Planning and Zoning

Planning and Development Clyde “C.B.” Strain, Director PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA Wednesday, April 11th, 2018, 6:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers *** Call to Order / Roll Call *** Approval of March 14th, 2018 Meeting Minutes *** Approval of March 29th, 2018 Special Meeting Minutes PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM ONE: CASE # 18-01000001: Request by Alberto Villegas, on behalf of PMV Real Estate Limited, property owner, for the City of Gallup to vacate a portion of a ten foot (10’) public utility easement (P.U.E.) south of the property in order to enlarge the existing structure. There will also be a ten foot (10’) public utility easement (P.U.E.) dedicated on the northeast portion of the property for utility use. The property is located at 3205 Industry Drive; more particularly described as a Tract of Land in 23 15 19, the S ½ of containing 10.59 acres M/L. This item will go before the City Council for final approval at its regular meeting to be held on April 24th, 2018. INFORMATION ITEMS ITEM TWO: City Council Actions Taken ITEM THREE: March 2018 Building Permit Activity Report *** Open Floor *** Adjourn 110 West Aztec Avenue • Gallup, New Mexico 87301 • phone 505.863.1240 • email cstrain@gallupnm.gov  Planning & Zoning Commission March 14th, 2018 Minutes City Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:04 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Matthew Long. Upon roll call, the following were present: Vice-Chairman M. Long Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez Commissioner J. Dooley Commissioner F. Pawlowski Commissioner F. Kozeliski Upon roll call, the following were absent: Chairman K. Wilson Commissioner L. Miller Chairman Long asked if any Commissioner had a conflict of interest for any agenda item and if so to recuse him/herself prior to discussing the particular item. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Vice-Chairman M. Long (No) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez (No) Commissioner J. Dooley (No) Commissioner F. Pawlowski (No) Commissioner F. Kozeliski (No) Presented to the Chairman and Commissioners for their approval were the minutes of the February 14th, 2018 meeting. Commissioner Pawlowski motioned for approval of the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Dooley. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner F. Pawlowski (Yes) Commissioner J. Dooley (Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez (Yes) Commissioner F. Kozeliski (Yes) Chairman Long administered the oath required by State Law for public forum. Chairman Long stated anyone wishing to speak limit their comments to three minutes and not to duplicate a previous point; they will have one opportunity to testify. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 14th, 2018 Page 1 of 7 ITEM ONE: CASE # 18-00700001: Request by USA RV Park/John Moore, property owner for a Conditional Use Permit to allow three (3) manufactured homes on a single lot in the Heavy Commercial District (C-3B). 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. CB Strain began by explaining that the property owner wanted to replace the three (3) existing trailer houses on the single tract of land located at 2925 West Highway 66, which was currently operated under the USA RV Park. The trailer houses were placed on the property prior to the existing regulation. The current regulation doesn’t allow single-family detached dwellings within commercial districts. CB explained that when a new code comes into place, the existing uses are categorized as non-conforming. CB referred to the City of Gallup Land Development Standards, Section 10-4I-1 and read aloud the regulation. If there’s a nonconforming structure or nonconforming use it can remain until it’s no longer there and can’t be replaced. The only way to put something back is to be in conformance with the current standards. CB went on to state that the property owners were seeking a conditional use permit to allow for the replacement of the three (3) manufactured homes. In order for a use or structure to be considered for a conditional use permit, the code has to allow it as a conditional use within that specific district in the Use Table. CB referred to Section 10-4B-2B. He went on to state that single-family detached dwellings are only allowed for night watchman or caretaker dwellings on the premises of public parks or public schools. (CB used the overhead projector to display the Use Table.) CB read aloud Section 10-4D-3J2. Single-family detached dwellings, recreational vehicles and mobile homes are forbidden in the commercial districts. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: Since the existing trailer houses were located on the property prior to the current regulation being adopted the three (3) existing trailer houses are classified as nonconforming. As mentioned in Section 10-4I-1A it specifically states that nonconformity shall not be enlarged upon, expanded, extended or replaced, nor be used as grounds for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district. In order for a conditional use permit to be approved, the use must be permitted as a conditional use within the specific district it’s in. The Use Table in the Land Development Standards does not permit manufactured homes or single-family dwellings within commercial districts, except on public parks and public schools. In Section 10-4D-3J2 it specifically forbids single-family detached dwellings and mobile homes in a commercial district for residential purposes. CB recommended denial of the request for a conditional use permit to allow for the replacement of three (3) single-family detached dwelling units on a single parcel of land located at 2925 West Highway 66, also known as the K.O.A. Subdivision. Commissioner Pawlowski asked CB to clarify the size of the single parcel of land. CB responded that it was thirteen point eight (13.8) acres. (CB used the overhead projector to display the Ariel imagery of the property.) CB explained that it was one (1) lot that had three (3) existing trailer houses and various RV spaces. Commissioner Pawlowski asked CB if the property could be subdivided to cure the problem. CB stated that subdividing wouldn’t cure the problem and explained the frontage requirement for a subdivision. If the property were to be subdivided using Highway 66 as their frontage, they would have a narrow lot, which wouldn’t meet the dimensional requirements. Even if they did subdivide, it’s still zoned as a commercial district whereas an RV park is still a forbidden use. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 14th, 2018 Page 2 of 7 Commissioner Kozeliski commented that the mobile homes were already grandfathered in. Therefore he recommended the Commission to allow the replacement because it would look the same and wouldn’t make a difference. CB acknowledged that the three (3) mobile homes were grandfathered in and can remain as is, however they cannot be removed or replaced. He went on to state that the Commission can’t make exceptions to the law. Commissioner Kozeliski asked if the Commission would go to jail if they did make an exception. CB explained that municipalities have been sued for similar decisions. He went on stating that it would be illegal and the Commission would be breaking the law to allow a forbidden use in a district that it’s not permitted. Chairman Long asked CB if a recreational vehicle park use was only permitted in the C-3B Heavy Commercial Zoning District. CB responded yes; recreational vehicle parks are only allowed in the C-3B Zoning District and only allowed as a conditional use. CB went on to state that the USA RV Park’s current use was actually nonconforming because it never received a conditional use permit to operate. However, the use was in place prior to the regulation so it can remain and operate. If the USA RV Park were to shut down for six (6) months or more they would have to apply for a conditional use permit. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez acknowledged the Commissioner’s concerns about wanting to allow a residence on the property. She went on to state that the code does allow it, but it has to be within the principal structure and not the three (3) separate dwellings they’re wanting. The issue is that single-family dwellings are not permitted in a commercial district. CB stated that was correct. CB went on to explain that they could replace the three (3) trailer houses by building three (3) apartments and an office into one (1) primary structure. Again, the problem is that they cannot have a single-family detached dwelling in a commercial district. CB stated that if the Commission were to allow it there they’d have to allow it in every single commercial district in the City whereas they couldn’t deny a person. Chairman Long asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of the case to approach the podium and state their name. Patrick Moore approached the podium and introduced himself. He thanked the Commission for meeting with them this evening. Mr. Patrick Moore began by addressing the regulation that an RV park was only allowed to operate in a commercial zoning district. However, according to the Land Development Standards RV parks are also allowed in rural residential zoning districts. In Section 10-4D-2 Specific Residential Uses it outlines the uses in Subsection H for Recreational Vehicle Parks and Camps, which makes him feel that maybe the commercial zoning district was not the correct designation in the first place. He went on to state that the land module (Land Development Standards) update which was available online for land use for zoning regulations also allowed RV parks in rural residential zoning districts according to Section 10-4B5A draft Use Table. He still believes that a conditional use permit would be the best way to go because it would be the easiest way to fix the problem without rezoning and rehashing all the work that’s already been done. Mr. Patrick Moore stated that according to State Law, State of New Mexico requires that the regulations and restrictions of the municipal zoning authority to be in accordance with a comprehensive plan or the City Master Plan for the City of Gallup. He continued by referencing the land use goals within the City Master Plan, which was updated in 2016 to promote progressive land use planning and regulations to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the residents and Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 14th, 2018 Page 3 of 7 visitors of the City. He stated that through their conditional use permit they would be able to continue to promote the health and safety; the safety at least of City visitors by continuing to be on the park 24/7. He spoke about the neighboring hotel shutting down and less than two (2) months later it was repeatedly broken into where a fence had to be installed. He spoke about how Gallup had a problem with housing options, giving the example of a five (5) year period from 2009 to 2014 where only eighty three (83) housing units were built. Mr. Patrick Moore referenced the housing goals of the City Master Plan and how the number of Gallup employees exceeds the population because there’s not suitable, affordable housing. Asking them to get rid of their three (3) mobile homes is saying that they need to find three (3) different housing alternatives in an already difficult housing market. He spoke about the energy conservation goals within the City Master Plan and the various programs available to homeowners. He added that their three (3) new mobile homes would all be energy efficient, which would be more sustainable for the future. He went on to state that the when the Gallup Task Force (GTF) was asked to comment on the conditional use permit they had no problem with it. Mr. Patrick Moore ended by stating that his biggest concern was that the City Master Plan wasn’t in accordance with State Law regulations. Commissioner Pawlowski asked Mr. Patrick Moore what the three (3) modular homes were used for. Mr. Patrick Moore stated that they were for employee housing for care taking purposes. He went on to state that they’re also used in the day-to-day business operations, for example he does taxes in them and uses for storage. Commissioner Dooley asked Mr. Patrick Moore for clarification on what he was contesting; the zoning as it stands within the City Mater Plan? Mr. Patrick Moore stated yes because the State says that the zoning has to be in accordance with the City Master Plan and he doesn’t believe it is, for this case. Chairman Long wanted to address Mr. Patrick Moore’s comments about zoning (their property) rural residential whereas that would be against State Law; they cannot spot zone. Mr. Patrick Moore stated that he found zero mention of spot zoning in State Law and it wouldn’t be considered spot zoning considering the adjacent properties. He went on to list the surrounding zoning districts; commercial, mobile home park residential and rural holding zone. Mr. Patrick Moore commented that there have been exceptions made to the zoning ordinance as recent as 2005. He gave the example of the City of Gallup’s Municipal and Industrial Revenue Bond where two (2) hotel projects were exempt from the maximum height limitation described in subsection 10-4B-2D1 of the Land Development Standards. He emphasized that exceptions have made to the Land Development Standards; there’s a history of that. Commissioner Dooley clarified that the exception was only for height and it was still attached. Mr. Patrick Moore stated right, but it was that the height was limited by the Land Development Standards and there was an exception made for two (2) motel properties to that specific Land Development Standard. Commissioner Kozeliski asked Mr. Patrick Moore if they’ve considered the single-family house with attachments (that Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez and CB mentioned). Mr. Patrick Moore stated that they have, but it would be an unnecessary hardship to incorporate living spaces into their current Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 14th, 2018 Page 4 of 7 office building. He went on to explain how the offices were setup having a swimming pool and cookout facility right outside. There’s not a lot of room for expanding that current office space for the purpose of additional housing. Commissioner Kozeliski asked Mr. Patrick Moore to clarify what the three (3) trailer units were used for. Mr. Patrick Moore stated that they were all residences, but also used for office work. Commissioner Dooley asked what the primary use was. Mr. Patrick Moore responded that the primary use was for residence. Chairman Long asked if anyone had questions of staff at this time. Commissioner Dooley stated that she would like staff to address Mr. Patrick Moore’s comments. CB wanted to clarify that the City was not requiring or asking the USA RV Park to remove their existing trailer houses; they’re doing that on their own. However, if the nonconforming trailer houses are removed the code does not allow them to be replaced. CB stated that the City Growth Management Master Plan and City code (Land Development Standards) do coincide. Furthermore, the Master Plan does not recommend placing single-family dwellings on a commercial lot within a commercial zoning district. CB continued by explaining how the Master Plan lays out areas where different types of development are appropriate. CB acknowledged that Mr. Patrick Moore was correct in stating that the rural holding zone and rural residential districts do allow RV parks, however the USA RV Park is zoned as a commercial district. CB explained that the new zoning code available on the City website under Module 1 has since been revised. In the most current revision (not yet available online) RV parks have been removed from the rural holding zone and rural residential zoning district. CB stated that the Growth Management Master Plan was a long-range recommendation plan for the City; it’s not a regulating document. CB went on to explain that the Growth Management Master Plan was updated every five (5) to seven (7) years because developments change. Commissioner Dooley asked CB if he thought the Master Plan and Land Development Standards were in compliance and complimentary to one another. CB responded absolutely. He spoke about how the consultants for the new code update look closely at the Master Plan to ensure that it coincides with the new zoning code. CB pointed out that the code didn’t allow for one (1) single-family dwelling on a commercial lot whereas the USA RV Park was requesting for three (3). Nikki Lee asked CB to address Mr. Patrick Moore’s comments about State Law not matching up with the Land Development Standards. CB stated that it does and they’re in compliance with State Law. Zoning codes are different for each city and the State leaves to every city’s discretion on what uses to allow and where. Commissioner Pawlowski asked CB to explain the recourse that citizens have when coming before the Planning & Zoning Commission. CB explained that the Planning & Zoning Commission makes the final decision for a conditional use permit, but if the applicant doesn’t like that decision they can appeal to City Council. Commissioner Kozeliski commented that this would be a perfect grandfather situation and if the City Council were to approve the case, would they face court jurisdiction? CB explained that they could be sued by other business owners whom want to do the same thing whom we don’t allow to do so. John Moore, property owner approached the podium and introduced himself. He stated that the RV Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 14th, 2018 Page 5 of 7 Park was opened in September 1969 and next year it will have been there for fifty (50) years. He continued by explaining that the mobile homes were for family living only; they would never be sold for someone else to live in. Mr. John Moore told the Commissioners that they have to decide if they want to make an exception and they won’t be breaking the law. His reasoning was that they would just be replacing what was already there. He spoke about the appearance and success of the USA RV Park. Mr. John Moore stated that their request meets all the requirements except that it’s in a commercial zoning district. He and his wife live in the first trailer, his two (2) daughters live in the second trailer and his son Patrick lives in the third trailer. He emphasized that all three (3) trailers are used for offices. He spoke about how one (1) of the three (3) trailers was about to fall apart, which would mean that his son (Patrick) would have to move somewhere else. Mr. John Moore commented that mobile home parks can have RV’s, but commercial properties can’t put mobile homes in, which seems unfair. He spoke about vacant properties in their area and how they’re getting broken into. In closing Mr. John Moore stated that they want to live at the RV park so they can take care of their customers and continue to prevent criminal activity. Chairman Long asked if there were any further questions by Commissioners; there were none. Chairman Long stated the hearing was closed. Motion to approve or deny the request for Case Number 2018-00700001. Commissioner Mackenzie- Chavez motioned for denial of Item One. Seconded by Commissioner Dooley. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez (Yes) Commissioner J. Dooley (Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski (No) Commissioner F. Kozeliski (No) Chairman M. Long (Yes) Chairman Long stated to the appellants that if they wished to appeal to please go through the process. Mr. John Moore stated that they would appeal and thanked the Commission. INFORMATION ITEMS ITEM TWO: City Council Actions Taken ITEM THREE: February 2018 Building Permit Activity Report Commission Adjourned at 6:52 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 14th, 2018 Page 6 of 7  PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION KENT WILSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CLYDE (C.B.) STRAIN SECRETARY TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 14th, 2018 Page 7 of 7  Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 29th, 2018 Minutes City Council Chambers The special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 5:24 p.m. by Chairman Kent Wilson. Upon roll call, the following were present: Chairman K. Wilson Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez Commissioner F. Pawlowski Commissioner L. Miller Upon roll call, the following were absent: Commissioner J. Dooley Commissioner F. Kozeliski Commissioner M. Long Chairman Wilson thanked the public for attending the meeting and being interested in what the Commission does. Prior to the discussion of Item One, Commissioner Dooley arrived. ITEM ONE: Review a draft version of the Update to the Gallup Land Development Standards, including revisions to the zoning code and subdivision regulations. The Consultant Team (Bohannan Huston/Dekker Perich Sabatini) completing the update has been working closely with City Staff and a Steering Committee made up of community leaders. The Consultant Team will give the presentation and be available for questions and discussion. Chairman Wilson asked if the agenda packets sent out last Friday were the same to be presented this evening. CB Strain explained that the agenda packets were recently updated and the revisions are included in their binders, which will be reviewed this evening. (A copy of the revised PowerPoint presentation is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit A and made a part of these official minutes.) CB began by explaining that the consultants would be reviewing Module 2 for the Gallup Land Development Standards update. Bohannan Huston will go over the subdivision regulations first and then Dekker Perich Sabatini will go over the zoning code. If the Commissioners have any questions, concerns or revisions this is the time to bring them up. Commissioner Dooley commented that 90% of the Steering Committee members were made up of City people. She asked how much of what they discuss this evening will be seriously considered for the Land Development Standards update. CB responded that all their comments would be Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 29th, 2018 Page 1 of 11 considered; all their opinions and recommendations matter. Chairman Wilson asked if Module 2 would be returned to the Steering Committee for review. CB explained that if the Commission wanted to make changes this evening the consultants would update Module 2 to reflect those changes. Then the Steering Committee would receive a draft copy with the Commission’s changes. However, Module 2 won’t necessarily be returned to the Steering Committee for review. Chairman Wilson asked if the consultant’s presentation this evening would include the Steering Committee’s recent comments. CB explained that everything they would review this evening was everything the Steering Committee and staff had recommended throughout their Land Development Standards update review process. Chairman Wilson stated that the consultants will do their presentation and after they’ll open the floor to receive comments; he wanted to give everyone the opportunity to be heard. Aaron Sussman, Planner with Bohannan Huston introduced himself and thanked the Commission for having the special meeting this evening. Mr. Sussman began by acknowledging that a lot of work has been done to update the Land Development Standards since their last Planning & Zoning Commission meeting in September 2017. At that meeting the consultants introduced (Module 1) the first set of potential changes to the zone districts, use tables and other issues they had identified in the beginning process. This evening the consultants will be presenting the changes that have been made since the last meeting and revisions to the subdivision regulations and zoning code (Module 2). Mr. Sussman explained how Module 2 was influenced by the Steering Committee’s bi-weekly meetings where they reviewed LDS sections and added their input. He wanted to clarify that Module 2 was a draft document that still needed minor revisions such as, formatting page numbers and cross references. However, Module 2 is an almost complete draft of what the new LDS will look like. Mr. Sussman emphasized that Module 1 was not a separate document from Module 2; Module 1 began the LDS update process, which carried over to Module 2 with the most recent changes. He spoke about the outline structure of the new subdivision regulations where their goal was to clarify, organize and bring things up-to-date to reflect best practices. He noted that there was a lot of the same material from the old subdivision regulations; they just structured it differently to clarify the process. They also consolidated information throughout the code to make it clearer and easier for the City and public to follow. He spoke about the helpful services offered by the City to the public such as, the pre-application meetings and feedback from the Gallup Taskforce. Those services weren’t articulated in the current code, but have been made clear in the new code. Mr. Sussman spoke about the parks & open space requirements, which the Steering Committee spent a lot of time on. He used the overhead projector to display the current Parks & Open Space Requirements (Page 1-6), which caused a lot of small parks. The Steering Committee wanted to update the code where they’re not requiring so many small parks and decreasing the City’s burden to maintain them. The current code requires park space be dedicated based on the number of housing units whereas open space was dedicated based on acreage (size of the development). The revision combines the parks & open space requirements instead of adding them together. He used the overhead projector to display Page 1-7 showing an example. He also spoke about how they clarified the procedures for payments in lieu Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 29th, 2018 Page 2 of 11 of fees for parks and open spaces. With those changes they feel it would be easier for developers to meet the requirements and easier for the City to enforce and maintain parks and open space. Mr. Sussman spoke about adding checklists and flow charts to the subdivision regulations, which would clearly identify the steps for an administrative, minor and major subdivision. Note that the checklist on Page 1-8 was not included in Module 2 because it was still being finalized. He reassured the Commission that the checklist would be shared with them once it was finalized. Lastly, Mr. Sussman spoke about the infrastructure design standards within the LDS subdivision regulations. There wasn’t a big amount of changes for this section in Module 2; they just consolidated requirements. They noticed that there were several references to the National Standards, the American Disabilities Act and Standard Practice requirements for roads, sidewalk widths and length of blocks. He acknowledged that was a common practice for communities the size of Gallup. In the new code they created a distinct section for the infrastructure design standards, rather than being buried in the current code’s subdivision regulations. That will also be helpful for the City when reconstructing roads; it’s not a document that only applies to subdivisions. Jessica Johnson and Katrina Arndt with Dekker Perich Sabatini introduced themselves and explained their role in updating the zoning code. Ms. Arndt reiterated that Module 2 includes Module 1. She spoke about the zoning regulations outline, which included the zone district standards and overlay districts. A big section they added was for the development standards that included subsections such as, parking & loading, access & connectivity, landscaping & screening, fences & walls, architecture and signage. This evening they will be reviewing those section’s major changes. Many of the things included in the new zoning code came from the current zoning code; they just moved them around so it was easier to find and use. Ms. Arndt explained how they added the dimensional standards to the zone districts. She used the overhead projector to display Page 1-11 showing the illustrations. Figure 10-2-1 and Table 10-2-2 clearly defines a zone district’s required setbacks, height restrictions and lot dimensions. Table 10-2-3 lists references to all the other zoning regulations that also apply within that zone district. Another thing added to the zone districts was the district specific standards. Ms. Arndt explained how all the overlay districts already existed, except for the character protection overlay. The character protection overlay was added to help the City preserve the downtown district’s historical buildings. Ms. Johnson noted that the downtown overlay district was the main district that had significant changes. She explained how the downtown overlay district initially included specific use standards, but those were never actually codified in the current code. They clarified the downtown overlay district’s applicability; where standards apply and where there are exceptions. Ms. Johnson also explained the Steering Committee’s request to revise the downtown overlay district boundary so that it was consistent with the Metropolitan Redevelopment Area (MRA) boundary. She used the overhead projector to refer to Page 1-13 showing the Downtown Overlay District boundary. Nikki Lee informed the Commission that Page 1-13 was revised and to see the revised boundary to refer to Page 1-47. Ms. Johnson continued by explaining that the Steering Committee also wanted to explicitly prohibit certain uses downtown such as, adult sales & retail, adult entertainment, heavy manufacturing and special manufacturing. She noted that special manufacturing was a new category used in the new code whereas it referred to anything that had a highly volatile process regulated by the Federal Government. Another major change to the overlay districts was adding dimensional standards. Ms. Johnson noted how the downtown overlay district had several underlining base zone districts; however, the overlay district dimensional Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 29th, 2018 Page 3 of 11 standards will supersede the base district dimensional standards. She spoke about how the Steering Committee and the Business Improvement District Board requested a revision of the downtown overlay district dimensions to increase the building heights. With that, both groups wanted the scale of buildings to be friendly to pedestrians. So, the consultants included a new setback requirement after the third story whereas the fourth and fifth floor would have to be setback ten feet (10’) from the front property line. Ms. Johnson noted that requirement only applied if they’re building directly on the property line. She spoke about minimum and maximum setbacks that allowed the buildings to be built to the edge and to be attached to each other in the downtown districts. Another part added was for the basic building design standard where it created an active frontage along a primary street. She spoke about the new code introducing a 50% coverage requirement for the front of properties and façade articulation (she used the overhead projector to refer to Page 1-14). The downtown wanted to encourage dining and patio cafes so they introduced some basic standards to allow that. Ms. Johnson acknowledged that there were complex standards they were introducing to the zoning code, which was why they’ve included many illustrations. She then spoke about how the major changes in the development standards where they clarified the applicability and the exceptions across all sections. Ms. Arndt went over the parking regulations where they updated the graphics to clearly identify requirements. She spoke about the new shared parking reduction for different uses that share a parking lot that also have different parking peak hours. She gave the example of a church and an office building. With the new requirement they won’t need to both provide all the parking, but they can share parking and that will help to reduce the large parking field. Ms. Arndt spoke about the current downtown parking exemptions, which has led to a shortage of parking space downtown. That parking exemption has been eliminated in the new code and will replaced with a 30% parking reduction, which will only apply to new development. She spoke about the Required Off-Street Parking Supply table 10-4-7, which displayed the existing and revised parking standards. Ms. Arndt spoke about the old parking requirement where it was based off the number of employees or number of tables and chairs. The new code will be based on square footage. They created a new section for access & connectivity where it captured portions of the existing development standards that were currently spread throughout the code. All those standards were existing; they just moved and added illustrations. Ms. Johnson spoke about the updates made to the landscaping & screening section according to the Steering Committee’s feedback. The consultants revised the landscaping calculations to accommodate developers when they’re only developing a phased portion. The biggest change in the landscaping requirements was to clarify exact numbers and add tables so it was clearer to developers and easier for the City to enforce. The Steering Committee also recommended updating the plant palette to target drought tolerant plants. She referred to the Minimum Plant Materials and Standards on figure 10-4-18. Nikki Lee informed the Commission that page was not included in their agenda packets, but they could refer to Page 1-120. Ms. Johnson continued by speaking about the changes made to the buffer and screening section where they gave options for installing landscaping or building walls. She spoke about the fences & walls section where they added flexibility and identified acceptable fencing materials. Commissioner Dooley commented that they were using a lot of generalities. Ms. Johnson acknowledged that it was a lot of content to cover and unfortunately, they’re unable to go into more detail because of the time constraints. Ms. Johnson just wanted to highlight the major changes however, if there was an area the Commissioners would like them to go into more detail about they Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 29th, 2018 Page 4 of 11 could. Ms. Lee reminded Commissioner Dooley that she still had more time to review Module 2 whereas their comments weren’t due until April 13, 2018. Ms. Johnson emphasized that Module 2 was still a draft and the Commissioners are welcome to add comments and give feedback. Ms. Johnson continued by explaining that architecture design standards were already in the current code, but very basic and only applied to single-family residences. They focused on three (3) things; primary building entrances, façade articulations and transparency. Those all remained the same; however they added additional standards for multi-family, mixed use and non-residential structures. Ms. Johnson spoke about the signage section, which was the section that changed the most out of all the development standards. She explained how they had to update the requirements to reflect current court decisions. She noted that the current code was breaking a lot of those court decisions and setting Gallup up for lawsuits. She spoke about the three (3) major sections; on premise signs, off- premise signs and temporary signs. She referred to the On-Premise Sign Standards on figure 10-4- 32. Ms. Arndt informed the Commission that page was not included in their agenda packets, but they could refer to Page 1-137. Ms. Johnson explained how the table can accommodate the different users and the character of each zoning district. She noted that a lot of things from this table were pulled from the existing code and organized them where they’re easier to find. Another major change in the signage section that was drastically different from the current code was the temporary signage. Currently the City regulates real estate signs versus political signs. However, the Federal Court states that the City cannot do that; they can only regulate a type of sign such as, a temporary sign across the board. They’ve reflected that to be updated in the new code. Ms. Johnson concluded their presentation. Chairman Wilson stated that the Commissioners received the presentation, subdivision regulations and zoning code last Friday, which was not enough time to review. Furthermore, they only had five (5) Commissioners present. Chairman Wilson informed the consultants that they’re not done reviewing Module 2 and the April 13, 2018 deadline was not going to happen. He stated that they needed more time to assimilate a pretty large document. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions regarding the subdivision regulations on parks and open space. Commissioner Dooley asked for clarification on the parks & open space requirement (Page 1-7); do they get added together? Mr. Sussman responded yes. He explained how they each have separate requirements, but are essentially combined. Chairman Wilson asked who owns the park space and who maintains it. Mr. Sussman responded that they’re typically dedicated and maintained by the City of Gallup. Chairman Wilson asked who was responsible for designing a park. CB explained that the developer could design the park and then turn it over to the City for maintenance. Chairman Wilson commented that they don’t have anything specifically in the code that states who is responsible for maintaining the parks. CB stated that the maintenance would go to the City. CB reiterated that the new code would reduce parks therefore having less of a financial burden on the City. Mr. Sussman reminded the Commission of the payment in lieu of fee for parks & open space where he gave another overview and spoke about the benefit to developers and the City. Chairman Wilson voiced his concerns about having no provisions for parking other than on a two (2) lane street around a park. Mr. Sussman stated that level of detail was not typically contained in the subdivision regulations. He spoke about how some municipalities Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 29th, 2018 Page 5 of 11 have a parks master plan that dictates the design and parking of a park. CB stated that currently the City doesn’t have a parks master plan (only a trails & open space master plan); however the City was looking to develop one. CB added that they could specify those requirements during the development process and like Mr. Sussman stated it doesn’t need to be detailed in the subdivision regulations. CB stated that by law all parks must be ADA compliant. Commissioner Dooley commented about the idea of parks being created for the people living in the nearby area whereas they would walk to the park and not park. CB stated that was the intent, but there are instances where a park is used for family gatherings whereas they need more parking. CB spoke about the past where the City had to decommission many neighborhood parks because they fell out of maintenance and were noncompliant with ADA regulations. Chairman Wilson asked if anyone from the public had any questions regarding the subdivision regulations on parks and open space; there were none. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions regarding the subdivision regulations on infrastructure design standards. Commissioner Dooley asked for clarification on the sidewalk where Page 1-9 indicates five feet (5’); but from where to where? Mr. Sussman responded that it was five feet (5’) from sidewalk to sidewalk, which does not typically include the curb face. Commissioner Dooley clarified that it wasn’t requiring the sidewalk to abut the curb. Mr. Sussman stated no; it wasn’t required and that it was an option. Commissioner Dooley stated that she was against that requirement because it was not maintained by the property owner or the City. CB explained how that was a code enforcement issue, but it has been brought to his attention that developers want the option to do both. Commissioner Dooley also stated her concerns about safety. CB explained to Commissioner Dooley that if she wanted that requirement changed she would have to make a good argument to the Public Works and Streets Department. Chairman Wilson asked if anyone from the public had any questions regarding the subdivision regulations on infrastructure design standards; there were none. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions regarding the zoning code’s base district standards. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez asked about the single-family residential (Page 1-31) and multi-family residential low (Page 1-32). She noticed that the minimum lot sizes caused the property to have a small side yard setback. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez asked the consultants if they could revise those lot minimum numbers to add more flexibility to the side yard setback. Ms. Johnson commented that the reason for the minimum lot sizes was to accommodate urban developments. Ms. Johnson also reassured Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez that they would look at adding her revisions, but they have to make sure that it doesn’t add ADA or fire issues. Chairman Wilson asked if anyone from the public had any questions regarding the zoning code’s base district standards; there were none. Chairman Wilson asked if anyone had any questions regarding the zoning code’s overlay districts. Ms. Johnson commented that the purpose of Page 1-12 was to illustrate how the overlay districts were organized. She wanted to note that although there was only a slide for the business improvement district and downtown overlay district there were other overlay districts as well. The consultants did focus more on discussing the downtown overlay district because that was where most of the changes were made. Chairman Wilson asked if the new code obsoletes every downtown building. Ms. Johnson explained that the dimensional standards were meant for additions to new Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 29th, 2018 Page 6 of 11 buildings or for new construction. She spoke about how the new code will create some nonconformity; however those nonconformities can remain as long as they aren’t altered. CB also clarified that a change in ownership wouldn’t trigger the building to meet the current standards. There was a discussion between Commissioners, staff and Ms. Johnson regarding the applicability section (Page 1-47) for the downtown overlay district whereas they debated the new requirements. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez commented that the intent of the applicability section was to bring older buildings back to life because there’s been a lot of neglect. Chairman Wilson stated his concerns about commercial properties being unsellable because they were built under a different building code at a different time. He wanted to know if the new code would obsolete those commercial properties making them unsellable or unusable. CB explained that the building code and the zoning code were two (2) separate regulations. CB went on to state that the building code was a life, safety code, which had to be adhered to. Furthermore, if the building was changing occupancies that would trigger the building code and they would have no control over that. CB noted that every time the building code and fire code gets updated it gets tougher. There was a discussion between Commissioners and staff about various historical buildings in Gallup that weren’t up kept. CB commented to the Commission that if they wanted to make the rules relaxed so people don’t have to spend money then that wouldn’t help Gallup. CB reiterated that the current standards would only be triggered if the building was altered or if there was a change in use. George Athens, public citizen asked if he would be able to open the Opera House building and run as an opera house and not be required to alter anything. CB stated that he would have to meet the current building code, fire code and ADA regulations. There was a discussion between Commissioners, staff and Mr. Athens about the benefits of the zoning code. CB explained how their intention was not to run businesses out of Gallup; they’re trying to promote business. Ms. Johnson commented that the zoning code will never have any control over the building code. She explained that use change was controlled by the building code. The new zoning code will only affect new construction, expansion of more than 25% and renovations of more than $200,000. Tiffany Bensen, public citizen asked what would happen if the use changed. Ms. Johnson stated that use change was controlled by the building code and emphasized that was a whole separate set of regulations. Mrs. Bensen asked if she were to buy Mr. Athens property across the street from hers where she wanted to change the use and renovate the building; would she have to rip out 50% of the Code Talker’s building? Mrs. Bensen asked when do the rules for this (zoning code) apply and when doesn’t it? CB stated that it depended on the renovation amount; if it was under the $200,000 renovation threshold then she wouldn’t have to do any of it. Justin Bensen, public citizen asked that if they (Mr. & Mrs. Bensen) met that renovation threshold would they have to rip out the Code Talker’s mural and put in windows all the way across? Mrs. Bensen stated that’s how she read the new code. CB stated no; not on the existing building. Ms. Johnson clarified that for renovations they would have to do 20% of the project value in-site improvements whereas the new code doesn’t specify what those are. They’re welcome to do landscaping improvements, building frontage improvements, parking improvements; it’s up to them. Mr. Bensen stated that 20% of $200,000 would be $40,000. Ms. Johnson explained that the 20% was the number created by the Steering Committee; however that number is up for discussion. Mr. Bensen stated that it was important to keep the historic downtown intact, but applying this new rule was a little heavy handed. Mrs. Bensen Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 29th, 2018 Page 7 of 11 stated that she felt the new rule was an attack on someone willing to spend $200,000 downtown; they’re going to leave. Mr. Bensen reiterated that he didn’t agree with the applicability section for the downtown overlay district (Page 1-47); he felt the amounts were excessive. Ms. Johnson clarified that the $40,000 for site improvements wasn’t an additional amount; it would be part of the $200,000. She stated that this evening’s meeting was to receive feedback on the new code and is willing to consider removing the part about the renovation requirement in downtown. Mrs. Bensen stated that the new rule made sense for new constructions and expansions, however not for renovations; she doesn’t want it to turn people away. Commissioner Dooley asked for clarification on the building height downtown. Ms. Johnson stated that the new code allows the downtown maximum building height to be sixty five feet (65’) which equates to about five (5) stories. Commissioner Dooley spoke about the children’s library desire’s to have a five (5) story building, but envisions parking problems. CB explained how the building height increase was a recommendation received by the Business Improvement District and if the Commission doesn’t agree with that, they can take it back and suggest another adjustment. CB emphasized that all the recommendations in the new code came from the Steering Committee or other groups; not from the consultants. Commissioner Dooley commented that downtowns have changed; you cannot bring them back to what they once were. She felt that by allowing the downtown buildings to build up that was another way of adding square footage to the downtown area without parking. Ms. Johnson stated that only new construction or additions would trigger parking requirements. She explained the intent of increasing the building height, which was to market vacant properties to developers so it’s more feasible if they need more than three (3) stories. Commissioner Dooley stated that she understood that. CB asked Commissioner Dooley what she would like to see for the downtown area. Commissioner Dooley stated that she would like to see more arts and crafts downtown. She again spoke about the problems with downtown parking. Mr. Athens commented to enforce the two (2) hour parking limit. CB stated that was a policing issue that they can’t handle with the zoning code. CB stated that they needed to decide how they want to improve the downtown for the business owners to bring them more business. Mr. Athens stated that he liked the idea of the five (5) story buildings downtown because Albuquerque has that and it improved their downtown. He added that he thought there was plenty of parking downtown, but people just don’t want to walk. Mr. Athens again stated that if the City were to enforce the two (2) hour parking it would extremely help parking issues. Ahmad Ayesh, public citizen wanted to state that he liked the idea of the code update, however he would like them enforce it and stick with the long-term plan. He stated that he’s been in the downtown area for thirty (30) years and it’s no joke; he’s seen the good, the bad and the ugly. Mr. Ayesh stated that he didn’t mind the upgrades. He recalled Munoz, Pena, Galanis and Roseborough; they never had a long-term plan. Mr. Ayesh stated that he supported the code update and liked it. He commented that he did the best he could with his shop at Indian Touch of Gallup on Highway 66, which is a historical building. Chairman Wilson stated that he felt their discussions covered parking pretty well. He also wanted to note that the parking requirements have been changed; now based on square footage instead of the number of employees. Ms. Arndt stated the reason for that change was to make it easier to calculate Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 29th, 2018 Page 8 of 11 the parking requirements and it was more practical because the number of employees was always changing. Chairman Wilson referred to the Required Off-Street Parking Supply table 10-4-7 (Page 1-17) where only a small list of use types were provided; will there be a more complete list in the future? Ms. Arndt reminded Chairman Wilson that it was reviewed in Module 1 where they explained the new code would be using a broad list of uses instead of breaking down every use for parking. Ms. Johnson added that the uses in table 10-4-7 (Page 1-17) correlate with the uses in the use table that tell you what uses you can do in each district. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners and the public if they had any more questions regarding parking; there were none. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners and the public if they had any questions regarding access & connectivity; there were none. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners and the public if they had any questions regarding landscaping & screening. Chairman Wilson noticed that on the plant list (Minimum Plant Materials and Standards figure 10-4-18) Page 1-121 there was a section that referred to what he called “zero scaping.” He read aloud from figure 10-4-18 Groundcover, “Decorative bark material and/or stone, gravel, excluding asphalt, concrete or soil that is untreated may be substituted at the discretion of the Planning Director.” Chairman Wilson stated that he thought anyone who plants grass should also get permission from the Planning Director because it uses water. CB added that the City discourages turf because of the water conservation. Chairman Wilson asked if the intent of that section he just read was to take care of “zero scaping?” Ms. Johnson stated yes; the intent of updating the entire section was to encourage zero scaping. She explained how the plant palettes in the new code were all recommended by the consultant’s landscaping architecture team where they ensured all the plants were drought tolerant. Ms. Johnson also mentioned that Gallup already had turf restrictions whereas they just put them in a table on page 1-121. CB clarified that “zero scaping” didn’t mean no landscaping; it meant plants that were drought tolerant. Ms. Johnson stated that from the Steering Committee’s comments they actually relaxed the minimum plant requirements and coverage requirements for a site. She went over the calculation for the landscaping requirement by referring to Page 1-120 & 1-21. There was a discussion between Commissioners and staff about the difficultly to grow (plants and trees) in Gallup and how people neglect their landscaping. CB also spoke about enforcing the property maintenance code. Chairman Wilson spoke about his concerns enforcing landscaping requirements on commercial and industrial districts because they provide most of the business and jobs in Gallup. He sees landscaping costing them money and affecting their business where the landscaping takes up parking spaces. He felt that those commercial and industrial businesses already benefit Gallup with their generated tax revenues and to put that kind of landscaping requirement on them isn’t right. Chairman Wilson stated that he wasn’t sure if that was the place to address the issue, but would like the consultants to take those comments back to the Steering Committee. Ms. Johnson stated that she understood his concerns and spoke about the benefits of landscaping. Neal Butler, public citizen asked what triggers the landscaping requirement. He gave the example of redoing his business parking lot where he would have to pull a building permit. Mr. Butler asked if that would trigger the landscaping requirement. Ms. Johnson stated that there was an applicability section that identifies what triggers landscaping on Page 1-118. She informed Mr. Butler that the Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 29th, 2018 Page 9 of 11 landscaping would only be required for new construction, expansions (25% or more) or renovations (exceeding $200,000). Mr. Butler spoke about a previous parking lot renovation costing him almost $300,000. Ms. Johnson stated that renovation requirement was an existing standard where it’s $50,000. So since the new code increased that amount it’s much more relaxed on properties than before. CB explained that another trigger would be a business license. He spoke about how it was difficult for staff to enforce landscaping equally and fairly because it depended on each area’s circumstances. Ms. Johnson spoke about exceptions to the landscaping requirements depending on the location. CB added that the intent of landscaping was for beautification. Ms. Johnson also acknowledged that the downtown area was unique so they could add a landscaping exception for downtown since many of the parcels are 100% occupied. Commissioner Dooley requested to take a recess. Chairman Wilson granted at 7:24 p.m. The special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was reconvened. Chairman Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:29 p.m. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners and the public if they had any questions regarding fences & walls. Commissioner Dooley stated that since the older subdivisions go by the zoning code (not the subdivision regulations) were they allowed to put fences in their front yard. Ms. Johnson stated yes the code allows fences in the front yard, but they’re lower than the back and side yard fence. Commissioner Dooley spoke about why she didn’t want to allow front yard fences. Ms. Johnson asked where she wanted to prohibit front yard fences because that would become problematic especially in the industrial zones. Commissioner Pawlowski stated that he strongly disagreed with Commissioner Dooley’s recommendation. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners and the public if they had any more questions regarding fences & walls; there were none. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners and the public if they had any questions regarding architecture. Chairman Wilson clarified that those were Land Development Standards and not building code regulations. Chairman Wilson asked what comments were made by the Steering Committee for that section. Ms. Johnson stated that the main change made by the Steering Committee was reducing the glazing (widows) requirements. She stated that the architecture requirements had the same three (3) triggers as the others; new construction, building additions of 25% or more and improvements of $200,000 or more. Ms. Johnson explained that there were three (3) distinct architecture standards for multi-family, mixed use/commercial and industrial. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners and the public if they had any questions regarding signage. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez asked for clarification on Page 1-137 (On-Premise Sign Standards figure 10-4-32). Ms. Johnson explained how to read the table and noticed that there was an error on the marquee and projection signs that needed to be corrected. She thanked Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez for brining that to their attention. Mrs. Bensen asked for clarification on the marquee sign section for sign area and height. Ms. Johnson stated that was an area they needed to revisit and eventually revise. Mrs. Bensen wanted to state her concerns about prohibiting certain signs such as, flashing lights. She was concerned that would eliminate the downtown City of Gallup parking signs, El Rancho hotel sign, Blue Spruce Lodge sign and all the other flashing light signs. Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 29th, 2018 Page 10 of 11 She commented that it wasn’t a good idea to prohibit flashing light signs because that’s Route 66’s thing. Ms. Johnson stated that was normally a safety concern, which was why it was prohibited. Mrs. Bensen stated that it seemed like everything would have to be immediately changed and would all the flashing light signs get citations and is the City going to cite itself for its own sign? Ms. Johnson spoke about how the current flashing signs will become nonconforming and can remain, but if they’re altered they would have to come into compliance. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez asked where that section was located. Ms. Johnson responded that it was on Page 1-134. CB recommended adding a provision for flashing lights stating that it cannot distract or be hazardous for drivers. Ms. Johnson stated they will add that, but there’s not a lot of guidance on how staff will regulate that. Chairman Wilson stated that all the comments have been duly noted and the Commission was not through working on Module 2. He asked CB what the timeframe was for completing the review of Module 2; April 13, 2018 won’t work. CB stated that they wanted to take the new code for final adoption in May so they will be extending that deadline. He continued by stating that the budget was almost at the ending point. CB stated that he could give one (1) extra week to review so they can help the consultants to stay within their schedule. CB and the Commissioners agreed to April 20, 2018 as the deadline to submit comments for Module 2. Chairman Wilson asked when they would receive a final document to look at. Ms. Johnson stated that they would need everyone’s comments first and then at least two (2) weeks to gather into a final document. CB explained that the final Land Development Standards would be first taken to the Planning & Zoning Commission then to City Council for adoption. Ms. Johnson stated that they could possibly take to the June 13, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners and the public if they had any further questions for the consultants. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez wanted to add that she thought the consultants did an incredible job on the update and thanked them for their hard work. She felt like the organization, tables and illustrations would really make the Land Development Standards more user-friendly. Chairman Wilson thanked the pubic for attending and adding their input to the Land Development Standards update. Ms. Johnson stated that all comments could be emailed to CB Strain. Commission Adjourned at 7:45 p.m. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION KENT WILSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CLYDE (C.B.) STRAIN SECRETARY TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 29th, 2018 Page 11 of 11 EXHIBIT A Planning & Zoning Commission March 29, 2018 Since we have been here last... ➔ Weekly meetings with steering committee to discuss each section and get feedback ➔ Drafting of District / Development Standards ➔ Overlay Districts ➔ Subdivision Ordinance Overview a. District Standards b. Overlay Districts 1. Subdivision Regulations c. Development Standards a. General updates i. Parking and Loading b. Infrastructure design ii. Landscaping and standards Screening 2. Zoning Ordinance iii. Fences and Walls a. Base District Standards iv. Architecture b. Overlay Districts v. Environmental i. Downtown Overlay Performance Standards District vi. Terrain Management ii. Business Improvement Regulations District iii. Airport Overlay iv. Floodplain Subdivision Regulations: Outline ➔ 10-5-1. Purpose and General Requirements ➔ 10-5-2. Definitions and Application of Subdivision Regulations ➔ 10-5-3. Sketch Plats ➔ 10-5-4. Preliminary Plats ➔ 10-5-5. Final Plats ➔ 10-5-6 Public Improvements ➔ Administrative Materials ◆ 10-5-7. Fee Schedule ◆ 10-5-8. Signatures & Appeal Procedures ◆ 10-5-9. Administration and Amendment ◆ 10-5-10. Validity ◆ 10-5-11. Penalties ◆ 10-5-12. Reservation of Jurisdiction Subdivision Regulations: General Changes Style General Process ➔ Clarity and ease of use ➔ Pre-application meeting ➔ Definition of terms ➔ Clarified role of the Gallup Task Force ➔ Simplify legal language ➔ Move Infrastructure ➔ Developer Review Design Standards to Meeting separate section Subdivision Regulations: Parks & Open Space Requirements Current Revised Current Issues Parks 3 acres / 100 units 1 acre / 50 units Minimum 1 acre Minimum 2 acres ➔ Difficult to maintain existing City parks Open Space 10% of total site 8% of total site* Sites ≥ 10 acres Sites ≥ 100 acres ➔ Current requirements lead to many small parks ➔ Payment in lieu of parks and open ➔ Unclear application of space for smaller developments open space requirements ➔ *Parks acreage counts toward open (can be perceived as space requirement double counting)  Subdivision Regulations: Parks & Open Space Requirements Example: 200 acre development Current Revised with 350 dwelling units Parks - 3 acres / 100 units - 1 acre / 50 units - Minimum 1 acre - Minimum 2 acres ➔ Parks requirement: 7 acres (350 / 50) ➔ Total Parks/Open Space Open - 10% of total site - 8% of total site* Requirement: Space - Sites ≥ 10 acres - Sites ≥ 100 acres 16 acres (200 x 8%) ➔ Actual Open Space Requirement: 9 acres ➔ Since the total parks/open space requirement is 16 acres, and the development is already committed to a 7-acre park, the actual required open space is 9 acres. Together, the 7 acres of park space plus 9 acres of additional open space meet the total requirement of 16 acres. Subdivision Regulations: Application Process and Procedures Checklist ➔ Create checklist of Plat submittal requirements ➔ Distinguish between requirements by Plat types ➔ Ensure consistency between code and City of Gallup practices Infrastructure Design Standards ➔ Guidance for new development and reconstructed or improved roadways ➔ Consolidate standards in one place ➔ Updates reflect ADA standards and national best practice (e.g. lane width, sidewalk width, block lengths) ➔ Reference standards drawings and national manual for technical details Zoning Regulations: Outline ➔ 10-1 General Provision ➔ 10-2 Zone Districts ◆ District Standards ◆ Overlay Districts ➔ 10-3 Use Regulations ➔ 10-4 Development Standards ◆ 10-4(A) Parking and Loading ◆ 10-4(B) Access and Connectivity ◆ 10-4(C) Landscaping and Screening ◆ 10-4(D) Fences and Walls ◆ 10-4(E) Architecture ◆ 10-4(F) Signage ➔ 10-5 Definitions Zone Districts: Base District Standards Intent District Standard Dimensional Standards Zone Districts: Overlay District Standards Intent District Standard Zone Districts: Downtown Overlay District ➔ Clarified applicability / exceptions ➔ Revised boundary ➔ Created standards specific the unique Downtown environment, including but not limited to: ◆ Permitted / prohibited uses ◆ Dimensional standards ◆ Basic building design standards ◆ Outdoor dining area standards Zone Districts: Downtown Overlay District ➔ Dimensional standards ➔ Basic building design standards ➔ Outdoor dining area standards Development Standards General ➔ Clarified applicability / exceptions across sections, e.g. what triggers compliance with the regs. ➔ Reorganized sections more clearly removed administrative/permit related materials as these will move into the Administration / Enforcement section released in Module ➔ Added illustrations, or placeholders for illustrations, that clarify complex regulations. Development Standards Parking ➔ Added shared parking reduction for parking requirements if peak parking demands of different uses don’t overlap. ➔ In Downtown, parking exemptions were removed and replaced with parking reductions. ➔ Permeable pavement options clarified. ➔ Required parking supply table updated to correspond with new use categories. Requirements are now tied to square footage rather than number of employees to allow to better quantify parking supply. Development Standards Parking Use New Standards Existing Standards Development Standards Access & Connectivity ➔ This section has been created to capture portions of existing development standards presently sprinkled throughout the code. Elements included in this section pertain to site access and connectivity e.g. how users of a site arrive at the use or structure they want to visit. ➔ Code elements included were revised for clarity, reorganized into tables, where feasible and graphics were created to allow better interpretation of the code. ➔ Overall, no new standards have been added Development Standards Landscaping & Screening ➔ Clarified minimum required landscape area and added a provision that allows phased development to only landscape the portion of the development being developed. ➔ Generally quantified the requirements for minimum landscape requirements, buffers, and screens. ➔ Added national best practices that were currently missing from the code, such as specific parking lot requirements and screening for service areas and mechanical equipment. Development Standards Landscaping & Screening Development Standards Fences & Walls ➔ Clarified the maximum height standards per site location. ➔ Added minimum material standards Development Standards Architecture ➔ Retained basic standards for single-family residential found in other sections of the code. ➔ Added architectural standards for Multi-family, mixed-use and non-residential structures. ➔ Architectural standards are based on best national practice and focus only on important building elements- eg. Primary entrances and facades, transparency (e.g. the amount of translucent windows required) Development Standards Signage ➔ Updated entire signage section to meet national best practice and brought them into compliance with new legal requirements ➔ Reorganized / updated on-premise sign standards ➔ Major updates to off- premise and temporary signs Development Standards Signage Project Scope / Schedule JANUARY- AUGUST SEPTEMBER/ Diagnostic OCTOBER MARCH ● Diagnostic Report: Draft Module 2 Report Module 1 Identify issue areas in existing code MARCH MAY Planning & Final Land ● Module 1: Draft Zone Zoning Development Commission Standards District & Use Regulations Meeting Submittal ● Module 2: Draft Zoning & Subdivision Standards ➔ Comments to be submitted by April 13th ➔ All Modules and opportunities to comment will be available on the City of Gallup website.  Thank you Denise Aten Katrina Arndt daten@bhinc.com katrinaa@dpsdesign.org 505-980-6065 505-923-3537 Aaron Sussman Jessica Lawlis asussman@bhinc.com jessicaj@dpsdesign.org 505-923-3341 505-338-5709 C.B. Strain cstrain@gallupnm.gov 505-863-1244 Request by Alberto Villegas, on behalf of PMV Real Estate Limited, property owner, for the City of Gallup to vacate a portion of a ten foot (10’) public utility easement (P.U.E.) south of the property in order to enlarge the existing structure. There will also be a ten foot (10’) public utility easement (P.U.E.) dedicated on the northeast portion of the property for utility use. The property is located at 3205 Industry Drive; more particularly described as a Tract of Land in 23 15 19, the S½ of containing 10.59 acres M/L. AERIAL IMAGERY I-40  Request by Alberto Villegas, on behalf of PMV Real Estate Limited, property owner, for the City of Gallup to vacate a portion of a ten foot (10’) public utility easement (P.U.E.) south of the property in order to enlarge the existing structure. There will also be a ten foot (10’) public utility easement (P.U.E.) dedicated on the northeast portion of the property for utility use. The property is located at 3205 Industry Drive; more particularly described as a Tract of Land in 23 15 19, the S½ of containing 10.59 acres M/L. SITE PHOTOS Request by Alberto Villegas, on behalf of PMV Real Estate Limited, property owner, for the City of Gallup to vacate a portion of a ten foot (10’) public utility easement (P.U.E.) south of the property in order to enlarge the existing structure. There will also be a ten foot (10’) public utility easement (P.U.E.) dedicated on the northeast portion of the property for utility use. The property is located at 3205 Industry Drive; more particularly described as a Tract of Land in 23 15 19, the S ½ of containing 10.59 acres M/L. AREA MAP  Request by Alberto Villegas, on behalf of PMV Real Estate Limited, property owner, for the City of Gallup to vacate a portion of a ten foot (10’) public utility easement (P.U.E.) south of the property in order to enlarge the existing structure. There will also be a ten foot (10’) public utility easement (P.U.E.) dedicated on the northeast portion of the property for utility use. The property is located at 3205 Industry Drive; more particularly described as a Tract of Land in 23 15 19, the S½ of containing 10.59 acres M/L. PROPERTY MAP 2 1 3 7 4 5 6  Request by Alberto Villegas, on behalf of PMV Real Estate Limited, property owner, for the City of Gallup to vacate a portion of a ten foot (10’) public utility easement (P.U.E.) south of the property in order to enlarge the existing structure. There will also be a ten foot (10’) public utility easement (P.U.E.) dedicated on the northeast portion of the property for utility use. The property is located at 3205 Industry Drive; more particularly described as a Tract of Land in 23 15 19, the S½ of containing 10.59 acres M/L. ADDRESS LIST 1. PMV REAL ESTATE LIMITED R135526 457 N. BROADWAY ST. JOSHUA, TX 76058 6. DEEPAK & MEERA MEHTA, A TRACT OF LAND IN 23 15 19, TRUSTEES THE S ½ OF CONT. 10.59 ACS 3270 W. HIGHWAY 66 M/L GALLUP, NM 87301 R208796 11.472 ACRES M/L IN SW¼ SEC.23 T15 R19, 3.494 ACRES 2. CITY OF GALLUP M/L IN NW¼ SEC.26 T15 R19, P.O. BOX 1270 LOT 2, LESS 150’ X 150’ W GALLUP, NM 87305-1270 INTERSTATE 40 SUB UNIT 1 5.3 ACRES M/L IN 23 15 19, LESS .14 ACS TO THE CITY OF GALLUP INDUSTRIAL PARK GALLUP, TOTAL 14.827 ACS ADDN. M/L R156442 R052159 3. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 7. JAMES JR. & LYNNE E. 2650 LOU MENK DRIVE NECHERO, TRUSTEES FORT WORTH, TX 76131 C/O HOSPITALITY EXPRESS DESCRIPTION: RAILROAD INNS, INC. RIGHT-OF-WAY 3304 W. HIGHWAY 66 GALLUP, NM 87301 4. COARRA ARIZONA LOT 2, NECHERO SUB. CONT. INVESTMENTS LLC 2.91 ACS M/L IN SEC. 23 & 26 9224 W. WEEPING WILLOW 15 19 RD. R664332 PEORIA, AZ 85383 ALL OF LOT 2, CONT. 3.944 ACRES M/L HOWARD SUBDIVISION SEC. 23 T15 R19 R212130 5. REDROCK, INC. 1715 W. HIGHWAY 66 GALLUP, NM 87301 LOT 1, HOWARD SUB. CONT. 3.1212 ACS M/L  Summary of City Council Actions March 2018 [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 COUTNY, NM P.O. BOX 1270 GALLUP, NM 87305 MONTH OF: MARCH YEAR TO DATE: 2018 NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VALUATION VALUATION DESCRIPTION PERMITS PERMITS NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 0 $ - 0 $ - RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 3 $ 51,500.00 8 $ 179,400.00 RESIDENTIAL STORAGE SHED 0 $ - 0 $ - RESIDENTIAL GARAGES & CARPORTS 1 $ 3,683.00 1 $ 3,683.00 RESIDENTIAL SITE PERMITS 0 $ - 0 $ - NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 0 $ - 1 $ 900.00 COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 1 $ 67,000.00 5 $ 1,217,500.00 COMMERCIAL STORAGE SHED 0 $ - 0 $ - COMMERCIAL GARAGES & CARPORTS 0 $ - 0 $ - COMMERCIAL SITE PERMITS 0 $ - 0 $ - NEW CHURCHES 0 $ - 0 $ - CHURCH ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 0 $ - 0 $ - RE-STUCCO / SIDING / DECKS 0 $ - 0 $ - NEW ASPHALT / ASPHALT OVERLAY / SEALCOAT 0 $ - 2 $ 850.00 EXCAVATION / GRADING 0 $ - 0 $ - NEW APARTMENTS 0 $ - 0 $ - APARTMENT ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 0 $ - 0 $ - HOTELS / MOTELS 0 $ - 0 $ - ROOF REPAIR 5 $ 33,100.00 12 $ 66,385.00 DEMOLITION 2 $ 4,500.00 5 $ 22,500.00 FENCE / RETAINING WALL 6 $ 19,389.00 10 $ 34,352.00 FOUNDATION ONLY - CHARGE 1 $ 22,676.00 1 $ 22,676.00 FOUNDATION ONLY - NO CHARGE 0 $ - 0 $ - SWIMMING POOLS 0 $ - 0 $ - DECK 0 $ - 0 $ - TOTAL PERMITS & VALUATION 19 $ 201,848.00 45 $ 1,548,246.00 TOTAL PERMIT FEES $ 3,425.18 $ 15,037.92  CITY OF GALLUP PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT MONTHLY COMPILATION OF PERMITS ISSUED MARCH 2018 DATE PERMIT PERMIT PERMIT OWNER / BUSINES CONTRACTOR SITE ADDRESS VALUATION ISSUED NO. TYPE FEES RETAINING 3/1/18 18-25 BRON SHAHEEN BONAGUIDI CONSTRUCTION 1101 SUSAN AVE. $ 249.90 $ 10,000.00 WALL COMMERCIAL 3/6/18 18-20 REBECCA SUE KEELER EAGLE CONSTRUCTION 235 W. HISTORIC HIGHWAY 66 $ 884.25 $ 67,000.00 ALTERATION GALLUP HOUSING FOUNDATION 3/6/18 18-31 RAM JACK OF NM, INC. 317 VEGA AVE. $ 234.00 $ 22,676.00 AUTHORITY REPAIR RESIDENTIAL 3/8/18 18-35 BONAPACE RENTALS GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 302 W. HILL AVE. $ 105.00 $ 6,500.00 RE-ROOF RESIDENTIAL 3/9/18 18-38 KEITH MONEY BUDDY CONSTRUCTION 1675 MILDA AVE $ 50.00 $ 1,500.00 RE-ROOF 3/12/18 18-41 BENNY CHAVEZ HOMEOWNER 1516 KIT CARSON DR. FENCE $ 36.75 $ 450.00 3/13/18 18-26 MARY CRUZ MERRILL FENCE CO. 812 STAGECOACH RD. FENCE $ 106.35 $ 3,331.00 EL MERCADO 3/14/18 18-39 MUNOZ CORPORATION 817 US HIGHWAY 491 DEMOLITION $ 108.70 $ 3,000.00 HOLDINGS, LLC EL MERCADO 3/14/18 18-40 MUNOZ CORPORATION 805 US HIGHWAY 491 DEMOLITION $ 79.25 $ 1,500.00 HOLDINGS, LLC RESIDENTIAL 3/15/18 18-30 MANUEL BRIENDO HOMEOWNER 109 E. WILSON AVE. $ 380.40 $ 20,000.00 ALTERATION 3/15/18 18-42 VIRGINIA ESPINO MERRILL FENCE CO. 111 W. LINCOLN AVE. FENCE $ 93.30 $ 2,598.00 RESIDENTIAL 3/19/18 18-37 DOROTHY CARLISLE GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 403 TANNER AVE. $ 123.00 $ 8,100.00 RE-ROOF RESIDENTIAL 3/20/18 17-284 RONNIE RAEL HOMEOWNER 1712 HELENA DR. $ 427.53 $ 30,000.00 ADDITION 3/20/18 18-43 PATRICK AHRENS MERRILL FENCE CO. 503 NAVAJO DR. FENCE $ 65.75 $ 1,410.00 JAMES & GEORGIA RESIDENTIAL 3/22/18 18-46 GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 213 W. GREEN AVE. $ 168.00 $ 13,500.00 OWENS RE-ROOF 3/26/18 18-47 ALEC ORENSTEIN HOMEOWNER 504 BAJA CT. FENCE $ 68.65 $ 1,600.00 COMMERCIAL 3/27/18 18-49 GRANT FOUTZ GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 1450 S. 2ND ST. $ 88.00 $ 3,500.00 RE-ROOF MINOR 3/29/18 18-48 CARLA OLGUIN ROY HOMEOWNER 1906 MOSSMAN AVE. $ 50.00 $ 1,500.00 ALTERATIONS RESIDENTIAL 3/29/18 18-45 JUAN MONTOYA AMERICAN STEEL CARPORTS 1002 E. MESA AVE. $ 106.35 $ 3,683.00 CARPORT TOTALS: $ 3,425.18 $ 201,848.00 3 RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 1 RESIDENTIAL GARAGES & CARPORTS 1 COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 5 ROOF REPAIR 2 DEMOLITION 6 FENCE / RETAINING WALL 1 FOUNDATION ONLY - CHARGE 19 TOTAL PERMITS P.O. BOX 1270 GALLUP, NM 87305 PHONE: 505.863.1240 FAX: 505.722.5131