Planning and Zoning

Planning and Development Clyde “C.B.” Strain, Director PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA Wednesday, February 12th, 2020, 6:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers *** Call to Order / Roll Call *** Approval of January 8th, 2020 Meeting Minutes PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM ONE: CASE # 20-00700001: Request by Jennifer M. Bass, property owner, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a short-term rental as an accessory use to the Single Family Residential (SFR-A) Zone District. The property is located at 301 West Victoria Avenue; more particularly described as Lot 3, Block 11, Bubany-Burke Northside Addition. ITEM TWO: CASE # 20-00600001: Request by JagWest, LLC and the City of Gallup, property owners, for the Rezoning of Tract 1B, 1C and 2, North and South Portion of Tract 1A, Mentmore West Subdivision Unit 1 and Two Unplatted Tracts of Land FROM Rural Holding Zone (RHZ) Zone District TO Industrial (I) Zone District. The properties are generally located west of County Road 1 and Chee Dodge Boulevard; Containing a total of 65.8575 acres M/L. INFORMATION ITEMS ITEM THREE: City Council Actions Taken ITEM FOUR: January 2020 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 January 8th, 2020 Minutes City Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Kent Wilson. Upon roll call, the following were present: Chairman K. Wilson Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez Commissioner J. Dooley Commissioner F. Pawlowski Commissioner M. Long Commissioner J. Cresto Upon roll call, the following were absent: Commissioner L. Miller Chairman Wilson 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: Chairman K. Wilson (No) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez (No) Commissioner J. Dooley (No) Commissioner F. Pawlowski (No) Commissioner M. Long (No) Commissioner J. Cresto (No) Presented to the Chairman and Commissioners for their approval were the minutes of the December 11th, 2019 regular meeting. Commissioner Dooley motioned for approval of the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Pawlowski. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner J. Dooley (Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski (Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez (Yes) Commissioner M. Long (Yes) Commissioner J. Cresto (Yes) Chairman Wilson administered the oath required by State Law for public forum. Chairman Wilson 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 January 8th, 2020 Page 1 of 10 ITEM ONE: CASE # 19-00300002: Request by Joe DiGregorio, Six D., Inc, property owner, for Final Plat approval of a Minor Subdivision; Christine Subdivision Replat No. 1 of Block 4, Lebeck- Atkins Subdivision. Said property is generally located Northeast of Marguerite Street and Aztec Avenue (209 Marguerite Street, 1808 & 1820 W. Aztec Avenue); containing 3.8132 acres M/L. CB Strain began by using the overhead projector to display the GIS Map showing the property’s location. The property was originally designated as Block 4 in the Lebeck-Atkins Subdivision and was later split by a deed east to west (creating a tract north and south within Block 4). CB spoke about how the current subdivision regulations wouldn’t allow a split by deed whereas the property owners would be required to go through the subdivision process. CB used the overhead projector to display the final plat explaining how the property currently consisted of two (2) tracts of land. Being that there were three (3) buildings located on the southern tract the property owner wanted to subdivide into four (4) lots whereas each building would be on its own separate lot and have one (1) lot left over for future development. CB stated that all four (4) lots met the minimum dimensional requirements for the Heavy Commercial (HC) zone district whereas he recommended approval of the minor subdivision. CB mentioned how the Gallup Taskforce (GTF) reviewed the request and their comments were included in the Commission’s agenda packets. CB stated that members of the GTF were present this evening if the Commission had any questions to ask them. Commissioner Dooley asked for clarification on the location because she thought it was for the Lowe’s downtown on Aztec Avenue. CB stated that the subdivision was located on Marguerite Street and Aztec Avenue (across Gallup Central High School). He explained how the lots contained the gas station, car wash and an Indian Health Service office. Commissioner Dooley noticed how the Electric Department had comments (Page 1-7) about access running through a lot and wanted more information on that. Marita Joe, Senior Electrical Engineer approached the podium and spoke about the concerns she had of the replat. She used the overhead projector to reference the final plat and pointed to where the electrical service was located (northwest of proposed Lot 4). Ms. Joe was unsure as to how it was being served until they traced it out and discovered that it came to the meter within the City street. Knowing that the meter was located in the street the Electric Department made a recommendation to inform the Shop ‘N Save property owner that the gas station’s service line was going through their property. Being that this was the only subdivision submitted for this area in quite some time, the Electric Department requested the property owner to dedicate an easement this plat for the service line that serves the gas station. Commissioner Dooley clarified that the service line of the gas station (proposed Lot 4) ran on another property where the Shop ‘N Save grocery store was located. Ms. Joe responded that was correct and reminded Commissioner Dooley that the electric meter was privately owned by the gas station. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez asked CB where the frontage was located for the proposed Lot 2. CB stated that Lot 2’s frontage was off Aztec Avenue. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez asked if the property owners were to develop Lot 2 would they have to meet setbacks from Aztec Avenue; just concerned because of the odd shape of the lot. CB responded yes; each zone district had its own required setbacks for the front, side and rear. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 8th, 2020 Page 2 of 10 CB used the overhead projector to point to Lot 4 on the final plat and noted how it didn’t meet the required setbacks because it was encroaching past the property line. CB spoke about how the gas station would be considered a non-conforming structure, but if it ever went away the new built structure would be required to comply with the current setbacks. Chairman Wilson asked if anything ever changed on Lot 4 with the gas station, would they be able to rebuild a similar structure. CB responded stating that they could build a similar structure but it would have to meet the setbacks whereas it would probably be smaller than the existing building. CB recommended that the gas station be left alone unless there was a catastrophic event or if the building needed to be torn down for whatever reason. Joe DiGregorio, property owner approached the podium and introduced himself. Mr. DiGregorio stated that he represented Six D. Inc. and explained the meaning of his company name. He mentioned how his father acquired a lot of property and how he did different things with each of them. Mr. DiGregorio spoke about how they were cleaning up deeds and realized that they had four (4) different properties that needed to be separated, which was why they were replatting. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for Mr. DiGregorio. There were none. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone wishing to speak against this case. There were none. Chairman Wilson acknowledged that there were several department heads present this evening. He wanted to remind them to submit GTF comments that contained more substance other than, “No comment.” Chairman Wilson stated that he would rather prefer a statement about how there were no issues with the request or if the infrastructure was satisfactory to support the request. Commissioner Dooley stated that she agreed with Chairman Wilson. She spoke about how she wondered if adequate time was given to actually review the request. Commissioner Pawlowski added how he understood, “No comment” to mean that the request had been thoroughly reviewed and there were no issues. Chairman Wilson stated that he knew all the departments did a good job, but would like their comments to be more thorough to help the Commission. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any further questions or comments. There were none. Chairman Wilson stated that the hearing was closed. Motion to approve or deny the request for Case Number 2019-00300002. Commissioner Mackenzie- Chavez motioned for approval of Item One. Seconded by Commissioner Pawlowski. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez (Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski (Yes) Commissioner J. Dooley (Yes) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 8th, 2020 Page 3 of 10  Commissioner M. Long (Yes) Commissioner J. Cresto (Yes) ITEM TWO: CASE # 20-00900001: City initiated request to amend Title 10 “Land Development Standards” of the Municipal Code of the City of Gallup Section 10-2-B-a “Residential” and Section 10-2-B-c “Non-Residential”; Tables 10-2-2, 10-2-4, 10-2-6, 10-2-8, 10-2-19 and 10-2-21. Add side street yard requirements for corner lots within the Rural Residential (RR), Single-Family Residential (SFR-A, B & C), Multi-Family Residential Low (MFRL), Multi-Family Residential Medium (MFRM), General Commercial (GC) and Heavy Commercial (HC) Zone Districts. Establish ten foot (10’) side street yard setbacks for SFR-A & B, MFRL, MFRM and GC and fifteen foot (15’) side street yard setbacks for RR, SFR-C and HC. This item will go before City Council for final approval on January 28, 2020. CB began by reminding the Commission how the Land Development Standards (LDS) went through many months of review when the zoning ordinance and regulations were updated in 2018. It has come to CB’s attention that they failed to carry over the side street yard setbacks for corner lots from the old code to the new code. Those requirements need to be added to the LDS because it was a safety issue. CB continued by explaining how corner lots have two (2) frontages and how structures are setback from the street in case a vehicle leaves the pavement; it creates a buffer zone to protect the structure. The setbacks also provide somewhat of a noise buffer from the street as well as providing clear space and open space. Whenever there’s a corner lot both streets surrounding the property need those setbacks in place to ensure safety and act as a buffer. CB explained how the side street yard setbacks were in the old code, but they missed carrying them over into the new code. He emphasized how side street yard setbacks were typically included in any zoning code across the country. CB spoke about how he worked with the consultants, Bohannan Huston to research the side street yard setbacks and compare to other municipalities. In their research they found that a typical side street yard setback was ten feet (10’) in most districts whereas they recommended reducing the distance for Single-Family Residential zone districts. The old code had fifteen feet (15’) for the RS-1 and RS-2 zone districts (now known as SFR) and no side street setbacks for RAD, RATH and RM3 (now known as Multi-Family.) The text amendment presented this evening will establish side street yard setbacks for the following zone districts as follows:  Rural Residential (RR) zone district fifteen feet (15’) because those were larger lots having a minimum lot size of one (1) acre and had deeper setbacks.  Single-Family Residential (SFR-A & B) zone districts ten feet (10’) as opposed to the old code where it was fifteen feet (15’).  Single-Family Residential (SFR-C) zone district fifteen feet (15’), which remained the same from the old code being that those were typically larger lots having deeper setbacks.  Multi-Family Residential Low (MFRL) zone district for single-family, duplexes and townhouses ten feet (10’).  Multi-Family Residential Medium (MFRM) zone district for townhouses and multi-family (apartments) ten feet (10’).  General Commercial (GC) zone district ten feet (10’).  Heavy Commercial (HC) zone district is fifteen feet (15’). Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 8th, 2020 Page 4 of 10 CB pointed out how properties within the General and Heavy Commercial were mostly taken up by parking whereas they already had a large distance established from the side street. However, establishing these side street yard setbacks will prevent a design from locating parking in the rear while not having side street setbacks. CB explained how as they worked more with the new code they would find things that were missed; just like the last text amendment that was presented to the Commission. CB reminded the Commission how it was the second text amendment coming before them since the LDS was updated in August 2018. CB recommended approval of Resolution No. RP2020-2 to provide safety for corner lots. Commissioner Long asked CB how he determined which was the front yard and side yard on a corner lot. CB stated that it depended on the address street which would serve as the front yard setback. There was a brief discussion between staff and Commissioners on how some properties don’t have their front yard setback according to their address. CB mentioned how the subdivision design played a big part in determining where the front and side yard setbacks were designated. He gave the example of a fifty-foot (50’) by one hundred-foot (100’) lot where it would be best to use the fifty-foot (50’) for the frontage and one hundred foot (100’) for the side yard. If not, the lot wouldn’t be able to meet the setbacks in the rear or the front. Commissioner Long asked CB if the property owner could choose which was their front and side yard. CB stated yes, however the Planning Department would have to first verify that it met the front, side street, side interior and rear setbacks. Commissioner Long just wanted to ensure that square shaped lots that had the same length on each side gave the property owner the option to choose which frontage they would prefer. CB confirmed that they could if they met the minimum requirements. Commissioner Cresto asked CB why the other residential zone districts (MHP, MXN and MXC) weren’t included in the text amendment to establish side street yard setbacks. CB first explained how the text amendment came about when a building permit was submitted for a corner lot and they noticed how they didn’t carry the side street setbacks from the old code. CB continued by explaining how the Mobile Home Park (MHP), Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MXN) and Mixed-Use Center (MXC) zone districts weren’t included in the revision because they were setup in a way that took care of the side street setbacks. For example, the MXN and MXC zone districts are located within the older areas of town where they have smaller setbacks. The setback that’s required already carries for the whole property which was why it wasn’t included. Commissioner Cresto pointed out how Table 10-2-19 for the General Commercial zone district listed the front setback as five feet (5’) and the side street setback as ten feet (10’) which he didn’t feel was consistent. Commissioner Cresto asked CB why the side would need to be setback more. CB explained how the consultants had recommended the ten feet (10’), but if the Commission wanted to reduce the side street setback to five feet (5’) for General Commercial he would agree to the revision. Heavy Commercial however would need to keep the side street setback at fifteen feet (15’). Commissioner Cresto asked CB if making that revision would conflict with any safety issues in the General Commercial zone districts. CB responded that commercial properties generally had their parking areas to take up space so it would take care of itself. Commissioner Long clarified that the text amendment was only for corner lots. CB responded yes. Commissioner Long stated that he agreed with the revision of reducing the side street setback for the General Commercial zone district. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 8th, 2020 Page 5 of 10 Commissioner Cresto made a Motion to reduce the side street yard setback for the General Commercial zone district from ten feet (10’) to five feet (5’) for the text amendment presented. Seconded by Commissioner Pawlowski. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner J. Cresto (Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski (Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez (Yes) Commissioner J. Dooley (Yes) Commissioner M. Long (Yes) Chairman Wilson asked CB if it was practical for the townhouses in MFRM and MFRL zone districts to have a minimum of ten feet (10’) for the side street yard setbacks. CB responded yes. Chairman Wilson asked CB if there would be a sidewalk between the structures of the street at ten feet (10’). CB responded that the sidewalk would be on the other side of the property line and not within the setback. CB emphasized how the setbacks wouldn’t affect the space where the pedestrian infrastructure was located; the side street yard setbacks were just to setback the building from the property line. Commissioner Long asked CB what the side street setbacks for Single Family Residential was in the old code and if it was still consistent. CB stated that RS-1 and RS-2 (now known as SFR) were fifteen feet (15’) in the old code. Commissioner Long asked what the Multi-Family side street setbacks were in the old code. CB explained how the old code didn’t have side street setbacks established for RAD, RATH and RM3 (now known as Multi-Family) whereas the old code lacked these safety precautions. CB mentioned how they’ve had vehicles run into apartment buildings in the past whereas there was a need to establish side street setbacks for safety reasons. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone wishing to speak to this case. Angela Olive approached the podium and introduced herself. She informed the Commission that she was representing Bob Olive in regards to the property he recently purchased at Cerrito Drive and Red Rock Drive/Ridgecrest Avenue. Mrs. Olive stated that the odd shaped lot was located on a corner lot. She continued by explaining how prior to the property purchase Mr. Olive had his architect contact Stan Henderson, Public Works Director to speak about the zoning regulations. After speaking to Mr. Henderson they moved forward with their plans according to the regulations at that time. Mrs. Olive stated that they haven’t started building yet because they just got the basics going; they’re working the dirt and everything else. She mentioned how the back of the property goes right off to the area of Ford Canyon Park. Mrs. Olive stated that the plans they currently have are according to the existing zone district’s dimensional requirements of five feet (5’) as the side setback. If the text amendment were to be approved this evening they would have to change their plans to reflect the ten feet (10’), which Mrs. Olive feels would really encroach into their plans of the new house. Mrs. Olive spoke about how Mr. Olive spent a lot of money on the architect so she requested that the Commission grant a variance. Mrs. Olive felt that the property would qualify for a variance Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 8th, 2020 Page 6 of 10 being that lot was an odd shape and the fact that they already had the plans drawn up prior to the text amendment. She asked the Commission if they could grant a variance of five feet (5’) for the side street setback or be grandfathered in after the text amendment was approved. Commissioner Pawlowski stated that he assumed the new structure would be a single-family home. Mrs. Olive stated that it was actually going to be a multi-family home being that it was permissive in the Multi-Family Residential Low (MFRL) zone district. Mrs. Olive stated that it was going to be a duplex with garages and pointed out how it was a small piece of property. Mrs. Olive informed the Commission that she had copies of the plans with her and could show them if they pleased. Commissioner Pawlowski stated that he just wanted to know what kind of structure it would be. Commissioner Pawlowski summarized what he believed she was requesting from the Commission which was to be relieved from the ten foot (10’) requirement and granted the five foot (5’) for the side street setback off Ridgecrest Avenue. He continued by stating that he understood the rationale behind her request, but didn’t feel it was a good idea because he was familiar with the busy traffic of the nearby elementary school. Commissioner Pawlowski stated that he wasn’t saying that an additional five feet (5’) would prevent serious types of accidents, but it would be nice to have ten feet (10’) for safety reasons. Mrs. Olive stated that she knew there were plans to put in a drainage along the corner where the street turns going down the property and out to the canyon, but she was unsure as to how that would affect that corner. Commissioner Dooley commented on how she was unsure if this was the appropriate time that Mrs. Olive’s issue should be addressed. CB asked Mrs. Olive to see the plans she had. After reviewing the plans Mrs. Olive had in hand, CB informed the Commission that no permits had been submitted to the Planning Department nor have any reviews taken place on that particular site. CB stated that this was the first time he had seen or heard of it. Mrs. Olive stated that she had the plans that were sent to them from the City of Gallup and showed them to CB. CB stated that the City of Gallup doesn’t do plans and after looking at the document he verified that the copy she was referring to was the SFR dimensional standards from the LDS (sent by the City to the property owner.) CB again emphasized how the plans had not been submitted nor reviewed by the City Planning Department. Mrs. Olive stated that the architect based everything off the zoning regulations that were in place at that time. CB pointed out how the plans Mrs. Olive had were stamped and drafted by their architect on July 10, 2019, which was after the new code was adopted in August 2018. So when the architect drew up the plans the new regulations were already in place. CB also pointed out how the new code (adopted in August 2018) didn’t have side street yard setbacks for corner lots. Mrs. Olive stated that she understood that there were no regulations for side street yard setbacks, which was why their architect drew up their plans having all side setbacks (side street and side interior) as five feet (5’). Mrs. Olive stated that on Table 10-2-6 in the Land Development Standards it listed the side setbacks as five feet (5’) in the Multi-Family Residential Low (MFRL) zone district. CB clarified that the side setback currently listed in the code was only for the side interior setback, which was the setback from another lot; not from a corner street. CB stated that the text amendment presented this evening will establish the side “street” setback as ten feet (10’) and carry the side “interior” setback to five feet (5’) as it currently stands. CB stated that there were currently no side “street” setback requirements because no one has submitted for a permit located on a corner lot since the code’s been updated in August 2018. Chairman Wilson stated that the case before the Commission this evening was to make Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 8th, 2020 Page 7 of 10 a decision on the text amendment whereas Mrs. Olive’s request wasn’t part of that action. Chairman Wilson informed Mrs. Olive that she needed to go through the process with the Planning Department and if a petition was necessary she could come back before the Commission. Chairman Wilson stated that all the appropriate paper work needed to be submitted whereas the request would go through the appropriate channels. Chairman Wilson asked CB if that was correct. CB asked Mrs. Olive when they were planning on submitting plans. Mrs. Olive responded that she wasn’t sure. CB stated that this text amendment was to establish side street yard setbacks and after it went before the Planning and Zoning Commission it would be presented to the City Council for final approval at the January 28, 2020 meeting. Once the text amendment went through the approval process it was then the law. CB informed Mrs. Olive that if the Planning Department hasn’t received their permit application to review prior to those dates the new rule would apply. Curtis Hayes, City Attorney pointed out how there was also a thirty (30) day appeal period before the text amendment could become effective. CB stated that was correct. CB explained that whenever an ordinance was adopted there was an appeal period after City Council approved it whereas there was an additional thirty (30) days. So if City Council approves the text amendment at their January 28 th meeting the new requirements will become effective thirty (30) days after that (if no one appeals it.) Commissioner Pawlowski asked CB who could possibly appeal the text amendment. CB responded that anyone could appeal. CB recommended that the Olives submit their permit application and plans to the Planning Department prior to those deadlines that way they can apply the current requirements, which would meet their needs. Mrs. Olive stated that she understood and thanked the Commission for their time. Commissioner Long asked Madam Secretary, Nikki Lee to show the LDS page with the Single- Family Residential’s new dimensional standards being discussed this evening. The overhead projector was used to display (the revised) page 10 of the LDS. (A copy is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit A and made a part of these official minutes). Commissioner Long directed the Commission to see the highlighted area in yellow which was the new side “street” yard setbacks being added this evening. Table 10-2-4 refers to the letter “f” as the side “street” setback and by looking at Figure 10-2-2 it shows where that setback is located. CB pointed to Figure 10-2-2 showing where the lot area, lot frontage, lot width, front setback, side interior setback, side street setback and rear setback were located. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any further questions. There were none. Chairman Wilson stated that the hearing was closed. Motion to approve or deny the request for Case Number 2020-00900001. Commissioner Dooley motioned for approval (positive recommendation) of Item Two with the recommended revision to the General Commercial zone district. Seconded by Commissioner Pawlowski. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner J. Dooley (Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski (Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez (Yes) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 8th, 2020 Page 8 of 10  Commissioner M. Long (Yes) Commissioner J. Cresto (Yes) The positive recommendation will be presented to City Council on January 28, 2020 for final approval. ITEM THREE: CASE # 20-01100001: Annual Open Meetings Act, Resolution No. RP2020-01. 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 began by explaining how every year the Commission was required to adopt a new Open Meetings Act resolution to adopt meeting times, what was considered reasonable notice and special and emergency meeting requirements. CB continued by explaining how they were following the same rules they have followed previous years. If the Commission didn’t want to make any changes such as, changing the days or times of the meetings CB recommended approval of the presented resolution. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez reminded the Commission how they had previously changed the meeting times from 7 p.m. to 6 p.m. and she wanted to know if the 6 p.m. meeting worked for all the Commissioners. Chairman Wilson and Commissioner Dooley both stated that they preferred the 6 p.m. meetings. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any further questions. There were none. Chairman Wilson stated that the hearing was closed. Motion to approve or deny the request for Case Number 2020-01100001. Commissioner Long motioned for approval of Item Three. Seconded by Commissioner Pawlowski. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner M. Long (Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski (Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez (Yes) Commissioner J. Dooley (Yes) Commissioner J. Cresto (Yes) INFORMATION ITEMS ITEM FOUR: City Council Actions Taken ITEM FIVE: P&Z Commissioner Attendance 2019 Chairman Wilson acknowledged Commissioner Pawlowski’s attendance for 2019 and thanked him for Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 8th, 2020 Page 9 of 10 attending every meeting. ITEM SIX: December 2019 Building Permit Activity Report ITEM SEVEN: Building Permit Five-Year Comparison {2015 thru 2019} ITEM EIGHT: Planning & Zoning Agenda Five-Year Activity Report {2015 thru 2019} Motion was made by Commissioner Dooley to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Pawlowski. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner J. Dooley (Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski (Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez (Yes) Commissioner M. Long (Yes) Commissioner J. Cresto (Yes) Commission Adjourned at 6:45 p.m. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION KENT WILSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CLYDE (C.B.) STRAIN SECRETARY TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 8th, 2020 Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT A GALLUP LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS UPDATE - Zone District 10-2-B-a-ii Single-Family Residential, Detached (SFR) Figure 10-2-2: Single-Family Residential, Detached District The purpose of the Single-Family Residential (SFR) district is to promote and preserve safe, attractive single-family residential neighborhoods. The principal land use consists of single-family dwelling units on individual lots of varying size and dimensions correlating to historical development patterns represented by Types “A”, “B”, and “C” in Table 10-2-4. Limited uses that support single-family development, such as recreational and civic/institutional uses, religious/educational facilities, and uses incidental or accessory to dwellings, are shown in Table 10-3-1: Use Table. 10-2-B-a-ii-A District Specific Standards 1. A maximum of one (1) principal dwelling structure shall be allowed per lot. 2. A maximum of three (3) accessory structures may be provided if it meets the standards for accessory structures as shown in Section 10-3-C.5 Table 10-2-5: Other Applicable Table 10-2-4: SFR District Dimensional Standards Standards Single-Family Residential Overlay Districts 10-2-B-d Development Type A B C Permitted Use Table 10-3-B Lot Standards Use Specific Standards 10-3-C 3,000 sq. 6,000 sq. 9,000 sq. a Lot area, min. 6 Parking and Loading 10-4-A ft. ft. ft. b Lot frontage, min. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. Access and Connectivity 10-4-B Landscaping and c Lot width, min. 50 ft. 60 ft. 80 ft. 10-4-C Screening Setbacks Walls and Fences 10-4-D 7 8 d Front, min. 10 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. Architectural Design 10-4-E Side, min. e 5 ft. 5 ft. 8 ft. Signage 10-4-F Interior 9 Environmental f Street 10 ft. 10 ft. 15 ft. 10-4-G Performance 10 11 g Rear, min. 15 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. Terrain Management 10-4-H Building Standard 12 h Height , max. 26 ft. 26 ft. 26 ft. 7 The front setback may be reduced to a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the minimum requirements in Table 10-2-4 where the garage is setback twenty-five (25) feet from the front property line (existing standard). 8 The front setback may be reduced to twenty (20) feet where garage or side entry is setback an additional five (5) feet from the minimum requirements in Table 10-2-4. 10 The rear setback may be reduced to ten (10) feet from the minimum requirements in Table 10-2-4 where an open back porch exists. (Existing standard which was reduced from twenty [20] feet to fifteen [15] feet to accommodate smaller lots and residential developments.) 11 The rear setback may be reduced to fifteen (15) feet where an open back porch exists (Existing standard). // Amended January 2020 FINAL, Title 10 Land Development Standards // 10 By Nikki Lee at 10:15 am, Jan 08, 2020  Request by Jennifer M. Bass, property owner, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a short-term rental as an accessory use to the Single Family Residential (SFR-A) Zone District. The property is located at 301 West Victoria Avenue; more particularly described as Lot 3, Block 11, Bubany-Burke Northside Addition. AERIAL IMAGERY I-40 Request by Jennifer M. Bass, property owner, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a short-term rental as an accessory use to the Single Family Residential (SFR-A) Zone District. The property is located at 301 West Victoria Avenue; more particularly described as Lot 3, Block 11, Bubany-Burke Northside Addition. SITE PHOTOS  Request by Jennifer M. Bass, property owner, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a short-term rental as an accessory use to the Single Family Residential (SFR-A) Zone District. The property is located at 301 West Victoria Avenue; more particularly described as Lot 3, Block 11, Bubany-Burke Northside Addition. AREA MAP Request by Jennifer M. Bass, property owner, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a short- term rental as an accessory use to the Single Family Residential (SFR-A) Zone District. The property is located at 301 West Victoria Avenue; more particularly described as Lot 3, Block 11, Bubany-Burke Northside Addition. PROPERTY MAP 6 7 4 5 8 9 1 10 3 11 2  Letters sent 01/24/2020 Request by Jennifer M. Bass, property owner, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a short-term rental as an accessory use to the Single Family Residential (SFR-A) Zone District. The property is located at 301 West Victoria Avenue; more particularly described as Lot 3, Block 11, Bubany-Burke Northside Addition. ADDRESS LIST 1. JENNIFER M. BASS 6. ROBERT D. & MARYALISON 301 W. VICTORIA AVE. BERRY, TRUSTEES GALLUP, NM 87301 C/O GERALDINE & ANTONIO LOT 3, BLK 11, BUBANY- HERNANDEZ BURKE NS ADDN. P.O. BOX 43 R206716 GALLUP, NM 87305-0043 N ½ OF LOTS 23 & 24, BLOCK 2. VICTORIA L. ROHRER 6, BUBANY-BURKE 620 N. FOURTH ST. NORTHSIDE ADDN. GALLUP, NM 87301 R121533 LOTS 14 & 18, BLK 11, BUBANY-BURKE NORTHSIDE 7. MARY C. VALLEY ADDN. 701 N. THIRD ST. R032921 GALLUP, NM 87301 THE S ½ OF LOTS 23 & 24 3. BETTY J. MESTAS BLOCK 6, BUBANY-BURKE 303 VICTORIA AVE. NORTHSIDE GALLUP, NM 87301 R021482 LOTS 4 & 5, BLOCK 11, BUBANY-BURKE NORTHSIDE 8. WESTERN UNITED LIFE ADDN. ASSURANCE CO. R021857 C/O RAMON & MARY LOU GOMEZ 4. WALTER W. & DAWN P. TYLER, 625 N. THIRD ST. TRUSTEES GALLUP, NM 87301 2306 MARIYANA AVE. N ½ OF LOTS 1 & 2 BLOCK 11, *2306 MARIYANA ST. BUBANY-BURKE NORTHSIDE GALLUP, NM 87301 ADDN. LOTS 5, 6, 19 & 20, BLOCK 6, R206674 BUBANY-BURKE NORTHSIDE ADDN. 9. MICHAEL A. MADRID R036919 623 N. THIRD ST. GALLUP, NM 87301 5. VICTORIA L. ROHRER S ½ OF LOTS 1 & 2 BLOCK 11, 307 W. JEFFERSON AVE. BUBANY BURKE NORTHSIDE GALLUP, NM 87301 ADDN. LOTS 21 & 22, BLOCK 6 R015024 BUBANY-BURKE NORTHSIDE ADDN. 10. JAVIER A. & LISA MARQUEZ R186112 1403 PLATEAU DR.  GALLUP, NM 87301 LOT 15 BLOCK 11, BUBANY- BURKE NORTHSIDE ADDN. R022772 11. RICHARD ACEVEDO 619 N. THIRD ST. GALLUP, NM 87301 LOT 16, BLOCK 11, BUBANY- BURKE NORTHSIDE ADDN. R000159 *CORRECT ADDRESS DERIVED FROM THE CITY OF GALLUP GIS MAP  6 vacant lots on Mentmore Rd. (County Rd. 1) & Chee Dodge Blvd. NL 65.4513 acres (according to surveys) To whom it may concern: On behalf of Jagwest, LLC I would like to request the rezoning of 6 tracts from Rural Holding Zone (RHZ) to Industrial (I) zone district. The criteria we qualify under is listed in the City of Gallup Land Development Standards section 10-5-B-d-i2 as: d. The land area within a RHZ district designation has become appropriate for urban development because of availability of public utilities and services as well as the needs of the public. e. The social, economic or environmental interests of the public good would be better served by the proposed district than the existing one. Sincerely, Type text here 1/22/20 ______________________ ___________ Rick Murphy (Jagwest, LLC) Date By Nikki Lee at 8:14 am, Jan 24, 2020 JagWest, LLC 6 Tracts Total Acreage of 65.4513 Request by JagWest, LLC and the City of Gallup, property owners, for the Rezoning of Tract 1B, 1C and 2, North and South Portion of Tract 1A, Mentmore West Subdivision Unit 1 and Two Unplatted Tracts of Land FROM Rural Holding Zone (RHZ) Zone District TO Industrial (I) Zone District. The properties are generally located west of County Road 1 and Chee Dodge Boulevard; Containing a total of 65.8575 acres M/L. AERIAL IMAGERY Request by JagWest, LLC and the City of Gallup, property owners, for the Rezoning of Tract 1B, 1C and 2, North and South Portion of Tract 1A, Mentmore West Subdivision Unit 1 and Two Unplatted Tracts of Land FROM Rural Holding Zone (RHZ) Zone District TO Industrial (I) Zone District. The properties are generally located west of County Road 1 and Chee Dodge Boulevard; Containing a total of 65.8575 acres M/L. SITE PHOTOS Request by JagWest, LLC and the City of Gallup, property owners, for the Rezoning of Tract 1B, 1C and 2, North and South Portion of Tract 1A, Mentmore West Subdivision Unit 1 and Two Unplatted Tracts of Land FROM Rural Holding Zone (RHZ) Zone District TO Industrial (I) Zone District. The properties are generally located west of County Road 1 and Chee Dodge Boulevard; Containing a total of 65.8575 acres M/L. AREA MAP Request by JagWest, LLC and the City of Gallup, property owners, for the Rezoning of Tract 1B, 1C and 2, North and South Portion of Tract 1A, Mentmore West Subdivision Unit 1 and Two Unplatted Tracts of Land FROM Rural Holding Zone (RHZ) Zone District TO Industrial (I) Zone District. The properties are generally located west of County Road 1 and Chee Dodge Boulevard; Containing a total of 65.8575 acres M/L. PROPERTY MAP 2 1E 1F 3 4 5 1C 6 1D 7 1G 8 1A 1B 9 10 11  Letters sent 01/24/2020 Request by JagWest, LLC and the City of Gallup, property owners, for the Rezoning of Tract 1B, 1C and 2, North and South Portion of Tract 1A, Mentmore West Subdivision Unit 1 and Two Unplatted Tracts of Land FROM Rural Holding Zone (RHZ) Zone District TO Industrial (I) Zone District. The properties are generally located west of County Road 1 and Chee Dodge Boulevard; Containing a total of 65.8575 acres M/L. ADDRESS LIST 1A. JAGWEST, L.L.C. 3. TRACT A, MENTMORE EAST 808 S. BOARDMAN DR. UNIT 1 GALLUP, NM 87301 R139696 TRACT 1C, MENTMORE WEST SUB. UNIT 1, CONT. 1.8626 4. TRACT B, MENTMORE EAST ACRES M/L UNIT 5 R215975 R139807 1B. THE SOUTH PORTION OF 6. TRACT D, MENTMORE EAST TRACT 1A, MENTMORE WEST UNIT 5 SUB. UNIT 1 CONT. 16.36 R139815 ACRES M/L R119075 1G. CITY OF GALLUP P.O. BOX 1270 1C. TRACT 1B, MENTMORE WEST GALLUP, NM 87305-1270 SUB. UNIT 1 CONT. 4.0264 TRACT 2 MENTMORE WEST ACRES M/L SUB. UNIT #1 CONT. 0.4062 R139785 ACRES M/L R215974 1D. THE NORTH PORTION OF TRACT 1A, MENTMORE WEST 5. TEME, INC. SUB. UNIT 1, CONT. 10.1855 306 COUNTY ROAD ONE ACRES M/L GALLUP, NM 87301 R301302 TRACT C, MENTMORE EAST UNIT 5 1E. 6.06 ACRES M/L SEC. 22 T15N R652075 R19W, IN SW ¼ OF W. OF COUNTY ROAD 1 7. DMS REALTY LLC R139734 4321 YALE NE ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87107 1F. 28.55 ACRES M/L IN SW ¼ OF TRACT F-1, REPLAT OF TRACT SEC. 22 T15N R19W F, MENTMORE EAST UNIT 4 R137243 R648825 2. TRACT B, MENTMORE EAST 8. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY UNIT 1 2650 LOU MENK DRIVE R139793 FORT WORTH, TX 76131 DESCRIPTION: RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 9. WINFIELD INVESTMENTS, LLC P.O. BOX 307 VANDERWAGEN, NM 87326- 0307 TRACT 1B, REPLAT OF TRACT 1 TOMADA PROPERTIES ADDN., COCA COAL SUB. CONT. 6.2913 ACRES M/L R648256 10. MARTEL MARKETING, LLC 3601 W. HWY 66 GALLUP, NM 87301 4.744 ACRES M/L IN NW ¼ OF SEC. 27 T15N R19W A/K/A SHELTON ADDN. R066613 11. ORIN & SHANNON SOWERS P.O. BOX 2933 GALLUP, NM 87305-2933 LOT 2, SITUATED IN THE N ½ OF SEC. 27 T15N R19W DURANTE ADDN., CONT. 4.60 ACS M/L R060801  Summary of City Council Actions January 2020 January 14th, 2020: CASE # 19-00900001: City initiated request to amend Title 10 “Land Development Standards” of the Municipal Code of the City of Gallup Section 10-2-B-a “Residential”; Subsections 10-2-B-a-i-A2, 10-2-B-a-ii-A2, 10-2-B-a-iii-A1b and 10-2-B-a-iv-A2b. Amend the maximum number of accessory structures allowed within the Rural Residential, Single-Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential Low and Multi-Family Residential Medium Zone Districts from one (1) to three (3) accessory structures. City Council approved the Text Amendment (Ordinance No. S2020-1). January 28th, 2020: CASE # 20-00900001: City initiated request to amend Title 10 “Land Development Standards” of the Municipal Code of the City of Gallup Section 10-2-B-a “Residential” and Section 10-2-B-c “Non-Residential”; Tables 10-2-2, 10-2-4, 10-2-6, 10-2-8, 10-2-19 and 10-2-21. Add side street yard requirements for corner lots within the Rural Residential (RR), Single-Family Residential (SFR-A, B & C), Multi-Family Residential Low (MFRL), Multi-Family Residential Medium (MFRM), General Commercial (GC) and Heavy Commercial (HC) Zone Districts. Establish ten foot (10’) side street yard setbacks for SFR-A & B, MFRL, MFRM and HC and fifteen foot (15’) side street yard setbacks for RR and SFR-C and five foot (5’) side street yard setbacks for GC. City Council approved the Text Amendment (Ordinance No. S2020-2).  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, NM 87305 MONTH OF: JANUARY YEAR TO DATE: 2020 NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VALUATION VALUATION DESCRIPTION PERMITS PERMITS NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 0 $ - 0 $ - RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 2 $ 113,600.00 2 $ 113,600.00 RESIDENTIAL STORAGE SHED 1 $ 7,000.00 1 $ 7,000.00 RESIDENTIAL GARAGES & CARPORTS 0 $ - 0 $ - RESIDENTIAL SITE PERMITS 0 $ - 0 $ - NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 0 $ - 0 $ - COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 1 $ 150,000.00 1 $ 150,000.00 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 $ - 0 $ - EXCAVATION / GRADING 0 $ - 0 $ - NEW APARTMENTS 0 $ - 0 $ - APARTMENT ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 0 $ - 0 $ - HOTELS / MOTELS 0 $ - 0 $ - ROOF REPAIR 3 $ 181,701.00 3 $ 181,701.00 DEMOLITION 2 $ 3,200.00 2 $ 3,200.00 FENCE / RETAINING WALL 2 $ 11,675.00 2 $ 11,675.00 FOUNDATION ONLY - CHARGE 0 $ - 0 $ - FOUNDATION ONLY - NO CHARGE 0 $ - 0 $ - SWIMMING POOLS 0 $ - 0 $ - DECK 0 $ - 0 $ - TOTAL PERMITS & VALUATION 11 $ 467,176.00 11 $ 467,176.00 TOTAL PERMIT FEES $ 4,291.18 $ 4,291.18  CITY OF GALLUP PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT MONTHLY COMPILATION OF PERMITS ISSUED JANUARY 2020 DATE PERMIT PERMIT PERMIT OWNER / BUSINES CONTRACTOR SITE ADDRESS VALUATION ISSUED NO. TYPE FEES AIR PROS HEATING COMMERCIAL 1/2/20 19 - 300 CASH PROPERTIES 2405 FUHS AVENUE $ 1,450.38 $ 150,000.00 & COOLING, LLC ALTERATIONS 1/7/20 19 - 303 LAUREN BONTE MERRILL FENCE COMPANY, LLC 1735 CAMINO DEL SOL FENCE PERMIT $ 93.30 $ 2,450.00 NM COUNCIL OF COMMERCIAL 1/14/20 19 - 289 COMMERCIAL ROOFING, LLC 106 W. AZTEC AVENUE $ 628.50 $ 91,201.00 GOVERNMENTS RE-ROOFING ST. PAUL MISSIONARY 1/14/20 20 - 001 BONAGUIDI CONSTRUCTION, LLC 512 N. 11TH STREET DEMOLITION $ - $ 1,200.00 CHURCH 1/14/20 20 - 002 FRANK COLAIANNI BONAGUIDI CONSTRUCTION, LLC 220 W. PRINCETON AVENUE DEMOLITION $ 84.75 $ 2,000.00 RESIDENTIAL 1/15/20 20 - 005 PHILBERT PABLITO TUFFSHED, INC. 1703 HELENA DRIVE $ 130.50 $ 7,000.00 STORAGE SHED COMMERCIAL 1/22/20 20 - 003 TAIRA & TAIRA GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 913 W. AZTEC AVENUE $ 144.00 $ 12,500.00 RE-ROOFING DIAZ RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 1/22/20 20 - 008 SALVDOR O. CHAIDEZ 1712 CALLE PINON $ 29.00 $ 1,200.00 CONSTRUCTION, LLC ALTERATIONS 1/24/20 20 - 007 DIALA GALLUP, LLC MERRILL FENCE COMPANY, LLC 919 US HIGHWAY 491 FENCE PERMIT $ 172.00 $ 9,225.00 COMMERCIAL 1/30/20 20 - 009 SIX D INC. GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 1120 E. HISTORIC HIGHWAY 66 $ 565.50 $ 78,000.00 RE-ROOFING DIAZ RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 1/30/20 20 - 010 ROBERT HAMBLEM 1602 PONY CIRCLE $ 993.25 $ 112,400.00 CONSTRUCTION, LLC ALTERATIONS TOTALS: $ 4,291.18 $ 467,176.00 2 RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 1 RESIDENTIAL STORAGE SHED 1 COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 3 ROOF REPAIR 2 DEMOLITION 2 FENCE / RETAINING WALL 11 TOTAL PERMITS P.O. BOX 1270 GALLUP, NM 87305 PHONE: 505.863.1240 FAX: 505.722.5131