2026-10-27 - Planning and Zoning Commission

>> Your life.

>> Good evening. I will now call to order the October 27th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission at 6 p.m. I am Vice Chair Janet Acosta. First on the agenda is the conflict of interest. Does any of the member of the Commission or any member of the city staff have any known conflict of interest with any items on the agenda? None. Okay. Seeing none, we will move on to public participation. If someone does acknowledge it, let me know. Let them know what they will have to recuse themselves when they. When the case is heard. Public participation. At this time, I would like to invite anyone from the public to come up and speak on anything that is not on the agenda, or under new business, or if you would like to speak on any item on the consent agenda, please do so. Now. You will have two minutes. Please state your name for the record. And is there any public participation at this time?

>> No.

>> Seeing none, I will now end public participation and move forward. Acceptance of the agenda. This includes the minutes from the last meeting and the items on the consent. If any items on the consent need to be removed for discussion, now would be the time to do so. Commissioners.

>> I make a motion to accept the agenda.

>> I second.

>> This is on the motion to accept the agenda as presented. Commissioner Thurston. Yes. Commissioner Smith yes. Commissioner. [name]. Sorry. [name].

>> Yes.

>> Commissioner [name]. Yes. And Vice Chair.

>> Yes.

>> Thank you.

>> Okay. Moving forward to new business, we have item 7.1. Can I have a motion to approve 7.1? I'm sorry. Scratch that. I'm so sorry. With 7.1, will staff [staff], please come up and present.

>> All righty.

>> [staff]. Community development. For the record, before you, we have essentially a new development. This. It is known as the Arroyo at Settler's Pass phases three, four and five. This is a zoning map amendment for that development and associated master plan development, master master development plan for that development and a preliminary plat as well. So the scope of discussion for that zoning map amendment will be limited to the actual proposed zoning amendment. The area that is being discussed is essentially is a recommending body for approval or denial to City Council discussion should focus on the land use, zoning, compatibility, density, transitions, connectivity, consistency with adopted plans for the proposed area. As for the master development plan, basically the process is designated to guide for future land development of that area, transportation patterns, so forth, so forth like that should assure the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan, addressing variety of environmental and social issues in the area. And of course, for this one, PNC has final action on master plan development unless appealed to City Council. And then finally, the third item, the preliminary plan is basically a general layout of a subdivision where lots go street, street layout, so on and so forth. Like that. Adequacy of public facilities need to serve. The intended development is what we'll be discussing. Overall compliance with all adopted city plans, rules and regulations. And again, the PNC has final action on preliminary plats unless appealed to City council. So currently the property is located on the east side of Rinconada, northeast of the center section of Rinconada and Park Hill Drive. Property encompasses approximately 5.5.15 acres and that would be for the Zoning Map Amendment area. The actual master plan itself is, which is a large area, is 55.08 acres in size. And then the first preliminary preliminary plat is 17.058 acres in size. Mostly vacant and undeveloped tracts of land is what existing out there, and one kind of drainage pond that's currently privately owned. Currently the zoning out there is OS2S open space drainage district, suburban neighborhood, 1SNH1S neighborhood one suburban and NH two neighborhood two suburban. Here is zoning map showing that area. As you can see the yellow indicating the NH one. That's now OS two. I'm sorry, the NH two, NH, NH one down here. And then the open space for those two tracks right there shown here in the aerial basically completely vacant piece of property minus the existing drainage facility down here south of Turin Road. So the zoning map amendment we're looking at a zone change of OS to s and NH1S to NH2S the OS two or the Open Space Drainage District suburban designation is no longer needed in this area since it is no longer part of the drainage area for that area, it was taken out of the floodplain area. So it's now basically it's developable land. The zone change will allow for consistency throughout the entire proposed development. With everything being zoned NH two S and will allow for the development of the arroyos. Past phases three, four and five. Here is kind of the existing zoning out there. Here's those five acres between going between these two tracks. Call that as track E and parcel nine. They'll be changed to NH two S, just like the parent parcel to the north up here. That is what the essentially what the zoning map amendment is proposing. As for the master plan development, it is known as the Arroyo Settlers Pass. Phases three, four, and five is proposing a single family residential development in this area that will be constructed in three separate phases. These phases will have a total of lots, ranging in from 165 to 551. Single family lots is what they're looking at doing out here. This was part of a previously approved master plan when it was annexed into the city back in the 80s, I believe, but that that master plan also proposed basically a single family residential development. So no, no big differences from the original master plan that brought this into the city. So there is that master plan kind of showing the layout of the roadways. And of course, those, the one phases three, four, and five. That's part of phase three right there showing the three different phases that this will be developed in. And then finally, the preliminary plat, known as the Arroyo Settlers pass phase three preliminary plat proposes the first phase of this area for single family residential development. Total of 72 lots. Residential lots that are being proposed that range in size from 0.0112 acres to 0.175 acres in size. It also proposes two tracts of land will be dedicated for electrical utility infrastructure, with El Paso Electric along Rinconada, two tracts of land for post development, runoff and drainage, and one tract of land for mailbox clusters, mailbox clusters, tract and drainage tract shall be improved and dedicated to the city. Shown here. The the actual preliminary plat itself. As you can see, it's kind of a backward seven L shape, which includes this area. And then that retention pond just south of Torreon Road. Here is the northern most northern portion heading towards Rinconada here. Here's one of those drainage tracks that are being proposed there. The road that continues down south with more residential lots here continuing here as well, with an access point against again to Rinconada and then finally coming down here, which is the the the existing track that will now be actually improved to city standards and dedicated to the city for as an actual retention pond facility. Staff did their analysis. We, we did not find any life safety welfare issues with the proposals. The proposed zoning is more consistent for the development. Proposed zoning is compatible with zoning found in the area. There is an H two in the area as well as an H one lot of neighborhoods one and two suburban zoning in the area. The master plan and preliminary plan do meet objectives for the purpose of a preliminary plat and a master development plan as required by the subdivision code. Lots do meet the standards of the 2025 Development Code standards and meet the minimum size or dimensions, if you will, of the NH two NH two zoning and the proposed development is compatible surrounding area and will provide further improvements to the adjacent roadways for improved connectivity, including to vacant adjacent properties that are undeveloped. They are patched through roads that will allow for future connectivity to the subdivision and other subdivisions that are coming to the future as well. Staff did send out a public notice per code. Toss around any property owners have just received one email with general questions as to where the actual development was going to take place. With that, though, the Development Review Committee did review the master plan and the preliminary plat on September 2nd. They did review the the actual Master Master Development plan, and after some minor discussion, the DRC did vote to recommend approval for the Arroyo Pass. Phases three, four and five. Additionally, on top of that, after some minor discussion regarding the preliminary plat, DRC did recommend approval with conditions for the settlers pass phase three preliminary plat. Those conditions basically. So if you do vote to approve these conditions will run with that preliminary plat. One conditions the issuance of construction drawings, a construction permit and completion of a final plat is contingent upon the successful completion and review of the pending Tia, which actually has been submitted. And the reviewer, I'm sorry, the developer or engineer of record shall work with Public Works Department to ensure that the proposed drainage tracks that will be dedicated to the city meet regional benefit requirements. With that, recommendations first for the Zoning map amendment, community development staff does recommend approval with the following findings. Property is located in the suburban area to place, type or NH two. Zoning is encouraged. Zoning map amendments consistent with the zoning found in the surrounding area shows no evidence of any health, safety, welfare issues, and the Zoning Map amendment meets all requirements of the 2025 Development Code and the guidelines and policies outlined in the Elevate Las Cruces Comprehensive Plan recommendation on the the Master Plan development. So the the staff or DRC does recommend approval for the master plan development as well. Based on the findings that the proposed master Plan complies with the requirements and standards of the City of Las Cruces subdivision code or regulations, it does meet all requirements of the 2025 Development Code and is compatible with the surrounding area, and will provide further improvements and adjacent roadway improvements that is needed in that area. And finally, the recommendation for the preliminary plat DRC did recommend that approval with conditions based on the following findings. The proposed preliminary plat complies with the requirements and standards. The City of Las Cruces Subdivision Code. The plat does meet the requirements of the 2025 Development Code, and on top of that, the preliminary plat will allow for property owners to subdivide and continue the development of vacant land that is compatible with existing neighborhoods and continue to provide housing opportunities for people looking to to to live in the area, if you will. So your options today are one to vote yes and approve the proposed development. Two to vote no and deny, three to vote to amend and adding conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission or forward to postpone and direct staff and the applicant accordingly. That that is the conclusion of my presentation. The applicant is applicant. Representative is here if you have a question as well, and I stand for questions.

>> At this time, I would like to open it up for the commissioners discussion.

>> I was wondering if you could maybe explain the history of that parcel that's currently zoned for drainage. It looks like at one point it was potentially a contiguous parcel along a drainage, an arroyo, and that no longer appears to be the case. So could you just describe a little bit about how that that current zoning came to be with respect to that particular parcel?

>> So Commissioner, Commissioner [name] Chair, Chair, So you are correct. This was kind of like it did continue this way with the development of this area over here, though, there was a flood study done. It did take place, which basically just took this whole area out of the drainage. The the floodplain now is actually located down here in the pond down here, this larger pond down here, it basically shifted is essentially what happened. Where it used to run here continues this way. Now it's gone down this way. And continuing west is essentially what happens. My apologies, I did have I do have a FEMA don't have that in my presentation showing how that that's been taken out of what is the floodplain area, sir?

>> And how well has this approach worked given the recent rains that we've had? Were there any problems out there?

>> Commissioner [name] chair there, staff received really any phone calls for this area? [One nearby resident called and said the pond is doing its job.] It's it took all that water that that fell from the Or that came from the roads and the subdivisions. It's just really full. The only difference, the only thing is right now it's privately owned and maintained. So with this development, they're actually going to do improvements to it, including for the Rundowns, make everything, basically follow city standards, improve it further for the subdivision, and then dedicate it to the city to ensure that it continues to work properly and is actually now belong to the city. And we maintain it.

>> Okay. Thank you. That's all the questions I have at the moment.

>> Any other commissioners like to discuss this?

>> I have more on the master plan side of things. More of a planning, not necessarily the plan itself. I, I don't have many questions on that. Mine is more on the angler. So. What is the city done to ensure that when all of the development comes in, when is angler. What do you guys have for angler coming in someday? Because that with with you an additional 551 lots there. We're finally closing up some of these other areas. Parcel 11NH3 could be apartments. Other commercial activity right in there. So I, I just can I'm just curious on the city side what is going on because the development that happened up off of Sonoma, you look at the Sonoma Ranch exit. Now that one's pretty, pretty full. And this could be, I don't know, just a way to mitigate some of the future traffic coming in. I'm curious what's happening with angler. Because angler, I believe half of that is paved, but not all the way down to the section. I've also heard rumors that the state of New Mexico is finally going to do the on off ramps. If you guys have heard that the on off ramps to. What is it called right there, that one's angler, Del Rey angler. So I'm just curious, is there future planning on actually connecting that with, with any of these development? Because both of these developments are kind of coming to an end to that point. So I guess that's my question is what's what's happened with angler.

>> Board Chair.

>> [name], public Works director Commissioner Thurston, to answer your question, the city right now is moving forward with developing angler from Del Rey up to connection through the development up at Metro Verde. The city at this point in time has received funding from both capital outlay. It's also set aside some funding from our GR as part of our budget, and also received other funding. So currently right now we have a total of $4 million. We'll be working to build out angler completely from Del Rey all the way up to the end of what is now angler, with a development close to. Metro. But there's also the the roadway that goes back into down into Rinconada. So currently we have those plans that is phased out. We have that built phased out for three phases. Current phase that we're working on right now, which is phase one, is going to be from Del Rey to Rinconada. And we're looking at installing roundabouts at all the major intersections as we go along through there. We've also been in discussions with developers or property owners that are adjacent to there to start talking about cost sharing as part of that project with adjacent properties that they own for development as part of the project. So at this point in time, we're moving forward. And yes, that is not only to get an additional egress out of the Metro Verde area, since currently right now we only have that one major one at Sonoma Ranch. This will provide us another ingress egress, but also connect to the improvements that Nmdot is going to be doing at that interchange. On angler. They did bid out that project. They are looking to award and start that project soon. That's the information that we have currently right now. But yes, we are both working to address not only access to these adjacent developments as they come through, but also that connectivity and having something else come out of Metro Verde.

>> Thank you. That's what I just I was just curious on seeing the full, the full picture of when we're developing out this whole area that we, we are worried about the next connections. So it does. Last question on that. What timelines you say you got a couple million dollars for that. What do you think your timeline is on connecting up to Rinconada?

>> Board Chair Commissioner Thurston, at this point in time? Right now, phase one is approximately estimating somewhere around 10 million. Currently we have four. So depending on the amount of funding that we get, we can either look at using the current funding that we have to design the entire corridor. Going from Del Rey all the way up to the Metro Verde area. If we get additional funding, then we can look at designing those in portions and completing those sections. Timeline. Right now we're estimating, depending on when we get the funding, we're looking at, typically roughly somewhere between a 10 to 12 month design period and then looking at possibly anywhere between a 12 to 14 month construction period, again, all tied back to when we have the funding to complete a whole section or the design as we work towards getting additional funding to do the improvements.

>> Okay. Thank you.

>> Yes, sir.

>> I got one more question for the developer though. Total build out, you're saying it can get up to 551 551 units. What is your what's your current layout for on three four. And I think it's three and four was the total number.

>> Commissioner Thurston Chair I'll have the the design professor come up here and answer that one for you. That. 551 that's just the range, because the master plan does require you to call out your range of homes that you'll be developing in the area, but they I think they have a clear idea of what actual number that they'll be putting out there. Here's [applicant representative].

>> I need.

>> Sir, if you can raise your right hand and state your name first and last name for the record, and I'll swear you in.

>> [name].

>> [applicant representative], do you swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law?

>> Yes. Thank you. Madam Chairman. Commissioner Thurston, with phases three, four and five, we're looking at 72, 80 and 82 lots for each one of the phases. That's what we're proposing. In the master plan, you give a min and maximum range and we are in in between there.

>> Thank you. That was just helping me out on understanding on timing. If they if a builder goes in, it looks like [applicant] is doing a good job of, of going through those. So I'm just looking at that timing of the intersection there on Engler would probably be you guys would probably be done in 3 to 5 years is probably my, my best guess of looking out there if the market stays the way it is. So I'm just making sure. And then if, if, if the timing comes in on the other one, I, I think that's going to be good. Now, this is solely on a planning aspect of like the circulation and everything. That's where my questions are coming from, not not necessarily towards the, the subdivision itself. I think it's I think it's good.

>> Any more questions from the commission.

>> Just to follow up on the number of units? So it looks like the staff report is you stated or staff stated it's 4.2 dwelling units per acre. I don't know if that's for the entire all phases or just for phase one. Maybe that's my first part of the question. Staff, do you know what that density is referencing?

>> Commissioner [name] Chair, that's the 4.1 density is calling out for the entire D of the development. The 4.1 acres is for the entirety of the master plan is the density, but that does not include. But that includes part of me roadways, tracts of land. Basically the entire property. In other words, it's not taking those out of there, sir. That's that's what that 4.1 is.

>> Okay. And and what it remind me what the maximum zoning density is there.

>> Commissioner [name] chair. Basically, the master plan requires you to have tabular information in the master plan that calls out each phase, the size of each phase, the minimum max range of lots that you'll be putting in there, in there, and what type of development will be put in there as well, including traffic generation, trips generation and stuff like that. It's just informational. It's information for us to have what could be best, best case or the least intense scenario and the most intense scenario, if you will.

>> Yeah, I understand that. I guess my question was what the zoning allows? What's the maximum allowed in this specific zone?

>> That'd be 24 units per dwelling, per per per acre.

>> I'm sorry.

>> Okay. And so I guess my question for the applicant, because we've seen this, I feel like a bunch since the new development code went into place, is we, I think for the most part increased our maximum city wide, but it doesn't seem like at least the projects that we've seen come through, we come anywhere close. I mean, nowhere close to these numbers. I mean, they're all still in the single digits dwelling units per acre. So I guess my question is just you have the option to go up to, what did you say, 20 units per acre. And we're I guess you're proposing at most ten. And you're probably going to end up somewhere under five. I'm just curious the rationale behind that.

>> Chairman, Commissioner [name], what the developer [applicant], is looking at is they are going with the size of lots that are selling. They have 47 foot wide lots. And then they're also going to be proposing in phase four to have that as a private gated community. Those would be 55 foot wide lots. So they are they're having different type of product or the market. And that's how they looked at sizing the lots for this subdivision.

>> And the and this is really just out of curiosity because we've seen this so many times. So I'm just trying to understand what the driving force is. Is it financing that's driving that requirement or is it truly buyer preference, or do we not know that?

>> I would not know an answer to that, sir.

>> Okay. Thank you.

>> Any further discussion from the commissioners at this time? We open up to public input, please. I'm sorry. Can you state your first and last name, please, and I'll swear you in.

>> [A consultant for the owner of an adjacent 15 acre tract to the east said the owner appreciates the planned road connection, but because the land slopes south to north, a sewer connection away from the low northeast corner would need a lift station the city would later maintain; asked that the connection be moved slightly north for gravity flow.]

>> Thank you. Staff, can you comment on the request, please?

>> Chair, our code only calls out for them to provide connectivity to an adjacent property that is left up to the developer at the time of where that connectivity, where they want to provide that connectivity, and that is where they proposed it. The future is something that happens. They want to develop. Unfortunately, it's on them as to how they develop, if they're amenable to that, which with my discussions with the developer and there is their design professional, this was like the only spot they wanted to put it. If I'm if I'm not, if I'm incorrect, please, please, by all means correct me. But that is where they are proposing there because that's how it works out for their, for their connectivity and for their connection and their subdivision.

>> Thank you. Is there any more public comments that would like to come up and ask some questions or. Okay, we're going to close this for discussion. We're going to call for the vote. Keep in mind, fellow commissioners, that we are going to have three separate actionable items the zoning map amendment, the master development Plan, and the preliminary plat. It's called for a vote. I'll make a can someone make a motion, please? In a second.

>> Okay, okay.

>> What am I making a motion on the first one.

>> That's correct. They're going to be voted on three separate votes.

>> Okay. I got to pull it up real quick.

>> I'll make a motion to recommend approval for, I guess, item 7.11, a one request for the the zone map amendment.

>> I second.

>> Okay calling the vote.

>> Commissioner Thurston.

>> Yes.

>> Commissioner Smith yes. Commissioner [name].

>> Yes.

>> Commissioner [name].

>> Yes.

>> And vice chair.

>> Yes.

>> Okay.

>> Okay. Motion passed. Next case on agenda is 7.2.

>> We know I need to make I need to make a motion for you for basically the master plan development, right? Yes. The master development plan. I guess I said it backwards. Yeah.

>> Sorry.

>> Sorry about that.

>> Okay, so I make a motion to approve. The the master development plan for 7.1.

>> I second.

>> We have a first and we have a second. Can we call the vote please?

>> Commissioner Thurston yes. Commissioner Smith.

>> Yes.

>> Commissioner [name].

>> Yes.

>> Commissioner [name].

>> Yes.

>> And vice chair.

>> Yes.

>> Okay. Now I make a motion to approve the preliminary plat on 7.1.

>> I second.

>> We have a first and a second. Let's call the vote.

>> Commissioner Thurston.

>> Yes.

>> Commissioner Smith.

>> Yes.

>> Commissioner [name].

>> Yes.

>> Commissioner [name].

>> Yes.

>> And vice chair.

>> Yes.

>> Okay.

>> Okay. Here we go. Next case. Agenda is 7.2. Can I have a motion to approve item 7.2, please?

>> Make a motion to approve item seven. Item 7.2.

>> May I have a second, please?

>> I second.

>> Staff, can you please present?

>> Alright. Good evening chair Commission [name], community development director for the record. So tonight we are looking at the second annual update of our land use code. As you know, we updated land use code in the last two years. We've been coming back with some modifications. Try to do those at the end of the year and sort of compile all the things that we've seen during the year while we're trying to implement. So just to sort of set the foundation for what we'll be doing, I'll give you kind of a high level presentation chapter by chapter, but I have staff from community development, public works and parks here to answer specific questions you may have on each chapter, but I'll just kind of get the ball rolling, sort of talk about one of the big. You know, programs that were sort of, you know, pitching, which is really more emphasis on infill redevelopment. So high level here, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 kind of diving right in. So chapter 34, General Provisions. We're making a few updates to that chart appeal for Parks and Rec director advisory board decisions, acceptance of improvements, moving from the Community Development Director to the Public Works director, and removal of substantial completion, which I will address a little bit further on in an additional slide. But those are just the highlights there. This is sort of the big area that that I've been pushing all year long, and that's to expand our tier three flex development standards to really emphasize revitalization within the urban core formerly known as the infill. So what we are trying to do is any area where city staff has a way to build some flexibilities into the code that doesn't impact life safety or things that are regulated at a state level. We are building in those flexibilities. So public safety impact fees, we are proposing a waiver of of those for projects within the infill for up to five years, park zone impact fees, a reduction of those to be no more than $500 per unit. And that is also for a period of five years. Landscaping. There's already some reductions sort of outlined in the MRA, the tier three. So we're proposing 75% reductions and deferring those for two years. We're also approving some alternative landscaping options where a potential site may have constraints. Perhaps it's completely paved over. It doesn't make sense to have to dig some of that up for landscaping. So we'll approving some alternates so they can still come in with landscaping. But it's but it's not something that's going to break the bank for somebody who's looking to reinvest in the infill, a reduction of some of the amenities for apartments that were sort of put in the last code, this is sort of reducing those down to a lower level with the idea that there's already a lot of amenities built out in the infill. So a reduction in the amenities that are required for multifamily in the infill is what we're recommending. And then site infrastructure such as shared ponds, access, stormwater traffic, public improvements, anything that we can have some flexibility on working with other departments to, to build those in to make it easier for this redevelopment to, to, to come in. So again, really kind of emphasizing bringing the infill back to life. Economic development has really been pursuing a strategy of MRAs the last few years. And virtually the entire infill area is designated as an MRA. So this is just another sort of step in that process. Recently, we passed an ordinance dealing with vacant and abandoned structures. So there's been multiple efforts by city Council to to address and really kind of put a real emphasis on infill redevelopment. Chapter 35 historic preservation. Really all we're doing is updating some of the language from plan review to design review to be consistent. Chapter 36 the zoning regulations. So this is both the conditions and the land use table. So item number two live work no more than 50% residential use under under that option number seven multifamily remove removing the amenities for for 13 and under units housing units. Number 35 adding distressed sales for temporary use. Number 36 and 38 are to bring us in alignment with changes the state made under Senate Bill 96, specific to child care centers and group homes. Number 47, Convention Center and exhibit hall allowed entertainment events and food service. So just tweaking that definition a little bit, number 75 is strictly just removing the word flea from flea markets to just use markets to sort of capture all intended markets. And 114 adding tow yards to what is an acceptable use in N, H, three, C, R and light industrial. Continuing on zoning regulations, adding non-conforming site design requirements. So parking lots may be expanded one time, up to 25% of its existing area and follow current code and remaining site may be non-conforming. Bicycle parking will be brought up to current code. We updated code to allow for carports, and now we are basically requiring that there's an encroachment agreement that goes in with those requests for for carports. And then we are updating the accessory structures to add a fourth tier for larger lots. So we're we're saying that larger lots can have up to 10% of their land use allowed for accessory structures. So anything that's greater than one acre will have more flexibility in what they can build for accessory structures. Moving to chapter 37, Subdivision regulations simple things updating mailbox, cluster, node, and utility notes with reference to drainage facilities. They must have a public benefit for the city to assume responsibility and maintenance. Clarifying the language for timing of retaining rock wall installation, and to make that consistent with what is already outlined in the tech manual. Additionally, clarifying when the TIA traffic impact analysis should be submitted and requiring that a scoping meeting prior to preliminary plat approval be held. Continuing on chapter 37, we are basically with recommendations from legal updating the the subdivision acceptance process to remove substantial completion. The problem is that the language already conflicts with installation and acceptance of public improvements. That is outlined in section 374 C one. Basically saying that improvements shall be installed, inspected and ready for approval. Maintenance acceptance by public works, which basically means that when a plat is filed, the city resumes, assumes all responsibility for that plat with the idea that we should be accepting completed infrastructure. Chapter 38 Development Standards. Some modifications to the sign requirements. Added, directional signage updated. Attached and freestanding language. Modified the table to allow same square footage for NH three that is outlined in commercial. We added back some landscaping substitutions. One tree for every ten five gallon shrubs with the idea of. We're trying to help increase the tree canopy and make it maybe make it a little easier for some of the landscaping requirements. Additionally, clarifying the dimensions for local roadway cross sections. That includes lighting, sidewalks and pavements, and clarifying that alternate cross sections need DRC approval prior to final plat and construction drawings. Additionally, we're proposing that any of the requirements related to street lighting be moved to the technical manual, which gives staff a little more flexibility when making updates to that section. Because the tech manual can be updated at DRC, which happens every two weeks, versus a code amendment which requires getting on council for first read, then adoption. It's just a more lengthy process. There's some slight updates to chapter 38, the Park Regulations, changing the terminology from from development to subdivision, eliminating what we refer to as a waiver process and creating an appeal process for for developers or builders that that have concerns that they'd like to work out specifically with parks, adding some language that when constructing trails, sidewalk gaps are to be constructed by the developer updating the work, the walk shed to include continuous, accessible pedestrian routes, and then clarifying the language around park dedication fee. In lieu of that, it's not reimbursable. It is not the same as an impact fee. So those are just some small updates specific to the parks. So again, I'm just getting things started. The staff is here to answer specific questions. At this time. I'll stand for questions or turn it over to the chair for how you would like to proceed. Thank you.

>> Thank you [staff]. I'd like to proceed with public participation before I go into commission discussion. So if there's anyone from the public that would like to come up and comment or please come up here and I'll swear you in and you have two minutes. Thank you. Sir, can you state your first and last name for the record, please?

>> Can I interrupt real quick?

>> One second.

>> Yeah.

>> Before the speaker starts, since this is a code amendment, can we ask for a little more time for each individual? Can you at least give them three minutes instead of two? That's up to the chair for public participation.

>> Sure, I don't have a problem with that. If you want to help me.

>> Thanks.

>> Yes.

>> For clarification, you now have three minutes, sir.

>> [A representative of local homebuilders said the package of about 900 pages deserves much more review time, called the removal of substantial completion the biggest item with potential cost and market effects, said he had emailed the commission a breakdown of good and bad changes, and asked that the item be tabled for a work session.]

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Is there anyone else from the public that would like to come up?

>> [A speaker recalled the 18 to 24 month ad hoc committee behind the adopted code and objected to removing substantial completion, ending cost sharing of street lights on arterials and collectors, and raising the minimum townhome lot width from 20 to 28 feet; argued punch list items could be handled by agreement and said the changes make home buying more expensive.]

>> Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to come up?

>> Thank you. Can you state your first and last name, please?

>> [A developer said everyone shares the goal of affordable housing, objected that the city dictates street light vendors and placement while cost sharing would end, and said removing substantial completion raises financing costs on lots, citing a nine month utility equipment delay on a phase of a subdivision.]

>> [The same speaker asked that the item be tabled so more stakeholders can discuss options.]

>> Thank you. Is there any other public input?

>> [The executive director of a statewide construction alliance said members have raised many concerns, praised community development staff for working with the group, said the roughly 900 pages were being rushed and that many members did not understand what was being discussed, and asked that the item be tabled.]

>> Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to come up?

>> [A speaker said the adopted code was a significant improvement and praised staff's infill and housing efforts, but said development costs are outrageous, these changes make that worse, and further community input is needed.]

>> Thank you.

>> Is there anyone else from the public that would like to come up, please?

>> [A speaker agreed with the others and tried to yield his time to another speaker.]

>> Sir, we don't allow that as a council. You have three minutes specifically, and then he can have his. Thank you.

>> [The speaker added that concrete and asphalt costs fall at the end of a project, so substantial completion matters, and said there should be more discussion.]

>> Anyone else in the public that would like to come up? Okay, okay. I will now close public, close it out to the public. Let me share a couple of my thoughts here for just a minute. As I'm hearing each one of you as our community feedback, I see the concerns that are out there and voiced it concerns me as well. You know, I hear not not enough time to review. I just feel like there needs to be further discussions, more collaborations. I am not comfortable putting this to a vote. Talking to my fellow commissioners. If. I would like to postpone this indefinitely, if I could get a motion to that.

>> I'm not ready to make a motion. I. I have some feedback I'd like to provide, but I don't want to interrupt you.

>> Yeah.

>> I just don't want I don't feel like this needs to go up to a vote. I don't want to continue with this personally. I think it needs to go back to collaboration, both with our community and our city staff. Time is of the essence here. And I said before anything, that's why I would like to see if we could get a or entertain a motion to postpone for identity.

>> Well, if we if we voted to table it, wouldn't it be taking it back to staff and, and the community to for further discussion.

>> Basically, for this motion that I'm requesting, it's a no. I'm basically telling the city that we're not going to move forward with it, that they just need to go back to our community partners here and collaborate with the city. So as I'm requesting this to entertain a motion to postpone for identity, that's what I'm saying is no.

>> Madam. Madam chair, I support the motion to postpone this indefinitely until we get more public input and more information.

>> Do I have a second?

>> I'd like to say a few words before we continue with this particular motion.

>> A motion needs to be removed before words can be discussed. As I've been advised by counsel.

>> Sorry. So what? What are what do we what needs to happen? I, I didn't realize that was a motion.

>> Is anybody gonna second that one. That motion.

>> Yeah. It needs to be seconded for discussion or Mr. [name] needs to remove his motion in order to further discuss.

>> Is it failing if there's no second.

>> So it is. We need a second and then we'll take a vote. And if the vote goes, then it basically is saying, we are not going to discuss this, and this is no longer. And the an update. Let me understand this correctly. An update to the plan will not happen. Is that correct? Talk to me about understanding this motion. Sure, chair.

>> Commissioner Thurston. So what you're basically saying is you're not recommending this forward for a recommendation from PNC. Now City Council has final authority on code. So if you're saying that, then you're saying we are basically saying, no, we are not. We are postponing indefinitely. That is one option to go. So that's what the chair's proposing.

>> So that means if I second that it's meaning I don't want I don't want any changes to the code. I don't want any extra discussion. I don't want I'm just going to say, no, I don't want this at all. Is that, is that essentially what I'm if I seconded that, is that basically what I'm saying.

>> Chair Commissioner Thurston yeah. You're saying you are sending a recommendation from PNC that you're you're basically saying, no, postponing indefinitely is the equivalent of PNC saying no to this.

>> And then.

>> That's a recommendation that gets forwarded to city Council.

>> Okay. So if we just say absolutely no and then it goes to the next step, would then go to city council with a no recommendation at all from planning and zoning. And city council can go ahead and vote and say, well, we're going to do what we want to do anyways, even without your recommendation. Is that correct, chair?

>> Councilor Thurston City Council is the final authority on the vote for sure. They are the deciding entity when it comes to land code when it comes to municipal code.

>> So if there is changes within the code that the development that we would like to see, would it be better for us to table something so that we can have a actually give a recommendation to City Council? Because my, my opinion is I would like to give a recommendation to city Council as to what we're wanting to have happen and change in the code, because I believe there are things that can be better for the development and also better for the city, infill areas and other things like that. That would be a positive for our city in which that in that case, I would say I would like to that would be more of a motion of a table to then have a discussion between it and say, if we said, okay, we want to table it to next, next meeting.

>> So. Chair Councilor Commissioner Thurston. So if you table it, it doesn't have to come back at all. If you want to make recommendations, then I think you should take option three and have a discussion about things you would like to amend that we now bring to City Council and say, these are the recommendations that are coming from PNC. Would you like to bring it forward with a recommendation to leave substantial completion? You can make that amendment and say staff is proposing to remove it. PNC is making a recommendation to keep it. You are proposing we are proposing certain updates for redevelopment. You can say, I would like to amend to change those or, hey, here's a great idea. I'd like you to include this one as well. Now's your opportunity since it's in front of you to tell us what you would like to see. But I recommend keeping the process moving because if you table it, there's it. It just dies. There's no forward conversation regarding it. So my recommendation would be, if you want to say no, the chair is proposed a way to do that. But if you want to make changes and keep this proactive conversation going, I would recommend proposing amendments that we can then go back and include as we take it to City Council. That also gives everybody an opportunity to come to city council, have those discussions in front of City Council, and we can sort of continue this conversation with council, who ultimately is the deciding authority on the code? That would be my recommendation.

>> So so I like I like the option to amend it, but my fear is this. So I, I went through the code and I had to use some assistance in understanding all of the things because there's, there's quite a few changes to it. So by doing so, there's like I have. Basically like 130, it says 141 items that it pulled up for me and being able to say, okay, is this good? Is this bad? I haven't had enough time personally to, to review all of those, to be able to give them my recommendation of amendments to it. There are some, like today that I do want to talk about on like on your, on yours, on page four, page eight, page nine, page ten. Those are some things. But I want to make sure.

>> Make sure you.

>> There's a way to have a little bit more time to get with other individuals to do that. So I'm trying to figure out if I, if I do vote to amend, how, how do I, how do I just postpone this 30 days?

>> Because my discussions, discussion would have to happen now.

>> Yeah. So now it's like we have to do it right now. So all your information at hand. Does that make sense?

>> Staff, if I can have a follow up question real quick, Commissioner. Thurston, are those recommendations in an area that they just is it under substantial completion or is it all over the presentation? He just said, because we can actually make a motion to remove that that substantial completion section and go back and discuss that and just move everything else forward. But it where is your most concerns at? That's what I need to understand. I just don't agree with this. And I'm trying to find a way. And I hear you and I'm with you.

>> But so chair, to to answer your question, I guess for, for me personally to feel ready to move forward in an amendment, there are several individuals in the audience that would be beneficial to me to have discussions with on other items that need to be done. There are street lights, Street lights is one. There are on mine. I have the technical manual. There's some changes, procedural errors in the the technical manual that removes P and Z from it and it goes to DRC. There's a couple issues that I have with that. There's drainage issues that I have. There's Rockwall issues that I have.

>> Mr. Chair. So, chairman, I just interject real quick. My question to you is, are you proposing changes to things that we are not proposing changes to meaning. We are only bringing forward select changes. If you're requesting that we take it beyond what we're proposing, I would actually recommend keeping that separate, and that could be an additional conversation with staff and address those separately. We are only really here, and I know I said before, if you have some good ideas, I meant 1 or 2, not 140 712 but, you know, I would say if there's conversations that the Commission would like to have about other things that you would like to bring forward, I say we have a separate conversation. I would like to keep the conversation here to what is being proposed. Are the changes. So within that frame, I think we can have a conversation. It doesn't mean we can't bring a code back to you guys for an update in the future and then back to council. But given there's a lot of issues tied to the redevelopment effort that I'd like to see continue moving forward to council, I would like to keep the conversation to what we are proposing tonight. So within that frame, do we have comments, discussions chapter by chapter. We've got all night. We were here till 11:00 when we adopted this. We can start that conversation, but I would really encourage the Commission to keep this conversation moving, make a recommendation to not move certain things forward amongst the things staff has recommended. But I would keep things that are new, like some of the comments related to traffic lights. If you're talking about questions about things that we are not proposing changes to, that should be a separate conversation with staff that ultimately can come back in front of the commission at a later time. Does that kind of strategy that makes a little bit more sense?

>> It helps my my fear on that is if it's not a presentation given from staff to the city of Las Cruces, the what do you call them? Not us, the city board. City Council. If it comes as a recommendation from P and Z, here was the recommended changes. But here this is what staff wants. I have noticed that some of the recommendations from from P and Z just on this last one when we went in and we said, okay, we recommend you to approve this new document, the new planning document, but we want you to not include parks. That's not part of it. When it went to City Council, city Council didn't care anything about our planning and zoning recommendation. They just skipped over our whole parks conversation. And you can look in the minutes and you can look in the videos because it was not discussed, it was just passed, even though that was a recommendation from this board, is that the parks to pass everything else except for the parks, we didn't understand a lot of things during that park situation because a lot of things can change. Procedural things have changed, fees changed, and so it was just passed on without us. So my fear is saying, hey, let's go ahead and just give you some of our changes. Unless it's going to come over as a staff recommendation to city, I would like to approve of a packet that you're giving instead of approving one amendment here and one amendment there, because then they're going to go, well, we're going to approve what the staff did and not what P and Z recommended. That's just my fear of what happened in the past. And so I I'm fine going one on one tonight, but I would need, I would need some more public participation to be able to go through the line items. And then we can kind of agree and move forward as a, but I, that's my, that's my little bit of fear.

>> So Commissioner, there's an I, I can appreciate that ultimately we bring forward what is recommended and not recommended by P and Z. And what Council ultimately decides to do is out of staff's control. Right? So I can appreciate if, if you feel like there's stuff that you were advocating for that council didn't agree with, I that's sort of the nature of a recommending body versus, you know, final decision. So staff can't sign on to recommendations that we're not bringing forward that we're not aware of. So again, that's why I would recommend separate conversations with staff to sort of figure out if there's compromises that we can make so we can bring something additionally forward that speaks to those concerns. To me, that's the best path forward voting to table. It just kills the whole process and we're back to nowhere. So I'm I've got nowhere else to be. So let's get this party started. I'm happy to jump in and figure out. And like I said, we've got staff here that can answer questions. And Commissioner [name]'s got some. So I will let the chair decide how to move forward here. But I would recommend we focus on what we are presenting and keep it okay.

>> We have a motion on the floor for postponed entity. I'll have Commissioner [name]. You have comments.

>> Yeah. I mean, I'm assuming that motion died. I mean, nobody seconded it in, what, 15 minutes? So.

>> Well, you were talking. I could I could actually second it myself, but I wanted to extend the courtesy to Commissioner Thurston and yourself for your comments.

>> Yeah. No, I appreciate that, chair. And I guess I have I have a lot. Just to try to organize my thoughts and kind of where this conversation was, was headed in the last few minutes. I, I also agree with Commissioner Thurston about it sort of feels like we're in an impossible situation here tonight. Some folks may want to see this not go forward at all, but I do think that there's probably a majority of us that want to make a recommendation, a positive recommendation. However, given our previous experience in this with the code update, it feels like to me and part of what I think Commissioner Thurston was alluding to is how that recommendation gets presented to council. Council is free to do what they want. That's clear. But how that how our recommendation gets presented to them. I feel like in the past it kind of gets glossed over. It's a one sentence, this is what P and Z recommended. And there's there's really no additional context, no explanation, no analysis. So I feel like that's one thing. So if we were to make a recommendation going forward in a positive manner tonight, I would ask that staff not gloss over our recommendations, whatever they may be, and clearly articulate our position as best as you can. Based on the conversation tonight to Council. So that Council understands that we're not just five yahoos up here making stuff up, that we're actually putting some thought into this. So that's one part of this personally. I don't feel like I'm in a position to say one thing or another. I appreciate staff coming forward with updates. I think this is what we should be doing. We should be looking at our code. We should be evaluating it. We should be making sure that it's working to achieve the outcomes that we want as a community, 100% behind that. I also think that we should be very crystal clear in articulating why we're doing what we're doing and what we hope it's going to accomplish. The staff report was two pages, one page, maybe of any kind of analysis, and I don't think that's fair. I don't think that's fair for the public, in particular the general public. There are people in this room who are very good at reading these codes and understand it, but 99% of us are not. And I think we need to be very clear about what we're proposing, especially with something like this tonight. I think in other situations where we're just changing a to we don't necessarily need a drawn out process. Right. But I think for what we're looking at tonight, I just don't think we're meeting the bar on articulating why we're doing it and what we hope the outcome is going to be. I think that's an absolute bare minimum when we're talking about code changes. So I don't I don't know how we proceed. I personally would like staff to go back and come forward with, I mean, the presentation you gave tonight I thought was very helpful, very beneficial, way more useful than the staff report for sure. But that's not that's not enough for us to react. I mean, the code is 900 pages long. I had I had asked for an abbreviated, abbreviated version of the code so that we could just focus in on what the red lines were, and that wasn't provided. I don't understand why, but I think that could also have helped facilitate the conversation. As the staff report was posted, people could have quickly zeroed in on the changes that were being proposed. But I don't think that's enough. I think we also need to have an explanation as to why we're doing this, because when you just give us a 900 page document, we're trying to interpret why this, why not that? Why did we go this direction? Why did we not go that direction? And I don't think that's fair. I think there are some good things, though. I think the move towards incentivizing infill development was something that I personally didn't feel like. We went far enough in the first iteration, so I'm glad to see us moving in that direction. I, I have some reservations about the very specific. Levers that we're pulling. So I'm open to talk more about that tonight. But that's, that's kind of where I feel like I am right now is I just, I, I would expect more analysis and articulation from staff explaining the rationale and what we hope the goal is by changing the substantial completion. I mean, I'm not sure what, what is the rationale for that? And then let us decide if that's the right approach and we can make the recommendation to council whether or not we agree with that approach or not. And I don't I just don't know how we get there tonight without being here till sunrise or longer.

>> So, chair, Commissioner [name], that was sort of the intent of having staff here was to provide that clarification. So I mean, again, we can start diving in chapter by chapter if that's how you want to approach it. But staff being here to sort of have that conversation in a public hearing is, is how we intended to answer those questions, explain what we were trying to do. I still would argue that that's a better approach than trying to write it all out, because ultimately, I think we're going to have to be back here explaining it anyway. So again, I'm happy to. That's why we have staff from all the various departments impacted. They know in detail specifically why we are proposing these things. I would recommend giving staff an opportunity if at the end of it, you feel like some things just need to be removed, that's your purview to remove that. If you're comfortable with some of the explanation, that's also within your purview to keep moving forward. But I would allow staff to have that opportunity to come talk and explain what it is that we're proposing.

>> Yeah, I mean, that makes sense. And, you know, I'm not asking certainly in the future going forward, you submit a 900 page staff report, but just having some more meat behind the bones. I mean, there's two pages for I don't even know how many pages we're proposing changes for just it's not sufficient, in my opinion, for us to adequately prepare. That being said, I agree with you. We would still be having this conversation anyway, but I think having that material ahead of time would help us formulate our thoughts. The other piece that I guess I'm struggling with, I think others are struggling up here too, is if we if we ask to remove something, it doesn't stop it. It's going to go forward as is, and then it's up to staff to present our recommendation to council. Is that correct? Like nothing actually is left behind.

>> Chair Commissioner [name] so you're saying if you guys recommend a removal of something. Yes. It still goes forward. And I think what you're asking is do we explain why P and Z made the recommendation to not move that forward. That is that is that my clear on what you're asking?

>> Yeah. And I think you're answering it.

>> I mean, I think that's a fair response to say, especially if there's issues that are somewhat controversial. Part of the ruling was substantial. Completion did come from the legal department. They are at city council. They can articulate to council specifically why they are asking for this change. So that's a good venue to have that conversation. If it doesn't get to them, we can have that legal conversation with them in a public setting. So it's kind of a catch 22 on how some of these things move forward or don't move forward.

>> And is legal here to explain it to us.

>> Chair Councilor or Commissioner [name]. No, there is no one from legal here tonight.

>> Okay. Moving forward getting back to the agenda post postpone sorry post.

>> I don't recommend that. By the way.

>> Post postponed.

>> Postponed for identified. Stopped. So it's going to die. My question to you staff. What if we made a motion back to what Commissioner [name] was suggesting? If someone made a motion to just remove the request to the substantial completion from code completely, that section. Tell me what that would look like.

>> So I chair, I think what you're saying is don't remove it from code because we're. The recommendation is to remove it. So you're saying you guys make a recommendation to leave it in code, correct?

>> No, to remove it.

>> Oh. Oh I'm sorry. So you're asking what happens if.

>> Yeah. If I if one of the commissioners up here says, okay, I, I, I, we can remove that section because that section is really needs to be, I mean, I understand a lot more needs to be discussed, but that that area is really.

>> The crux.

>> Yeah, I feel it is. I mean, it really needs to be dissected substantially more.

>> Okay, so at this point you're looking for additional information. I'm going to turn it over to the public works director who facilitates that process.

>> So let me commissioners, will that help.

>> To to me? No, no. My issue is this. What's going to be recommended from staff is what I would like to agree upon and just vote yes. But I would like that. I would like the opportunity to have discussion with staff over a couple of these changes so that they will change it, and that will be staff's recommendation to City Council, and then I will vote yes on it, because I am fearful from what has happened in the past, that my recommendations from this board will not go forward when it goes to City council. So I would like to be able to have a staff report that they're going to take to City Council for their recommendation. And I will say, yes, that's. And so tonight's meeting, in my opinion, is more of we're going to go back and forth, but it's going to come off as here's staff's report and here's P and Z recommendations separately, and I'll get city staff report that's passed and the planning and zoning ideas will get dismissed. That is my fear. I want it to come in as one packet from this board. We say, yes, it moves on. We're in agreement. There's a lot of stuff in here that I'm already in agreement with. There's other things that I would like to discuss, but I would rather have a I don't want to give amendments. I would like to just give a packet to city Council. And I believe if you had about one month and if we could table this to a date to next meeting, that would be my recommendation. That way we can go back and forth over a couple of things we can get with city to go over a couple little things as the development group. And then when it comes in here, we can basically go on and say, we agree amended move. There's too many items on here for me to have gone through. Every single one that I don't I don't have total clarification on that. I might be totally fine with. But I mean, if that's the way we're saying tonight, then I can go over 141 items, but I think it would be better time, better spent to be in a room together and going over those 141 items and saying, that's my that's my opinion. So I, if not, I would, we just I would more on the lines of just say, okay, just get rid of this as a recommendation and let staff's because staff's recommendation I think is just going to go forward anyways. So we might as well just not. I mean, I might as well just second what you're saying. Or is there, is there a better way to actually have that communication? That's, that's my fear. And I hope I'm, I hope I'm clear in it because I, I am always in favor of positive change, always. I am not a guy who wants to just sit and be like, well, I'm fine with the way it is for the last 30 years, I like change and I'm like change every year. So because we see things that are wrong in the code, it needs to be changed. I hundred percent agree with it. I just would like it to be a presentation we can agree with and move forward and not have 30, 40 different amendments that City Council is not going to look at.

>> So, chair, I was trying to keep commissioner, and I was trying to keep us on a schedule where we take this to council in December. However, I'm fine if we push it into January, I'm good with that. So we could come back next month. But here's what I will say. These are staff's recommendations. So if you have recommendations from P and Z that's going to come from you. But these are our recommendations. So we can certainly have a discussion and then come back and have that discussion. You know we can have a discussion in between and then have the discussion at the next meeting. But I'm not going to say that staff is going to adopt all of the commission's recommendations if they're different than what staff is already proposing. There may be things that we can compromise on, sure, but I'm not going to stand here and say we will accept all of the Commission's recommendations in order to get a complete yes. So if we're good on those terms and staff's good, I'm fine pushing till January. I'm sure [staff]'s probably breathing a little better because she was going to have to do this all night tonight, so she'll be fine with that. But that would be I think that would be a fair compromise to sort of allow more time.

>> Right.

>> Sure.

>> I agree and just a moment to come back and saying I mean, we we could have been here on earth going around that line chapter by chapter, five chapters out of 904 pages. And referred to some type of agreement with with. To move forward. But if we all get it all right, so it's much better to actually have meetings where we can sit and discuss it and push it back, you know, a couple of months. So just so your, your proposal to, to do that sits well with me because, you know, I think that the fact that the, the, the specific set specific sections of the five chapters and, you know, you know, when it comes to municipal code, I. Two was having a difficulty trying to understand a lot of what the changes were being made. And so, yeah, I mean, I am, and we could all read, you know, with bloodshot eyes and, and still not have have a full understanding and acceptance of what, what these changes are. So yes, I agree that if we could push it back, that would be that would be, I believe, very acceptable to this Commission.

>> Chair, just as a point of reference, because it is the holiday, the meeting will be like on the 17th. So it's one week, it's not full month, it'll be basically three weeks. So just letting everybody know that's when the November meeting is. But I still think given the amount of time we've had and the time we still have moving forward, that should be sufficient to review and have a discussion. And if you feel like you need to set a meeting with staff, happy to do it, if that time frame works and we can, you know, table dates specific to the next meeting, we'll just push our plan back to January for taking it to council if that works for the commission.

>> Okay. Moving forward, at this point, I would entertain. Have you all said your comments?

>> No. So I would like I agree with the approach, but I think we now need to provide our feedback into some of the specific issues so that staff can go back and consider what we're saying tonight, because I think if we just vote now, they're going to they're not really going to have a direction to go. They're just going to come back with exactly what they have. And maybe that's what you do. At the end of the day, I don't know, but I think we need to have some actual time, not till 6 a.m. but just to go through some of the big ticket items because I have some specific things that I just want a better understanding of. And I might agree with staff. At the end of the day, I just don't have enough information about it. So I would like to hold off on a motion and let us have some back and forth dialog for a little bit so that they have direction.

>> So my thought on that is if we we proceed with the table with a date specific. That would give us time to either do I don't, I'm not. I'm calling it in general as a work session, but kind of a meeting with the public and also maybe one with the commissioners and then one with the public, and get some input with that before you come into a November 17th meeting for a vote. So if we were to table it with a date specific, do we have enough time to do that so we don't have to spend all night long in. You're hearing it twice from the commissioners. What's your recommendation there, chair?

>> I think the clerk is.

>> I was going to say.

>> If you want all that, then I would recommend tabling it to December. That way it gives staff enough time and then they can meet with commissioners, they can meet with whoever it is that they need to, to get the additional information to bring it back to you guys in December.

>> Commissioners. That's that's my thought. I think instead of spending so much time dialog back and forth, I think that my recommendation would be that staff would meet with the P and Z and also the community and get some feedback from there and then conclude this on just in the meeting in December.

>> Chair, I don't necessarily think we can meet with P and Z. I believe that's a quorum issue. So I would recommend some measure of providing us information. We can take that. We can provide more feedback to the commission via email or, you know, through the next meeting. And then we can meet with, you know, with the with the home builders and the developers. But I, we need to be careful of having a quorum.

>> I'm sorry I scratched that. I was just trying to get our input. Whether you meet with us 1 to 1 or whatever that looks like to get our input.

>> You do that? Yes. Yeah.

>> If we meet one on one with you guys, would that not be like a rolling quorum as well?

>> No talking to each other?

>> No, because we're not talking to each other.

>> Clarification on that. I want to make sure. We're good. Okay. Yeah. Thanks. Okay. So when's.

>> The meeting in December date.

>> Well.

>> It's also the third week because of the holiday. So that takes us to. December 15th. Yeah. December 15th.

>> Okay. And we have still a motion on the table.

>> For that one.

>> That one died. I went ahead and counted it out as a as, as it being dead.

>> Okay.

>> So.

>> So not right now. The table is open to do any motion if we need to.

>> So just so I understand and we're all clear on what we're doing here, so are we all good with ending tonight with the understanding that staff is going to meet with us individually between now and late November, when staff reports need to get written and agendas need to get posted for December. Are we okay with that, or do we want to have some open conversation tonight on the record in a public forum? And I'm not saying we talk about everything and we're here forever, but just having because all we've been talking about tonight so far is what what are we doing? What what do we want to.

>> Do a motion and how to do it right. Yeah. I guess one of the motions could be is to table it to December 15th and include a, a discussion tonight for what our main concerns are as a commission and then come back. We can I guess maybe we could just do it in that manner or how. Tabled December 15th with a.

>> If you take. I was I was advised.

>> Commissioners, if you table an item, we can't discuss it anymore. Vote on it. Once we call the vote on it.

>> Correct.

>> Okay, so I'm a little bit confused. How do we move forward with a discussion either with. I need some guidance here?

>> Well, I think we could just continue the discussion right now because you haven't called a vote on any of the options right now. So if the commission would like to either ask staff questions or just say, here are some of the things that I have concerns with, you can do that. You can also, we could also put a discussion item for the November meeting that gives you an opportunity to relay more information. I see Commissioner Thurston looking for some cues in the audience. So I don't know if you have some ideas on how you would like to proceed here, but I'm all ears.

>> So no, I like your suggestion.

>> Okay.

>> As I, I like, I would like for our members of the audience or our community as a whole to talk to some of us and say, hey, these are our concerns. Can you bring them up? I mean, their voice is very important to us.

>> But in tonight or. In just this discussion or.

>> Part of part of the discussion moving forward.

>> So no additional discussion.

>> Now that's that's.

>> With commissioners. Yes.

>> That's what I was just going to clarify right now. So we can we can hold off on voting. Yes, voting no amend or table. And we just have a commissioner discussion. We we go with that. And then at the end of that discussion, we can vote to do one, two, 3 or 4.

>> Correct.

>> So I would just say, let's have a discussion currently and then let's do the vote at the end. Is that is that.

>> That's fine. That's acceptable. I just wanted to. Okay. Let us begin the discussion. You want to start Commissioner.

>> So before we start, chair, would you like to go chapter by chapter? How is that the best way to do it? Okay.

>> I think it makes the most sense to go. So chapter.

>> We can jump in with chapter 34. I'll go sit down. We have staff from other departments that can come up and sit at the table. Our planning staff has all their stuff laid out there so they can answer questions, and you can direct to whichever department that you want, if that sort of works for everybody. Sound good?

>> Yeah. Okay. That works. Can you flip? Yeah. There you go. I think there's one more on chapter 34. Is that correct? One more slide. Yeah. So I think for me, these are where some of my questions lie. So. My, my first. Well, I guess my first question is when it comes to the urban core, the infill, did staff do any research on other jurisdictions, other places in the country to look at how other communities have been successful through their development code and encouraging the kind of infill development that I think we all seek here in Las Cruces. Was there any outreach to other communities, and as you were coming up with these particular recommendations,

>> Chair Commissioner, specifically not on these. However, that's been an ongoing conversation as we've evolved the code as we've been engaging in the process. What we did here was we basically said, what sort of things do we have purview over that we can impact? We get into some anti donation issues. There's some restrictions we have. So we really tried to look to see regardless of what other people are doing that's successful, what what can we do. There's ultimately not a whole lot we can do where we're not financially incentivizing stuff. So these were the things that we had control over specific to the infill. So yes and no. I mean, this was basically all we could do with what we had available. We looked at things for existing building code. There's state restrictions, there's energy code restrictions, there's other limitations. So the box that we could work within was basically this.

>> Okay. Thank you. So. What what do we mean by the so on the public safety impact fee and the park zone impact fee, what do we mean by waived for five years that parentheses. I'm I'm not sure I understand what that means.

>> Chair Commissioner. We're just sunsetting the provision to waive those fees for five years. After five years, we will reinstate the fees. So we're saying for five years we won't be charging those impact fees on any residential development on lots that are one acre or smaller in the infill. That's basically all we're saying. After five years now, Council staff at that time could recommend extension or they could say, we're going to follow this, but we're proposing only five years right now.

>> Okay. Yeah, that the sunset was the key word that I don't think came through initially. And I was just like, well, it's a one time fee. I don't understand how in five years we're going to show up and collect it. So that makes sense. Thank you for that. So then that would be the same. No, for the landscaping, we're using different terminology here. Right. So we're saying 75 up to 75% reduction and deferred for two years. Can you help me understand? AM I interpreting that correctly?

>> So we did the sunset because those are actual fees, revenues. When it comes to landscaping, we already have the provisions to reduce what's required as a sort of non-life safety part of the code. What we're saying is, in addition to the reduction, we're also giving you two years to come into compliance. And we're providing you some alternatives for what landscaping basically can be. So sort of three different things. We hear a lot about landscaping being sort of an unnecessary cost or, or an extra cost. That's not critical to a, to a business opening. So again, trying to figure out still a requirement. So it looks nice, but also understanding it's not essential.

>> Okay. So I think this is where I probably disagree a little bit. And I appreciate the challenge of trying to attract businesses and or investment into underutilized parts of town where we have existing infrastructure. It's not easy. That being said, I think we also need to look at some of the underlying conditions that sort of facilitate. The environment, the built environment in which we have these MRAs popping up, and there's pretty much a common denominator across all of them. And that is car centric, which by necessity means large roadways and large parking lots. And I'm not sure waiving the landscaping is ultimately going to change the trajectory, right. Absent some massive capital improvement on a streetscape or anything like that. I'm concerned that by waiving the landscape requirement to that degree, that we're sort of disincentivizing like true investment into a into a property, you know, they're just going to a business may come in, they're just going to open shop in that existing business. They might do some improvements to the facade. They might do some interior interior improvements, but they're not really changing anything about the context in which they're operating. And I feel like we're just going to get stuck in this hamster wheel where we're not really going to make much progress. I mean, these are also the communities that are suffering the greatest from urban heat island. Our summers are getting more brutal. You know, try walking to a business just across the street in some parts of town on a July afternoon. It's brutal. I don't know if this is the right answer, but that's my concern when it comes to the landscaping. I know we just had a case come to us on Lowman in this part of town, and they got the waiver for the landscaping and the landscaping they did put in. Was kind of sad, to be honest. So I think if we're going to do something like this, well, I have I have two thoughts. I guess I'll just throw out there and I'd love to get your reaction to it. The first one is, is there a different approach where instead of waiving the requirement, maybe it's a reduction in the requirement and more of an in lieu fee that can then be used to landscape other parts of the corridor of the infill area of the MRA that are more conducive now for landscaping. So retention ponds that are just filling with trash and dust, can we do green infrastructure projects with that money? Is that even a possibility? Is that legally feasible?

>> So Commissioner, chair, Commissioner [name] so I hear where you're going. My my thought is what we're doing is we are weighing every decision against a building that's sitting there vacant right now. Right. So in your situation, your example, the alternative is the building still remains. So we have a business. They come in, they do some investment. Sure. It's not what it could be. But the alternative is a vacant building where I will say the business being there is actually a more is a larger benefit because with the MRA comes the tax the tax increment portion. So if we can build up the GR in that area, we now have the tax increment through the MRA that we can use those funds to. Now do some of the projects that you're referring to. Right. So I don't want to say you don't need to landscape your property, but you still need to give us money because we're going to go landscape over here. I would rather waive the requirements so they can get open, have them start generating some sort of GR that can now be collected, and parks or public works can now come in and use that money for some sort of beautification project, which is a more appropriate use of that money than saying, we're going to take your money and directly go landscape. So I see where you're going. I think this is a mechanism that gets two things going. It gets a building revitalized, and it also provides GR that can be used for future projects through a broader MRA tax increment.

>> So that makes a lot of sense to me. I appreciate that answer. I would have loved to have that in the staff report ahead of time, because then I would have been then I would have been on board. We wouldn't be here. Okay. Thank you for that. I guess this is maybe going a little out of order, but I think it's directly tied to the landscaping piece. I think it was chapter 38. It was the one tree for ten shrubs.

>> Before you go to 38, can we stay on 34? I know a couple of things.

>> Yeah. I just wanted to touch on the tree specifically. We're saying one tree for every five gallon shrubs to increase the canopy. Can we then evaluate sort of the palette of trees so that we're actually getting a canopy? The the case that we heard, I think it was last month or maybe the month before on Lowman, it was just those little twig of Italian pines or whatever they are that are just like toothpicks sticking out of the ground. I don't feel like that's really accomplishing anything. So if we could I don't disagree with this, but if we can maybe look at that overall, if we're going to make these substitutions, can we make sure that we're actually making progress rather than have an actual shade tree versus just a toothpick sticking out of the ground?

>> Sure. Chair. Commissioner [name], I don't believe that any of the specific trees are tied to this section. Correct me if I'm wrong, parks.

>> But I do believe that there is a specific list that may be done via resolution, where we could have a different conversation about what some of those are. So this was basically just to say we've seen cases now where they have to plant 50 shrubs. Okay, you don't need 50 shrubs because we are in a desert and drought and all that stuff. But hey, can we do ten trees instead? So this was just to sort of address that issue. But I hear what you're saying, and we can go look and see where the selection of trees is identified for options.

>> Yeah. I mean, I think if we look at that list and make sure that we're going to get out of it what we want, then I'm on board with these substitutions. So I think that's all I have for chapter 34.

>> Commissioner Thurston.

>> Okay, so 34 I only really have one, and it's more of a concept than than anything is does this concept and changes that you have here, does that get developers to invest in the infill area?

>> Commissioner Thurston aka developer Thurston you tell me, I this is what we can control. Do you feel like if you are someone looking to open a business and you meet with the design professional and they tell you, here's all the money you're going to have to spend to bring that particular building up to code currently versus what these changes are. I feel like that makes that upfront start up cost for a business a lot more attainable. I'm not going to sit here and say that this is going to solve all of the issues we're having with encouraging redevelopment in the infill. There's other things that we know we need to address, but the things that we have control over, I feel like this provides about as much of an incentive from the land use code that we can do. I'm not sure that answers your question, but if you have things where we could stretch these options, all ears.

>> So my, my, my brain went directly to, okay, if we're going to, if we're going to change the infill. So development as a city, it's better to put meat on the bones than to create more bones. Meaning you have your sewer, your water, your curb, your gutter, all of your infill. And it's better for the city to be able to densify and use all of that and put meat on the bones, right? Meat on the utilities so that you can get the GRT to be able to basically have a healthier city, have a financially healthier city. It's not as good for us to go out and do what you would call urban sprawl, right? Because you go out and you're extending the bones again, and then you don't have enough GR to cover basically the roads for all of those, the roads, the utilities and all that kind of stuff. So you don't have enough money for that to, to be able to cover it. So what I'm trying to say is, is this at a point that it would get a developer to come in and say, hey, instead of me buying that that vacant piece of land and bringing utilities to it, would I rather go in on salami? Where would I go somewhere else on these infills? Because now it's economically better for me, which would be better for the city? Because ultimately a developer is saying, I would like to have a rate of return on the dollars that I invest. And that's the majority of them. They want to have a rate of return. So if this if we incentivize this and we still this is not strong enough to even get us to get developers to come in and do anything, even using an MRA, then I'm saying we still haven't gone far enough. And that's really I'm just basically trying to say, okay, should I go to the East Mesa where it's simple, where it's easy, it's vacant land, I don't have to deal with anything. Or do we still have is there can we can we waive more fees? Can we waive the building fee? Can we waive the is there a way to waive more so that you can put meat on the bones? And I'm just strictly thinking on a city standpoint, I would rather if I was a city manager or if I was running, I would say I want more meat on the bones so that I have a healthier city, so that when I need GR to go put in youth facilities and when I need something, I have money to do that. And so I'm, I'm saying to take it up another notch to where we get that investment into these areas. And you can see a asphalt, a sea of asphalt turn into something different and a higher and better use for the land than just a sea of asphalt. So that's, that's my approach. So I don't know how to come in here and tell you to change A, B, C, D or E.

>> Can I make one recommendation or comment? Yes. We already waive building fees for infill development. That's already part of CDS process. So we're already doing that. And that in and of itself isn't enough. That's why we were adding all of these, which are in code. That's why these particular things. But we already do that where you can get your, you know, your fees. Yeah. So that's.

>> So is there any more, I guess what I'm saying?

>> Is there anything more you can add to this legally through your guys's, through your view? I'm, I'm wanting more to come in so that you actually get your development, not just something that a developer will come in and like it's still better for me to go out. That's my, that's my main point of my long Windedness.

>> So chair, Commissioner Thurston, I, I hear you and we can always go look. As things come up, we looked at waiving utility impact fees. State statute doesn't allow us to do that. So we had to take that off the table. So when it comes to the fees, we've pretty much cut all the fees that you would have associated with infill development. Some of the other expenses. We are hoping that some of the site infrastructure improvements that we are now waiving or having a more flexibility will save you money by not having to do some of that stuff. The I mean, the other thing you're basically saying is disincentivize urban sprawl and double down on infill redevelopment. So are you suggesting we double the park impact fees on the East Mesa? Is that what I'm hearing you say?

>> No, that's high enough.

>> That was.

>> For the for the group in the back. No, I hear you. And I would.

>> Encourage anyone on the commission and in the in the developer community, if there's other things that we see that we could be doing, I think part of this is going to be we need to get the ball rolling to see if there's other opportunities that now come up.

>> One, one.

>> Suggestion that I would have to add to this would be that they would get an expedited review for free, so that on infill project. So if someone comes in on Solana and says, okay, I'm going to go in the parking lot, I'm going to put 300 units of apartment complex. Well, time is money. And so if you can add in a free expedited review now instead of it taking a year long to get that done, and we can get that done in 30 days, all of a sudden you're going to see developers and saying, okay, now I'm not tying my money up. As long I can get this approved quicker, that would be something that would incentivize a developer that wants to move his money.

>> Sure, we can look at that. But again, that's not in the code. So that's handled. That would be handled separately. Okay. Same thing with the building fees that would be handled through a different process. Okay. So these were the things in code specific to what land use code can do.

>> Yeah.

>> That's all that's all I had for 34. I just wanted to make it get double up. Can you get rid of all the fees? You know, there's $500 still left.

>> We know that was the best I could do, and I tried, believe me. Any other comments on chapter 34 before we move on? I don't want to spend all night on chapter 35. So that was some that was some humor. I'm trying to keep the party going here, guys. I don't want everyone in the back to fall asleep. Okay. Chapter 36. This is basically the chart. And then some of the definitions, conditions associated with that.

>> I didn't have anything on this one. Do you guys have anything on this one?

>> I'll I mean, I'll probably follow up with written comments between now and then, but. I think, Commissioner Thurston, to your your point that you're just making, I think these these other sections are important to consider, too, when we're talking about infill. So the one thing that stands out to me, I, you know, I like number seven, small multi-family, removing the amenities. That that seems like it would be an incentive, especially, you know, 13 units, perhaps on a small lot, you're not going to have a lot of room anyway for common area. And so that makes sense to me. The one thing that I'm a little nervous about is the number 114, adding tow yards into the NH three. That's our most urban zoning district, right? We don't have anything.

>> NH three is our highest density.

>> Yeah, yeah, that's what I mean.

>> So and before just I can turn this over to staff, but there are already similar things that are allowed in NH three. That's why we added tow yards because I believe. Sir do you what are some of the other things that were allowed that were basically similar to tow yards?

>> Madam chair and then Commissioner [name], the way that we actually did it is we added it into commercial parking lots as well as garages and included tow yards, because there are conditions that are placed upon the properties. And so just because it's labeled and designated within an NH three zone, you still have to meet the requirements of essentially the conditions. The conditions are laid out that parking lots, garages, tow yards must be within 500ft of an office, commercial or industrial use. So that will eliminate some of that area where it's primarily residential. And the other condition is going to be that the parking area shall be suitable with landscaping paved, drainage lighted and then free of debris. And so it's still not trying to create a characteristic that's going to impact onto the residential development that we do see within that urban core.

>> Okay, that sounds fine. I guess my I'm still concerned that in our urban core, there are parcels that probably meet that criteria. And then, oh, also they're going to come ask for that 75% reduction in landscaping. We've seen it before. We've seen it with self-storage. So my. My concern is that we're sort of, you know, to my earlier point of the challenge of how do we balance these things? How do we attract the kinds of we do, particularly when it comes to infill? Because I'd hate to see our highest density zones continue to turn into self-storage or a tow yard or more drive thrus is even in that category. I know that's not specific to this, this point, but that's just kind of a concern I have is making sure that we're not doing something really good over here and then unintentionally canceling it out over on this side of the equation. So that's just a comment. Do with it what you want, but I think it's just something that we need to make sure that we're looking at the whole picture when it comes back together.

>> Sure.

>> Any other comments on 36 on this particular slide?

>> Anything.

>> I have some more. 36. It shows that there might be an increased cost for child group homes, and that would be on 36-3.A there might be an increased cost on that. That's something.

>> Are you talking about items number 36 and 38?

>> Yes. Is there is that in. But is that just because of. That's the New Mexico code. So we have to agree to it.

>> Yeah. So chair Commissioner. For me this. Yeah. The state updated. Really it's less cost to them because now we don't even charge them for a business registration. So we've eliminated costs for child care per state statute.

>> And then it looks like we have a change in like the live work. On the 36-3.A. I don't know if that's on. I don't know if that's on yours there.

>> Number two.

>> Talk to me about that one. Can you explain that?

>> Sure. I'll turn that over to CD planning staff. [staff], do you want to take that one?

>> Correct. So basically staff just saw that, you know, live work is permitted on that on on basically we just added that no more than 50% of the property shall be used for residential purposes. It's just trying to keep that balance of live work. It's you're living there and it's work. You're working there. Typically when you see live work, especially even in the urban core, it's more work, less residential. We're just trying to keep that the that balance on the property and make sure it's no more than more, not more one and no more residential than the actual commercial use on it, because it is more of a commercial use.

>> And that's in the commercial. What zoning would that be under?

>> That is under number two.

>> Mr. Chair, Madam Chair, and then Commissioner [name], live work is going to be permitted in each ones twos, threes as well as CR and Las. And so it's putting it out there to make it a lot more broader. So that way it can be designated in any of the zones because there's nothing to say that you may have an industrial property where you'd want someone to live and work and maintain it. Right? So you're looking at both options. So it's actually permitted in all of our residential districts and then into our commercial and industrial.

>> Right.

>> Okay. So you're just saying that if I start working from home, I just can't work. More than 50% of my house can't be for business, right?

>> It gives.

>> You that's what.

>> It's saying. It gives you the flexibility to use your. Let's say you have a large home. You could do office out of there. So no more than 50%. You could be have your home office and expand. And then like I said, like [staff] said, commercial retail and light industrial, we see a lot of night watchman, proprietor, guard 247 on the property. It allows for that for that use to happen by right as well.

>> Okay.

>> Also just a clarifying question on that one. But the is the live work the same definition as home occupation. So in other words, the work component is limited to certain types of work or it's not.

>> No, no it's not. If it's a permitted use in that zoning district and you want to use the live work aspect, that would just be that additional use with the home occupation is much more restricted.

>> Gotcha. Okay. Thank you.

>> All right. Another one. Distress sells. It says it has a potential increase in cost. Why why would it why do you think there'd be any potential increase in cost on that one. Or is there.

>> Madam Chair and Commissioner [name] there's no increase in cost. What's taking place is as we're navigating through our fee schedules, we're also looking at identifying any of the land uses that are listed somewhere else within our code. Under business registrations, we have distress sales. This comes straight from state statute as to what we have to follow. You follow when it comes in. And so these are just the parameters and the guidelines. And then we have to allocate where it actually takes place, which is a temporary use. It was never in our code before, so we had to find a place for it to live in there just because of the modifications.

>> Thanks. I think that's all I have for. Well.

>> Anyone want to advocate to leave flea in the flea market definition? Are we good to move on to that?

>> Yeah. No, you can go to the next slide.

>> Okay.

>> Okay. Hold on. I got one more on 36. You're 20 foot to 28 foot.

>> Commissioner. I'll let planning staff deal with this one.

>> Commissioner [name], I know you're referring to the townhouse lots because we were looking at them from a utility standpoint. Right now, we generally do not see any of the developments that do come in less than the 28ft. That's what we've always seen or seen developed at this point at 20ft. That does propose a challenge for utilities to be placed in if they actually have all three utilities and meet separation requirements. What we can do is provide essentially the detail that will show what the smallest lot could be, as they are currently rewriting what the minimum standard is. So that way they can be used on additional lots. With those standards, it is to remove it back to the 28, knowing that that has been our smallest lot, that has currently met our utility standards and separation requirements for lots.

>> Okay, so I want to I just want to throw a couple of points out here on this 20 foot wide home will still give me a 16 foot wide garage on a townhome if I go ahead and attach them, I no longer need any more feet than than 20ft wide townhome. It's basically zero lot line, right? Because we're attached, I can get my sewer and water in on the street. And then if I did a Paseo on the other side, I can then bring in my other utilities so we will be able to have a double sided utility. So if.

>> You have.

>> A or an alleyway on one side, and then you have an alleyway on the other one. And now the you would have a rear entry if you have a rear entry that would allow you to have a Paseo through the middle. And then these houses would face each other with a paseo in the middle. So they'll set back, say, if there's a 15 foot setback from the lot for the front, you would have basically 15 on this side and 15 on that side. It would leave 30ft in the middle to have a paseo from edge of the house to the edge of the house. In that 30ft, you could still run other utilities. So you would have I wish I just had Google Earth that I could just show you, but you would have enough space to still leave the lot at 20ft on the ends if it's six, if you do six townhomes together on the ends of those lots, you would need to go actually wider because of the utilities and other things like that. But for the ones that are attached in the middle, you can you can do it at 20ft. And there's other places. Once again, I know I always love to use other places because they do. The missing middle Las Cruces does not do missing middle there. And if we do, it's very rarely. And so I would I would like to leave this as a 20 foot so that you can actually achieve some more missing middle. And it leaves more flexibility for the code. So I would I would not recommend actually the 28 foot for a minimum of a townhome. I would leave it as a 20. The way it is, we just we haven't seen it yet in Las Cruces because it's, it's, we just haven't seen developers come in and use that, in my opinion. But I think at the 20ft, you can find examples of other cities that use it at 20ft. So it will allow that higher density and still allow us to get into a more affordable project. I would I would like you to consider to strike that one out, Commissioner.

>> What I would say is, given that utilities is sort of part of this discussion, we can make that recommendation. It sounds like what you're proposing is more the exception than the rule. So if there's a specific detail for what you're proposing, maybe that's how that's addressed in the utilities detail and in their standards that they're working on. But we can certainly add that to the more conversation to be had category.

>> Because the townhome at 28ft wide, attaching those, you're starting to use up quite a bit of land as you start to have a four plex. Now a four plex, you know, if you're attaching, you're at what's. What's 28 times four you're at is that 10112 sure. So about you. So 112 would just be the house, the, the four houses. And then you'd have to still go a little bit more. So by going to 20, you can actually shrink that lot a little bit more and get a higher density. That's.

>> Yeah.

>> So I would agree with that. I think it's, that's another example of where we're doing a really good thing over here. And then we're undermining it over here. I think we should seriously consider striking that increase. And I would even consider going further and saying, let's even go smaller. I recognize there's a subdivision element of this. You don't want a one foot, you know, parcel in the middle of town, but it is very clear when you look at housing studies that minimum lot sizes are big contributor into our current housing crisis. I know we don't have minimum lot sizes, but by having minimum widths, it's you're sort of treading there towards a minimum lot size, right? Because you're saying you've got to have 28ft. And like we just heard, there are situations where that's going to be too big, especially in our infill. I think we should be looking at, you know, what is the skinniest house someone could buy or build? I don't think we should say no to that. I mean, there are plenty of examples all over the world of some pretty skinny houses, which honestly make for a fun neighborhood. When you see a little tiny row house. So I just think it's another one of those examples where I think we need to tread carefully and making sure that we're not undermining the bigger goal of increased density, more types of housing, simply because we want 28ft for some random reason.

>> Anything additional on 36?

>> Nonconforming lighting? Is that an issue on here that you have? 36-5.G.8?

>> I don't believe that was one that we were recommending changes for.

>> I think that's it. I think those are the only ones that I have for 36 small residents. No, I think you had a change on that. That was a better one. And. Requiring, oh, where's the $50,000, the trigger for 50,000. There it is. 36-5.G.8. There's like a additional or structural modifications valued at $50,000 or more trigger landscape requirements. Is that in is that a recommendation. So that one on the one hand, we're saying let's go ahead and get rid of landscaping. And this one, we're saying if it has any more than $50,000 of structural modifications, now we're going to make you put landscaping in. So can you help me? The understanding between the two of those.

>> Madam Chair, Commissioner Thurston, it's it's two different things. One is under the infill. So they could use the infill process to not have to follow those requirements. This is for any other non-conforming property in the city that doesn't follow, that can follow, that doesn't follow the tier three of the flex development standards if they do any type of addition, excuse me, or any structural major structural modifications to a building, that's evaluation for $50,000, it has to come in compliance with code for landscaping. That's just standard that we that we brought back. Because right now, let's say you have a shopping center, you're doubling the size of it and you're doing absolutely. And there was no triggers for you to bring to make sure your landscaping was in compliance. There's no requirements to make sure you have enough parking on that property as well. So that's just basically tricking, making sure you're parking and landscaping is in compliance with code.

>> Okay. But $50,000 is if I do a t I.

>> So that's not a structural modification. That's just, that's just an improvement.

>> So it's only. So this is only tied. I'm just asking for.

>> It's just tied to additions.

>> Just structural modifications.

>> That's correct.

>> Okay. So I can keep using my property however I want unless I add on to it. Then I'll add landscape.

>> That is correct.

>> And if you're in the infill, then you can fall back on the tier three. And there would be exemptions under that to specifically deal with that. To [staff]'s point, that would be for things outside the infill area.

>> Thank you. All right. That's all I got for 36.

>> Any other commissioners on 36? I don't think anyone had any concerns about chapter 37. So we can just move on. Correct. Yeah.

>> I will never an issue.

>> Okay. I'll probably going to have to bow out of this one at some point, but I'm not sure who wants to jump in and start some of this conversation.

>> Okay. Can I go? All right. Just on on your bullet points right here. Drainage facilities have to have a public benefit for the city to assume responsibility and maintenance. So there is a. There's a prime example right now.

>> For the development of [name unclear]. That on Mesa.

>> Grande and peach tree. In order. To give this over to the city, I would have had to increase the size of my pond more than I needed. I would have. To do extra items. There was extra fencing that was needed. There was a whole bunch of other items that often made my cost go up. It would have been more beneficial for the city in this one to actually help and become a part of this. Because in the area that I was at actually does have some drainage issues. For the region, but because of the regulations that I had to follow, we said, forget about it. We're going to keep it as a personal pond because of the increased cost. We were a substantial amount higher by going into the city's requirement for a public benefit, even versus having keeping it private. So we figured like, hey, I could just, I could give this land to another homeowner and let him use it and have him maintain it. And I will save hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then following the city drainage requirement to turn it over to the city. So that's I wish there was a little bit better way to find a benefit for the city to use certain aspects of this versus it having to double in size. I think it was what some of the code is. So is there any leeway on the drainage facilities from public works of of other different ways of, of making that more useful for developers to use it? But I'm not now when I say just useful for the developer, I also want it useful for the city. The city needs to receive a benefit. I, I definitely agree on that. So I'm not I'm not trying to come through it because I because, you know, me and my family are developers and I'm don't want you to think like, oh, it's only good for that I do. There is a benefit for the city as well. In, in some of these things, instead of having to follow the presence of the drainage that we're dealing with.

>> Madam Chair, Commissioner Thurston. From a community benefit standpoint, if there are those opportunities, the city would be willing to take a look at those. Those are going to be dealt with on a case by case basis, because it's going to depend on multiple factors. But again, you're looking at upstream the development itself and then the effects downstream. So when the city says it's looking for the public benefit, we're looking for the total public benefit of what and how that is incurred and brought into city maintenance. However, if there is a regional impact that will benefit the community that on a case by case basis, yes, we would be willing and able to look at those situations and say, does this make sense? Is this going to work? We could always have those conversations.

>> So the this is only going to allow if it is a public benefit. So explain to me as a developer coming in, my requirement is I only have to take the historical flow and I can't increase the historical flow.

>> That is correct.

>> So that is going to stop us from just only doing it. If. I guess we'll just leave it alone. You'll just only do the historical flow, and we'll start to see that the city will not be receiving extra benefit, or the developers and engineers are only going to design to the exact size that we're going to need and not give any extra is my is my point in this of you're going to end up causing it? I guess my opinion is that will end up causing a little bit more of a downstream effect of more clear water, but at a quicker pace because of not having a basically a no one's going to take more water just because the city wants us to. Now, I think we're going to you're going to see it a little bit different by by this one. But the city is also not going to have any facility staff to deal with an as well. So I can see that. I can see the understanding of that.

>> So can I just ask a question about. When we get preliminary plats that come before us, there's tracks for X, Y, z. Typically there's a, a pond or, you know, a track for ponding. Are we saying that those tracks are no longer going to be accepted by the city, or it's going to be case by case to determine whether or not you're going to accept the maintenance on those stormwater facilities.

>> Madam chair, Commissioner [name] no, that's not a statement, a level statement saying that we're not going to accept those. This is one portion of drainage facilities. There are also minimum acreage requirements for acceptance of drainage ponds as well. So it's basically multi factor portion of when we accept those drainage tracks into our responsibility, what we don't want or what we don't want to have our community and our taxpayers paying for is city crews to have to maintain thousands or, you know, multiple hundreds of, of ponds that's not efficient for the taxpayer to be able to pay for that type of maintenance to get there on a schedule for those. So it does deal with what that maintenance responsibility is based on how big the development is as well too, right? So you're looking at a small subdivision with 15, 20 homes. You're probably not going to get a drainage track that's going to meet the requirements for city acceptance just off the size. So it it depends on a lot of factors, size of development, where it's located, what the basin is doing, what the basin is doing up above it, what it'll do down below. So there's multiple factors that are considered as as you go through that.

>> And that's what we're doing now. Correct?

>> Correct.

>> So then how how is this? I guess I'm not understanding the change that we're making. The what is the change and, and why? What does that look like if it goes into effect? What would that mean for a for drainage facilities?

>> Madam chair, Commissioner [name] there's really not much to it as far as a change. It's being added in as part of the process earlier in the process. Because right now what we're seeing is those discussions are coming in after preliminary plat and DRC. So they're still continuing on after the developments already into a construction phase or review phase. So what we're saying is the the regional benefit has already been required as part of the technical manual. We're putting it into where it needs to be placed. So that way we have that approval prior to moving forward with these master plans. Preliminary plats. So it's at the timing of the process taking place. The process is already within here saying that you have to provide a regional benefit if the city is going to accept these ponds. We're saying when you actually need to get that approval so that we we are more familiar with it in the process. So when we bring those applications to you, it's confirmed.

>> Okay. Thank you. So it's really not a change from what we're doing now. It's just the timing of it. Is that correct staff?

>> Correct.

>> Before realize before this got passed, I didn't city used to take smaller tracks and smaller pieces of land. You did right.

>> Mr. Chair. Madam Chair and Commissioner [name]. Yes, that is correct. There were the track sizes, I believe were at one acre, but there was a list of standards that you had to meet in order for the city to take that increase to. I believe it's double the size of what it actually has to impact. And then it was also that it provided that regional benefit to accept, but that was adopted and changed in the original version in 2025 for realize. So that came in through February.

>> So that, yeah, that's, that's one of the changes that we saw when you, you do your, you do your load count. Now, I'm not the engineer, so I'm going to mess this up. But you would do your historical flow and we would have to calculate that. And then we could do a little bit more. And then we'd be able to donate that to the city and they would maintain it. Now you have a minimum size that you have to go with, and you have more requirements that you have to. But that was in the that's in the new the new code that happened. And so this is really just basically, I guess, just reiterating, reiterating what current code is, which has been a little bit more of a hardship on drainage for the developer. But I, we could, I could argue my side and city could argue their side to where we would all understand why we're doing what we're doing.

>> So okay, you just made it seem like it was a big concern. So I was trying to understand why, but it sounds like we came around, so it's fine.

>> It's been a big concern only on a couple like the new developments. It's just. We're now trying to find a way. Who maintains that pond where it used to be, the city would maintain it. And so everybody in. So if you did 100 lot subdivision, you put a pond in there. And the ponding used to be smaller, right. And now everybody in that community, community, this specifically for that subdivision would benefit from that pond. Now you'll have to provide the benefit for the regional area. And so it increased it. So now by increasing it, it takes up more land. And so it's increasing the cost of the development, which then in turn. And then there's other there's other regulations that in order to turn it over to the city, there was like there it was more extensive. So now what we have done is basically just in this case, we took one lot and we said, okay, you're going to get your 1400 square foot home here, but you're going to receive an acre and a half and you're in charge of the pond instead of the community in the area, helping, you know, the property tax that the Hunter have created to maintain that little pond. You're now putting it on one individual.

>> But to clarify, that's a comment based on what was adopted when code changed, right? Correct. So okay, so we're not proposing any changes to that.

>> You're just changing the operational.

>> Procedure of the timing of it. Yes. So so I get that.

>> Timing of Rockwell's.

>> That's that's an in that's a depending on the subdivision in your location, that is a substantial increase to a developer at an earlier time than needed. Is there any can you explain on that one of why you guys wanted that change?

>> I believe [staff] has some information on this one.

>> Madam Chair, Commissioner [name]. So essentially, this is another place where we're clarifying and making it consistent with the technical manual. So that way it shows you at the process of when it has to be done. So when you look at construction plans, it's now indicating that the retaining wall would have to be installed. If you go under section three, dash three, G five and nine of the technical manual, that's where it actually clarifies that the retaining wall shall be installed in the initial part of the development. The initial part is the subdivision. So all we did is make sure that it's coming in with the construction plan documents as required for the technical manual.

>> It didn't used to be that way though, was it? I don't.

>> Madam Chair, Commissioner [name] so it has it actually has rotated and changed depending on certain developers. If you speak to them. It used to be part of the requirements. When I first started with the city, it was part of the requirements and it was part of the subdivision and actually got inspected through public works. And then it changed throughout the process and became a separate permit through the construction phase. And then it also currently it became before the new code amendment, it was separated altogether and was coming in by individual builders. And so with the infrastructure that we do see, the reason why we placed it back into the subdivision build out is because those are very important walls to be constructed, and building them at the same time creates a better foundation for those to be standing and withholding for the actual property owners who are now going to be receiving essentially the maintenance of those walls.

>> Is there a way to put a clarification on the retaining rock wall installation on a different height requirement? So what is your what is the current height requirement for retaining wall?

>> Madam chair. Commissioner. [name]. Yeah. Commissioner Thurston, it's going to be essentially it's anything that is retaining more than two feet, 24in. So if you're retaining any more dirt than two inches, essentially that's considered a retaining wall or 24, sorry, two feet.

>> Okay. We do have some topography in this town and.

>> The retaining wall before the code was.

>> Changed, it was a higher I believe it was three feet. Is that correct? Oh, I got someone in the audience saying four feet was the old retaining one. Is there a way to have. So I'm just thinking of like in the. Arroyos area, the like Rinconada area, you have a lot of slope that's coming down. And if it's a true like bigger retaining wall, like four feet or more, is there a way to say, okay, if, if your retaining wall is four feet or higher, we need you to actually put in the retaining wall. But when we're stair stepping a 30 inch or a 25in, do you see what I'm saying? When we're coming down the the dirt is not hurting anything by not being retained. And those.

>> Smaller rock walls.

>> That are between the two foot retaining and four-foot retaining, I think the builder can do it when they get in there. But anything above that, which would be like a substantial retaining wall when we do have like larger retaining, I think you could get developer agreement that, okay, if, if your rock wall is over or your retaining wall is over four feet, it must be put in at that time. So is that, is that a recommendation that we can change on?

>> So Chair and Commissioner, there's and again, I believe you're asking to change the definition of what a retaining wall is. We are proposing the timing of when the retaining walls have to come in. Just to clarify, are you is that what you're proposing? You're seems like you're wanting to change the definition of when it's considered a retaining wall.

>> If you guys got to keep your retaining wall 24in, I mean, I, I'm just saying that anything, any retaining wall over 48in then could be then the rock wall needs to come in at at that at that time.

>> I think one thing that I will say is that part of the impetus for making this as. Over my time, and I can only speak to my time as community development director, the quality of both retaining and regular non retaining walls seems to have been on the decline. So part of us making these changes is to ensure that we are seeing the quality in these rock walls that needs to be built at the retaining wall level. So there's a process by which we are not seeing these being built correctly. And so if we're saying it's a retaining wall, but we're not building it to retaining wall standards, and we're not putting in place the processes to ensure that that's on us, to figure out a way to make the system work so that we're providing correct, safe retaining walls for future residents.

>> So here we are coming from, and I don't disagree with that. I'm just talking about the timing of why over a certain height, because if you and I'm not. So anything over 24in, right. We need to put a retaining wall in. I'm just saying, if anything under 48in will then have anything under can be delayed to the builder, but the builder still has to pull the permit for a retaining wall and will still be able to inspect the retaining wall. I'm just saying anything under 48in to be allowed to be built when the home is being built, not when the subdivision is being built.

>> So you're saying that a wall retaining 48in or less, right? That's what you're saying?

>> Yes.

>> We are now going to roll the dice that they're going to build that retaining wall and pull all the correct permits at the time that they're building the house, which is not what we're currently seeing. That's the issue we're trying to resolve.

>> I think.

>> I would say I think we've tried that a little bit and hasn't been very successful. So I think that's part of why staff is trying to come up with some of these ways to ensure that those are being done correctly.

>> I think you have a mechanism to fine individuals when they do not follow the correct rules, because there's others who won't follow the rules properly as as developing, going up their retaining walls are offensive. And if I if we if you have thousands of feet on a project that I have to, if I'm doing a project that's 100 at a time and I have 50 of those that are going to have retaining because it is going stair stepping up, that is a substantial amount of money that you are causing the developer to come in with. Now, there are certain instances that you can see throughout a hundred units or 150 unit subdivision, that there are larger walls that I'm saying, okay, those need to go in because the vote is just going to slough off. It's not going to it's not going to be done right there. That's what I'm saying. 48in or more. Then we put that in. And then if people are not willing and I still think you can find them, I, I do not agree with for builder or whatever, I, I will stand with you on your side and say, find the heck out of them if you're not going to do it properly, like don't do business here.

>> I mean, I guess since we're not voting on that particular thing tonight, I guess we can have further discussions. To your point, it's a little difficult to find someone when you don't find out for a few years that. And you're.

>> Now you're finding the homeowner still doesn't work. Well.

>> We're in a position to do what's in the best interest of the residents. We're trying to on that side at every opportunity that we get, but certainly can have further discussions on the timing and the size of certain retaining walls.

>> I don't want to belabor the point, but I do think there's probably something more to this as well. I mean, we just seeing over the last month, six weeks, eight weeks or so, the amount of runoff that we're receiving, I mean, it created a mess, right? All these storms, all this rain are our soil does not stay in place. I could see a benefit to figuring out a way, a middle ground here where we're not only dealing with the the code compliance, although I would say that's a completely different issue than the subdivision code itself. But to that end, you know, some of these lots sit there for quite a long time and you just see the ruts get I mean, it does a number that ultimately someone's going to pay for down the road anyway, because you're going to have to come basically bring fill in at some point. But even from just a sedimentation, I mean, it's creating a mess on our roadways. It's clogging sidewalks, it's clogging curb cuts, it's clogging our Ada facilities at intersections. I mean, I'm just thinking of three crosses. I mean, all of this silt fences completely blown out. No one's come to clean it up yet. And those are that grade. I don't know, it's probably two feet. And a rock wall would have prevented a lot of that. Not all of it, sure, but certainly most of it. So I mean, I think there's there's different ways to look at it. I see all, all sides. I if it's a if it's a building code compliance, I'm not sure that's that this is the right mechanism for that. Maybe it is. But I think if we look at it from a more holistic perspective, there might be some benefit here. Maybe it's one of those things where it you get a 12 months, you know, there's a window there where if nothing's going up, then the developers got to come back and put those retaining walls in. I mean, I don't know if that's feasible, but. I think looking at it a little bit more holistically, it might be a better approach. And maybe there's a compromise there. So.

>> Sure.

>> T I, I don't even know what to say on this other than I despise them most of the time. But. It's just becoming it, it, it is becoming a, a substantial time waste and increase of cost. So if there's any way to. Make that quicker, better, I don't even have any suggestions other than that comment. So I can move on from from the T other than it is tough.

>> What what's the rationale for the timing change?

>> Madam Chair, Commissioner [name], the reason for the change is once again, we come back to PNC when we usually have approved with conditions so many times we're coming back to we're still dealing with it through the construction plan. So we're receiving construction plans. We're looking at mitigations. They're not getting approved. And so if we can initially get the scoping meeting done prior, that will move the process along. So that way we eliminate a lot of the times what those requirements will be when we're at final construction drawings. The hardest part is we have that time consuming part where we're waiting in between preliminary plat approval, and we're trying to do final plat construction drawings, and we could be eliminating some of that. So it's if we can speed up the process to eliminate some of those barriers, it would be better.

>> So is, is the issue that the TIA comes back and well, it's always going to come back and tell you you have to do more. But which is one of the problems. But is it an issue of the plats been done. The right of way has been set and the TIA comes back and says you need to redo your right of way. That's the issue that you're running into.

>> Essentially. It's right. We review the first review of the construction plans, and then we find out there's mitigation that has to take place. So now you're modifying that. So you've wasted the time in the design phase before we can accept the plat or the construction plans. And so we're trying to find ways, as we've seen developments come in to improve the process.

>> Yeah. I mean, if that's if that's all that we're looking at tonight in this change, I mean, I think it, I think it makes sense. You want to know what needs to be done at the outset. But I mean, I, I do agree, I think t I need a whole other conversation.

>> It makes sense. But yeah, again, we're just adjusting the timing, future conversations on TIS could exist independent from these modifications. I don't think there was any comments on this particular issue. So I'm just going to go ahead. And that's just to make sure everybody's still awake.

>> I think we know what the the prevailing thought is on substantial completions would.

>> I'd still think there should be some discussion since we're here to sort of, you know, and I'll I'll let David kind of speak, speak to that issue there, but just take advantage of some of this time.

>> So yeah, I would just like to understand the reasoning for the change. I think you understand on the developer side why we're like saying, Holy smokes, this is not good for me at all. Like I think, I think I received this from other individuals in the community as like our highest priority is, is the substantial completion. I'll give you one quick example. I did a development on McGuffey, and it is still not done. It's it's approved. It's done, I built it, everything's done, but it's still not closed out at the city. I have a tractor supply that has been built. It's a year later, I would still not be able to do anything with my land at all until that substantial completion was done. And it it was it's one of those ones that kind of fell through the cracks because it's like, oh my gosh, this is like, I think everybody on both sides finally agreed. Like, okay, let's move. Like, let's move forward. So I had staff help with that. I had, like, everybody was, was amenable in that situation. But by going to this, removing the substantial completion and has to be 100% done can really cause some heartburn. And on wanting to spend money in the town and doing a development, you that that will deter some development, in my opinion. So can you help me understand your the city side as to why we want to change this?

>> Madam chair, Commissioner Thurston, thank you for the question. So first and foremost, the way the code is written currently, there's a direct conflict with the code right now as it is exists in section 37.4 C one with section D in the same section. So in section C in both of these sections you have. When the final plat is going to be filed. Okay, so there's a direct conflict between the code that exists right now. So under C, which is installation and improvements or acceptance of public improvements. That is when the improvements shall be constructed, installed, inspected and with the language included accepted, including all punch list items. That's when the final plat can be filed in D or under substantial completion. It states that in order to ensure health, safety and welfare, the city residents and. And the ability for the city departments to deliver required services. Final plat will not be filed or building permits will not be issued until the subdivision has reached substantial completion as defined herein in the definitions of that infrastructure required. Essentially is saying the subdivision has to be built completely. It does allow for minor punch list items, so by definition, in substantial completion, that development should be completed in whole with minor

>> Punch list items. The difference with between D and C is that in C for acceptance that those punch list items are addressed. So that's the difference between those two. Number one is correcting a direct conflict that exists currently right now in the code. That's what we're addressing. Moving from substantial completion to be able to file the final plat, to start selling lots. The time difference between that is to finish off the punch list items and have that ready, that recommendation moving forward from public works to community development for for acceptance. So that time frame to get the punch list items done should be very minimal. And, and in C. In the code it already allows. For the public works director to delay some of those things. So it's not like we had an example from a developer who came in and said they were impacted by someone else. I believe it was EPE that was out of their control. That is something that's already can be addressed in C under the installation and acceptance of of public infrastructure. It allows exemptions in a. So if those situations occur, the city is still allowing a mechanism to file that plat while these other circumstances are being addressed. So it's not like things are just being completely wiped out or not allowed to move forward. That's the difference between substantial completion and C, with the acceptance of the installations completely. So that was again, I want to iterate. We're addressing the conflict in code number one secondary. What is allowed under substantial completion does have a mechanism in C to allow for those circumstances. If they occur. That is the main reason for the requested change as we're moving forward. If there's a delay in when a development is ready to be inspected for acceptance again under substantial completion, all of those, the way it's written here in the code, all of those already have to be complete.

>> Can I ask a follow up question as a layman here? So if I if I try to recall from the Technical Advisory Committee, when we were doing the first when we were doing realize, I think there was a lot of conversation around this topic, and I. I'm probably misremembering, but 80% completion stands out to my mind as something that was brought up as far as like acceptance. Acceptance can occur at 80% completion with the understanding that the developer is going to finish the 20%, you know, and do due time. Don't hold me to that. But I vaguely remember the conversation being somewhere along those lines. So I guess, can you help me understand? One? What realize outside of these errors that clearly need to be fixed, what the difference is now versus what we had been doing for what, 20 plus years in the old code? Number one? That's my my first question and then my sort of related question to that would be, what has historically been the. I guess, general understanding of, of acceptance and substantial completion in this town, more or less. Hopefully those are not too terrible questions to answer, but I'm just trying to understand like, where do we come from, where we are now and sort of how, how has that changed? And, and what are people's perceived differences between how we've been doing things and maybe where we are now?

>> Sure.

>> Madam Chair, Commissioner [name] so the change that happened with substantial completion stems back from development, and I don't recall if it has been 20 years. Okay. But there was a point in time where when subdivisions were being built, the utilities were still being installed as part of the development. Maybe curb and gutter had been installed. Permits plot lots were sold off, homes were being built without the infrastructure even being completed. So getting to the point where aligning with development, saying, okay, we, we have homeowners now that have their house built wanting to move in, but we can't turn the water on. They don't have any utility services. That was one of the major corrections in moving towards some mechanism to say, okay, permits are not going to be sold up to a certain point. Now for for substantial completion. There's been iterations on, on what that goes for what that what that's been there was a city manager policy written because it was silent at the time. We used that to include it in a note on plats. That note obviously states that substantial completion was defined as the improvements done to a point to where they were could be used for their intended purpose. That was the definition. You're going to get a wide range of what that is, right? Some people are going to say, okay, well, I dug my hole, I got my pond. I still need to do a whole bunch of stuff to it, but the water can get there, right? It's there, but it's not right. So that left a a portion of okay, filed a plat, start selling homes. The time to get the rest of those improvements lingered not in all developments, but there were some developments that it took months, if not close to a better of a year, which at that point we should have already been ending the one year warranty period the whole time, while those improvements are still going on because the plat is filed now, the taxpayers are responsible for paying for the maintenance of those improvements, whether they're completed or not. That's the mechanism that this is also correcting. So it's not just a matter of the conflict as well, but it's also the legal transfer of ownership and responsibilities. So by removing not only the conflict in the code, we're also establishing when that transfer of ownership and responsibility goes. So for the taxpayers, because that's ultimately who pays for this. The taxpayers pay for the maintenance of those items. Once they are dedicated over over to the city, we're their fiscal agent to keep those in, in, in line. So based on the definition of what the requirements were to meet substantial completion in this code that we did, those items at the end are very minuscule to be able to complete at the end.

>> That's helpful. Thank you.

>> So I got something real quick after you.

>> After you're done.

>> Yeah. So just a quick follow up. So we've been realized Las Cruces, I guess officially a year from when you didn't have the option, year and a half when you kind of had the option to go with the old code to the new code. So have we run in or have we heard complaints from the development community under the current code that are that they got they came in the door after realized was the only option they had available. Have we been running into an issue with those projects? I'm just trying to understand. We heard tonight that this is a major change, a major departure from business as usual. I'm just trying to understand if that's actually the case or if we're just literally just trying to clean up a little bit of a miscommunication.

>> Madam Chair, Commissioner [name], from public works standpoint, in receiving those we had been operating the way the code is, is listed. So we were still operating under the substantial completion. So as far as those complaints coming in, we haven't seen those. Right. There may be some disagreements of when a contractor or developer may feel that they are at substantial completion and the city may disagree with them and say, you're not right. We've had we've had those conversations. But having complaints, saying, you know, this is going to cost me personally. I haven't heard any of those. We may have had some staff or maybe community development have received some of those, but for it to be a major cost change, I personally have not heard those up to this point.

>> Okay.

>> Thank you.

>> What do you think the time delay would be, or additional time by switching to removing the substantial completion?

>> Madam Chair, Commissioner Thurston, I would say that's going to depend on the relationship between the developer and the contractor. The in my opinion, the developer has hired a contractor to provide and perform and give them a service that they're paying for that relationship. And that contract, I believe, is separate and apart from the city on when those things need to be done and how that's contracted. The city is not involved in any of those contract negotiations or any dealings. So I would say that all depends on the relationship between the developer and the and the contractor. You could probably have other factors with the amount of work that's going on at the time, other other things.

>> So what do you do in an instance when you can't control the contractor such as El Paso Electric, and you can no longer do a substantial completion? What what is your what are your thoughts on that.

>> Madam Chair? Commissioner Thurston, as noted before, in subsection C, there is under a one a there is exemptions.

>> What if.

>> What if you don't like me during that time when I need an exemption though.

>> Like right.

>> Now.

>> Like right now with all these questions, like right now, maybe you know, that it, it does leave it up to a little bit of a martial law type of a deal that does subject me to having good relationships. And so that does sometimes cause an effect. I, and I have seen it not necessarily in mine, but I have seen it in other people's where there's some relationships, my, my come back to all those. I get where you're coming from on the developer side and maintenance to the city in most cases, I'm going to throw this out that when we put a new utility in, when we put in all of our new utilities, your maintenance is not really that high in the first couple of years. I'm going to just throw that out. I could be wrong, but I'm going to throw it out. As a general suggestion that there's probably not much maintenance that the taxpayers would have to do at the very beginning. What I do see is the person holding all of the risk is the developer. I see that the person giving the go ahead is the city, and so the person holding all of the risk is now subject to new rules to away where we cannot get our money back out in a timely manner. For example, if you don't like me for a short period of time and I can't get El Paso Electric to come out, and I got 90 days before El Paso Electric comes out, I could get my substantial completion. I could almost complete homes. And then when I finally get it fired up with electricity, I could close those homes. Now, me going out. And even if I go out in Prairie Build, I have no utilities and I have nothing. The person who is taking the risk is the person spending the money, in my opinion. And so if I'm willing to go out and put $5 million into the city and to help your GR grow, and I don't have utilities, I'm taking the risk. The city is not taking the risk. I would be taking the risk because I would be taking the risk for you guys to basically say, hey, you don't got to see you yet or you don't have substantial completion. I'm not even allowing you to close on these houses. But you went out and put 20 houses whose the one at risk. And I would say that's still the developer and the home builder and other individuals. So that's my viewpoint. Whether you agree or disagree, that's okay. But that's my viewpoint of it, is that I would be taking the risk, and other developers and other home builders would be taking the risk. And so I, I want to just be business friendly. I think if you guys can relook at this in a different manner to be more business friendly. And I, I don't know what type of revisions you could do. We could, if the, if this is not in compliance with the code. So we're updating it to the code. Why would we have to change this one? Why couldn't we have changed the other code? That's why. Couldn't we have reversed it the opposite way instead of having this one come in? So I think there's other ways to skin the cat. We've chosen to do it this way, which I think might be a little bit harder on the development. Just opinion.

>> Mister Chair and or Mister madam Chair, Commissioner Thurston, I just kind of standing here reading through this. I'm a little curious what the actual concern is, because if I read this correctly, it says installation of the following systems in their entirety shall be completed prior to issuance of a building permit. That's the language under substantial completion. So this is telling you that you have to install everything in its entirety. I to your point, I'm curious where the interpretation is that you don't have to under substantial completion. That's where I'm just trying to get clarification as to. So the what whether the code.

>> Says it or not, what's in actuality, I guess, of what's happening is different.

>> But that's not what we're here discussing. We're here discussing a redundancy issue. And actually, I could make the argument that the requirements under substantial completion are far more restrictive than what under C is, where the Public Works director clearly has flexibility to deal with those issues. When I read this, this tells me that complete roadways, complete and electrified streetlights, water, wastewater, gas, utilities all this has to be completed in their entirety. So I'm not seeing how leaving that in is the real problem here.

>> I'll have to read in further on that. I don't have I don't have a comeback to you. I, I will have to read them further to your point. Yeah, I'll have to dig. I'll dig deeper on that one.

>> So is there any more corrections on 37 so we can proceed forward?

>> I mean, I'm just going to say from from my perspective, it seems like we need to fix the inconsistency in the code because that doesn't help anybody. And then perhaps it's probably the jury's still out on whether or not this is really. A, a issue, because we've only been doing this for a year. So I don't I mean, I don't know how many subdivisions have come in under the new code. And I mean, maybe there's a couple that have gotten to a point where they're saying, hey, I'm going to.

>> Double down because I'm reading under C and it literally says exception. The Public Works director may authorize a delay in the installation of public improvements or up to 24 months. If I'm a developer, I'm saying get C out of here and leave substantial completion. So I'm good leaving substantial completion because it actually holds a higher standard. C is where you guys get the exemptions come substantial completion holds your feet to the fire.

>> Got nothing for you. I'll we'll just have to really. I'll just have to dive in a little bit more and understand that and have a discussion over that and figure out what the development community is, is going to agree on, on, on that one.

>> I'm forward. I'm fine moving forward, leaving substantial completion and removing installation and acceptance exceptions if that works better. If you guys want to keep substantial completion.

>> I don't.

>> I mean.

>> I'm here all night.

>> I, I can't even keep the PDF open anymore on my iPad. So I can't look at the language, which is why I asked for a smaller file. But. Thank you. I have no additional comments on 37 for tonight.

>> I don't either, but we'll I'll get the I'll get the community to put that together and we'll come up with something to see how to to see how to work on both ways. Because I see, I see the city's standpoint and then just making sure that we're just not.

>> I think we're good leaving substantial.

>> So we just need.

>> To look.

>> We'll just look at.

>> That one question.

>> We can go to the next.

>> Can we move on to the next one? Commissioners, you're done with this. Thank you.

>> Sign requirements.

>> Wavy inflatable arm. People everywhere. Always. All the time.

>> I will say Chair and Commissioner [name] the sign thing will be something coming back in phases. It it needs tweaking. We're aware of that. We actually tried to do a whole rewrite of it, but there's just more layers as we are trying to deal with some of the changes that we've proposed elsewhere. This is an area where we've created some conflicts. So I'm just telling you right now, these are some basic ones. I told staff just to hit these basic ones that we see frequently, and then we will come back with with getting rid of the inflatable arm guy for you.

>> I know I want them, I don't want to get rid of them.

>> Well, this include numerics on buildings you drive and half the time you don't know where Lowman is because there's no numerics on the buildings whatsoever.

>> So.

>> Madam Chair, oddly enough, or coincidentally enough, we are also through GIS. We are working on updating some of the addressing requirements and some of the addressing options on buildings independently of code. And that's actually done via resolution. And that will be coming at some point in the future. But that is a point we hear quite frequently. Yes.

>> Thank you. Commissioner, shall we move on? Any comments? Since chapter 38?

>> Personal question is more technical manual. It's relocating. You're going to propose to relocate it to the technical manual. Is that right?

>> The street lighting stuff?

>> Yes, yes.

>> The proposal, Madam Chair, Counselor or Commissioner Thurston? Yeah. Just to move it into the tech manual to make modifications a little bit simpler.

>> Okay.

>> And this is a big plus. We want it there.

>> Maybe I'm starting to see a little bit of issue personally on the technical, like if we can get a technical manual a little quicker, that would be good for some of us to see. We I would like to be able to see it, but I'm going to say the negative of, of the tech technical manual being in DRC versus being in code is it does allow flexibility to to move very quickly, which then is a positive in some instances. And then in other instances, they can it can be changed for the negative very quickly as well. So there is a positive and there is a negative just on both sides of it. So that's how I've it allows that to to change. Once we I've said what I've said what I've said. So but that's, that's the, the, the goal of street lighting to technical manual.

>> Correct. Okay.

>> I don't have anything else on this staff.

>> Moving on please.

>> Parks.

>> Chapter 38. I know parks has been desperately wanting to speak up in this meeting. I can see [staff] over there. So.

>> I, I thought you I thought you would come in here and like redo some fees on your on your suggestions here.

>> We did for infill. Come on. It was like two hours ago.

>> You're right, you're right. Okay. I about to go to sleep again.

>> Was there any comments on any of the recommendations from parks on some of their changes?

>> I mean, I think well, I, I think I agree, at least with the bullet points on. Was that the third and the fourth one, I guess, on the walk shed? So. So you do the walk shed. I think the continuous accessible pedestrian routes. Wonderful, fantastic. Desperately need it. But what happens when you're looking that walk shed includes crossing a major arterial. How like what then happens? I know we've seen a lot of subdivisions come in where you've got a park on this side in a different subdivision, then you've got this subdivision and the closer parks over here, but you've got a four lane arterial road going right through between the two. How would this change, change that, I guess, is the question. Would it would would it then trigger additional improvements? What what would happen if you do this analysis and realize, oh, there's a giant arterial road blocking this access or cutting right through the, the walk shed. What what do we do?

>> [staff] for staff, ultimately that walk, walk shed an accessible route. I mean, it could go through a major intersection. Those are sort of Ada requirements. And so generally though for the neighborhood parks, you don't see you don't see those walk sheds going beyond some of those major arterials. Generally, they're located within the neighborhood or the subdivision, you know, being discussed. I don't see it as an issue. I would see that if there were some sidewalk gaps where there is no Ada access, that's a problem. And we would have to talk about maybe some off site improvements to fix that.

>> Okay. Yeah, I mean, I guess, yeah, certainly you could cross a, a four lane arterial road, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's safe. So I guess that was the gist of my question. And we have seen plenty of examples where there's a park on this side that's that was done under a different developer. You've got a new subdivision in, and you've got homes that they're actually going to be closer to this one over here. I guess just trying to understand how do we, how do we use this to truly make our parks not only accessible, but safe to get there? I don't have anything else at this time. Thank you.

>> Can you just give me can can [staff], can you give me just a synopsis of your five bullet points here as to what you're changing? Instead, just through [staff]'s words, I want I want to hear just your presentation on this.

>> See parks and Recreation director. Didn't I already cut the fees a lot? Is this punishment for making that recommendation that we.

>> Thanks. Thanks for that recommendation, by the way, it's going to be great for the Enfield.

>> Okay, I hope so. Subdivision instead of development. I think it's just legal language of, you know, defining, you know, these come in in subdivisions. And so it was just legal wordsmithing. We created a pill process. So that decisions made by myself or my designee can be appealed to. The Parks and Rec Advisory Board, which is a standard process used. A lot of communities across the country. And then that decision can be appealed to the City Council. And so we create an appeal process. In case you didn't like the decisions I make.

>> What can you explain how that what's the what does that board look like?

>> The Parks and Rec Advisory Board is has a person from every council district that's appointed and then one that's at large appointed by the mayor, and there's seven people that will sit on that when fully operational. Right now, there's only there's two that are have resigned and they're being replaced. And so the board consists of five right now until those appointments occur. When constructing trails, sidewalk gaps are to be constructed by the developer. Do you want. To mention anything on that.

>> Can you help me understand that one?

>> I'd be absolutely happy to help you understand that. So a really good example. Give a recent example that happened Metro Verde, they were doing trails between lots leading from a right of way, ultimately to a park. Problem was that generally sidewalks are built by the individual home builders, not the subdivider, which means that you have a trail that ended at a rock wall and there was a gap going to the actual right of way. Well, that's not Ada compliant. In order to be Ada compliant, you need that gap filled. And so as part of trail construction, that segment needs to be constructed so that people can actually access the trail.

>> Do you think this will pertain to off sites for a developer?

>> I think the way that it's been written in the code, I don't believe that that that would be the case in this particular instance, the way it's written.

>> Okay.

>> You know, you ask about the walk shed and crossing major arteries. You know, we have stoplights, Ada crosswalks. Those things are considered continuous access along the walk shed. I think where you see the issue with the walk shed is, for example, the freeway and you have I-25 or I-10 going through the community, and there's no access to get across. So the people whose lives on the, say, west side of the freeway, they can't just go as the bird flies. And so the walk shed now means they come to a tunnel and then over. And so that is, you know, identifying the walk shed as being a continuous access.

>> How do you see that being done in is, is that for like also for the Enfield's, you'll just, we'll just start putting in different walk trails for the walking sheds. Okay. Yeah. That's what I was envisioning when you said word, you're starting to sew on these infill projects. It's going to start creating the infill. Is that correct? Or the walk sheds this.

>> This was added in as we discussed, doing waivers or reducing the park dedication and the impact fees on the infill.

>> Who pays for that?

>> Well, I'm going to let [staff] talk a little bit more about it, because I think she may have an example.

>> Commissioner Thurston, could you clarify the question for me so I understand exactly what you're asking for.

>> When you update. Maybe I'm understanding this wrong, but when you updated the watersheds to include continuous accessible pedestrian routes. So if I get a corner lot and I have to now go, is this going to make the developer have to go through like on an infill all the way through the basically create a new path to connect to another adjoining subdivision. But it's not like, how do I.

>> I mean, I think.

>> If I only have a one acre piece and now I got like a 40 acre spot there, am I going to who's going to pay for the continuous walking for those walk sheds that that need to be created? Is that.

>> I think the question is part of what the question I had is like, what is this trigger? So you you put this on the map, you see where your walk shed is, and then what does it make? You know.

>> The way it's put in here is, is the waiver is on the infield. If there is a walkable route and, and within that area. And, and I think [staff] has the language in front of her, but I don't believe it's triggering any responsibility for you to create a pathway to it. That's not the the intent of what we wrote.

>> So I'm going to read the language to you specifically related to the watershed, not necessarily sidewalk gaps, because that's a different that's a totally different matter. So parkland standards is where this is found. And it, it talks about sort of how we identify where parks are needed, how they connect to things, ensuring that they're not entirely drainage areas, things of that nature. And this is for see it says walk shed dedicated parkland shall accommodate neighborhood walk sheds, which is defined as a continuous, accessible pedestrian route of one quarter mile by providing a safe, accessible sidewalk or trail connections from the outside edge of the park property to the adjacent neighborhoods.

>> As accessible Ada accessible.

>> Ada. Yes. That's correct. So in.

>> The sidewalk.

>> So so in the context of constructing and identifying the siting for a park, we would want to see that those that were part of this for this quarter mile walk shed, when you're identifying where that's supposed to be located and it's, you're, you're, you're developing a subdivision that everyone within a quarter mile in your subdivision will have a safe, accessible route to that park.

>> Thank you.

>> So the sidewalk is the route.

>> So the sidewalk is the route, but now it's got to go to an accessible. It's going to increase the the width of the sidewalks.

>> Well, no, I don't it shouldn't. Most sidewalks in the city are already three feet wide.

>> All right. I'm just asking for clarification. Okay. And your last one.

>> I'm sorry. I, I, you know, not having the language right in front of me. I appreciate [staff]'s reading that and responding.

>> Absolutely. So that that park dedication fee in lieu, that particular reference is there were a couple of sections in the code that had some old language that didn't apply any longer and that had to do. You made some references to it prior, where at one point we were debating on whether or not neighborhood parks were going to be included or excluded related to fee in lieu. And this is sort of a result of that. There was still a reference to to park impact fees, not necessarily fees in lieu. And there was some confusion about that. And so we've removed that reference to state statute, which is specific to park impact fees, not fees in lieu. And on top of that, one of the other provisions that we added to the code, and I know this was something you were concerned about, is what specifically can fees in lieu for a neighborhood park be utilized for? And so we've outlined that specifically in the code so that people know it can be used for neighborhood park, it can be used for any of the other alternatives that are specifically outlined by this section in code, so that it's really clear that there's a distinction between park impact fees and fees in lieu. They're not the same thing.

>> Thank you. Yeah, that was one of my main concerns on the fee in lieu is what can the money be used for? So it's not just arbitrarily being spent, which we know where it's going. So thank you. I don't have any other questions. Anybody else?

>> I just one last comment on the walk shed. And I think you're reading the language again was helpful. I want to make it very clear that there's a distinction between meeting the Ada requirement and truly a safe feature in our urban environment. We we know how to build an Ada intersection that you can get from one corner to the next. That does not mean the intersection is safe for any pedestrian or cyclist for that matter. And it's we know what makes intersection safe. We know what safe crossings are. So I would just ask and encourage staff when we come back to this, that maybe we can make sure that we make it clear, especially with these neighborhood parks. And when we saw it on Spitz Avenue with the new developer coming in, that's a local road designation. We say it's safe because it's local. And everyone that came in and spoke about that project said that that was. Those residents would then cross Spitz Avenue to the park that's directly across the street without any crosswalks, no speed humps, no traffic calming. Yes, we can build an Ada ramp, but it does not mean that intersection is safe. So I just want to encourage us when we're looking at things like this, that we're we're really setting the right standard and not just saying, put the curb cut in. And that's all you got to do. Like we need to make sure that people can access these places in a safe manner. So that's it. Thank you.

>> I appreciate that. And that's it is valuable.

>> Commissioners, we've done section or chapter 38.

>> Madam Chair, commissioners, I would like to propose a suggestion. It seemed like really the only chapter that we had a lot of issues with was 37. And then under 36, I believe, is the chapter where we had the issue with the lot size. Would you guys be open to letting us move forward with 34, 35, 36 removing the thing about the lots, we don't even we just leave it at 20 right now. We don't even bring that take 30 to 37 off. If you guys want to have a further discussion on 38, that's fine too. But can we move some of these chapters forward? Those are the only ones we'll bring. That way we can get some of this redevelopment language moving forward. Then we can come back at the next meetings and we can discuss the subdivision chapter 37, which has the rock walls, which has the substantial completion. And if you guys want to have a further discussion on parks, we can certainly do that too. But I that would be my recommendation if we could move some of those forward that seem like you guys didn't have a lot of issues with, and continue the conversation on the ones that need to have some more, you know, working around.

>> [staff], if you can repeat the recommendations numbers once more, please.

>> So recommending chapter 34, which had just some of the general provisions, obviously the substantial completion reference in 34 we would remove. This is the chapter that has the tier three flex for infill redevelopment. I'd rather not delay that if possible. If there was any additional comments specific to that, we can you know, we can address that, clarify the sunset, all that kind of stuff. 35 was silly. I mean, it's just really changing. Plan to design 36 was the land use chart. I don't really think there was much there that we had a lot of concern with. It was just clarifying some of that language, the definitions and the requirements for, for, for non-conforming, the larger lots 37 subdivision, we just leave all that out and have a further discussion about 37 and 38 if there's still further clarification on parks, but I feel like the earlier chapters were good. We can advance those and then continue more dialog on subdivisions and parks if needed.

>> I would like it to just personally, I would like it to just come as one packet back to City Council. So instead of it when when you say you want to just have some approved or you mean you would move those forward to city council right now?

>> Yeah, we would just move to city Council for approval. Only changes to those chapters. We wouldn't reference chapter 37. If you guys wanted to still talk parks, we wouldn't mention chapter 38 and the lot 20 from from 20 to 28. We just leave it. We don't change that. So we pull that out of 36. So it's, it's really that basic stuff. And then the things that you guys really want to have a more, we can focus that conversation on some of that stuff.

>> I, I personally would just say we try to hold off until I would just table. It might if I made a motion, I would just table the whole thing for that way. We just have one update. We're done and move forward. I don't think there's going to be that much. I think if we table it to either next month or even December and then we're finished in January, we're not having to talk about it again. I think it would be done. That's just my that would be my suggestion. But I'm I'm up to everyone else's opinion.

>> And I'm. And I'm just wanting to try and keep some of the momentum. With the redevelopment stuff moving, I don't see an issue bringing two different things to council specific to land use. There's no requirement that says we have to take all chapters at one time. It's how we could have just brought one chapter if we had decided to. So I. I would just push back and say, I don't feel that there's a problem bringing two different resolution ordinances to council. We could still keep redevelopment in in December and then subdivision stuff in the future.

>> Is there anything on the in infill development that you want to change that gives it more. Gives extra oomph to it or whatever you want? Is there anything else you would like to add to that.

>> Chair, Commissioner Thurston? I mean, we've pretty much scoured the options and outside of the fees, which are already in place, okay, we're ready to rock and roll on this stuff.

>> I was just going to say, if you guys had if this this discussion gave you some other ideas that said, hey, let's, let's add something else in here. That's all I was trying to suggest on that one.

>> Commissioners, I concur with staff on this. I would like to divide it up into two and move forward. And I know we can. Table 37 and 38 with 37 especially is a big one, but I would like to at some point get a motion to move 34, 35 and 36 forward. I'll get some momentum on this as well.

>> So that would be making a motion to amend to only bring 34, 35 and 36 minus the reduction in lot size from 28 to know. Yeah. The 20 to 28 that would be stricken from what we bring forward. So that would that was really the only thing in 36 that was.

>> Oh, I make a motion to amend and recommend for approval changes to chapter 34, 35 and 36 without the change in lot size. And is that one motion or do I have to do.

>> 3738 I guess you could just say excluding those two and.

>> Excluding 37 and 38.

>> I do I have a second please.

>> I second.

>> Okay. I have a first and a second.

>> Go ahead and call the vote from down here. Commissioner Thurston.

>> Can you flip through these chapters real quick? Sorry. 3435. So. 343536 that was the motion, right?

>> Right. With some amendments to.

>> Yes.

>> The lots.

>> Commissioner Smith.

>> Yes.

>> Commissioner [name]. Yes. Commissioner. [name].

>> Yes.

>> And chair, yes. Thank you. Motion passes. We will bring only those chapters forward and then we will work with individual commissioners and the public, although maybe it's not a bad idea. If we have you guys invited to some of those meetings as well, and we can do quorum notices and all that kind of stuff so that we can we can do that too.

>> Do we need to make a motion to table 3738?

>> Probably. And then if you want to do date specific.

>> So we'll I'll make a motion to table the changes to chapter 3738 to December 15th.

>> I second.

>> Oh, sorry. They just reminded me that you guys voted on the amendment. Now we need to vote on approving it. Yeah. My bad. So back to voting to approve.

>> 343536.

>> Do we have to make another motion or no, we just vote.

>> I think a first and a second. Yeah. So motion second.

>> First is Commissioner [name].

>> Approve with the proposed amendments.

>> So motion to approve the proposed amendments.

>> Do I have.

>> A second.

>> All right. This is on the vote to approve with those proposed amendments. Commissioner Thurston.

>> I'm going to say no.

>> Commissioner Smith.

>> Yes.

>> Commissioner [name].

>> No.

>> Commissioner [name]. Yes. And chair, yes. I guess motion fails.

>> So that doesn't make sense to me. What what what do we do from here?

>> Well, you.

>> Because we just made an actual to move forward and then we're saying, no, that's a contradiction.

>> Oh yeah. You're right. We have quorum because we only. Yeah. I'm sorry. It passes. My bad. Yeah. It passes. We had three votes and there's only five up there. Okay.

>> It's late. We don't blame you.

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. Okay. Do we have to make a motion to table?

>> Yes. Now motion to table 37 and 38.

>> I'll make a motion to table the changes.

>> Specific.

>> Yeah, I'll make a motion to table the changes to chapter 3738 to December 15th.

>> Is there a second.

>> Second.

>> All right. I have a first and second.

>> Commissioner Thurston. Yes. Commissioner Smith.

>> Yes.

>> Commissioner [name]. Yes. Commissioner [name].

>> Yes.

>> And Vice Chair.

>> Yes.

>> All right. Motion passes. Thank you for your time this evening. We will be following up with more information on that, and I guess we can move forward with the rest of the agenda.

>> Next item. Commissioner. Comments. We have any comments from commissioners tonight.

>> Just thank you for putting up with us tonight.

>> Alrighty. Staff announcements. Just again, another reminder both in November and December, we'll be moving it up to the third Tuesday of the month. So will be the 17th of November and then the 15th of December, which will be here. We only it'll be a light one. Next one. I believe we only have one case. And then in December we'll have this case potentially a few others. Also. We will have meetings those days. So please I know it's the holidays and please make yourself available for us with us. And we're also near the end of the, the, the, the year and people are in a hurry to file plat. So if we're bugging you a lot, it's because they're bugging us a lot. So if we get signatures that we'd be much appreciated for those folks, that's essentially it.

>> Right around what I want to. Ditto what [staff] says. If you all can, please be available for that December meeting. Since we are pushing this back, this is important. I would like to get this finalized before the end of the year, if possible. I need a for adjournment. I need a motion.

>> Make a motion to adjourn second.

>> Second.

>> All in favor?

>> All in favor?

>> Aye.

>> Adjourned. Thank you