OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Los Alamos County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Summary – April 8, 2026

County Council & BoardsWednesday, April 8, 2026
BodyLos Alamos County, New Mexico
SessionCounty Council & Boards
DateWednesday, April 8, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:12:38

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

Or mean the planning zone is Commissioner Easton here.

0:14

Commissioner.

0:16

Here.

0:19

Commissioner?

0:20

Here.

0:23

Commissioner Brown.

0:28

Commissioner Brill.

0:30

Here.

0:31

Is there something off with the Zoom?

0:37

Could you be more specific?

0:39

Visual or showing the speaker, it's just showing like a single view.

0:47

Oh, now it is.

0:49

Thank you.

0:52

Commissioner Grimm.

0:54

Here.

0:56

Commissioner Nelson.

0:58

Here.

0:59

Commissioner White.

1:04

We have a quorum.

1:06

Thank you.

1:09

Um, at this time, I will open it up to public comment.

1:12

If there's anyone here who would like to come forward, this public comment is just general, not specific to anything on the agenda tonight.

1:20

Is there one anyone online?

1:25

Seeing none, I will move to the approval of the agenda.

1:28

Everyone has had a time to review the agenda.

1:30

I'm looking for a motion to approve.

1:35

I move that we approve the agenda.

1:37

Second.

1:38

Thank you.

1:40

Now we'll move on to the planning and zoning commission business, starting with the approval of the minutes that were in the packet.

1:53

Has everyone had time to review the minutes for the I'm looking for a motion to approve those minutes.

2:01

I move to approve.

2:03

Second.

2:05

Thank you.

2:07

Now we're moving on to item 214 36 26.

2:13

An extension request.

2:20

Greg Gonzalez doing business as Columbus Capitol applicant is requesting site plan approval at 535 Central Avenue, Los Alamos, New Mexico for a 104,671 square foot mixed use development that proposes 322 residential units and 22,000 square feet of commercial space.

2:42

The property, MMB001, is within the downtown Los Alamos DTLA zone district.

2:51

Included in this is an extension request letter and an approval letter in the attachments.

3:08

The commission decision on this extension request must be based on the criteria contained in chapter 16 of the county code known as the development code.

3:15

As a quasi judicial public hearing, it will be conducted in a manner to protect the due process rights, parties and affected parties as required by New Mexico law.

3:23

All parties have a right to be represented by an attorney throughout the proceedings.

3:26

The party who files the application has the burden to show that the request meets the criteria of this code.

3:31

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.

3:41

Testimony or evidence that does not meet these criteria shall be disregarded.

3:45

A party to the hearing shall be afforded an opportunity to present evidence and argument and to question witnesses on all relevant issues, but the chair may impose reasonable limitations on the number of witnesses heard and on the nature and length of their testimony and questioning.

3:58

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 applicant, any affected party, and county staff as directed by the chair.

4:09

Commissioners may ask questions of the owner applicant, staff, any party, or of any witness.

4:14

The issue to be decided at this hearing is whether to approve approve with conditions or deny the request for an extension.

4:35

104, sorry, 104,671 square foot mixed use development that proposes a 322 residential unit and 22,000 square feet of commercial space.

4:46

The property located MMB001 is within the downtown Los Alamos Zone District, and 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 specific to this one.

5:02

It's 16-72J extensions of period of validity.

5:07

The commission will accept the following documents as exhibits as received and provided to the commission and incorporate them into part of the record in this case, unless a valid objection is raised by a party.

5:17

Parties have had the opportunity to have these exhibits in advance and they are able to use them during their presentation as desired.

5:24

As noted, attachment A to the agenda is an extension, request letter dated February 19th, 2026, and attachment B to the agenda is an approval letter dated March 31st, 2026, and should have been noted as a draft.

5:41

Those materials other materials may be introduced without objection or determination by commission.

5:46

Additional exhibits may be proposed for entry into the hearing record by any party as part of their presentation.

5:52

The chair will either admit or exclude those items as they are presented.

5:56

If an exhibit is excluded, the commission will still maintain a copy of the excluded exhibit to keep us part of the record.

6:03

The hearing tonight will be conducted under procedures developed from the New Mexico case law.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Signage Regulation█████████████████████████████████████████████68%
Procedural███████████████████28%
Code Enforcement and Staffing2%
Election Procedures1%
Community Engagement1%
Summary of Proceedings

Los Alamos County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Summary – April 8, 2026

The Los Alamos County Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) met in person in the Council Chambers at 1000 Central Avenue at 5:30 PM on Wednesday, April 8, 2026, with virtual participation available via Zoom. A quorum was confirmed with Chair Karen Easton, Vice Chair David Hampton, and Commissioners Robert Chrien, Marlon Brown, Katherine Bruell, Rachel Grimm, Ronald Nelson, and Rebecca White. The Commission approved the agenda and prior minutes, unanimously granted a time extension for the 535 Central Avenue mixed-use site plan approval, and held a no-action work session on updating temporary sign regulations for county rights-of-way. No members of the public offered comment.

Consent Calendar

  • Agenda approved by motion and second.
  • Minutes of the March 25, 2026 P&Z meeting approved by motion and second.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • The Chair opened public comment at the start and end of the meeting; no in-person or online comments were offered.
  • No public testimony was presented during the extension hearing, and no additional parties or witnesses came forward.

Discussion Items

  • Extension Request SIT-2023-0063 (Item 21436-26): Community Development staff confirmed the applicant met the three criteria under Development Code Section 16-72J (extensions of period of validity): a timely extension request letter dated February 19, 2026, no changes to the previously approved site development plan, and review by the deciding board. The project is a 104,671 sq ft mixed-use development at 535 Central Avenue (MMV 001, Downtown Los Alamos zone) with 322 residential units and 22,000 sq ft of commercial space. The approval letter (Attachment B, dated March 31, 2026) was noted by the Chair as a draft. Commissioner Nelson asked whether the plan is identical to the 2023-approved plan; staff confirmed it is. The Chair also acknowledged that all commissioners had received an email from a community member containing Attachment B; each commissioner affirmed no conflict of interest and no ex parte communication. Agenda discrepancy: the agenda lists Greg Gonzales dba Columbus Capital as the applicant, while the Chair identified the applicant as the Los Alamos County Capital Improvements and Facilities Division on behalf of the county property owner.
  • Temporary Signage Discussion (Development Code Chapter 16, Article IV, Division 8; the agenda lists this item as Chapter 6, Article IV, Division 8): Staff presented enforcement challenges with the current temporary sign rules, including a 60-day placement limit that is difficult to track because signs are not dated or registered, unclear scope between private property and public rights-of-way, and an official temporary sign zone map that was created but never adopted. Staff noted that the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Gilbert requires content-neutral sign regulation, so the previous distinctions between real estate, event, youth sports, and political signs are no longer permissible. Options presented: (1) maintain the status quo (not recommended); (2) ban all temporary signage in rights-of-way, modeled on Santa Fe (not recommended; the slides contained a typo stating that staff does recommend this approach, which was noted for correction); (3) adopt the previously drafted designated temporary signage zones for year-round use; and (4) year-round zones plus additional election-period zones, which staff indicated was their preferred middle-ground approach. Staff also proposed a short-duration exemption (24-48 hours, possibly up to 5-7 days) for signs such as farmers market, open house, and event signs, and an online registration system with permit numbers written on sign backs.
  • Commissioner feedback on signage: Commissioner Hampton preferred Option 4, supported a short-duration exemption (suggesting 48 hours or longer), and requested additional zones such as Bronco Mesa; Commissioner Bruell asked whether signs could be regulated by organization type (staff and county legal counsel said no, because such rules are content- or speaker-based) and suggested outreach to youth sports and community groups; Commissioner Grimm asked about enforcement mechanisms and proposed aggregate limits on cumulative days to discourage abuse; Commissioner Chrien requested more data on the number of signs, compliance rates, and complaints before making a recommendation. Staff cited roughly 5-10 recent complaints plus a council member complaint about signs at the North Mesa roundabout, and committed to providing additional complaint data.

Reports and Communications

  • Department Report: no report was given.
  • Council Liaison Report (Councilor Hall): highlights from recent council meetings included a petition for a four-way stop at Urban and North Road following a recent fatality (referred to the county manager and Transit Board with recommendations due in 90 days), a request to the Environmental Sustainability Board to propose a single-use plastic bag policy (preferably with no bag fee), approval of a fire station bid, a county charter change to add an additional term for boards and commissions at the request of four of six responding boards, a briefing on the Atomic City Transit Saturday pilot, and approval of a new restaurant lease at the golf course.

Key Outcomes

  • The Commission voted unanimously to approve the time extension for SIT-2023-0063. Recorded votes in favor: Easton, Hampton, Chrien, Bruell, Grimm, and Nelson; no opposition was recorded. The 15-day appeal notice was read into the record.
  • The Commission took no action on the temporary signage item. Staff will correct the presentation typo, include the presentation in the meeting minutes, gather additional data and community outreach, and carry the Commission's feedback to the County Council work session for direction. Staff aim to return with draft ordinance language for P&Z review, ideally by fall 2026 and, if possible, by August so the ordinance could take effect before the general election.

Meeting Transcript

Or mean the planning zone is Commissioner Easton here. Commissioner. Here. Commissioner? Here. Commissioner Brown. Commissioner Brill. Here. Is there something off with the Zoom? Could you be more specific? Visual or showing the speaker, it's just showing like a single view. Oh, now it is. Thank you. Commissioner Grimm. Here. Commissioner Nelson. Here. Commissioner White. We have a quorum. Thank you. Um, at this time, I will open it up to public comment. If there's anyone here who would like to come forward, this public comment is just general, not specific to anything on the agenda tonight. Is there one anyone online? Seeing none, I will move to the approval of the agenda. Everyone has had a time to review the agenda. I'm looking for a motion to approve. I move that we approve the agenda. Second. Thank you. Now we'll move on to the planning and zoning commission business, starting with the approval of the minutes that were in the packet. Has everyone had time to review the minutes for the I'm looking for a motion to approve those minutes. I move to approve. Second. Thank you. Now we're moving on to item 214 36 26. An extension request. Greg Gonzalez doing business as Columbus Capitol applicant is requesting site plan approval at 535 Central Avenue, Los Alamos, New Mexico for a 104,671 square foot mixed use development that proposes 322 residential units and 22,000 square feet of commercial space. The property, MMB001, is within the downtown Los Alamos DTLA zone district. Included in this is an extension request letter and an approval letter in the attachments. The commission decision on this extension request 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, parties and affected parties as required by New Mexico law. All parties have a right to be represented by an attorney throughout the proceedings. The party who files the application has the burden to show that the request meets the criteria of this code. The commission shall act as an impartial decision, making fact-finding body and shall approve or deny the application in accordance with the evidence presented, which is competent and relevant. Testimony or evidence that does not meet these criteria shall be disregarded. A party to the hearing shall be afforded an opportunity to present evidence and argument and to question witnesses on all relevant issues, but the chair may impose reasonable limitations on the number of witnesses heard and on the nature and length of their testimony and questioning. Testimony at the hearing shall be under oath or affirmation and cross-examination of any persons presenting information at the public hearing will be permitted by applicant, any affected party, and county staff as directed by the chair. Commissioners may ask questions of the owner applicant, staff, any party, or of any witness. The issue to be decided at this hearing is whether to approve approve with conditions or deny the request for an extension. 104, sorry, 104,671 square foot mixed use development that proposes a 322 residential unit and 22,000 square feet of commercial space.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com