Loading...
04-17-2014 1 SOUTH MESQUITE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 2 3 Following are the minutes of the South Mesquite Design Review Board meeting held 4 April 17, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in 2007-A, City Hall, 700 N. Main Street, Las Cruces, NM 5 88001. 6 7 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Heather Barrett 8 Faith Hutson 9 Robert Williams 10 11 STAFF PRESENT: Susana Montana, CLC Planner 12 Becky Baum, RC Creations, LLC, Recording Sec. 13 14 I. CALL TO ORDER 15 16 Barrett: We call the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. 17 18 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -January 16, 2014 19 20 Barrett: The first item on the agenda is the approval of minutes from January 16th. 21 Do you all have any corrections, comments? 22 23 Williams: I wasn't here but I didn't have any. 24 25 Montana: Faith I think you're looking at a different one, that says final. 26 27 Hutson: I am. You know what, though, I have them. They came in my packet and 28 no I did not have any ... 29 30 Montana: Okay. 31 32 Hutson: Comments. 33 34 Barrett: I had just one. Page 23, line 45 it should say "more critical" not "clinical". 35 36 Baum: Okay. 37 38 Hutson: I didn't catch that. 39 40 Barrett: And that's all I had. 41 42 Baum: That would be my error. 43 44 Barrett: Or it could be slurred speech or something. 45 1 1 Baum: No, my emphasis has always been medical transcription. Sorry. I shifted 2 into this a little bit. 3 4 Barrett: And so under the new business we ... 5 6 Baum: We still need a motion and vote. 7 8 Barrett: Oh, I'm sorry. You're correct. 9 10 Williams: I move to approve the minutes. 11 12 Hutson: I second. 13 14 Williams: As amended. 15 16 Barrett: All in favor. 17 18 ALL: AYE. 19 20 Barrett: Opposed? 21 22 Barrett: So they'll be approved with corrections. Thank you. I'm on a roll. 23 24 III. NEW BUSINESS 25 26 1. Welcome new Board Member Ms. Barbara Kuhns - POSTPONED 27 28 Barrett: The new business, we will postpone welcoming Barbara until she gets 29 here. 30 31 2. Discussion of Board Meeting Format 32 33 Barrett: The next item is the discussion of the board meeting format. Is this the 34 topic I wanted to bring up? 35 36 Montana: Yes. 37 38 Barrett: Okay. 39 40 Montana: About public meetings and stuff. 41 42 Barrett: Yes. So I wanted to get some input from the board about how we should 43 structure when we have a case with people, you know a bit of visitors, 44 some of your thoughts on that. We remember particularly that childcare 45 case and we had a whole lot of people. It makes it real difficult for 2 1 transcribing and I was just wondering if you all have any comments or 2 thoughts on how we might structure that? And I've got some. 3 4 Montana: Yeah, I'll share with you what we do at the Planning Commission. 5 6 Barrett: Okay. 7 8 Montana: At the Planning Commission the chair will call up the item, staff will give a 9 slide show and then the applicant has as long as they want to present. 10 When they're finished, the chair then asks if there are any public 11 comments, they each get three minutes and now they're sworn in, I don't 12 know if we need to do that. Then the applicant, after that the applicant 13 has a rebuttal time which they use to answer any questions that arose 14 from the public comment. 15 16 Barrett: So is there interaction during that process or all the public gets to basically 17 say what they want to say and then there's a rebuttal period? 18 19 Montana: The board, of course, can ask questions of anyone at any time, but the 20 applicant only gets that rebuttal time to respond. 21 22 Barrett: Okay. 23 24 Montana: To comments from the public, unless they ask you, the Chair, they cannot 25 comment further. They can ask you and you can say yes or no. 26 27 Barrett: Okay. 28 29 Montana: But that's how the commission does it. 30 31 Barrett: And I was thinking the three-minute rule would be good. I was also 32 wondering if we should have some kind of podium that ... so it's less 33 informal, so it's more formal. 34 35 Montana: Yeah. 36 37 Barrett: And then people feel like, I think they would remember to state their name 38 a little better, you know it just formalizes the process a bit instead of 39 having a big conversation where it's going back and forth. On the one 40 hand I thought that was okay and maybe you knowing the visitors actually 41 kind of like that, but I think there's got to be some structure. 42 43 Hutson: I would agree with you completely Heather 'cause that one time it seemed 44 like just sort of a free for all. People were over-talking over each other, 45 that's no good for you at all Bonnie trying to figure it out, you don't even 46 know what's said. 3 1 2 Barrett: Becky. 3 4 Hutson: And then I think ... I don't know why I called you Bonnie. 5 6 Baum: That's okay. 7 8 Barrett: You still remember Bonnie. 9 10 Hutson: Sorry Becky. And then I think it's also ... you just don't seem like you 11 really have as much control, at least I don't feel like you have as much 12 control as the chair when there's just too much back and forth. 13 14 Barrett: Yeah. 15 16 Hutson: And everybody's just sort of free for all. 17 18 Barrett: Yeah. 19 20 Williams: I would agree. I think one other thing too that you might want to consider 21 is a sign up to talk. That they have to sign up and then we just ask them 22 to speak in the order that they signed up. 23 24 Barrett: Oh that's a good idea. 25 26 Williams: So then that'd be an easy way to track who was up. 27 28 Barrett: Right. 29 30 Williams: We have that record of it and everything. The other thing I would suggest 31 in the setup of the room, and I know here it's a little difficult because we 32 have the screen behind us, but when we have hearings and stuff like that, 33 if we set it up in sort of a U-shape with all of the board facing this way, that 34 way we don't have people like me right now with my back to the audience 35 or something. You know we can still have the audience back here but 36 kind of faced towards them rather than anyone facing away and then 37 maybe the podium sits in the middle of that. 38 39 Hutson: Robert isn't that how it used to be? It seemed to me when I came before 40 there wasn't always these tables right here, that it was more the board 41 faced the public; right wasn't that how it used to be? 42 43 Williams: That's what I thought. It might've been the first meeting, actually I thought 44 it was like that I think, but then it gets moved around because if we have to 45 show something on the screen. 'Cause actually for the board that are with 4 1 their back to the screen, it's easy enough to turn around during a 2 presentation or whatever to look at it if we need to. 3 4 Hutson: Yeah. 5 6 Williams: But it's better to be facing the audience to see who's talking and. 7 8 Barrett: Okay. And is a little egg timer tacky? 9 10 Montana: No. Well we have a little cooking timer so we could set it for three 11 minutes. 12 13 Barrett: Okay. 14 15 Montana: We use that for the commission. 16 17 Barrett: Okay. 18 19 Montana: A timer. 20 21 Barrett: Okay, so I think all those are good suggestions myself. 22 23 Montana: Yeah, we'll do that. 24 25 Barrett: Okay. 26 27 Montana: So what I'll do is I'll order a podium to be brought here for when we have 28 our meetings. 29 30 Barrett: With cases. 31 32 Montana: Yeah, with cases. 33 34 Williams: And I was going to suggest that it may even be ... it may even be 35 reasonable to limit the amount of time that the applicant has to speak too. 36 37 Montana: Okay. 38 39 Williams: Maybe not you know three minutes, but you know limited, you know when 40 you say they can talk as long as they want, we don't want them standing 41 here for an hour going on or whatever, so maybe if we say yeah 10 42 minutes or something like that to start. 43 44 Montana: Well how about if they have their time and then your questions to them 45 don't count as part of their time? 46 5 1 Barrett: Yeah. 2 3 Williams: Yeah. 4 5 Montana: So we'll say five minutes for their presentation and then whatever time it 6 takes for you to query them. 7 8 Williams: Yeah, exactly yeah. 9 10 Montana: Okay. 11 12 Williams: I mean I don't mind if it's longer. If we don't put a time limit on it I just 13 would worry that someone that's going to be really long winded or 14 something like come in and it's like ... 15 16 Montana: All right. If they're long winded they can ask permission to get more time. 17 18 Williams: To go on. 19 20 Barrett: No. 21 22 Hutson: Time's up. Sorry. 23 24 IV. OLD BUSINESS 25 26 1. A discussion of potential proposed amendments to the Municipal Code, 27 Article V, Section 38-49.2 South Mesquite Neighborhood Overlay Zone 28 District to enact text changes which represent substantive changes to 29 the overlay district zoning regulations. 30 31 Barrett: And so the next item on the agenda, we've got old business, the 32 discussion of the amendments, Susana do you want to lead us off. 33 34 Montana: Yes. Thank you. You have in your packet two pieces that are the 35 culmination of several months of your efforts, one is the text which 36 includes the amendments proposed and the other is a matrix of the land 37 uses. I thought tonight we'd start ... we're not going to finish all of these 38 and we probably would want the benefit of David's presence too. So 1 39 thought we'd get started with the text part and then maybe next month 40 finish up with the land use matrix. Also, if we could get an idea of what 41 month we'd like to schedule the public meetings, the outreach meetings, 42 the neighborhood meetings because I need to book that kind of in 43 advance. So I gave you a little calendar so before the meeting is over 44 maybe we can talk about that. 45 So I guess we'll start just with the first page and go through it and I have 46 some pages that I have comments and you can see them highlighted in 6 1 the yellow. But I'd really like to get your comments too because I want to 2 be sure that as I went through the minutes of all these past months that 3 you know I got it all together. 4 5 Williams: I don't think I have the calendar. 6 7 Montana: Yeah, there you go. 8 9 Hutson: Did you get a calendar? 10 11 Barrett: Yeah, I did. 12 13 Hutson: Well thank you. 14 15 Montana: So the first question I have on the first page is whether or not we wanted 16 to have one ... just one area ... just the overlay district rather than area 17 one or area two; the difference being ... the main difference being the 18 height of the buildings in area one being 25 feet, area two being 14 feet. 19 Other than that, it seems that in the board's decision about what they want 20 to review, they're pretty much the same for area one and two with the 21 exception of the building heights. So, that's a big decision. 22 23 Williams: How would we designate though if we don't have the two areas, how 24 would we designate the two different height limitations? 25 26 Barrett: We don't have one. 27 28 Montana: No, we could keep them. We could keep them. 29 30 Hutson: Actually Susana I don't know if you remember, cause this has been a 31 while ago and you guys may also remember when Las Esperanzas was 32 proposing those changes, had worked on the overlay that was presented 33 that we haven't quite got to yet? That was one of the big ones was to 34 eliminate area one and area two and combine it. 35 36 Montana: Yeah. 37 38 Hutson: I think for clarification it could be a lot easier. 39 40 Montana: Maybe we could just have sort of a height subarea for the original townsite 41 in the development standards. So that we would refer to a map that is you 42 know height subarea, original townsite height subarea and that's 14 feet, 43 one story. Maybe we could try that. 44 45 Barrett: Okay and I have another thing to add on that. I think we need to put 46 emphasis on both historic districts. So ... 7 1 2 Montana: The state and federal? 3 4 Barrett: Yeah, because as it stands now we're basically honoring more the 5 national register and cutting out the state register district as far as when 6 it's reviewed. So maybe ... 7 8 Montana: So if we have one district and we go back to the duties, you know what 9 we're going to review, make them all the same. 10 11 Barrett: I would include both of those areas myself. 12 13 Montana: Yeah, so it's just one district. 14 15 Hutson: One district. 16 17 Montana: Yeah and they all ... we review everything that we'd normally review in 18 area two which is the most encompassing, but we have some sort of 19 height zone, height limit zone, or do you want 14 feet everywhere? 20 21 Barrett: Well ... 22 23 Williams: I don't. 24 25 Barrett: Maybe we get to that point a little bit later. Cause I've got some questions 26 on the height ... you know I'm always kind of harping on the height thing. 27 But I think the significance of both of these areas should be weighted 28 pretty much the same because we're dealing with two historic districts, 29 meaning a federal and a state one but to me they should have equal 30 weight. 31 32 Montana: The ... so we're just talking about the existing South Mesquite Overlay 33 because the state historical is above our jurisdiction now so you're not 34 talking about reaching into that? 35 36 Barrett: Well I kind of am because it is part of the state register district. 37 38 Montana: Well we could give it a try. We have to do a lot of outreach there to 39 property owners. 40 41 Barrett: I mean what are your thoughts, for the rest of the board as far as that 42 goes? 43 44 Williams: Well what is the federal register district, is that the original townsite? 45 46 Barrett: That doesn't even ... 8 1 2 Hutson: Not necessarily. 3 4 Barrett: No. 5 6 Hutson: It's only a small portion of the original townsite. 7 8 Barrett: Yeah. 9 10 Hutson: And the state is enlarged over the original townsite. 11 12 Barrett: I mean for district purposes, the original townsite really doesn't mean 13 anything. 14 15 Hutson: No it doesn't. 16 17 Barrett: Historically it does, but as far as state and national register districts it 18 doesn't really mean anything. 19 20 Montana: Let me ask you, the areas outside the state and federal historic districts 21 that are within the overlay. 22 23 Barrett: Yeah. 24 25 Montana: Are they something you would want to keep in the overlay or ... because 26 they're not ... 27 28 Barrett: Right. The only thing there would be is if this district was ever reevaluated 29 and the boundaries grew, that might be a possibility. But the boundaries 30 were drawn for a reason, you would think that some of these areas lack 31 integrity and might not need to be included. 32 33 Montana: Right. 34 35 Barrett: Which means we'd be redrawing this whole thing. 36 37 Montana: That's an approach. 38 39 Williams: We did discuss a while back about incorporating those ... that other area 40 on the other side of Picacho, or is that Peach, whatever that is. 41 42 Hutson: Picacho. 43 44 Montana: Picacho, yeah. 45 46 Williams: The ... and I don't remember what we decided, but I think we decided. 9 1 2 Montana: We have to do outreach, neighborhood outreach. You know we're willing 3 to do that. 4 5 Barrett: Because wasn't there a lot of contention ... 6 7 Williams: There were some trailer issues or something. 8 9 Hutson: There was a huge contention when the overlay was originally established. 10 1 mean almost to the point of fistfights. But from what I understand a lot ... 11 1 shouldn't say a lot, let's just say there are individuals in that area that 12 wish they had an overlay. So I have heard talk about some of these 13 individuals really wanting to have a little bit more regulation about what 14 can go in there like trailers now can. I mean there are just absolutely no 15 rules, not that we can prohibit them but we at least can set parameters. 16 So I think the outreach would be useful to find out and see and if the 17 answer is still no way, go away, we want to run it the way we want, the 18 north definitely still wants to secede from the south, fine, you know. 19 20 Montana: Yeah. 21 22 Hutson: That's how it felt like, the north and the south. It was just a war sort of. 23 24 Montana: Okay. I'm willing to give it a try. What we'll do is we'll get the property 25 owner list, invite them to a meeting, to our regular meeting, or maybe a 26 separate one. Wouldn't want to taint the meeting with the south. And just 27 see you know if it would benefit them. Okay. But we still are of the 28 opinion we want one overlay. Okay. So I'll figure out a way to get a height 29 district subarea for the 14 feet. And we're still happy with that being the 30 redlined area, the original townsite area? Or do we want to scrunch it 31 down to the federal district? 32 33 Barrett: One could argue maybe the federal district, but again you're still dealing 34 with a state historic district. 35 36 Montana: Yeah, the predominant character in the original townsite is single story flat 37 roof. Now in the '50s we got the low pitch roof addition so there are a 38 number of adobes that have that low pitch part. 39 40 Hutson: Mine. I don't know, maybe we could just explore the possibility of having 41 that height the variance so people can apply for a variance, would that be 42 ? 43 44 Montana: Having which height? 45 46 Hutson: Fourteen. 10 1 2 Williams: Fourteen foot. 3 4 Hutson: The fourteen. 5 6 Montana: Throughout? 7 8 Hutson: Yeah, I mean if they're already different, fine, but for anything new that 9 that would be the standard, right? 10 11 Barrett: What do you mean anything new? Construction? 12 13 Hutson: Yeah, anything that would come to us for the future, that there's a, you 14 know, standard. I lean towards Heather, and it is, you know walking a 15 tight rope. I mean I also understand the argument that people present on, 16 we don't have land to expand and this is why we're proposing that like half 17 story and things like that. So part of me really understands the argument. 18 1 would rather have people being able to do that and live in the district as 19 to say well I'm just going to let the house fall apart because it doesn't meet 20 my needs. 21 22 Montana: Yeah. 23 24 Hutson: That's quite the battle. But at the same time I feel like in a lot of cases it 25 really destroys the integrity of that house by bumping that up in a lot of 26 cases, not every single one of them. So I don't know, maybe we could 27 you know set a standard, you know 14 or 16 or something like that 28 basically one story and then they could apply for a variance. We could 29 look at it on a case-by-case basis. 30 31 Montana: How about a compromise? 32 33 Hutson: Okay. 34 35 Montana: We'll set a standard for the whole area, it'll be one area but substandard, 36 but the variance will just be to this board. 37 38 Hutson: Right. 39 40 Montana: And not to the Planning Commission, because right now the variances go 41 to Planning. 42 43 Hutson: I'd like that much better anyway. 44 45 Barrett: That's fine. 46 11 1 Montana: Okay. 2 3 Barrett: And I think we do have to allow for some exceptions. 4 5 Hutson: We do. We do. 6 7 Barrett: Because of these reasons. But we also have to consider that the advice 8 we got from the State historic preservation division, she was pretty 9 articulate on you know this shouldn't be happening a lot. But there are 10 going to be instances where we need to make some exceptions. And I 11 wonder too if there could be any wording included within the text that 12 suggests, that highly recommends that you look at really creative options. 13 You look at how much space you have in the back and if you have to have 14 a 10 by 10 addition instead of a 14 by you know, that we really are 15 encouraging this verbally in this document. That we'll look at exceptions 16 but I'm wondering if we could be stronger at encouraging you know not 17 going ... 18 19 Montana: We do have the design standards section that we could have that 20 verbiage. So, on page 210, design guidelines. So we could have a 21 paragraph there about the height, criteria for height exceptions. 22 23 Barrett: I think so. I think that's good. 24 25 Montana: And you'll help me with that language. 26 27 Barrett: Sure. And Robert are you ... you're of a different mindset a little bit. 28 29 Williams: Well I'm ... my ... I don't want to exclude two story, you know. You know 30 some of these lots you know, the one that what's his name, where he just 31 tore down the adobe is wanting to do those little townhomes or something 32 like that, I don't have an issue with people coming in and wanting to do 33 some sort of multifamily units but not apartments, but you know 34 townhomes or something like that, that are two stories. You know as long 35 as they meet the character of the area and stuff like that. And that's why 1 36 was saying like you know I understand the original townsite area, but that 37 is ... there's not ... there are very few if any two story homes in that area, 38 some one and a half stories and things. But there's ... surrounding that 39 townsite we've got quite a few two story buildings around there and I don't 40 want to limit development like people not buying a lot because they see a 41 14 foot height limit and realize they can't do something you know, I mean 42 and I think we have it worded that they can get a variance or something 43 like that, but the problem is that's more steps for them that they have to go 44 through. And it's like so ... 45 46 Montana: It wouldn't be if you had the final say on height exception. 12 1 2 Williams: Yeah. 3 4 Montana: Cause they're coming to you anyway. They just have to give you a good 5 proposal. And we'll have criteria. 6 7 Williams: So that's my only ... is I think we wind up, we'll probably wind up losing 8 some people wanting to buy in the area if we get too restrictive with things 9 and that's why I'm trying to go with what I would like to try to avoid is 10 getting too restrictive where people aren't buying land there. 11 12 Montana: So let's look at page 200 where, development standards, D.B, and then 13 there's an asterisk, three asterisks. And the three asterisks state, any 14 request for greater building height and/or number of stories than those 15 stated above require an application for a, I could say a height exception, to 16 be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 17 18 Hutson: Right. So cross out the, for recommendation to P&Z Commission. 19 20 Montana: So that gives you the authority to approve a height exception, on a case- 21 by-case basis. So that takes us back to D.B. What would be the base 22 height? 23 24 Barrett: I still like 14 myself. 25 26 Williams: Yeah, I don't mind 14. 27 28 Hutson: I agree, 14. 29 30 Montana: Okay, so we're going to ... that's it for the whole area since there's only 31 one area. Fourteen feet and no more than one story. Excellent. Okay. 32 All right, so on the first page, 196; we will make sure it's just the overlay 33 district, no area one or two. 34 35 Barrett: And I had just one other comment on this page. Under contributing could 36 you add see significant definition because I think there was a little more 37 detail. 38 39 Montana: Okay. 40 41 Barrett: And I think you could just refer them to that for additional information. 42 43 Montana: Okay. Any comment on page 197 definitions? On significant should 1 44 refer people back to contributing? 45 46 Barrett: I don't ... that one is more detailed. 13 1 2 Montana: Okay. 3 4 Barrett: I'm okay with that one. 5 6 Montana: Okay. 7 8 Barrett: And I did notice throughout the document we're kind of going by DRB 9 sometimes and SM, you know South Mesquite Design Review Board 10 sometimes, so that'll just have to be decided upon whichever we ... 11 12 Montana: Yeah, whichever you. What do you like to be called, referred to? 13 14 Barrett: I mean South Mesquite tells us what we're doing. 15 16 Williams: Where we are. 17 18 Barrett: Cause conceivably there could be other design review boards later on in 19 the city. 20 21 Montana: Do you want to be SMODRB, or SMDRB? 22 23 Barrett: I'm okay with SM. 24 25 Montana: SM. 26 27 Williams: Yeah, I am too. 28 29 Montana: Okay, SM is it. So that goes before SMO. Okay. So we will make that 30 change throughout. Okay. So, I've got, well for our first meeting, our 31 neighborhood meeting now we're just going to show one district. 32 33 Barrett: I mean I think you could ... yes ... I think it's helpful maybe, well I don't 34 know. 35 36 Montana: Well we'll have posters of all these. 37 38 Barrett: Okay. 39 40 Montana: But for the handout where we show the ... 41 42 Barrett: Okay. Yeah. 43 44 Montana: Then we'll just have one district. Okay. And it will be the black outline. 45 Now you mentioned that you wanted to include these maps. We can do 46 that. 14 1 2 Barrett: Yeah I think so. 3 4 Montana: We can figure out a way. I might have to be two separate ones, one for 5 federal, one for state cause we don't do color you know in zoning, so we'll 6 do that. Okay. 7 8 Hutson: Are you discriminating against color? 9 10 Montana: Yeah. We can't afford it. We can when we scan it and put it on our 11 webpage but we can't when we hand them out. We want to be able to 12 hand these out to applicants. Okay, we're back at development 13 standards. Now we put together a little table and we added something 14 called garage setback. The reason for this is ... 15 16 Williams: Should it be 200 foot? 17 18 Montana: Yeah, that's a typo. 19 20 Williams: Is that supposed to be 20 feet? 21 22 Montana: That's a typo. I had an application for an empty lot here on Tornillo right 23 across from Weed and Seed. You know there's an empty lot there, and 24 the applicant just couldn't fit a 25-foot setback for a garage. City wide for 25 a garage setback is 25 feet from the frontage. And so we said okay, you 26 have to have 20 feet setback because, we were going to give him a flex to 27 do 20-foot setback because you know a typical parking space is 19 feet 28 deep. And we wanted to make sure if he pulled in before the garage door 29 came up that he could get off the sidewalk. He said I can't do that. 30 31 Hutson: What? 32 33 Montana: He said I can't do it. You know he'd lose his back porch or something. 1 34 said well, you know you have to go for a variance to the Planning 35 Commission, we're not going to flex you that. So I just wanted to bring to 36 your attention, we need some kind of standard for these little parcels and 1 37 thought the 20 foot you know could be a workable standard. And if they 38 wanted less than that they'd have to go through here and then to the 39 Planning Commission for approval. Does that sound reasonable? 40 41 Barrett: Seems reasonable. 42 43 Montana: We'll do 20 feet. There is a ... D.9 was added because the citywide 44 controls allow for zero lot lines and as we spoke of the Sanchez property 45 they wanted ... they might want to do zero lot lines. Habitat for Humanity 46 is looking at that site and they want three bedroom houses on that and 15 1 they might want even to forgo off street parking, they might want to ask for 2 a variance for that to fit, cause they want to fit families into these. And 3 they have like an established or a well-used floor plan that they want to 4 just plop down on the property. So we want to make sure they can have a 5 zero lot line. That's just an example. So you're okay with that? All right. 6 7 Barrett: I had a question. Why on front setback, I was wondering why we didn't 8 have zero lot lines there too since kind of historically there are a lot of ... 9 10 Montana: Well we have this ... if you go down to ... we have the average, DA. So 11 DA says we can average the setbacks on your block face, your side of the 12 block. 13 14 Barrett: Oh I see. 15 16 Montana: But if there are not two structures on that side of the block, there are a lot 17 of properties that have empty lots or something, then we'll look across the 18 street as well. And there may be three feet or zero setbacks there, so we 19 can average all those. 20 21 Barrett: Oh I see. Okay. 22 23 Montana: So I think that will solve for that. So, we added the words, if there aren't at 24 least two primary structures on the same side of the block, both sides of 25 the block shall be used. So that's new. Okay. Anything else on page 26 200? Oh, the last one. Any issue not addressed in this overlay shall 27 revert to the appropriate sections of the 2001 Zoning Code. And what this 28 does it allows applicants to use the flexible development standards. What 29 this does is it allows 100% variation or waiver of setbacks, buffer yards, 30 and screens. Thirty-three percent waivers from landscaping and 50% 31 waivers from parking by the director, the Community Development 32 director. And this is citywide where this applies. Right now South 33 Mesquite is silent on whether or not flexible development standards can 34 be used and this language indicates that it could be used if you wanted 35 that. Again it wouldn't be a variance or it wouldn't come to you for review; 36 it'd be something that the director ... in our management team we go 37 through these pretty much on a weekly basis. 38 39 Barrett: Can you give us an example of something? 40 41 Montana: Yeah, new construction on a property where they want a bigger house 42 than normal and they want reduced rear yard setback. That happens a 43 lot. Or they have an existing house and they want to add a porch. A 44 porch is a structure and it would be built ... they propose to build it in the 45 rear yard. A lot of these are rear yard setbacks. And we bring them to our 46 management team, the ZRT meeting and we talk about it. What's the 16 I public benefit, cause for a tier two you have to have a public benefit. 2 Usually we require that they plant trees to screen it from the neighbors. 3 And we require their next door neighbors to sign a paper, a letter or 4 petition saying that they're fine with it. And if that happens we grant them. 5 Now you could say things that are silent in here revert back to the citywide 6 Zoning Code, except for flex. You could say you want those flex requests 7 to first come to you for recommendation and then it would go to the 8 director. You could say that. 9 10 Hutson: I would like that better, honestly. Because Susana I think some of the 11 problem we've seen in the past is that staff makes a decision based on 12 their interpretation and then design review board it never comes to them 13 and next thing you know somethings happened. 14 15 Montana: Somethings up. Okay. So how about we say ... 16 17 Hutson: How do you guys feel about that though? 18 19 Barrett: I think I like that. 20 21 Williams: I would ... I'd be okay with that. 22 23 Montana: Except that that which requires recommendation from DRB to director. Or 24 do you want the final say on flex? 25 26 Hutson: I don't know that that's necessary. 27 28 Williams: Yeah I don't. 29 30 Montana: Okay. 31 32 Barrett: As long as it comes to us and we make a recommendation. 33 34 Montana: Okay. All right. 35 36 Barrett: That's my opinion. 37 38 Hutson: I think I'm okay with that too. 39 40 Montana: Okay. If it doesn't work then you know we can change it. David Weir's 41 our director. He's a real nice guy and he will follow your suggestions. 42 43 Barrett: And I have a question on this, just edification question, clear sight triangle, 44 what is that? 45 17 1 Montana: Okay. When you have a driveway and a rock wall here and an 2 intersection over here we want to make sure that you could ... that the 3 walls are low enough, no more than three feet so the person coming out of 4 the driveway could see cars coming. So it is, you know it is a triangle. 5 6 Barrett: It's a sightline. 7 8 Montana: Yeah, sightline within which can't have bushes too high or walls too high. 9 10 Barrett: Okay. 11 12 Montana: Okay, page 201 we're just going to add a density table, so how many units 13 are allowed in these districts and it would be the standard density. On 14 page 202 are some figures that Carol put together and kind of edited it the 15 last minute based on changes, I added some cells to that D, development 16 standard table, so I'll have to fix that. Oh and then the heights, we'll 17 change that, on figure 3, to 14 throughout. 18 So, page 203 1 wanted to bring to your attention right now all 19 development projects need landscaping including single family and duplex 20 developments. And here we're saying with the exception of single-family 21 dwellings and duplexes because our city design standards exempt single 22 family and duplexes from having to submit a landscape plan. So I was 23 just making that consistent with citywide rules. 24 25 Barrett: I'm just thinking about an example I can think of that lives very close to me 26 of just ... somebody that just has a dirt lot and they haven't done a darn 27 thing or anything, it's just dirt. What do you do for stuff like that? I mean 28 they ... 29 30 Montana: Single family. 31 32 Barrett: It doesn't matter. 33 34 Montana: No. We have a wind erosion control ordinance so they would have to put 35 gravel down. If you called it in ... 36 37 Barrett: Really? 38 39 Montana: Complaint line. There's a complaint ... a dust complaint hot line. If you 40 called it in or e-mailed it in, we have a guy that would go out and cite them 41 and they'd have to put gravel down. 42 43 Barrett: Gravel. 44 45 Montana: And not just crusher fine, half inch to one inch. 46 18 1 Barrett: Okay. 2 3 Montana: Yeah, we're serious now. 4 5 Barrett: Thank you. 6 7 Montana: About dust. 8 9 Barrett: Okay. 10 11 Montana: It's a health hazard. 12 13 Barrett: Yeah. 14 15 Hutson: It is. 16 17 Montana: And later on in here when we talk about parking we talk about gravel 18 material that has to be on driveways. 19 20 Barrett: Right, okay. 21 22 Williams: Is this just an empty lot or is there a house? 23 24 Barrett: There's a house. 25 26 Williams: And then ... 27 28 Hutson: And there's a chained dog that stirs up the dust, is that the case too? 29 30 Barrett: No, but ... 31 32 Hutson: That often goes hand in hand you know. 33 34 Barrett: I think if you guys know that live on Hess Terrance you might know what 35 one I'm talking about. 36 37 Montana: Yeah I'm thinking of it. 38 39 Barrett: Yeah. 40 41 Montana: All right. So we'll think about it. We don't have to decide this now but, we 42 were just going to make it consistent. Okay, so again we're giving this 43 board the authority to modify or waive landscaping requirements. 44 19 1 Williams: Okay the only thing in there that I would ... is junipers are really, in 2 Albuquerque they've sort of outlawed juniper because it's a high allergy 3 plant. 4 5 Montana: And that's the ground cover. 6 7 Williams: The shrub. 8 9 Montana: Oh the shrub. Okay. And there's also a horizontal juniper in ground 10 cover. 11 12 Williams: But it's ... 13 14 Montana: I'll strike it. No problem. We can strike it. We've got enough things 15 blowing around. All right, I'll strike junipers. Okay. So let's move to page 16 204, parking. We're trying ... we have a lot ... many discussions about 17 making it easier to fill up these infill lots and a lot of the constraints is fitting 18 parking on the property. Currently there is a historic district you know 19 easier standard for the Alameda Depot historic district and South 20 Mesquite, but right now it's available only for businesses. And what I'm 21 doing here is I'm saying that they're eligible ... if they're in a historic district 22 whether they're commercial or residential. So that would be single family, 23 duplex, or even apartments they'd be eligible for this. And the limit is 24 50%, let me get it, 50% of the parking could be on street ... okay, for 25 businesses right now if, like this applied to the daycare cause their parking 26 was actually off site but on adjacent property they owned. 27 28 Williams: Adjacent property. 29 30 Montana: If the business was required eight or more spaces, a business can utilize 31 on street parking for a maximum of eight parking spaces in lieu of the off 32 street parking requirement. So they were required 13, but eight of those 33 could've been on street except our traffic engineer said no way cause it's 34 one-way and it's too narrow. But if it weren't on that street they could've 35 done that. So what I'm saying is these reduced parking requirements 36 could apply to residential as well as commercial by this new provision. 37 38 Barrett: I'm okay with that. 39 40 Montana: Okay. Now surface materials, number three, surface materials for parking 41 areas for residential or nonresidential developments may be pervious such 42 as stone or brick pavers or crushed stone (gravel). If gravel is used single 43 family and duplex parking areas may use crusher fine. I don't know if 44 crusher fine qualifies, I'm checking with our dust guy, or pea gravel. 1 45 think pea gravel might work but worst case scenario it might be half-inch 46 gravel. So I'm going to check with Daniel Hermosillo on that. But non- 20 1 residential which includes apartments, minimum one inch compacted 2 gravel. And then we put in this language about concrete parking pads not 3 permitted to be installed abutting adobe walls. 4 5 Barrett: Yeah, that was good. 6 7 Montana: We got that. 8 9 Williams: And then we used one inch of gravel minimum? 10 11 Montana: One inch for commercial, one-inch gravel. 12 13 Williams: It's not very much. It's like it's going to get ... 14 15 Montana: Oh that's not the depth that's the ... 16 17 Williams: Oh size, got you. 18 19 Montana: Diameter. Maybe I'll make that clear, one-inch diameter. 20 21 Hutson: Yeah, okay, that's good cause I was thinking depth too. 22 23 Montana: Oh no I think it's like four inches. 24 25 Williams: Just makes sense, yeah. 26 27 Montana: Okay. Now on that same page, 205, number three, we're giving this board 28 the authority to modify or waive parking requirements. So if the applicant 29 couldn't or didn't want to meet those, you know, the reduced standards, 30 they could come to this board and request an even lower parking 31 requirement or be waived the parking requirement. And you have the final 32 say. Okay. 33 34 Barrett: Okay. 35 36 Montana: Okay. Now I added number four because there were discussions about 37 this and I want to be sure that you still feel the same way, parking for 38 commercial or apartments are not permitted in the required front and side 39 yard setback. That came up in a discussion. This is for commercial and 40 apartments, multi-families. 41 42 Barrett: So instead we're saying ... 43 44 Montana: Have to be in the back. 45 46 Hutson: Yeah. 21 1 2 Williams: I would prefer them not to be in the front. 3 4 Barrett: I guess ... yeah. 5 6 Williams: I think I'm okay with the side but ... 7 8 Hutson: Yeah I think I agree with that. 9 10 Montana: Okay. 11 12 Hutson: Because we're thinking about streetscape and things like that. 13 14 Williams: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. 15 16 Montana: Okay. 17 18 Hutson: So not in the front but side might be okay. 19 20 Montana: Not permitted in the required front, strike 'and side yard'. All right. And 21 again if they want to vary this they could come to you. 22 23 Williams: Yeah, if they're parking on the side yard that means their setback is going 24 to have to be larger anyway. 25 26 Montana: Yeah. 27 28 Williams: Cause they can't ... 29 30 Montana: They'll probably enter from the side or something. 31 32 Williams: Yeah so they're going to wind up with a you know 18 foot space and a 20 33 foot drive at least, so it's like they're going to have a pretty wide (inaudible) 34 rather than ... 35 36 Montana: Okay. Then I'm going to reverse the numbers. I'm going to put four as 37 number three, and three as number four, so that at the end everybody 38 knows they could ask for a waiver from you all. 39 40 Barrett: And if ... I've seen some typos, should we just submit those in writing or 41 something. 42 43 Montana: Yeah. 44 45 Barrett: Okay. 46 22 1 Montana: Signage, now this is something that Carol added because the district was 2 silent on it and it's tailored to the intimate little district that we have. 3 4 Barrett: The only thing that I had wondered about is if we wanted to define what 5 ground signs are. 6 7 Montana: Well they're defined in the sign code. 8 9 Barrett: Okay. 10 11 Montana: So I think ... 12 13 Williams: Those are the sandwich board type things, right? 14 15 Barrett: But then there's a portable A-frame. 16 17 Montana: Well ground signs are like monument, we sometimes call them monument 18 signs other than on the poles or on the walls. 19 20 Barrett: And I don't think we want them to be 24 square feet right? 21 22 Williams: That's a big, no greater than 24 square feet. 23 24 Montana: Square inch. 25 26 Barrett: Yeah. 27 28 Williams: Oh, is that supposed to be inch? 29 30 Barrett: Yeah, I think so. 31 32 Williams: Oh. Well 24 square inches isn't very big either. 33 34 Montana: No. 35 36 Williams: One by one, or one by two. 37 38 Barrett: Two by two, right? 39 40 Hutson: Two by two. 41 42 Barrett: So that's big enough for me. 43 44 Hutson: It certainly can't be 24 square feet. 45 46 Williams: Two by two would be 48 square inches. 23 1 2 Montana: Ground sign means any sign which is attached to either the ground or to a 3 footing ... 4 5 Williams: Cause it's two by two. 6 7 Montana: Set flush on the ground. 8 9 Williams: Which is 48? Whatever. Yeah. Twenty-four square feet is way too big. 10 It's like I'm okay with 24 square inches. 11 12 Montana: Okay, so the A-frame signs, we took this from a recent adoption for the 13 same sandwich boards in the central business district. So if you wanted to 14 vary it some for this district we can do that. 15 16 Barrett: Again I think on the double ii, that's too big. 17 18 Montana: Sure. 19 20 Barrett: Those measurements. 21 22 Montana: So you want that to be ... 23 24 Williams: Six square feet. 25 26 Montana: On one side, so you want it to be 24 square inches again? Two square 27 feet. 28 29 Barrett: I would think, no more than two square feet. 30 31 Williams: Well but I think that ... but that's. Cause typically like the ones you can 32 buy and the light comes on or whatever and they're typically about two 33 foot wide by about three feet high which would be six square feet. 34 35 Barrett: Oh, I see what you're saying. 36 37 Williams: Yeah. 38 39 Barrett: But then it says ... see it says on one side. 40 41 Williams: Yeah, so then you'd have, so it be, they're yeah typically they're ... like 1 42 said the one's that I've seen have been two foot by about three feet tall 43 and it's an A-frame, so you have ... 44 45 Barrett: Oh I see what you're saying. 46 24 1 Williams: So there's ... and they're usually like whiteboard type material and you 2 can ... 3 4 Barrett: Right, 5 6 Williams: Write specials or whatever on there. 7 8 Barrett: Right. So maybe that works. Does that work? 9 10 Williams: This says shall be no greater than three and a half feet in height. Yeah, 11 so that's two feet wide. It kind of ... it depend. I mean cause if you put 12 that on a sidewalk that's only four foot wide you know in front of a ... you 13 know some of the area by our area you know you've got narrow sidewalks 14 and the doors to these businesses and galleries and stuff are right on the 15 ... 16 17 Montana: Yeah, Roman numeral six, no A-frame sign may be located on public 18 property. 19 20 Williams: Oh, okay. 21 22 Montana: So that would be the sidewalks. 23 24 Williams: So I'm okay with that. 25 26 Barrett: So maybe that works and I was just not doing my math correctly which is 27 ... happens a lot actually. 28 29 Montana: So, on page 207 1 wasn't sure about ... I think we had a discussion and 30 we said the fluttering devices and pendants and streamers would be okay. 31 And here they're listed under prohibited, so I just wanted to double check. 32 33 Barrett: 1 think we were saying like those big flutter things. You know there's a 34 little ... there are some size issues here, so if it's one of those big standing 35 up things maybe that wouldn't be appropriate, but you know I can think of 36 some streamers or you know something that might want to put up. 37 38 Williams: And I would think even like the bigger ones, if it's a grand opening for 39 something like that it's a onetime use type thing or something like that 40 would be okay, as long as it's not blocking traffic, it'll be okay. But if it ... 1 41 wouldn't want to see it as a permanent thing there. 42 43 Montana: Okay. 44 45 Williams: Something that they put out every day. 46 25 1 Montana: So pennants and streamers would be put allowed with some size limits 2 and the fluttering devices or like the gorilla or something could be 3 temporary. 4 5 Barrett: Temporary. 6 7 Williams: Temporary. Yeah. 8 9 Montana: Okay. Inflatable. Okay. We'll do that. Here we go, duties. Now we are 10 going to collapse these two into one because there's only one area, and 11 so I did have a question about window replacement in a primary structure 12 if it's not viewed from the street. 13 14 Barrett: I think we said we wanted to review all exterior changes. 15 16 Montana: Okay. 17 18 Hutson: Yes we did if I remember right. 19 20 Montana: Okay. All right. So is there anything that is now on page 208 under area 21 one that you want to keep that's not already in the area two list? I think 22 the area two list covers everything. 23 24 Barrett: I thought the language on the iii was a little bit odd. What do you mean by 25 'additions to existing primary structures which were constructed 50 years 26 prior to building permit application'? What's that about? 27 28 Montana: Okay. We were talking about there are old buildings that were not 29 inventoried and deemed contributory that we wanted to look at. 30 31 Barrett: Okay. 32 33 Montana: And we thought that a 50-year, the age of 50 years would be a trigger that 34 you'd want to look at them. 35 36 Barrett: Okay. The 50-year mark. 37 38 Montana: So 50 years prior to them submitting an application, although it's hard for 39 us to you know demonstrate when it was built except by assessors tax 40 records. You wanted to review those. 41 42 Williams: So you're saying any addition to a building that's 50 years or older would 43 have ... 44 45 Montana: You want to see. 46 26 1 Williams: We want to see. Which I think (inaudible). 2 3 Hutson: Whether or not it's been deemed contributing or significant. 4 5 Williams: Exactly. 6 7 Hutson: Because a lot fell through the crack on that one. 8 9 Montana: Maybe it's not worded right. 10 11 Barrett: I think maybe rewording that would be ... 12 13 Montana: Yeah. 14 15 Hutson: And if you said like current building permit application, that might, because 16 that's what sort of tripped me up on that building permit. 17 18 Montana: Okay. 19 20 Hutson: Application, when they build a structure 50 years ago. 21 22 Barrett: That's what I was ... 23 24 Hutson: So just adding current might fix it. I don't know. 25 26 Montana: All right. 27 28 Hutson: I'll have to re-read that one when you do it and see if that makes sense to 29 you. 30 31 Montana: So that would apply to ... we want to keep that. That would apply to our 32 new area. Now this is something that our ZRT is going to have problems 33 with because we don't know when buildings were built, so they're going to 34 say, who's going to prove that. You know, am I going to have to go to the 35 assessors' office or is the applicant going to have to demonstrate that. 36 They're going to want to know how we can figure out when the building 37 was built. 38 39 Barrett: And this is where the whole resurvey, re-inventory, perhaps an amended 40 nomination might come in handy cause then somebody else has done 41 that. Hopefully. 42 43 Williams: I mean and I've only bought one house in my life and it was a new house 44 so it didn't have that, but when you ... you know as far as when you're 45 signing your ... when you're going through the signing process, closing on 46 your house and everything like that, there is a history of ... 27 1 2 Montana: Title companies yeah. 3 4 Williams: That have that, you know and it may not be complete but at least it'll have 5 some idea ... it'll tell them if they're at least 50 years old. You know 1 6 would think, so they would ... 7 8 Montana: Do we want a title report or at least that part, piece of the title report? 9 Cause that costs a couple hundred bucks if an applicant were having to 10 have to do that. 11 12 Williams: Yeah well I mean, but they're buying ... if someone's going in there and 13 buying a house they're going to get that report. 14 15 Montana: But if they've had it for generations and they want to add. 16 17 Williams: But if they've had it for generations then they want to add, then they know 18 how old the house is. 19 20 Hutson: Right, tax document. 21 22 Montana: Well I guess they could give us the other tax documents or utility records 23 or something. 24 25 Williams: Something. I would imagine it's ... 26 27 Montana: It's not that long ago. 28 29 Williams: I would not think it'd be that difficult to figure out, you know 50 years 30 anyway. You know if you want to go back 100 years that's more difficult. 31 32 Barrett: Yeah. 33 34 Williams: But to get an idea about if a building is 50 years old or not shouldn't be too 35 difficult. 36 37 Barrett: And even phoning the assessors' office usually more recent construction, 38 they're going to have pretty firm dates on that stuff. 39 40 Montana: All right. So what I'll do is I'll just take a sample cause we've got a case 41 coming in next month. I'll take a sample of that building and see how fast 1 42 can get the date it was built and I can show that to our ZRT people, tell 43 them how hard it was. 44 45 Williams: Yeah. 46 28 1 Montana: All right. That's the only question I had. 2 3 Barrett: And I had another question. We've talked about this a little bit before 4 about reviewing noncontributing buildings because of the whole 5 streetscape issue and that kind of thing. Where does that fit in here cause 6 1 didn't feel like it did. 7 8 Montana: Well we were going with the area two requirements so any new building, 9 any new accessory structure whether you see it from the street or not in 10 excess of 120 square feet, we took the 120 square feet because they are 11 not required for less than that. 12 13 Barrett: Right. But I guess in all these they talk about contributing buildings, 14 contributing, contributing ... 15 16 Montana: Well no, if we go to ... if we go back to area two. 17 18 Barrett: Okay. Okay, I see what you're saying. 19 20 Montana: See what I'm saying is we're taking that but we'll add this ... 21 22 Barrett: Where it applies. 23 24 Montana: Yeah. 25 26 Barrett: Okay. 27 28 Montana: So the area two covers about everything, you know the first ... 29 30 Barrett: Okay. 31 32 Montana: So ... 33 34 Hutson: So B we'll just stay within area two. 35 36 Montana: B will disappear. 37 38 Williams: And you'll combine those extra items into area one. 39 40 Montana: Yeah, until ... there's no area now. 41 42 Barrett: Right. 43 44 Williams: Yeah. 45 29 1 Montana: It'll be your duties. Just these are your duties. These are the things you 2 get to review. 3 4 Barrett: Okay. 5 6 Hutson: Okay. 7 8 Montana: Now remember I said there might be a minority report on the part of staff. 9 10 Barrett: Right. 11 12 Montana: And this might be one of the minority reports where you know our building 13 officials say oh you guys are reviewing too much and so it'll be up to you 14 to convince the Commission and the City Council if needed if the 15 Commission goes with the minority report to convince them to support 16 this. But this is what will got the Commission. 17 18 Hutson: Okay. 19 20 Montana: So, we've got a new section called certificates of appropriateness and at 21 some point we'll have to establish criteria for issuing of those. And a lot of 22 it will be what's already here in the design standards and design 23 guidelines. 24 25 So let's go to D. The things that you'll make recommendations to the 26 Commission on. First of all we're saying that infill does not apply in the 27 South Mesquite Overlay. So there's no expedited process. None of those 28 projects skip this Design Review Board. You review everything, as 29 previously said, so we made that clear. Planning and development, you 30 make recommendations to commission. 31 32 Barrett: Can I jump back for just a second? 33 34 Montana: Yeah. 35 36 Barrett: About the whole noncontributing issue. 37 38 Montana: Oh, all right. 39 40 Barrett: And maybe alleviating some of the concerns here. I wonder if that could 41 be a more basic review, so we're not reviewing all sides of a 42 noncontributing structure, we're reviewing maybe the fagade or street 43 facing elevations. So, maybe it would not be reviewing everything, but 44 that if a structure were noncontributing there would be a little less that we 45 would be required to be looking at. Do you see what I'm saying? 46 30 1 Williams: I guess by getting rid of the other areas, we're taking on more. 2 3 Hutson: Potentially yes. 4 5 Barrett: Yeah. 6 7 Williams: Potentially more. But my question, in you know the ... in the year and half 8 or so that I've been here we've reviewed maybe three cases. 9 10 Barrett: Yeah. 11 12 Williams: And everything. How much more ... I don't kind of ... 13 14 Montana: We've reviewed three cases and they've all been in the original townsite. 15 16 Williams: So, and that's ... but I mean how much more construction is going on. 17 And grant it we're hoping you know it could be that we have 20 cases a 18 month you know if it was ideal, you know if construction, you know we can 19 infill everything that we have in there or whatever. But you know I don't 20 think that's going to happen. Any idea about what the potential might be 21 about by doing this, how much more cases we'll have? 22 23 Montana: I don't think you'll see more cases. I think it would be a greater expense if 24 there is a noncontributing building that comes to us, like we're getting one 25 next month, and they want to do an addition, they have to do all four sides 26 whereas if you say for noncontributory buildings you only have to do the 27 front fagade. So it's just less expense for them on hiring an architect to do 28 the site plan and submittal for you. 29 30 Williams: Well but if they're ... if someone's doing construction, they're hiring 31 someone to do that work already. 32 33 Hutson: Yeah. 34 35 Williams: So regardless of whether it's ... it's not more work for them because if 36 they're doing remodeling they're hiring someone to do it whether it's a 37 builder or an architect. 38 39 Montana: Okay. 40 41 Williams: So it's like so ... so someone's doing that and they have to do drawings 42 cause they have to turn them in for permits. 43 44 Montana: Building. 45 31 1 Williams: And it's like so, it's not any more work in that case. I agree you know that 2 for noncontributing maybe we just ... we want to see the ... well they can 3 turn in the whole package and then we just review the street fagade for 4 that matter or something. But I would be concerned that you know that 5 they're doing something in the back that may affect what's happening in 6 the front. 7 8 Hutson: Yeah, they're building a three story building in the back. 9 10 Williams: Or something. 11 12 Hutson: And we've not considered that cause we're just looking for the facade. 13 14 Williams: At the fagade or something. 15 16 Montana: Well I don't think we're going to get more applications. I don't. We're not 17 seeing a lot more. At least for this part of town. 18 19 Williams: But I think I would agree with you about just saying you know well we'll 20 review the front but I still think they need to turn in the back views. 21 22 Montana: Yeah. 23 24 Hutson: Just to make sure there's not anything that we go, wait a second, you 25 know what's going on here. 26 27 Williams: Yeah. 28 29 Montana: All right. 30 31 Barrett: Yeah, I mean maybe we can ponder this some more. Cause I also think 32 about your house that you're in now, and if we had ... if we were just 33 reviewing the fagade then what would that've done to that whole review, 34 you know. Would we have seen ... 35 36 Montana: Yeah you would've seen a little bit of the split-level. 37 38 Hutson: From the street. 39 40 Barrett: Yeah but would we have been privy to all that information if we're just 41 saying oh we'll just see the street level. 42 43 Williams: Yeah and that's what ... 44 45 Barrett: Maybe we wouldn't be ... 46 32 1 Williams: I ... as far as for the applicant goes it shouldn't be any more work cause 2 they've got to get ... they have to have all those drawings and everything 3 for the permit anyway. So it's ... we're not asking them to do anything 4 additional. 5 6 Montana: That's true. 7 8 Williams: Than what they're going to need to build. We're just asking to review that. 9 10 Hutson: So I don't know that we really need to specify we only want to look at the 11 street side because we'd have to look at all of that anyway. 12 13 Williams: Anyway. Yeah. 14 15 Barrett: Okay. 16 17 Hutson: Make sure nothing else is ... 18 19 Barrett: Awry. 20 21 Montana: Okay, so. Okay so, we're recommending to the Commission on variances 22 except when this board can make the final decision. And that would be 23 like the parking and landscaping. Special use permits, we recommend to 24 zone change ... we recommend ... we're keeping the additional land use 25 cause that's a real benefit in this overlay district. And the rest ... okay. 26 We added this section Roman numeral nine about stating the facts, the 27 basis, we need that for the certificate of appropriateness too. We also 28 want to give that when we send things to the Commission. 29 30 Hutson: The design standards, we were given those, were we not? 31 32 Montana: The design standards on page 210? Design guidelines and design 33 standards. 34 35 Hutson: That isn't exactly what I'm thinking, I mean that's spelled out there, that's 36 good. 37 38 Montana: You mean a manual, a handout. 39 40 Hutson: Yeah. We're we given a manual a while ago too that helped. 41 42 Montana: We haven't put one together yet for the South Mesquite. We still need to 43 work on that and I'm hoping you can get a subcommittee that can help. 44 45 Hutson: Okay. 46 33 1 Montana: Put that together, but yeah that's something we mentioned here that we 2 want to hand out to the applicant. 3 4 Hutson: Right. 5 6 Montana: We haven't made it up yet. 7 8 Hutson: Okay. 9 10 Montana: Any changes, comments? 11 12 Hutson: We still on page 210? 13 14 Montana: On 210, design guidelines. We were going to add criteria for height 15 exceptions. And I'll be e-mailing you Heather for some language. 16 17 Barrett: Okay. 18 19 Montana: Design standards. 20 21 Williams: Get rid of areas one and two. 22 23 Hutson: Right, we'll get rid of that for all properties. 24 25 Montana: Oh, say that again. 26 27 Williams: On number one at the top. 28 29 Hutson: Get rid of areas one and two. 30 31 Baum: Top of page 211, it says areas one and two. 32 33 Montana: Oh right, yeah. Right. I'll do a search and replace. We added fences. 34 We added the horse fencing which I call square wire fencing. 35 36 Barrett: I have a couple of questions on some of the other ... on A, we've 37 discussed this before, new construction shall reflect a style consistent with 38 those found in the manual. Well that stuff runs the gamut, so ... 39 40 Montana: Well, we need something until we come up with our design guidelines. 41 42 Barrett: Okay. 43 44 Montana: When we come up with our design guidelines we could take an 45 amendment to Council, straight to Council to ... you know to name it and 46 replace it. 34 1 2 Barrett: Okay. 3 4 Williams: And that's ... 5 6 Montana: With a resolution. 7 8 Williams: I mean you could do the manual or something and say or like that and say 9 consistent with the area construction is being done. 10 11 Hutson: The neighborhood. 12 13 Williams: With the neighborhood, yeah, so it's like ... that limits the types of ... 14 15 Hutson: Right. 16 17 Williams: Houses, they can't go with a Victorian style necessarily so. 18 19 Montana: Okay. And consistent with styles ... okay. 20 21 Barrett: And I would just say on C under manufactured homes, that last sentence 22 needs to be reworked cause there are three 'type of materials', 'type of 23 materials', so just I would say work on that last sentence. 24 25 Montana: Okay. Reword. Okay. 26 27 Barrett: And then on E we had this discussion too and I'm not sure exactly what 28 you're meaning here. If you're taking say a shingled house and you're 29 going to stucco it, that's going to diminish the integrity. So I don't think 30 that's something we want to be encouraging. That's what this implies to 31 me, that you can change the material of your house and it would be okay. 32 33 Montana: What should we do? 34 35 Barrett: I mean maybe that is caught with the section that says 'but does not 36 diminish the historic integrity of the structure', but to me that's a mixed 37 message because if you're changing the original exterior treatment you're 38 usually going to be changing the integrity. 39 40 Montana: How about if this applies to noncontributory buildings? 41 42 Williams: Now is ... and I guess what's not clear to me there on that example where 43 you're saying such as single to tile, or tile to shingle, are you talking roof or 44 you talking wall? 45 35 1 Montana: We were talking and talking and talking. I'm not quite sure what you know 2 our intent was. Maybe we want one for roofs and want one for wall 3 finishes. Or maybe we want one for contributory and one for 4 noncontributory. 5 6 Williams: That would be what I would ... 7 8 Hutson: I think that would be better to define that out by the structure. 9 10 Montana: Contributory or noncontributory. 11 12 Hutson: Right. 13 14 Williams: Trying to think of anything other than stucco as far as wall, stucco and 15 stone. 16 17 Barrett: Brick. 18 19 Williams: Are the ones that I see. 20 21 Hutson: Brick. 22 23 Williams: Brick. 24 25 Hutson: There's wired, like wrought iron fencing though too. 26 27 Williams: Well but I mean on the fagade itself. 28 29 Barrett: There is a shingled bungalow, maybe on May, but I don't know, I think that 30 ... contributing and noncontributing if they're distinguished that might 31 work. 32 33 Williams: Yeah cause it's going to cause more issues if it's a contributing structure. 34 35 Barrett: Right. 36 37 Williams: And if it's a noncontributing. 38 39 Montana: Well we could also move this to guidelines, right now it's a standard, shall 40 do this. Want to ponder this a while? 41 42 Barrett: Yeah. 43 44 Williams: Yeah. 45 36 1 Montana: Okay, so I'm going to put a question mark. We're going to ponder this. 2 For the record that's design standards, subsection E. We okay with 3 fences? 4 5 Williams: Oh, you know one other thing I was going to say in there, may clarify, this 6 is saying design standards for all properties. On number two it's design 7 standards for structures listed as contributing on the historic register. 8 Could that be maybe reworded that design standards is there for all 9 property, well I guess it could still be all properties. All properties not 10 considered contributing, because then that might make this okay. 11 12 Montana: Yeah, you know I think maybe we should ponder this all, the whole thing. 13 Now that we've collapsed the subareas, let's see which we want to apply 14 to all structures and which we want to apply just to the contributing. So 15 let's do that next month. 16 17 Barrett: Okay. 18 19 Williams: Okay. 20 21 Montana: Cause that's something we've got to think about. All right. Now let's skip 22 to page 213, installation of solar panels. We added this. This is new and 23 it responds to new New Mexico statutes and we think is still in keeping 24 with the historic requirements of the statute and our intimate little 25 neighborhood. 26 27 Barrett: I don't have any problems with this. 28 29 Montana: Okay. So submittal and review process, we didn't amend until we get to 30 page 216, this is where staff reviews the built structure before certificate of 31 occupancy or completion is issued. And staff will review the built structure 32 against the certificate of appropriateness, what you all approved. 33 Demolition, we changed it to 90 days. 34 35 Hutson: Thank you. Thank you. That was a pet peeve of mine. 36 37 Montana: And we added ... the city now has a cost recovery for public notice so we 38 added that fee charge for the cost of the sign and the legal ad. Okay, let's 39 move down to eight A. 40 41 Hutson: Hold on one section here. Just on the demolition though we just have to 42 redefine that area two or ... 43 44 Montana: Right, I'm going to do a search and replace. 45 46 Hutson: Okay. 37 1 2 Montana: So we'll get rid of that. 3 4 Hutson: Okay, so now we're on eight on page 217. 5 6 Montana: Page 217, 8A, subsection A, I didn't know where to find these forms. 7 8 Barrett: It should really say complete the New Mexico Historic Cultural Properties 9 Inventory Form. 10 11 Montana: Complete the New Mexico Historic Cultural Properties. 12 13 Baum: Inventory. 14 15 Montana: Properties Inventory. 16 17 Barrett: And they call that an HCPI form. 18 19 Montana: H C P I form. And then is that on a website? 20 21 Barrett: That's on the preservation website so ... 22 23 Montana: If you could e-mail me that. 24 25 Barrett: Okay. 26 27 Montana: I will write ... I will include that. They don't change that often do they? 28 29 Barrett: They actually just changed it so it's new. 30 31 Montana: Okay. 32 33 Barrett: It's a new form, but yeah. 34 35 Montana: Should I put the web address in? 36 37 Barrett: I think so. 38 39 Montana: Okay. All right. 40 41 Hutson: I think that's a good idea too. 42 43 Montana: Thank you. And no other changes. 44 45 Barrett: I had a comment on number nine on 218. 1 didn't think that was ... the 46 first sentence was worded correctly. 38 1 2 Montana: Compliance with. 3 4 Barrett: Yeah, the immediate demolition. So if determined that immediate 5 demolition of a historic structure is a hazard, that doesn't make sense. 6 Isn't it supposed to be 'if it is determined that a historic structure is a 7 hazard to the health and safety. 8 9 Hutson: Oh right. 10 11 Williams: Oh yeah. 12 13 Barrett: So you would take out immediate demolition of. 14 15 Montana: Oh right. 16 17 Barrett: Although we could keep that in and argue ... 18 19 Montana: Well I could say ... I could start the sentence with 'if it is determined that a 20 demolition of a historic structures a hazard, blah, blah, blah, compliance 21 may be waived by the building official. 22 23 Hutson: Yeah you could do that, that would make more sense. 24 25 Montana: So I strike the word immediate before demolition. Same thing but worded 26 differently. All right. 27 28 Barrett: And I wondered on A, would it be possible to define how much notice we 29 receive so, it's kind of hard if you argue that it's going to be an immediate 30 hazard but we want to avoid this committee getting a days' notice on a 31 weekend or could we say three days in advance or some ... 32 33 Montana: Well how about if we say staff shall immediately notify, cause as soon as 34 we find out we'll immediately notify. 35 36 Barrett: But just so the demolition ... just so we have enough time to actually see 37 that that would be happening, in other words ... 38 39 Montana: Well see if there's a fire ... 40 41 Barrett: Right, right. No, I know. I know. 42 43 Montana: As soon as we ... 44 45 Hutson: Yeah. 46 39 1 Montana: You know it's usually the fire marshall that makes the determination about 2 the hazard. 3 4 Hutson: I think immediate could solve that. 5 6 Montana: Yeah. 7 8 Hutson: Because you may not have advanced notice, right. 9 10 Montana: As soon as we find out we'll shoot you all an e-mail. Shall immediately 11 notify. Now you might want to reword the word historic structure. We can 12 notify you of any demolition, you know, cause there's a noncontributory 13 structure, a historic structure. 14 15 Barrett: Yes actually technically. 16 17 Montana: If it's on that list and even if it says N. 18 19 Hutson: Demolition of a structure and just strike historic, I would agree. 20 21 Montana: Yeah, just strike ... 22 23 Barrett: I mean maybe that makes it clearer to ... 24 25 Montana: Yeah you want to know about all demos. 26 27 Barrett: Everybody else. Yeah. 28 29 Montana: Okay. Of a structure. Yeah cause there aren't that many to tell you the 30 truth. We had a fire down here at ... where was it ... a vacant commercial 31 building right there, maybe kitty corner from you. 32 33 Hutson: Oh yeah. 34 35 Williams: Yeah. 36 37 Hutson: The old Guzman place. 38 39 Montana: And you know it was just minor damage unless you're paying for it, it's 40 minor damage but it didn't need to be demolished. But if it did we would 41 ... 42 43 Williams: But it got boarded up. 44 45 Montana: Yeah it got boarded up. 46 40 1 Williams: That was good. 2 3 Montana: Okay. We'll ponder those line guidelines. And don't think David's going to 4 make it. 5 6 Barrett: No. Did we need to talk about this calendar? 7 8 Montana: Yeah. Take a look at this. We need to meet again in May just to ... and 9 maybe even June to finish what we want to present to the neighborhood. 10 So maybe July, two neighborhood meetings; a daytime and a ... a 11 weekday daytime for the seniors at the East Side Community Center. And 12 if it's right before lunch we'll get them. And then an evening, I don't know 13 what day of the week or a Saturday maybe at Weed and Seed. Cause 1 14 can get those two buildings free cause they're ours. I just have to book 15 them in advance. 16 17 Barrett: Okay. 18 19 Williams: The Saturday ... the weekends I think are a little more difficult for people. 20 21 Montana: Well summer too. 22 23 Hutson: Yeah. 24 25 Williams: So, it's like (inaudible). 26 27 Montana: So maybe an evening. 28 29 Hutson: Yeah. 30 31 Montana: For Weed and Seed. 32 33 Hutson: The only night you couldn't do that would be a Thursday because I know 34 that they have a girls' thing on Thursday nights cause when I hold 35 neighborhood watch meetings they can never be on a Thursday and we 36 always hold them there. But I think Weed and Seed during a weeknight 37 after ... 38 39 Montana: Maybe a Wednesday. 40 41 Hutson: Yeah, check with ... 42 43 Montana: Okay. July mid month, like the 16th? 44 45 Hutson: That would be the day before ours. Yeah. I don't see why not. 46 41 I Montana: Okay. 2 3 Barrett: And can we tentatively, in other words see how May and June shake out 4 with us finishing this work or do you need to schedule. 5 6 Montana: I'll call them and see how far in advance ... 7 8 Barrett: Okay. 9 10 Montana: Seeing it's summer maybe you know I need more advance than winter, 11 but I'll give them a call and see or maybe I'll tentatively book. 12 13 Hutson: You can always cancel it down the road. 14 15 Montana: Yeah, July or August, something like that. You're thinking you might need 16 more time? 17 18 Barrett: Well I'm just wondering. You know we've taken a while. 19 20 Montana: Yeah, yeah. 21 22 Williams: And I'm wondering if we want to set a deadline for us and say that we will 23 be done in June with ... 24 25 Hutson: That'd be a good idea. 26 27 Williams: Everything. You know that's ... 28 29 Hutson: That'd be a good idea to just push through. 30 31 Williams: Yeah. 32 33 Hutson: Some of it though falls back on you. 34 35 Montana: Oh, I'm okay. 36 37 Hutson: And so you know cause I know like this last time we didn't meet for two 38 months cause you guys ... 39 40 Montana: Yeah. 41 42 Hutson: Were really overwhelmed with trying to get all of this put together. 43 44 Montana: Yeah, you know Carol got reassigned. David Michaud who was our senior 45 planner for the comprehensive plan. He resigned. He moved back to 46 Arizona. So Carol's taking all his work. So that's why she got reassigned 42 1 and (inaudible) but I think I'll be okay cause you know we're not adding 2 anything new it would just be tweaking it. 3 4 Hutson: Right it'll just be tweaking it. 5 6 Williams: Yeah. 7 8 Montana: Yeah. 9 10 Barrett: Okay. 11 12 Montana: I think I'm okay. 13 14 Hutson: Well and do think we will have time to get through the matrix then on ... in 15 May. 16 17 Montana: We're almost done with this, we're just going to review the last two 18 sections we're going to ponder, and then we can start hitting this. But to 19 be safe you know we could say August for the neighborhood meetings. 20 21 Williams: How many do we have to have? 22 23 Montana: We should have two for the existing boundaries and then I don't know how 24 many more for the North Mesquite part. We should have a daytime one 25 for the seniors. 26 27 Williams: That's (inaudible) ... 28 29 Montana: And then a nighttime one for ... at Weed and Seed for as many as we can 30 get. 31 32 Williams: I'm okay with moving to August on it too but ... 33 34 Barrett: I'll throw a little wrench in, I know I'm already not going be here in May. 35 36 Montana: Oh I see. 37 38 Barrett: For the May meeting. I mean not that you guys aren't ... I'm just telling 39 you out front. 40 41 Montana: Well then could you give us your comments. 42 43 Barrett: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. 44 45 Montana: On our pondering sections and then on the matrix. 46 43 1 Barrett: Yeah. 2 3 Montana: Okay. And I made comments, copies of that to everybody. 4 5 Hutson: I'm like Robert, I think maybe August might be better. 6 7 Montana: Okay. 8 9 Hutson: The other ... the thing is, is if anybody's on vacation they will be back you 10 know. 11 12 Williams: Yeah. 13 14 Montana: School starts. 15 16 Hutson: School starts. So that might actually be a better time and then give us just 17 that one more month in case we need it. 18 19 Montana: So we'll try for August 20th or the 13th? 20 21 Hutson: Either one, I don't see any ... 22 23 Williams: Yeah I don't either. 24 25 Hutson: Any major issues with that. 26 27 Montana: Okay. Now do you feel ... do you have the energy to do the lunchtime 28 one and the evening one the same day, or you want to mix it up and do 29 one, one week and one the other week? 30 31 Barrett: What would be the structure of this meeting? So in other words how 32 involved are we going to be in the presentation? 33 34 Hutson: Right. 35 36 Montana: Well it's ... I'm sure I can get Carol to attend the meeting and help me out 37 in terms of the history, you know answering questions and stuff. So it'd 38 just be staff and then you if you're able to come. I don't think anyone 39 would expect to put you on the hot seat or ask questions or anything. It'll 40 be staff presenting. 41 42 Barrett: Okay. Presenting, okay. 43 44 Hutson: I would like them to do it somewhere between the week between the 11th 45 and 15th because the next week the semester starts for me and I'm 46 teaching five days a week and I will not be able to get away for lunch. 44 1 2 Montana: Wow. Okay. So how about the 13th. We'll try ... 3 4 Hutson: Now if you want to split them up the next week in the evening's fine. But 1 5 can't ... next week I could not get away during the lunchtime. But we don't 6 have to do them the same day, that could be pretty exhausting. 7 8 Williams: Yeah, that's what I was going to say. Same day could be exhausting, but 1 9 think it's going to be ... what it sounds like it'd be more exhausting for you 10 guys than us. 11 12 Montana: Let's try the 13th for the day ... 13 14 Hutson: And maybe the 20th. 15 16 Montana: And the 20th for the night. And I'll see if I can get the venue and Carol to 17 help me out. And Ezekiel will help me too, you know he's available. 18 19 Hutson: Okay. 20 21 Montana: I don't think he has night meetings on Wednesdays. Sometimes he has 22 ETZ which is county meetings on Thursdays, but I don't think he has 23 Wednesday meetings. 24 25 Williams: Just tonight. 26 27 Montana: Yeah. Okay, good work. 28 29 V. DISCUSSION OF OTHER ITEMS 30 31 Barrett: Okay, do we have discussion of any other items? 32 33 Montana: I just want to mention that I have a building application for an addition to 34 428 North San Pedro which is right around the corner from the church. It's 35 an addition. It was ... it's an altered contributory building, no it's 36 noncontributory in the 1994-95 inventory, it was deemed noncontributory. 37 38 Hutson: So now current ... 39 40 Montana: It was altered by the little pitched roof and a carport. But we're going to 41 see all four sides in the drawings. 42 43 Barrett: And that'll happen in May? 44 45 Montana: Yes. So we'll have a case. 46 45 1 Hutson: Give me the address again will you? 2 3 Montana: 428. 4 5 Hutson: 428 San Pedro. 6 7 Montana: North San Pedro. 8 9 Hutson: North San Pedro. 10 11 Montana: Yeah. And it's got a white fagade with the pitched roof. The roof part is 12 painted turquoise now. 13 14 Hutson: I can't picture this. I'll have to go ... 15 16 Montana: And it's on the east side of the street. 17 18 Hutson: On the east side, okay. 19 20 Montana: The corner properties are the church properties that are all dilapidated and 21 boarded up adobes and then right next to it is this little house. 22 23 Hutson: Okay, okay, I know where this is. 24 25 Montana: It's owned by ... 26 27 Hutson: So it's near Hadley. 28 29 Montana: Yes. 30 31 Hutson: Okay. I know this is. 32 33 Montana: Just around the corner from Hadley. Owned by the Garcia family, been 34 there quite some time and the mother wants ... been working back east 35 and wants to retire there. Her daughter lives there now and so they need 36 an extra bedroom when she retires. 37 38 Barrett: Are they putting the addition on the rear? 39 40 Montana: Side. 41 42 Barrett: Side. 43 44 Montana: So, it's interesting. Now we want to accommodate families and extended 45 families and that sort of thing. 46 46 1 Hutson: Yeah we do, we do. We don't want to make it punitive, but we also don't 2 want to lose ... 3 4 Williams: The integrity. 5 6 Hutson: The integrity particularly since they were pretty much one story, so you 7 know that just ... 8 9 Montana: Yeah, it'll be one story. 10 11 Hutson: I can see both of your arguments and 1 sort of all in between on that cause 12 ... 13 14 Montana: This'll be a good example. 15 16 Hutson: Okay. 17 18 Montana: All right. 19 20 V1. ADJOURNMENT 21 22 Barrett: So we can adjourn at 7:44 p.m. 23 24 25 26 27 �✓ 28 Chairperson l R S 47