Advice is while attending planning zoning board meeting.

Um with me and we'll do the pledge of allegiance.

Okay, for the record, I will call each planning uh P and Z board member by name, please acknowledge your presence by San Present.

Kevin Calcher.

Present.

Fred Widowchevitt, he has an excused absence.

Robert Gabadon.

Present via Zoom.

Okay.

Andrea Hankins.

Present.

Lisa Hardesty.

Present.

And Sarah Torrici is also has a excuse absence.

Okay, a couple of more items.

And personal attendees, please fill out a speaker form if you wish to speak.

On the individuals who have signed up, we'd be permitted to speak.

If you have yet to fill out the form, now is the time to do so and provide it to the recorder to my right.

Okay.

Virtual attendees, please sign a chat message to the host.

Please send a chat message to the host.

Uh or use a raise hand feature if you want to provide public comments.

Okay, consent calendar.

Any comments there?

If not, uh, can I get a motion to approve the consent calendar?

Motion to approve.

Second.

Second.

Okay, please call the roll.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Commissioner Kaufger.

Yes.

Vice Chair Galbadone.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins?

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesty.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Okay.

So any staff presentation reports and comments that I need to address.

So we do have a couple of uh staff reports tonight.

Um, so we're gonna go ahead and um if the chair is okay with it, I'm gonna ask uh Michelle Castilla to present a little bit on the update on the chapter 155 and the DPM.

Okay.

Um let's go to item number two.

Uh update on progress and tax amendments uh to chapter 155 subdivisions, sections and development process manual uh update will be presented by Michelle Costell.

Uh so Mr.

Chair, I'll go ahead uh with this one.

So uh just to give some quick updates on this.

Um so we have had uh two additional meetings since the last time that um we had this in front of the planning and zoning board.

Uh we will have this item coming back in front of the board in October.

Um we uh are going to be making some edits to that document and um should have that available uh hopefully end of September, early October.

Okay.

Um and so we just wanted to uh just give some updates and and just keep it um on everybody's radar as we move forward.

Okay, do we need to vote on that?

No, these are uh non-action items.

Okay, gotcha.

Um then uh items number three and four are your general monthly reports, okay.

Um and so I'll stand for any questions on those if there's any specific items.

Um and then we did have one additional staff report tonight.

So Brian Babiak, the Punning and Zoning Manager, he's joining us virtually.

Uh, and he was going to talk about the NML ZO training.

Okay, that's in the month of September end of August or September.

It's gonna be um August.

Okay.

All right.

Uh yeah, uh good evening, Mr.

Chair.

Uh can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Yes, Brian.

Um, yes, so the uh New Mexico Municipal League is holding trainings in uh late August and early September on August 25th and on September 4th.

Um these will be uh for zoning officials in New Mexico, probably mostly in the metropolitan area.

It's an opportunity for additional training for uh planning and zoning board members.

It'll be held at Brennaleo Town Hall.

Um the August 25th is at 1 30 p.m.

in the uh September 4th one is at 6 p.m.

Um they will also be noticed by city staff.

Umce the potential for a quorum could be present.

Um if you have any questions, you can reach out to me, be email or staff can answer them right now.

Um and if you plan on attending, let us know as well.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Brian.

Okay, moving over to public hearing.

Um item number five, I believe it is, um be presented by Michelle Costillon.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, Michelle Castilla, planner at the City of Rio Rancho.

This item is a request for an approval of a variance to the R2 single family 15-foot rear setback requirement as outlined in the Rio Rancho Municipal Code, Section 154.50, in order to construct a pergola.

Uh the property is addressed as 2956 Tierra de Luna Avenue Northeast and legally described as Tierra del Norte, block 4 lot 7.

The subject property is a corner lot located to the west of Tierra del Norte Loop, a residential road, which is off of Broadmore Boulevard, a minor arterial.

It is zoned R2 single family residential per ordinance number 23, enactment uh 21-25.

While a city inspector was at the property inspecting the home, the pergola was red tagged as there was no permit on file for it.

The building is 98% complete as the applicant was not aware that a permit was required prior prior to starting their project.

A permit was pulled for the perglo, but it was not able to be approved due to it being within the rear setback.

The applicant is requesting a variance to the to permit the 160 square foot pergola five feet away from the rear property line, which will be encroaching 10 feet into the 15-foot setback.

The item was heard at the planning and zoning board meeting on July 22nd, 2025.

A motion to postpone the item pending letters of support from the neighboring properties was approved.

The letters have been provided by the applicant and they are included as an attachment to the ABM along with the map of the corresponding properties.

Staff recommends the planning and zoning board find that the lot is not irregular in shape, narrow, shallow, or steep, and does not have exceptional physical condition.

That is preventing the applicant from complying with chapter 154.

The provided justification is based off of self-imposed hardship of failing to obtain a permit, and the strict application of the amendments set setback requirement would not result in a hardship that would deprive the owner of reasonable use of their land.

Therefore, staff recommends denial, and I will stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Is the applicant present?

Please come up.

State your name and address.

Okay, you may proceed.

State your name and address, sir.

Yes, sir.

So March Carter, 5521, Sanoval Drive Northeast, uh Rio Rancho.

Uh at the last meeting, I I represented the damishes, and uh we were applying for a variance, and we were told that if we were to get approval from their neighbors, that the council would reconsider uh the variance, and they obtained 19 of their neighbors all signed you know approval letters stating that they had no issue whatsoever with their perla.

So and if we did obtain or if we did build it at the 15-foot setback, uh the pergola would actually be in the the flood zone, the drainage area of their yard.

So that's that's not practical.

So per the last meeting, we had obtained the approval of their neighbors as was requested by the council, and we're asking to please have this variance granted.

Okay.

Um yeah, I uh this actually was a blessing in disguise going around to my new homeowners because it's a brand new community, and um we have relocated from the state of Indiana.

Uh so it was important for us to you know um make sure that we're doing the right things.

Um far as my part is concerned, not knowing any of the boundaries or building things from the state.

I I hired Marsh so that he can build it accordingly.

Uh unfortunately, um that didn't happen, and uh we are going through this process with you, which we totally agree.

Um that's that should be done correctly.

uh make sure that we're doing the right things um and far as my part is concerned not knowing any of the boundaries or building things from the state I I hired Marsh um so that he can build it accordingly uh unfortunately um you know that didn't happen and uh um we are going through this process with you which we totally agree um that's that should be done correctly um but my trip around uh my development it's it's half built and half moved in um so I was able to secure these these neighbors which like I said very meaningful for us uh moving in from out of state um unfortunately a lot of people uh did not come to the door uh for whatever reason uh multiple times I would walk it um I think it's because we experienced there was so many solicitors coming around we were just moving in it got to the point where we stopped answering the door so I'm carrying a clipboard around with these uh this letter for people to sign and of course everybody has some security this didn't come to the door so I made three trips around met a few more people was very nice um that's about all I could do okay in addition to comments okay thank you for comments okay is there anyone in audience who wish to speak for against item number five is there anyone in the audience wish to speak for or against item number five is there anyone virtual wish to speak for against item number five okay so let's know that we vote in the affirmative so this moves forward after we decide on what um what path or what path forward they were about to take um motion to approve item number five motion to approve item number five second second okay and discussion from the board I just um wanted to make a comment to Mr.

Demish appreciate you um taking the time to go around your neighborhood and collecting support from uh your surrounding neighbors um I know that probably took a lot of time and I I understand that it's probably people have are a big gun shy with um the solicitors that go around the neighborhoods these days but um but really I I think I think this bodes a long way um for our acceptance of what you're presenting to us so um again just wanted to thank you for um just taking the time to do that sir thank you okay in addition comments from the board I did have a question the source okay go ahead so of those nineteen signatures were any of those directly adjacent to your property yes uh I made sure that um I'm sorry I just wanted to make sure that the people who had any visual site uh I started with them first and then anybody that was on the next road or the next road I would still walk to to their homes and and see if I could talk to them and get them to understand what we were going through and if they would approve it um as I said there's be still a lot of construction going on that's that's going on in there but uh yeah it it was it was a pleasant experience this was avoidable and unfortunate okay thank you in addition questions from the board it does look like Mr.

Chair this is Robert Cabaldone go ahead Robert okay great thanks so um I I too I I I echo the appreciation uh for the homeowner going around the neighborhood I I think I heard the number 19 uh neighbor or not neighbors but 19 folks in the area were spoken to um to commissioner hankins mention though I'd like to further ask the question of the adjacent neighbors um it sounds I mean it was said that a number of people didn't come to the door didn't answer weren't available um I'm recalling from the first presentation in July that um there was an there was uh there are properties across the street forget if they have a side view I'm pretty sure it was a side view but I recall those views being kind of looking up at the property in question up at the uh partially built pergola at the time that was there so whether it's a vacant lot or it's uh uh an existing homeowner I really want to know if if those that have that direct site within the across the street view or the next door view approved uh or or are gave concession

I'm pretty sure it was a side view, but I recall those views being kind of looking up at the property in question, up at the uh partially built pergola at the time that was there.

So whether it's a vacant lot or it's uh uh an existing homeowner, I really want to know if if those that have that direct site within the across the street view or the next door view approved uh or or are uh gave concession by letter to this uh so Mr.

Chair Commissioner uh we're just uh Gabbledone, excuse me.

Um in your agenda briefing memorandum, staff actually went through and um put um on your attachment uh neighbor signatures of approval.

Uh there's a map uh before those letters, and so staff went through and and uh put a dot on each of those properties to give uh an understanding of of where the neighbors were located.

So they do have um uh the neighbor across the street, the neighbor next to them.

Um and so that is located on that map in that attachment.

Gotcha.

Okay, and I I I missed that that map.

So um, so an additional question I have too is did is it I'm not sure what the HOA situation is there in that neighborhood, but did the HOA approve of it?

If there is one um Commissioner Gabbleton, I did reach out to the HOA via letter.

Um that's the only form of contact that we could find.

Um, and I did not hear any um response.

I let them know if there was any objection to please notify me.

Okay.

Okay.

Since we have been there, we have had this is the third person who's taken over that position of HOA for this development.

Um I have not been able to reach anyone emails, phone calls at all.

Uh no one's returned my calls regarding um the situation, but I was also incurring about according to um uh the HOA, we are permitted to do nothing different in the front yards.

What was there was there, but anything in the backyard, we had we had freedom to do what we wanted to do.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, in addition, comments from the board.

Okay, I have one just one quick question for staff.

Um that total number of 19 was in 19 homes or 19 people.

And I'm yeah, I you know, they you know, apologies because I have not looked at Mr.

Chairman.

Um I don't recall the exact amount off the top of my head, but that does sound correct um as far as what I mapped out, and it is different property owners, not okay.

So 19 different property owners.

Yeah, different addresses were associated with those.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Okay.

In addition to comments from the board.

I hear none, I see none.

Call the roll.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Chair, I was on mute.

I'm sorry, I have one more comment.

Go ahead, Gabadon.

Yeah, I'm and I I am now.

Thank you, Amy, for pointing out the map to me.

Um, yeah, I'm I'm still not seeing the uh approval or or or the notification or conversations with some of those that are right around the property.

I just want to make that comment.

There are again there's a lot of homes literally right by us.

Um three of them just moved in today and yesterday.

Um but they with all those homes on the opposite side of the street were empty until I got up uh to the next level street.

Um, and that's where I started because they have direct view um of our home and uh the backyard.

Uh I further just went kept going down the street, looking and seeing.

We also had a sign that was on our yard, I think came from Rio Rancho from the very first, so it's been up for a couple of weeks at least, not more, um, for the first meeting here.

Um, and it's and I didn't take it down until we knew what was going to go on uh with with the ruling here.

So I wanted to make sure that I, as a homeowner, if I was looking at it, would it disturb me?

Would it bother me?

Uh that was really the question I had put to these people.

Um I have three people who wish to actually hire this gentleman to build.

We hired him because he's a veteran.

Uh both of our parents are 20-year vets.

Um we are raised military.

I got to mention we do the right thing.

You have a total of three minutes.

We do the right thing.

Um excuse me, I'm Teresa Damish, I'm the wife and of this property.

I just want to say those 19 signatures, they are all the directions.

So it's directly across from us, directly next to us, directly on the other side of the street.

There was one homeowner who was living there, as Joe said, too.

Just moved in within this past weekend, and then directly uh in the street behind us.

So we we got all directions uh sit and nobody had an objection.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you for that.

Okay.

Back to uh in addition to comments from the board.

Okay, I see none, I hear none.

Call the role.

Vice Chair Galbadon.

No.

Commissioner Hinkins.

Yes.

Commissioner Coffer.

Yes.

Uh Richardson.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesty.

Yes.

Motion passes.

All right.

Good luck.

Okay, moving on to item number six, which is a variance.

Uh this too is presented by Michelle Castile.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Michelle Custilla, planner of the city of Rio Rancho.

This item is a request for an approval of a variance to the Rio Rancho Municipal Code, section 154.77, fence wall regulations for a six-foot high fence in the front setback.

The subject property is addressed as 3117 Cascades Trail Southeast, legally described as Cascades at High Resort, Block 1 Lot 19.

It is located on the north side of Cascades Trail, a residential road located off of High Resort Boulevard, a minor arterial road.

The property is owned SU special use for R1 single family residential ordinance number 86-002.

On a patrol or code enforcement officer observed a new fence in front of the home after determining that there was no permit on file, the property owner was advised to pull a permit by the officer.

After two months with no permit, the owner was cited.

The owner attempted to pull a permit a month later, but it was found during the zoning review of the permit that the six-foot high fence was located 10 feet away from the property line.

Fences allowed in the front setback can reach a maximum of height of four feet.

Section 154.50 states that the setback in the R1 district is 20 feet.

The permit was denied due to the fence being within the front setback and exceeding the maximum height of four feet.

The property owner is requesting a variance to allow the existing six-foot high fence within the front setback.

Staff recommends the planning and zoning board.

Find that the lot is not irregular in shape, narrow, shallow, or steep, and does not have exceptional physical condition.

That's preventing the applicant from complying with chapter 154.

The curb appeal of the fence has no pertinence to the violation of city code, and it was built without a permit, which is a self-imposed hardship.

Ultimately, the strict application of the fence height requirement of a maximum of four feet within the front setback would not deprive the owner of the reasonable use of their land.

Therefore, staff recommends it now, and with that I'll stand for any questions.

Okay.

Thank you, Michelle.

Is the applicant present?

Please come forward and state your name and your address.

Yes, uh Ryan Cook, 3117 Cascades Trail.

Proceed.

Okay.

Um first I'd like to apologize for even having the situation happen because I was totally oblivious and unaware that anything like this existed.

So when I put the fence in two years ago, I didn't even think to look at permits and stuff.

We did have PM come and do a ground scan to make sure we didn't hit any pipes or cables or anything.

Um and our neighbor, not directly across, but across and to the right of us.

He was putting in a fence at the same time that I was considering putting in one.

So I walked over there and talked to him and said, Oh, cool, we're looking about putting the fence in, and I asked him what he needed to do to get it done or anything permit like that, and he said nope, and he was having his done right there, and then so I went ahead and put it in.

Uh then yes, the officer came by and gave us a violation.

I then put in an application for it, but instead of sending the email to dot gov, I sent it to dot com, and then it went blank, and I never saw or heard anything from it again until the officer then reached out again saying that there was a violation and that he was turning us over to the coding commission.

So and now we're here applying for a variance.

We do also have a letter from our neighbor to the right.

I did email this last week, but I didn't see it in the agenda, so I brought it a physical copy with me.

All right.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you for your comment.

Is there anyone in the audience wish to speak for or against item number six?

Yes, anyone in the audience wish to be for or against item number six.

Okay.

Motion to approve item number six.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Second.

Ms.

Hardesty.

Commissioner Hart.

Okay.

Any discussion from the board.

Uh just maybe we see the letter or have it read out loud, which which would be better for the record.

Uh, for the record, we can go ahead and read it out loud, and if it's okay, we'll hold on to it and uh scan it and add it into our files as well.

Okay.

Um, but if he wants to go ahead and read it at this point in time, and then we can take it after the meeting.

Okay, thanks, Amy.

Sure, yeah.

Um great.

This is from Joffrey and Debrie Camber.

They live to our right at 3113 Cascades Trail.

It says to whom it may concern, as the West Side neighbor of the cooks, I wanted to offer support for the front yard improvements that they have made.

It is a well proportioned outdoor space that allows for a large amount of privacy.

The fence nearest the road does not block my view of the road or oncoming vehicles, so it is not a safety risk.

Forcing a drop of the height will only expose the cooks and not benefit the neighbors in any way.

Forcing a removal of the location where the height is in code will distract from the usable space that they have carved out in their front yard, which will adversely affect them and make no difference to the neighbors.

I would request that the fence as currently built be allowed to remain as it is under a variance.

Thank you, Joffrey Camber.

Thank you.

In addition to comments from the board.

So I assume that the max height allowable is four feet for the fence.

Um, Mr.

Cook, just what is the um the reasoning why you why you needed the six-foot fence?

Well, we created like a a little courtyard area.

We've got a table out there, that's where we have dinner a lot night a lot of nights.

Um so for us, it was more of trying to create like a private space for my family and I.

We also have a lot of little kids, so we fenced everything in so the kids could play in the front yard and not be worried about them being anywhere near the street.

Um so the whole thing is kind of created in, and there's a gate on the west side of it so that the kids can't get to the road.

So you're trying to maximize your your privacy uh it sounds like, in order to enjoy the space that you've created in your front yard, correct?

Correct, yes.

Thank you.

And discussion, addition discussion from the board.

Maybe just a conversation.

So I'm looking in the packet and I see that there's a comment here that you also went to court for the violation and had discussed it, sounds like potentially cutting the fence down by two feet, but that the judge recommended you go through the variance.

Yeah, so when we the when the officer came back around and we did a court case and we actually went, um the we went forward and then the judge was like, he was like, Oh, it looks like you can if you because I had said, 'Oh, I guess I could cut it down to the four feet mark,' and the judge was like, 'I wouldn't start with that.

I would start with a variance because he looked at the property and said and saw that it wasn't like a it wasn't, you know, something bad to look at.

It was actually aesthetically pleasing, and it was set back enough that it didn't block anybody's driveways.

And so he was the one that recommended that we go to the variance.

And then that same day, the officer came and caught me in the parking lot before we left and said that he agreed that we should do the variance, and he said he didn't think it would have an issue getting passed.

And we actually got a letter, I want to say four days ago from that officer saying that he was no longer uh so now we didn't have to go back to court even with this variance.

He wasn't gonna charge us of a code violation.

Okay, thank you.

And did I also see here that that you do not have an HOA that is not uh property of the H.

Right, yeah.

Our neighborhood is not HOA, which is why I didn't even think to ask, which I apologize again for.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, and additional discussion from the board.

Okay, I have a question, and correct me if need be.

Um you mentioned that your neighbor was building a fence simultaneously when you was doing yours.

Is it sick is here six feet or four feet?

Uh it's I'd want to say it's not four feet because I can't see over it, so I don't know the exact height of it.

And it's closer to the curb than ours, but okay.

Which I I found ironic because we got cited, but they didn't.

So he must have gone at he must have circ uh afterward gone and gotten approval.

Otherwise, he'd be in the same situation as us.

So I think who saying is less than six feet but higher than four feet.

Right.

Okay.

And additional comments from the board.

I hear none, I see none.

Uh call to roll.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Commissioner Kaufcher.

Yes.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesty.

Yes.

Vice Chair Galbadone.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Chair.

Okay, moving on to item number seven, which is the variance.

And then we'll be presented by Tamara Martinez.

Staff.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair and members of the board.

I'm Tamara Martinez.

I'm a planner with the city of Rio Rancho.

The item before you is a variance request.

The applicant, Michael A.

Almore, through his agent Silva permits requests the approval of a variance to the roof pitch requirement of a minimum slope of two and one half inches in every 12 inches for a manufactured home at the subject property of 317 Northern Boulevard Northeast, which is legally described as unit 12 block B, lot 76.

The property is zoned R1 single family residential, consists of 0.35 acres, and is located east of the intersection at Rainbow Boulevard Northeast and Northern Boulevard Northeast, both minor arterial roads.

The lot also has a frontage width of 50 feet, which is non-conforming to the standards of the R1 single family residential zoning district.

However, ordinance number 19 enactment 96-020 allows for such non-conforming use.

The surrounding properties are also zoned R1.

During the review of during the review process of a new manufactured home under building permit number 25-5523, the roof pitch was discovered to be two inches versus the required 2.5 inches in every 12 inches, resulting in staff returning the building plans.

Per section 154.60A3, each dwelling unit shall have a roof meeting one of the following minimum criteria.

A roof pitch with a minimum slope of 12 and 1 half inches in every pitched roof with a minimum slope of 2 and 1 half inches in every 12 inches and no less than 6 inch overhangs.

The requested variance is to allow for a roof pitch of two inches, resulting in a 0.5 deviation of the required 2.5 inches.

The engineering division has already approved the building permit.

The applicant has approved or has obtained an approved septic permit from NMED and has also obtained an approved foundation permit from the manufacturing manufactured housing develop division of the New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department.

The applicant meets all other criteria set forth by the code.

Staff finds that this slot is not necessar uh particularly narrow, shallow, or steep.

However, the manufacturer's home inability to meet the pitch requirement does result in practical difficulty or unnecessary unnecessary hardship for the applicant.

Staff recommends that the planning and zoning board find that the building's inability to meet the pitch requirement is legitimate hardship and the request meets the criteria as outlined in section 150.06 um which would grant a variance.

So staff recommends approval subject to findings and conditions, and with that I will stand for any questions.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Okay, we put the oath, and if you can read the oath.

Yes, sir.

I'm present.

Yes.

Can you hear me all right?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

I'm here.

Okay, if you can read the oath.

Yes, sir.

A Michael Almler.

Address is 317 Northern in Rio Rancho.

If you can continue reading the entire display.

Shall be the truth, and I do partial part of this is covered up.

I can't read it all.

Okay.

And uh do not do this under penalty of perjury.

Okay, thank you.

Uh go ahead of your presentation.

Yes, sir.

Um, so we are aware of the ordinance, and when we submitted the plans, we I mean, we wanted to do this all up front, unlike everybody else who's been before the committee.

So we just wanted to get it out there in front of everybody and and get approval from you all to do it.

There's um there's dozens of these houses out there just like mine that we want to put out there, same manufacturer, same same uh issue with the roof slope, and we're just um asking for your permission to allow us to do that.

Okay, thank you for your comment.

Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against item number seven?

Is anyone virtual who wish to speak for or against item number seven?

So um this is there is one okay Emmanuel Silva, uh Kirtland, New Mexico.

Okay, go right ahead.

Um does it need to do double.

Yes, please.

Imanuel Silva reciting uh uh 454 road 6100, currently New Mexico 8705 do solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony I give in reference to this item number shall be truth, and I do this under the penalties of perjury.

Okay, go ahead with a comment.

I I just wanted to add, Mr.

Chairman, that this particular manufactured home factory.

Um they are unable to build a home that would meet this particular roof pitch requirement.

Um so there is no way from factory to receive a home uh with a 2.5 inch or above pitch, and the only way to comply with this ordinance would be to rebuild the roof, which uh in the manufactured housing world would uh make the home unusable and would not pass state inspections, which means we would be or Mr.

Aldler would be unable to have proper use of the home uh because there would be no way to pass inspections and no way to connect utilities to it.

Okay, thank you for your comment.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for or against item number seven in the audience or virtual okay motion to approve item number seven?

Mr.

Chair, it's gabbled on motion to approve item seven is presented.

Can I get a second I'll second Hinkins?

Okay.

Any discussion from the board no, maybe just a question for staff.

I I we've seen a couple of these in just the last I think year or so.

Are we looking at any modification to the code to accommodate and it seems to be specific to these manufactured homes?

Uh Mr.

Chair, uh Commissioner Hardesty.

So uh that would be something that once we do start to to see a large number of the same type of requests.

Um we do uh reach out to city administration to see if it's okay for us to present uh text amendments uh to the governing body at a work session.

Um and then we would uh depending on the feedback that we get there move forward with it.

So um it is something that's on our radar.

I don't think it's gonna happen this calendar year uh with everything else that we're working on, uh, but it is something that that we are acknowledging that that we have had multiple requests for the same type of deviation.

Okay, thanks, Amy.

Thank you.

And additional discussion from the board.

Okay, I hear none, I see none.

It's called roll.

Vice Chair Galbledone.

Yes, Commissioner Hardesty, yes, Commissioner Hinkins?

Yes, Commissioner Kaufcher?

Yes, Chairman Richardson.

Yes, motion passes.

Okay.

Okay, moving on.

Um to a preliminary plant extension item number eight to be presented by TM Devart.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Tim Deborah Planner with the City of Rio Rancho.

Uh this item before you this evening is a preliminary plat extension request for the Los Diamantes phase three subdivision.

Can we mute them?

Thank you, Amy.

Um, okay, so the subject property is legally described as L uh LD tract 382 and comprises approximately 22.6295 acres.

Um this preliminary plat was originally approved by the board on August 13th, 2024, under case number 24-21-3.

Um, at this same meeting, the planning and zoning board also approved a subdivision variance for the subdivision, which allowed it to have solely 10 foot internal public utility easements along front property lines.

Um the Los Diamantes uh this subdivision is also part of the Los Diamantes Master Plan, which was originally adopted by the board August 12th of 2015.

Um it's also part of the Unit 10 specific area plan, um, adopted August 24th of 2016.

Uh the subject property is located in the northwest portion of the Los Diamantes Master Plan, accessed via Los Diamantes Drive Southeast, a future residential street from West Side Boulevard Southeast, a minor arterial.

Surrounding zoning is R1 single family to the north and west.

Uh C2 wholesale and warehousing commercial to the east, R3 mixed residential to the south, and PR parks and recreation also to the west.

And again, this is the preliminary plat, which will consist of 141 single family lots and six tracks, all zoned R3.

Um, all lots are compliant with the dimensional standards for our three detached residential lots.

Um per the applicant utility infrastructure is nearing completion and some paving is completed at this time.

They're anticipating completion and acceptance of infrastructure at least several months away.

Um so they are requesting this extension so that the developer has more time before submitting for final PLATS.

There have been no significant revisions to subdivision code, zoning code, or infrastructure design standards since the PLATS approval date that would necessitate a second plat review and reapproval for this platform staff recommends approval with findings and conditions, and with that I'll stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you, Tim.

Is an applicant present.

Uh Justin Simonson with Isaacson and Arfman 128 Monroe Street Northeast Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108.

Um yeah, thank you, uh everybody.

And as Tim mentioned, um, with our uh our findings um that we're nearing uh completion of the improvements within the subdivision.

Uh we also are working through the improvements along Los Demontes Drive and West Side Boulevard.

Um those are the roads that have um at least some layer of pavement and the interior roads are nearing pavement.

Uh at this time our final plot is um getting utility signatures, and we weren't gonna be able to meet the deadline um for the preliminary plot, so we asked for the extension and we can stand for any additional questions.

Okay, thank you for any comments.

Is there anyone in the audience who wish to speak for against item number eight?

So anyone in the audience who wish to be to speak for item number eight, or is there anyone virtual who wish to speak for against item number eight?

Okay.

Motion to approve item number eight.

Motion to approve item number eight.

Second.

Okay.

And in discussion from the board.

And in discussion from the board.

I just have a question.

So I see the extension is until August 12th of next year.

Do you anticipate it taking that amount of time or do you have a timeline?

No, um, as we mentioned, you know, the paving once the paving goes down.

Um we're gonna be nearing completion and final energy of the of all the utilities and stuff on site.

So I think it's we're probably October time frame of this year.

Um it's just that the because the original preliminary plat approval um was gonna expire.

We asked for the extension.

Um but we again we hope to have the preliminary plat in front of you guys, you know, in the next month or so.

Okay.

Okay, any further discussion from the board.

Okay, I hear none, I see none.

Call to roll.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes, commissioner Caufger?

Yes, Commissioner Hardesty, yes, Commissioner Hankins?

Yes, Vice Chair Galbledone.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, moving on to item number nine is the final plat, and it is to be presented by Leah Sureaz Carlos.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair, members of the board.

Lizarese Carlos, planner of the City of Ray Rancho.

Uh again, the item before you is a request for a final plot for Cleveland Estates phase one.

Uh the applicant D.R.

Horton, through their agent cartesian surveys, is requesting approval of a final plot for the Cleveland Estates Phase 1 subdivision, uh located on the property legally described as Paseo Gateway Tract 17.

Uh, the subject property consists of approximately 25.6428 acres and is zoned R for single family residential.

Uh, the subject property is currently located within the Paseo Gateway Master Planned Area, uh, soon to be the Cleveland Heights Master Planned Area.

And uh just for reference, um a proposed master plan amendment to the Paseo Gateway Master Plan will remove this specific subject property from the current Paseo Gateway Master Plan.

Um that request is going before the governing body uh later this month on August 28th, as well as a concurrent master plan request to create the Cleveland Heights Master Plan, um, which would then place the subject property inside the proposed boundary for that new master plan.

Again, that request is also going to governing body on August 28th of uh this month.

Uh going back to the current case, the original preliminary plat was approved by the planning and zoning board on August 13th, 2024, under case number 24-210-5.

The plat was amended and approved by the planning and zoning board at the last July 22nd, 2025 meeting.

And uh the proposed subdivision is located west of Cleveland High School, north of Paseo Double Con, a principal arterial road, and south of the existing Cleveland Heights neighborhood.

The plat creates 123 single family residential lots, 11 tracks, and dedicates 4.7174 acres of right-of-way to the city of Rio Rancho.

Uh 10-foot public utility easements are to be granted along the fronts of all lots, and the proposed lots would comply with the dimensional standards of the R4 single family residential zoning district, including lot area and lot width, as laid out in chapter 154.50.

Staff recommends approval of the final plaque, case number 25220-5, subject to the following findings of fact and conditions.

And with that, I will stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you, Liz.

Um is the applicant present.

Is the applicant?

Yes.

President I hear someone.

Yes.

Okay.

I am present.

Okay, we'll put up the oath, and if you can read the oath.

I am Ru Palmer with Cartesian Surveys, residing at 2660, Harvard Drive, Southeast, Rio Rancho, New Mexico, 87124.

Do you saw me to declare and affirm that the testimony I give in reference to item number nine shall be the truth?

And I do this under penalties of perjury.

Okay, you move forward with your presentation.

Um, I just wanted to say that I was present and um I stand for any questions.

Okay.

Um anyone in the audience or virtual who wish to speak for or against item number nine.

Um so anyone in audience or virtual who wish to speak for or against item number nine is there anyone present in the audience or virtual who wish to speak for or against item number nine okay motion to approve item number nine motion to approve second second okay and a discussion from the board and discussion from the board I hear down I see now and call the role commissioner Kaufcher, yes, Vice Chair Galbadone, yes, Commissioner Hardesty, yes, Chairman Richardson Yes, Commissioner Hinkins, yes.

Motion passes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, moving on to item number 10, zone map and then to be presented by Tamara Martinez.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and members of the board.

I'm Tamara Martinez, planner with the city of Rio Rancho.

The item before you is a zone map amendment.

The applicant Cielo Bonito LLC requests approval of a zone map amendment for approximately 52.942 acres from transitional zoning T Z to R3 mixed residential at the location legally described as unit 21, block 22, lots 7 through 26, 28 through 31, and 45 through 48, block 23, lots 3 through 5, 7 through 10, 14 through 23, 28 to 32, 38, 42 through 64, and finally block 24, lots 41 through 49, 51 through 56, 58, 59, 60 through 66, 68 and 70.

The subject properties are located northwest of the intersection of Lookover Drive Northeast and Shiloh Road, both of which are residential roads and consists of approximately 52.942 acres.

It is located within the Paseo Gateway West specific area plan, and the adjacent properties are zoned TZ, transitional zoning.

Um NC, which is neighborhood commercial, and that's to the north.

TZ transitional zoning and 01 office to the east.

TZ and R3 mixed residential and NC neighborhood commercial to the south, while the lots to the west are zoned TZ transitional zoning and R3 single family.

I'm sorry, R4 single family residential and special use for the Northern Meadows neighborhood.

This is a map from the Paseo Gateway West specific area plan showing that the area is to be medium density residential.

This is a this is an image from the conceptual layout that Cielo Bonito has submitted.

It is over the current parcels.

During the back uh the application review process, the applicant submitted the Cielo Bonito Master Plan providing layouts for the proposed development, master plan, excuse me, master plans are level four sub-area plans prepared for properties in single ownership or control.

This type of plan addresses the future development and will meet the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan by providing the overall site land use grading and drainage circulation utilities design standards, phasing and financing, and this is all from the current comp plan to define an area of at least 20 acres, but usually more than 100 acres, and that's per DPM language.

The zone map amendment request um or this zone map amendment request is for an area comprising over 50 acres, and staff strongly encouraged the middle of a master plan.

However, given the applicant did not own 100% of the proposed uh master plan area, staff felt that the master plan could not move forward with the recommendation of approval, but other options were included, such as letters from the holdout um landowners, or a master plan that left out the lots under the ownership and could be used as a smaller phasing of the master plan.

As voted on in the prior action, the applicant has decided to.

So this was from the last meeting.

Um the applicant decided to withdraw the Cielo Bonito master plan due to the lack of 100% ownership.

Um instead, the applicant has submitted a conceptual design plan, which is included as an attachment.

Um the supplemental conceptual design document provides the idea of a development um but is not enforceable.

There is no guarantee that the future lot layout will be uh will be detached single family homes.

The proposed zoning designation of R3 mixed residential would allow for permissive uses that would range from single family residential detached homes to attached town homes and conditional uses, including hospitals and or multifamily developments.

This is showing um the uh the permissive uses in the R3 district, and this table shows the R the R3 um setbacks.

Staff recommends that the planning and zoning board recommend approval to the governing body um of the zone map amendment case and are subject to findings and conditions, and with that I will stand for any questions.

Good, thank you, Tamra.

Is the applicant present?

So state June and address.

Good evening, Nicosia Shuttlebauer, PO Box 9043, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, board members.

Um I'm here on behalf of CLO Bonito Development.

Um we're not representing this project to you as we were here at the end of June.

Um at that time, the board did vote to approve this project to move forward to governing body, which we're planning on doing this week.

Um the reason we're representing this uh to the board is that there were noticing errors, and so staff recommended to us in order to make sure we're following the rules and procedures that we needed to represent the item to be voted on to move forward so that the lots that were noticed in error were properly noticed this time around.

So if you would like, I've brought my presentation if you'd like me to go back through.

But I'm hoping, given that we've already approved this project that this is a simple vote that we can move forward, but I do stand for questions.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, is there anyone in the audience who wish to speak for or against item number 10?

If you can stand up and uh state your your name and address.

Um Louise Romero 9801 Green Avenue, uh Albuquerque 87114.

Um I received notice that it affected my property on June the 5th, but subsequential letters after is this the error you're talking about?

Okay, okay, because I I was having a hard time deciphering through it because I still kept getting the letters, but my property was not listed any longer.

So this is current incorrect so this is my property here.

Umrightly in um block 24, unit 21, block 24, lot 38 is listed here on June June 5th notice.

That's my property.

So sorry.

24 and what unit 21?

Unit 21.

And the what lot?

38.

No, you are not.

That is not a part.

Okay.

So we and so um for the record, there were letters sent out obviously at the beginning of June, which is part of our noticing for that presentation we did the end of June.

Um, I think at that time was when we started to, or staff can speak to this that they were getting notice that the lots had been noticed in error.

So the last letter that was sent out, which I'd asked Camera, I believe that went out 15 days before Tamara of this hearing did have the correct lots noticed.

So just recap it.

That you are not included.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

So, Mr.

Chair, if I can.

Um, so yes, we did notice um when we took this item to governing body that there was uh three lots that um had been included that weren't actually part of the application, and then three lots uh that were part of the application that weren't included.

Um, and so uh we've we've uh gone through multiple times, multiple staff members have gone through and and validated all of the information this time around.

Um, and so the notices uh notifications um are correct this time.

And so we have um we have fixed that error.

One thing to note as well is that um in the time frame that it took for us uh to renotice and get everything moving forward.

There are five additional lots that are part of this application.

Um, and so they were able to um uh because of those notices and things like that uh uh work with some additional property owners.

So there is a difference in the acreage, but that difference is because of the addition of lots outside of that noticing error that we had.

Okay, thank you for the clear clarification.

Um else in the audience or virtual who wish to speak for or against item number 10.

Uh permission to speak.

Okay, put up the oath.

If you can read that and state your name.

I uh Jonathan Margate reciting at 1826, Lindvel Lane, Walnut Creek, California, nine four five nine seven.

Do solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony I give in reference to this item shall be the truth, and I do this under the penalties of perjury.

Okay, go ahead.

Um yeah, so I just wanted to confirm and I uh uh apologize if it was already mentioned, but um my family we own block 23, lot thirty-three, unit twenty-one, and I just wanted to understand if that was uh subject to this rezoning hearing.

Um and then also as it relates to I believe the conceptual layout.

Just wanted to get an understanding of where our plot of land would be located um within that layout.

If it's possible, could you um give that legal description of your property one more time so we can um double check that?

Sure, no problem.

It's block 23, um lot thirty-three unit twenty-one, and apologize if I'm not saying it in the appropriate order, but um, that's uh that's correct.

Um and and so um we're just verifying one more time.

Give us one second, we're doing verification.

Thank you.

So per my records from what my communication with staff was that wasn't lot number thirty-three, unit twenty-one block twenty-three was not included in the noticing.

So this is not a part of the zone map request as it just stands today.

In regards to the other question, how it relates to the master plan within um what we've or not the master plan, the conceptual plan that we have provided previously.

Um the Margate lot, um, I know you can't see what I'm pointing to here, but um if you were going on lookover drive, that lot is one lot to the west of lookover drive.

So if the ownership did not want to be included in our plan, then the they would have access to their land through the subdivision, either through lookover or the interior roadways that we're putting into place and the inf infrastructure would be there for them to act us, but we would obviously not be developing their land.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, it it does.

I I appreciate that.

Um I apologize, but it just from a visual perspective.

Where where would that where would that be again?

It it within the conceptual layout.

Um we can we can try to bring it up on the screen, um, and we might be able to uh with the presentation maybe um use the pointer function on PowerPoint and see if we're able to thank you.

That would be very helpful.

Nakoshin, you're saying it's this lot.

Um if you go from the very top red line, if you go down a block, it's the second lot in from lookover.

Oh it's it's cutting off.

Is it okay?

Um pointer's not working.

So uh Mr.

Margot, I I think um so if you can see our screen and you can see um that location map that we just had up uh from my understanding, and if we can go back to the PowerPoint, um so if you can see uh that top uh property that's in red, um, and then you go down one row, um your lot would be the second lot in from look over, if um if I understand that correctly.

So that's that's where you would be located um in comparison to the lots and all of the lots that are highlighted in red are uh part of the application today.

Okay, and so in that in the conceptual layout, would there be a street that would be or a road that would be going over the over the over that land piece of land or piece of land so um I apologize I don't have this on the screen for you?

Um but yes, there is we were the whole reason this was a conceptual plan was to try to come up with interior roadways to service lots that were not a part, and so that entire row that goes against looked over.

Um I know from the conceptual plan it looks like it's developing your lot.

It's not this is just trying to come up with a way to get the uh traffic access across this, it's conceptual, so by no means um would this impede anything with your land?

The request today is just to do the zone map amendment, right?

Yeah, just thank you.

I just wanted to make sure um I just understood what what was going on here, so I I appreciate that.

Sure, and I'm happy if you'd like to connect with staff or my contact information if you want to discuss this further, if you have other questions outside of the the meeting today.

That sounds good.

Thank you.

I don't have any further questions.

Appreciate your you guys' time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, is there anyone in the audience or Roach who wishes to speak for item number 10 or against item number 10?

Okay.

And uh motion to approve item number 10 motion to approve.

Second okay, and a discussion from the board.

I mean, I'll I guess I'll just say since nothing's changed that my concerns about kind of the checkerboard zoning when we're talking, taking something from no zone to a defined zone, which by nature does impact the lots around it because it impacts what's going to be built around these lots that are not a part of this zoning.

My my concerns about that have not changed.

And would it be okay to speak to that?

Speak.

Go ahead.

Okay, I I understand the concerns, and since the last time we presented this project, we have actually been able to um add additional lots so that there are less um hold out lots in this, and so I do think that we're gonna be able to get to a point where um we can alleviate any of those concerns that you have with this project.

I hope so.

Yeah, I want your project to be successful, but I I'm also you know voicing my concerns for those who own land that are then forced into this, and sometimes that's a positive thing.

I've heard that's part of the the argument, and sometimes it's not.

And I believe that people's right to their property ownership is important and shouldn't be forced by large organizations that they don't have the same means and ability to to um stand up against so I'm but I absolutely hope that you're able to get those and that your project will be successful.

As the director Rincone said we that's why we were able actually added those additional five lots is because we've been getting some word buy-in from people who would like to participate.

So that's wonderful.

Yeah, thank you.

And further discussion from the board.

Okay, I hear now I see now.

Call a roll.

Commissioner Hardesty.

No Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Galbladone.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Commissioner Kaufcher.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Okay.

Moving on to item number 11, site plan to be presented by staff.

Louise and Leus Ruiz Carlos.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, members of the board.

Lizarith Carlos, planner with the City of Ray Rancho.

The item before you is a request for a site plan at 1017 Rosarito Drive Southeast.

The applicant Emile Landeros through their agent Scott Anderson requests approval of site plan again for a 156-unit apartment complex located at 1017 Rosarito Drive Southeast.

The law is legally described as Unit 16 block 87 lot 10A and consists of 5.99 acres.

The subject property is zoned SU special use for R3 multifamily residential uses and apartments.

The SU and special use district ordinance for this site calls out the following.

Tonight's meeting is uh meeting my criteria as well.

Uh the property zoning ordinance has no further design standards beyond those required for multifamily development and city code chapter 154.

However, per the Rio Rancho uh Code of Ordinances uh Chapter 154.43.

All SU property must have a site plan approved by the governing body, meaning that the site plan will be heard by the governing body as well for final approval.

A little background on the site, a similar site development plan for a 156 unit multifamily project was previously heard and approved by the planning and zoning board and governing body in August of 2019 under case number 19-160-2.

That approval, unfortunately, is no longer valid as a condition of approval without the site plan would be valid for two years, uh, during which time the permit would need to be issued, remain active, and construction started and pursued to completion.

Uh that did not happen.

Uh staff have mirrored uh the conditions of approval from that item uh as approved by the governing body.

Uh the current site plan as presented uh features a total of 16 buildings, three of which will consist entirely of garages, and the rest of which will feature two to three floors of apartment units.

Structures are set back 20 feet from the front and right of way and seven and a half feet from the sides in conformance with the R3 multifamily regulations.

The ingress and egress points for the property will be off Wall Street southeast and Rose Rudeau Drive southeast.

The number of units and corresponding bedrooms calls for 253 parking spaces, and the site plan features 260 spaces.

Of those 253 parking spaces, eight are required to be ADA accessible, uh, two of which need to be van accessible as well.

Uh the site plan features 22 ADA spaces, all of which are also van accessible.

Uh per multifamily landscaping standards, this development calls for 312 trees and 468 shrubs.

Uh the site plan denotes exactly uh that calculation.

A six-foot buffer wall is also required along the west and south property boundaries, and the site plan denotes a six-foot four-inch buffer wall surrounding the entirety of the property as shown on the landscaping plan here.

The applicant has also provided elevation drawings for all the buildings, and all of the buildings adhere to the maximum height restriction of 50 feet, with the maximum building height reaching 41 uh feet and nine and a half inches.

The development services department recommends a planning and zoning board recommend approval of the applicant's request to the governing body with findings and conditions, and with that I will stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Uh so applicant present.

You state your name and address.

My name is Scott Anderson, 2818 Fourth Street Northwest Suite C Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87107.

I am the agent for the applicant.

Um I think Ms.

Carlos uh described the uh the project pretty well.

Um this was approved several years ago, and unfortunately, due to financial circumstances with uh with the developer, uh the project was put on hold, and he is now hoping to uh revive it to meet the uh the needs of the community and the deficiency in housing that we have.

Uh, some of the conditions of approval at the governing body last time uh, I believe were addressed, and I don't know if they were mentioned before, but uh, we redesigned site lighting so that there's no overhead lights.

It's all done with building mounted lighting, and we utilize the uh garages along the south property line to help uh shield any glare or uh noise uh to the uh single family homes to the south of the site.

Um, and I stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you for your person.

Um in the audience wishes to speak for or against item number eleven.

Number eleven.

Motion to approve item number eleven.

Motion to approve.

Can I give a second?

I'll second.

Okay.

Any discussion from the board.

Mr.

Chair, it's Robert Gabledone.

Go ahead, Commissioner Gabad.

Just a quick, very quick comment.

Just uh want to comment on the on the good uh I think it's an excellent location for infill for multifamily like that.

That's my comment.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else like to speak uh in discussion from the board?

Okay, I hear none, I see none.

Call the role.

Commissioner Hardesty.

Yes.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins?

Yes.

Vice Chair Galbladone.

Yes.

Commissioner Kaufger.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Discussion and deliberation.

Anything there.

Any comments from the members.

Okay.

Um, motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second.

Second.

All right, see you all in two weeks.

Thank you.

Thank you.