Planning and Zoning

Planning and Development Clyde “C.B.” Strain, Director PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA Wednesday, January 10th, 2018, 6:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers *** Call to Order / Roll Call *** Approval of December 13th, 2017 Meeting Minutes PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM ONE: CASE # 17-00600004: Request by USA RV Park/John Moore, property owner, for the Rezoning of a 0.47 acre portion of an existing parcel containing approximately 13.8 acres FROM Heavy Commercial District (C3-B) TO Planned Mixed Use District (PMU). The property is located at 2925 West Highway 66, more particularly described as 13.8 Acs M/L in Sec. 24 & 25, T15 R19 K.O.A. Subdivision. INFORMATION ITEMS ITEM TWO: Recognition of new Vice Chair, Matthew Long ITEM THREE: City Council Actions Taken ITEM FOUR: December 2017 Building Permit Activity Report ITEM FIVE: Building Permit Five-Year Comparison {2013 thru 2017} ITEM SIX: Planning & Zoning Agenda Five-Year Activity Report {2013 thru 2017} *** Open Floor *** Adjourn 110 West Aztec Avenue • Gallup, New Mexico 87301 • phone 505.863.1240 • email cstrain@gallupnm.gov  Planning & Zoning Commission December 13th, 2017 Minutes City Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:03 p.m. by Chairman Kent Wilson. Upon roll call, the following were present: Chairman K. Wilson Commissioner F. Pawlowski Commissioner F. Kozeliski Commissioner M. Long Commissioner L. Miller Upon roll call, the following were absent: Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez Commissioner J. Dooley Presented to the Chairman and Commissioners for their approval were the minutes of the November 9th, 2017 special meeting. Commissioner Pawlowski motioned for approval of the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Kozeliski. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner F. Pawlowski (Yes) Commissioner F. Kozeliski (Yes) Commissioner M. Long (Yes) Commissioner L. Miller (Yes) Chairman Wilson administered the oath required by state law for public forum. ITEM ONE: CASE # 17-01100004: Request by Hannah Sehn, property owner, appealing an administrative decision requiring a twenty feet (20’) front yard setback in a Single Family Residential Zoning District (RS-2), as required by section 10-4B-1D1 of the City of Gallup Land Development Standards. The property is located at 318 Valentina Drive; more particularly described as Lot 12, Block 8, Zecca Height Addition. CB Strain stated that Ms. Sehn applied for an appeal upon the discovery of her front porch not meeting the required setbacks. CB stated on September 27, 2017 Ms. Sehn was issued a reroof permit for her house and during a scheduled inspection (on October 24, 2017) the Building Inspector noticed a front and rear porch had been built, which was not included in the building permit application. (The porch in question was in the front, whereas the back porch measurements are being adjusted according to the building permit review.) CB explained that since the front porch was considered and treated as a structural addition, it had to meet the required twenty feet (20’) setback Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 13th, 2017 Page 1 of 13 from the front property line according to the dimensional requirements in a Single Family Residential Zoning District (RS-2). CB used the overhead projector to display the property’s boundary survey (A copy of the property boundary survey is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit A and made a part of these official minutes.) CB pointed to the southeast area between the dwelling and property line where it had twenty-two point two feet (22.2’) and the northeast twenty-one point six feet (21.6’), so leaves a little over one point five feet (1.5’) to meet the twenty feet (20’) front yard setback. CB explained that the existing front porch was already considered a non-conforming structure due to the encroachment of the setbacks, whereas it encroached about two feet (2’) and stuck out four feet (4’) from the house. When Ms. Sehn recently altered the front porch, the alteration increased the porch’s length to eight feet (8’), which encroached six feet (6’) into the required setbacks. CB explained that since there was no building permit application submitted for the (porch) addition, the Planning Department didn’t have a chance to review it. Otherwise the application would’ve been denied during the building permit process. CB stated that the property does not qualify for a variance because it doesn’t have anything peculiar to the land that prevents the land owner from complying with the regulations; it’s a square flat lot. CB noted that the original house did meet the required setbacks, but was built almost to the setback leaving little room to add to the front. CB stated those were his findings of the facts and conclusions of law, per the City of Gallup Land Development Standards. Commissioner Pawlowski asked CB if the appellant’s addition was actually considered a porch because it was not enclosed. CB used the overhead projector to display the front yard site photos. CB stated that it could be an enclosed or non-enclosed porch, which was actually called a porch overhang. Commissioner Pawlowski asked CB for the rear porch dimensions. CB stated that he wasn’t sure about the rear porch measurements and added that the rear porch does meet the required setbacks; it just needs to be permitted. CB stated that when the appeal was filed it was put in a “stay,” so nothing could move forward until a decision was made on the front porch. CB referred back to the boundary survey, where the boundary survey displayed the dimensions of the rear porch eight feet and ten inches (8’10”). CB stated that it seemed to replicate the measurements of the previous porch; plenty of room in the back to meet the twenty foot (20’) setback. CB reiterated that the rear porch was not a problem; just needed to be permitted. Commissioner Pawlowski stated the reason he was asking for the dimensions was because when he drove by the property earlier, it seemed that the rear porch was significantly smaller than the front porch. CB stated that the information he was going off of was from the boundary survey submitted with the building permit application, after it was red tagged (was later clarified that it was a verbal “stop work.”) Chairman Wilson stated for Commissioner Pawlowski’s correction, according to the survey, the front porch length is fourteen feet eight inches (14’8”) and the rear porch length is eleven feet (11’), so the rear porch is smaller. CB stated that it was smaller in width and bigger in length. Commissioner Pawlowski asked if a permit was issued and paid for the front porch. CB stated no, the only permit issued was for the reroof. Commissioner Pawlowski asked if it (permit) had been done. CB responded that a building permit application was filed for the porch and then it was discovered that there was an encroachment issue; which at that time the property owner was told the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 13th, 2017 Page 2 of 13 porch had to be removed or meet the setbacks. CB stated at that point, the property owner decided to appeal to the Planning & Zoning Commission, which was their right by the City Code. CB stated there is a right to appeal, whenever it’s alleged that there has been an error or misjudgment in a particular order, requirement, decision, determination or interpretation made by City staff administering on enforcement provisions of the title. CB stated that the property owner was alleging that staff’s interpretation was incorrect. Commissioner Kozeliski asked if there were any other houses being built to the driveway because he thought he seen some when he drove by; “looked like some were built to the curb.” CB replied that it was possible and there are several houses throughout the City that are non-conforming, which happens all the time. CB stated that while there was non-conformance in the neighborhood it doesn’t mean that they could continue the non-conformance and approve an illegal structure. CB explained that those who are nonconforming are not allowed to remove and return the same structure; they have to conform to the current standards. CB added that those structures Commissioner Kozeliski was speaking about could’ve been built years ago without permits and are most likely illegally. CB spoke about the possibility of a violation clouding a title, which could affect the homeowner’s ability to refinance or sell. Commissioner Kozeliski asked CB if they’re going to ask them (property owner) to leave it there because it didn’t look bad. CB clarified, that this evening the property owner was appealing staff’s interpretation of the Code to meet the twenty foot (20’) front yard setback and requesting from the Commission to let her keep it (front porch) there in violation. CB explained that since the porch does not meet the required setbacks it’s considered illegal and they can’t permit or approve an illegal structure. Chairman Wilson stated for general information, the neighboring properties that are encroaching aren’t necessarily approved and could be in violation of the Code, whereas those property titles could be clouded preventing refinancing or selling until a remedy was taken to bring those structures or properties to the current Code. CB stated that was correct, but depended on how the title company wanted to handle it; whereas sometimes violations are carried over and some are not. Commissioner Long asked if a porch was considered a permanent structure as long as it was attached to the building. CB stated that if the porch was attached to the building it became a part of the principal structure (the house). CB added that if it was a detached accessory structure, it had to be detached at least ten feet (10’) minimum from the house, per the Code. Chairman Wilson asked if anyone from the public would like to question Director Strain at this time. No one came forward. Chairman Wilson asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of this case. Hannah Sehn, property owner, introduced herself and jokingly stated that she was the one causing all the “kafuffle.” Ms. Sehn thanked the Commission and the staff from the Planning & Development Department for being very helpful during this process and giving her the opportunity to speak tonight. Ms. Sehn stated that she wanted to give a background about herself; she moved to Gallup not being originally from this area and works with a non-profit on Aztec Street. Ms. Sehn stated that it has been really interesting becoming a homeowner for the first time and was in the process of Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 13th, 2017 Page 3 of 13 learning about the Gallup standards. Ms. Sehn stated that the information in the (agenda) packet did take place. Ms. Sehn stated that she applied for a permit for the roof and in that process they saw that the front porch and the house did not have a lot of upkeep and was not really taken care of; wasn’t really safe and kind of rickety. Ms. Sehn stated that in that process they wanted to tie in the shingles so can be done altogether. Ms. Sehn added that the inspector did go by and say that if they’re changing that they needed to apply for a separate permit for those structures. Ms. Sehn stated that’s when she became aware of the zoning, the setbacks and the right-of-ways. Ms. Sehn stated that she did receive the survey whenever she purchased her house and until now really understands all the different pieces on it. Ms. Sehn stated that she’s had the opportunity to talk with a lot of her neighbors during this process and some of them have been in the community since the 60’s and others are newer to the area. Ms. Sehn stated she and her neighbors were surprised because it looked like from where the (property) line was to the curb including the sidewalk, it was about fourteen feet (14’) and then the road; that’s because Valentina Drive has a sixty foot (60’) right-of-way, whereas some of the other drives in the same neighborhood have a fifty foot (50’) right-of-way. Ms. Sehn stated that she was able to connect with the GIS team whom was working on getting all that information online, so whenever people come to Gallup they can actually access that first to see their area and the documents that describe some of the requirements. Ms. Sehn stated that when she was looking around her neighborhood before this process, she seen some enclosed porches that were pretty close up (to the setbacks) and from the aerial view and some other pictures they can see there was different things throughout the neighborhood that do make it more welcoming, well up kept and inviting. Ms. Sehn stated that was her process of thinking going through this and wanted to share because it was a neat privilege to have a house and try to make it your own. Ms. Sehn stated that she was learning from this process and was really thankful for the guidance around all the policies; she knows there’s a group of them going on and trying to think about how to make it easier for people to have that information upfront. Commissioner Miller asked Ms. Sehn if she had hired a licensed contractor to perform the work. Ms. Sehn responded that she actually applied for the homeowner’s permit to do the work herself. Commissioner Miller stated that if she had hired a licensed contractor, they would’ve gone the correct route. Ms. Sehn stated that it was shared with her that sometimes there are others in the area and even contractors that don’t know the particular roles and requirements in Gallup that may be used in Albuquerque or other areas; there are specific standards in Gallup that are pretty unique. Ms. Sehn stated she thought that was the case and thanked Commissioner Miller for sharing that. Chairman Wilson asked Ms. Sehn if throughout this experience had she gone back and examined her purchase documents given to her at the time of closing and if there was any indication of the front porch being in non-compliance. Ms. Sehn responded not to her knowledge. Ms. Sehn stated that she hadn’t gone through them in detail and will probably have to look at them again; it never came up or she never thought about it. Commissioner Pawlowski asked if the original porch on the home when Ms. Sehn purchased it was in compliance and how far did the porch come out. Chairman Wilson asked CB if at the time the house was built with the original porch, was it built in compliance. CB stated it could’ve been at the time depending on when the house was constructed. CB stated that the Code did change overtime Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 13th, 2017 Page 4 of 13 and setbacks did change, at the time it was built it might’ve been in compliance. CB explained that when the Code or dimensional requirements are changed, anything built in compliance before that time is considered legal and anything added or modified after that on forward, has to meet the current standards. CB stated according to the current standards the existing porch was encroaching, but may not have been at the time of construction. CB reiterated that the existing porch prior to the new one being built was not in question; it was the new one that was not built to the current standards. Chairman Wilson stated that he thought Commissioner Pawlowski was asking if it was a grandfather situation. Commissioner Pawlowski stated that he was thinking that maybe it’s going to go a certain way and if he were a homeowner would want to know if he could build to the specifications of the original porch and would it be in non-compliance. Chairman Wilson stated that Director Strain already explained that whereas the new porch has to meet the new Code regulations and the old porch didn’t because it may have been built prior to the current Code regulations. Chairman Wilson emphasized that if a new porch was going to be built it would need to meet the current building codes. CB stated that was correct. Commissioner Kozeliski asked if the six feet six inches (6’6”) was a specification according to the rules and guidelines. CB responded that was correct. CB stated that they’re encroaching six feet six inches (6’6”) into their required twenty foot (20’) setback. Commissioner Kozeliski commented that the picture shows that it (porch) looks nice. Commissioner Pawlowki asked Commissioner Kozeliski what he was thinking. Commissioner Kozeliski stated that he thought they should leave it as is, with no question. Commissioner Pawlowski stated that he thought he was meaning to reduce it by six and a half feet (6.5’). Chairman Wilson interrupted Commissioners stating that they will have their discussion in a moment and need to see if there were any other questions. Chairman Wilson asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. No opponents came forward. Chairman Wilson stated the hearing was closed. Motion to approve or deny the request for Case Number 2017-01100004. Commissioner Miller motioned for denial of Item One to uphold staff’s recommendation. Also CB clarified to the Commissioners what they were voting on. The motion was Seconded by Commissioner Long. Opened floor for discussion. Commissioner Long stated that it was a hard process to learn and it’s unfortunate that the appellant was on that side of it, but if they do accept the appeal, it sets the precedence that the next appellant can do it. Commissioner Long stated that going through the correct channels early through the permitting process really helps because staff was there for that reason and to help bring those things to their attention saving them time and money. Commissioner Kozeliski stated that someone came up with those standards for twenty feet (20’), why didn’t they come up with eighteen feet (18’); it’s just a number. Commissioner Kozeliski stated that staff has done an outstanding job looking into it and he wasn’t aware they did inspections to find those things. Commissioner Kozeliski stated that he would hate to make somebody remove the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 13th, 2017 Page 5 of 13 porch; it’s good the way it is; it enhances the neighborhood and makes the house look nice. Commissioner Long stated that the twenty foot (20’) front yard setback was typical in a subdivision because a typical car requires twenty feet (20’) between the garage and typically a right-of-way. Commissioner Long gave the example, if the right-of-row line was where the back of the sidewalk was you don’t want a car pultruding in the back of the sidewalk so that way ADA route, you don’t have ADA access for a ramp. So the twenty foot (20’) was typically a big enough dimension to let a normal size car park there and a typical front yard setback was for off street parking Commissioner Pawlowski stated that he knew they were there to either uphold staff’s judgement or to modify it in some way. Commissioner Pawlowski asked if rather than taking the whole thing down could a portion of that be taken so that it was twenty feet one inches (20’1”). Commissioner Pawlowski stated that he couldn’t vote on this until he knew his options. CB stated yes that was an option. CB explained that the Commission can modify that requirement to their satisfaction to meet the intent of the Code, but staff can’t make a recommendation on how to modify; it’s up to the Commission. CB explained the Commission’s options; reject appeal, modify, administrative action or overturn it completely. Chairman Wilson stated that he didn’t feel as a Commission that they could define, describe and design those modification. Chairman Wilson asked CB if they could agree to reconsider a modification and would it have to come back through the Planning Department. CB responded not necessarily. Chairman Wilson asked if the property owner would have to come up with a redesign request for approval. CB stated that if the Commission modified the administrative action and allowed like Commissioner Pawlowski stated to encroach one inch (1”) into the setback that would be their modification and in the resolution the language states, if the administrative action was modified or overturned the appellant shall comply with any and all requirements of the City of Gallup Planning & Zoning Commission. CB reiterated that it was up to the Commission to put those requirements on the appellant. CB explained that whatever their decision was if modified, the appellant would come back and repermit under the Commission’s requirements and dimensions. Commissioner Kozeliski asked if they could change to allow the six foot six inches (6’6”). Chairman Wilson commented that would be a variance. CB stated that was their option, but didn’t qualify for a variance, so they would be violating the variance criteria. CB stated that was reason they were given the option at the appeal process to reject, modify or overturn. Chairman Wilson stated to Commissioner Kozeliski that it didn’t qualify for a variance. Commissioner Long added that it didn’t qualify for a variance because there was no hardship. Commissioner Kozeliski stated that he liked it the way it was, bottom line. Commissioner Miller stated that he also thought it looked fine, gives beauty to the house, but what they do this evening does set precedence for the future. Commissioner Miller stated that he would like to go with Staff’s recommendation and apologized to the appellant they had to find out the hard way. Commissioner Miller stated that he agrees with the appellant that it was not an eyesore and was a benefit for a homeowner to have a nice covered porch, unfortunately it encroaches the setback. Chairman Wilson stated that they had a motion and a second on the floor to uphold staff’s recommendation and has gone through discussion. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 13th, 2017 Page 6 of 13 Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner L. Miller (Yes) Commissioner M. Long (Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski (Yes) Commissioner F. Kozeliski (No) Motion Carried. Chairman Wilson stated the motion carried to deny the appeal. CB stated that he wanted to make the appellant aware that they do have the option to appeal the decision to City Council within ten (10) days and that the Planning & Zoning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council. Commissioner Pawlowski stated that it was his understanding that the homeowner had two options, other than appealing to City Council; the whole thing had to be removed or had to be modified some way to be twenty feet (20’) from the roadway. CB stated that was correct; twenty feet (20’) from the front yard property line. CB stated that a common misconception was that the property line was at the curb, but it was actually setback from the curb quite a bit; always from the front property line. Commissioner Kozeliski asked how far the property line was from the curb. CB stated for that area he wasn’t sure, it’s a sixty foot (60’) right-of-way; estimating five or six feet; can’t tell. Ms. Sehn stated that it was true that Valentina Drive was a sixty foot (60’) right-of-way, for example in the Mossman area there are a number of drives that are parallel to each other; Valentina, Zecca, McKee and Julie. Those only have a fifty foot (50’) right-of-way whereas Valentina Drive has a sixty foot (60’). On the survey the 8.5 and 9.8 (almost 10 feet) and top 9.8 feet that was from the end of the sidewalk, so the road was there, then the side walk, then the rebar was the ten feet there, so actually the property line was between 14-15 feet from the street including the sidewalk. Thinks it varied depending on the right-of-way of the road because the road didn’t have multiple lanes and just one lane each way and parking on each side. The sidewalk was to the right of the 9.8 feet and the property line starts after that cut off point. Chairman Wilson thanked Ms. Sehn for that information. ITEM TWO: CASE # 17-01100005: Request by Chris Muniz to rename McBride Circle to Lisa Court. The cul-de-sac is located east of Jay Street between Marcella Circle and Clay Avenue further described as Lots 7-A thru Lots 14-A, Block 2, Rocky View Subdivision Unit #2. CB Strain stated that Mr. Muniz, late husband of Lisa Romero-Muniz applied for a street name change from McBride Circle to Lisa Court. CB explained that the Code requires at least seventy-five percent (75%) of a petition be signed by the property owners that are impacted on the front street. CB stated that they had one-hundred percent (100%) of the property owners on McBride Circle in agreeance of the street name petition (Exhibit B), which was confirmed by staff. CB gave a brief background about Mrs. Romero-Muniz, whom lost her life in the Las Vegas tragedy and was employed with the McKinley County Schools since 2003. During her fourteen (14) years of Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 13th, 2017 Page 7 of 13 employment at various schools, Rocky View Elementary, JFK Middle School and Miyamura High School she had a tremendous positive impact on the students. CB reiterated that all property owners on McBride Circle were in agreeance of the street name change petition. CB stated that Mr. Muniz was in attendance if the Commission had any further questions regarding her background. Chairman Wilson stated that if Mr. Chris Muniz would like to speak to the case, please approach the podium and state his name. Chris Muniz introduced himself and stated that he was the late husband of Lisa Romero-Muniz whom was taken from them in the Las Vegas tragedy. Mr. Muniz stated that Lisa had lived on McBride Circle for twenty three (23) years; even before they were together. Mr. Muniz stated that they have one-hundred percent (100%) of neighbors agreeing to have the street name changed. Mr. Muniz acknowledged that Mr. McBride has donated and done a lot of work to the place, but feels that in remembrance of Lisa and everything that she did for the youth and her children that would be a nice way of remembering her. Mr. Muniz asked the Commission to please pass. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions of Mr. Muniz. Commissioner Pawlowski stated that he noticed Mr. Muniz chose one name, “Lisa” and knows the street north of there was Marcella Circle. Commissioner Pawlowski spoke about how people from Gallup know the meaning of street names, for example Valentina was a street named after one of Zecca’s relatives. Commissioner Pawlowski asked if Mr. Muniz ever considered using her whole name. Mr. Muniz stated yes he did, but pretty much agreed on Lisa itself because Lisa Romero- Muniz would be too long for an address; could always be discussed at a later date. Mr. Muniz spoke about other single named streets in Gallup and knew that there was no other Lisa Circle, Street, Avenue or Boulevard and felt that many in the area would know the meaning of “Lisa”. Chairman Wilson thanked Mr. Muniz. Chairman Wilson read aloud the objection letter (Page 2-8 from the agenda packet) from Walter McBride Construction dated December 11, 2017. Chairman Wilson asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Diana Galindo introduced herself and stated that she was the sister of Gina & Walter McBride. Ms. Galindo stated that the street name was a legacy her brother-in-law, Walter was going to leave behind for his family and emphasized that it was an honor. Ms. Galindo explained that Mr. McBride was very generous person and when he put the subdivision together, to honor Mr. Rocco he named the biggest street after him and another street after his secretary Marcella. Ms. Galindo stated that it was going to be a legacy and who’s to say that Walter doesn’t one day have something happen to him as well. Ms. Galindo stated no disrespect to the Lisa family; she loved Lisa, but they also love their family legacy. Chairman Wilson thanked Ms. Galindo. Ms. Galindo added that her grandpa-in- law’s generosity was also to donate all the land for the park because that was part of his legacy to the Gallup community, which he loved. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 13th, 2017 Page 8 of 13 Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions by Commissioners for Ms. Galindo. The Commissioners had no questions. Chairman Wilson stated the hearing was closed. Motion to take action for Case Number 2017-01100005. Commissioner Long asked for the name of the new park located near the subdivision. CB responded that it was called Olivia Park. Chairman Wilson reopened the hearing. Ms. Galindo stated that the park they were referring to was named in honor of Olivia DiGregorio; the same as Basilio Drive or any other drive. Ms. Galindo reiterated that it was a big honor to have something named after you and wanted to keep their family honor. Ms. Galindo stated that she didn’t think anyone in the Gallup community such as, DiGregorio or Gurley would like their street names changed; they don’t want to give it up; they’ve all been born and raised in Gallup. Chairman Wilson stated the hearing was closed again. Commissioner Kozeliski asked if the original park was where the Habitat for Humanity currently resided. CB stated yes the City property was donated to the Habitat for Humanity and that was once Olivia Park, but was decommissioned because it didn’t meet the ADA standards. CB stated that DiGregorio donated land south of the Rocky View School to build a new park where the new Olivia Park was just dedicated. Commissioner Kozeliski asked if that previous park was called Olivia Park. CB stated that as far as he knew, the park name remained the same. Motion to approve or deny the request for Case Number 2017-01100005. Commissioners acknowledged that it was a difficult item to vote on. CB reminded the Commission that this evening’s vote was for recommendation only and the final decision would be made my City Council. Chairman Wilson stated that Walter McBride had made a big footprint in the community, which will remain regardless of the street name change and Lisa Romero-Muniz also made a huge footprint in the hearts of many generations. Commissioner Pawlowski acknowledged that Lisa lived on McBride Circle for a long period of time, but she also worked at the school for a long time as well. Commissioner Pawlowski stated that he thought they could name an alternate facility after Lisa such as, a baseball, football or soccer field at Miyamura High School. Commissioner Pawlowski stated that may not be the Muniz family’s first choice, but might make it easier. Chairman Wilson reopened the hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 13th, 2017 Page 9 of 13 Julio Sanchez introduced himself and stated that he was a property owner on McBride Circle. Mr. Sanchez explained the motherly role that Lisa took on for the youth that lived on McBride Circle such as, greeting everyone no matter the weather and getting after the kids when they got out of hand. Mr. Sanchez thanked the McBride family for giving them the residential area to live in and the park, but Lisa was also great to the community. Mr. Sanchez stated that it was very personal to all the property owners to keep it on the cul-de-sac. Mr. Sanchez stated as a property owner that’s what he wants; he’s had his children grow up on McBride Circle with Lisa’s guidance. Ms. Galindo stated that Commissioner Pawlowski took the words out of her mouth with the idea to approach the City or schools to name something after Lisa. Ms. Galindo stated that she works for Gallup McKinley County Schools and thought what they were trying to do was the same difference as changing Hiroshi Miyamura School to Lisa School; she doesn’t want a legacy taken away; it’s an honor to live in Gallup; she loves Gallup. Ms. Galindo stated that she does think the schools would be willing to name the recently built soccer field behind Miyamura High School, which hasn’t been named yet to Lisa Field; the schools loved Lisa; she did a lot of good. Ms. Galindo added that Walter McBride did a lot of good too and doesn’t want her brother’s legacy taken away. Commissioner Pawlowski asked Ms. Galindo if the Walter McBride family would consider the Walter McBride football field. Ms. Galindo stated no because they didn’t have a part in that football field or have any children who attended Miyamura High School. Ms. Galindo stated that they do have a big part in the subdivision; Walter worked very hard and he’s not working anymore. Ms. Galindo asked how many years that street has been named McBride Circle. CB stated that he wasn’t sure and would have to look at the date the subdivision was platted, but he assumed the early 80’s. Ms. Galindo asked if it was named McBride Circle when Lisa moved there; yes it was; so it wasn’t anything they took away from them and doesn’t think anyone else would want their street name taken away. Chairman Wilson stated the hearing was closed again. Commissioner Long stated that it was a hard decision with two positives and would hate if it turned into a negative, but would be very nice to have an alternative solution. Commissioner Miller stated that he never had the pleasure of meeting Chris’ wife or McBride Construction, but it was a hard motion to decide on. Commissioner Miller stated that to be a positive influence on kids these days was important and rare and thinks that the football field hasn’t been named yet, so would be a good idea to approach the Gallup McKinley County Schools. Commissioner Pawlowski asked CB if they were to approve or deny the request, either way does it go before City Council. CB clarified that the Commission was not approving or denying the request; just giving a positive or negative recommendation to City Council to approve or deny. CB explained that City Council will review the Commission’s recommendation, hear testimony and staff will present the facts that they do comply with the provisions of the resolution to change a street name with the name “court” since it is under a thousand feet (1,000’). Commissioner Pawlowski asked Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 13th, 2017 Page 10 of 13 whether the Commission gives a positive or negative recommendation it goes to City Council. CB stated yes and City Council can either uphold the Commission’s recommendation or make their own decision. CB did note that City Council holds the Commission’s recommendation to a higher regard, but they do have the final decision making authority. Commissioner Kozeliski asked if the Commission could somewhere down the line have the ability to recommend a street name when a subdivision comes in. CB stated that they could make any recommendation they want and staff will pass that on to City Council, so if the Commission desires he can recommend renaming the football after Mrs. Romero-Muniz, but again it depends on what the City Council decides. Motion to approve or deny the request for Case Number 2017-01100005. Commissioner Kozeliski motioned for denial of Item Two sending a negative recommendation to City Council and suggested naming an alternate location or facility within the City limits to recognize Lisa Romero-Muniz. Seconded by Commissioner Miller. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner F. Kozeliski (Yes) Commissioner L. Miller (Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski (Yes) Commissioner M. Long (No) Chairman K. Wilson (Yes) CB stated for clarification, the Commission will be sending a negative recommendation to City Council for the street name change, however sending recommendation to find an alternate facility or street within the City limits to honor Lisa Romero-Muniz. Chairman Wilson stated yes to honor her work and life. ITEM THREE: CASE # 17-01100006: Annual Open Meetings Act, Resolution # RP2017-16. The Open Meetings Act requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission (at least) annually review what constitutes reasonable notice to the public of its meetings. Accordingly, the resolution is presented to the Board for consideration and approval. CB Strain stated that Resolution #RP2017-16 would go into effect January 1st of 2018. CB explained that it was their annual review of the Open Meetings Act and unless the Commission desires to make changes everything will remain the same. CB stated that they will continue to meet the second Wednesday of every month at 6 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, provided they have items. CB stated that any special meetings will require a three (3) day notice, regular meetings ten (10) day notice and emergency meetings twenty-four (24) hour notice to the news media. Motion to approve or deny the request for Case Number 2017-01100006. Commissioner Kozeliski motioned for approval of Item Three. Seconded by Commissioner Pawlowski. Motion Carried. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 13th, 2017 Page 11 of 13 Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner F. Kozeliski (Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski (Yes) Commissioner M. Long (Yes) Commissioner L. Miller (Yes) ITEM FOUR: Nomination and Election of new Vice-Chairperson Chairman Wilson stated that a new Vice-Chairperson needed to be elected for the Planning & Zoning Commission due to Keegan Mackenzie-Chavez stepping down from her Vice-Chairperson position; she will remain a Commissioner. Motion for Vice-Chairperson nominations. Commissioner Miller motioned for Commissioner Matthew Long. Seconded by Commissioner Kozeliski. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner L. Miller (Yes) Commissioner F. Kozeliski (Yes) Commissioner M. Long (Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski (Yes) Chairman K. Wilson (Yes) INFORMATION ITEMS ITEM FIVE: City Council Actions Taken ITEM SIX: P&Z Commissioner Attendance 2017 Chairman Wilson stated that he asked Madam Secretary, Nikki Lee to change how absences are shown on the Commissioner Attendance Report. Chairman Wilson stated that instead of just putting an “A” for absent they will add a notation if it was an excused absence. Chairman Wilson wanted the reports to be duly noted if an absence was excused due to work or an emergency in case City Council or the general public had any questions. Chairman Wilson stated that if any Commissioner was going to be absent to notify Madam Secretary, Ms. Lee of the reason, so it could be logged accordingly and they have an accurate picture of what the Commissioners were doing. ITEM SEVEN: November 2017 Building Permit Activity Report Chairman Wilson asked CB Strain, after finishing up November how the report looked versus the year 2016 since they had $25,247.210.00 total permit valuation year to date. CB stated that construction has picked up so they’ve been doing pretty good. Chairman Wilson asked CB if he thought they were ahead of 2016. CB stated that generally that yearly comparison report is given until the year is completed and all the data is compiled, so the yearly comparison report will be presented to Commissioners at the next meeting. Chairman Wilson asked CB if he thought they were ahead of last year. CB stated that he believed so. Chairman Wilson stated that was great news. Commissioner Kozeliski stated that there had Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 13th, 2017 Page 12 of 13 been ten (10) new houses (new single family dwellings according to the report) and usually there’s only one or two. CB stated that was correct and commented that in the past there used to be twenty or twenty- five every year before the recession, but it’s starting to pick up. Commissioner Pawlowski spoke about the new Pinnacle Bank’s barrier in the middle of the (Aztec) street that’s supposed to prevent people going east bound from turning left. Commissioner Pawlowski asked CB if the Commission specifically requested that so people can’t cut across. CB stated there was a lot of discussion on that particular issue and the compromise was to put that little bump there so people don’t cross. Commissioner Pawlowski asked CB if the Commission was part of that discussion. CB stated no, that was done through the Public Works Department and the property owner. CB acknowledged that it created a hazard, but it was meant to be a visual barrier instead of just using double lines (painted on the road) that people aren’t supposed to cross, but people still do it and if the Commission wished to revisit that he can run it through the Public Works Department. Chairman Wilson stated that yesterday he seen a City truck cut across and drive right over the barrier to get into the bank and thinks that the City should be made aware of that. Chairman Wilson also spoke about the CARE 66 building on Coal Avenue where tenants park along the street. Chairman Wilson recalled the Commission going over that parking issue, but now on both sides of Coal Street vehicles are parked bumper-to-bumper. CB stated that the downtown district doesn’t require off street parking, but note that the downtown was also not designed for a multi-family development of that caliber. CB explained that when it was built he tried to request CARE 66 to provide as much off street parking as possible and they did provide an underground parking garage, which met about a third of the requirement. CB stated that tenants don’t park in the garage more than likely because CARE 66 charges a fee, so they end up parking on the street. Commission Adjourned at 7:22 p.m. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION KENT WILSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CLYDE (C.B.) STRAIN SECRETARY TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 13th, 2017 Page 13 of 13 EXHIBIT A  Request by USA RV Park/John Moore, property owner, for the Rezoning of a 0.47 acre portion of an existing parcel containing approximately 13.8 acres FROM Heavy Commercial District (C3-B) TO Planned Mixed Use District (PMU). The property is located at 2925 West Highway 66, more particularly described as 13.8 Acs M/L in Sec. 24 & 25, T15 R19 K.O.A. Subdivision. AERIAL IMAGERY  Request by USA RV Park/John Moore, property owner, for the Rezoning of a 0.47 acre portion of an existing parcel containing approximately 13.8 acres FROM Heavy Commercial District (C3-B) TO Planned Mixed Use District (PMU). The property is located at 2925 West Highway 66, more particularly described as 13.8 Acs M/L in Sec. 24 & 25, T15 R19 K.O.A. Subdivision. SITE PHOTOS  Request by USA RV Park/John Moore, property owner, for the Rezoning of a 0.47 acre portion of an existing parcel containing approximately 13.8 acres FROM Heavy Commercial District (C3-B) TO Planned Mixed Use District (PMU). The property is located at 2925 West Highway 66, more particularly described as 13.8 Acs M/L in Sec. 24 & 25, T15 R19 K.O.A. Subdivision. AREA MAP  Request by USA RV Park/John Moore, property owner, for the Rezoning of a 0.47 acre portion of an existing parcel containing approximately 13.8 acres FROM Heavy Commercial District (C3-B) TO Planned Mixed Use District (PMU). The property is located at 2925 West Highway 66, more particularly described as 13.8 Acs M/L in Sec. 24 & 25, T15 R19 K.O.A. Subdivision. PROPERTY MAP 7 5 6 8 4 9 2 1 RR03839 3 3 10  Request by USA RV Park/John Moore, property owner, for the Rezoning of a 0.47 acre portion of an existing parcel containing approximately 13.8 acres FROM Heavy Commercial District (C3-B) TO Planned Mixed Use District (PMU). The property is located at 2925 West Highway 66, more particularly described as 13.8 Acs M/L in Sec. 24 & 25, T15 R19 K.O.A. Subdivision. ADDRESS LIST 1. NATIONAL RV PROPERTIES, 6. UNKNOWN LLC NARROW STRIP OF LAND IN 2925 W. HIGHWAY 66 T15N R19W SECTIONS 23 & 24 GALLUP, NM 87301 13.8 ACS M/L IN SEC. 24 & 25, 7. ABA LAND LTD. CO. T15 R19 K.O.A. SUBDIVISION P.O. BOX 460 R018724 SANDERS, AZ 86512-0460 9.97 ACS M/L IN SW ¼ 24 15 19, 2. CITY OF GALLUP N. OF HWY 66 P.O. BOX 1270 R184853 GALLUP, NM 87305-1270 4.726 ACS M/L IN SE ¼ 23 15 19 10. A PORTION OF N ½ N ½ OF R677582 SEC.25 T15N R19W, A/K/A TRACT 9, GALLUP 3. FUHS INDUSTRIAL PARK L.P. SOUTHWEST ANNEXATION 103 CLARK STREET UNIT 2, CONT. 75.66 ACS M/L GALLUP, NM 87301 R055700 TRACT #1 WITHIN 26 15 19, A/K/A TRACT #5 WEST HIGH 8. ARMDAN HOTELS, LLC RETURNED 12/28/17 RESENT 12/29/17 TO SCHOOL ADDN. CONT. 16.432 2915 W. HIGHWAY 66 1000 E. HWY 66 ACS M/L GALLUP, NM 87301 GALLUP, NM 87301 R214246 TRACTS 1 & 2 IN 24 15 19, HOLIDAY INN SUB. REPLAT 4. NASHAT AMJAD KHALAF & ALSO .47 ACS M/L S. OF 25 15 RETURNED 12/28/17 BASEL SOUFAN 19, TRACT 1 RESENT 12/29/17 TO 3001 W. HIGHWAY 66 R192686 1603 W. HWY 66 GALLUP, NM 87301 GALLUP, NM 87301 LOTS 1A, 2A & 3A, BLOCK 4, 9. WESTERN SKIES MOBILE REPLAT OF LOTS 1 & 2, DAY HOME PARK SUB. UNIT 1 C/O TOWER MANAGEMENT CO R182095 80 SOUTH LAKE AVENUE SUITE 719 5. GEORGE GARCIA, TRUSTEE PASADENA, CA 91101 P.O. BOX 613 TRACT C, 16.972 ACS M/L GALLUP, NM 87305-0613 WESTERN SKIES SUB. 25 15 1.42 ACRES M/L S ½ SW ¼ IN 19 SEC. 24 T15 R19, INCLUDES A R038393 NARROW STRIP OF LAND 50’ X 122’ QCD 7-78 R013838  Summary of City Council Actions December 2017 [No actions taken on any Planning & Zoning items]  CITY OF GALLUP PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 110 W. AZTEC AVENUE GALLUP, NM 87301 (505) 863 - 1240 MONTHLY COMPILATION OF PERMITS ISSUED CITY OR COUNTY: MAILING ADDRESS: GALLUP, McKINLEY COUNTY, NM P.O. BOX 1270, GALLUP, NEW MEXICO 87305 MONTH OF : DECEMBER YEAR TO DATE: 2017 NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VALUATION VALUATION DESCRIPTION PERMITS PERMITS NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 0 $ - 10 $ 1,940,000.00 RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 0 $ - 20 $ 335,835.00 RESIDENTIAL STORAGE SHED 0 $ - 1 $ 3,800.00 RESIDENTIAL GARAGES & CARPORTS 0 $ - 4 $ 15,450.00 RESIDENTIAL SITE PERMITS 0 $ - 1 $ 9,000.00 NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 0 $ - 2 $ 2,125,000.00 COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 2 $ 894,000.00 26 $ 9,335,740.00 COMMERCIAL STORAGE SHED 0 $ - 2 $ 4,140.00 COMMERCIAL GARAGES & CARPORTS 0 $ - 0 $ - COMMERCIAL SITE PERMITS 0 $ - 2 $ 9,019,894.00 NEW CHURCHES 0 $ - 0 $ - CHURCH ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 0 $ - 0 $ - RE-STUCCO / SIDING 0 $ - 23 $ 94,950.00 NEW ASPHALT / ASPHALT OVERLAY/ STRIPING 0 $ - 28 $ 813,025.00 EXCAVATION / GRADING 1 $ 35,164.00 3 $ 385,464.00 NEW APARTMENTS 0 $ - 0 $ - APARTMENT ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 0 $ - 0 $ - HOTELS / MOTELS 0 $ - 0 $ - ROOF REPAIR 4 $ 21,300.00 115 $ 1,258,832.00 DEMOLITION 0 $ - 10 $ 92,720.00 FENCE / RETAINING WALL 2 $ 19,500.00 25 $ 105,324.00 FOUNDATION ONLY - CHARGE 0 $ - 3 $ 628,000.00 FOUNDATION ONLY - NO CHARGE 0 $ - 0 $ - SWIMMING POOLS 0 $ - 1 $ 50,000.00 DECKS 0 $ - 0 $ - TOTAL PERMITS 9 $ 969,964.00 276 $ 26,217,174.00 TOTAL FEES $ 7,177.56 $ 147,900.75  CITY OF GALLUP PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT MONTHLY COMPILATION OF PERMITS ISSUED DECEMBER 2017 DATE PERMIT PERMIT BLDG. & OWNER / BUSINESS CONTRACTOR SITE ADDRESS VALUATION ISSUED NO. TYPE ZONING FEES BONAGUIDI COMMERCIAL 12/1/17 17-318 BONAGUIDI RENTALS 3100 E. AZTEC AVE. #2 $ 331.90 $ 19,000.00 CONSTRUCTION ALTERATION D & H UNITED EXCAVATION / 12/6/17 17-319 7-2-11 FOOD STORES 614 W. MALONEY AVE. $ 591.13 $ 35,164.00 FUELING SOLUTIONS GRADING RESIDENTIAL 12/11/17 17-324 DONIELLA BEESON HOMEOWNER 308 CORA LEE DR. $ 69.00 $ 3,000.00 RE-ROOF RESIDENTIAL 12/13/17 17-325 BARRY KLOPFER GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 1712 RED ROCK DR. $ 69.00 $ 2,400.00 RE-ROOF 12/15/17 17-321 ERNEST BENALLY HOMEOWNER 707 N. 3RD ST. FENCE $ 132.00 $ 9,500.00 COMMERCIAL 12/18/17 17-173 HOBBY LOBBY HART DESIGN & CONSTR. 1300 E. MALONEY AVE. $ 5,562.88 $ 875,000.00 ALTERATION DIAZ RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 12/18/17 17-328 LENORE GONZALES 612 N. 6TH ST. $ 105.00 $ 6,600.00 CONSTRUCTION RE-ROOF RESIDENTIAL 12/26/17 17-331 DONOVAN FERRARI GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 500 MCKEE DR. $ 132.00 $ 9,300.00 RE-ROOF 12/29/17 17-309 ERNIE BULOW HOLIDAY NURSERY, INC. 300 PINE AVE. RETAINING WALL $ 184.65 $ 10,000.00 TOTAL: $ 7,177.56 $ 969,964.00 2 COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 1 EXCAVATION / GRADING 4 ROOF REPAIR 2 FENCE / RETAINING WALL 9 TOTAL PERMITS P.O. Box 1270 , Gallup, NM 87305 Phone: (505) 863-1240 Fax: (505) 722-5131  City of Gallup Planning and Development Building Permit Activity Report Five Year Comparison 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 DESCRIPTION NO. VALUATION NO. VALUATION NO. VALUATION NO. VALUATION NO. VALUATION New Single Family Dwellings 9 $ 1,856,945.00 4 $ 1,000,000.00 4 $ 1,150,460.00 10 $ 1,852,000.00 10 $ 1,940,000.00 Residential Addition/Alterations 39 $ 672,865.00 36 $ 621,960.00 27 $ 369,519.00 34 $ 491,231.00 20 $ 335,835.00 Residential Storage Sheds 2 $ 10,100.00 1 $ 550.00 1 $ 4,600.00 2 $ 13,325.00 1 $ 3,800.00 Residential Garage/Carports 2 $ 15,116.00 2 $ 30,575.00 2 $ 5,295.00 2 $ 13,302.00 4 $ 15,450.00 Residential Site Permits 2 $ 12,500.00 2 $ 11,700.00 1 $ 20,000.00 0 $ - 1 $ 9,000.00 New Commercial Buildings 4 $ 8,138,250.00 3 $ 1,550,000.00 6 $ 3,898,155.00 5 $ 3,425,000.00 2 $ 2,125,000.00 Commercial Additions/Alterations 31 $ 3,793,329.00 26 $ 4,503,090.00 24 $ 2,557,036.00 25 $ 1,670,499.00 26 $ 9,335,740.00 Commercial Storage Sheds 1 $ 15,000.00 1 $ 6,040.00 1 $ 68,000.00 2 $ 18,100.00 2 $ 4,140.00 Commercial Garage / carports 0 $ - 1 $ 9,500.00 0 $ - 2 $ 24,500.00 0 $ - Commercial Site Permits 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 2 $ 9,019,894.00 New Churches 0 $ - 1 $ 350,000.00 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - Churches/Additions/Alterations 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - Siding/Re-Stucco 7 $ 42,148.00 11 $ 53,171.00 7 $ 19,000.00 13 $ 55,897.00 23 $ 94,950.00 Asphalt / Overlay 4 $ 482,952.00 10 $ 710,779.00 20 $ 405,699.00 13 $ 230,260.00 28 $ 813,025.00 Excavation / Grading 2 $ 90,000.00 2 $ 17,985.00 2 $ 9,000.00 1 $ 1,000.00 3 $ 385,464.00 New Apartments 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - Apartment Addition/Alterations 4 $ 3,727,160.00 0 $ - 1 $ 19,150.00 0 $ - 0 $ - Hotels/Motels 2 $ 8,600,000.00 1 $ 3,150,000.00 2 $ 10,200,000.00 0 $ - 0 $ - Roofs/Roof Repair 150 $ 1,430,243.00 156 $ 1,219,994.00 118 $ 824,431.00 137 $ 1,322,617.00 115 $ 1,258,832.00 Demolitions 10 $ 78,548.00 6 $ 85,000.00 11 $ 296,135.00 14 $ 427,325.00 10 $ 92,720.00 Fence/Walls/Retaining Walls 33 $ 88,206.00 26 $ 209,576.00 36 $ 164,878.00 41 $ 137,553.00 25 $ 105,324.00 Foundation Only - Charge 1 $ 1,250.00 1 $ 15,000.00 1 $ 29,775.00 2 $ 69,772.00 3 $ 628,000.00 Foundation Only - No Charge 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - Swimming Pools 1 $ 62,000.00 3 $ 144,728.00 1 $ 76,700.00 0 $ - 1 $ 50,000.00 Other 0 $ - 10 $ 200,833.00 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - TOTALS 304 $ 29,116,612.00 303 $ 13,890,481.00 265 $ 20,117,833.00 303 $ 9,752,381.00 276 $ 26,217,174.00 Permit Fees $ 166,285.26 $ 106,553.30 $ 126,561.99 $ 93,859.98 $ 147,900.75 % change based on permit fees 104% -36% 19% -26% 58% % change based on valuation 261% -52% 45% -52% 169% As of 1/2/2018  Building Permits 5 Year Comparison VALUATION IMPROVEMENT $12,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $8,000,000.00 $6,000,000.00 $4,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $- 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 New Single Family Dwellings $1,856,945. $1,000,000. $1,150,460. $1,852,000. $1,940,000. New Commercial Buildings $8,138,250. $1,550,000. $3,898,155. $3,425,000. $2,125,000. Hotels/Motels $8,600,000. $3,150,000. $10,200,000 $- $- Number of Permits Issued 10 8 6 4 2 0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 New Single Family Dwellings 9 4 4 10 10 New Commercial Buildings 4 3 6 5 2 Hotels/Motels 2 1 2 0 0 City of Gallup ∞ Planning & Development ∞ P.O. Box 1270 ∞ Gallup, NM 87305 Phone: 505.863.1240 ∞ Fax: 505.722.5131  City of Gallup Planning & Zoning Agenda Five {5} Year Comparison ACTION TAKEN 2013 ACREAGE 2014 ACREAGE 2015 ACREAGE 2016 ACREAGE 2017 ACREAGE Miscellaneous 5 0.34 3 0 4 0.1996 1 0 6 1.88 Annexations 1 670.592 0 0 0 0 1 3.077 0 0 SUBDIVISIONS Site Development Plans 0 0 1 45.57 0 0 0 0 1 2.993 Administrative 2 4.05 1 0.4211 4 27.5231 1 3.077 7 13.6143 Minor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major 5 60.21 5 42.547 1 1.13 1 5.7708 2 35.87 ZONING Zone Change 2 9.77 2 58.6 3 28.2759 2 15.7509 4 190.199 Conditional Use Permit 5 6.03 3 6.341 4 27.6332 4 8.83641 2 89.883 Variance 1 0.123 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3.834 Appeals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 21 751.115 15 153.4791 16 84.7618 10 36.51211 25 338.2733 Miscellaneous items {i.e. right-of-way vacations, street re-naming, text amendments, etc..}