When: June 4, 2024 at 2:00 PM

Where: Village Hall, 313 Cree Meadows Dr. Ruidoso, NM 88345

Posted: May 18, 2024 at 10:54 AM

Documents: Agenda Packet and Online Meeting Information for Regular Meeting - June 4, 2024 | Notice of Regular Meeting - June 4, 2024

PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

Village Hall, 313 Cree Meadows Drive, Ruidoso, NM 88345

Tuesday, June 4, 2024 – 2:00 pm

Viewing on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiI01gVEgmVcl-vZLOxTN0w/featured

Public Comment: The Commission will take general public comments and comments on the meeting’s specific agenda items in written form via email at StephanieWarren@ruidoso-nm.gov or by mail at 313 Cree Meadows Drive, Ruidoso, NM 88345 before June 4th at 10:00 a.m.

These comments will be distributed to all Commissioners for review.

1. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, AND DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

2. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH RESOLUTION #2024-01

3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

a) Regular Meeting, May 7, 2024

5. PUBLIC INPUT (Limited to items not on Public Hearing Agenda and up to 3 minutes per speaker

Pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 10-15-1 (H)(3), The Planning Commission reserves the right to close this public meeting and enter into closed session for deliberations in connection with any administrative adjudicatory proceedings contained in this agenda. (Discussions in closed sessions are limited to the case being heard at the time of motion to enter into Closed Session pursuant to §10-15-

1.H.3, NMSA 1978. No action shall be taken in closed session. Any action taken following closed session shall be taken in Open Session.)

6. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING (all parties with standing shall have an opportunity for cross-examination.)

a) Conditional Use- CU 2024-123- Luis and Cynthia Espinoza are requesting approval of a mobile vending operation in conjunction with the 4 Seasons Mall business operations located at 126 Rio St., Lot 1, Block I of the Ruidoso Springs Subdivision.

b) Variance- PV 2024-125- Ray Montes, on behalf of Susana Garcia-Lane, is requesting a variance to encroach 8 feet into the required 20-foot front yard setback to construct a garage located at 107 Swallow Dr., Lot 14, Block 1 of the Pinecliff Subdivision Unit 2.

c) Variance-PV 2024-126- Alan Adler is requesting a variance to encroach 5 feet into the 20-foot corner lot setback to place a 384 sq. ft. home located at 300 Pine Rd., Lot 9, Block 9 of the Midway Townsite Subdivison.

7. NEW BUSINESS

a) Discussion and Recommendation to Village Council for Adoption of Resolution 2024-XX establishing Fees for Building Evaluations.

b) Discussion and Possible Action for the Approval of an Administrative Process for Minor Development Variances for Side and Rear Yard Setbacks.

8. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT

9. COMMISSIONER’S COMMENTS

10. ADJOURNMENT

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:

Commissioner Rigsby called the regular meeting to order at 2:00 PM. Commissioners Baugh, Byars, Hall,

Michelena, Richardson, Rigsby, and Williams were recorded as present. Village staff present were Michael

Martinez, Village Deputy Manager, Zach Cook, Village Attorney, and Stephanie Warren, GIS

Coordinator/Planner. There were 6 visitors present and 1 present via Zoom.

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

Commissioner Hall stated he was in the notification area for case CU 2024-88, he recused himself from voting for the hearing.

Commissioner Baugh stated he had a financial interest in case CU 2024-90, he recused himself from voting for the hearing.

CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH RESOLUTION 2024-01:

Stephanie Warren certified that the notice of the meeting was posted correctly in accordance with Resolution 2024-01 and section 54-40 of the Village Municipal Code.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Commissioner Hall moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Michelena. Mrs. Warren called roll to record votes:

Commissioner Baugh: Aye

Commissioner Byars: Aye

Commissioner Hall: Aye

Commissioner Michelena: Aye

Commissioner Richardson: Aye

Commissioner Rigsby: Aye

Commissioner Williams: Aye

Motion carried with all ayes.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Commissioner Hall moved to approve the Regular Meeting minutes from April 2, 2024, seconded by Commissioner Richardson.

Mrs. Warren called roll to record votes:

Commissioner Baugh: Abstained

Commissioner Byars: Aye

Commissioner Hall: Aye

Commissioner Michelena: Abstained

Commissioner Richardson: Aye

Commissioner Rigsby: Aye

Commissioner Williams: Aye

Motion carried with all ayes, abstained by Commissioner Baugh and Michelena due to them being absent from the April 2, 2024, meeting.

PUBLIC INPUT: (Limited to items, not on Public Hearing Agenda and up to 3 minutes per speaker).

There was no public input.

QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING:

a) Variance- PV 2024-87- Eduardo Holguin is requesting a variance to encroach 16.6 feet into the 20-foot front yard setback, 6.8 feet into the 10-foot rear yard setback, and 1.7 feet into the 10-foot right side yard setback for placed modular home and gazebo located at 153 N. Oak Dr., Lot 49, Block 32 of the Ponderosa Heights Subdivision.

Mrs. Warren stated Eduardo Holguin is requesting a variance to encroach 16.6 feet into the 20-foot front hard setback, 6.8 feet into the 10-foot rear yard setback and 1.7 feet into the 10-foot right side yard setback for a placed modular home and gazebo located at 153 N. Oak Dr., Lot 49, Block 32 of the Ponderosa Heights Subdivision. The applicant is present for questions.

Chairman Rigsby swore in Mr. Holguin.

Mr. Holguin stated he started the process two years ago and did not know he did not pass the final inspection he had previously requested. Former inspectors told him he passed until he pulled new permits.

Mrs. Warren stated that 26 letters were mailed, 2 letters returned, and 2 written comments. One written comment provider made their statement today. Copies of the other responses have been provided to the Commission and Mr. Holguin.

Chairman Rigsby opened the public input at 2:06 pm

Chairman Rigsby swore in Mark Younger.

Mr. Younger stated he lives next to the applicant and wishes not to have the requisite approved. There is no hardship on the land, and it meets minimum lot sizes. The applicant was aware of the utility easements when he purchased the lot. If he had obtained a smaller home, he would not have had a need to encroach. He and neighbors of the area have been making complaints to the Planning Department since 2019, and finally, a red tag was issued. The property is a public safety issue with the location of utilities next to the road, the road is narrow and busy.

Mr. Holguin stated he did not see it as a hazard, and a surveyor provided a letter showing there were no other options for placement. He states that there have not been any issues with the property told to him personally by the neighbors.

Chairman Rigsby closed the public hearing at 2:17 pm.

Deputy Manager Martinez stated we have met with the applicant and extensively reviewed the documents provided. Originally, staff determined there were no hardships, but after a review of the easement and a document the previous employee presented to the applicant showing a minimum home size, there would be no way that would fit. The deck and short-term rental permits should not have passed, and no building permit should have been issued with an inadequate site plan provided by the applicant.

Commissioner Hall asked why the department did not address that at the time of application, Deputy Manager Martinez stated he could not provide an answer. Mrs. Warren stated that the applicant was provided with the setbacks, and a statement by the building official at the time of permit pick up but had no further explanation on why it was not addressed when found in the setbacks.

Commissioner Williams asked if there was a building code for setbacks for the gas meters and charging station;

Deputy Manager Martinez stated he would research that item.

Commissioner Hall stated the survey was not accurate and did not depict decks.

Chairman Rigsby asked if lot 49 was the area, and Mr. Holguin stated it was. Chairman Rigsby stated the surveyor shows you are unable to reposition due to a sewer easement, and Mr. Holguin stated yes.

Commissioner Byars stated pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 10-15-1(H)(3), the Planning Commission will enter into closed session for deliberations in connection with any administrative adjudicatory proceedings for Case PV 2027-87, Seconded by Commissioner Hall.

Mrs. Warren called roll to record votes:

Commissioner Baugh: Aye

Commissioner Byars: Aye

Commissioner Hall: Aye

Commissioner Michelena: Aye

Commissioner Richardson: Aye

Commissioner Rigsby: Aye

Commissioner Williams: Aye

Motion carried with all ayes.

Closed session began at 2:31 pm.

Meeting commenced at 2:46 pm.

Commissioner Byars stated that discussion was limited to the case being heard at the time of motion; no action was taken during the closed session, seconded by Commissioner Williams.

Mrs. Warren called roll to record votes:

Commissioner Baugh: Aye

Commissioner Byars: Aye

Commissioner Hall: Aye

Commissioner Michelena: Aye

Commissioner Richardson: Aye

Commissioner Rigsby: Aye

Commissioner Williams: Aye

Motion carried with all ayes.

Chairman Rigsby asked the applicant if he had any further statements, Mr. Holguin stated he followed all rules in the book to his knowledge.

Commissioner Hall stated, based upon the foregoing findings of fact §54-97, §54-140 and §54-66 of the Village Code, I move to GRANT the requested variance for Case #PV-2024-87 with the conditions stated in the case report. Seconded by Commissioner Michelena.

Mrs. Warren called roll to record votes:

Commissioner Baugh: Aye

Commissioner Byars: No

Commissioner Hall: No

Commissioner Michelena: No

Commissioner Richardson: No

Commissioner Rigsby: No

Commissioner Williams: No

Motion is denied with 1 positive and 6 negative votes.

The Planning Commission agreed that the denial of the variance was as there was no display of hardship and was previously provided setbacks and development requirements at the time of permitting.

b) Conditional Use- CU 2024-88- Richard Rodriguez is requesting conditional use approval to construct a second single-family dwelling located at 144 Brady Canyon Dr., A Portion of the

Gibson Tract in Range 13E T11S of Section 21.

Mrs. Warren stated the applicant is requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a second single-family dwelling located at 144 Brady Canyon Dr., a portion of the Gibson tract in range 13E Tract 11S of section 21. The applicant is present on Zoom for questions

Chairman Rigsby swore in Mr. Rodriguez

Mr. Rodriguez stated he currently has 1 home and would like to build a second on the property.

Chairman Rigsby opened the public hearing at 2:52 pm.

No comments were made.

Mrs. Warren stated there were 23 letters mailed, 2 letters returned and no comments written were received.

Chairman Rigsby closed the public hearing at 2:55 pm.

Chairman Rigsby asked if this request is the same as an accessory dwelling unit, Mrs. Warren stated yes, the code refers to them as two-family dwellings in the conditional use section of the R-1 code.

Commissioner Williams asked if the second home would remain or be removed after construction. Mr. Rodriguez stated it would remain until further decisions are made. If he does not have it turned into a rental, it may be turned into storage.

Commissioner Hall asked if the home is on sewer or septic; Mr. Rodriguez stated he would connect to the city when the structure is built.

Commissioner Byars asked if this would be his primary home, Mr. Rodriguez stated he would be up more when retired but not his primary residence.

Commissioner Williams stated she has concerns that he does not meet the approval requirements as it is not his primary residence.

Attorney Cook read the requirements of approval for the 2-family dwelling.

Commissioner Michelena stated pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 10-15-1(H)(3), the Planning Commission will enter into closed session for deliberations in connection with any administrative adjudicatory proceedings for Case CU 2024-88, Seconded by Commissioner Byars.

Mrs. Warren called roll to record votes:

Commissioner Baugh: Aye

Commissioner Byars: Aye

Commissioner Hall: Aye

Commissioner Michelena: Aye

Commissioner Richardson: Aye

Commissioner Rigsby: Aye

Commissioner Williams: Aye

Motion carried with all ayes.

Closed session began at 3:07 pm.

Meeting commenced at 3:29 pm.

Commissioner Michelena stated that discussion was limited to the case being heard at the time of motion; no action was taken during closed session, seconded by Commissioner Richardson.

Mrs. Warren called roll to record votes:

Commissioner Baugh: Aye

Commissioner Byars: Aye

Commissioner Michelena: Aye

Commissioner Richardson: Aye

Commissioner Rigsby: Aye

Commissioner Williams: Aye

Motion carried with all ayes.

Commissioner Richardson stated, based upon the foregoing findings of fact per §54-68 and § 54-92 of the Village Code, I move to GRANT the requested conditional use approval for Case #CU-2024-88 with the conditions stated in the case report and seconded by Commissioner Williams.

Mrs. Warren called roll to record votes:

Commissioner Baugh: No

Commissioner Byars: No

Commissioner Michelena: No

Commissioner Richardson: No

Commissioner Rigsby: No

Commissioner Williams: No

The motion was denied unanimously. Commissioner Hall abstained from voting.

The Planning Commission agreed that the use was denied because the requirement of the primary residence was not met.

c) Conditional Use Approval Request Case # CU 2024-90- Scott Stevens is requesting approval to have 2 additional food trucks in conjunction with the Jack’s Backstage business operations for a total of 5 mobile vending stands, located at 1056 Mechem Dr.; Lot 13A, Block 1 of the Cree Meadows Heights Subdivision, 3rd Addition.

Mrs. Warren stated the applicant is requesting approval to have 2 additional food trucks in conjunction with

Jack’s Backstage business operations for a total of 5 mobile vending stands located at 1056 Mechem Dr., Lot

13A, Block 1 of the Cree Meadows Heights Subdivision, 3rd Addition. The applicant is present for questions.

Chairman Rigsby swore in Scott Stevens.

Mr. Stevens stated he has a central food court, and an indoor dining area. He would like to expand and grow food choices that are not present in town. He has the appropriate infrastructure to handle the additional request.

Commissioner Richardson asked if all of this is on the upside of the lot next to the road. Mr. Stevens stated it was. Commissioner Richardson asked if the proposed are in red on the site plan provided, Mr. Stevens stated they were.

Commissioner Hall asked if there is screening, Mr. Stevens stated that the residential areas have been screened, the only visible areas are on Mechem to the business district.

Commissioner Williams asked if they would need additional dumpsters or grease storage, Mr. Stevens stated he is sufficient, they have 4 dumpsters onsite and will request more if needed.

Commissioner Hall asked if he meets the footage requirement, Mrs. Warren stated yes. The showing of 58,000 feet is just for the site of the trucks. The development is over 3 lots, and I did not add any of the additional lots to that number. Commissioner Hall asked if the grease traps have been verified, Mrs. Warren stated yes, the statement provided was that the installed trap meets and exceeds the compacity output of the 5 trucks.

Chairman Rigsby asked if the 12,000 requirement is per truck, Mrs. Warren stated per code, it is just the area and not mentioned as a requirement per stand.

Chairman Rigsby opened the public hearing at 3:38 pm.

Mrs. Warren stated 6 letters were mailed, none were returned and there were no written comments received.

No comments made.

Chairman Rigsby closed the public hearing at 3:40 pm.

Commissioner Michelena stated, based upon the foregoing findings of fact per §54-68, §54-150, and § 54-100 of the Village Code, I move to GRANT the requested conditional use approval for Case #CU-2024-90 with the conditions stated in the case report and seconded by Commissioner Byars.

Mrs. Warren called roll to record votes:

Commissioner Byars: Aye

Commissioner Hall: Aye

Commissioner Michelena: Aye

Commissioner Richardson: Aye

Commissioner Rigsby: Aye

Commissioner Williams: Aye

Motion carried with all ayes. Commissioner Baugh abstained from voting.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT:

Mrs. Warren stated the Manager's report was included in the packet.

COMMISSIONER’S COMMENTS:

Commissioner Rigsby stated there would only be allowed to have 3 of the Commission on the subcommittee to ensure compliance with quorums. Members of the committee will be Bart Byars, Bill Hall, and Jacob Rigsby.

The goal is to get feedback by June to be brought back to the Commission as a whole in July and then to the

Council for further direction. There will be 2 workshops and 2 town hall meetings.

Commissioner Baugh asked if the number of listings is correct when its larger than the number of permits, Mrs.

Warren stated the number provided is showing if 1 property is listing on multiple sites; the increased number of listings compared to permits issued is common.

Commissioner Byars asked if there have been any positions filled for the Director position, Deputy Manager stated there have not, but are accepting applications and will be doing recruitment of applicants.

ADJOURNMENT:

With no further business to discuss, Commissioner Michelena adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m.

MINUTES ARE DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING

Passed and approved this _____ day of __________________, 2024.

APPROVED:

_______________________________

Jacob Rigsby, Chairman

ATTEST: __________________________________

Stephanie J. Warren, GIS Coordinator/Planner

Case Report – #CU-2024-90 P a g e 1 | 9

Planning Commission

Village Hall – 313 Cree Meadows Drive, Ruidoso, New Mexico 88345

Case Report – Conditional Use #CU-2024-123

Subject Property: 126 Rio St.

Zoning: C-3 Midtown Commercial District

Property Size (Approx.): 15,350 sq. ft

(.35 acre)

Property Dimensions (Approx.):

Width: 121’ Length:176’

Legal Description: Lot 1 Block I

Subdivision: Ruidoso Springs

Applicant: Luis & Cynthia Espinoza

Hearing Date: June 4, 2024

Applicable Sections of Village Code:

➢ Sec. 54-101. – C-3 Midtown Commercial District.

➢ Sec. 54.150.- Approved Structures.

➢ Sec. 54-68. - Conditional use permit approval.

I. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use approval to operate a mobile vending stand in conjunction with the Four Seasons mall operations seven days a week from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Case Report – #CU-2024-123 P a g e 2 | 9

II. NOTIFICATION AREA MAP

III. AREA ZONING

Direction Zoning Existing Land Use

North C-3 Midtown Commercial-Salon

East C-3 Midtown Commercial-Restaurant/Bar/Retail/Free Parking Lot

South C-3 Midtown Commercial-Mall/Retail

West C-3 Midtown Commercial-Retail/Multi-Family Dwelling

Page 11 of 55

Case Report – #CU-2024-123 P a g e 3 | 9

IV. SITE PLAN

Case Report – #CU-2024-123 P a g e 4 | 9

V. CURRENT SITE LOCATION

View from the intersection of Eagle and Rio from Google Maps:

Aerial View from Google Maps:

Page 13 of 55

Case Report – #CU-2024-123 P a g e 5 | 9

VI. APPLICABLE MUNICIPAL CODE REFERENCES

Sec. 54-101. – C-3 Midtown Commercial District.

(a) Purpose. The purpose of the C-3 midtown commercial district is to allow the development of commercial retail and service establishments with carefully integrated multiple-family residential, entertainment, and public parking facilities in the "Midtown" area of the village. The district encourages development to take place in an intensive fashion to facilitate pedestrian circulation and to maximize the use of valuable locations and existing infrastructure and building stock.

(c) Conditional uses. Conditional uses in the C-2 district are:

(1) Convenience food restaurants. Convenience food restaurants shall be subject to the same limitations and conditions as automobile service stations as set out in subsections (c)(2)a. through f. of this section. (2) Automobile service stations.

a. Automobile service station site improvements such as buildings or structures (permanent or temporary) shall be separated from any residential district by at least 50 feet. Parking areas shall be separated from any residential district by at least 15 feet.

b. The total site area shall not be less than 12,000 square feet.

c. Pump islands shall be set back not less than 25 feet from any street right-of-way line, not less than 40 feet from any non-street line, and not less than 75 feet from any residential district boundary.

d. Hydraulic hoists, pits and all lubrication, greasing, washing, repair and diagnostic equipment shall be used and enclosed within a building.

e. Interior curbs of not less than six inches in height shall be constructed to separate driving surfaces from sidewalks, landscaped areas and street rights-of-way.

f. No automobile service station on a site contiguous to any residential district shall be operated between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the following day.

Sec. 54-150. – Approved Structures.

(a) Use of property permitted by this article shall be conducted from or within a permanent structure conforming to the requirements in section 22-31(a) of the Ruidoso Code for the use or uses to be conducted in the respective zone district, unless approved as a mobile vending stand pursuant to subsection (b) of this section or unless approved under subsection 54-100(c)(24) allowing use of fiber or membrane tent in a C-2 zone district.

(b) Mobile vending stands are expressly prohibited except when licensed and approved in C-2 and C-3 zone districts as a conditional use or where use is temporary and operated in connection with special community and civic events which have been licensed and approved by the village under section 26-69 and the operation is limited to the approved location and jurisdiction for such event.

(Code 1985, § 10-5-20; Ord. No. 97-12, § 3, 7-29-97; Ord. No. 2017-07 , § 3, 6-13-17)

Case Report – #CU-2024-123 P a g e 6 | 9

Sec. 54-68. – Conditional use permit approval.

(a) Generally. Certain uses, (as defined in section 54-91(c)), may, under certain circumstances, be acceptable. When such circumstances exist, a conditional use permit may be granted. The permit may be issued for a specified period of time, with automatic cancellation at the end of that time unless it is renewed, or conditions may be applied to the issuance of the permit and periodic review may be required. The permit shall be granted for a particular use and not for a particular person.

(b) Application. The person applying for a conditional use permit shall fill out and submit to the planning administrator the appropriate form, together with the required fee. The request for a conditional use permit shall follow the procedures and applicable requirements of section 54-67 which pertain to site plan review.

(c) Notice of hearing. Notice of any public meeting at which the conditional use will be reviewed shall be accomplished as set forth in section 54-40.

(d) Review and decision by planning commission.

(1) No conditional use permit shall be given for a use which is not listed in this article as a conditional use in the particular district in which it is proposed to be located. The planning commission shall consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, including parking facilities, on adjacent streets and land, the impact upon the natural environment, and the effect of the proposed use upon the comprehensive plan. The planning commission may grant the application by motion, imposing such conditions and safeguards as it deems necessary, or it may deny the application. In reviewing conditional uses in residential areas, the planning commission shall consider particularly the response of adjoining property owners.

(2) Approval of conditional use permits shall require a two-thirds vote of the members of the planning commission present. If approved, the commission shall be required to make findings supporting its decision. If an application is denied, the denial shall constitute a finding that the applicant has not shown that the conditions required for approval exist. No application for a conditional use permit which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six months from the date of the order of denial, except on grounds of new evidence or proof of change of conditions found to be valid by the planning commission.

Case Report – #CU-2024-123 P a g e 7 | 9

VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Case Report – #CU-2024-123 P a g e 8 | 9

VIII. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION

Upon review of the application, staff finds that the request for the Conditional Use to have a mobile vending operation in conjunction with the business operations of this property does not appear to adversely impact the health, safety or general welfare of the occupants of surrounding lands. The property meets the mobile vending operations requirements under the current municipal code. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use request and recommends the following conditions be placed upon the approval:

1. The Applicant agrees that the mobile vending operations are contingent upon the operating hours of the 4 Seasons Mall and shall not operate outside of the business hours as established: Seven days a week from 8 am to 10 pm,

2. The Applicant must ensure the vending operation obtains a Village Business Registration proper to operations.

3. The Applicant must ensure the vending operation receives an environmental health approval

and/or potential fire code separation from the building;

4. The Applicant and mobile vending operators must meet all local, state, and federal requirements pertaining to the containment and disposal of wastewater and hazardous materials.

5. By accepting approval of this Conditional Use, the Applicant agrees to comply with the standards and conditions set within a timely manner. Failure to comply may lead to Court

Enforcement.

IX. CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS OF FACTS

The Planning Commission has the following options:

1. Approval of Conditional Use Request, with reasons stated in the motion, granting the requested conditional use.

2. Require modifications to Conditional Use Request, and have it returned for Planning Commission review at the next meeting.

3. Deny the request of Conditional Use Request with reasons and conditions. Approval of a conditional use requires a 2/3 majority vote of those members of the Planning Commission present. The reasons for either approval or rejection must be stated in the findings of fact and motion.

The permit may be issued for a specified period of time, or conditions may be applied to the issuance of the permit, and a periodic review may be required. The Planning Commission has held a quasi-judicial public hearing to consider the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and general welfare of the occupants of surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, and the impact upon the natural environment and the effect of the proposed use upon the comprehensive plan. The imposition of conditions and safeguards have been reviewed and placed upon the approval of the conditional use request for the property described within the case study.

Case Report – #CU-2024-123 P a g e 9 | 9

Suggested Motion:

“Based upon the foregoing findings of fact per §54-68, §54-150 and § 54-101 of the Village Code, I move to GRANT the requested conditional use approval for Case #CU-2024-123 with the conditions stated in the case report.”

Prepared & Submitted by:

Stephanie J. Warren

GIS Coordinator/Planner

# # #

By signing below, the Owner/Applicant agrees to comply with all the conditions adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission ("the Commission") at its hearing on this application. The Owner/Applicant further agrees that no changes to the plans presented to the Commission will be made without prior approval from village staff or the Commission. Failure to comply with the application as approved by the Commission may result in Court action or revocation of approval.

_______________________________________________________

Owner/ Applicant Date

Case Report – #PV-2024-125 P a g e 1 | 10

Planning Commission

Village Hall – 313 Cree Meadows Drive, Ruidoso, New Mexico 88345

Case Report – Variance Request #PV-2024-125

Subject Property: 107 Swallow Dr.

Zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residential District

Property Size (Approx.): 10,157 sq. ft.

(0.23 acre)

Property Dimensions (Approx.):

Width: 121.37’ Length:83.5’

Legal Description: Lot 14, Block 1

Subdivision: Pinecliff Unit 2

Applicant: Susan Garcia-Lane

Hearing Date: June 4, 2024

Applicable Sections of Village Code:

➢ Sec. 54-92. – R-1 Single-Family Residential District

➢ Sec. 54-66. – Variances.

➢ Sec. 54-140.- Setback and height encroachments, limitations, and exceptions

I. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a variance to encroach 8 feet into the 20-foot required front yard setback to construct a garage located at 107 Swallow Dr., Lot 14, Block 1 of the Pinecliff Subdivision Unit 2.

Case Report – #PV-2024-125 P a g e 2 | 10

II. NOTIFICATION MAP AREA

III. AREA ZONING MAP

Direction Zoning Existing Land Use

North R-1 Single-Family Residential

East R-1 Single-Family Residential

South R-1 Single-Family Residential

West C-2 Community Commercial

Case Report – #PV-2024-125 P a g e 3 | 10

IV. SITE PLAN

Case Report – #PV-2024-125 P a g e 4 | 10

Topography:

5-foot

V. CURRENT SITE LOCATION

Aerial View from Google Maps

Case Report – #PV-2024-125 P a g e 5 | 10

View from street to north side property proposed location site:

Case Report – #PV-2024-125 P a g e 6 | 10

VI. APPLICABLE MUNICIPAL CODE REFERENCES

Sec. 54-92. – R-1 Single-Family Residential District

(a) Purpose; maximum density. The purpose of the R-1 single-family residential district is to provide for the development, at a low density, of single-family detached dwellings and directly related complementary uses. The district is intended to be strictly residential in character with a minimum of disturbance due to traffic or overcrowding.

(b) Principal permitted uses. Principal permitted uses in the R-1 district are:

(1) Single-family dwellings.

(2) Public parks.

(e)Development requirements.

(1) Development requirements for the R-1 district are as follows:

a. Subject to subsection aa. below, minimum lot area: 10,000 square feet. See section 54-66 for lots less than 10,000 square feet.

b. Minimum lot width: 75 feet.

c. Minimum lot depth: 100 feet.

d. Minimum front setback: 20 feet.

e. Minimum side setback: 10 feet.

f. Minimum corner side setback: 20 feet. Street side(s)

g. Minimum rear setback: 20 feet.

(f) Encroachments into yards.

(1) Open decks. Open decks shall be permitted to extend into the front, rear, and side yard setback a distance of not more than ten feet in the case of front yards and not closer than ten feet to the property line in the case of side yards and rear yards.

(2) Covered patios, decks, porches, or carports. Covered patios, decks, porches, or carports shall not be permitted encroachments on any setbacks, except as provided under section 54-140.

(3) Roof projections into required side yards. A house or garage roof may not be constructed closer than two feet to a side property line.

Case Report – #PV-2024-125 P a g e 7 | 10

Sec. 54-140. Setback and height encroachments, limitations, and exceptions

The following shall be considered as permitted encroachments on setback and height requirements, except as otherwise provided in this article:

(1) Permitted encroachments in any yards. The following are permitted in any yards: posts, off-street open parking spaces, sills, pilasters, lintels, cornices, eaves, gutters, awnings, open terraces, service station pump islands, open canopies, steps, flagpoles, ornamental features, open fire escapes, sidewalks and fences, except as otherwise provided in this article; also, yard lights and nameplate signs in residential districts, trees, shrubs, plants, floodlights or other sources of light illumination, and authorized lights or light standards for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security reasons, provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property.

(2) Permitted encroachments in side and rear yards. Balconies eight feet above grade may extend into the yards to within five feet of a lot line, provided the balconies do not extend over nonresidential driveways. Detached outdoor picnic shelters, open arbors, and trellises may extend within five feet of a side or rear lot line, except that no such structures shall exceed 500 square feet. Recreational equipment, picnic tables, and apparatus needed for the operation of active and passive solar energy systems are permitted encroachments.

(3) Permitted encroachments in rear yards. The following are permitted in rear yards: laundry drying equipment; patios; covered porches; breezeways and detached outdoor living rooms may extend 20 feet into the rear yard but not closer than ten feet to the rear lot line.

(4) Exemptions from height limitations. Height limitations shall not apply to church spires, belfries, cupolas and domes, monuments, chimneys and smokestacks, flagpoles, public and private utility facilities, transmission towers of commercial and private radio broadcasting stations, television antennas, parapet walls extending no more than four feet above the limiting height of the building (except as otherwise provided in this article), and solar energy collectors and equipment used for the mounting or operation of such collectors.

(5) Exemption from building setback requirements for buildings with party walls. Subject to regulations in section 22-31 and as required by other applicable sections of this article or this Code, buildings may be excluded from side and rear setback requirements provided party walls are used and if the adjacent buildings are constructed as an integral unit.

(6) Covered decks, porches and breezeways in front yards. Covered decks, porches and breezeways in

R-1, R-2, M-1 and M-2 districts may extend into the front yard, but not closer than 15 feet to the front property line, provided that they are not enclosed.

(Code 1985, § 10-5-10; Ord. No. 2017-07 , § 3, 6-13-17; Ord. No. 2019-02 , 3-12-19)

Sec. 54-66. Variances

(a) Generally. The planning commission may vary or adjust the strict application of the requirements of this article in the case of an irregular, narrow, shallow, or steep lot or other physical condition applying to a lot or building where strict application of this article would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship that would deprive the owner of reasonable use of the property involved.

Case Report – #PV-2024-125 P a g e 8 | 10

Granting of variances shall be done in accord with the requirements and procedures established in this article. Variances may only be granted for hardships related to the physical characteristics of land and should normally be limited to regulations pertaining to height or width of structures or the size of yard and open spaces where a departure from the literal interpretation of this article will not be contrary to the public interest or establish a precedent that would undermine the purpose and intent of this article as described in. Use variances shall not be permitted. No variance or adjustment in the strict application of any provisions of an ordinance may be granted unless:

(1) Special circumstances or conditions, fully described in the planning commission's findings, are peculiar to the land or building for which the adjustment is sought and do not apply generally to land or buildings in the neighborhood and have not resulted from any act of the applicant subsequent to the adoption of this article. Nonconforming lot size shall be considered a special circumstance in accordance with subsection 54-143(j);

(2) For reasons fully set forth in the planning commission's findings, the circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this article would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or building, the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use thereof and the variance as granted is the minimum adjustment that will accomplish this purpose; and

(3) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this article and will not be harmful to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Sec. 54-66 (d) Review and decision by planning commission.

In considering applications for variance, the planning commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the safety and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The planning commission shall hear oral or written statements from the applicant, the public, village staff, or its own members. If the planning commission determines by motion that the special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or the immediately surrounding area and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located, that granting the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety or welfare or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this article and the village comprehensive plan, and that the granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty, the planning commission may grant such variance and impose conditions and safeguards therein.

A variance shall not be approved except upon the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all the members of the planning commission present. The planning commission shall be required to make findings supporting its decision based on subsections (a) through (d) of this section.

Case Report – #PV-2024-125 P a g e 9 | 10

V. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION

Upon review of the application, it has been determined that the property's topography impacts building areas that would allow the modification of the structure's location, creating a hardship. The applicant has stated a need for the two-car garage, and further reset of the garage is unattainable due to the topography; decreasing the size from two-car to one-car garage does not meet the property owner's need.

Staff finds the property's topography potentially limits the proposed location; the garage encroachment proposal does not appear to demonstrate any negative impacts on vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and it recommends approving this request.

If approved by the Planning Commission, staff recommends the following conditions be placed:

1. Applicant must record an improvement survey that notates the variance approved on the face of the plat. Failure to record the variance improvement survey within six (6) months of approval will void Case #PV 2024-125 approval. The plat must be recorded in the office of the Lincoln County Clerk.

2. Granting of the variance relief does not confer any authorization for additional variances nor the improvement upon the portion of the dwelling granted relief to encroach within this application. All additional improvements within encroachments would require future variance relief from the Planning Commission.

3. Applicant shall make no changes in plans without Planning Commission approval.

4. By accepting approval of this Variance Agreement, the Applicant agrees to comply in a timely manner with the standards and conditions set. Failure to comply may lead to Court enforcement.

VI. CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS OF FACTS

The Planning Commission has the following options:

1. Approval of the Variance request, with reasons stated in the motion, granting the requested use.

2. Require modifications to the Variance request, and have it returned for Planning Commission review at the next meeting.

3. Deny the request of Variance Request with reasons and conditions.

Approval of a variance requires a 2/3 majority vote of those members of the Planning Commission present. The reasons for either approval or rejection must be stated in the findings of fact and motion.

The determination of appropriateness for granting or denying a variance application rests only on its consistency with applicable statutes, codes, and policies and with the Commission’s analysis of the impacts on the surrounding properties and the community at large.

Upon review of the application and existing conditions, it has been found that the proposed variance request does not demonstrate any negative impacts on the surrounding properties. The proposed location does not appear to have a negative impact on vehicular or pedestrian traffic.

Case Report – #PV-2024-125 P a g e 10 | 10

Suggested Motion:

“Based upon the foregoing findings of fact per §54-92, §54-140, and §54-66 of the Village Code,

I move to GRANT the requested variance for Case #PV-2024-125 with the conditions stated in

the case report.”

Prepared & Submitted by:

Stephanie J. Warren

GIS Coordinator/Planner

# # #

By signing below, the Owner/Applicant agrees to comply with all the conditions adopted by the

Planning and Zoning Commission ("the Commission") at its hearing on this application. The Owner/Applicant further agrees that no changes to the plans presented to the Commission will be made without prior approval from village staff or the Commission. Failure to comply with the application approved by the Commission may result in Court action or revocation of approval.

_______________________________________________________

Owner/ Applicant Date

Case Report – #PV-2024-126 P a g e 1 | 10

Planning Commission

Village Hall – 313 Cree Meadows Drive, Ruidoso, New Mexico 88345

Case Report – Variance Request #PV-2024-126

Subject Property: 300 Pine Rd.

Zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residential

Property Size (Approx.): 3,273 sq. ft.

(0.08 acre)

Property Dimensions (Approx.):

Width: 60’ Length:87.62’

Legal Description: Lot 9, Block 9

Subdivision: Midway Townsite

Applicant: Alan Adler

Hearing Date: June 4, 2024

Applicable Sections of Village Code:

➢ Sec. 54-92. – R-1 Single-Family Residential District

➢ Sec. 54-66. – Variances.

➢ Sec. 54-140.- Setback and height encroachments, limitations, and exceptions

I. REQUEST: The applicant, Alan Adler, is seeking your approval for a variance. This variance would allow him to encroach 5 feet into the 20-foot corner lot setback. The purpose of this encroachment is to accommodate a 384 sq. ft. home at 300 Pine Rd., Lot 9, Block 9 of the Midway Townsite Subdivision.

II. NOTIFICATION MAP AREA

Case Report – #PV-2024-126 P a g e 2 | 10

III. AREA ZONING MAP

Direction Zoning Existing Land Use

North R-1 Single-Family Residential

East R-2/R-1 Two-Family/Single-Family Residential

South R-1 Single-Family Residential

West R-1 Single-Family Residential

Case Report – #PV-2024-126 P a g e 3 | 10

IV. SITE PLAN

Case Report – #PV-2024-126 P a g e 4 | 10

V. CURRENT SITE LOCATION

View from the intersection of Pine Rd. and Ridge Rd.:

View from Ridge Rd., looking toward Pine:

Page 32 of 55

Case Report – #PV-2024-126 P a g e 5 | 10

View from Pine Rd. and Ridge Rd.:

Aerial View from Google Maps

Case Report – #PV-2024-126 P a g e 6 | 10

VI. APPLICABLE MUNICIPAL CODE REFERENCES

Sec. 54-92. – R-1 Single-Family Residential District

(a) Purpose: maximum density. The purpose of the R-1 single-family residential district is to provide for the development, at a low density, of single-family detached dwellings and directly related complementary uses. The district is intended to be strictly residential in character, with a minimum of disturbance due to traffic or overcrowding.

(b) Principal permitted uses. Principal permitted uses in the R-1 district are:

(1) Single-family dwellings.

(2) Public parks.

(e) Development requirements.

(1) Development requirements for the R-1 district are as follows:

a. Subject to subsection aa. below, minimum lot area: 10,000 square feet. See section 54-66 for lots less than 10,000 square feet.

b. Minimum lot width: 75 feet.

c. Minimum lot depth: 100 feet.

d. Minimum front setback: 20 feet.

e. Minimum side setback: 10 feet.

f. Minimum corner side setback: 20 feet. Street side(s)

g. Minimum rear setback: 20 feet.

Exceptions:

1. Accessory structures may have a 10-foot rear setback.

2. Corner lots minimum set back: 10 feet

(f) Encroachments into yards.

(1) Open decks. Open decks shall be permitted to extend into the front, rear, and side yard setback a distance of not more than ten feet in the case of front yards and not closer than ten feet to the property line in the case of side yards and rear yards.

(2) Covered patios, decks, porches, or carports. Covered patios, decks, porches, or carports shall not be permitted encroachments on any setbacks, except as provided under section 54-140.

Case Report – #PV-2024-126 P a g e 7 | 10