Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

The Planning and Zoning Commission will begin with our roll call vote for Wednesday, July 22nd.

Commissioner Easton? Here. Commissioner Hampton?

Here.

Commissioner Best? Here. Commissioner Brown? Commissioner Bruhl?

Here.

Commissioner Crean?

Here.

Commissioner Grimm? Here. Commissioner Nelson?

Here.

Commissioner White?

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you. The next item on the agenda is public comment. This is not related to any order that we have in front of us or any item. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come forward for open public comment? No, that would be on the agenda tonight. This is just which food court are you speaking of? I should probably clarify. No, that will be part of this evening's agenda. This is just general public comment. If you just came in, open meetings, we just invite the public to have a public comment. That's save your comments for the item. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone online that has public comments? Any guests?

No public comment. Thank you.

Next item of business is I'm presenting the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on June 24th, 2026. It's in your packet. Have the commissioners had time to review the minutes and do we have a motion to approve?

I move to approve the minutes.

I second. All those in favor?

Online. Commissioner Easton.

Yes.

Commissioner Hampton.

Yes.

Commissioner Best. Yes. Commissioner Bruhl. Yes. Commissioner Crean.

He has his hand raised. Yes.

Commissioner Grimm.

Yes.

Commissioner Nelson.

Abstain.

Commissioner White. I also abstain because I was not at that meeting. Motion passed.

Thank you. I just realized I skipped right over the approval of the agenda. I'm looking for a motion to approve the agenda for this evening.

I so move. Second.

Thank you. Let's just do a show of hands. Those online, if you could raise your hand.

Motion passed.

Thank you. All right. We are now going to move into the presentation of the cases. First case before us tonight is case number SIT2026. Wait a minute. Hang on. SORRY, LET ME GO THROUGH MY SCRIPT REALLY QUICKLY HERE. YES, ALL RIGHT, SORRY. CASE NUMBER, SAT 20260080, PHIL GERSKE REPRESENTATIVE OF 1735 CENTRAL INVESTMENT LLC ON BEHALF OF TIGERED PACIFIC RELLC PROPERTY OWNER, REQUEST APPROVAL FOR SITE PLAN ADOPTION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1735 CENTRAL AVENUE, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO. The project redevelops the former CB Fox department store into a mixed-use facility featuring a boutique hotel, restaurant, food court, bar, retail sales, and meetings, banquets, and events area. The renovation includes an expansion of the second floor and an addition of a third floor, increasing the building area by approximately 4,000 square feet. The property is located within the downtown Los Alamos district, DTLA. 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 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 through 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, 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 at 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 of any witness. The issue to be decided at this hearing is whether to approve with conditions or deny an application for case number SIT20260080 approval for a site plan adoption for the property at 1735 Central Avenue, Los Alamos, New Mexico. The project redevelops the former CB Fox department store within into a mixed-use facility featuring a boutique hotel, restaurant, food court, bar, retail sales, meetings, banquets, and event areas. The renovation includes an expansion of the second floor in addition of a third floor increasing the building area by approximately 4,000 square feet. The property is located in within the downtown Los Alamos district. The Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with making this determination based solely upon the review criteria adopted by the county council 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. They are able to use them during the presentation as desired. So the application of the applicant with exhibits and attachments... The staff report of the Community Development Department exhibits to the staff report and 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, the 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 from New Mexico case law. The procedures are intended to protect the due process rights of all parties and that they 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. And 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. And there is a 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 or repetitive testimony. The applicant in this case... is Phil Gursky, the representative of 1735 Central Investment LLC on behalf of Tigard Pacific RE LLC property owner. Other parties, in addition to the applicant, include property owners within 300 feet of the boundary of the property under consideration. 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 the party's position on the application. So at this time, we're going to swear in those that are here in person regarding just this case. So 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, please come forward to the microphone, provide your name and your address.

Desiree Lujan, Senior Planner, Los Alamos County Community Development. Thank you.

Philip Gursky, 2025 East Amos Road.

Thank you. Do you want to swear them in and then we'll go online? 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 the testimony you are about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Thank you. Do we have anyone online? If so, please raise your hand. All right. Please note that this is not the time for parties to present their positions, provide testimony. It's only to obtain the names and addresses of the parties to the public hearing. All right. Now we're going to pull the commission as to potential conflicts of interest or ex parte communication. And ex parte communication is a commissioner discussion on specific facts or issues with the applicant or other party regarding the matter now before the commission outside of this public hearing. I'm going to go through the five criteria and I want you to think about each of these and see if any of these apply to you. If they do, please raise your hand and LET ME KNOW WHICH ONE. DOES ANY COMMISSIONER HAVE A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THIS CASE? IF SO, PLEASE DISCLOSE. ANY COMMISSIONER THAT HAS A CONFLICT MUST RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM THE HEARING DELIBERATION AND VOTE. Has any commissioner communicated directly or indirectly with any party or party representative in connection with the merits of any issue involved? If so, please disclose those communications. Has any commissioner reached a decision on the merits of this case as a result of ex parte communications? Has any commissioner used or relied upon any communication reports or other materials prepared in connection with the 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? Any commissioners online?

No.

Thank you. So I have had ex parte communication, not about the merits of the case. I was speaking to one of the parties only about Lita. So this is the first time I've seen any of the facts of this case. So I'm just disclosing that. So it's public record. Are there any commissioners or attorney that has any issue with what I've disclosed? Okay. All right. WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE TESTIMONY AT THIS TIME. TESTIMONY AT THIS TIME. THE COMMISSION SHALL RECEIVE THE COMMISSION SHALL RECEIVE TESTIMONY INCLUDING EXPERT OR LAY TESTIMONY INCLUDING EXPERT OR LAY WITNESSES RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY WITNESSES RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST THE EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST THE APPLICATION FROM THE APPLICANT PUBLIC APPLICATION FROM THE APPLICANT PUBLIC GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES OR ENTITIES GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES OR ENTITIES AND INTERESTED PARTIES WITHSTANDING AND INTERESTED PARTIES WITHSTANDING SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION AND SU Ms. Lujan up to make the presentation on behalf of CDD.

Give me one moment to move in here.

Good evening, commissioners and members of the public.

For the record, my name is Desiree Lujan. I am senior planner here at the Solomons County Community Development, and I was assigned the case manager to case number SIT-2026-0080. This is a site plan application for renovation and redevelopment of the property addressed as 1735 Central Avenue, better known to this community as CB Fox. The application was submitted by Phil Gursky, representative of 1735 Central Investment LLC, on behalf of the property owner, Tigard Pacific R.E. LLC. The property in question is zoned downtown Los Alamos. The purpose of staff's presentation tonight is to introduce the project, provide site information, share some background, confirm procedures, respond to decision criteria, and give staff recommendation. PROJECT SUMMARY, SO THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS PROJECT IS TO REDEVELOP AND RENOVATE A VACANT BUILDING INTO A MIXED COMMERCIAL FACILITY. RIGHT NOW IT IS A TWO-STORY BUILDING, APPROXIMATELY 24,000 SQUARE FEET, OCCUPYING 78 PER 8% OF THE LOT AREA. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ARE TO EXPAND THE SECOND FLOOR AND ADD A THIRD FLOOR WITH AN OUTDOOR TERRACE ADDING APPROXIMATELY 4,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEW CONSTRUCTION. PROPOSED USES ARE RETAIL SPACE, Here, fronting central, kiosk areas here, a bakery and cafe with grab-and-go service on the northeast corner facing central, private dining, public and private meeting rooms, a performance stage, and the second floor will be dedicated to a boutique hotel providing 20 rooms. The new third floor will accommodate a restaurant and bar lounge with an outdoor terrace. This application proposes no site improvements. The property is located within the Los Alamos town site in the center of the downtown area. It's bounded by Central Avenue, an arterial roadway to the north, and Deacon Street, a local roadway to the south. It is a 0.36 acre parcel within the Eastern Area 3 subdivision, identified legally as Lot EE, and primarily addressed at 1735 Central Avenue. Neighboring uses are office professional, restaurant, retail, personal services, financial institutions, and institutional civic. This entire area shown in the vicinity map is zoned downtown Los Alamos with the exception of Ashley Pond of the West, which is zoned Open Space Public Park. Parking is a shared 289 space lot on Deacon Street, owned and managed by the Central Parking Lot Corporation and servicing both the project and the surrounding commercial properties. A little background, in 1952, the Atomic Energy Commission constructed the building as a movie theater. This is before the Los Alamos County had land use authority, and therefore no site planner zoning approval was required. In approximately 1956, the building was converted to a department store and expanded with the second floor and has historically operated as retail and office space. Most recently, it was occupied by CB Fox Department Store until 2020. The building has remained vacant since its closure. Because the property lacks an improved site plan and proposes new uses in a downtown location, staff has determined that the project requires public hearing for site plan adoption rather than administrative review. Procedures. So the Los Alamos Development Code, Section 1674I3, establishes the procedures for a site plan adoption or a major site plan amendment. A pre-application meeting is required prior to the submission of an application. That meeting was held on May 19, 2026, and it followed May 28, 2026, an application for a major site plan amendment was submitted by Mr. Gersky. During staff review, it was determined that because there was no previously approved site plan to amend, the application would be processed as a site plan adoption instead of a major site plan amendment. This procedural determination does not affect the review because site plan adoption and major site plan amendments USE THE SAME APPLICATION, PROCEDURES, AND DECISION CRITERIA UNDER SECTION 1674I. PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS WERE FULFILLED ACCORDING TO SECTION 1672C2, WHICH INCLUDED PUBLICATION IN THE LOCAL PAPER, POSTED NOTICE ON SITE, AND MAILED NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET. ON JUNE 25, 2026, IDRC MET IN PERSON TO REVIEW THE APPLICATION. They unanimously supported the project moving forward to public hearing with notable comments, which included from environmental services a note on the location of the refuge enclosures and an FYI from the building division that the building will need to meet current codes for the issuance of a building permit. This includes ADA, ingress, and egress. FYI from planning division that if there are any future plans to dedicate parking spaces along Central Avenue, that that must be coordinated with Public Works and the county manager's office as necessary and processed accordingly. A reminder from the fire marshal that the building will must have a sprinkler system as a condition of approval is recommended to ensure that the site plan includes locations of a fire department connection and post indicator valve within proximity to the hydrants. Section 1669 of the Development Code grants the Planning and Zoning Commission the authority and responsibility to make final decision on site plan adoption applications. The Commission shall approve the application as presented, approve the application with conditions that are reasonably necessary to meet the decision criteria, or deny based on the conformance of Section 1674 for decision criteria. A complete decision criteria analysis is available within Attachment C, pages 5 through 15, However, we will go over key points with summarized in the next few slides. So criterion A, the site plan substantially conforms to the intent and policies of the comprehensive plan and other adopted county policies and plan. Staff agrees that this criterion has been met as the project redevelops a vacant underutilized downtown property and is consistent with the comprehensive plan redevelopment goals. IT SUPPORTS DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION THROUGH IN-FIELD DEVELOPMENT, EXPANDS COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND ECONOMIC VITALITY, AND IT ADVANCES THE COUNTY'S STRATEGIC PRIORITIES BY INCREASING RETAIL, DINING, HOSPITALITY, AND ENTERTAINMENT OPPORTUNITIES. CRITERIUM B, STAFF AGREES THAT THIS IS ALSO MIPS. It questions whether the subject property is within an approved master plan. Staff could confirm that this is within the downtown Los Alamos master plan. And it is consistent with the downtown master plan for mixed use redevelopment and economic vitality. This site specifically is identified in the downtown Los Alamos master plan to redevelop and become a catalyst for redevelopment and revitalization of that area. It supports downtown reinvestment, business diversity, and visitor serving uses. Criterion C is not applicable, as this property is not within a planned development zone district. And criterion D, the site plan is in conformance with all applicable provisions of this code and other adopted county regulations. The proposed uses are allowed within the downtown Los Alamos zone district and do not include any use-specific standards. Development and dimensional standards for the DTLA comply where applicable. The building footprint will increase slightly, and will remain within the DTLA setbacks of zero and the lot coverage limitations of 100%. The height of the building will increase to 48 feet, well below the maximum permitted height of 86 feet. DTLA design standards do not apply because the building expansion is less than 25%. Access and connectivity apply to all developments, EXISTING SITE DESIGN, ACCESS, DRIVEWAYS, PARKING AREAS AND VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION WILL NOT CHANGE. ACCESS WILL CONTINUE FROM CENTRAL AVENUE ON THE NORTH AND REAR PARKING LOT ON THE SOUTH. UPGRADES WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE REAR SIDEWALK TO MEET ADA AND BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. OFF STREET PARKING, THE PROJECT WILL CONVERT A SINGLE USE BUILDING TO A MIXED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY OFF STREET PARKING CALCULATIONS. PARKING WILL CONTINUE TO BE PROVIDED THROUGH THE EXISTING SHARED 289 SHARED PARKING LOT SERVING SURROUNDING DOWNTOWN PROPERTIES. Staff independently verified the applicant's parking analysis and confirmed that the project qualifies for DTLA and transit proximity parking reductions. Despite minor calculation differences likely due to the rounding, both analyses demonstrate that the available parking exceeds the minimum parking requirements. Landscaping and screening neighborhood protection standards do not apply to this project. And outdoor lighting, walls, fences, gates, and signage are not proposed with the application. However, if and when that is an option, they would require permitting and be required to comply at that time. Criterion E, existing public infrastructure and services have the capacity to serve the proposed development. Staff agrees that this meets the criteria. Existing utilities and public infrastructure are adequate to serve the project, as confirmed by DPU and the Engineering Public Works Department. No off-site infrastructure improvements are required. And again, the ADA sidewalk improvements will be required at building permit. Criterion F, the site plan mitigates any significant adverse impacts to properties within the vicinity. Redevelopment is compatible with the surrounding DT commercial uses, and there are no significant adverse impacts to neighboring properties are anticipated. Reinvestment of this property will eliminate a long vacant building and supports DT downtown revitalization. Lastly, criterion G is the provisions to serve the development with taut lots or neighborhood parks in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This criterion is not applicable to commercial development. However, existing public parks and recreational facilities are within the area and adequately serve the downtown area. Again, a complete analysis is available within attachment C, pages 5 through 15. And we can move on to staff's recommendation for approval with the condition that the location of fire department connections and the post indicator valves for sprinkler system be shown on the site plan located in proximity to a fire hydrant for building permit review. Chair, that concludes staff report, and I stand for questions.

Do any commissioners have any questions for staff regarding this? Anyone online? Any commissioner online have any questions of staff's presentation? No? Okay.

I have a really silly question. Sure, of course. I was struck by the need to call out the need for a sprinkler system. Did they not include that in their plans, or is that?

common for the fire department just to add that note so that's something that would be looked at during the building permit review so for there to not be any surprises when the applicant gets to building permit review that's something that they would like to remind of that because of the building's age it does need to upgrade to current codes and it needs to be shown in the site plan it was not necessary to show it here for planning zoning commission but it will need to be on those plans when it gets to building permits

Can you confirm that the staff report is factually accurate to the best of your knowledge?

I can confirm.

All right. We'll enter it into record. And you did do the public notice requirements. You put that in your presentation, so I'm just noting that. Thank you very much. At this time, we will have the applicant come forward and do their presentation.

Thank you, Chair Easton. Commissioners, I don't think I plan on being, try to be pretty brief because I think that she's actually outlined the majority of the questions that we have or the answers to the questions we have with respect to this particular application. I think the design criteria when you review them and how we fit into this is a, it's necessary to do the, and we agreed with doing the public hearing on the site plan approval. BECAUSE WE'RE CHANGING THE USE, PRIMARILY. AND THE CHANGE OF THE USE BRINGS SOME CHANGES INTO HOW THINGS HAVE TO BE TREATED. IN THE APPLICATION PACKET, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'LL SEE THAT WE HAVE A MULTI-PAGE, I TALKED TO OUR ARCHITECTS, BUT I THINK IT'S 10 TO 12 PAGES THAT OUTLINE EVERY SINGLE USE IN EVERY BUILDING FOR THE ENTIRE BLOCK, THE KIND OF USE, HOW MANY SQUARE FEET, SO WE HAVE A A VERY DETAILED CALCULATION OF HOW MANY, HOW THE USES ARE AND IN EACH CASE OF THE USE, HOW MANY PARKING SPACES WOULD BE REQUIRED. THIS FOR A LONG TIME, THE PARKING ASSOCIATION IS ACTUALLY ALL THE UNIT OWNERS FOR ALL THE BUILDINGS IN THE ENTIRE BLOCK FROM 15TH TO 20TH, FROM CENTRAL TO DEAKIN STREET. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT ONE, THAT WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY NOT QUITE 300 PARKING SPACES. And the minimum requirement is about 200 spaces. So we know that we're below the minimum levels, but I think we have also done, I personally have sat and observed parking availability on multiple times, primarily between 1130 and 1 o'clock on Monday through Thursday, when the most parking is used. We have made parking counts on multiple days. And rather than give them as direct evidence, there have always been at least 100 spaces probably, keeping in mind that most people who come to the general area now do not use the east parking lot in front of Metzger's. And at lunchtime, the lab folks that work there typically leave. So at any given time, that's like a 75-unit parking space lot. THERE ARE TYPICALLY 50 SPACES OR MORE THERE AND THE EAST END OF THE BACK PARKING LOT TYPICALLY IS UNINHABITED FOR A FAIRLY LARGE NUMBER OF THEM. NOW WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS ON PUTTING IN SOME FAST CHARGING EV CHARGER STATIONS SINCE OUR PROPERTY CURRENTLY SOME OF THE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE ON THE SOUTH SIDE ALONG THE DEAKIN STREET ROAD SECTION ARE PARTLY ON OUR PROPERTY AND PARTLY ON THE COUNTIES. SO WE THINK IT MIGHT BE A VERY GOOD USE TO HAVE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE FAST CHARGERS. IT'S AN EASY IN AND OUT LOCATION AND PEOPLE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET IN AND OUT WHETHER THEY WERE USING OUR SERVICES OR NOT. AND THE REMAINDER OF THAT BACK SECTION, WE'LL BE DOING A SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION OF THE garbage area. We're going to enclose all of them, even though we're obligated only to deal with our own. We want to make the rest of that whole back a vastly improved section. So that's probably the biggest question that we were faced was, do we meet the kind of parking criteria? And as a practical matter, are we going to have big issues with that? And we don't believe that's true. We believe on any given time, any given time outside of that, There are literally hundreds of parking spaces. And one of the attractions for our development is that nighttime for the events we plan on doing, the best way to characterize this building is that it's going to be a hotel-centric one with the food court. In the evenings, the food court converts into a live performance venue. That's an area where we just really lack this kind of mid-size performance location. We have acoustic engineers. We'll have a situation where it's a very attractive place to go, have live performances, and we'll also have food and drink, which we really don't have anywhere. So we're looking to fill this kind of void in that small to midsize performance venue. At the same time, we're also looking to provide a range of somewhere around a dozen retail spaces, a combination of kiosks that are actually in the food court area that will have retail sales. AND THEN A HALF DOZEN OR SO SMALLER UNITS THAT FACE AND ENTER ON FROM CENTRAL. THE IDEA BEING THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS IS AN EXPENSIVE BUILDING TO REDEVELOP, WE'LL HAVE SOME SMALL RETAIL SPACES WHERE THE ACTUAL MONTHLY RENTAL WILL BE SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE CAN HANDLE. FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE A SPACE FOR EXAMPLE FOR LOCKERS FOR THE KIOSKS. SO PEOPLE WHO ARE SELLING FROM THE KIOSK INSIDE HAVE THEIR OWN STORAGE SPACES SO THEY'RE NOT COMING EVERY DAY AND HAVING TO BRING EVERYTHING IN. SO WE PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THE KIND OF RETAIL SPACES THAT WOULD FIT HERE. CERTAINLY WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE THAT WE'LL DO IT, BUT IT'S LIKELY THAT ONE OF THE LARGER SPACES ON THE EAST SIDE WILL BE A NEW MEXICO AND LOCAL PRODUCTS STORE. IF WE DON'T FIND AN OWNER-OPERATOR, THEN WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE TO DO THAT FOR OURSELVES. THAT WILL GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE HOME baking, home crafts, things. Santa Alfonso and Santa Clara Pueblos have been approached to bring just a wide range of crafts, local product availability in a single location, as well as souvenir and other kinds of things related to the museums that are all on both of our sides of it. And on the far side of what is the kids' store now, the front will be a bakery cafe. It's there primarily to serve the needs of the hotel. since we've got operations 24, seven days a week, breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That one will be available for a sit down and do that. But it'll also be a place where people will be able to order in advance, order online, and be able to go in. Already paid, they'll be able to just grab and go. When they're talking about the parking space, THE DEDICATION OF PARKING SPACES, WE'RE LOOKING TO PUT THREE OR FOUR OF THE PARKING SPACES IN FRONT AS LOADING ZONE SPACES. SOME FOR GUESTS WHEN THEY CHECK IN, BUT ALSO JUST SO THERE'S A LOCATION ALL THE TIME FOR SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO GRAB AND GO. THEY COME, THEY PARK, THEY WALK IN, THEY'LL BE IN HEATED WARMER TRAYS SO THEY'LL JUST BE ABLE TO PICK THEM UP AND GO, AND WE THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A BIG ADVANTAGE FOR LATER AFTERNOON, EVENING USES, ALL KINDS OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO DO THAT. THE THIRD FLOOR, THE THIRD FLOOR IS REALLY THE CROWN OF WHAT WE'RE PLANNING ON DOING AND WILL BE AN OUTDOOR, AN INDOOR OUTDOOR RESTAURANT BAR AND GRILL THAT OPENS THE ENTIRE INDOOR RESTAURANT SECTION WILL OPEN TO THE PATIOS. IT WILL HAVE APPROXIMATELY 100 PERSON CAPACITY IF YOU HAVE ALL THE DOORS FULLY OPEN AND YOU HAVE AN EVENT. THERE ARE ABOUT 100 PEOPLE. that can host. That will be in combination with our restaurant consultants who own Seasons in Albuquerque and the Savoy and the Gorge up in Taos. They're really experienced, known them for a long time. We're really looking to establish a high-end first-class dining, but at the same time, there will be happy hour opportunities, small plate options, those ones, so that people who want to find a place to go have some HAVE A GREAT AMBIENCE, BE ABLE TO HEAR EACH OTHER TALK, THAT KIND OF THING. THIS WILL BE A DAILY KIND OF OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO DO THAT, AS WELL AS A HIGH-END RESTAURANT EXPERIENCE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE STAYING AT THE HOTEL. DOWNSTAIRS IN THE BACK, WE ACTUALLY WILL HAVE A PRIVATE DINING ROOM, AND WE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO HAVE A SECTION WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR MEETING ROOMS, BUT IT'S PRIMARILY TO MEET THE HOTEL'S NEEDS FOR REUNIONS, FOR CLASSES, FOR WEDDINGS, RECEPTIONS, ALL THE TYPICAL KINDS OF THINGS THAT YOU END UP WITH IN A HOTEL TRYING TO CATER AND PRODUCE. SO I DON'T, UNLESS THE MEMBERS HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON THE ACTUAL WRITTEN CRITERIA, YOU'LL NOTE THAT WE PUT ON YOUR DAIS WITH YOU THE LAST TWO PAGES OF OUR WRITTEN RESPONSES. THEY WERE CUT OFF IN THE APPLICATION, BUT THEY ARE IN THE SECTION C FOR THE ANALYSIS OF THEM. I THINK THE ONLY THING REALLY NECESSARY TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE IS WE THINK THIS PROJECT FITS SQUARELY WITHIN ALL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE CODE, STRATEGIC PLANS, MASTER PLANS, VITALITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANS THAT THE COUNTY HAS DEVELOPED OVER THE LAST 10 OR 15 YEARS, THAT IT'S DESIGNED IN PARTICULAR, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MASTER IT'S SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT WITH TWO OTHER BUILDINGS AS A PRIME REDEVELOPMENT BUILDING THAT SHOULD BE REDEVELOPED INTO MULTI-USE AS A WAY OF REVITALIZING AND INVIGORATING PARTICULARLY THE TRAFFIC, THE FOOT BICYCLE AND OTHER TRAFFIC ACROSS CENTRAL, AND IT NOW BECOMES A CROSSING POINT BETWEEN THE BRADBURY MUSEUM ON THE EAST, THE HISTORICAL MUSEUM ON THE WEST, THE WALKING PATH THAT RUNS TO THE NORTH SIDE OF CENTRAL PARK SQUARE, WHERE THINGS ARE. ULTIMATELY GOES TO THE 20th STREET. PLACE WHERE PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO PARK AND WALK TO A WIDE RANGE OF AVAILABLE OPTIONS. WE PLAN ON HOPEFULLY HAVING EVENTS THAT TIE UP WITH THE CONCERTS WHEN SCIENCE FEST AND OTHER EVENTS ARE HAPPENING IN THE COUNTY. WE HOPE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO MEET. OBVIOUSLY WE'D BE HAPPY TO HOST the headquarters for all these ones, so it's an easy place to find where you have to go, where you have to register for races, all the things. We kind of go to this corner to register. We provide something that people can have. We're very interested in not just fitting in the community. I grew up here. I was born and raised here. We are committed to the town, and this is a long-term opportunity for us to do something that we think will make A CATALYTICS CHANGE FOR THE DOWNTOWN, MAYBE NOT SO MUCH FOR EVERYBODY WHO COMES TO IT, BUT THE ACTIVITY AND THE VITALITY AND THE VARIABILITY OF WHAT WILL BE AVAILABLE, WE THINK WILL REALLY ADVANCE THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR QUALITY DEVELOPMENT HERE. SO WITH THAT, I WOULD STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

So, thank you, Mr. Gursky. The application was very comprehensive. I appreciate the work that you put into it. I think tonight we're just talking about code and comprehensive plan and how this site proposal fits that. Are there any Commission questions for the applicant?

Yes. Thank you very much for the presentation. I appreciate it. I just have one tiny detail question. In the written response to Criteria A in, let's see, Part B, you mentioned a parking loading zone immediately adjacent to the entrance on Central. Will that include a curb cut?

No. Okay. I'm sorry, Chair Easton, Commissioner. It's just the allocation of the three or four least used parking spaces on that stretch of the furthest east. stretching to in front of the laboratory's space there. That's just a parallel park there. So I guess you're kind of out of luck if you can't parallel park or you can time the last one in the space.

No, I was asking just because I wanted to confirm that there wouldn't be any car traffic that runs into the sidewalk?

No, absolutely not. I mean, we want to continue to have all that open. In front of the cafe, there will be an enclosed the bakery cafe, an enclosed little patio area to take advantage of the set back there. But all of the rest of it is going to be open, and we'd anticipate, along with a lot of the other community people, to always be available for all of the chamber fests and the other kinds of things. We want that walking flow to be unimpeded across here.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any other commissioner questions? Any questions online?

I'm so sorry. I have another really silly question. On the blueprint for the third floor, there's a corner of it that's color-coded as retail. I assume it's intended to be color-coded as kitchen, but I just wanted to confirm the use of that little corner on the third floor outside of the dining area.

Excuse me. Chair Easton, commissioners. Let me get to the floor.

Oh, there we go. Yeah. Okay.

Yes, that is coded for kitchen. That probably should be yellow.

Okay. Thank you for confirming.

Yes. This will have an upstairs kitchen. for preparation of most of the stuff, although all the prep and the other one will be done downstairs. The entire area behind the front of the bakery cafe will be a large commercial kitchen for producing. We'll plan on doing catering, working with the lab, working on bringing. We're working to try and improve the transportation options for people who would like to come have lunch downtown and maybe do some shopping downtown, coordinating the shuttles, working with the lab on internal shuttle. within the main tech areas. So we're hopeful that that's going to be something that everyone is going to be able to make use of. And we'll just, as an aside, we'll also have 24-7 available vending machines that will have restaurant entree type things. So if you end up getting into town at 11 o'clock, you can pop in there next to the Amazon lockers. It'll be open 24-7. We're trying to do some things that are really centric to the opportunity to get what you need and do what you need and get it when you want to get it.

Thank you. Commissioner Grimm. So I do have a question, and it does relate to parking. You did bring that up. So currently that's shared space with the Central Parking Lot Corporation, and the current building owner is a member of that, as I recall.

That's correct.

Okay. So have you had a conversation with the corporation? I don't know what their rules are on use of all these spaces. Can you share what that is?

Yes, Chair Easton. There is a covenant filed for the parking corporation, which reserve all of the spaces for everybody. There is no THERE'S NO OPPORTUNITY FOR SPECIFIC AREAS OF THE PARKING TO BE ALLOCATED TO PARTICULAR BUILDINGS. THE IDEA WAS ALWAYS THAT ALL THE AVAILABLE PARKING WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ALL THE RESPECTIVE GUESTS AND VISITORS OF ALL OF THE BUSINESSES. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS PROBABLY A PRACTICAL WAY TO DO OTHERWISE. IT WAS EARLY ON BEFORE, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN 19, A SINGLE PIECE, EVEN THOUGH ALL THREE OF THE PARKING LOCKS, THOSE ARE GUARANTEE IN THE COVENANTS. THERE'S NO ABILITY TO CUT DOWN THE AMOUNT OF USE OR TO SPECIFY THEIR PARTICULAR USE FOR A PARTICULAR BUSINESS OR A PARTICULAR USER IN THAT. AND WE THINK THAT'S BY FAR THE BEST WAY TO HANDLE IT. AND NO, AT THIS POINT, WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSIONS, BUT WE PROBABLY WILL BE HAVING SOME ON UPGRADING, PAVING, SOME THINGS LIKE THAT. But, yes, so it's available to everyone across and for public, for any user, business to end IT, across the entire spectrum of people.

Thank you. Any other?

Yes. I just... Thank you. Thanks for that presentation. Since we're always concerned about housing here, I was just curious about the 20 units. I think there was something in there about they would be suitable for long-term stays. Are they going to have kitchenettes or anything like that?

If you could just tell us a little bit more about that. Chair Easton, Commissioner, that is true. But I will say that affordability is not the factor. The 10 units that will sit over what was the old movie theater and over the food court, they each have, they will actually be two-level rooms. So the lower level of the rooms will be a kitchen seating area, convertible couch kind of one, the typical induction, you know, an induction cooktop, full kitchen potential. So it definitely could be done for longer-term stays. And there's a very large steel superstructure supporting the roof that's actually above all of the giant air ducts and things that were on the second floor. So they'll actually be stairwells up to a sleeping loft area that will be inside the superstructure of the steel. So it'll have kind of a modern industrial kind of look to it. The average size of the ozons, 450 to 500 square feet. So they're certainly large enough for longer stays. We certainly contemplate that NON-QUALIFIED, NON-DAILY RATE LABORATORY OUTSIDE PEOPLE. AND THEN A LOT OF THE PEOPLE WE EXPECT ARE GOING TO BE PARENTS, VISITORS, THOSE KINDS OF PEOPLE WANT TO STAY WHO HAVE BEEN SPENDING A TON OF MONEY MOVING AND STAYING IN SANTA FE, WHERE THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY SANTA FE ISN'T NECESSARILY WANT TO STAY, BUT IF THE HOLIDAY EXPRESS IS THE HEIGHT OF where you're able to stay on a regular basis, this is an opportunity to fill in a small boutique gap. We'll have concierge services arranging arrangements with the spas, pools, everything around so that people will take advantage of walking around and being around town when they're staying here.

Any other commissioner questions of the applicant? If none, then could you confirm that the application is factually accurate to the best of your knowledge and enter it into the record?

With one exception, and I request the entrance of the final two pages of the decision criteria in the application. For some reason, we got cut off the last two pages. So I'd ask that we move those two pages into the record, and with that, then I can affirm that that's approved.

record great the commissioners that are online well we send out an amended package it was missing it'll be in the minutes for approval on the next meeting but we'll include it into the record okay so for those that are online just watch for that there's an extra page two pages missing okay thank you thank you thank you commission All right. At this time, we're going to invite any other parties or witnesses. An affected party is one that has a standing that's within 300 feet. Is there anyone in the audience regarding this particular case that's an affected party that would like to come forward? Is there anyone online? Okay, all right. Can I have, Ms. Lujan, if you could come up. I have a question. You may not be able to answer it, but I do wanna bring it up. It has to do with the county's plans for Deacon Street. Over the years, I've heard a variety of things, and I just wanna make sure that there are no plans that we know of to make any changes to that street, given what we were presented this evening.

I have no information about Deacon Street project, but the site plan was specific to the property that is owned by the investment group in High Guard Pacific. And it's just that footprint. The building occupies a majority of that footprint. The south side parking lot that they're going to use, that's also owned by the parking corporation. And as Mr. Gursky mentioned, That last row of parking spaces is on Deacon Street, but parking calculations and everything regarding this site plan tonight does not include those parking spaces. Okay.

I wanted to clarify that because you mentioned that those spaces actually are also on county property, so I just wanted to follow up.

They are, but they were excluded from the analysis because it's not their property.

Okay. Wonderful. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. All right at this time I'm going to close public hearing to receive evidence and ask the commission to review and discuss the applicable criteria following the discussion of the criteria, I will ask commission to make and discuss a motion. So I'm just going to quickly go through the criteria that staff and the respondent have addressed. And then I will be looking for a motion from the commission. I will run through it really quickly, if I can find it. All right, so what we're considering tonight with this particular case is that the site plan that was presented to us substantially conforms to the intent and policies of the comprehensive plan and other adoptive county policies and plans. If the subject property is within an approved master plan, the site plan is in conformance with any relevant standards in the master plan. 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. And a note on that is it doesn't apply. BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN A PD. THE SITE PLAN IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE AND OTHER ADOPTIVE COUNTY REGULATIONS. E IS THE COUNTY'S EXISTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WATER, SANITARY SEWER, ELECTRICITY GAS, storm sewer streets trail sidewalks have adequate capacity just to serve the proposed development and any burdens on those systems have been mitigated in compliance with the county's construction standards to the maximum extent practical f is the site plan mitigates any significant adverse impacts to properties within the vicinity to the maximum extent practical And she provision shall be made to serve the development with tot lots and or neighborhood parks in accordance with the comprehensive plan if he will be paid as approved by County Council to accomplish the purpose of the comprehensive plan in lieu of the development of tot lots for neighborhood parks and as stated this doesn't really apply there are plenty of open spaces and parks near it so applicable with that. Is there any discussion the commissioners have regarding this site plan as presented? If not, I'm looking for a motion. Rebecca? Commissioner White?

Thank you, Chair. I'm ready to make a motion.

Please.

I move to conditionally approve case number SIT20260080, a request by Philip Gursky, representative of 1735 Central Investment LLC, on behalf of Tigard Pacific RE LLC, property owner for site plan adoption to redevelop and renovate the property at 1735 Central Avenue, Los Alamos, New Mexico, into a mixed-use commercial development featuring a boutique hotel restaurant and food court, bar, retail sales, and meeting, banquet, and event spaces subject to the following condition. The locations of all fire department connections, FDCs, and post indicator valves, PIVs, for a fire sprinkler system shall be shown on the site plan and located in proximity to a fire hydrant for building permit review. Approval is based on the findings established during the public hearing and the determination that the application meets the decision criteria for site plan adoption under Section 16-74 of the Los Alamos County Development Code. The Commission acts under the authority granted in Section 1669 of the Development Code. I further move to authorize the Chair to sign the final order approving the application. Together with the findings of fact and conclusions of law reflecting the commission's decision, these documents shall be prepared by county staff consistent with commission's action.

I second it. Is there any discussion of the motion with the commissioners? If not, roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Easton?

Yes.

Commissioner Hampton?

Yes.

Commissioner Best? Yes. Commissioner Bruhl?

Yes.

Commissioner Crean?

Yes.

Commissioner Grimm? Yes. Commissioner Nelson?

Yes.

Commissioner White? Yes. Motion passed.

Thank you. Any action by the Planning and Zoning Commission in granting approval or conditional approval or disapproval 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, any county official acting in their official capacity whose services, properties, facilities, interest, or operations may be adversely affected by the application, or any person who has a recognized legal interest under New Mexico law within 15 calendar days, including weekend days, and excluding county-recognized holidays, after the date of the final written decision pursuant to Section 16-72G5A of the Development Code. All right, we're gonna move on to the next case. The next case to be discussed and reviewed is case number SAT20260081, McCloy Land Surveying LLC. On behalf of the property owner, Russ, New Mexico, LLC, requests approval of a site plan adoption for the properties located at 1377 and 1399 Diamond Drive, Los Alamos, New Mexico, Zone General Commercial, GC, The site plan adoption will establish a commercial parking lot on two adjoining vacant parcels totaling approximately 1.7 acres. The commercial parking lot will provide parking for Los Alamos High School and an area for a mobile food vending court. Commission's decision in this case will be based on the criteria contained in Chapter 16 of the 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 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, but the Chair may impose reasonable limitations on the number of witnesses heard 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 at 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 of any witness. The issue to be decided at this hearing is whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for... Approval of a site plan adoption for the properties located at 1377 and 1399 Diamond Drive, Los Alamos, New Mexico Zone General Commercial. The site plan adoption will establish a commercial parking lot on two adjoining vacant parcels totaling approximately 1.7 acres. The commercial parking lot will provide parking for the Los Alamos High School and an area for a mobile food vending court. 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. So the application of the applicant with exhibits and attachments, staff report from the Community Development Department, exhibits to staff report, and 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 a part of their presentation. The chair will either admit or exclude those items as they're presented, and if an exhibit is excluded, the 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 from New Mexico case law. The procedures are intended to protect the due 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 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. The Commission intends to limit testimony to information relevant to the applicant's request to action. and the church person may limit redundant or repetitive testimony. The case before us is SIT 2026. The owner is McCloy Land Surveying LLC on behalf of the property owner, Russ NM, LLC. So that's the applicant. The other parties are... They include property owners within 300 feet of the boundary of the property under consideration and those who have a legally recognized interest in this case and 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, for those that are in this room, 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, please come forward to the microphone, provide your name and address for the record, and be sworn in, please.

Danielle Valdez, planning manager, community development department.

Scott McCloy, I'm a representative of the owner of the property, 617 Meadow Lane, White Rock.

Logan Ott, property owner within 300 feet on 40th Street.

Elizabeth Jacob, I'm a property owner directly in back of the Lot that wants to be An open food court Can you swear them in please Madam chair if I may yes if we can get them to state their address Oh the two

affected parties. If you could come forward and state your address.

Yeah, 1374 40th Street, apartment A and apartment B for her.

1374 B 40th Street. Thank you.

Appreciate that. You guys will need to be sworn in. So if you could come forward and raise your hand, please.

Right hand left hand.

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. Is there anyone online that is wanting to give evidence this evening? Again, please note this is not the time for parties to present their positions or provide testimony. It is only intended to obtain names and addresses of the parties to the public hearing. All right. I will now pull the commission as to potential conflicts of interest or ex parte communication. Ex parte communication is a commissioner's discussion on specific facts or issues with an applicant or other party regarding the matter now before the commission outside of the public hearing. I'm going to go through the five items. Does any commissioner have a potential conflict of interest in this case? If so, please disclose. Any commissioner that has a conflict must recuse themselves from the hearing, deliberation, and vote. Has any commissioner communicated directly or indirectly with any party or party representative in connection with the merits of this issue? If so, please disclose communication. 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 any communication reports or other materials prepared in connection with the particular case other than those made part of the record? And has any commissioner inspected the site with any party or their representative? Has any commissioner received ex parte communication regarding the case? Online?

No.

Okay. No. Thank you. All right, the Commission shall receive testimony including expert or lay witnesses relevant to the 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. And I'm going to invite this time Ms. Valdez up to make a presentation on behalf of the Community Development Department.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Commission.

Give me one moment to get situated.

Everyone can see my screen? OK. Good evening. My name is Danielle Valdez. I'm the planning manager for the Community Development Department. And tonight, we'll be discussing case SIT-2026-0081, which is a site plan adoption for 1377 and 1399 Diamond Drive. As an introduction, McCloy Land Serving is the agent for Russ New Mexico, the property owner. This is a site plan adoption for two adjoining vacant general commercial zoned parcels totaling 1.7 acres. The proposed summary is a commercial parking lot serving Los Alamos High School and a mobile food vending court on 1377 with nine food truck spaces and open air shade structure, communal seating, and patron parking. No enclosed structures, 0% lot coverage, no site lighting, and there is an associated variance that we will discuss after this case, which seeks relief from the type B buffer planting requirements. Project information, 1377 and 1399 Diamond Drive, approximately 1.7 acres or 73,921 square feet. It is zoned general commercial. Its existing use is vacant. It is currently servicing two food trucks and the commercial parking lot for the high school. And then its proposed use is to become an official site parking lot and a mobile food vending court with nine allowed vending trucks. So a site plan adoption shall be approved if it meets the following criteria under Section 1674 . A site plan substantially conforms to the intent and policies of the comprehensive plan and other adopted county policies and plans. Infill reuse of a long vacant commercial parcel of an arterial address documented high school parking demand and adds dining options where few exist. This criteria has been met. B, if the subject property is within an approved master plan, the site master plan conforms to relevant standards of that master plan. This is not applicable. There is not a master plan associated with this property. C, if within approved PD zone district, the site plan is consistent with the applicable terms, conditions, development agreements of that PD zoning. This is also not applicable. There is no PD zone overlay. D, the site plan is in conformance with all applicable provisions of the code and other adopted county regulations. GC standards reflected. Parking is permitted and mobile vending accepted as a temporary use. Northern Diamond Drive driveway must close. Type B buffer applies if the variance is denied. D is met with conditions. E, existing public infrastructure and services, water, sewer, electric, gas, storm streets, trails, sidewalks have adequate capacity to serve the development. This is a low intensity use, no enclosed buildings, water from the existing cap lines that already service the property would be tapped into, subject to DPU approval, curb, gutter, and sidewalk at the closed driveway solid waste access coordinated. So this is also met with the conditions that are provided. F, the site plan mitigates any significant adverse impacts to properties within the vicinity to the maximum extent practicable. The berm, the grade, the vegetation, and the fencing provide separation. However, the type B buffer still applies unless the variance is granted. No lighting, 10 feet, truck separation and 15 feet hydrant clearance are required. This is also met with conditions. G, provisions shall be made to serve the development with tot lots and or neighborhood parks in accordance with the comprehensive plan or a fee in lieu paid. This is not applicable. This is a commercial development. So E and F are met with conditions and G is not applicable. The site plan does not require that they show these items within the site plan criteria, and therefore they have been added as conditions. So with any permitting and with any use moving forward, any approvals moving forward for the food trucks, they would need to meet these conditions, and therefore that is why they are included. Public notice was sent. So public notice is required per Section 1672 of the Los Alamos County Code. Publish and posted notice was published on July 2nd and posted on July 2nd. Mailed notice 14 days prior to the public hearing. Mailed notice was July 2nd. And then our pre-application meeting is also a requirement of a site plan, and that was held on February 11th. Our interdepartmental review committee has imposed the following conditions. They conducted their review from June 18th. through the 25th and the following recommendations were included in the conditions of approval. Close the Northern Diamond Drive access and provide high school overflow access from Sandia only. Public utilities coordinate final utility design and existing cap water lines were feasible. With environmental services, they need to coordinate the container placement and collection access. Fire marshal stated they need to maintain the 10-foot separation between the food trucks, vehicles, and structures, and 15 feet of clearance around any hydrants. Building division requirement was that they obtain the required permits for the shade structure. We need them to provide the proposed hours of operation. And then staff recommends conditional approval on the conditions that have been provided within your staff report of case SIT 2026-0081. And I can stand for questions.

Yes, Commissioner Grimm. Thank you. County planning documents have repeatedly and consistently stressed the importance of reducing surface parking, encouraging multimodal transportation, reducing car-oriented land use, and strengthening commercial corridors through active use rather than passive occupancy. I'm struggling to reconcile the substantive content of this proposal, which appears to be primarily parking, with the county's own stated goals for land use and development. Can you expound?

Certainly. So private development, we are not going to tell a private developer how they can or cannot develop their land regardless of our goals. Yes, these are our goals. However, it is a permissible use within society. the private developer's rights on how they utilize their land. So from my understanding, this is not the overall goal of this site. However, in order to be utilized officially as this parking and for us to be able to register them with a business registration and provide any type of allowance for additional food trucks to happen within this area, we needed them to go through the site plan process. Does that answer your question? It doesn't fit our goals, but our goals are also to encourage redevelopment and to have more development within the county. So they're not contradictory goals, but they are still goals.

In that case, I'm not entirely understanding the circumstance in which criteria A would not apply or would not be met.

I am also confused by how criteria A is met.

As a chair, can I ask a question?

Sure.

Could you expand?

There, it is more the outlier for the remaining areas to service in a general commercial service.

That does, I still have follow-up questions, though. One, I'm struggling to understand how free parking for a public institution constitutes commercial use. And two, is there evidence that there is a lack of transportation access to the high school?

This would be a high school. Chair Easton, thank you, Commissioner. This is more of a high school question. I don't know if they have adequate parking within their site. From our understanding, they do not. And that is why they have leased with the owner to lease their property for the parking. I'm assuming if they did have adequate parking, they wouldn't be paying additional monthly lease on this property for the overflow parking to the high school. So it is not free parking, but that is not our purview to understand what the agreement between the leasee and the tenant are.

I just want to follow up on that because the staff report does say addresses a documented parking demand. Yes. And that's just because people park there. There's a demand.

That is because the high school has informed us as well as sought out the property owner to seek additional parking off-site from the high school.

Okay. I have more questions, but maybe you have... Just as someone who lives near there, I have huge safety concerns. I think if we did a heat map of where crashes happen and when in this county, there would be a huge bubble by the high school during dismissal times. It's unsafe to ride a bike, for example, past the high school at dismissal times. So providing more safety, places for high schoolers to drive their own vehicles and park seems to me to add a lot of safety concerns for the neighborhood.

Commissioner Chair, Chair Easton, Commissioner, while I agree with you as far as safety, our traffic analysis and engineers have gone through, and this is why they're closing the, they're requiring the closing of the northern entrance and only allowing access to the parking lot through Sandia Drive. I am not the technical expert to say that this is going to mitigate any type of crash or have the technical expertise to state statistics on high school crashes versus elderly crashes versus people on their cell phones. So it seems unfair to target a specific demographic to drive their vehicle when they're going to probably drive their vehicle anyway.

I mean, I would be interested in seeing those statistics for sure because I do think it's a safety concern. And I think as Commissioner Grimm was pointing out, there is transportation provided for high schoolers, correct? There are buses for every student.

I believe there are two transportation systems available for high school students, both the Atomic City Transit and the public city or like the public schools bus system for students who live more than two miles away. I think that's required by state law.

If I could hang in on this. What's presented in front of us is planning and zoning. Truthfully, they could be using those spaces for teachers, not for students. We're making a lot of assumptions about why they're having this need and they've reached out to someone who owns the property to accommodate the needs. We don't have them here to present the why, and it's really not ours to discuss the why. I hear what you're saying. I don't disagree with you. But what's presented in front of us with this case is you've got a property owner who needs to present use, and there's nothing in the code that says he can't use it this way, and he's got... I don't know what to call it. The schools have a need and those two people got together and they came up with this. So what's presented in front of us is not how you feel about people driving their cars or riding buses or whether there's enough of that. That's a different day and a different conversation and not in front of us. This is a site plan that's being presented to us and we need to decide, is it correctly zoned? And is it within the comprehensive plan? That's what's before us. So if I hear conversations around that, I entertain it. But that's not what I'm hearing. And we can't arbitrate transportation.

I understand that respectfully, definitely. But I do feel like the staff response to criteria A depended on parking demand. That was stated in the staff response. So I think it's germane to the discussion. And then, you know, criteria F, the site plan mitigates any significant adverse impacts to properties within the vicinity. I contend that there are adverse impacts to maybe not properties in the vicinity, but certainly people in the vicinity by having more ins and outs at school dismissal time.

Heard. Commissioner Grimm, do you have any further comments related to the criteria as Commissioner Bruhl pointed out?

No, I have a question for the property owner, but not that that's for later.

Okay.

Additional questions?

I don't at this time, but we may have some further.

Yes. Sorry. I just also under criteria D, you said that mobile vending was allowed as a temporary use?

Commissioner, Chair Easton, Commissioner Burrell, yes. So both uses right now are allowed permissibly in the code or in their zoning. What we're trying to do is get them into compliance with our site requirements by changing and closing off the Diamond Drive, the northern exit, as well as constructing a sidewalk. So we're trying to enforce our code regulations, and the owner has complied with applying for a site plan. So they are technically both permissible uses. He wants to do a little bit more on the food truck end. which is why we also now incorporated the parking lot so we can apply conditions to both.

I'm not sure I understand. Could you go back to criteria D? Or I can look at it here.

The site plan is in conformance with all applicable provisions of the code.

I think there was something in your presentation that said mobile vending is allowed as a temporary use.

Yes. The mobile vendor themselves have to come in and get a temporary use permit. That is not a, it is an administrative permitting process. We have allowed two mobile vendors to be on site at this time. In order to enforce safety, we have required any additional food vendors now for the site plan for the owner to come in with a site plan to show us how their access and egress and how they are basically not just parking there with their food trucks so thank you if i understand correctly then having it designated as a food truck site is a permanent use but each individual food truck is a temporary use correct okay thank you

Any further, and we can bring the staff back for further questions, but I think at this time, if you could confirm that the staff report is factually accurate to the best of your knowledge, and we'll enter it into record.

I confirm that the staff report is, and the presentation are factually accurate.

Thank you. At this time, we invite the applicant, Mr. McGloy, to make your presentation, please.

Yes, hello, chair and commissioners. My name's Scott McCloy. I'm a local land surveyor. I'm here to represent the owner. I'm not the property owner. And I will answer what questions I can. Some of these you've been asking the staff are beyond my purview and my involvement in the project. But I will go over briefly what I can. As Danielle went over, it's two vacant lots. One was the former. Metzger's Auto Service Garage, and then the other lot contained some retail stores, a pharmacy, and a donut shop. And they'd been vacant for some time, so the goal of this project is to improve these formerly vacant properties and serve some community needs. And so for the north lot, as you've been discussing, it's for the parking for Los Alamos High School students and teachers. For the southern lot, the owner has planned a mobile food vending court. He has kind of modeled off of, I don't know if you're familiar with, but the food court in Santa Fe next to the Capitol is kind of what he has in mind of, you know, up to nine food trucks and a little bit of seating. No buildings are planned It's minimal utility impacts for County infrastructure he does plan to put in Some electric outlets to run out to the food van so that each one's not running off of a generator and that was in order to minimize noise pollution to the neighboring properties and also any air pollution because the generators aren't the cleanest running type of setup. So he's going to install electric outlets for each van and then install a water line that connects to an existing water stub into the property and put in four water spigots just to make it easier for the food truck operators. Take any questions you might have.

I saw something about restrooms.

Yeah, that was in the staff's recommendations that that plan needs to be made. And I don't see any unwillingness on the owners to put in like portalets or whatever is required.

So the thought process is not an actual restroom built, but more portable potties? Yeah. Does that satisfy?

That would be my understanding, yes. Okay.

Thank you, Chair Easton. Our goal here is like a hand-washing bathroom type station, mobile. Our recommendation, it is not within criteria, but we wanted to make that a condition because we feel like that's important.

But that's not part of code. Okay. All right.

Thank you. Commissioners, questions for the applicant? I also noticed that there's no lighting. How will that work for evening dining outside of the summer hours?

Daniel went over, it's two separate kind of permitting processes. And so there's no site-wide lighting proposed. And so any lighting, say like a string of Christmas lights that the actual vendor has, they are required to meet their code when they submit their permit.

So the common eating area will not have lighting?

To my knowledge, no.

So will the applicant be responsible for maintaining the site, you know, cleaning up the common eating area?

I believe so.

Thank you, Chair Easton. Commissioner Hampton, we have requirements within our environmental services agreements and within our temporary use permits that all separate vendors are required to ensure that there is one sink, there are multiple dumpster, multiple trash bins, refuse bins, but also a one collection dumpster and then access to that dumpster is adequate.

Are the current food trucks operating off generators instead of electrical outlets right now?

They are.

Thank you.

Any questions from commissioners online? Commissioner White? Commissioner Crean?

No, none at this time.

Okay. Thank you.

None from me.

Thank you. Any other commissioner questions for the applicant at this time? Thank you very much for your presentation. Can you affirm that the presentation is factually accurate to your knowledge?

Yes.

Okay.

And we'll enter that into record.

All right. At this time, I would invite the affected parties to come up to the microphone. And you'll have an opportunity to present evidence, argument, and ask questions of the staff or applicants.

Okay. I guess I want to say thanks for sending us notifications. And I guess after receiving the notification, I haven't had a chance to review this actual plan. So I was glad to hear there's notional plan for outlets. I don't know if that's part of the official plan, but... I can say on behalf of all the residents nearby, we already put up with a lot of disruptions to the peace and quiet by nature of living in this location next to what the stadium and the high school and the UNM. This is kind of expected during business hours. I guess after hours is an especially big gripe, though, that we would like to push back on. So I was actually kind of glad to hear there's no lighting because that's something that could affect the peace and quiet in our community after hours. So I guess, again, I don't know if the outlets are part of the official plan at this point. Sure. Yeah.

Uh, chair Easton. Uh, thank you. Um, yes. So the reason for this is the applicant is seeking to bring utilities into their site, um, so that there is no generators being used on these food trucks. So that is the official decision on the site plan and requirements from, uh, the department of public utilities.

Right. So yeah, with the current food, I guess, um, I think many of the residents do appreciate increased dining options, but it took us by surprise in a bad way when the current food truck is running its generator all night long. So I guess we wanted to voice that, and Betty has some additional concerns that she also thought of. Yeah, I guess that's all I wanted to say, or all the evidence I wanted to present, is that, you know, we do notice the noise at night, especially after hours stuff is the biggest source of contention for us on 40th Street.

I do have a question. Yeah. Just clarification, if this is the first time that you've seen the materials about this and splitting the property between parking for the high school, which would logically be only during school hours, and then the other half, you seem to be focused on the food truck part of it. If the hours of operation end at 9 p.m., is that considered, are you considering that after hours? Uh-huh. And I know that you just saw this really for the first time, so I'm just asking.

Yeah, I mean, I guess that is kind of a subjective thing. I don't know if there is some kind of county ordinance already, you know, defining, you know, what noise after hours is when that time starts and ends. I think that's probably fairly subjective for each one of us. So I guess I won't.

comment on that that's fine i thought i would ask because you have two split uses on this site plan and so i was just kind of wanting to know as a neighbor do both uses have issues are you really more focused on the impact of the food trucks other than the parking i guess at least to me and i think to most it's just the general peace and quiet of the neighborhood um

considering the context that we are next to a high school, we are next to a community college. Um, you know, like when we're trying to sleep, we're trying to sleep. Um, you know, if we're up early in the morning, enjoying a cup of coffee or something.

No, I really appreciate your testimony and you being here as a community member. So thank you very much for coming tonight.

Yeah. Well, um, Betty's the one who, uh, said, hey, open your mail. Thanks for that.

I have a question for you also.

Yeah.

So given that it is subjective, is 9 p.m. acceptable? Given that you live near the stadium?

Yeah, I mean, like there's all kinds of special events that sometimes go later than that. I think it's really stuff that's going to be happening every day for weeks on end. 9 p.m. I guess does seem kind of late to me, but I feel like I've heard of other places considering after hours to be more like 8, but there's probably a lot of variation there. So, I mean, me personally, you know, that would probably be fine because I make all kinds of noise in my garage doing stuff there anyway.

Thank you very much.

May I ask a question of the applicant?

Yes.

What about early, the timeframe in the morning? So let's say there is a coffee food truck there is 7 a.m. too early.

I mean, 7 would probably be a reasonable opening time. Earlier than that would definitely...

So operational hours, trash collection, everything has to happen within the operational hours that we are setting within the uses. And while those hours are not established right now, we as staff want to ensure the welfare of the community that is affected by this. So 730, you know, we believe that there should not be dump trucks picking up trash at 7 a.m., However, we're unsure if the community feels differently. So 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., it does help us establish what seems logical for the established hours on these food trucks. So we can impose those tonight within the conditions as well. And I think that would be helpful if...

approved that these that these are also addressed great all right thank you thanks everyone could i just add a comment um sure and we'll just that the high school often has you know band practice and all kinds of things right that go on in the evening so it's not just school hours right

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner, for listening to me. I've been a resident in the immediate area for the last 23 years. And the past two years have been extremely, and I mean extremely, noisy in the neighborhood because of construction at UNM and the demolition of the buildings behind my house. And the air pollution has been substantial. Carbon monoxide mainly. I live in an older home. It was built in 1961. There's no air conditioning. And under the current climate conditions, that double digits and even triple digits can be reached. Late in the evening, my kitchen reaches to... anywhere from 86 to 90 degrees. I have to have my doors open for ventilation. And because they have to be open, I'm dealing with the local pollution from Diamond Drive and any construction that's going on. The thing that bothers me most and has been bothering me for the last two months is that because of the generator in the pizza oven room, wood-burning pizza oven vendor, there's been pollution from the wood that is burned while cooking these pizzas. And that wood also is a carbon monoxide pollutant, and that comes into my kitchen and through my house. I'm not a well person. I'm 80 years old. I've got crippling arthritis, and it's just become Overwhelming for me. As far as the operation of these food trucks, I'm concerned about the safety of children in the high school coming over, whether it's on the bridge or whether it's by vehicles, and how that's going to affect the area right directly behind my house. I'm also concerned about the environmental, if these food trucks are going to be licensed and regulated for health and safety regulations, and what they're actually going to be cooking or making. Yes, they're going to put in electrical lines, but when is that going to happen? Because that generator directly in back of my house runs 24-7. It shuts off maybe for a couple of hours, but it's constantly running. And I'm just really worn out from the noise. As far as operating hours... I'm up at 6 o'clock in the morning, and I usually open my doors around 7 o'clock. And by that time, of course, traffic has started. And it's been very slow right now because it's the summer season. But once the high school is in full operation and University of New Mexico, it's going to pose a traffic problem, definitely, especially with the vehicles for the high school. And I'm concerned about that. I'm also concerned about the behavior of certain students, which this organization has no control over. But I've seen it. They're living there 23 years. And it can, children's behavior can definitely present a problem. I'm worried about and I'm going to be specific about this, the distribution of illegal drugs. I know it exists, and so does everybody else. Just recently, a new neighbor moved in, and gang-type graffiti was put on the back of the house that they're now going to be occupying. That disturbs me tremendously. Like I said, I have no options. I have to live there. And I want this food court, this mobile food court, to be operated in a sense where it's taking into consideration the neighborhood, the neighbors, the school, and everything else. Personally, I think it's going to be an eyesore. Los Alamos has spent an awful lot of money building, fixing up, building, putting trails and putting facades and making this town something special to look at. I personally just don't want it, but that's not my choice. And I'm hoping that what I said will be taken into consideration in operating hours. Seven to nine is fine. But what about when the football games start and Sullivan Field, you know, is filled up with people? I mean, they have a concession there, but not everybody goes to that. So, I mean, there's an awful lot of playing with local commercial stuff. How is it going to affect the newly called thing in UNM, the cave? I don't know. You know, all of these people that live in this area and have food operations, food restaurants in the immediate area are going to be affected. And yes, I'm seeing that maybe these food trucks do offer food at a lower price. I think all of this has to be taken into consideration. The traffic, the children, safety. I'm just concerned about it. And thank you for listening to me.

Thank you very much. We very much appreciate you being here tonight and sharing your testimony. Any questions of this particular affected party? I have someone from the public with their raised hand. Is that appropriate at this time? This is general public. This is not an affected party to my knowledge or

Madam Chair, I would recommend that we see if it is an affected party that's joining late that would like to be recognized to find the status. If it's not an affected party, they still have the right to provide a testimony, but that would be weighted as not an affected party. So the commission should weight that appropriately.

Thank you. Mr. Warneke, are you an affected party? Are you within 300 feet of this site?

Hi, yeah, I live down Orange Street.

Actually, it's a very technical question. To be an affected party, you have to be within 300 feet, and you would have been notified formally that you were an affected party. Now, that's not to say you can't present evidence, but if you are an affected party, I need you to be sworn in. Okay, I...

I don't think I live within 300 feet. I don't remember getting a notification.

I'm pretty close to the border there. If he's not an affected party, I can take his comments, correct? But he doesn't need to be sworn in.

Madam Chair, he should still be sworn in because it is official. And we do need to know his address so that we can determine whether or not he is an affected party or not.

Okay, Mr. Wernicke, if you could provide your address.

Sure, it's 3034 Nickel Street.

And then staff, could you please swear him in?

Mr. Wernicke, I will need you to turn your video on in order to swear you in.

Let's see.

Sorry, trying to find the video button.

You might have to promote him to a presenter in order to have a video. I'm not quite sure how that works.

Yeah, I'm not finding a button for it.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right, thank you. If you could please raise your right hand.

Sure.

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. If you wish, you can turn your video off.

Okay. Okay. So I wanted to just make a comment on the plan. So this application, it describes the project as redeveloping a vacant, blighted, and underutilized property. Since the northern parcel will continue to serve as high school parking, it'll be used only roughly seven hours a day, nine months of the year, or about 15% of the property's operating life. Even then, a parking lot full of cars is less a productive use of commercial land than a storage function for vehicles that sit idle nearly all the time, regardless of where they're parked. Given that most students live within reach of Atomic City Transit or a bike, driving isn't the only option. It's simply the one the county keeps making easiest to continue by continuing to expand capacity for it. That expansion also raises a traffic safety concern, which has been brought up by other commenters since more student parking invites more teenage drivers onto an arterial with heavy pedestrian traffic. I recognize that developing commercial property here is genuinely hard given a small consumer base, a workforce concentrated around one employer and construction costs that make build out risky. That's likely part of why this site has sat vacant, but at the same time, it looks like a bad faith cost minimizing pattern showing up in the companion variance request where staff recommends denial because the applicant sought relief from the buffer planning requirement based on cost rather than any physical hardship without evaluating alternatives. Given that, I'd ask the Commission to condition approval on a two-year window for the applicant and county to jointly develop a fuller build-out concept that aligns with our strategic plan with quarterly reporting on the build-out concept and current utilization. Failure to show progress should return the site plan to the Commission rather than allowing the proposed use to be permanent. Thank you, and Commissioner Hampton, I like your haircut.

Thank you, sir. Can you affirm that your presentation and commentary is factually accurate to the best of your knowledge?

Yes.

Thank you. And could I have the two affected parties come up and say the same thing? I need you both to put on record that your statements were factually accurate to the best of your knowledge, as this is a quasi-judicial hearing. My apologies. I should have had you do that before.

Yeah, that was... everything I said was factually accurate to the best of my knowledge.

Thank you.

Since I'm retired and 80 years old and live every day there and see what goes on, yes, everything that I have said is totally accurate.

Thank you very much. I very much appreciate that. Okay, so...

I'm sure if I may I just want to remind You have the opportunity of anybody to provide? ask questions on cross-examination of any of the people that have testified in for clarification or rebuttal So applicant County staff People that gave affected parties testimony and they need cross-examination and

Any commissioners that want to have staff or the applicant come back up? Any follow-on questions? So one of the things that was presented is that we can, because there are no rules around the hours of operation, I think I'm hearing staff would invite the commission to come up with something and make a presentation based on the testimony we've received tonight.

So currently it's condition eight in the conditional motion. It's with the operating hours being seven to nine. So we could modify that, but.

Great. Do we have any, I think I'm going to, if there's no other evidence, I'm going to go ahead and close this discussion to any further evidence. And I'm just going to have the commission have a discussion. Okay. So I will now close the public hearing to receive evidence and ask the commission to review and discuss the applicable criteria. Following the discussion of the criteria, I will ask the commission to make and discuss a motion on this case. So let's go through them, because I think we do have some discussions. And then we'll go through the motion and come up with some language that everyone agrees with. So let's go through each of the criteria and have a discussion if we Okay, so the first one is the site plan substantially conforms to the intent and policies of the comprehensive plan and other adopted county policies and plans. So I think what's at issue that I've heard, and I'm just going to put it out there, is that it doesn't conform to what we all believe the comprehensive plan is for town. But I would set aside that this is general commercial, not zoned for downtown or White Rock. And so it's a little bit more flexible than the zoning we're used to seeing because most of our projects are in the downtown core area. So I just want to keep that in mind.

But go ahead. I'd like discussion. That said, I think that we should also keep in mind other adopted plans aside from the comprehensive plan, including the transportation plan, which explicitly states an intent to reduce service parking lots, encourage multimodal transportation, make biking safer, which has also been discussed. Although we would be removing one of those points of egress, further encouraging single, usually single use, not single use, you know, single occupant cars during that, in that very congested area would potentially cause issues for that bike lane that are not solved by green paint. And so I think you are right that the requested use I think is consistent. WITH THE COMMERCIAL, GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING, BUT I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE OTHER BROADER SUITE OF PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY LOS ALAMOS COUNTY. I would also like to know whether we are allowed to adopt something like was suggested by Mr. Warnecke to request or recommend a review in a certain amount of time for the potential future redevelopment of the parking lot portion of the site. Are we allowed to do that?

That would be a question of staff, and I don't know if we're reopening for

evidence. Madam Chair, I can give you a legal opinion. Yes, please. So, no, there is not. I was just looking at the code when Mr. Wernicke brought that up. There is no conditional site plan approval or major site amendment that is conditional or time-based. The process by which would be an amendment to a site plan to come in and change that. There is not a time-duration-based site plan approval. process. Thank you for clarifying that helps. Okay.

Commissioner Brewer.

Um, I guess I would just like to say, uh, the staff response to a, I don't agree with both in the, um, the documented parking demand I don't think is documented or an actual, um, I don't see enough evidence to convince me of that. And calling this area long vacant and underutilized, I think it will still appear fairly vacant and underutilized even with this use. So I don't think criteria A has been met.

Yes.

This is not my preferred use for this area, but it is a permitted use. It's currently being used as a parking lot for the high school and as a mini food court with generators. If we don't approve the site plan, it's going to continue being used in those ways. So I would say that with a site plan that adds the electrical outlets and moves the generators, adds water lines and a restroom and sanitation plan, I think it's still an improvement. It brings us closer to where we want to be than where we are now. Even though I share the concerns, especially with the transportation plan.

But also farther away from any other sort of use because it will be permanently adopted as what it

is now which is described as vacant and underutilized and if it will continue if if we do not approve the application it will continue as is And the applicant will have an opportunity to potentially propose something that is a little bit closer aligned with the way that we've envisioned our transportation future and more productive active commercial use, even in those general commercial areas that don't have quite as many requirements and stipulations for what we're looking for there. But I think still there's a potential there that if we approve the site plan, reduces the likelihood of a more productive redevelopment in the short term. Commissioner White.

Thank you, Chair. I just want to echo what Commissioner Hampton said. I think it's a step in the right direction. And I disagree that it prohibits future development that is more aligned with other the group of plans that we have in the county. And to that end, I have a question. These food trucks are gonna have to have permits. And so what is the timescale on which a permit is granted? Is it six months? Is it a year? Is it five years? That may be the opportunity for a sort of timed review that was brought up, which we don't have any mechanism to do and it's not appropriate for us to do, but I think it should be considered that the users of this food truck lot, should it be approved? There are other administrative processes that are in play that we should think about and the impacts of those.

Again, I don't know if this is evidence. The question's been asked. Can we ask staff, do we know anything about food truck permitting?

Right, Madam Chair, you'd have to reopen the record to answer the questions because that is a factual question that I can't refer to the code.

Is it relevant to all the commissioners to know what the food truck permit process is and that I reopen the record for that evidence?

For me, I'm less concerned about the food truck use. And I actually quite, I like the idea of an adaptive reuse through kind of temporary mobile restaurants. So for me, that wouldn't be a deciding piece of information.

Okay. Then I will not open the record and we will move along but thank you commissioner white for that. I think what I'd like to bring up for everyone to consider is that again this parking lot is being used in the ways that they are asking for a more formal approval tonight as a site plan. This is an owner of property who pays taxes in this county. And I think there needs to be some consideration for the fact that this individual, this company purchased this property and they're not putting permanent things on it. If this was permanent parking, if this was permanent buildings where they were food trucks, I would have a serious issue. But at this time, all it's doing is actually making it conform more By bringing it as a site plan for zoning and review, they're gonna conform more and be a better neighbor to the neighborhood than they are right now. And I feel that the voice of the owner needs to be in this room. They pay taxes. They contribute to our economy and to me if the schools determine they need parking I don't think that's our decision to tell them no you don't I don't disagree that maybe you don't agree with staff in this you know for what they put forward and But I don't think it's this commission's determination whether they need parking or not. And that's for them and how they use it. That's between them and the owner of the property. I agree about closing off so that they have to go in and out of one area. And then as far as the food trucks go, it's open to nine spaces, but who knows, maybe they only have four, I don't know. But having had children go through the high school, having food truck options, not only for the high school kids, but also the members of the community that come up and attend events at the Dwayne Smith Auditorium and at the high school has value. And again, contributes to the economy, PAYS FOR STUDENTS TO WORK THERE. I HEAR THE CONCERN ABOUT, YOU KNOW, FOOD SAFETY, ARE THEY GOING TO BE OPERATED SAFELY? I HEAR ALL OF THAT BUT I FEEL LIKE OUR COUNTY HAS GOOD PERMITTING PROCESSES AND SO I'M GOING TO RELY ON THEM AND THOSE PROCESSES TO ENSURE THAT THOSE CONDITIONS ARE MET. As far as the first condition, I recognize it doesn't fit with the comprehensive plan that we're hearing from the community, but I would also argue that it doesn't quite conform because it's general commercial. And it's a proximity to the high school and the service to that community in that area. I think it does fit. Are there any further discussions on that discussion point? Yeah, go ahead.

The variance that accompanies this is also an opportunity for us to improve the situation for the neighborhood. If we reject this, we may just lose that opportunity to say, no, you need to have that buffer zone. And so I would argue that we should at least think of that in conjunction with all this.

Thank you. Commissioner Brewer. Chair Easton, you said that this was not permanent. What in the application made you think that?

Because you have individual buildings that can come and go. They're food trucks. They're not permanent. And the striping, all of that can be stripped away. You're not putting any buildings on this property. There's no foundation that

but you don't have any indication that the owner intends it as a temporary use. The owner could be intending to operate it this way for 50 years. We don't know because there's nothing in the application that talks about the time frame.

Understood, but the infrastructure they're putting in doesn't imply that it's permanent. Agreed. Understood. Do we want to go on to the next criteria?

Because we have a few to go through.

Okay. All right. So B, if the subject property is within approved master plan and the site plan is in the conformance with any relevant standards in the master plan. Am I looking at the right one? Oh, it's not applicable. My apologies. I misread that. So that doesn't apply. I'm assuming because it's not in the master plan. If a subject property is within an approved PD zone, that also is not applicable. We've already talked about PD zones. The site plan is conformance with all applicable provisions of this code and other adopted county regulations. So... Again, applicant's response is the site plan is in conformance with the lot area, with lot width, setbacks, building height, lot coverage for zone GC, and the proposed use of the parking is a permitted use for GC. The proposed use for mobile food vending is acceptable as a temporary use for code or zone GC. I think that's where, to clarify, I got the temporary use comment.

Commissioner Brule.

because I think I saw that and so that was what I was intending. So staff responses, the site plan reflects the applicable GC zone dimensional standards and proposes no enclosed structures. The proposed parking lot and mobile food vending court are subject to all applicable provisions of the development code, including temporary use permits for individual food trucks, fire safety, utility access, and parking. I won't go into the rest of that. Does anybody have any issues with that particular code item?

I just wanted to say when staff was presenting evidence, I did ask about that temporary use in Criteria D. And Planner Valdez explained that the designation as a food truck area is a permanent use, but each individual food truck would be a temporary use. BECAUSE OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS FOR EACH.

ANY FOLLOW-ON QUESTIONS? OKAY. MOVING ON, E, THE COUNTY'S EXISTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WATER SANITARY SEWER, ELECTRICITY, GAS, STORM, SEWER, STREETS, TRAIL AND SIDEWALKS HAVE ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO SERVE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ANY BURDENS ON THOSE SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN MITIGATED IN COMPLAINTS WITH THE COUNTY'S CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL. The applicants respond as the planned commercial improvements are less than 5,000 square feet, heated area, no permanent structures are planned. The staff response is the proposed development is a low-intensity commercial use with no enclosed buildings. Water service is proposed from the existing capped water line along Diamond Drive. Subject to final approval by the Department of Public Utilities, electrical service is proposed from the rear of the site if roadway disturbance is required. The applicant shall coordinate with Public Works and the Department of Public Utilities to determine whether gas and sewer stub outs or related utility improvements are necessary to accommodate future development. And it said at the bottom, staff finds the existing public infrastructure and services have adequate capacity to serve the proposed development. Any questions or comments on that particular item? Okay. F is the site plan mitigates any significant adverse impacts to properties within the vicinity to the maximum extent practical. The applicant response is the neighborhood protection standards require a type B buffer zone along the western side of the subject property. Existing topography meets the berm height requirements. Some mature trees exist within the buffer zone and the applicant is requesting a variance, which we will get to, for the planting requirements. Staff responses, the site contains an existing grade change berm, mature vegetation, and fencing that provides some separation from adjacent residential properties. However, the property remains subject to the type B buffer requirements of the neighborhood protection standards. The proposed use does not include site lighting or enclosed buildings. Food truck operations must maintain required separation from other vehicles, structures, fire hydrants, thereby reducing operational and public safety impacts subject to compliance with the required landscape buffer and all departmental conditions. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. So this would be where we would put in, I believe, the operating hours because it impacts the properties. Is that correct? That's where we would codify that?

Yeah, and like I said, if we, the preferred motion has nine conditions that, yeah. Okay.

It contains.

Yeah. Got it.

The last one is G, provisions shall be made to serve the development with taut lots and or neighborhood parks in accordance with the comprehensive plan, again, that criteria is not applicable in this case.

Could I just state one more time that? Sure. I'm not convinced that criteria F has been met. I do think there will be safety impacts, which have not been mitigated. I think it will make the neighborhood less safe.

So you're saying that the adverse impact hasn't been addressed? Okay. I have a question. Could we put language in that would address the concern you have for adverse impact that would mitigate that?

I don't think so because I think more traffic in that area at high school dismissal times is an adverse impact. I think it makes the neighborhood less safe. So encouraging more students to drive to school will have adverse impacts on the neighborhood.

I guess my counterpoint to that is you're making an assumption that there are students parking there, and I'm not convinced that students are parking there. I know that they do. Okay. Yeah.

I also think that not discriminating against whoever is driving, the more cars there are on the road and the more parking there is to encourage more people to be on the road, regardless of their age, with multiple points of egress on and off the road, still is a safety concern, regardless of the identity of those drivers.

Okay. Again, if we don't approve the site plan, they'll continue to park. That's choosing to, again, that's why I'm looking for language that maybe we could address that differently because otherwise they're going to continue to do that. I don't know if you can get people out of their cars or change the need that the schools have identified for parking.

So. No, but I can say that I don't think the criteria have been met. Understood.

All right. I think that we should move to a motion.

Is it okay if I make it?

Yes, please.

I'm going to go with the recommended motion. I move to conditionally approve case number SIT20260081, a request by McCloy Land Surveying LLC on behalf of Russ NMLLC for approval of a site plan adoption for the property located at 1377 and 1399 Diamond Drive, zoned General Commercial, subject to the nine conditions listed in the recommended motion. Conditional approval is based on the findings established at the hearing and the conclusion that the applicant has met the decision criteria for a site plan adoption per Section 1674I of the Los Alamos County Development Code. The Commission acts under the decision authority granted in Section 1669B2 and 6 of the Development Code. I further move to authorize Chair to sign the findings of fact and conclusions of law for this case that reflects the decision of the Commission.

I second the motion. Thank you, Commissioner White. Is there any discussion of the motion presented? If not, I will call a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Easton? Yes. Commissioner Hampton?

Yes.

Commissioner Best? Yes. Commissioner Bruhl? No. Commissioner Crean?

Yes.

Commissioner Grimm? No. Commissioner Nelson?

Yes.

Commissioner White? Yes. Motion passed. Thank you.

Any action by the planning and zoning commission in granting approval or conditional approval or disapproval 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 any county official acting in their official capacity whose services, properties, facilities, interests, and operations may be adversely affected by the application, or any person who has a recognized legal interest under New Mexico law within 15 calendar days, including weekend days and excluding county-recognized holidays after the date of the final written decision pursuant to Section 1672G5A of the Development Code. All right, we are going to move on to, let me ask, does anybody need a break?

Yes, please.

Okay, we're going to take a 10-minute break. Thank you.

Recording stopped.

What's that? Oh, okay. I'm gonna take a moment to appreciate all my commissioners. I do appreciate all of you being here tonight, and I appreciate the discussion we're having, so thank you. Sometimes they're not easy.

Yeah, the arguments either way are really good, so.

I think it helps flesh out what the community is looking for and how we can apply zoning.

I think the important question is, should we all shave our heads now?

We're going to have challenges next year, so you'll have the opportunity.

Yeah.

We can do a planning and zoning commission challenge, you know, one of the other boards, like, I don't know, BPU.

Awesome. All right. Are we back in session?

Recording in progress.

Everybody here. All right. Thanks, everybody, for coming back after our break. The next case is case number VAR-2026-0019. Scott McCloy, applicant on behalf of Russ NM, LLC property owner, requests approval of a variance from the type B buffer zone planting requirements of the Neighborhood Protection Standards CHAPTER 16, SECTION 16-43, LOS ALAMOS COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CODE, THIS REQUEST IS ASSOCIATED WITH A CASE, SIT 2026-0081, WHICH PROPOSES THE PARKING AND OPERATION OF NINE MOBILE FOOD VENDING VEHICLES AT 1377 AND 1399 DIAMOND DRIVE, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO. THE PROPERTIES ARE WITHIN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE DISTRICT. 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 Code. It's 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, and the party who files the application has the burden to show that the request meets the criteria of the 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 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 AT THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE PERMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND ANY AFFECTED PARTY. 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 case number VAR-2026-0019, a variance from type B buffer zone planting requirements of the neighborhood protection standards codified in Chapter 16, Section 16-43, Los Alamos County Development Code. This request is, again, associated with the case number SIT-2026-0081, which proposes the parking and operation of nine mobile food vending vehicles at 1377 and 1399 Diamond Drive, Los Alamos, New Mexico. The properties are within the General Commercial 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 a valid objection is raised by a party. The parties have had the opportunity to have these exhibits in advance and they're able to use them during their presentation as desired. They are the application of applicant with exhibits and attachments, the staff report of 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, the 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 from 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 or repetitive testimony. The applicant in this case is Scott McCloy. on behalf of Russ NMLLC, other parties, Our persons in addition to the applicant including property owners within 300 feet of the boundary of the property under consideration and those who have a Legally recognized interest in this case and may be recognized as a party a party may call witnesses and other enter evidence To present facts in support of that party's position on the application if you wish to present evidence or testimony in this hearing and believe you have a direct interest in this case and Want to be recognized as a party? please step forward to the microphone and provide your name and address for the record.

Danielle Valdez, planning manager, community development department.

Scott McCloy, representative of the property owner, 617 Meadow.

Thank you. Could you swear them in and then we'll go to anyone online?

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?

Thank you. Is there anyone online that would like to give evidence or testimony on this issue? Thank you. Please note that this is not the time for parties to present their positions or provide testimony. It is intended to obtain names and addresses of the parties in a public hearing. I WILL NOW POLL THE COMMISSION AS TO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AND 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 THIS PUBLIC HEARING. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE FIVE CONDITIONS FOR THIS ITEM. Does any commissioner have potential conflict of interest in this case? If so, please disclose that interest. If a commissioner has a conflict of interest, they must recuse themselves from the hearing, deliberation, and vote. Has any commissioner communicated directly or indirectly with any party or party representative in connection with the merits of this 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 any communications reports or other materials prepared in connection with this particular case other than those made part of the record? Has any commissioner inspected the site with any party or the representative? And finally, has any commissioner received any ex parte communication regarding this case?

I have a question. Yes. We all received or heard testimony for a case that is not this case and technically is not available to be entered into the record for this specific case. Does that constitute ex parte communication and does it matter?

Madam Chair, Commissioner, it is not ex parte communication, but if it is not presented as evidence in this case, you cannot consider it for this case. Okay. Thank you for clarifying.

Thank you for that question. It was a great question. Any other ex parte communication of commissioners? Anyone online? No. Thank you. The commission shall receive testimony including expert or 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. I invite the CDD community development staff to come forward and make a presentation on this case, please.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Commission. Tonight, I'm Danielle Valdez. I'm the planning manager. We're going to be discussing case B buffer zone 1099 diamond screen. McCloy land surveying, LLC, requirements of section 1643, T2026, grade change and maturity, square feet or weakened, but it is a proposed use as a part variance from a type B investigation, all contrary to the public safety, health, or welfare. We believe, excuse me, it is the expert opinion of staff that this criteria has been met. Relief is limited to the planting component of the type B buffer. No structures are grading our proposed fire safety, sanitation, traffic, and waste requirements continue to apply. B, the variance will not undermine the intent of this code, the applicable zone district, other county adopted policies or plans, or violate the building code. This is not met. Removing the required plantings creates a site-specific exception to the adopted neighborhood protection standard, which is sufficient evidence that landscaping is unnecessary. C, granting of the variance will not cause intrusion onto any utility or other easement. This is met. There is no construction, grading, or placement of improvements onto any easements. D, the variance request is caused by unusual physical characteristic or hardship inherent in the lot, and the hardship has not been self-imposed. This is not met. No physical impediment is identified. Cost and preference do not constitute an unusual physical characteristic or hardship inherent of the lot. So staff findings A and C are met. B and D are not. We go on to Criterion C. The variance will not create any significant adverse impacts on the property within the vicinity. This is not met. No landscape alternative or screening analysis demonstrates the complete removal of the required plantings and that avoids adverse visual or neighborhood compatibility impacts. We cannot reference the previous case. However, with our evidence, we do know that the current Generators on the food trucks that are being used, you can hear them. Therefore, any removal of the requirement now creates a significant adverse effect on the neighboring community. Then granting of the approval variance is the minimum necessary easing of the code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land. Not met, full relief is sought rather than a tailored modification, lesser alternatives, reduced or strategic plantings, None of these were evaluated. So staff findings are that E and F have not been met. Public notice requirements were met. Section 1672 of the Los Alamos County Development Code. Published and posted notice 1672C4. Published was July 2nd, 2026. Posted notice went up July 2nd, 2026. And the mailed notice was July 2nd, 2026. There were no technical comments that we received from IDRC. They did not have departmental review of this as far as any specific criteria that they needed to meet. They did not provide any comments. And staff recommends denial of case VAR-2026-0019. I'll stand for questions.

Thank you. Can somebody tell me exactly what a... Type B buffer is? Is there any?

Type B buffer is neighborhood protection standard within the code. There is type A, B, and C. And when you are adjacent or abutting a neighborhood residential zoning, you are required to provide a buffer that would hopefully create some protection from the commercial use to the neighborhood use. So is that... Plantings, wall, fence.

But not space. It's space, yes.

So there is a certain amount of space which should contain plantings and also a fence or a wall.

Do we have the actual definition of type B?

Give me one moment. I will bring that up.

I'd appreciate it. Thank you very much.

So I'm sharing it, but type B buffer is a minimum width of 20 feet. It contains trees, linear feet, two evergreen trees, every 100 linear feet, 24 shrubs for every 100 linear feet, 60% of which shall all be evergreen trees. The required wall or fence or berm is greater than six feet and then a semi-opaque defined as having only seasonal horizontal openings not exceeding 10% of the total buffer length from the ground to a height of six feet within two years of the plantings.

Could they comply with the plants and shrubbery using pots or do they have to be in the ground?

They need to be in the ground. Okay.

Thank you. Any commissioners that have questions of the staff?

Yeah. So is a type B buffer something that could be applicant could use apply to LIDA for to reduce their cost?

I'm going I'm not going to answer that because I don't know for certain. I don't believe so. It doesn't fit criteria, however, swear yourself in.

We need to swear you in. State name and address first. Sorry.

Elias Isaacson, 1000 Central Avenue, Salomos, 87544.

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're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do. Yes. So, Chair Easton, Commissioner Hampton, So the applicant actually does have a pending LIDA application in with the county. A prerequisite of that process is to have entitlements in hand. So we have not proceeded very far into evaluation of that application at this time. Typically, LIDA needs to, or I shouldn't say typically, LIDA, whether it's LIDA Retail or the sort of broader LIDA program, needs to be tied to a MEASURABLE ECONOMIC IMPACT. AND SO IT WOULD BE INCUMBENT ON THE APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE WHERE THAT INVESTMENT IN LANDSCAPING, THIS TYPE B BUFFER THAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION, HAS A DIRECT NEXUS TO INCREASED REVENUES, INCREASED EMPLOYMENT, INCREASED ERT RECEIVED TO THE COUNTY OR RECEIVED BY THE COUNTY. SO I WOULD HAVE TO SEE THE APPLICANTS SORT OF LAYING OUT OF THAT CASE BEFORE I CAN MAKE A Um, slightly different and not applicable to this site would be the MRA program where the County really can support projects based on aesthetic improvements to the property. Um, unfortunately this property is not located in either our white rock town center or east downtown Los Alamos MRA district. And so therefore would not be eligible for those funds.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other commissioner questions? Of the staff. All right. Do you affirm that the staff report is factually accurate to the best of your knowledge? Yes. Yes. Excellent. And we'll enter that into record. This time, the applicant, if you'll come forward to present your case.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. My name is Scott McCloy. I'm presenting on behalf of the owner. Variant request. specifically for only the planting requirements of the type B buffer zone of the neighborhood protection standards. The other standards of the buffer zone are met by existing conditions. Our contention is that the purpose of the standard is met by existing conditions. In the code paraphrasing, the purpose is listed as to provide adequate transitions and preserve the character of established neighborhoods. This neighborhood has been established for a long time with an established commercial use next door. And I don't feel like this site plan of mobile food vending in the area where There aren't mature trees. I guess I'll go over what the site plan is since you say it doesn't carry over to this request. On the northern half of the property is proposed parking. And that area meets the type B zone with mature trees that are already in place. The southern part of the property is proposed for mobile food vending. It meets the type B buffer for distance and the berm height is met and there are no existing trees in that area. So, looking at the buffer zones, there's three as Daniel went over, A, B, and C. with increasing requirements for, it seems like, increasing need for protection standards, with type C being the highest need. And it's for neighborhood, bordering, and industrial use. And so, this, the point is each standard increases the width of the required buffer. going from an A buffer of 10 to a C buffer of 25. In this instance, our proposed mobile food vending trucks are a far greater distance than the 20 feet required. Minimum would be around 65 feet buffer distance from the nearest neighboring property. So, as you can see, that's essentially putting

substituting plannings for a width of three buffer zones and so that is our position on why we requested a variance thank you can you affirm that your presentation is factually accurate yes good question yes so let's put that into record and then we will move to Commissioner questions Commissioner Grimm

Have you or the property owner spoken with the neighbors?

No. I did just now and before this meeting, but not prior, no. Okay.

Thank you. Yes.

As presented, the definition of type B buffer included some language about evergreens. In the picture presented, I didn't see a whole lot of evergreens. Can you tell me whether the picture was accurate?

Oh, that is true. They are mostly deciduous trees, the mature trees along the parking area. That is a valid point.

It also indicates in a discussion about type B that it's to be a semi-opaque, having only seasonal horizontal openings not to exceed 10%. So just a visual barrier. And it seems that that picture didn't indicate a visual barrier. Do you think that it did?

Visiting the site, on the parking area, yes, there is a visible, I can't speak, I didn't make any measurements, whether it's 10% or 20%, I have no idea. But there are existing trees there. It would present some difficulty if you wanted to cut down all the existing trees and plant new different kind of trees, obviously.

Thank you.

Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Are there any other affected parties that would like to come forward? Is there anyone online that's an affected party? All right. Okay. If there is no cross-examination of staff or the applicant, I'm going to go ahead and close the hearing to receipt of evidence to discuss the decision. Again, I will now close the public hearing to receive evidence and ask the Commission to review and discuss the applicable criteria. Following the discussion of the criteria, I'll ask the Commission to make and discuss a motion in this case. So let's quickly review the criteria. So again, it's a variance decision. Section 1674G3 of the Los Alamos County Development Code states that an application for a variance shall be approved if it meets all the following criteria. So the first one is the variance will not be contrary to public safety, health, or welfare.

On this item, the staff did find that this criterion had been met, but I don't think that we have enough evidence about the welfare of the neighbors if the requirement for a type B buffer zone were to be removed.

Okay. Any further discussion or thoughts? Okay, I'm going to move on. The variance will not undermine the intent of this code in the applicable zone district. Other county adopted policies or plans or violate the building code. Yes.

I concur with staff analysis that the criterion has not been met.

Granting of the variance will not cause an intrusion into any utility or other easement unless approved by the owner of the easement. Again, the staff finds this criteria has not been met. The variance request is limited to relief from planting requirements and does not authorize construction grading or placement of improvements within a utility or other easement. D is the variance request is caused by unusual physical characteristic or a hardship inherent in the lot or lot improvements and the peculiarity or hardship has not been self-imposed. And staff finds this criteria has also not been met.

And I can, again, I concur with staff. There's no hardship that would prevent this from being done.

Okay. Commissioner Bruhl? E, the variance will not create any significant adverse impacts on properties within the vicinity. Again, staff believes this has not been met. F, granting of the approved variance is the minimum necessary easing of the code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of land, structure, or building. Again, staff finds this criterion has not been met. And I guess my only comment based on the presentation by the applicant and by staff about the variance is that based on all of the criteria, I don't think it rises to the level that I could support the variance. I think as I remember chapter 16, when we were going through this particular part of the chapter, which I know it was a long time ago, But we have a lot of commercial spaces abutting older neighborhoods. And this is that criteria, but I'm thinking of another area. And I just think it's really important for the quality of life of those people in those more gentrified neighborhoods that when we have the opportunity to create these buffer zones, that's the whole point of them. And so it feels like we need to ensure that that buffer zone is retained. So that's my comment. Any other comments or questions or thoughts?

I will also say that our comprehensive plan and other planning documents have highlighted the importance of proximity between residential and commercial to allow for greater walkability and more mixed use space. And having appropriate buffer zones helps achieve that goal.

I think I understand the applicant to be saying the unusual physical characteristic is that there already are plantings, and so they don't need more, but I think good points were made about the types of planting and the amounts of planting.

Okay. If there's no further discussion, I'm looking for a motion.

I'll make it. I move to deny case number VAR-2026-0019, a request by Russ NMLC, property owner, with Scott McCloy as applicant agent for a variance from section 1643, neighborhood protection standards of Los Alamos County Development Code. The request seeks relief from the Type B buffer zone planning requirements associated with the proposed mobile food vending use at 1377 and 1399 Diamond Drive, Los Alamos, New Mexico. Denial is based on the findings of fact established at the hearing and the determination that the applicant has not met all required decision criteria for a variance under Section 1674 of the Los Alamos County Development Code. specifically criteria subsections B, D, E, and F. The commission acts under the authority of sections 1669, B2, and 6 of the development code. I further move to authorize the chair to sign the findings of fact and conclusions of law for this case reflecting the decision of the commission. The document will be prepared by county staff based on this decision.

I second.

Thank you. Roll call vote, please. Commissioner Easton. Yes. Commissioner Hampton.

Yes.

Commissioner Best. Yes. Commissioner Rule.

Yes.

Commissioner Crean.

Yes.

Commissioner Grimm. Yes. Commissioner Nelson.

Yes.

Commissioner White. Yes. Motion passed.

Thank you. Any action by the Planning and Zoning Commission in granting approval, conditional approval, or denial 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. county official acting in their official capacity whose services, properties, facilities, interest, or operations may be adversely affected by the application or any person who has had a recognized legal interest under New Mexico law within 15 calendar days, including weekend days, excluding county-recognized holidays after the date of the final written decision pursuant to Section 1672G5A of the Development Code. And with that, we're going to move to the commission and director communications. Is there a department report for community development?

The week of August 19th, we have our consultants back for the comprehensive plan. Please join us. We will be presenting the draft comprehensive plan. The survey is still open and will remain open until we have desired results. We're trying to get comparable results to the previous survey, which was around 300. We're currently at about 150. That's it.

Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. So for my chair's report, I think I sent it out to staff and my vice chair. I will be on vacation starting on Saturday and returning on August 10th. So if something comes up. If you'll check with Commissioner Hampton on that And I also want to welcome to the chamber Commissioner best we are thrilled that you're here and welcome. So thank you for joining us and then the next item on the agenda is Counselor have men Thank you for sticking it out with us this evening

You bet, Chair Houston. Thanks to all of you for your volunteer service here. Really thoughtful questions and dialogue tonight. At the last county council meeting on July 14th, it was a work session down in White Rock. We received a presentation from the chair of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board. A point worth noting is that they wanted to advocate and offer support for the county employing a cultural resource specialist. And the assessment of the Baker House is in process this year. We also received a presentation from the chair of the Board of Public Utilities regarding that $95 million organization that provides our electric, natural gas, water, and wastewater services. Something exciting, I think, from the county is that the online community dashboard is up and running, which offers performance metrics related to all of our county's strategic goals and objectives. It's interactive. It's a work in process, but it is up, and I think it's outstanding, and I think that everyone should know about it and start using it and giving feedback. Then we received a presentation from your guys' neck of the woods regarding the comp plan updates with a reminder that it is just a policy document, not binding, but it does inform... our Chapter 16 code. I hope I got that right. Okay, good. And then we received a presentation regarding one of our strategic goals of operational excellence and just with some high points about customer service training for all employees of the county, which I think is something that we can all value and appreciate. Improvements with recruitment and retention and building permit numbers going up but response time going down. And then finally, council approved a new contract with Microsoft for an enterprise agreement that was really IT technical, but I understood it and voted for it. So did everybody. Okay, so that was that. Thank you. Any questions? All right. No, thank you so much. Thanks again to all of you.

Appreciate it. And I'll open up this time to any commissioners.

All right.

Yeah, it stays on. Okay. Any Commissioner comments?

Yes. Just one thing really quick. What Councillor Huffman said, the BPU presentation by Robert Gibson was outstanding. So if you want a really good, fairly in-depth description of what they do and why they do it, that's, I highly recommend.

Thank you.

If no other comments, then we are adjourned.

Recording stopped.

I was unsure how that was going to go.