e
e e
[Music]
all right good evening ladies and
gentlemen gentlemen uh welcome to the
October 29th uh city of Las crusis
Planning and Zoning uh commission um
thank you for your patience this evening
as we're a few minutes delayed um but
really um excited that everyone made it
out tonight really looking forward to
the discussion tonight this is going to
be a little bit different than our
typical meetings um that we have here
this is a work session on the realized L
Cruis um development code update
um so uh we will um hear a presentation
from the Consultants from staff followed
by a discussion amongst ourselves up
here on the dis and then we'll open it
up for um uh public participation as
well um so with that can I get a motion
to approve tonight's
agenda I making a motion to approve
tonight's
agenda
second do we need a roll call
all in favor I I all right we'll turn it
over to staff and and for opening
remarks thank
[Music]
you well good evening uh chairman
members of the planning of zoning
commission Larry Nichols for the record
Community to
development here we are with our work
session that we've been looking forward
to now for nearly two and a half years
for this study you know our current code
is the
2001 Land Use code or zoning code and um
here we are nearly 23 years later so I
guess that code must have been a good
one it's stood the test of time and
we're hopeful this this one will do the
same but we'll have this evening as the
chair mentioned our consultant ER FZ and
and um Nichols from El Paso we have
Erica Craycroft and Fred Lopez have
helped us through this proess process
over the last two years and then I want
to recognize in the our staff as well
planning Community Development staff
Sarah Gonzalez um Adam mooa Dave we
Chris faor uh I was in several of the
meetings as well and then we've had um
in the presentation you'll see that this
is a very well vetted um update to our
planning and Z zoning code
the
uh several public meetings attac
meetings technical advisory committee
meetings and meetings with
stakeholders but I'm going to yield the
floor to Erica kroof for her to uh make
the presentation for your review and I
think you'll find it very informative
Erica good evening chairman and members
of the commission my name is Erica
Craycraft with fra Nichols and I have a
presentation I'd like to share with you
all this
evening um again I'm joining you this
evening to talk about the realized last
crues draft development code that we've
been working on again my name is Erica
Craycraft and I'm the project manager
from FR and Nichols um leading this
effort from the consultant side um also
joining me this evening is Fred Lopez um
from Loi and have several other team
members that you see here that you've
also seen at various meetings throughout
the
process for this evening's agenda I'd
like to start with a process overview um
either for folks who are new to this um
development code process or is just a
reminder for anyone that's been
following along next I'll touch on some
overall draft highlights compared to the
current um code that's in place today
and then focus on some of the major
revisions that have happened in the last
few months since this was last presented
to you uh look ahead at some next steps
uh what happens after this evening and
then I'd be happy to take any comments
or questions that you may have for us um
overall our big question for you this
evening that we'd like for you to keep
in mind is what are some of the
additional revisions that you would like
to see in the draft before it moves
forward toward
adoption so first starting with the code
update process back before we we started
anything with the development code the
city underwent a um the development of a
comprehensive Plan called the Elevate
comprehensive plan um and through that
process that involved a significant
amount of community involvement really
to identify the uh the shared vision for
the city moving forward um that plan was
adopted in 2020 and shortly after that
the city uh began the development um
code update process from the Elevate
Cruis plan there were about 500
different recommendations that came out
of this plan and you can see the
different types over on the right side
some are related to the development code
some of the other recommendations are
accomplished by Capital Improvement
projects maybe future studies that need
to be conducted and general establishing
policy for the city moving forward so
for our effort we're really focusing on
the items specific to the development
code and there are about 200 of those
items so as we began this process we
identified all 200 of those items and
organized where in the code those could
be addressed and use that kind of is our
our starting point to make sure that
we're moving forward focused on the
community's
vision some information about the
project scope these are the sections of
the current code that we're looking at
through this update a big focus is on
the zoning regulations the zoning map
subdivision regulations and then also a
number of development standards that you
you see listed out here drainage signs
Landscaping roadways
Etc this update process is a
three-phased process and we started this
back in March
2021 so for phase one is what we we what
we call the diagnostic evaluation so we
spent that time reviewing your existing
plans like Elevate the active
Transportation plan other plans that had
been adopted by the city we also
reviewed the codes that were in place we
met with a number of stakeholders and
code users um City staff members
Planning and Zoning commission members
city council members at that time and
other code users um like Builders
Engineers surveyors Economic Development
professionals at the beginning to make
sure that we heard and identified what
are the big issues as we get ready to
start this
process once that was concluded we
actually started with the code update so
this was you can see the long segment of
this process that was drafting the code
and drafting the map during that time we
worked very closely with um your city
staff incorporating their comments and
also comments that were provided from
the uh technical advisory committee as
we drafted each section of the
code phase two concluded once we had
really a complete draft and we were able
to look at everything holistically
rather than one piece at a
time then lastly we are currently in
phase three the purpose of this phase is
now that we have a complete draft we're
trying to make some final touches to it
what do we need to address or revise
before we get to final
adoption um for looking ahead we are
aiming at final adoption um about in
February of next year so we're we're
getting
closer I mentioned that we um
Incorporated the Elevate Los cruus
comprehensive plan throughout because
there was so much positive and helpful
Community input during that time but
also through this process we did have
additional Community input um that we
received throughout the process
beginning to end um we had the code user
interviews we met with at least 45
different folks either at the beginning
to get some input as we were starting or
later uh here toward the end where we
got feedback on the draft City staff
hosted uh at least 30 or 33 technical
advisory committee sometimes called the
T
um of local code users and other
professionals who could provide input on
the drafts as they were being developed
there were four openhouse meetings to
invite public input um also from an
online perspective the code was
available at various points throughout
this process and um from either a
virtual open house or just open
commenting we received almost 300
comments um through the online feature
and in addition to that we were emailed
about um more than 200 additional
comments so there's been significant
Community input to
date so um first in the highlights I'd
like to focus on the revisions that are
kind of the big picture how does the the
draft code compare to what you have in
place
today one of the big recommendations
from Elevate Las cruus the comprehensive
plan you can see here is the future
development map and the place types we
use that to guide the updated zoning
districts so we do have a new set of
zoning districts and those include some
character-based zoning districts there
are three of them and we call them nh12
and 3 NH stands for neighborhood and
these are really the districts that have
um some residential component to it or
may include some mixed use development
as well and within those three districts
the character-based
areas there are um three different
character area types so the different
between those the districts prescribes
the uses that are allowed whereas the
character area prescribes more about the
building form and the site
design in addition to those
character-based districts we do also
have more of the traditional zoning
districts that are more um commercial
based we have several overlay zoning
districts that again were informed by
the Elevate Los cruus comprehensive plan
you see the Elevate map on the left
identifying the three different types of
overlay zoning districts and and we used
exactly those um same district groupings
for the overlay districts the mixed use
Corridor the town center and the
neighborhood center are all overlay
districts um pulling forward from
Elevate the purpose of these overlays
are to create um concentrated areas of
increased density creating vibrant
walkable
areas so again on the left you see the
Elevate um future development map and on
the right is the zoning map I'll zoom in
in just a second
um but you start to see some comparisons
about how where the the map on the left
really informed as we were developing
the map on the right zooming in that's a
little bit easier to see I know this is
still very small to see on the screen
but this is available along with the
complete draft on the realiz loss
cruises.com
website so I would encourage anybody to
visit that website and you can click on
a specific property and see what
district would apply uh again that's
realized slcu.com on the documents page
this is
available also available on the website
these are the character areas that I
mentioned that prescribe more about the
building and uh building form and site
requirements this map from Elevate is
the future thare map it also included
recommended crosssections and roadway
design features we took this information
from Elevate and turned it into roadway
cross section CS that work to
incorporate uh multimodal considerations
into um future Street
design we had some pretty significant
updates throughout the code related to
Landscaping trees and parks um some
additional Provisions for Street trees
including uh requirements for parking
lot Landscaping within the park to help
break up a kind of a sea of
parking incorporating more screening
buffers requiring tree removal permits
to help with tree preservation for trees
larger than 2 in caliber or
diameter and I'll talk more about this
in a minute but neighborhood park
dedication and Trail dedication
requirements and just a kind of in
general some of the other items that we
incorporated from the Elevate
comprehensive plan and also the active
Transportation plan really focusing on
including some more building form
standards about um how does the building
look from the street or interface from
the street supporting missing middle
housing variety if you're not familiar
with that term missing middle um that's
really referring to everything between a
detached single family home all the way
up to a larger apartment building or
condo building so that includes like a
duplex accessory dwelling unit town home
small apartment um that's really the
purpose of missing middle to provide
some more housing
options we had some recommendations for
including Neighborhood Services um
within uh residential areas you hear a
little bit more about that in the next
set of edits um expanding the traffic
impact analysis requirements to include
multimodal considerations so bike and
pedestrian and also some recommendations
to help enhance connectivity throughout
the community both from um a vehicular
and pedestrian
standpoint then for the next section
I'll focus on some of the more recent
revisions so I think the last time this
draft was presented to you it was a um
June 10th work session so all these
changes are um items that have happened
since that
date we do have a new section that we
have proposed called transitional
provisions and this is really focusing
on what happens after the code is
adopted for um anything that has already
started the development process or comes
in shortly after adoption of the code
we've proposed an 8-month transition
period after the effective date the
effective date would be the the day um
the code would be adopted so for eight
months after adoption an applicant would
have the um option to either process
their application under the old code
which is now our existing code or they
can opt to use the new code which we
hope that they will so the purpose of
that at the end of those eight months we
can have a list of items you know if if
somebody opted for the old code why why
did they do that is there something that
needs to be improved that the new with
the new code so at the end of the eight
months we would recommend considering a
series of minor amendments just to catch
anything um that could be
improved anything that would be
submitted any development applications
submitted before the effective date or
the adoption date would be processed
under the current code that you have in
place now and as far as festing
sometimes called grandfathering um any
zoning application that's been submitted
before the effective date or before the
uh 8 months ends vests applicants for
all the future zoning actions similarly
a subdivision application vests them
going forward so for example if a PUD
had a An approved concept Plan before um
before the effective date or before the
eight months ended they could continue
to use that PUD concept plan and come in
with a site plan
based on that and continue Mo moving
forward with that
process one other edit is related to the
uh flexible development standards in a
previous draft we had some
recommendations where um we had flexible
development standards kind of scattered
throughout the document so it was in the
Landscaping section there was um
specific standards there and the parking
standards it had specific standards and
what we heard from City staff and some
others was that was just too confusing
to have it have it spread out and so the
change here was switching it back really
to how it is now um so there's the tier
one and tier two that um allows
administrative approvals for minor
deviations from development standards so
this is a change in the sense that it's
a change to our working draft but it's
really returning back to your current
practice the historic preservation
chapter chapter 2 has several edits
one of those is you'll see a lot of um
text at the beginning that is struck out
those were duplicate Provisions there's
another part of the city's code of
ordinances that actually establishes
HPC and so we took out anything in our
section that might conflict or duplicate
what is elsewhere in your code so that
was removed and then also as the
responsible City official for
administrative decisions we specify the
community development director or their
design me um that was a change that we
made really universally throughout the
code elevating everything to a director
level position um for
consistency uh again a change that we've
made since a previous draft we initially
had proposed the neighborhood center
overlays again from the Elevate Place
type
overlays um that was proposed as a use
classification we had since changed that
to an overlay District so that's really
just a minor change in how it would be
administered it has a very limited list
of allowed uses because this would be
typically a smaller um commercial node
in a residential neighborhood the list
of uses that you see here at the bottom
that's an exhaustive list of all the
uses that are allowed and this would
require a rezoning to um designate
this we recently made some revisions to
uh the dimensional standards to allow
some increased flexibility
for all of the districts we have since
removed a minimum lot area and for the
NH or neighborhood districts we also
removed the minimum lot depth and the
purpose of this again was really to
increase flexibility in these areas um
so instead of those dimensional
standards lot size would then be
regulated by um they all have a minimum
lot width and they all have
setbacks we had several changes to the
permitted use chart we added a new use
called a
cafe which is defined as uh being
smaller than 3,000 square ft so it is a
very small U building footprint also a
local grocery um that was an existing
use but we did add both of those to be
allowed in nh1 by W that was something
that we heard from the community and
then also from city council about making
sure that there was um increased access
to food in residential areas so we did
add that um local retail was also added
back in to nh1 but it would require an
Su and again it must be less than 3,000
square ft with the intent that it's
still compatible with residential
areas we did change a drive-thru um to
be prohibited excuse me prohibited in
nh1 a tap and tasting room to be
permitted by right in
NH3 gas pumps and car wash in NH three
by right but only on a collector or
higher roadway and also changed cannabis
production to be prohibited in the two
lower intensity in h
districts back on uh what I mentioned
about the missing middle housing trying
to um support more housing Variety in in
the uh duplex Triplex quadplex type
housing we removed we we had previously
suggested some compatibility Provisions
that related to uh where these uses were
located and how the building was
designed if they were near single family
homes and what we heard from the
community was you know that wasn't
really a priority that we were more
interested in supporting more housing
options so we did remove some of those
Provisions in the latest
draft similarly for multif family
dwellings we had previously um
split um the multif family uses into two
different groupings
one was for the smaller multif family
complexes that's 5 to 12 units and then
for 13 or greater just to simplify we
made those one multif family um use so
uh that helps clean everything up a
little bit it's instead regulated by
dwelling units per acre and we did allow
those by right in all three of the NH
neighborhood districts and similar to
the duplex standards we did remove the
compatibility Provisions to try to make
this more affordable aable um for folks
to
do for the off street parking
requirements uh the first part of this
is not necessarily A change but the the
minimum parking requirements are
established in the permitted use chart
there is no off street parking that's
required in downtown the urban character
area and then any of those three
overlays that I showed
earlier we had previously applied a
maximum parking standard where there was
a limit to if you wanted to exceed the
minimum you could only exceed up to a
certain amount before you started having
to do things like permeable pavement and
things like that um we heard that um not
everyone liked that so we reevaluated
the maximum parking requirements and
remov those from all the uses except for
maximum parking now would only apply to
um what you would typically think of as
big box uses um so the regional grocery
Regional retail and shopping center
really focused on trying not to have the
the Sea of parking
effect we have also made some
adjustments to park
dedication the first part of this again
is not necessarily an edit this section
does only apply to neighborhood parks
and trails so um neighborhood parks are
the smaller ones the larger parks are
regulated and um handled through the
city's impact fee program so we're only
looking at neighborhood parks here
and this section specifies that Park
dedication and improvements of the parks
is required and the the main change that
happened here there's a simplified
calculation for how you would determine
how how much Park land is required for
your development um that's outlined here
but that's um really the main change
here we also um we had specified
previously the required improvements in
the code so that's things like maybe how
many picnic tables you would provide or
swing sets or things like that that's um
since been moved to a separate manual so
that can be maintained and updated over
time and lastly adding some
clarification for um the timing of when
Parks have to be um
developed so looking ahead at our next
step so here we are tonight at our work
session again we would love to hear any
feedback or questions that you may have
for us um ahead of next month U the city
will ask the commission to meet again on
November 19th for a public hearing and
to consider providing a recommendation
for um the code draft code to move
forward to city council along with any
adjustments that you would like to
see after that we'll conduct a similar
work session with City Council on
December 9th to get any feedback from
them and then Council would be asked to
consider adoption at public hearings on
February 3rd and
17th so um that concludes my
presentation and I would be happy to
take any questions or comments thank
you thank you any presentation from
staff or that's it okay um appreciate
that thank you uh for running through
and providing a high level overview um
really excited to see some of the things
that have been discussed ACR you know
throughout the process um finally make
it into this version of the draft so um
I think we're we're headed in the right
direction I think there's still some
things that we can certainly uh discuss
tonight and possibly get some last
minute tweaks um but appreciate all the
work that's gone into it up to this
point I know it's been a long process um
lots of bumps perhaps Curves in the road
um but I think we're we're getting
close
um turning to my colleagues opening up
for discussion um I don't know if staff
wants to facilitate I guess I can
facilitate
but I think maybe the most efficient
route here would maybe to go Section by
section
um so that we can kind of you know we're
not jumping around all over the place
and we maybe be methodical about um how
we go through it this evening so I don't
know if that works you allall if there's
a different approach I'm seeing nodding
head so maybe we
um go with that approach um so the first
section would be chapter one General
Provisions um I'll just open it up any
questions comments on this particular
section um I think my first comment
which is kind of pointless but I just
want to ask clarification uh page
21 um G item e um this is on notice for
public hearing um regarding the signs
that are put on the property um this e
kind of just saying signs must be be
removed by the property owner applicant
and representative within one week or
the final
decision my question comes in is there
going to be any enforcement to that um
that needs to be stipulated in the code
CU I know know that there have been
signs out there for a long time um and I
would prefer to see them taken up after
the decision is rectified if that makes
sense Mr chair um commissioner Marie
what we can do is work with codes and
implementing a pro a program essentially
that once all the signs are done we can
reach out to our applicants let them
know to go ahead and remove their signs
if they're not removed within a week
then we would have codes go out there
and give them a citation that'll help us
at least get through those processes of
getting the signs removed I know that
has been a concern for years and it's
generally once a case is heard and the
development doesn't take place usually
the sign stays up so that's something we
can work with our codes department
on so is is that the case so if they
come before planning zoning and there's
a
decision made or a recommendation made
to city
council does the sign
sign stay up until it goes through city
council because presumably there's going
to be a new sign right with the new date
and
everything Mr chair and count um
commission normally what takes place is
we will have them either take down the
sign because a lot of times we have the
winds here it's going to damage it in
order for them not to have to repay for
an additional sign they will remove the
sign hold on to it and then we we'll
provide them replacement stickers and
the sign goes up at the time that the
city council's decision comes in okay
yeah that would be great because there's
there can be a delay and we know how the
winds can thrash things around around
here any other question commissioner
Costa you know just um reading a little
bit about feedback on Section F here and
looking at the appeals um the part that
just is discussing you know the fees to
be assessed for you know an applicant
putting in an appeal for you know
whatever decision
I'm just curious if there's any
potential
that you know the fee could potentially
be refunded if the decision was was
reversed I do understand that the city
would take significant hit in that
situation but if it was reversed I would
also potentially argue that the
applicant is taking a significant hit in
waiting to go through that appeal
process and making it to that point as
well
Mr chair um commissioner aosta the
problem with that that we would run into
is a lot of times we already have our
fee schedule adopted we have to take the
fee schedule separate um to city council
unless there's a process in which we can
wave those it's very hard to reimburse
because normally what that entails is
you're going to have your application
fee which is generally non-refundable
for any application that comes forward
an appeal works the same way you're
providing an application fee for an
appeal appeal next we would have any of
the notification fees and so you're
looking at either sign or um letters
going out to the actual neighbors those
are non-refundable as those are part of
that process so it's very difficult to
provide that as a service or a
refundable process just the way that
it's laid out it's known that you know
if you provide that application there is
no guarantee as there is an appeal
process once it's actually appealed um
even if they go to city council there is
always an opportunity for them to appeal
that decision to district court in which
they would also not be reimbursed on
those fees either
could I just follow up with that and
it's kind of a general question but do
we have a way to I guess maybe annually
or whatever review all the appeals that
you know would have been successful and
or try to incorporate that into this 25
year review just curious if that was
anything that went into
this Mr chair and commissioner Costa I
think that's a lot of the reason why we
are redoing the code we've seen a lot of
variances come through we've seen a lot
of zone changes a lot of appeals have
gone through and so a lot of the
modifications we have made and
implemented into the new code will
provide some of that relief that we've
noticed needed to be changed thank
you any other comments or questions on
this
section the way I wrote my notes down I
is a little more more scattered than I
screw you
up yes it it messed me up a little bit
that we'll go chapter by chapter CU I
just went in and found the the areas
that that needed Improvement in in the
things that I've been doing so I think
as of right now chapter 1 is
good um I've got a couple of questions
on chap so the eight months um I guess
uh Grace window for lack of a better
term or the the
transition
um where did 8 months come from my
understanding is it's typically a
6-month time frame just curious where
the eight months came from why why
[Music]
that Mr chair we generally look at
what's going to be comparable we will
still have applications in place and so
it's kind of at six months sometimes
we're still getting people through that
process um in order to make it to where
an application can actually make it
through that one-ear term a lot of times
we have to evaluate what currently our
processes are and so we're looking at
the amount of review times that we're
going through with applicants we've
adjusted to basically see where we can
get them through that approval process
so at the end we get some type of
approval before that year deadline comes
up eight months generally when we're
working with developers or contractors
or design professionals you have your
review time frame you have the re you
know the time that it comes back to make
all the modifications those reviews
again when we generally look at three VI
reviews or so we're putting in that time
frame to make sure that they're
accommodated and we're not looking to
extend any of these projects moving
forward we want this to be just a firm
deadline so we're not trying to do 15
extensions when it gets time understood
thank
you
um and then on
the
um the approval
authorities uh table um a couple of
guess questions comments um the first
one being the final plat
approval uh ccul if I'm wrong but
currently we the plane zoning commission
approves final plats
correct Mr chair and commission um
depends on a final plat so generally
what you would be looking at final plat
Provisions are if they are not
non-administrative repats and so they
are still considered a final plat and so
you have alternate summaries that go
through just administrative staff for
approval um p would make um
determinations on non-administrative
repats it's still considered a final
plat it's just decided if it's minor or
major that's the difference the way that
the new code is
written they're no longer called repats
and so with a final plat there would be
a pnz recommendation for those that are
being lot splits that are more than two
lots or are part of um anything that has
not been previously subdivided that's
increasing the number of lots from the
original
okay but
our am I not correct then in our current
process if we see a preliminary plat
that we approve we also then see the
final plat Mr chair currently you do not
see the final plat you are approving the
preliminary plats in the current phase
and then staff is approving their final
plat following the preliminary plat
approval the only time that pnz would
see them I think what you're deferring
to is going to be the final site plan
which is currently the provisions for a
planned unit
development so a final s plan would come
in as if it was complimentary to a
preliminary
plat but that's through the Pud
process okay I guess I'm I'm a little
confused because we we definitely have
items that are final plats that we're
typically approving at the consent
agenda Mr chair I I would consider those
probably either non-administrative
repats where you're going from say one
lot to two lot split and you're
increasing the number of lots um or
they're called out as preliminary
plats as far as final plats um right now
they would be done administratively
through staff because they follow the
final platting process because something
else has already been approved prior or
they use the alternate summary process
which is still following final plat subd
um subdivision requirements is
essentially what they are okay so the
basically the process is not changing we
are not changing any of the subdividing
processes nor the roles of what pnz
would be recommending amending or
approving at this time okay thank you
um and this is maybe um less of a well
it is a question but um I know there's a
few folks in the audience tonight that
are here to um hear and discuss um
issues around historic preservation so
I'm I'm wondering if uh staff or the
consultant um could
explain
um any changes in that process from what
we currently do to what's being
proposed
here sure I can I can start and then
I'll hand it over to Chris um so one of
those changes was um the designated
Authority the city staff member um
that's responsible for that position I
believe now it currently reads um
historic preservation specialist
although that's not currently a a filled
position and that name may change over
time but for consistency with the rest
of the code we did change that to uh the
community development director as being
the responsible City staff official and
that also includes their design so if
there is a historic preservation
specialist or historic preservation
officer that person could also be the
community development director designate
for administering that
chapter Mr chairman I would also
reiterate um the roles that were listed
within the original chapter 40 have
basically been relayed into the same
code so going through each chapter in
each section none of the rights or the
authorities were changed um there are
still types where you know certificate
of appropriateness is still decided by
the HP and the historic preservation um
commission at this point or committee
but there is no change as far as what
their their roles were it was minor
modifications that came over and then
changing of course the position type
just because we're not sure if that
position would ever change we don't want
to have to come back to council every
time and modify that because that
creates a time lapse when somebody
submits an application to get that
person on board and we don't know how
long that may or may not
take okay but the process and the I
guess role of the historic preservation
committee and what they recommend or not
recommend what they're involved in
that's the same as it is now Mr chair
that is correct yes thank
you I I got one for
uh chapter one I got a question for
you the mine really has to do with the
amendments to the document code which is
in chapter one just on page 23 that I
have and
it it's not not necessarily dealing with
a transitional period of the first
little bit uh you know the 8-month
period um in the let me give you a
little story behind what what I'm trying
to tell you is uh I was involved a
little bit with the UDC that was done
when the county changed their zoning um
and what ended up happening is once we
once it was adopted
there was a lot of things that we didn't
see in this plan in the
UDC um but because once it was passed it
was passed in the light of it's a living
document but then what ended up
happening is even though it was a living
document the staff then turns it not
into a living document and it becomes
what they're going to tell us what we
can and cannot do and so we had to
actually find a commissioner to come in
and change some of the little things
that were just missed that were Miss
for example one of the little items that
was missed in the UDC was we had a all
sidewalks went to a 6in thick uh
concrete and so we didn't really need a
6-in thick everywhere just for a walking
path and so that was one of the little
Provisions that we changed back down to
a 4 in the issue with that was we had to
find a commissioner to actually come in
and help us amend that so just at the
beginning then I believe after that that
short amount of time that we had then
those Provisions were changed by you
know the Development Group came out and
you know other people came out as well
and said hey we missed item 1 2 3 4 5
well what that ended up happening for us
is and we were able to change the 30
items and then I don't think we have
really had many changes since then so
just as a knowing that this is a living
document as it moves as it changes and
stuff like that and we actually
implementing all of this is there any
thing in the first say year that allows
us to not to have like a mandatory come
back double check things so that when
the public does have you know we got
over the years span kind of like I'm a
home builder it's kind of like hey you I
built your house I we messed up on five
items here well we submit a warranty
right and then we go back and we fix the
five warranty but in this case we'd have
to find a commissioner or a city
counselor to be able to do that is there
anything in your code just for that
transitional period that allows us to
have a little bit of that flexibility
instead of do you I hope I'm coming up
clearly yes I think so um so that is
really the purpose of the the a-month
transitional period is if there is
something that makes it unusable for a
particular development they can always
opt to use the old also current um code
if that works better for them at the end
of the eight months we would recommend
that you you um revisit all of the the
items that have been issues over that
eight-month period and do an amendment
at that point so beyond the eight months
um what a lot of cities opt to do is um
plan for once a year to do updates to
the code you you can do others in the
meantime if there's something specific
that comes up but that's more general
practice for the city that's not always
included in the code itself
so in the in the end of the eight months
your recommendation is at that point
then we can come through with because
we're going to see people come
developers or individuals that come in
and have these little changes and it's
going to be the first time using this
new code and then all of a sudden we're
going to say oh we missed line item this
and you know this little provision in
there so exactly but you're saying so at
the end of the eight-month revision is
there anywhere that says we need to
mandatorily come back and check this or
is that just naturally going to happen
in this
process uh that is not currently
including uded in the code we wouldn't
typically include that in here that
would be more of just a um policy
recommendation for reviewing um one
other item I wanted to add for your
example about the sidewalk thickness
wasn't quite right one other good change
about what we have done is pulling out a
lot of the technical standards like
sidewalk width into a technical manual
document that can be updated separately
as needed a lot more easily than a a
code can be updated um so if there are
more technical details like that that
need to be adjusted more frequently that
can be done more easily than it is
today Al um with those technical details
do you know when those are actually
going to come
out Mr chair and commission we hope to
have those ready for your packets next
month um we did provide some revisions
um we've been going through that process
of getting those revisions done and then
they will be out for your review um so
that way you can provide some of those
comments next month before
recommendation um what staff would be
doing is taking this as a separate
resolution to council for adoption and
then staff would be monitor basically
modifying this administratively as we
see those issues or concerns coming up
as that would be more of that living
document the code is written in a sense
of this is the code this is what's
required and then this is how you're
going to do it is what the technical
manuals will
provide and does and does this manual
show us how to update the technical
um the technical codes of of this is it
just written somewhere that says here's
the this is the procedure of how to
update
it Mr chair I'm like normally when a
process is coming when we're going to
amend codes normally it's because we've
identified that there's been
discrepancies we notice that um we see
the same things happening or the same
things being questioned and so we
document those and then we would come
back with amendments every every year if
we tend to see those if it's something
that um we would want to change right
away because it is going to affect you
know development or some type of um
discrepancy with any of our other cases
moving forward we'd probably put that on
the next agenda to council because every
time it has to go to council when it's a
code modification whereas the technical
manual will be done administratively
through staff so that's going to be
working with the development Community
to see what issues are running into and
was this right was this wrong and then
making those modifications at that point
in time so you wouldn't have to wait
it's going to be a smoother process and
so that would be working with public
works department um parks department
anybody who's going to be part of those
technical manuals in order to update you
know maybe it's Park installation of
what kind of equipment or any of their
policies or plans that they have in
place thank
you along the lines of the technical
manual
how how
would the public provide input into
those processes for
example uh we have references to say um
traffic
calming
measures um as it's written right now
that's a technical manual
completely um administered um and
maintained by staff um but how would say
the bicycle
advocacy community be engaged in any
potential updates or
changes to that technical manual to
improve accessibility and safety of our
transportation network is there is there
a way for the public to because right
now we haven't seen any of that so
you're referencing them I don't know
what they say um and I understand I
understand the staff's position of doing
it that way and I completely agree with
it it makes changes a heck of a lot
easier
but I'm also concerned that there it can
be used to not make
changes um you know staff doesn't have
to update the
manuals um so I'm just I'm
curious how does staff kind of see that
playing out down the
road Mr chair that's one of them I'm
going to have to figure out how we're
going to do those processes how we would
make it to where it's public viewing um
and then also be able to say you know
these are what's going to be made as
changes as they continue to grow a lot
of them do reference you know adopted
plans or policies already when you
follow nacto and ashto and all those are
actually identified within there and
they're updated based on the time frames
that those get updated we also have
state requirements when we follow Ada
standards and so those get updated um
let me look into what processes we can
do and maybe how we can actually
formulate that public input um we will
have these available though online so at
least getting us through the point of
realize and then coming up with a
process in which we can modify those
after I think is what we' probably
discuss that that's great and that's
totally fair I just think um it would be
helpful to kind of
understand how those changes would get
made but I completely agree with the the
the approach um especially for some of
these really technical things where
things do change quite frequently and
being able to stay Nimble I think is a
good
thing Mr chair commissioner if I could
make a comment Chris favor Community
Development one of the things that staff
has discussed is is more of a robust
educational uh effort once realized has
been adopted to engage the community
more on some of these issues I know
specifically we've had conversations
around carports and things like that
that maybe the community wasn't as up to
speed on so part of what we're looking
at is creating more of an ongoing
engagement to make sure that the
community is aware of the new Adoption
and some of these new changes and we can
certainly incorporate some of these
other things into that process and make
it more of an ongoing attempt to stay
engaged whether it's through more uh
work sessions here at at pnz or through
city council or other things but that is
something that's on our radar especially
given how long it's been since this code
has been adopted we don't we don't want
to go down that road
again thank
you any other comments on first section
chapter one and just just along with
that U comment that we're we're talking
about right now is it would it's it's
more of just a u clarification of how to
do it right it's not it's kind of like a
discussion that we had before um not in
this meeting but it was more of like in
the book if I needed to have some
technical dat or technical things
changed what's the process and I think
that's kind of more of M it's just I
just want to know the process of how to
do it as someone coming in if I'm a b
bicyclist and I I want to just know how
do I how do I put my input in there is
there a way in the code that it says
okay this is if you want to change these
I do it by this process and that way
it's just kind of it's just a little bit
clear for some of those processes
because I know on the development side
there may be certain things that we're
saying hey this is you know new
engineering came out there's a new
there's always new products other things
like that that we can update those
technical
sheets whether you know there just
things like that that okay now that the
new new technology is here what do I do
to update this code so that we can
remove this one and it's just more of
clerical like written process is all I'm
I'm trying to say on that the
uh the other one that I have and I'm not
sure if if it's in chapter one or if I
should bring it up here um mine
is uh I don't know where this fits and
what I ended up writing here on my notes
is like the current code what is a flaw
of our current code with the city um and
processes and things like that and one
of them that I have is the building out
of New Roads and of fixing old roads
where we have a development that has
been there for 20 years or 40 years and
a new guy comes in next to it and then
the new guy has to build all of the New
Roads and then you can drive throughout
this city and you'll see it go from uh
Mesa Mesa Grande Drive is a great one
four lanes to two lanes to four lanes
back to two lanes and I was just trying
to figure out where where would I bring
that seeing that I think that's one of
the issues we have with our current code
and that I would like to see that
somewhere updated or or point me in the
right direction to understand how is
that problem being addressed in the new
code so so that we can kind
of um the things that I have here is the
cost sharing it always ends up going to
the either the first guy you know the
first guy in is the one that has to
spend all of the money to put it in um
and so really it creates a lack of
development it's always the last guy's
the winner so I'm going to I'm going to
wait till the
end as long as I can because then
someone's going to put all the
improvements in and then I'm going to
come in and so some of our pieces of
land throughout the city you'll notice
that don't get developed which are could
be Prime pieces but it's because the
improvements of certain items are are so
expensive on the the roads so they'll
wait and wait and wait so I don't know
if that's the right if this is the right
section to ask that question I can wait
but I just it says general provisions
and it seemed more maybe that's the area
to
ask Mr chair um commissioner thirston
where that's going to be located is
you're going to have the provisions of
when you do a subdivision that is when
Road improvements are required um at
that point then it's going to take you
to the technical manual which is going
to tell you what's required at the time
that you actually do these improvements
and what you actually install so once
again you're talking about at
subdivision you're required to do the
Improvement and then this is how you're
going to be doing the improvements I
think at that point if there's going to
be a CA sharing or something of those
Natures I'm providing those comments so
that we staff can look at them to see if
there are alternative options um that we
may be able to either Implement within
the technical manual or through code
that would I mean we'd rather hear them
so that we we can start evaluating them
they may not be known um right now we
know currently if you build a local
roadway on a subdivision you're required
to do all of the improvements and yes
that does provide it for anybody who is
adjacent um a lot of the roads that we
did take in may not be improved
especially out on the East Mesa whenever
we did our annexation annexation in um
waivers have been given to certain
developers some of them have not been
and so we have to calculate that as
well one like another example is on
Delray there's there's an building that
was built there and so the develop has
happened on that piece of land and you
go from four lanes down to two lanes but
you have this existing building and so
who's required to do that anymore it's
always typically it's the developer at
the time and so I'm just trying to
figure out do we have anything in this
new code that is going to help that um
error in my opinion of of the city code
do we have anything to address you know
existing Road issues who's paying for it
cuz I know in the old code it was
basically uh it's not in there at all
it's you just whoever the developer is
you put it in and so I was just
wondering is there a provision we can
put in there for the city that says hey
if what what's a way around this the
issue that we see throughout the city I
don't see it addressed in here but if
you guys can point me and and help me
what has other cities done that you've
seen or or other
sure um this is partially addressed in
section
5-2 the road sorry do you mind just
getting a little closer to the mic it's
kind of hard to hear thanks um in
section 5-2 roads rights of way and
parking in item C Street design
criteria um on my version it's page 307
but yours might be
different
items 5-2 c 5-2 c so I will hold off my
comments then on this until we get to
five if that's where we'll have that
discussion
then sure thank
you all right uh Final Call on chapter
one all right moving on to chapter two
this is historic
preservation um
any comments
questions give folks a minute to look at
their notes
um I had one point of clarification let
me see if I can locate the section but
um basically I think there
was and of course I'm not going to be
able to find it
um there was some
language about I believe it was
when um there's uh um a potentially
eligible um structure for historic
preservation um and there was something
about that
the really in in order for any
protections to be applied that the
property owner had to be in
agreement is that is that an accurate
statement of what it
says Mr chair and commissioner that is
correct if a property owner does not
wish to be a part of a historic district
and have their property on the historic
registry it is their right to say
no okay but I'm not necessarily talking
about a historic district but um the
golf course the Old Country Club I think
is a good example there was that the tro
um
Clubhouse um in that case the developer
opted you know they didn't want to do
anything with it they they made some
overtures um but ultimately they decided
they were going to demolish the building
in that situation there there was no
absolutely no recourse for the city to
to save that structure outside of
removing it from the parcel because the
applicant and the owner in this case
presumably wouldn't have agreed to any
protections Mr chair I think what it
comes down to and if I'm you know if I'm
understanding correctly um a lot of
times it is if you have a historic um
property if it is already listed on the
registry then yes it would follow the
guidelines that are provided by the
historic preservation you know by shipo
um from the state if you're asking for a
new property to come in though they have
um the ability to say that they don't
want to be on the history historic
registry they can say no to that and so
it's you're in a district you're already
defined in a district say you're part of
that District but you don't have to be a
part of the actual
registry um and that changes whenever
you demo buildings when you demolish a
building um even if you're on the
historic registry there is a process
outlined as to what you would actually
do on as far as a demolition of a
building and so depending on if a
structure is contributing if it's you
know non-contributing that plays a
factor in when a building is actually
demolished or not or when
recommendations are made for it to be
demolished okay that that makes sense so
but I my understanding is that
the the way that this section is
currently written that you do not need
to be part of a historic district to
have your structure building be
recognized and protected by the the city
under the historic preservation Mr chair
that is correct yes that could be any
property so anything that is older than
50 years um if they reached out to and
asked you know do you want to be part of
the historic registry yes it gives them
the option of yes or no okay fair enough
for your average homeowner but let's say
a developer comes in they buy up a
property in town that
has the most amazing Building Los cruus
has ever seen by an architect that's
world
renown there would be no recourse for
the city to protect that structure if
it's not in historic district
already because the property owner would
decline those that designation that's
what that's how it's written now Mr
chair that would be correct because it
is not outlined anywhere in which they
have to follow those Provisions or those
protections and so they would go through
the demolition
process Mr chair Chris favor I I think
this is probably a question that might
be best followed up at the next meeting
there are specific specific um laws
regarding property rights that the City
attorney could probably speak to
specific to that without getting into
too many too much of the weeds here the
city has very limited purview in what
they can require someone to do on their
private property and this sort of falls
into that category that we can probably
get more clarification from the city
attorney for but yes you're correct the
city does have very limited capacity
when it comes to forcing someone to do
something on their property with a
building uh that meets you know historic
time frame yeah okay I yeah I understand
I just think and I'm no historic
preservation expert so um I don't know
what the answer would be if there is an
answer but it just seems like there's
got to be a way or I would like to see
if there's a way that we can have a
mechanism to protect I mean we we don't
have a lot of historic structures left
in towns as my understanding um and a
lot of our buildings now have been built
you know 1980 or you know newer and so
there they're certainly not going to be
in that
classification um and it's you know
there's some cases where it doesn't make
sense but I think there's also a lot of
opportunity to kind of
protect some of those cultural resources
particularly in architecture and I'll
self admit I'm a little bit of an
architecture nerd so I'm biased there
but it just seems like the average
property owner completely agree with the
notion but it seems like when you're
talking about a developer who might come
in and I don't know buy the Amador hotel
and decide we're going to take it down
um it just seems like there's got to be
I that's probably terrible example but
my point being is that there's got it
seems like there's got to be a way for
the city to try to protect some of these
structures when those situations come
about um but thanks for the um
explanation on what they're how it's
written
currently um that's all I have on this
section so I'll open it up
I have a question for City staff um can
you explain a little bit better or
clarify um on page 80 number five
demolition by neglect and deferred
maintenance I'm just confused as if it's
already in that state what is the point
of saying the duty to maintain duty to
repair and the process to kind of get it
back up
to
non neglect or deferred maintenance if
that makes sense
Mr chair um commissioner Murray I think
that was added into these sections
because a lot of times it was to have
those buildings evaluated before they
were demolished um a lot of times if
Property Owners aren't taking care of
proper prop they do become neglect and
then they do become essentially come
into our nuisance abatement program or
they get identified but I think that's
at least giving them the purview to say
you know if there is that ability to
maybe either reuse some of those pieces
to re you know reuse on other properties
um but just not to let the property go
into you know neglect it and then just
demol it because then it's a lot easier
to go through that process was one of
the concerns that the commission did
have and so it was to you know provide a
way to where buildings weren't just
being neglected in order to demo them
and then you're missing that
step okay so I guess on that point with
this paragraph or section is like city
codes going to be going out to the
properties that are already in that kind
of state to then cite them to say that
you're starting to neglect and having
deferred maintenance on that historic
type
property um so that it doesn't get into
this demolition
portion that's kind of what I'm kind of
reading into or
towards Mr chair and commissioner Murray
I think with um codes is already working
through the NP program to identify a lot
of these properties because that was
just initiated you know a couple years
ago to where it's now starting to see
that these properties are getting
acknowledged um and so they're enforcing
those and I think also with um getting
more of them onto the registry and
getting notified and knowing that
they're part of these districts they're
are part of these historic buildings
getting people educated to understand
that you know these are buildings that
have been here longer and that neglect
is not the way to actually get them to
be demolished um so I think it's going
to come down to both things having to
take place but the n program will
definitely the nuisance abatement team
will help us get to a point where it's
better okay I think that clarifies that
specific
question any other questions on chapter
two all right
moving on to chapter three this is uh
zoning
regulations um give folks a minute but
um feel free to just jump in got
something on your
mind uh first one general question
probably doesn't apply to number three
but to um
clarify there's going to be some sort of
Education to the public on things that
are being updated or changed in the code
that we feel are important um such as
like cardboards and
whatnot chairman commissioner Murray
yeah that is the intent to work on a
process um to help um better educate
both design professionals uh developers
and the community at large on some of
these new updates staff is currently
working on a on a on a program to uh
work with staff to get more familiar
with more the the you know the the nuts
and bolts of the changes and then we'll
work on a process that explains it a
little bit more to the public but yeah
that is that is the intent to make sure
that there's more engagement back and
forth and keep this um from something
that people forget about after after it
gets
approved okay perfect um and then my
next question um so I I pretty much
understand like the traditional zoning
districts I guess the character based
zoning districts nh1 through three is
this like a standard that's followed in
other example cities that we're trying
to mimic for a specific reason or to
help us benefit in further development
of the
city Mr chair and commissioner Murray
what we did was we used Elevate as that
guiding tool to say you know we're going
to create an urban area suburban area
and the rural based on the Elevate map
that was created the future development
map and that provided us the growth to
show what density should be reflected as
you go through your neighborhoods and so
you would expect to see in an urbanized
neighborhood a lot more density as to
where in a rural neighborhood you're
still continuing to have the one to two
or three a you know three units per acre
but you're not increasing to a larger
number once um Elevate was adopted we
used that as the guide to say these are
how the characters should actually grow
out and so that way we'd see that growth
being um at the rate it should go
instead of just saying you know all one
property should have the same density
because we know that they should be
different throughout the city and so
they were just given character zones to
say how we want the growth to actually
be
populated all right I I uh commissioner
and and I've I've chatted with Sarah
multiple times on on a subject that I'm
going to reiterate because it it it's
not on here yet but she's told me that
she it'll get in there in the next one
but I wanted to bring it up so on my
book it's in uh page 88 where it goes to
character-based zoning districts
and it says on page 88 where it says the
example for example neighborhood one or
nh1 and that's the zoning district and
then it goes to character area is the
rural
the the clarification that I want to
make sure that gets
into this book is how do I change the
character if it is not a zoning change
and so the understanding that I have
right now is that the the zoning of a a
piece of property is going to actually
be the zoning of it will be nh1 rural is
the full zoning of that so in order to
change
that um just the character of it because
if I like the if I if I like the nh1
zoning but I would like to change just
the rural character to Urban or rural to
a
neighborhood this booklet doesn't show
how to do that it's only goes and it
kind of addresses only the nh1 side of
things and so just more of a
clarification on here
is I I believe we need to have something
that shows it how do I
change now this is not an argument of
any kind it's just simply
a character change I believe it should
be in the book somewhere and if you can
help help me understand how to do that
sure um the the character areas tie back
to elevate to the um the different place
Types on the the future development map
but we could add a description in here
about whether an amendment to the
Elevate comprehensive plan would be
required to change the the character
area thank you because in in that it did
seem like it's a lengthy it's a lengthy
process
because where the character came from is
from the Elevate loss Cruis plan and so
in the discussion it it went like this
in order to change the character zoning
we will then need to come back and in
order to just change a character I have
to change the Elevate Los cruus Plan
before I'm able to then change the
character on my zoning so that process
just needs to be written out so that as
someone coming up you know as saying cuz
if this document is going to live for 10
years 20 years you know just the same
one like this someone somewhere is going
to say I just want to change this little
corner because now growth growth has now
come to me and now this is a prime spot
for a urban center or it's a prime spot
and as of right now we do the best we
can to plan out for the future and then
we realize sometimes it doesn't go
according to plan and so we're going to
see someone come in here and just want
to change that character so I'm just
wanting just the clarification of you
know if if it is we go to the Elevate
Los Cruis plan that must be be changed
and then we can change the the character
of it and what is that process look like
so I I know we kind of went back and
forth with Sarah a little bit on that I
just want to see that in in the
book along those L lines and a good
point
but is there
potentially already an Avenue with the
overlay zones that you could leverage
because an over if you could add an
overlay zone right it's just a zone
change
correct Mr chair and commission the way
that the overlay zones were outlined um
the only ones that would be essentially
not um specific to an area would be your
neighborhood center so if you wanted to
increase an area that was at maybe
intersections or so neighborhood centers
are not mapped out your town centers
were generally located around larger
intersections where we expected to see
um more growth take place so
neighborhood centers would be our only
Avenue mix juice corridors were already
identified through Elevate Los crues and
so we've used those um we necessarily
unless we've grown and we can identify
new ones um say if there is growth
that's going to take place further off
of Highway 70 or in newer areas and we
need to reevaluate that I think that
would come at a different point but that
would also be you know if we're doing um
reevaluation of elevate loss cruises as
we continue to grow and as we see these
modifications take place that also may
be a part of staff's you know let's look
at see how we're growing because we also
don't want it to just become sprawl and
that's one of the things we're taking
into consideration and so we would be
amending essentially either Elevate loss
crues or some type of zoning map to
reflect those changes whenever we do
them whether it be sta implemented or
developer
driven okay and and I guess another
point of clarification this would only
be this would only be required or
necessary for residential projects
because you could always rezone to
commercial traditional Zone correct Mr
chair correct there is zoning map
amendments that are permitted within
code and you would just have to provide
those um if you're in a rural area and
you're looking to put in commercial you
know designations we would be looking at
the compatibility of where those proper
are located to see how they're going to
fit within those character
areas so with that so it sounds like in
your thinking you're thinking I've I'm
on the Crux of the Suburban Urban or
Suburban Rural and I want to go to the
next level of
density up right and so that's the
that's the mechanism that you're looking
for yeah I'm just
that that's about that's about right
because what what happens is in the time
of 5 years 10 years someone is going to
come someone is going to come up here
and say Hey how do I change my character
I mean I'm not saying it's a good thing
a bad thing but and whether we come in
and it still has to get approved through
everyone I'm just wanting to know what
does that process look like cuz we will
have someone you know trying to change
it we have people trying to change it
you know commercial to Industrial you
got Industrial the neighborhood you got
I mean throughout the year as a city
changes I just solely more of a
procedural question and how that happens
not really as a you know I think that's
all it really is just procedural how do
I do
it yeah that makes sense Mr chair uh
commissioner thirst if I could just add
one more point there there is a a
process to evaluate and amend Elevate as
well and so though we will make sure
that we include what that process is in
here so there is clarification on how
that will will work with with the rest
of the zoning so we we'll make sure that
that's clear uh for for moving forward
on those issues thank
you two questions here um first one
about the drive-throughs prohibited in
the
[Music]
nh1 just curious I don't know in terms
of the rezoning if I'm assuming there's
already some drive-throughs in that any
each one now do they get grandfathered
or how exactly that would work and then
if somebody is looking to thus
afterwards try to do it I guess they're
going to have to get a variance is that
correct if they wanted to do a
drive-through in an
nh1 that's correct that any any existing
driveway or excuse me drive-thru in nh1
that's there today that could continue
to operate um as far as once the code
will be
adopted um
if in nh1 they wanted to do a
drive-through window that would not be
prohib not be permitted um they also
would not be able to do a variance to
since it's considered a use type um you
can't do a variance to allow a different
use um so that would be done either
maybe a PD could be used if um if that
was warranted but also the intent really
of not allowing drivethru in nh1 is that
it's really um primarily residential
it's really um limited commercial areas
small very small restaurants small
grocery store markets that's more kind
of a a walk up neighborhood serving not
necessarily Auto oriented
development now my only I guess um
curiosity there is with the future in
the next 20 years where we're thinking
you know we are more digital we are less
in store in a lot of cases ideally you
know we'd like to see the reversal of
that to some degree but just kind of
where things are trending if that
supports that to any degree and or if we
care um and then I will just kind of
move on to my next question which is the
Cannabis production that's prohibited in
nh1 and nh2 which was a su
before um I guess my thoughts on this I
think that feels like
we're I I can't understand why we're
singling out cannabis production versus
um I think the real problem that you
know the city has been seeing is the
dispensaries where we have you know over
75 dispensaries right now and I don't
know
um why a production site for instance
would
be that
case good question um that was
highlighted really just as a as a change
if you look in the use chart now it's
the same for cannabis dispensary
production and integrated cannabis
business none of those are permitted in
nh1 or nh2 that was just the most recent
change that we were highlighting
today so basically just to clarify you
said cannabis production um officially
got added onto the list with everything
else that was already there is that what
you basically said
all three of the Cannabis related uses
are prohibited in nh1 and
nh2 um as the current draft reads the
reason that was highlighted in the
presentation was we had previously
suggested cannabis production be
permitted by SCP and nh1 and nh2 so in
the latest drafts we removed that so now
all the um cannabis uses are consistent
across the NH
districts thank you you and then so for
instance the lenses that are operating
in those districts
currently they will get to remain as
long as they are the operators or as
long as that site is approved how does
that work as long as any existing
business continues to operate um as they
are today they they can continue
indefinitely as long as it is a legal
use so I guess Mike sorry I guess I'm
kind of thinking you know for instance
say you're a cannabis business closing
down selling your assets because
industry is too saturated right now
you've got an interesting you know your
only asset for instance perhaps
licensing gets capped later in the
future you know is your license worth
something if you are on this nh1 or nh2
if you sell it to some new owner um how
entirely would that pass over you know
on X property in those districts is that
you know new person who may be looking
to acquire buyer said license Andor
property is it going to stay same zoned
same for them and they will be allowed
to thus take it over thus giving that
cannabis operator value on their asset
of their license or you know diminishing
it when they're trying to sell it
because it wouldn't be able to be
reasoned Mr chair um commissioner a
Costa what we've noticed is right now
the way the current regulations are is
you're allowed to do these um land uses
cannabis related in our commercial zones
they're not permitted in our r1a they
not permitted in our R1 BS that is
essentially what nh1 has become and so
those are rezones so you wouldn't
actually have a lot of those land uses
labeled out currently right now from our
existing code to what we're proposing
what I will say is that if there is an
existing one um there is we have
modified the code to give it an
allowance of a two-year non-conformity
so if a business does close down that
land use can still be put onto the
property within two years it used to be
one year so it gives the a lot of a lot
more time to actually redevelop that
property if we wanted to with the same
land use um so there will still be those
properties that if they were reson to an
nh1 or an nh2 um they'll be allowed by
right and they can continue by right if
they close down their business and they
would have two years to redo essentially
that use with some type of business
license and then maintain that right um
we still have some of the like some of
the properties that were reson in 2001
live under a non-conformity now um
because of those changes so as long as
it doesn't
basically go away as long as it's
staying in business um but what we did
um and what we've evaluated through our
actual zoning map was identify a lot of
the businesses and try to make sure that
we weren't putting them into a
non-conformity by the way the code is
written so that was some of our
evaluation um we noticed you know we
looked at specific land uses that were
already there and made sure that they
were going to fit somehow in our code so
that we wouldn't have to have so many
non-conformities out there right now
okay thank you the answer is actually I
think
everything um I have a small clarifying
question on page 92 basically we're
reducing um the 25 garage setback for 20
ft for Rural and suburban and then 12
foot for urban is that more or less
correct
interpretation Mr chair commissioner
Conor that is correct yes those have
been reduced to where we're looking at a
20 foot when it is a garage um the
difference because we do have carports
and garage listed difference is on a
carport they're not allowed to be
enclosed and so that's the reason why we
still maintain that 20 foot setback
whenever it is a garage because those
are usually fully enclosed
spaces I'll just tag on a comment um
generally speaking on the
these uh setbacks particularly in the
the urban character type um I my
preference would actually be that we
just have build two
lines
um I think that would be more
appropriate in the urban context in my
opinion um and it would probably
simplify things so that would just be
something I would suggest um kind of
across the board in the development
stand standards for nh1 that in the
urban context we just go with the build
two lines as opposed to having both
setbacks and build two
lines and then I would probably suggest
making the build two lines a little bit
smaller uh next question or comment that
I have is on page 135 which goes towards
signage um number or letter D per se um
basically says that the city is exempt
from vehicle directional signage within
public right of way and city property I
personally would say that they should
still have to go through the process
that the public has do um I know the
city probably doesn't want to do that
because it would save them cost um and
the only case that I can remember called
to
order um was the convention center when
we Chang the signage um on that property
but that is my comment
there Mr chair commissioner Connor are
you deferring to um on number
D 135 yeah so this would just be for
vehicle Direction so this is telling
someone to go right or left and so this
is generally whenever the city has to
put up traffic signs we do have to
follow um our regulations as far as
mutcd standards and stuff as to where
signs are are placed for visibility
anyway whenever we're actually doing um
streets it's the only reason why it's an
exempt from signage because usually
signage will save 15t from property
lines we're not usually working within
property lines and so this doesn't
outline if we are TR um basically doing
traffic signs and TR signage we need to
follow essentially what the city has
adopted as far as our plans and policies
as well okay that makes
sense um I have just a I think a general
comment on um this is my version page 86
it's the zoning process overview um and
I this is I think in a couple of
different places but generally the
comment is that initial question at you
know you start with your pre-application
meeting and the initial question is does
the property have the correct zoning
District
designation
um to me that seems a little backwards
of the purpose of zoning uh it should be
does the
developer the idea fit within the zoning
so basically that second question does
the proposed development meet the
district
standards that's really the first
question you're asking um it's not well
we have zoning but uh come come give us
your sales pitch and we'll we'll go a
different direction um you do have the
mechanism to get the Zone Chang if you
so choose but I think just semantically
it's a little weird to kind
of just seems wishy-washy I guess um so
that would be one suggestion
there
[Music]
um another I I think it's this
section uh I could be jumping ahead but
um I'm going to ask anyway since it it
pops up so there's a a few tables or
figures rather um for each of the zoning
districts um uh beginning page 89 for
the next couple Pages um and there's the
site design and then it references
parking
treatments
um I I kind of feel like we are maybe
bearing the lead a little bit here when
it comes to the elimination of the
minimum parking requirements uh within
the urban um and the mixed use overlay
zones and I'm just wondering if we can
kind of make it more explicit that you
you don't have a parking requirement in
these areas everywhere else you do but
we we kind of just ignore that that fact
and I'm my concern is that someone's
just going to open this up and start
designing parking lots in their
buildings when in fact you know they
don't need to be we don't want them to
be
necessarily um and I don't want them to
get so far down the process process
before they realize that fact that it's
kind of too late to change course so I
think just making it a little bit more
explicit across the
board um and
then I think this may have been an
update um that was presented tonight but
on the um the neighborhood
center uh there's a few few um uses that
I think we should consider
adding um and I and I forgive me I don't
recall if any of these have made it into
the latest version but um the ones that
were I feel like missing from what I'm
looking at um would be
Community uh facilities specifically
like a library Museum I think community
building is also a specific use I would
suggest that that be included um and
then personal services I think should be
included and my understanding by the
definition that's mainly your your hair
salons you know things of that nature um
if I can go to a bar I feel like I
should also be able to get my haircut
there or not at the bar but um next door
um and then Art
Studio instruction um that use in
particular I think is something that
should also being Incorporated in the
neighborhood um Center overlay
and if other folks have comments please
jump
in okay um my next comment um is going
on to page 166 when we kind of go into
the tables about um hours of operations
for several
things I'm not from here um my biggest
complaints are is that everything closes
early I know we want to dictate closed
time um to kind of limit
um crime and sort of things um but I
feel like 10 p.m. especially if you're
younger or in college or something is
very um
early um and on that if you want to
answer Mr chair um commissioner Marie
this is part of the University District
so we do have three of our zones that
are or I believe it's three if I go
through them University City District um
your South mosqu district and Alama
overlay are not being Revisited through
realize these are being maintained until
we can actually work with the
neighborhoods these were all established
through neighborhoods and through groups
and so this is currently what is in code
and then after realiz is adopted then
we're going to work with each one of
those communities in order to basically
bring them up to date with realiz um
information and so these will not be
modified we did not include times
throughout the rest of the code these
were just implemented when the
University District overlay was
created okay I I think that makes
clarification
sense but your point is
take um a so going to the permitted use
charts beginning on page 214 in my
version um just a few comments uh I
guess not necessarily looking for a
response um but just stating my
preferences
um just again reemphasizing the minimum
parking vehicle parking requirements I
think we should be explicit here um that
those don't apply in uh the urban and
the overlay
districts
[Music]
um number I guess yeah these are all one
word number four which is a manufactured
home
Park um I guess this actually is a
question is that supposed to be mobile
home park I guess I'm I'm not
sure why we would restrict a
manufactured home
park uh differently than my
understanding is a manufactured home is
considered a regular Class A or whatever
building so I'm not sure if that was a
mistake or
so that would just be something to maybe
double check because it there is a
mobile home but there's no mobile home
park we can take a a closer look at that
one thing I did want to note about the
manufactured home park um is that it has
additional use based standards with it
for how the manufactur home park would
be designed the internal circulation
size of the spaces and things like that
so we do have some special standards for
those that's why it's called out as a
separate use um but we can take a look
at why it's permitted differently than
the others okay and I guess I would I'm
also confused why there would be
different development standards because
my my understanding based on what a
manufactured home is classified as
according to HUD
you could have a subdivision all single
family lots and you could put a
manufactured home on every single one of
those
correct yes would would that then be
called a manufactured home park part of
the difference is whether they are all
located on one um communal lot with
rental spaces versus if they're
subdivided individually owned
manufactured homes that could be um
grouped together or could be within a
neighborhood got it okay that's that's
helpful
clarification um then I guess the
question would be is are we missing
mobile home
park because we have mobile home but we
don't have mobile home
park um so I don't know if that's
something that needs to be addressed
um just some other
General
comments
um the sober living home
I I guess I'm
not or my preference would be that we
mimic the community
residents
uh uses there so um changing the two
special use permits from nh1 or NH3 and
nh2 to BU right to match the community
residents
um it was brought up but I I think it
would it's a mistake to have
drive-throughs and gas stations be by
right um I I don't believe we need more
of those in the city I think it runs
counter to many of the other goals and
objectives that we have throughout
Elevate Los Cruis would like to see
those um be special use permits across
the board
um that being said we regulate Child
Care Centers more strictly than
apparently we do gas stations and car
washes uh I think we should have child
care centers be by right across the
board um that goes
for the I guess in my version it's 36
through 38 so all the child care uses um
should just be by right can can you tell
me what page you're on uh yes I'm on
page 216 sorry of my version so
hopefully it's the
same
um Prof so this is on page 218 now
professional office I think that should
be um by right in the
[Music]
nh2 rather than a special use
permit um camp grounds I don't know why
we're excluding them from open space
preserves uh seems like that's where I'd
want to
camp
[Music]
um golf courses in open space preserves
I think that should be a special use
permit and I think that's those are just
my general comments there on spe
specific
uses C can you go on your uh slideshow
here to page
31 the CU I one of the notes that I had
on here before that was the sus for
multif
family has that been I I believe you had
changed that is that right correct
um yes they were previously the larger
excuse me the smaller ones were Su and
nh1 the larger ones were Su and nh1 and
two uh and then by right and the other
NH districts um they've been
Consolidated into one category and now
they're Allowed by right in all three of
the NH districts can can you show me
where I find that in this book it's
going to be located on page 214 and it's
going to be number seven because what
I'm looking for is just the the maybe
it's not on these pages but the
um it was to be on had to be on the
collector versus a local and I wanted to
make sure that that
was able to be on a different spot as
well yes that um that matches up with
the last bullet point on this slide that
we removed uh most of those Provisions
including the one that it had to be
located on a on a collector or larger
yes that was
removed thanks I can cross this one off
and that's going to be located on page
225 that's where you can see all of
those being
removed when staff evaluated it it was a
lot of times you're going to already see
that people will construct walls in
between properties um some of the
conditions were was it going to impede
on collectors we worked with traffic and
that was not going to be a concern
because a lot of our local roadways can
handle um the capacity to have those
apartments or those higher densities and
so we removed a lot of those conditions
thank
you uh Sarah this one's for you page 243
116 um the vehicle is there twice
spelling mistake number one that I've
got um question um carports number three
on
250 um
250 can we add in there or clarify and
maybe I'm missing it um that a building
permit is required to install a carport
so that we don't run into any issues
with the um variances or special use
permits that we've seen across our
board Mr chair it is listed um that you
know there are no assess any accessory
structures over 120 square feet um being
this is an addition to a residence um
building permits are required it would
be no different than adding a porch or
something of that nature um we can put a
note on here saying that you know
building permits are required for
carports that are to be attached in the
front of the property if that would at
least assist I think a lot of times we
see that the carports are put up because
they really didn't know that they needed
a permit in general I think if we just
put it there another time to reiterate
that it's required we'll run into um
less problems in the
future I also got a question on the
carports as I drove around op Paso and
and also in Los cruus
there's they're like these shade
structures is what I'm seeing more than
than a more than a carport and and it's
simply two metal poles that are next to
the house and then it's basically Canal
levered out and then it has just this
little basically a tarp over the top but
shouldn't say tarp it looks a lot better
than the tarp and uh anyways it seems
more of just like a shade
structure would would that cuz
it's you're not building it to the
standard of a carport right like you're
not have extra poles you're not have
other things like that how would how
would
that come into play What Would we
classify that as if it's more of a shade
structure because most of these people
are coming in saying hey I just don't
want my car to be hot you know I don't I
got a tree next to me I don't want all
of that to drop on it and if there's if
it's going to hail I just don't want the
hail damage so that's kind of seems what
it is and so some of them are more shade
structures versus car ports but it's
probably classified under as still a
carport type of a deal what do we do
about those Mr chair um commissioner
thirst what we are trying to do is move
to where now that you're going to be
able to have essentially what would be
considered shade for your driveway
basically using either carport standards
we want them to actually mimic more of
the home we want it to look like the
home so that way it matches it doesn't
look out of place so it' be like if you
had a true addition to your home right
now what we're getting is you know a lot
of them are either being put up without
building permits um they don't know
regulations there's no design factor to
it and so we're moving towards the code
of saying now we're going to allow these
by rights but we want them to look where
they're compatible to your neighborhood
built in compatible materials and still
provide those shade structures a lot of
times we see you know they may be
purchased from Home Depot or so and so
we've had some that have blown off of
properties they're not secured those
have created really big issues when
they're impacting other residences down
the street and so by now allowing it by
right we want to put the provisions of
it compatible with your
home so if someone does come in again
with a different structure that is not
in here where it says carports
3A um design must be consistent with the
main building if it if it's not
consistent with the main building yet
they haven't permitted it yet they
didn't build it they would still have to
just come in for a variance for that and
so because they're wanting to build a
carport but if they don't want it to
look like the house because the cost of
doing so would maybe triple it right if
they don't want to put the asphalt
shingles on the top of it they won't
don't want to do other things like that
that mimic the house it might be cheaper
for them to literally put the metal
poles right just put metal and then
what's what's the route for those people
to take um in this do they come in for
variance how does that work Mr chair
there's ways to actually um and
commissioner thirst to actually help
with someone who is coming in to do it
at a cheaper cost with those metal
standards um we've seen the faux brick
going buildings there's a spray stuckle
that makes post look like it's stucked
but they're really not um we would work
with the applicant to get them to the
best product that's going to match their
home we understand that we've had
customers or public come in they have
brick homes you're not going to be able
to build a brick one and so we
understand that and so we're going to
work with their compatibility to get
them to their best options understanding
that cost is going to be an impact this
is just giving us a provision to say
that you know we do want it to look like
it we want it to be stable and we want
it to you know mimic more of the
neighborhood not necessarily just be
we've seen shade structures that are the
10x10 popups we had a windy day-to-day
that is down the street and it's
creating issues and concerns for our
cod's office as well as other neighbors
and so those are what we're trying to
eliminate by allowing these and so we'd
work with the customers if um the
clients come in and they're unable to do
it or there's no way to actually mimic
those homes and yes they could go
through the variance process but that's
why variant could provide those
justifications um when you usually look
at it it's going to say you know is
there actual Justice you know
justification to say that this doesn't
work to meet the code if these are
concerns that keep coming up that's
where we're going to come back and do
those amendments we need to re-evaluate
and figure out how we're going to help
the public get through the process So
currently the way it's written it says
the carboard carport design must be
consistent with the main building does
that wording allow you enough
flexibility for staff to basically have
a little bit of interpretation as to
what consistent is so we're not having
in the example that you gave of a uh
center block home or a brick house
right will that give you enough leeway
to be able to say that it's consistent
with
it I'm solely semantics commissioner
thirst it does give us that leeway
because I think when we actually work
with people within the public it's
usually what are your feasibilities what
are the possibilities what are other
materials that could be used and a lot
of times they are compatible it's really
right now this is just getting
implemented of knowing we just want to
get these permitted and understand what
we can actually do get them attached
properly and no so we it does give us
that flexibility to work with the public
thank
you uh perhaps just a suggestion um not
necessarily a technical manual but maybe
staff can put some sort of one two pager
front and back kind of examples of what
would be considered appropriate so that
people kind of have a starting point to
work from um might be
helpful any other questions or comments
on this chapter chapter
three once again this is probably one of
the questions that might not be in this
one but making sure that I don't skip it
uh Missing middle housing um I'm I'm
trying to find out where the flexibility
is is in that for like Street designs is
that in this one or is that going to be
in a sub in a different chapter cuz what
I'm with a mid missing middle
housing our current code I have tried
personally to come in and do a missing
middle development and our current code
requires me to have like a whole bunch
of variances to even do that so I'm kind
of waiting to see how to either do that
or you got to go through a PUD process
other things like that so does the I for
what I understand so far it seems like
the missing middle housing is giving me
the flexibility to do things except for
my one question on here is the street
sections allowed for missing middle do
we have that
anywhere we do have in the use chart
allowing the missing middle type uses by
right so but that's more specifically
the use as far as roadway cross-sections
I don't believe we have anything
specific to um
deviations for missing middle
housing okay would that be in this
chapter or do I need to hold that
question for another
one um it would be in a later chapter it
would be in
5-2 um however I don't think it's I
don't think it's there either but um
that that was the relevant topic I will
hold it for the ne for chapter
five and commissioner th I I think if
you go back to
Pages uh starts on page
92 I believe those are essentially your
density your max
density and some of your standard um
design
standards so I I think um just a lot of
being involved with the technical
advisory committee and what we're seeing
now I think um you know we felt that
there was these provided that kind of
design flexibility for developers to
come
in so that this use chart is is it's
good the way we have it now there's been
a couple iterations that has changed it
to where we have the lot width minimum
now and that's the only thing and that
that is absolutely wonderful for the
city because it's going to allow a lot
of um creativity of how to get mixing uh
Missing middle um whereas the the old
code kind of restricted they said okay
we got we
need um well even in this one we be the
the current changes was saying hey we
can put
16 um units per acre well then we put
all the other restrictions of the lot
depth and the lot size minimum and then
you go I literally can't get 16 to the
acre the way it's written if that's if
that's what it is so those changes have
been good the only one that I still just
needed to have clarification on is is
the actual Road sections because when
you go to Phoenix when you go to Utah
when you go to Florida you see all of
these other developments and you'll
notice that everyone kind of has these
different Road sections of one's only 20
ft wide um there's no sidewalks on some
of them and then you go to another one
where there's basically no there's no
Road in there and then they put all
their cars in one area and then you have
a cluster so there's just a whole bunch
of different design criteria is that
when you're actually designing the
subdivision
that without having I brought this up to
David we also and I said without having
an actual Street section of what's
allowed it makes the process a little
bit more
lengthy and so I just needed to find out
where we can find those cross-sections
or what's allowed or maybe that's where
the nacto is the nacto probably re uh
referred to theirs we can use one of
their cross-sections or other things
like that because um
just the concept itself of putting
missing middle is great but if you don't
have the backing material to to actually
make it through fruition it's really
tough so one of the things is the
streets and the flexibility of streets
is really like I was in Santa yesterday
you know and then they have they have a
house and then there's parking lot in in
the back but to get to the back there
was only like 11 ft and so there's just
those those type of little things that
you got to have in there that I I'm just
curious to make sure that we have that
type of a design we do have in in 5-2
there's a provision that allows the DRC
to make some adjustments to the
improvements the wording is to meet City
goals and plans um so there there's some
flexibility in there we don't have a
designated you know pre-approved
cross-section for it
though and Mr chair commissioner th um I
would just like to add on to that the
reason being is because if there is
different creative designs we don't want
to limit our eles either and so by using
DRC it provides us that flexibility to
say that different cross-sections come
in based on the design can be approved
um it's going through that process if we
were to outline you know all the
possibilities we still may get some that
were never outlined and so we don't want
to limit it to that we we have our
essentially our locations of what we
want to see to you know follow our
complete streets and say we're meeting
those designs and then anything that's
going to be different than those that's
where we want to work with our other
departments um throughout the city where
it's fire and public works you know
traffic just to ensure that we are still
meeting the needs of what the city
adopted with complete streets by moving
forward with a new
design okay I'll I'll ask some more
questions later on that
five all right any other questions on
chapter
three all right seeing none um I just
want to
um acknowledge that we are at 2 hours so
it's 8:00 p.m.
um we're probably I think about halfway
depending on how the conversation goes
but I'm wondering do we want to take uh
a five minute recess bi a break and then
when we come back allow for public
comment and then finish our conversation
after public
comment does that work for everybody I'm
I'm good with the suggestion okay
so we will uh reconvene at 8:05 and then
we'll go into public comment um so that
you guys can um uh speak and then you
are are free to go home and go to sleep
eat dinner whatever it is and we'll
continue the conversation so um we'll
reconvene in five minutes thank
you
for
e
e e
for
here for
okay
we'll go ahead and uh take our seats so
we can get
started e
all right we're going to go ahead and
get started here um we're going to jump
into uh public comment um and just
before I do that that um I've got a
question here that I think I can address
so we are being recorded this is um we
are now return to um being um shown on
the city's YouTube channel similar to
city council meeting so this is live um
and it will be recorded uh so your
comments will also be recorded and will
be available U for viewing um after the
fact as
well um and
I presumably will there be minutes for
this meeting yes yeah um okay so with
that um we will go ahead and just open
up to public comment I'm going to give
everybody a minute and a half to speak
um just a reminder this is not a Q&A so
if you do have questions please ask them
um and you know we will try to get some
answers but um we're not going to have
we don't have time to go back and forth
with folks um so what I'll do is um
presumably everybody that's here tonight
wishes to speak um so we'll just start
over here to my left in the front and
just work your way back so when um the
person in front of you sits down um
let's just be orderly we're all adults
we can figure this out so uh just
appreciate that um that process so once
we're done with this side of the room
we'll come over here
so start here you okay you're good all
right next row
back and before you begin please state
your name for the record so I can swear
you in Christopher Brown 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 I do go ahead good evening Mr
chair and members of the commission
thank you for the chance to share some
comments with you my name is Christopher
Brown I'm a professor of geography and
Environmental Studies at NMSU and I've
had the honor of serving on the TAC for
the last 18 months I'd like to
acknowledge the hard work that staff and
freze Nichols have done to get us to
this exciting point and for making
needed changes with respect to missing
midle housing I'm especially happy to
see the following changes that I urge
you to retain in the draft as it moves
through pnz multifamily housing are
allowed by rights Citywide it re avoids
the costly and timeconsuming
process of
sus eliminating unnecessary barriers to
building high quality housing including
walls and buffers this also includes no
longer restricting locations to multif
family dist streets with higher traffic
volumes neighborhood centers are now
recognized overlay District as key
neighborhood intersections to allow for
walkable Community activity centers and
single family residential neighborhoods
it also supports the elimination of
mandatory parking requirements and
require and the housing densities I'd
also like to see some enhancements to
road cross-sections that would support
multimodal and active Transportation
especially the development of buffered
or protected inroad bicycle facilities
I'm happy to provide details to the
commission as the review process unfolds
thank you very
much thank
you all right next row
and luckily for everybody I was informed
I don't have to swear you into a work
session so good you may come up and uh
please state your name for the record
and then you may begin my name is Beth
Bardwell and I'm here tonight on behalf
of the League of Women Voters of
southern New Mexico and um chairman and
Commissioners um thank you for the
opportunity to comment and we just
wanted to
um share that we are very pleased with
changes that have been made um since the
June 10th version and in particular um
we are very happy to see that um missing
middle housing everything from auxiliary
dwelling units all the way up to
multifamily is now Allowed by right and
nh1 nh2 and NH3 we think that is that's
a very good thing as long long as they
and and we've looked at the reasonable
use Spas standards and they seem
reasonable and the density dwelling
units per acre also seems reasonable so
we're very pleased with those changes um
we're pleased that some of the what we
considered onerous us space standards
were removed um for missing middle
housing um we're very happy with the
minimum off street parking requirements
they seem to have been relaxed for some
of the duplexes triplexes multi family
um and we are pleased to see that
they're completely eliminated in uh the
downtown downtown and overlays we're
happy to see neighborhood centers are uh
now a recognized overlay District we
think that's a great Improvement and
we're also happy to see that the city
now has what we consider very robust
annexation process so thank you very
much for those changes and we hope they
continue thank you thank you
hi uh my name is John Holtzman uh and
I'd like to make some general comments
on uh section 5-9 on outdoor
lighting uh about a year ago um we
formed a chapter in New Mexico of an
organization called dark sky
International which is based out of
Tucson it's an international
organization that works on preservation
of natural Skies through promotion of
responsible light
and uh I was pleased and commend the
city for you know for paying attention
it's it's clear in the draft that there
is some good stuff and good thoughts on
responsible lighting and I submitted a
few comments a few months ago uh most of
which I think were Incorporated however
in the last couple of months there have
been a few interesting new developments
in particular the City of Albuquerque
adopted in their uh development code a
strong section on outdoor lighting and
dark sky International released a draft
Municipal ordinance and it was
significantly revised over their draft
from 10 years ago and I kind of feel
like a lot of what's in the current Las
cruus one is based on that older one so
I have a list of specific things which I
will pass on in writing but I'm not the
lighting expert I've been learning a lot
um but it really seems like it's an
opportunity to take advantage of some of
the work and try to establish some
consistency across the state on this
issue and and now's Now's the Time to do
it it's a shame that it just came in so
late in the process but it's just just
how it is so hopefully people can take a
look at that thank you thank
you hello Mr chairs
Commissioners uh my name is Nick choli
um I just wanted to Echo the expansion
uh of the varieties and density of
housing uh through my work with the
Donan County resilience leaders I've
seen the importance of stable housing in
the community there's an endless amount
of data that indicates that housing is a
primary determinant of both mental and
physical health outcomes housing
security is correlated from everything
to clinical depression to low birth
weight the fundamental aspect of
Survival by expanding these regulations
we are provided an opportunity for the
diverse lifestyles of Las cruises these
multi-unit rent residences and auxiliary
dwellings help provide gen Z and
Millennials with the opportunity to save
money while having housing appropriate
to their lifestyle it allows service
workers to live closer to their place of
employment and seniors and Veterans on
fixed incomes to have appropriate
accommodations um I also think it's
worth noting that um a recent literature
review found that uh provisional housing
has reduced Medicaid usage by
12% uh the use of primary care
physicians
excuse me uh has Rose risen by 20% while
emergency room visits decreased by
18% the actual the offset costs are
debatable but uh one one study reports
that uh provisional housing offsets
health care cost by $29,000 per person
so put simply in housing security saves
money thank you thank you
all right next row none row after
that my name is uh Shahid Mustafa and
I'm representing uh tailor Hood farms
and the New Mexico agrarian Commons and
I would like to commend you on all the
work that you've done and ask that you
continue cons consider uh spaces for
Community Gardens and also recognition
of native lands that exist within the
city Zone thank you thank
you uh next
row Faith Hudson for the record um
overall I want to say that I think
chapter 2 draft is a very well-crafted
and a better document than chapter 40
however there are some critical issues
that I hope the pnz commission will
recommend changing in their approval of
the chapter 2 draft a commission is a
decision-mak Authority and may be
empowered to make binding
recommendations or take action in an
email um dated September 5th 2024 Mr
favor uh wrote to the historic
preservation chair and stated that since
the HPC serves as a reviewing and
recommending body rather than a
decision-making one like the Planning
and Zoning commission it is more
appropriate under the city of Los Cruz's
municipal government structure to
designate historic preservation as a
committee rather than a commission as
former chair of the Las crusis historic
preservation commission I think this is
a
mischaracterization I want to speak
about some specific language that is in
the current chapter 2 draft that is
unchanged from chapter 4
um Decisions by community development
director can be appealed to the HPC this
is an indication that HPC is a quasi
quasi adjudicating U quasi judicial
adjudicating body Decisions by the HPC
can be appealed to pnz again another
indication that the HPC is a quas
adjudicating body consideration the HPC
considers solicits testimony and makes
written findings of fact and they weigh
evidence of measurement
I'm sorry we've got to be able to move
forward but I appreciate your comments
thank
[Music]
you really wants you to stop
talking um all
right good evening for the record my
name is Dr Judy barryman I am the
current chair of the historic
preservation commission as other people
have
noted I would like to compliment your
committee and realize Les crues for the
many changes that have been shown in
chapter two the historic preservation
commission fully supports the need for
revisions to the city development
codes the commission is an important
Comm component to the Community
Development and allows the public and
the city to determine what historic
resources are considered important and
in many cases the direction written in
the previous chapter 40 and chapter 2 is
the Public's only legal representation
on how historic resources should be
preserved I would sincerely request that
a work session be set up between your
commission and the historic preservation
so that we can discuss some of the
specific issues that were in the
discussion in question I will not
discuss whether the change from
commission to committee is appropriate
or not because it's already been
discussed but we would like to see the
change in Chapter 2 to go back to
commission as it was uh authorized for
the City uh city council and chapter 40
the second change that we would like is
that um there does not need to be a
holder for the historic preservation
specialist as the city of Las Cruses has
gone into agreements with the federal
and state governments in terms of
historic preservation there does need to
be a specialist written into the
document um and my question would be
there is a specialist right now being
interviewed and so that position does
need to be put into the document and um
again I would request that we have a
work session between the two groups so
that we can discuss specific issues
thank
you thank
[Music]
you um all right next row
good evening I'm John ver PLO for the
record uh commissioner uh chair I
appreciate the chance to address you
this evening I would just like to make
two points about chapter 2 and that is
that some of the changes that have been
wrough over the last couple of months we
haven't had a chance yet to make public
comment to um through the course of uh
canceled meetings or other occasions
that have that have come up we haven't
had we that ball has been hidden from us
to a certain extent and so I'd like to
address the fact that um within the um
designation of the historic preservation
commission as a as a committee I think
that they're not just semantics that um
as my wife was about to say that they
solicit testimony fact find they are
held to standard of review they
adjudicate questions and can be appealed
on those decisions um so those are those
are not just minor semantics about the
way that that commission is to operate
um a commission I think will just defang
the whole chapter 2 as far as the the um
intent and the character of that of that
portion of it um secondly i' I'd like to
say too that um the idea that you would
uh not no longer have a a specialist um
conducting the duties of that historic
preservation specialist you know I can
see that if you are under uh staffed
that you might relate to director and
put that decision making at that point
but you can also the the opposite can be
true as well that person can be um that
designate if the director needs to make
those decisions so I think it I find it
important that that specialized specific
um kinds of job duties are are assigned
to that person because it's a fe a
full-time position thank you thank you
chair for the record I'm Dr Paul dies
and I want to again thank the staff for
the work done on chapter uh the Elevate
L cruus especially revisions of chapter
2 several points I want to make first of
all the two historic districts that are
not included because they weren't not in
the 2001 are the msia park historic
district and the Elephant but historic
district both need to be identified as
they are now nationally second um by
having
eliminating the title of commission and
eliminating the historic preservation
specialist and specified as that in the
document you are eliminating the
possibility for city of lost crues to
continue as a certified local government
uh identified in National and state
historic
preservations and also eliminating the
chance for a lot of money to come and to
uh be able to assist in
preservation uh lastly I would like to
have specified in the chapter 2 that
when they're talking about demolition
that they are specifying in historic
districts and for historic
properties the process of uh
deconstruction so that the material the
historic material can be used for future
thank
you thank
you all right any final folks on this
side of the
room nope all right coming over here
we'll just go front to back um we'll
start with the the back row
sorry yeah all right next next row up
Joe rpre for the record I am not a
member of the historic preservation
commission I have um been an observer
and been participating in historic
preservation efforts for more than 20
years
I want to point out
that historic preservation is more than
let's just save something that looks
pretty and when I was involved in uh
participating in some of the initial
National Trust efforts to create the
national register of historic places it
was clear that there were divisions
within the preservation
Community part of what's evolved from
that is that the preservation guidelines
are really very nuts and bolts very
specific and there's a lot of uh
structure to the state and federal
statutes that not most people grasp you
really need a specialist on staff who is
Thoroughly familiar with those
guidelines and who can work with them on
a daily basis rather than thinking that
anybody who is in Community Development
can handle this task and I think we've
seen that this evening simply by the
fact that there's been more discussion
about the
uh adding of a carport to a single
family structure than to anything having
to do with historic
buildings in a Civic
sense uh this evening thank you thank
you
my name is George Pearson I'm vice
president of V crusis which is the bike
ped advocacy organization nonprofit in
Los cruus realize mirrors current code
and that it requires bicycle parking
only for new
construction there is wording to require
bike parking after a certain threshold
of changes to a property but in practice
this hasn't made any changes to require
parking we've seen changes to Walmarts
and Albertson's where bike parking is
simply
lost um realiz needs to be modified to
require bicycle parking for existing
properties there can be reasonable
requirement like it applies only say if
you have 15 vehicle parking spots then
require bike parking and it can be
phased in over a number of years uh
requiring bicycle parking in this way
helps with several goals that improve
the quality of life a sustainability
office has had Council work sessions
about how much vehicle transportation
causes pollution there are economic and
health benefits to bicycling we need to
be working towards a mode shift and that
can be done if we have safe and secure
bicycle parking so people that choose to
commute to work and stop at the grocery
store on the way home and
um this was discussed at the technical
advisory committee there was no push
back from any body so I was kind of
surprised that this was not included in
the code so I would ask that this
commission recommend a change to require
bicycle parking for existing properties
thank you thank
[Music]
you all right next row
commission and staff uh my name is Jody
Crowley I'm with the um aop of Las
Cruses Al of New Mexico I'd like to
commend you for the all the Changers
that are supporting mid um missing
middle and especially
Adu many many seniors want to age in
place most seniors want to age in place
anything you can do that will encourage
and facilitate multi-generational
families would be of Youth uh seniors
are one of the largest uh age groups
they're they're increasing and so the
the awareness of the needs of seniors
will be a real um benefit to the
community thank you thank
you any bills in that row
hello my name is Don Curts and I uh
during the first couple of hours where
we got to watch you go through this I
got I really congratulate you I think it
was wonderful your experience and and
the issues you raised were great I think
Consultants work was good I really
appreciate the staff's answers and this
has been part of a process really that
began all the way back with Elevate
where I think the city has really acted
dynamic Ally to make this a good place
and meet the goals of a of a prosperous
uh livable City and I think it's been
great um that said I hope you will as
time goes on and and as this moves
through with your comments and and
things towards the council often people
emerge at the last second and they're
all of a sudden interested in this and
and uh raise all kinds of objections and
I I hope of course you'll listen
carefully but that you will stand firm
on the things that are the essence of
this of this uh realize effort this uh
realized effort and especially the
variability of housing which I think
will be is very important and uh I speak
as a person in a in exactly the kind of
neighborhood I I think you're kind of
you're creating I live in a townhouse
myself behind us there's an apartment
complex we're surrounded by single
family housing and I've been there 35
years has watched our neighbors grow up
on either side of us it's it's a good
active neighborhood and I think that's
where we're trying to arrive so thank
you for your work I appreciate you
staying on after we leave and keeping
this going thank
you all right anybody else on this side
of the
room all right last call for anyone who
has not
spoken all right uh we will close public
comment thank you uh you are more than
welcome to say and listen to the
conversation but we won't be offended if
you leave so thank you for coming out
this evening thanks for your patience
thanks for your
input are we jumping are we jumping back
into chapter three or are we moving to
chapter four I think we move on to
chapter four okay I
agree so take a minute to review your
notes but feel free to chime in if
you've got something
on on your slideshow can you go back to
page
33 I I just have a note here and I'm
making sure it's not in this
in no that's a different chapter then
and Page 34
okay I don't know why I got page 34 on
here then because there's nothing there
thank
you no I just got a note here page 34
and I wanted to make sure that was that
was correct but there's clearly nothing
on that
page um I don't have any comments for
number four but jumping ahead spelling
mistakes for Sarah page
351 um I ex I think minimum is spelled
wrong um correct me if I'm wrong and
then um see at the very bottom notice of
w I think the W should not be
there okay you said those really fast
repeat what you just said so I can write
these down
351 um iix at the end of the sentence um
it says minimum which is mm1 m
m um and then C at the very bottom of of
that page um be given written notice of
w the permit permitted elevation I feel
like w should not be
there um on chapter four I think just
did the same comment I made earlier
about
the
um that initial question being does the
property have the correct zoning it
should be the other way around does your
project meet zoning and then you go from
there
[Music]
um section
4-3a under master plan
development
[Music]
um section 4-3
A1A uh where it references basically the
purpose of the master plan development
is to advance the the goals and
objectives of the city's comprehensive
plan uh I would also add and the other
adopted policies just to make it clear
that it's more than just the comp
plan um and that would be consistent I
think across the board we've already
stated those
um I I guess more of
a clarifying so on the same page and
this is 277 by the way uh under
2b2 annexations were sub substantial
development is not
anticipated how are we defining
substantial development is there a
definition I do not think we have a a
definition right
now is that something that we can Define
is sub substantial on its own seems
subjective
and I I think in the context in which it
is located in the that a master plan may
be omitted I think it's important that
we try to be more
objective
okay I got a clarification I uh brought
this up at the very beginning with David
we I just want to make sure I'm
understanding this correctly on a master
plan
development you don't have to have a
master plan development as long as you
do it with one phase is that so if if a
developer comes in and he says hey I'm
going to do 20 acres it's 100 Lots but
I'm going to do all of the development
at once that does not need a master
development plan is that
correct correct only if it's phased okay
so it's only if it's phased and then
then the 30 or fewer Lots kicks in is
that
correct with 30 or fewer
Lots cuz originally it was it was at the
very beginning was any more than 30 Lots
you would have to have a development a
master plan and then we we removed that
so I'm just making
sure that still stands the way it is
because the 30 throws me
off commissioner thirst I believe the 30
Lots was removed so it's only stating
what's required which those would be the
three so it's if you're dividing into
various phases if you're doing an
annexation um and then when you're going
to use the um alternate summary process
for subdividing okay so on 277 mine
still says with 30 with 30 or fewer Lots
so is that is that removed on yours when
number are you on so page 27 um section
4-3 a master plan 2 B1
that's to allow the the director to omit
the requirement for a master development
plan if there are two phases so if
you're doing a two-phase
development without that provision
you'll be required to do a master
development plan if you're doing a
two-phase development but there's fewer
than 30 Lots then the director can still
determine that you don't need it I just
need clarification on that thank you
then it's
good right final comments on section
four chapter four sorry all right moving
on
to development standards chapter five I
have a feeling we're going to have a lot
to say here go for it most my notes are
on chapter
five the uh I'm going to bring it back
up to just the building of New Roads and
fixing of old roads um one of the issues
that I had a long time ago uh was I'm
going to bring back Del Ray as a good
example and I'm not sure how to fix this
yet and I don't think it's in the code
and it's
in a development where in a road section
where a development is already finished
and it's sat there so there's some of
these that we have throughout the city
that have sat there for 10 years 20
years Del is a perfect example of the
building on the west side of Del re
right before the Park Hill subdivision
there's one on the left it goes
from when you
leave the underpass of of Highway 70 and
you go underneath so then now you're on
where Ashley Furniture is and all that
that's a four four lane you keep going
and then it goes down to a two lane and
then it jumps back up to a four lane so
in the future when whoever the developer
on the east side is because the
development is already happened on the
west side of the road when it happens on
the East we're only going to get the
other that side of the road finished so
you're going to go now from a four lane
and then when they develop it on the
right because the left has already been
developed if if you're tracking with me
here we're going to have a now a four
lane to a three lane and there's no way
that we're going to get the left side of
that road built because the development
has already happened so with that I'm
just trying to find a way I've had
discussions in the past and it says well
we don't have anything in our ordinance
that allows the city to basically build
that extra Little Road to complete a
road so I'm I'm more wondering on
completion of Roads when development is
already done and we have new development
on that half but how do we actually
finish off those small sections
throughout the city what what Provisions
what what can we put in there to
actually finalize some of these roads
and and that's just a one example but as
as staff you guys probably know of you
know 100 different locations that this
is happening and so is there anything
that we can put in here that allows the
city whether the city wants to or not
but it actually has wording in there
that says if we want to do this we have
something that says we can because
currently I believe it's written that
the city cannot do it unless there's
other Hoops that we have to jump through
you guys have to help me on that
clarification of it but can you give me
some feedback as to how do we fix that
problem
with our new code
here either either City staff or Fred
can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't
know of anything that would prevent the
city from if they wanted to do a capital
Improvement project they may have to
acquire RightWay if the RightWay wasn't
dedicated at that time but if the if the
site is already developed and then it's
not redeveloping improve the road and
the city wants to go in and complete the
project I don't know of anything that
would be stopping this city
there
were I can't remember exactly what it
was but I was I was told through staff
oh this is probably like four or five
years ago though that there was no
provision with the city to allow that to
happen I don't know what there was there
was
other there was other things in there
and I and I so I was just saying how do
we get this and they were I can't even
remember the individual that I was
chatting with at the time but anyways
they're I would love to find a way to
actually do that is there like a tax
bond is there like there uh ways to
improve it because as of right now the
code mostly most of the roads are built
by the developers right and so we wait
and we wait and we wait now you do see
like a Road Runner that was Road Runner
was put in and the bridge was put in
over there um I don't know how that
actually happened
but what process they had to go through
but U
if I guess what I'm I'm trying to just
allude to to is is how do we fix the
problem Mr chair commissioner th that
that is a good question that is
something that comes up periodically and
that's probably something that would
have to be addressed specifically with
the capital the CIP plan and maybe a
process there so not sure we can come to
uh give you an answer this evening but
that is something that we can look at
with staff um and if we're not able to
figure out a way to address that before
adoption definitely something that we
can address um with with staff as move
forward and maybe find some way to amend
something down the road but it's a good
point it's something that we can
continue to discuss with staff but I'm
not really sure what the answers would
be without bringing City manager's
office long range planning a lot of
other departments together Public Works
to really kind of hash that out but it
is a good point and we'll we'll take
note of that and and see if we can't
figure out a process moving
forward thanks I just we see it
throughout the city and it does come up
all the time as we're developing little
here and there and so I just that that's
we can have a discussion later over it
and figure out how to do that like
you're saying that's one got one more
item crossed off
here I'm going to page 370 um just a
general question maybe you can clarify
what's like the current dedication in
regards to
parks and the fees that are applicable
um to the developers um with this
current
code you say
370 Mr chair we've got uh staff from the
parks department that can answer
questions related to
that I heard the question but I'm not
sure I completely got all of it will you
repeat that sir please I guess in the
current code is there
a are we changing from the current code
to something new in this code um as far
as like reducing fees or anything in
regards to dedication of the
parks so realiz less crues is
um oh thank you Stephen B Parks and
Recreation
director realiz less crues is currently
is written is um going to a model in
which it there's Park dedication for
neighborhood park
Parks much like a fire hydrant or a
local Road and to be built at the front
end with the
development and then we do need to
finish um a study for impact fees for
the other portion that's unrelated to
this code but interacts and that will
come forward in the next um
spring and that dedication part for
neighborhood parks that's new right yes
okay and that dedication is solely on
the developer to provide the cost to and
the city doesn't chip in on any of the
costs associated with the
park there are two vehicles for um
building Parks one is Park
dedication um and the other one is
impact fees the current proposal
are currently all of that is handled
through um impact fees but the change is
going to remove is proposing that you
remove neighborhood parks and it would
be removed from the impact fee and be
put in as Park dedication currently
there's no Park
dedication so we're going to go to from
just impact fees to a portion coming
through par dedication and then a
separate distinct different portion
coming through in pack
fees okay so right now there's an impact
fee that of course connects to City
utilities water sewer whatnot um that is
paid by most likely the buyer of a new
construction home sometimes developer
you're splitting that to add a another
one or pulling out from the impact fees
to add the
dedication fee so the current impact
fee um is
$2,600 that impact fee was passed 10
years ago it um was not the full
recommended amount to maintain the
current level of service which was the
level of service for neighborhood parks
Community parks
s Aquatics and um Natatorium type
facilities we didn't have the natatorium
at the time but swimming pools and for
recreation centers what is being
proposed in this um rewrite is that
neighborhood parks would come through
the development as as um something like
you would a fire hydrant and that would
be on the front end that the cost of
that
would be removed from the impact
fee okay and it's going to be
separated so that there would be a park
dedication which is a vehicle that
hasn't been used here before but has
been in effect in the country since the
1960s and and so there'll be a portion
which will you know the pools the rec
centers the community Parks the regional
parks the trails currently are staying
in you know in the impact fee in The
Proposal just the neighborhood park
portion and you can't be double you know
charged you can't have the neighborhood
be part of the impact fee and also part
of the park dedication you have to
choose which vehicle you're
using if I if I could add to that also
part of the reason for removing
neighborhood parks from Impact fees and
instead doing the dedication route is uh
that the city would rather have a
developer dedicate and build their own
park within the subdivision instead of
giving a fee andl and then it's
difficult to have a a nearby park to
serve the residents of the subdivision
that's being built so the idea would be
if you're building a larger subdivision
you're going to dedicate the land within
your subdivision to serve the additional
residence that you're adding so that's
um some of the the rationale for pulling
it out from Impact fees and doing it
through land
edication the larger Parks the community
and regional parks that are being
addressed through impact fees those are
more of a a larger scale where it does
make more sense for the city to get an
impact fee and then the city can plan
for those larger
Parks right I got philosophy um
difference on this
the what what currently is happening is
developers will come in so you
can we can come in and put a well let me
give you a personal example um rencon
Hills is one of the subdivisions we did
as as uh kther and development we came
in and we did a 3 Acre Park
and it was
221 Lots so when we came in we are able
to receive
$2,600 back per house so the amount of
money that we would put in say there's
the 221 Lots you would times that by
$2,600 then that
$2,600 is the amount of money that I can
spend on that neighborhood park so I
spend that money on the neighborhood
park and then I get reimbursed back now
ultimately when I go and now when I
switch companies right from the
development company to the housing
company so the development company got
reimbursed for the park right so that
money has kind of washed off now as a
home builder I come in and I pay a
$2,600 fee to the city okay so that's
where the city gets the money to
basically pay this park fee that de that
basically reimburse the
developer so at the end you have a $200
fee that goes to the end user so the
person buying the home so so we have
$2,600 then the Builder in the instance
you will then Mark up everything as any
business a grocery store a t-shirt
business everything that you do you then
put your markup on it and then you turn
around and you sell it to the end
user well by changing
this as a developer and as a home
builder we I'm little bit nervous that I
will then have to put in the park okay
I'll put the park in I don't get
reimbursed anymore on the development
side so where does that cost go I am
going to put that cost back onto the
sell of the home well if now this is
this is the if question in here is if
the park impact fees that are $2,600
stay the same because the new park
impact fee that comes in or the park
impact study that comes in then says we
still need a $2,600 Park fee on top of
the park that the developer is now
required to dedicate we will then take
that $2600 and we will tack it on to the
sale of that home so the issue is is a
$2600 Park fee can now turn into which
it's still $2,600 but now we put this
additional Park neighborhood park that
I'm required to do to put in so now 2600
plus 2600 can end up being $5,200 to the
end user right but you also put a markup
on it as every single business does to
stay in business and so that $5,200
depending on who you are can will
increase to the enduser so a little bit
nervous on every single one of my homes
going up
you know and and if we're trying to keep
the
affordability of homes where this could
be one where it's not really going to
create the affordability it could it
could actually cause our houses to go up
a little bit more so I have a little bit
of issue with that on the fact that
the unknown
is
what what is the study of the park
impact feed going to come back and say
so if it comes back and says hey your
your lost Cruis is still at a
deficit so if if we are trying to get to
a so the national average which I am
starting to understand is a 10 10 acres
per
[Music]
thousand humans is that correct 10 acres
per thousand people we are trying to
achieve
A6 is that
correct so so the national average is
between 10.2 and 10.6 depending on the
size of the
community um for total Parkland and open
space okay the regional or the region
the um Park land um like neighborhood
parks Community parks and that is coming
in around between 5 and 7 depending on
the community that's typically where
that
runs yes so right now the
the reason why at least my understanding
of this why the why the parks are
changing is because we are trying to
take Los cruus to
a
healthier City a more you know there's
more Parks there's more things to do for
the Youth there's other things so I see
the pros the pros of it um in trying to
make our city a little bit better but
there's still the little bit of kinks in
there of how do we make make it better
but how do we also not cause all of the
cost to go up and then how do we prevent
the unknown of what a park fee is going
to be one of the suggestions that has
came through um is
to from the development
side is
to leave a reimbursal for neighborhood
parks in that Park impact
fee and the number that we have thrown
around was
50% so what what this would look like is
as a developer I would come in I would
build the
park however many units I have in there
I could get my
um what would that be
$1,300 per house so I would have to keep
contributing a little bit to those parks
to get them to where I need to but it it
also helps the developer in one
instance of having some type of an
understanding or some type of a buffer
to them as to what this new park impact
fee is going to come in at so if the
park impact
fee goes to
$3600 it still allows the developer to
get reimbursed some so there is a little
bit of a buffer that goes to goes to the
developer because what the the fear that
we're having is okay if we do it this
way we have just increased the cost to
everything and what we're trying to do
is at least have some little bit
of um I guess like a safety net type of
a deal of leaving a percentage allowed
for
reimbursal um for neighborhood parks not
100% anymore because that's where that's
currently we were just getting 100%
basically for neighborhood parks so what
you see is and that's happening still
currently until the new code then we're
just saying hey maybe we reduce it from
maybe 100% but we leave it at the 50%
and then that still allows the city out
of the
$2,600 they'll have that $1,300 to be
able to do the other items that are not
neighborhood parks there it for us as as
developers and home builders we think
that's a way that it'll help at least
prevent some of the cost of the homes to
increase than the way that we we
currently see it right here that's kind
of our view of it um I'll go ahead and
let you guys talk now and I think uh you
kind of said it perfectly I guess my
main concern
was of course we want to have parks and
whatnot and they provide for the
community I personally don't use them
but that's my own choice um
but the affordability comes into
question where if you the developer has
more cost on his end he's just going to
put it to the end user the buyer of the
new construction home which essentially
then would go to me um so I think if
there's a solution to come to a
compromise um I know that KT Holmes is
probably not the only developer that has
raised um concern into that um but we
kind of want to make sure that we're
coming to a compromise so that we can
continue to have development so that we
can have more housing so that the
affordability continues to um go into
the right direction that we need needed
to I just wanted to add something to you
guys Commissioners I again this is not
my line of business so I'm I mean miss
me if I'm wrong with any of this I'm
just you know voicing the I guess
observation for what the last 10 years
housing prices seemingly like doubled
right and I I know you're going to know
more stats on that than me but what is
the inventory of housing out there
reflecting on the end user price versus
this development reimbursal and how do
you you know control one factor to
another I suppose um on where that
inflation um I guess or whatever you
want to call it fees get passed along
but it's like you know if again if 5200
isn't going to be 5200 and you're going
to get marked up to
7500 you know in terms of all the other
places where margin gets tacked on on a
you know a developer or real estate and
whatever I mean I guess to me I'm just
just curious on your thoughts of that
because it seems like a a a lot to
control and not that I would want our
developers to have to pay more and thus
Force the price to go up I just seems
like a lot to
Corral it we've had behind the scenes
we've had three or four meetings with
parks on this one because it is it's not
a this one's not like an easy subject of
hey how do we how do we increase the
level of service of parks because then
there's all of the data that shows why
having parks in a in a community is
great right all the health benefits and
then we have other data that shows hey
even when you go up $1,000 on a house
you cut out it's like 75 people from
just our market and we have we have some
studies from the
nahb that shows every time you go up
$1,000 you're cutting more people people
out of the market so it's it's a
delicate it's a delicate way to like
it's a balance right it's it's it's this
dance that has to happen of how do
we how do we keep the cost down but how
do we still give the the more service
and so it really is it it really is hard
um
the the one thing I am going to say
about this new code not necessarily
Parks this this new code will help us uh
some of these clusters other mixed use
development and things like that is
going to allow us to be able to get that
price point back down to where we're at
so in 2020 we had our model home and we
used to sell an 1871 ft² home four
bedroom two bath
217,000 today that same house if we sell
it it's like
358 so parks to you know if you look at
the whole scheme of things Parks is not
the one that's going to raise our prices
from 217 to 358 right but every you know
another $5,000 that I got attack onto a
home does hurt you know and so but it's
not necessarily just it's if you look at
the market right now you're starting to
see that that we're starting to price
people out of the market in multiple
ways and so you know as as the market
dictates we we change we adapt we move
along with the market to find a way to
get these more houses and so
this development code will help um lower
some of the pricing like you can see in
the Phoenix areas that that you actually
can get the missing middle so missing
middle is going to help some of the
affordability and and fighting against
the inflation that we have but the parks
itself is is something that like me
personally I love Parks I love them you
can look at my development and you can
see in renon Hills I think we're we're
meeting the standard that Parks wants us
to meet in in the one that we did um and
so I I try to do that I think it's I
think it's a benefit there's health
benefits there's all that kind of stuff
we just want to make sure that we're not
we're doing this uh this Balancing Act
to where we're trying to get maximize
maximize it to the end user without
trying to raise the price of homes just
because of a of a new ordinance that
comes in does that does that help out at
all yes it it sure does and I mean I
guess the further commentary I had on
that for instance um talking about like
tree removal permitting and things like
that I guess I don't entirely know what
the maintenance and the upkeep of you
know particularly a twot tree and water
requirements are going to you know
require over you know the life of that
tree versus for instance more uh desert
environment drought tolerant kind of
plants and stuff so I guess those were
kind of things on like where can cost be
controlled in different places over a
long period of Time Versus maybe passed
on to the developer or the end user I
don't know and again this is just
commentary I have I have a couple more
questions on on the part for you guys if
that's okay so page uh 365 Parkland
dedication
and also if you'll go on your I believe
it's page 33 on your on your uh
slideshow
here so if you go to C Parkland Parkland
dedication number
two uh just
a we need to update your mathematical
equation on
the um in the
booklet in
the um on your section on this slideshow
it's correct so if you do the math here
there's a the little divide by a
thousand people on this 365 it says
equals acres to be dedicated on
population so if you try to actually use
this formula it doesn't work but you one
on your slideshow works I think it's a
formatting issue the thousands all the
way over on the right
yeah so that's just a small that was
just a small little thing that you can
fix on that one good uh Mr thirst yet we
were looking at my version versus
Sarah's version and appears to be a
formatting issue depending upon how it
was printed out and and so we'll take a
look at that
awesome um now I go on
to uh it's still under
C
4 c4a land dedication for a neighborhood
park shall be a minimum of three
continuous acres in size if you follow
down it'll also say that walk sh on c
walk sheds
um of a quarter mile uh will be
provided and
then um so on those two I my question is
here do you have any examples for us
what that actually looks like because
this is looking like every half a mile I
have a 3 Acre
Park do you have examples of that that
we can actually see
to commissioner thirst members of the
commission uh that that's something that
we can pull for you uh it's a
recommendation that comes directly out
of our Parks master plan um but you're
correct in your assessment of what that
actually means um and we can see if we
can get some examples that can show you
what that looks like thank you then the
other part of that is the reason why I
want the the examples is because when I
come in and or not me necessarily but a
developer comes in and they are trying
to do this this uh in
middle and I have to dedicate 3 acres
versus these pocket parks that you'll
notice if you go and look on online go
to Google Earth and just start zooming
in all over the places that are actually
having this missing middle and you'll
notice a lot of smaller
parks and you're not going to see a 3
Acre park that's always there and so I
have a little bit of design criteria
issues that this is going to this is
going to create um some issues when
we're trying to do urban areas when
we're trying to still create the
walkability we're trying to create the
trails and the minimum is a 3 Acre
dedication that's going to cause a
little bit of hindrance in the design
process of building so I just wanted to
bring that up that might be of
um further discussions on how how do you
actually achieve 3 acres when we're
trying to
densify um some of these places and I
would second that comment too I think it
kind of handcuffs us in many ways um
having lived in more urban areas um yes
you want to have your larger you know
fields that you can throw a football
around in or or baseb or whatever but
there's something to be said to just
finding that little nook and cranny um
that's all the all the your own for that
you know 30 minutes that you're there um
we don't need to you know slice it up
into little um little tiny pieces but I
think having some flexibility there um
particularly in our Urban core um I I
think we should highly consider that
that would be my recommendation as
well on on
D um it says land must not be located on
a
caac um once again I'm going to go back
to Google Earth and I look down in the
Phoenix Valley and what you'll see is in
order for we're we're trying to promote
a lot of the
Trails right and open spaces and what
I've seen down there is they actually do
two cects that will join together well
not totally join but then it creates
that open space for that trail to come
throughout the entire uh the entire
neighborhood to still keep that
contiguous so if if you are going to
require um it to be a 3
Acre one of the good ways to be able to
do that is if I make that Park a little
bit skin year right and now I make 3
acres in a longer fashion well I want
these access points possibly by culde
saacs and also the culde saacs are good
places for people to park so there might
be other design criteria that we can
instead of the culdesac having the
houses on the end the culde saacs are
there but also for parking for Parks so
I there's a couple little design
criterias that that way that I'm not I'm
not a fan of not allowing a park to be
on a culdesac because of that um also in
H3 within a 100-year flood you can't put
a
park um I love Park ponds rencon Hills
is a Park Pond it allowed me and the
citizens to actually use a park pretty
much 99% of the time in Los cruus
because it does not rain here very
often and because it doesn't rain here
very often that allows us to use more
Parks so in our specific Park we were
not allowed to take the drainage and
calculate it into
the overall I believe Park reimbursement
or something there there was something
to do with that and so we kept it
outside of it but it allowed that extra
like 75 of an acre to be put in and then
we grasped it and everything and so now
today if you go over there you'll see a
lot of kids playing it in soccer but um
I do understand that on the park side
there is a little bit of hesitancy for
wanting to do that because there is a
difference with Parks is Parks drainage
is drainage right and they they don't
want these two mix they're you know if
we do ask Steve I'm pretty sure Steve's
going to say hey it it brings weeds in
when the wind you know when the when it
rains it brings the weeds in and then
it's a little bit harder to to deal with
however the the overall good I think
outweighs the bad in being allowed to
have that 100-year flood if you want to
have any comments on that there's
deep if not I'll keep going
I did have one comment on that for the
just to be sure that you saw that that's
um no more than half the park can be in
the 100y year flood plane so half of the
park can be in a flood plane just not
the entire
park okay that's good then at least it's
there yeah Steve bam Parks and
Recreation director um there's a lot of
comments that have been made and um a
couple things I think ought be added to
the conversation is is not only is that
quarter mile um standard in our adopted
master plan but it is also the standard
that is recommended Across the Nation
and is adopted in a lot of the
communities the the other thing is is
when we looked at the acreage and we
went with three acres
minimum um that was one of the lowest
that we were seeing we we found a lot of
other communities that were up for
neighborhood minimums up to 5 Acres as a
minimum
requirement
um I I don't think we
dislike having parks that have some
shared space with some drainage but it
has to be done right and it has to be
done in a way that
um it's not just the leftovers that
minimize the the um play value and the
park value to the residents and so I
think there's some compromise and some
creativity that is needed
there all right well you're well you're
finding your next talking point I have
got one um sticking on the topic of
parks uh for the moment um
this is Page
368 in my copy this is
under uh criteria for
dedication um this
is
yes uh Chris favor for the record you
don't currently have a quorum we got to
wait okay well hold on that then is is
that the rules we got to wait if he's if
he's gone okay can I give a spelling
suggestion
for
e e
all right we've got Quorum again um so
my my comment was uh on page 368 this is
under uh in Parks under G criteria for
dedication um number two is land
dedication for open space or unimproved
Park land must be preserved in its
predevelopment state um I'd offer up
that restoration projects should also be
considered
uh I know there's a lot of quote natural
develop or uh desert out here that's
probably not really natural anymore so I
think having some restoration options
would be a good thing um I think that
would also open up opportunities for the
more urban part of town where perhaps
aoos that have been channelized could be
unchannelized
um and then I think my so
I'm not the park expert here in the room
but I think generally speaking um
I agree with I think most of what's in
here
with I think the exception of having
just more flexibility in the design of
the parks I don't think we should be
putting our eggs all in one basket of a
3 Acre contiguous I think we should
allow for site constraints to factor in
there um I think the total amount is
reasonable in most cases I am a little
concerned with that number for our more
urban part of town I guess you would
just do your inlo fee in that situation
but something to consider there um but
overall I think you know the approach
from the the the development standard
side I agree with uh the impact fee part
I'll leave that to other people to hash
out I would just say
um we be flexible and willing if things
don't work in the future the way that we
thought they were that you know there's
a recognition that we can come back and
and make changes so that would just be
my comment on that um but I have no
further comments on
[Music]
Parks okay I got another
one um going back well going back to C
Parkland five Parkland
improvements um installation requirement
uh improvements shall defer to the parks
and wreck facility standards manual one
do we have that we don't have that
manual yet right okay so I just needed I
just have the note in here that says
we'd like to see that
someday and then um and be coordinated
with and approved by the park director
or
their
design
um the word Parks director or the design
one thing that has happened to me in the
past uh 7 years 10 years of doing this
is H I call it
the uh regime change right when one Park
director leaves and I get a new park
director so do the rules change and then
when I get another one so do the rules
change again and
so sometimes it is frustrating to know
to not know what you're going to do as a
developer when you are developing
Land There is a uh time is of the
essence in some cases and when you are
waiting on a park director or something
to come back from Parks and you do not
get an answer and you
wait you then move forward in your
development knowing that you're going to
put this park in here and so we don't
have we don't have agreements signed we
don't have other things like that but
there's also no way of me
understanding what is required of me to
put in that Park currently and so if I
move forward I'm taking my best guess
that what I'm going to put get put in is
what the city is going to want and so
sometimes it puts me in a situation
where I have to move forward and I make
my best guess but it has burned me in
the past and so I just have a little bit
of you know just the regime change
sometimes you change the rules with it
if there's a way I don't know how to
word that in here other than that is
something that has happened so if
there's a way to in your guys' codes or
if that is in your facility standards
manual that gives me the standards of
what to expect then that would also that
would help me to know if I don't have an
agreement with Parks I can then go to
your standards manual put in and knowing
that I should get that type of a
agreement made even if I don't have an
actual physical agreement does that make
sense so that that's just a point of
clarity making sure that we have
something like that in I don't even know
what to say other than
that commissioner thirston uh members of
the commission uh as we move forward
with that manual uh we will include
um sorry Katherine Harrison Rogers for
the record parks and W um we will we
will in include you in on those
conversations as we develop those of
course that'll be a a working document
we have a lot of the materials and just
essentially have to assemble it all but
um something that will be done in the
next several months as we move forward
with with this as well so okay thanks um
I'm going to move on to the next
question just for you Trails
1A at the end the wording says and
exercise stations are installed is is
the wording in here where it says
extensions of the public Trail and
network shall be included in the
calculation of the amount of dedicated
Parkland when the trail and amenities
include Street streets and Landscaping
Street furnishings and exercise stations
are installed does that mean I have to
put it or anyone else has to put
exercise
stations Mr thirston uh members of the
commission again kathern Harrison Rogers
for the record um we can look at that I
think and is probably the the the wrong
word to use there it should be um Andor
as or as described by the the manual um
but that's something that we can look at
I agree that may be a a a problematic
statement I just I just know staff is
going to look at that and say where's
your where's your workout equipment it
says and understood I think improvements
perhaps and we can we can look at how
that can be clarified a little bit okay
now I'm going to jump over to alternates
to Parkland dedication
I now this is the land so if I
understand this if I give if I give up
land I then still have to give a fee on
top of that is that correct in the
current way it is
written could you repeat the question
please again kathern Harrison Rogers was
staff as I was writing down all I heard
was I if you could repeat it please in
in basically the subject of I yes right
alternates to Parkland dedication yes
um and maybe that's not just the only
spot but also in Jay where we can either
dedicate land only I it looks like
there's a couple of different options
but if I'm for
clarification we would have to give up
land and then also have to give up a
park fee is that
correct so in again commissioner thir
members of um of the commission this is
kathern Harrison Rogers for the record
um in this particular section this is
when there are instances whereby perhaps
it doesn't make there is not three acres
to dedicate correct and so you would be
doing a fee and L in the situation or uh
perhaps you're adjacent to an existing
Park and it makes sense to then dedicate
land or improve portions of an existing
Park and so these are providing
alternatives to dedicate Parkland build
so in those situations where it just
doesn't make sense the development is
not quite large enough based on a number
of circumstances such as adjacency to
another Park etc etc these are some
Alternatives that one could
employ did I answer your question yes
now on a fee in Li
I I feel that because your a your
minimum is going to be three acres I
believe you're going to have more people
using a fee and L
which is going to be an opposite effect
of what we're wanting the fee and L so
you're in order to give
up three acres you're going to have to
have a larger tract of land for that
that calculation to work
out and if you're not going to if you
I'm going to say if you have something
less than 40
acres you're most likely going to just
pay a fee in
L and because of that I think we'll just
have more developers basically just say
here's my fee I'm done I don't have to
worry about putting a park in I don't
have to really worry about putting a
trail in I don't have to CU I don't have
to do it anymore and so if I have a 10
acre tract that I can put a 1acre park
or a Halfacre Park and then I can put a
trail contiguous to another one it gives
a lot more flexibility and I think we'll
have more Parks built in the city of Las
Cruses that way that we currently have
it whereas the 3 Acre minimum once again
I do I do see some developers that I
have chatted with will probably pay a
fee instead just that's more of
a a personal opinion I should say but I
do think that's what would happen with
that um I don't have really anything
else for Parks Mr chair uh if I might um
sort of elaborate on something that
commissioner thirst did
say um Catherine yes Katherine Harrison
Rogers again for the record um we shared
your concerns in terms of of of forcing
people into a fee and lose situation but
during our discussions internally one of
the ideas that did come to mind is that
this doesn't preclude the city from
perhaps working with the developer to
then actually reimburse or purchase land
so that there can be a partnership so
that 3 acres or something like that
could be developed as part of the
process so it would be more of a
partnership perhaps in those situations
rather than just a straight Fe and L if
at all
possible as a as a uh Planning and
Zoning Board
um as the development community that I'm
from we support basically almost
everything in this from we've gone
through the whole process with it the
the parks is the only one right now that
we basically have a hangup with in
theory of of how things are going to
kind of work out we're we're still a
little bit in the dark we don't H we
don't have the warm fuzzies yet and so
as a Planning and Zoning commission I in
order for it to basically go to city
council and then get the recommendation
from that Home Building side and the
developer
Community um I I do think it would be
great for for us to
recommend
that those two entities that the parks
and the um development Community can get
together and have a solution before
going to city of Las crues I would love
to just see this be able to just go into
the City councilors and not have to have
this Parks discussion there it would be
great for us as basically the
development Community to come in and say
hey we support it let's go and we don't
have really any issues to it
cuz that that is really the only area
that we still have concerns
on so maybe in an effort to um to
continue the conversation this evening
perhaps when we see this again in
November staff in your presentation can
maybe present some examples of where
this approach has
worked I think maybe might be helpful um
I'm not saying that it will change your
mind but at least maybe it will give you
some context and that the concerns that
are being raised I think are completely
valid because the whole idea I think
we're all trying to achieve here is we
need more housing and we don't want to
give ourselves more rope over here just
to take it away over here um so I think
maybe that might help further the
discussion if staff could um maybe plan
on having some
information in November
um
so I have a couple more questions uh I
Stephen B Parks and Recreation director
I'd make one comment I think a little
bit that a lot of these
um developments that are going to be
coming
in are that you're typically deal with
you're concerned that you need to be
able to get three acres out of that what
you've got to recognize is it's per
thousand
people and so there's a significant
number of houses and units and I believe
it's it like
667 or something we had a calculation on
and I can provide that to you later
but that is a significant number and so
there's going to be
um working together with subdivisions
and plots are next to it or like
um was mentioned that we may we may need
to buy a portion of land or work out a
development agreement because the
requirement for your development is only
big enough for one and a half acres if
we're going to get to the 3 Acre minimum
we're going to have to come to the table
with a solution so
yeah commissioner I I I don't I don't
think I have an any issue nor nor some
of the developers that I have with the 3
Acre per thousand I don't think we have
an issue with the actual calculation of
it it's more
a application of it is is I think I've
given the example of like a 10 acre
tract of land right now if I do my 10
acre tract of land and I get a high
density of this six and maybe I get 160
units well I still can't give up 3 acres
in a 10 acre tract and and get what you
need it just does it doesn't work that
way and so you'll end up paying a fee in
L but so
on but if you allow the flexibility of
that 3 Acre to to reduce the size it
will allow us to put those parks in in
other areas cuz if not we we are going
to have to do what you said there is you
know if I have a 10 acre well maybe I'm
going to carve off half an acre here and
then cross my fingers that the adjoining
neighbor with a development wants to
attach his new park to my park right so
that we can get even bigger so it's it's
just it's tough that's all I'm going to
say on that it it is
tough um last questions that I have
technical manuals that have been
mentioned are they provided after
adoption or are they part of it prior to
adoption Mr chair um commissioner Murray
Sarah Gonzalez um Economic Development
they will be provided at the same time
so they will be adopted in accordance
with each other so if realiz is to be
adopted then the techn technical manuals
will be adopted as
well okay do we need to review those as
part of this or provide comments on it
or they kind of just
typical Mr chair commissioner maray
normally when you see um technical
manuals they are usually reviewed by
staff um we have had supplementary
developers look at them to see if they
understand or can actually Implement
some of that it will be out for public
review um it will not have to have pz's
recommendation for adoption though okay
perfect and then on this equation that
we have on the screen here how do you
calculate people per unit like I'm just
thinking you could have a retired couple
it's only two people you could have a
family of
multiple with
kids commissioner Murray uh members of
the commission again Katherine hon
Rogers of Staff um periodically every
five years we actually do uh what's
called land use assumptions um and
there's sort of two parts to this um one
is people per unit if you're talking
about single family home versus a multif
family and there are um some analyses
that are done we typically hire a firm
that helps us create these land use
assumptions that says okay based on
current census Trends and a number of
other things we're estimating there's 2
point some odd people per single family
unit uh but there are only 1 point I
don't know six people or 1.9 people per
multif family unit so that's one piece
of the P puzzle and that's a that's
something that's updated periodically so
that that we can match kind of our
growth Trends and how things are
actually functioning the other piece of
the puzzle is actually uh when you're
doing a master plan or you're doing a
development plan uh you generally um are
are provided information from a
developer that says x amount of acres is
going to be multif family x amount of
acres is going to be single family and
you can do some some some uh quick
estimates in terms of how many units and
then how many people um based on the
underlying zoning or what's being
proposed on a master plan okay perfect
um I have just last two quick ones um
last spelling one
3815 a just like to get all these in
otherwise I forget at the very end of
the sentence it says maximum of 8T in8
I'm assuming that is not correct um and
then my very very last one um I don't
need a printed copy but when we come to
meeting
next November whatever um is there a way
that we could get redlined or what items
have changed throughout the pages um
just so that we
can be sure that we're reviewing
or recommending um our comments on
tonight's
meeting Mr chair and commission yes we
will be providing um any of the updates
that we would make um prior to the code
revision you have in your hand so that
was dated October 2nd there has been a
modification from the October 15th we
already have those documented and then
if we do any other modifications from
anything we've taken back from the work
session tonight and put those into code
then we'll provide those so they will
all be referenced back into your code as
those changes are being modified
all right I've I've got a few other
comments that are not related to Parks
but before I move off of parks um going
back to the inl
fee is
it my understanding that it's one or the
other so like if you didn't have the
minimum
required you either pay into the inl fee
or is there an option for a combo like I
I could give you one acre and then I'll
pay
in is that option available as it's
written Mr chair members of the
commission um I I don't think there's
anything Co in the code that precludes
something like that from happening um
there's a lot of difference given to um
the the parks director to make some
judgment calls if need be um but we can
inspect that a little bit more closely
to make sure that people could um have
some variability if you will okay
I don't know if that's something that
the development Community would be open
to but it seems like that might kind of
thread the needle there it it might help
some but the the one question that when
you ask
that the fee and L in if I understand
this from what I
read which mine might not
but the f andl is going to incorporate
the um amount of units times that by
currently would be Times by 2600 and
additionally
whatever
[Music]
um land use that I would have had I have
to pay that fee too am I understanding
that correctly so there's kind of two
there's two calculations on the
financial model of what I have to pay
you for the fee I'm going to have to pay
you for a land so you could purchase it
somewhere else and I'm going to have to
pay the per unit cost to have a fee in
Loop am I understanding that correctly M
Mr thirston um Steve bam parks and recre
director um you threw out the number
2600 which is the current impact fee the
impact fee is a different side the fee
in L is related to the park dedication
requirement which is related to just the
neighborhood park function it is not
related to the impact fee that would go
forward for Community parks recreation
centers trails and um aquatic
facilities just to clarify again
Katherine Harrison Rogers for the record
again the the fee and Li is going to be
based on cost of land Plus cost of
improvements of that
land okay so right here where it says a
fee set by the city council based on the
market value of the required acreage and
that's something that we um are looking
into having is done as part of the
yearly fee schedule that's adopted but
it'll be based on most current
pricing it also depends on where you buy
that
land so if I if I go and I buy if I if
city council comes out and says hey we
want you to buy land for us to put a dog
park and wrting on Ren
can and Highway
70 that land is going to be extremely
expensive because it's commercial land
but yet it was created into a dog park
or if you go and you buy land
elsewhere that's cheaper you know and
that could be in a neighborhood so there
there's a little bit of gray area there
also as to how are we going to get that
fee assessed so the fee in l once again
can just be a arbitrary number depending
on who is on city council at the time
and what they feel is the best number
for us to pay
just throwing that out
there Step bam Parks and Recreation
director um remember the fanlu is
neighborhood parks it's going to be in
the
subdivisions which is residential land
um there may be times of dog park is a
specialty Park that would be
responsibility of the city and would be
unrelated to the fee in Lou that would
be achieved through the impact fee
so the fee and L will be figured based
on the development costs for a
neighborhood park in the subdivisions in
the residential
area uh what what you said there I don't
actually read it in
here I don't it doesn't it doesn't read
neighborhood parks
unless I'm I'm not understanding it
correctly but it's not saying it has to
be fee and L is not going to be
calculated that way because then it goes
on to park fund establishment a separate
fund um deposit at the highest rate
interest interest rate by law Park fund
shall be and is hereby created The Money
Paid into the fund shall be held um
basically for the purpose of purchasing
or improving public park and
recreational land within the city so
so if if what you're saying is
for fee inl is for residential Parks
then I would like you to actually add it
in there as that's the residential
Park sir um Steve bham Parks and
Recreation
director we we'll go back and look at
that language but we're talking about
the park dedication
vehicle and and that is is strictly
neighborhood parks and so we'll go there
and see if there's something we can do
create Clarity but it it is the intent
is is it's neighborhood parks for fee
and Lou impact fee is everything
else so I agree with you right
now but when we get a new parks director
then they have a different they might
not agree with us
now again we'll look at the language and
note your concern and see how we can
make sure it's
clear
thanks all right I want to jump back to
the beginning of section five
um this is section 5-2 on page 301 this
is roads rise away and parking uh the
purpose um nice lovely paragraph there
um but in the middle of it it says in
all Transportation decisions safety
should be prioritized to ensure the
well-being and protection of every
individual traveling within the city uh
I know my differences between should and
shell would strongly encourage that
should become a shell um for example I
rode my bike here tonight and I it
wasn't um my
uh my desire that I arrive here safely I
really wanted to arrive here safely and
I think everybody in the city should be
afforded that opportunity and I think if
we're really serious about solving some
of our um Road Safety challenges we will
um absolutely make that a
priority
um I what what number was that one again
um sorry this was on page 301 section
5-2a it's in the middle of that
paragraph
um I have some concern on page 302 uh
section c down number eight uh for
intersection Design This is um around
the no fire apparatus shall encroach
into oncoming
traffic
um they already do that uh emergency
vehicles do what they need to do to get
through intersections get through
traffic everybody works out in the end
it's not that big of a deal I'm
concerned that this requirement is going
to ensure that every intersection that
we ever build in this city will be
overbuilt for one purpose and disregard
the safety of other Road
users
um the vast majority all right I don't
know the statistics but I'm pretty sure
that the response rate to car crashes in
the city far
exceeds putting out fires and here we
have an opportunity to reduce the
severity and the frequency in which
those crashes happen I think we
shouldn't be undermining it just so that
we can get our fire Tru there
faster
[Music]
um this one section I I do have a lot of
concerns with I don't want to really
dive too far into the weed since um we
are at almost 10:00 I think generally
speaking I have just overall I I just
don't really feel like the safety part
is making its way into the the proposed
cross-sections I do appreciate that we
removed the um or we allowed for Road
reconstruction so redoing roads that
already exist having that be outside of
this cross-section standards because it
does give us the flexibility that we're
going to need to be able to solve these
problems uh so I agree with that I I
just I have a lot of problems with the
way that we've got them identified for
New Roads
specifically um we've got to get travel
Lanes to 11 ft it's in the act of
Transportation plan you look at all of
the literature out there 11 ft needs to
be our Target or smaller particularly on
local
streets um it's a natural traffic
calming measure it's easy to do our
emergency vehicles can still get through
um we need to get there
um we should not be encouraging the use
of cheros which are the the bike lane
markings in the middle of the travel
Lane um they provide no safety um to any
cyclists the data supports that um in
fact the what is considered sort of the
brainchild of that particular
infrastructure has come out and said
that it doesn't work it it doesn't
provide any value to anybody it doesn't
improve safety now I do believe that it
serves a purpose when other traffic
calming measures are also implemented so
if you look at bicycle boulevards for
example those obviously have the sherrow
markings but they're in conjunction with
all those other traffic caling measures
that make it safe for cyclist so I agree
with them in that context all the other
context that should not even be
something that we're
considering
um we should
be absolutely setting the standard that
our bike lanes are physically
protected by something other than paint
so a painted buffer is not protection
particularly on our collector and AR
arterial roads would like to see that
the standard be that there's some sort
of physical barrier um if Flex posts is
the happy compromise with Public Works
um willing to consider it but just
having a paint that looks like for all
intents and purposes another bike lane
uh is not going to stop the lifted
pickup truck from running you
over
um I I'm also
not really sure I understand the transit
Lane concept I mean I understand the
concept but in Los cruus I just don't
know how practical that is um I think
the biggest thing that comes to mind is
how are we going to enforce it um if you
look at all the other cities that have
attempted these sort of Transit only
Lanes um drivers still use them they
still double Park in them so unless
there's like a physical separation
um I I just don't know how it's actually
going to
um
function
um I've lost my place on the
cross-sections here
sorry um and then along along those
lines um so is the idea that every new
arterial principal arterial Road would
have
a
a bus lane I guess is that regardless of
whether or not there's even a a bus
route so that's just the other
um General remark I'm not asking
necessarily for any um any answers at
this moment but that would just be
something I just I just don't see how
this would
actually um play out here in Los cruus
at this stage um I'm also not a fan of
buses and bikes missing part mixing
particularly if there's no physical
separation um because a driver is just
going to see an open Lane and they're
going to take it um regardless of
whether or not there's a cyclist sitting
there
um and then also just the passing of
buses and Transit vehicles I mean if you
don't have a curban gutter then yeah
they can you know the bus can go wide
and get around but if they do 13 ft
you're going to enter conflicts there
that I think are kind of
unnecessary
um the boulevard cross-section uh
currently no bike facilities are um
appear to
be part of that that needs to get fixed
uh same with the Avenues there needs to
be bike
facilities um the one big thing that's
missing on streets for my opinion is we
don't have any um recommended uh
intersection designs um the only thing
that we talk about when it comes to
intersections is Clear Sight lines
that's from one point of view a
driver a lot of conflict happens between
cyclists and pedestrians at
intersections um some of the basics um
you know the curb extensions the
directional curb cuts um that actually
sends you in the direction you ought to
be going as opposed to kind of
diagonally out into traffic um those
should be standard in every intersection
that we design um I'd like to see that
incorporated since we have sight lines
why not have these other elements around
safety particularly from non Automotive
users um March crosswalks always um I
mean the amount of crosswalks in the
city is shocking low and I know there's
this concept of an implied crosswalk
which makes absolutely no sense implied
to who certainly not drivers um we need
to have marked crosswalks that's the
standard that should be the
standard
um can I can I ask a question while
you're going through those
so what is this what is a speed limit of
like a Boulevard
what would the recommended speed limit
of a Boulevard
be and while while you're looking for
that let me give you the reason why is
because when when you are biking and and
I bike with my kids to school quite
often
um but as long as I'm going through a
neighborhood I feel safe with my kids
and I even allow them to ride their bike
to school and it's only about a mile and
a half from where we live to go so
but on days like if I need to go
anywhere else I rode from my house which
is somewhere it's it's off of Ren Canada
and I rode all the way over to the um
Veterans Park and it's an electric bike
so I am not going to say I'm I'm the
bicyclist right because it's electric
but I throw my kids on the back and we
said hey we're going to go today there's
a little party we're were going to go to
well when the speed
limit is 35 45 mil an hour and all of a
sudden you don't have a place to to bike
I had my daughter on the back and I just
kept telling hey uh look behind us tell
me tell me so I'm sitting there pedaling
as fast as I can and it's electric bike
so we could at least go 20 M an hour and
then I would get over to the side when
she would say Hey Dad move over and then
we'd kind of go back again because there
was no Pathway to do it but the reason I
the reason I say that is because on a
Boulevard if the speed limit is still
too high if it's 45 mph or if it's I
think if it's 25 or under you might not
necessarily need a bike lane like in a
like an Avenue you might not necessarily
need a bike lane and on there's a
YouTube video a YouTube guy called not
just bikes um he does a lot of stuff
with with biking kind of like that
you're explaining right now and he shows
when you when you can share the road
with a bike or share the road with a car
and a bike and when you can't and I
thought that was very very use useful
for me in planning and doing
developments and things like that but I
also think it does have to do with speed
limit so if a b Boulevard is fairly slow
it's not too bad but engineering wise
when we start doing engineering
Engineers love space I mean if they can
have more space because more space means
more safe but in reality more space
means higher speeds and it's actually
not safer and so a lot of the
times smaller tighter actually will the
visual speed bumps or
visual speed you know calming measures
are better and so I I agree with you
kaer on this one is that there's
everything is wide everything is big and
there's two factors on that that that's
negative uh one it's great for traffic I
mean if that's if that's the the city
that we're going to continually be which
we are we're car dominant City but it
also causes a lot of
money in maintenance of a city the more
asphalt you have the more maintenance
you you're going to have and that's why
you see in our budgets that residential
housing really is not doesn't probably
make enough tax dollars to pay for all
the upkeep of that of that subdivision
for long that's why we always try to
push it more to Urban and other things
like that that we can actually have the
tax dollar to provide for it so sorry I
I'm going to let you keep going here but
I I do think the speed limit would
determine on if that's okay do you have
that speed limit on the boulevard
now um we don't have assigned speed
limits in the code um that wouldn't be
regulated by the code but one one thing
I did want to mention it doesn't
entirely address the comment but maybe
partially the 12 foot um they're labeled
multi-use path sidewalks the ones that
are 10 and 12 ft those are intended to
be a shared pedestrian and bicycle use
so if it was a situation like kids
riding to school by themselves for
example they would be able to ride on
the multi-purpose uh excuse me multi-use
path the bike lanes are of course
intended for more experienced Riders and
things like that so they serve a
different purpose but the um those are
available in the boulevard
cross-section thanks yeah thank you I I
missed that um so I appreciate that
clarification um and and yeah I think i'
echoed the the speed limit thing though
I think it's important to remember that
um it's it's the design speed not just
the speed limit I mean you could put a
sign up on I 10 that says 25 miles an
hour no one's going to follow that speed
limit so um it's very much the design
speed that I think we need to be
factoring into these
cross-sections um you know do we need 22
ft on a local road with parking on both
sides because most likely there won't be
parking on both sides so you've got just
a natural racetrack going through
neighborhoods um just because you
classify it as such doesn't mean that
that's what's going to end up
happening
um wanted to move on to traffic impact
analysis let get back to where that
was um so this is on page 323
um I know I know in the presentation it
was talked about I think it was talked
about um multi
modal traffic impact
analyses but
in in the draft that I have that does
not appear to be very
explicit so I don't know if I know at
one point it was um maybe I missed it um
not sure if anybody else has seen
that the multimodal aspect is included
in the in the technical manual which I
understand you you don't have right now
to look at that but um that is included
I'm not sure if there's anyone from
Public Works um left remaining remaining
to speak to that but it is included in
the tech manual
okay um yeah this is one example where
uh it would be really great to see that
technical manual um
I guess and and maybe this is in the
technical manual now I don't know but in
figure
52-13 page
323 um you know we have peak hour trips
uh I think we need to specify that the
Tia should also include non-motorized
trip
Generation Um particularly in places in
our Urban core um where the whole point
is to we're reducing our automobile
use uh I have never seen a traffic
impact analysis recommend shrinking a
road it doesn't happen the whole point
of them is to increase the road um
that's historically how they've been so
we need to find and encourage developers
when they are doing this um to have the
appropriate analyses that are going to
achieve the end results that we're that
we're seeking um I think there also
needs to be an emphasis on local trip
data uh the the code the current um
language references the it uh trip
generation manual but I think we need to
also encourage local trip count data and
um other policies uh that the city has
as these analyses are being developed
because again it's not we're just doing
the Tia because we want traffic to flow
faster the Tia is one piece of a larger
policy objective that we're trying to
meet if the goal is to have more
walkable pedestrian friendly communities
we don't want to then turn around say
but our Tia said we need a five Lane
Highway well okay then what's the point
we're not a a pedestrian oriented
development at that point
[Music]
um going on to uh this is well page 324
are you still on TI yes okay
good I'll I'll let you know and I I'm
don't the thoughts I only have a couple
more
um under special circumstances when the
Public Works director um may require a
TIA I wanted I suggest that we
add
another
item which would and I don't have the
language I could send some language that
um I have as an example Le but basically
having the ability if there's
concerns with that
development and trip generation as it
relates to non the safety of
non-motorized
users I think that should also be a
trigger point that could trigger a
TIA um to say hey we're adding just as
an example the the project is going to
require a slip lane well I would argue
that that slip plane is going to
severely undercut safety of pedestrians
who might be Crossing at that
intersection so um I would just
recommend uh adding something along
those lines of when a TIA may be
triggered when it's not already
required
um I think I have one more other comment
on TIA give me one second
while you're looking that up can I can I
go on TI all right so on uh on C and D
on page
324 which be what 5-2
g3c on The Following on the previous
page it also says the following provid
specific situations where Tia shall be
required on C it says building permit
so is that meaning that every time I
pull a building permit anywhere I'm
going to have to put a
TIA and then driveway permits
development plans I think it's I think
it's requiring us to put a TIA in way
too many spots in that specific one I
just I also had a couple of people call
me and also say hey can we uh please
bring that one up because I think it's
asking for Tia's wait too often and tias
are fairly expensive so when you when
you do have to go out there and you if
it's something simple a building permit
that we don't need a TIA but this is
requiring that we have it on basically
all of them so I just wanted a
clarification on on that one just to be
sure I'm understanding your your comment
so on g3c building permit driveway
permit or development plan it's saying a
TIA is required for any building permit
it's Etc if the project meets the
requirements of the table on the
previous page
um so it it wouldn't be for any building
permit it would only be if it met the if
it only means trip generation yes not
necessarily for any building
permit okay and then the other one on
D um it it gives the basically the
Public Works director any opportunity
whenever they basically want to require
a
TIA and don't know if that's a a good
thing or a bad thing either that that
was something that was just brought up
to we what it'll end up doing is we just
might have to have a TIA on every single
project that we do if if it's left up to
them that's all I got on TI back to
you I'm I'm done with
ti move on
um I'm sorry can I add one last thing to
this please okay um I'm just and in kind
of regards to Tia what I'm looking at is
the traffic calming device and um it
refers to I believe on
311 let's
see up or excuse me up at the top of 312
about the traffic calming device and it
talks about the new devel velopment
shall Implement traffic calming measures
as required in the traffic calming
section of the technical manual to which
we have uh are aware that we are not
able to see the technical manual just
yet however the thing that I was curious
about there is just like kind of the
post review of traffic calming stuff I
know you know for instance in in our
Planning and Zoning meetings it often
seems to come up about places of
congested traffic Ingress egress as we
get to whatever uh situation we may be
handling that night you know other parts
of that area that have you know issues
with traffic come up I don't entirely
know where you know maybe a TIA in this
situation could potentially be initiated
or how some of that feedback could be
handled you know I guess uh in the post
end versus instead of I guess we're not
necessarily able to do so much
beforehand especially you know in a Cod
you know change like this so I I don't
know where we are addressing that and if
that traffic calming you know potential
adjustments that we need to be making in
the future how that even gets put in
there there is a provision in the um in
the technical manual about traffic
calming and um some some um situations
where based on the um the speeds that
are monitored how much over the the
posted speed limit cars are traveling
what traffic calming measures are
appropriate to implement whether they're
temporary or permanent traffic calming
measures but um those parameters are
established in the technical manual for
for retroactively installing traffic
cing and is that subjective to like the
traffic com uh the traffic the Tia
director or how how exactly um I guess
in whose objetive subjectivity is that
in relation to um in terms of I know you
had mentioned the points of you know
speed thresholds in the neighborhood
that are being crossed like what is
going to uh initiate some examination
where we get hard data on this
neighborhood that people are complaining
about for instance like McLure or some
of these other streets we've countless
streets here in town that people have
you know
mentioned I believe there is a process
outlined where if a if a neighborhood
wanted to request a traffic calming
measure be installed how they could
request it um and then I think that also
relates to the speed limit thresholds
that are established for what's the
appropriate calming to include um but
all of that would be I Believe overseen
by the public works
director okay and that would be referred
to in the technical manual or the
process that we would you know tell
somebody that they need to go do um if
they want to complain about that in some
separate thing okay gotcha thank
you
and on page 312 that you were just at uh
traffic cing I have a note here for
alleys
um and it is B where the average width
along a block face averages 40 ft or
less the lot shall be rear loaded with
Aly AIS except exceptions as town home
lots townhouse Lots may be narrower than
40 ft and front loaded so if I
understand this right if we do a single
family development and I go a 40ft wide
lot or if I go smaller than that I have
to put an
alley yes I believe that's how it
currently reads unless it's a town
home does does
that inhibit some of our design
abilities to not have attached product
so if I if I can find a way to get a 35t
lot but I still have a you know that
would probably end up coming down to a
25 ft wide home it would have to come
from an alley is that what I'm
understanding that's yeah I from my
perspective I think and staff correct me
if I'm wrong but the the objective in
that situation is that the frontage of
your house is not your garage that you
have a front
door you know some so I think that's at
least that's how I read it that um you
would want something other than just
people's garages unless you do a
townhouse unless you do a townhouse
correct so there would be some amount of
of front yard actually in the front yard
it's not all entirely driveway um
another
consideration um that could be at play
is if there's on street parking so
making sure that there's enough room for
a car to park um between where driveways
are whenever it gets into the narrower
Lots okay but that's only under 40 ft
correct all right Mr Mr chair and
commissioner I would also say you know
this is just saying if you were to put
alleys into your development these would
be your standards this isn't saying you
have to put an alley into your
development if you put them in this is
what we want to see for those alleys
that way we can actually circulate
traffic
properly so this is not saying you have
to put them in this is just saying they
are permitted in any new development so
if you choose to use them this would be
your standards
okay so they're not saying they're
required are you sure about that yes it
just says Alys are permitted in all new
development it doesn't say they are
required in every development thank you
I think we're good I agree with you now
thanks um okay I wanted to move on
to uh
um I think this is so I think we're in a
new Section Street lighting this is on
page 326
um on 327 under four so this would be
I4 um this is basically the required
placement of uh Street lighting uh I
would like or suggest that we add
um to this list uh any location of
pedestrian or cyclist Crossings SLT tril
Crossings um in those instances where
you have maybe a mid block situation to
require some sort of lighting there um
if it's at an intersection you're
obviously covered because it's an
intersection but we do have situations
and probably we'll have more of them
just want to make sure that that's in
captured um and then going to the next
page
328 um this
is I guess the section under Street
lighting requests that starts on page
327 but
under so this would be six
uh
e uh five I think it's correct um it's
Street lighting may be installed
along local streets when traffic volumes
nighttime crashes nighttime pedestrian
use and or roadway Hazard show a need
for improved lighting um I have a little
bit of heartburn with the fact that
we're going to study where how many
pedestrians might be using a place
deemed not safe and therefore they may
avoid so if we're out there saying well
no one crosses the street here therefore
we don't need a street light
I mean you don't build a bridge where
you see people swimming across the river
um so it just seems like that particular
data point probably should not be the
basis for which you would install
lighting um I think I just a general
comment there's a lot of mention of the
of the
mutcd I think we should be refer
refering to nacto
instead um there's a lot of concerns
that mutcd doesn't really address safety
concerns the way that it ought to and
nacto um is a better
resource and then so I'm just kind of
moving forward here
so moving on to page
332 um this is the the timing for a
sidewalk construction um and I
appreciate the fact that we have a
mechanism to fill in sidewalk gaps
particularly in our larger subdivisions
um with that that time um on uh window I
think 3 years is too long perhaps
something halfway in between seems more
reasonable I think
it's you know we build the road from day
one why do I got to wait three years to
get a sidewalk um I think we can kind of
compress that from uh 3 years to 18
months and this is under on 332
A2
three 332 where was that one at sorry
for your how where where are you at on
that one uh sorry uh 332 number 6
A2 I guess my point on that is just
going to Sonoma
example subdivisions built in 2005 there
are lots that are
undeveloped and you reach out to the
owners and they say they're not in
selling and sometimes you can't find
them so I think yes we want to have
complete sidewalks but at the point in
time that
they I don't know can you compel them or
impose a fine on them to build a
sidewalk and then have to potentially
tear it up once they decide to build on
that parcel I think that comes
to a roadblock maybe
potentially yeah I mean we heard that
concern in the technical advisory
committee meeting um I the way I look at
it is if you damage the asphalt on the
road you've got to repair it so I mean
it's kind of the same thing I mean sure
there's a risk you damage your sidewalk
but I don't I don't think we should have
gaps in our Network just because it
might get dinged that the homeowner is
in responsible for also repairing just
like they would anything else in the
public right of way I wouldn't say
dinged but more that you're going to
have a 25 foot portion where you're
going to have to put the driveway
assuming that there's a driveway with a
garage and whatnot so they would
basically pay to install for a sidewalk
then pay to tear it up to them put it
back if that makes
sense I understand what you're
saying my preference is to have the
sidewalk
there's
the in construction they tear up
everything so if I have a sidewalk in
front before I start to build a house
that sidewalk is going to become
damaged and in order for me to put a
sidewalk in I have to get the city to
come out and inspect my forms to make
sure that I'm in the right thickness
right but then right where those forms
where where that concrete is right now I
still have to come back in and dig and
get my sewer connection that's right
there I have to dig to get my uh the
water's already there but there's a
couple other utility that we have well
mainly just the sewer but we will end up
tearing up that that sidewalk um 3 years
I think is adequate because if if we go
in we had 221 Lots um and it took us
almost 3 years so that was about a 40
acre parcel um and when you see some of
the bigger Builders out there they are
they are buying up you know a 200 lot
subdivision at one time
now it might take them the three years
to get through it so if you're going to
if if you change that to a year and a
half and I'm building and I'm halfway
through it and now this kicks in and I
because of the code I have to come out
here and put all of it
in I like the idea of having the
connectivity
but when when you get volume build
Builders they try to build them in
streets at a time right so they try to
build out that street instead of cuz you
don't want the you don't want your
homeowner being right next to the
construction so you try to say okay if I
got 15 of these houses I'm going to try
to build them all out get all the
construction done and then go to the
next street but if the market slows and
other things like that there's going to
be no one in that subdivision to use
that street or That Sidewalk anyways so
I like the I like the three-year it does
give you unless you could put a
provision in here you know but then it
it becomes a little
bit a little bit harder to follow I I
like the three years Solly for for that
cuz if it does it it's more the onesie
toy guy that you're seeing you know
instead of instead of production Builder
that's in there doing something they're
normally trying to get in and trying to
get out and produce a volume of houses
but it's the guy that buys the one lot
and then they say hold on a sec because
I had enough cash to buy this lot now
you got to give me five more years now
in that instance I could see okay
everyone else around him has built it up
so then the three years kicks in and
you're saying hey I don't know if you're
going to take another five years to save
up enough money to do the rest so maybe
you should have to kick it in so I don't
I I
would caution us to make it shorter than
three years so I guess my question for
City staff is if that is what we're
proposing here are you then going to go
out and find all those lots say Sonoma
Cay Biza for example where there's like
two vacant homes that don't have the
continuous sidewalk are you going to
send codes out there identify these
properties then try to reach out to the
owners to then build the sidewalks so
that we have complete neighborhoods with
sidewalks is that kind of what this is
then proposing to get there is my
question Mr chair commissioner Murray
that would be correct the idea is um the
city I want to say it was four or five
years ago we did BAS basically the
sidewalk gaps and identified all of
these areas that were built in 2006 2007
that left all these gaps and so in in
order for us to no longer have those
gaps with developments that are coming
in it now gives us the right to say that
these have to be built out and so yes
codes would go out notify them give them
a time frame in which they would need to
come into compliance with the current
code as it's
adopted okay so say we have a
development in 2006 and they have just
sat on that land forever would you give
them like
three years from the time that this is
adopted to then comply or since they've
been sitting on it for 10 plus years
they then have to comply
immediately Mr chair um commissioner
Murray we would have to accept the three
years as to when it's adopted because
this would be the first time that they
would be notified this is something
going into code and so it's from the
adoption
date and it's not to say if they don't
have the funds or the means to build the
house at the time that they need to do
the sidewalks they can plan in advance
to try to get the utilities under the
sidewalks and the rough location of the
driveway so that once they build the
house they don't have to demolish it and
tear up the sidewalk in theory is that
possible um and if that is possible
would they need to have further like
building permits or construction things
pulled from the city in order to do that
um
portion Commission Murray um any
improvements done to a property would
require any of the building permits that
are necessary because we definitely
don't want infrastructure going in that
hasn't been inspected in some form and
then putting it as a safety hazard for
the pedestrians who may be using it or
for the site itself so if there's any
utility connections um if there's any
cap outs we'll make sure that those
would be inspected to show that they're
capped out until the development
actually takes place sidewalks would be
installed meeting City standards so that
way they're at some point if they do
have to be removed um then they're
removed but if they are actually putting
their utility infrastructure in we
already have them in place and they meet
code all right um moving
along um so actually in the next section
in off street parking uh come right out
of the gate again saying all new
development shall provide off street
parking but that's not true so I think
we can be a little bit more um upfront
about where that is required is
not
um I have just a general concern this is
on page
335 this is also off street parking um
but oh gosh this
is well page 335 under off street
parking um there is uh the ability to up
to 40% of required parking spaces may be
provided on property separate from the
property
served um I'm not sure if that's in
relation to like a um um parking shared
parking agreement um but the way I
initially read it um I interpreted that
as like you could go by the neighboring
parcel and build your parking lot or
build additional parking on an adjacent
lot um I and I don't know if that's the
right interpretation but I would say if
it is I'm not in favor of
that I don't know staff if that is how
you are interpreting it but
um yes that is the correct
interpretation so the the property owner
um could own the adjacent property and
have their parking in the adjacent
property okay um yeah I I would strongly
encourage that we don't have
freestanding parking lots um I think it
we have enough parking in this city we
don't need to build more of it there was
just a recent example downtown where a
business built additional parking and
that's taking away unfortunately Prime
real estate for other services that
could be
developed
[Music]
um the so I think this actually may
address one of the comments that came
out of public comments this evening but
uh further down on the page under five
bicycle parking standards there's the
minimum required
[Music]
um and it looks like it's
only contained within our Urban
characters and our
overlay I'm not sure if
that's accurate but my only comment
there would be I think bike parking
should be per the table that we have
should be required everywhere
um I don't think it should just be
restricted to our Urban our Urban
centers
um I yeah go ahead I don't know if I
agree with that only
because we're we're still such a car
dominant
place and some areas well I guess it's
it's kind of twofold you need it so that
people will use the bike but then on the
other hand if it's not safe to get to
the area you you won't ever need it
anyways and so in in the growth of going
for bikes which I'm I I like going that
way
um it's hard it's hard to implement the
bike in our society today with the
infrastructure that we have and the way
that our city is built and so it's
easier for us to just be able to like
you know have a clean slate and then put
all of that in you go to Amsterdam you
go to other places like that that you're
seeing and they have a great pedestrian
Network they have a great biking Network
they have all of that stuff but that's
because they've had stuff in play for 30
years so I I think it's a good idea to
put some of this in here so that in 30
years we'll get there right but and also
we're going to have to stop being such a
car dominant Society um but to if it's
required in here and and someone's
putting we don't have parking or or a
pathway to get there safely we're just
causing more people to put
more more cost on a on a building or
other things like that but I I don't
know I can go kind of both ways on that
though adding to that point too I think
you personally can only change your
views or opinions or how you want to
move forward but you can't change those
of others one example that I had is that
I was doing an open house at Heritage
Farm which is right next to MSU
individual comes in says I work at the
University I'm like oh my God you can
walk or bik to school or to your job
every day and she's like nope I rather
just drive um so I think that's also the
other thing that you have to take into
consideration too that some people just
are resistant to traveling other ways
than a
car I I do agree with it being on all
Urban though I I think that's a great
because that's where that's where most
of it's probably going to get used right
now yeah I I I understand the points
that you all raised um I guess to the
point that you can't change everyone's
Behavior I I'm not naive to think that
that's the case but every place has a
parking spot for a car and if I choose
to ride my bike I'm out of
luck um I don't think it's that
expensive to install biking if you look
at the requirements uh it's almost I'm
just picking a random thing here a
retail store
local uh
if it is required to have parking it's
one space for 400 square feet and the
bike parking is one bicycle spot for
3,000 square ft which I believe a retail
store or local is capped at 3,000 square
ft which means they only need one
bicycle blck I don't think that cost is
really significant in that situation no
I agree with you there I think the cost
for installing the bike
parking is
not expensive however redoing the road
work to be able to bike safely is not
going to be it's going to take 30 years
to get to where we
want point taken but there are people
who ride their bikes whether it's safe
or not so I think giving them an
opportunity to do that it's people
choose to drive their cars and they have
a parking spot waiting for them I think
the same thing should be true for
someone who chooses to
bike um
uh I just trying to make progress here
one this is just an overall comment on
the formatting of this section in
particular for parking lots we have all
these design standards but then with
Landscaping we punch you to a different
section I think if we can just combine
everything for parking lots if you're
going to build a parking lot you just go
this spot in the code and you have
everything there for you as opposed to
then going for your Landscaping
requirements to a different section I
think it would just be an easier way to
read the
document um and then that would leave
the Landscaping requirements just for
the nonp parking lot stuff I think it
would just be
simpler I have one quick question uh
mostly for Sarah going back to the
sidewalk issue uh not really concerned
on new developments because they're
building there actively but more focused
on or the questions focused on those
developments that have been they're
sitting on their lots for 20 plus years
say they are served a threeyear notice
to provide the sidewalk and then they
elect to sell a
property once the new person comes in do
they have another 3 years do they need
to comply to that like
once they get the transfer of the
property um how would
you respond in that situation Mr chair
it and commission it's going to be based
on the actual property it's not based on
the owner so if you continue to sell the
property if it continues to change hands
that would be one of your exceptions or
something that needs to be discussed at
those closings as knowing that is part
of our development
code um we've reached out to our reality
Community they understand that these are
code revisions that are going through
and so that expectation would be able to
provide that as part of people's
closings to have those understandings of
where we're trying to go as a city when
you own and purchase
property so basically just to
clarify if the property sells within
that three-year period they have until
that end of that three-year period to
comply whether that is building the home
and then putting the sidewalk or just
putting the sidewalk until they decide
to build commissioner Marie that would
be correct yes
I just have three left and I'm done for
the
night okay I've got a couple more
um these should be relatively quick I
think
um trying to find the specific spot so
this
is it was related
[Music]
to I think it was related to Green
infrastructure
Double
Check Yes okay so page
363 um this is the low impact
development green infrastructure section
uh under
d
one
[Music]
um it
says green
infrastructure low impact development
elements
cannot be double counted with other City
requirements for example landscape
elements that are already required by
code I have a little issue with that
particularly or I guess specifically as
it relates to like tree Wells like you
could you could sink your tree well
right that would serve as a bios swell
which would be low impact development
but that tree well is being also
required in
your
landscape
requirements so according to this
statement that tree well would not count
towards my
Landscaping
correct because I made it a bios swell
the idea in that case by including the
um low impact development or green
infrastructure controls by doing the
sunken tree well that would be
considered going beyond the minimum
requirement so in that case I think it
would
count the the tree wouldn't count if
you're required to do the tree the tree
well in general doesn't count but if you
do an enhancement to the tree well to
implement green infrastructure controls
then that would count gotcha okay thank
you and then would so that that
statement would also hold true if you
did like a larger reten I where you
landscaped it with um you know native
species so rather than just dig a hole
and it just sits there as dirt or Rock
You landscape
it
the that would also count towards your
Landscaping
requirements the so the the hole itself
the thing that's retaining the water
that's your green infrastructure but
then you're planting it to be more green
infrastructure you wouldn't then have to
then go do additional Landscaping on
your site that am I making
sense Mr chair um commission Mr chair
and commission that would be correct we
are actually encouraging developers to
when they have a chance to use the
ponding essentially area and plant into
those vegetations because they will
obtain that natural water that is going
to be counting as part of their land
landcaping we're not asking for
additional we want them to use those as
areas yeah okay great and then if they
chose not to landscape it that's when
that they wouldn't get because it's just
a dirt hole right so that wouldn't count
towards their Landscaping that is
correct because there is criteria as to
how many trees or shrubs that you have
to implement in order for it to count
for landscaping got it okay thank
you okay I think that
oh just a question on um pre tree
preservation so this would apply to all
trees Citywide or just a like a
subdivision like a new
subdivision so in other words as a
homeowner I have a gigantic mberry tree
that's probably 70 years old
and eventually needs to come down I
would that would be covered under this
section correct all all existing trees
in in any subdivision whether it's new
or an existing subdivision got it okay
thank you any tree bigger than 2 in in
the entire city you will have to get a
tree removal
permit that's what it says so that was
one of my one of my tags of the three
left and we don't currently have this in
our code today I would wish we just
strike that one
out I guess what's the reason behind
having that in the first place is it to
get more money from tree permits is it
to
preserve trees or natural shading is
there a spefic specific reasons why
we're adding that now versus why it's
not in the current
code um this came out of a
recommendation of several of the city's
different plans um there are several
recommendations about increasing the
tree canopy Citywide um
supporting uh cool corridors do you have
additional comments to add you're you're
doing really good good thank you Steve
being Parks and
Recreation um this is about U meeting
tree canopy and
um for example there's a study in Denver
that identified in two areas that should
be similar in temperature one had a
deficit of trees the other one had you
know expected standards and there was a
9° temperature difference and so I think
this is about um being green this is
about um you know a lot of different
things related to trees I think one of
the things we need to do is um look at
the
size um requirement that is here and
just review this before the next meeting
but it is not uncommon for communities
to have some requirement that if trees
of a certain size um have either a
permit to remove or you know number of
remedies
um and it's also not commmon to
exempt those for like con the valers in
construction so let's go back and look
at that
some yeah my experience has been um my
first internship in college in the City
Planning Department was basically uh
reviewing tree removal permits so I'm
very familiar with that process um in
that case we had two tiers so maybe
something to to think about of below a
certain between two Ines and something
it's you know less of a big deal versus
it's the massive trees that are really
giving us that that shade that is a
different either fee structure or
whatever so that's one way to approach
it um but we wouldn't be the first city
to implement something like this they're
pretty common across the country
in here there's a uh trees that are not
exempt from preservation are considered
protected trees where is that provision
where's that list of protected
trees or is that just literally anything
over 2
in uh a protected tree is anything
that's not listed in
Sea so the larger than 2 in a disease
tree uh one that's causing a safety
hazard if it's being grown as part of a
tree farm or if it's listed uh by the
State Department of Agriculture as a
noxious species so undesirable or
invasive plant so if you're not one of
those then you would be considered a
protected
tree so this this allows like mosqu
trees that aren't native to our land
here I've me to and uh what what are the
other one um on the
river Cottonwood so you got cottonwoods
you got so if
as long as it's
not as long as the New Mexico Department
of Agriculture says it's a noxious
species I can I can cut it down no
matter
what if they say it is a noxious species
okay then it could be cut down okay but
this is going to now what's the
ramifications of someone in the city
that just I'm cutting my own tree down I
guess another another point there is I
guess education needs to be provided to
the city otherwise we're going to get
into the oh my God I didn't know that
that was now a requirement and then they
get a fine or whatnot and the additional
part that I would say I mean I mean
considering we saw this
with you know in other places yes the
number two there on c for Exempted trees
the dead or disease tree which is deemed
Beyond point of recovery deemed
according to who you know if I've got
some 2in tree there you know I'm calling
that thing dead throwing some bleach on
it chopping it off and not getting my
permit you know what I mean kind of
thing so how do we you know really kind
of not let the workaround be a
workaround if that's what we intend I
suppose but um I guess at the same time
it also strikes me that you know you can
let the weeds go for a little while and
have some 2-in trees Sprout up in your
yard like that and so those are just
places where of course I know you
already talked about the size threshold
but just
concerns for the for the protected trees
that are removed um that would be a tree
removal permit that can be approved by
the director um and if you do keep a
protected tree it counts toward your
Landscaping requirements if you don't
want to keep the protected tree you can
still cut it down but the idea is in
item e that it would be replaced by a
new tree somewhere else on your site if
it was in someplace inconvenient for
development so it's not that you can't
cut it down at all you can but the city
would like you to replace it somewhere
is this tree preservation really
necessary because in the Landscaping so
to to your point there Steve in the
Landscaping I'm supposed to put trees
and other stuff like that anyways right
and so if I do a new subdivision if I do
a new uh if I get a new building permit
if I up if I change things I'm going to
have to modify the Landscaping anyways
and then that modifying that Landscaping
I'm going to have to make sure I'm up to
date with the current Landscaping code
so I'm going to still receive the the
shade from the trees to get my 9°
difference whether I have this tree
preservation or not for the the credit
that you would receive for preserving
one of the protected trees toward your
Landscaping requirements for the site in
D2 we say that it's credited toward the
Landscaping requirements with each
preserved tree counting as Three Trees
so the idea would be to incentivize an
existing tree Tree on the site um that's
probably more mature than the new trees
that would get replaced so there is an
incentive it's not necessarily a one to
one replacement by um a preserved tree
compared to a new tree so there is kind
of a trade-off
there I think that's the only one I
agree with you on is the D like maybe we
should if it was me I would just cross
out all of this tree preservation and
and then put the only one is is
protected trees maybe cred to
Landscaping requirements so that we
would see you know people trying to
leave a tree but I mean that's just
that's just natural in in someone that's
going to I already have a big tree here
on my parking lot I don't want to cut it
down I don't I don't need an incentive
like I don't need a tree preservation to
tell me to not cut it down in the real
like realistically is was what I'm at
least that's my thoughts maybe I
shouldn't say realistically I should say
my viewpoint is I would leave a big
tree and if you're going to give me
credit for my Landscaping so I can leave
the one tree and I don't have to put
three more I mean that's you know I'm
going to do that I don't need a tree
preservation I I would still cross this
whole thing out
personally well I think if everybody
came to the same conclusion that you did
we wouldn't need a tree preservation
ordinance
but um I have no further comments on any
other parts of uh the code so um does
anybody else have anything else I just
have my last
two um and then I'm done and in page 310
which is cue saxs and Dead End streets
a so it's at the very top um my question
is is can you help me understand when I
could use a CAC and when I can't
Mr chair and commission CUA sacs have
always been um the least Connecting
Point in any subdivision it doesn't
connect you to anywhere it doesn't
provide options for pedestrians it
doesn't give you the connectivity need
between subdivisions and so the city has
always discouraged cues acts I
understand they are a great selling
point um as those become the prime lots
that people most want to live on um we
understand that portion but it doesn't
give us the connectivity that we're
looking for and so rarely will we use um
culdesac or have developed velers use
cldx except for like we've seen them at
the boundaries of possibly the city
limits because we know we're not going
to be able to connect if it's going to
have to go through the county and their
developments may not be the same um we
tend to see them in subdivisions used
very like sporadically but you're not
going to see them as the common nature
and so there's no real design element
saying it's going to be okay to do in
all of them they are discouraged as they
do not provide the connectivity that
elevate Las crusa said we wanted to
start using we're trying to encourage
that subdivisions interconnect so that
way we don't just have walls and
boundaries set between subdivisions and
people have more ways to get around in a
subdivision so as a as a kid growing up
I lived in a culdesac and the culdesac
was the place that all of us went and
played street hockey and we put the
basketball hoop out there and we played
baseball and we did all of those
wonderful items that provided the street
was still a safe place to because it was
a
CAC and it provided other things and you
can you see in all the Hallmark movies
and all the other ones of culdesac in
the Gathering areas and you know so I I
like culdesac always have like the
culdesac I lived on now when I I uh our
first house that me and my wife had was
not in a culdesac and once we started
having children we quickly moved from
there because our kids
would run out in the street and we would
be running after them as fast as we can
so when you got a little three-year-old
that out there I we moved so I just like
culde saacs I like the safety of a
culdesac I like the design factors of a
culdesac and as a builder and a
developer they sell the they they're
always the ones that sell first so
that's
just I would love to be able to put
cue-x in there with with less
restrictions than you have on there
right
now anyways that's my I'll leave that
with you my very last one before we move
off that just real quick on The
Pedestrian cut through component of Cu
thex can we I don't know Jazz up the 10
foot pavement requirement to have a
little bit of landscaping I know when
the developers come in they do those cut
throughs it's literally just a can of
concrete and block
wall uh we're just talking about Urban
heat island and that's
definitely the
definition and I know right now I think
it just says that it has to be a paved
10 foot path but I think if we can add
some requirements for some some type of
landscaping would be beneficial so back
to you very last one Landscaping
um
5-7 page
373 um
C32 this one's just random to me Turf
other than native grasses identified on
the approved plant list is not
permitted what is that what is can you
clarify what I can and can't use so is
this is this saying that I cannot use
Turf like just regular grass for
landscaping in the uh the city has an
approved plant list now um that includes
different trees and shrubs and ground
cover and uh different types of grasses
um this is specifying that the only it's
it's a little bit redundant because
we're saying all plants have to comply
with the with the plant list um but just
specifying that ground covering turf
grass needs to be a type that's included
in the city's approved plant
list do you know if Bermuda is included
in
that I would hope so
yes it's going to be your primary Turf
in this
community okay I don't know off hand um
it is in the tech manual but um it's the
city has the existing list and the
existing list has been moved there in
case there are updates that are needed
over time so it's uh whatever the the
current list is is is still the
requirement we didn't make any changes
to the types of grass okay cuz I I just
read this as other than native grasses
and so native grass is permuda is not
really a native grass um it's I'm I'm
thinking more like the when you go out
in the desert here you see like a little
Clump I don't know what type of grass
that is but it's a little Clump that
grows up and then you got another little
Clump somewhere else that grows up don't
know what grass that is but that to me
is native
grass that's this to me is more like tur
when it say Turf it's like okay that's a
that's a Playfield that's a area that
I'm going to mow I'm going to do stuff
like that and it doesn't
seem like that's allowed for me to put
a I think it's trying to move away from
like the little strip between the back
of the curb and the
sidewalk that you can't plant that with
a
lawn it's it's not really serving a
purpose you're just watering the heck
out of it so I think that's the intent
you can't take a patch in your corner of
your parking lot and and make it Turf
unless you're building a ball field or
something like that then You' have to
use native I think is what it's
attempting to
do
okay all right any final questions
thoughts what just Steve Bingham Parks
and Recreation director we'll look at
that list and we'll get that over to you
um I do want to go back to one comment
i' like and appreciate the um thoughts
around Landscaping on those paths
between
um you
know the homes and the
caxs I think typically they do not
require Landscaping on them because who
takes care of them what typically ends
up happening is is none of the neighbors
or you know one of them takes care of
the ones next to them but those type of
spaces tend to be um neglected and
Abandoned and so I'm all for the
beautification you also have the other
side of um you now either put a burden
on you know your city departments to go
maintain land that is not really theirs
and not easily put into the schedule
because it's such a small space so I
would advise against that just because
you know if there's a wall there um it
becomes
neglected I certainly wouldn't disagree
um and I know I know it's late we're
trying to get out of here but I
think my Counterpoint to that statement
would be well
then is that really what we need to
facilitate pedestrian connectivity
because if it if it does get neglected
fills with trash fills with debris fills
with it's not people people avoid places
like that for reasons right I mean watch
a scary movie there's a reason why you
don't run into the
corner um and I just think when you
build this kind of Cavern this alley
where you know I'm a white male
I I don't really have concerns for my
safety but I know that there are other
people in our community that wouldn't
walk down that sketchy looking thing
particularly maybe at night so I I just
if I hear what you're saying but then
maybe that's not the that's not the
solution to our connectivity issues
maybe we need to rethink that
requirement so that we're getting
something that is actually
facilitating what we want what we want
to see and and you know I
think if if that if we do that then I
think we would be more successful in
that policy
outcome all right um I just want to say
I appreciate staff sticking around and
tolerating us this evening um this
obviously was our first time as this
body getting an opportunity to weigh in
so um we definitely think took advantage
of that um so we really appreciate your
all's work um getting to this point um I
think there's a lot of good discussion
I'm really excited to see this come back
in November and hopefully we can get
something that maybe isn't perfect but
um is I think better than what we
currently have and we'll just continue
to evolve forward so um with that can I
get a motion to
[Music]
adjourn I make a motion to adjourn
I second all in favor hi
[Music]
I e