Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So, at 410, I would like to uh thank Tech Support for getting this up and going and uh call this meeting of the um July 17th Planning Commission to order. Let's have a roll call, please. here.

Here. Thank you. Let's all please stand for the pledge of

allegiance. Okay. The first um admmon on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Staff, have there been any changes to the agenda since it was published? Chair Bo, there have been no changes to the agenda. Uh, thank you very much. May I get a motion for approval of the agenda?

Uh, thank you, Commissioner Trillo. Uh, is there a second? He did. Is there a second? Thank you, Commissioner Pard. Second. Uh, all those in favor of approval of the agenda, please signify by saying I. I.

Anyone opposed? Oh, so you're opposed to approval of the agenda. Thank you. Um, okay. That, uh, motion passes. Um, uh, the next item is approval of the meeting minutes. um request approval of the June 18th, 2025 uh planning commission meeting minutes. May I get a motion for approval? Thank you, Commissioner Pava. May I get a second? I'll second that.

Thank you, Commissioner La Cruz Crawford. Um let's do a roll call on approval of this agenda. No, no, no. You said agenda. Oh, I'm sorry. I said I said agenda accidentally, but it's approval of the minutes. My Okay. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Uh the June 18th minutes are approved. Uh first item is case 255090. Yeah. And so this this was not unanimous. So this is this is a case that we've already um voted on. However, it was not unanimous. So this is a request to approve the final order for case 255090. Um may I get a motion for approval? Mr. Chair, I move a motion of case 25-5090 for approval. I'll second.

Thank you. And thank you. Um, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. Any opposed? No. Okay. Uh, now is the consent agenda. There are two items on this agenda. Um, make it a motion for approval of these two items. the final orders for these two items. Yeah. I'll motion to approve both um cases under the consent agenda 245060 and 255040. Mr. Chair, I second that motion. Thank you and thank you. Um all those in favor, please signify by saying I. I.

Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Uh before we go on to new business, um we had a we had an issue at the the last meeting where our attorney was unable to be here and we had a few of the members not in attendance and we moved on a case. Uh we took an action. However, the uh opinion of staff at that time was legally incorrect. So, Roger, I wonder if you would go through and describe kind of what had happened and and and the resolution of that. Thank you.

Certainly, Mr. Chair. Um, at the hearing, give me a moment. Just want to make sure we're identifying the case properly. The the case in question is 25-5010. It was a uh the Wararez uh request for three variances. the the meeting was attended by five of the seven commissioners on the on the planning commission. the um the variance or the portion of the SLDC addressing variances requires a majority of the entire planning commission or BCC if it were to reach that point approve the uh or vote in favor of a motion to approve a variance. Um uh the point being that variances are intended to be um you know rare or um at least difficult to grant because of the unique circumstances and u the drafters of the ordinance didn't want a a minority of of anybody to uh any body to be able to uh pass or approve a requested ordinance. Um that issue was in fact discussed uh with the applicant during last month's meeting once staff

realized that there was uh that the meeting was taking place with only five commissioners uh so that the applicant was aware that they would need four votes at that time and the applicant chose to proceed proceed rather than to table the item which was an option presented to the applicant. Uh after the presentation of the case by staff applicant and discussion among members of the planning commission a motion was made by Commissioner Buger to deny the request for the variances. motion was uh seconded and on a vote the motion passed by a 3-2 vote to to deny the the variances because in in the usual well I shouldn't say usual but in the circumstance when a a motion to approve a variance would be made a vote of four members of the commission would in fact be be necessary and staff staff advised the planning commission that four votes were necessary for that particular motion which was incorrect under the circumstances because it was a motion to deny um a majority vote would have been sufficient and in fact was sufficient. Uh the the opinion of council is that it was a perfectly appropriate vote. uh you did have a quorum present. The the matter was called and presented properly. The the motion was made appropriately and seconded and when was voted upon and is

council's opinion that that was a final and binding vote and in fact terminated uh that case as it as it was before the the planning commission. The discussion that uh followed the vote ultimately resulted um in an agreement or an understanding to table the matter until the the subsequent hearing which would be this hearing. And uh between hearings, council notified uh each member of of the planning commission as well as uh the applicant uh through staff's communication of of our position that in fact the vote was appropriate and uh should not be ignored or or overruled so to speak. Um I did have communications from um individual members of of the planning commission and discussed my thinking on this. And as I said I I mean this is very much a parliamentary issue. We don't have a county parliamentarian. uh you as chair are in position to make a determination as to the propriety of the the vote taken and the steps at at last month's meeting. Um and and that's where things are as as of today. As I say, the the applicant was notified that the legal considers the vote to have been appropriate, but I I do want with that factual background and clarification, I would like for you to verify that that is your determination in essence as the parliamentarian.

Thank you very much, Roger. Uh before I do that, I wonder if there are any comments from any of the commissioners who either present or not present. You've been uh in communication with the attorney and uh um Commissioner Buger.

Thank you, Chair. Uh first off, thank you, Mr. Pino for discussing the the rationale here in this meeting for uh uh for not u pursuing with the tableabling. Um my position I again I I was the one who recommended denial but we had u um we'd said I'm not faulting the legal analysis but uh we had said that uh this would be tabled the applicant was present when we said that and I think u that it is appropriate to honor that tableabling and to do what we said uh at a public meeting we were going to do and rather than u what we did through this approach but at least this discussion is u um part of the way there so u I'll just leave it at that thank you

thank you commissioner any other commissioners who are either present or not present and received information of this from the attorney interested in saying anything. Uh, no. That being said, I uh um I understand and respect your opinion, Commissioner Buger. Um, but I if I'm to rule that the procedure outlined by attorney Pino is is correct, then and the variance request uh from that case uh is denied, then I agree with that. So, I make that ruling if that's how you're supposed to do that. Thanks very much. And I appreciate the the time taken to kind of clean up this uh this confusion. Okay. The uh next item on the agenda is uh case number 25-5020, Thomas Simick and Christina Mesta Simick uh conditional use permit application. Uh staff. Thanks, David.

Mr. Chair, planning commission members, before we get started, I did want to bring to your attention that a letter had been submitted by a representative um of some of the neighboring people in opposition. Um David is going to hand that letter out um requesting a tableabling of this hearing. Um the the applicant or the representative is here in person. if you wanted to to hear his his request.

Thank you. And so the procedure would be to honor this request, consider consider tableabling before any discussion of it. Is that the process?

That is correct. Just from a practical time-saving standpoint, um we think it's appropriate to before hearing the substance of the presentations for you at least to be aware of the the reasons for the request for tableabling and make a determination as to whether you think that's appropriate. If you do, obviously, you could table the matter. uh but if not then at least it would have been determined that it's appropriate to move forward with the uh matter on its merits.

Thank you. And this letter was in our packet if I'm unless the content is different than the letter head. Excuse me. Okay. Thank you very much. Well, um, so would the presenter of this request to table please come forward, swear, be sworn in and you're correct. He is counsel and uh is presenting employers all the tell always tell the truth. No, if if if we don't swear counsel in then okay. Um

he's not presenting factual evidence for your consideration so I think it's appropriate to let him Mr. KS is it please proceed. Thanks.

There we go. Thank you chair members of the planning commission. I'm Joseph Kins Summer Karns and Associates. I represent Steven Feld, a neighbor of the proposed project, as well as a group of neighbors in opposition to this application. Um, I submitted this letter to staff and I communicated with staff this morning regarding the concerns that I discovered yesterday afternoon. I apologize to everyone for the last minute nature of this, but I was carrying out a site visit yesterday and I noticed, and if you flip through the letter, there's a photo of the public notice sign. It's the third page. Um, and you can see that the initially it's the applicant's obligation to comply with the SLDC's public notice requirements. That includes posting of a public notice sign, mailing of notice to neighbors within, I think it's 300 ft, and publishing notice of the of the hearing in the in a local paper, the New Mexican. You can see from the public notice sign at the bottom that the only indication of a planning commission meeting um it says the meeting will take place on the 17th day of April 2025. There's no reference to any meeting after that. And in the letter I'll submit to you and and again this is this is last minute but I documented and I provided copies. The ensuing pages are the agendas from the April 17th meeting at which this application was not on it as well as the May 15th meeting. The application was not on that agenda. Why was it not on those agendas? Well, it turned out it didn't go to the hearing officer until the May 8th meeting. The first planning commission agenda that this application was included on was the June

17th June 18th I believe meeting. And the last page in my letter, exhibit C, is a memorandum from staff to this commission recommending that the item be tabled from the June 18th meeting, which it was. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. KS. Um, just a second. Um, uh, staff has been saving money and they printed out the yellow sign in black and white. Um, and it's relatively illegible. So, I'd like to confirm, um, with staff that, um, Mr. Mr. K's assertions of the date of notification is correct. I can't tell from this chairbo planning commission members. Uh yes, uh Mr. KS is correct. The dates on that board are the dates that he stated.

Thank you very much. And sorry, don't mistrust. And I have copies I could have handed out. I that I think are better copies, but in any event, thank you, Mr. Cisneros. Not not a problem.

And so the applicant has three separate obligations under the code. first to provide notice of the public hearing by first class mail 15 days before the hearing. Well, the first first meeting at which this case was on the agenda was the June 18th meeting. There's no evidence in the record, chair, and members of the planning commission that that public notice was mailed. Second of all, the posting needs to be done for that meeting. the posting nowhere indicated that the item would be heard on the June 17th agenda or on this agenda for that matter. And then finally um and and also the applicants required to demonstrate that public notice was posted in uh printed in the newspaper. And section 4.6.3 6.3.5 of the code says written verification of the publication, a list of persons sent a mailing and an affidavit of posting which includes a photo of the proposed of the posted notice shall be provided to the administrator prior to the public hearing. The evidence in the staff report that you've received in your packet from Mr. Ruiz dated um for today's meeting supports my evidence that I submitted in my letter to the contrary. Mr. Ruiz says the applicant provided an affidavit of posting of notice of the hearing confirming that public notice regarding the application was posted for 15 days on the property beginning on February 26th, 2025. Additionally, notice of hearing was published in the Santa Fe, New Mexican on February 26, 2025 as evidenced by a copy of that notice in the record. That does not satisfy the requirement and staff has confirmed that in its staff report. I am aware that there is a lot of concern in the Kenya de los Alamos

community. I'm here with my client, Mr. Feld, today. I don't know that there are any other members of the community who are concerned about sa public safety impacts of this project who are able to be here tonight. Again, it's the applicant's obligation to comply with this SLDC requirements. The applicant has put staff and this commission in an awkward position by failing to demonstrate the mandatory requirements of the code which bear on due process of fair hearing process. We're in the process I've been working on this case for only a relatively short time. We're trying to engage the community and make sure that their concerns are heard by this commission. They're not here today. Why? because they did not receive reasonable or effective notice in compliance with the code. And the simple fact of the matter is the applicant hasn't complied has not demonstrated compliance with their obligations and staff has confirmed that in the memo. So with all due respect, I request that the item be tabled so that the community can receive proper notice of this important application that affects their public safety and their concerns about public safety and other issues. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Mr. KS. Uh, a question of staff for the attorney and that is um if what is the earliest time that the applicant would be able to meet the notice requirements if they were able to um do all the required steps? I'm just wondering table until when? If I may. So, it's a 15-day requirement. So it would be the August meeting that would give them sufficient time to comply with their obligations.

Chairbo, planning commission members, that is correct. It would be able to make the August meeting. I will be unable to make the August meeting. So, um, and and that might raise one of the same issues we had last meeting with, you know, the again in order to approve I'm imagining a conditional use permit has the same No. Oh, it does not. Okay. No, it does not. Got it. So, if um if the commission is interested in um tableling Well, first of all, I wonder if any of the other commissioners have questions of either the attorney KS or or staff on this issue. Sure. I got one

chair chairbo planet commission members. Just to give you guys a little history of of what happened. So, the hearing officer meeting was scheduled for for March. Um as Mr. cards indicated it was tabled in March and then tabled again in April due to division deficiencies in the actual submittal package then went forward in May when it went forward in May um the original schedule date of April for planning commission was not there was no table identified because it hadn't even gone to hearing officers so staff didn't think it was necessary to um put a table uh letter or put it on the agenda for that April planning commission meeting and so That's a little bit of what happened there and why it did not get noticed on that uh April planning commission meeting date.

Thank you. Any any commissioners have any questions or Oh, Commissioner Trill. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. So staff if on the there's three burdens as I understood to me and one of them is first class mail by the people that are filing the application and I thought I heard 350 ft away from the place of the conditional use permit being requested. So is that correct? Chair Bo uh planning commissioner Trillo. So it's actually 500 ft within the uh the property itself.

Okay. So so Mr. chair and and Dominic is is how many residents were identified in this conditional use permit that they would have to be notified you is it the obligation of the applicant or does the county give them those those names of of the people they need to notify? So it's up to the applicant to receive those names. um we not require but we offer them to go to our GIS division or to the assessors um to get a list of those neighboring properties within 500 ft.

So and Mr. Mr. Chairman and Dominic. So they after this they have to show proof that first class mailing was I know when you go mail first class the the mail service UPS I mean US postal service will show proof of that. So they have to turn that into county staff. Is that correct? Chairbo planning commission members. Yes that is correct. Okay. And has and to your knowledge Mr. Chair has that been has that been met?

Chairbo planning commission members. So what's identified in in the exhibits that I am noticing now is the are the letters that were sent out for the neighborhood meeting which is a requirement of a cup as well. We are trying to locate the mailings um for the actual hearing itself. Um we're going to check with the case manager to see if he has those in his file. So Mr. Chair in in this first class notification has to give the date of the of of the planning commission meeting. Is that correct? Chair Bo, uh, Planning Commissioner Trio, can you repeat the question?

So, in in the first class mailing that that the applicants are obligated to send out, it has to state the date of the that the meeting will take place. That is correct. Okay. And Mr. Chair and Dominic, on as far as the mailing or the proof to the New Mexican, that has to be submitted in the package as well. Is that typically how that works? Chairbo, planning commission members. Yes, that is correct. Okay. And then the third burden, just so I understand correctly, is that this sign that's that's put up here, the applicant gets this sign from the county itself or does the county itself go and place the sign at the property?

The applicant picks up the sign. So, the staff is uh provides the information and the sign to the applicant. And so, be the dates on this sign that's posted because I was are are of what date? Uh, I believe it was the hearing officer March and planning commission April. I don't have the exact dates on hand, but it was hearing officer March, planning commission, April. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Buger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Couple of questions for Mr. KS. So, uh, is there any other substantive information which would impact on this case that we don't have in front of us now? Um, Chair uh, Commissioner, the community may well have information and would like the opportunity to present it to this commission. There have been previous letters, I understand, before I got involved in this case at the neighborhood meeting and the hearing officer meeting, there were a number of me members of the community. I think it listed 15 in the uh in the minutes. Anyway, there were people present able to express concerns to the hearing officer. They're not here tonight. I submit because they did not receive notice of either the June 18th meeting or this meeting. And so that is information. And then the one other item, sir, is that I submitted a separate letter that may be in your packet. I think you got handed out about it's a substantive matter. I don't want to get into it very far, but there's been no traffic analysis done on this project. Traffic safety is a big issue and so that is information that we think needs to be um fleshed out in order to provide for compliance with the SLBC and it's not at this time. So those two items absolutely.

Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Buger, I may continue. So the letter Mr. carns that we have in your packet says that it speaks for 22 neighbors who object in the strongest possible terms and it goes on in great detail what those concerns are. So again, are there any individuals that you know of that beyond the 22 that may have been uh you know would have liked to weigh in that? Chair, Commissioner, I I don't know where the reference to 22 members comes from. That's not my from my letter, I don't think. Commissioner Buger,

Commissioner Buger, if I could, I understand where you're going and and my understanding is there is a a statutory requirement to publish. Um and so irrespective of what you may learn or what you may not learn, if that statutory requirement to publish has not been met, then it may be the will of the commission to table. So I I just don't want to drive down that road. We could um any other questions of commissioners?

I have just general because I'm just trying to more just out of my own curiosity and stuff. So to staff um so because I do see in the exhibits as far as um notice that was done the legal notice etc. there there is you know like a newspaper legal article that I guess was ran in February 26 and April 25th um there's certification of posting uh in February 25th as well and all this documentation right that shows the mailings and the certified mailing receipts etc and stuff. So I'm just curious because obviously what I'm hearing is that um this was supposed to be heard like you know a while back but it wasn't right but it wasn't tabled properly but they you know obviously the applicant did go through this process back then is what I'm seeing with respect to the exhibit. So is how does that process work where you know in this type of situation where um it didn't go to a meeting um but they had previously sent out these mailing notices etc. Do they are required to do so again because of the fact that the hearing wasn't set?

Does that make sense? Sherbo planning commission members. So typically the the tableabling would hold the date. Um so no new renoticing you know would be required typically. Uh this is a little bit of a different circumstance where the April 17th meeting um you know came before the actual March or the actual May hearing officer date that the the project was actually or the case was actually heard on. Um if the planning commission decides to to table then all renoticing would be required. Just briefly. Hold on. Hold on. Okay.

Thank you. Uh, one one question. Um, Dominic, um, if we were to move to table, do we table until a date uncertain, um, until all the conditions of notice are met, or do we assume that those conditions of notice will be met between now and, uh, and let's say August 20th? Yes. Uh, Chairbo, planning commission members, it could be tabled for the August 20th date. um we would require the applicant to provide us with the we'd give the applicant the proper notification to send to the New Mexican as well as for the mailing and we would require them to send that back to staff all the verifications of those

and then it would be pulled from that agenda if those requirements were not met or would we go through the same exercise again? So if they don't meet those dates uh we wouldn't even put it on the agenda. Um, so we would verify be before we put that on the actual agenda. We would verify if those actual dates were met. Thank you very much. And and sorry,

thank you. Just just one last point in response to the commissioner's question. There are two separate requirements for mailings. One was for the p for the pre-application neighborhood meeting. That's what's in your packet. There were letters set out for that. That was I think in February. There's a separate, as Mr. Cisneros mentioned it's a separate obligation to send out mailings a second set of mailings regarding the planning commission meeting. There's no information in your packet that those letters were set out for any meeting and I understand staff was looking for those letters. I don't know if they were found but they're not in your packet. So that second obligation was not met and from my perspective. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you sir. What's the will of the commission?

Mr. chair u are the applicants are here it might would you be willing to have their end of the story or that you don't think that's necessary so if if the applicants are able to present their case I want to well well present the facts not their case but the facts to the tableing motion I the only I see I see that as a as a you know walking on a knife edge I I just don't think that's a

sure the only comment I'll make Mr. there is that in looking I did look at the letters that were sent out and so the 500 ft they did mail looks like about 2 4 6 8 10 12 maybe 13 or 14 13 and looking on Google maps they're only 500 feet they probably only were required to do two or three mailings so they did a lot of things in good faith here but that's just a comment but I respect your decision and we'll make a motion

thank you commissioner Pava Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, in light of what's been brought forward to us by Mr. KS, I I would say that I would love to hear since there's such interest in this, I would love to hear it based on its merits and not on a technical procedural consideration. and therefore I would certainly be in favor of tableabling it so that advertising and notification is done uh to to address the concerns of Mr. Karens and his client.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Pava. Any other comments or questions from commissioners? Mr. Chair, I make a motion to table uh this case until the August meeting if the applicants meet the requirements. I'll second it. We have a motion from Commissioner Trill and a second from Commissioner Pava. Um, can we take a roll call, please?

Yes. Mr. Yes. Yes.

Yes. So, uh, this item is tabled. I apologize to those who got in their car, found parking, came down here, but it's a beautiful evening. Um, and so and and those online. Um, we we want to make sure that this case is presented without any flaws. If there are flaws that can be challenged, um, then this is not over. So, we want to make sure that when the commission makes a decision, it is a decision that is in compliance with all requirements. So, uh thank you very much and and again apologize for the inconvenience of visiting beautiful downtown Santa Fe on a Thursday night. Thanks. What? Yeah. Yeah. I want to talk to you. I don't know.

less than two minutes. Okay. Uh thanks y'all. Um, and again, apologize to anybody online who uh um who took the time to connect and um this case will be heard in the future. Um the next item, case 2550, has been tabled. Um and next we have petitions from the floor. I don't see any people on the floor. Um matters from the commission. Any anything? Commissioner Buger.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Uh just a general thing, but um when there's it's a request of staff that um sometimes when cases come up that's within an overlay district and the overlay relates to the community plan that had been done before. It would be nice to uh if if the authors or or folks most knowledgeable about the community plan were either present or could speak to that or not that you're not but just you know that um I think it would be helpful because plans drive the codes. So, uh it would be uh or or there's a reference in uh um the staff packet that uh refers to maybe an element of the community plan that was done and uh I would have brought something up in this case uh but I'll wait till a month but that's the general comment.

Thanks commissioners. Any any other matters from the commission? Commissioner Pava. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, this is addressed to staff. U I, you may know I also sit on the capital improvements advisory committee and so you know that they are looking at um funding for a study regarding land use assumptions as relates to capital improvements. My request would be as that evolves uh that the planning commission uh be briefed on that and be able to provide input on land use assumptions as certainly part of our purview set up by statute and by ordinance.

Thank you, Commissioner Papa. Commissioner.

Um I I was recently as part of our um homeowner association, I saw um when somebody buys a new property or a parcel, they have to they get the um short-term rental agreement that you know they read and they have to sign off. And I thought at that point it would be good to have something in that document that says make sure all of the buildings on the property are permitted, you know, and that might help cut that off because it, you know, it's part of that form that they have to sign that they've read it, they understand it, and that would be a really good thing since we see so many of those uh come in.

Can I get some clarity? So, if I were to buy a property in Santa Fe County proper, um, one of the things I get from the county before closing on that deal is something that says, "Here are the requirements of short-term rentals, and it does not include a make sure you're you've got all proper permitting." you know, it's it's just the, you know, certification process, what what they'd have to go to if they're planning on

uh, you know, getting a short-term rental. And I thought because I actually talked to a couple realtors and they said, "Well, that's not our thing." And I said, "Well, it kind of is your thing because you're, you know, advertising this property um, asis and some of those par, you know, buildings weren't u permitted." So, if they have to read the short-term rental agreement and the first thing that says make sure check with the county to make sure all your part, you know, your buildings are permitted, I think that would really help. Yeah, I that's a shock that it's not there the number of times we've we've had these cases come up. So, I completely agree. Any other items from commissioners?

I'd like to talk to staff after just about kind of technical stuff. Um, but are there any things from the attorney? Nothing to add this this evening. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. And any items from staff, Mr. Chair, planning commission, uh, planning commission members? No, there is nothing from staff at this time. Okay. And then next regularly scheduled meeting, I thought it was the 20th. It's the 21st. Yeah. Um, is scheduled for August 21. And I will be

yeah I I will not be able to be here. I'll be somewhere um else. Um and so let's get a motion to adjurnn, please. Thank you, commissioner. Any anyone else want to leave? Thank you. All in favor? I I Okay, we're done. Thanks.