Welcome to uh the planning zoning board meeting for June the 9th and please silence all electronics uh while attending the plan and zoning board meeting.

If you will please stand, let's do the allegiance of Legends of Allegiance.

Okay, for the record, I will take the role by calling each plan zone and board members' name.

Please acknowledge your presence by saying present.

Kevin Calcher, he's a school excuse for tonight.

Robert Galvadan present.

Andrea Hackins.

Present.

Lisa Hardesty.

Present.

Okay, a couple of housekeeping items.

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

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

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

Virtual attendees.

Please send a chat message to the host or use the raised hand feature.

If you want to provide a public comment, when I recognize you to speak, you will have the ability to enable audio and video.

Okay.

Consent calendar.

I have nothing there.

I'm gonna get a motion to approve consent calendar.

Motion to approve the consent calendar.

Second.

Second.

Call a rope.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabblan.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins, yes.

Commissioner Hardesy.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Thank you.

Moving on to staff presentations.

I won't go into those, but item number two and item number three is nothing there.

So we're going in order to speed up the meeting for tonight.

Uh, because we have a lot of folks and a lot of items.

Uh let's go into public hearings.

Item number four, it's a master plan, and staff contact is Liz Ruez Carlos and staff recommends the plan and zoning board.

Recommend approval to the governor party for the master plan with findings and conditions.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Lizarith Carlos, planner at the City of Rio Rancho.

Uh, the next two items are related, uh, so I will be presenting them uh together.

Uh so the applicant pulti home through their agent consensus planning requests approval of the Rancho Allegha Master Plan for the lots legally described as Unit 8 block 53, lots one through 24, block 49, lots 2 through 11, 14 through 23, and block 50, lots two through 24.

The subject property totals 66.25 acres and also falls within the northern rainbow specific area plan.

Uh the master plan area itself is located on the west side of Rainbow Boulevard Northeast, a proposed major arterial road, and it is bounded by Northern Boulevard Northeast to the north, uh minor arterial road, third street northwest, a residential road to the west, and 7th Avenue Northwest, or another residential road to the south.

Uh the applicant is concurrently requesting approval of a zone map amendment to rezone the subject properties from M1 Industrial and Business Park as well as R1 single family residential to R3 mixed residential under case number 25-100-17.

Uh it is important to note there are three residentially developed lots and two industrially developed lots that abut the subject properties that are excluded from both the master plan and zone map amendment requests.

The plan itself identifies land uses, zoning, drainage, utilities, and transportation corridors for the area with an overarching intention of facilitating residential development.

It proposes 350 units, that full build out on 66.25 acres.

This equates to 5.28 dwelling units per acre, which is below the seven dwelling unit allowance for our three zoning.

Proposed access will be off of Northern Boulevard and Rainbow Boulevard.

And the master plan further calls out that Rainbow Boulevard will be expanded to a 156-foot right-of-way with two travel lanes.

Um, but in the meantime, it will have a single traveling.

The proposed zone map amendment would facilitate the proposed residential development in the new rancho alegri and master plan.

Uh the land use for the affected properties is currently shown as medium density residential with R3 as the suggested zoning for the Northern Rainbow Specific Area Plan.

And the master plan would be in conformance conformance with this land use and the proposed zoning in that plan.

Here we do have an illustrative plan of the proposed build out with those lots and park locations shown as well.

Uh here we have proposed phasing.

Development services department recommends the planning and zoning board recommend approval of master plan case number 25-400-6 to the governing body, subject to the following findings and conditions.

As well as uh recommends approval of the zone map amendment case number 25-100-17 to the governing body again, subject to the following findings and conditions.

And with that, I will stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Please come forth, state your name and your address.

Yes, good evening.

Uh consensus planning agent.

My name is Michael Wright.

I'm here with the owner applicant Pulty Homes, Kevin Patton, as well as as the engineer for the project BHI, Yolanda Meyer.

Uh as well online is the Mike Feetz from Westway Homes.

Okay.

Uh first I'd like to say thank you to staff for assistance and guidance, especially Liz for working with us.

We are excited to bring you the Rancho Allegria master plan and zone map amendment.

All right.

Our project team is from Pulty, Westway, Bohan and Houston and Consensus Planning again.

And again, Kevin Patton and Yolanda are here for additional comments.

Button to work.

Sorry, guys.

All right, for existing conditions.

Uh the planning area is roughly 66 acres and it is vacant.

Uh the adjacent um parcels around us, we do have two residents that are currently there, as well as a commercial business to the south.

As far as existing zoning, we have low residential R1 to the north, as well as M1 Industrial Business Park to the south.

The master plan is within the northern and rainbow specific area plan.

The specific excuse me, the staff has an updated land uses and proposed zoning, changes from the employment center to a business park, includes transitional buffer guidelines that are incorporated, moves towards a more residential community, and it was amended in 2025.

As far as the proposed zoning, we are moving from the R1 and the M1 to R3, which is a more modern density residential zone.

Master plan is roughly 990, excuse me, almost 1,000 people who will be joining this residence of over 350 units with 2.7 park land acres provided within the master plan.

As you can see in front of me is the illustrative plan.

There are two different builders, so you're gonna have to see two different types of products in front of you to in this master plan.

We have a variety of amenities we'd like to show.

We have a central park, we have entryway monuments, we have a series of pocket parks, as well as a walking path around a pond and an enclosed dog park.

We also are featuring certain traffic calming design measures.

In conclusion, we agree with staff report findings and conclusions.

Staff recommends of approval.

As of yet, we have no public comments in opposition.

The public, excuse me, the master plan implements the northern or rainbow specific area plan.

It does follow all current development process manual, the DPM.

It furthers the goals and policies of the Rio Rancho Comprehensive Plan and conforms to the Rio Rancho Affordable Housing Plan.

And I stand for questions.

Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you.

Maybe we see it.

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

Come forth, state your name and your address.

And before you begin, just make notice for everyone that you have a two-minute uh public comments.

Thanks.

Max.

Sure.

My name is Roger Norton.

I live at 708-8th Street Northeast Rear Rancho.

Essentially just to the east of the subdivision being planned.

So I feel I am very much in the area being affected as it's along northern, in particular with the traffic.

So I've had to digest the master plan and etc.

etc.

as quickly as I can.

So fundamentally, uh I I'm not a for or against the development.

I'm against the way the development has been designed and the fact that it does not meet the city's master plan or requirements.

Uh and I'm not going to because I'm not polished, I'm not using requirement.

I'm going to use the word requirements because I don't know if there are statutes, laws, plans, etc.

So forgive me for not being up too snuff on that.

Um the developer should be required to provide the park space, all of the park space, as the city's requirements state.

Um somebody on the staff said you don't have to do it all because your building all of the parks will allow you to lower that threshold to 2.7, which is what the developer just just mentioned.

Um I don't know if the staff has the uh latitude to make those types of decisions.

I thought that's what the purpose of these kind of chambers were.

Um but as proposed by the developer, it's diluting your previously created requirements of I believe it's 2.95.

Okay, excuse me, sir, but your uh time is up in public comments.

Okay, fundamentally, the plan does not meet your requirements, and I'm only asking that it meet requirements.

You're he's they're using sorry, but your time is up.

Thank you.

They're using a park across the street.

Okay, so anyone else present who wish to speak for against item number four.

Okay, is there anyone virtual who wish to speak for against item number four?

Okay, it's now closed for public comments.

Motion to approve item number four, Mr.

Chair, motion to approve item four is presented.

Second, second, and discussion from the board.

And in discussion from the board.

I hear now, I see none.

Call the roll.

Vice Chair Gabbleton?

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesy, yes.

Commissioner Hankins, yes.

Chairman Richardson, yes.

Motion pass.

Okay.

Moving on to item number five is a zone map amendment.

Staff contact is Liz Rarez-Carlos, and staff recommends to the planning and zoning board recommend approval of the zone map amendment to the government body with fine design conditions.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Liz Ruth Carlisle, City Rear Rancho again.

Uh, I have no additional comment, but I will stand for any questions.

Okay.

Any comments from an applicant.

Michael Wright, agent here again.

Uh, no comments this time, but we stand for questioning.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone present who wish to speak for against item number five.

Come forth.

Just remind you, two minutes, Matt.

Yes, sir.

Appreciate it.

Their recommendation is to, and you've tacitly approved, you've already approved it, using the park across the street that another subdivider paid for to meet their already diluted threshold.

There is no physical access to that park.

It's in a completely surrounded subdivision.

The only way to get there is to drive to it, and there's no parking over there.

There's no way to cross safely northern.

There are no traffic.

In fact, it's not even a four-way stop.

You're traveling west on northbound.

There's no stopping.

So you're saying little kids are gonna cross the street.

Where people are going 40, 50, 80 miles an hour.

This is poorly thought through, wherever staff is.

Really?

Should be embarrassed.

I believe that's under two.

Thank you for your comment.

Thank you, sir.

Just let you know that we vote in the affirmative.

Okay.

But it's now on public.

Okay, now close the public comments.

I'm sorry, is anyone virtual who should speak for against item number five?

Okay.

Now close for public comments.

Motion to approve item number five.

Motion to approve item number five.

Can I get a second?

Second.

Any comments from the board.

Any comments, discussion from the board.

Here none I see nine, call the roll.

Commissioner Hardesty.

Yes.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay, moving on to item number six as a variance.

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

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Tim Dvorak, Pointer with the City of Rio Rancho.

This item before you is a variance request to allow for development of a substandard 50-foot width, R1 residential lots at the property of 704 Northern Boulevard Northeast.

This item was originally scheduled for the May 26, 2026 planning and zoning board meeting.

However, that did get postponed.

And is now uh being heard here.

Uh the subject property itself comprises approximately 0.26 acres and is owned R1 single family residential.

It's also under overlay ordinance number 21, enactment number 98-23, which has further provisions for these 50-foot width lots.

Surrounding properties are R1 single family in all directions with C1 commercial to the northeast.

The properties located to the south side of Northern Boulevard Northeast, a minor arterial, just west of 8th Street Northeast, a minor collector.

And here's the original platform for the property.

As um the applicant only owns the subject lot 49 and not the lot um adjacent to it, 48.

Um there's no opportunity to combine the two adjacent lots into a larger conforming lots.

As such, staff recommends that the board find that the subject property is irregular and uh narrow lots, and um staff finds that the strict application of the minimum lot requirements would result in a hardship that would deprive the owner of the reasonable use of their land.

As such, staff recommends approval with findings and conditions, and I'll stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you to one person who wish to speak for against item number six.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm just hold on, hold on.

I'm gonna hit up myself.

Thank you.

It's applicant present.

Hello there.

My name is Are you the applicant?

Pardon me.

Are you the applicant?

Okay.

Excuse me, ma'am.

I'm I got ahead of myself.

What?

You may take your seat.

It needs to speak first.

She has to speak first.

Very well.

Sorry, so thank you.

Hello, my name is Diana Ramirez, and I'm here to speak on the item six and seven on the agenda, if I may.

Um, we also have seven.

I don't know if you want me to go ahead and speak on that one as well.

You combine the six and seven.

No, so um there's two different companies that own um items six and seven, which are those two lots that we have on variants today.

Um it's CLI's uh properties and soano builders, and um they were they are purchased by two separate entities.

We just happen to be the builder for CLI, and I am the agent for that one as well.

And so you may proceed with item number six.

Um so that was just my I just wanted to speak on that, just that they are owned by two separate entities, and based on just the correspondence that I submitted, um, I request the board to approve the request.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, ma'am, now you can come forth.

Yes, state your name and your address.

Hello again.

I'm Vera UTERA and I live at 708 Northern Boulevard.

And my husband and I came here from Kansas to build in Rio Rancho because we love the town so much.

So we did.

We went over northern, found a beautiful place where we bought three lots, not one, not a 50-foot lot, but three 60 feet lots.

Because on our little hill up there, we all have three or four lots that we built one house on.

There's no exception up on our little hill.

There are exceptions, other directions.

And my house is valued at about $650,000.

So it's not a cheap house.

It was a custom house with custom everything inside out, landscaping, roads, everything the hilt.

My husband believed in all that and he did it.

And as a retired person now with him gone.

We were custom built.

We all did the same thing.

We built on more than one lot so that we had a nice space.

That's why we came to Rio Rancho and where we went, where we did.

Um the original owners wanted that.

They they said that there should be no lot smaller than 60 feet where a house was built.

But now we're gonna have one house on each 50 feet.

That house is going to be less than 15 feet from my front porch, looking down into my house, which sits sideways to catch the sun.

And I can show you a picture of my home.

It's it's a Tuscan style house designed by Ron Montoyu, if you know or familiar with him.

But I'm worried about the property value on this.

We already have water problems coming down from the hill.

Uh that's going to increase.

I'm worried whether I can even build a fence then to block them off from our three bedrooms.

Excuse me, ma'am.

Your time is up as a reminder to everyone.

You only have a maximum of two minutes for your public comments.

Okay.

You have exceeded you.

I'm sorry, ma'am, but you've exceeded your two minutes.

Okay.

I'm asking that you deny this requirements.

The house doesn't the being built just like you've exceeded your two minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else who wish to speak who is present?

Come forth.

State your name, your address.

Uh good evening.

My name is Rebecca Smith.

Um, I'm an adjacent property owner at 640 Northern Boulevard.

Um, I'd like to approach this as a as a timeline for you.

Um rather than offer conclusions to you, I just want to summarize the documented history of these two properties.

Uh lots 48 and 49 were actually created as separate 50-foot lots in 1973.

In 1998, the city adopted ordinance 98-023.

The city's notice stated that contiguous 50-foot lots under the same ownership would be deemed merged for zoning and building purposes.

They were purchased in 1973 by um a family Roger and Lorraine Richter.

They were held consecutively for 50 years.

Uh County Assessor and Conveyance Records indicate these lots remained within the same ownership chain after adoption of that ordinance and until December 2025.

On December 3rd, conveyance documents 2025.

I'm sorry, conveyance documents were executed for both lots.

On December 4th, the 2020 2025, both conveyances were recorded at approximately 2.07 p.m.

This is for lots 48 and 49.

Lot 48 was conveyed to Solano Builders in Construction LLC.

Lot 49 was conveyed to CLI properties LLC.

When marketed, the M MLS listing marketed the properties together as adjacent lots and encouraged buyers to purchase them together for quote, even more opportunity, end quote.

On May 1st, 2026, variance applications were filed for both properties.

The applicate applications seek substantially similar relief and are supported by substantially similar justification letters.

These facts raise two questions for me.

First, whether the hardship being presented today was a condition that was known and foreseeable when these lots were acquired through the framework of municipal code 150- or dot 06.

Second, how ordinance 98-023 applies to contiguous substandard lots that remained under the common ownership after adoption.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the who is present who wish to speak for or against item number six?

Motion to approve item number six.

Mr.

Chair, motion to approve item six is presented.

Second.

And a discussion from the board.

Any discussion from the board.

I hear not see none called the rule.

I'm sorry.

I just wanted to clarify one point.

So just confirming that lots 48 and 49 are not owned by the same individual and cannot therefore be combined into a single lot.

Is that correct?

Mr.

Chair, uh Commissioner Hardesty, that is correct.

They submitted to us um individual deeds for each of those properties with with different ownership.

Um so they still have the same agent who's representing them, but it's uh two different owners.

Legally two different owners.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, no other questions.

No problem.

Any additional discussion from the board.

Call the roll.

Commissioner Hankins, yes.

Vice Chair Gabbledon?

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesty.

Yes.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Motion passed.

Okay.

Moving on to item number seven, which is also in variance.

Staff contact with Ben Ozik and staff recommends approval with findings and conditions.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and members of the board.

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

The item before you is a variance request to allow for a 50-foot lot width for a property in an R1 single-family residential zone next to the property in the previous case.

The applicant Solano Builders and Construction is requesting approval of a lot with variance for the subject property located at 700 Northern Boulevard Northeast.

The subject property is legally described as Unit 11, Block V lot 48.

The subject property is zoned R1 single family residential, as for ordinance 68, enactment 94066, and is also located within an overlay zone as for ordinance 21, enactment 98023.

This case was uh originally meant to be heard on May 26th, but is being heard today due to the cancellation of the previous hearing.

The applicant is requesting a variance to Rio Rancho Municipal Code Section 154.50, which ordains the property zoned R1 must have a minimum lot width of 60 feet.

The subject property was platted in November of 1965, and as such is an antiquated platted lot.

It has a lot width of 50 feet, which does not meet the 60 feet requirement.

The subject property is also located within an overlay zone that ordains that all adjacent or contiguous lots held by the same owner shall be combined by summary plat procedure to prevent the proliferation of these substandard lots.

However, as the applicant does not known own any lots adjacent to the subject property, this ordinance does not apply.

Staff recommend that the board approve the applicant's request for lot with variance based on the specified findings of facts and conditions.

I'll stand if there are any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Is the applicant present?

In addition, comments.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um forth.

Hello, my name is Rebecca Smith.

I reside at 640 Northern Boulevard.

Um at this point, I would like to pose some questions to the board regarding the properties that are contiguous.

Um in 1998, the overlay ordinance notice state quo, all contiguous 50-foot minimum frontage lots and the same ownership shall be deemed merged for zoning and building purposes.

The original owners bought the properties in 1973, so I'm trying to understand if they were legally merged in 1998.

How can they be legally unmerged in 2025?

Um I have the notice right here.

The very own language of the city states, the governing body of the city of Rio Rancho will consider adoption of a zone map overlay ordinance that, if adopted, will deem all contiguous 50-foot minimum frontage lots in the same ownership merged.

Um in 1997, the entire city put 50-foot lot construction on a moratorium because they were so concerned with what was happening happening with 50 foot lots.

Um we bought this this in uh neighborhood due to the the character and the density to having space.

Um the applicant in the justification letter states that it's gonna match density and character of the neighborhood.

It absolutely does not.

The neighborhood around that area is at least three lots.

I'm on four.

Next to me is uh on the other side of this property is three.

Behind me is three, behind me caddy corner is four.

Um I just think that this is an absolute um going against the ordinances the city developed a long time ago, and I'm I'm begging you to deny this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number seven.

State your name, the address.

This is one lot over from um where they're building next to me.

Um, but I'd like to emphasize that these houses don't look like our custom built houses because our section is different.

And this builder does have other options.

He can build a house on two lots and be like the rest of us, not like he's doing.

He could also sell it to me because I tried to buy it from anybody wouldn't answer me back.

Another attempt was also made.

I also know two other people that would buy this land from him rather than build an inappropriate house.

It's gonna cause traffic and water and septic tank issues in our little area of the world up there.

I ask you again to please help us keep our dreams in Rio Rancho where we came to live and build by denying this requirement.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone present who wish to speak for against item number seven?

What should speak for against item number seven?

Okay, it's now close.

Uh to public comments.

Motion to approve item number seven.

Motion to approve item number seven.

Second, second.

And discussion from the board.

Any discussion from the board.

Call the rule.

Vice Chair Gabblin.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesy.

Yes.

Motion passed.

Okay.

Moving on to uh item number eight is the variance as well.

Staff contact is Tamara Martinez has to have recommends denial.

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 to the rear setback requirement.

The applicant Stephen Myers is requesting the approval of a variance to the minimum rear setback in the R4 single family residential district at the subject property legally described as Lomas Encantadas 4A, block 4, lot 19, located at 7175 Wrangle Loop.

This request will allow for a 10-foot encroachment into the rear setback to allow for an existing 180 square foot gazebo.

This case was virtually scheduled for consideration at the May 26th meeting.

However, due to the cancellation, the item was rescheduled.

The subject property totals approximately 0.1470 acres, and the surrounding properties to the north are all zoned R1, while the properties in the other three directions are also zoned R4.

The existing um gazebo was identified during a proactive patrol conducted by code enforcement, which led to the initiation of code case number 26-1580 for the construction of a structure without the required building permit.

The applicant has since submitted a building permit for this structure under permit number 26-2981, and the structure has been reviewed and approved by both engineering and the building division.

The applicant is requesting a reduction of the 15-foot rear setback to five feet, which results in a 10-foot encroachment.

The property has a 10-foot public utility easement in the front and rear of the property, um, and a five-foot PUE on the side of the property.

The structure is encroaching five feet into the rear PUE and 4.5 into feet into the side PUE.

A condition of approval is to obtain the encroachment agreements from the required utility companies.

Per zoning table, I'm sorry, per chapter 154.50 zoning table.

The R4 setbacks are 15 feet from the front, 15 from the rear, five from the side, or 10 if it is a corner side.

This requested variance is to allow for an encroachment of 10 feet into the rear setback, reducing the required 15 feet rear setback to five feet as shown here.

The applicant has submitted justification narrative in support of the application, which is included as an attachment.

Staff finds 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 the zoning code.

Staff recommends that the board find that the practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship cannot be found for the requested variants and the and recommends that the board find that the requested variants is a result of a self-imposed condition as the gazebo was constructed without the required building purchase.

Excuse me, the required building permits and encroaches into the established setbacks.

With that, I will stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Is the applicant present?

State your name and the address.

Hi my name is uh Steve Myers.

The address is 7175 uh Ringo Loop.

We weren't aware of permits or any setbacks that we needed to obtain at the time.

We're asking for approval.

Did it?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

You have any questions?

Uh we'll we'll address that, but you can't take a seat if you finished.

Is there one present who wish to speak for against item number eight?

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

Okay, item number eight is now closed.

Public comments.

Motion to approve item number eight.

Mr.

Chair, motion to approve item number eight as presented.

Second.

Any discussion from the board.

Mr.

Chair.

Quick quick question.

I just want to uh verify for the record.

I thought I read that the neighbor's support letter was to the neighbor that is just next to that actual structure.

Is that true?

Okay, thank you.

Any discussion from the board?

I think just a question for the applicant.

Um so one of if this were approved, one of the conditions of approval is to obtain agreements from the um utility companies for the encroachment into the public utility easement.

Have you begun any of those discussions yet?

Um we haven't uh started the discussions, but Tamara made us aware that that is something that we need to do.

I just need to figure out how to do it.

Okay.

But we're we're absolutely like we'll do it whatever we can to make sure that this is up in vote or within the requirements of the city.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any further discussion from the board or comments.

Okay.

Call roll.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins?

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesy.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbledon?

Yes.

Motion passed.

Okay, move on to item number nine, zone map amendment.

Staff contact Ben Isaac and staff recommends approval with findings and conditions.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and members of the board.

Ben Isaac's municipal planner with the city of Rio Rancho.

The item before you is a zone map amendment.

Request to change the zoning classification of a property from C1 to C2.

The applicant J and W investments LLC is requesting approval of a zone map amendment for the property legally described as Unit 10 block A lot 6.

The property consists of approximately 0.28 acres and is zone C1, retail commercial coordinates number 8364, adopted in 1983.

The subject property is located located at 1050 Varanda Road, a minor collector and a buttons other commercial land uses.

The applicant owns the property immediately south of the subject property, and this is zoned C2.

The subject property is located on Varanda Road southeast, a minor collector, which is characterized by a mix of retail and wholesale warehousing commercial uses.

The property has remained vacant under its current C1 zoning classification, and it is not located on the nearest principal arterial southern boulevard, potentially making it less suited for retail uses.

With this change in zoning, the applicant aims to match the zoning of the property to the south for future lot combination and site development.

This will bring the zoning of the subject property in line with that of the surrounding properties and reflect changed community conditions, such as the development of businesses on the neighboring parcel, allowing for their expansion and creating commercial growth opportunities in the city.

Staff recommend that the board recommends approval to the governing body for the applicant's request to amend the zoning classification of the subject property as per the specified findings of facts and conditions.

I'll stand if there are any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Is the applicant present?

Online.

Online.

Okay, uh book to oath.

And please uh we'll put the oath and you can fill in the blanks.

Uh Wayne Stansfield residing at 1010 Desert Broome Road, Rio Rancho, Northeast, Rio Rancho, New Mexico 87144.

Do solemnly declare and affirm that the testament I give in reference to okay, you may proceed.

Shall be the truth.

Thank you.

I assume are we losing it?

Uh I I didn't have uh anything prepared other than to see if they we could if we needed to answer any questions and we're simply we have a uh building out there now, run a small business, and we are looking to develop some small uh multi-space units, kind of like small storage and commercial use.

That's all.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

So anyone present who wish to speak for against item number nine.

Center one virtual will wish to speak for against item number nine.

Now close to public comments.

I hear none and uh motion to approve item number nine.

I just have a question.

Um, what's operating on the lot just south of this subject property?

You said a small business.

Um, and then your intention is to operate some small storage.

Is that like a self-storage boat and RV story?

We can take a motion first.

Oh, sorry.

Motion to approve number nine.

Motion to approve item number nine.

Second.

And then discussion from the board, and then you may proceed.

Would you like for me to repeat the question, Mr.

Stanley?

No, I uh no.

Uh to the south is a small, it's a small pest control company.

Uh, and to the north is where uh it's about a block away from uh southern, where they have uh the food pantry, I think is directly north of there.

Uh the intention is to build some like multi-use commercial properties similar to like what they have down on Sarah Road, where they can do some office slash uh commercial space.

I I reference storage because there'll be kind of little warehousing office space.

Thank you.

And the further discussion or comments from the board.

I hear no C9 caller roll.

Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins?

Yes.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardisc.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay, move on to item number 10, zone map admitment.

Staff contact is Leus Red Carlos, and staff recommends to planning and zoning board recommend approval to the government body with findings and conditions.

Uh good evening, Mr.

Chair, members of the board, Liz Reeth Carlos, planner with the City of Rio Rancho.

Uh, again, the item before you is the request for a zone map amendment slash site plan for the MAC Center at 801 Loma, Colorado.

Uh, the applicant Michael McDermott requests approval of the zone map amendment with the accompanying site plan for that subject property legally described as Loma Colorado tract P1C-A to amend the SCU special use zoning designation to allow for restaurants, bars, lounges, coffee, tea rooms, delicatessens, and patio and alfresco dining facilities.

Uh the proposed amended SEU special use zoning ordinance also includes the amended site plan, uh, which will be referenced later.

Uh, the property consists of 7.3264 acres and is currently zoned uh SEU special use for educational, recreational, and cultural uses.

Uh the subject property is currently developed with the McDermott Athletica Center, known as the MAC Center.

The proposed expansion for this site plan is to allow for the addition of a proposed food and beverage area and tap room immediately adjacent to the turf field area.

It is important to note that the city owns the subject property and the applicant has an existing ground lease to operate the multi-purpose sports facility for sports, fitness, recreation, and leisure activities.

The ground lease establishes that these activities may occur inside or outside of the facility and also allows for authorization of uses beyond sports fitness recreation and leisure, but it does not explicitly allow for alcohol consumption or a tap room.

The site plan is shown here with that area that's proposed in red.

Per the site plan, the proposed tap room measures 16 by 20 or 320 square feet, and the turf area currently measures 2600 square feet for a total alcohol consumption area of 2920 square feet.

No alcohol sales or consumption will be permitted within the actual uh MAC Center building or elsewhere on the site.

The applicant has provided renderings of the proposed tap room as well.

Um following this decision, uh, if the governing body adopts the zone map amendment with the accompanying site plan, the proposed use of a food and beverage area and tap room is permitted from a land use and zoning standpoint, uh but the applicant will still be required to pursue an amendment to the ground lease before they can proceed with any development.

Uh here's a little zoomed-in area map, and then a proposed rendering.

Development services department recommends the planning and zoning board recommend approval of the map amendment case number 26-100-3 to the governing body, subject to the following findings of fact.

And with that, I will stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Is the applicant present?

State your name and the address.

Michael McDermott 438 Paso Roha.

Um, we've been before you guys in the past um trying to do something similar on the north part of the property.

Uh since then, we've added a turf football field down there.

We've added same volleyball courts all to the south side.

So for us, it just naturally made sense to shift this project and this vision to the south side of the property.

Um, and for that, after that, I uh I'll stand for any questions.

Let's see guys.

Or if you guys have any questions, I'm happy.

You may take a seat.

Thank you.

Is there anyone present who wish to speak for or against item number 10?

Is there anyone virtual who wish to speak for or against item number 10?

Okay, item number 10 is now closed to public for comments.

Motion to approve item number 10.

Mr.

Chair, motion to approve item 10 is presented.

Can I do a second?

Second.

Any comments from the board.

So I have a question for staff just from the from the prior item that we looked at on the Mac.

Um, is that still, I mean, what from what we voted on before, is that still stand to be able to be done if the owner were to so choose.

Mr.

Chair, uh, Commissioner Galbadone.

So the site plans um we give timelines of uh roughly two to three years for those um for the construction to take place.

Um so I believe the last item that went uh in front um is still um active and valid, and the applicant always has the opportunity to come back in for any changes.

Appreciate that thank you.

Thank you.

And additional comments or discussion from the board.

Call the rule.

Commissioner Hardesy.

Yes.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabblin.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins, yes.

Motion pass.

Okay, move on to item number 11.

SAE site plan amendment.

Staff contact is Tim Dvorak and staff recommends the planning and zoning board, recommend approval of the site plan to the government body.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Tim Davorak, planner with the city of Rio Rancho again.

The item before you is a site plan amendment request um for the property of 7555 enchanted hills boulevard northeast for the proposed Sage Brush Church expansion.

The property itself is legally described as Commerce Center Industrial at Enchanted Hills, block A, lot 5A1, and comprises approximately 4.3488 acres.

The property itself is zoned as uh SU Special Use District for commercial and industrial uses.

This ordinance also stipulates approval by the planning and zoning board, which is why you are hearing this item this evening.

The property itself is accessed from two points NITSA Place Northeast and Stanley Drive Northeast, both residential roads.

Surrounding zoning is SU special use for commercial and industrial to the north, south, and east, and R1 single family residential to the west.

And here is the site plan.

You can see the proposed uh building addition circled in red on the northeast side of that building.

It's 6,968 square feet.

Um currently the site has 297 parking spaces.

Um proposed parking after this addition would be 274 spaces.

Breaking down the actual parking requirements, we would assess this under both places of public assembly, requiring 228 spaces and office and retail um buildings, um, which requires 85 spaces based on the the square footage and calculations.

We would also assess this under um total mixed use parking, which requires that all parking uses be the sum of uh the parking on the property, so that would be 313 um parking spaces.

However, provided that the applicant can provide for the most intense parking use.

Um allow for uh those 228 parking spaces to exist with a 40% decrease on the office retail space.

Um so that 85 would be reduced to 34, so 262 parking spaces would be required with that.

Um this is technically uh meeting those provisions.

And here is a quick before.

This is the uh building as it exists currently.

Uh it has two levels to it.

The second level will not have any changes to it whatsoever.

Um, same for the office space on the ground floor.

The blue area which you're seeing is um the blue area, which uh you're seeing is where the current worship area is, which consists of 7 uh330 square feet.

This is going to be moved to the proposed expansion, which you see in the red up top.

Um, that will decrease the worship space to 5,258 square feet.

Um, and that previous space that held the worship area will be a lobby and four classrooms.

A couple of things to keep in mind real quick.

Um, this is the demolition area that um would encompass the addition.

This is going to displace a few islands of landscaping.

Um, so a condition of approval is for the applicant to provide for that displaced landscaping somewhere else on the property.

Um, we also need building setbacks to be provided as well as the parking space count on the site plan to be amended.

Steph recommends uh the planning and zoning board recommend approval of the site plan amendment to the governing body subject to uh the findings of fact and conditions.

And with that, I'll stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Is the applicant present?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, Ron Bohanan, 5571 Midway Park Place with Tierra West.

Uh we're here representing Sagebrush Church, and with me tonight is Tate Fishburne, the architect on that.

We've been working closely with Tim and staff uh to work through these parking issues, and we're in agreement with their uh proposed findings, and we are here to answer any questions.

I have a PowerPoint if you want to go through it, but they did a pretty good job in the analysis.

The parking is really the big issue, and we've been working very closely with Tim on that parking and we do all the requirements and can uh add all those other items for the landscaping and the setbacks for the site point.

If you want to show the PowerPoint as your call, but you know, we got a long agenda tonight.

I'll I'll uh spare you if you don't mind.

Definitely appreciate it.

Thank you.

All right.

Okay, you may have seat.

Thank you.

Is there anyone present who wish to speak for against item number 11?

So anyone present who wish to speak for or against item number 11.

Is there no one virtual who wish to speak for or against item number 11?

Okay.

Motion to approve item number 11.

Motion to approve item number 11.

Can I give a second?

Second.

In a discussion from the board.

Call a roll.

Vice Chair Gabbledon?

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesy.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins?

Yes.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay, moving on to item number 12.

It's a variance.

Staff contact is Ben Isaac and staff recommends approval with find and zen conditions.

Hello again.

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

Uh this item is a variance request to allow for a 50-foot lot width for a property in R1 single family residential zone.

The applicant is mail Ariola is requesting approval of a lot with variance for the subject property located at 836 Northern Boulevard Northeast.

The subject property is legally described as Unit 11 block V lot 69.

The subject property is zoned R1, single family residential, as per ordinance 68, enactment 946, and is also located within an overlay zone as per ordinance 21, and Actman 98023.

The applicant is requesting a variance to the Rio Rancho Municipal Code Section 154.50, which ordains the property zoned R1 must have a minimum lot width of 60 feet.

The subject property was platted in November of 1965, making it an antiquated lot.

It has a lot width of 50 feet, which does not meet the 60-foot requirement.

The subject property is also located within an overlay zone that ordains that all adjacent or contiguous lots held by the same owner shall be combined by summary plat procedure to prevent the proliferation of substandard lots.

However, the applicant does not own any lots adjacent to the subject property and thus the ordinance does not apply.

Staff recommends that the board approve the applicant's request for a lot with variance based on the specified findings of that and conditions.

I'll stand if there are any questions.

Thank you.

Is the applicant present?

Is the applicant present?

Okay.

Is there anyone who wish to speak for or against item number 12?

Come forth, state your name and your address.

Hello again.

My name is Rebecca Smith.

I'm a nearby property owner.

I have not conducted the same level of research on this application as I have on the previous cases, and the comments are very limited.

I would just simply ask the board to carefully consider the city's very long-standing legislative history concerning substandard lots.

Beginning in 1994, continuing through the 1997 moratorium, and culminating in ordinance 982023 in 1998.

The city recognized that substandard lots presented planning and development concerns that required special regulation.

Granting variances to 50-foot substandard lots creates a dangerous precedent.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

So one else who wish to speak for or against item number 12.

Come forth.

State your name and your address.

You are changing what Rio Rancho looks like.

And for many of us, it feels like in not a good way.

Respectfully asked you to consider these things carefully.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone present who wish to speak for or against item number 12?

Is there anyone virtual who wish to speak for or against item number 12?

Okay, now close the public comments.

Motion to approve item number 12.

Motion to approve item number 12.

Second.

Second, Mr.

Chair.

Okay.

And discussion from the board.

Any discussion from the board?

Just uh one comment.

And I know I I understand I can't ask a question since the applicant is not present.

Um due to the fact that I can't ask a question of the applicant.

I'm not prepared to vote on this item tonight.

Any additional comments or discussion from the board.

Okay.

So uh Mr.

Chair, I it's I I'm not sure if uh Commissioner Galbadone was going to be making an amended motion to postpone this item to a future.

Okay, I don't think we have any further comments.

Okay.

Well, uh Mr.

Chair, I I have a I I move to postpone uh this item.

I'm I'm thinking to a date certain.

I don't just want to put it out there, but uh to a period of one month to allow the applicant opportunity to attend the meeting.

Uh whatever that meeting is, I can look at my calendar.

I think staff will make that it would be July 14th.

Okay.

So I meant to postpone the uh this item to item 12 uh to the date certain of July 14th.

Okay.

Motion to approve to postpone to July the 14th.

Second postponement.

Okay.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardsey.

Yes.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Item has been postponed to July 14th.

Okay.

Move on to item number 13, site plan.

Staff contact with Ben and Isaac and staff recommend the planning and zoning board recommend approval of the site plan to govern and body with finance and conditions.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and members of the board.

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

The item before you is a site plan approval request for a Maverick gas station.

The applicant, Rich Piggott, through his agents Jacob Moulden and Troy Kelts requests approval of a site plan for a Maverick gas station.

The subject property is legally described as Unit 17, block 131, lots 36 through 40, and is located at the corner of New Mexico Highway 528, a principal arterial, and Obergone Road Northeast, a major collector.

The subject property is zoned special use for retail commercial per ordinance 34 enactment 0734 and is also located within the Laboranca specific area plan.

Per the aforementioned special use zoning ordinance, a site plan is required to be heard by the planning and zoning board and the governing body uh prior to development.

The zoning ordinance lists all C1 retail commercial uses as permissive on the property with the exception of freestanding bars, lounges, and other adult only uses the applicant has submitted this site plan, which is visible on the screen.

It includes a 4,499 square foot convenience store and a fuel canopy with six double-sided fueling stations.

The site plan shows one-way ingress to the site from Obregon Road as well as from Monterey Road.

Egrest from the site is to Monterey Road only.

The applicant has also submitted a landscaping plan as required per city code.

The applicant has included a 10-foot landscape buffer where the site is adjacent to residential property.

The 10-foot landscape buffer includes a buffer wall as well to help reduce any noise from the gas station.

The landscaping plan exhibits a variety of deciduous trees, evergreen shrubs and grasses, and exceeds the landscaping requirements that are in place for this type of development.

The elevations provided as part of the site plan application show that the architectural requirements for the gas station are met, including the building height, which is limited to 50 feet.

Staff recommend that the board recommend approval of the applicant's request to the governing body based on the specified findings of fact and conditions.

I will stand if there are any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Is the applicant present?

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Rich Piggett with Maverick Incorporated.

We're located 185 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Um really want to show our appreciation to your city staff and also you commissioners for working so late to help with the civic process of getting a site plans approved through the city of Rio Rancho.

Um some things I want to add to the the conversation from staff.

Um we worked with uh New Mexico DOT with uh respect uh the highway and uh Obergone Road.

That's why we have just a limited to a ride-in access.

I mean into our site development because that's all they're gonna allow.

We are also gonna be construction constructing a right turn deceleration pocket on to Obergun to meet their requirements for the traffic study that we had approved through NM DOT.

Then we're also gonna be extending the left turn lane that is heading uh I've got to get my directions right or with the left turn on to Obergun.

So we'll be extending that left turn pocket to meet the traffic requirements or our gas station room bugs.

Um have here for any questions you may have, and uh here with whatever resons have to contribute as well.

All right, thank you.

Comments.

Is there anyone present who wish to speak for or against item number 13?

Not all at one time.

Um start.

Okay, we'll start it on the sand here and we're work aware on as a reminder.

Um two minutes as maximum for comments, state your name and your address.

My name is Tamara Farmery.

I live on 1433 Monterey Road.

Um, I'm just a mom.

Uh my three kids are back there, guys.

If you can see them, um, every single day my kids play on our road.

Um I grew up in Rio Rancho, and I know what the community has been over the years.

Um, we've actually already had two gas stations.

I've I've lived in Rio.

Sorry, I'm a little nervous.

I've lived in Rio Rancho my whole life, and now the gas station that failed is now a weed store and a coffee shop.

And so um my biggest concern is safety, and already, I mean, we have a police officer here.

We already see so many accidents in that intersection always.

Um just yesterday I saw a guy leaving the gas station from across the street, completely intoxicated, and I don't want that on our side of the road with children here.

Um nervous.

Um we just my my biggest concern also is the school.

Um having a gas station on our side of the road next to a school being so far from um the school with selling alcohol.

Um that's one of my biggest concerns, also.

And you know, my kids went to that school, and so that's another huge concern of mine.

Um, and we already already on Monterey have people flying down our road already.

We've I I've actually been wanting to put um speed bumps on our road because people don't want to stop at the light right there, and so we get people flying down our road to bypass that light.

Um, that's just something that I've seen.

We've lived there now for since 2020, and um, and this is just something that I really really would like you guys to take in consideration as the children that live in that neighborhood and the people that already are flying, just driving crazy and adding a gas station to that isn't gonna help.

Um, thank you.

Thank you for coming.

Okay, as a reminder, two minutes maximum.

Got it.

My name is John Abaca.

I live at 1324 Monterey.

I'm a retired United Eighth Air Force veteran.

And I am just here, I am just here to talk on regards to my family and my community that's here on my street.

I saw this get posted, and I have a son that has autism.

He's 10, he's here, and he elopes.

And I got this house on this road because of the safety of this road from also going up and down the street.

I talked to another family where, sir, you are going to cut your road.

You are gonna cut your road in front of their house.

They have four disabled children in that house that they should be here, and they can't because and they qualify for a speed bump on that road, and then Rio Rancho, I mean, come on.

This is a family street.

People walk here, people move.

There's a school, there's an elementary school with so much traffic that's a problem.

There's fate, there's an officer, there's fatalities.

There was a fatality two months ago, crash.

It's all the time.

The traffic is bad there.

Everything is bad there.

And I speak with emotion because I went door to door.

I made flyers and I flyered my area.

Here you go.

You can take this, Mr.

Maverick.

And I flyered my area because and no one knew about it.

No one knew about it.

They put that sign up on June 6th or last week when school was out.

Parents weren't gonna be there.

I called the elementary profess principal, they were not made aware.

I called the Baptist Church, they were not made aware, but I was able to speak to all my neighbors so that they could get here to stick up for their community because this is ridiculous.

There is a top and taco that nothing but alcohol and shootings.

Then they put a weed store.

There's already a speedway that sounds out called now on our peaceful street.

Like, I'm sorry, but if you're hammered on that side of the street, our side of the street is dark.

Like you're gonna go on your way.

But if you put something that's lit up on that side, guess what?

You just opened up our community now to a whole bunch of stuff that was never there, and you're endangering children that live right on that street where you're gonna put that cut through.

Right there.

Four children with disabilities already they get us beautiful.

Okay, sorry, thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is uh William Farmery.

I live at 1433 Monterey Road.

Um, I live directly on that on that street.

Um I I'm here honestly, I'm not opposed to business.

Um, I'm not opposed to business development at all, but uh what I would like to be asking is why this particular use uh belongs right next to an elementary school.

Um the school zone sign is directly in front of what the gas station proposed gas station would be.

Um and I'd I would wonder if these traffic studies uh have impact on school going times.

Um we've seen the traffic uh from Explore Academy from Enchanted Hills Elementary School uh collide.

And in and in those times, I'd be curious to know if the council can point to any evidence in the record demonstrating that this project will not increase the risk uh to students walking, biking, or being dropped off near the schools.

The uh the questions that I really want to pose are this how many additional vehicle trips per day has the applicant proposed?

What percentage of those trips are during school arrival and dismissal time?

Has anybody from Rio Rancho Public Schools or enchanted hill enchanted hills elementary school formally commented on this proposal?

Uh what mitigation measures are being required if traffic increases around this school.

Um this is really a uh an opportunity for the city of Rio Rancho to show that safety matters, that families matter, that kids matter.

And um and we get to see the impact of the traffic daily.

We we get to see that 528 and Monterey becomes almost a side road during school times.

So school drop-off and pickup, you'll see that the increase on Monterey Road is significant, and adding this and adding an entry point on Monterey Road directly will increase that.

Thank you for everything.

Thank you for the comment.

And our residence is 1239 Monterey.

We are gonna be directly across this gas station.

And we chose this home five years ago because of the safety of the Rio Rancho.

Um, it's a place where we expect peace, safety, and a sense of community.

The thought of having a gas street.

Essentially, in our front yard is heartbreaking.

Instead of looking at our beautiful mountains out of our kitchen window, we will be looking directly at this Maverick gas station, which is not a good place for us to be.

Um instead of looking out, like I said, um, it's a constant traffic, bright lights, noise, and daily activity of commercial business operating just steps from our home.

Our children deserve a clean air and safe streets to walk and ride their bikes.

Our family deserves to enjoy our yards without worrying about increased traffic, fumes, and the loss of a quiet environment the loss of the quiet environment we work so hard to find.

That proposal is just not about a piece of land, it's about the quality of life, the people who already live here.

We are not asking for special treatment.

We are simply asking that our voices are heard.

Our community homes and our community value.

I urge you to put our residents first and reject this proposal before inverse inversible damage and done of to the neighborhood.

We call our home.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name's Stephen Ryan.

I live at 1452 Monterey Road.

I've lived there for 22 years.

I've lived in River's Edge neighborhood for 11 years prior to that.

One of the talking points I had have already been addressed.

However, over the 30 some years I've lived there, there's been an enormous increase in traffic.

Increase in traffic along Monterey is also increased extensively.

And it's a dirt road.

We already have a problem with dust and people speeding by.

Yeah, that's about it.

Thanks for your time.

Good evening.

My name is David Gonzalez.

I'm at 1201 Monterey Road.

I'm actually on the corner house of Obergon and Monterey.

So this 50-foot building that they're allegedly wanting to put in front of my house is gonna basically block everything in front of my house.

I built this house when I retired military, and then I retired from law enforcement.

I picked Rio Rancho because I felt it was a safe community to come and live in.

Kids are always riding their bicycles, enjoying growing up as kids, you know, um alcohol, and then across the street, the uh the the weed shop.

We already have issues with tapping taco across the street with the noise that police have to constantly be called over there.

You tell you turn the mutants.

All right, well, I appreciate it.

Good evening.

My name is Garrett Walker.

I live at 1250 Chua Road.

Um obviously these folks are living on the front lines of where this is gonna be.

I'm two streets back from that, but I can attest to everything that they're saying with problems uh from the traffic side and the drugs and alcohol because I live right across from Enchanted Hills Elementary, and even though it's an elementary school, every weekend there are people down there in the parking lot drinking, doing drugs.

My kids and I for eight years we've lived in this neighborhood.

We've been picking up the trash all the way from their road up to my corner.

It never stops.

The city doesn't seem to care.

The road was destroyed when Skafska put up a giant arroyo blocker uh to the south of us, and the police are down there numerous times a month pulling people out of the arroyo that are back there walking, doing whatever they're doing, nefarious reasons is why they're out there.

It's for people walking their dogs and their kids and maybe dirt bikes riding up and down that.

Um I would just like to put it this way.

I'm a scientist, I work in logic every day and facts.

Logic is defied when you say you need a 50-foot gas station across from one that is already not busy and affords all the opportunities to get gas, convenience, smokes, you have weed across the corner, you got tap and taco.

There's no less than five more gas stations within a two-mile radius of this area.

So you have 40 or 50 families that work hard, invested their time and their savings to put homes up in this neighborhood and live there.

Sometimes people make a bad investment.

Mr.

Rich Pig, it your company is very wealthy.

Probably made a bad investment in this area.

So if you're trying to turn Rio Rancho into Albuquerque, you guys are doing a great job.

I don't want to see it happen at the end of my street.

So thank you for your time.

Good evening.

My name is Thomas Krupia.

I live at uh 1253 Monterey Road, also, just to the west of the proposed building.

My wife and I have been there since 2004, and uh our kids always played on that street.

We've all we've always had a great time.

There's kids constantly now.

There are more families moving in.

They're constantly up and down that street with bikes, walking, families with their dogs.

It's just a kind of a hazard with all the traffic that actually does go up and down that road.

Um, and I just want to say that for all the reasons that have been stated by my fellow neighbors that I we really oppose this uh 13.

And as a retired firefighter with the city of Albuquerque, we frequently, frequently went on calls to gas stations for alcohol abuse and people hanging out there.

It does bring a lot of undesirable people, and uh we'd like to see it, you know, not not built.

Thank you.

I just moved here in March to get away from Albuquerque, not to become Albuquerque.

And just the little bit that I've been here, I travel frequently, so I go to already established gas station, I already see the homelessness, I already see the drugs, and to increase that.

I'm just echoing with my neighbors, it's just not a good place to be.

And I may have to find someplace else to live if this is approved.

Thank you.

My name is Carrie Roy Ball.

I live at 1308 Monterey Road.

I've been there since 2017.

I ran from Greg Herrera, who owns three properties on Monterey Road, and we've my grandkids went to the school right up the street.

It's 1.4 miles from this gas station that they proposed to bring to us.

We already deal with the giant Sandoval County releasing the prisoners, coming behind us.

The back of my home is 528, the front of my home is Monterey Road.

We already get them walking down the street.

I'm thankful for the Rio Rancho police.

They come quickly and they take them away.

But we already have troubles coming there.

Where our schools, there's a church up the street, right across the street from the school.

We already have problems in our neighborhood.

Every day, people are walking down the street.

I have 10 foster grandkids that come and visit me and stay with me that have asthma.

We live on a dirt road that's not maintained by Rio Rancho.

If they come and behave it once a week, it's very lightly.

Thank you.

I wish to speak for against item number 13.

Hello.

My name is Teresa Wartz, and my address is 1296 Monterey Road.

And I uh oppose having a gas station on our side of the street.

Um we have we bought our home March of this year.

We uh I've probably seen three, four accidents since then on 528.

Um we bought our home, not wanting a gas station on the same side of the street.

Um we have three grandchildren, and I'm gonna be looking forward um to retiring in five years.

I do not want to have people feed down our street.

I don't want to have to hear any more traffic than what we currently have.

So I oppose having this gas station field on our side of the street.

Thank you.

Is there anyone virtual who wish to speak for or against item number 13?

Okay.

As a reminder, we vote for the affirmative.

Okay.

Item number 13 now closed to the public for comments.

Motion to approve item number 13, Mr.

Chair, motion to approve item 13 as presented.

Second.

Second.

And a discussion from the board.

I was hoping that city staff can verify or confirm that a gas station is a permissible use per current zoning requirements.

Mr.

Chair, uh, Commissioner Hankins.

So, yes, um, so this uh property is already zoned SUM and the zoning already allows for um a gas station use.

Uh what is up for discussion tonight is the site plan um and not the use itself.

Um, and so the site plan is just looking at making sure that it meets the requirements of our site plan standards in chapter 154, uh, which includes uh meeting setbacks, landscaping requirements, uh building height requirements, um, and those types of items.

So the discussion tonight um cannot be revolved around the use itself as a gas station.

Uh we're only looking at the site plan itself.

Um, and um I don't believe that the building itself is 50 feet in height.

Um, it the any uh any use on the site could go up to as high as 50 feet, but I do not believe the applicant is is proposing or um that this actual building be 50 feet in height.

So I just wanted to kind of clarify that.

But again, the only thing that is um under discussion tonight is the site plan.

Um, you do not have in front of you tonight any discussion topics on uh the use itself as a gas station.

Thank you for that clarification.

And further discussion from the board.

Yeah, I'm just looking, I'm looking at the site plan package, and I'm just not clearly seeing.

So this may be a question for the applicant.

I'm not seeing very clearly here how lighting is being addressed, if there will be any type of noise barrier installed.

Is if if it's here, can you please help point me to that information?

package and I'm just not clearly seeing so this may be a question for the applicant I'm not seeing very clearly here how lighting is being addressed if there will be any type of noise barrier installed is if if it's here can you please help point me to that information because I would like to see some of how the surrounding areas impacted addressed on uh the site plan up the site plan by chance is that possible if not we can just describe it so within the parking lot there on the what I'd say is the left side of the building there'll be some lighting a lot associated with that for site lighting there the lighting underneath the canopy and of course perimeter lighting around where the trash enclosure is and of course the lighting on side of the building how our lighting is we use an LED light will our lights height the light pole height will be per city requirements there will also be shielding so you won't get direct light to the neighbors to the north of us um and you'll have what is called a zero cutoff line so you'll have a zero luminary you know zero lumens past the property line so we do that in order to it just not be as much of an impact onto the residents um during the light night time hours are we do have our sites set on dimmers so anybody that's during the late hours people that are pulling in the the lights will turn turn on a little bit more as traffic comes in and as they leave they'll after a certain time the dimmers will turn those back off there's things we can do to help mitigate the neighbors but you will of course get a glow from the the store just like any other commercial use that would be permitted on this property but it wouldn't be anything else in the issues okay thank you in addition to comments or discussion no it is now closed to the public comments I'm sorry ma'am I'm sorry I'm sorry you can you can excuse her and so just one other point of clarification just so everyone is also aware so if if approved tonight the site plan goes next to governing body correct comedy so um so if I can please uh public comment is closed um so uh Mr.

Chair uh Commissioner Hardesty that is correct so but again the only thing that's going in front of the governing body is the site plan so the zoning is already in place the zoning has already been in place for for many years um the zoning is not up for um uh for any type of discussion at this point in time the use is also not uh up for discussion it's only the site plan that is going to go forward um to the governing body and for governing body final approval so that is the um whether or not whatever vote the planning and zoning board makes tonight the governing body will have that final decision uh on the site plan for the following meeting okay thank you and if I'm seeing correctly in the packet here for the use for this site the site plan as it is currently presented meets those minimum requirements is that correct Mr.

Chair Commissioner Hardesty that is correct okay thank you in addition comments discussion from the board so from my edification so we're voting only for the site plan tonight and not put a construction Mr Richardson uh Chairman Richardson that is correct it it is only the site plan um and so uh but the site plan is uh a permiss is showing for a permissible use um so we are only looking at making sure that it meets the standards outlined in the SU or if there was any other specific standards in chapter 154 um and so uh governing body will be looking at those same standards and uh from staff's review it meets all of the standards that are outlined in the code and in the ordinance okay understood okay in addition to comments from the board call to roll vice chair gabbledon yes commissioner hankins yes chairman Richardson yes commissioner hardesty yes motion passing not really thinking about that

Okay, let's continue.

We're on item number 14.

Variants.

Staff contact is Liz Raz Carlos and Staff recommends denial subject to finding.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, members of the board.

Liz Rita Carlos, planner of the City of Rear Rancho.

I will be presenting the next two items together as they are related to the same subject property at 3052 Cascades Trail Southeast.

As detailed within the chapter 154.50 zoning table to allow for an existing shed with a covered patio.

On the subject property, legally described as cascades at high resort, block one lot nine A.

Again, physically located at 3052 Cascades Trail Southeast.

The applicant concurrently requests a second variance to the five-foot side setback requirements for R1 single family residential zone districts.

For an existing shade structure on the property under case number 26-11-16.

The property is zoned SU special use for R1 single family residential and totals 0.35 acres.

The subject property is located approximately 500 feet north of the Broadmoor Boulevard Southeast and High Resort Boulevard Southeast intersection, with the rear property line abutting Broadmore Boulevard Southeast and a SKFA owned and maintained managed arroyo located to the north and east of the subject property.

The variance requests are the results of an active code enforcement case for unpermitted structures under case number 26-0478, which has been active as of January 28th, 2026.50, the setback requirements for our one single family residential zoning districts are as follows: 20 feet in the front, 15 feet in the rear, and 5 feet on the sides.

Excuse me, 8 inches to the shed, as shown in the included site plan.

The structure measures 10 feet by 29 feet for a total square footage.

Based on Google Earth and street view imagery, the attached patio cover has been altered and may also now be draining onto the wall abutting Broadmore Boulevard.

It was less visible from the road and appeared to drain onto the property itself.

Should the variance be approved, the structure would still have to adhere to all applicable building and engineering codes.

And the applicant would also have to obtain encroachment agreements from all franchise utility companies as the structure does encroach into a public utility easement.

Looking at the request of the side setback, again, that side setback uh side excuse me, that setback distance should be five feet on the side.

The requested variants would allow for the shared structure to encroach four feet eight inches into that side setback, leaving a setback of two inches from the side property line as shown on the included site plan.

The structure measures 222 square feet and has been on the property for over 24 years.

Again, the building permit for this structure has been reviewed and approved by City Engineering, but has not been approved by the City Building Division.

Again, should the variance be approved, the structure would also have to adhere to all applicable building and engineering codes.

Staff recommends the board finds the lot is not particularly irregular in shape, narrow, shallow, or steep, and does not have an exceptional physical condition that is preventing the applicant from complying with the zoning code.

The code states that difficulty caused one's personal comfort cannot be the basis for the claim of hardship.

With that, staff recommends denial, subject to findings for both variance requests, and I will stand for any questions.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, pooped off.

And would please fill in the blanks.

Okay, you may proceed.

Miss Scott, um, if you can hear us, if you can go ahead and read the oath on the screen, and then you can start with your uh hi.

Sorry.

I Kimberly Scott, residing at 3052 Cascades Trail, Rio Rancho, New Mexico 87124.

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 penalty of perjury.

And for your knowledge is item number 14.

Sorry, yes, thank you.

You may proceed.

Um I just have a letter that will outline our perspective real quick, and then I'd like to follow up with just a couple things based on um what um the city officials said.

Um, I'm respectfully uh requesting that the board uh accept our variance requests and approve them.

These structures have been in place for more than two decades and serve an important functional purpose for my family and property.

I respect respectfully ask that the board consider the unique circumstances of this request and approve the variances based on the practical difficulties and hardships that would result from requiring the removal uh or relocation of these longstanding structures.

The first structure is a tough shed and was installed approximately 26 years ago.

It's attached, it has an attached um rear covering, it's made of two by four framing.

That has also been in place for um over 20 years.

Both parts of that have been.

Um, and to clarify, there is no drainage onto the wall.

And uh, I I do have pictures that we can show for the structure.

Um the addition was built to protect the pool and pond equipment located behind the shed and uh other mechanical uh components from rain and uh exposure to the sun.

The structures may be in place for more than 20 years and have functioned as such essential protective enclosures for this equipment.

The second structure is a covered grill area that was constructed more than 20 years ago.

It consists of a metal pipe framing and tin roof.

The grill itself is permitted permanently built in structure, and the roof covering protects the grill and surrounding areas from weather and exposure.

I purchased this home from my parents about three years ago.

The property is much more than a residence to me.

It is the home where I grew up and where my family has invested decades of hard work, care, and professional dedication, personal dedication.

Um, over the past third 30 years, my parents have transformed this backyard into a space where our family has gathered to celebrate holidays and milestones.

And we created many memories back here.

The outdoor grill area in particular carries tremendous sentimental value.

It was built by my brother and father over three uh almost 30 years ago.

Preserving these improvements and the memories associated with them is one of the primary reasons for uh I chose to purchase this home from my parents.

This structures are not uh a recent addition, they are long-standing features and have been a part of the property for most for the almost the entirety of the property.

Um we have uh many surrounding neighbors that we have letters of support.

This does not uh the the create any issues for our neighbors or any public safety um problems for neighboring um or surrounding areas.

Requiring the removal or relocation of these structures would create a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship due to the existing layout of the backyard and the placement of pool, pond, and associated equipments.

This this yard is fully built out, and there are no other areas um where we could have a shed other than its existing space.

Granting these variances would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or impair any adjacent adjacent properties.

Um or be contrary to the public interest.

Instead, approval would allow the continued use of two longstanding structures that have coexisted harmoniously within the neighborhood for more than 20 years while preserving improvements that hold significant practical and personal value for my family.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you that the board approve the requested variances, and I appreciate your time and consideration on this matter.

Thank you for your comment.

I do also want to add that uh I think I I mentioned it that we do have letters of support from our neighbors and in in the neighborhood as well.

Thank you.

So no one present who wish to speak for against item number 14.

Hi, my name is Noreen Scott.

My husband and I uh are the original owners of 3052.

I'm sorry, can you please state your address as well?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Uh my address uh I own a home at 3108 Cascades Trail.

Thank you.

Um we moved into the home when when construction was completed in 1995.

The tough shed was constructed within a year or so of then, and they pulled a permit at the time.

So I know a permit existed, um, it hasn't been able to be found.

The other buildings that were there were did not require a permit at the time they were constructed, and we back up to a huge easement.

Uh, so there's a very large area for the utilities, and there's never been an issue uh with the utilities.

I was a contractor for the city of Rio Rancho therrial rancho EDC from 1994 till 2014.

As such, I worked directly with the Department of Development, and they were very aware of what was going on, and as a contractor, I would not have done anything that was against the rules.

Um, so I I just say that this uh these buildings structures have been there for a long time.

Um, and I don't know if there's a grandfather rule, but it would seem to me that uh you know Broadmoor was a dirt road when we built that house, and uh the high school didn't exist, and the community has changed dramatically, but uh we uh we use that yard to entertain many clients that eventually located their companies to Rio Rancho, and it has been a real asset to our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone present who wish to speak for or against item number 14 virtual who wish to speak for or against item number 14 okay, close the public comments motion to approve item number 14, Mr.

Chair motion to approve item 14 as presented.

Second and a discussion from the board and a discussion from the board Ms.

Scott, uh this uh this question is similar to the one I had for the folks earlier.

So you understand that you'll still need to, if approved tonight, receive approval from the utility companies for encroaching into the easement.

And it looks like there's also some city building uh approvals that are required, correct?

Yes, ma'am.

Honestly, I I was not aware of that until just now.

Um nobody's mentioned anything to me about utility issues or encroachment into any kind of utility area, but I absolutely am willing to do whatever needs to happen to become compliant, yes.

And this was not an active um, you know, as my mother said, we bought this home from my parents.

Um we did not feel that it was in bad that there was any we actually filed for a permit for a different structure in our yard.

We've tried to do things the way they need to be done, and so um we absolutely will continue that as we move forward.

Okay, thank you.

And a discussion from the board.

Call the roll.

Chairman Richardson?

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins, yes.

Commissioner Hardesy, yes.

Vice Chair Gabbleton?

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay, move on to item number 15.

Variants.

Staff contact is Lyd Ruez Carlos and CELRC Ms.

Denial, subject to findings.

Uh, thank you, Mr.

Chair, members of the board, uh, Liz Ruth Carlander of the City of Rio Rancho.

Uh, I don't have any additional comment, but I stand for any questions.

Okay.

Any comments from the applicant?

Um, no, just same as with the tough shed.

Um, it's it's a long-standing um structure that has um been there many years.

It's um creates no issues for the neighbors or um anybody surrounding us, and um yeah, it has significant uh value to our home.

So okay, thank you.

And one person wish to speak for against item number 15.

And one virtual wish to speak for or against item number 15.

Motion to approve item number 15.

Motion to approve item number 15.

Second.

Second.

And a discussion from the board.

Same, uh, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, same issue, but just probably bears repeating from uh Commissioner Hardesty's question from before um the applicant stated that she wasn't aware of any encroachments, uh that there this is indeed why we're here.

There are encroachments on both items, and I just want to make sure she's reminded that she's gotta go through the process with the with the permits.

Uh Mr.

Chair, Commissioner Galbadone, um, so this second structure, there is not uh utility easements um on this property line.

So there is just encroachments.

Yeah, yes, it is in the setbacks, yes, but it's it's not it's not encroaching.

Yeah, I just want to make sure that we're reminded that there are encroachments on both of these items, including this one.

And that's fine.

There's good there's remedies for that, and just making sure that the applicant understands that.

Yes, and I just want to clarify for this second structure, she doesn't have to get any type of sign-offs for any of the from any utilities because there is no public utility easement here.

So this one is just this variance and building permit.

There is no additional steps as with the other structure.

That reminding that we're looking at encroachments, just we are that's what the variance is.

Yeah, exactly.

Thank you.

In addition to comments from the board.

Call a roll.

Vice Chair Gabbledon?

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesty.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins, yes.

Chairman Richardson, yes.

Motion pass.

Okay, moving on to item number 16, conditional use permit.

Staff contact is Tamara Martinez, and staff recommends approval with findings and conditions.

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 conditional use permit.

The applicant, Del Norte Credit Union through their agent Hewitt Zollers Inc.

are requesting the conditional use permit for a 59-foot tall building for the proposed um Del Norte Credit Union at the property legally described as Rio Rancho Estates Unit 10 block 42, lots 4A 5A, and 6 through 8.

The subject property is zoned C1 retail commercial and totals approximately 2.8 acres.

The surrounding properties are zoned R1 single family residential to the north, C1 retail commercial to the east and to the south, and R1 family single family residential and OS open space to the west.

Hare Rancho Municipal Code Section 154.51 non-residential zoning table.

The maximum permitted height for a building within the C1 zoning district is 50 feet.

However, through the approval of a conditional use permit, the height um can be up to 78 feet.

According to the elevations submitted by the applicant, the highest point of the building is proposed to be approximately 59 feet.

The primary parapet height is proposed at 47 feet with an additional 12 feet attributed to the elevator tower element extending above the parapet.

The request for the additional building height is intended to accommodate the architectural and operational components of the proposed development while remaining within the maximum height allowance permitted through the conditional use permit process.

Staff recommends that the board find that the conditional use permit is not detrimental to the public welfare safety, health, morals, and convenience of the surrounding areas.

The request exceeds the maximum height allowed by nine feet and is only for a small portion of the footprint of the building.

Staff recommends that the planning and zoning board find that the applicant has met the application requirements for submitting the conditional use permit, and the proposed use would not have any adverse effects on the surrounding area.

And with that, I will stand for any comments.

And we have reviewed city staff comments and agree to uh work with uh city staff to address the comments.

Um in particular, I I would like to bring up the comment from engineering uh regarding the primary entrance off Calazone Boulevard that it'd be restricted to right in right out.

Um we will work with them to uh develop a reasonable solution to that, and I am available to answer any questions or comments.

Thank you.

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

So the one virtual who wish to speak for this item number sixteen.

Okay.

Motion to approve item number sixteen.

Motion to approve item number sixteen.

Second.

Second.

Okay, and discussion from the board.

And a discussion from the board.

Call roll.

Commissioner Hardesy.

Yes.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbler?

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay.

Any discussion and deliberations from tonight?

You know, or any comments from the members.

We are open public form.

Okay, motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Second.

All right.

Good evening.