Planning and Zoning

Planning and Development Clyde “C.B.” Strain, Director PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA Wednesday, April 13th, 2022, 6:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers The meeting will be accessible through the City of Gallup’s Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/CityOfGallup Members of the public may attend in-person. Comments may be submitted in writing prior to the meeting or presented in-person. *** Call to Order / Roll Call *** Approval of March 9th, 2022 Meeting Minutes PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM ONE: CASE # 22-01000001: Request by Everett Bigthumb, on behalf of Gallup Christian Center, Inc., property owner, for the City of Gallup to vacate a 14’ wide, 188.21’ long utility easement within the property east of the existing building to allow the construction of a new building. The property is located at 2133 Cipriano Avenue; more particularly described as 2.08 acres M/L in NE ¼ Sec. 28 T15N R18W. This item will go before City Council for final approval on April 26, 2022. INFORMATION ITEMS ITEM TWO: City Council Actions Taken ITEM THREE: March 2022 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 9th, 2022 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. Chairman Wilson stated that the meeting was being live streamed for the public through the City of Gallup’s Facebook page. Upon roll call, the following were present: Chairman K. Wilson Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez Commissioner F. Pawlowski Commissioner M. Long Commissioner K. Spolar Upon roll call, the following were absent: Commissioner L. Miller Commissioner J. Cresto 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 F. Pawlowski (No) Commissioner M. Long (No) Commissioner K. Spolar (No) Presented to the Chairman and Commissioners for their approval were the minutes of the December 8th, 2021 regular meeting. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez motioned for approval of the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Pawlowski. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez (Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski (Yes) Commissioner M. Long (Yes) Commissioner K. Spolar (Yes) Chairman Wilson administered the oath required by State Law for public forum. Chairman Wilson stated that anyone wishing to speak limit their comments to three minutes and not to duplicate a previous point; they will have one opportunity to testify. Chairman Wilson also reminded the Commission that the meeting was being live streamed so everyone needed to speak loud and clear for the public to hear. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 9th, 2022 Page 1 of 10 ITEM ONE: CASE # 22-00700001: Request by Rick Bennett, RBA Architecture on behalf of RealNet Gallup, LLC, property owner, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow multi-family dwelling units in the Heavy Commercial (HC) Zone District. The property is located at 3009 West Highway 66; more particularly described as Parcel A Section 26 T15N R19W, Parcel B Section 23 T15N R19W, as described in deed book 27-849 5.05 acres M/L. CB Strain began by reminding the Commission how they recently amended the City of Gallup Land Development Standards to allow multi-family dwelling units in commercial districts. This is the first case since the code has been amended that’s requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit from the Commission. CB explained how the building was previously occupied by the Red Lion Hotel, which has been closed for quite some time. A new company has purchased the property wanting to convert it to multi-family dwelling units, which is very much needed in Gallup. CB pointed out how there was a severe shortage of housing in Gallup whereas the city welcomes new housing projects. When the city drafted the text amendment they tied specific requirements to the multi-family use, which includes common recreational space, off-street parking, and landscaping. CB read aloud the following conditions from Resolution No. RP2022-2: a. A minimum common recreational space of ten (10) percent of the total site shall be provided. For conversions of existing development that triggers the inclusion of common recreational space, and it is technically infeasible to comply with the required minimums set forth in this section because of physical or site constraints which prohibit full compliance, common recreational space shall be provided as close to technically feasible as possible. Exceptions must be submitted in writing to the Planning and Development Department and will be permitted by the Planning and Development Director on a case-by-case basis. CB explained that since it was not brand-new construction; only a conversion of an existing development they just needed to provide common recreational space as technically feasible as possible. If they cannot meet the full ten (10) percent it’s okay; as long as they are as close as technically feasible as possible. CB continued by explaining how that would be reviewed during the building permit process. b. Existing off street parking and landscaping shall be maintained and restriped or replaced as needed. Off street parking spaces including all required handicap accessible spaces shall be installed per City standard. CB explained how parking will come up for conversions of existing structures and hotels. Parking will always depend on what is currently in place whereas parking may have to be expanded, however the existing parking should be sufficient for the proposed development. CB stated that they must ensure the parking is maintained and meets the city standards, especially with ADA requirements. This will also be reviewed during the building permit process. FINDINGS OF CONCLUSION: CB informed the Commission that the request met the criteria for granting a Conditional Use Permit whereas he supported the approval as long as they complied with the conditions set forth in Resolution No. RP2022-2. CB stated that the Gallup Task Force (GTF) comments were included in the agenda packets whereas Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 9th, 2022 Page 2 of 10 several of the requirements will be triggered at the building permit phase. He informed the Commission that the Water/Wastewater Department and Fire Department were present to answer any questions. CB read aloud the GTF comments on Page 1-10 and 1-11. He spoke about how the property frontage sat along West Highway 66 whereas it belonged to the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT). CB informed the Commission that the city had no control over what they required; they just ensure what NMDOT asks for is completed by the applicant/property owner. The NMDOT’s driveway permit and traffic impact analysis (TIA) are typical requirements of a development along the state highway. CB recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow the developer to move forward with submitting the building permits whereas they can submit the permits now. CB reminded the Commission that there was a ten (10) day appeal period for the Conditional Use Permit. If no one appeals the approval after that time period, the approval is final. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez asked about the required number of parking spaces whereas there seemed to be several parking spaces available. CB stated that generally they would require two (2) spaces per unit, however in this case they know there will be at least one (1) space for each unit. CB anticipates the number of units to decease so that the square footage of each unit can increase. So, what is there now will be sufficient to supply parking for each existing unit. Commissioner Mackenzie- Chavez asked if they were allowed to park along the street on Highway 66. CB stated that all the parking must be contained onsite whereas NMDOT does not allow on-street parking along Highway 66 (NM 118). Chairman Wilson pointed out that the commercial property located on Highway 66 has been existing for quite some time whereas they have always had highway access. Chairman Wilson was unclear as to why the NMDOT was now requiring a permit and a study. Commissioner Long stated that he wanted to make a comment about an ongoing issue for Gallup as far as NMDOT’s requirements to obtain a permit and conduct a study. A TIA will cost between twenty to thirty thousand dollars, which will hinder development. NMDOT has made life challenging for developers and Commissioner Long wanted to let the Commissioners know. Chairman Wilson added that if that was what NMDOT required, the Commission cannot override and asked CB for clarification. CB stated that was correct; the city has no jurisdiction on the state right-of-way. Commissioner Long stated that he was surprised that the city could hold up on issuing a certificate of occupancy if the NMDOT requirements were not completed. CB stated that he had an issue with that and needed to discuss that with NMDOT. CB added that he understood where Mr. Grover was coming from trying to enforce their regulations, however no where does it say the city could hold up a certificate of occupancy for a state right-of-way requirement. The certificate of occupancy is tied to the building itself meeting building code requirements; no where in the building code does it mention right-of-way improvements. Legally the city cannot hold up a certificate of occupancy for that. CB mentioned how he could understand NMDOT’s requirements for new developments, however it makes it difficult for existing developments to comply with their current standard. In a lot of the cases its impossible and of course costs a lot of money and takes time. CB knows that other developers have challenged NMDOT’s requirements and not got anywhere. CB wanted to make it clear that it was not Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 9th, 2022 Page 3 of 10 the city’s requirement; it’s the NMDOT’s requirements. Chairman Wilson stated that outside of those issues it seemed like a pretty straight forward request. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez asked CB if the city could challenge the NMDOT’s requirements or does it go on the client. CB clarified that NMDOT was imposing the requirement on the developer; not the city whereas the developer would be the one to challenge the requirements to NMDOT. CB reiterated how the city could issue a certificate of occupancy after all the city requirements were completed. However, there could be issues because their entire frontage and access is along the state right-of-way whereas they could close those entrances and not allow them to use them at all. Because it’s under their jurisdiction, they can do that. CB thought it was best for them to just comply with the rule and fight it later if they choose to do so. If they take the risk the state may not allow them to access it at all, which could turn into a legal battle. CB stated how he did not agree with some of requirements NMDOT was imposing whereas this just started happening for about two (2) years now. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anything the Commission could do to be supportive in that area. CB stated that the Commission could send a statement or recommendation to the NMDOT. Commissioner Pawlowski supported the idea of sending a letter from the Commission about how the state’s requirements were hindering development in Gallup. Commissioner Spolar asked Rick Bennett if he had experienced similar issues with NMDOT in other municipalities in New Mexico. Rick Bennett, RBA Architecture approached the podium and introduced himself. Mr. Bennett stated that he was representing the owner of the hotel and welcomed that type of zoning action. Across New Mexico, he couldn’t think of a city that did not have a shortage on market rate housing. Mr. Bennett thought that instead of tearing down the Red Lion Hotel it could be better used as multi-family dwelling units. He spoke about how there was pre-cast concrete that spanned around the whole building and every wall was concrete including the walls between the rooms. The hotel has been empty for at least five (5) years. They were glad the code was updated to allow multi-family units in commercial districts. Mr. Bennett stated that he agreed with staff’s findings and recommendation. As far as the NMDOT requirements, that was another story. Mr. Bennett informed the Commission that they already got the first trip generation done whereas it was hard to find someone in the state to complete the study. He explained how the trips are generated and if the number of trips go over a certain threshold, then the state automatically categorizes it into another tier where they’re then required to do a full traffic impact study. Mr. Bennett explained that so far, the project was under the threshold whereas they’re not required to perform and invest in a full traffic impact study, which could cost thousands of dollars. He mentioned how they already have curb cuts, access, and a center turn lane. Earlier today they let the Planning and Development Department know that were working on submitting the Driveway Permit to the NMDOT. Mr. Bennett thought the project would be good for Gallup and good for many towns because when motels get tired, they could be revitalized for apartments. To answer Commissioner Spolar’s question regarding his knowledge of other projects outside of Gallup who have experienced the same NMDOT requirements, Mr. Bennett stated that it depended on the district. He thought that Gallup was cursed because they had two (2) state roads going through all sides of the city. Mr. Bennett mentioned how he thought it really wasn’t a change of use whereas hotels have more people coming Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 9th, 2022 Page 4 of 10 and going all hours of the night rather than an apartment complex who has pretty predictable hours. He continued by stating that the law says that if it’s a change in motion, then they need a brand-new driveway permit. If it’s a change in use (hotel to multi-family), then it’s a change in ownership. Mr. Bennett mentioned the fire sprinkler system requirements, however when the hotel was built the code at that time did not require it. But because the building code states that all multi-family dwellings must have a fire sprinkler system installed, he understands. Mr. Bennett agreed with staff’s findings and recommendation. Chairman Wilson asked the Commission if they still felt they needed to write a letter to NMDOT based on what Mr. Bennett shared. Commissioner Long stated that there seemed to be a disconnect between the Commission and NMDOT whereas the requirements seemed a bit excessive. He felt that these requirements did not come up until a new individual from NMDOT District 6 began working there. Commissioner Long would like to see where these requirements were being pulled from. He stated how he has worked on other developments in New Mexico fronting a state right-of-way where these issues never came up; only in Gallup. Maybe the District 6 office is more stringent than other districts, but Commissioner Long would like to get an explanation as to why that is. He again emphasized how the requirements hindered development with the additional costs and time it took to complete the studies. Mr. Bennett spoke about how Second Street was a wide state right-of-way where there was eighty feet (80’) between the curb and the property. And if the property owner wants to use that area for example, for parking they must sign an agreement and pay a leasing fee. So, an owner can pay their property off, however they will have to pay the lease forever to use that area whereas the leasing fee will go up over time. Chairman Wilson thanked Mr. Bennett for speaking in favor of this case and stating his concerns. The Commission will now vote on the item and later decide how they will move forward with submitting their concerns to NMDOT. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this case. Jon Pairett, Fire Marshal approached the podium and introduced himself. Mr. Pairett stated that on the GTF Comments he required that the sprinkler and fire alarm system be installed. He wanted to explain since it was previously a hotel and now an apartment complex because it sometimes gets confusing. Mr. Pairett pointed out how it was still considered a residential occupancy. If this property was going to be used as a hotel; technically its not changing the occupancy so it could be opened the way it is now without really any major upgrades; depending on how much changes that they do. However, because its changing from an R-1 to an R-2 occupancy; not changing occupancy, but changing groups in the occupancy they must bring the property up to the current fire code by installing the sprinkler and fire alarm system. Mr. Pairett explained that before he submitted his GTF Comments, he met with the architect and informed them of what they needed to do to bring the building up to the current fire code. They knew that would require some additional fire lines and they already had some water issues there. So, they were already aware of what had to be done whereas they’ve been working closely as the project progresses. Mr. Pairett stated that he supported the project being that Gallup was in dire need of more housing. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 9th, 2022 Page 5 of 10 Jon Fouser approached the podium and introduced himself. Mr. Fouser stated that he was a long-time resident of Gallup and has been working as a registered nurse in the two main hospitals. The Gallup community has had challenging times for those who want to work and live here as a single person. Mr. Fouser stated that it was difficult for people who come to the community as a working professional to find suitable housing. Individuals from all disciplines in the hospital have turned down jobs or shortened their stay here due to a lack of housing. Mr. Fouser supported the Conditional Use Permit request and thought it would be a good idea and a win-win for Gallup. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone wishing to speak against this case. There were none. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any other interested parties wishing to speak to this case. There were none. Chairman Wilson stated that the hearing was closed. Motion to approve or deny the request for Case Number 2022-00700001. Commissioner Long motioned for approval of Item One. Seconded by Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner M. Long (Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez (Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski (Yes) Commissioner K. Spolar (Yes) ITEM TWO: CASE # 22-00600001: Request by Ronald S. Ingraham, property owner, for the Rezoning of a portion of an Unplatted Tract of Land FROM Industrial (I) Zone District TO Heavy Commercial (HC) Zone District containing 0.7790 acres M/L. The property is located at 990 North Ninth Street. CB began by explaining how the building was formerly used to operate the Little Bear’s Furniture Store. He used the GIS map to display the property’s location with the zoning layer. CB pointed to where the existing warehouse was located on the property, which was zoned Industrial and south of the warehouse was zoned Heavy Commercial. The property owner wants to lease the building to an individual who plans to sell retail from the site. The City of Gallup Land Development Standards does not allow retail sales in the Industrial Zone District; only for a convenience store, however other than that it’s not allowed. In order to allow retail sales out of this building, the property owner is requesting they change their zoning designation from Industrial Zone District to Heavy Commercial Zone District. CB mentioned how the Gallup Task Force (GTF) Comments were included in the Commission’s agenda packets. For the most part, there were no issues with the rezone. CB informed the Commission that when the business goes in there, they must comply with all building code and fire code requirements, which will be tied to the building permit process. For now, the owner just wants to rezone the property to allow the proposed use of retail sales, which is a pretty straight forward rezone. FINDINGS OF CONCLUSION: Staff recommended approval of the rezone changing their zoning Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 9th, 2022 Page 6 of 10 designation from Industrial (I) Zone District to Heavy Commercial (HC) Zone District for the use of retail sales. CB informed the Commission that the request met the criteria for a rezone and recommended approval of Resolution Number RP2022-3. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. There were none. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of this case. Ronald Ingraham, property owner approached the podium and introduced himself. Mr. Ingraham spoke about how half the southern property was zoned Heavy Commercial and the northern property as Industrial. He said that he was trying to get the two halves combined into one zone district; Heavy Commercial. Mr. Ingraham thanked the Commission and was willing to answer any questions. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for Mr. Ingraham. There were none. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone wishing to speak against this case. There were none. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any other interested parties wishing to speak to this case. There were none. Chairman Wilson stated that the hearing was closed. Motion to approve or deny the request for Case Number 2022-00600001. Commissioner Mackenzie- Chavez motioned for approval of Item Two. Seconded by Commissioner Pawlowski. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez (Yes) Commissioner F. Pawlowski (Yes) Commissioner M. Long (Yes) Commissioner K. Spolar (Yes) ITEM THREE: CASE # 22-01100001: Annual Open Meetings Act, Resolution # RP2022-1. 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 dates/times and what was considered reasonable notice. CB stated that the Commission will continue to meet the second Wednesday of every month at 6 p.m., provided they have items. Regular meetings will require a ten (10) day notice, special meetings three (3) day notice, and emergency meetings twenty-four (24) hour notice to the news media. They have a procedure for notice to the news media and provisions regarding compliance with ADA requirements. CB stated that Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 9th, 2022 Page 7 of 10 if the Commission would like to change the meeting dates or times, now would be the time to do so. If not, they can adopt the resolution as presented. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. There were none. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone wishing to speak against this case. There were none. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any other interested parties wishing to speak to this case. There were none. Chairman Wilson stated that the hearing was closed. Motion to approve or deny the request for Case Number 2022-01100001. Commissioner Pawlowski motioned for approval of Item Three. Seconded by Commissioner Spolar. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner F. Pawlowski (Yes) Commissioner K. Spolar (Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez (Yes) Commissioner M. Long (Yes) INFORMATION ITEMS ITEM FOUR: City Council Actions Taken Chairman Wilson thought it was interesting how the Planning and Development Department posted the red tags for six (6) motels during their annual motel inspections. Madam Secretary, Nikki Lee used the overhead projector to display the PowerPoint presented to City Council (a copy is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit A and made a part of these official minutes). The slides displayed a variety of code enforcement and building violations, which was why the motels were shut down. There was a discussion between the Commission and staff regarding what needed to be done to reopen. CB informed the Commission that the owners were given detailed lists and reports on what they needed to do. Discussion continued regarding the motels ability to revitalize and the city possibly condemning in the future. CB stated that the demolition cost would be very expensive because the motels have basements and a large amount of concrete. He explained that if the city were to demolish, they would be required to also conduct the asbestos abatement, which will add to the cost. CB explained the condemnation process whereas once the City Council approves condemnation, if the owner does nothing to appeal or take action, the city will pay a vendor to demolish. Thereafter the city will file a lien on the property to recoup the demolition and asbestos costs. He pointed out how normally the city did not condemn commercial structures; mainly smaller residential dwellings. CB emphasized how the motel’s deterioration was due to a lack of maintenance for several years. He reminded the Commission that those motels were being occupied whereas it’s a good thing they were shut down. Since they have been shut down the crime rate in those areas have significantly decreased. The Commission recognized how a lot of the motels were located on prime real estate. CB stated that they were just waiting for the owners to make a move. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 9th, 2022 Page 8 of 10 ITEM FIVE: P&Z Commissioner Attendance 2021 ITEM SIX: December 2021, January & February 2022 Building Permit Activity Report ITEM SEVEN: Building Permit Five-Year Comparison {2017 thru 2021} ITEM EIGHT: Planning & Zoning Agenda Five-Year Activity Report {2017 thru 2021} OPEN FLOOR: Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone in attendance that would like to comment on a non-agenda item. Commissioner Long wanted to continue their discussion regarding the excessive requirements that NMDOT places on developers to conduct a TIA and submit driveway permits. He wants to know where these requirements are coming from and when they are triggered. Commissioner Long felt that it needed to be fair for everyone across New Mexico and wondered why it was so stringent only in District 6. The Commission discussed writing a letter to NMDOT stating their concerns being that it heavily affects the development of Gallup. CB explained how their requirements become an issue when it’s for existing development. He spoke about how the requirements also come up during a subdivision review especially when ownership changes and NMDOT then makes owners share a driveway. The Commission discussed a variety of projects that were currently facing this dilemma. CB stated that when he voiced his concerns, nothing was done about it whereas he see’s it as they’re a state agency and they have no choice, but to comply. Commissioner Long understands why there are rules in place, however they need to make sense for the development where NMDOT works with owners to gain compliance instead of saying its one way and nothing else. There were concerns by the Commission about how the letter could be possibly ignored whereas it may be a better idea to request a presentation from NMDOT on their regulations. The Commission would like to request the main engineer from NMDOT’s District 6, Lisa to attend as well as the City Manager, Maryann Ustick. CB wondered why the requirements are coming up now; if its safety driven it should have been safety driven a long time ago. He understands that rules change, but the new rules need to apply moving forward; not applying backwards to existing developments. Commissioner Long spoke about how the number of trip generations concluded by a study puts developers into different tiers of requirements. He stated that he has never seen a document showing a breakdown of those thresholds, which makes it difficult and inconsistent. Commissioner Long felt very strongly about the city not holding up a certificate of occupancy based on a developer not meeting NMDOT’s requirements. It also creates confusion when NMDOT requires a study when a city road will affect a state road whereas the regulations on that are unclear. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez and Commissioner Long agreed to draft the letter and send it out for the Commission’s review thereafter it can be sent to NMDOT. They will state that since there are so many state roads going through the city, they want to understand when and how their regulations apply because it directly impacts development. Commissioner Pawlowski stated that if they do not get a response at the NMDOT level maybe they can reach out to a higher level of state leaders. The Commissioners spoke about asking external entities whom submit GTF Comments to attend the Commission meetings to explain their requirements. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 9th, 2022 Page 9 of 10 Chairman Wilson asked CB if there were any new trainings available for the New Mexico League of Zoning Officials (NMLZO). Ms. Lee stated that there was an upcoming training in May 2022 in Las Cruces, however that was not the commissioner training. The NMLZO normally has the training every two years for commissioners, however due to COVID-19 they have not had it and anticipates having it in 2023. Ms. Lee will let the Commission know when the training is available. Motion was made by Commissioner Pawlowski to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Long. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner F. Pawlowski (Yes) Commissioner M. Long (Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez (Yes) Commissioner K. Spolar (Yes) Commission Adjourned at 7:16 p.m. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION KENT WILSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CLYDE (C.B.) STRAIN SECRETARY TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 9th, 2022 Page 10 of 10  2021 HOTEL INSPECTIONS RESULTING IN A RED TAG & CLOSING OF BUSINESS EXHIBIT A PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT HACIENDA MOTEL • 1st Inspection 4/28/2021 • Reinspected & Red Tagged 6/28/2021 • 1st Notice Letter 7/12/2021 hand delivered & mailed FIRST NOTICE SERVED JULY 12, 2021 ISSUES WITH UNSAFE FLOORING, EXPOSED WIRING, STRUCTURE, ILLEGAL PLUMBING & INFESTATION ISSUES WITH MEANS OF EGRESS, CLOGGED HVAC VENTS, ROOF & GUTTERS, FLOORING & INSANITARY BLUE SPRUCE MOTEL • 1st Inspection 5/3/2021 • 1st Notice Letter mailed 5/19/2021 • Reinspected & Red Tagged 6/14/2021 • No 2nd Notice Letter was issued since the owner talked with the Planning Director and had no interest in repairing the motel to reopen. FIRST NOTICE SERVED MAY 19, 2021  ISSUES WITH STRUCTURE, MOLD, PLUMBING FIXTURES, UNSAFE FLOORING & INFESTATION ISSUES WITH WEEDS, ILLEGAL STORAGE, ILLEGAL PLUMBING, FOUNDATION, GRAFITTI & INSANITARY ARROWHEAD LODGE • 1st Inspection 5/3/2021 • Reinspected & Red Tagged 6/16/2021 • 1st Notice Letter 6/23/2021 hand delivered & mailed FIRST NOTICE SERVED JUNE 23, 2021 ISSUES WITH STRUCTURE, UNSAFE HEATING & COOLING, INFESTATION & INSANITARY ISSUES WITH ILLEGAL PLUMBING, PLUMBING FIXTURES, ROOF & WALL DAMAGE LARIAT LODGE • 1st Inspection 5/5/2021 • 1st Notice Letter mailed 5/6/2021 • Reinspected & Red Tagged 6/9/2021 • Notice Letter 6/21/2021 hand delivered & mailed FIRST NOTICE SERVED MAY 6, 2021 NOTICE SERVED JUNE 21, 2021 ISSUES WITH STRUCTURE, ILLEGAL PLUMBING, INFESTATION & INSANITARY ISSUES WITH UNSAFE FLOORING, DAMAGED WINDOWS, WALLS, FENCE, GRAFFITI, ETC. ZIA MOTEL • 1st Inspection 5/5/2021 • Reinspected & Red Tagged 6/23/2021 • 1st Notice Letter 7/12/2021 hand delivered & mailed FIRST NOTICE SERVED JULY 12, 2021 ISSUES WITH ROOF & WALL DAMAGE, DAMAGED PLUMBING, INFESTATION & INSANITARY ISSUES WITH ROOF, WINDOWS & FLOORING ISSUES WITH STRUCTURE, WINDOW CEILS, ROOF & WALL DAMAGE REDWOOD LODGE • 1st Inspection 5/17/2021 • Reinspected & Red Tagged 6/29/2021 • 1st Notice Letter 7/12/2021 hand delivered & mailed FIRST NOTICE SERVED JULY 12, 2021  ISSUES WITH UNSAFE FLOORING, ILLEGAL PLUMBING, STRUCTURE & FOUNDATION ISSUES, INFESTATION & INSANITARY ISSUES WITH RUST & MOISTURE, ILLEGAL PLUMBING, ROOF LEAKS, EXPOSED WIRING, TRASH & DEBRIS  1-1 2.08 ACRES M/L IN NE 1/4 SEC. 28 T15N R18W NL 1-2 1-3  1-4 Request by Everett Bigthumb, on behalf of Gallup Christian Center, Inc., property owner, for the City of Gallup to vacate a 14’ wide, 188.21’ long utility easement within the property east of the existing building to allow the construction of a new building. The property is located at 2133 Cipriano Avenue; more particularly described as 2.08 acres M/L in NE ¼ Sec. 28 T15N R18W. AERIAL IMAGERY  1-5 Request by Everett Bigthumb, on behalf of Gallup Christian Center, Inc., property owner, for the City of Gallup to vacate a 14’ wide, 188.21’ long utility easement within the property east of the existing building to allow the construction of a new building. The property is located at 2133 Cipriano Avenue; more particularly described as 2.08 acres M/L in NE ¼ Sec. 28 T15N R18W. SITE PHOTOS  1-6 March 17, 2022 MEMORANDUM TO: GALLUP TASK FORCE {GTF}  C.B. Strain, Planning & Development Director  John Lastyona, Public Works Department  Sathya Ganesan, Water/Wastewater Engineer  Marita Joe, Senior Electrical Engineer  Jon Pairett, GFD, Fire Marshal  David Garcia, Acting Solid Waste Director  Laurence Joe, CenturyLink Engineer II  Irma Bustamante, NM Gas Co. Operations Supervisor  Matthew Baca, Construction Specialist  Jayson Grover, NMDOT District 6 Traffic Engineer FROM: /s/ Nikki Lee Nikki Lee, Planning Specialist cc: Adrian Marrufo, Acting Water & Wastewater Executive Director Tim Bodell, Water & Wastewater Executive Director John Wheeler, Electric Director Robert Hamblen, Public Works Department CASE #: VAC2022-01000001 PROJECT NAME: Vacation of a 14’ Public Utility Easement PROPERTY OWNER: Gallup Christian Center, Inc. AGENT: Everett Bigthumb PROJECT LOCATION: 2133 Cipriano Ave. / 2.08 Acres M/L in NE ¼ Sec. 28 T15N R18W DESCRIPTION: VACATION The property owner is requesting that the 14’ X 188.21’ Public Utility Easement (P.U.E.) located east of the existing building be vacated. The property owner wants to build a new building, in addition to the existing building. However, the location of the proposed building will be built on top of an existing P.U.E. In order to allow the structure in the proposed location, the easement must first be vacated. The Vacation request will be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission at their April th 13 , 2022 regular meeting, any conditions for approval should be included in staff’s recommendation to the Commission. ELECTRONIC COMMENTS ARE DUE BY: THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 2022. NO Task Force Meeting has been scheduled COMMUNITY PLANNER COMMENTS: P1.) Easement survey does not identify the type of easement. Need clarification on the type of easement. P2.) If utilities approve vacation of said easement, then ok to proceed to public hearing.  1-7 CITY ENGINEER COMMENTS: Currently the property frontage along Cipriano Ave. is without any curb, gutter, and sidewalks. The requirements for Public Improvements will be deferred until a building permit is submitted or when a project valuation triggers the requirement. Public Works has no issues with the vacation of the P.U.E. WATER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: No issues with the City water system. WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: No issues with the City sewer system. ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: Approved until the Electric Department has an approved 20’ wide PUE at the new Power Line Location. FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: Fire Department has no issues with the vacation of the public utility easement. Fire code requirements will be addressed during the plan approval process for the construction of the building. SOLID WASTE COMMENTS: No Solid Waste Issues. CENTURYLINK COMMENTS: We are attached to GJU poles with an aerial cable, the aerial cable will need to be rerouted as we serve customers to the south of the property. NM GAS COMPANY COMMENTS: NMGC does not have any facilities in the area, we have no issue with vacating the easement. COMCAST COMMENTS: Comcast does have facilities on the pole line through this PUE in question. The owner will need to coordinate with Mike Mortus on relocating Comcast facilities prior to vacating. Mike Mortus, Central NM/Mountain West Region Construction Specialist Email: Mike_Mortus@cable.comcast.com Office#: (505) 270-3644 Cell#: (505) 269-4006 NM DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS: The NMDOT has no comments or concerns with the proposed vacancy of the Public Utility Easement. This action does not impact NMDOT Right of Way. GTF Comments –Case# PROJ: Pzpdes Page 2 of 2  1-8 Request by Everett Bigthumb, on behalf of Gallup Christian Center, Inc., property owner, for the City of Gallup to vacate a 14’ wide, 188.21’ long utility easement within the property east of the existing building to allow the construction of a new building. The property is located at 2133 Cipriano Avenue; more particularly described as 2.08 acres M/L in NE ¼ Sec. 28 T15N R18W. AREA MAP  1-9 Request by Everett Bigthumb, on behalf of Gallup Christian Center, Inc., property owner, for the City of Gallup to vacate a 14’ wide, 188.21’ long utility easement within the property east of the existing building to allow the construction of a new building. The property is located at 2133 Cipriano Avenue; more particularly described as 2.08 acres M/L in NE ¼ Sec. 28 T15N R18W. PROPERTY MAP 7 6 1 2 5 4 3  1-10 Letters sent 03/25/2022 Request by Everett Bigthumb, on behalf of Gallup Christian Center, Inc., property owner, for the City of Gallup to vacate a 14’ wide, 188.21’ long utility easement within the property east of the existing building to allow the construction of a new building. The property is located at 2133 Cipriano Avenue; more particularly described as 2.08 acres M/L in NE ¼ Sec. 28 T15N R18W. ADDRESS LIST 1. GALLUP CHRISTIAN CENTER, 5. GLEN R. & MELVINA B. LEWIS, INC. REV. TRUST P.O. BOX 1990 P.O. BOX 2259 GALLUP, NM 87305-1990 GALLUP, NM 87305-2259 2.08 ACRES M/L IN NE ¼ SEC. LOT 3-B 28 15 18, JUNIPER 28 T15N R18W RIDGE SUB. UNIT #1 CONT. R661058 2.755 ACS M/L R215251 6. 5.92 ACRES M/L IN SEC. 28 T15N R18W 7. BIG E., INC. R661376 P.O. BOX 636 GALLUP, NM 87305-0636 2. DAB, INC. & MARTHA JOAN 8.599 ACRES M/L IN NE ¼ SEC. DEPAULI, TRUSTEE 28 T15N R18W, BLOCK OF DB P.O. BOX 38 41-248 GALLUP, NM 87305-0038 R137472 2.296 ACRES M/L IN NE ¼ SEC. 28 R15N R18W, BLOCK OF DB 28-50 THRU 52 DB 32-147 THRU 150 R171085 3. TRIPLE B, LLC P.O. BOX 133 GALLUP, NM 87305-0133 A TRACT OF LAND IN THE E ½ SEC. 28 T15N R18W, CONT. 5.668 ACS M/L R214833 4. WILLIAM T. & NATALIE N. MORRIS P.O. BOX 2170 GALLUP, NM 87305 A TRACT OF LAND IN SEC. 28 T15N R18W, CONT. 2.727 ACS M/L A/K/A TRACT 4B R214178  2-1 Summary of City Council Actions March 2022 [No actions taken on any Planning & Zoning items]  3-1 CITY OF GALLUP PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 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: MARCH YEAR TO DATE: 2022 NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VALUATION VALUATION DESCRIPTION PERMITS PERMITS NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 0 $ - RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 3 $ 39,000.00 6 $ 56,800.00 RESIDENTIAL STORAGE SHED 0 $ - RESIDENTIAL GARAGES & CARPORTS 0 $ - RESIDENTIAL SITE PERMITS 0 $ - NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 0 $ - COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 4 $ 1,106,500.00 5 $ 1,156,500.00 COMMERCIAL STORAGE SHED 0 $ - COMMERCIAL GARAGES & CARPORTS 0 $ - COMMERCIAL SITE PERMITS 0 $ - NEW CHURCHES 0 $ - CHURCH ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 0 $ - RE-STUCCO / SIDING / DECKS 1 $ 4,000.00 1 $ 4,000.00 NEW ASPHALT / ASPHALT OVERLAY / SEALCOAT 1 $ 6,000.00 1 $ 6,000.00 EXCAVATION / GRADING 0 $ - NEW APARTMENTS 0 $ - APARTMENT ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 0 $ - HOTELS / MOTELS 0 $ - ROOF REPAIR 15 $ 130,701.00 25 $ 215,463.00 DEMOLITION 2 $ 16,700.00 5 $ 64,400.00 FENCE / RETAINING WALL 2 $ 18,369.00 5 $ 29,008.00 FOUNDATION ONLY - CHARGE 0 $ - FOUNDATION ONLY - NO CHARGE 0 $ - SWIMMING POOLS 0 $ - DECK 0 $ - TOTAL PERMITS & VALUATION 28 $ 1,321,270.00 48 $ 1,532,171.00 TOTAL PERMIT FEES $ 10,232.96 $ 13,639.24  3-2 CITY OF GALLUP PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MONTHLY COMPILATION OF PERMITS ISSUED MARCH 2022 DATE PERMIT PERMIT PERMIT OWNER / BUSINES CONTRACTOR SITE ADDRESS VALUATION ISSUED NO. TYPE FEES 3/3/22 21 - 305 MICHAEL W. ELEY CREATIVE NATIVE CONSTRUCTION 317 CANYON DE CHELLY LANE FENCE / RETAINING WALL $ 105.00 $ 6,369.00 3/4/22 22 - 028 JENNETT & MARVIN GANDIA DOMINGUEZ CONSTRUCTION INC. 811 S. SIXTH STREET ROOF REPAIR $ 105.00 $ 6,985.00 R & R PLUMBING HEATING & GEN. COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS / 3/7/22 21 - 222 REDWOOD LODGE 907 E. HISTORIC HIGHWAY 66 $ 876.73 $ 80,000.00 CONSTRUCTION ALTERATIONS 3/7/22 22 - 027 FURNITURE OUTLET GALLLUP FENCE CO. 919 E. HISTORIC HIGHWAY 66 FENCE / RETAINING WALL $ 160.00 $ 12,000.00 3/8/22 22 - 021 RAYMOND & LOTTIE BRADFORD GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 3409 CHEE DODGE BOULEVARD ROOF REPAIR $ 168.00 $ 13,650.00 3/8/22 22 - 022 ROBERT & KOLENE REYNOLDS GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 611 E. GREEN AVENUE ROOF REPAIR $ 168.00 $ 13,300.00 3/8/22 22 - 023 MICHAEL & JULIE HAIGHT GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 3419 CHEE DODGE BOULEVARD ROOF REPAIR $ 105.00 $ 6,900.00 3/8/22 22 - 024 GARY KING & CHERI KING GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 1005 W. WILSON AVENUE ROOF REPAIR $ 132.00 $ 9,100.00 3/8/22 22 - 025 ALLISON CLY & DANIEL NASH GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 1110 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE ROOF REPAIR $ 132.00 $ 9,100.00 MARIRUTH B. MENAPACE & KEVEN 3/8/22 22 - 026 GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 1812 MONTEREY COURT ROOF REPAIR $ 141.00 $ 10,710.00 RUSSEL NEW ASPHALT / ASPHALT 3/10/22 22 - 034 FAITH FELLOWSHIP CHURCH PRESTIGIOUS PAVING, LLC 2495 E. AZTEC AVENUE - $ 6,000.00 OVERLAY / SEALCOAT DIAZ RESIDENTIAL 3/17/22 22 - 019 JORDAN S. SALAZAR 1726 CAMINO DEL SOL ROOF REPAIR $ 123.00 $ 8,995.00 CONSTRUCTION, LLC 3/17/22 22 - 036 CRAIG & TAMMY BARRACK DOMINGUEZ CONSTRUCTION INC. 3615 ZIA DRIVE ROOF REPAIR $ 123.00 $ 8,100.00 3/21/22 22 - 037 AUTO WORKS GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 2715 W. HISTORIC HIGHWAY 66 ROOF REPAIR $ 187.00 $ 14,400.00 RE-STUCCO / SIDING / 3/21/22 22 - 038 ANGEL F. SANCHEZ HOMEOWNER 311 VICTORIA AVENUE $ 78.00 $ 4,000.00 DECKS RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS / 3/21/22 22 - 044 LAURENCE A. GREEN VAY CONSTRUCTION, LLC 3404 CINIZA DRIVE $ 302.10 $ 18,500.00 ALTERATIONS 3/25/22 22 - 031 HGML RENTALS, LLC BONAGUIDI CONSTRUCTION, LLC 407 N. FOURTH STREET DEMOLITION $ 71.55 $ 1,700.00 COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS / 3/25/22 22 - 032 MICHELES READY MIX BONAGUIDI CONSTRUCTION, LLC 1661 HASLER VALLEY ROAD $ 387.70 $ 23,000.00 ALTERATIONS 3/25/22 22 - 033 BW GAS & CONVENIENCE RETAIL BONAGUIDI CONSTRUCTION, LLC 1200 W. AZTEC AVENUE DEMOLITION $ 276.10 $ 15,000.00 3/25/22 22 - 047 COLONIAL MOTEL OM 2000 CONSTRUCTION 1007 W. COAL AVENUE ROOF REPAIR $ 66.00 $ 1,800.00 3/28/22 22 - 048 TRES MILPAS, LLC GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 802 S. EIGHTH STREET ROOF REPAIR $ 123.00 $ 8,080.00 3/28/22 22 - 049 DOROTHEA L. TESO, ETAL. GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 304 DONNA JEAN DRIVE ROOF REPAIR $ 105.00 $ 6,175.00 COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS / 3/29/22 21 - 321 WALMART #0906-247 MARK YOUNG CONSTRUCTION, LLC 1650 W. MALONEY AVENUE $ 5,464.73 $ 990,000.00 ALTERATIONS RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS / 3/29/22 22 - 040 MICHAEL TILEY H.T. ENTERPRISES 611 ZECCA DRIVE $ 315.15 $ 20,000.00 ALTERATIONS 3/29/22 22 - 046 ESTHER SAUCEDO DOMINGUEZ CONSTRUCTION INC. 1418 ELVA DRIVE ROOF REPAIR $ 87.00 $ 4,200.00 COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS / 3/30/22 22 - 035 HOWARD JOHNSON HOTEL K AND M BUILDERS, INC 2915 W. HISTORIC HIGHWAY 66 $ 262.15 $ 13,500.00 ALTERATIONS DIAZ RESIDENTIAL 3/31/22 22 - 045 TAMMY R. OVERMAN 309 E. GREEN AVENUE ROOF REPAIR $ 132.00 $ 9,206.00 CONSTRUCTION, LLC RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS / 3/31/22 22 - 050 BERNADETTE TSOSIE AGAVE BUILDERS 612 E. MESA AVENUE $ 36.75 $ 500.00 ALTERATIONS TOTALS: $ 10,232.96 $ 1,321,270.00 3 RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 4 COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 1 RE-STUCCO / SIDING / DECKS 1 NEW ASPHALT / ASPHALT OVERLAY / SEALCOAT 15 ROOF REPAIR 2 DEMOLITION 2 FENCE / RETAINING WALL 28 TOTAL PERMITS P.O. BOX 1270 GALLUP, NM 87305 PHONE: 505.863.1240 FAX: 505.722.5131