Planning & Zoning Commission

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes to the August 26, 2014 Meeting Members Present: Ms. Shirley Childress Vice Chair Mr. Eddie Carrillo Secretary Mr. Toby Gross Member Mr. Riley Armstrong Member Mr. David Storey Member Mr. Bruce Gwartney Member Members Absent: Mr. Ralph Brown Chair Council Present: None Staff Present: Mr. Louis Najar City Engineer Mr. Marlin Johnson City Planner Mr. Louis Jaramillo Zoning Administrator Ms. Amber Copeland Zoning Technician Others Present: None CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Childress called the meeting to order. AGENDA Vice Chair Childress stated she would entertain a motion to separate Case 14-22 into 14-22A as a Zone Change request and 14-22B as a Special Use Permit request. Mr. Armstrong made a motion to amend the agenda to separate 14-22 into 14-22A and 14-22B. Mr. Gwartney made the second. The motion passed by a vote of six to zero. Mr. Gwartney made a motion to move Cases 14-22A and 14-22B to the end of the agenda. Mr. Armstrong made the second. The motion passed by a vote of six to zero. MINUTES Mr. Carrillo made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 31, 2014 meeting. Mr. Gross made the second. The motion passed by a vote of six to zero. SWEARING IN Vice Chair Childress swore in the audience and Staff. INFORMATION ITEMS Vice Chair Childress introduced William Zarr as the City Attorney and stated she would entertain a motion to have him move to the dais. Mr. Gross made a motion to have Mr. Zarr seated at the dais with the Commission members. Mr. Gwartney made the second. All voted in favor. Vice Chair Childress thanked the Commission members their voluntary service on the Commission and stated they worked hard to follow and enforce City ordinances. She stated Chair Brown had asked that guidelines the Commission is to use when considering cases be read. Mr. Johnson read Article 3, Section 9.D of Zoning Ordinance No. 10-02: Amended, regarding criteria for zone changes. Vice Chair Childress asked that all wishing to speak sign in with their names and addresses and asked that all commentary be kept to three minutes or under and remain on topic. Mr. Armstrong made a motion to waive the reading of the ‘Land Use and Zoning Considerations’ and ‘Finding of Facts’ for the following case. Mr. Storey made the second. The motion passed by a vote of six to zero. CASE 14-28: A Zone Change from R-S Rural Suburban District to C-2 Community Commercial District, the west 100’ of Lot 2-B-1 and the north 111’ of the west 100’ of Lot 4A of Replat of Lot 4 of Delgado-Mistry-Salazar Summary Plat, located along the west side of the 4000 Block of North Main Street, Narendra Mistry/Owner. Narendra Mistry, owner, spoke in favor of the request. He stated he wanted to have the zoning district line up over the lots and to make it square. He stated the front lot is entirely C-2 District and that it would add 100’ of C-2 District. MOTION Mr. Armstrong made a motion to approve Case 14-28 based on Findings of Facts and Land Use and Zoning Considerations. Mr. Gross made the second. The motion passed by a vote of six to zero. Mr. Armstrong made a motion to waive the reading of the ‘Land Use and Zoning Considerations’ and ‘Finding of Facts’ for the following case. Mr. Storey made the second. The motion passed by a vote of six to zero. CASE 14-29: A Zone Change from R-1 Residential District to C-2 Community Commercial District, the eastern 900’, more or less, of the western 1,350’ of the south 200’ of Tract B of the Masonic Temple Summary Plat, located along the north side of the 2000 block of West College Avenue, City of Roswell/Owner Mr. Johnson stated the request had come to the Commission as a result of a request made to the Buildings and Lands Committee to allow the sale of a piece of property for commercial use. He stated the lot depth would be the same as the lot to the west and that the width would extend to the proposed future location of a future street. He stated the land is owned by the City and clarified that was the reason Staff was bringing the matter to the Commission. MOTION Mr. Carrillo made a motion to approve Case 14-29 based on Land Use and Zoning Considerations and Findings of Facts. Mr. Gross made the second. The motion passed by a vote of six to zero. Mr. Storey made a motion to waive the reading of the ‘Land Use and Zoning Considerations’ and ‘Finding of Facts’ for the following case. Mr. Carrillo made the second. The motion passed by a vote of six to zero. CASE 14-30: A Designation of a Zoning District for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Pocono Place- A Portion of Lot 2 of Summary Replat of Lots 1 and 2 of Pocono Place Unit 1, located at the northwest corner of College Boulevard and Sycamore Avenue, located along the west side of the 1500-1600 Block of North Sycamore Avenue, Featherstone Development Corporation Prospector LLC/Owner Mr. Jaramillo stated Staff found the existing PUD after researching another case. He stated the property owner was in favor of an R-2 District designation and that it would be supported by the Comprehensive Master Plan (CMP). MOTION Mr. Armstrong made a motion to assign a designation of R-2 District to Case 14-30 based on Land Use and Zoning Considerations and Findings of Facts. Mr. Carrillo made the 2 second. The motion passed by a vote of six to zero. Mr. Gwartney made a motion to waive the reading of the ‘Land Use and Zoning Considerations’ and ‘Finding of Facts’ for the following case. Mr. Gross made the second. The motion passed by a vote of six to zero. CASE 14-31: A Termination of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Pocono Place- A Portion of Lot 2 of Summary Replat of Lots 1 and 2 of Pocono Place Unit 1, located at the northwest corner of College Boulevard and Sycamore Avenue, located along the west side of the 1500-1600 Block of North Sycamore Avenue, Featherstone Development Corporation Prospector LLC/Owner. Mr. Armstrong asked if the decision would include a recommendation to Council and Mr. Jaramillo stated it would. Mr. Storey asked if the zoning designation in 14-30 had taken care of the issue. Mr. Jaramillo stated 14-30 designated a zoning district but that the PUD still needed to be terminated. He stated the PUD has been undeveloped for 17 years, that it has no development plan, and that it does not meet requirements for a PUD, such as open space areas, no information on streets, and no sidewalks. MOTION Mr. Storey made a motion to recommend approval of Case 14-31 by City Council based on Land Use and Zoning Considerations and Findings of Facts. Mr. Armstrong made the second. The motion passed by a vote of six to zero. Mr. Gross made a motion to waive the reading of the ‘Land Use and Zoning Considerations’ and ‘Finding of Facts’ for the following case. Mr. Armstrong made the second. The motion passed by a vote of six to zero. CASE 14-32: A Conditional Use Permit for a Travel Trailer- Lot 16 and the West 27.79’ of Lot 17, Block 4 of Lomitas Encantadas, known as 2713 Highland Road, Henry and Edwina Rico/Owners. Henry Rico, owner, spoke in favor of the request. He stated he wanted to be able to keep his 5th wheel in its current location. Mr. Carrillo stated he lives a few houses down from Mr. Rico and that their family does a good job of maintaining their property. Mr. Armstrong asked Mr. Rico if he understood the permit would only apply to this particular trailer in its current location and Mr. Rico stated he did. Mr. Zarr stated statements from the Commission should not include personal comments and should not be part of the recommendation. Mr. Carrillo stated he would abstain from the case but that he would have voted in favor of the request. Mr. Najar stated he had done a site review of the property and looked at the view from the neighboring driveway. He stated he saw no obstructions and that the gooseneck design of the trailer allowed it to avoid being a site hazard. Vice Chair Childress reminded Mr. Rico that the permit would apply only to this trailer. Mr. Jaramillo stated not all Findings of Facts (FOF) for the case are in favor, including FOF #6 which states an 11’8” gate exists at the rear of the property. Mr. Rico stated the gate measures 11’ 51/2” and is inadequate to use to back the trailer in to. Mr. Armstrong asked what FOF #6 signified. Mr. Jaramillo stated it indicated an additional parking space for the trailer. Mr. Rico stated he cannot back the trailer into the gate. Edwina Rico, owner, stated the fence in the alley makes the approach too narrow and that the trailer can’t make the turn. Mr. Storey asked if FOF #6 should be removed to approve. Mr. Jaramillo stated it could be removed based on testimony given that the gate is too narrow. MOTION Mr. Storey made a motion to approve Case 14-32 based on Land Use and Zoning Considerations, testimony given, and Findings of Facts with the removal of #6. Mr. Gross made the second. The motion passed by a vote of five to zero. Mr. Carrillo recused himself. 3  Mr. Armstrong made a motion to waive the reading of the ‘Land Use and Zoning Considerations’ and ‘Finding of Facts’ for the following case. Mr. Gwartney made the second. The motion passed by a vote of six to zero. CASE 14-33: An Amendment to a Special Use Permit to Include a Beauty Salon- the west 72’ of Lots 5 and 6, Block 8 of Ovards Subdivision, known as 805 West Alameda Street, John and Paula Grieves/Owners. Mr. Jaramillo stated Ms. Copeland was distributing a protest letter received by Staff after the packets had been mailed. He stated it was the only protest received and stated that it did not constitute 20% of property owners within 100’. John Grieves, owner, spoke in favor of the request. He read the protest to the Commission. Mr. Carrillo asked if the protester was within the 100’. Mr. Jaramillo stated she owns the lot directly to the west at 209 South Kansas Avenue. Mr. Grieves stated he planned to sell the property to a massage therapist who planned to expand to have a salon later. Mr. Jaramillo stated barber and beauty shops are allowed as Special Uses in R-3 Districts. Mr. Grieves the proposed buyer is responsible and that he could foresee no problems. He stated there is already a problem with trash in the neighborhood and that a Laundromat already exists across the street. Mr. Armstrong asked Staff if the property was formerly a dental office and Mr. Jaramillo stated it had been. Mr. Armstrong asked if there was much difference between the professional office spaces. Mr. Jaramillo stated it would continue as a professional office with the future addition of a beauty salon. Mr. Storey asked what the Commission would be approving. He stated the massage therapy business would fall under the designation of the existing professional office and that the beauty salon would fall under the amendment of the Special Use. Mr. Storey stated the trash issue is the main point in the protest and that the City’s dumpsters do not have secure lids. He stated he wasn’t sure it could be tied to the Special Use. Mr. Johnson stated the request meets the Comprehensive Master Plan and that it was an amendment to an existing Special Use. Mr. Najar stated the property was formally Barone Dental Office and that Engineering Staff supports the request. MOTION Mr. Storey made a motion to approve Case 14-33 based on Land Use and Zoning Considerations and Findings of Facts. Mr. Gwartney made the second. The motion passed by a vote of six to zero. CASE 14-22A: A Zone Change From C-2 Community Commercial District to I-1 Light Industrial District, Tract 2 of Bennet Summary Subdivision, known as 1612 East 2nd Street, Bill and Mary Shepard/Owners, James Manatt, Jr./Agent. Vice Chair Childress read a prepared statement regarding the previous hearing and issues regarding the Open Meetings Act. She stated the case was being heard again by Commission to correct the procedural errors. She stated that the Commission had not detailed what was discussed during the closed session during the previous hearing and had not properly reopened the meeting. She stated Ms. Copeland would do a roll call vote to affirm the Commission agreed with the prepared statement. Mr. Armstrong stated he wanted to assure that the roll call vote would affirm that the Commission agreed with the prepared statement Vice Chair Childress had read. Vice Chair Childress stated that was correct. Mr. Armstrong asked why a copy of the statement had not been provided to the Commission. Mr. Zarr stated he had indicated he would provide it to Vice Chair Childress and would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Armstrong stated it would have been beneficial for the Commission to have been able to study the statement. He stated he trusted what Mr. Zarr stated was correct but that he did not agree with the procedure. He voted that he agreed with the statement. Mr. Carrillo stated he agreed with the statement with reservations. Vice Chair Childress stated she agreed with the statement. Mr. Gross stated he agreed with the statement. Mr. Gwartney stated he agreed with the statement. Mr. Storey stated he agreed with the statement. Mary Shepard, owner, stated she had been told they would receive a letter addressing the statement and that they had not seen the letter or the statement and felt they would have been entitled to that information prior to the meeting. Mr. Zarr stated the statement had been for the record and apologized for any miscommunication. Vice Chair Childress stated it had been 4 read to correct the action at the previous meeting. Mr. Zarr stated a memo had been sent to Council. Bill Shepard, owner, stated they had asked for a copy and had not received one. Mr. Zarr stated a memo had been sent to Council and the City Manager and apologized again for any misunderstanding. Mr. Gross asked if it would be in violation of procedure to take additional testimony and stated Mr. Shepard was giving testimony without stating his name or address. Mr. Zarr stated it was safe to proceed. Mr. Carrillo asked Mr. Shepard to state his name for the record. Mr. Shepard clarified his name. Vice Chair Childress asked Mr. Zarr if the residents had been sent to the residents within 100’. Mr. Zarr stated that was correct. Mr. Jaramillo stated the letter was sent to the residents via regular mail. Mr. Armstrong made a motion to waive the reading of the Land Use and Zoning Considerations and Findings of Facts for the following case. Mr. Carrillo made the second. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. Vice Chair Childress read an additional portion of the prepared statement. She stated the Commission would be hearing final statements and that all testimony and evidence would be a matter of record. She asked that those speaking keep their statements brief. Mr. Zarr stated the Commission must decide on the Findings of Facts and read the criteria aloud. He stated a written decision would be read at the conclusion of the meeting. Bill Shepard, owner, stated he requested a roll call vote for any motions and stated he did not want a Special Use Permit. He stated this was the third meeting for the case and that he had not received the letters from Mr. Zarr. Mr. Jaramillo stated no written protests had been received. Mr. Shepard stated he would like to address the protests which had been received at the last hearings. He stated he had never seen mothers with strollers along the highway. He stated he believed Walter Johnson had been incorrect when he stated the culverts installed by the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) were a bandaid on the problem and provided photos of the culverts. He stated his property has drained adequately and that an asphalt dam at Walter Johnson’s property and could impede drainage. He stated Mike Johnson claimed the proposed business would make the area smell like Artesia. Mr. Shepard stated that was false. He stated the neighboring RV park had been concerned about disturbances to their customers and stated the owners would place their business on the western side of the property to mitigate noise issues. He stated the flooding concerns do not pertain to zone changes. Mr. Armstrong stated the packets include a letter from Mr. Najar regarding drainage in that area and that there was a potential for issues. He asked if it would need to be addressed by the NMDOT. Mr. Najar stated the NMDOT would have to approve any changes and stated the drainage issues did not pertain to zoning. He stated the letter had been included to make all parties aware of any issues. Mr. Armstrong asked if an impact study would be required. Mr. Najar stated any development would be subject to a site plan review. Mr. Gross asked Mr. Shepard if the Special Use Permit was unwanted. Mr. Shepard stated that was correct. Mr. Gross asked for clarification from Staff. Mr. Zarr stated the current case was only for the zone change. Mr. Gross asked if the Commission would next give a decision on Case 14-22B. Mr. Shepard stated he would withdraw Case 14-22B. Mary Shepard, owner, provided the Commission with a handout. She stated it showed I- 1 District next to residential districts and gave examples. She stated it is not a unique situation. She stated I-1 District is across the street and that the Comprehensive Master Plan supports industrial zoning along arterial streets. She stated the present owners bought their properties with the existing drainage problems. Mrs. Shepard stated Wesley Needham had brought a suit against the NMDOT regarding the drainage issues and had lost. Josie Barnes, 1600 East 2nd Street, stated she had concerns about effects to her business. She stated she had plans to move to the property to retire and that she worried that her health issues, including Chronic Lymphoma Leukemia, would be aggravated by the chemicals brought by the trucking company. Wesley Needham, 1624 East 2nd Street, stated he had won the aforementioned lawsuit and that that was why the culverts were installed. Diana Tuttle, 1700 East 2nd Street, stated she was worried about effects to her home and 5 business. She stated the Shepards’ property drains onto hers and that development on the property would make the flooding worse. Erin McGonagle, 1706 East 2nd Street, stated she had concerns about the effects of noise from the business on her RV park. Mr. Shepard stated the potential buyer had agreed to place the business on the far side of the lot away from the RV park to mitigate the noise. He stated a detention pond would be built to address the drainage issues and discussed the topography maps. Mr. Storey asked about moving the facility to the west and how close it would be to Ms. Barnes. Mr. Shepard stated that he and the potential buyer would be willing to work with the neighbors and to address their concerns. He stated a site plan would be provided. Mr. Zarr stated the criteria for approval or denial had been discussed. Vice Chair Childress asked if the Findings of Facts and Land Use and Zoning Considerations must be read before the motion could be made. Mr. Zarr stated that all three criteria must be satisfied and that the Commission should be mindful of that. Mr. Storey asked for a clarification of the three criteria. Mr. Johnson read the criteria aloud: that it be in accordance with the Land Use Plan, that it be in the public interest, and that it not be solely in the interest of the applicant. Mr. Storey asked if that applied to all zone changes and Mr. Johnson stated that was correct. Mr. Johnson stated that on Mr. Zarr’s advice he had drafted a list of Findings of Facts to approve and those to deny. The Findings of Facts to approve were the following: 1. A. There is Industrial zoning in the County adjacent to this property across East 2nd Street. B. Industrial zoning is appropriate along Major Arterials such as East 2nd Street. C. An up-zone from C-2 to I-1 is just one step, the least possible. D. Industrial zoning adjacent to Commercial zoning is commonplace in the City. 2. A. Economic development is in the public interest as jobs may be created and the tax base increases. 3. A. There is Industrial zoning adjacent to this property and the ability to rezone to Industrial is available for other landowners in the vicinity. B. Increased traffic on a State Highway is subject to the authority of NMDOT and they had no comment. C. Increase in traffic and noise from Commercial Zoning to Industrial Zoning is deemed minimal. Mr. Armstrong stated Mr. Johnson had not spoken to the weight of testimony in the case. Mr. Johnson he had addressed it regarding the traffic and noise and the lack of comment from the NMDOT. Mr. Zarr stated the Commission is entitled to weigh the testimony. Mr. Armstrong stated that no new evidence had been given. He stated the Commission was being told that this case was different from others and it is not. He stated the procedure that had been followed previously was no longer acceptable. Ms. Tuttle asked if the third criteria regarding the request being for the neighbors’ benefit was being met. Mr. Gross stated the zone change would bring business to the area which would benefit the larger community. Mrs. Shepard stated to Mr. Zarr that she was unsure how the criteria adhered to for her request had been used in the other zone change cases that evening. She asked how a Conditional Use Permit is for the benefit of the community and stated all cases should be held to the same criteria. Mr. Jaramillo stated Conditional Use Permits necessarily have a different set of criteria to meet. Mr. Zarr responded to Mr. Armstrong regarding the Findings of Facts and stated the Commission was being asked to be specific as to which Findings of Facts supported their decision. Mr. Armstrong asked if the prospective buyer had been able to attend the hearing. Mr. Shepard stated he thought the buyer had been unwilling to attend due to the previous meetings. He stated he would be willing to answer any questions. Mr. Armstrong stated the neighbors would probably like to hear from the owner. Mr. Shepard stated the sale was not definite and that the issue had been time sensitive. He stated the sale had been held up for sixty days while the meetings went on. He stated he would like to go on with the request. Mr. Shepard stated the flooding could be mitigated with detention ponds and that he would be willing to do that as well draft a site plan to work with the neighbors. Mr. Johnson stated Finding of Fact #3 should be removed as it is no longer relevant. Mr. Jaramillo stated Finding of Fact #6 should be removed as the Special Use Permit was no longer attached to the Zone Change request. Mr. Storey asked if a positive motion was required. 6  MOTION Mr. Storey made a motion to approve Case 14-32A based on Land Use and Zoning Considerations, Findings of Facts with the removal of #3 and #6, and testimony provided at that meeting and the previous meetings. Mr. Jaramillo stated Finding of Fact #1 does not support approval. Mr. Johnson stated he felt it could be left in as a fact. Mr. Johnson read the Findings of Facts to approve: 1. A. There is Industrial zoning in the County adjacent to this property across East 2nd Street. B. Industrial zoning is appropriate along Major Arterials such as East 2nd Street. C. An up-zone from C-2 to I-1 is just one step, the least possible. D. Industrial zoning adjacent to Commercial zoning is commonplace in the City. 2. A. Economic development is in the public interest as jobs may be created and the tax base increases. 3. A. There is Industrial zoning adjacent to this property and the ability to rezone to Industrial is available for other landowners in the vicinity. B. Increased traffic on a State Highway is subject to the authority of NMDOT and they had no comment. C. Increase in traffic and noise from Commercial Zoning to Industrial Zoning is deemed minimal. Mr. Carrillo made the second. Mr. Gross asked if a 2/3 majority vote was required. Mr. Jaramillo stated it was not. Vice Chair Childress asked for a roll call vote. Mr. Armstrong voted against the motion. Mr. Carrillo voted against the motion. Vice Chair Childress voted against the motion. Mr. Gross voted against the motion. Mr. Gwartney voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Storey voted in favor of the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 2-4. Vice Chair Childress informed those present of the appeals process. Mr. Jaramillo stated the owners had already provided Staff with their appeal letter after the previous hearing. Mr. Zarr stated the Commission must show the criteria that was not satisfied. Mr. Najar stated the Commission is not required to do that. Mr. Gross stated the Commission had never done that. Mr. Jaramillo stated the appeal must state the reason why the request was denied and that the Vice Chair could present that in a written document by the following Thursday. Mr. Armstrong asked if those voting against the motion must provide reasoning. Mr. Zarr stated that was correct. Mr. Armstrong stated Findings of Fact #1 did not support approval, Highway 380 is an arterial but the area is not conducive to industrial businesses, and that the number of protests weighed heavily on his decision. Mr. Zarr asked if those who voted against the motion concurred. Mr. Carrillo concurred and added that environmental concerns factored in. Vice Chair Childress and Mr. Gross concurred with Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Carrillo. CASE 14-22B: Special Use for Outside Storage in a C-2 District, Tract 2 of Bennet Summary Subdivision, known as 1612 East 2nd Street, Bill and Mary Shepard/Owners, James Manatt, Jr./Agent. Mr. Shepard withdrew the request. CASE 14-23: A Zone Change from MHC Mobile Home Community District to R-S Rural Suburban District, Tract 1 of Bennet Summary Subdivision, located along the north side of the 1600 Block of East Alameda Street, Bill and Mary Shepard/Owners, James Manatt, Jr./Agent. Mr. Shepard stated he would like to have the case withdrawn but be able to have it heard again before the one year time limit. Mr. Jaramillo stated since the case was withdrawn and not heard the applicant could bring it back at any time. Mr. Shepard stated he would bring the case back if the front tract was rezoned and that he wanted to go on record that he is willing to work with the neighbors. Mr. Johnson stated a verbal request to withdraw was adequate. Mr. Shepard asked to withdraw the request. He discussed businesses he could build on Tract 2 under its current C-2 District zoning such as convenience stores. 7 Non-Agenda and Public Comments: There were no Non-Agenda or Public Comments. Other Business: There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 9:04 p.m. Vice Chair Shirley Childress Secretary Eddie Carrillo _________________________________ _________________________________ 8