Okay, good evening, everyone, and welcome to September 9th, 2025 Plan and Zoning Board Meeting.

If you would please stand with me for the pledge of the legions.

Okay, before we get started, I have a couple of uh housekeeping items that I need to uh review.

Uh please silence all electronic devices while attending and planning zoning board meetings.

Um call the role.

Uh as a call, each member name, please uh acknowledge by your present by send present.

Kevin Culture Present.

Present.

Robert Gabadon, he's excused.

Uh Andrea Haskins.

Present.

Lisa Hardesty.

Present.

And Sal Todorici, he's excused as well.

Okay, continue on with the housekeeping items.

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 we have yet to fill out a form, now's the time to do so and provide the recorder to provide information to record to my left.

Uh virtual attendees, please send a chat message to the host or use a raised hand feature if you want to provide public comment.

Um, please do so.

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

Okay.

Uh moving on to consent calendar.

Any questions there?

If not, uh can I get a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar.

I'll second.

Okay.

Call the rule.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Commissioner Kopcher.

Yes.

Commissioner Radolsevich?

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesy.

Yes.

Okay.

So any staff presentation report or any comments.

If not, then we'll go into public hearings.

And item number two, the subdivision variants to be presented by Tamara Montinez.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and members of the board.

Tamara Martinez, planner with the city of Rio Rancho.

The items before you are a subdivision variance request and a concurrent preliminary plat final plat.

The applicant Southwest Elegant Homes, LLC, through their agent, CSI, which is Cartesian Services Inc.

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 for the installation of sidewalks and water and sewer mains.

Legally described as unit 17, block 81, lot 20, without improvements.

The preliminary final plat for this lot split into two lots will be heard concurrently under case number 25-210-4.

The property is zoned E1, estate residential per ordinance number 32, enactment 94-34, comprises approximately 2.5 acres and is located within this La Barranca specific area plan.

This case was initially scheduled to be heard at the August 25th meeting.

However, staff requested a postponement to allow for proper noticing as the applicant failed to post the notice sign in a timely manner.

New subdivisions require access to city water, sewer, street lighting, and sidewalks.

This lot, however, does not have sidewalks, street lighting, or access to city sewer or water, and as such, um the split cannot be approved administratively.

The application the applicant submitted a justification narrative, which is included as an attachment as well as um letters of determination provided by the New Mexico uh environmental department.

The proposed lot um configuration fails to improve or to provide an improved design and does not meet the requirements of section 155.06A.

Um the applicant has not provided adequate justification for the request.

As the property is a buildable lot, denial of the subdivision does not restrict the applicant from the reason reusing the reason reasonable use of their land.

Policy A two of the city's comprehension comprehensive plan.

Chapter 3 annexation of antiquated plating and addressing says or is to require the appropriate development standards for infrastructure and environmental improvements for both newly platted lots and antiquated lots.

Allowing for the subdivision of this lot does not have access to the next does not have access to the necessary infrastructure, furthers the proliferation of substandard antiquated platted lots, which diminishes the overall aesthetic of the city.

Staff also finds that splitting the large lot into two smaller lots will impact the total number of horses that would be allowed on this lot.

Housing of horses on an E1 property is one of the few differences in the residential district.

Currently, the property could house up to four houses, and splitting the property would limit the proper the property to one hour horse.

Staff recommends denial, subject to findings, and with that I will stand for any questions.

Okay, is the applicant present?

Okay, please come forward, state your name and address.

Good afternoon.

This is Ryan Mohall with Cartesian Surveys Inc.

address PLOX 1013 of Brother Road Northeast.

Okay, go ahead.

Okay.

So our client uh is looking to split these lots.

Um she's looking for um just over an acre for each lot, and so um there's sufficient room for well and um septic systems on these lots.

Um the um uh comments from um the city explain that I think we'll kind of be clear from connecting any kind of sidewalk system because that's not present there, and so um you know I think we you know address um with our presented materials all the evidence that you know the lots can be sufficiently developed with the proposed subdivision we're we're going for and um excuse me, I'm sorry, I'm getting over cold.

Um so uh you know there's significant number of already developed lots um in the immediate area that are on well systems already, um, including the lot immediately to the north of us that has the residence um and well where um the water line terminates along Iris.

So um you know we're we're we're pretty confident that we we fit with the neighboring lots.

Um the lots immediately west of us are half acre lots, and so for us to remain at over an acre of size, you know.

I don't think we diminish the neighborhood when there's pretty tight um development in that area, even though I know um we're currently zoned E1.

Um do you have any questions for me?

Uh we'll we'll get to that here shortly.

Um open up um Is there anyone who wish to speak for against item number two?

Is there anyone virtual who wish to speak for against item number two?

Okay.

Can I get a motion to prove item number two?

Motion to approve.

Second.

I'll second.

Okay.

Um please call the roll.

Oh, open up the discussion.

Is there one from the board who we should discuss?

I take those no.

So the variance, so it's we have the lot you want it wants to be subdivided into two lots.

Um, there's no sidewalk you can attach to, and I guess like the other variants is for connecting to city utilities.

Is that is that correct?

Mr.

Chair, uh, Commissioner Kaufcher, so that's correct.

So um when there's there's primarily two options when it comes to subdivision plats.

Um, one was what we call the summary process.

When you come in for a summary plat, um, all of the infrastructure has to be in place um and it's it you have everything in place as you would for a final plat, and that can be administratively approved.

Um in this case, because we're missing some of that infrastructure.

Um we can't administratively approve it, so we have to bring it in front of the board, but bringing it in front of the board also we have to acknowledge the fact that we're not meeting all of the standards of what would be part of a final plat.

So with that comes out subdivision variant saying, yes, um, in the ABM, we acknowledge there is not street lights in this neighborhood, there's not sidewalks in this neighborhood.

We we understand that we understand that there is a paved road, but they are missing uh water and sewer.

Uh these lots are uh set aside as E1, and they're set aside to be those larger lots.

Um, and so from just the the basic understanding of of a variance, there's nothing that keeps this current lot from meeting being buildable as is and not having some of that other infrastructure.

The subdivision requirement says is there an improved layout?

Is there some type of benefit to having that subdivision?

It's hard for us to see that when we're missing those types of things, and um uh when it comes to the horses, I know that sounds a little silly, but uh just a couple of weeks ago uh we had a counselor uh who may um a city councilor who who may actually start some process for increasing the number of horses on lots because there is um a little bit of a push to say that there is not enough large lots to allow horses and so there's other discussion items.

So uh we just wanted to highlight the fact that that there are uh differences between the R1 and E1, and it does make it a little bit more difficult again to have uh multiple horses, which uh we're seeing in other areas could be a problem.

Okay.

Any discussion from the board.

So wouldn't that necessitate a zone change then from an E to maybe a different residential zoning then?

If if that was the case.

Uh Mr.

Chair, uh Commissioner Kaufcher, for this property, they can still meet um the lot size for E1.

Uh it's just not um as as many horses would be allowed uh when you split it because of that basic acreage that you start with because you start with one acre for that first horse, so it it changes those numbers.

It's all coming down to the horses, okay.

And it doesn't have to, it's just something we wanted to point out because it is the one major difference between those zoning districts.

That's why I'm asking the questions.

Thank you.

Okay, in addition to comments from the board.

In addition to comments from the board.

Okay, see none.

Call to roll.

Commissioner Kopcher.

No.

Commissioner Wadilsovich?

No.

Commissioner Hardes seed.

No.

Chairman Richardson?

No.

Commissioner Hankins.

No.

Fail.

Okay.

Moving on to item number three, preliminary final plat to be presented by a staff member Tamara Montanis.

I have nothing further, sir.

I stand for any questions.

Okay.

Who wish to speak for against okay?

Uh this is Rima Hall with Cartesian surveys again.

Um yeah, I just want to say that I guess without the variance, the the plot actions moved.

So um good time.

Can you repeat that again?

I'm sorry.

Just without the variance, we won't be allowed to subdivide with this.

Okay.

Right.

Who wish to speak for against item number three?

I'm sorry, two.

Okay.

Uh motion to approve item number two.

I'm sorry, three.

I'm sorry, three.

I'm getting hit almost so item number three.

I'll motion to approve item number three.

Okay, second, second.

Okay.

Uh any comments from the board.

Any comments from the board.

Okay, call a rule.

Commissioner Rodosevic.

No.

Commissioner Hardesty.

No.

Commissioner Hankins.

No.

Commissioner Kaufcher.

No.

Chairman Richardson.

No.

Motion fail.

Okay, moving on to uh item number four, which is a variance, and to be presented by staff member Tamara Martinez.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and members of the board.

Tamara Martinez, planner with the city of Rio Rancho.

The item before you is a variance request.

The applicant Jennifer Trujillo requests approval of a variance request to the minimum required E1 estate residential district rear setback of 25 feet to allow for the construction of a new carport at the subject property of 698 10th Street Northeast, legally described as Unit 10, block 34, lot 42.

The property is zoned E1 estate residential per ordinance number 36, enactment 94-36, consists of one acre and is located on 10th Street, which is a major collector to the south of Northern Boulevard, which is a minor arterial road.

The surrounding properties are R1 to the west and zoned E1 to the north, south, and east of this lot.

Per section 154.50, the required setbacks are 35 feet from the front, 25 from the rear, and 10 from the side.

During the review process for the proposed 600 square foot carport under building permit number, it's 76 or 25-7643.

Staff discovered that the structure would encroach 12 feet into the rear setback.

The applicant submitted this variance request following zoning staff's review of the building permit and returning the building the plans for revision to meet the 25-foot rear setback.

The structure has been reviewed and approved by the city's building and engineering divisions.

The application meets all of the criteria set forth by the city's municipal code.

The applicant has submitted a justification narrative in support of this of the application and has obtained letters of support from three of the surrounding neighbors, which are all included as attachments.

Prior to this item, the applicant was granted a variance request under case number 20-11-5 for a 25 by 24 foot garage in the rear property of the rear of the property with the same 12-foot encroachment.

Um to the left of the proposed carport.

There is also a 20-foot utility overhang easement in the rear of the property, so the applicant will be responsible for obtaining and providing staff with an encroachment agreement for placing the structure within this easement.

Staff recommends that the board find that the practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship cannot be found for the very requested variance as the justification is based off inconvenience and difficult personal comfort as the applicant is trying to build a carport next to an existing garage instead of usalize utilizing the additional area in the rear of the property.

Staff recommends that the board find that while the property does have an irregular shape, it is one acre in size with ample space to construct the 600 square foot structure in place of the structure in the rear area of the property.

The irregular shape provides more space in the rear of the property than in the front, allowing for this the space for the accessory structures in the rear of the property while also meeting zoning standards.

Staff recommends denial, subject to findings, and with that I will stand for any questions.

Okay, yes, the applicant present.

Please state your name and your address.

I'm the property owner at 698 10th Street Northeast.

Okay, you may go.

Is to the right side of the lot.

And so it would be hard to put the um carport on that side of the property, um, as well as uh building that carport adjacent to the existing garage in the back makes it less of an eye sore to any of the neighbor the neighbors.

Again, we have met with the neighbors, we've talked to the neighbors, and we have support from the neighbors to uh build this carport.

Okay, thank you for the comment.

Is anyone uh present or virtual who wishes to speak for against item number four?

Is there anyone present or virtual who wish to speak for or against item number four?

Okay.

Motion to approve item number four.

Make a motion to approve item number four.

Second, second.

Okay, and comments from the board.

So I'm just trying to.

It's not the greatest little picture, is it?

So the new carport, excuse me.

So that's being proposed to be adjacent to what's being called the existing workshop.

Is a is a garage, is that correct?

Yes, correct.

Okay.

And um how is vehicular access?

Well, how does that happen to the to that location?

To the right side of the lot, we have backyard access.

Um, it goes around the existing wall.

We have that walls in kind of the um immediate backyard, but there is backyard access there that kind of loops around the wall, and then we gain access to that backyard garage.

So that's that CMU wall that's shown.

Yes.

Lower.

Do you know how far the proposed structure would be from that CMU wall?

Um I believe it's I don't think it's probably more than 20, 25 feet.

Okay.

So your intent is just to keep kind of both structures in the same location.

Um you said that um nobody from the surrounding your neighbors or anything like that.

Yep, you talked to them about what you're proposing.

Yes, that looks like that we actually have letters of support from from the neighbors.

Um one of those letters of support is from the neighbor who uh will be closest to what that includes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, in addition to comments from the board.

Mr.

Chairman, this is Lisa Hardest.

Yeah, I do have um maybe just a point of confirmation.

So am I understanding correctly from what I'm seeing here in the packet that the garage that this will be adjacent to previously received a variance approval to encroach essentially the same distance into this setback.

That's what I'm seeing in the drawing here, and I just want to confirm I'm seeing that correct or understanding that correctly.

Yes, ma'am.

And city staff, I'm understanding that correctly from what you've put together here.

Yes, this is okay.

Thank you.

Any additional comments from the board?

Okay, I I have a couple.

Um I missed it.

What is the height of the uh carport?

Um I may have missed it, but maybe 15 feet.

I I don't have that with me.

Um Tamra, do you have a copy of the There's one of the sheets that shows um like a 12 foot elevation um like at the section, but it's it's not it's just to the highest pitch, I believe.

It's not at the highest pitch, it's actually like at the at the lowest pitch.

So you probably got like another maybe three feet or so to the top of that, right?

So maybe maybe 15 total, I'm guessing to the to the to the ridge.

Okay.

Uh would that say um I know you presented uh was you you shared information with your neighbors.

Did you share that information with them for as to height of the garage?

And you're okay with it.

Yes.

Yeah, we we let uh it it matches um the exact height of the current um structure that's there, and so we did let them know that it would match that uh current height.

Um and in fact, I think that was um one of the things that they appreciated, so there wasn't a lot of staggering buildings and sizes back there.

Okay.

Thank you.

In addition to comments from the board.

See none.

Call to roll.

Yes.

Commissioner Copter?

Yes, Artisy.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion passed.

Okay, moving on to item number five, preliminary preliminary final plat to be presented by staff Liz Riz Carlos.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair, members of the board.

Lizarith Carlos, planner of the City of Rear Rancho.

Uh, the item before you is a request for a preliminary final plot for the King Boulevard expansion.

Uh the applicant city of Rio Rancho, uh, through their agent Q its all areas incorporated.

Craft approval of the preliminary final plot for the subject properties legally described as unit 21, block 13, lots one and two, a portion of block 19 tract AA, and block 20, parcels D and lot 48.

Uh the plot depicts the resulting configuration right-of-way uh for the proposed King Boulevard expansion project once again.

Uh it involves the streets, uh, Will Pitt Drive Northeast, which is currently classified as a major collector road, Lake Valley Drive Northeast, uh currently classified as a residential road, and King Boulevard Northeast, classified as a minor arterial road.

Uh, parcel D, lot forty-eight, and lots one and two are zoned NC neighborhood commercial, and are currently undeveloped.

Tract AA is currently zoned O one office and is also currently undeveloped.

Uh, the subject property also falls within the Paseo Gateway West excuse me, specific area plan.

Uh, you'll see the plat here with the affected lots uh circled in red.

Uh, again, that plat reflects the dedication of right of way at both the Woolpit Drive Northeast and King Boulevard intersection, and the Lake Valley Drive Northeast and King Boulevard Northeast intersection.

Uh, there's approximately point three eight four eight acres of railway being dedicated with this plat, and the proposed law and tracks would comply with the dimensional standards of both the NC neighborhood commercial and O one office zoning districts as laid out in chapter one fifty-four point five one.

The remaining tract AA is also in compliance with the minimum acreage standards of the O one office zoning district.

Staff records approval with findings, and with that, I will stand for any questions.

Okay, I don't think this is no different.

Um against item number five.

Okay, motion to approve item number five.

I'll make a motion to approve item number five preliminary flying off platforms.

Second.

Okay.

Um comments from the board.

See none, called roll.

Commissioner Hankins, yes.

Commissioner of Richardson?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Any discussion and deliberations or comments from the members.

And in public form.

Um what we spoke about earlier.

That's going to be uh sent out.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

Meetings adjourn.

Can I get a motion to adjourn?

Second.

Second.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.