2 and 6.3 together.
I second.
This is on a a vote to suspend the
rules.
Uh, and here's items 6.2 and 6.3
together. Commissioner Wina Costa,
yes.
Commissioner Smith,
yes.
Commissioner Janet A Costa,
yes.
Uh, Commissioner Murray is absent.
Commissioner Kaiser,
yes.
And chair Yes. Thank you. We're going to
turn it over to staff for the
presentation.
Good evening, commission. Uh this is
John Castillo for the record. Um today
we have Luhan Tracks non-administrative
replat and a waiver to a waiver to road
improvements.
Um the current conditions of the
property, it's located at 6401
Jefferson. Uh it encompasses
approximately 2.05 acres. It's a
developed parcel of land with a
residence and accessory structure. The
current zoning of the property is REMM,
which is our residential estate mobile.
Um, and it's located within the suburban
neighborhood place type. Um,
predominantly surrounded by single
family residential development of
similar style.
Here's an uh zoning map to show that
everything around it is.
Here's an aerial map to show the subject
property.
So, the proposal for the
non-administrative replat um is looking
to subdivide the existing lot into two
new lots. Uh lot one will be 1.05 acres.
Uh this will be access from Jefferson
Lane and Pooh Creek. Uh this one will be
the one that will house the residents on
it. Uh lot two is going to be um 0.92
acres uh which can be accessed from Pooh
Creek uh road and Pan Lane. Uh this is
going to be the one uh back in the
aerial image that has the accessory
structure on it.
The second proposal that we have is to
wave the road improvement
to wave the road improvement
requirements associated with the
subdivision. Uh pan lane is a 50 foot
wide cross-section which
or pan lane will need to be developed to
a 50 foot wide crosssection including
pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter and
lighting. Um, the property is requesting
to only dedicate the 25 foot wide tract
of land for rightway uh with no
improvements.
Here on this image, you can see how it's
going to be split. The tract of land
that they're dedicating is going to be
up to the north of the property.
Um, notice was sent to all relevant
agencies and departments. Oh, I
apologize. Let me go back to the
proposal. Um, from the aerial image, you
can see that Pooh Creek is an
undeveloped road. Uh, back in 2004, this
was dedicated to the city of Los Cusus
through a deed. Um, so they are not
responsible for creating any kind of
improvements along that rideway.
Um, notice sent to all surrounding
properties within 500 ft. Um, staff did
not receive any emails or phone calls at
that time.
So the development review committee um
or DRC reviews subdivisions from an
infrastructure utilities and improvement
standpoint. On October 1st uh 2025 a
meeting was held which we discussed uh
dedication of parkland as this is um
transitioning from our 2001 code to the
new um realized Los Cusus. Um as this
was started back prior to the adoption
of
uh realize Los Cruus they would not be
required to provide any dedication of
parkland or pay a fee in lie of um if
the plaque can be filed on or before
December 31st.
Um so DRC unanimous DRC unanimously
recommended approval um with a condition
for the non-administrative replat.
Um they also provided uh an approval to
wave the improvements of the right of
way.
Uh staff recommends approval based on
the following findings. Um relevant city
staff uh based upon the review by
relevant city staff. The proposed
non-administrative reply complies with
the requirements and standards of the
city of Los Cusa subdivision code. Uh
the pros subdivision that is being
created by the non-administrative replac
complies with all requirements of the
zoning code as amended and chapter 37 of
the loss cruises subdivision code as
well as the newly adopted realized loss
cus.
Uh the proposed subdivision also follows
the goals outlined in elevate loss
comprehensive plan. Um the proposed
waiver to road improvements meets the
intent and purpose of the East Mesa
community blueprint
and DRC recommended approval with a
condition for the non-administrative
replat and also provided an approval
recommendation for the waiver to road
improvements.
So today your options are to vote yes to
approve, vote no to deny, vote to amend
or vote to table.
Thank you. Um,
so you want me to open that up to public
comment first? If All right, I'm going
to if is there anyone in the audience
that would like to speak on or I guess I
should also ask if if the applicant also
has a uh presentation for us as well
before we go on to to comments.
you. It's up to you.
Questions.
Okay, let's go on to public comment
then. If does anybody in the public have
any comment on this particular one?
Okay, seeing none, we will move on to do
any of the commissioners have any
comments? Uh yeah, I'd like just
clarification on what um
uh what roadway we're talking about when
it comes to the waiver because the I
think the staff report mentions it's
Peon Lane, but I think in the
presentation you were referring to the
other road.
Mr. Chair, Commissioner Kaiser, um you
are correct. It is PCON Lane that they
are asking to seek no improvements to
which is to the north of the property.
Um I did mention Pooh's Creek which is
also an undeveloped rightway at this
time. Um when the city was building out
Jefferson they did acquire some right
ofway here at the corner um of Poose
Creek and Jefferson. Um and at at that
time um the property owner did dedicate
the rest of the remaining ride ofway um
to the city. Uh it just hasn't been
built out at this time.
Okay. But what they're asking a waiver
for both or just
No, they're seeking only to do a waiver
for Pan Lane, which is to the north,
right?
Okay. And then for the other road,
they're they're going to build out their
portion or
No, they won't be required to build out
their portion. Um the city at a later
time will be required to build out that
portion.
Oh. because they already dedicated.
Gotcha. Okay. Okay. Thanks for the
clarification.
Is is Poose Creek not a a local?
Mr. Chair, Poo Creek is a local.
So, help me understand the rules then. I
thought on locals, if you are
subdividing, you would have to put in
all the improvements. So, would that not
mean that they should be getting a
waiver for both of those roads?
Mr. Chair, you are correct. According to
the subdivision code, um they would be
required to dedicate all to dedicate 25
uh to dedicate a 25 foot wide tract of
land and provide a full cross-section
for Pooze Creek. However, as Pooze Creek
was dedicated and deeded to the city of
Los Cusus back in 2004, we now remain
ownership of
a portion of Pooze Creek.
But just for clarification though and
for not for them not having to put it
in, should they not have a waiver for P
Creek as well?
Mr. Chair, they don't need a waiver for
P Creek as it's already city right
ofway.
It is now the city's responsibility to
build that out.
Okay.
All right. That just for some reason was
a was an interesting one. The uh
The intended I guess the intended use is
still going to just be residential. Is
that correct in the split,
Mr. Chair? Um, that is correct.
Can you go back to the picture for me
real quick
of the aerial that one right there? I
only have one.
Um, seeing that there's no neighbors
here, I'm I'm not too worried about it
because there's already been activity
going on out there. My only one concern
would be how much traffic would be going
through the dirt roads, but I guess P
mine my my issue is more of P Creek, but
since the city is responsible of putting
that in later, then I don't really have
an issue with it. But I was just
thinking the amount of traffic to go
into the back there where you have all
of these trucks and it looks like
there's uh work that kind of goes on in
the back there. There would be some
improvement that would be needed for
those roads, but the neighbors aren't
here either to it. I think must that's
just my observation of one one little
bit of concern on it of the waiver.
Does anybody else have any any concerns?
No, actually you asked the questions
that I had. So,
okay.
So, now we'll go to a uh we got to
I got Let me see how to do this now.
We'll now have a vote on 6 point. We
need a motion to vote. No, not a motion.
We're just going to call a vote for 6.2.
Okay.
This is on the motion to This is on the
vote for uh item 6.2. Commissioner Wina
Costa,
yes.
Commissioner Smith,
yes.
Commissioner Janet A Costa,
yes.
Uh, Commissioner Murray is absent.
Commissioner Kaiser,
yes.
And chair,
yes.
Thank you.
Okay. Now we need a motion and a second
on 6.3. Is that That's not to hear it or
it is
to vote
to vote.
Motion and then vote.
Okay.
I'll make I'll make a motion to approve
item 6.3.
I second.
Commissioners in Los Cruuses. The
current commissioners are Sue Harelson.
Okay, this is on the motion. This is on
the vote for uh case number 6.3.
Commissioner Wina Costa,
yes.
Commissioner Smith,
yes.
Commissioner Janet A Costa,
yes.
Uh, Commissioner Kaiser,
yes.
And chair,
yes. Thank you.
All right, we're now on to 6.4
um for staff presentation of the uh
ordinance of repealing and replacing
chapters.
Uh I make a motion to recommend approval
for item 6.4.
I second.
Time is yours.
Good evening. Sarah Gonzalez with
Community Development. Before you is the
proposed amendments for chapters 34
through 38 of the Los Cusus Municipal
Code and adopting the zoning map as
presented.
As everyone knows, um realize Los Cruus
did get adopted on February 18th of 2025
earlier this year. Through the process,
we have worked with the community and
found different areas in which we needed
to do some minor amendments. And this is
just understanding that once you provide
code and you start to implement it, you
do tend to find changes that need to be
basically rectified. And so that's what
we're doing today. Um we did make that
promise to council that we'd be coming
back every year to see things that as we
develop, are they working, are they not,
and what changes do we need to make? So,
just to remind everybody of what these
chapters are, um we did have chapter 34,
which was our general provisions, took
care of essentially definitions, roles
of parties, um and then our noticing
requirements. Chapter 35 was historic
preservation. We did chapter 36, which
was our zoning regulations, which
outlined the development standards for
development of properties, development
of lots and sizes, as well as
architectural structures. Chapter 37 is
our subdivision regulations that
basically clarify what you would need as
far as a minor or a major platting
process. Chapter 38 was our development
standards which included roadways, park
um park dedication,
um land uses that were going to be
designated for any of our assign
requirements or outdoor lighting. And
then last we'd have an updated zoning
map.
So to go into some of the major details
that were located within our code, we
did not outline everything through the
presentation as some of it was going to
be just either minor clarification to
explain essentially what the statement
was in our code. These are going to be
more of our highlighted roles of which
we've actually modified or changed. And
so for us um in chapter 34 in general
provisions, we've revised the roles and
responsibilities, city council approving
vacations. It did have prior going from
PNZ to city council. Currently, we do
have it just going to city council. The
reason we do that is because they are
accepting and vacating that right away.
Um DRC approval for road waiverss and
improvements through our DRC board.
That's where we are working through what
improvements would be required. Then
they would have the appealing body going
to city council if there's ever an
appeal for roadways or waiverss that we
want to see to be accepted. We've
expanded and clarified the definitions.
A lot of them came in from the erosion
control and so we do follow a lot of the
EPA standards for dust mitigation, dust
suppression and so we clarified what
some of those meanings are as well as
added. Some of them were to eliminate,
we had areas where it said DUA defer to,
you know, number 37 and then we said
dwelling units per acre. We eliminated
some of those items. We then have
fencing and rock wall structures. Um,
we've clarified what a retaining rock
wall is um to the public to understand
that if you're retaining, you know, more
than two feet, that's considered a
retaining wall. So, we clarified some of
those definitions so that way there's
more of an understanding from the public
when they read our code.
When we get into chapter 35 for historic
preservation, we only had one
modification. Our primary goal is to get
everybody through that process for
review. Um, being that they were waiting
onto a noticing period of possibly one
to two months puts us into a different
standard. And so we were looking at
modifying it to a 72-hour agenda notice
just because we do see our winter months
coming. We have a lot of renovations
where we see either windows or door
replacement. Those actually go through
review through our review boards. And so
putting them into a two-month time frame
where when you're starting to get in
colder weather, that could actually
trigger a lot of issues or concerns for
us. our design review board, you know,
can come in still see all of these and
make the recommendations and make sure
it's still following the guidelines for
historic buildings.
When we look at chapter 36 under the
zoning regulations, um we started to
look at modified heights for some of the
building stories, um what we were
finding if you had possibly a ADU
accessory dwelling unit in your
backyard, they were limited if they did
a twotory, they were limited to you had
to meet a 16 ft height for a floor. We
realized that is not what's comparable
to the area. And so we started looking
and seeing what's more comparable. We're
looking at 9 foot or so. So we removed
and conformed to what the building
heights were around everyone. We also
noticed that secondary fronts were not
included in our code. So a lot of the
questions we received from the public
was what is our secondary front yard
setback? So we included those to follow
essentially their front yard setback as
what you would normally see in the
front. So we're trying to still keep our
urban area to where we're building
buildings closer to the sidewalks.
You're maintaining your suburban area
and maintaining that 12oot utility
easement you see. And then your rural
areas, you're still pushing those
buildings back. We also added the garage
setbacks to NH3 knowing that we are
starting to see some of our residential
development come in. And so there are
areas where they are looking to put in
garages. So if they do put those in,
we've given them those setbacks to where
they actually know what definition to
provide in. Um if you have a 12oot
setback into the urban core, we know
you're probably not going to have a
driveway in front of it. You're probably
just going to have a garage that's going
to be closer to your building front yard
at setback. And so we looked at some of
those dimensions to make sure there was
compliance with what the area may
already have, maybe some of the averages
within some of our urban core.
Some of the other changes we made for
non-conforming, we added change in land
use because it was not there before. Um,
what we tend to see is that we end up
getting a higher increase in intensity
for properties. When you're in a
non-conforming lot, if you see a change
in increase, then we want to make sure
that they're coming into compliance with
our current codes as much as possible.
There's also updates to our land use
table. These are to list some of them
that we did. Um, temporary construction
yards, we did allow them in all of our
districts, but our open space and
drainage because we tend to find that
temporary construction yards, you're
going to build wherever you're able to
build at. So, they usually will use a
vacant yard that's next door. They are
for temporary purposes. They still
follow our standards. They still have to
put up a fence, maintain noise
compliance, but allowing that to be in
any of the districts because asking
someone to go six blocks away because
that's the only zone they can go in is
is a hard demand. Um, when you're
looking at sober living facilities, we
added in essentially the group home
allowances. So, our group homes were
taken out, but we do know that we have
sober living that addresses substance
abuse, alcohol abuse, and basically
you're living in a home without being
required to have support from the court
system, from any medical services.
You're a group home, so you're limited
to 10 people right now. That's currently
what we run to where basically you're
helping one another get through that
program or that process.
When we looked at indoor and outdoor
entertainment venues, we did make them
permitted by right in our low indust or
our light industrial and heavy
industrial. The reason we did that is
because that's where we tend to see a
lot of our larger lots being available.
So, if you're looking for something
that's going to be of an outdoor venue
or an entertainment, it's very hard to
do on something that's probably half an
acre in size. So, we didn't want to take
those out knowing that there are still,
you know, noise requirements or
locations. And so you're looking for
venues where you have larger land to
provide some of that entertainment. That
could include, you know, soccer fields,
baseball fields, but you're in an area
where you would not be impacting
residential uses as well. We go to
professional offices. Um, we did put
limitations on the square footage in
NH1. That was one of the things that we
did forget to add. Um, and so we made
sure that the limitation was a 3,000
square feet if you were going into that
residential neighborhood just to ensure
that you're still complying with what
the neighborhood homes are. Animal
raising. We did limit to minimum of a
half an acre in size and we've had
several phone calls and several
questions about can we now do animal
raising within town. There are still
restrictions and requirements through
animal control code compliance as far as
the restrictions. And so animal raising
when you have a larger lot, you have a
little bit more availability to give
yourself that separation from those
neighbors. So we did put consideration
into it's allowed, but we do want to go
and maintain that by a lot size.
Um we did simplify the documentation for
carports and accessory structures for
carports. Right now we are seeing a lot
of them coming in and so we simplified
the process as to provide them a
document that they would be able to file
at the county's office because the one
thing we do want to ensure is that
knowing that you're building in a
utility easement. There's always that
impact that if a utility company comes
in, you're at that risk by building in
their easement. And so we want to make
sure that transfers in title. So if
someone's purchasing that property, they
have that same understanding that
someone built it and someone knows that
it still can have something happen to
it. When you go to home occupations, um
we did not have any restrictions on
vehicles and so we did add in that you
can have one business vehicle, but it
should be limited to a size. Um 110 has
been our standard and has worked
throughout the business course to just
ensure that it's still compatible with
those residential neighborhoods.
We move on to chapter 37 which would be
subdivision regulations. Um the minor
platting process we modified just to
allow essentially it would be an
administrative review when public
improvements are existing. What that
means is if you were to come in, we've
seen a lot of non-administrative replats
come in. The roadways are already there.
The infrastructure is already there. Um
but they're having to wait to get on to
the next agenda which could be one or
two months. And then once they get onto
that agenda, they're following code. So,
they've met our subdivision standards.
What we're looking at is if those public
improvements are already there and
you're just having to tap into it and
you meet our subdivision code, meaning
you already meet your zoning
requirements for a subdivision, that
would now be done administratively. It's
when you have to put in those public
improvements that that becomes a concern
as we need to make sure you do have
right of way, you do have utility
infrastructure going in. And so that's
where we would be using essentially our
major planning process
for modified um or for master plans. We
did modify the requirements um to say
that you would not need a master plan if
you were not more than two phases and
less than 40 acres. Most of our bigger
developments that are coming in um you
can do up to probably about 180 lots or
so in 40 acres is what we're seeing, but
they can be built out into one phase or
two. We would consider that using our
major platting process, still a
preliminary plat that would still be
coming before PNZ for approval. That
doesn't change any of the requirements
for the parkland dedication. It doesn't
change the roadway crosssections. All it
does is modify the process in which they
take. And so they would still not
require necessarily a master plan
because you could do that in one phase
and it could all be the same land uses
with a park generated in the middle. And
so to eliminate that process, we've just
said you can use the master planning
process depending on what is actually
being done on the property.
We modified the TIA standards to reflect
trip generation. Um in our code, we have
now reflected that a trip generation
will tell you which three you follow in
a traffic impact analysis. So which one
you will qualify for. So we made sure to
clarify that the trip generation is what
you should be submitting to staff first
to identify which of the next three
steps you're going to have to follow.
That way you're not one spending more
money on a TIA that may not be required
and then two ensuring that we're getting
the right mitigation compliance
for the updated fl um flood zone
documentation requirements. We are
requesting on certain flood areas that
they submit um the lomars and clomars
ahead of time so that way we can address
some of the flood concerns that we've
been seeing populating throughout
subdivisions.
On chapter 38 under the development
standards, we are looking at the outdoor
lighting ordinance. We did simplify the
language, but everything is still being
maintained. And so, we made it easier
for the public as well as staff to
actually use the documentation, but
still get the overall goal for our
shielding and our light requirements.
Um, we also added in for um development
ID signage. We never had a definition in
there. We see a lot of developments that
will come in. you see subdivisions, um
you see different developments that want
a development ID sign. You'll see those
through Metro Verde because they will
call out their subdivisions. And so we
made sure we added a definition and then
required the location, the size, and the
dimensions.
Under roadway sections, um we did do a
lot of clarifying as far as what would
be allowed and required. We did not
modify our cross-sections. I think that
would be coming probably next year if we
start to see that we're getting a lot of
deviations to our standards. Um, if we
have DRC approval for a lot of those,
we'll probably reconstruct and see where
we need to be moving forward after we
start using the code a little bit more.
So, the things that we did modify was
just to make sure um the curb is
included in the parkways, multi-use
packs, sidewalks, and median width. So,
that way everyone knows that that is
part of that rightway. Um, the
cross-sections are illustrative
minimums. So when you look at our code,
it does say these are the minimum
standards and DRC can modify as
necessary or based on your area. We say
illustrative because when you look at
the images, you have trees that are
located further to the rightway or to
the opposite side. We want the lighting
to be now going into essentially what
we're calling the street furniture
easements. So there's 12oot utility
easements that are located on final
plats when they're coming in. That's
where we want to see our street lights
and poles going just because with the
six-foot sidewalk and the pole base,
we're noticing that they are starting to
impede onto our pedestrian traffic. And
because we are meeting as a, you know,
as part of our requirement the proag
standards for accessibility, you do have
to maintain a 5-ft clear path. Those
street lights are now coming into
question because they're impeding on
that path. So, we're making sure we're
making the right directions to go
forward and open up those sidewalks in
those areas. Um, lastly, we have the
stacking lane at a minimum of 85 feet to
100 feet. Our code originally said that
you would need a TIA for any stacking
lane. We know that through our
developments and through some of our
driveway standards, 85 ft to 100 ft will
usually maintain what a driveway would
need to be or a stacking lane when a
development comes in. Um, we also do
look at um, essentially the trip
generation anyway just because it's
going to tell us if they do have an
impact that we may have to increase that
length based on their trip their trip
generation and their actual counts per
day.
The one thing I do want to mention that
was not on the presentation but I did
find it and I think it is one of those
things to clarify. Um during planning
and zoning commission when we did our
meeting in October of last year, there
was a recommendation and a request by
the planning and zoning commission and
it was also approved by city council to
put in alternatives to parkland
dedication. That was not included when
we did the rewrite and so we have now
amended that and we did put the language
into those. So
under page 394 of the improvements, it
did put in other substitutions. We
wanted to make sure that those
substitutions were included just because
that could be a specialty park that's
less than three continuous acres that
could be in combination of parkland
trails or open space in combination in
working with it. Improve parkland
located adjacent to other developable
properties. And so we had that
discussion last year and we noticed that
it was not implemented and so we made
sure it got into the code this time
knowing we were continuously using it.
Lastly before you would be the zoning
map as presented. We did reach out and
several members of the public probably
about 40 or 50 reached out to us in
working with them to go through property
zonings. Once again we had multiple
properties we went through. They
identified some of those. We worked with
them and clarified their zoning to meet
essentially not taking away the rights
that they had before but giving them
something that was going to be
compatible and fit still within their
neighborhood. And so we've done a few
modifications to our zoning map.
Anything moving forward in January would
be coming to you as a zoning map
amendment. And so that would actually go
through the full zone change process. We
understand that through this process we
are working with either realators,
property owners, developers to ensuring
that compliance was provided onto their
properties with them reaching out that
assisted us with not basically noticing
where we made those mistakes and are
clarifying and fixing now.
So this would be for your options
tonight would be yes. This would
recommend approval to amend these
chapters as well as the zoning map as
presented.
If you vote no, this will retain the
current Los Cusus chapter as a
recommendation to city council. You can
vote to amend. This would allow the
planning and zoning commission to
recommend any modifications for the
proposed or ordinance for consideration
to city council or you can vote to
table. This will postpone the
consideration of the ordinance and
direct staff or direct staff
accordingly. Um the reason we are
bringing this forward is because we do
want to bring this in January as a fresh
start. So we know that some of these
modifications need to happen so when we
actually remove ourselves from that
transitional period, we know how we're
going to be moving forward. I stand for
any questions.
Thank you. I I just have uh the NH3 the
driveway set back. Can you show me on
that one?
I just need clarification. And because
the NH3 is supposed to be the the
highest density that we're using, right,
commissioners and chair, um the NH3 is
going to be your highest residential
land use, whereas CR is your highest
commercial land use. So NH3 is going to
cover any of our zone properties that
were either C2 or right on the border of
your C3s from our previous zoning code.
The stacking lane is more for the inside
of the properties.
No, not the stack. Uh I'm talking about
your set the 20 by
uh right there. Added garage setbacks to
NH3. So your secondary setback is 20.
Is that right?
Mhm.
Instead of
NH3
instead of the NH3. So the change here
is the
from I'm just trying to for
clarification for myself is NH3 it's R15
is current 15 12 and now we're going to
go to 20 and no yeah 20 and 20 is that
correct
chair K um Chair Thirstston I think what
you're looking at is so it's the garage
as opposed to the building the buildings
will be allowed to come closer to the
street you're pushing the garages back
knowing that driveways usually Usually
your vehicles are between 15 to 20 ft
long. And so that's where you would see
that 20 foot setback coming in from the
front of the garage.
You're not looking at the house. The
house would be coming forward. And we
want more of that coming forward. So
that way you see the house as opposed to
the garage.
So the the garage setback would then
like you could bring the house forward
and you're just going to be putting the
house. Okay. That was the only question
I had on that one. The one I
Sorry, can I jump in just because I had
a question on that too? But that's not
what that's not what we're saying, I
don't think. If I look at page
uh gez uh 103 I guess maybe uh or page
610 the redline version.
Uh the garage has a 12oot setback in the
urban which is
the same as the front setback.
Commissioner Kaiser that is correct.
It's only in the urban area where you'll
see the 12oot setback that's coming in
only because we do have the utility
easements and we're not allowed to put
primary structures within those
easements. In the urban core, there may
be that condition where there is an
easement and so it's different for
carports and accessory structures, but
it would not be for a primary structure.
Right. I understand that. I guess the
point I'm making is that if the urban if
the NH3 urban is supposed to be sort of
our most pedestrianfriendly active
streetscape,
why are we allowing garages to h to
basically be right there in your face as
a front setback? Why not actually
require those drive those garages to be
further back
and bringing your pedestrian
architectural elements of your building
more forward to the street because right
now you're saying I can have all of my
nice things that I want but I can also
just line all my driveways up or my my
garages
at 12 feet.
Mr. Chair and Commissioner Kaiser, it
could be pushed back if developers
wanted to push them back, but they also
have that opportunity. I think if we're
requesting them to put it back at 25 ft,
depending on some of these lot sizes,
when you're looking at the urban core,
there's not enough room to just push
them back further. If we would want to
set them or make a recommendation to set
them back at 15 feet or 17 feet as a
number, we have to be mindful of these
lots are not as large. So, it's bringing
all the buildings up to the front
knowing that some of these lots don't
even have the buildable space.
I I understand that. I guess it's this
is more of a philosophical thing for me
of like we we're saying we want all
these things. We want to we want to
encourage active streetscapes. We want
to we want to have this more pedestrian
uh accommodating urban environment. Uh
but actually, you know what? We we need
to accommodate all of these big trucks
and their garages that they're gonna sit
like I feel like we're trying to have it
both ways here and it's undercutting
everything else that we're saying that
we want by saying yeah you can have the
garage right there right there in in the
front of the the lot. So my preference
would be it it is not the same as the
rest of the building setback that it's
actually further back and the chips fall
where they may. I mean, if you're in an
urban pedestrian environment and you
can't figure out how to put a garage on
your property,
I mean, why are we accommodating the
storage of a private of private property
versus a public good, encouraging a
public good?
Mr. Chair and Commissioner Kaiser, I
don't necessarily think that's kind of
the direction we were going. A lot of
the urban core right now is coming in
and requesting either carports or shade
structures and so garages will help
assist with those. When you put them
into the front, they eliminate those
opportunities as well. So, we're looking
at everything that we're seeing moving
forward, what properties have been
requesting because they may have had
those setbacks that were reduced at one
point in time and we're seeing those
requests come in as opposed to a
carport. Would it be better to have a
garage? would it better, you know,
better look for the architectural style?
And so I think that's some of the
consideration that's being made as far
as where the garage is located. In some
of these garage areas, you may not have
someone who's going to park on a
driveway because 12 foot usually won't
fit what a car would be before it
actually impedes into the actual
rideway. And so we're either looking at
standards from a garage setback coming
in or to a actual carport setback coming
in. And so having those as opportunities
I think just provides to the public that
is using the urban core or living in the
urban core where we've seen those
requests come in. Sometimes it's the
garages already set back at 10. They're
asking us for a carport and a 5ft
carport doesn't meet that standard.
There's no room for their car to even
fit. So, if we're allowing the garages,
we've now changed the architectural
style to where it's not just necessarily
a carport coming in, but it's giving
them a second second opportunity to at
least put up a garage that can be
essentially architecturally the same as
your home or maybe even different if you
design it in a different way. So, I
think the placement can always be there
to push them back, but it's also
understanding in the urban core, there
are still people who use vehicles that
are still going to want either carports
or garages. So, it's understanding both
graphics
Yeah, I'm I guess I'm concerned about
the unintended consequences here. I'm
afraid that this setback being the same
as your primary building setback in the
urban core is going to lead us down a
path where
none of the rest of the stuff really
matters because you're just going to end
up putting your garage right there at
the front where it's the most convenient
for you. dis and disregarding all the
other good positive things that we're
saying that we want in these standards.
So I understand the the the space
constraint u not suggesting that the
setback is 20 25 ft but I I I
fundamentally don't believe that it
should be the same setback for a garage
as what we're saying for the primary
building in the urban core.
I have one one question on if so an NH3
if I if I'm going to develop it
personally the way I would see me using
an NH3 is I'd probably use like an alley
load
most likely so that I can keep all my
pedestrian up front and then I would
finally have like an alley load in the
back
can in this setback like if I do an
alley load and there's no utilities or
other things like that I would want to
be able to have like a very minimal like
a five foot setback for my garage in the
back so that I can utilize, you know,
I'm densifying it, right? And so we have
these little little ones. Can we put it?
Can you add some wording on there so
that if I do an alleyway, I wouldn't
have to have an additional 20 foot set
back. So like if it's in the back, we're
really not having pedestrians back
there. We're trying to put it push the
pedestrians to the front. But then in
this, I would have to put my garage I
would have to push it back a little
deeper. Do you see what I'm saying?
Or would that not even be an an issue?
Just a point of clarification. I think
the R and S is rural, suburban, urban.
So, it's not rear side.
Okay.
Yeah.
But if I
but if we were have the garage set back,
so then I could I would be at 12. But if
I wanted to go to zero for a garage
because currently there is no setback,
right? Is that what you have,
Mr. Chair? That is correct. Right now
for NH3, we don't have a garage setback.
And so we're outlining saying that if a
garage is placed on the property, these
would be the setbacks. It doesn't mean
you have to put a garage onto the
property. This is the setbacks you would
follow if you put one on the property.
Okay. Is there any is there any
provisions then on like the like
alleyways?
We don't have any provisions on the
alleyways. I think every case is going
to have to be the case by case. As we
continue to go through the code, that's
where I have to, you know, reiterate.
We're going to have to make these
modifications as we see development come
in. Every case could be a different
scenario. We're going to run into
different ideas. Right now, we don't
have alleyway developments. We don't see
that happening. If we actually saw those
happening, I think we'd reevaluate and
say, "Okay, this does work. This doesn't
work. How can this be designed? How do
we move forward?"
So the 12 feet is a front setback or 12
feet from any any property line for a
garage.
Mr. Chair, that would be from any
property line whenever you actually
place it onto a property.
So my recommendation would be that we
actually in the urban for NH3 urban that
we actually distinguish from the front
and the rear
setbacks. Whereas the front setback is
15 feet
and the rear can be with the same as
what it currently is right now for the
rest of the building. I think it's uh
five feet
with a
a caveat of 10 feet for adjacent
properties or something like that. So my
recommendation is on for NH3 urban the
garage setback the front setback is 15
ft and the rear setback is the same as
everything else.
noted.
All right, I have one more one more
question on a different subject which is
your right of uh the rideaway sections
uh pertaining to the light poles since I
have seen that as an issue in our design
our designs now help me understand where
those light poles are going.
Mr. chair and commission. Essentially
the light poles along um the front of
the properties and new subdivisions. We
have a 12oot utility easement that is
called out for every subdivision that we
receive. That's where you see Comcast El
Paso electric. Yeah, they all go.
And so now it's being called a street
furniture, which is where you would see
stop signs. You may see the electrical
boxes and that would be where the street
light poles are going as well. Do
do you know how that's going to affect
El Paso Electric? cuz
sometimes they get in their little
contests of well this is my area I don't
they want certain separation between
Comcast wants their space El Paso
electric kind of wants their space most
mostly utilities we can kind of go in
the same trench but then the light poles
is that going to cause any issue or
should we shrink the streets so that the
light poles have space
Mr. Mr. Chair and Commission,
essentially the light poles are going in
at the same time that El Paso Electric
is doing their work. So, we're
coordinating with them as to where the
light poles are going to ensure that
they meet their needs and then we have
compliance as well. Um, if we see in the
future that the light pole bases are
having any issues or concerns based on
the two-ft pad that's going in, since it
is a 12oot utility easement, we were
looking to reduce that when we first
started realize. And so with the code
modification maintaining that 12T
utilities easement, they would have
enough room in order to put the light
pole base as well as their utilities.
So it'll probably the the poles will
sometimes probably encroach into the
utility
furniture easement a little bit on some
of those.
Mr. Chair, yes, they would actually be
encroaching into those because we want
to make sure that there is a 5-ft clear
path to meet for ADA accessibility. If
you put the pole there, then that means
you're coming in about 18 in, which
would then modify what the path is and
then they don't have enough room
essentially if you had a wheelchair or a
walker.
That's essentially what we're meeting.
That's where we went from four foot
sidewalks to five foot sidewalks and
then now it's pushing the light poles
out.
Mr. Chair, we actually went to six foot
sidewalks and even with them being on
there at six feet, that's where we have
that separation of those extra
essentially six inches that's impeding
onto that five feet. So when we went
from five feet to that six foot, you
still have that extra foot that we
gained, but it also needs an additional
6 in. We learned all of these after
cross-sections are done working with
basically El Paso Electric and
understanding what the bases need to be.
Okay, so this will solve the problems
from here on out. Cross our fingers.
Cross our fingers. That was all I had. I
don't have anything else. What about the
other commissioners?
Um I have a just a couple of other I
think relatively small things. So the
indoor entertainment, outdoor
entertainment,
um
I
seems fine the changes that you're
recommending. Um I'm just curious
because this I also noticed with
botanical gardens as well that
um well particularly botanical garden
and outdoor entertainment
potentially could be an appropriate use
in an open space district. I guess could
you help clarify what the definition of
outdoor entertainment is maybe as a step
one?
Mr. Chair, Commissioner Kaiser, I'll
actually step back a little bit further.
Our OS1 and OS2 are essentially going to
be park features and drainage
structures. That's the only reason why
we do not have them listed for botanical
gardens. We are looking for those for
parkland to be maintained or drainage
structures,
but park but parkland to be maintained
as as active parkland space or as
passive or all of the above
for recreational space. Um, and so that
way, uh, if you look at a lot of our
park areas, they used to be zoned R1A or
based on the zoning that was there. So,
we've delineated those out so that way
we know they're dedicated for
recreational services or for parkland
use. Generally, for an OS1 or an OS2,
we're not seeing them come in as private
developers. Those are being either
dedicated to the city or being
maintained by HOAs and communities. And
so there are separate two land uses that
kind of went in a different direction as
opposed to saying it's going to be an
active use from public developers or
private developers. It's more for public
use as like parks that are being
maintained HOAs that are maintaining
them. Does that make sense?
Uh sort of. But it's also true that the
city has to abide by their own zoning
code. So, if the city wanted to do an
amphitheater, outdoor amphitheater in a
quote unquote park, they wouldn't be
able to according to the zoning code.
Mr. Chair, Commissioner, that's correct.
We would modify the code or come before
to say that this would be the proposal
for the city to actually use that land
as recreational services if it hasn't
been zoning or designated yet.
Okay. I I guess
that's fine if the city wants to come
and ask for I guess a variance to the
zoning code. Um seems
inefficient um in my opinion. Uh but
just going to Botanical Garden for a
second. I mean, whether or not it's a
it's a private or even a nonprofit
entity, if there was interest
in a botanical garden that fit with the
character of open space preservation,
but added some educational elements to
it, uh, so maybe more active
recreation as as opposed to just, you
know, wandering on a trail through the
Aoyo. This would not allow for something
like that. Correct.
Correct. Mr. Chair, I think it's more in
the standard that when we did the zoning
code and we did the zoning map, all the
properties that were owned privately
received a zoning designation that was
not going to be open space or drainage
tracked. And so essentially, if a
property was owned that is CR or NH3 and
would allow a botanical garden, they
would be able to go ahead and do that by
right. We would not just reszone them to
the OS1 or the OS2 to provide for the
track. They'd actually have a zoning
designation that met the other
requirements as we're looking towards
moving our zoning regulations to where
we actually identify our royals, our
tracks, so that way they're clearly
defined in our zoning code. Right now,
they're currently listed as R1A, so you
would not know that it's an AOYO. And
so, we're trying to define that so
people can see the separation in the
properties as far as zoning. So, if you
come in with an a CR or an NH3, you'd be
allowed to do those those items, but not
necessarily in an OS1. But we didn't
give private owners the OS1 unless it
was already a designated park. It was
already a designated tract for drainage.
Okay. So, I I guess
I understand what you're saying. I guess
I'm
It's not
quite
adding up I guess. So if we take if we
take uh any one of our public parks
that's currently zoned what
OS1
and to do any kind of programming
athletic fields
uh you name it the way that I'm seeing
this now that those are not permitted
uses they would have to the city would
have to come in and reszone a park to
H, you know, heavy industrial to to do
outdoor recreation or whatever as an
example.
That's what you're saying,
Mr. Chair. That would be correct. As
city properties, we have them. If we
were to purchase them, say it was an NH1
land and it's not already designated for
the entertainment,
we should be bringing the proposal
forward knowing that the property is not
zoned for those uses or those land uses
to where we can actually notify the
neighbors of those changes coming forth.
So there would never be a true
park
parcel in the city that if Apoka Park
has a ball field on it, it can't be
zoned open space. It has to be zoned
commercial. That's what we're saying,
Mr. Chair. It is zoned open space
as an existing park. So right now it is
zoned open space one
because they are for parks and
recreation and preserve. So it is our
recreation district
that would be providing that
recreational source.
Okay. But an amphitheater is out of the
question. A botanical garden is out of
the question. Even those those can be
park programming.
They would it would have to get
subdivided. they'd have to reszone to
have that specific use in a park. That's
what we're saying.
And Mr. Chair, more than likely, if that
were to come in as a track that was
designated or subdivided out to the
city, it may be part of a master plan
because it may be part of a larger
development if we see that coming in, it
may be part of the subdivision process
where we tend to see that that's going
to be the tract of land which is going
to be designated for that. Because the
other part we'll run into is if you look
at a lot of the zoning right now that we
have, say you get a subdivision
tomorrow, a subdivision will come in,
dedicate the parkland, it's going to be
under the current zoning that's there,
but it's going to designate a tract for
us. And so those are the pieces we have
to figure out of how do we move forward
whenever we acquire land through the
parkland dedication because now it's
zoned R1A or NH1 under our new code.
When we look at NH1, that's where
everybody assumes it's for a residential
home or for residential development as
opposed to parkland dedication. And so
there may be an opportunity where any of
the tracks that we have throughout the
year that we've g gained through the
subdivision process, we come back and
present to council so we can modify
those zones.
See, to me it seems like it would be
more efficient that for a developer
who's giving dedicated land for park
that there's an associate application
for a reszone to make it one of these
two open spaces and I would think the
open space one would give you the
ability to do the programming that's
needed for a park whether it's active,
passive, botanical garden outdoor
amphitheater.
To me, it seems like that's a more
efficient process
than the city accepting a parcel that's
zoned one, you know, uh, in H1 and then
having to come back at some point in the
future and reszone it just to build a
park. But maybe that's just a process
thing. So, I'll
stand down from that.
Any
more additional comments?
I just had one quick question. Um the um
minimum acre size for animal raising,
was that an increase or a decrease?
Mr. Chair, um Commissioner Smith, we
actually did not have a lot size
requirement. Um however, we did notice
that most of the time when you do animal
raising, it will be in the rural areas
and that's usually at a minimum of a
half acre. And so we wanted to make sure
that we added that as part of that
condition to know that if you were going
to do animal raising because that would
be defined by goats or chickens and
certain standards that you'd have at
least the minimum of half acre which is
what we currently use now.
Okay. Thank you.
Give me one second. I'm trying to scroll
through here.
Does that mean you can raise animals in
any lot as long as it's a halfacre?
Mr. Chair, Commissioner Thirstston, that
would be correct. Yes.
Nice.
Um I I think the only other question I
had and thanks for clarifying the
lighting section. I think I was
definitely curious of why this the
change there. Um I think the only other
question I had was there was
Um, and I'm probably not even going to
be able to find it now, but there was a
we removed a requirement for lighting
to
address
pedestrian safety issues.
I think the reason was is because it was
related to like p like private property,
but if you know what I'm talking about,
maybe you could address that. I'm going
to try to find it. But that was the only
other thing I think I had.
Just want to go to your lighting
ordinance one that you had on your
changes,
but I think it's specific um to
Commissioner Kaiser's question.
Commissioner Kaiser, that would be under
page 414 is I believe what you're
referring to.
We're still maintaining the outdoor
lighting ordinance. Not to say that it's
not promoting safe lighting and
pedestrian vehicle traffic. We're still
maintaining that it's still shielded,
still installed. Um, this is more for
the purposes of when you're looking at
this, we're already doing that through
the code requirements. And so, it's not
eliminating that. We're not still
promoting that. We're still maintaining
the light ordinance, the bug ratings,
and the shielding on the properties.
Okay. I think we're might be referring
to something else, but my PDF crashed,
so we'll just leave it at that.
Uh, I can't see. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah, I think that's it. Um,
so why so sorry can you explain why we
would scratch that out that specific
reference out
Mr. Mr. Chair and Commissioner Kaiser,
the reason why that one is scratched out
is just because we're already doing that
through our lighting ordinance. If being
it is the purpose, we already say that
is going to have safety, utility,
security, productivity on the earlier
part of it. So, under number one, it's
already addressing that concern. It was
a duplicate is why we're addressing it.
Okay. Thank you.
I have nothing else.
Anyone else for last comments? Janet
online, are you there? Do you have
anything?
Or I should say Miss Costa,
that's a I don't have anything at the
moment. Thank you.
All right.
All right. This is on the vote for um
item 6.4.
Commissioner Wina Costa,
yes.
Commissioner Smith,
yes.
Commissioner Janet A Costa.
Yes.
Commissioner Kaiser.
Yes. And chair.
Yes. Thank you. All right. Moving on to
number seven, discussion. I don't think
is there any I don't think we have
anything on discussion.
Go ahead.
Can I ask a question on the downtown uh
master plan update? Uh, can you describe
the process and whether or not there's
an opportunity for this body to weigh in
in a work session or something of that
nature?
Mr. Chair, Commissioner Kaiser. Yeah.
So, you know, we we've just started that
process. um there will be opportunities
down the road um for them to present
both to PNZ and to council uh you know
further in that process. So we're
expecting to see um earlier drafts being
developed in the springtime. So working
backwards from that there will be
opportunities where they do come in
front of uh you know stakeholders. Again
I don't have the exact schedule right
now but it is built into the plan for
them to do that. Correct.
Okay. So there'll be an opportunity for
us to weigh in on our our view and
vision before the recommendation to
council.
There will probably be a council work
session for that. Yes. I don't know that
there'll specifically be one for
planning and zoning, but there'll
definitely be a council work session
from that.
Okay. I would request one for planning
and zoning given the workload that we
have. Uh it seems like if this is not
something that we're
supposed to weigh in in, I think we need
to reexamine why we exist uh as a body.
Um, so I I hope we have an opportunity
because I think this is exactly what
we're here to do in addition to the
other things
that doesn't it's because the
basically well I'll ask my questions
later. I don't have anything else on
discussion. Anybody else?
All right. Staff announcements. Um,
Commissioner, uh, we just have one
essentially, just a reminder that next
month we will be having an early
meeting. We do have essentially four
cases that we know we'll be bringing
forward to you. So, you should be
receiving your packets early next week.
Um, as the meeting will be on November
18th as a reminder. Um, we're not sure
if we will have a December meeting. That
meeting will also be updated um, as well
as an one week earlier just because of
the holidays. So just to ensure we do
have quorum to assist our public to get
through these processes and these cases
knowing that some of these are
timesensitive.
Thank you. All right. Now, do we have to
have a motion to adjurnn?
I make a motion to adjurnn.
Second.
All in favor? I I