Loading...
09-07-20161 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 SOUTH MESQUITE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Following are the minutes of the South Mesquite Design Review Board meeting held on September 7, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in Room 2007-A at City Hall, 700 N. Main Street, Las Cruces, NM. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Williams Paul Mach Ernie Campos Tony Dahlin Faith Hutson MEMBERS ABSENT: David Chavez Barbara Kuhns STAFF PRESENT: Adam Ochoa, CLC Planner Becky Baum, RC Creations, LLC, Recording Sec. OTHERS: Frank Belyan Robert Cruise Martha Rodriguez I. CALL TO ORDER (6:01 p.m.) Williams: Call the meeting to order at 6:01. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 6, 2016 Williams: And first item of business is the Approval of the Minutes from the July 6th, 2016 meeting. Any comments, suggestions, changes? Dahlin: Mr. Chairman. Williams: Yes. Dahlin: I, 1 suggest we vote on acceptance. Williams: Okay. Dahlin: Is that the proper way of ... Ochoa: A move, a motion ... Williams: A motion, we've got a motion to approve. A second? Mach: I'll second it. 1 1 2 Williams: Motion and a second. Any other discussion? 3 4 Campos: No sir. 5 6 Williams: Okay. All those in favor. 7 8 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 9 10 Williams: Motion passes unanimously. 11 12 III. NEW BUSINESS 13 14 1. Case 69213: Request for approval of the renovation of an existing vacant 15 dwelling including the replacement of a window and the relocation of the front 16 door on the street -facing facade of the structure on a property located on the 17 southeast corner of San Pedro Street and Augustine Avenue; a.k.a. 738 N. 18 San Pedro Street; Parcel ID# 02-06123. The subject property is zoned R-3 19 (High Density Residential District) and is located within the Original Townsite 20 of the South Mesquite Overlay District. Submitted by Robert Cruise & Martha 21 Rodriguez. 22 23 Williams: Next item for business is the Case 69213. 24 25 Ochoa: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Our first and only case tonight, 25 maybe a familiar one; it's Case 69213. It's for a proposed I guess 27 modification to a renovation to the property at 738 North San Pedro Street. 28 This was actually the one we reviewed on our, at our last meeting. The 29 applicant has come back with a couple of changes to that. After starting 30 some demolition on the, on the building he noticed a couple things so he 31 is coming before you for these, these couple of minor changes, maybe not 32 minor, but changes if you will. 33 Subject property's located in the South Mesquite, as you can see 34 here highlighted in the little hatch, hatch marks there, R-3 zoned property 35 in the Original Townsite of the, the City of Las Cruces. It is located on the 36 southeast corner of San Pedro Street and Augustine Avenue, zoned R-3 37 and currently consists of a vacant single-family dwelling. Subject, the 38 dwelling itself is classified as a contributing structure under the State 39 Historic Registry and was constructed circa 1925. Here's an aerial of that 40 L-shaped home we're talking about. As I stated it's south of Augustine, 41 east of San Pedro Street. Here are some site photos of the home. The 42 top left and middle picture are taken on, along San Pedro Street. That's 43 the front facade there. The top right-hand corner is also that, that side. 44 The bottom left corner, that's the building facing San, San Augustine and 45 as well as the bottom right picture as well. i►i 1 Previously the applicant, let me see if I can find, here we go, the 2 first, the first issue we're going to be discussing today is the first, the top 3 left picture if you will, where you can see where a doorway is currently 4 located north, at the northern part of the, of the home. And that small little 5 aluminum window that, it looks like it's, it was just kind of shoved in a hole 6 if you will where previously South Mesquite allowed the placement of a 7 nicho in that, on that, in that area. The applicant is seeking to change the 8 aspect of the front door along there. He is proposing to actually move the 9 location of the front entry door. The doorway currently located on the 10 northwest corner, the applicant has found evidence that that was not the 11 actual original door opening to the dwelling. This was discovered when 12 demolition took place on the interior and they found that adobe bricks 13 were actually cut with a saw for the door and the header. They were both 14 just placed in there for the new door essentially. The applicant then stated 15 that the original doorway's actually located in the center of the, of that wall 16 that's facing San Pedro Street where a small aluminum window currently 17 exists. They discovered a header that is actually laid in and mudded, 18 mudded directly on top of the adobe bricks, not cut into it and the header 19 is constructed from a hand-hewn wood, you know kind of similar to the 20 styles of when this home was originally built at the time that this home was 21 originally built. Because of that the applicant believes that this is actually 22 the original door opening for the dwelling and would like to relocate the 23 doorway to the central wall portion of the dwelling. Additionally the 24 applicant will still be replacing the door with a new wooden door as 25 previously approved, as well as they, he will be placing that previously, 26 previously approved 32-square-foot attached porch awning over that front 27 door, doorway, essentially moving everything from the northern part of the, 28 the, the wall to the center part of it if you will. Here are some quick 29 pictures, the top left picture that is the original door opening. The two 30 center ones are where that window, aluminum window was that, they 31 demolished and they found the header, original header. The bottom left 32 picture, that's actually the header as you can see that's laid into the mud, 33 into the original adobe. And the, the right-hand, on the right-hand side 34 that is the picture of what the door and the awning will look like after it's all 35 said and done. 36 Additionally the applicant is seeking to replace a horizontal window 37 that is facing Augustine which we all discussed in pretty decent lengths at 38 the last meeting. After doing some of the demolition the applicant did 39 discover that a narrow header beam was actually located over this 40 window, approximately 30 inches in width. With this discovery the 41 applicant believes that this window was actually originally a 30-inch 42 window similar, similar in size to the other windows of the dwelling. So the 43 applicant is proposing to replace this horizontal and longer window with a 44 new 30-inch by 30-inch vinyl -clad double -paneled thermal window with a 45 territorial -style trim similar to the windows that we previously approved for 46 the entire structure previously. The new window will be shorter because 3 that is to accommodate the actual kitchen, the, the sink area, the cabinets because he will be relocating the kitchen to this side since the main entry will be relocated as well hopefully to a different location of the home. The new window will, will still match the style and look of other windows seen throughout the South Mesquite Overlay. Again top picture shows that horizontal window that was previously discussed that he was just going to replace, keep it the same width and just replace it with a window, you know with the broken pane, kind of territorial style. But the bottom left has a picture, you can see that there's a little header there that kind of shows kind of evidence that the window actually used to be smaller and the, the two right-hand pictures are what the new window will look like, similar to those pictures if you will. Here the, the top picture is actually what was previously approved. As you can see the door was closer to the corner of San Augustin and, and San Pedro, or Augustine and San Pedro with the nicho in the center of the wall there and then the long window as you can see on Augustine. The bottom right picture's what the house would look like now with the relocated door at the center, no more nicho there, and then he'll be covering up where the, where the existing door is now, he'll just be covering that area up with new adobe I believe. Then he'll be replacing that, that horizontal window with a smaller 30-inch by 30-inch window right there on the corner of Augustine. Just, just a reference real quick here, couple of surrounding properties around the, the existing, the subject property, all existing single-family homes essentially. When analyzing this we do look at (inaudible) development is required to, to utilize architectural styles and methods that are visually compatible with the original structure and the surrounding structure and the overall character of the Historical District. Staff believes that new evidence does show that we are now trying to, the applicant is now actually trying to bring this structure even closer to the original, its original look which is something that, that's, that the Code definitely supports. The structure is listed as a contributing structure by the State Historic Registry and this would only I guess increase its value if you will to the Historic Registry. Staff did receive no public input about the proposal. With that staff does recommend approval based on the findings within your staff report. The South Mesquite Design Review Board does have final authority on these proposals. Here are those findings that are actually found within your staff report if you need to look at them again. And your options tonight ladies and gentlemen are: 1) to vote "yes" so to approve the renovation project that's proposed by the applicant; 2) to vote "no," this will deny the renovation project; 3) to vote "yes" with conditions which essentially would be to add conditions deemed necessary by the South Mesquite Design Review Board; or 4) table and postpone and direct staff and the applicant accordingly to provide additional information, as well alternate solutions at a later meeting. That's the conclusion of my .19 1 presentation. I hope I covered everything. But the applicant is here if you 2 have any questions for him as well and I stand for questions. 3 4 Williams: Any questions? 5 6 Dahlin: Boy the silence. 7 8 Ochoa: It should be pretty straightforward, I hope. 9 10 Campos Mr. Chair. I don't, I don't have any issues with the proposed renovations 11 or proposed redrawing. What they've discovered was really unique, and 12 informed with that aspect I don't, I personally don't see any problems 13 unless the other Committee Members have something to bring up. 14 15 Hutson: I actually commend you for you know taking the time to, to, to make it as 16 authentic as it originally was so, you know instead of just saying, "Well you 17 know, okay, that was the original door but it's a lot of work. We're going to 18 leave it where it is." So thank you very much. 19 20 Cruise: You're most welcome. This is Robert Cruise. I'm the owner. It's, it's 21 amazing when you start peeling back layers of you know almost a century 22 worth of plaster what you find underneath. But yeah when we pulled that 23 plaster back and I saw that header it's like, it was, it was like an "Ah-ha!" 24 moment. Yeah. This, and, and researching territorial styles, all the doors 25 are in the center of the houses so I always thought it was kind of odd that 26 it was on the northern end, but to find that dead center it was like the 27 golden moment. 28 29 Campos: Excellent. 30 31 Cruise: So we rearranged what was going to be the kitchen and moved it to the 32 other side and that'll be the entry into the living room area. 33 34 Williams: Anyone want to make a motion to approve the change, the application as 35 we've ... 36 37 Mach: I move that we accept option one and vote yes to approve the renovation. 38 39 Dahlin: I second that motion. 40 41 Williams: Motion is, motion made and seconded. All those in favor? 42 43 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, 44 45 Williams: Motion passes. 46 5 1 Cruise: Thank you. 2 3 BANTER FOR A FEW MOMENTS. 4 5 IV. DISCUSSION OF OTHER ITEMS 6 7 Williams: Moving on to other discussions, Paul I think you had something you 8 wanted to discuss. 9. 10 Mach: I do. I sent everybody an e-mail about this topic. What you see on the 11 screen there I brought up to Adam a while back and didn't pursue it but 1 12 was looking at this again, and it has to do with the signs and permitted 13 signs under the new Code. And if you look at Item B there it says ground 14 signs shall be no greater than two square feet in overall size. And except 15 for Lohman and Amador which are the only places that can have pole 16 signs these are the only kind of signs that we can have in the, in the 17 District except for ones that are actually attached to buildings. So two 18 square feet seems like a really small allotment of size for a sign 19 advertising your business and so, especially when we look at Item D 20 where when properties are developed as a business center and they have 21 businesses, one ground sign can identify the names of the individual 22 businesses so it seems very odd that a two -square -foot sign would be 23 able to hold all of that information. So I question this, that, that perhaps 24 Item B, two square feet is maybe a miss, mistyped item or I would like to 25 know if anybody remembers what was going on during the discussions of 26 that. 27 28 Williams: The, I just now when you were saying that ground signs, can we have a 29 definition of ground sign, what a ground sign is? 30 31 Ochoa: Yes. A ground sign is essentially, ground sign is, is a, a sign that's not 32 elevated on poles. It's essentially the entire structure in its, the, the entire 33 sign is on top of a base if you will on the ground. That's essentially what a 34 ground sign is. Typically not elevated if you will like a pole sign is what a 35 ground sign is. What Paul brought up is something that has been brought 36 up by a couple of property owners, commercial property owners in the 37 South Mesquite in the past as well, where essentially they're saying, 38 "Okay so you're telling me I can have a five -foot -tall ground sign and only 39 two square feet of that could be for my sign itself," which out of any other 40 area in the city which there are other areas in the city where they're just 41 limited the, the size of signage including the UD. The UD's pretty small 42 too. This is the absolute smallest sign anywhere in the city. 43 44 Williams: I, 1 guess my concern about when you say "ground sign" I mean look at 45 where my apartment is there on, on Mesquite and Las Cruces. There's 46 nowhere there to put a ground sign. I mean if you could do it, I mean you C-9 1 could, you might be able to put a sandwich board or something out but, 2 but the sidewalk, it's right up against the sidewalk. So I'm concerned if 3 you get too, if you increase the sign there's some spots somewhere 4 there's commercial buildings where there's no room for sign, ground signs 5 ... 6 7 Ochoa: Sure, 8 9 Williams: Period. The, there, so I don't, I, I, two feet is kind of small but that's kind of 10 what I, 1 would worry about if you get too big whether or not, people are 11 going to (inaudible) on it. 12 13 Ochoa: Right, 14 15 Williams: Access ways and stuff so. 16 17 Ochoa: And if I may add to that there are other requirements as well, you know 18 five foot tall, two square feet is what it says but there are also setback 19 requirements so if the property does not meet the, you know those 20 requirements then they essentially cannot have a ground sign unless they 21 go for a variance if you will. 22 23 Dahlin: Mr. Chairman. 24 25 Hutson: Mr. Chairman. 26 27 Williams: One ... 28 29 Ochoa: And, I'm sorry. 30 31 Dahlin: I'm sorry, sorry, go ahead. 32 33 Ochoa: Then additionally what you're looking at as well as if, if you read the 34 language in the South Mesquite it limits it to commercial properties. So 35 basically what you're, all you're dealing with is when there's actual 36 commercial business on that property where you'll be able to have that so 37 the Code is a little grey when it comes to like multifamily like you're talking 38 about. 39 40 Williams: Well mine is also zoned for commercial though too so it's like, it's my, or 41 my apartment can do a business there as well so ... 42 43 Ochoa: Correct. But the, but the, again it falls back on for a commercial property, 44 you know multifamily property's not a commercial property so that's 45 something that may be something we might want to clean up as well in 46 there. I could see where Susana was going when she kind of wrote this 7 1 section, restricting but also kind of allowing a little bit more, but it, it is a 2 little confusing ... 3 4 Williams: Right. 5 6 Ochoa: And a, a, really restrictive concern. 7 8 Hutson: Mr. Chairman. I wanted to say though the setback is five feet so you know 9 if, if we decided that we should change it a little bit bigger there's, there's 10 still that, that you have to be at least five feet back so. 11 12 Dahlin: Mr. Chairman, oh. 13 14 Campos: Three things, number one for the sign, for the side, for the size of the sign, 15 two by two ground set, in my mind I'm looking at also commercial but does 10 that also apply to real estate signs, yard sale signs, or what's the other 17 sign I'm looking for, also for business ... 18 19 Williams: Temporary. 20 21 Campos: Second, yeah. Second if you're sidewalk to sidewalk and got a rock wall 22 or block wall, can you set the sign on the wall? Is that at, is that, is that, is 23 that allowed? And third the, the size of the sign I'm, I'm getting a feel 24 because of the commercial aspect and we're in a historical district, I think 25 they're trying to keep it low-key. 20 27 Ochoa: Sure. 28 29 Campos: And is there anywhere in the Code, Mr. Ochoa where we can implement 30 or amend another type of zoning into the overlay zone to allow certain 31 type of signs to the certain type of business and not go over and beyond 32 what's allowed at the moment? 33 34 Ochoa: Okay. 35 35 Campos: To keep it balanced what I'm trying to say. 37 38 Ochoa: Understand. 39 40 Campos: In the same spirit. 41 42 Ochoa: Okay. To answer your first question real estate signs, garage sale signs 43 44 45 Campos: Political signs. 46 1 Ochoa: And political signs ... 2 3 Campos: Yeah. 4 5 Ochoa: Those are considered temporary signs. 6 7 Campos: Okay. 8 9 Ochoa: So temporary signs actually fall back into the, the, the, the Sign Code of, 10 of the, of the City of Las Cruces. I believe that's what it just is, go to 11 Chapter 30, no Chapter 18 or whatever it is, what, whatever the Sign 12 Code is. So that's for that one. 13 Your second question about placing signs on the walls, I'm not 14 100% how it reads there. I know in the actual City of Las, the actual Sign 15 Code, signs on walls and fences and rocks are not allowed essentially. 16 Because essentially if the wall is here on your property line you're push, 17 putting, putting a sign on there even if it's only like a five, six -inch -wide 18 sign that's already overhanging into right-of-way and no signs are allowed 19 in right-of-way at all just to keep liability of the City out of, keeping it out of 20 the liability of the City if it falls over or something, it falls into the, to the 21 property. Which is another reason why you got the five-foot setback 22 cause if you got a five-foot maximum height if it falls over it's within five- 23 foot setback so it'll fall within the property. The second thing about actual 24 lasting, pardon me, the actual limiting the types of signs allowed per 25 business, that gets really tricky unfortunately considering what if you had 26 multiple businesses on there? What if it's one business yes, but he's 27 doing multiple aspects of, of a certain business on that property? That 28 gets a little tough. So what we could do is stick to the zoning side of 29 things if you will, so whatever the property is zoned wherever it is, and 30 then, so if your property is zoned this and you have, you're allowed to do 31 this size of a sign and so forth like that on your property if it's for a 32 commercial purpose. Big thing is with all signage we try to limit signage 33 on residential properties at all time cause that is just, if everybody has a 34 sign what will you see? 35 36 Dahlin: Mr. Chairman. Is, is this something that we have the authority to adjust or 37 rewrite? Because when I drive down the street, I see every kind of sign in 38 town. I don't know, until this moment I didn't know if that was legal or not, 39 or approved. But should we develop a consensus about signs in this 40 room? 41 42 Ochoa: Yeah, we could definitely do that and direct staff accordingly. One thing 43 that has been discussed, staff, me, is looking through a number of boxes 44 of past meetings that Susana left, she kept everything essentially, seeing 45 if we could find any old, older versions of the update if you will, of the 46 amendment to see if there was anything in there. Becky graciously said 9 1 she might just try to look through the minutes as well and send us some 2 sections where we're probably just, there were, the discussions of ground 3 signs occurred just seeing if there was either a mistake like a mistype or it 4 was purposely done, because if it's a, if it was a mistake if you will it could 5 be a quick fix, quicker fix cause it'd just be kind of an interpretation. If y'all 6 are okay with us changing it to what it was originally supposed to be, if we 7 all get a consensus of that, we'll do an interpretation and that'll be the new 8 requirement for signs. If not we'll come back and then if we're, if there's a 9 consensus to possibly change that in Code unfortunately we have to go 10 through a full amendment and go through that again. 11 12 Dahlim Could we, could we come, establish a committee of one or two just to go 13 photograph some of the signs around there, try and find some of them. I, 1 14 guess the signs are new to the District. Because back 50 years ago I'm 15 not sure they had a lot of signs up. But I mean what, what we should do 16 I'm thinking is go down and photograph some different signs around here 17 and see what we like or don't like. Cause two by two I agree 100% with 18 (inaudible) is ridiculous. 19 20 Williams: I think, I, 1 don't, I think that's more than what we need to do. I think if we, 21 we need to verify that, whether other size is the size that, that was 22 intended or if it was. Cause two by two, or it's not two by two. It's two 23 square feet. That's one by two. 24 25 Ochoa: It's two by one. Correct. 26 27 Williams: Yeah. So it's like, so it's less there, about that, little bigger than that. But 28 the, the, I don't, I don't, you know we're not specifying a style. All we're 29 saying is a size. We don't care that the style is, is not, is not our, we're 30 not, we don't limit styles or things like that or what's on the sign 31 necessarily and stuff like that. So I think if we look at the size and just 32 verify the size you know and then, and then if it is just a typo and easy to 33 fix then we just do that. 34 35 Ochoa: Right 36 37 Williams: But I don't, I, 1 think trying to go and photograph and come up with a 38 standard or something is, is way more than what we need to do. So, and 39 older signs, anything that was done before this anyway is going to be 40 exempt, grandfathered in anyway. So it's like, so it won't be able to, we 41 can't go out and enforce force signs that are already existing to change 42 but, so. 43 44 Ochoa: Correct. 45 46 Dahlin: So if it's two by two, is it two by two cubed? 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ochoa No, it's two by one. Williams: Two square feet. Ochoa: Two square feet. Dahlin: That's what I think it'd be. Ochoa: So it's two by one. Williams One by one, one by two. Dahlin: Okay. That's nothing. Williams: Oh, I know. Dahlin: That's, probably omits some of our historical signs that are hanging out there. Ochoa: Yeah. There you go. Williams: Good, yeah. So. Campos: Mr. Chair. Thank you. Question to staff. In ordinance, let's say if I'm a business owner and I want to convert, I bought a piece of property off of Mesquite Street in the Mesilla, I mean the South Mesquite Overlay zone and I'm gonna open up a bakery or a little restaurant, little cafe. Is there any flexibility in staff for the size of the sign I want to put up relating to the commercial aspect? Can I go to your, for a variance to the size of the sign? Ochoa: That's, that's something else you could always do as well which we've discussed, is you could leave it as is and then just if somebody comes and, and can actually justify or prove that they want, why they want, or why they need a bigger sign they can always go through the, through the variance process. It is lengthier, it does cost money. There's an application fee, public notice fees, you name it, public advertising fees that need to happen for, for the variance. So it would come before you all for your recommendation and then final action at P&Z for their, for final action at P&Z so. Campos: As long as it's not an overkill sign and blends in, the same spirit of the area. I'll give you an example, a couple of weeks back I got, I also had to issue sign permits for the County. Ace Hardware, they were bought out by some other company so they were gonna upgrade their signs off of Taylor Road, the hardware store. They came in with a different sign, a lot bigger 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 than what it was previously on there so what, long story short they went over the limits of, of our sign department. They issued a letter to our Planning Director and we had admin, administrative variance done. Ochoa: Okay. Campos: Does that still happen here in the City of Las Cruces? Can we do that? Ochoa: Unfortunately in the Sign Code signs cannot be administratively approved for variances. Campos: Okay. Ochoa: They have to go through the public process. Campos: Yeah. Ochoa: I'll double-check the ordinance, our ordinance. There are some things in there that, that you all granted yourselves like a, a ability to approve yourselves if you will. I'm not 100% sure if that's one of the aspects that, that, that can happen. If it is then great. That's one less step that people have to go to. They just come before you all for the approval of their sign. Mach: Yeah. I do believe that in the new Code our Board has authority to issue variance for sign sizes. Ochoa: Oh, nice. Mach: I think it's in there so I mean ... Campos: Okay. Dahlin: Cool. Mach: We do have that authority for that. And the other thing that I was kind of hoping to find out here because Faith I believe you were here in the 'early days and I didn't realize that you were probably, you were too, do you remember what was going on during the discussions of this, whether it was intended to be two square feet or ... Williams: I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't remember, I remember us discussing signs. I don't remember us discussing the size on the sign and two square feet seems small to me. It's like if it was I would've, although 12 square feet seems a little big, you know. Mach: Three by four. 12 I Dahlin: (Inaudible)- 2 3 Williams: Yeah, I guess that's three by four and it's ... 4 5 Hutson: Then I cannot recall either Paul what, what we discussed. I was hoping 6 that I had an old copy of it in this book but I don't and I, 1 cannot recall off 7 the top of my head either. 8 9 Williams: I, 1 would, you know I mean it, to me, well I mean I would check if, if we 10 intended it to be 12. Yeah I, 1 think it, the, my thing though if we have to, if 11 we're, well administratively, well if they come up to us it has to be 12 advertised and everything and so it's like yeah. 13 14 Campos: So now we ... 15 16 Williams: So I would, yeah I would, I would, you know say we'd probably want a 17 change even though we have the authority to approve it if they come to it 18 because I hate to put someone, have to come through it necessarily if they 19 don't really need to, and it's like, and it's just more work for us if we, you 20 know, if it. 21 22 Campos: Yeah. I, 1 agree with Mr. Chair. As Mr. Dahlin has stated maybe we 23 should take pictures and compare what's out there right now which, and 24 the County also had legal non -conforming. We also have village district 25 areas where in case somebody wants to open up a business, a, a Mom 26 and Pop type they're allowed. We do have strict restrictions for the village 27 districts like Brazito, La Union, Dona Ana for the, for the signs as well. We 28 don't want anything too loud and too boisterous that's going to have a 29 negative effect. 30 31 Williams: Yeah, I ... 32 33 Campos: Thank you sir. Thank you. 34 35 Mach: Yes. On the corner of Campo and Amador is a, Saenz Law, law offices 36 and they've got a ground sign you know part rock and it says their name 37 and, and I'm not, I never measured the sign but it seems like that's 38 probably about a three by three, three by four foot sign. And so it would 39 seem to me that that would kind of be it, and I'm not also saying that it was 40 intended to be 12, maybe it was meant to be eight or whatever it is. It just, 41 1 know I went through these, through this whole Code stuff because 1 42 came late in the process and I went through everything, everything and it 43 was really remiss on my part not to have missed something like that. So 44 I'm hoping it was a, just a typographical error and not something we 45 intended. But if it was what we intended to do then it's part of the Code 13 1 and it took years to pass this thing and to try and, to try and issue new 2 code and then go, have to through all the process ... 3 4 Williams: Again. 5 6 Mach: Another four years just to get this done. 7 8 Williams: Yeah. If the, that's what I was just going to ask you, is what is, if we 9 decide we want to make it 12 and assume it was a, a typographic error, 10 what's the process for us making that change? 11 12 Ochoa: Well again, if it was a mistake, finding the evidence that it was a mistake, 13 it'd be a quick interpretation done by us administratively and it'd just be 14 part of the Code. If it is an actual amendment that we're looking at 15 wanting to do, which we do have a meeting next month, scheduled for 16 next month as a FYI, we could discuss this again. I'll, I'll do some digging 17 this month and see what I can find. If there is no evidence that, that that 18 happened, oh, Faith has found something. 19 20 Hutson: Yeah. I'm looking at one, Section 38, 49.2 dated 1/22/07 and it says 21 "ground signs shall be no greater than two square feet in overall size." So 22 that's from '07. 23 24 Dahlin: Is there a (inaudible)? 25 26 Williams: So that was before me. 27 28 Hutson: So I'm, I'm guessing that we just left it alone when we did a revision 29 because this is what this says with this date. 30 31 Williams: So if that was the case and we want to allow 12, it, it, are we talking about, 32 well are we talking about having to go through the full process again? 33 34 Ochoa: It'd, it'd be a full amendment. That is correct. We'd have to basically just 35 change that language, add a one in front of the two, bring it before you all. 36 If you guys are okay with that vote on it, recommend approval for it, goes 37 to P&Z, they'll vote on it, make a recommendation to City Council, and City 38 Council will finalize it essentially. 39 40 Dahlin: Mr. Chairman. Can we just state that is a typo? 41 42 Ochoa: There's no evidence that it is a typo, unfortunately. 43 44 Williams: Yeah. Well there ... 45 46 Ochoa: If, if I can find evidence that it is a typo then ... 14 1 Williams: Well I, I, 1 mean Faith just, if we've got, if we've got a document that was 2 dated in 2007 that actually states that, it's not a typo. It's, and so there is 3 evidence out there that it is, it was part of the, the Overlay for the ... 4 5 Ochoa: The intent if you will. 6 7 Williams: Yeah. 8 9 Hutson: When it talks about A -frame signs thought it does say that they shall be no 10 more than 12 square feet total. So it gives you A -frames that, but not 11 ground sign. So it could've been a typo that far back but again we'd have 12 to see if there was something in the earlier drafts that had said 12 and that 13 was somehow not typed into this one. 14 15 Williams: Paul, 16 17 Mach: Yeah. Based on what you're finding there, the only thing I can conclude is 18 that we did intend it to be two square feet. And that was my basic 19 question, was it seemed to me it was a typographical error and this is 20 evidence that it wasn't. So I don't see how we can just make something 21 up and say, "Oh, it was a typographical error." 22 23 Williams; Yeah. 24 25 Dahlin: (Inaudible). 26 27 Mach: When going back these many years it would indicate that that was 28 intentionally done and I think trying to make these changes, I know it took 29 very many years to go through that whole process and I would hate to see 30 us have to do that again so. 31 32 Williams: Yeah. That was going to be my suggestion too was if we've got, if we've 33 got administrative over there we can approve variances on this, on the 34 sign sizes and stuff. I think we've got some (inaudible) aspect to deal with 35 it now. I, 1 would not recommend us going through that whole process for 36 this little change. I would recommend we wait, see if there's other 37 changes that need to be made and then do it as part of the process or 38 something rather than trying to go through the whole, like you said going 39 through this whole thing again you know for one little, adding a one in front 40 of a two cause, Paul. 41 42 Mach: Yes. And I'm the one that brought up this whole question and I'm the 43 cause of the discussion and I would agree with you. 44 45 Dahlin: So why are we having this discussion? 46 15 I Williams: Well that was why we asked. 2 3 Ochoa: That's the discussion, correct. 4 5 Williams: Yeah. 6 7 Ochoa: So if, if you all are comfortable with just keeping it as is and if people come 8 forward that they want larger signs, it'll just be a variance coming before 9 you all. I'll double-check the Code but I, 1 think Paul is correct that, where 10 you guys have the authority to approve the size of signs in the South 11 Mesquite. If that is the case then if somebody wants to come in and get a, 12 and a, try to get a larger sign they'll just come before y'all for, for approval 13 of that and then it'll end here hopefully, I believe that's how the Code 14 reads. If, if it's not, I'll, I'll bring it up again next time but I'm pretty sure 15 that's how the Code reads as well and we'll just leave it at that. 16 17 Williams: Sounds good. 18 19 Ochoa: Cool. 20 21 Williams: Any other discussion? 22 23 Campos: No sir, not I. 24 25 V. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS 26 27 Williams: Any announcements? Paul. 28 29 Mach: Just one other thing. David Chavez has not been here for several 30 meetings and I happened to run into him one day and asked him if he was 31 going to continue on the Board because I know that he has a new job and 32 he works in El Paso and it's, he's told me it's difficult for him to get to the 33 meetings so I asked him if he was planning on continuing and he sort of 34 gave me the intent, the indication that he was. But if somebody is missing 35 many meetings it makes this more difficult for this Board to reach a 36 quorum and makes it, puts more pressure on the people that are here on 37 a regular basis to have to make sure they show up. 38 39 Dahlin: Mr. Chairman. I'm going to further that discussion. I drive and fly in 800 40 miles to be at this meeting because I'm committed. El Paso's an hour 41 away. Just food for thought. 42 43 Hutson: I actually had a conversation with David on Monday at a party and it's not 44 that it's an hour away. It's that his scheduled hours do not end before six 45 p.m. So it's not the distance, it's his work hours. I ... 46 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Dahlin: So he can't come anyway. Hutson: So I said to him that I would discuss with the Board the possibility of changing the time of the meetings, if that would be something that was acceptable. We originally met at seven p.m. and we changed it to six for the convenience of a Board Member. Dahlin: Who was that Board Member? Hutson: Honestly ... Williams: (Inaudible). Hutson: Tony, I don't remember and it doesn't matter. I just ... Dahlin: But we changed from Thursday to a Wednesdays. Hutson: Yes, and we also changed the time from seven to six, so it's something that we could discuss and the reason why I'm saying this is it took us forever to get a full Board, took us forever. Williams: We still don't have a full Board. Hutson: And, right. And so it's something that maybe we could consider if that could be accommodating. Now if he cannot make 7:00 then it's a moot point but at least it's something that maybe we can consider and I could ask him if it was changed, if the Board was willing and it was changed if he could make that. Williams: Paul. Mach: I think that sounds like a great idea, okay. I think David adds a, very much to this Board and I would hope that he would be wanting to stay on it. Ochoa: If I may add. _ Dahlin: I'd also say this, that I'm flexible, any day or any time so according to Faith if seven'll do it and, will it do it? Hutson: I don't know. I can ask him. Dahlin: Okay. Hutson: I can ask him and see. 17 1 Ochoa: If I may add, we might run into some issues when it comes to having 2 meetings that late, at 7:00 just simply because of where we're at now at 3 City Hall here. At, at a, typically at a, we're all we're supposed to be out of 4 here at a specific time. Meeting, public meetings are allocated about three 5 hours, till 9:00 because 9:00 is essentially cutoff time for Security as well. 6 So for pushing that back another hour then you know technically it'll be till 7 ten. We may get a, a nay -say also from our Building Services here as 8 well. So just keep that in mind. There's, there, there's, there're, there're 9 other reasons why a lot of them, lot of them like the ETZ also was moved 10 to 6:00 because of that reason as well. P&Z moved earlier as well and 11 simply because of that we have to facilitate, for facility purposes basically. 12 So if we can't do seven then it'd have to stay six. Not only that but we also 13 have to talk to my Director as well because it's up to him where he wants 14 staff as well, AKA me, 7:00 till whatever for these meetings so. We'd 15 definitely discuss that though if, if y'all are okay, comfortable with possibly 16 moving it to 7:00 we could definitely discuss that and, and check and I'll, 17 I'll get back with you all next, at the next meeting. 18 19 Williams: I would say we, let's talk to, to David first and ... 20 21 Hutson: Right. 22 23 Williams: Find out what his availability is and stuff like that. 24 25 Hutson: Right. 26 27 Williams: What, what, I mean is it, the, another possibility is changing the date, the 28 day again too. You know if it, if, if it's, if Thursdays are better maybe we 29 go back to Thursdays but you know what I mean. It, it's, the, I think we 30 can work around that. I think, I personally would prefer to keep it at six if 31 we could but I don't have a problem with going to seven too much but you 32 know. 33 34 Hutson: I'm not sure that seven would work but ... 35 36 Williams: Yeah, yeah. 37 38 Hutson: It was just a suggestion that ... 39 40 Ochoa: Sure. 41 42 Hutson: If all things could work and I, 1 do understand that you know we have to 43 work with the City as well so. 44 45 Williams: Yeah. So I would say, I mean if it, if he, let, let's talk to David and find out 46 what ... m 1 Hutson: Yes. 2 3 Williams: What's, what his availability is and if there's a, even maybe a day that's 4 better and then we can discuss it at the next meeting too, look at you 5 know possibility of going to a different day if needed so. 6 7 Ochoa Definitely do that. Just to let you know we have also, like our University 8 District meeting we actually have it during the day. We have it at ten a.m. 9 in the morning cause ... 10 11 Williams: Yeah. 12 13 Ochoa: Everybody was totally fine with that, no one wanted to come at night 14 anymore so it was, it's during the day which is impossible for some of y'all 15 but you know there's still open options for, for everybody if, okay. If you 16 want to talk to David or you can talk to David, Mr. Chair if you wanted to 17 reach out to him and see as well and then just go from there. 18 19 Williams: Yeah. 20 21 Ochoa: Okay. 22 23 Williams: Okay. Any other, any other staff announcements or anything? 24 25 Ochoa: Nothing else. Just again we will have another meeting next month, 26 October. I believe y'all got the e-mail about the demolition happening of 27 that small home behind the St. Genevieve's. It's that project essentially. 28 It's for the new parish for St. Genevieve's so architects are working hard to 29 make it look a little less Italian and more Southwest also at least hopefully 30 we'll get something good in before long. 31 32 Campos: (Inaudible). 33 34 Williams: Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. 35 36 Campos: No sir. 37 38 VI. ADJOURNMENT (6:43 p.m.) 39 40 Williams: Call for, adjourn the meeting. 41 42 43 44� �. 45 46 Chairperson 19