Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

The presence of.

One minute. One minute. Change your life. Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Today meeting today is Tuesday, October 28th, 2025 and approximately 6 p.m. My name is Kent Thurston. I'm the chair. First, more business today. We need to have a motion to have a coastal. I have a motion that she can participate in virtually. So we need to have a vote for the motion. I'll make a motion to Commissioner Acosta to participate virtually.

Second. Was that Rico? Second. Okay. This is our motion to allow John to to participate via virtual Commissioner Acosta. Yes, because Commissioner Smith. Yes, Commissioner. Connor. Yes. Murray. Sorry. Commissioner. Kizer. Yes. And, chair. Yes. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So moving on. Does anybody have any conflicts of interest for tonight other than myself? Okay I have I have one which will be the first item that we're going to hear today. So I'll have to excuse myself on that one. The next one. Public participation. Is there any public participation that is not concerning the items on the agenda for today? Seeing none, we will move on and then moving on to acceptance of the agenda. Agenda I second. Just a second, Mary. This is on a motion to accept tonight's agenda. Commissioner Acosta. Yes, Commissioner. Smith. Yes, Commissioner. No. Yes. Commissioner. Kizer. Yes. And, chair. Yes. Thank you. Did you get to online Commissioner John Kingston? Yes. Thank you. All right. Now. Planning and zoning minutes or that goes with the that goes with the agenda already okay. So first item of

business I guess I leave the room. So first item is item 6.1, a request for approval of a preliminary plat known as Mesa Crossing Subdivision. Looking for a motion to approve this item. We need a motion before we hear. I make a motion to approve as presented second, and we'll turn it over to staff for their presentation. Thank you, Commissioner Kaiser Adam, Community Development, for the record, before you have your proposed preliminary plat for what is a subdivision that is known as Mesa Crossing. Subdivisions. Subject property is located on the southeast corner of Mesa Grande Drive, Peachtree Hills, right next to what is the city limits up there on the northeast part of town. Subject property encompasses 20.46 acres in size. It is currently vacant and undeveloped, and made up of several tracts of land. This proposed subdivision is one of our first ones that is actually following Las Cruces development standards and design standards. That being said, it is zoned NH one as described as neighborhood one, Subdivision suburban in the Las Cruces. Showing the subject property here. Southeast corner of Peachtree Hills. Mesa Grande. As you can see, this is just really a hodgepodge of nothing but single family residential with a differentiating in lot sizes from over acre lots to to much smaller lots to the west. So it just predominantly single family residential area showing here the aerial you can see again it is vacant piece of

property. The city limits is literally run through the middle of Peachtree Hills. So this is county to the north, city here to the south. Everything down here is city. So the proposed preliminary plat is proposing 89 single family residential lots in this subdivision. It is all being constructed in one phase. There'll be no phasing done with this. Lots do range in size from about 1.24 acres to about just under three quarters of an acre in size. The proposed subdivision also proposes five tracts of land, two tracks for drainage purposes and three tracks for right of way dedication and improvements that are associated with this subdivision. All five tracks shall be dedicated to the city of Las Cruces for ownership and maintenance, showing the plat here. As you can see, it has two points of entry right off of Peachtree Hills here, Mesa Grande Drive as well. It kind of loops around within itself, allowing for future potential extension of what is this road down here to the south, which is essentially nothing but easements in that area. But they are dedicating that right of way there. I believe that is Jameson that I'm pointing at here, right here. And then on the north side, they will be also dedicating their pro rata share for, excuse me, for Peachtree Hills Road and their pro rata share for what is Mesa Grande Drive. Those roadways will be built out to make sure drive will be built out to city standards. The Development Review Committee did approve a alternate cross section for Peachtree Hills, which includes a trail system that kind of mimics what is further west on Peachtree Hills, closer to the schools in the area, to kind of continue that that type of development along that, that roadway, once that further analysis, we did see no life safety or welfare issues with this proposed subdivision. It

does meet the objectives for of a proposed preliminary plat as required by the subdivision code, and lots do meet the requirements. Development standards of real life Las Cruces lots also meet the requirements of the design standards of the city of Las Cruces. Proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area. Essentially all single family residential in the area. Further improvements provided to the adjacent roadways, which includes Peachtree Hills and Mesa Drive, will also help with the better improvement or better connectivity in that area for the community. With that, staff did send out a public notice for required by code to also on the property owners as required by code. No comments or concerns were received by staff, only questions. What's going to be developed there? How many people are going to be living there? Just general questions, but no real concerns or comments. On August 20th of 2025, the Development Review Committee did review the proposed subdivision. The DRC does review subdivisions from an infrastructure, utilities and improvement standpoint after minor, very minor discussion discussion regarding the preliminary plat, the DRC did recommend approval of the proposed subdivision. With that, staff does recommend approval for the preliminary plat. Based on the findings. The Mesa Grande I'm sorry Mesa Crossing subdivision complies with the requirements and standards. Chapter 37, which is our our subdivision code of real Life Las Cruces. The preliminary plat is consistent with existing development fund within the surrounding area. Residential lots comply well development standards of real life Las Cruces and of course, on August 20th, 2025, the DRC did recommend approval for the proposed preliminary plat as well. With that, your options tonight is one to vote yes and approve the preliminary plat as presented by staff. Two to vote no and deny the preliminary plat. Just if denial is a way

you want to vote, just remember different findings will have to be provided and staff is recommending in the positive for this three to vote to amend and. Add conditions to the preliminary plat as deemed appropriate by the Commission, or for table postponing and direct staff and the applicant accordingly. That is the conclusion of staff's presentation. The applicants representatives are here if you have any questions for them, and I stand for questions. Thank you. Did the applicant representative wish to make a presentation or just standing by? You know, presentation? I'm just asking. Okay. Any questions from the commission? Commissioner Acosta and any other questions? I do not thank you. I have a couple. So in my PDF got all screwed up here. So I'm going to try to read what I wrote. On the. So the easement the gas line easement. Can you describe how that's playing out. It was hard to tell if that is is cutting through individual lots or if it is a if it is its own I guess lot for all intents and purposes. In other words, no lot is crossing over that easement. Can you clarify that, Mr. Chair? That is an easement. So it still is running through the private lots themselves, but that is a no build zone area. No type of development will be allowed on those in that area. The only way we could remove that from that, from those lots, if we created a tract to to separate it from everything. But essentially that easement runs, as you can see, north, north from outside of the city limits, all the way down south through 70 and down further south. The cities of the city, sir. Okay. So the

landscape there, with the understanding that whoever ends up becoming at any time and rip it out and they're not obligated to replace whatever's there, is that correct, Mr. Chair? Just like any easement, including utility easements along your front property line. That is correct. Any type of improvements you do, a utility companies or whoever has interest in that easement or have the right to that easement, have the ability to go in there and do whatever work they need to in order to fix whatever issues or problems that that is wrong with whatever lines are underneath that easement, sir. Okay, I, I hope people enjoy that and they purchase these lots. My next question is on the so the bike path that the applicants are proposing and I guess really the the alternative cross section for Peachtree Hills. You mentioned that it's the. The right of way is split by city limits and then county. How is how is that play with the cross section that they're proposing here? In other words, is it going to get built out symmetrically or is the county going to say, well, our standards are a little bit different. We have an awkward situation. Can you talk a little bit about that? Yes, Mr. Chair, multiple meetings were had by the applicant, the city and the county to kind of discuss what is the alignment of Peachtree Hills. The county is actually looking at connecting the more western portion between which is Mesa Grande and the other point further west. Road skips my mind. I believe it's ornata. Possibly so they are extending their own road that way, and this roadway will essentially continue that same alignment east along this, this proposed subdivision. And then so that will essentially be in the county on the northern side and on the south side. There's area there for for drainage issue

and for drainage, things that need to be taken care of for the city, as well as like a landscape, multi-purpose path, just like what you see in the metro area, which is still in the city and the other side of what is County Road right of way. Okay. So I think that kind of leads me to my second question. So what what guarantees, if any, that this path will continue to get built out and eventually connect with. And I have no idea the distance that we're talking about here. But I drove out there. It seems like it's a pretty significant gap between this intersection, basically the intersection of Peachtree and Mesa Grande. That's a pretty significant gap from what I can tell when I was out there, and I don't know the distance, but what what kind of guarantees are there that this trail ultimately will connect correctly? Mr. chair, what the city was pushing for is to have that trail continue, at least in the city limits. The county themselves will be building a road and a sidewalk on their right of way area. So there'll still be some type of pedestrian connectivity, at least in that chunk of the area. But the city, at least, especially from the park. Parks and recreation standpoint, is they would like to see that trail system continue, at least within the what is the city limits or and Peachtree, the entire way is half in the city limits. You're saying the county has promised to build a sidewalk, but guess who's building what? And what guarantees do we have that this is going to connect? My apologies. Yes, sir. So to clarify, the sidewalk is going on the actual roadway section that the county is building in, which is within the county itself. You can kind of see it in this white part of the vicinity map here between Mesa Grande and Juanita to the west.

That is what they're building the road. And with that road they're putting in a sidewalk as well. So that's providing out a vehicular connectivity, but at least some type of connectivity as well. Then when it comes into the city again right here, that's when we city wanted a continuation of that trail system, at least within the city limits. This was the, I guess, discussions that our Parks and Recreation Department had with the applicant, that they wanted to have that trail system continue, not just a sidewalk, that we could have that multi-purpose trail in that area. And not only that, this would set it up for it to continue also further to the east as more development comes in, since there is a lot of raw land to the east. Okay, thanks for the clarification. I think I'm just I'm concerned that there's that we're just going to end up with this hodgepodge of trail network that's not really contiguous or meaningful in any way. I mean, I, I appreciate the applicant for coming forward and offering this. I'm glad the city is open to it and wants to see it. But this piece with the county makes me a little nervous that there's there's no it doesn't appear that there is a willingness to have a true network in this part of the city. So that's concerning to me. It also. Based on the the sounding map, it seems like there's at least 1 or 2 parcels to the west that may be developed in the future, where the roadway is being improved. What what mechanisms does the city have to ensure that those those pieces are going to be built out, consistent with what they're doing here? So for clarification, do you mean

these lots here just on the other side of Grande? So that is the portion that is in the county, that is the county. So the county will assure that that road gets aligned and hooks up with what the developer's developing as well. But there was no suggesting there's going to be a sidewalk, not a multi-use path. Mr. chair. That is correct. The sidewalk is what they budgeted for because that's they actually have it in their budget is what the county told us, and that is what they got approved for. And they're just waiting to get that built. Okay. That's disappointing. So then I guess my question is, is there any conversation then of how how does this, this project fit into the larger infrastructure trail network that we're trying to build out? In other words, you know, any discussion about the trail, you know? Continue going west to Peach Tree that maybe we should look at turning that corner onto Mesa Grande that's still in the city limits. Any conversation around that? I mean, it's great that there's a trial there, but that section of I don't know how long that is. I mean, not not ideal. I we have a connected network, Mr. Chair, that wasn't discussed. Unfortunately, I believe Parks and Rec was just comfortable with continuing the Peachtree Hills trail system themselves in lieu of what it would be, just like an actual park. The actual development of Mesa Grande. That's still up for question as well. That could potentially be redesigned, but Mesa Grande is already, if you've driven down Mesa Grande is already kind of an accordion effect of different types of roads and how it's being built. It will staff will have to wait to see in the future when somebody comes in to develop the rest of those properties further south, to see if something else can happen along that. But right now they're just following the same. They're following the same cross section that's already been built on Mesa Grande. That

is what they're proposing on their side, sir. All right. I just wish we are a little bit. Thinking a little bit further ahead in our development patterns here, making sure that we actually end up with an interconnected network. I mean, we interconnect our roads. No fall asleep, but sidewalks, multi-use paths, those are just artifacts that are just sprinkled around here and there throughout the city. There's no connectivity. And so I just encourage everyone to be thinking a little bit more thoroughly as regards, I think those are questions. If there's any questions from the commission, I'll turn to public comment. Is anybody here tonight want to speak on this item? Please raise your hand I see one. All right. Come on down, sir. We'll give you three minutes. And before you speak, can I have you state your name so I can swear you in Antonio Lopez? And do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to lose the truth and nothing but the truth and the penalty of law? Yes, sir. I just had a question. I live up there on Peach Tree, where the pipeline runs in between two of my properties. I got two homes there now. I didn't quite understand. From Mesa Grande to I believe it's Mesa Road. Is is that going to be blacktop or are they doing anything with that road there, that dirt road peach tree itself? If you have any other questions that have asked around, I will answer. That's all I wanted. Okay. Thank you. So I'm going to answer for you. I believe the answer is yes, but I'll let staff respond. Mr. chair, the road actually will not be

extended all the way east to Mesa. They are only responsible for the roadway that's in front of their subdivision. So they'll be building from Mesa Grande to the edge of their subdivision. That one, because they were proposing this initially to go all the way to Mesa, but unfortunately, because of ownership of the land, easements not existing on there. And then I don't know if you can tell here, there are some lots here that are right next to where that right of way would have to go. That would have made it almost pretty well. It made it extremely difficult to build out any type of roadway without actual takings and so forth. Like that happening, sir. And to verify the road was asphalt. That's correct. Yeah. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak on this item? All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and come back to the commission. And if there's no final comments looking for a motion to or I guess we're just going straight to a vote. So yep. This is this is a for item 6.1. Commissioner Acosta. Yes. Commissioner Smith. Yes, Commissioner John Preston. Yes, Commissioner. Yes, Commissioner. Kizer yes. And chair is absent. Thank you. With. Commissioner Murray departing, do we need to do anything or. Okay. Go work on your your knee surgery. Alrighty. For the next items chair, just a reminder you will

need to suspend the rules to hear both cases together. 6.2 and 6.3 afterwards. Then vote to reinstate the rules as well. Right? Right. But first we have to have a motion to hear, right? Don't we gotta have a motion to hear 6.2 so we have a motion to hear 6.2. And then after we have that, then we need a motion to suspend the rules to hear both of them together. Mr. chair, I make a motion to hear 6.2 I second. Okay, now we need a motion to suspend the rules so that we can hear 6.2 and 6.3 together. Make a motion to suspend the rules to hear item 6.2 and 6.3 together. Second. That says I vote to suspend the rules and hear item 6.2 and 6.3 together. Commissioner Acosta yes. Commissioner. Smith. Yes, Commissioner Janet Acosta. Yes, Commissioner Murray is absent. Commissioner. Kaiser. Yes. And chair. Yes. Thank you. Are we going to turn it over to staff for the presentation? Good evening. Commission, this is John Castillo. For the record. Today we have Lujan tracks, not administrative replat and a waiver to a waiver to road improvements. The current conditions of the property. It's located at 6401 Jefferson. It encompasses approximately 2.5 acres. It's a developed parcel of land with a residence and accessory structure. The current zoning of the property is REM, which is our residential estate, mobile, and it's located within the suburban neighborhood place

type, predominantly surrounded by single family residential development of similar style. Here's a zoning map to show that everything around it is REM. Here's an aerial map to show the subject property. So the proposal for the non administrative replat is looking to subdivide the existing lot into two new lots. Lot one will be 1.5 acres. This will be accessed from Jefferson Lane and PWS Creek. This one will be the one that will house the residence on it. Lot two is going to be 0.92 acres, which can be accessed from PWS Creek Road and Pecan Lane. This is going to be the one back in the aerial image that has the accessory structure on it. The second proposal that we have is to waive the road improvement, to waive the road improvement requirements associated with the subdivision. Pecan Lane is a 50 foot wide cross section. Which or Pecan Lane will need to be developed to a 50 foot wide cross section, including pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter and lighting. The property is requesting to only dedicate the 25 foot wide tract of land for right of way, with no improvements. Here on this image, you can see how it's going to be split. The tract of land that they're dedicating is going to be up to the north of the property. Notice was sent to all relevant agencies and departments. I apologize. Let me go back to the proposal. From the aerial image, you can see that PWS Creek is an undeveloped road. Back in 2004, this was dedicated to the city of Las Cruces through a deed. So they are not responsible for creating any kind of

improvements along that right of way. Notice was sent to all surrounding properties within 500ft. Staff did not receive any emails or phone calls at that time. So the Development Review Committee or DRC review subdivisions from an infrastructure, utilities and improvement standpoint. On October 1st, 2025, a meeting was held which we discussed dedication of parkland as this is. Transitioning from our 2001 code to the new realized Las Cruces. As this was started back prior to the adoption of realized Las Cruces, they would not be required to provide any dedication of parkland or pay a fee in lieu of if the plat can be filed on or before December 31st. So DRC unanimous DRC unanimously recommended approval with a condition for the Non-administrative Replat. They also provided a an approval to waive the improvements of the right of way. Staff recommends approval based on the following findings. Relevant city staff based upon the review by relevant city staff. The proposed Non administrative Replat complies with the requirements and standards of the City of Las Cruces. Subdivision code, the proposed subdivision that is being created by the non administrative Replat complies with all requirements of the Zoning Code, as amended, and chapter 37 of the Las Cruces Subdivision code, as well as the newly adopted revised Las Cruces. The proposed subdivision also follows the goals outlined in Elevate Las Cruces Comprehensive Plan. The proposed waiver to road improvements meets the intent and purpose of the East Mesa

Community Blueprint. And DRC recommended approval with a condition for the non Administrative Replat, and also provided an approval recommendation for the waiver to road improvements. So today your options are to vote yes to approve, vote No to deny, vote to amend or vote to table. Thank you. So do you want me to open that up to public comment first if I'm going to if is there anyone that would like to speak on or I should also ask if if the applicant also has a presentation for us as well. Before we go on to to comments. You, it's up to you. Any questions? Okay. If there's anybody in the public have any comment on this particular one okay. Seeing none, we will move on to do any other commissioners have any comments? Yeah, I'd like just clarification on what. What roadway we're talking about when it comes to the waiver, because the I think the staff report mentions it's Pecan Lane. But I think in the presentation you were referring to the other road. Mister chair. Commissioner Kaiser, you are correct. It is Pecan Lane that they are asking to seek no improvements to, which is to the north of the property. I did mention Poos Creek, which is also an undeveloped right of way at this time. When the city was building out Jefferson, they did acquire some right of way here at the corner of Poos Creek and Jefferson. And at that time the property owner did dedicate the rest of the

remaining right of way to the city. It just hasn't been built out at this time. Okay, but what they're asking a waiver for both or just. No, they're seeking only to do a waiver for Pecan Lane, which is to the north right here. Okay. And then for the other road they're they're going to build out their portion or no, they won't be required to build out their portion. The city at a later time will be required to build out that portion. Oh, because they already dedicated. Gotcha. Okay, okay. Thanks for the clarification. Is is not a local. Mister chair. Poos Creek is a local, so help me understand the rules. Then I thought on locals, if you are subdividing, you would have to put in all the improvements. So would that not mean that they should be getting a waiver for both of the work? Mister chair, you are correct. According to the subdivision code, they would be required to dedicate all to dedicate 25 to dedicate a 25 foot wide tract of land and provide a full cross section for Poos Creek. However, as Poos Creek was dedicated and deeded to the city of Las Cruces back in 2004, we now retain ownership of a portion of Poos Creek, but just for clarification, no problem. Should they not have a waiver for Poos Creek as well? Mister Chair, they don't need a waiver for Poos Creek as it's already city right of way. It is now the city's responsibility to build that out. Okay, for some reason was a was an interesting one. The. The I guess the

intended use is still going to be residential, right? Mister chair? That is correct. Can you go back to the picture for me real quick? Of the aerial? That one right there. I only have one. Sitting right here. I'm not too worried about that because they're probably going to be right there. But. I couldn't see how much traffic would be. Given. So the dirt roads. But again, I made it here as much for the city is responsible for the Indian River and ensure that the. That we have all these trucks and it looks like there's. Work that goes on in the back door there. I thought that they needed for those roads, but when I drove out here that if there was anyone living on it for whatever, does anybody in. Know actually ask the questions that I had? So. Okay. So we got to I got let me see how to do this. Now. We'll now have a vote on 6.1 to I'm just going to call a vote 6.2 okay. This is on the motion to this is on the vote for item 6.1. Commissioner Joaquin Acosta. Yes. Commissioner Smith. Yes, Commissioner Janet Acosta yes,

Commissioner Murray is absent. Commissioner Kizer yes. And chair. Yes. Thank you. Can I get a motion and a second? That's not to hear it or it's to vote on that to vote motion and then vote. Okay I'll make a motion to approve item 6.3. I second. Voting commissioners and Las Cruces. The current commissioners are Sue Harrelson. Okay. This is on the motion is on the vote for case number 6.3. Commissioner Joaquin Acosta. Yes, Commissioner. Smith. Yes. Commissioner Janet Acosta. Yes. Commissioner. Kizer. Yes. And chair. Yes. Thank you. All right. 6.4 for staff presentation of the ordinance of repealing and replacing chapters. I make a motion to recommend approval for item 6.4 I second. Time is yours. Good evening Sarah Gonzalez with community development. Before you is the proposed amendments for chapters 34 through 38 of the Las Cruces Municipal code and adopting the zoning map as presented. As everyone knows, realize Las Cruces did get adopted on February 18th of 2025, earlier this year. Through the process, we have worked with the community and found different areas in which we needed to do some minor amendments. And this is just understanding that once you

provide code and you start to implement it, you do tend to find changes that need to be basically rectified. And so that's what we're doing today. We did make that promise to council that we'd be coming back every year to see things that as we develop, are they working? Are they not? And what changes do we need to make? So just to remind everybody of what these chapters are, we did have chapter 34, which was our general provisions took care of essentially definitions, roles of parties and then our noticing requirements. Chapter 35 was historic preservation. We did chapter 36, which was our zoning regulations, which outlined the development standards for development of properties, development of lots and sizes, as well as architectural structures. Chapter 37 is our subdivision regulations that basically clarify what you would need as far as a minor or a major planning process. Chapter 38 was our development standards, which included roadways, Park, Park, dedication, land uses that were going to be designated for any of our assigned requirements or outdoor lighting. And then last we'd have an updated zoning map. So to go into some of the major details that were located within our code, we did not outline everything through the presentation, as some of it was going to be just either minor clarification to explain essentially what the statement was in our code. These are going to be more of our highlighted roles, of which we've actually modified or changed. And so for us in chapter 34, in General Provisions, we've revised the roles and responsibilities. City council approving vacations it did have prior going from PNC to City Council. Currently we do have it just going to City Council. The reason we do that is because they are accepting and vacating that right of way. DRC approval for roadway and improvements through our DRC board. That's where we are working through what improvements would be required. Then they would have the appealing body going to City council. If there's ever an appeal for roadways or waivers that we want to see to be accepted, we've expanded and

clarified the definitions. A lot of them came in from the erosion control. And so we do follow a lot of the EPA standards for dust mitigation, dust suppression. And so we clarified what some of those meanings are as well as added some of them were to eliminate. We had areas where it said Dewar deferred, you know, number 37. And then we said dwelling units per acre. We eliminated some of those items. We then have fencing and rock wall structures, and we've clarified what a retaining rock wall is to the public to understand that if you're retaining more than two feet, that's considered a retaining wall. So we clarified some of those definitions. So that way there's more of an understanding from the public when they read our code. When we get into chapter 35 for historic preservation, we only had one modification. Our primary goal is to get everybody through that process for review, being that they were waiting onto a noticing period of possibly 1 to 2 months puts us into a different standard. And so we were looking at modifying it to a 72 hour agenda. Notice, just because we do see our winter months coming, we have a lot of renovations where we see either windows or door replacement. Those actually go through review through our review boards. And so putting them into a two month time frame where when you're starting to get in colder weather, that could actually trigger a lot of issues or concerns for us. Our design review board, you know, can come in, still see all of these and make the recommendations and make sure it's still following the guidelines for historic buildings. When we look at chapter 36 under the zoning regulations, we started to look at modified heights for some of the building stories. What we were finding if you had possibly a Adu accessory dwelling unit in your backyard, they were limited. If they did a two story, they were limited to you had to meet a 16 foot height for a floor. We realized that is not what's comparable to the area. And so we started looking and seeing what's more comparable. We're looking at nine foot or so. So we removed and conformed to what the building heights were around everyone. We also noticed that

secondary fronts were not included in our code. So a lot of the questions we received from the public was what is our secondary front yard setback? So we included those to follow essentially their front yard setback as what you would normally see in the front. So we're trying to still keep our urban area where we're building buildings closer to the sidewalks. You're maintaining your suburban area and maintaining that 12 foot utility easement, you see, and then your rural areas, you're still pushing those buildings back. We also added the garage setbacks to NH3, knowing that we are starting to see some of our residential development come in. And so there are areas where they are looking to put in garages. So if they do put those in, we've given them those setbacks to where they actually know what definition to provide in. If you have a 12 foot setback into the urban core, we know you're probably not going to have a driveway in front of it. You're probably just going to have a garage that's going to be closer to your building front yard setback. And so we looked at some of those dimensions to make sure there was compliance with what the area may already have, maybe some of the averages within some of our urban core. Some of the other changes we made for non-conforming. We added change in land use because it was not there before. And what we tend to see is that we end up getting a higher increase in intensity for properties. When you're in a non-conforming lot, if you see a change in increase, then we want to make sure that they're coming into compliance with our current codes as much as possible. There's also updates to our land use table. These are to list some of them that we did temporary construction yards. We did allow them in all of our districts, but our open space or drainage, because we tend to find that temporary construction yards you're going to build wherever you're able to build that. So they usually will use a vacant yard that's next door. They are for temporary purposes. They still follow our standards. They still have to put up a fence, maintain noise compliance, but allowing that to be in any of the districts, because asking someone to go six blocks away because that's the only zone they can go in is, is a hard demand. And when you're looking at sober living facilities, we added in essentially the group home allowances. So our group homes were taken out. But we do

know that we have sober living that addresses substance abuse, alcohol abuse. And basically you're living in a home without being required to have support from the court system, from any medical services. You're a group home, so you're limited to ten people right now. That's currently what we run to, where basically you're helping one another get through that program or that process. When we looked at indoor and outdoor entertainment venues, we did make them permitted by right in our low end or our light industrial and heavy industrial. The reason we did that is because that's where we tend to see a lot of our larger lots being available. So if you're looking for something that's going to be of an outdoor venue or an entertainment, it's very hard to do on something that's probably half an acre in size. So we didn't want to take those out knowing that there are still, you know, noise requirements or locations. And so you're looking for venues where you have larger land to provide some of that entertainment that could include, you know, soccer fields, baseball fields, but you're in an area where you would not be impacting residential uses as well. We go to professional offices. We did put limitations on the square footage in NH one. That was one of the things that we did forget to add, and so we made sure that the limitation was a 3000ft. If you were going into that residential neighborhood, just to ensure that you're still complying with what the neighborhood homes are, animal raising, we did limit to minimum half an acre in size, and we've had several phone calls and several questions about can we now do animal raising within town, there are still restrictions and requirements through animal control code compliance as far as the restrictions. And so animal raising, when you have a larger lot, you have a little bit more availability to give yourself that separation from those neighbors. So we did put consideration into it's allowed, but we do want to go and maintain that by a lot size. We did simplify the documentation for carports and accessory structures for carports. Right now we are seeing a lot of them coming in. And so we simplified the process as to provide them a document that they would be able to file at the county's office, because the one thing

we do want to ensure is that knowing that you're building in a utility easement, there's always that impact, that if a utility company comes in at that risk by building in their easement. And so we want to make sure that transfers in title. So if someone's purchasing that property, they have that same understanding that someone built it and someone knows that it still can have something happen to it when you go to home occupations. We did not have any restrictions on vehicles. And so we did add in that you can have one business vehicle, but it should be limited to a size one ton has been our standard and has worked throughout the business course to just ensure that it's still compatible with those residential neighborhoods. We move on to chapter 37, which will be subdivision regulations and the minor platting process we modified just to allow. Essentially, it would be an administrative review when public improvements are existing. What that means is, if you were to come in, we've seen a lot of non administrative plats come in. The roadways are already there, the infrastructure is already there, but they're having to wait to get onto the next agenda which could be 1 or 2 months. And then once they get onto that agenda they're following code. So they've met our subdivision standards. What we're looking at is if those public improvements are already there and you're just having to tap into it, and you meet our subdivision code, meaning you already meet your zoning requirements for a subdivision that would now be done administratively. It's when you have to put in those public improvements that that becomes a concern, as we need to make sure you do have right of way. You do have utility infrastructure going in. And so that's where we would be using essentially our major platting process for modified or for master plans. We did modify the requirements to say that you would not need a master plan if you were not more than two phases and less than 40 acres. Most of our bigger developments that are coming in, you can do up to probably about 180 lots or so in 40 acres, is what we're seeing. But they can be built out into one phase or two. We would consider that using

our major platting process, still a preliminary plat that would still be coming before PNC for approval. That doesn't change any of the requirements for the parkland dedication. It doesn't change the roadway cross sections. All it does is modify the process in which they take. And so they would still not require necessarily a master plan, because you could do that in one phase and it could all be the same land uses with a park generated in the middle. And so to eliminate that process, we've just said you can use the master planning process depending on what is actually being done on the property. We modified the Te standards to reflect trip generation in our code. We have now reflected that a trip generation will tell you which three you follow in a traffic impact analysis, so which one you will qualify for. So we made sure to clarify that the trip generation is what you should be submitting to staff first, to identify which of the next three steps you're going to have to follow. That way, you're not one spending more money on a Te that may not be required, and then two ensuring that we're getting the right mitigation compliance for the updated flood zone documentation requirements. We are requesting on certain flood areas that they submit the Lomas and Lomas ahead of time. So that way we can address some of the flood concerns that we've been seeing populating throughout subdivisions. On chapter 38. Under the development standards. We are looking at the outdoor lighting ordinance. We did simplify the language, but everything is still being maintained. And so we made it easier for the public as well as staff to actually use the documentation, but still get the overall goal for our shielding and our light requirements. And we also added in for development ID signage. We never had a definition in there. We see a lot of developments that will come in. You see subdivisions, you see different developments that want a development ID sign. You'll see those through Metro Verde because they will call out their subdivisions. And so we made sure we added a

definition and then required the location, the size and the dimensions under roadway sections. We did do a lot of clarifying as far as what would be allowed and required. We did not modify our cross sections. I think that would be coming probably next year. If we start to see that we're getting a lot of deviations to our standards. If we have DRC approval for a lot of those, we'll probably reconstruct and see where we need to be moving forward after we start using the code a little bit more. So the things that we did modify was just to make sure the curb is included in the parkways, multi use path sidewalks and median width so that we everyone knows that that is part of that right of way. The cross sections are illustrative minimums. So when you look at our code it does say these are the minimum standards. And DRC can modify as necessary or based on your area. We say illustrative because when you look at the images, you have trees that are located further to the right away or to the opposite side. We want the lighting to be now going into essentially what we're calling the street furniture easements. So there's 12 foot utility easements that are located on final plats when they're coming in. That's where we want to see our street lights and poles going. Just because with the six foot sidewalk and the pole base, we're noticing that they are starting to impede onto our pedestrian traffic. And because we are meeting, as you know, as part of our requirement, the standards for accessibility, you do have to maintain a five foot clear path. Those street lights are now coming into question because they're impeding on that path. So we're making sure we're making the right directions to go forward and open up those sidewalks and those areas. Lastly, we have the stacking lane at a minimum of 85ft to 100ft. Our code originally said that you would need a Tia for any stacking lane. We know that through our developments and through some of our driveway standards, 85ft to 100ft will usually maintain what a driveway would need to be or stacking lane when a development comes in. And we also do look at essentially the trip generation anyway, just because it's going to tell us

if they do have an impact, that we may have to increase that length based on their their trip generation and their actual counts per day. The one thing I do want to mention that was not on the presentation, but I did find it, and I think it is one of those things to clarify during Planning and Zoning Commission. When we did our meeting in October of last year, there was a recommendation and a request by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and it was also approved by City Council to put in alternatives to parkland dedication that was not included when we did the rewrite. And so we have now amended that and we did put the language into those. So. Under page 394 of the improvements it did put in other substitutions, we wanted to make sure that those substitutions were included, just because that could be a specialty park that's less than three contiguous acres, that could be in combination of parkland, trails or open space and combination in working with it. Improve parkland located adjacent to other developable properties. And so we had that discussion last year and we noticed that it was not implemented. And so we made sure it got into the code this time knowing we were continuously using it. Lastly, before you would be the zoning map as presented, we did reach out and several members of the public, probably about 40 or 50, reached out to us and working with them to go through property. Zonings once again, we had multiple properties we went through. They identified some of those. We worked with them and clarified their zoning to meet, essentially not taking away the rights that they had before, but giving them something that was going to be compatible and fit still within their neighborhood. And so we've done a few modifications to our zoning map. Anything moving forward in January would be coming to you as a zoning map amendment. And so that would actually go through the full zone change process. We understand that through this process, we are working with either realtors, property owners, developers to ensuring that compliance was provided onto their properties with them

reaching out. That assisted us with basically noticing where we made those mistakes and clarifying and fixing now. So this would be for your options. Tonight would be yes. This would recommend approval to amend these chapters as well as zoning map as presented. If you vote no, this will retain the current Las Cruces chapter. As a recommendation to City Council, you can vote to amend. This would allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend any modifications for the proposed ordinance for consideration to City Council, or you can vote to table. This will postpone the consideration of the ordinance and direct staff or direct staff accordingly. And the reason we are bringing this forward is because we do want to bring this in January as a fresh start, so we know that some of these modifications need to happen. So when we actually remove ourselves from that transitional period, we know how we're going to be moving forward. I stand for any questions. Thank you. I just have three the driveway setback. Can you show me on that one? Has the clarification. And and because the NH three is supposed to be the the highest density that we're using, right. Commissioners and chair, the NH three is going to be your highest residential land use, whereas CR is your highest commercial land use. So NH three is going to cover any of our zoning properties that were either C2 or right on the border of your C3 from our previous zoning code. The stacking lane is more for the inside of the property. Adjacent to the point where, oh, right next to NH three. So your secondary setback is 20. Is that right? Instead of NH three

instead of 23? So the change here is the from. In. From. Our 1520 1512. And then we're going to go through 2011. No. Yeah 2020. Is that correct. Chair. Chair Thurston I think what you're looking at is so it's a garage as opposed to the building. The buildings will be allowed to come closer to the street. You're pushing the garages back knowing that driveways, usually your vehicles are between 15 to 20ft long. And so that's where you would see that 20 foot setback coming in from the front of the garage. You're not looking at the house. The house would be coming forward. And we want more of that coming forward. So that when you see the house, as opposed to the garage, the garage setback, then you could bring the house forward. You're just going to be putting the house. Okay. That was the only question I had on that one. The one can I jump in on that too? But that's not that's not what we're saying. I don't think if I were to page. GS 103, I guess maybe or page 610, the rendering version. The garage has a setback in the urban, which is the same as the setback. Commissioner Kaiser. That is correct. It's only in the urban area where you'll see the 12 foot setback that's coming in. Only because we do have the utility easements, and we're not allowed to put primary structures within those easements. In the urban core, there may be that condition where there is an easement. And so it's different for carports and accessory structures, but it would not be for a primary structure. Is that the only if the NH three only was supposed to be sort of unlocked, pedestrian friendly streetscape.

What would you want to basically be right there in your face as a front setback? Why not actually apply those those garages to be further back and bringing your pedestrian architectural elements of your building more forward into the street? Because right now you're saying I can have all the nice things that I want, but I can also just line all my driveways up or my my garages at 12ft. Mr. Chair and Commissioner Kaiser, it could be pushed back if developers wanted to push them back, but they also have that opportunity. I think if we're requesting them to put it back at 25ft, depending on some of these lot sizes, when you're looking at the urban core, there's not enough room to just push them back further if we would want to set them or make a recommendation to set them back at 15ft or 17ft as a number, we have to be mindful of these lots are not as large, so it's bringing all the buildings up to the front, knowing that some of these lots don't even have the buildable space. I understand this is more of a philosophical thing for me of what we're saying. All of these things we want to we want to encourage active streetscapes. We want to we want to have this more pedestrian, accommodating urban environment. That we can know what we we need to accommodate all of these big trucks in their garages that they're going to sit like, we're trying to have it both ways here, and it's undercutting everything else that we're saying that we want by saying, yeah, you can look at the house right there, right there in the front of the the lot. So my preference would be if that is not the same as the rest of the building setback that it's actually further back and the chips fall where they may. I mean, if you're in an urban pedestrian environment and you can't

figure out how to put a garage on your property, I mean, why are we accommodating the stories of a private of private property versus a public board encouraging a public good? Mr. Chair and Commissioner Kaiser, I don't necessarily think that's kind of the direction we were going. A lot of the urban core right now is coming in and requesting either carports or shade structures. And so garages will help assist with those. When you put them into the front, they eliminate those opportunities as well. So we're looking at everything that we're seeing moving forward. What properties have been requesting. Because they may have had those setbacks that were reduced at one point in time. And we're seeing those requests come in as opposed to a carport. Would it be better to have a garage? Would it better, you know, better look for the architectural style. And so I think that's some of the consideration that's being made as far as where the garage is located in some of these garage areas, you may not have someone who's going to park on a driveway because 12 foot usually won't fit what a car would be before it actually impedes into the actual right of way. And so we're either looking at standards from a garage setback coming in or to a actual carport setback coming in. And so having those as opportunities, I think, just provides to the public that is using the urban core or living in the urban core, where we've seen those requests come in. Sometimes it's the garage is already set back at ten. They're asking us for a carport, and a five foot carport doesn't meet that standard. There's no room for their car to even fit. So if we're allowing the garages, we've now changed the architectural style to where it's not just necessarily a carport coming in, but it's giving them a second opportunity to at least put up a garage that can be essentially, architecturally the same as your home, or maybe even different if you design it in a different way. So I think the placement can always be there to push them back. But it's also understanding in the urban core, there are still people who use vehicles that are still going to want either

carports or garages. So it's understanding both graphics. Yeah, I guess I'm concerned about the unintended consequences here. I'm afraid that this setback being the same as your primary building setback in the urban core, is going to lead us down a path of. None of the rest of the stuff there, because it was going to end up putting your garage right there at the front where it's the most convenient for you, just and disregarding other good, positive things that were saying that we want in these standards. So I understand the the space constraint, I think, suggesting that the setback is 2020 five feet, but I don't believe that it should be the same setback for as long as what we're saying for the primary building in the urban core. I have one one question. So image three if I if I were going to develop it personally, the way I would see me using it in H three is I would probably use like an alley load, most likely so that I can keep all my pedestrian up front. And then I would probably have like an alley load in the back in the setback. Like if I do have a load in the utilities or other things like that, I would want to be able to have like a very minimal, like a five foot setback for my garage in the back so I can utilize, you know, I'm densifying it, right. If we have these little, little can we put it? Can you answer that? If Bencomo me, I wouldn't have to have a 20 foot. Sort of thing where we're not having pedestrians back there. We're trying to push the pedestrians to the front. But then we would have to put my push it back a

little deeper. Do you see what I'm saying? Or would that even be a engineer? I just for clarification, I think the problem is really suburban urban. So it's outside. Okay. Yeah, but if I but if we would have to step back. So then I didn't feel it. 12 but if I wanted to go to zero for a garage because currently there is no setback. Is that what you have, Mr. Chair? That is correct. Right now for NH3 we don't have a garage setback. And so we're outlining saying that if a garage is placed on the property, these would be the setbacks. It doesn't mean you have to put a garage onto the property. This is the setbacks you would follow if you put one on the property. Okay. Is there is there any provisions then on like the like alleyways? We don't have any provisions on the alleyways. I think every case is going to have to be the case by case. Gotcha. As we continue to go through the code, that's where I have to, you know, reiterate, we're going to have to make these modifications as we see development come in. Every case could be a different scenario. We're going to run into different ideas. Right now we don't have alleyway developments. We don't see that happening. If we actually saw those happening, I think we'd reevaluate and say, okay, this does work. This doesn't work. How can this be designed? How do we move forward? So this is a fact or something from any, any property line for garage, Mr. Chair. That would be from any property line whenever you actually place it onto a property. So my recommendation would be that we actually in the urban avenue that we actually distinguish from the front and the rear. Setbacks, whereas the setback is 15ft. And we really can be what, the

same as what it currently is right now for the rest of the building. I think it's five feet with a. Column of ten feet for adjacent properties or something like that. So my recommendation is that for any urban, the front back, front set back is 15ft. And the rear set is the same as everything else. Noted. I function on a different subject, which is your word of the infections pertaining to this. Since I have seen that as an issue in our design, our designs, will it help me understand where like everything, Mr. Chair and commission essentially the light poles along the front of the property is a new subdivisions. We have a 12 foot utility easement that is called out for every subdivision that we receive. That's where you see Comcast El Paso. And so now it's being called a street furniture, which is where you would see stop signs. You may see the electrical boxes and that would be where the street light poles are going as well. Do you know how that's going to Council electric? Because sometimes they get that little conquest of what else is my area? I don't they want a certain separation between contract El Paso electric. Utilities. We can kind of go in in the same trench, but then the light poles. Is that going to cause any issue, or should we shrink the streets of the light for a tight space, Mr. Chair, and Commission?

Essentially the light poles are going in at the same time that El Paso Electric is doing their work. So we're coordinating with them as to where the light poles are going to ensure that they meet their needs. And then we have compliance as well. If we see in the future that the light pole bases are having any issues or concerns based on the two foot pad that's going in, since it is a 12 foot utility easement, we were looking to reduce that when we first started realize. And so with the code modification, maintaining that 12 foot utility easement, they would have enough room in order to put the light pole base as well as their utilities. So it'll probably the poles will sometimes probably encroach into the utility. Furniture easement a little bit on some of those, Mr. Chair. Yes, they would actually be encroaching into those because we want to make sure that there is a five foot clear path to me for Ada accessibility. If you put the pole there, then that means you're coming in about 18in, which would then modify what the path is and then they don't have enough room. Essentially, if you had a wheelchair or a walker. So that's essentially what we're meeting. That's where we went from four sidewalks to five foot sidewalks. And then now it's pushing the light poles out. Mr. chair, we actually went to six foot sidewalks, and even with them being on there at six feet, that's where we have that separation of those extra essentially six inches that's impeding onto that five feet. So when we went from five feet to that six foot, you still have that extra foot that we gained, but it also needs an additional six inches. We learned all of these after cross sections are done working with basically El Paso Electric and understanding what the bases need to be. Okay. So this will solve the problems from here on out. Cross our fingers, cross our fingers. That's all I have. I don't have anything else. What about the other commissioners? I have just a couple of other, I think, relatively small things. So the indoor entertainment, outdoor entertainment. I seems fine. The changes that you're

recommending. I'm just curious because this I also noticed with Botanical Gardens as well, that. Well, particularly regarding an outdoor entertainment. Potentially could be an appropriate use in an open space district, I guess. Could you help clarify the definition of outdoor entertainment is maybe as a step one, Mr. Chair? Commissioner Keizer, I'll actually step back a little bit further. Our OS one and OS two are essentially going to be park features and drainage structures. That's the only reason why we do not have them listed for botanical gardens. We are looking for those for parkland to be maintained or drainage structures, but parkland to be maintained as as active parking space or as passive or all of the above for recreational space. And so that way, if you look at a lot of our park areas, they used to be zoned R1, A or based on the zoning that was there. So we've delineated those out. So that way we know they're dedicated for recreational services or for parkland use, generally for an OS one or an OS two, we're not seeing them come in as private developers. Those are being either dedicated to the city or being maintained by HOAs and communities. And so there are separate two land uses that kind of went in a different direction, as opposed to saying it's going to be an active use from public developer or private developers. It's more for public use as like parks that are being maintained, HOAs that are maintaining them. Does that make sense? Sort of. But it's also true that the city has to abide by their own zoning code. So if the city wanted to do an amphitheater, outdoor amphitheater, and a quote unquote park, they wouldn't be able to, according to the zoning code. Mr. chair. Commissioner. That's correct.

We would modify the code or come before to say that this would be the proposal for the city to actually use that land as recreational services, if it hasn't been zoning or designated yet. Okay, I guess. That's something I would ask for. I guess a variance to the zoning code seems inefficient in my opinion. I'm just going to vote for something, and whether it's a private or even a nonprofit entity, and there was interest in a botanical garden that fit with the character of open space preservation, but added some educational elements to it. So maybe more active recreation as as opposed to just, you know, wandering on a trail through the arroyo. This would not allow for something like that. Correct? Correct. Mr. chair, I think it's more in the standard that when we did the zoning code and we did the zoning map, all the properties that were owned privately received a zoning designation that was not going to be open space or drainage tract. And so essentially, if a property was owned, that is CR or NH3 and would allow a botanical garden, they would be able to go ahead and do that by right. We would not just rezone them to the OS one or the OS two to provide for the track. They'd actually have a zoning designation that met the other requirements. As we're looking towards moving our zoning regulations to where we actually identify our arroyos, our tracks. So that way they're clearly defined in our zoning code right now. They're currently listed as R1 A. So you would not know that it's an arroyo. And so we're trying to define that so people can see the separation in the properties as far as zoning. So

if you come in with a CR or an NH3 you'd be allowed to do those, those items, but not necessarily in an OS one. But we didn't give private owners the OS one unless it was already a designated park. It was already a designated tract for drainage. Okay, so I guess I understand what you're saying. I guess I'm. It. It's not. Quite. Adding up, I guess. So if we take if we take. Any one of our public parks that's currently zoned, what OS one. And then do any kind of programing athletic fields, you name it. The way that I'm seeing this now that those are not permitted uses, they would the city would have to come in and rezone a park to. H. You know, heavy industrial to, to do outdoor recreation or whatever. As an example. That's what you're saying, Mr. Chair. That would be correct. As city properties, we have them if we were to purchase them, say it was an NH one land and it's not already designated for the entertainment. We should be bringing the proposal forward knowing that the property is not zoned for those uses or those land uses to where we can actually notify the neighbors of those changes coming forth. So there would never be a trial park parcel in the city that if. Hezbollah held on it, it can't be zoned open space. It has to

be zoned commercial. That's what we're saying, Mr. Chair. It is zoned open space as an existing park. So right now it is zoned Open Space one because they are for parks and Recreation and preserve. So it is our recreation district that would be providing that recreational source. It is a botanical question. Even those those parks programing. They would they would have to have the reason to have that specific use in a park. That's what we're saying. And Mr. Chair, more than likely, if that were to come in as a track that was designated or subdivided out to the city, it may be part of a master plan because it may be part of a larger development. If we see that coming in, it may be part of the subdivision process, where we tend to see that that's going to be the tract of land which is going to be designated for that. Because the other part will run into is if you look at a lot of zoning right now that we have, say you get a subdivision tomorrow, a subdivision will come in, dedicate the parkland, it's going to be under the current zoning that's there, but it's going to designate a tract for us. And so those are the pieces we have to figure out of. How do we move forward whenever we acquire land through the parkland dedication? Because now it's owned R-1a or NH one under our new code. When we look at NH one, that's where everybody assumes it's for residential home or for residential development as opposed to parkland dedication. And so there may be an opportunity where any of the tracts that we have throughout the year that we've gained through the subdivision process, we come back and present to council so we can modify those zones. See, to me, it seems like it would be more efficient for a developer who's giving that land for park, that there is an associate application for a rezone to make it one of

these two open spaces. And I would think the open space one would give you the ability to do the programing that's needed for a park, whether it's passive botanical garden, outdoor amphitheater. To me, it seems like that's a more efficient process than the city accepting parcel. That zone one, you know. NH one and having to come back at some point in the future and rezone it just to build a plant. But maybe that's just the process thing. So I'll stand down from that. Any more additional comments? I just have a quick question. The minimum. Vacancy for amylase or lipase or glucose, Mr. chair. Commissioner Smith, we actually did not have a lot size requirement. However, we did notice that most of the time when you do animal raising, it will be in the rural areas and that's usually at a minimum of half acre. And so we wanted to make sure that we added that as part of that condition, to know that if you were going to do animal raising, because that would be defined by goats or chickens and certain standards that you'd have at least the minimum half acre, which is what we currently use now. Okay. Thank you. Give me one second. I'm trying to scroll through here. Does that mean you can raise animals in any lot as long as it's a half acre, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Thurston, that would be correct. Yes, yes. I think the other question I had and thanks for clarifying the writing section. I think I

was definitely curious of why the change there. I think the only other question I had was there was. And I'm probably not even going to be able to find it now, but there was a we removed the requirement for lighting to addressed pedestrian safety issues. I think the reason why is because it was related to like private of private property. But if you know what I'm talking about, maybe you could address that. I'm going to try to find it, but that was the only other thing I think I had. I just want to go to your lighting ordinance, one that you had on your changes, but I think it's specific to Commissioner Kaiser's question. Commissioner Kaiser. That would be under page 414, because I believe what you're referring to, we're still maintaining the outdoor lighting ordinance. Not to say that it's not promoting safe lighting and pedestrian vehicle traffic. We're still maintaining that. It's still shielded, still installed. This is more for the purposes of when you're looking at this. We're already doing that through the code requirements. And so it's not eliminating that. We're not still promoting that. We're still maintaining the light ordinance, the bug ratings and the shielding on the properties. Okay, I think what you're referring to something else, but my PDF

crashed. So we'll just leave it at that. Can't see. Yeah. Yeah, yeah I think that's it. So I'm sorry. Can you explain why we would scratch that out that specific reference out. Mr. Chair and Commissioner Kaiser, the reason why that one is scratched out is just because we're already doing that through our lighting ordinance. If being it is the purpose, we already say that it is going to have safety, utility, security, productivity on the earlier part of it. So under number one it's already addressing that concern. It was a duplicate is why we're addressing it okay. Thank you. I have nothing else. Comments Janet online are you there. Do you have anything. I should say? Miss Costa? I don't have anything at the moment. Thank you. All right. All right. This is on the vote for item 6.4. Commissioner Joaquin Acosta. Yes, Commissioner. Smith. Yes, Commissioner. Ryan. Yes. Commissioner. Kaiser. Yes. And chair. Yes. Thank you. Number seven discussion, I don't think. Is there any I don't think we have anything on discussion. Go ahead. Can I ask a question? Downtown master

plan update. Can you describe the process and whether or not there's an opportunity for this body to weigh in, in a work session or something of that nature? Mr. chair? Commissioner Kaiser. Yeah. So, you know, we we've just started that process. There will be opportunities down the road for opportunities and to Council, you know, further in that process. So we're expecting to see early drafts being developed in the springtime. So working backwards from that, there will be opportunities where they do come in front of, you know, stakeholders. Again, I don't have the exact schedule right now, but that spreads into the plan for them to do that. Correct? Okay. So for us to weigh in on our our view and vision before the recommendation to council, that would probably be a council work session for that. Yes. I don't know that that's specifically be one for planning and zoning, but that definitely be a council work session from that. Okay, I would request one for planning and zoning. Given the workload that we have, it seems like if this is not something that we're. Supposed to do, and then I think we need to reexamine why we exist as a body. So I hope you're having an opportunity, because I think this is exactly what we're here to do, in addition to the other things. That doesn't. It's because the basically, well, I'll ask my questions later. I don't have anything else on this question. Anybody else? All right. Stefan.

Announcements. Commissioner. We just have one essentially. Just a reminder that next month we will have an early meeting. We do have essentially four cases that we know will be bringing forward to you. So you should be receiving your packets early next week as the meeting will be on November 18th. As a reminder, we're not sure if we will have a December meeting. That meeting will also be updated as well as an one week earlier just because of the holidays. So just to ensure we do have quorum to assist our public to get through these processes, in these cases, knowing that some of these are time sensitive. Thank you. All right. Motion to adjourn. I make a motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye, aye.