Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Are gonna get started on the planning and zoning meeting for October. We'll do a call to order and

roll call.

Recording in progress.

Commissioner Easton? Here. Commissioner Cream?

Here.

Commissioner Nachley? Commissioner White? Here. Commissioner Adler? Commissioner Brule? Commissioner Hill?

Here.

Commissioner Nelson?

Here.

Commissioner Brown? We have a quorum.

Okay. Thank you. This is the time I'm opening this up to public comment. This is not for the items on the agenda tonight. It's reserved for just general comments. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come forward and make comment? Anyone online? All right. We're going to move to approval of the agenda. The agenda was in the packet for our September 10 meeting. Commissioners, if you've had time to review the minutes. I'm looking for a motion to approve.

This is Ron. I move to approve the minutes.

And I second.

Thank you, Commissioners Nelson and White. And we'll do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Kreehn? Yes. Commissioner Brown? Commissioner White? Yes. Commissioner Hill?

Yes.

Commissioner Nelson?

Yes.

Commissioner Easton? Yes. Commissioner Brown?

Don't think he's here. Commissioner Brown, you are on mute. Commissioner Brown, you've joined the meeting, but you're on mute. Can we send him a chat? Can we vote and abstain his vote?

Motion passes.

Thank you. I actually skipped over, my apologies, to the commission. We needed to approve the agenda, so I will put before the commission a vote for the agenda that was presented this evening. We voted on the minutes. Sorry.

A motion to approve the agenda.

Thank you.

Second.

Commissioners White and Sheen, and roll call vote. This is for approval of the agenda.

Commissioner Cream? Yes. Commissioner Brown? Commissioner White? Yes. Commissioner Hill?

Yes.

Commissioner Nelson?

Yes.

Commissioner Easton? Yes. Commissioner Brown? Commissioner Brown abstains? Motion passed.

Thank you. Does anybody have his contact information? We can reach out to him.

I was

just trying to find his email.

Okay. Thank you. Oh, he is. Yeah, technical issues. Hopefully he can rejoin us.

All right. The next item on our agenda is the presentation of we have three variances before us tonight. Give me just a moment. So this is a public hearing for variants, case number VAR-twenty20Five-fourteen. Property owners Jacoby and Heather Baker request a variance for 2339 35th Street, Los Alamos, New Mexico.

The request seeks to reduce the required 20 foot front setback in the residential mixed zone, RM1 district, to 1.5 feet to allow an accessory structure, a carport. 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 throughout the proceedings. The party who files the application has the burden to show that the request meets the criteria of this code.

The Commission shall act as an impartial decision making fact finding body and shall approve or deny the application in accordance with the evidence presented, which is competent and relevant. Testimony or evidence that does not meet these criteria shall be disregarded. A party to the hearing shall be afforded an opportunity to present evidence and argument and to question witnesses on all relevant issues, 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, approve with conditions, or deny an application for variance VAR twenty twenty five-fourteen, and the variance request is for $2,339.30 fifth Street, Los Alamos, New Mexico, reduction in the required 20 foot front setback in the residential mixed RM1 zone district to a 1.5 foot allowance for an accessory structure. The Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with making this determination based solely upon the review criteria adopted by the county council as set 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 see these exhibits in advance, and they are able to use them during their presentation as desired. So there's the application submitted by the applicant with exhibits and attachments, the staff report from 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 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 the New Mexico case law. The procedures are intended to protect the due process rights of all parties.

The procedures will 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 witnesses. 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, and the chairperson may limit redundant or repetitive testimony. At this time, we will identify the parties. So the applicant in this case is Jacoby and Heather Baker. The community development department staff will assist the commission in fully developing the record.

Other parties are parties in addition to the applicant, including owners within 300 feet of the boundary of the property under consideration and those who have a legally recognized interest in this case may also be recognized as a party. A party may call witnesses and enter evidence to present facts in support of the party's position on the application. 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, if you are in the room, step forward to the mic. You will provide your name and address for the record.

Is Heather here? Heather.

Danielle Valdes, community development department. Heather Baker.

And address?

2339 35th Street.

Thank you for the record. Are there any parties online that we need to recognize? Okay. Thank you. If you all wish

to give testimony, can you please raise your right hand?

You wish to

yes.

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? Yes.

Does she need to come to the mic and affirm? No? Okay. Just checking. All right.

Sorry. I'm working off my laptop. Is the next thing we do staff to present? You need to poll for ex parte communications. I was just checking on that. That seemed ahead of ourselves, but okay. Sorry, guys. Okay, the chair will now poll the commission as a potential conflicts of interest or ex parte communication. An ex parte communication is 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. There are five questions that are asked that are relevant to ex parte communication and potential conflicts of interest.

As previous meetings, I'm going go through all of those, and what I would ask the commissioners, if any of these apply to you, please let the commission know and explain why. So the first one is, does any commissioner have a potential conflict of interest in this case? If so, you disclose any commissioner that has a conflict must recuse themselves from the hearing, deliberation and vote. The second question is, has any commissioner communicated directly or indirectly with any party or party representative in connection with the merits of this 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? If so, disclose. Any other commissioners? The third question is, Any commissioner used or relied upon any communication reports or other materials prepared in connection with a particular case other than those made in part of the record? Question four: Has any commissioner inspected the site with any party or their representative?

And the last question is, has any commissioner received any ex parte communication regarding this case? With that said, I look at all my commissioners. And online, commissioner Nelson, commissioner Brown, any conflicts, any ex parte? Thank you. Mhmm.

Commissioner Brown, are you with us? All right. When we go to vote, if he is participating, I will make sure this question is answered at that time. Are you comfortable with that? Commissioner Brown, you're on mute.

Okay, we'll continue to move on. So the order of the hearing, the commission shall receive testimony including expert or lay witnesses and relevant documentary evidence for or against the application from the applicant, public, government agencies, entities, or interested parties withstanding subject to cross examination and reasonable time limits established by the chair. So we will start with the CDD staff presenting the their report.

Thank you, chair. Mhmm.

Good evening,

commission. I feel like I haven't

seen you guys in a while. So tonight, I am presenting case number VAR 20250014, and this is a variance request for a setback reduction at 2339 35th Street. So applicants Jacoby and Heather Baker are requesting a variance for a carport and reducing the front setback from 20 feet to one and a half feet. So it would be a reduction of 18 and a half feet. So this carport would be constructed over an existing parking space, and it would provide protection for for this parking.

Excuse me. So r m the the setback requirement is in r one r m one zoning requires a 20 foot setback, and carports may encroach up to 40% within this setback. So site conditions. This is just project information. 2339, the address, 35th Street, Los Alamos, North Community 3.

It's on a point three three acre lot. The townhome is 2,900, roughly 2,900 square feet. Site conditions, the lot contains parking improvements with the front set within the front setback and the terrain and grade changes in on this property limit the relocation or redesign of it of the parking area. I did include a picture of the current proposed structure. Also, I want you to pay attention to where this is located.

It is located directly on the property line, and this will be relevant to our our criteria. So the variance decision criteria. A variance will not be contrary to public safety, health, or welfare. We did meet that criteria. B, the variance will not undermine the intent of the code.

We have also met that criteria. C, granting the variance will not cause intrusion into any utility or other easement. We have met that criteria. D, the variance request is caused by an unusual physical characteristic of the property and that criteria is also satisfied. E, the variance will not create any significant adverse impacts on the properties within the vicinity.

That criteria was not met as you read your staff report criteria as to why it would cause an impact on that neighboring lot that I just showed you in that site vicinity photo. The current structure slopes into the adjacent lot. And f, granting of the approved variance is the minimum minimum necessary easing of the code. That criteria was also not met, and I have justified that within the staff report as well. Staff finds that the criteria have substantially been satisfied.

However, two conditions, specific to criteria e are recommended to ensure the complete compliance with application standards. Public noticing requirements were met, published and posted on October. And then the mail notice went out on October 7. Staff recommends conditional approval of case VAR $2,000,000,250,014 based on the findings of fact established on record here in this case. The following conditions that we recommend are the applicant shall remove the existing unpermitted carport structure in its entirety and submit a permit application for compliant replacement.

And the carport roof shall be designed to slope and drain away from adjacent property, ensuring no runoff flows into the neighboring parking area or parcel. And with that, I will conclude and stand for

questions. Thank you. Commissioners?

I have one question. And it just goes to sort of the basic requirements in that particular zone of a 20 foot setback. Why is a design standard they have that in the community?

I'm sorry. I don't quite understand the question.

Why do you have a 20 foot setback to start with? What is that?

To to

to basically meet the intent of the zoning to keep the street cape and standards so that things aren't built right up on the property line or too close to the street. So with this property, the this was built in '49 prior to our zoning our current zoning. And these parking spaces were improvements that were built with the with the townhomes, and they are, probably immovable at this point. They're they're so it it's we have the 20 foot setback to mind the the zoning and the streetscape, but, we do allow that 40% within the code for set for carports and garages to encroach within within the setback. Unfortunately, this wouldn't be able to meet either.

Right.

And then I believe it says in your report, too, that there is a garage in this building. Correct?

There is. That was my criteria e, I believe, where this the minimum easing of the code. I do not find that it meets criteria because the minimum easing of the code, we there there are other options that we could pursue.

And then you said this was a townhome?

It is a townhome on a on a point three three acre lot, and it is one unit, but it was built as a townhome.

Okay. So it's

It's a combined single family home at this at this time. Yes.

Great. And so it would be possible for them to build a carport outside their existing garage to park a car there Yes. Covered?

Yes. Okay. Which is why it does not meet criteria for minimum easing of the code. But this parking space is in their allotted property. And without wanting to deny the request altogether, we have come with the conditions of the design standards that would we find acceptable and justifiable.

Thank you.

Yes, sir. I have a question. Yes, sir. So if there were no carport, there would be drainage onto the adjacent lot. Is that correct?

If there were a carport, there would be drainage onto the adjacent lot. So let's say it snows, the way that the slope is the the adjacent parking spaces, the way that the slope currently slopes with the current structure. If it snowed, that snow would land directly into the adjacent lot.

Yes. But it doesn't seem it's any different than the way it's gonna drain if there were no coverage, no covering at all.

It would have the historic flow would maintain. However, it would now not pile up from the slope of that structure directly onto that adjacent lot.

Okay. So the the the fall of the snow

Is now falling directly into the lot. Yes, sir.

Got it. Thank you.

Commissioner Nelson, any questions of staff?

I guess I have a question that would have to do with the 20 foot setback. I mean, is that 20 foot setback partially just a visual thing that we want the community to look a certain way. And if you if you allow variances that build within one and a half feet of the lot line is gonna look differently. This uniformity of appearance could be a desirable outcome and maybe somewhat of a motivation for the code as it reads. What it you know, what is what's the history behind that?

So I believe these these lots in this area weren't taken into consideration when the zoning was adopted with the, I guess, lack of area or space. If this was a townhome when it was initially bought when it was initially bought, it was a townhome. This was the only parking space on-site at the time. So if it were still a townhome, we would see a hardship in how, in how the limp, the area limits the ability to cover the car. So it would be a hardship if it were still a townhome.

Because it's now a single family home, we now do not find it as a hardship. But I think I answered the 20 foot setback was to keep the intent of the tree of the streetscape so things aren't built too close to the street.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Hi. Yes. Commissioner Hill.

Okay. So this this carport is an accessory structure. Mhmm. And so unless we, in our approval, additional requirements, the accessory structure would basically be able to have any of the attributes of an accessory structure, say, built in the backyard. And I guess what I'm getting at is, is there anything that says that, oh, it's a carport that's gonna be enclosed on three sides, and what can be put in that carport?

I see. I see what you're saying. So the commission is at liberty to adopt their own standards that are that I did not include within that. I did not include those standards because after meeting with engineering in our IDRC meeting, it was not a concern that if they were going to enclose it. So it wasn't proposed enclosed.

And even if it was enclosed on three sides, it wouldn't be a concern. It doesn't block site view from the street. It doesn't come into where it blocks access. So it's not it doesn't pose any harm to the if it were if it were enclosed. But it is at the liberty of of the commission to add conditions if they if they find it meets criteria.

So if we didn't add extra conditions, say a new owner could come in and put sides on it?

No. Variances do not transfer with property ownership. It's per request.

So they'd have to come in for another variance to add

If they wanted to come in and do something new, they would need to come in for an additional variant for a a different variance.

Okay. And is there any restriction on what can happen in that parking spot?

I don't I I don't think I understand your question.

Well, I know there's some there's some zoning code that has to do with, like, you know, repairing your car out in front of your garage and how long it can be there in inoperable condition and stuff like that. Would that same criteria would hold true to Yes.

Okay. The car would have to be registered. It would have to be up to date. It would have to be movable. It would fall within the code.

Great. Thanks.

So just a point of clarification. Really, what's before us is the variance that it's reducing the 20 foot setback to 1.5?

To allow the accessory structure, yes.

I have a question, chair.

Yes.

So under criteria f, you said that there are additional or alternative solutions such as tree trimming or selective tree removal. Is there anything in the code that would and you said no variances required for those kinds of solutions. But is there any consideration in the code for removing mature trees? Because the tree that's there looks very large and very old.

Yeah. It's it's a beautiful tree. We we don't want to have her cut it. We don't want her we don't want that to be her solution. So this is an alternative to that. It could be trimmed back. There are alternatives, which is why it does not meet criteria in

e. Okay.

So there are alternatives that wouldn't require a variance for what she is proposing and what she needs. However, because we agree with her and we don't want to have to cut the tree, and we do see it as a justifiable use if we can meet those criteria or we can add in conditions that would meet the criteria, then we can justify her request.

Thank you. Yes.

Ma'am. Thank you. Can you affirm that you've reached out to all the people within 300 feet and

Yes. That you

your staff report is factually accurate to the best of your knowledge?

Yes. All noticing requirements were met, and my staff report is is accurate to my knowledge. Excellent.

And we'll enter that into record. Alright. Next, we will have the applicant make a presentation.

Hello. We would like to agree with the the conditions, and we would be willing to make sure we followed and submitted a new permit request for the new way they want us to do this. I do apologize for putting it up in the first place. I we moved back to town after being gone twenty five years and or maybe longer, maybe thirty years, and did not know the permit rules. But now we do.

So we will make sure to follow those from now on. I did wanna make a couple corrections on the report just so everyone knows nobody's lying. We do not have a garage. We do have a parking spot in front of the house that the previous owner must have created because it's made of dirt and gravel. We do we considered putting a carport up there, but we were worried that we couldn't bolt it into the ground good enough to make it secure since we don't have concrete.

We also have another parking spot that has another big beautiful tree over it that drops sap every day. So that's pretty much unusable unless we have a car that has a cover on it. We do have two spots on the road that sometimes we can use if there's not roadwork, which this year has not been the case. And, also, that's the only place we have to put our bins for the trash pickup, so they're unusable on Thursdays. So this spot is the only spot that we have that we can potentially use a carport.

The tree is very mature, and I'm kind of a tree hugger. I plant as much as I can and try to cut down nothing. So I really don't wanna cut down either of those two big trees. I think cutting down the trees would ruin the landscape more than a carport would. The other correction is it is a townhome.

It's a duplex that's been converted into one single family home and one studio apartment, and we do have renters in that apartment. So the spot with the carport, we wanted to give them a spot that was off the road and free of sap since they're renting from us. We also have four drivers in our house, me, my husband, and then my two sons. So we don't have that many options for parking. If you've been on that road, you know those old houses.

They expected people to have just one car, and we have more. Our renters do just have one car, and that's the only spot they use is the one with the carport. So we would be very happy to submit for a new permit with the conditions that were suggested.

Thank you.

Questions?

You submitted your application. Can you verify that it's factually accurate to the best of your knowledge? Yes. Okay. And we'll enter that into record. We'll start with cross examination of the applicant by staff or other parties, and we'll move on to commissioner questions of the party. Thank you for your presentation. Okay. Alright. I am at this time going to close the hearing to receipt of evidence and discuss the decision.

I'm gonna

ask I have a question.

Yes. Commissioner Nelson.

I would, like to know if there are any other carports in the neighborhood that are along this line of what they're proposing to put in place?

So staff.

Staff. There are. There's probably about five as we drove down the street to to check the site and the streetscapes. These were built prior to the development code and prior to my existence at the county. So I can we looked to bring them up for additional research, but they do exist. We do not have record of them.

I have a follow on question to that. Are any of them within one and a half feet of the lot line?

There are two of them that are close to the lot line. They cover the entire parking spaces. They are the big metal canopy ones that are within within the property, that do not slope into the adjacent properties. They slope within their own properties. But, yes, there are.

Thank you. Any questions before we move to deliberation? Okay. I am closing the hearing to receipt of evidence, and would like I'm going to 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 to this case.

So the criteria that we are reviewing is the variance will not be contrary to public safety, health or welfare. 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. The variance request is caused by unusual physical characteristic or hardship inherent in the lot or lot improvements, and the peculiarity or hardship has not been self imposed. The variance will not create any significant adverse impacts on properties within the vicinity. And last, granting the approved variance is the minimum necessary of easing code requirements making possible the reasonable use of land structure or building.

Any discussion?

I, would say that I agree with the staff assessment that, the e and f criteria, have been violated and need to be remedied.

Commissioner Hill.

My concern has to do with, A, the welfare and under E, significant adverse impact of properties in the vicinity. And it goes to the zoning criteria that has a 20 foot setback. And to me, the 20 foot setback's there for a reason. It provides some consistency in how the overall neighborhood is perceived. And I guess there's already three or four carports in the neighborhood.

And you look at the neighborhood that has duplexes and quads and sometimes, like in a quad, a parking space. Each parking space will be owned by a different owner. So you can imagine having four carports going down there, each one of them of a different design, one with a flat roof, one with a peak roof, one sloping forward, the other backwards. I don't know. And all of a sudden, that becomes the major sort of what you see when you drive down the street, when you walk down the street, is a bunch of hodgepodgy kind of carports.

And while I understand the need for people in these communities to have something there and the desire to have something there, I mean, obviously people have lived there for a long time without a carport, so it's not an absolute necessity, or it would have been taken care of before. But I think that it's incumbent on the county to come up with a criteria that addresses this carport issue because it's not just here. Obviously, we've got another one on our agenda tonight, And the same condition exists in a lot of the older areas in town. To come up with something that is not detrimental to the neighborhood that won't look hodgepodge, it provides a uniform kind of look, which is, to me, what the zoning code is for. It's to protect neighbors who bought into a neighborhood and expect a certain sort of like, this is what my neighborhood's going to be like.

This is how things are going to be here and not have sort of hodgepodgy things become the major dominating visual feature when you go through the neighborhood. So that's my major concern with this.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Hill.

My only comment is that it's the snow falling off the cart port that's a concern, not water so much since that's already water drainage from one lot to another. So that should be part of how the carport is designed, to make sure that the snow, if it comes off the roof, it doesn't go into the adjacent parking space.

Thank you. Commissioner Nelson?

My concern is the same as Commissioner Hill's, the visual impact of chaos. But since chaos already exists, this is concerning, and frankly, don't know how to deal with it.

Thank you. So my comment is this. We live in a town that was built by engineers in nineteen forty something, and I respect the people that have taken over these townhomes and inherited these weird cutouts you know, in their lawn to put their cars. I feel much better that we have a single owner, that they own that whole space, than if I was trying to put a carport. As you said, if there were four owners and there would be four carports, that would be awkward.

But since this is a single owner, and for me it's really about what's before us is we have a standard about 20 feet. Driving through these neighborhoods, I'd be surprised if that was consistent, that more often than not, you're going to find that violated already historically. So there's more consistent, everything's close-up, which is why I asked the question about the other carports. Everything is kind of violating that right now. And I really believe in, as a property owner, to the best of our ability, we should, within code, allow people to benefit from the property they own.

And my opinion on this is that we would be denying she already has a carport she's actually going to be incompliant by putting in a properly installed, permitted carport. The one thing that I want to make sure is that it does not impact the next door neighbor, and that would be solved through permitting, if I'mif what I read this is correct. So thank you for the discussion. Appreciate everyone's comments. At this time, I would be asking the commission, if they didn't have any further questions or comments, that we should move to a motion.

I'll make a motion. I move to conditionally approve case number v a R2025Dash0014, a request by Jacoby and Heather Baker, property owners, for a variance from Los Alamos County code chapter 16 article two division three, base zone district dimensional standards for 2339 35th Street, Los Alamos. The request seeks to reduce the required 20 foot front yard setback in the residential mixed r m one zone district to 1.5 feet to allow an accessory structure. Approval is based on the findings established at the hearing and the conclusion that applicant has met the decision criteria for a variance per section 16 dash seven four g three of the Los Alamos County Development Code subject to the following conditions. The applicant shall remove existing, unpermitted carport structure in its entirety and submit a building permit application for a code compliant replacement.

The carport roof shall be designed to slope and drain away from the adjacent property, ensuring that no runoff flows into neighboring parking area or parcel. The commission acts under the authority of section 16 dash six nine b two and six of the development code. I further move to authorize the chair to sign the findings of fact and conclusions of law for this case that reflects the decision of the commission. This document will be prepared by county staff based on this decision.

I second the motion.

Commissioner Houston? Yes. Commissioner Nelson?

I abstain.

Commissioner Hill?

No.

Commissioner White?

Yes.

Commissioner Crean?

Yes.

Motion passed.

Thank you.

Madam chair, if I may. Yes. The motion did not pass. We need four in the affirmative for it to pass. And I would like to address the issue of abstaining. If somebody is going to abstain, they cannot be involved in the decision and discussion of the the matter. So at this point, I would request that

Commissioner Nelson reconsider his vote Correct. In light of that. Or that you would request that. Commissioner Nelson, abstaining after hearing all of the testimony from staff is disallowed. Okay.

And participating in the the discussion.

So will Go ahead. Change my I will vote no.

Okay.

Three yes, two no.

Did not pass. Correct. Okay. So I'm going to read the appellate part. 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 are required to be mailed notice for the application giving rise to the final action, being appealed any county official acting in their official capacity whose services, properties, facilities, interests, or operations may be adversely affected by the application, or any persons who has a recognized legal interest under New Mexico law within fifteen calendar days, including weekend days and excluding county recognized holidays after the date of the final written decision pursuant to Section sixteen-72G5A of the development code.

All right. With that, we will present variance case number VAR2025-elevenO5. Property owner Barbara Martinez requests a variance from dimensional standards to install a carport abutting the front property line, creating a zero front setback. The property is addressed as 1968 40th Street, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and is within the North Community 1 subdivision zone residential mixed RM2. The commission's decision on this case must be based on 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 the parties and affected parties. As required by New Mexico law, all parties have a right to be represented by an attorney throughout the proceedings. The party who files the application has the burden to show that the request meets the criteria of this code. The Commission shall act as an impartial decision making fact finding body and shall approve or deny the application in accordance with 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 to 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 witnesses. The issue to be decided at this hearing is whether to approve with conditions or deny the application for a variance to install a carport abutting the front property line, creating a zero front setback. The property is addressed as 1968 40th Street, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and is within the North Community, one subdivision zone residential mixed, RM2.

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 the presentation as desired. That is the application of the applicant with exhibits and attachments, 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're 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 and will provide testimony under oath. All persons offering testimony will be subject to cross examination by other parties. Please remember the purpose of this cross examination is to ask questions and solicit relevant facts from the witness. It is not to be argumentative, or is it the time to state your own position that comes later? Commission intends to limit testimony to information relevant to the applicant's requested action.

The chairperson may limit redundant or repetitive testimony. The applicant in this case is Barbara Martinez. The community development department staff will assist the commission in fully developing the record. Other parties, in addition to the applicant, 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 may also be recognized as a party. A party may call witnesses and 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, come forward to the microphone, provide your name and address, and stay to be sworn in, please.

Desiree Lujan, senior planner, community development, Los Alamos County.

Barbara Martinez. 1968 40th Street in Los Alamos.

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? Yes.

Anyone online? Thank you. The chair will now poll the commission as to potential conflicts of interest or ex parte communications. An 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 this public hearing. Again, five questions.

Does any commissioner have a potential conflict of interest in this case? Any commissioner that has conflict must recuse themselves. Has any commissioner communicated directly or indirectly with any party or party representative in connection with the merits of the issue involved? Has any commissioner reached a decision on the merits of this case as a result of any 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?

Has any commissioner inspected the site with any party or their representative? Has any commissioner received any ex parte communication regarding this case? Commissioner Hill? No. You. Commissioner Nelson? 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, entities, and interested parties withstanding, subject to cross examination and reasonable time limits established by the chair. This time, I invite the CDD staff to present.

Good evening, commissioners. For members of the public and for the record, my name is Desiree Lujan. I am senior planner here in Los Alamos County, and I was assigned as the case manager for case number VAR2025Dash0015. This is a variance application submitted by the property owner, Barbara Martinez, for the location of 1968 40th Street in Los Alamos, New Mexico. This property is zoned residential mixed r m two and is intended to accommodate low to medium density residential dwellings characterized by single family, duplex, fourplex, and townhouses.

A little background about the property and existing conditions. The point 26 acre property is located in the Los Alamos town site near the intersection of Diamond Drive and 40th Street within the North Community 1 neighborhood. This neighborhood was originally known as Group 11 and was the Atomic Energy Commission's first housing development created to expand Los Alamos northward northward with a variety of housing types and designs. The lot consists of a one story single family home built in 1949 near the center of the lot and 22 and a half feet from the front property line. Characteristics of the lot include sloping on the north most corner and east of the proposed location and along the rear property line.

Public utilities run along 40th Street with a gas line electrical line existing south of the existing concrete pad and proposed location. Miss Martinez is asking for approval of a variance to install a prefabricated carport that would sit directly on the front property line along 40th Street, covering the existing concrete parking pad and creating a zero front setback. The R M 2 Zone District requires a 15 foot minimum front setback. The proposed location area is highlighted in orange on the right side in the submitted site plan. The R M 2 Zone District requires a 15 foot minimum front setback and the proposed oh, sorry.

The preferred side of the size of the carport is 17 feet by 22 feet, but this may change at building permit based on IDRC's conditions of approval and property line verification. The side setbacks are proposed to be maintained at seven and a half feet minimum, and the rear setback will not be effective at this request. All other r m two dimensional and development standards are proposed to be met as noted on the table above. The development standards. The development code considers the proposed carport as an accessory structure.

Carports are allowed in the front yard as long as they comply with the accessory structure use specific standards within section sixteen eighteen b. This includes a zone district's setback requirements. Typically meaning that the carport must maintain at least 15 feet from the front property line. That line is illustrated on the screen in a yellow dash line. However, the code makes special allowance for carports, permitting them to occupy 40% of the required front setback and creating a permitted nine foot front setback identified with the green dash line.

If the carport can be placed from the green line inward and meet all other dimensional and development standards, a permit a permit can permit can administratively be approved. Unfortunately, the applicant has communicated that this provision does not provide sufficient area for a car part to adequately protect her vehicle. Further options were considered, including administrative deviations. These are minor modifications to dimensional or numeric standards, which can be approved by the director under specific thresholds. These options are outlined in the table below and do not provide the necessary relief from the code standards to meet the homeowner's expressed need to fully cover a vehicle for weather conditions.

The IDRC met on 09/25/2025. They communicated conditions of approval for the carport. These are not related to the requested zero front setback but are for its overall placement. These conditions of approval be required regardless of a variance and considered during the construction permit review process. These conditions of approval may affect the carport's final location, size, installation cost.

Number one, the anchors must be at least three feet from a gas line location. This is per the Department of Public Utilities. Number two, the carport must stay open on all sides per the Department of Public Utilities. This was communicated to prevent trapped gas in case of a leak. The engineering division supports the condition stating that the open sides also help the sight lines, to remain clear for the neighbors.

Number three, a carport that is 200 square feet and up to 600 square feet requires a permanent foundation with footings per the building division. The applicant must show that the existing slab has footings to support anchoring or it will require an upgrade to include them. Number four, the entire carport including footings, anchoring, and overhang must fit within the property line. The planning division recommends confirming the front property line to ensure the carport can fit and meet all standards or approve variances before purchasing. It was IDRC's recommendation that this application move forward for the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval.

Pursuant to section sixteen seventy four g three, the Los Alamos County development code, a variance application shall be approved if it meets the following criteria. I will not go through my responses in detail, but I did highlight some key points. And the detailed responses can be found within, the staff port pages five through seven. Criterion a, the variance will not be contrary to the public safety, health, or welfare. The IDRC reviewed for safety.

No negative impacts were identified. Conditions will be added for safe placement at building permit, and applied conditions protect the applicant, neighbors, and public. Criterion b, the variance will not undermine the intent of this code, development code, applicable zone district, and other county adopted policies, plans, or violate the building code. The carport aligns with the R M 2 residential character and zoning intent. It does not conflict with safety or neighborhood standards, and conditions will ensure infrastructure protection and building code compliance.

Granting of the variants will not cause an intrusion into any utility or other easement unless approved by the owner of the easement. The Department of Public Utilities has reviewed nearby utilities, and no conflicts are found. Anchoring must remain three feet from any located gas line. No intrusion into other easements were identified. Criterion d, the variance request is caused by an unusual physical characteristic or hardship inherent of the lot or lot improvements, and that hardship is not self imposed.

The home's placement does not allow sufficient distance to meet code. The lot sloping limits appropriate placement in the front yard, and this hardship is due to the natural site locations and original 1949 development design. Criterion e, the variance will not create a significant adverse impacts on properties within the vicinity. The open sided design will preserve sight lines and visibility. The carport is to be located within the property boundaries and clear of utilities.

No lighting or drainage impacts are expected. And lastly, criterion f, the variance will not create any significant adverse impacts on properties within the vicinity. Administrative options were explored and found to be insufficient to fully cover the vehicle. A zero front provides practical minimal relief, and the request remains compatible with neighborhood characteristics. The development code section sixteen seventy one lists procedures for public hearings for variances, including notification requirements.

I confirm that these have been fulfilled, both publishing, posting in the paper on-site, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet. We received one call about this project. A voice mail was left. There were no questions. They did wanna voice that they went out to the site, and they were okay with approving the variance.

It is staff's recommendation to approve case number VAR 2025Dash0015 based on the findings of facts established on record and the determination that the application meets the decision criteria for a variance per section sixteen seventy four g three of the solemnost development code. I'll conclude my presentation and affirm that both staff report presentation are factual to the best of my knowledge. And I stand for questions, chair Houston.

Thank you. Commissioners, questions for staff on their presentation?

Alright. Chair, have one just one question.

Yes. Commissioner Hill.

So the the size of the carport, 22 by 17, is that 22 feet the same? That's basically the size of the pad that's there.

Yes. And that's what the reason for one of the conditions is because as we've digitally measured, it looks like it is almost exact, if not a hairline over. So we are asking that the applicant confirm her property line so she can get a complete understanding of how much area she has to accommodate, what size of carport.

Alright. Thank you.

Thank you. No other questions? Am I missing something? No. I'm ready for the applicant.

I didn't hear you, chair. I'm sorry.

If the applicant would like to come forward and do their presentation.

I agree with all the conditions you would require me to do on the lot to provide for the carport, like the open sides and adjusting for any. It is exactly 22 feet. I measured it today. So I wanted it to cover as much of that slab as possible within the zoning restrictions.

So my question is the vehicle is of such a size that it has to be zero lot line.

Yeah. It's a full size f one fifty with a full bed and two doors well, four doors.

And just curious how long is that?

It's it's pretty much 22 feet when I put it in there.

Okay. Alright.

It goes from the sidewalk to it the I would love to follow all restrictions, but at the back, at the 22 feet, it falls a four feet straight down. So I would need the zero setback to fit the truck in there and have it covered. Okay. And then the seven and a half setback would prevent any snow from falling on my neighbor's property. It would fall on my my property, and the other side is my property as well. And no lighting or I couldn't even see anywhere. I would obstruct anybody's view of the mountain on the other side.

And the truck is currently parked there in Fitz?

Yeah. Okay. That's not a picture of it, but.

Right. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Sorry, I was supposed to ask you if your presentation was factually accurate, what you submitted. Thank you. And we'll submit that into record. Thank you very much. All right.

With that, I'm going to close the hearing to receipt of evidence and discuss the decision. I will 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. So I will quickly review the criteria. So with what has been presented by staff and the applicant, what we're looking for is the variance will not be contrary to public safety, health, welfare.

The variance request will not undermine the intent of the development code in the applicable zone district, other county adopted policies or plans, or violate building code. Granting of the variance will not cause an intrusion into any utility or other easements unless approved by the owner of the easement. The variance request is caused by an unusual physical characteristic or hardship inherent in the lot or lot improvements, and the peculiarity or hardship is not self imposed. The variance will not create any significant adverse impacts on properties within the vicinity, and granting of the approved variance is the minimum necessary easing of the code requirements making possible the reasonable use of land, structure or building. Comments, questions, thoughts?

Commissioner Hill.

Thank you, Chair. My comments are the same as they were for the previous carport request, and that is that the reason for the building setbacks is to have a certain amount of uniformity throughout the neighborhood, and that develops a kind of aesthetic streetscape that I think would be harmed by the addition of this carport. And my concern is that the development code doesn't really have a strict standard on how those should happen, so there would not be any uniformity. We've got a code that dictates a certain uniformity, and then you know, would be allowing exceptions that would all be different out in the very front of these buildings. And I think that's objectionable.

So that's my concern. Thank you.

I would just echo your comments from the previous application, chair, that allowing property owners to make the best use of their property within their ability, I think, is important in our community.

Thank you. Commissioner Nelson?

Again, I agree with commissioner Hill. I think the intent of the zoning is to create that uniformity. Otherwise, we'd be seeing, you know, people come in looking for variances maybe to build, you know, three story high houses and, like, things like that where the code says, you don't do that. So if we want to achieve that uniformity, then we have to we have to say no to this. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Nelson. Sorry. Go ahead.

Chair, can I just I have a I have a question for staff, a clarification? So both commissioner Nelson and commissioner Hill have commented multiple times now, not just in this not commissioner Nelson, but in previous applications about the code being for uniformity. But what I heard staff say earlier was that it was a safety issue, and I can I get clarification on that? Is that allowed?

Madam chair, I'll I'll answer the question and then defer to you. So you did close the the case to the receipt of evidence. So if you want if you did wanna reopen that, it would need to be reopened for everybody to have that conversation. So I will defer to you on that. It is kind of out of form and character of how the the case should go, but it is up to you on how to run the meeting.

I do to address the commissioner White's question in a more broad sense, there are what is it? Five criteria. And the the requirement for a variance says that it must be approved if all five criteria are met. And so if it's not going to be approved based on the evidence presented, then the commission will have to articulate what evidence was not present, what evidence did not meet that standard based on the presentations made today.

That's sufficient answer for me. Thank you.

I think I am going to reopen it because I also have a follow on question. Commissioner Hill is concerned that there is no standards for accessory dwellings, but I believe there are. And as part of evidence, if we if you could I'm sorry, I'm putting you on the spot to speak to the standards the county has for accessory buildings.

It's okay. I need to be sworn in. So

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. Thank you. Madam chair, commission, so we do not have design standards, and that was intentional when the code was adopted previously in 2023 because it would be impossible for us to go now into Los Alamos and require that one new developer designs to this architectural standard while these 1949 homes are designed completely differently. So there is not that uniform design standard with an architectural design attached attached to to it. It.

That is not within the code and that is not criterion. Our criteria is met based off of our review of the code and based off of the interdepartmental reviews, fire, building, engineering who am I missing? Environmental services and utilities. If they agree that this meets criteria, we then have justification that this meets criteria with the variance. Variances are intended, and this is unfortunate because our last variance was just denied, a variance is intended for that specific reason.

This lot is unique. It would not be able to meet those standards. Those standards are specific to, it's a blanket standard and it is not intended for every lot because then there would be no variance application. There is a specific variance application for that very reason. Not all lots are going to be able to meet those standards. With a variance, we have the reason for a variance is a deviation for those standards.

Thank you. Does the applicant have any questions or comments about that since we've reopened for evidence?

Just to blankly say no to us doesn't seem fair when we didn't have any option on this, you know, off-site parking already being there. There's no other carports in this area. It's a very short street. It it would just add beauty to the street, not be detrimental in any fashion to anybody. And, you know, I just wanna protect my truck from the weather that's been so crazy lately.

And it just seems just to say no just because of, you know, this house this town wasn't even supposed to be permanent. So just to say no to us because of lots that aren't designed all uniformly doesn't doesn't seem that fair.

Thank you. All right. I am going to reclose the hearing to your seat of evidence. I really appreciate staff and the applicant for that additional information, and go back to the discussion of the criteria. So I think I want to reiterate what our attorney was trying to say is if you are going to say no, you need to identify which of the criteria was not met based on the evidence that was presented to us.

So I just want to reiterate that. And so what I'd like to say is, again, variances are there because our town was not developed recently, and the typical standards for a town are difficult to apply across the board in this town. I mean, I would argue what you were saying, a variance in one of our new communities, I could kind of support what you're saying, right? If you go to El Mirador and you start doing things that are variances that impact the look and feel, that's a planned community, it's new, that makes sense. But when you're talking about people that are in homes that were built in 1947, I think it's kind of an unfair standard.

And this is their only remedy to resolving that, and to really fully enjoy their property. So any further comments or questions?

Yes? I just have one comment. I'm a very black and white person. Right? And so for me, it's the are there design standards in the code or not? And if there are, to commissioner's point, we need to follow them. And if they if there are no design standards, then that's, for me, not an aspect of consideration.

So I just wanted to It was my understanding, and we'd have to open it back up to evidence because I'd have questions. But Chapter 16, what they did was go through and clean it up. And part of what they did was sort of have a higher level, not so specific, broader standardstell me if I'm wrongto encompass all the things that we have in our community. So very specific standards, I would say no. But more around zoning of what kind of activities that you have in certain areas of town, right?

High density, single family, residential, retail, that is really what chapter 16, Clean Up, was about.

I still have the same objection. And basically, it's because in both cases, we're talking about one was a foot and a half setback for a structure on the street, and this is a zero setback for a structure on the street. So it's not just a little variance for, oh, we're going to push into our setback a foot or two. This is like a structure right up on the sidewalk in a residential suburban, quote, suburban neighborhood where a certain amount of setback is expected. And and to me, that's I know I wouldn't want it on my street.

I live in the Western area, and I already see enough you know, I've gone around and I've looked at carports, and and and, you know, it's not just the carport out there. It's it's, you know, become somebody's workshop, and there's all kinds of garbage out there and stuff. There's stuff that happens underneath a roof that doesn't happen out in the open. For me, I think it would be if I had a house across the street, I think it would be detrimental to my property value, which is basically what criteria E is. So that's my objection.

I understand your objection, but what's before us is a variance related to the setback and ancillary structure. And some of those things that you're thinking will happen, and maybe they are happening in neighborhoods, have other organizations to deal with. So if there is that issue, there is a remedy for that through the county and not before us.

I'm just Understood. I'm just giving you an example there, but basically it's the fact that it's having something that comes right out to the property line changes the character of the neighborhood. And when they bought the house, there was no carport there. The code was in place when they bought the house, I'm assuming. So those things were known prior to moving in.

It's to move in and then go, oh, gee, I have this undue hardship because I bought this house and there's no carport. It's like you knew that that was the case when you bought it, and you knew that you'd have to ask for a variance when you got it, and there was no guarantee that you were going to get that.

I think there are carports throughout town. And to say that there were none there, and I don't know if that's factually accurate. I haven't driven through the neighborhood,

Well, other through the neighborhood that you're in,

there's lots of carports. And in the previous situation, it was made known by county staff that there were other carports. So we're doing evidence and we're doing facts. And so findings of fact, again, if you are going to vote no, then I will need to know which of the criteria were not met to your satisfaction. So be prepared. I think we're going to close and vote. Unless anyone has any further comments. No. Commissioner I Nelson.

Would like to go back to criteria B and ask about the intent. I mean, is not the intent of the zoning to provide some uniformity, in a community? It seems to me that what we're doing is asking that people not put accessory buildings, you know, on the lot line in this as in where this is RM or whatever it's on. Just you know, that's not what was intended for this neighborhood. So I would argue that the the reason to object is criteria b, the intent.

The intent is not met.

I'm sorry. D as in dog or b?

B. Bravo.

The variance request will not undermine the intent of the development code, the applicable zone district, or other county adopted policies and plans, or violate the billing code. So the staff responded that they, in their opinion, it was met because the carport is in a reasonable use of the property that aligns with the neighborhood's zoning intent. The use does not compromise public safety, health, welfare, and does not conflict with the established residential character of RM2 Zone District. And through the staff report, which is IDRC, thoroughly review the request and set conditions to support the carport's location while protecting county infrastructure and maintaining safety. Lastly, the building division will apply the building code at the time of permitting, and permits will not be issued if the application and plans do not comply.

So there are backstops, and that's permit and verification of the lot, that if those things are not met, then it won't go forward.

Can I also add that that's why I asked the question that I asked about the intent, whether it was safety or design, specifically to address the concern of our two commissioners regarding that line? And, again, what I heard was that it was safety. It was not design, was the intent of the code. Feel free to disagree with me about that, but that's what I heard.

Well, I think what Commissioner sorry, Chair, can I speak?

Yes, of course, Commissioner Nay.

Thank you.

I think what Commissioner Nelson and I are referring to in what it says here is the established residential character of the RM2 Zone District. And when you're talking about character, you're talking about how something feels and looks. You're asking me to put that in terms of fact. Well, you know, aesthetics are pretty I can say that they're factual. I went to a design school and studied design for five years, and that's kind of what my career is all about.

But most people don't think of design as being something that's factual one way or the other because we all have different opinions about what's aesthetically right and wrong. But I think that's why we also have six commissioners up here because or five of us, how many there are today, because we have those different opinions. But that doesn't mean that they're not valid. When you're talking about the character of a neighborhood and the quality of how people feel going through that neighborhood, and, there is no established character of carports. And I I think there's a need to establish a standard for that, and I'm not quite sure how to do that if we don't have any design standards in our code.

But we've certainly done it with sidewalks and lamppost and plantings and things downtown. And personally, I think it's something that we need to look at because there's obviously a need for it, but I think there's a need to do it right and a need to do it in a way that's not detrimental to these neighborhoods, which are old. And they do need some help in lifting up, and we don't want to go and do something that's going to make them worse. That's my concern.

May I have a comment? Yes, please, Commissioner Sheen.

So the neighbors had an opportunity to object, and we heard one supporting comment. That was the evidence presented.

Madam chair, if I may, just to for a point of clarification and say if I may. You may. The so, yes, to the commissioner's question, yes. So as part of every variance case, every there is notice that is sent out. It's a requirement in the code.

That notice is sent out to all the neighboring property owners and for within 300 feet of the application. So in this situation, nobody there was no evidence presented tonight in opposition to this application. There was no evidence presented from the staff or the applicant that the criteria was not met. So when we when the discussion and maybe it was my my language that I used of the facts that were presented. It's not the facts of the facts of what one or two or even all commissioners may know.

It's the facts that are presented in the evidence by the parties. So the two parties that were presenting today, there was nobody in opposition and all the evidence presented by the two parties was that the criteria was met. So if it is not going to be the the will of the commission to make a finding that the criteria has met. It has to be based on the evidence presented by the parties to distinguish why it was not.

And remember, what we're voting on has to do with the variance to code. Going back to what the decision is, or what the question is before us, the question before us is that the variance they're asking for is that they have a zero front setback for this carport. And I need to go back to so it must be at least 15 feet from the property line. But it also means that this proposed carport is allowed to be at least as close as nine feet from the property line, but must meet all other dimensions and development standards. So there's a table I would refer you to, RM2 dimension standards.

So the setback is really what's before us, but they also met the lot coverage requirements. So the standard's 40%. It's proposed 35%. So it meets that. They're below the structure height limit of 15.

It's actually proposed 11.25. And this isn't the body that decides what the code is. We can only apply what is on record for Chapter 16. And the variance process is a remedy to situations where the standards can't be applied.

Well, I would argue that they could be applied, and that if the owner was willing to extend that pad that the car parks on back another whatever distance is necessary, then they would not have to be at a zero foot setback. And it appears there's room on the property to extend that back.

I don't think it's this commissioner's responsibility to come up with solutions. I hear what you're saying, but that's notwe are a fact finding body, and we have to review the evidence presented to us, and we can't make inferences or other alternate suggestions. We can only take the evidence in, review the facts against our code and the variance process, and come to a conclusion based on what's been presented.

So And there is room on the property to park further back, and that is a fact. And I'm not designing anything here. I'm just looking at a picture going, gee, they could extend that thing back and then not have to have the carport so close to the street. That is a fact. And so when they come and say that this is the only thing that we can do when we're we're pushed into this situation, I can say, well, that's incorrect because there are options there. And granted, it's a more expensive option, but we're not talking about that. We're just talking about whether or not there is room on the property to do this thing.

And So what I would say is, if I looked at that design correctly, it is four feet off the ground, and you are talking if you want to extend it back. So if we're looking at this

Correct. Is that

what we're looking at? This is elevated.

Correct.

And for me, and I don't want to get into I'm going to, but I don't want to. In order for this person to do what you're proposing, that would be very expensive. Because you're talking about a four foot, and have you checked what cement costs these days? Because you're talking about you would have to excavate, you'd have to bust that out, which is cement work. And then you'd have to build a mold, and then you'd have to put in very expensive material to accommodate that.

Right.

So I get where you're coming from, the solution, but I don't think that's what's presented before us tonight. We can only take in the evidence and the advice or the presentation by the community involvement and the code, and we can't infer or come up with alternate solutions because that's not what's before us. And I hear what you're saying, but again, we ask questions of the applicant, we ask questions of staff, we know the code, and then we have to make our decisions. So we're kind of at that impasse right now.

We also don't know that the footings underneath that concrete are adequate for supporting this structure. That's something that's in the criteria that they asked for, right?

Not a question before us. And we knew you

were the one that was bringing up the cost of concrete and what was going to have to be done.

But that was

an alternate to what you were.

I'm an architect. I've been doing this stuff for forty I understand understand

that. But that's what's not before us.

Well, you're have trying to tell me that I can't say no.

I'm not saying you can't say no. I think we've had the discussion. I think we've all fleshed it out. I think we've it's time to move on to I'm not trying to change

your mind. Well, I not provide enough evidence for why I think that this criteria has not been met? Because I can because it sounds like our attorney here is saying that I didn't quite have the evidence there to be able to deny this.

Do you have enough information that if Mr. Hill makes a decision to know that we can

If it doesn't pass.

If it doesn't pass, sorry. If it doesn't pass, that you have enough to

I don't know because I don't know what the answer is gonna be. Okay. I'll have to see if I know

how to do it.

What what I am tasked with after the decision is made is to draft in an order with the findings that are made by the totality of the commission. If there if there if it doesn't pass, there are there are no findings. If a three to two is not a finding, there was not an approval, there was not a denial. Like in the previous case, there was no finding. The motion failed, but there was not a a finding one way or the other. Now if to answer your question, but I'm kind of getting ahead of myself because I don't know how the rest of the commission is going to vote. But if the majority of the commission is going to vote no, then I will need more information.

Thank you for that clarification.

Is Yeah. That

And no, I'm not trying to get you to change one way or the other. It's just a fully fresh conversation because she is going to have to write this up and I'm going to have to sign the order. And I just fully want to understand what we're making the decision on, given the criteria that's been presented in front of us. So Commissioner Nelson, do appreciate you identifying the criteria and your comments specific to that, okay? So I think we are, unless anyone else has any comments, prepared to go to a vote. Sorry, a motion. I'm looking for a motion.

I move to recommend approval of case number VAR-twenty20Five-fifteen, a request by Barbara Martinez, property owner, for a variance from the r m dash two dimensional zone district standards. Approval allows an open sided carport to be installed at 1968 40th Street, Los Alamos, New Mexico, directly at the front property line along 40th Street, creating a zero foot front setback. Approval is based on the findings of fact established at the hearing and the determination that the applicant has met the decision criteria for a variance per section 16 dash 74 gs three of the Los Alamos County Development Code, the commission acts under the authority of section 16 dash 69 b two and six of the development code. I further move to authorize the chair to sign the findings of fact and conclusions of law for this case that reflect the decision of the commission. This document will be prepared by county staff based on this decision.

I second the motion.

Thank you. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Green?

Yes.

Commissioner White? Yes. Commissioner Hill? No. Commissioner Nelson? No. Commissioner Easton?

Yes.

Motion failed.

Thank you. Any action by the Planning and Zoning Commissioner in granting approval, conditional approval, 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 of the application giving rise to the final action being appealed any county official acting in their official capacity whose services, properties, facilities, interests, or operations may be adversely affected by the application, or any person who has a recognized legal interest under New Mexico law within fifteen calendar days, including weekend days, and excluding county recognized holidays after the date of the final written decision pursuant to Section sixteen-72G5A of the development code. All right. We're going to move on to variants.

202516. Okay, case number.

Chair, may we

take a five minute break?

Of course. Wonderful. Thank you. Doctor. Thank you for asking.

Nancy Thank you.

Nancy We're going to take a five minute break. We will be back Groce: at 07:20. No. Doctor. Nancy 7 17. Seven ish. 07:20. Thanks. Doctor. Thank you.

Recording stopped.

Oh, this is a long

one. Oh, no.

The first meeting I was ever on, we went till 11:30 at night.

Oh, no. Do you know that one? I I

I sublurped sixteen? Yeah. Because it was that sixteen? There no. It was about applications.

It had some applications?

Yes. Okay. And it was it was a while ago. Was I here? I don't think you were on yet. No.

Have you? No. Did you have one?

I don't think so.

That was a it was rough. I was like, it was my first one.

And you're like, oh, no. What did I get into?

Six hours on the school night.

Yeah. But I started cycling this morning, so no.

I guess what what I would really like is if there could be an amendment to the code that dealt specifically with these type of spaces and carports for them.

There's nothing wrong with us as a commission asking for that verification of orders. Mean, in fact, we are gonna be going through code changes.

Because I think if they were all the same, like if you wanted a carport, you can do it. It's going to be this high, and it's going to be open on the sides, and it's going be made like this. So that would add some consistency to the neighborhood.

Big it's a big title. It's called accessory.

But you can put a subsection in. I was reading it. I have the I have Yeah. A thing. And and it doesn't it doesn't make any specifications. So I think you could put us, you know, like those RN tables in, you could put a thing in a little subsection that says carport should be explained.

So I think that would actually enhance the neighborhood because it would give some more uniformity where there's This some

is all it says. Yeah. It doesn't say it doesn't really say anything.

Does it say anything about, like,

mother-in-law houses? It does. Yes. I think

Oh, this is, like, this is accessory structures, not accessory dwelling

units. Okay.

But there is a That's a big one. Like a casita We

have a floor discussion in moderation.

That's the accessory dwelling. But there's also a caretaker

But there's something.

Yeah.

See, here it says garages and carpets may be located in the front yard behind the minimum front setback in any zone district.

But the minimum front setback It's 15 feet,

and that's why these variances are coming here. It's because they anywhere in the one five line. That's the actual variance that

I would like to see if split everything. But all those fourplexes are the same kind of parking situation. Four different people. So carports across there. That's where I'm like No. Anyway, I

Recording

in progress.

Because I can see that being something that a lot of people would jump on, especially if it was Oh, sorry.

Keep talking, but meet your mic.

Oh, sorry.

I'm calling the meeting back into session. Thank you.

Chair? Yes.

We'd like to ask for a continuance to the next hearing for case BAR 20250017 when we have a full when we have the other commissioners present. One six. I'm sorry. One six.

Okay. I have no issue. Do you have an issue? I guess that's up to me. I have no problem with that.

Madam chair, just for a little more context. So with regard to that, we are the code does allow us to reschedule a public hearing to a date not more than twenty one days without having to renotice. And the next commissioner meeting is on November 12. November 12, which is twenty one days. So if we were to continue it to the twelfth, then we would not have to do additional publication. I'm sure the staff will notify, but we don't have to go in the paper and do all of those things again. But we can but the code does allow that and with the request coming from the staff. And I believe the applicant is in favor of that as well just to give you some more context on the on what is allowed.

Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. We will continue and present VAR twenty twenty five-sixteen at the next meeting, November 12 at 05:30 p. M. Okay. Then we will continue on with our agenda. The next section is on communications. A department report?

Doctor. We just closed actually tomorrow, I believe, or nextit's next Friday, I'm sorry. Next Friday, the RFP for the comp plan closes, and we will hopefully have a consultant chosen and under contract by December. So we will be kicking off the comp plan update in

2026.

Thank you. Chair's report. I do have a question. Are any of the commissioners here interested in participating in the comprehensive plan development? Just a quick poll. Yes. Commissioner White?

I think my turn is going to be up here in this briefing, so no.

Okay. How much of a commitment time is it?

I don't know if we know that yet. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Nelson?

Say again, please.

The comprehensive plan will be starting up, and there'll be three commissioners, I believe, on the comprehensive plan. So I'm just kind of polling the commission on those that would be interested in participating in that process. And it is at least a year in development?

It'll go through to we're hoping

to have it adopted by December 2026, but it'll it's a year commitment to be on the working group.

Okay.

Yes, I'd be interested.

Thank you. And we probably maybe at the next meeting we have, will review everyone's tenure and also see if everyone is interested that is up for renewal to do so, which I think Commissioner Whiten might be. Is your term?

We just renewed.

Okay. All right.

In the spring,

so I should

be good until

2020 Okay. '7. All right. So I'll put a note that I will review terms at the next meeting. We don't have our council liaison here, it looks like. Are there any other open comments from the commissioners? This is just your time to bring up anything. No. Okay. Go ahead. No. All right. With that, meeting's adjourned. Thank you, everyone.

Recording stopped.

It's crazy. Yeah. I know.