Planning and Zoning

Planning & Zoning Commission September 10'^ 2014 Minutes City Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Kent Wilson. Upon roll call, the following were present: Chairman Kent Wilson Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez Commissioner J. Dooley Commissioner F. Pawlowski Commissioner F. Kozeliski Commissioner L. Miller Upon roll call, the following were absent: Commissioner M. Long Presented to the Chairman and Commissioners for their approval were the minutes of the Regular Meeting held on August 13'^ 2014 meeting. Commissioner Dooley motioned for approval of minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Pawlowski, A.V.A. Motion Carried. Chairman Kent Wilson administered the oath required by state law for public forum. ITEM ONE: CASE #14-00600002: City initiated request, on behalf of the majority of the property owners, for the rezoning of approximately 1.132 acres m/1 - from Commercial (C2-B) Zoning District to Multiple Family Residential - Mixed Use District (RM-4) Zoning District. The properties are located at 101, 103, 105, 105A, 105B, 107, 109, 111 E. Hill Street, 309 S. 1st Street and 304 S. Puerco Drive; more particularly described as Lots 13 thru 24, Block 14, A & P Railway Company Addition. CB described the area for the proposed rezone. The area is the entire block between First Street and Puerco Drive on the north side of Hill Street. The existing structures have been there for a number of years and are all related to dwelling units - whether it be single family residences or multi-family buildings. The current zoning in this area is General Commercial and this zoning designation does not allow for single family dwellings. The existing structures that are single family dwellings are in non- conforming status; which means that they were there prior to our zoning designation. If the structures remain in the Commercial Zoning District, they cannot be enlarged, modified, or changed in any way that would increase the non-conformity. The only way to alter the structures would be to bring them into compliance, which means turning the structure into a commercial structure. Currently a couple of the structures are being used for commercial use, but not all the properties - some have remained as single family residences. Some of the existing properties could not be converted to commercial use, due to there small size; to comply with the parking and landscaping requirements would shrink the size of the structures so that no business could use it. CB further explained that this dilemma was brought to the City's attention when one of the property owners attempted to sell her property she was informed that because the home was located in a Commercial Zoning District, she could not sell it as a single-family residence. The property would have to be sold as commercial property. When staff took a look at the existing development in the Commercial Page 1 of 5 Zoning District, it was obvious that an error had occurred. The Multi-Family Residential - Mixed Use (RM-4) District would allow for multi-family, single-family, townhouse, duplex and light commercial properties. Which is what is existing at this location already. Our City Code allows for the re-zoning of an existing district if the City finds that, due to existing development, an error was made at the time of zoning. In this case, it is not considered spot zoning because the properties to the south and east are already zoned Multi-Family Residential - Mixed Use (RM-4) Zoning District. The zoning change would bring the existing development into compliance and will relieve the property owners of any clouds on their titles when and if they should decide to sell their properties. In addition, in order to make the request for the desired zone change, the City must receive owners consent from a minimum of fifty-one (51%) percent of the land owned in the area the City is rezoning. In this case, we have consent from owners of sixty-seven (67%) percent of the land involved. Commissioner Dooley asked if we had any opposition via letters or phone calls. CB replied that he had been contacted by one concerned property owner; they had questions as to what this would do to their property values, etc. But once CB explained the situation, the property owner no longer had an issue with the change. Chairman Wilson asked if these properties were privately owned prior to our re-zone request. CB explained that they were, and still are, privately owned. Chairman Wilson then asked if staff believed that the current zoning designation was made in error, or to protect commercial properties for downtown development. CB stated that he believes it was an error, as these properties were thrown into a non- conforming status when the rezoning took place. He explained in detail how he had concluded that this was simply an oversight. Chairman Wilson asked if staff has seen errors such as this one throughout the City of Gallup. CB replied that in every city this same situation can be found. In many areas you can find small commercial "pockets" in residential areas; this was primarily due to "mom and pop" businesses in residential areas. He added that a good thing about zoning is it can always be changed or corrected, such as in this case. Commissioner Miller asked if the property owner of the property that initially asked about the zone change is currently being used as a residential or commercial property. CB replied that it is primarily a residential use. Commissioner Miller asked if all the properties located north of the alley are currently zoned commercial. CB replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Kozeliski asked if the change would affect the property on the east comer of the area being rezoned. CB replied that it would not; it is currently being used as a business office and that is a permitted use in the Multi-Family Residential - Mixed Use (RM-4) District. Motion was made by Commissioner Kozeliski to approve this item as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Miller, A.V.A. Motion Carried. ITEM TWO: CASE #14-00900001: Revising the language from the initial proposed text amendment to reflect the requested changes amending Subsection 10-4m-2blj(4) of Subsection 10-4m-2blj "Pedestrian Infrastructure" of Subsection 10-4m-2b "Building Permit Applications" of Section 10-4m-2 "Permit Administration" and Subsection 10-5-12b2 "Right of Way, Pavement and Sidewalk Widths" of Subsection 10-5-12b "Streets" of Section 10-5-12 "Design Standards"of the Municipal Code ofthe City of Gallup, New Mexico by deleting in its entirety the text relating to allowing a reduction in sidewalk width from six feet (6') to four feet (4*) for sidewalks offset to the property line on collector and arterial rights of way in residential districts and by amending text thereby reducing the required sidewalk width from sbc feet (6') to five feet (5') for collector streets and increasing the sidewalk width from four (4') to five (5') for local streets. Page 2 of 5 As directed by the Commission at the last meeting, CB reported that he had met with the City Attomey and explained the concerns that were discussed at the August 13th, Planning Zoning Commission Meeting. The main issue being - if the sidewalks are to be placed in back of curb or set back from the curb. The City Attomey noted that the initial intention was to address solely the sidewalk widths and not the placement of the sidewalks. Developers would still have the option of placing the sidewalks set back from curb or alongside of the curb; but they must remain consistent in their development and with the existing development - but the developer will haveto complywith the new sidewalk width requirements. The Commission was also concerned about areas where it will be impossible for the property owner to comply with the required sidewalk widths; so a few changes were made. The term "technically infeasible" has been added. CB cited the following: Subsection10-5-12 B3 is also being created to provide relief for existing areas of town, whether it be existing development where existing sidewalks are required to be replaced or within existing subdivisions where sidewalks are required to be installed where none exist. The provision will address existing areas in the City where it is technically infeasible to fully comply with sidewalk width requirements due to physical or site constraints which prohibit full compliance. In such cases sidewalks will be required to be installed to as close to technically feasible as possible. It shall be the responsibility of the City of Gallup Engineering Department to determine whether or not the "technically infeasible" provision is applicable for a particular site. CB explained in detail what that statement means. CB further explained that he stumbled upon a section of our Municipal Code, which is separate from our Zoning Code, which deals with sidewalk construction. The problem is that there is nothing in our Municipal Code directing developers, or anyone, to that area of the Municipal Code. So another addition is that we are adding the following text: "A new Subsection 10-5-12B4 will make reference to Sections 7-2-1 thru 7-2-6 of Chapter 2 "Sidewalk Construction" of Title 7 "Public Ways and Property" of the Municipal Code of the City of Gallup containing additional requirements for sidewalk construction". And finally, CB explained that all subsequent items will be renumbered to keep numerical order in our Municipal Code. Commissioner Dooley stated she had two questions as she wanted to be perfectly clear in her understanding of the changes. First, regarding sidewalks (for example sidewalks in the hospital area), there are a few vacant lots still in that area - should someone decide to build on one of the vacant lots, will they be required to build their sidewalk to conform with the existing sidewalks? CB replied that the placement of the new sidewalk would need to conform to existing sidewalks, but as for the width of the sidewalk - they will need to comply with the new width regulations. Commissioner Dooley asked if a developer or property owner would need to come before the Commission with a Variance request if they are unable to comply. CB replied that they would not need a variance, they would only need to comply with the new regulations (regarding the width); but as for placement of the sidewalk they would be informed when they apply for a building permit that they will need to conform with the existing sidewalks. If the existing sidewalks are set back from curb, then they would need to set back their sidewalk - if the existing sidewalk is placed along the curb, then the new sidewalk would need to be placed along the curb. Commissioner Dooley's second question: If a new subdivision is being developed and the first site to be built on has a sidewalk set against the curb, then from there on will all subsequent development have to build sidewalks set against the curb? CB replied that she is correct - but he also explained that with any new subdivisions, meetings are held with the Gallup Task Force and details - such as sidewalks - are discussed and agreed to prior to coming before the Commission. Page 3 of 5 For clarification. Commissioner Miller asked if the property owner only has three feet from the curb to place a sidewalk then would he/she still be required to constructa five foot sidewalk? CB replied that they would be required to do so - unless there is a site constraint that prohibits the five foot width. Chairman Wilson noted that the Commission understands that the City Attorney's original intent was to only deal with the matter of sidewalk width, but the Commission had stated they had concerns regarding placement of the sidewalks; yet the City Attorney does not want to address this issue. He feels that the Commission should make a decision regarding the placement of future sidewalks. He added that if the Commission approves increasing sidewalk widths, they should not also address the issue of placement now and not wait until a developer applies to build in a new subdivision. He asked why the Commission could not decide if all future sidewalks should or should not be against the curb. CB replied that we need to be careful not to over regulate; doing so could drive away developers. We hear that all the time; that our rules are too stringent - we must remember that the main purpose of our rules is for the safety of the public. The width of the sidewalk is directed to public safety, but as for aesthetics, that should be left to the developer. The Commission should not attempt to be too strict but yet should make every attempt to avoid safety hazards. Chairman Wilson reminded the Commissioners that they would be making a decision, or recommendation, regarding sidewalk widths only even though they expressed concerns regarding the placement of sidewalks. Commissioner Dooley commented that she thought that by stating that any future sidewalks must conform to existing sidewalks, the Commission was addressing the issue of aesthetics. CB reminded her that for existing subdivisions, any new or altered sidewalks will have to conform to the appearance of neighboring sidewalks, albeit set back or against the curb - but any new subdivisions can choose either way upon development. Commissioner Dooley stated "for the record" that in 1955 the Mossman brothers developed the Mossman area and included gutters. Those streets have a slight elevation and gutters - that subdivision was built "the right way" and yet we had no City Codes or Regulations like we do today. Then we have Indian Hills Subdivision area, there is no way for the water to drain and those homes were built in a flood zone area. There can be a huge difference in builders, so she asked CB if he is saying that the City wants to leave the sidewalk placement issue up to the builders? She added that we could have an A+ builder and they build with pride and substance, or we could have a builder that simply "throws up" a subdivision - and yet the Commission is supposed to leave the decision to the developer? CB commented that developers still have to meet the minimum standards and if the builder attempted to build in Indian Hills today, with our current Codes and Regulations, the City would not let that happen. Today, the rules would not allow a subdivision to be built in a flood plain without extensive precautions being implemented. CB added that the placement of the sidewalks really is a matter of opinion and not a matter of life, health and safety, which is what our Code is designed for. He also reminded the Commission that we have landscaping standards and we do want to beautify our City, but in the matter of sidewalks, it really does not matter where they are placed - the bottom line is that it is up to the property owner to maintain the property. The Planning Department and the City is not going to allow people to do whatever they want, they will have to abide by our rules, our Code - which is why so many people hate our department; no one wants to comply. Chairman Kozeliski asked if our City Code addresses sidewalks for the disabled or handicapped. CB said it absolutely does; it is governed by the Department of Justice; that is at the federal level. Motion was made by Commissioner Kozeliski to make a positive recommendation on this item as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Miller, A.V.A. Motion Carried. CB informed the Commissioners that this item will go before the City Council on the 23rd of this month. Page 4 of 5 ITEM THREE: City Council Actions Taken. Chairman Wilson noted that the City has accepted the resignation of Mr. Jack Fuhs, Sr. from the Commission and has appointed Loren A. Miller as the newest member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. ITEM FOUR: August 2014 Building Permit Activity Report. Commissioner Kozeliski asked CB which building has the valuation of $1.4 million. CB replied that there are new hotels going up and the new VA Clinic on Highway 602. There was a brief discussion regarding the new VA Clinic. Open Floor: Commissioner Kozeliski noted that he is seeing concrete and trash being dumped all over town. He would like to know if there is a way to require an applicant of a building permit to dispose of concrete debris at the recycling operation center. CB stated that currently on our permits, the City does state that the debris must be dumped at an appropriate dumpsite. CB added that our Code Enforcement Officers are trying very hard to catch the people who are illegally dumpling this material, but it is very difficult. CB briefly explained the problems we are having with illegal dumping and how it can cost the City a lot of money to clean up. Commissioner Kozeliski asked if we could require dumping receipts or tickets for the material being hauled to the proper sites as part of the building permitting process. After a discussion regarding this issue, CB noted that he would bring the matter before our City Attorney and see what, if anything, can be done. Commission Adjourned at 7:55 p.m. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION WILSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CLYDE (C.B.) STRAIN SECRETARY TO PLANNING & ZONING Page 5 of 5