Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

This is the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, May 13, and if staff could call the order. Commissioner Easton? Here. Commissioner Hampton?

Here.

Commissioner Brown? Is not here. Commissioner Brill?

Here.

We didn't hear you. Did you hear me?

I'm I'm here.

You can't hear me? See.

Is our speaker on? I can I can hear you, commissioner Pearl?

I can hear you too.

See you moving your lips or back. We hear you're talking. I think it's our I think it's our

Thanks. I'm here.

Yes. Online, we were just saying we could hear commissioner. You all can't hear us.

Commissioner Grimm? Here. Alright. Commissioner Nelson?

Here.

And then commissioner White?

Here.

I'm also here.

Alright. We got

He didn't call me.

Can you speak up a little bit, commissioner Sharon? They can't I'm not sure they can hear you still.

Oh, we finally heard you, commissioner White.

Commissioner White? I'm here. Korean.

You guys are being r I e n.

The audio feed is coming through my computer because we haven't gotten audio into our room yet. So we need to hear you. So that's why you're hearing feedback is because my computer shouldn't be the audio, but we don't have another option right now. And,

Commissioner Easton, we do have a quorum.

Thank you. The next item on the agenda is public comment. This is the section of the agenda reserved for comments from the public on items that are not otherwise included in the agenda. If you'll come forward to the Irodean, state your name and your address, and then make a comment. If there is no one in the room and I see no one online, I'm going to invite you up to

Yes. Yeah. Thank you. So I just wanted to, for you all online. I'm not quite sure why the camera's not picking us up. That might be a problem. But, I just wanna introduce. We have a new attorney. Priscilla Valdez is here with us. She will be assigned to CVD, and so she may be coming to, future meetings. So just wanna introduce her. Why don't we then have her joining ourselves. So thank you for that. Thank you. Welcome.

Welcome.

The next item is approval of the agenda, which was in the packet.

I I had comments on the agenda.

Katie has her hand raised.

Can anyone hear me in the room?

Katie, I don't show you on mute.

I know, but you can't hear me.

I'm gonna turn it on speaker. I can see you now.

Yeah. But you can't hear me. I'm not muted.

Okay. Do you, so you're having technical difficulties.

No. You guys

are on your

end. It's on your end.

I can hear you.

So that's the impact. If I pick you, they can't hear us. We're gonna have to deal with the Visa. Okay. But was that the only comment, Katie, Katie? No.

No. I have a comment on the agenda. Mean, on the on the minutes. Or what are we on right now?

We are on the agenda. We haven't moved to the minutes yet.

I do not have a comment on the agenda. I will move

to approve if you'd like. The agenda for approval. I'm looking for a motion to approve.

I will move to approve the agenda.

Thank you, Commissioner Merkel. Second is

Second. Second. K.

K. All those in favor, please raise your hand because I can see you even if I can't hear you. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. K. Ready? Now we are moving on to the minutes. Commissioner Boule, you had comments on the minutes.

I did have comments on the minutes. At the end of the last meeting, I made a request of staff, and they, said that they would do the thing I requested, and I didn't know if that needed to be actually called out in the minutes rather than just, you know, put that I had some comments because it it felt like it was an action item. Like I said, please, could you let us know about the board of adjustment and why it disappeared and what happened with that? And they said they would. So I I would like to see that called out in the minutes.

We can add that as an amendment. So we'll add that as an amendment to the minutes.

You.

So the proposal to amend the amendment is to include more specific information from the last meeting.

Did we lose audio from the conference room?

No, ma'am. We're turning it off and on so we're not getting massive feedback. So if we'll leave one on. I have to turn mine off. So we're just we have two computers. We're waiting on I'm We're we're trying to figure this out as best we can.

Appreciate it. It just seemed like it cut off very suddenly, so I thought we lost it.

So I have a motion for the amended minutes to approve. I have a second, and I look now all hands raised for the amended minutes approval. K. It's stuck. It's stuck. Mhmm. Okay. So keep on task here. Alright. Now we're moving into the cases, and I wanted to just preface this with we have four cases tonight.

We have two variances, site, plant change, and, conditional use. We are gonna go through each of those individually and make, presentations, evidence, decisioning. At the end of it, you're free to go. For those people that are here, we have a very, big group of people here. Once the decision is made, you're free to go.

Two of these items for some of us have been presented before, but what I need you all to understand is the conditions are we act like we've never seen it before. They will be presented just like any other case, and there are some changes. So don't assume that the information presented to you is the same information that was presented before. Treat it as if you've never seen it before. So take in the evidence as if you've never seen it before, only tonight. And for some of you, you haven't seen it. So you'll be voting on the information as presented if you've never seen it. So does that make sense to all the people that may have been getting this information spelled correctly? Gotcha. Okay.

Alright. So the first pace that we're going to well, let get oh, so let get this item on our agenda is a public hearing for case number VAR20250014. Property owners, Jacoby and Heather Baker. The request is a variance at 2339 35th Street, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and the request seeks to reduce or requires 20 foot front setback in the residential mixed RM one zone district to design and a half feet to allow necessary structure for the tar port to be installed. The commission's decision in this case must be based on the criteria contained in chapter 16 of the county code known as the development code.

As a quasi judicial public hearing, we've conducted in a manner to protect the due process rights of parties and affected parties as required by New Mexico law. All parties have a right to be represented by an attorney throughout the proceedings. The party who files the application has the burden to show that the request meets the criteria of this code. The commission shall act as an impartial decision making fact finding body and shall approve or deny the application in accordance with the evidence presented, which is competent and relevant. Testimony or evidence that does not meet these criteria shall be disregarded.

A party to the hearing shall be afforded an opportunity to present evidence and argument and to question witnesses on all relevant issues that the chair may impose reasonable limitations on the number of witnesses heard and on the nature and length of their testimony and questioning. Testimony at the hearing shall be under oath and or affirmation and cross examination of any persons presenting information at the public hearing will be permitted by the applicant and any affected party and county staff as directed by the chair. Commissioners may ask questions of the owner, applicant, staff, any party, or any witness. The issue to be decided at this hearing is to whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for this case, VAR 20,250,014, a request for a variance at 2339 35th Street, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and the request seeks to reduce the minimum sorry, the required 20 foot front setback in the residential mixed RM1 zone district to 1.5 feet, roll out an accessory structure. The Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with making this determination based solely upon the review criteria adopted by the county council as set out in the development code.

The commission will accept the following documents as exhibits as received and provided to the commission and incorporate them as part of the record in this case unless a valid objection is raised by a party. Parties have had the opportunity, to have these exhibits in advance, and they are able to use them during their presentation as desired. These exhibits are the application of the applicant with exhibits and attachments, the staff report of the community development department, and exhibits to the staff. Other materials may be introduced without objection or as determined by permission. Additional exhibits may be proposed for entry into the hearing record by and any party as part of their presentation.

The chair will either admit or exclude those items as they're presented. If an exhibit is excluded, the commission will still maintain a copy of the excluded exhibit as part of the record. The hearing tonight will be conducted under the procedures developed from the New Mexico case law. The procedures are intended to protect the due process rights of all parties. The procedures include parties and witnesses will be identified for the record.

All persons who expect to offer testimony will be sworn in and will provide testimony under oath. All persons offering testimony will be subject to cross examination by other parties. Please remember that the purpose of cross examination is to ask questions and solicit relevant facts from the witness, not to be argumentative, nor is this the time to state your own position that comes later. The commission intends to limit testimony to information relevant to the applicant's requested action, and the chairperson may limit redundant or repetitive testimony. The case is Jacoby and Heather Baker.

The community development department staff will assist the commission in fully developing the records. Other parties or persons in addition to the applicant, including the property owners within 300 feet of the boundary of the property under consideration and those who have legally recognized interest in this case may may also be recognized as a party. A party may call witnesses and enter evidence to present facts in support of the party's position on the application. At this time, if you wish to present evidence or testimony at this hearing and believe you have a direct interest in this case and want to be recognized as a party. For those that are here, I would like you to come forward, and staff will swear you in.

And that is only for case variance two zero two five zero zero one four. Miss firing the witness who's the person.

K. Those who wish to give testimony at this hearing, please raise your right hand. Do you affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Did we just lose sound again?

Yeah. I was just trying to find Desiree's cell phone so I could try and text her, but we I think we've definitely lost sound.

Yeah.

And there's no chat function, so I don't know who

I know. It's really frustrating that they don't have the chat function.

We increased the audio so some can Oh, there

they are maybe.

We're back.

Commissioner White? The

online folks were just commenting that we had another blip of audio where you disappeared for about two minutes.

Did you hear us get sworn in?

We heard the beginning of the swearing in. Yes.

Did you hear the ex parte communication?

We did not.

Do you have any ex parte communication that would, you would have a prejudice or a bias in this case?

I do not.

I also do not.

I do not.

Thank you, commissioners. Alright. So I have an hearing. The commission shall receive testimony, including expert or late witnesses and relevant documentary evidence for or against the application from the out of public government agencies, or entities, interested parties withstanding, subject to cross examination, reasonable time limits. Since the applicant will not be doing a presentation, we'll move straight to the CVD staff presentation.

Thank you. Commissioners online, can you see my presentation? Can you hear me? Thank you.

Yes. And yes.

We apologize for the technical difficulties. We did ironically, we had this working before we started the meeting. So thank you all for your patience. My name is Danielle Valdez. I am the planning manager with the community development department.

Tonight, we will be hearing case VAR twenty twenty five zero zero one four, and this is a variance to setback standards at 2339 35th Street. As an introduction to the project, the applicants are Jacoby and Heather Baker. The property is located at 2339 35th Street, Los Alamos North Community 3. The lot size is point three three acres. The existing development has a 2,900 2,979 square foot townhome.

The request is for a variance to reduce the front setback from 18 to reduce the front setback 18.5 feet from 20 feet. So two we would be reducing the front setback to one and a half feet. And this is the RM zoning, which is residential mixed use. The proposal summary, a carport is installed a carport to be installed over the existing parking space within the front setback area to provide covered parking protection for vehicles. So this is a rehearing.

The rehearing resulted from procedural voting requirements, not substantive substantive deficiencies. 11/13/2025, the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing for the case went through. Community development department staff recommended approval. Commission voted three two in favor. Four affirmative votes were required for approval. Denial was issued as a matter of code and not on the merits of the application. December 2026, an appeal was filed. 01/13/2026, a motion to remand the case was filed. And on 03/03/2026, county council unanimously approved the remand to PNC. The existing site layout and terrain constraint.

So the setback requirement, r m one zoning requires a 20 foot front setback. Carports may encroach up to 40%, so eight feet by right. The request would allow an additional 10 and a half feet and the encroachment in into the, front setback area. So the site the lot contains existing parking. As you can see in the, rendering drawing, there are cement walls that are that were previously installed, I'm assuming back in the forties, and that prevents any other type of development or improvements to this area.

So the terrain and the grade changes limit the relocation and the redesign of the parking area. The IDRC, the Interdepartmental Review Committee, reviewed the variance on 09/25/2025 and recommended the application to proceed to Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration. The applicant agreed to all conditions, and the request represents the minimum necessary relief. So roof drainage will slope away from the adjacent property. Structural roofing material will meet permit and code requirements.

Final design and construction are subject to permit and inspection. Applicant agreed to all previously identified IDRC conditions and the minimum necessary relief. Testimony from miss Heather Baker established during the November 13 hearing that this is the only available tenant parking. The variance criteria. A variance shall be approved if it meets the criteria.

Los Alamos County code section 1674g3 states that a variance application shall be approved if it meets the following criteria. A variance will not be contrary to public safety, health, or welfare. The placement of this accessory structure is in a location that does not present risk to public health, safety, or welfare. This has been confirmed by engineering traffic and the the building and fire within the IDRC review. Granting of the variants will not cause an intrusion onto any utility or other easement unless approved by the owner of the easement.

IDRC public works and the Department of Public Utilities have confirmed no encroachment on public or private easements. The variance oh, I'm sorry. I'm reading them. A e ACE. B, the variance will not undermine the intent of the code, the applicable zone district, other adopted policies, plans, or violate the building code.

The variance does not undermine the intent of the code, and a permitted and installed structure does not violate adopted policy or code. C, granting of the variance will not cause an intrusion onto any utility or other easement unless approved by the owners. We established that that was confirmed. D, the variance request is caused by unusual physical characteristics or hardship inherent in the lot or lot improvements, and the peculiarity of the hardship or hardship has not been self imposed. The existing slope and nineteen forty eight site layout, the designated parking area setback are beyond the owner's control.

E, the variance will not create any significant adverse impacts on properties within the vicinity. The applicant agreed under oath the roof shall drain away from the adjacent property, and granting of the approved variance as the minimum necessary easing of the code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of land, structure, or building. The request represents the minimum necessary deviation from the code requirements to allow for reasonable use of the property. Confirmation of public notice. Notices in accordance with chapter 16, section sixteen seventy two c of the Los Alamos County development code, all public notice requirements for the public hearing have been satisfied.

As an amendment to my staff report, we renoticed. We published and posted notice on April 2, April 6, respectively, and mailed public notice on April 6. Staff recommendation. Staff recommends approval of case VAR twenty twenty five zero zero one four based on the findings of fact established on record and the determination that the application meets the decision criteria for a variance as set forth in section sixteen seventy four g three of the Los Alamos County development code. And I can sit for questions.

Do you wanna confirm that it's factually accurate?

I will con I can confirm that it is factually factually accurate accurate and and also also confirm that after questions if there are any. I've brought back up the commissioners. So if anyone raises their hand or has needs to has any questions, please let us know.

So, yes, at this time, do the commissioners have any questions on the presentation?

I guess I have a question.

Yes, sir.

It has to do with the difficulty with the terrain. I mean, there looks like yeah. You might have to move some dirt. It looks like there's space that would allow it to be in compliance with the nine foot setback. I wonder why Let me wouldn't be pursued.

Share my screen once more. So we did investigate this site, and it has the concrete barrier that was installed in 1948. So it wouldn't just be dirt that needed to be moved. It would need to be concrete that needed to be removed and reinstalled, which creates an unnecessary undue financial burden on the applicant.

Okay. But it does create a rather different look as seen from the street. I guess that would be a question about significant adverse impact on the appearance.

Community character, there are multiple carports in this area that it would it would identify with community character. It would not have an inverse inverse impact on the the character of the adjacent homes or the or the surrounding community.

I was interested to see if I could identify those carports. Unfortunately, the only data I could get would be, you know, online stuff like Google images of driving down the street, and they tend to be dated, like 2014. So carports could have been built since 2014. But in the vicinity of this address, I didn't see any carports. And from the satellite view, which is current, I didn't see any carports. But I don't know how This the net was that was cast to find carports.

Thank you. Thank you, commissioner. So good question. The Google satellite images are from 2022. We did the same thing. So we did the same type of investigation, drove through the neighborhoods, ensured that, like, there there would not be a negative impact or an adverse impact within the community. We we do not see when aesthetic is preference, so it wouldn't be something that we could say, oh, well, we don't like the way it would look in this area. It it meets our criteria.

Okay. So where are the carports in that are in the neighborhood? I'm just curious.

I don't have addresses of you know? But because

I was looking in the area between Mountain School and the and the Canyon. I guess that's to the to the South Side. And I but not in that area between Diamond And North Street, find any carports, but maybe the neighborhood that you consider is broader than that.

There are a few that we that we noticed when we were placing our notification signs. After the intersection, same, you know, radius, the 300 foot radius. So we we did notice there were other carports in the area, maybe not adjacent to the property, but within the same proximity.

So I have a question. Yes, ma'am. So if I read this correctly, the IDRC has reviewed this, and they are removing a structure that there was there prior that did not have a permit. Is that correct?

There was a temporary structure.

Yes. And so that is being removed? Yes. And what is being put in is something that is more in conformance with our codes.

That would be in compliance with not having a effect on the adjacent property.

Correct. And they will still have to apply for permits and have Yes. Yes. Okay. Yes, ma'am.

It's possible that I'm looking at an old staff report, and that is a mistake, and apologies if I am. But in the staff report that I'm looking at, it says that criteria f has not been met.

That is an old staff report, commissioner. So the previous staff report criteria was not met, but unless conditions were met. And so our approval in the previous case was recommendation was approval with conditions. Since that case, we have worked with the applicant to ensure, and she has testified under oath that she will meet all conditions. So therefore, conditions have been met, and now criteria has been met. When we reestablish this case to be reheard, we were under the assumption it had to be the same record, but we were we were then later informed that it didn't have to be the same staff report. We were able to amend it for for future reference.

So and I would be really careful from standpoint of we can't present that as evidence because, again, as I started this meeting, we need to be looking at evidence starting

Chair, she's reading what was what was included in the agenda packet. We we uploaded the case record assuming that remand intended for the exact case record to be heard with new notifications, which we were going to we were going to clarify within our presentation. But since we were able to amend it, we were we we learned that after it had been published. So

So I think all I'm saying is that we need to make sure that we're looking at some of those current information. That's a reference, but not what we would make a decision. Okay. That makes sense.

K. A a follow on question, though. Can you tell me how help me understand how satisfying the conditions substantively changed the usability of the parking space

without the carport?

It was the so there's a very large mature pine tree that is dripping sap onto this parking space, which is why the temporary carport went into place, would was damaging the car. So we analyzed and evaluated the location. The conditions created a mitigation of any slope from drainage, onto the adjacent lot. So they are directly next to each other where where two properties share three parking spaces. This tenant is only within this one parking space, so we did wanted to ensure that there was no drainage onto the next door neighbor's parking space.

Ma'am. Just as a further comment, when I was following the neighborhood with Google, I noticed that the building at 2303 B had a solution to the carport problem, which involved removing the concrete wall and moving dirt, I guess.

Commissioner, with all due respect, I'm not sure that you're supposed to be investigating the case prior to hearing it within the within our hearing.

It's

It's not evidence presented within the hearing. And with all with all due respect, I I don't think you're supposed to be investigating the site. That is ex parte communication.

Oh, communicate with Google?

With goo well, investigation. It's an ex parte.

Yes. You went by yourself. Now if you got a car and we all got in it and we all went and did that, that would be considered

During a public hearing meeting. Yeah.

So

Or

there is May may I

ask you just a clarifying question? I just wanna make sure that what is being presented because I downloaded the agenda off of Legistar. And what I'm seeing does say that it was met, so

I wanna make sure that

at the correct documents. So it is page what you should be looking at for the case starts on the page

She might be looking at the first case that we published for the May 13 meeting or the previous meeting that was canceled due to lack of quorum.

Right. If it

was that agenda, that's we learned after the fact that we could amend it. So if if it's the agenda for the April.

I just wanna make sure we're looking at the agenda and staff report for tonight's meeting Correct. Which on page 26, it the the header says public hearing date, May 13. So I just wanna make sure that we're all operating under the same document for sake of the record.

Agreed. And that's what I was trying to find out. You're pulling up something previous

the last one.

Not relevant. Let's make that clear. It's not relevant. If you're not looking at this report and this presentation, that is not what we're making a decision on, and that's not relevant information. If you need help finding it, let me know. Or I'll just share when people work with you.

Are there any other

commission questions regarding this variant? No? No. Thank you for your presentation. You've already affirmed it's factually accurate to the best of your knowledge.

Are there any other parties parties in this room? Anybody within 300 feet of this party that wants to present testimony? If not, we will move to Okay. We're gonna close the hearing to the receipt of evidence and discuss the decision. So I would like to ask the commission at this time to review and discuss the applicable criteria.

I'll review those with you. Following the discussion of the criteria, I will ask the commission to make and discuss a motion in this case. And you should all have in your packet the three options to approve, approve with conditions, reject. K. Alright.

We're gonna go through them. Speak up or raise your hand if you have questions or comments as we go through these. So the decision criteria is from six section sixteen seventy four g three of the Los Alamos County Code Development Code, and it states that an application for a variant shall be approved if it meets the following criteria. So the first criteria is the variants will not be contrary to public safety, health, or welfare. K?

That's been met. The variance will not undermine the intent of this code and the applicable zone district, other county adopted policies, plans, or violate building code. Right? C is granting the variance will not cause an intrusion into any utility or the easement unless approved by the owner of the easement. D is the variance request is caused by unusual physical characteristic or hardship inherent in the lot or lot improvements, and the familiarity or hardship has not been self imposed?

I would say that the cement wall existing, there is not sufficient reason to get it there. I mean, people move cement walls and move dirt.

So this variance is for a setback. Is that correct? So I am a little confused. Could you expound on that a little bit?

If if one moved the cement wall and moved some dirt, it would not be the setback variance. It would fit within the lot and the space allocated to for car for parking pads and things like that. Okay. Or

And and you would not consider that a hardship that you're imposing on the homeowner?

I guess I wouldn't.

Okay. Was there I'm asking questions. That's all I need clarification for that. Commissioner Barul has already thought. Commissioner Barul, thank you.

I'm just confused because it seemed like county staff were saying a commissioner had ex parte communication, but we didn't deal with that. I'm just wondering if we need to do something about that.

So I think for the record that what needs to be noted is that the commission did drive by. What the commissioner needs to say to us is is he using that information he gleaned by driving by that property as part of his decision making? So I'm gonna ask you, commissioner. Are you making your decision based on your independent drive by and and observation of that lot

No.

As evidence to this case?

I am not driven by that address.

He looked at it through Google.

Did you look at that property through Google? Yes. And so you made the assessment?

And I also looked at the, to see what the terrain looked like. I used the Los Alamos County GIS data that shows contours, and it just didn't look like, it was a lot of work.

So let me go back to the question. Are you making a decision about this case or these criteria based on what you observed independently by doing that independent use?

Not really. Here's why done. Danielle said that there was a concrete wall. And in the picture of the existing campus carport, you can see what the terrain difference is. So you can just visually say, yep. There it is. And it's yeah. You have to move dirt.

That impression your help.

That impression was informed by these other things that I did. But the picture was there and Danielle's comment about the the wall. Who's the

I'm gonna phone a friend and ask my legal opinion on that. Good bye.

I'm scrolling through the Sure. The staff report and the application.

Do we have a quorum for this case if one commissioner recuses themselves?

We do.

So at this point, because the the commissioner has admitted to doing his own investigation that has had some impact on his analysis of this case in conjunction with the testimony provided by miss Valdez and the staff report. It could be up to the commission to determine whether or not that is appropriate, and that decision would be would be binding if you wanted to follow that question. The alternative of that would be that you could deliberate amongst yourselves among that this criteria, and if there are others that are at issue and deliberate amongst yourselves as to that whether or not for this criteria specifically, it if it is an unusual physical characteristic or hardship inherent in the lot or the lot improvements and the peculiarity of the hardship has not been self imposed. If the commission wants to debate that amongst the commissioners, you can do that as well.

Can I take a sample on that item?

Sure.

Commissioners, I'm asking you, based on the evidence presented to us, is it your physician that criteria d, the variance request is caused by unusual physical characteristics or hardship inherent in the lot or lot improvements, and the peculiarity of or hardship has not been self imposed. Staff says that this criterion has been met, and it specifically states the need for the variance arises from physical characteristics inherent to the site, including the existing slope, the original site layout established with a 1948 development of the townhome, The designated parking area is partially located within the front setback and constrained by grade changes and adjacent improvements, which limit the ability to relocate the parking or provide adequate cover without encroaching into the required setback. These conditions are specific to the property and are not a result of actions taken by the current property owners. The hardship is not self imposed and results from circumstances beyond the applicant's control. Yes, Rebecca.

Commissioner White.

I think the staff report has some summed it up quite concisely. I don't think this is self imposed. I think it is a hardship by virtue of the way the law is set out exactly as staff has said in their report.

Thank you. Comments or questions?

I can care with commissioner Wein.

Okay. Thank you as well. Alright.

I do as well.

We are gonna move on. Thank you, everyone. We're going to variance e. The variance will not create the least significant adverse impacts on properties within the vicinity. Staff has indicated this has been met. Any comments? Questions?

I guess I would like offline to learn something about where these corp no. Reports are that are up near the property line. But okay. That'll satisfying.

Criteria f is granting the approved variances the minimum necessary easing of the code requirements making possible the reasonable use of land, structure, or building. Staff has indicated this has been met. I am going to move now for a motion. I'm looking for a motion to approve, conditionally approve, or deny. Commissioner White.

Yes. I would like to make a motion. I move to approve case number BAR20250015, a request by oh, is this the right one?

Yes. It is.

Yeah. Okay. 1.

20410014.

Okay. I'm on the wrong page. Sorry. Sorry.

It's page 31 if that's helpful.

It's super helpful. Thank you.

I have it up if you want me to do it.

I've got it. I move to approve case number VARDash2025Dash0014. A request by Jacoby and Heather Baker, property owners for a variance from Los Alamos County code chapter 16 article two division three base zone district dimensional standards for 2339 35th Street in Los Alamos. The request seeks to reduce the required 20 foot front yard setback in the residential mixed r m one r m dash one zone district to 1.5 feet to allow an accessory structure. Approval is based on the findings of fact established at the hearing and the determination that the applicant has met the decision criteria for variance per section 16 dash seven four g three of the Los Alamos County development code.

The commission acts under the authority of section 16 dash six nine b two and six of the development code. I further move to authorize the chair to sign the findings of fact and conclusions of law for this case that reflects the decision of the commission. The document will be prepared by county staff based on this decision.

I second the motion. Will staff call a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Houston? I

approve. Commissioner

Yes.

Commissioner Green?

Yes.

Commissioner Gruel?

Yes. Commissioner Graham?

Commissioner Nelson? No. Commissioner White?

Yes.

No motion passed.

Thank you. Any action by the Planning and Zoning Commission in granting approval of an application may be appealed by the owner of the property listed in the applications, persons that are required to be mailed notice for the application giving rise to the final action being appealed, any county official acting in their official capacity whose services, properties, facilities, interests, or operations may be adversely affected by the application or any person who has a recognized legal interest under New Mexico law within fifteen calendar days, including weekend days, and excluding county recognized holidays after the date of the final written decision pursuant to section section sixteen seventy two G five a of the development code. Alright. That case is finished, and we will move on to variance 20250015. Alright.

Case number BAR20250015. Property owner Barbara Martinez requests a variance from dimensional standards to install a carport abutting the front property line, creating a zero front setback. The property is addressed as 1968 40th Street, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and is within the North Community 1 subdivision zone residential mixed r m two. The commission's decision on this case must be based on the criteria contained in chapter 16 of the county code known as the development It's a judicial public hearing that will be conducted in a manner to protect the due process rights of parties and affected parties as required by New Mexico law. All parties have a right to be represented by an attorney throughout the proceedings.

The party who files the application has a burden to show the request meets the criteria of this code. The commission shall act as an impartial decision making fact finding body and shall approve or deny the application in accordance with the evidence presented which is competent and relevant. Testimony or evidence that does not meet these criteria shall be disregarded. A party to the hearing shall be afforded an opportunity to present evidence and argument to question witnesses on all relevant issues, but the chair may impose reasonable limitations on the number of witnesses heard on the nature and length of their testimony and questioning. Testimony and the hearing shall be under oath or affirmation and cross examination of any persons presenting information at the public hearing will be permitted by the applicant and the affected party and the county staff as directed by the chair.

Commissioners may ask questions of the owner, applicant, staff, any party, or any witness. The issue to be decided at this hearing is whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for BAR two zero two five zero zero one five variance from dimensional standards to install a carport abutting to the front property line creating a zero front zero front setback. The property's address as 1968 40th Street, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and is within the North Community 1 subdivision zone residential mixed R M 2. The Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with making this determination based solely upon the review criteria adopted by the county council as set out in the development code. The commission will accept the following documents as exhibits as received and provided to the commission and incorporate them as part of the record in this case.

Unless a valid objection is raised by a party, parties have had the opportunity to have these exhibits in advance, and they are able to use them during their presentation as desired. These include the application of the applicant with exhibits and attachments, staff report, from the community development department, exhibits to the staff report, other materials that may be introduced without objection or as determined by the commission. Additional exhibits may be proposed for entry into the hearing record by any party as part of their presentation. The chair will either admit or exclude those items as they are presented. If an exhibit is excluded to the commission, the it will still be maintained as a copy of the excluded exhibit as part of the record.

The hearing tonight will be conducted under procedures developed from New Mexico case law. The procedures are intended to conduct to be the process rights of all parties, and the procedures include parties and witnesses will be identified for the record. All persons who expect to offer testimony will be sworn in. Only provide testimony under oath. All persons offering testimony will be subject to cross examination by other parties. Please remember the purpose of cross examination is to ask questions and solicit relevant facts from witnesses. It is not to be argumentative nor is it the time to state your own opinion that comes later. The commission intends to limit testimony to information relevant to the applicant's requested action. The chairperson may limit redundant or repetitive testimony. The applicant in this case is Barbara Martinez.

The community development department staff will assist the commission in fully developing the record. Other parties are persons in addition to the applicant, which are property owners within 300 feet of the boundary of the property under consideration and those who have legal recognized interest in this case and may be recognized as a party. The party may call witnesses, enter evidence to present facts in support of the party's position on the application. If you wish to present evidence or testimony at this hearing and believe you have a direct interest in this case, want to be recognized as a party, please come forward to state your name and your address for the record. So those individuals in this room who are going to be presenting evidence in this case, please come forward.

K? Alright. Could you please swear in?

Those who wish to give testimony at this hearing, please raise your right hand. Do you affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes. Thank you. Are there any participants online who wish to be sworn in and give evidence on this case? K? Alright.

The chair will now poll the commission as to potential conflicts of interest or ex parte communication. The ex parte communication is a commissioner's discussion on specific facts or issues with the applicant or other party regarding the matter now before the commission outside of the public hearing. Does any commissioner have a potential conflict of interest in this case? If so, please disclose that interest. Any commissioner that has a conflict must recuse themselves from the hearing, deliberation, or vote.

Has any commissioner communicated directly or indirectly with any party or party representative in connection with the merits of this issue? If so, disclose. Has any commissioner reached the decision on the merits of this case as a result of ex parte communication? Third, has any commissioner used or relied upon any communication reports or other materials prepared in connection with a particular case other than those made part of the record? Has any commissioner inspected the site with any party or their representative?

Has any commissioner received any ex parte communication regarding this case? I'm looking on screen. I see no one raising their hand. Nope? Okay.

The commission shall now receive testimony, including expert or lay witnesses and relevant documentary evidence for or against the application from the applicant public governmental agencies or entities interested parties withstanding and subject to cross examination and reasonable time limits. Given that CBD staff is the only one who has sworn in, I am assuming you are the only one giving evidence, so you may begin.

Test your audio.

Christine, can you hear me? Thank you, Rebecca. For members of the public and for the record, my name is Desiree Houcon. I am senior planner, and I was assigned to case manager to this next agenda item. This is a variance request for dimensional standards for a carport.

The application was submitted by Barbara Martinez, property owner, and the case was signed in case number v AR2025Dash0015. This is for the property location at 1968 Ford Street in Salamos, New Mexico, and zoned residential mixed r n two. A little background before we move forward with the proposal. So the application was first considered before the planning and zoning commission on 10/22/2025. It was a motion to approve failed with a three to two vote because minimum of four votes is required by code for approval.

The application was designed as a matter of law and not the merits of the application. The applicant submitted and appealed the outcome to county council, and the applicant and staff filed a joint motion to amend planning and zoning commission for decision of rehearing. On 03/03/2026, the county council unanimously unanimously remanded to Planning and Zoning Commission for rehearing a decision in April 2026. That meeting was scheduled for April 22 and was postponed till tonight due to lack of forum. Since then, nothing has changed.

Barbara Martinez still request to install a 17 foot by 22 foot prefabricated carport on an existing concrete pad abutting the front property line. A little bit about the property. This is 26 acres. It's located near the Los Alamos townsite near the intersection of Diamond Drive and 40th Street. Here.

The neighborhood was originally known as Group 11 and was the Atomic Energy Commission's first housing to that rent, which was created to expand Los Alamos Northwood with a variety of housing types and designs. The lot consists of a one story single family home built in 1949 near the center of the lot in 22 and a half feet from the front property line. Characteristics of the lot include sloping on the northmost corner east of the proposed location and on the rear property line. Public utilities dwell along Fourier Street with the gas line and electrical lines existing south of the existing concrete path and proposed location. I can get my notes to.

And it's in this general location right here for that. Site plan proposed. So on the right is a site plan that Barbara Martinez submitted. The orange location is where she proposes to place the carport. She will maintain seven and a half feet from the side, which is the minimum side setbacks for her zone district.

The rear setbacks will not be affected, and this will only apply to the front. As far as lot coverage and other standards of the district, they will all be met. Carports are allowed with our own arm to some district. And on this image here, we get a better understanding of what the lot actually looks like. Those white silver lines are topography.

Those are showing you exactly what the slope looks like here. So this is the concrete pad, and there's a drop into the property. There is a 15 foot front setback. Our code has provisions that allow carports to revoke 40% into the required front setback. So that would make a nine foot setback.

So if you see the yellow dash line, that's where the 15 foot setback is, and that green line is showing where the 40% would allow the carport to occupy. That blue shaded area is the projection of 40%. We explored administrative deviation options. Unfortunately, the options that we could come up with are shown below on that chart, and they were not sufficient for miss Martinez's carport to be able to cover the car. IDRC recommends approval.

Initially, in 09/25/2025, the IDRC met to review this application. They communicated conditions of approval for the car port, but they did not relate to the request of zero front step back. Instead, it was for the overall placement and conditions that would be required or asked of during any permitting process even if they complied with the setback. Those are listed there one through four. Anchors must be three feet from any gas line location. That's per our public utilities. Number two, the carport must stay open on the sides. There is a gas line nearby, and so public utilities ask that instead of enclosing bodies of the carport that it remain open. And that's just for worst case scenario. If there was a gas leak, the gas wouldn't be trapped underneath.

Any carport that's over 200 square feet and up to 600 square feet requires permanent foundation. The existing concrete pad, we don't know if it has enough to sustain the carport. So at building permit, they will need to miss Martinez will need to show that that slab has the footings to support anchoring. And if there's not sufficiency, then she will need to upgrade them to get approval. Additionally, the entire carport, including the footings, anchoring, and overhang must fit within the property line and cannot encroach into county light of way.

The planning division recommends that she confirm the property line to ensure carport can fit and meet all standards of approved variances before purchasing the carport. Decision criteria. The planning and zoning commission must raise their decision solely on the variance decision criteria. We'll highlight each one with some key points. A, the variance will not be contrary to public safety, health, or welfare. The IDRs will be due for safety. No negative impacts were identified. The conditions will be added for safe placement at building permit. Applied conditions protect the applicant, the neighbors, and the public. Criterion b, the variance will not undermine the intent of this code, applicable zone district, and other county adopted policies or plans or violate the building code.

The Carport alliance with the r two residential character and zoning intent, Meaning, it meets the dimensional standards except for what's being asked to do tonight, that front setback. It does not reflect with any safety or the equipped standards and new positions will ensure infrastructure protection and building code compliance. See, advancing the variance will not cause an intrusion into any utility or other easement unless approved by the owner of the easement. DQ has reviewed nearby utilities. No conflicts are found, and anything must remain three feet in any located gas line.

No intrusion into any of the easements were identified. Criterion b, the variance request is caused by an unusual physical characteristic or a hardship inherent in the law or the lot improvements and peculiarity of hardship has not been self imposed. The home's placement does not allow sufficient distance to meet code. Thus, lot sloping limits appropriate placement in the front yard, and the hardship is due to a natural site location in the original 1949 development design. Criterion e, the variance will not create any significant adverse impacts on the properties within the vicinity.

This is an open sided design with reserves, slide lines, and visibility. The car part is to be located within the property's boundaries and clear of utilities, and no mining or drainage in touch are expected. Criterion f, the variance do not create a significant adverse impact on properties within the facility. Administrative options were insufficient to fully cover the vehicle. Zero plan setbacks provide practical mile mile minimum relief, and request remain compatible with the.

As case manager, I would like to confirm that the public notice requirements have been built according to section sixteen seventy two c of the Gonzales County's ballot code, and that includes publication of the inaugural newspaper posting on-site, and mail notices to property owners within 300 feet. Staff will conclude with recommendation for approval of Varian VAR twenty twenty five dash zero zero one five. I would like to take a moment to confirm the accuracy of my staff report and presentation,

Do you confirm it's factually accurate to the best of your knowledge and interim to correct? Yes. Thank you. So at this time, planner will stand for questions of any commissioners. But

no So let let me ask. I'm I'm I'm still on my high horse about the setbacks and avoiding them. I mean, you know, like requiring them as per code. Based on the sketch on page 59 and picture on page 60, it looks like it might be feasible to do a little fill and then put the slab on fill. Was that considered or or, you know, or rejected because of the slab get becoming too close to the building? What's the story?

It wasn't with the proximity to the building. It was a six foot drop that's from the car from the existing concrete pad into the property. There is a drop from that concrete pad down to the property. So in order for her to sufficiently have that 90 foot setback, which includes the 40% projection, she would need to

You say the the back of the existing slab

She would would just it. And so

you'd be filling six feet plus as you move back in the lot. Okay. Thank you.

K. We're gonna go through their criteria. So the variants will not be contrary to public safety, health, or welfare. Criterion has been met. Variance request will not undermine the intent of the development code, the applicable zone district, or other county adoptive policies or plans or violate building code.

That's been met. Granting of the variants will not cause any intrusion into any utility or other easements unless approved by the owner of the easement. I think the only thing I wanna point out there is the IRDs the I r IDRC, there are some concerns about gas lines and conditions. Those conditions will need to be met before this will go forward. So just wanna point that out.

The variance request is caused by an unusual physical characteristic or hardship inherent in the lot and lot or lot improvements and that the peculiarity or hardship is not self imposed. That's been met. The variance will not create any significant adverse impacts on properties within the vicinity. It was presented that will not be impacted that that has been met. And the last criteria is granting of the approved variances, the minimal necessary easing the code requirements making possible the reasonable use of land, structure, and building. You have a question on that one?

Yes. Without variances, the property is so reasonably usable as intended towards parking from the vehicle?

She currently parks it now. I I need to defer to her, but she has a large truck, and so I believe that she parks it. But some of it might actually land up going into Calumet, but I don't know, Barbara, if you would wanna swear in and and respond to that. But, I mean, are in deliberation right now.

Ask a question again. The question was whether the the property is reasonably useful as intended without the.

So can I ask a question? What is reasonable use in terms of what she's asking for is a cover for her vehicle? It's not relevant to whether she can park her vehicle, and it limits that use. It's the covering of her vehicle that is under question. Do I have that right? She's asking for a carport and a variance to put a carport in. The purpose of the carport is to protect her vehicle Correct. And to improve her land use. It's not a question of whether she can park her vehicle or not.

No. She currently parks there. She just wants to be able

to protect it. Does that clarify? Because you're asking a question about whether she can or can't use her property. She can, but she's asking for an improvement on that. Okay. And the improvement requires these accommodations to make the improvement. Gotcha. The accessory dwelling is what we're making variance on. So accessory is like an accessory structure per code.

Right. It's that front setback.

Okay. Cool. That does that. Okay.

Alright. So we've reviewed all the criteria. Are there any other comments or questions by commissioners online in particular? K. Then I'm gonna move

I guess Yes. I would like to ask Desiree to, like I asked earlier, to give me a a list of the car po ports of the neighborhood that have no setbacks. That's a statement that presented by the applicant on page 61, and I'm just I I couldn't find them. So but it was just a question of where are they?

And what criteria, may I ask, is are you tying that to?

The applicant states on b that's got are there similar carports in the neighborhood that have no front setback? And I was just like, okay. Where are those carports in the neighborhood?

You said criterion b?

So he's referring to the variance request will not undermine the intent of the development code, the applicable zone district, and other county adopted policies or plans or violate building code. And the applicant responded, for my residential zone, it is typical to use my existing slab for off street parking. There is nothing unusual about my request. It is in character with my residential zoning, and there are similar carports in the neighborhood that have no front setback. The building code will be applied at the building permit process. Okay. So not to speak

for the applicant because that is her statement and her response. The criterion was met because it's reasonable use for the property that aligns with the neighborhood zoning intent, and that zoning intent for the residential mixed use mixed district is residential use. So a car park is something that's expected for somebody to reasonably use their property in a residential zone district. So car park is a reasonable use of a residential zone district.

Agreed. It's just a question about this setback.

So that was that was the my response to that criteria. Okay.

So thank you.

Okay. I am looking for a motion to approve, approve with conditions, or deny. Yes. Mister Captain.

I move to approve case number BAR20250015. Your request by Barbara Martinez, property owner, for a variance from the r m two dimensional zone district standards. Approval allows an open sided carport to be installed at 1968 40th Street, Los Angeles, New Mexico directly at the front property line along 40th Street, creating a zero foot front setback. Approval is based on the findings of fact established at the hearing and the term and the determination of the applicant has met the decision criteria for variance per section 16 dash 74 g three of Los Alamos County development code. The commission acts under the authority of section sixteen sixty nine b two and six of the of the development code.

I further move to authorize the chair to sign the findings of fact and conclusions of the law for this case that reflects the decision of the commission. This document will be will be prepared by the county staff based on this decision.

I have a motion on the floor. I'm looking for a second.

I second.

Commissioner White, though I couldn't hear you, I read your lips, and you said second.

I sure did. Thank you. Record.

Give me one second. K. This time, good stuff.

Commissioner White, can you do that one more time, please?

I second the motion.

Thank you. Thank you. Roll call vote, please.

Can you hear me?

Commissioner.

Me. Alright.

Commissioner Easton?

Yes.

Commissioner Hampton? Yes. Commissioner Cream?

Yes.

Commissioner Brule? Yes. Commissioner Grimm? Yes. Commissioner Nelson?

Yes.

Commissioner White? Yes.

Motion pass.

Thank you. Any action by the Planning and Zoning Commission in granting approval of an application may be appealed by the owner of the property listed in the application. Persons that are required to be mailed notice for the application giving rise to the final action being appealed, and any county official acting in their official capacity whose services, properties, facilities, interests, or operations may be adversely affected by the any person who has the recognized legal interest under the law within fifteen calendar days, including weekend days, excluding county recognized holidays after the date of the final written decision pursuant to sec Okay. Sixteen seventy two g five a of the development code. Thank you all for that.

And we will be moving on to the next case.

Chair, can

we take a break to see

if IIM can come in? Five minutes to see if I can

Absolutely.

Come in and fix this.

So it is 652. We'll stop

for Stand up.

Five minutes or ten minutes?

Long you need.

Hopefully, five. Okay. Exactly.

Lanner and Desiree, you all went on mute, so we cannot hear anyone in the room.

I second that comment.

Yeah. Me too.

Desiree and Planner both unmuting. Harris? Not hearing oh, yes. Now we can.

She's talking. Well, who's doing the volume?

We can hear you now. Can you hear us?

Right. We can't hear you.

I'm still talking. I'll keep talking until you can hear me.

We cannot hear you, commissioner.

The person who's running presentation is to turn on their speaker and their microphone and then switch off the way we've been doing it with mine. No. Mine mine is off right now for sure.

Let us know when you wanna test the audio again.

Now we can now we can start with the speakers

and your microphones so we don't get feedback. Commissioners, can you hear us? Can you give us a yes? Thank you, James. Can you also give us thank you.

Yeah. Yes. Thank you,

James.

We can hear you.

Thank you, everyone online, commissioners online. Okay. I will do I need to repeat the beginning of this case, or did you all hear it?

I heard it. Not hear it.

Okay. You did not hear it. I will

start again. So presented before us is case SIT20260074, Vega Architecture LLC on behalf of Janet Lovato, DBA one eighteen State Route four LLC, property owner requesting a site plan adoption for a multi commercial use development at the properties addressed as 116 And 118 New Mexico State Road 4, White Rock, New Mexico. The project redevelops an existing building and site for retail, restaurant, bar, personal services, and food truck designated locations. The properties are located within the White Rock Town Center Zone District. The commission's decision on this case will be based on the criteria contained in chapter 16 of the county code known as development code as a quasi judicial public hearing will be conducted in a manner to protect the due process rights of parties and affected parties as required by New Mexico law.

All parties have a right to be represented by an attorney throughout the proceedings. The party who files the application has the burden to show the request meets their criteria of code. The commission shall act as an impartial decision making fact finding body and shall approve or deny the application in accordance with the evidence presented, which is competent and relevant. Testimony or evidence that does not meet these criteria shall be disregarded. A party to the hearing shall be afforded an opportunity to present evidence and argument and to question witnesses on all relevant issues.

But the chair may impose reasonable limitations on the number of witnesses heard and the nature and length of their testimony and questioning. Testimony at the hearing shall be under oath or affirmation, and cross examination of any persons presenting information at the public hearing will be permitted by the applicant, any infected party, and any county staff as directed by the chair. Commissioners may ask questions of the owner applicant, staff, any party, or of any witness. The issue to be decided at this hearing is whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny application for a site plan adoption for a multi commercial use development at the properties addressed 116 And 118 New Mexico State Road 4, White Rock, New Mexico, and the project redevelops an existing building in site for retail, restaurant, bar, personal services, and food truck designated locations, and the properties are located within the White Rock Town Center Zone District. The Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with making this determination based solely upon the review criteria adopted by the county council as set out in the development code.

The commission will accept the following documents as exhibits as received and provided to the commission and incorporate them as part of the record in this case. Unless the valid objecting is raised by a party, parties have had the opportunity to have these exhibits in advance, and they are able to use them during the presentation as desired. And those include the application of the applicant with exhibits and attachments, the staff report of the community development department, and exhibits to the staff report, other materials that may be introduced without objection or as determined by the commission. Additional exhibits may be proposed for entry into the hearing record by any party as part of their presentation. The chair will either admit or exclude those items as they're presented.

If an exhibit is excluded, commission will still maintain a copy of the excluded exhibit to keep as part of the record. The hearing tonight will be conducted under procedures developed by the New Mexico case law. The procedures are intended to protect the due process rights of all parties. The procedures include parties and witnesses will be identified for the record. All persons who expect to offer testimony will be sworn in and will provide testimony under oath.

All persons offering testimony will be subject to cross examination by other parties. Please remember that the purpose of cross examination is to ask questions and solicit relevant facts from the witness. It is not to be argumentative nor is it the time to state your own position that comes later. The commission intends to limit testimony to information relevant to the applicant's requested action. The chairperson may limit redundant and repetitive testimony.

We lost sound again. If you can hear us.

Yes. We can hear you.

Okay. Maybe you just stopped really abruptly. It sounded like

I did stop abruptly. My screen changed, so I'm adjusting. I'm cycling right now. So, the parties, that I'm identifying in this case is the applicant, staff, and any other persons, who are within 300 feet of the boundary of this per property under consideration, and those who have a legally recognized interest in this case may also be recognized as a party. A party may call witnesses and enter evidence to present facts in support of the party's position on the application.

So at this time, anybody in this room related to this case who wants to present evidence, please come forward and be sworn in. Stop. Can you present the oath?

Those who wish to give testimony at this hearing, please raise your right hand. Do you affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes. Yes. And for the record, if you could state, Janet, your name and your address.

Janet Albato. 306 Vitreo Drive, White Rock, New Mexico 87547.

Desiree Lujan, senior planner of Salamos County.

Thank you. Is there anyone online who'll be giving testimony in this meeting? Okay? Yes. Mister Hart, can staff swear in, mister Hart, please?

Mister Hart, do you affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

And can you state your name and your address, please?

Yeah. My name is James Hart, and our address is 199 Central Park Square, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544.

Thank you very much. Alright. Moving on. We will now, review again. We'll poll the commission as to potential conflicts of interest or ex parte communication. An ex parte communication is a commissioner's discussion on relevant facts or issues with the applicant or other party regarding the matter now before the commission outside of this public hearing. Does any commissioner have a potential conflict of interest with this case? If so, please disclose. Has any commissioner communicated directly or indirectly with any party or party representative in connection with the merits of the issue involved? Has any commissioner reached a decision on the merits of this case as a result of ex parte communication?

Has any commissioner used or relied upon communication reports or other materials prepared in connection with this particular case other than those prepared as part of this record? Has any commissioner inspected the site with any party or the representative, and has any commissioner received ex parte communication regarding this case? Online? Katie? Commissioner

Sheen? No. Nothing.

Krayen? No.

Krayen. Sorry. Thank you. Alright. The commission shall receive testimony, including expert or lay witnesses, relevant documentary evidence for or against the application from the applicant public, governmental agency, or entities, interested parties withstanding subject to cross examination in reasonable time and months established by the chair.

Given our current order, we'll start with staff and then the applicant. Correct? Alright. So please, as your planner, move on if you'll present the CBD staff report.

Good evening again, everybody. This is site plan adoption request for the Rock Commercial Development. It was assigned case number SIT2026Dash0074 submitted by the applicant Vega Architecture on behalf of property owners one eighteen State Road four LLC, and it's for a project at the location of 116 And 118 New Mexico State Road 4 in White Rock, New Mexico, both properties zoned White Rock Town Center. Little bit of a project summary. The objective is to redevelop a vacant 4,094 square foot commercial building and combined 94 acre site into a multi tenant commercial development.

Proposed uses include restaurant, bar, retail, laundromat, and the construction of the new 1,015 square foot deck and four designated food truck spaces. The building was constructed in 1995 as a McDonald's and operated as Time Out Pizza in mid two thousand and closed in 2020. The current status is the building is vacant, and the site is permitted for temporary uses for mobile food truck mobile food vendors. Location profile. The property is founded by New Mexico State Road 4 on the North and Bonny View Drive to the East and the Kanada Bui Trail on the South.

There is a 35 foot wide county parcel that extends between Rover and Sherwood and between the New Mexico DOT right of way and subject site. That is this area right in here. That 35 foot White County owned parcel is currently occupied by utilities. It's also used for open space, access, and parking for other properties along state of the form. Neighboring uses and zones of White Rock Visitor Center, Fire Station 3, and the Kanababui Trail, all zoned Bite Rock Town Center with the trail being the open space passive.

The project spans two properties, both in common ownership, and the project is primarily for interior renovations. The site will see minor improvements with construction of a deck, utility connections for four designated construct spaces, and the installation of four EV charging spaces. Outdoor sitting and gathering areas will be enclosed approximately including approximately 1,633 square feet of county owned land. So this gives us an idea of what's gonna be happening on the site. We have the site plans overlaid on an aerial showing utility lines in the colors, and the black is the property lines.

Number one represents ingress and egress from Mexico State Road 4 and Bonny View. Number two is the new deck, which will approximately extend 16.7 feet from the north building facade. Number three is the area where the enclosed seating and gathering area will exist. Number four, we have four designated food truck spaces, and the parking lot will provide 46 parking spaces, three ADA, one van accessible, where 25 is required by code. So they are overparking this project.

Six bicycle spaces, which will be in the south of the building, and four EV parking spaces that will be here on the south side of the parking lot. IDRC recommends approval. On February 26, IDRC met in person to review the application for the first time. During that review, there was a different version of the site plan, and several issues were identified that required resolution before proceeding to public hearing. Those issues since then have been resolved through a coordination meeting.

And on March 18, the applicant revised the site plan to address the IDRC comments. On March, IDRC review reviewed the revised site plan independently, and there was a recommendation for approval with one condition, and that's that the applicant must obtain permits in agreements as necessary for the encroachment and use of county property prior to receiving building permit for site and treatments. The Planning and Zoning Commission has authority to the development code to make final decision on-site plan amendments and adoptions and decisions are to approve, approve a condition, or deny based solely on the decision criteria. We'll go through each decision criteria. I will try to move through these quickly.

Criterion a, the site plan substantially conforms to the intent and policies of the comprehensive plan and other adopted county policies and plans. This project supports community priority to rehabilitate vacant, blinded, and underutilized properties. It aligns with the redevelopment goals by converting a single commercial use into a multi tenant development promoting infill growth. It advances the county's economic vitality's vitality's strategic plan by actively by activating the commercial areas and supporting small business startups. In criterion b, if the subject property is within an approved master plan, which this is, the site plan is in conformance with any relevant standards in the master plan.

That master plan is the White Rock Town Center master plan, and this strengthens the White Rock Town Center's identity by providing an active mixed commercial development. It introduces a mix of complementary uses to encourage activity in a prime corridor, and the addition of a deck and designated food trip pads fulfills a master plan's goal of creating smaller informal gathering spaces for outdoor dining. Criterion c, if the subject is in the an approved PD zone district, this does not apply as it is within the White Rock Town Center. Criterion d, the site plan is in conformance with all applicable provisions of the code and other adopted county regulations. The White Rock Town Center dimensional development standards are met.

Off street parking exceeds requirements. Landscaping and screening with, neighborhood protection and outdoor lighting do not apply. Fences and signage are expected to conform when and if applicable at permitting. Criterion e, the county's existing public infrastructure is sufficient and has adequate capacity to serve the proposed development. The county engineer reported no concerns regarding capacity of existing streets, sidewalks, or storm water sewer systems.

DPU provided no conditions, only recommending coordination of electric, water, and sewer requests for the food trucks and EV charging spaces. Criterion b, the site plan mitigates any significant adverse impacts to properties within the vicinity at the maximum extent possible. The project is consistent with the site's historical commercial use, which minimizes potential land use conflicts with neighbors. Designated pedestrian activity to a fenced area and separating it from vehicular traffic damages the safety, and redeveloping a vacant a vacant building and site reduces potential nuisance conditions. Lastly, criterion g, the provision shall be made to serve the development with tot lots.

This is not applicable to commercial site plans. A full analysis is providing in the staff providing the staff report of attachment eight pages four through 10. And as case manager, I would like to confirm that public notification requirements have been fulfilled according to section sixteen seventy two c of the development code. Staff includes the recommendation for conditional approval. That condition of the applicant must obtain permits and agreements as necessary for encroachment and use of the county property prior to receiving a building permit for site improvements. I'll conclude staff's presentation. Chair Beeson.

Confirm that the staff report is factually accurate to the best of the presenters' knowledge and insurance. Okay. Okay. Commissioners, any questions on the presentation? I have a question. So you indicated three is currently open space owned by the county.

So you can see that shaded area. That's gonna be so where the three is located is county owned property.

And But three not indicating that. Zoned open space? No. It's of way.

Okay. It's right of way. What we've learned through a lot of these projects is that they created parcels for use of utilities and right of way instead of just moving the line and having the utilities in the street. So we have these many, many tiny parcels throughout the county that are legal lots of record, but they're used solely for right of way and utilities.

And you're not gonna be living in utilities. Right? Anytime soon? Okay. So the structure that is being proposed into that area is not permanent. It is a patio, but it can be removed if necessary to access those items, those items.

So the only thing that's getting constructed is

And I'm making that a statement, by the way. It sounds like I'm or people think that's a question or a statement. I tend to make them like statements. But that is correct. Right?

That is correct. So the only thing that'll be constructed is the deck that will be right in this area here, SUSE 2. Here, there will be some seating areas with potted plants that will streak some feast and lighting, and then they'll enclose it with a three foot horizontal wood fence so that way people can congregate and eat and be safe from the separate from the area there.

Okay. Thank you. Online, any of the commissioners online have any questions of staff on this presentation? Okay. Thank you. If the applicant or the representatives would like to make their presentation at this time.

Is Janet, did you wanna go, or do you want me to go first?

Go ahead, James. I'm just here for a question.

Okay. Great. Well, I have a presentation. Let me, share my screen. Alright. Does everyone see my screen?

Yes.

Yes. Okay. So this is so the rock aims to create a fun and vibrant destination for both locals and tourists alike, bringing together food and drinks and entertainment and retail and a useful service that the community needs through the redevelopment of a restaurant, which is currently vacant and, in ablated condition. So upon entering, the property, when you, pull into a parking spot and, park your car, you enter through the patio here. And upon entering the patio, the patio is designed to be a a great hub, a place where people will wanna hang out.

We introduced landscaping and potted potted planters as well as festoon lighting to create a ceiling and a really comfortable place to hang out. There's lots of seating and tables. And then you can continue straight ahead to the food trucks, or you could go inside to the bar in the game area. Inside, the bar and the game area is designed to celebrate the contribution that White Rock specifically has made with Lantel and how the how lit White Rock is a place where a lot of people who work at Lantel live. And so this, The Rock is specifically designed to be a place for them to hang out and to celebrate their achievements.

Inside, in addition to the bar is a frozen yogurt stand and a pop up retail area as well as games, table games such as pool and foosball and ping pong. From the beginning of the design process, we've really worked hard to support Janet's vision by creating a fun place where locals and tourists will wanna hang out. And, entertainment venues often become anchor amenities that can, draw people to a center and provide a catalyst for reinvigorating an area. And so The Rock is a entertainment venue as well as providing food and drink opportunities, and it will become a great community asset for White Rock going forward.

And that that's it. Thank you. Mhmm. Any commissioners have any questions? K. Can you affirm that the information you presented was factually accurate to the best of your knowledge?

Yes.

And we'll enter that into our group.

Mhmm.

At this time, are there any other parties, anyone within 300 feet that wanted to make comments or get just none? No? No? Okay. Alright.

This time, I am going to close the public hearing to receipt of evidence and ask the commission to review and discuss the applicable criteria, which I'll go through not entirely. Following the discussion of the criteria, I will ask the commission to make and discuss a motion in this case. Alright. So the criteria for this site plan is based on section sixteen seventy four I four of development code. The site plan substantially conforms to the intent and policies of the comprehensive plan and other adopted county policies and plans as presented by staff and the applicants, it does conform.

Any questions or discussions around that, commissioners? No? Okay. The second criteria is the subject property is within the approved master plan. Site plan is in conformance with any relevant standards in the master plan.

Based on their response, the commission sorry. The county staff believes that it has met this. K? C, if the subject property is within an approved PD zone district, The site plan is consistent with any applicable terms and conditions in any previously approved PD zoning covering the subject property and any related development agreements and or regulations. It was noted that this is not applicable in this case.

Criteria d, the site plan is in conformance with all applicable provisions of this code and other adopted county regulations. There is quite a comprehensive response to that. Staff has presented that they believe this criteria has been met. We do have a question on that one.

Yes, please. So I noticed that the number of parking spaces included is almost double the minimum requirement. Is that because of the the characteristics of the existing site as it's been developed or some discretionary decision on the part of the developers to significantly exceed the minimum requirement?

I think the applicant should probably answer that in this case. So it's either or mister Hart, which would you why so we've made a lot of changes to our required parking spaces. And so can you answer that? Either one of you.

Yeah. So the parking generally has not changed from what was existing. There was already a lot of parking on the site. The changes that have occurred, there are some parking spots that went away to facilitate access for the trash truck to service the trash bins. So but otherwise, we didn't we didn't add parking spots.

Right. Just kept what was existing, and we didn't remove some that were existing, but just chose to keep the existing.

Yeah. Exactly. Yeah.

So let me ask this question. So it is that your belief is it your belief that the volume of customers you have will require the number of spaces that you accommodate? I think that we we we have enough spaces for the the amount of customers that we're doing. Yes. Okay. But are do you anticipate that if the facility is at full capacity at any given time? Because since it's a

mixed use space, people will be using it at different times, which is something that I really like about the the plan. But if at any one of those times, it is at full capacity, will there be extra unused spaces? And if so, if I'm gonna in the parking lot? Yeah. That might be fine for James.

I don't think there'll be any extra unused ones.

If if we think there's gonna be extra unused sites parking spaces. I mean, the the parking is generous. I guess I'm not sure how to answer that question.

Yeah. Yeah. One of the parcels was just parking lot and then not developed, which was existing. And right now, with that, the plan would you know, we feel like it's adequate for when it's coming, you know, and we're hoping that people would use it. The farmer farmer's market also uses it in the fall part of those parking spaces, and so those will be less. So during the fall farmer's market in the fall. So but that that's kinda why we try to leave as many as

we could. Okay. Thank you. That's awesome. Thank you. Believe that I am at criteria e. Somebody checked me. Did I get that? County's existing public infrastructure and services, including but not limited to water, sanitary sewer, electricity, gas, storm water, streets, trail, and sidewalks have adequate capacity to serve proposed development. Any burdens on those systems have been mitigated in compliance with the county's construction standards to the maximum extent practical.

I believe there is any reports. Let me just make sure that any conditions by the county staff. Farm and public utilities. No conditions. The applicant should continue to work to coordinate with DPU regarding any requests for electric water sewer related to the food truck setups.

So that criterion has been met. The site plan mitigates any significant adverse impacts to properties within the vicinity to the maximum extent practical, and that criteria has been met. Provisions shall be made to serve the development with tot lots and or neighborhood parks in accordance with the comprehensive plan. A fee may be paid as approved by county council to accomplish the purpose of the comprehensive plan in lieu of the development of Todd Lodge And Neighborhood Parks, and this is not applicable to commercial space. Any further questions, discussions that commissioners have on this particular presentation of case?

If not, I'm looking for a motion.

Can we hear you again? Yes, please. And we want the alternative motion still correct with I'm sorry. The recommended motion where the applicant must obtain permission.

That's correct. Yes.

I move to conditionally approve case number SIT20260074, a request by Vega Architecture LLC on behalf of property owners one one eight State Road four LLC for site plan adoption for a multiple commercial use development that redevelops an existing building and site for retail, restaurant, bar, personal services, and designated food truck locations for the following conditions. The applicant must obtain permits and agreements as necessary for encroachment and use of county property prior to receiving a building permit for site improvements. The properties are addressed as 116118NewMexicoStateRoad4WhiteRockNewMexico, and zoned White Rock Town Center. Approval is based on the findings of PAC established at the hearing and the conclusion that the applicant has satisfied the decision criteria for site plan adoption as outlined in section sixteen seventy four I four of the Los Alamos County Development Code. The commission acts under the authority of section sixteen sixty nine b two and six of the of the development code.

I'm looking for a second to the motion.

I second it.

Okay.

Let's do a roll call vote on that, please. Commissioner Easton? Yes. Commissioner Hampton?

Yes.

Commissioner Cream?

Yes.

Commissioner Brill?

Yes.

Commissioner Graham? Yes. Commissioner Nelson?

Yes.

Commissioner White?

Yes.

Motion passed for the conditional.

Thank you. Any action by the Planning and Zoning Commission in granting approval, conditional approval, or just approval of an application may be appealed by the owner of the property listed in the application, persons that were required to be mailed notice for the application giving rise to the final action being appealed in any county official acting in their official capacity whose services, property, facilities, interests, and or operations may be adversely affected by the application or any person who is recognized as, as a legal interest under New Mexico law within fifteen calendar days, including weekend days and excluding county recognized holidays after the date of the final written decision pursuant to section sixteen seventy two g five a for development code. Company. That concludes that case, and we will move on to the last case that we presented this evening. Alright.

The next case is number CUP20260002. David R. Williams of KM sorry. RMKM Architecture on behalf of Bethlehem Evangelical Lutheran Church. He's the property owner.

And Zephyrh Ridge Academy request a conditional use permit to allow a private school at 2390 North Road, Los Alamos, New Mexico. The subject property is zoned multifamily residential flow, m f r dash l, and is located within the North Community 1 Subdivision. The commission's decision on this case must be based on the criteria contained within chapter 16 of county code known as the development code. As a quasi judicial public hearing, it will be conducted in a manner to protect the due process rights of parties and affected parties as required by New Mexico law. All parties have a right to be represented by an attorney.

Throughout the proceedings, the party who files the application has the burden to show that the request meets the criteria of this code. Commission shall act as an impartial decision making fact finding body and shall approve or deny the application in accordance with the evidence presented, which is competent and relevant. Testimony or evidence that does not meet this these criteria shall be disregarded. The party to the hearing shall be afforded an opportunity to present evidence and argument to question witnesses to on on all relevant issues, but the chair may impose reasonable limitations on the number of witnesses heard and on the nature and length of their testimony and questioning. Testimony at the hearing shall be under oath or affirmation and cross examination of any persons presenting information in the public hearing will be permitted by the applicant, any affected party, and county staff as directed by the chair.

Commissioners may ask questions of the owner applicant staff, any party, or any witness. The issue to be decided at this hearing is to whether approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application by David r Williams, RNKM Architecture on behalf of Bethel Lutheran Evangelical Lutheran Church property owner and Zephyr Ridge Academy requesting conditional use permit to allow private school at 2390 North Road, Los Alamos, New Mexico with subject party zoned multifamily residential low in the bar of l and is located within the North Community 1 subdivision. The planning and zoning commissioner is charged with making this determination based solely upon review criteria adopted by county council as set out in the development code. Commission will accept the following documents as exhibits as received and provided to the commission and incorporate them as part of the record in this case. Unless a valid objection is raised by a party, parties have had the opportunity to have these exhibits in advance, and they are able to use them during the presentation as desired.

There is a staff report with exhibits and attachments from the community development department. Application of the applicant with exhibits and attachments and other materials may be introduced without objection or as determined by the commission. Additional exhibits may be proposed for entry into the hearing record by any parties for the presentation. The chair will either admit or exclude those items as they are presented. If an exhibit is excluded, the commission will still maintain a copy of the excluded exhibit as part of the record.

The hearing tonight will be conducted under procedures developed from New Mexico case law. The procedures are intended to protect the due process rights of all parties. The procedures include all parties and witnesses will be identified for the record. All persons who expect to offer testimony will be sworn in and will provide testimony under oath. All persons offering testimony will be subject to cross examination by other parties.

Please remember that the purpose of cross examination is to ask questions and explicit relevant facts from the witness. It is not to be argumentative nor is it time to state your own position that comes later. The commission intends to limit testimony to information relevant to applicant's requested action, and the chairperson may limit redundant or repetitive testimony. The applicant in this case is David r Williams, r m k m architecture on behalf of Beth the Bethangelical Lutheran Church, who's the property owner, and Zephyrh Ridge Academy. The community development department staff will assist the commission in fully developing the record, and then any other parties who are within 300 feet of the boundary of the property under consideration, and those who have legally recognized interest in this case may also be recognized as a party.

A party may call witnesses and enter evidence to present facts in support of of that party's position on the application. So at this time, if you're in the room and you plan to present evidence or testimony at this hearing and you believe you have a direct interest in this case and want to be recognized, please come forward. Provide your name and address and lease domain. Okay. We're gonna go around. Go ahead. Okay. So I'll start. Danielle Valdez, planning manager, community development department. K. Let's My name. Your name and where you live?

Morris Christman. 2441 Canyon Glen Road.

Thank you.

And Anthony Mitchell. Same address, 2441 Canyon Glen Road.

Thank you.

David Moore, 82 Barcelona Avenue, White Rock, New Mexico, also representing Bethlehem Lutheran Church as congregational president.

We're gonna go behind here. Tom Simoli, 2381 Canyon Glen Road.

Selena Morgan. 1535. Camino Redondo.

Give me just a minute. Are you getting are you working on it? Sorry. We have to get her to write this down for record, and then you'll all be sworn in. So let me know when Celina?

It's c e l I n a.

Next. Kathleen Hovie. 2145 35th Street, Apartment B As In Boy.

Peter McNabb. 2451 Canyon Glenroe, Los Alamos.

Ruth. Did

we get everyone? We did. Okay. Thank you.

Those who wish to give testimony at this hearing, please raise your right hand. Do you affirm under penalty of perjury that that testimony you are about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes.

It is. Yes.

Thank you. Is there anyone online who would like to provide testimony that needs to be started? Anybody. Mister Williams?

Yes. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Dave Williams, architect with RMKM Architecture, and I'm here to present and answer questions as required for this project.

And if you will raise your right hand and swear an oath. Do

you affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

It is.

Thank you. Anyone else? Alright. At this time oh, sorry. I need to pull the conflicts of interest. So the chair will now pull the commission as to potential conflicts of interest or ex parte communication. An ex parte communication is a commissioner's discussion on relevant specific facts or issues with the applicant or other party, including CBD staff, regarding the matter now before the commission outside of this public hearing. Does any commissioner have a potential conflict of interest in this case? If so, please disclose that interest. Has any commissioner communicated directly or indirectly with any parties or party representative in connection with the merits of any issue involved?

Has any commissioner reached a decision on the merits of this case as a result of ex parte communication? Has any commissioner used or relied upon communication reports or other materials prepared in connection with the particular case other than those made as part of the record? Has any commissioner inspected the site with any party or the representative? Has any commissioner received any ex parte communication regarding this case?

So I should disclose that I'm familiar with the facility, but it don't doesn't affect anything, my judgment in the in the case, I believe.

Thank you, commissioner Keene. Keene. Keene. Alright. So I'm I'm practicing it. Keene. Sorry, commissioner. I'm gonna poll the commission. Does he's disclosed he has some knowledge but feels that he can be impartial and be presented with the evidence and make a decision based on the evidence. Do any of the other commissioners have any issue with him hearing this case based on his decision?

I don't.

No. No.

Okay. No. Thank you. Alright. The commission shall receive testimony, including expert and lay witnesses and relevant documentary evidence for or against the application from the applicant, public governmental agencies, or entities and interested parties withstanding subject to cross examination and reasonable time limits established by the chair. At this time, we will accept the presentation by a CDD staff.

Thank you, chair. For the record, my name is Danielle Valdez. I am the planning manager. I will be presenting case CUP twenty twenty six zero zero zero two, which is a conditional use permit for a private school at 2390 North Road. Introduction.

David Williams of RMKM Architecture is submitted this application on behalf of Bethlehem Evangelical Lutheran Church and Zephyr Zephyr Ridge Academy. The request is for a conditional use permit to allow the private school to operate within the existing church facility at 2390 North Road, Los Alamos. The proposal summary, Zephyr Ridge Academy is a private school serving students with different learning needs. They propose a weekday co use of four existing classrooms in the church's education wing. No construction, no exterior modifications, and no building footprint expansion is proposed.

Project information, 2390 North Road. It is approximately 2.69 acres. It is zoned multifamily residential low, MFRL. The existing use is a religious institution. It is 21,440 square feet.

The proposed use is a weekday co use of four existing lower level classrooms by Zephyrh Ridge Academy. No expansion, exterior modification, or new construction is proposed. A review was conducted by the IDRC, the Interdepartmental Review Committee, on 03/19/2026. The review evaluated building and fire safety, hours access, traffic, parking, and neighborhood compatibility. All departments recommended the application proceed to the planning and zoning commission.

And just for site context, this is the church here. I don't know if you guys can see my cursor, but this is the church here at the large parcel at 2390. And then there is another I believe it's a school down to the the south of the of the photo down in this area. Mountain Elementary.

Okay.

A conditional use permit shall be approved if it meets criteria. Los Alamos County Development Code section sixteen seventy four b three application shall be approved if it meets all of the following. The conditional use substantially conforms to the intent and policies of the comprehensive plan and other adopted county policies and plans. The reuse of an existing institutional structure for educational purposes aligns with the comprehensive plan's goals supporting efficient use of existing infrastructure and community serving uses. B, the conditional use is not detriment detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.

The building is currently occupied during Sunday services, and the proposed reuse of underutilized space on weekends for serving school for serving special needs populations does not adversely affect public safety, health, or welfare. C, the conditional uses in conformance with all applicable provisions of the code and other adopted county regulations. The request utilizes existing interior space with no expansion or site changes. Therefore, no additional development standards are triggered and the existing infrastructure remains compliant. D, the special use shall conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.

No changes to the site plan, building footprint, or site configuration. All dimensional standards, setbacks, and lot coverage remain compliant in the MFRL district regulations. E, the conditional use does not cause significant adverse impacts on the properties in the vicinity. Use occurs during weekday hours when the church is not in primary use. The scale of four classrooms is limited and consistent with the existing institutional character.

No adverse impacts identified. F, there are adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary improvements to allow the land use. The site is fully served by existing water, wastewater, electrical access via North Road, on-site circulation, parking, and storm water infrastructure. No modifications are required. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the conditional use will be compatible with the use and development of the properties in the vicinity.

The educational use is within an existing institutional facility. The use does not conflict with the development of surrounding properties in the vicinity. H, the conditional use is in compliance with the site plan procedures and requirements of Section sixteen seventy four H and demonstrates compatibility with properties in the vicinity. Existing site design, circulation, parking, and infrastructure remain unchanged and in compliance with development code requirements. Staff staff believes all criteria has been met.

And Go ahead.

Public notice requirements. In accordance with chapter 16, section sixteen seventy two c of the Los Angeles County Development Code, all public notice requirements for the public hearing have been satisfied. Notice was published and posted on April 2, April 6, and then mailed notice on April 6. For the record, three letters of opposition were received after the canceled meeting two weeks ago.

Yes, ma'am.

So sorry. There appears to be

a typo in the agenda notes and attachment a that says that it was mailed on 08/06/2026.

It was just a Hypo. April, but

April. Thank you. Yes. April 04/06/2026. Public concerns considered during review.

This was added after last week's I'm sorry, the the meeting cancellation two weeks ago. The letters raised concerns related to adequacy of outdoor play space, traffic congestion, parking, neighborhood noise, pedestrian safety, and potential impacts to surrounding residential properties. Staff recognizes and considered these concerns as part of the I d r IDRC review process. However, we do take these concerns seriously, and the applicant the constituents are here to enter their letters into record. Based on technical review and the existing institutional church use of the property, staff did not identify impacts or conflicts that would make the proposed use incompatible with the zoning district or surrounding neighborhood.

Once again, IDRC, their technical review is fire, building, engineering, environmental services, and Department of Public Utilities, as well as planning. Additionally, staff notes that educational activities associated with religious institution may occur under the existing church structure by right. The conditional use permit is required in this case due to the operational structure chosen by the church rather operation itself. So the conditional use permit is necessary due to the structure in which the school is being is being organized, not by the use itself. The use is allowed if the church chose to to move forward as in that type of organization.

Staff recommends approval of case number CUP20260002, Bethlehem Evangelical Lutheran Church, Property owners on behalf of Zephyrh Ridge Academy for conditional use for private school at 2390 North Road, Los Alamos, New Mexico. The property is zoned multifamily residential low and is within the North Community 1 subdivision. Approval is based on findings of fact on record and determination that the application meets the decision criteria. And I can sit for questions.

Yes. I sure have.

So could you explain

to us the difference between operation or, you know

Certainly. So the church chose not to be a part of the organizational structure in which the school was being operated. If the church was operating the school, they could do this by right. We would just go into business license and permitting if permitting was required. But because there there is a separate contractor who is going to operate the school, they decided organizationally that it made the most sense to have the the con consultants, the contractor be the organizer of the of the school, and, therefore, it triggered in our in our code the conditional use permit.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

I I have a few questions. I noticed in the presentation, in documentation passed out the limits on room capacity that suggests that the student population might be 80. Is that right?

I believe the class sizes and I can let the the

applicant speak to this, but

I believe the class sizes are around 12 to 15 students. So this is lower. So it's 10?

10 to 12.

10 to 12 students each. So 12 being the max. So that would yeah. They it it's it's a a special needs school. So they're they're they're not larger classrooms the way a traditional school would be organized.

And will these students be inside and outside?

They will be inside. And from conversations I've had with a consultant, there is a small playground that they will not be utilizing outside of the church. They will be there is a park that is adjacent or close to the property where they will be doing their recreational and outside activities.

I do have a question. Did the IDRC review their recommendations after the complaints were what?

They did not, but that is all information that is taken to consideration when we are reviewing is traffic and access and drop off times. From the information, the drop off times are different than the school's drop off times specifically to avoid any type of traffic congestion. So they are starting later and ending earlier.

We're we're gonna end outside of the times of of Mountain Public School because I recognize that that would be a concern. Okay.

So

So you IDRC, though, didn't have that information, the concerns were addressed through normal

Through normal IDRC review. Correct. This is this is all information, community welfare that we as in our technical review, take into consideration.