Planning and Zoning

Planning and Development Clyde “C.B.” Strain, Director PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA Wednesday, July 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 June 8th, 2022 Special Meeting Minutes PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM ONE: CASE # 22-01000002: Request by Rhett and Sarah W. Renoud, property owners, for the City of Gallup to vacate a five foot (5’) wide utility easement along the entire length of the northern and western property boundary lines to allow the construction of a new fence. The property is located at 3302 Chee Dodge Boulevard; more particularly described as Lot 13, Block 4, Mentmore East Unit 2. This item will go before City Council for final approval on July 26, 2022. INFORMATION ITEMS ITEM TWO: City Council Actions Taken ITEM THREE: June 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 Special Meeting June 8th, 2022 Minutes City Council Chambers The special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:01 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 M. Long Commissioner L. Miller Commissioner K. Spolar Upon roll call, the following were absent: Commissioner F. Pawlowski 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 M. Long (No) Commissioner L. Miller (No) Commissioner K. Spolar (No) Presented to the Chairman and Commissioners for their approval were the minutes of the May 11th, 2022 regular meeting. Commissioner Long motioned for approval of the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner M. Long (Yes) Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez (Yes) Commissioner L. Miller (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 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 8th, 2022 Page 1 of 13 the Commission that the meeting was being live streamed so everyone needed to speak loud and clear for the public to hear. ITEM ONE: CASE # 22-00600003: Request by Ryan D. Stearns, Joseph R. Hewgley & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Eiad Suleiman, property owner, for the Rezoning of two (2) Unplatted Tracts of Land FROM Single-Family Residential A (SFR-A) Zone District TO Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MXN) Zone District containing 3.18 acres M/L and FROM Rural Holding Zone (RHZ) TO Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MXN) Zone District containing 17.07 acres M/L. The properties are generally located southeast of Philipina Avenue and Strong Drive. CB Strain began by stating how he was very pleased to have such a big turnout of citizens attending the Commission meeting this evening. He emphasized how the purpose of the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings was to have an open meeting giving the public the right to participate and give them the opportunity to voice their concerns. CB began to explain how the property owner, Eiad Suleiman was requesting to rezone two (2) tracts of land. He used the overhead projector to display the GIS Map showing the property’s location. CB pointed to two (2) tracts; one fronting Philipina Avenue (3.18 acres) and another in the back fronting Strong Drive (17.07 acres). He mentioned how the cell tower was separated from the larger tract a few years ago whereas the cell tower property was not part of the rezone request. CB continued by stating that the property owner wished to rezone the two (2) tracts of land to the Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MXN) Zone District. He then used the overhead projector to display the GIS Map showing the zoning designations of the area. CB pointed to the 3.18 acre tract fronting Philipina Avenue, which was currently zoned Single-Family Residential A (SFR- A) and to the 17.07 acre tract in the back, which was zoned Rural Holding Zone (RHZ). The Rural Holding Zone is like a holding tank whereas no uses are allowed until its rezoned appropriately. CB explained how staff looks at the proposed development and the zoning to see if it’s consistent with the recommendations of the Growth Management Master Plan. He stated that for that particular area, there wouldn’t be any conflicts with any existing zoning in the area because it fell in line with the recommendations for that area, which was residential development. Therefore, staff supported the property owner’s request to rezone the two (2) tracts to the MXN Zone District. CB explained how the MXN Zone District was a brand-new zone when they rewrote the zoning code whereas that was created to allow for a mixed use of residential and commercial. The MXN Zone District allows both single- family and multi-family in the same district without having to do two separate districts. CB continued by stating that trends were moving more towards mixed use developments within cities just because it was a more efficient use of the land and opened up more opportunities for residential development being that housing was a dire need. It was also a lot cleaner and does not create many hurdles requiring owners to rezone each separate use. The MXN Zone District allows a variety of mixed uses. CB stated that subsection 10-5-B-d-i-3a of the City of Gallup Land Development Standards states that amendments to the official zoning map which involves a particular area of land may be made by Council on its own motion or upon request by the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the person or persons holding fifty one percent (51%) or more of the ownership of the area of land may request the Planning and Zoning Commission to amend the map upon a determination that there are sufficient grounds for the amendment. In this particular case, the property owner owns one hundred percent (100%) of the property involved and as such are making the request. CB stated that from what he Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 8th, 2022 Page 2 of 13 understood, the property owner wished to develop the properties with market rate housing for both multi-family and single-family. He emphasized how the request met the criteria for a rezone. CB read aloud the Zoning Map Amendment Criteria that the property qualified under: 3. Due to changing circumstances of land use in the area, the proposed district would be better suited to the area than the existing district. 5. The social, economic or environmental interests of the general public good would be better served by the proposed zoning district than the existing one. CB informed the Commission how the city conducted a Housing Analysis study in 2020 to determine the housing needs of the city whereas the study revealed that the city was in desperate need of housing. Gallup is short on market rate housing; not on subsidized or low-income housing. CB believed that Gallup was top heavy on subsidized housing and low rental housing. Gallup needs more market rate housing for starter homes or for professionals that may want to relocate to Gallup. CB spoke about how Gallup has several tracts of undeveloped land so it was very much welcomed when a developer wanted to come in and develop needed housing. He continued by informing the Commission how the City Council declared a housing emergency at the May 24, 2022 meeting and the reason they did that was because Gallup was short on housing. It’s difficult for people who want to move up to permanent housing or relocate to Gallup without having a good market rate housing supply. CB stated that the rezone request went before the Gallup Task Force and there were no requirements being that it was just a rezone. CB spoke about how the property owner was also going through the subdivision process to replat the tracts. CB stated that if the rezone was approved this evening, the property owner will move forward with the subdivision which will actually cut the property into single-family and multi- family lots. At that point all of the development requirements will kick in as far as infrastructure; water/wastewater, drainage, street and pedestrian infrastructure. CB emphasized how all those requirements will be addressed with the subdivision; not the rezone. FINDINGS OF CONCLUSION: CB stated that the findings of staff for the proposed request met the Acceptable Grounds for Amending the Official Zoning Map per Section 10-5-B-d-i2 of the City of Gallup Land Development Standards. CB recommended approval of the rezone; Resolution Number RP2022-7. Chairman Wilson informed the public what the order of the meeting would be since there were so many attendees. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Commissioner Long asked CB if they were to zoom out of that area; where would the closest MXN Zone District be located? CB stated that there was not an MXN Zone District close to that area. However, because of the size of the property involved and acreage involved, they’re not going to be violating any rules or laws of spot zoning. CB explained how spot zoning was when there was a smaller tract of land within a large subdivision that has a different zone district. Spot zoning is illegal and discouraged. CB gave an example; if there was an established neighborhood that had a single lot that was undeveloped and somebody purchased it wanting to rezone that one lot to commercial to build a store there; it would not be allowed and be considered spot zoning. The store would be a higher, more intense use than what was existing within that development already. CB stated that the tracts requesting the rezone this evening, were large enough to not be considered spot zoning. They would be developed with single-family and multi-family residential, which was consistent with the existing surrounding residential development; both to the north, south, and east. CB emphasized how he did not consider Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 8th, 2022 Page 3 of 13 the rezone request this evening spot zoning. He mentioned how it could also be reversed; if there was existing commercial development with a single undeveloped lot and somebody purchased the lot wanting to build a single-family dwelling there; the rezone request would be denied because it would be considered spot zoning. Zoning protects established neighborhoods and established development. Chairman Wilson asked CB to explain the difference between the Single-Family Residential A and B. CB stated that SFR-A and SFR-B were both single-family zone districts and the difference between A and B were the densities. The A zone districts have bigger lots; they’re 9,000 square foot lots and B zone districts have 6,000 square foot lots. Chairman Wilson asked what the proposed lot sizes were for the proposed project. CB responded that they would have to comply with the MXN Zone District’s minimum dimensional requirements. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez asked CB if the MXN Zone District’s minimum lot size would be 2,000 square feet. CB responded yes; that was correct. He continued to state that in the MXN it’s 2,000 square foot lots minimum; they can certainly exceed those if they choose to do so. In the MXN there’s a 25 foot lot frontage, 50 foot wide lot width and 5 /15 foot setbacks. Madam Secretary used the overhead projector to display the City of Gallup Land Development Standards (LDS) to show the MXN Zone District’s dimensional requirements. Chairman Wilson asked CB if he heard correctly that both single-family dwellings and multi-family dwellings would be built on the property. CB responded yes; that was correct. CB spoke about how staff met with the developers for a Pre-Development meeting to see what the proposed development would be. He reminded the Commission how there was a representative present on behalf of the owner to answer any questions they may have. CB stated that they’re planning on building single-family dwellings along the Philipina Avenue frontage and further back on the larger tract they want to build multi-family units. That’s why the property owner is doing the subdivision; so, they can designate single lots, designate roadways and complete infrastructure requirements. CB informed the Commission that they do have a preliminary site plan, which is very preliminary and he can show the Commission if they would like. Chairman Wilson asked CB if the proposed development will be required to provide green space; if so, how much. CB stated that it was ten percent (10%) open space for recreational. Chairman Wilson asked if that would be two (2) acres. CB responded that was for the multi-family development side. Single-family dwellings just go for their own lots and they’re not required to provide recreational space, however multi-family units require recreational area. CB used the overhead projector to display the preliminary site plan (a copy is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit A and made a part of these official minutes). He informed the Commission that this was the initial layout the developer shared with the city. CB pointed to the screen referencing how the individual lots would be platted with the dedication of a road from Philipina Avenue to Strong Drive and the proposed multi-family units in the back. Chairman Wilson stated it was not 11.5 acres; it was actually 11.49 acres that would require the open space of ten percent (10%). CB responded that it depended on the actual development; whatever that is, its ten percent (10%) of that. Commissioner Spolar asked CB if the multi housing just include town houses and condominiums; not apartment complexes. CB stated that multi-family was anything above two-family dwellings; it could Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 8th, 2022 Page 4 of 13 be a four-plex, six-plex, townhouse, or multi-family apartment building. Those are all permitted within the MXN Zone District. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of this case. Ryan D. Stearns, Joseph R. Hewgley & Associates, Inc. approached the podium and introduced himself as the agent for Eiad Suleiman, property owner/developer. Mr. Stearns stated that he wanted to give a little bit of an explanation as to what they were thinking for development. They want to build single- family residential homes off of Philipina Avenue and as they work back, they want to do duplexes, town homes and potentially six-plex and eight-plex on the very far side. Mr. Stearns wanted to explain the reason why the preliminary subdivision only showed 24 or 27 lots there. Those lots will all be developed with single-family dwellings and they stopped there with platting because they want to see how the community reacts to the development. He stated that if there was a need for more entry level housing, they would expand that replatting to add more single lots to build houses. Mr. Stearns stated that the whole property could be developed with houses and they may not have any apartments. That’s why the front third of that area is only platted whereas the back is not. He continued to state that they do not want to paint themselves into a corner and commit to doing apartments in the back when nobody wants to live in apartments and there is a need for entry level housing. Mr. Stearns stated that the other reason why further back they want to do apartments was because probably it was the hardest part to develop because of the elevation differences. He believes that it gives them more benefit going with apartments back there because it gets more residents in the buildings. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for Mr. Stearns. Commissioner Long asked Mr. Stearns to clarify the reason he wanted to rezone to the MXN Zone District; was it because he wanted to do duplexes on the frontage and not single-family dwellings? Mr. Stearns stated that they wanted to build single-family homes along Philipina Avenue and apartments possibly in the back. Commissioner Long asked what he thought the median price of a home would be. Mr. Stearns responded that they were hoping in the $200,000 to $225,000 range. They want to build two and three bedroom houses; with very few two bedrooms. Mr. Stearns stated that there was going to be some bigger houses on Lots 24, 25 and 26 because they’re very unique properties. They’re considering doing two-story houses on those particular lots. On Lots 1 through 23, all of them will be single-story; that’s what they’re thinking right now. He continued to state that as they get back on Lots 16 through 23, they’re potentially considering two-story town homes. Commissioner Long asked Mr. Stearns for the lot further south, were they thinking of any low-income apartments or subsidized housing? Mr. Stearns responded no. Commissioner Long asked Mr. Stearns, so no subsidized housing at all? Mr. Stearns stated no; that’s not what they want to do. Mr. Stearns stated that they’re hoping that they do not have to build apartments, but if people want single-family homes that’s what they would like to do. But the way they have it planned out is, that they want to keep the neighborhood looking like it is. And that’s why they’re pushing all the apartments further to the south. Mr. Stearns stated that this has been a yearlong process whereas he was in Gallup about a year ago and met with the Gallup Task Force for a Pre-Development Meeting. There has been a lot of studying and a lot of time spent on trying to figure out what they think would be best for the current market. Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 8th, 2022 Page 5 of 13 Chairman Wilson stated that he’s thinking about 10,000 square feet on those lots, what square footage would the single-family homes be for 2-3 bedrooms. Mr. Stearns stated that he’s thinking 1,800 to 2,200 square foot homes. They’re pretty big lots, however they will have to do some retaining walls because of the elevation changes across there. Chairman Wilson asked about garages. Mr. Stearns stated that it was hard to say which will have garages and if they’ll be single or double car garages. Chairman Wilson asked CB about emergency access to the property; will that one street suffice or will there be another street there south of the homes? CB stated that with fronting Strong Drive to the west, that was a sufficient right-of-way that was already platted and already in existence. It will however, have to be improved. CB pointed out how Strong Drive was platted all the way south to the edge of the larger tract. They do have sufficient ingress and egress because of the width of the street, which is a standard local street. Chairman Wilson stated that there were two other sides that looked like they didn’t have a street. CB stated that there was no other access from the east. All the access will take place from the west side of the property. If you go up, they do have a proposed street from Philipina Avenue that comes down and curves around coming out through Strong Drive. It’s not required that they have multiple ingress/egress when they have a frontage road there; an established road right-of- way. That is something that the Fire Department will look at, as far as getting emergency equipment through there and things of that nature. CB continued to state that the initial layout does comply with the subdivision rules and regulations. Mr. Stearns reapproached the podium and stated that if they do expand single-family town homes further to the south, one thing they may end up doing is eliminating Lot 23. And extending that road and winding it back down to their next section of platting. Commissioner Long asked Mr. Stearns if they looked at the utility zones around those lots. Mr. Stearns responded yes. Commissioner Long asked if they looked at the sewer in particular because that was going to be difficult. Mr. Stearns responded yes; they understood that going into the project. There’s a couple of options they’re looking at, but doesn’t want to get into that discussion right now. Mr. Stearns stated that they understood that Strong Drive has to be paved and extended. He thanked the Commissioners for their questions. CB reiterated how the request this evening was just for the rezone. Once the platting starts getting underway, they’ll have to come back for another public hearing to the Commission to get approval of their subdivision. So, all of the subdivision questions and concerns will be taken care of at a later date. CB explained that if the Commission approved the rezone, the owners could not start building tomorrow. There is still a lot more to do, as far as getting the property legal and subdivided so they’re legal lots of record. This is just the first step; the rezone. Chairman Wilson reiterated that all the details regarding the final decision to build, will come back before the Commission. CB stated correct; the MXN zoning designation just allows the developer the options up front. If they want to do all of the property’s single-family, they can do so in that zone district. If they want to do town houses and single- family homes, they can do that. It’s not confining them to one type of specific development; it opens that up to more options and that’s the whole reason for the MXN zoning designation. Commissioner Miller asked CB if the property to the south was zoned single-family residential. CB stated yes; it was zoned SFR-B and was a whole separate land owner. He continued to explain that everything in that area was single-family, except to the west. CB used the overhead projector to display Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 8th, 2022 Page 6 of 13 the GIS Map referencing Second Street, the old Pepsi Plant and the water dam. The rezone request was consistent with the recommendations of Gallup’s Growth Management Master Plan. CB pointed out how the dam and drainage were city owned whereas it was not developable. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone wishing to speak against this case. William (Bill) Lee approached the podium and introduced himself as a neighbor in the area. Thanked the Commission for having the meeting. Mr. Lee stated that as an individual whom works for the quality of life in the community, for the Chamber of Commerce he likes to see developers coming in and building homes to address the housing shortage. He hates to be a NIMBY (not in my back yard) individual. Mr. Lee liked the developer’s plans and after hearing what they had to offer he favored the building of single-family homes or town homes with the apartments being the last resort. He was concerned that as they got into the project and lots didn’t sell, they would result in selling to somebody else. And being that it was already zoned, those uses the neighborhood does not want would then be already allowed. Mr. Lee stated that he liked their plan and wanted to encourage housing growth in the community, but was wondering if they could just zone it as Single-Family Residential A or B to prevent those apartments from coming in. He was unsure if that fit their plans or if it would make it difficult for them. Mr. Lee stated that was his only concern and objection. He would however welcome new homes coming in that actually improves property values and makes the neighborhoods nicer. Mr. Lee reiterated how he would be very concerned to see apartments coming in, which may affect other home’s property values. He thanked the Commission for their time. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for Mr. Lee. There were none. Chairman Wilson asked CB if the zoning were to be approved to MXN, were there any commercial uses allowed in that zone district? CB responded yes, but only low impact uses. CB explained that the reason they allowed this was because when Genaro’s Restaurant did their remodel years ago. A trend that has resurfaced is where there are older neighborhoods that have smaller mom and pop shops with small restaurants, which people favor. CB stated that when Genaro’s Restaurant wanted to remodel and expand their restaurant, the use was actually non-conforming because at the time the code didn’t allow commercial uses in residential districts at all. Being that they didn’t want to penalize them and hurt their business by not allowing them to expand and improve their business, the city changed the code to allow limited commercial uses within certain neighborhood districts. CB explained how they’re limited in square footage so that a Wal-Mart couldn’t come in. There are standards in place to protect the neighborhoods whereas they put use-specific provisions in the code that controls the hours of operation, noise, and light so it wouldn’t have an adverse effect on adjacent properties. That carried over to the MXN Zone District whereas there are some commercial uses allowed in that district but on a very limited basis. CB explained that when a developer comes to the city with an idea, staff looks at existing and surrounding development with the proposed development and the Growth Management Master Plan to see what is recommended within that area. If everything is in order, they proceed whereas the proposed development was in line with that. CB stated that it really depended on what the owner wanted for their development. CB emphasized how the property owner could rezone the property to all single-family, but they cannot be denied to rezone to MXN because it was allowed in that area. Staff makes sure that the rezone request complies with the standards and makes a Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 8th, 2022 Page 7 of 13 recommendation to the Commission. Some commercial uses are permitted outright and some are conditional whereas they must obtain approval from the Commission. Staff also has to make sure all the safety precautions are taken. CB does not believe this project has any commercial uses in mind, but there’s a possibility that it could change over time. CB used the overhead projector to display the LDS Use Table displaying what uses were permitted in the MXN Zone District. Commissioner Long asked if there was another zone district other than MXN that allowed town homes. CB stated yes there were town homes, co-housing, and multi-family residential uses in the code. However, the only zone district that allows for both single-family homes and multi-family units is the MXN Zone District. It just makes it easier on the developer when planning and platting those uses. CB stated that it was up to the developer on how they want to do it. As long as it complies with the regulation staff wouldn’t oppose rezoning all the properties as single-family residential as well as rezoning it all to MXN. The developer wants to rezone all the properties to MXN because it gives them more options on different types of homes. Commissioner Long asked Mr. Stearns if they would consider only rezoning the lots that are being platted for single-family homes and later rezone the back portion where they plan to do apartments. Mr. Stearns stated that they do not want to do that because of the timeline whereas if they do it all now it will save them time. They would prefer everything to go under one zoning designation all at once. Mr. Stearns spoke about how they already have to go back to the city for the subdivision process. Commissioner Long stated that he was just suggesting the idea to please some of the neighbor’s concerns. Mr. Stearns spoke about how he drove around Gallup earlier this afternoon and noticed how some of the apartments were whereas that was not the type of apartments they wanted to build. They’re not wanting to build boxes with single corridors; they’re closer to two-story town homes where they put four to six together. Sammy Chioda approached the podium and introduced himself. He thanked the Commission for allowing him to speak. Mr. Chioda stated that he was concerned about the uniform of the project and going forward. He wanted to ask the applicant if there was any consideration or thought of conveyance to protect the long-term of the neighborhood based on property values. Mr. Stearns responded no; they have not talked about that. Mr. Chioda continued by stating that it would be a good start. When going with private development it’s good to have conveyance in place so that it can protect the neighborhood. It will also protect the integrity of the buildings that will eventually go up in those areas. Mr. Chioda asked the applicant if there was a way he could explore that to provide a peace of mind to the people. Because for a home that will cost $250,000 compared to other homes in the area that cost about $350,000 to $550,000 it will help protect those values. He believed that the developers would do a good job, but he is concerned about the next generation of people who will buy those new homes. Mr. Chioda stated that if there’s a chance to make some serious money, it was going to get sold. Mr. Stearns stated that he did not have a problem looking into that. Mr. Chioda stated that they would not be reinventing the wheel; it’s just something that’s pretty common. He believes it would be a good idea to explore and to keep everybody happy with a safeguard to help protect people’s property values. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for Mr. Chioda. There were none. Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 8th, 2022 Page 8 of 13 CB informed the Commission that they need to take caution on conveyance. Developers do place conveyance on properties, which is a private conveyance whereas the Commission cannot require it. The city does not regulate or review conveyance; those are strictly private agreements between the developers/owners and the homebuyers. Conveyance is generally run by a neighborhood association and they enforce those. CB stated that if the developer chooses to do conveyance, it’s on their own. Mr. Chioda stated that his suggestion was a question and the whole purpose was for cooperation. That way the community can give faith and make a decision in good faith. Mr. Chioda continued to state that conveyance will help when trying to build trust between all parties involved. Chairman Wilson stated that the Commission cannot enforce conveyance and it would all come from a homeowner’s association. He recognized that it could certainly be done, but will not be required by the Commission. Mr. Chioda stated that a home could be purchased and after six months their yard could become an eyesore, however conveyance will prevent that from happening. He thinks that in the spirit of getting everybody on board, they could address minimal issues with conveyance. Jason Valentine approached the podium and introduced himself. He began by explaining how he was neither for or against the item. Mr. Valentine agreed with Mr. Lee’s comment about lots not selling. Unfortunately, right now in Gallup they’re sitting on about 12.5% on the inventory when it comes to home sales that’s available to a normal market. If Mr. Valentine pulled the numbers today, there were about fifteen homes at all price points for sale in all neighborhoods of Gallup. On Mr. Valentine’s property management side of things, they’re actually managing about 130 units right now and are at 100% occupancy whereas tenants are paying top dollar for rent. Several rental units are dilapidated and landlords are not taking care of them. Mr. Lee’s comments about homes not selling; he didn’t believe that would be the case. Mr. Valentine stated that there was a lot of buying activity going on and historically homes are not affordable. Single-family homes are selling for about $200,000 to $225,000 and he wanted to emphasize that the average price point was about $215,000. After hearing the applicant state that would be around their price point and with new construction, Mr. Valentine believes that there will be buyers out there wanting to purchase. He thinks the multi-family residential and duplexes were also great opportunities. And it sounds like the intent is to tuck those duplexes away and keep them off the main roads, which is probably a reasonable strategy to make the rest of the neighborhood look presentable. Mr. Valentine wanted to emphasize how they’re trying to recruit teachers, police, and medical professionals and those are the types of housing those individuals were looking for. He thought that property owners along Kit Carson, Sage, Cliff and Canoncito would probably also enjoy some pretty decent property value gains. Mr. Valentine stated that the term used in the real estate world was progression. When they have a bunch of nice houses in one area all the other areas will benefit because it improves the look of their neighborhoods. He understands the concern if the project stops half way through, which is why its important that financial backing is in place. Mr. Valentine emphasized how the needs for the community was significantly important. He also understands what the property owners are saying, however there are protections that can be put in place. If no protections are put in place, he still thinks it would be a great project. Mr. Valentine stated that it was a great location next to the hospital and close to downtown whereas it was a very desirable neighborhood. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for Mr. Valentine. Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 8th, 2022 Page 9 of 13 Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez asked Mr. Valentine, that with today’s time with the modern style apartments did he see that apartments devalued nearby properties. Mr. Valentine stated that there was a stigma with apartments where people think that they have a lower quality individual. He thought that apartments would be a last option for this property. Mr. Valentine will say that from the 2020 City of Gallup Housing Analysis, 74% of the people want to buy a home. With the limited amount of inventory in Gallup, he wouldn’t see any problem with the developer selling those units. The only thing Mr. Valentine would foresee would be if corporations were buying town homes and using it for staff housing or rentals for investors. They might also buy those lower valued properties and lower priced properties. Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez stated that she was just wondering if apartments brought down property values and agreed with Mr. Valentine about how apartments have a big stigma. Mr. Valentine spoke about how Villa De Gallup Apartments just went through transferring their units from low income to market rate housing. That’s a good example when investing in properties. With the types of employees and tenants occupying that, it plays a big role. Mr. Valentine stated that if operated correctly, it may not become dilapidated or negatively affect neighborhoods, however it was a hard question to answer. Rowena Cheromiah approached the podium and introduced herself as a homeowner on Kit Carson Drive. What she is hearing is very interesting and would agree that it would increase their property values. Ms. Cheromiah was concerned because she has a beautiful backyard with a field of beautiful bushes and trees. That’s what a lot of owners have on Kit Carson Drive, but to the west of there many people use that area to take walks or walk their animals. The thought of losing that was a concern for her. Ms. Cheromiah was aware of how the City of Gallup was in dire need of homes. She is against the multi-family residential dwellings only because of the concerns that have been expressed this evening. She is concerned on who will be moving into those homes and what will happen if it’s not managed very well; how soon will it become dilapidated. Even if single-family dwellings are built, she’s concerned about the quality of those homes. Ms. Cheromiah stated that she was also concerned about the setbacks and wanted to know where those setbacks were located. CB explained what a setback was; it means the structure needs to be set back a certain distance from the property lines whereas they can’t build right on top of property line. The setbacks vary in the different zoning districts, depending on the density. Larger lots generally have larger setback areas for example, 25’ from front and back yard and 8-10’ for the sides. Higher densities for example 2,000 square foot lots have setbacks that decrease, 5’ setback for front yard setbacks, 15’ for rear yard, and 5’ for side yard. In this particular case, that’s the minimum; they can be set back further; that’s just the minimum that’s required and it also depends on the development. Ms. Cheromiah stated that with that being the minimum lot, if the developer goes with smaller setbacks thinks the homes will look like Albuquerque where homes are stacked close to each other. The homeowners will be unable to grow anything or have tress or grass; will have just homes. Ms. Cheromiah also wanted to bring up if there were additional homes built on the back of Kit Carson Drive, there may be families who will want to heighten their fences since they’ll be development in their back view. She asked if the city has an easement that runs north to south right behind the homes on Kit Carson Drive. CB stated that there was a common misuse of the word easement. He explained how there is an easement and a right-of-way (ROW), which are two different things. A ROW is city owned and designated for public use. An easement is dedicated for a utility to gain access for the maintenance of utilities. CB stated that in this case, there was a platted alley that goes from north to south, which was dedicated when the subdivision was created. There is an alley Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 8th, 2022 Page 10 of 13 there, which is generally sixteen feet wide. CB explained that back in the older days, they used to have utility poles going through alleys and used to have trash pickups, but now they rarely see easements like that because the utilities should be dedicated on the frontage and the trash pickup on the frontage. In this particular case, CB stated that there was an established alley there; not an easement. Ms. Cheromiah stated that she was thinking since it was a city owned right-of-way and she wanted to build a new fence or change a fence, would she have to go to the city to do that? CB responded no because this was not the owner’s property; they have to stay on their property line and not encroach on the city right-of-way alley. Chairman Wilson asked CB if they could increase the height of their fence. CB stated that the code allows a maximum of seven feet (7’) in the rear of a residential yard. Ms. Cheromiah stated that this was a concern for her fence and her brick wall in back of her yard. She spoke about how she lived in area that was being eroded on the right-of-way side which was causing her brick wall to fall apart. She can’t do anything like have those bricks restacked. Ms. Cheromiah was told that because of the erosion, they need to come in on the right-of-way side, build it up, and redo the whole foundation to put the wall in. She wanted to know what would happen in that situation. CB pointed out how she was going off in a different direction, but in that case, she would have to contact the Public Works Department and have them look at the alley. Public Works will see if it can be graded or fixed in such a way that is not eroding her wall. Once that is done then they can go ahead and fix the wall. CB informed Ms. Cheromiah that she needs to contact the Public Works Department because if it’s happening now, it will keep happening. There might be something with the drainage that needs to be addressed. Ms. Cheromiah asked if the property were rezoned to a multi-family zoning area, how many of those town homes are they planning to develop on the south side. Mr. Stearns responded that he would guess they would place seven (7) structures because they need parking spaces, green space, and recreational park areas. Needs to keep in mind that some of that south area is not developable; they’re working around a lot of rock. Mr. Stearns emphasized that with their estimated selling point, they cannot waste a lot of time removing rock. Ms. Cheromiah asked Mr. Stearns if they had an idea of how high the value of the homes would be. Mr. Stearns stated that they haven’t done any full designs yet; they’re waiting on the rezone approval first. They’re also waiting for the subdivision to go through. However, it’s hard to say with the construction costs increasing. Chairman Wilson reminded Ms. Cheromiah that the applicant previously stated the homes would cost about $200,000 to $225,000. Mr. Stearns added that the corner lots could cost a little more possibly between $300,000 and $400,000. Ms. Cheromiah asked the site plan to be pulled up on the overhead projector again. She stated that the homes on Kit Carson Drive will indeed see the back of the new homes. Mr. Stearns spoke about how those homes on Kit Carson Drive will actually see the top of the new homes because it drops about 22 feet. CB explained how Ms. Cheromiah’s house was actually higher where she will look down at the new proposed development. Mr. Stearns mentioned how the property has not been developed because of the elevation and rock issues. Ms. Cheromiah thanked the Commission for their time. Chairman Wilson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for Ms. Cheromiah. There were none. Commissioner Long asked CB to explain the next step in the approval process. CB stated that if the rezone was approved this evening, there was a ten (10) day appeal period for anyone who wished to appeal the Commission’s decision. If no one appeals, then the rezone becomes legal and final whereas the property is rezoned to MXN. Once that is done, it’s up to the developer to proceed on how they Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 8th, 2022 Page 11 of 13 want to subdivide the property. CB continued to explain that the developers will submit a plat to the city and will ultimately bring to the Commission for approval. This type of subdivision will be categorized as a major subdivision whereas two (2) public hearings are required where the preliminary plat hearing is reviewed and approved by the Commission. That will allow the developer to go in and start constructing all the infrastructure that is going to be required; water/wastewater, electric, roadways, etc. Once everything is developed and approved to be installed per city standards, a final plat hearing will come before the Commission. Basically, a rubber stamp saying everything has been installed and all subdivision codes have been complied with. Then staff takes the final approved plat to the County Clerk’s Office to get recorded and they become legal lots of record, then they can begin developments of lots by building houses. CB stated that it was a several step process and each step requires the applicant to come before the Commission for a public hearing. Except for the building permit process, that does not go before the Commission; it is handled internally by staff. Chairman Wilson asked CB if all the infrastructure would be installed underground. CB responded that the city requires all electric to be frontage underground, which will be reviewed during the subdivision. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any other interested parties wishing to speak to this case. Mr. Chioda approached the podium again and asked if the infrastructure installation was the responsibility of the developer or the individual property owners. CB stated that it was the responsibility of the developer to install all required infrastructure such as water/wastewater, electric, roadway and installation of pavement, curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Once approved and plat is recorded, the lots become legal lots of record, then the maintenance responsibility is turned over to the city. Those will become city right-of-way’s and will contain all the infrastructure. The initial cost is at the developer’s expense then once approved and accepted, the city takes on maintenance and responsibility. That’s for this type of subdivision, however if it were for a gated community then all the infrastructure would be maintained by the developer whereas the city would stop at the gate. This development however is not a gated community so the city would take responsibility for maintenance. Mr. Stearns wanted to thank the Commission for hearing the rezone request. The actual developer, which might ease some of the neighbor’s feelings is from Chicago. He spends 90% of his time in Gallup, owns businesses in Gallup, and has been in Gallup for about 15 years. The owner sees the housing need and that’s why he has chosen to do this project. Mr. Stearns didn’t want them to think that it was someone from out of state coming in to develop and never coming back. Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Stearns what type of construction they were looking at; prefab homes, modular homes, or stick built homes. Mr. Stearns responded that it would be stick built homes. Chairman Wilson stated that the hearing was closed. Motion to approve or deny the request for Case Number 2022-00600003. Commissioner Mackenzie- Chavez motioned for approval of Item One. Seconded by Commissioner Spolar. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 8th, 2022 Page 12 of 13  Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez (Yes) Commissioner K. Spolar (Yes) Commissioner M. Long (No) Commissioner L. Miller (Yes) Note how this rezone approval was later deemed invalid being that there was a provision in the code that stated there needed to be a minimum of four (4) affirmative votes. The applicant will reapply and go back before the Commission requesting approval. INFORMATION ITEMS ITEM TWO: City Council Actions Taken ITEM THREE: May 2022 Building Permit Activity Report OPEN FLOOR: Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone in attendance that would like to comment on a non-agenda item. There were none. Motion was made by Commissioner Mackenzie-Chavez to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Miller. Motion Carried. Upon roll call, the following votes were: Commissioner K. Mackenzie-Chavez (Yes) Commissioner L. Miller (Yes) Commissioner M. Long (Yes) Commissioner K. Spolar (Yes) Commission Adjourned at 7:18 p.m. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION KENT WILSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CLYDE (C.B.) STRAIN SECRETARY TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 8th, 2022 Page 13 of 13 EXHIBIT A  1-1 W. W. 0.0207 X X 1-2 1-3  1-4 Request by Rhett and Sarah W. Renoud, property owners, for the City of Gallup to vacate a five foot (5’) wide utility easement along the entire length of the northern and western property boundary lines to allow the construction of a new fence. The property is located at 3302 Chee Dodge Boulevard; more particularly described as Lot 13, Block 4, Mentmore East Unit 2. AERIAL IMAGERY  1-5 Request by Rhett and Sarah W. Renoud, property owners, for the City of Gallup to vacate a five foot (5’) wide utility easement along the entire length of the northern and western property boundary lines to allow the construction of a new fence. The property is located at 3302 Chee Dodge Boulevard; more particularly described as Lot 13, Block 4, Mentmore East Unit 2. SITE PHOTOS  1-6 June 21, 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 Manager cc: Adrian Marrufo, Water & Wastewater Deputy Director Tim Bodell, Water & Wastewater Executive Director John Wheeler, Electric Director Robert Hamblen, Public Works Department CASE #: VAC2022-01000002 PROJECT NAME: Vacation of a 5’ Public Utility Easement PROPERTY OWNER: Rhett and Sarah W. Renoud PROJECT LOCATION: 3302 Chee Dodge Blvd. / Lot 13, Block 4, Mentmore East Unit 2 DESCRIPTION: VACATION The property owners are requesting that the 5’ wide utility easement located along the north and west property lines be vacated. On May 24, 2022 the property owners applied for a Building Permit (BP2022-120), which was when it was discovered that their plans included building within an existing utility easement. The property owners are requesting the easement be vacated in order to allow for the construction of a cinder block wall around the rear of their property. The Vacation request will be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission at their July 13th, 2022 regular meeting, any conditions for approval should be included in staff’s recommendation to the Commission. ELECTRONIC COMMENTS ARE DUE BY: MONDAY, JUNE 27, 2022. NO Task Force Meeting has been scheduled COMMUNITY PLANNER COMMENTS: P1.) Request for vacation of an existing easement to allow for construction of a new privacy fence on the property line. P2.) Existing easement does not contain any city utilities and is no longer needed by the City.  1-7 P3.) Ok to proceed to public hearing for P&Z recommendation and to City Council for final approval. CITY ENGINEER COMMENTS: No issues from Public Works WATER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: No issues with the City water system. WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: No issues with the sewer system. ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: Electric has no issues with the PUE vacation. Electric is Front lot Underground. FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: Fire Department has no issues with the PUE vacation. SOLID WASTE COMMENTS: No Solid Waste Issues CENTURYLINK COMMENTS: Lumen has a cable that runs parallel to Chee Dodge & Box Canyon, between the lots. Lumen will allow the wall to be built conditional with the property owners calling in for locates for any excavation work on the north lot line. They will also need to know that if our cable goes bad, and if the repair work is in their north lot area, Lumen will need access to repair the cable. GTF Comments –Case# PROJ: Pzpdes Page 2 of 3  1-8 NM GAS COMPANY COMMENTS: NMGC has a service line installed in a portion of this easement for both properties (3302 & 3304 Chee Dodge Blvd). The line extends 35 feet north from property line off Chee Dodge Blvd (see red circled area in image below). NMGC does not recommend vacating that portion of the easement being that there are active utilities within the easement. Any further actions would have to be proposed to NMGC Right Of Way department since this line affects 2 different customers. COMCAST COMMENTS: Comcast does not have any facilities in the proposed vacation area. NM DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS: This vacation case has nothing to do with the NMDOT, so I have no comments to provide. GTF Comments –Case# PROJ: Pzpdes Page 3 of 3  1-9 Request by Rhett and Sarah W. Renoud, property owners, for the City of Gallup to vacate a five foot (5’) wide utility easement along the entire length of the northern and western property boundary lines to allow the construction of a new fence. The property is located at 3302 Chee Dodge Boulevard; more particularly described as Lot 13, Block 4, Mentmore East Unit 2. AREA MAP  1-10 Request by Rhett and Sarah W. Renoud, property owners, for the City of Gallup to vacate a five foot (5’) wide utility easement along the entire length of the northern and western property boundary lines to allow the construction of a new fence. The property is located at 3302 Chee Dodge Boulevard; more particularly described as Lot 13, Block 4, Mentmore East Unit 2. PROPERTY MAP 13 14 16 2 15 3 4 11 12 5 1 2 6 10 9 8 7  1-11 Letters sent 06/24/2022 Request by Rhett and Sarah W. Renoud, property owners, for the City of Gallup to vacate a five foot (5’) wide utility easement along the entire length of the northern and western property boundary lines to allow the construction of a new fence. The property is located at 3302 Chee Dodge Boulevard; more particularly described as Lot 13, Block 4, Mentmore East Unit 2. ADDRESS LIST 1. RHETT & SARAH W. RENOUD 402 JEFF KING ST. 3302 CHEE DODGE BLVD. GALLUP, NM 87301 GALLUP, NM 87301 LOT 1, BLOCK 6, MENTMORE LOT 13, BLOCK 4, MENTMORE EAST UNIT 2 EAST UNIT 2 R133833 R213162 7. DUSTI ANN EMBREY 2. ETHERTON RENTALS #6, LLC 3301 CHEE DODGE BLVD. 1508 DIAMOND CIR. GALLUP, NM 87301 GALLUP, NM 87301 LOT 8, BLOCK 5, MENTMORE LOT 12, BLOCK 4, MENTMORE EAST UNIT 2 EAST UNIT 2 R213004 R213161 8. SCOTT A. & LORI K. CLARK 3. REBECCA ANN & STEVEN 3303 CHEE DODGE BLVD. EDWARD BONGERS GALLUP, NM 87301 504 JEFF KING ST. LOT 7, BLOCK 5, MENTMORE GALLUP, NM 87301 EAST UNIT 2 LOT 31, BLOCK 1, MENTMORE R213005 EAST UNIT 2 R213229 9. CHEE DODGE, LLC 3305 CHEE DODGE BLVD. 4. SHERRY JEFFRIES GALLUP, NM 87301 502 JEFF KING STREET LOT 6, BLOCK 5, MENTMORE GALLUP, NM 87301 EAST UNIT 2 LOT 32, BLOCK 1, MENTMORE R213006 EAST UNIT 2 R213230 10. NAMJOO HASTIIN-NEZ 3307 CHEE DODGE BLVD. 5. PHILLIP LEE GALLUP, NM 87301 500 JEFF KING ST. LOT 5, BLOCK 5, MENTMORE GALLUP, NM 87301 EAST UNIT 2 LOT 33, BLOCK 1, MENTMORE R213003 EAST UNIT 2 R213231 11. MUFARO & VICKY DUBE 3306 CHEE DODGE BLVD. 6. PAUL M. & KIMBERLY E. GALLUP, NM 87301 MADRID  1-12 LOT 15, BLOCK 4, MENTMORE EAST UNIT 2 R213164 12. STASIA KARA NICHOLSON 7501 E. MCDOWELL RD. #1140 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85257 LOT 14, BLOCK 4, MENTMORE EAST UNIT 2 R213163 13. DANIEL & ANDREA CAMPOS 3307 BOX CANYON AVE. GALLUP, NM 87301 LOT 8, BLOCK 4, MENTMORE EAST UNIT 2 R213157 14. KELLI L. BURNHAM 3305 BOX CANYON AVE. GALLUP, NM 87301 LOT 9, BLOCK 4, MENTMORE EAST UNIT 2 R213158 15. HENRY C. DODGE 3303 BOX CANYON AVE. GALLUP, NM 87301 LOT 10, BLOCK 4, MENTMORE EAST UNIT 2 R213159 16. ANDREW R. CORLEY 3301 BOX CANYON AVE. GALLUP, NM 87301 LOT 11, BLOCK 4, MENTMORE EAST UNIT 2 R213160  2-1 Summary of City Council Actions June 2022 June 14th, 2022: City Council approved the reappointment of Matthew Long and Kyle Spolar to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Their new terms will expire May 2024.  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: JUNE YEAR TO DATE: 2022 NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VALUATION VALUATION DESCRIPTION PERMITS PERMITS NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 1 $ 175,000.00 RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 4 $ 29,957.00 13 $ 92,257.00 RESIDENTIAL STORAGE SHED 1 $ 6,411.00 2 $ 22,588.00 RESIDENTIAL GARAGES & CARPORTS 0 $ - RESIDENTIAL SITE PERMITS 0 $ - NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 1 $ 1,511,000.00 3 $ 2,521,000.00 COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 3 $ 30,200.00 13 $ 2,229,948.00 COMMERCIAL STORAGE SHED 0 $ - COMMERCIAL GARAGES & CARPORTS 1 $ 7,930.00 COMMERCIAL SITE PERMITS 0 $ - NEW CHURCHES 0 $ - CHURCH ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 0 $ - RE-STUCCO / SIDING / DECKS 1 $ 4,000.00 NEW ASPHALT / ASPHALT OVERLAY / SEALCOAT 2 $ 71,421.00 EXCAVATION / GRADING 0 $ - NEW APARTMENTS 0 $ - APARTMENT ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 0 $ - HOTELS / MOTELS 0 $ - ROOF REPAIR 17 $ 223,393.00 69 $ 712,089.00 DEMOLITION 1 $ 2,400.00 7 $ 81,800.00 FENCE / RETAINING WALL 8 $ 30,973.00 24 $ 89,288.00 FOUNDATION ONLY - CHARGE 0 $ - FOUNDATION ONLY - NO CHARGE 0 $ - SWIMMING POOLS 0 $ - DECK 0 $ - TOTAL PERMITS & VALUATION 35 $ 1,834,334.00 136 $ 6,007,321.00 TOTAL PERMIT FEES $ 12,500.83 $ 47,674.49  3-2 CITY OF GALLUP PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MONTHLY COMPILATION OF PERMITS ISSUED JUNE 2022 DATE PERMIT PERMIT PERMIT OWNER / BUSINES CONTRACTOR SITE ADDRESS VALUATION ISSUED NO. TYPE FEES 6/1/22 22 - 118 BODENHAUSEN HOUSE LLC. SB BUILDERS LLC 600 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE ROOF REPAIR $ 87.00 $ 4,500.00 6/1/22 22 - 122 SHARON C. PALLISTER - YOUNG GALLUP FENCE CO. 3415 BLUE HILL AVENUE FENCE / RETAINING WALL $ 40.00 $ 1,000.00 DIAZ RESIDENTIAL 6/1/22 22 - 124 BEVERLY MARQUEZ 201 E. ADAMS AVENUE ROOF REPAIR $ 258.00 $ 23,995.00 CONSTRUCTION, LLC 6/2/22 22 - 125 EL RANCHO HOTEL HUNTINGTON CONSTRUCTION CO. 1000 E. HISTORIC HIGHWAY 66 DEMOLITION $ 108.70 $ 2,400.00 6/6/22 22 - 074 BEVERLY ESPINO GALLUP FENCE CO. 804 E. HILL AVENUE FENCE / RETAINING WALL $ 38.00 $ 852.00 6/6/22 22 - 101 THE BSNF COMPANY CENTIMARK CORPORATION 811 ROUNDHOUSE ROAD ROOF REPAIR $ 444.00 $ 50,248.00 6/8/22 22 - 113 CLAUDIO & CRYSTAL PADILLA GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 502 MOUNTAIN VIEW CIRCLE ROOF REPAIR $ 105.00 $ 6,500.00 6/8/22 22 - 116 JOHN A. KOZELISKI JR. ETAL. GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 202 WE STREET ROOF REPAIR $ 132.00 $ 10,000.00 6/8/22 22 - 119 JOHN A. KOZELISKI JR. ETAL. GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 201 WE STREET ROOF REPAIR $ 177.00 $ 14,400.00 DIAZ RESIDENTIAL 6/8/22 22 - 133 ROBERT RODRIGUEZ 1706 CAMINO DEL SOL ROOF REPAIR $ 141.00 $ 10,500.00 CONSTRUCTION, LLC DIAZ RESIDENTIAL 6/8/22 22 - 134 KELLY N. STAPP 514 SUNSET DRIVE ROOF REPAIR $ 168.00 $ 14,000.00 CONSTRUCTION, LLC 6/13/22 22 - 117 SHUNDIIN L. HARRIS GALLUP FENCE CO. 1900 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE FENCE / RETAINING WALL $ 56.00 $ 1,800.00 COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS / 6/13/22 22 - 135 NATIVE JEWELRY SUPPY MURPHY BUILDERS 213 S. THIRD STREET $ 69.95 $ 1,200.00 ALTERATIONS 6/13/22 22 - 141 PAMELA G. YARDLEY SB BUILDERS LLC 401 E. LOGAN AVENUE ROOF REPAIR $ 87.00 $ 4,500.00 NEW COMMERCIAL 6/14/22 21 - 280 POPEYES RESTAURANT BRAZOS CONTRACTORS & DEV. 3500 E. HISTORIC HIGHWAY 66 $ 7,982.63 $ 1,511,000.00 BUILDINGS 6/14/22 22 - 140 MARIE I. DIAZ HOMEOWNER 500 SANDS COURT FENCE / RETAINING WALL $ 30.00 $ 500.00 RESIDENTIAL STORAGE 6/15/22 22 - 112 ELIZABETH A. BARNES HOMEOWNER 3417 CHEE DODGE BOULEVARD $ 145.50 $ 6,411.00 SHED COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS / 6/15/22 22 - 128 EL RANCHO HOTEL HUNTINGTON CONSTRUCTION CO. 1010 E. HISTORIC HIGHWAY 66 $ 192.40 $ 9,000.00 ALTERATIONS AUTO GLASS & RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS / 6/15/22 22 - 146 ELIZABETH SHEA 3614 ZIA DRIVE $ 96.00 $ 5,957.00 COSTRUCTION, INC. ALTERATIONS RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS / 6/16/22 22 - 132 JOE W. MILOSEVICH REV. TRUST MATAYA CONSTRUCTION 1035 RANCHO ROAD $ 210.75 $ 12,000.00 ALTERATIONS RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS / 6/17/22 22 - 145 FREDERICK & ANDREA QUINTARA HOMEOWNER 408 E. GREEN AVENUE $ 184.65 $ 10,000.00 ALTERATIONS 6/20/22 22 - 145 BILLIE M. JOHNSON GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 1401 S. CLIFF DRIVE ROOF REPAIR $ 159.00 $ 12,250.00 324 BLACK DIAMOND CANYON 6/20/22 22 - 143 MARY K. CULLEN GALLUP ROOFING, INC. ROOF REPAIR $ 186.00 $ 15,300.00 DRIVE 6/20/22 22 - 151 KEVIN J. FOLEY GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 1126 BURKE DRIVE ROOF REPAIR $ 114.00 $ 7,350.00 6/20/22 22 - 152 CHRISTOPHER J. MOLINA GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 907 WAGON ROAD ROOF REPAIR $ 105.00 $ 7,000.00 6/23/22 22 - 081 EUGENE & DAISY THOMPSON HOMEOWNER 501 APACHE COURT FENCE / RETAINING WALL $ 105.00 $ 7,000.00 RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS / 6/27/22 22 - 160 CHRISTOPHER & SARAH PIANO HOMEOWNER 506 ZECCA DRIVE $ 80.25 $ 2,000.00 ALTERATIONS COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS / 6/28/22 22 - 129 TMOBILE WIRELESS NORTHSTAR COMMUNICATIONS 1450 KIT CARSON DRIVE $ 100.00 $ 20,000.00 ALTERATIONS 6/29/22 22 - 126 MUNOZ LAND HOLDINGS, LLC MUNOZ CORPORATION 2706 CHAMISAL AVENUE FENCE / RETAINING WALL $ 60.00 $ 1,500.00 6/29/22 22 - 148 NINA BENO GALLUP FENCE CO. 3723 CINIZA DRIVE FENCE / RETAINING WALL $ 69.00 $ 2,400.00 6/29/22 22 - 150 JUANITA P. MACIAS GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 1709 HELENA DRIVE ROOF REPAIR $ 168.00 $ 13,100.00 6/29/22 22 - 157 ROBERT & MELY JOHNSTON GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 1116 BURKE DRIVE ROOF REPAIR $ 150.00 $ 11,550.00 6/29/22 22 - 158 JONATHAN TODACHINE JR.,ETAL GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 3064 RED BLUFF COURT ROOF REPAIR $ 132.00 $ 9,450.00 6/29/22 22 - 159 BERT & MARILYN GJELTEMA REV. TRUST GALLUP ROOFING, INC. 607 VANDENBOSCH PARKWAY ROOF REPAIR $ 123.00 $ 8,750.00 6/30/22 22 - 163 WALMART STORE MERRILL FENCE COMPANY, LLC 1650 W. MALONEY AVENUE FENCE / RETAINING WALL $ 196.00 $ 15,921.00 TOTALS: $ 12,500.83 $ 1,834,334.00 4 RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 1 RESIDENTIAL STORAGE SHED 1 NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3 COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS / ALTERATIONS 17 ROOF REPAIR 1 DEMOLITION 8 FENCE / RETAINING WALL 35 TOTAL PERMITS P.O. BOX 1270 GALLUP, NM 87305 PHONE: 505.863.1240 FAX: 505.722.5131