For the record, I will take roll by calling each planning and zoning board member's name.

Please acknowledge your presence members by saying present.

Kevin Kaufcher.

Present.

Fred Rodosovich.

Present.

Scotty Richardson is excused tonight.

Myself, Robert Gabaldone, I am present.

Andrea Hankins.

Present.

Present online.

Lisa Hardesty.

Present.

And Sal Tordorici.

Present.

Please stand as you are able for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And see the Republic for which stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

In person attendees, please fill out a speaker form if you wish to speak.

Only individuals who have signed up will be permitted to speak.

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

Virtual attendees, please send a chat message to the host or use the raise your hand feature if you want to provide public comment.

When I recognize you to speak, you will have the ability to enable audio and video.

Comments are limited to three minutes per consent calendar.

There'll be no discussion of these items unless a board member so requests, in which event the item will be moved to a discussion item on the regular agenda.

May I have a motion to approve uh tonight's consent calendar.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Commissioner Kaufcher.

Yes.

Commissioner Radosevich?

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbledon?

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesy.

Yes.

Commissioner Torterici.

Yes.

Motion pass.

All right.

Staff presentations, reports, comments.

None tonight.

Thank you.

Public hearings.

Pursuant to the rules of procedure.

All agreed persons and material relevant witnesses sponsored by such an interest persons wishing to address the board shall register in person or via specified communications technology equipment with the city staff person.

Item number two, master plan amendment.

The applicant affordable solar group LLC through their agent select ROW requests approval of an addendum to the Loma Barbone Master Plan, allowing for the implementation of a renewable energy overlay district to an 80-acre portion of the master plan area.

Staff contact is Ben Isaacs, and staff recommends approval with findings and conditions.

Ben.

Good evening, members of the board.

Ben Isaacs, municipal planner with the city of Rio Rancho.

The items before you include a master plan and a zone map amendment request to establish provisions for solar generation, storage, and distribution system in the Loma Barbone master plan area.

I'll present them these two items together, but they will be voted on separately.

The applicant affordable solar LLC through their agent select row is requesting approval of a master plan and zone map amendment for property located in the Loma Barbone Master Plan.

The subject property is legally described as Loma Barbone Tract B, which consists of approximately 650 acres and consists of several different zoning districts.

The requested amendments apply only to 80 acres of the subject property in the northwest of the master plan area.

The Loma Barbone Master Plan was adopted on September 11th, 2002, under Resolution 64, enactment 02063.

The applicant is seeking to establish an addendum with the primary goal of establishing a renewable energy overlay district on 80 acres of the northwestern portion of the master plan area.

The renewable energy overlay district allows for the installation of a solar generation storage and distribution system.

The addendum would also establish zoning regulations pertaining to signage, height restrictions, lighting, fencing, setbacks, eventual site plan requirements, development and design standards, and decommissioning and removal of the system.

The applicant is also seeking a zone map amendment for the subject property in order to allow for the creation of a renewable energy overlay district.

The zone map amendment would not change any of the established underlying zoning districts.

The renewable energy overlay district allows for a utility-scale solar project to be built, operated, and maintained on the property as an interim use until the intended underlying developments come to fruition.

Note that approximately 35 acres of the proposed overlay area is currently zoned M1 Industrial and Business Park.

This zoning district already allows for the proposed solar renewable energy use.

Staff recommended the board recommends approval to the governing body for the applicant's request to amend the Loma Barbone master plan as per the specified findings of fact.

As a condition of approval for site plan submission, a buffer along the north side of the property shall be constructed in greater detail on its landscaping and expected maintenance shall be entailed.

Staff also recommend that the board recommends approval to the governing body regarding the applicant's request for zone map amendment.

And I'll stand if there are any questions.

Thank you, Ben.

Is the applicant present?

Yes.

I am I'm um zooming in.

Can you hear me?

Who who wants to go first?

Um staff.

I'll go first.

Staffing Lori.

Staff will put up the oath for you to read, and then you can continue with your comments.

I'm Lori Moy, residing at 30610 South Osprey at Oracle, Arizona 85623.

Solemnly declare and affirm testimony I give in reference to item number one and item number two, master plan amendment, and zone map amendment shall be the truth, and I do this under the penalties of perjury.

Thanks so much, Lori.

That's items number two and three.

Oh, sorry, did I see?

No, you're fine.

Go ahead.

Okay, great.

Lori, do you want me to do the same?

Just because we're gonna bounce back and forth.

Have you seen your decision?

That would be great if you swear yourself.

Yeah.

Uh we're we're operating together.

Okay, go ahead.

Um I'll try and remember it's on the screen anymore.

The prompt you're fine.

Uh my name is uh Dylan Connolly.

I'm at 800 PA Jo Vista Road, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87123, and I solemnly swear to tell the truth.

There, go ahead.

And regarding items two and three.

All right, is it back to me now?

Yes.

Um Vice Chairman Gablegone and Commission members.

Hello, I'm Lauren Moy, the select route agent for the application for the amendment of the Loma Barbone NASA plan for a new for a renewable energy overlay district and subsequent zone map amendments.

I'd like to introduce uh Dylan Collin.

Collin, sorry, Dylan.

Collinley, uh Director of Commercial Solar Development to tell you about who is affordable solar.

Uh Vice Chair and uh board members, my name is Dylan Connolly.

I work for affordable solar.

I've been with affordable solar for seven and a half years.

Um affordable solar is an Albuquerque-based solar installer and developer.

We've constructed residential, commercial, and utility scale solar projects the last since 1998.

We do um we've done over 500 megawatts of solar.

Um, this particular project is five megawatts.

Um, we're a leader in the state, one of the largest installers with our sister company, and um one of the few local developers in the state developing the projects as a New Mexico company for us to utilize uh the resources we have here.

So thank you for the opportunity.

Great, thanks so much.

Lori, you need to comment.

Yes, um, I'd just like to run through the slide deck real quick.

We're requesting a master plan amendment to allow for a renewable energy overlay district uh in the Loma Barbone Master Plan and a master plan amendment and a zone map amendment.

Next slide.

The property is owned by the New Mexico State Land Office, whose mission is to manage state lands to generate revenue for its beneficiaries, which include New Mexico Public Schools and Universities.

You may be aware that the Loma Barbone plan was adopted in 2002 after two-year planning process and has remained vacant ever since.

New Mexico State Land Office supports the renewable energy overlay district to allow the site to begin contributing to its mission of supporting education across the state.

Next slide.

And I believe Ben already mentioned this.

When it was annexed, the City of Rio Randall Rio Rancho annexed New Mexico State Land office property in 2003 with the following zoning that you can see up on the zone map.

You can see M1 and MUA is concentrated in the northwest corner of the property.

Due to the existing zoning is the area selected with most industrial, mostly industrial.

Go ahead, next slide, please.

This is the original uh zoning map here.

And you can see the current zoning.

The light blue is M1 and the pink is retail commercial and mixed use.

Next slide, please.

This is the green transparent uh piece up there is the uh 80-acre lease and the location of the renewable energy overlay district.

The site itself for the facility is currently under preliminary development for a renewable energy facility.

The proposed agenda has been reviewed and approved by the property owner, Mexico State Land Office, who will be leasing the property to the renewable energy system developer affordable solar LLC.

Next slide, please.

Is not a developer, it creates agreements with third-party developers like affordable solar to pursue renewable energy developments.

Mexico State Land Office continues to have management responsibility, and also it allows private sector investment.

The existing zoning remains in place, creating consistency with the city's long-range plan while introducing flexibility for renewable energy.

It was in consultation with NML Mexico State Land Office, portable solar, and the City of Rio Rancho Planning staff.

The overlay district establishes clear zoning regulations specific to renewable energy projects in Loma Barbone.

These include land use setbacks, design, siting standards, permitting procedures, and review requirements tailored to renewable energy facilities.

The project specific requirements that are unique to renewable energy development.

The intent is to balance the city growth goals with responsible development of renewable energy infrastructure.

Community and economic development, the overlay district supports the City of Rio Rancho comprehensive plan goals by encouraging clean energy development that creates long local jobs, expands the tax base and promotes long-term sustainability for Rio Rancho.

Renewable energy projects do not use city services such as water or sewer or other infrastructure development.

Next slide, please.

Next slide.

And we ask for approval for the request.

Are there any questions?

No, not at this time.

Thank you, Lori.

Great.

Thank you.

Any other comments from your portion?

No, just stand for questions if you have it.

Thank you.

Um is there anyone in the audience?

This is for item number two wishing to speak for or against item number two.

My name is Jared Liker, 409 New Mexico Highway 528.

Um, a couple of questions uh regarding the master plan and potential development.

Um it sounded like there was a buffer planned for the north portion next to the existing housing.

Um, we obviously have residents in the Mountain Hawk subdivision there.

Um is there any plan for a buffer along the western portion?

We have properties in that location that we would ultimately build some single family residential houses on, and wanted to see if there's any consideration on the west side uh for a buffer.

The second piece is what would be the boundary construction for the edges of this property.

My understanding is there are articulating panels that follow the sun's path and move as the sun moves.

The question would be potential glare.

That would be to the residents there.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Hi, please state your name and address.

Good afternoon.

My name is Costin Draheel.

I reside at 6356 Gannett Drive Northeast and re-ranching New Mexico.

Go ahead.

So I urge the council to vote against this just because of there's three specific points that I would like to bring up that the previous speaker kind of touched on.

First would be the glare that would reflect into the residences of Mountain Hawk, specifically the hundred-foot line of Gannett, which as a resident of Gannett, we received a letter from affordable solar that would say that the solar farm would be approximately a hundred feet from within our residence, which would drive wildlife north into the residence, disrupting the local ecosystem, which could potentially harm our local community.

Also, I have a concern of potential fire from possible glare as well as the noise from the solar farm.

I I believe that this could again potentially disrupt the the peace of our of our community just because we're more of a remote community, and I want to know if affordable solar has anything planned for this, and I urge the council to to vote against this.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Okay.

Seeing none.

Public comments closed.

We always make our motions in the affirmative.

I'm seeking a motion from the board to approve item number two.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Thank you.

Good.

Second, uh, any board discussion.

Mr.

Chairman, just a couple of questions.

Um I think some of the comments were made.

How close is this going to be to any residential house or neighborhood?

Um, I can answer that.

I don't know if Dylan stood up, but I can answer that for you.

Um, first I'd like to say that the site plan is currently under development.

What we're talking about today is the zone map, and that we will be back in front of you for uh detailed discussion of the specific site plan.

But we are looking at a hundred foot setback um facility, the homes to them.

I believe it's north of us.

And uh just want to make a comment about glare.

Solar panels don't do glare anymore, they absorb the sun, and the glare was off of uh very very early stage solar panels.

So there will be will not be glare off of the solar panels.

And uh noise is not an issue, but we could really get into this when we bring this site plan forward.

Thank you.

Uh the north and west will have a hundred-foot buffer to the fence, and then the the panels themselves and the equipment would be further set in with a buffer road around the outside as well.

Just the second question I have is and it's come up when I was looking in in the thing uh that uh fencing requirements a seven-foot high fence consisting of a six-foot chain link and one foot barbed wire on top to be placed around the facility.

I believe that's the city's requirements.

Am I correct?

It's also an electrical code requirement that we have at least uh seven foot tall with or or if there's no barbed wire, it wouldn't have to be eight feet tall.

And that's for public for the protection of the public and protection of the facility.

And and I agree, I think the protection is is is paramount.

I'm concerned that you're gonna have residence within that many feet seeing uh chain link fence and then well wire on top of it.

Um so uh a little bit of concern there, and then this has nothing to do with but the energy that is developed by the solar array, where will it be used?

That's my question.

Inside the city of Rio Rancho, and uh Dylan can address this.

You're going to address it when we brought the site plan in specifically.

This is I don't know if you're familiar with community solar that the state legislature in the PRC uh recent adopted about four years ago now.

And this site has been selected as a residential Dylan, do you want to talk more about that?

Yeah, so we'll we'll explain more as Lori mentioned in the next um round, but we are a uh these are community solar projects and community solar projects.

The power is fed right into the existing grid on the distribution level, so just like the home level.

Um it's primarily for those who aren't able to do solar on their own roofs, so renters, for example, or low income individuals.

So 50% of the power from this project will be dedicated to reducing electric bills for low income individuals at 80% or below the median income.

Okay, and then the last question I have is I don't understand all the gigawatts and whatever this stuff.

How many homes will this power?

About 2,000.

Yeah, so the five megawatts is about 2,000 homes worth of power.

So about a thousand um uh low income households will save about 20 percent on their electric bills.

Thank you.

That's all excellent.

Any other comments from board members?

I think I just have a follow-up question to that.

So has there been a study of the low-income qualifying individuals around that area?

Because while I understand that 50% of it is supposed to go toward that, have you assessed that that's even uh what the potential is around that area?

Uh the the power goes to greening um that particular portion of the grid, and then there are residents that can take advantage that are non-low income as well.

Um, but the the way community solar is effectuated is that you can um sort of anyone in the area, not has to doesn't have to be necessarily the community directly to the north can can participate.

Okay, and where does the other 50% go?

Um it's just it's just not a requirement that beyond the 50 percent.

So it can be uh commercial facility or or regular low income or regular income individuals or renters that maybe aren't income qualified.

And what's the so uh what is the intention for that that other 50 percent um based on what's in that area now?

So it doesn't necessarily have to be directly in the area, but it generally commercial is what we do for the other half because they stabilize the finances of the system.

Um as you can imagine, renters are moving much more often, low income can you know maybe not pay all the time, so the commercial stabilizes and allows us to provide more benefits for the other half.

And and Dylan, isn't it true that this is really for the city of Rio Rantro, and not just for that immediate area because the energy is going into the grid and it's distributed?

Yeah, it's it's not limited just to the particular portion of the grid.

Okay, that was gonna be my next question is is there some yeah, exactly limitation to the reach of of where this energy can be used?

And I'm hearing no.

Um yeah, there's the actual physical energy is going straight into this grid and used within this area.

Um, in terms of the savings, you're you need to be on the same utility, so it's it's a little bit larger region.

Okay, right.

So for example, somebody in Boleyn could not buy power from this.

Somebody in Albuquerque cannot buy power from this particular facility.

Okay, it has to be within real rapture.

Uh as long as you're on the same utility, you actually can um sign up with this with this particular facility.

Um the same utility is PN.

PNM, exactly.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Any other comments?

I have one comment.

Just uh I this isn't the issue we're voting on for item number two, but uh it's been mentioned, and thank you for the additional information.

Um I suspect you may hear more about barbed wire from people as you go through your process.

I know it's probably not something I would want to be looking at if I were living nearby.

It's not my district, and I'm not living nearby it, but uh barbed wires uh not everybody's favorite thing, so you might want to consider that within the options of your height.

That's uh that's my only comment.

Um more comments.

I just said one question.

The uh the hundred foot buffer from the residential areas.

Is that stipulated in the master plan someplace?

Lori, was that in the actual master plan?

I think the requirement is 35 feet, and the um again, we would be back to show you the plan with our proposal um for your approval.

Uh the w as we're developing our concept is we have enough space to provide that buffer.

I just want to make sure that we capture that someplace because you know we we're talking about it verbally, but I don't see it in the document anywhere.

It's um it's big.

It says uh establish height setbacks and setbacks.

Um we followed the city code.

We could certainly um amend this.

Uh I guess I need to ask them can certainly amend this to put in a hundred-foot setback from residential property lines if that is what you're asking.

Are setbacks and buffers considered the same thing though?

I mean, are we talking two different things with setbacks and buffers?

Well, I am not sure.

What are you thinking about buffer is I'm just I'm just stating like I mean, I just see where there's landscaping and landscape buffers using native vegetation, but I just don't see anything stating the the actual depth of the buffer and its relationship to the location within the master plan.

So just wanting to make sure that you know we're talking about it, making sure that the document, you know, somehow we capture that someplace.

That's all I'll follow that.

Ben, is there any way to capture the the hundred foot bufferslash setback?

I was just gonna mention um Mr.

Vice Chair, Commissioner Kaufcher.

Uh the master plan addendum is currently proposed has a uh 25 foot setback with uh any setbacks, uh buffers, um all the other elevations details included at the site plan level.

Um that's how the addendum is currently so it just goes in front of you further detail then with the with the letter plan then after the master plan then is that what you're saying, Brian.

So uh Mr.

Chair, uh Commissioner Kaufcher, so currently it says 25 feet as a minimum.

Um so if the applicant wanted to go that hundred feet when it comes back for site plan, and real quick just to clarify site plan is only going to governing body, it does not come back in front of this planning and zoning board.

Um so uh that would be something that we could if you wanted to make a uh amendment right now.

Um and uh we could uh make an amendment to increase that setback um up to a hundred feet, whether or not you also want that to be a buffer um or if a 25-foot landscape buffer um is is what's under consideration, I'll I'll leave that to the will of the the board.

Um, but that would be an amendment that you would be able to make uh if you received a second and it was approved.

So Commissioner Torteric, would you like to amend your original?

Oh, I thought it was your motion.

You here well maybe the motion as it's we can leave the motion as it sits right now.

We can just make an amendment uh before we vote on the current motion.

Okay.

I didn't I didn't know.

I don't know what I think she was she was recommending um so to the area to the south is um still state land.

I didn't I didn't I think she was she was recommending um so to the area to the south is um still state land so we've been considering a um I think a 25 foot setback off the fence line and roughly a uh 35 to 45 foot setback off the side um the actual equipment and it's like I think it's a over 600 or 700 foot buffer off the east uh but she's specifically talking about the west and the north, which are residential that you consider a hundred foot setback off of those as as the amendment.

Yes, okay, yeah.

I mean, since we were you know it it was in the discussion, right?

That it was gonna be a hundred feet, and believe the residents would appreciate um a further distance then a 25 foot setback.

So I'm sorry, uh Mr.

Chair, I think I interrupted the commissioner making the motion.

I just wanted it to be clear, so my apologies.

No, no, no worries.

Just just want to make sure that we we're talking about the same thing and it that we're we're clear on it.

So thank you.

Yes.

So Commissioner Coffer, will you will you make the amendment?

So yeah, uh, would like to recommend um a hundred put hundred foot buffer zone from the residential areas located on the west and north side of the master plan to that amendment?

Who is the second question?

I'll second it, but I don't think it was my original.

Okay, we got another question.

Well, just as we were making that uh amendment uh recommendation, should we say and any future residential?

Because I think there's one side of that that's not developed yet, but that's sound residential, and so do we just need to make sure we include all residential in the right amendment?

Okay, and any few future residential areas?

Is that is that a potential?

So uh can I make sure that I understand what the amendment is?

Um so we're making amendment to the master plan itself, right?

That um in the document itself and not in the resolution, uh, that there is going to be a hundred foot buffer, and so when we're talking about the buffer, are we expecting that that buffer is going to be a landscaped buffer, or is it okay for them to have the ring road for this one?

Um, or are we talking about a setback from uh the property lines, the residential property lines to the actual um structures of the the solar?

So I just want to make sure that we're all clear on what we're actually amending in the master plan.

I think it already says in the document that the buffer would be naturally vegetated.

Uh Commissioner uh Kaufcher, Mr.

Vice Chair, members of the board.

Uh the setback is currently written into the master plan allows for roads to be in the setback.

That is a setback just for the structures specifically, um, as is currently written into the master plan.

I didn't seem to be getting a little bit deeper than uh well, I believe I heard was the intention is to have a 100 foot setback from property line, and then an additional hundred foot buffer from the fence.

That's what I notated from your response.

So it's it's the same, it's the same buffer.

It'd be the same.

It's the same, not an additional, yeah.

Okay, I think it needs to clear it.

Yeah, it's uh we're the fence is a hundred feet from the property line on the north and the west.

Okay, and then there is a um just a natural design process it's fence, external road, and then equipment, and that adds another 15 or 20 feet, depending on uh, but that's that's a sort of a natural process of how we design or access.

And then the clarification was from the structure, not necessarily the the property line, right?

Uh the clarification I was looking for is are we talking about buffers or are we talking about setbacks to the structures?

And then um, I guess my further clarification would be I think are we talking about fence or are we talking about the actual solar panels?

We're talking about buffers, and I think we're talking about the fence.

I think the it's a setback for the fence to be a hundred feet from the property line property line of where residential is and then whatever it takes to put the road in if that's an additional twenty feet there.

But I think for clarification purposes, I'm interpreting this as a hundred foot setback from the property line to the fence line, and I'll just leave it at that, no more words.

Thank you.

That's can we can we leave our amendment there?

I believe so.

Or are we I'm I'm comfortable with that if you guys that that's where we're at.

Then I'll second that.

Okay, okay if that's agreeable to Kevin.

Yep.

That's greable.

So we've amended from the property line of the back of the houses to the to the fence for the hundred yards.

No, from the property line.

From their property line.

Oh, from their well, that that's that's the I thought that fence was the property.

I don't know if there's another buffer.

Okay, the property line.

Yeah.

To the houses.

Correct.

Gotcha.

All right.

Would it be there?

Appropriate to say the north and the west side or yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Is there any potential that there'll be additional residential areas along?

One's a highway and one state land, right?

Yeah.

So on the east, we're gonna be quite a bit further away.

And on the south.

I'm I'm not exactly sure what the underlying zoning is.

And what I don't think it's residential.

Yeah, I think it's like a mix of commercial and mixed use, I think.

Okay.

Right.

All right.

We have it.

Okay.

West north.

Any other comments?

So, real quick, just for just so we're all on the same page and we're all good to go.

Um, so we are making an amendment to the master plan itself, um, the actual document saying that there is going to be a hundred-foot setback on the north and west property lines to the fence line.

Yes, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Sharon, please call the roll.

Commissioner Hankins?

Yes, Commissioner Totoricci?

Yes.

Commissioner Kaufcher?

Yes.

Commissioner Wodosevic?

No.

Commissioner Hardesi.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay.

Item number three.

Uh I'm gonna read it.

Mr.

Vice Chair, actually, we need so we just voted on the amendment, so now we need to actually vote on the original motion for number two to approve the master move.

Great.

So uh please call the roll on the original motion.

Thank you, Sharon.

Okay, Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Commissioner Totoricci?

Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Radosovich?

No.

Commissioner Hardacy?

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabblin.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry for that.

Thank you for helping with that, Amy.

Um, item number three, reading it into the record.

The applicant affordable solar group LLC through their agents, select ROW, requests approval of a zone map amendment for 80 acres of the property legally described as Loma Barbone Track B to implement a renewable energy overlay district.

Staff contact is Ben Isaacs and staff staff recommends approval with findings and conditions.

Ben, any further comments on this item?

No additional comments from me.

Thanks so much.

And the applicant, any additional comments.

No, I didn't prepare presentation.

I thank you.

It would be all covered in the first thing.

Great, thank you.

Uh is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against item number three?

Anyone online wishing to speak for or against item number three?

Okay.

Look for a motion to approve item number three.

Motion to approve item number three.

Second.

All right, please call the roll chair.

Commissioner Wadilsovich?

No.

Commissioner Totoricci.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabledon?

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesi.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Commissioner Kaufcher.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Good luck with your project.

All right.

Thank you.

I want to say thank you very much for the opportunity.

Item number four.

Subdivision variants.

The applicant, Southwest Elegant Homes LLC, through their agent CSI Cartesian Surveys Inc.

is requesting approval of a variance to the required improvements of a subdivision as outlined by Rio Rancho Municipal Code Chapter 155, subdivisions, Section 155.27.

Required improvements in order to subdivide a lot at the subject property of 5601 Iris Road Northeast.

Legally described as Unit 17, block 81, lot 20.

Staff contact is Tamara Martinez and staff recommends denial.

Tamara good afternoon, Mr.

Chairman, or Mr.

Vice Chairman, excuse me, and members of the board.

Tamra Martinez planner with the city of Rio Rancho.

Staff is actually requesting a postponement to these two items.

Um to a date certain of the September of September 9th, 2025, if possible.

Okay.

All right.

Postpone item number four to September 9th.

Thank you.

Second.

Second.

Sharon, please call the roll.

Commissioner Kaufger.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesi.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Commissioner Rudosevich.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

Commissioner Totorici.

Yes.

Item has been postponed.

Okay, I'll read it into the record.

Number five, preliminary final plat.

The applicant South West Delegate Homes, LLC through their agent, CSI Cartesian surveys inc is requesting approval for preliminary final plat to subdivide the subject property at 5601 Iris Road Northeast.

Legally described as Unit 17, Block 81, lot 20 into two lots.

The property is zone E1, the state residential district and comprises a plot approximately 2.5 acres.

Staff contact is Tamra Martinez and staff recommends denial, but Mr.

Vice Chair.

Motion to postpone tilt 99.

Second.

Then moved and seconded to postpone to a date certain of September 9th.

Sharon, please call the roll.

Commissioner Kaufger.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabblin?

Yes.

Commissioner Rodosevic?

Yes.

Commissioner Totoricci.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesi.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Item has been postponed.

Thank you so much.

Okay, item number six, variance.

The applicant defined pickleball through their agent EPNM Inc.

requests approval of a variance request to allow for a second permanent sign for defined pickleball located at 1640, New Mexico, 528 Southeast.

Legally described as Hilltop Plaza Tract B.

The subject property is zoned SU special use for C1 commercial uses and it comprises approximately 7.96 acres.

Staff contact is Tim Deborah and staff recommends approval with findings and conditions.

Tim.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chair, members of the board.

Tim Dvorak, planner with the city of Rio Rancho.

This item for you here is a variance request to allow for a second permanent sign for defined pickleball at 1640 NM Highway 528 southeast.

This property is legally described as Hill Tract B and is approximately 7.9637 acres.

Subject property is situated in the Hilltop Plaza shopping center with SU special use for commercial to the north and south, our three mixed residential to the west, and C1 commercial in all directions.

The subject property itself is zoned SU special use for retail commercial per ordinance number 89-8.

This ordinance established sign standards within the Hilltop Plaza shopping center.

It has subsequently been amended multiple times.

Quick little history on this property.

This was approved January 10th of 2023 by the board.

So for the defined pickleball proposal, the applicant applied for two permanent illuminated signs for defined pickleball March 26th of this year under building permit number 25-3409.

Sign one, which is the top sign here, um was approved by the zoning department April 16th of 25.

Um the well sign comprises approximately 134 square feet.

The second sign, which is below, comprises 64.1 square feet.

Um while staff determined that sign two would technically be categorized as a structure structural canopy sign, the provisions outlined within the ordinance limiting that signage still apply.

There aren't further um exceptions outside of that ordinance, so that language still does um apply to this property.

Um both signs for this will comprise a total of 198.1 square feet for reference.

Um fitness was 325.9 square feet in total.

The full building frontage length for both defined fitness and defined pickleball is going to be approximately 371 feet per the building permit submission.

The applicant calls out the linear frontage for pickleball as 207, which originally defined fitness encompassed that 210, but as they shifted, it basically created that 207 to pickleball area.

Per our current chapter 15608 B1B, both single tenant structures as well as multi-tenant structures are allowed a maximum building mounted sign area of two square feet per one linear foot of building length.

So given that provision, there would be approximately 742 square feet available to utilize within this linear space for defined fitness and pickleball.

Additionally, the code does provide for any combination number of signs as long as it's within the allowable boundaries for square footage.

As such, staff recommends approval with findings and conditions.

And I'll stand for any questions.

Thanks, Tim.

Is the applicant present?

Great.

Step on up.

State your name and address.

Hi.

My name is Maria Gonzalez, and I'm at 2024 Fifth Street.

I represent the contractor EPNM Inc.

Xeon signs.

And we did um submit for the second additional sign for defined pickleball, but we also wanted to ask if there was a possibility that they could also under ordinance number 29B, where it indicates that one wall sign per business and um city sign ordinance chapter 156 on the audience 156.06 prohibited signs for the roof signs.

The sign that we're going to be placing as an additional sign for define pickleball, it's right just above the first pair pit because of the way that the roof is like slanted.

So we were asking if we could also have that um authorization to be able to put that sign up there.

That would be a completely separate submission, would it not?

So Mr.

Vice Chair, so um as part of Tim's presentation, uh what he was describing on uh the location of that second sign um and how he described it as a um and correct me if I'm wrong, Tim, a structural canopy.

It was already determined to be an approvable sign.

Um and so the variance approval tonight um to have an additional sign would allow for that specific sign, and so there wouldn't need to be a second variance for that.

Just making sure we got it all in there, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate your assistance.

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

Sir My name is John McGarigal, and I'm the owner of the property at 1610 Rear Rancho Drive.

I guess it's now called 528.

Um directly in front of uh Defined Fitness.

In fact, we were the first building in there in 1990.

Um I developed the uh what was originally the Goodyear tire center for the first 26 years from 1990 on uh retired from that business and now lease it to uh big old franchisee for approximately 10 years that property was a disaster.

It was surrounded by chain link fence.

I'm not sure if it had barbed wire or not, which caught tumbleweeds.

There was no lighting, there was nothing in there.

The anchor tenant, quote unquote, was Kmart, and they went under and left a mess.

Defined fitness came in and rescued Hilltop Plaza.

It's now well lit.

It's the traffic is improved immensely for all of the participants, and I know I can't speak specifically for any of them, but we certainly welcome them to the neighborhood and would encourage approval of whatever it is they need to do business.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak for or against item number six?

Anyone online wishing to speak for against it number six?

Entertain a motion to approve item number six.

I'll make a motion to approve item number six variants.

Second.

Motioned and seconded.

Thank you.

Any comments from the board.

Well, I agree with those nice comments.

I think that the hilltop plaza looks 129% better.

If my mother in law were here, she'd say it looks spiffy.

So it's it's really nice back there, and they do a lot of good business.

All right.

Um more comments.

Chairman, please call the roll.

Commissioner Totorici?

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesty?

Yes.

Commissioner Rodosevich?

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabledon?

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Commissioner Kopcher.

Yes.

Motion is passed.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Item number seven.

Zone map amendment.

The applicant outer rim investments inc requests approval of a zone map amendment for the properties legally described as Rio Rancho Estates.

Unit 22, block 89, tract E and Rio Rancho Estates, Unit 22, block AA, Tract A from TZ, Transitional District, and Unzoned District, respectively, to R3, mixed residential district.

Staff contact is Tim Dvorak and staff recommends the planning and zoning board recommend denial of the zone map amendment to the governing body with findings.

Tim.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chair, members of the board.

Tim Dvorick with the City of Rio Rancho again.

This item before you is a zone map amendment request for two properties within unit 22 from TZ transitional district and unzoned district to R3 mixed residential district.

The subject properties comprise approximately 2.64 acres.

Specifically unit 22, block 89, tract E is zone TZ transitional district via ordinance number 24, enactment number 98-25, and is approximately 1.38 acres.

The other subject property will be block AA, tract A, and that is the property which is unzoned.

It is approximately 1.26 acres.

These subject properties are designated as future planning land use per the generalized land use map, and they're located on the northwest and southwest corners of the intersection of Rainbow Boulevard Northeast and King Boulevard Northeast, both minor arterials.

The subject properties are abutted by special use district for residential to the north, south, and east.

Currently, Rainbow Boulevard Northeast measures approximately 90 to 95 feet in width.

The Mr.

Cog 2040 roadmap identifies Rainbow Road Northeast as a future regional principal arterial, which would require a right of way at least 156 feet in width when the roadway expands in the future.

So should the zone map amendment ultimately be approved, this future right-of-way will need to be taken into account.

As um development of Mari Plus of West is being planned further to the north, this pop uh this um area will have further popularity for these uh connections along Rainbow.

Um for established subdivisions, we have Northern Meadows J1 as well as Northern Meadows units 3, 5, and 11, which have been duly platted and recorded along the eastern side of rainbow.

This means that when future right-of-way expansion for rainbow needs to occur, this land will be acquired from the west side of rainbow, which contains the subject properties.

Um staff finds that the proximity of R3 mixed residential district to the east of the subject properties does not in itself justify a zone map amendment as the subject properties are located at the intersection of Rainbow Boulevard Northeast and King Boulevard Northeast.

There is also that future right of way and property access to consider.

Um as the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed residential zoning would still work for this development after having taken into account access and future right-of-way requirements.

Staff recommends that the planning and zoning board recommend denial of this amendment to the governing body with findings.

And I will stand for any questions.

Thanks, Tim.

Applicant present, yes.

Yes.

Tim, do you have the clicker?

Thank you.

All right, Mr.

Vice Chair and Commissioners, Jared Liker, 409 New Mexico Highway 528.

Um here for outer rim properties.

Go ahead.

There we go.

New guy, which one do I click to move it forward?

There we go.

As Tim stated, the two subject properties are to the west of Rainbow Boulevard at the intersection of Rainbow and King, one consisting of 1.38 acres, and the second 1.26 acres.

The two properties, existing zoning, translucent zoning tract E, which is supposed to be designated as a temporary zone, and tract A, which is unzoned at the current time.

What we want to do is bring this to an R3 single family zoning, similar to what happened with track J1 directly to the east.

As Tim stated, directly adjacent to these tracks, abutting them is residential surrounding these tracks, and then city limits and Sanibal County directly to the west.

This map basically shows Rainbow Boulevard next to the well, with the closed captioning, it's hard to see, but the subject property at the intersection of King and Rainbow.

The mention of Mariposa West, according to the master plan for Mariposa, there are currently three locations that they will uh get ingress and egress for that development.

Obviously, the current one, Mariposa Parkway, two lanes each direction, four lane uh principal arterial.

Um there is planned at La Barranca that will tie to UNSER, another principal arterial according to the master plan, and then rainbow boulevard is the third, another principal arterial.

So according to the standard drawings, uh City of Rio Rancho, principal arterial's four lanes, um, one of those sections is 106 foot uh width.

Um I have personally done these before for the city of Rio Rancho, design these uh street sections.

Um what could happen for two lanes each way, four-lane principal arterial on rainbow.

It could be done within the 100-foot right-of-way given the section that they have on their standard drawings.

That includes a 22-foot-wide median, you know, five-foot wide buffer, all I have to do is eliminate six feet of that section, which would be easily done within the median.

That burden for the two lanes each way would be reduced substantially to go from the 56 feet that would be needed to be dedicated to the six feet.

Um, so we'd be looking to see once we go to preliminary plat, if we can reduce that right-of-way section and still get what's needed in there.

I think the 156, as you can tell, uh the principal arterial for rainbow goes up and hits the pueblo.

Um, really, where those six lanes are needed are at Paseo de Volcan and Rainbow, which is south of this section.

Um, what would mainly happen is people who are developing a Mariposa West are gonna come out the La Barranca or Mariposa Parkway to UNSER to access 550 or UNSER, which is obviously paved road three way, three lanes each direction.

Ultimately, once you get past city center, um and the plan for UNSER UNSER Boulevard is to have three lanes in each direction to get to New Mexico 550.

Um, so we'd be looking to still provide the two lanes each way, but get that burden down to six feet.

Um what my concern is with a lot of the justification for denial with the ABM is due to a right-of-way take.

The justification for a zone map amendment should be based on what the property should be zoned.

If I go in, get the zoning, and then go into uh development services engineering, and they say I need to do that 56.

But the the main question before you today is if what I'm asking for, the R3 is appropriate for it.

What'll happen is I'll come back and say I have to dedicate X number of feet of right away, that's what I'll have to do.

I don't think it should be denied for a zone map amendment just based on something that I'm gonna have to do once we have the engineering done and layouts done for a potential development.

So if this was what we generally do is not provide the layout until preliminary plat, and that's due to us not knowing what the engineering involves, what roads we can do, where we can put lots, but we had developed that layout, and it's before you on this slide.

Um it in it includes basically on two properties, 20 single family detached uh residences.

Um I would have happily provided this layout if I was asked.

Um we had submitted this about a month ago.

I didn't get any call saying, hey, we have a problem, we're doing 56 feet.

Um, how are you gonna do this?

I would happily provide them with a layout to see how this would have been done.

Um, but none of those questions were asked of me.

I just got the ABM on Friday, said denial, and now I'm scrambling to figure out why I was denied.

The the curious part from the denial is when I went back and looked at criteria, I did the same thing for J1.

Changed that one from residential from C1 to R3.

I thought that would be more controversial.

Essentially, I took the same answers, looked back at the J1 application, had basically the identical answers for this application.

One came in with denial, uh, the other one for J1 came with approval.

So I was curious to why those two didn't jive.

I thought it'd be more controversial to eliminate commercial property versus something that was unzoned or temporary TZ zoning.

Um that obviously wasn't the case.

In addition to the J1 application, there was nothing discussed throughout regarding a right-of-way take or something that would be needed for a potential principal arterial rainbow.

So the burden was already set and said we're gonna burden this this side of the road with the whole 56 foot take.

Um, if you go and look at that that map that I showed, there's gonna be a lot of takes of 56 feet, and there's gonna be a lot of area where a lot of lots are going to be unusable, and the city's gonna have to purchase the entire lot just because it you take 56 feet, it's not gonna be used.

Um, so I think that's a problem.

I think there can be discussion where I still get two lanes of road each direction, four lanes with a median with sidewalks onto rainbow into that potential 106-foot width that the city already has uh standard drawing for.

Want to show you what we've done out in that area and had great success.

Um, the top two pictures are for the J1 development that was changed to R3.

Um, I think nice homes out there.

What we're trying to do is kind of do a little bit different in the two tracks.

The bottom two pictures are two typical homes that we would build on a single family residential detached within the R3 uh zoning that we're requesting today.

So here's a quick look at what happens if I take 56 feet of ride of way out of these properties.

According to the layout, I have 20 lots in there, approximately nine of those lots cannot be developed.

So, in my opinion, 45% of the plan development basically gets removed, whereas if I do the six feet that would be needed and still have the same function, um, I could still basically be able to develop this property.

Um, with that 60 or that 56 foot take, as I discussed, you're going up take 56 from everybody.

Essentially, in my opinion, these two properties are not developable or can't turn a profit.

That's what we are a for-profit entity, unfortunately.

No one likes to hear that, but we are, and we would basically with that take, we'd be seeking for the city to basically purchase those two lots from us because we couldn't develop them in a manner that yielded a profit for the company.

Oh, whoop, go back.

So, in closing, there's as you guys know with Zone Map Amendment, there's several criteria that are listed that you have to demonstrate that you comply with.

Several of those criteria, I believe during the ABM and Tim's presentation said we weren't satisfying the criteria.

So I'd like to go quickly through those.

The first criteria talks about in general health safety and general welfare for the city.

Again, just because I would have to dedicate right away, doesn't mean that these properties for R3 zoning are wrong for these properties.

If I go in there and get these zoned and the city tells me I have to do 56 feet, then I'm gonna have that discussion with the city regarding the development of that property.

I think that should not be a consideration to deny that criteria as not satisfied just because I have to give a take in the future when I do a preliminary platform.

Um criteria two talks about um if the if it if the zone change stabilizes the area and stabilizes the land.

As you guys are aware, TZ zoning is temporary, it's just put on there to basically label a lot something.

Um we are requesting to actually do a zoning that is in the code for Rio Rancho.

The second piece is obviously unzoned, has nothing, no restrictions on it at all.

We want to do R3 there and actually zone that property.

Um in his uh ABM for that, talked about plating for J1 and how those were already established lots.

I don't think that has anything to do with why these two pieces of property should be zoned R3.

Um those are platted and done and and built and should not be a consideration.

Talked about developing conditions.

Uh the third criteria.

Um I would have gladly allowed this layout to be part of the submittal again.

I I stated reasons why I usually don't do that, but if asked and pushed to that, I would gladly have provided that layout and shown that we are doing access off of King Boulevard instead of uh Rainbow Boulevard.

Um as stated, um no zone or temporary zone for criteria four, that it's inappropriate or it's in an error.

We believe that those two are in error because one of the properties was obviously not zoned at all.

So we think there should be a zone and obviously a temporary zoning.

If we want to establish a zone on our own property, we should be allowed to do that.

So cost wasn't a factor, location.

Tim did mention in the ABM that it wasn't a spot zone.

We do agree with that.

We have R3 surrounding it and think that this is an appropriate zoning for that area.

What I'd like to the last piece I'd like to point out is the comments that were received from various departments.

Um we received two comments back from two departments and no comments from any of the other departments.

The one that was intriguing was that uh engineering uh development services engineering recommended approval of this and said that there would be other submittals, grading and drainage, layouts, that sort of thing, as part of the preliminary platform, but did not mention once about a right-of-way take of 56 feet or six feet for that matter, and approved that said it recommended for approval with no adverse comments.

So, with that, I'd uh appreciate your support on this to rezone these two, and I'd stand for any questions.

Great, thanks, Jared.

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

Anyone online wishing to speak for or against item number seven?

Item number seven.

Motion to approve.

Thank you.

So we've got a motion and a second.

Any comments from the board?

Thank you.

Do you mean to repeat that for the record?

I don't know.

If you would just for the record, sure.

Sure.

Sorry, my mic wasn't on.

I apologize.

So the applicant has stated that it he didn't feel that there was enough adequate time given for him to respond to the various reasons given for the denial.

And so my question for city staff is um if we were to postpone this, would that allow for necessary time for him to come back and address some of those concerns?

Mr.

Vice Chair, uh, Commissioner Hardesty, um, it would be up to the applicant on how much information that they would want to provide.

Um so we give our applicants, we generally say within four to six weeks we will schedule you once the application comes in.

Um it takes us a few weeks to determine that we have a complete application and then uh to do our evaluation.

Um so we can, if they want to submit additional information and come back at a later date, we can look at making changes to it.

Um I can't uh guarantee that that will change anything depending on what they decide to submit to us um for uh an official submittal.

Um but we can look at that and and we can come back at a future date if they're comfortable also with um a postponement.

Okay, thank you, Amy.

Um so let me ask the applicant would you like the time and opportunity to address some of these um concerns more thoroughly, um, or would you prefer we vote today?

The tough one.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chair's Commissioner.

Um the majority of the ABM discusses the right-of-way take.

Um I believe that that should not be a consideration.

That bit should be something that I resolve with the engineering division when I do a preliminary plot submittal if I decide to subdivide this.

Um my point in the original presentation was that I would just have if you'd wanted to know exactly what I was doing or needed some clarification, I would have just loved to have a phone call and I would have provided that additional information, and maybe it wouldn't even be presented to you today.

Maybe it would have been pushed to September uh meeting because I would have provided that additional information and they need more time to evaluate.

But um in general, I get these ABMs the Friday before the Tuesday, and without knowing if I'm getting a denial, a an approval, uh, what the conditions are.

So it is a bit of a scramble.

I just don't know if things would change considering a majority of the ABM discusses the 56 feet, which in my opinion is a something that I would be discussing with either the engineering, the traffic division, uh something where we would discuss number of lanes needed, what has Mariposa done as far as a TIA Mariposa West to say that they actually needed six lanes on rainbow at some point in 40 years.

Um I don't I don't know if that would change, so it's hard for me to answer that question.

Um I would lean towards a vote today and let me hammer out the right-of-way concern with the appropriate departments.

Okay, and part of the reason I asked that question is because you know, in our experience, the city staff works pretty diligently with applicants to try to get to a recommendation of approval.

Um, and so I can only state this next part for me personally.

So we take recommended recommendations of denial seriously because we rely on them to adequately assess and and provide um a substantial recommendation.

And so just acknowledging that you said you didn't feel like you had um uh much time to respond to some of the concerns.

We just wanted to, I just wanted to propose the opportunity to allow you that time.

Commissioner Hardesy, I do I do honestly appreciate that consideration.

Um I think my position would be I believe the zoning is appropriate for what I'm doing, or what I'd like to do.

I think if I need to do a right-of-way take, I don't think that should be a determining factor to see if my change requests for the zoning is appropriate for the two laws.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments from the board.

So I just want to make sure I understand what the motion is.

Just a motion to approve the zone map amendment.

It's just a simple.

Yeah, we we just voted to or uh is a motion to no the applicant saying he does not want to postpone.

I was offering to make a motion.

What I'm saying is planning and zoning is recommended denial.

Right.

So it was a motion to motion was to approve.

Okay, I just want to make sure in the affirmative.

Okay.

That's all.

Additional comments.

I just have a question.

I mean, this is just about changing zoning.

I mean, I'm not sure, I'm not quite sure as to why if right-aways in the equation for changing zoning for the properties.

Mr.

Chair, Commissioner Kaufter, so one of the things that we were looking at is uh this intersection.

Uh we expect to be a big intersection, and we expect that there is going to be a lot of traffic in the future.

Um the expectation, I you know, we expect a lot of stuff out here.

Whether or not it actually comes to fruition, I can't say, right.

Um the other part too is I don't know how the county is going to grow, so I don't necessarily want to um have uh an intersection kind of get bogged down in a way that that we can't in the future expand.

Um so it is something that we look at just kind of on those those bigger pictures.

Um we have had other rezonings further to the south um along this stretch of road.

Um all of the requests um have come in previously in front of this board for R1.

Um we haven't had anybody uh go any higher density.

Uh we didn't feel that that it was uh worth kind of having that conversation.

We probably could have gone further with that conversation as well.

Um, but there was a couple of things that staff did determine uh was was not the best fit for the R three in this area.

Um but we felt that those maps already had this roadway identified, and that was uh the easiest to explain to everybody on our rationale.

Thank you.

Any additional comments?

Chairman, please call the vote.

Commissioner Hardesty?

No.

Commissioner Hankins.

No.

Vice Chair Gabledin.

Yes.

Commissioner Kaufcher.

Yes.

Commissioner Tortoric.

No.

Commissioner Radosevic.

No.

Motion failure.

Okay, item number eight.

Postponement.

The applicant city of Rio Rancho Public Works through their agent Hugh Zollers Inc.

requests approval of a preliminary final plat for the subject properties legally described as unit 21 blocks 13, lots one and two, and unit 21, block 20, parcel D, and lot 48.

The plat combines the four existing properties into two lots, dedicates a portion of right-of-way, and relocates PUEs.

Staff contact is Liz Rhys Carlos and stack rec staff recommends the planning and zoning board postpone the application to the meeting date certain of September 9th, 2025 to allow it for renoticing.

We make a motion for the date certain.

Okay, I'll entertain a moment.

Mr.

Chair, motion to postpone item number eight until September 9th.

Thank you.

Second.

Second.

All right.

Motion is to approve postpone to date certain of September 9th, 2025.

Please call the roll, Sharon.

Vice Chair Gabblin?

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Commissioner Tortorici?

Yes.

Commissioner Kaufter.

Yes.

Commissioner Rudolphic.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesty.

Yes.

Item has been postponed.

Okay, thank you.

Any additional discussion or deliberation?

Comments by board members.

Public forum.

Any person wishing to address a board, commission committee, or advisory body related to non-agenda items, she'll register in person with the applicable pluggable study staff staff person.

No more than two hours in total will be allowed to public allotted to public forum comments in any meeting and majority vote of the board, commission committee, or advisory body members.

Present may approve to extend the total amount of time allotted up for public form at a meeting.

Any public form.

Motion for adjournment.

Second.

All right, we out.

So I made all those things.