Loading...
08-26-2014 t PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 FOR THE 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 City Council Chambers 5 August 26, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. 6 7 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 8 Godfrey Crane, Chairman 9 William Stowe, Vice-Chair 10 Charles Beard, Secretary 11 Ruben Alvarado, Member 12 Kirk Clifton, Member 13 14 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 15 Joanne Ferrary, Member 16 17 STAFF PRESENT: 18 Adam Ochoa, Planner, CLC 19 Mark Dubbin, CLC Fire Department 20 Robert Cabello, CLC Legal Staff 21 Becky Baum, Recording Secretary, RC Creations, LLC 22 23 I. CALL TO ORDER (6:00) 24 25 Crane: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Planning and 26 Zoning Commission meeting for 26th of August, 2014. We are called to 27 order. Let me start as we usually do by introducing the Commissioners 28 present. On my far right is Commissioner Clifton representing District 6; 29 then Commissioner and Vice Chairman Stowe for District 1; 30 Commissioner Alvarado, District 3; Commissioner Beard and Secretary, 31 District 2; I'm Godfrey Crane, Chairman, representing District 4. 32 Commissioner Ferrary will not be with us tonight. And I'm happy to report 33 we now have a seventh Commissioner, newly appointed Mr. Gordon who 34 cannot be with us tonight but we shall no doubt meet him next time. 35 36 Il. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 37 At the opening of each meeting, the chairperson shall ask if any member on the 38 Commission or City staff has any known conflict of interest with any item on the 39 agenda. 40 41 Crane: Now it's my time to ask if any Commissioner or any member of the 42 Community Planning has any conflict of interest regarding any item on 43 tonight's agenda? No one indicates so, so we'll continue. 44 45 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 46 1. July 22, 2014 - Regular Meeting 1 2 Crane: Approval of the minutes for our last meeting, July 22nd. Commissioners, 3 anybody have any notes on the minutes? I seem to be the only one. 1 4 have several. On page 2, near the top line 4, that Roman IV should be 5 down to line 38, and then after that all the other Roman numerals should 6 follow. On page 3, line 26 take out the "none" under Old Business. Come 7 back to page 2, line 36 extension should abstentions. Line 1, page 3, 1 8 think I probably said "Now we pass to the consent agenda." Page 3, line 9 38, "Now we pass the regular agenda which is in two sections; old 10 business in which we have a couple of items' with a couple of insertions 11 there. Page 6, line 11 "Commissioner Stowe, are you through?"just insert 12 the word "are". Page 48, line 28, "it might serve everybody's" one word, 13 "everybody" apostrophe s. And page 74, line 10, Ms. Ayres, I think her 14 name is spelled Ayres for that line. And I believe I have one more. It 15 skipped my attention, give me a moment. No I don't see it, okay we'll pass 16 on that. Any other Commissioner have any points regarding the last 17 minutes? I'll entertain a motion then that the minutes as amended be 18 accepted. I have a mover? 19 20 Stowe: So moved. 21 22 Crane: Mr. Stowe moves. Second? 23 24 Clifton: Second. 25 26 Crane: Seconded by Mr. Clifton. All in favor aye. 27 28 ALL: Aye. 29 30 Crane: Against? Nay. Okay. And abstention, Mr. Beard. Thank you sir. It 31 passes four/one ... four/zero and one abstention. 32 33 IV. CONSENTAGENDA 34 35 1. Case PUD-14-03: Application of Sierra Norte Development Inc., property 36 owner, for a Final Site Plan known as Metro Verde South Phase 1 E for the 37 Metro Verde South Planned Unit Development (PUD). The subject area 38 encompasses 18.03+/- acres and is located generally on the northwest 39 corner of Engler Road and Red Hawk Golf Road within the Sierra Norte area; 40 ParcelID#: 02-42150. Proposed Use: The Final Site Plan proposes 59 41 single-family residential lots, three drainage/access tracts and a 42 park/recreational area; Council District 5 (Sorg). 43 44 Crane: Now we continue to tonight's agenda. The consent agenda, let me 45 explain how this works in case anybody here is not familiar with it. Items 46 on the consent agenda are put there by Community Development during 2 I the preparation for the meeting. They're put in the consent agenda 2 because they're considered to be probably not very contentious and not 3 requiring debate. What we do as a Commission is vote on them as one 4 block, tonight there's only one item. We would vote on the consent 5 agenda regardless as just up or down on that item, unless any 6 Commission Member, or anybody at Community Development, or any 7 member of the public wants to actually debate the issue. This is Case 8 PUD-14-03. Any Commissioner wish to take this off the consent agenda? 9 Any member of the public? Seeing nobody so indicating, we will vote on 10 the consent agenda, Case PUD-14-03, the Metro Verde South Phase 1E, 11 final site plan. May I hear a motion to accept the consent agenda? 12 13 Beard: So moved. 14 15 Crane: Moved by Mr. Beard. Seconded? 16 17 Clifton: Second. 18 19 Crane: Seconded by Mr. Clifton. All in favor aye. 20 21 ALL: Aye. 22 23 Crane: Against, nay. Passes five/zero. Thank you. 24 25 V. OLD BUSINESS - NONE 26 27 Crane: Do we have any old business Mr. Ochoa? 28 29 Ochoa: No sir, none tonight. 30 31 VI. NEW BUSINESS 32 33 1. Case IDP-14-02: An application of Robert Abercrombie, property owner, for 34 a replat of an underutilized property into tow (2) new residential lots under a 35 subdivision known as Las Cruces Realty Company's Replat No. 3 and for 36 three accompanying variances; (1) a 24.02-foot variance to the minimum 70- 37 foot lot depth requirement for Lot 1, (2) a 58.76-square foot variance to the 38 minimum 3,500-square foot lot size requirement for Lot 1; (3) a 0.3-foot 39 variance to the minimum 5-foot secondary front yard setback requirement for 40 Lot 1. The subject property encompasses 0.265+/- acres, is zoned R-1a 41 (Single-Family Medium Density), is located within the Alameda Depot 42 Neighborhood Overlay Zone 3 and is located on the north side of Mountain 43 Avenue and the south side of McFie Avenue, 75+/- feet east of their 44 intersection with Reymond Street; a.k.a. 436 W. Mountain Avenue; Parcel 45 ID#: 02-05601. Council District 1 (Silva). 46 3 I Crane: Okay, so to continue to new business. This works a little bit differently. 2 We at first have a presentation from a member of Community Planning; 3 tonight it'll be Mr. Ochoa. Commissioners may have questions for him. 4 Then we ask if the applicant or a representative of the applicant would like 5 to step forward and say a few words or perhaps even many words and we 6 may have some questions of that person. Finally we open it to members 7 of the public and they can have their say. At that point we will close the 8 matter to further debate and the Commissioners will discuss among 9 themselves and take a vote. So, Mr. Ochoa you have Case IDP-14-02, 10 application for a number of variances on some property on Mountain 11 Avenue. 12 13 Ochoa: Thank you sir. Adam Ochoa, for the record, with Development 14 Services. Your first and only case tonight gentlemen is case IDP-14-02. It 15 is a request for approval of an infill development process proposal for a 16 property located at 436 West Mountain Avenue. That property shown 17 here highlighted in the hash marks here, it's on the north side of Mountain, 18 south side of McFie, about 75 feet east of those intersections with 19 Reymond Street, shown here on the vicinity map, Alameda to the east, 20 Picacho to the north. Showing here the zoning map of that subject area, 21 the subject property again highlighted in the hash marks. Subject property 22 is zoned R-1a, single-family medium density and is located as you can 23 see here in what's called the ADO 3, which is Zone 3 in the Alameda 24 Depot Overlay. 25 As I said before it is located on the north side of Mountain Avenue 26 and within the Alameda Depot overlay, zoned single-family medium 27 density. Currently the subject property is made up of three underlying lots 28 which encompass approximately 0.265 acres. The property as it currently 29 exists is non-conforming with all requirements of the current 2001 Zoning 30 Code; the one and biggest issue being that the subject property currently 31 contains three existing residential dwellings on it. All three dwellings on 32 the one property ... well technically three underlying properties with 33 buildings straddling those property lines, another that is not permitted 34 under the current code. What the applicant is trying to do with this infill 35 development IDP proposal is replat the property into two new residential 36 lots; Lot 1 will encompass approximately 0.079 acres and will contain one 37 dwelling unit and another dwelling will be converted into an accessory 38 structure for storage; Lot 2 will encompass approximately 0.186 acres and 39 will contain the other historically registered dwelling on it. Shown here on 40 the replat, Lot 1 here to the north, Lot 2 to the south, so essentially Lot 1 41 will front McFie, Lot 2 will front Mountain Avenue. This is where the one 42 currently registered historic structure exists and where the other two 43 structures exist, where there will be one dwelling and a storage structure 44 on the opposite side. This will be the replat which will be eliminating... 45 you can kind of see here underlying, three underlying lot lines into two 46 new lots. 4 I Accompanying the replat are three associated variances that are 2 required for this infill development proposal, first being a 24.02-foot 3 variance to the minimum required 75-foot lot depth requirement for Lot 1; 4 a 58.76 square foot variance to the minimum 3,500 square foot lot size 5 requirement for Lot 1; and a 0.3-foot variance to the minimum five-foot 6 secondary front yard setback requirement for Lot 1. All three of these 7 again are required not only to make ... to make the replat possible, but 8 also to bring the property into compliance by actually acknowledging those 9 variances and technically saying that the property is now following the 10 requirements with these variances as well. The proposed IDP will make 11 the non-conforming property compliant with all the Zoning Code 12 Requirements. 13 You can see here the ... excuse me, on the plat here the ... the 14 improvement plat, excuse me, one dwelling here on the Lot 2, 0.186 acres 15 but with access off of an alley to the east here, parking there. The other 16 one to the north off of McFie with the two-story dwelling and the storage ... 17 the home, the (inaudible) will be converted into storage and their parking 18 off McFie as well. You can see here the applicant has been putting a lot 19 of work into renovating all three structures and bringing them into 20 compliance not only with the Zoning Code with this infill development 21 proposal, but also with all building requirements as well. 22 On August 6th, 2014 the Development Review Committee did 23 review the proposed IDP and after some minor discussions at the 24 meeting, the DRC did recommend approval for the proposed infill 25 development proposal. Just for your record the Planning and Zoning 26 Commission does have final authority on IDP cases. Staff recommends 27 approval for the proposed IDP based on the findings found in the staff 28 report that you all received in your packets. With that gentlemen your 29 options tonight are 1) to vote yes to approve the infill development 30 proposal as recommended by the DRC and staff; 2) to vote yes and 31 approve the IDP with any ... with any conditions deemed appropriate by 32 the P&Z; 3) to vote no, deny the IDP proposal; or 4) postpone and direct 33 staff accordingly. 34 Staff only received one phone call about the proposed infill 35 development, it was just questions, what was going on, what's going on 36 with my property, but no real issues with what was happening with the 37 actual IDP proposal. With that the applicant and his representative are 38 here for any questions you might have of them and I stand for questions. 39 40 Crane: Thank you Mr. Ochoa. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Ochoa? 41 Commissioner Beard. 42 43 Beard: What would happen if we didn't approve this? 44 45 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, essentially the property would 46 continue to be, exist non-conforming, not following any, well not any, but 5 I not following the current code requirements. The applicant is trying to 2 replat the property for refinancing purposes and he would not be able to 3 refinance this (inaudible). 4 5 Beard: The ... wouldn't they normally look for the variances to be approved 6 before they constructed the two story building? 7 8 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, the two story building ... all the 9 buildings there have been existing there long before these current zoning 10 code requirements have been in effect. I believe the circled home there 11 has been there since 1920s I believe. 12 13 Abercrombie: 1948. 14 15 Ochoa: Since 1948, so they are relatively old and used to follow former 16 requirements of the zoning codes, or codes in the City, but they are not 17 compliant with current codes. This infill development will allow for that ... 18 for us to recognize those and bring them into compliance with today's 19 code by allowing the variances. 20 21 Beard: When I read through the City's review I see a lot of "no's" so I'd like to go 22 over those. Eight dash one, 8.1, the attachment eight; this is the current 23 planning, they say no, so ... and there's a lot of "no's' on here; half the 24 staff has said no. I don't understand why there is a "yes" with conditions 25 instead of "no", and if there's a "no" why did the City go ahead and 26 recommend this be passed? 27 28 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, if you continue through there they 29 are ... the actual attachments are numbered by section, so with 30 Development Services there is a review one and there's a review two, and 31 so on and so forth. So even though it was not approved during review 32 one, it was approved in later reviews. Not only that but there are also 33 conversations with the applicant and staff to take care of all issues before 34 going to DRC. DRC being the final vote which is essentially where all staff 35 meets and makes sure that everything's compliant with their requirements 36 sir. So that, DRC did recommend approval for it so all requirements were 37 met. 38 39 Crane: So there's a document in here that supersedes that one that 40 Commissioner Beard is talking about? 41 42 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman that is correct. Essentially the notes or the comments were 43 placed in there essentially because in the past we've had Commissioners 44 ask, "well how did this come to be as it exists now?", so staff just puts all 45 comments in there from all reviews for proposals for your review pleasure, 46 if you will. But it is actually ... a proposal typically does not go to the DRC, 6 1 the Development Review Committee until all issues are resolved and DRC 2 is where if any issues still linger they will be resolved there and DRC acts 3 on that proposal. 4 5 Crane: Thank you. 6 7 Beard: So the one that says engineering services, it says a "yes" with ... I mean 8 there's a ... it starts out with "no" but it ends up with a "yes with 9 conditions". So those conditions have been met? 10 11 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, that is correct. 12 13 Beard: Traffic engineering, I don't see a "yes with conditions". 14 15 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, again this was discussed afterwards, 16 traffic engineering. If you're reading your staff report we did kind of a 17 breakdown, the one final remaining "no" which is traffic engineering, they 18 required for the applicant to work with engineering services to take care of 19 any lingering or better yet to request any lingering engineering variances 20 that may be needed for the property to further clean up the non- 21 conforming property essentially. 22 23 Beard: Okay. Getting on with that then, on the two-story building I notice that 24 there is parking for two automobiles, is that ... does that meet the code? 25 26 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, yes it does. 27 28 Beard: That residence is a two ... two residences isn't it? 29 30 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, really that's only a single-family 31 residence. 32 33 Beard: It has an upstairs entry. 34 35 Ochoa: Yes sir. The applicant has stated that it's going to remain a single-family 36 residence. 37 38 Beard: Oh, okay. 39 40 Ochoa: But to answer your question, yes sir, it does meet the requirements, 41 single-family residences in the City of Las Cruces are required to have a 42 minimum of one and a half to two parking spaces per property. 43 44 Beard: Okay. That's it. Thank you. 45 46 Crane: Mr. Clifton. 7 t 2 Clifton: Mr. Chair, Adam, just kind of to build on your clarification, I think quite 3 honestly for future reference you might want to run this by Mr. Weir about 4 getting comments in our packet ... and I've noticed there's been a long 5 standing debate with various Commissions over the years, but quite 6 honestly I think it's a little more confusing than anything else and honestly 7 if it's here before us, it has been through a review process and I'm 8 confident in the City staff, they won't be bringing us anything that's 9 suspect, at least 1 would hope. So I mean what you see here is a 10 (inaudible) the review process and dynamic. It's not static. Review one 11 comes in on September 1st as an example, staff looks at it. Five years 12 later gives them back review comments. Review two comments get 13 resubmitted to staff, staff review it and gives them back to the applicant, 14 addresses them. Hopefully this will pass that but often times it does 15 (inaudible) three comments get addressed, sent to staff, they review it, 16 and when they deem it official, then approved, good at the staff level, they 17 then take it to the DRC or their zoning committee that's in house, then is they make the recommendation that comes before us. And really, I mean 19 1 think, you know when this gets ... these packets get distributed 20 sometimes less is more and what I worry about is when it gets in the hand 21 ... hands of the public or opposition that don't understand that progression 22 and that process, it's certainly going to make us have a much longer 23 meeting, but you know I think it would just flow a little bit easier and at 24 least I personally have the confidence in staff that they would bring us a 25 good case to hear. And in terms of this particular case, whether it's 26 subdivided or it's not, it remains the same. This is probably constructed 27 pre- I think you said 1948, pre- I think the 1955 zoning code, so it's 28 actually legal non-conforming as is. It's not just non-conforming but it can 29 probably get a legal non-conforming from ... status from staff, but then the 30 problem lies with the owner in selling the properties. It's just a clear title 31 makes things cleaner, it allows them to sell it, and it's an underutilized 32 property is probably the best fit, (inaudible). There are three lot lines there 33 right now, so they're basically taking the three down to two and those lots 34 were probably subdivided in the early 1900s. 35 36 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Clifton, that is correct, the subdivision was 37 done in 1905. 38 39 Crane: Mr. Clifton are you suggesting that these check-off sheets, the part of our 40 package be simply eliminated from it? 41 42 Clifton: Merely a suggestion. 43 44 Crane: And what about the DRC minutes or the sections that are included in 45 there, the Development Review Commission, Committee? 46 8 I Clifton: Mr. Chair, members of the Commissioner, quite frankly I'm indifferent to 2 the minutes. I mean again if the staff recommendation is substantive or if 1 3 have questions of staff, I have no problem calling at them and asking, "I 4 don't understand this packet or your recommendation, can you explain it 5 to me?" The minutes are merely just a record and I don't know, maybe it's 6 just different for me because I have a clearer understanding having done 7 the job that Adam's doing, so ... 8 9 Crane: It seems to me that the minutes of the DRC might still be helpful to us 10 because they ... questions that we might like to bring up, they've already I1 been brought up, but I kind of agree with you about the check sheets. 12 Would that be a problem? 13 14 Beard: I ... I have a comment on that. 15 16 Crane: Mr. Beard. 17 18 Beard: Personally I like the subdivision review. I really do. In this case the traffic 19 and the surveyor were left ... we didn't see the end result on it. They were 20 left as "no's' and we didn't see that they had been resolved. I think that if 21 they show the resolved on each one of those items that would be good. 22 And the reason I say this is that lots of times I disagree with say traffic in 23 their assessment of what they're recommending, and so I would like to 24 see what they have said and what they're doing about it. So I ... my 25 personal opinion is that we leave the City subdivision reviews in as long as 26 they're complete. 27 28 Crane: Well I guess we can always ignore them if we don't find them fruitful, but 29 I'm inclined to agree if they stay in, all dots ... all "I's" should be dotted and 30 "T's" crossed. I did notice myself that there are a number of "no's" and 1 31 began to find out that they'd been superseded by other documents as 1 32 start looking. But I'll take your word for it a couple of them were left 33 dangling. 34 35 Beard: Yes. 36 37 Crane: So, where are we? Any more questions for Mr. Ochoa? 38 39 Clifton: Just real quick and Adam can confirm this, again this dynamic process, 40 often times I'd say probably eight out of ten times before Planning and 41 Zoning, before they come before us, after we've already received the 42 packets, a lot of times the applicant will be scrambling at the last minute, 43 taking care of issues, making sure when they get in this room that there's 44 no conditions or anything that might raise a red flag. So a lot of times 45 Adam may not even have the revised condition and that's where he would 46 step in and say "yeah, there was a review three, but since that time this is 9 I how they (inaudible)." 2 3 Crane: Anything else Mr. Ochoa? Thank you Adam. The applicant present, or 4 the applicant's representative? Please come on up, identify yourself, and 5 I'll swear you in. 6 7 Gonzales: My name is Michael Gonzales. I work for Moy Surveying. I'm the 8 representative of the applicant, Robert Abercrombie. 9 10 Crane: Thank you. Mr. Gonzales do you swear or affirm that the testimony you 11 are about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of t2 law? 13 14 Gonzales: I do. 15 16 Crane: Please go on. 17 18 Gonzales: I'd be happy to entertain any questions. Staff put forth a pretty clear and 19 concise report and I don't have anything to alter or change to the report 20 that Mr. Ochoa gave. So 1'd be happy to entertain any questions about 21 the project that you may have. 22 23 Crane: Commissioners? Mr. Beard. 24 25 Beard: Excuse me. Where is the parking for Lot 1? 26 27 Gonzales: The larger parcel, Lot 1, the parking is adjacent to the property on the east 28 side, there's two parking spaces that are graveled and it's accessed from 29 the alley. 30 31 Beard: Would that be parallel parking there? 32 33 Gonzales: No, it'd be angled parked. 34 35 Beard: Angled. 36 37 Gonzales: Yes sir. On the improvement survey it shows the angled parking for the 38 larger lot and then off-street parking perpendicular to the street on the 39 smaller lot. 40 41 Beard: If you put a truck in there, that would stick out in the driveway, wouldn't it? 42 43 Gonzales: No sir. The lots ... the parking stalls are standard nine by 19. 44 45 Beard: Okay. Thank you. 46 10 I Crane: Mr. Gonzales the plot we have, attachment number three if I'm reading 2 correctly shows Lot 2 is the larger lot, is the nice white house, and Lot 1 is 3 the smaller lot with the brown two story house. 4 5 Gonzales: Correct. 6 7 Crane: I think we had them switched in your answer. 8 9 Gonzales: Oh, okay. 10 11 Crane: Okay. Lot 1 ... Lot 1 is the smaller lot and Lot 2 is the larger lot. 12 13 Gonzales: Yes, correct. 14 15 Beard: Well my question was for the larger lot. 16 17 Gonzales: Yeah, and on the larger lot that was the angled parking. 18 19 Beard: Okay. 20 21 Crane: Any other questions of Mr. Gonzales? Thank you sir. 22 23 Gonzales: Thank you gentlemen. 24 25 Crane: Members of the public. Lady in the front had her hand up. 26 27 Coffman: I do have a question. 28 29 Baum: On the mike please. 30 31 Coffman: I don't need a microphone I'm loud enough as it is. The question I have ... 32 33 Crane: I need your name. 34 35 Coffman: Lynn Coffman. 36 37 Crane: Ms. Coffman do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to 38 give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law? 39 40 Coffman: Yes. 41 42 Crane: Proceed please. 43 44 Coffman: But I'm not testifying I'm asking questions. The question I have is 1 45 thought one of the questions you all asked was is if the building in the 46 back, the two-story building, was that a one ... a single, a residence and 11 I you were told yes. It's my understanding that that's not. The top is an 2 apartment and the bottom is an apartment. So, did I misunderstand 3 something? Is a single residence including two apartments? 4 5 Crane: Let's find out. Mr. Gonzales can you illuminate? 6 7 Gonzales: No ma'am you did not misunderstand. It is through the permit process 8 they have converted it to be a single-family dwelling. It's going to be for a 9 single-family. It's not going to be allowed to be a double use like that. l0 I I Crane: Sir, come on up. Identify yourself and let me swear you in. 12 13 Abercrombie: Robert Abercrombie. 14 15 Crane: And you are? Mr. Abercrombie do you swear or affirm that the testimony 16 you are about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of 17 law? 18 19 Abercrombie: Yes. 20 21 Crane: Go ahead please. 22 23 Abercrombie: What ... what we are actually doing is the two story is going to be a house 24 and the main house is another house to make the two. You see what I'm 25 saying? 26 27 Coffman: So the top is not separate residence than the bottom. 28 29 Baum: I need you on the microphone please. 30 31 Coffman: So the top is not a separate residence from the bottom? You can access 32 the bottom inside to go to the top. 33 34 Abercrombie: Correct. 35 36 Coffman: Okay. 37 38 Abercrombie: At this time, yes. Before when we first ... when the building was originally 39 built they had purposes for different uses. 40 41 Coffman: Okay. 42 43 Abercrombie: But through this process it seemed more valuable ... whenever we were 44 doing appraisal process and I was trying to get my loan, they said hey 45 look, if it doesn't matter to you it's going to make the property more 46 valuable if it's just a house. 12 1 2 Coffman: Okay. 3 4 Abercrombie: So it's now ... we have two separate ... the two story's one and then the 5 main ... the white house is one. 6 7 Coffman: Okay. Well the only thing I will testify to, is the owner has done a 8 remarkable job and it was yucky and corroded and falling down and it 9 really looks nice now. He's really added to the community. Thank you. 10 11 Crane: Thank you Ms. Coffman. I have a question for you Mr. Abercrombie or for 12 Mr. Gonzales, whoever ... I'm curious to know what plans are or what the 13 City has required you to do with spilling up that third structure that is now 14 looking somewhat derelict? What's going to be done to it? I know it's 15 going to become storage but is it going to be made to look better? 16 17 Abercrombie: Yes sir. It's being painted and resurfaced on the exterior so that it has 18 better ... and then the broken windows or anything like that are being 19 replaced. 20 21 Crane: Thank you. Any other member of the public wish to address this issue? 22 In that case we'll close the matter to further discussion. Commissioners? 23 No discussion. In that case I'll ... you wish to move that it be approved. 24 Go ahead. Mr. Beard. 25 26 Beard: I move to accept IDP-14-02. 27 28 Crane: Do I have a second? 29 30 Stowe: Second. 31 32 Crane: Seconded by Mr. Stowe. Let's start with Mr. Clifton on a roll call vote. Mr. 33 Clifton. 34 35 Clifton: I vote aye. I vote aye on case IDP-14-02 based on the infill development 36 process as an underutilized parcel. And furthermore on section article ... 37 section 38-2N of the 2001 Zoning Code as amended, and section 38-21- of 38 the 2001 Zoning Code as amended. 39 40 Crane: Mr. Stowe. 41 42 Stowe: I vote aye based on findings, discussion and site visit. 43 44 Crane: Mr. Alvarado. 45 46 Alvarado: I vote aye based on discussion, findings, and site visit. 13 1 2 Crane: Mr. Beard. 3 4 Beard: Aye based on discussions, findings, and site visit. 5 6 Crane: And the Chair votes aye based on findings, discussion, and site visit. The 7 matter passes five/zero. Thank you. 8 9 VII. OTHER BUSINESS 10 11 Crane: Any other business Mr. Ochoa? 12 13 Ochoa: No sir, none tonight. 14 15 VIII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 16 17 Crane: Any public participation? 18 19 IX. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS 20 21 Crane: Any staff announcements? 22 23 Ochoa: Mr. Chair just a couple quick announcements. As you stated before we 24 are at seven now. We will be having our seventh Commissioner join us, 25 new Commissioner join us at our next meeting and just ... I believe our 26 next meeting may be a little heavy from the staff ... from a case load 27 perspective if you will. Looking at anywhere between six to eight potential 28 cases you'll be looking at that day, so just to get ready for that. 29 30 Crane: And they all will be on the consent agenda? 31 32 Ochoa: Looks like a good portion may be. 33 34 Crane: Okay. Thank you. 35 36 X. ADJOURNMENT (6:34) 37 38 Crane: In that case with no further business, we will adjourn at 6:34. Thank you 39 very much. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chairperson 14