Historic Preservation Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

So it's 05:31, and it looks like we have a quorum. Well, let's call the meeting to order. And can we have a roll call, please?

Good evening. Commissioner David Hampton?

Here.

Commissioner Karen Easton? Here. Commissioner Rebecca White? Commissioner Rachel Adler? Here. Commissioner Stephanie Knockley? Commissioner Stephanie Knockley?

I have no audio. Just so everybody knows, I can't hear anything. I don't know if you can hear me.

I can

I can hear you? Hear you.

Yeah. Okay. We can hear each other, but we can't hear

the Right.

Commissioner Stephanie Knockley,

roll call.

Think it's her.

Is it all of them that can't hear or just Stephanie?

This is Rebecca Shank. I can hear the room.

I I think it's only Stephanie that can't hear. It's on her end probably.

Chair, should we continue?

Can they use chat to acknowledge?

Madam chair, no. Because the chat is not recorded in the meeting as far as I understand it to be. I mean, for for roll call purposes, you can acknowledge that they're here. I mean, we can see them. We can hear them. They just can't hear us, but we can't go any further into the action items without them being able to hear you. So I would recommend that we wait to try to let them know. We can chat to them to let them know that we're trying to fix it.

Okay.

But to actually do the commission business

We have to wait. Yeah. Okay. Can we go through the rest of the roll call while we work on the the technical issues with

Commissioner Ronald Nelson.

Here.

We do have a form.

Thank you. So do we wanna wait a minute? Can any Commissioner,

is you hear in you hear me?

Hear you, Stephanie, but can you hear us?

We now hear you. Okay.

Okay. So if you could do roll call for Stephanie.

Your

mic's not on, Wendy, I don't think. But, yes, here.

Thank you.

Okay. Roll call is complete, and we have a quorum. The next item of business is public comment. This section of the agenda is reserved for comments from the public on items that are not otherwise included in this agenda. Do we have anyone in the room who has public comment?

If so, step forward. Seeing no one, is there anyone online that has public comment not related to items on the agenda? Seeing none, I'm going to move to the next item on the agenda, approval of the agenda. I need a motion to approve the agenda.

I move to approve the agenda.

I second. Okay.

All those in favor? Agenda is approved. Moving on to the planning and zoning commission business. We will review the draft minutes from 02/12/2025. It was an attachment. With the minutes presented, is there an approval, a motion to approve the minutes?

I move that we approve the February 12 minutes.

Second? I second. Thank you. Any discussion about the minutes? Seeing none, we'll move to a vote to approve the minutes. All those in favor? Everyone but Ronald.

I was absent.

Correct. Thank you, Ronald. And for those taking minutes, are we moving too fast through this? Are we getting these recorded?

It is recorded on the the video.

Okay.

But I would

ask staff if but I I Staff keeping up? Okay. Great. Alright. We're gonna move on to the next agenda item.

It is a public hearing for case number VAR20250006. Will Gleason of Decker Designs, agent on behalf of Ocean Rock Capital Partners and Grand Mesa Partners LLC, property owner, requests a variance from the Downtown Los Alamos Streetscape standards along Central Avenue. This variance pertains to an approved hotel development located at 400 Trinity Drive, Los Alamos, New Mexico. The property is designated as EA 2 S, is situated within the Eastern Area 2 Subdivision and the Downtown Los Alamos Zone District. The commission's decision on this case must be based on am I doing this right?

I'm sorry. This is my first one. Okay. Catch me if I'm not. 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 an 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 subject matter to be decided. The issue to be decided at this hearing is whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny application for a variance from the Downtown Los Alamos Streetscape Standards along Central Avenue located at 400 Trinity Drive, Los Alamos, New Mexico.

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.

Are we

ready for introduction of exhibits into record? Keep going. The commission will accept the following documents as exhibits as received and provided to the commission and incorporate them as part of the record in this case, unless a valid objection is raised by a party. Parties have had the opportunity to have these exhibits in advance, and they are able to use them during their presentation as desired. Those will be application of the applicant with exhibits and attachments, the staff report of the community development department, exhibits to the staff report, other materials that may be introduced without objection or as deemed by the commission.

Additional exhibits may be proposed for entry into the record hearing record by any party as part of their presentation. The chair shall will either admit

or Commissioners, you guys are muted. We can't hear you.

Stephanie just texted me the same thing. They can't hear.

How far back do we have to go? About

thirty seconds to a minute.

A go?

Yes.

Did you hear the issue to be decided at this hearing is whether to approve approve with conditions or deny?

Yes. We heard that.

Did you well, then I'll start with the introduction of exhibits into record. Is that okay with everyone? Yes. And have we resolved all the communication issues and technology issues before I go forward?

I mean, we're we can hear you now, but it seems unstable. Ah.

I'm gonna pause for just a minute.

You

guys are clear. It just seems like some somehow your account got muted.

Can everyone on Zoom hear me?

Can Yes. Hear

Okay, I'm gonna proceed with going back to introduction of exhibits into the record, and we'll move forward. Please let us know, raise a hand, do some indication if you get cut off. 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. They are listed as application of the applicant with exhibits and attachments, the staff report of the community development department, exhibits to staff record, 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.

Madam Chair? Yes. May I respectfully request that the board perhaps consider taking a poll of the online participants so we can get an idea of who is consistently having, either connect connection issues or audio issues. It seems like some people can hear at some points and then not at others. And so we just wanna see if it's perhaps particular user settings or if the connection is perhaps just unstable. And it sounds like some people can hear us and some people cannot. So, if we could just go participant participant and see if they're having any issues, that would be appreciated for

the record. Sure. Okay. We're going to go through each person online. Ronald,

can you hear us?

We can hear you. Are you having any stable or instability in your connection? No. Thank you. Stephanie. I can

hear you now. I couldn't hear you at the beginning, and then and then I could hear you, and then it cut out again just when you were re just when Eric said his cut out. So so I've lost you twice, but I can hear you now. Okay. Tucker Sharp?

Yes. Thank you. I can hear you.

Excellent. Thank you. Eric?

I can hear you well except for when you were muted earlier.

Okay. Rebecca?

No issues except for when you were muted.

Okay. Are there any other? I see no other participants other than the hosts.

Madam Chair, we're going to ask staff to please switch over from the panelists' participants to the attendees on the right side. Under participants, it shows eight. I just want to make sure that there aren't.

Daniel Monk?

Yeah, I'm here. This is Can

you hear everything that we're saying?

Yep, I sure can. Thank you.

And we can hear you. Excellent. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

So Madam Chair, what I might recommend just so that we don't lose somebody and then never come back to them and they miss the whole proceeding is that should anybody experience any technical difficulties or have trouble hearing the discussion at any point, that they raise their hand or otherwise draw our attention to it so we can be aware and if necessary recess.

So did everyone hear that? If you are having any issues as this goes along, please, we have the ability to raise a hand and we will watch for that. Iain Anderson, you just joined. If you could take yourself off mute and let us know if you can hear us and respond so we can hear you. Can you guys unmute him, her?

Yes, I can hear you.

Okay, thank you very much. We've been having some technical difficulties. And since you've just joined us, we just wanna make sure if we cut out, please raise your hands so that we're aware we don't go too far into the proceedings.

All right?

Is everyone comfortable moving forward? Okay. I'm now going to go through the hearing proceedings. The hearing tonight will be conducted under procedures developed from New Mexico case law. The procedures are intended to protect the due process rights of all parties.

The procedures include parties and witnesses will be identified for the record. All persons who expect to offer testimony will be sworn in and will provide testimony under oath. All persons offering testimony will be subject to cross examination by other parties. Please remember that the purpose of cross examination is to ask questions and solicit relevant facts from the witness. It is not to be argumentative or is it the time to state your own position that comes later?

The Commission intends to limit testimony to information relevant to the applicant's requested action. The chairperson may limit redundant or repetitive testimony. Identification of parties. The applicant in this case is Will Gleason of Decker Designs, agent on behalf of Ocean Rock Capital Partners and Grand Mesa Partners LLC, the property owner. The community development department staff will assist the commission in fully developing the record.

Other parties, other persons, in addition to the applicants, including property owners within 300 feet of the boundary of the property under consideration and those who have legally recognized interest in this case may also be recognized as a party. A party may call witnesses and enter evidence to present facts in support of 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 come forward to the microphone and provide your name and address for the record. And will we do this in two sections, the people in the room or the people online, two separate? Okay.

So for the people in the room.

Desiree Lujan, Los Alamos County senior planner.

Will Gleason, Decker, 7601 Jefferson Northeast, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Dan Osborne, Los Alamos County, in my role as acting community development director.

And then for the people online, are we gonna do the raise your right hand? K. Raise your hand elect sorry. Raise your hand and Do I do that, or do you guys do that? Where you swear them in? Okay. And one way

of doing it online might at the end, since we're doing a raise of the hand, just say, please raise your hand if anybody does not agree to the foregoing oath. And then we can indicate nobody raised their hand, and that all the participants well, actually

Madam No. No. This is swearing people in. There So anybody Daniel Monk has his hand raised. Can you he's off mute. Go ahead, Daniel. Are you a party to this?

Yes. I'm Danny Monken with Decker, 7601 Jefferson Northeast.

Thank you. Are there any other parties? Let's see. Rebecca?

Rebecca with Decker at 2601 Jefferson Street, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Thank you. Eric?

Eric Uliverde. I'm the county engineer for Los Alamos County, and I'm here, available if any questions should come up. Thank you.

Thank you. Tucker Sharp?

Hi. Tucker Sharp here on behalf of ownership of the property.

Thank you. Ian Anderson.

Yes. Ian Anderson with Isaacson and Arfman. We are the civil engineers for this project. 128 Monroe Street Northeast, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Thank you. I think all participants online have been identified.

So at this time, it's, CDD staff needs to swear and all the persons that are willing to that wish to testify.

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

Note that this is not the time for parties to present their positions or provide testimony. It is only intended to obtain names and addresses of the parties. Sweared in Okay. Sure.

If I may, I I apologize to interrupt you. I did not hear anybody online say I do or yes. I heard people on so if we could just, for the record, make sure that everybody if we could have everybody online turn on their cameras and raise their right hand and go through this real quick one more time.

Shall I call them one at a time to make sure that

we hear them?

Do it all together so long as we see them

Okay.

And hear them say I do.

Okay. So Rebecca, Eric, Tucker, Ian, and Daniel, if you could all take your unmute and put your your cameras on and raise your hand, please. Eric

Sorry. I don't have a camera on this computer.

Okay. As long as we hear a verbal affirmative,

that'll be okay. So if

we could just do that, that's fine. Thank you.

Sounds good.

And Daniel?

Same. I don't have a camera function here.

This is Eric. I'm also having the same issue.

Okay. Do we want to repeat that statement and take it from them?

Do

you affirm under penalty or 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. I do.

Do. I do.

Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate your help, and thank you, staff. All right. I'm gonna move on to the commission disclosure. The chair will now pull the commission right? The Chair will now pull the Commission to potential conflicts of interest or ex parte communication. An ex parte communication is a commissioner discussion on specific facts or issues with the applicant or other party regarding the matter now before the commission outside of this public hearing. Does any commissioner have a potential conflict of interest in this case? If so, please disclose interest. I'm looking at the room first. I see no. Stephanie or Ronald?

No. Conflicts.

Any commissioner that has a conflict must recuse themselves from the hearing and deliberation of vote. Has any commissioner communicated directly or indirectly with any party or party representative in connection with the merits of any issue involved? If so, please disclose those communications. Looking at the room. Stephanie and Ronald.

Nope. No communication.

Thank you. Has any commissioner reached a decision on the merits of this case as a result of ex parte communications? Any other commissioners? No, no, no. Stephanie, Ronald? Has any commissioner used or relied upon any communication reports or other materials prepared in connection with a particular case other than those made part of the record? Has any commissioner inspected the site with any party or their representative? Nope. No. Thank you. Has any commissioner received any ex parte communications regarding this case? No. No. No. Thank you.

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 governmental agencies or entities, and the interested parties withstanding subject to cross examination and reasonable time limits established by the chair. Presentation by the applicant. The applicant shall present the case in support of their application and shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the request meets the applicable decision criteria. The applicant may offer the testimony of expert or lay witnesses and documentary evidence that the applicant deems appropriate subject to cross examination and reasonable time limits by the chair.

Commission commissioner questions of the applicant and applicant witnesses and the appoint ee sorry. I think at this time, the applicant makes the presentation. So I invite the applicant to come up and make a presentation, including those from your office.

Good evening, commissioners, madam chair. I'm trying to get my presentation to fire up here.

Here we go. Great.

Thank you for your time this evening. Again, my name is Will Gleason, urban planner and partner at Decker. And as you know, we came before you in January for the overall site plan. And and after that approval, started working on our more detailed design for this and realized that the the site itself has presented some challenges that that motivated us to ask for this variance, and that's why we're here tonight. So the site itself, as you know, is at that corner.

It's a it's a corner lot, which often presents some challenges in terms of meeting design standards. It is vacant. We're proposing a 60 unit extended stay a shortened and extended stay hotel. And we and we believe that this variance will still meet the spirit of the downtown Los Alamos design standards. We'll still support creating a great entry into the into the downtown and also accommodate the the site's constraints.

So what we're talking about tonight, I know you're all familiar with this site, is that northern edge along Central Avenue. So the south side of Central Avenue on the north side of the site here. And the site itself is a little little under two acres. Our setbacks are fairly tight on the on the east and west sides. And on the north, we have a 15 foot max, which partly factors into this.

And our zoning is DTLA. So so this is really the the area in question. And and what we're really asking to do is to just switch the the landscape, the alignment of the landscape and the sidewalk so that the sidewalk is along the curb and the landscape is along the building edge there. And and there's part of the reason is because we have this great change that we have to accommodate both going up the hill there from the roundabout going going west on Central Avenue, and as well as from the the the northern edge of the site to the right of way along that that edge there where the sidewalk is now. So we we really looked at this and and feel like that this proposed variance will result in a better project and a more successful site while at the same time meeting those those standards that you have in the in the DTLA.

So this is the this is the the standard in question. Excuse me. And it says and as it says in bold there, a minimum six foot landscape strip and an eight foot sidewalk. And so we are proposing to do that. And and then actually, the landscape will be significantly wider than that at certain portions along that north along that northern edge.

So and and I think that and since I know that's this because I worked on the downtown master plan, part of this the reason for that configuration that's on the screen here with the sidewalk next to the building is the idea that most of these establishments are gonna be kind of retail facing or restaurants where you want that pedestrian activity right next to the the the building itself. In this case, we have a hotel which is is sort of siding onto the sidewalk. It's at the end of the downtown area, and it's a different there there's not that need for the access directly from that sidewalk into the building itself. That's more accommodated through the major entrance to the hotel that's on the West side of the whole site. So I think that partly that I think that that's a slightly changed condition from what you what was the intent of this in the first place.

And that but the landscape is still gonna be there. The sidewalk's still gonna be there. It's just slightly different configuration. So this is what we're proposing. The site plan approval has the sidewalk right against the hotel, and then the the variance proposal is to switch that, have that landscape zone, and then the sidewalk to the north of that.

And this also helps with the gray change in terms of being able to to gradually accommodate that that change in slope that you have from the roundabout up up the street, as well as that kind of gray change that we have on the north side of the site to taper down to the the elevation of the street itself. So and and I think that it gives us a slightly wider zone for the landscape. I think the landscape will actually do better in terms of being on the interior side here against the building versus on the more compacted zone that's adjacent to the street. And so the other thing that this does is it aligns much better in terms of where the the line is between the public right of way and the property itself. So that if we had kept the if we keep the approved condition as it is now, there's a a significant dedication of right of way of the property to the public right of way versus in this case, we have a small sliver of about 80 square feet that would be required to have either be that would be part of that sidewalk easement.

And we're proposing that that would be an easement versus a replat there. So it kind of it aligns with what Public Works how Public Works sees this site and what they wanna what they need to have done with this. So I think it makes it sort of a smoother process in that respect. And here's the elevation itself. So this is looking south.

And and you can see the the the kind of privacy walls that we have proposed along the edge there and and the slope that you see going from the west down to the east. So, again, it kind of the landscape will help with that transition. And it's it's a little tricky to see here, but you can see kind of that dashed line on the the privacy walls. It goes from across the screen there, and it's kind of a faint gray line. That's the that's the floor level for the for the hotel rooms there.

And so you can see that that that change in elevation becomes somewhat significant the further you go on the left side of the screen. And the landscape will really help to to take up that that change in elevation and and make that that that transition down to the sidewalk. So so keeping it pretty short and sweet here tonight, the, you know, the variance really doesn't we don't we don't think impact the adopted goals and policies for the establishment of lodging within the Downtown Los Alamos zone district. Enables us to make those great changes on-site. It really reduces the necessity of the public right of way dedication, complies with public work requirements.

We do request that if there's a condition associated with it, that it gives us the option to create a sidewalk easement in lieu of a replat, and and it complies with the DTL standards to the greatest extent feasible. And with that, I'll stand for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any commissioner questions? Yes, David.

Yeah. The Trinity Site, what will that look like?

Madam chair, commissioner Hampton, the Trinity Site? The tree site. Oh, the tree site.

No. No. The Trinity Site. I'm sorry.

Oh, the Trinity the Trinity side will have we're not asking for any change to that, that that will and I let me let me go to the site plan because let's see if I can show it here. And maybe I can blow this up a little bit. And let me sort of go around here. So on the Trinity side here, we have we have landscape that's you can see it more on the edges, and but that we have a sidewalk adjacent to the the roadway there. I think that's not the requirement there for the landscape strip as a buffer.

But there's quite a bit, and I wish I had the landscape plan on my computer here because I know that there's quite a bit of landscaping along that edge there. But since this is a site plan, it's not showing a lot here. And I don't know if Rebecca can chime in on this or not, or Dan Monk.

There are different requirements along Trinity versus Central for the GTLA zone, but I will pull up the landscape plan in just a minute.

And one other point, actually, I neglected to make is that the the configuration we're proposing actually transitions much more seamlessly to the improvements that were made when the roundabout was built and DOT made the did the sidewalk Central Avenue and along here as well. Are you able to pull that up, Rebecca? And if not, we can come back, I think, to that.

Yeah. Just come back to me in a little bit. It's loading, but it'll take a minute.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other commissioner questions? Ben?

I'm looking at the site plan. I'm wondering, like, it is there any reason why you can't shift the building five feet south towards Trinity?

Madam chair, commissioner Hill, it is we we have worked this site. It is a pretty tight site to get the parking that we need here and the outdoor amenities spaces that we that we wanna have. We've we've looked at shifting the building. I think that there's some issues with grade, and I will ask Dan Monk to add on to that.

Yeah. I I we we did look at at that shifting, and it it has to do with the the grading, like Will mentioned. The I think it becomes more difficult to to grade out the, the main entrance to the project or to the building to keep that an accessible route and for the the drainage away from that entrance. Just it gets a bit more complicated and challenging the further south we go.

Can you pull up the grading plan and show me where that problem is? Is Rebecca. This Rebecca

Shank again. If you if if you just give me, like, one more second, I'll have all of the sheets open and ready, downloaded. Okay. So or let me am I able to

You will share.

So this is the landscape plan.

Can you zoom in on Trinity there?

Yes.

Yeah. That shows a lot more. So and we we did keep them inboard from the sidewalk there. So they're between the parking and the the sidewalk. But you can see some row of trees except where the the entrances actually are.

So I know commissioner Hampton if that helps answer your question.

Yeah, and I understand that Trinity Drive has been handled differently than Central, but it's good to know that it'll be even though we wanted the other side to be more walkable, in this one, very end of the zone, it'll be the same.

Thank you.

Can you, Rebecca, go to the grading plan and Dan can

Yeah.

Pipe in?

It it'll just take me another minute to

That's a

big get back. Know it's a big block.

Are there any other questions while we're waiting for bandwidth?

Commissioner Nachele or commissioner Nelson, while we're waiting for the next flat to come up, do you have any questions?

No. I'm good.

Thank you.

It would be helpful to have the, image that we're looking at right now, the the site plan, shifted so we could see where the building actually sits with respect to parking.

That was the landscape plan. They're still loading the site plan.

Okay. I have the plan uploaded, and you wanted to see the parking lot. Is is that correct?

Wanna see the grading plan, the grading and drainage Okay.

And specific to Central Avenue?

I believe so. And and and perhaps Ian can weigh in as well as Dan on that. So

Yeah. This is the utility plan.

Yeah. Can you go to the grading?

One more, actually.

Oh, sorry. It's a a large file.

Yeah. Okay.

So, yeah, right now as it is, we are pretty tight on our sidewalk connections to public right of way off of central and off so off of, Trinity. So if we do, I guess, shift the building overall, we'd we'd have to reanalyze and really see if if those issues remain or or or get worse, really. But yeah. Right now, I know our site works as far as our grading and drainage design, and we'd we'd prefer really to maintain the building in its current state. I know we've already shifted the building further south from earlier designs due to this or to provide that landscape strip along central.

So, yeah. Dan, I I don't know if there's other input you can provide.

I think, you know, our our finished floor elevation is is roughly close to the the high point of the of the site beyond the the entrance drive. So if we, maintain that finished floor height, which affects the kinda establishes the grading to the east and south and shift the building south, then in order to, you know, keep the grades relative, we're gonna it would steepen up some of the grading from the entrance, to the south and requiring, possibly some additional ramps or or sloping sidewalks, because Yeah. Everything is relative. We have to keep that driveway kind of roundabout, relative and accessible to the main entrance. And we don't wanna reduce the finished floor height because then we start to create a, kind of a depressed area that could collect water and direct it into the building.

Well, we don't have any indication of what your interior layout is, so I'm not going to get into that. And I don't really now's not the time to debate an issue, but we're talking about moving the building five feet south. So, like, moving the front door over five feet is gonna totally ruin the design or make it unworkable. That doesn't make sense to me. And then certainly, there's the other place that you're talking about, having an entrance that would be like an exit would be on the south side of the building towards Trinity.

Certainly, if you had to put a ramp there or something, I don't see that as an insurmountable thing that you might have to do on a project like this. I don't really know where the other issues would be towards changing all the grading on the plan might be just moving the front door five feet. So I I I'm I'm not really buying what you guys are trying to sell here in terms of how difficult it is to move this building over in order to gain a little bit more space on the North Side so that we can have the kind of walkway that we want through the middle of our town here. And so maybe you're not explaining it well enough, but, you know, I'm an architect with 40 experience. So I'm used to looking at these kind of things, and and what you're saying does not really seem insurmountable or even like a major issue to me at all.

Maybe you can try and explain it in a different way.

Madam chair, commissioner Hill, I I I know that we could do it. It's a lot of work to do it. And I think that we have and as Ian mentioned, we have shifted the building south. And and I think you know from your experience that you move one thing, and it's not just moving one thing. It's moving 40 other things on the site as well.

So it's and it's there's a there's a, you know, significant grade on the site in both directions that we're dealing with. And it's taken quite a few iterations to get to this point. And I I I think that we're asking for something that meets the spirit of the downtown standards and, would result in a better project.

Thank you.

Yep. Commissioner Hill, I would say, you know, the variance request is caused by the physical characteristics inherent in the lot. Whether or not there are other ways of dealing with that that shift the hardship to other parts of their work, it's causing a hardship, and it's the physical characteristic of the land.

Okay. I respectfully disagree. This should be part of our later discussion, I think. But I'll I'll present those reasons at that point. I appreciate your input. Thanks.

Commissioner's questions regarding the applicant. Ronald, do you have any questions? Or Stephanie, commissioner, do you have any questions?

Not yet. Thank you.

No. I have none either.

Okay. I have one more.

Alright. Commissioner Hill?

One of the changes from aside from moving the landscape strip from a street over towards the building is that the sidewalk's now reduced from eight feet to six feet. And I I can see why from the hotel's perspective, you might prefer that additional buffer, but I'm I'm concerned about the character that that changing character of our downtown space and and whether or not that six foot could be changed to eight foot for the sidewalk.

I'm I'm not sure if we can I mean, this is our request, but, you know, Dan or Tucker, do you think that we could accommodate that or maybe split the difference and go to seven feet?

It it would significantly impact the amount of easement dedication that we would need. So there's the property line aligns with roughly the six foot except for that tiny tiny portion on this end. So if we did extend to an eight foot sidewalk, it it goes back to, a dedication for the whole length.

And I don't know if Ian or Dan want to, comment just from the grade change landscape there?

I think it's more the reduction of landscape. I know we're already kind of tight as far as our landscape spacing throughout the site in this area. I know landscapers were really banking on providing some of those larger trees. Another issue is as you move towards the west, on our neighboring property, there is a a retaining wall that juts out basically to the back sidewalk. So we'd be only able to provide that eight foot sidewalk along that eastern side primarily until it transitions back to that six foot at that western corner.

Can I ask a follow on question? Yes. Is the six foot portion only this yellow piece and the rest is eight for the sidewalk?

Madam chair No. The the the yellow portion is just the that 80 feet that would be required to have either an easement or a replat. That's where the sidewalk actually encroaches onto the the property line itself. Does that make sense? The whole so the sidewalk the entire sidewalk would be six feet.

On this whole side of property?

Okay. The whole stretch of central.

I appreciate that. And the existing sidewalk along central is currently six six feet wide too. So this this would be matching the existing condition, but just with the new sidewalk.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? Sure. Yes.

I just wanna make sure everybody knows that the the property of the west is we've already received development proposal on that property. Two years ago, we approved that. And they're planning to meet our development standards on that section. So we don't really need to meet a six foot five sidewalk over there because that's not going to be a sidewalk anymore. That's going to be a planting area. And right now, it just dumps into a driveway that's being used for warehouse trucking. So that's a kind of an irrelevant issue at this point. We need to to try and and look at what our future vision is for that area and not tying into an existing worn out sidewalk that's not gonna be there.

And and, Commissioner Hill, we will work with Merrimack and figure out that transition and make adjustments as needed on that West End there.

So to just keep things in line, we are only talking about this property, this variance, so let's keep it to this if we could. The next item is I think I need to ask you to confirm that the application is factually accurate to the best of your knowledge and to enter into record. Correct? Okay.

Madam Chair, the application as submitted is factually accurate. Accurate.

Thank you. And then cross examination of staff by staff? I'm confused by that statement. Is this at the time where the staff can question the applicant? Yes. Okay. Let me open it up to staff. Are there any questions of the applicant at this time?

I have no questions.

Thank you. And Eric? Do you have any questions of the applicant or his presentation?

Chair, members of commission, thank you. I do not. I we've we've reviewed this proposal for this variance, and, we support it as as noted with some conditions that we've included, in the, staff report.

Okay. We're gonna move to the staff report at this time. Oh, thank you. Are there any questions from the public of the applicant and the presentation? Presentation?

Have we lost our signal? Okay. I see no questions in the audience. I see no questions online. Do I have to read?

No, no. At this point, open it up for the staff to present their side of

the case.

So CDD staff will make their presentation now.

Good evening, commissioners. There we go. I'm just gonna take a moment to introduce myself for the record and for members of the public who may not know me. My name is Desiree Lujan, and I'm a senior planner here with Los Alamos County. I have been with the county for the past nearly six years now presenting various development applications to this body and to county council. I have a total of seventeen years in local government, specifically when it comes to community development. And in late January, I

was

assigned variance twenty twenty five zero zero six. And I'm not sure why my presentation is not coming up. Let me see. I thought sharing it would be let's see. There we go.

There we go. So I was assigned a case number BAR2025006, as you have heard. This is a variance from the Downtown Los Alamos Streetscape Standards along Central Avenue. This variance pertains to an approved development known as the guest house hotel that this body approved 01/08/2025. It is zoned Downtown Los Alamos Zone District and addressed as 400 Trinity Drive.

It is situated just west of the New Mexico 502 Roundabout and east of the Merrimack property. What is the purpose of the Downtown Los Standards? The purpose is to implement the vision established in Los Alamos Downtown Master Plans. That vision, as it relates to the street the streetscape, is to create a pedestrian friendly downtown with improved walkability, wider sidewalks, safe crossing, and enhanced streetscape designs that encourage walking while balancing traffic flow and safety. On the screen are three images, three diagrams that show, one, the preferred downtown streetscape on the far left.

That is the vision that we hope for for our downtown. It is preferred where it shows the eight foot on street parking, six foot curb zone, a six foot landscaping zone, and a 10 foot sidewalk zone. This is a 22 foot right of way improvement. Acknowledging that not every property with along Central Avenue will be able to accommodate such a design, there is an alternative downtown streetscape frontage that is in the middle shown as an eight foot on street parking, parking, six foot landscaping strip, and an eight foot sidewalk zone. On the far right is an illustration of the Central Avenue frontage approved on for the site plan in January.

As you can see, they try to best align their designs with the alternative design, showing an eight six foot landscape zone and an eight foot sidewalk zone. That eight foot sidewalk zone was within their private And as a preference and practice of Department of Public Works, that area, anytime there is an area within public private property designed for public use, it should be dedicated to the county as public right of way. Here's a side by side comparison of what was approved in January versus a variance proposal. Very similar, only they are swapping the width of the landscape and the sidewalk. They're moving to a six foot sidewalk zone and an eight foot landscape zone.

You can see the dashed line that goes vertical that is showing where the property line is. Swapping these two will allow the developer to provide some privacy for the hotel guests and still maintain that landscaping friendly environment for pedestrian traffic on the six foot sidewalk. Just to show you the difference in dedication area, on the top is the approved site plan. Everything highlighted in yellow is that sidewalk that is within the private boundary that would need to be dedicated to the county as right of way. It was a recommendation by our public works county engineer, and it was a condition upheld by this body in their motion during their approval of the site plan.

Mister Gleason has gone over the reasonings for why they have changed their design, and changing that design would also decrease the area to be dedicated to approximately 80 square foot on the North Northeast Corner. The Commission is charged by the development code with making a decision for this variance on this decision criteria. It's detailed in the staff report that it is our expert opinion that the applicant has met the criteria. And for some key points, public safety and welfare are maintained as the proposed streetscape adjustments do not compromise safety visibility or pedestrian access. The slow traffic speed and roundabout design further minimize safety risks.

The variance supports the goals of the DTL zoning district by maintaining a pedestrian friendly environment while accommodating site constraints and balancing traffic flow and safety. The site constraints are justified as its small size, irregular shape, and grade change create challenges and make strict compliance with the DTLA streetscape standards impractical. And, the design will not significantly impact nearby properties as it blends with the existing streetscape improvements. It ensures a smooth transition with adjacent developments without negatively affecting surrounding properties. The county engineer and the public works department ask that if you make a make a motion to approve tonight, that you approve with these following conditions.

I'm not gonna read them verbatim, but they are listed here on the screen and in attachment b there in detailed in a memorandum dated by our county engineer from 02/21/2025. Before I close staff's presentations, I do want to affirm that the public notification requirements of section sixteen seventy two c have been fulfilled. And I affirm that the information provided tonight within the staff report is factual to the best of my knowledge and would like to enter it into the record. Chair Easton, I stand for questions and closed staff's report.

Thank you. Any questions from commissioners to staff?

Go ahead.

Check commissioner Adler?

Can you just remind us what is across Central from where the sidewalk is gonna be located?

Yeah. In fact, can do you one better, Cher. I'm still gonna call you Cher because it's still in me, so forgive me. Takes a while to change that. Do you know that multifamily development directly across?

And so there's a six foot sidewalk on the north side of Central Avenue. There is no landscaping strip, and there, I believe, is a wall. That property does sit a little higher.

Alright. Thank you. How far to the west does this, district go? Does it go, like, past the library, or does it end?

It goes all the way to the library. It'll go to Oppenheimer.

Okay. I just because after that, it seems like the county has had a policy of replacing landscape zones with pavement when they've recent construction.

So everything that is shaded in that pink is your Downtown Los Alamos zone district. Any of those properties that are facing Central Avenue would have the streetscape designs we're discussing tonight. Anything that is facing Trinity Drive would do the alternative at a minimum.

Desiree, both you and the applicant have talked about the amount of property that has to be dedicated in one proposal versus the other. Why is that an issue?

It's not an issue for staff. It's letting them know it needs to be dedicated. That is something that is a requirement. It's for liability on the county's part and for the property owner's part. They just I'll let we'll speak speak on that, but it's likely that they just don't want to affect the property.

That's correct.

So presumably, all the properties down Central Avenue as they get developed will have to and as they follow our design standard or alternate design standard, they would all be dedicating a certain amount of their property to that area.

Right. Any improvements that they'd be making on their private property that they would like to have designed that's gonna be for public use would be required to be dedicated as a right of way. And, Eric, if I'm getting any of this wrong, please jump on right in. But that is the conversation that has been communicated to me by our public works director and our county engineer.

Thanks.

And I think Eric's hand's raised. Good

evening, chair and members of commission. If I if I may just add a little bit to that, dedication of this and excuse me. I'm sick, so my voice is a little shoddy tonight. But dedication of this right away is important to us, for future maintenance. And, really, for a public access easement, the county would like to maintain, ensure that those sidewalks are maintained and also that, you know, any liability or anything like that maintains with is is remains with the county, since it is a public access season.

It gets a little more complicated if we have public access passing through private areas and an injury occurs or something like that. So we that's one of the basis for the dedication that we've requested. One of the I guess, of the things that hasn't really been discussed too much is, and why we support this is this is kind of on the boundary of this zone. And the recent project by NM DOT that was built, they did not follow the exact, the current code requirements for this district. So what we have on as we head towards the east are some kind of narrower sidewalks, probably in the six foot to maybe seven foot range.

And so we we as the county engineer, I kinda see this as a transition area into the district where we're going from a narrower sidewalk where with less landscaping into maybe a fully built out district that that that we can actually capture what those code requirements are as we head westward. But this is this is kind of in that transition area, in my opinion. And so this is one of the reasons I supported this is I feel that we can, we can transition to a wider as we a wider kind of sidewalk and landscaping as envisioned by that code as we move westward. And and then just because some of the constraints that exist currently because of the old Merrimack Smith's building and the wall that was mentioned earlier, stuff like that, we're gonna hit some obstacles if we try to widen any pass that driveway, it's pretty much gonna get choked right back down again. And so I see this as a good transition area.

And and then lastly, the only other thing I really kinda wanted to touch on is the building is pretty tall in this area, and pushing that sidewalk closer to the road will actually provides, additional sun exposure, preventing ice buildup, and I think it'll actually help to ensure that the sidewalk remains while we do maintain sidewalks during snowstorms, I think, the sooner the sun hits those sidewalks, the better. And so given the height of this building and the proximity of the sidewalk to the building, I think it's it's wise to allow that sidewalk to push a little bit further to the north and out of the shadows of the building. I'm available for any other, comments or questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further oh, sorry. Commissioner Nelson.

I'm wondering if, if the logic of pushing the sidewalk towards the street applies to this building, why it won't apply to, buildings west. I mean, already, commissioner Hill's pointed out that the, the transition to, the code as, as written will, maybe take place at the when the Merrimack area is, developed, and there will be a a mismatch in the sidewalk alignment. So I'm I'm just wondering, with future development might argue that, wow. We got a precedent at, 400 Trinity. Why don't we match that and thereby obviating the code?

Thank you. Madam chair, commissioners, I'm going to respectfully ask that the chair and the board, not require staff to answer that question. I believe that the nature of the question requires the board to consider, development of future prop properties, and it is conditioned upon, what those might be and how they might be affected, and that is not before the board this night.

And I'm gonna respectfully disagree. We're talking about our development code and what our vision is all the way down the street. And we already have that vision that's been approved and in place next door, and we should talk about that, and we should talk about what we all the way down the street. And here, we've had a staff member come and say, oh, gee. Well, maybe in this area, the sidewalk should be closer to the street because we need the sun to hit it.

Well, then all of a sudden, we're talking about that same condition all the way down Central Avenue. So it is something that we need to look at, not just for this property, but what we are talking about in the future and understand that that that is absolutely something that we should be doing. We're supposed to be looking at the vision of the all of downtown and how this particular thing might affect that. And we're not talking specifically about the property next door. We're talking about our development code and what the implications are for that.

Madam chair, counts commissioner Hill, by way of rebuttal, I believe that board, through the staff report and the various exhibits, is made aware of what the criteria is for this decision. And that is what the and the only topics of discussion that the board should consider. Thank you.

Thank you.

And as we consider that criteria, we consider it what our vision is for the that's built into the development code. And as we consider these very specific pieces of that criteria and whether this project meets that criteria and you're asking for a variance, we need to understand what the implications of that variance are. And and and we're not

Commissioner Hill? Yeah. We are here to look at an application of a variance. That's it is a variance to code. So we all recognize there is code that is the overarching.

But code doesn't always fit the property, and so there is a process for a variance because of this reason, and I think it does fit within it. I think staff has gone over why they're recommending this. And I really would like to keep to just this property and just this before us. I don't think we can pull out the crystal ball and look into the future of what others do. I think staff and this group does understand understand that there needs to be consistency along there, but we can only make decisions about what's before us.

So that's not to say that in the future, when that other property is developed, it's sort of expected, I would think, that they would put a site plan together that would be I don't know what the word I'm trying to say is, but it would flow. They wouldn't intentionally offset sidewalks.

But that's

what they're

asking us to do now. Talking about, well, we need to connect to this piece of property next door, and they're considering something next door that's irrelevant. And that's the the point that I think I'm trying to make. And we already do have a site plan, perhaps you weren't on the board when we approved that two years ago, but we already do have a site plan for that property next door. So when when they're talking about tying into this existing sidewalk, and then we just had a staff member, Eric, saying, oh, well, there's a wall there, and we need to put our sidewalk here because that wall's there that's on the property that's not even next to ours, that is irrelevant.

That's not something we should consider. And I think I think I'm on board with what you're saying. I'm talking about specifically our property. And we've been presented a design like it's fait accompli. They could build a seven story building on that lot with parking underneath it.

They've come up with this design and all of a sudden realized, Oh, gee, we're having a problem here. And the problem is based on their design. It's not the property that's causing the problem. They could have come up with a completely different configuration on the property that doesn't have that issue at all. And and so that was their choice to come up with that footprint to try and put, like, a suburban hotel on a downtown tight lot, and then all of a sudden, they're having problems with with adjacencies and not having enough room around it.

Well, there are plenty of hotels that are built on tight downtown properties that have, you know, entrances that are right on a sidewalk. They're all over the world. So they created the problem. But I think that But what's we right still have our criteria that we're supposed to follow. We have

Commissioner a Hill, design I understand. But what's right before us is an application for a variance. They have filled out the process. Staff has made an opinion on it. You have shared your questions, and you've gotten answers. I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it is the Commission's job to tell the applicant to go back and redesign. You can have an opinion you don't like their design, but at the end of the day, we have to review the application, we have to hear evidence, we have to ask questions, and then we have to make a decision.

Okay.

And

And I would think think that's that's where we're at. We're already into our discussion, so probably

should I'm do sorry. Are there any other questions of staff?

And

Commissioner Nachele, I don't want to avoid anybody that is out on the Zoom call. Ronald, Commissioner Nelson, forgive me. You have a question or a comment? And this is for staff, the staff report only.

I already suggested that the the alignment problem moving westward would be an issue, and it has been talked that, you know, sufficiently.

Noted. Thank you. Commissioner Nachele? Okay. Alright. Good to you. Go ahead.

Oh, just I'm good. Thank you.

Thank you. So at this time, I would like staff to affirm that the presentation that they made was factually accurate to the best of the presenter's knowledge and enter it into record.

Yes, Chair, affirm that it's factual to the best of my knowledge. I entered that into the record.

And I wanted to make sure that the memorandum from Eric, that item you noted at the beginning, will that need to be read? That's entered as an exhibit, is that correct?

It's part of the agenda packet. It is Attachment B.

Okay. So I want everyone to look at this because this is a condition of this variance. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

All right. Are there any public comments or questions of staff in this report? I see nobody in the room. Anyone online? I see none online. Okay. We're gonna move on to presentations of other parties and their witnesses. Are there any affected parties?

Madam Chair, and you might have done this and I might have missed it, so I apologize if I'm mistaken, but just the opportunity of the applicant to cross examine staff.

Right. Does the applicant or any of the members of his organization have questions of staff?

Not at this time.

You. Thank you. Any other affected parties?

Okay.

Alright.

Commission may allow parties to make rebuttal presentations. Any party making rebuttal will be subject to cross examination by other parties and further commission questions. Are there any rebuttal presentations? Commission may recall parties and witnesses for further commission questions. Okay.

I believe at this time that I propose we close to deliberate. So we're going to close the hearing to receipt of evidence and discuss the decision. I will now close the public hearing to receipt of evidence and ask the commission to review and discuss the applicable criteria following the discussion of the criteria. I will ask the commission to make and discuss a motion to this case. Okay.

Let's pull up the decision criteria. Section 16 dash 74 g of the Los Alamos County Development Code states that a variance shall be approved if it meets all of the following criteria. So the first criteria that we will look at is the variance will not be contrary to public safety, health, or welfare. Are there any commissioners that feel this criteria hasn't been met? Commissioner Hill.

I think that the design standards that we have, We've got one that's got a four foot section of sidewalk and then a landscape barrier and then a 10 foot sidewalk. And then we have one with a landscape barrier of six feet and an eight foot sidewalk, which helps to separate the roadway from pedestrian way. So by putting pedestrians right out next to the the curb without a landscape barrier on a skinnier sidewalk in what we hope to be a very vibrant downtown definitely detracts from the the safety of what we hoped our design standard would provide.

So you disagree that this variance or this criteria has been met?

I disagree that it's been met.

Okay. Any other commissioners?

I'd just like to say a couple things. One is that if this hotel is going to be built, I would hope that it would be in the public welfare for it to be a success and not close and be a vacant building. And I think it's more likely to get good reviews from its customers if people are not walking directly past the windows. So I think putting the landscape between the windows and the sidewalk is a good idea for the public welfare. I also, was not happy personally when a bunch of, landscape sidewalk strips were taken away and paved over by the county from, like, the library west. And so I think having a wider landscape zone is good for the public public health welfare.

Thank you. K.

I I agree that it's nice to have a landscape strip next to the building, and I think that they could accomplish that by moving the building five feet south, and I don't think it's that big a deal to do. And then that that could give them the additional room. They could have that retaining wall next to their patios. They could put planters on top of it. There's lots of ways they could solve that.

They created the problem from themselves, they're certainly capable of solving it in an acceptable way that provides the privacy that they want and also gives us the design standard that we want. So I and I I don't think we should be constrained by their mistakes. You know, they they created this design, and it doesn't have to be that big. They could have made the building five foot shorter. They could have done a lot of things to solve that problem without taking away our design standard.

It's like we're we're the stepchild. We're we're not we're not important enough. You know, our our eight foot sidewalk that, you know, we wanted a minimum of eight feet, and we want a separation. We we can't have that, but they can have everything they want. And and there's room on the site. There's lots lots of of different different design design things that you can do that accomplish their goals and our goals. And they chose to make our goals second. So

I Thank you, commissioner Noel Hale. Can I have a staff put up that sidewalk view again, Desiree? Like, the roundabout?

Oh, you talked

about the aerial?

Yeah. Thank you. So I have to ask myself, how much is a pedestrian is going to be walking around here? This, given the amount of traffic that comes through our town, I rarely see anybody walking anywhere near that roundabout. I think that this hotel coming in here is going to be an attraction of itself, and I doubt very many people, in my opinion, are going to be walking down past it to go around the corner to come back.

I don't know, and can please tell me, are there crosswalks where there'll be a crosswalk from that corner across? This right here. Has anybody done a pedestrian study there currently?

Madam chair, I just wanted to remind you that you've closed the case to evidence.

So I can't ask questions, can I? I apologize, I I digress. So take it off the screen, I don't want look at it. But in my opinion, the narrowing of the sidewalk as presented by staff, I don't believe I agree with the engineer that narrowing that sidewalk for that area is in compliance with what's going on in that area. If this was down in the middle of town, I probably would disagree.

But given what's down there, given the roundabout, given traffic, I don't think that there's any loss by having a narrowing in there. And so on the criteria is contrary to public safety, health and welfare, I think the criteria has been met. Is there any other discussion on this criteria? Like criteria?

I'd respond to that. One more basically, it's a blighted end of town right now. It's a blighted end of town, and we're getting ready to add 60 room hotel and 300 housing units right next to it. And on the other side of that roundabout is an athletic center. There's a swimming pool. There's a playground. There's lots of things happening, and there's access to trails down that way. So to look at what's there now in a blighted part of town where there is nothing and say, Oh, we don't really need that sidewalk there, is to We've created a design standard for what we want downtown. We want seven story buildings to be down there. We want more living down there.

We want more vibrancy down there. So hopefully, that sidewalk will be full of people with their kids and walking their dogs and going to these different places that we don't see right now. And our design standards are planned for our vision of the future, not for the blighted area that we see now. And so a pedestrian study of how many people walk there right now is pretty irrelevant.

It is because I can't take evidence on it anyway. So, Commissioner Hill, I really appreciate your conversation, and I think we've heard your position. I think we're all very clear on that. What I'd like to hear is there any other commissioners who do not have any opinion about criteria one or A? Sorry. Go ahead. Madam Chair,

if I may, since we're early into the criteria but just before we get into more, know, as the Commission goes through and discusses the criteria and what evidence has been presented to either address the criteria that it has been met or has not been met. We've heard testimony from both the applicant, their representatives and staff, and two members of staff about why they believe all of the criteria has been met and for the reasons stated in the documents that have been presented. If the commission is going to be going down the route of the criteria has not been met, when we get to the point of a vote, and if that is the case that it is not approved, we need to have evidence as to the why, the criteria that the applicant's reasoning, the applicant's testimony, and the applicant's evidence, as well as staff's evidence and testimony has not persuaded the Commission to determine that the criteria has been met. So if we get to that point, the order at the end of the day is going to have to identify what evidence did not meet that criteria to be able to support the findings of fact and conclusions of law if the application is not approved.

So I have a question. In the past, we've always gone through each of the criteria and had this conversation. But at the end, you vote for variants or not variants. But if you say not variants, then you need to identify the criteria that hasn't been met, I if understand what you just said.

Correct. So generally in the past, mean we have had applications where they have not passed. And at that point, part of that discussion has to identify why the Commission does not support the evidence presented.

In

particular case, details. But in one particular case, we had staff that was not in agreement with the applicant. And so we had two differing opinions. And the commission then voted I don't remember which way they went, but they voted one way or the other and made those findings as to support their decision. So if in this case we have the staff agreeing with the application on all the criteria.

So if the Commission is going to say the criteria has not been met, we need the Commission to identify the evidence that has been presented to say why it has not been met to support the order of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Does does that answer your question?

It does for me. Does it for all commissioners? Does everybody understand commissioner Nachele and commissioner Nelson? Did you hear that instruction, and did you understand?

Yes. I

have a I guess I have a clarifying question. This is only an issue if a quorum of people believes that a variance that the criteria has not been met. Correct?

Correct. Correct. Correct.

Madam chair, if I may just add more. That's why I wanted to do it now because we're at the very first criteria, and I didn't wanna get to the end and not knowing how the commission is going to, weigh this evidence. So I wanted to say this here at the beginning, not knowing how the commission is going to discuss the next five.

And why's Alright.

Can I, I would like to then specifically specifically lay lay out out why why I I don't don't think think it it meets meets the the public public safety? Safety.

No, no. Actually. As the chair, I'm going to say no at this time, that we're going to go through all of the items, and if we come to the end and the conclusion is that we do not move forward as a majority because we are going to have to present evidence at that time. Do I have the right to do that?

I thought we presented evidence now.

Give me a minute.

Just the nomenclature, not presenting evidence, just

You're right.

Argument on the evidence that does or does not fit the criteria.

So I don't know you share

we have the you have the authority to conduct the meeting how you would like to. And if it does, like you mentioned, get to the point at the end where there is not a consensus that or a quorum that a majority that the criteria has not been met, then yes, the Commission will have to articulate that.

Okay. I am ready to move on to criteria B. The variance will not undermine the intent of this code and the applicable zone district, other county adopted policies or plans, or violate building code. The staff response, they believe that the criterion has been met because varying from the downtown downtown streetscape standards does not undermine the intent of the development code, zone district, or other adopted policies. Discussion. Commissioners?

Well, I'll just say that I disagree. The we we offer three options for how the sidewalk should be, and and we've got something that that doesn't even meet the minimum of the three options that we we suggest. And the the reason the development code has nice wide sidewalks downtown is because I want people to be able to walk side by side in both directions and and have an enjoyable experience and not walk down the walk like ducks. But so I I don't believe that's the intent of our code, to walk down the downtown street like ducks in a row. Okay. Any others?

Anything online? Alright.

This is Juan. I

Yes, Ron.

Agree with commissioner Hill. It seems that the intent was to have a a standard that applied, along the whole of, Central Avenue. And so, this does not, this does not do it.

Thank you, commissioner Nelson. Okay. Item three, granting the variance will not cause any intrusion into any utility or other easement unless approved by the owner of the easement. Any discussion on that criteria? Okay. Moving on. The variance request is caused by unusual physical characteristic or a hardship inherent in the lot improvements and the peculiarity or hardship has not been self imposed.

I I think that the hardship is completely self imposed.

Okay.

That the the parameters of the lot and the requirements of development code were well known at the purchase of the property. They haven't changed since. And the layout and configuration of the design is strictly the choice of architect, and any number of shapes and placements could have been used. And and they chose one that they're having trouble fitting into a lot, but it doesn't mean that that's the only possible configuration that could have worked there. There there's obviously plenty of room around the building. It's not, like, shoehorned in.

Okay. Any other commissioners? Any discussion? Nope. Okay. Criteria e, the variance will not create any significant adverse impacts on properties within the vicinity. Okay. Granting of the approved variance is the minimum necessary easing of the code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, structure, or building. And that is the last criteria of discussion before we move to a motion.

And I'll I'll disagree with that as well because I I do think and I think the applicant has has said that they could probably make an eight foot sidewalk work even with their existing configuration. So that would be less of a imposition on what we would like to have in terms of the amount of pedestrian space and and circulation area for pedestrians.

Yes. Katie, anything? Any commissioners online discussing that criteria? Okay. So I'm looking for a motion. Motion.

I move to approve case number VAR 20 25006, a request for a variance from the Downtown Los Alamos streetscape standards along Central Avenue with the following conditions recommended by the Los Alamos County engineer to be completed prior to the building permit. One, the property owner is responsible for maintaining all landscaping, lighting, and other infrastructure outside of Los Alamos County right of way. Installation of landscaping and future maintenance shall be conducted in such a manner to ensure adequate site triangles for vehicle and bicycle ingress egress are maintained and to prevent obstacles within pedestrian travel and infrastructure. Two, for all landscaping within the county right of way, including the stormwater quality ponds, a maintenance agreement shall be executed by the owner and Los Alamos County defining the owner's responsibility to properly maintain such areas. Three, all public pedestrian infrastructure from the roadway to the back of the sidewalk within the six foot sidewalk zone shall be constructed within the Los within the Los Alamos County.

It's a little weird. Land shall be formally dedicated to the county through a replat of the site to accomplish this in any area where public sidewalk infrastructure crosses into private property. Four, all previous conditions of approval associated with the site plan application shall apply. This variance applies to the approved guesthouse hotel development at 400 Trinity Drive, Los Alamos, New Mexico, allowing a six foot sidewalk and an eight foot landscaping outside the public right of way along Central Avenue. Approval is based on the findings of fact established at the hearing and the determination that the applicant has met the decision criteria for variance per section sixteen-seventy four(three) of the Los Alamos County Development Code.

The Commission acts under the authority of section 16 Dash72F2 a of the development code. I further move to authorize the chair to sign a final order approving the application along with the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by county staff based on this decision.

I second.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Nelson?

I thought we need to have discussion first. Yeah. I'm sorry.

Oh, my apologies. Let's open it to discussion. Dave, commissioner Hampton.

So I find that it meets all the findings of facts. But one thing I think needs to be pointed out is that when the DTLA master plan was put together, they're going to ride it so it's going have the same condition for the sidewalk throughout, not that we might have different conditions on the ends and then a transitional zone. And one of the important things that was incorporated in the downtown master plan was the walkability. In this case, walkability serves retail and restaurant primarily and residential, but in this case, when we have a unique property, it's where two streets come together, and where there's no restaurants or retail on the site, and there's really there's not a whole lot that people who are interested in walkability are going to do on the other side of it, on the other side of the roundabout. And granted, there is a pool, there is other things, so people will be walking there, but I don't think that's part of what we're talking about as downtown walkability.

So for instance, if they were between 15th And 20th Street and asked for this variance, that would be an absolute no. But at this extreme end of the downtown, I find it compelling that we can grant the variance.

Thank you. Commissioner Nelson, Commissioner Any other commissioners? K. Are we ready to take it to a vote? Okay. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Nelson? No. Commissioner Hill?

No.

Commissioner Brule? Yes. Commissioner Nochley?

Yes.

Commissioner Adler?

Yes.

Chair

Easton? Yes. Commissioner Hampton?

Yes.

The motion is passed.

Thank you. Any action by the planning and zoning commissioner in granting approval of an application may be appealed by the owner of 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 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 16 dash 72 g five a of the development code. Okay. Next are items for discussion. Thank you to staff and the applicant and guests.

Good evening, madam chair, commission. Dan Osborne. And I just wanted to have a quick discussion. What in the past, the PNC has asked for some additional training, and we started that at our last meeting on February 12. And from what I understand, it was well received.

To kinda keep keep that moving, staff is proposing that we engage with Planet Zen. They're sort of an industry standard for planning and and zoning, just information and education, and just a resource for just general things that are happening in best practices across the country. I have used these in other jurisdictions where I have worked and also found them to be well received by the planning and zoning commissions. I think that we had previously given the commission individual logins, and, well, we saw that no one was using them. And so what I'm what I'm gonna propose is that we actually bring these back to the commission, and they're typically between forty five minute right around forty five minutes, forty minutes to forty five minutes.

And then we bring those two future meetings, and we just watch one together, and then we have a discussion around those. And they range from everything from just a basic introduction to planning, comprehensive planning, which is something that we're gonna be tackling in the coming months this year. In addition to, you know, how do we how what are the legal frameworks around planning? How do we work with the public? How do we have constructive discussions within our board?

How do we have constructive discussions with staff? And if it's amenable to the board, we'll go ahead and get that set up and get those training courses going for the next few few you know, I guess what I would ask is for some guidance once a month, once every other month, twice a month. How often would you like to do those if you're interested in doing the trainings?

Can I

give my perhaps Please? Unpopular opinion? But I have two other jobs, and in both of those, I have to take online trainings and and complete quizzes. And they are slow. They are sometimes infuriatingly dumbed down to, like, a level that is makes them pretty boring, and I can just, like probably most of us can just skip through those things and just take the quiz and be done.

So my preference is if there is an issue that the staff really thinks we need training on, for the staff to just train us. Like, last time, that was a great training. It covered exactly what we needed. It didn't waste our time. So that would be my personal opinion.

Okay.

Training. Go ahead. Go ahead. Commission,

Thank you. I tried watching a couple of those, and I actually I really like Planetizen for their their written form, but I found the videos pretty unwatchable. I I just they were they just couldn't hold my attention, and I act I do, like, actually know the topic reasonably well now, but I just maybe it's similar to what commissioner Brule was saying. It just seemed pretty I don't know what the word is, but I couldn't I just couldn't watch them. I I really liked it when we had Tony Jordan in.

He's a person, and he's incredibly engaging and could answer our questions. I realized that's higher that's a harder ask to get experts like that in, but that would be it's just much, much more engaging than watching a a canned video that is intended. I I don't know. That would be my preference. So

I have a question regarding costs. What does it cost the county to give us access to this information and do a self study? Because I personally would be interested in that because I'm just starting out. But I hear what my co commissioners are saying in terms of bringing topic experts in for things that are relevant.

Yeah. We certainly wanna be respectful of everybody's time and the different learning styles. So we certainly understand that everybody might want to approach this a little bit differently, and I think we can accommodate all of those things. As as far as the planets in training, we already have sort of a a department account, and we can assign those to the different commissioners who would be interested in doing sort of an online self paced, you know, education program. We are also happy to, you know, perhaps maybe then for this conversation, we've got the the itinerary or the the syllabus rather in your packet, and perhaps there are a couple of topics that you might be able to direct us that you might have some interest in that we can then either find an expert or create our own training around that and bring that back to the group so we can also accommodate sort of the group training and handle it in that manner if that's acceptable to the commission and is sort of agreeable to everyone.

We could kinda take a little bit more of targeted approach. The syllabus was just a starting point for this discussion.

Since this has been a topic of discussion for a while, is there any topic that the commissioners know right now that they're interested in having someone come in and discuss further with about? Any experts?

I think we're definitely some of us are interested in zoning, you know, the difference between single family, multifamily, how a zoning change would impact our county, that kind of thing. So I think, you know, Las Cruces, maybe someone from there would be willing to speak with us since they just did a huge zoning change down there.

So so perhaps some zoning with some examples of this is what, you know, single family density looks like. This is what multifamily density looks like sort of and then how that applies to our code perhaps.

I mean, I think we know what single family and multifamily like

Okay.

You know, that but maybe more about, like, why did Las Cruces make that change? What do they expect to see? You know, it'd be more interesting ten years down the road, of course.

But yeah. Absolutely. I I agree with that too. It's density that we're talking about, and it's possibly changing the zoning that we've already just done in chapter 16. Is that correct? Correct? Commissioner Nachley? Density related to our current zoning?

Yes. Okay. We've been discussing changing changing densities. Yes. Well, changing what changing what's allowed in zones. What kind of density is allowed in zones?

I've heard that repeatedly from multiple commissioners.

And that includes parking, obviously. So

Yeah. That was another one that came up.

So any of the related consequences, unintended consequences, benefits, those kinds of things? So sort of an opportunities and challenges with around zoning is what I'm what I think I'm hearing. Mhmm. And I think that we can do that.

Great.

I think that Anne,

for another possible thing. I'm sorry to interrupt. It's hard when you're online. The affordable housing plan, I don't think we really, discussed that much as a commission, and I think it's fascinating. And you, you know, helped write it, Dan. So I think it would be very interesting to have a training on that. It's very, very relevant to the commission. So that'd be interesting too.

I would be happy to bring that to the commission and provide an overview.

I was just gonna say that, I think because there are discussions that we're gonna be having coming up that, hearing from someone who's knowledgeable about the impacts of, short term rentals and also, the idea of accessory dwelling units, and the impacts of those things on communities would be really interesting to hear before maybe we had those discussions or at least in conjunction with those discussions.

Okay. Thank you.

And I have to point out, last night, Dan had to present to council an affordability project on 9th Street and 11th Street, and it was very interesting. So one of the issues might be, how do you finance these things? And that was a lot of what was discussed at 90% last night, in my opinion. So that was that might be useful, the financing part.

Okay. That's typically not an area that the PNC would actually take action on, but we're happy to bring that sort of just sort of the development process and all of the different components that it takes to get a development across the finish line. I think we we can certainly frame that too.

Yeah. I think that would be fascinating because for us, we just see it in these snippets, and we don't really understand what's going on when the developer leaves and does all kinds of stuff and comes back. You know, we seem to think, oh, it would be simple to

Mhmm.

Move something or change something or whatever, but we don't I personally, at least, don't understand how simple or hard that would be.

Sure. I I yeah. I I think we can easily do that. So I I think I'm starting to get some ideas around this. And so I guess my my I'm sorry. Madam chair, if there are others.

If One more. I noticed on the syllabus, they have the comprehensive plan. And I know you you guys are gonna be diving into that immediately, So that might be useful before it comes to us.

Can I ask a question around the comprehensive plan? I know we use that as our criteria, but how much are we going to be able to participate in the development of that, or are we?

I I think there's going to be a fair amount of participation in that. We are still kind of scoping that, and I will tie into some other good news that we have here in a little bit in my director's report. But we we will be coming back to you soon with sort of a timeline, a time you know, we're gonna pick a date of when we think that we wanna have that completed, and then we're gonna work back from that and create, you know, sort of that Gantt chart of we're gonna do our research. We're gonna review what we have. We're going to engage a consultant through an RFP process. We'll have a selection process. There will be representation by this board in that process. And then be bringing that sort of comprehensively back to this board. And I would say that your participation, it will be high.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Everything that we've covered is kind of what I know the commission's the interested in. So if we could get either subject matter experts or yourself to present on these topics, I think that would be really valuable to commission, and we'd appreciate it.

Would you like us to bring back another syllabus, or do you trust us just to start trying to roll this stuff out? Do do you feel like we're at a point that we can just as we are able to find subject matter experts, we just bring them, or do we wanna try to flush it out anymore? I'm happy to dive right in if if that's the commission's preference.

I think we're comfortable with that. Okay. Thank you.

We can make this happen.

Great. Appreciate it. Moving into the commission and director communication department report.

Hello again. Dan Osborne again for the record. A couple of things. One thing that I did wanna bring to the commission's just just awareness is we did bring we have started to implement the affordable housing plan. It's something that we're very I am personally very proud of.

We got the affordable housing plan adopted, and we are now starting to bring projects forward to council. We brought the first project under the affordable housing plan to council last night, and it is we're kind of calling it the 9th Street rehabilitation and affordable housing participation agreement. And effectively, we're looking at buying 87 deed restrictions on existing apartment buildings that will hold them at or below 45% AMI for a period of twenty years. In addition to that, we are going to be participating with some additional funds that will help make ADA improvements to ground floor units in addition to some other rehabilitation items, perhaps mini splits, you know, things like that to sort of improve energy efficiency as they sort of decommission the existing boilers in those three buildings that we're looking at. If anybody has any question, I you know, please reach out and give me a call, or it's all the most recent council packet if you just wanna peruse through it.

But any support you know, we're always looking for support on these kinds of projects, and certainly anything that we can do to make those projects better, we're looking for that feedback. Great. And then the last thing, very excitingly, I'd like introduce Danielle Valdez. You saw a new face in the audience tonight. Danielle will be joining us on Monday as our new planning manager.

We're very excited to have Danielle. She brings a lot of experience from the private development side. She sort of knows the ins and outs of just exactly what you're talking about and the things that you were asking about of I d from projects from ideation and land use acquisition all the way through getting it across the finish line. So perhaps Danielle might be giving some part of one of these upcoming presentations. So I just wanna welcome her and let you all know that you'll be seeing from her in the coming months coming weeks and months.

Thank you.

And thanks, Stan.

Report. Desi, did you have anything else we needed to oh, I'm so yes. And we have also made last night, we have made an offer to Eli Isaacson, Elias Isaacson. He is currently with Santa Barbara. He's a community development director in Santa Barbara, California. He is all he by way of New Mexico, he has worked for both Espanola and the city of Santa Fe in various positions in land use and urban development. He currently has a staff of 90. He will be coming to us and have a staff of 19. We are hoping he finds that refreshing. But we think it's gonna be great.

We're really looking forward to getting him on board. He starts, I think, the second week in May. I think that's it. We do have upcoming meetings. I believe it's the twenty sixth. We will have potentially three cases on board, so it's gonna be a busy night. We will try to be as efficient as we can.

Thank you for that report, and welcome, Danielle. And thank you for informing us who the director is. I was part of that interview committee, so that's news to me. That's great.

Yeah. They they made the offer official last night, but unfortunately, what the Internet was down, so people weren't able to Zoom in. But they made the off or made council made the formal formal recommendation for approval. Her staff made the recommendation. Council upheld that and approved approved it in a unanimous vote.

Excellent. That's great news. Thank you so much. Chair's report. This is my first. I promise it'll get better. I'll get better. And hopefully our technology is going to get better as well. So I don't really have anything to report at this time. Other than, do you want to announce yet? I'm not good if you want. It's up to you. You have thirty days.

Might as well.

Yeah? Yeah.

Okay. So David has changed his party affiliation, and we have too many Democrats. So he will be resigning at the end of his term, which is March 31.

Not resigning, just terming out.

Sorry, terming out. He's resigning. Well, it feels like you're resigning because you're resigning as my vice. So I feel like it's a resignation. But he's leaving us at the end of his term, March 31.

He can't be an independent.

Yeah. So what that means is we have the vice chair position open. So I would like everybody to think about that. And, yeah, that's in the future. But so until then, think about it. You might change your mind. Anyway. What's that?

I said I don't know whether blue or not.

I know. Right? Anyway, that's all I have. Council liaison report. Ren's sitting

in

sorry. Councilwoman sitting in the back.

Good evening. We had an interesting meeting last night. We had no Internet, and so that made it a little interesting right out of the gate. But Dan already updated you on a few of the things. We also had a small business update.

They also announced the new economic development program manager Anita Barela. That kind of functions, I always looked at it as sort of a small business liaison position is how I always introduce the past person. So it's great to have that and the director position filled. So there were also public hearings for the construction of the Penaon School Trail, resurfacing of trails, the Canyon Rim Trail, and improvement for the Kenyatta Del Bui Trail, and that all passed. Let's see.

Dan talked about the new director and the proposed 9th Street apartment rehabilitation and affordable housing project. Glad you were here to explain that. Thank you. Let's see. The other interesting thing was that with the increased fire danger this season, they have come up with a couple of different things that I think could help.

I had actually heard from neighbors wondering if they could start picking up yard waste now. And they they will start doing that as scheduled starting the end of this month on the twenty fourth. But they're going to be doing, that every week instead of every other week through May 9, because there's a lot of yard waste people are trying to get out. And they also talked about the curbside bulk collection that they are still doing. Apparently, some people weren't sure if that was still happening or not.

And you can just call the eco station to get on their schedule to have waste picked up or collection. So and that was about it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any public comment? I don't believe we have anybody online, and there is no one in the room. And you're gonna have to help

me out. I'm closing the meeting. You skipped commissioner's comments.

Commissioner's comments. Comments. Yes.

Good job on the first meeting.

Thank you. I appreciate that. It's a it was a group effort. With that, I think we need a motion to adjourn but but not a vote.

You you can Chair. Sorry. Chair.

Oh,

sorry. Commissioner Nathalie.

Yes. I just wanted to let people know about two little things since we've talked about sharing planning related interesting stuff out there in the world. There's a podcast called Voalts with I think his name is David Roberts, if somebody else knows better. And there is a recent episode called why housing is a pass fail question for climate. Yes. It's David Roberts. So I strongly recommend this podcast episode. It's super interesting. Again, it's Voatz. Why housing is a pass fail question for climate.

And then the office of housing, there's been, there's a senate bill and house bill that are making their way. They're doing well, making their way through the legislature, and that would establish a formal office of housing in the state, which could, institute some legislation that would affect us in Los Alamos and would affect our work on the commission. So I would recommend people pay attention to let me go look them up again. HB four four eight, house bill four four eight, and senate bill two zero five. And you can also just Google office of housing, and looks like Dan maybe is gonna give us some more

on that. Before you make a comment, can you spell Volts for me? That could be spelled multiple ways.

Like like Voltage. Like Voltage. It's a v as in Victor, o l t s.

Okay. Excellent. Thank you.

Madam chair, simply the if the commission would like, ULI, the Urban Land Institute has a New Mexico chapter that tracks these bills, and I do get periodic emails. I think I got one from them this morning, and it has sort of an outline with all of the all of those bills and then links to the appropriate legislation, and I would be happy to provide that to the commission if it's agreeable. I can just send that out in a blank carbon copy to email to everybody.

That'd be great. Thank you.

Great. This commission is quite open to emails, but remember reminder, they go one way. We don't reply.

Correct. K. BCC, don't talk to each other.

That's right. Okay. So I can just close it.

I don't yeah.

So, madam chair, was just gonna say you can you can take a motion, but, again, that could fail if people wanna hang around. Or you could just say, if there's no objections, you're adjourning the meeting.

If there are no objections, I'm closing planning and zoning meeting. I see no objections.