Loading...
02-28-2012 City of las Cruces P E O P L E N E L P I N O P E O P L E PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA The following agenda will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Las Cruces, New Mexico, at a public hearing held on Tuesday, February 28, 2012 beginning at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 700 N. Main Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. The City of Las Cruces does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, color, ancestry, serious medical condition, national origin, age, or disability in the provision of services. The City of Las Cruces will make reasonable accommodation for a qualified individual who wishes to attend this meeting. Please notify the City Community Development Department at least 48 hours before the meeting by calling 528-3043 (voice) or 1-800-659-8331 (TTY) if accommodation is necessary. This document can be made available in alternative formats by calling the same numbers listed above. I. CALL TO ORDER II. CONFLICT OF INTEREST At the opening of each meeting, the chairperson shall ask if any member on the Commission or City staff has any known conflict of interest with any item on the agenda. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. January 24, 2012 Regular Meeting IV. POSTPONEMENTS — NONE V. CONSENT AGENDA Those items on the consent agenda will be voted by one motion with the acceptance of the agenda. Any Planning and Zoning Commissioner, Staff or member of the public may remove an item from the consent agenda for discussion by the commission. 1. Case Z2850: Application of Chad Sells on behalf of Raci Management Company, Inc. to rezone from C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) on a 5.00 ± acre lot located on the east side of Telshor Boulevard, 0.55 ± miles north of its intersection with Spruce Avenue; Parcel ID# 02-31275. Proposed Use: Commercial High Intensity Uses; Council District 6. VI. OLD BUSINESS — NONE Page 1 of 2 VII. NEW BUSINESS 1. Case SUP-12-01: Application of Magueli Enriquez for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow day care services for up to twelve (12) children within a single- family home on a property encompassing 0.24 + acres located on the east side of Camelot Drive, 390 ± feet south of its intersection with Hoagland Road; a.k.a. 1910 Camelot Drive; Parcel ID# 02-00818; Proposed Use: Group Child Care Home (7 to 12 children). Council District 4. 2. Case A1713: Application of Peters Law Firm on behalf of Juan R. Perez, to vary 20-feet from the minimum required 25-foot garage/carport front yard setback on a property encompassing 0.16 t acres located at the northwest corner of Arizona Avenue and Espanola Street; a.k.a. 1309 Arizona Avenue; Parcel ID#: 02-10408; Proposed Use: The continued use of an existing non- conforming carport. Council District 3. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS — NONE IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION X. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Public Notice Discussion XI. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 2 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 FOR THE 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 City Council Chambers 5 February 28, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. 6 7 8 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 9 Charles Scholz, Chairman 10 Godfrey Crane, Vice Chair 11 Charles Beard, Secretary 12 William Stowe, Member 13 Ray Shipley, Member 14 Shawn Evans, Member 15 16 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 17 Donald Bustos, Member 18 19 STAFF PRESENT: 20 Robert Kyle, Building and Development Administrator, CLC 21 Katherine Harrison-Rogers, Senior Planner, CLC 22 Adam Ochoa, Acting Senior Planner, CLC 23 Mark Dubbin, CLC Fire Department 24 Rusty Babington, CLC Legal Staff 25 Bonnie Ennis, Recording Secretary, CLC 26 27 28 I. CALL TO ORDER (6:00 pm) 29 30 Scholz: Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission for 31 February 28th, 2012. My name is Charles Scholz. I'm the Chair of the 32 Commission. In a moment I'll introduce the other members but before we 33 do that our first item of business is always a Conflict of Interest Statement 34 and it says: At opening of each meeting the chairperson shall ask if any 35 member on the commission or City staff has any known conflict of interest 36 with any item on the agenda. Gentlemen? No? Okay. Staff? No, 37 everyone's shaking their head. That's very good. All right. 38 Before we begin with the approval of the minutes I want to 39 introduce the people on the panel. On my far right is Commissioner 40 Shipley. He's the Mayor's appointee. Next to him is Commissioner 41 Crane. He represents Council District 4. He's also our Vice-Chair. Next to 42 him is Commissioner Stowe, who represents District 1. Then is 43 Commissioner Evans, who is District 5. On my immediate right is our 44 Secretary, Commissioner Beard. He is council District 2. And I represent 45 Council District 6. 46 1 1 II. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 2 3 At the opening of each meeting, the chairperson shall ask if any member on the 4 Commission or City staff has any known conflict of interest with any item on the 5 agenda. 6 7 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8 9 1. January 24, 2012 Regular Meeting 10 11 Scholz: Gentleman, approval of minutes is the first item business. Are there any 12 additions or corrections to the minutes? Commissioner Shipley. 13 14 Shipley: On page 11, line number 32 after "There" it says, "There is plans..." It 15 should be "There are plans..." 16 17 Scholz: Okay. 18 19 Shipley: And on page 15... 20 21 Scholz: Yes? 22 23 Shipley: Let's see...it was...never mind. There's no correction there. 24 25 Scholz: Okay. Any other additions or corrections? All right, I'll entertain a motion 26 to approve the minutes as amended. 27 28 Shipley: Move to approve the minutes as amended. 29 30 Scholz: Is there a second? 31 32 Crane: Second. 33 34 Scholz: Okay. It's been moved by Shipley and seconded by Crane. All those in 35 favor say aye. 36 37 All: Aye 38 39 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. And any abstentions? All right. The minutes 40 are approved. 41 42 IV. POSTPONEMENTS — NONE 43 44 Scholz: Okay, there are no postponements, Mr. Ochoa? 45 46 Ochoa: No, sir. None tonight. 2 1 2 V. CONSENT AGENDA— NONE 3 4 Those items on the consent agenda will be voted by one motion with the 5 acceptance of the agenda. Any Planning and Zoning Commissioner, Staff or 6 member of the public may remove an item from the consent agenda for 7 discussion by the commission. 8 9 1. Case Z2850: Application of Chad Sells on behalf of Raci Management 10 Company, Inc. to rezone from C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3 11 (Commercial High Intensity) on a 5.00 ± acre lot located on the east side of 12 Telshor Boulevard, 0.55 ± miles north of its intersection with Spruce Avenue; 13 Parcel ID# 02-31275. Proposed Use: Commercial High Intensity Uses; 14 Council District 6. APPROVED 6-0 15 16 Scholz: Okay, and just one item on the Consent Agenda. For those of you who 17 are new to our proceedings the Consent Agenda works this way: if no one 18 from the public or the staff or the Commissioners objects to this item then 19 we simply do a yes/no vote on it. Any objections, gentlemen? Staff? 20 Anyone from the public want to speak to this? All right, then I'll move the 21 approval of the consent agenda. 22 23 Beard: So moved. 24 25 Shipley: Second 26 27 Scholz: Beard moves and Shipley seconds. All those in favor say aye. 28 29 All: Aye. 30 31 Scholz: Those opposed same sign? And abstentions? All right, the Consent 32 Agenda is approved. Thank you, gentlemen. 33 34 VI. OLD BUSINESS — NONE 35 36 Scholz: And we have no old business; is that right, Mr. Ochoa? 37 38 Ochoa: That is correct, sir. 39 40 VII. NEW BUSINESS 41 42 1. Case SUP-12-01: Application of Magueli Enriquez for a Special Use Permit 43 (SUP) to allow day care services for up to twelve (12) children within a single- 44 family home on a property encompassing 0.24 ± acres located on the east 45 side of Camelot Drive, 390 ± feet south of its intersection with Hoagland 46 Road; a.k.a. 1910 Camelot Drive; Parcel ID# 02-00818; Proposed Use: 47 Group Child Care Home (7 to 12 children). Council District 4. 3 1 Scholz: Thank you. Then our New Business, our first case is Case SUP-12-01 2 and you're the lead on this, I assume? 3 4 Ochoa: Yes, sir. 5 6 Scholz: Go to it. 7 8 Ochoa: For the record, Adam Ochoa, Development Services. The first case 9 tonight, gentlemen, is SUP-12-01. It is a request for a Special Use Permit 10 to allow child care services for a group child care home for up to twelve 11 children at a property located at 1910 Camelot Drive. 12 The subject property is located here on this kind of "L-shaped" cul- 13 de-sac, right near the end of there. The street is located off of Hoagland, 14 an existing Collector roadway. Of course, Camelot is an existing Local 15 roadway classified by the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Just to give 16 you a rough idea where this property is, here is the Redd Lateral to the 17 east of it and Mayfield High School to the west, so it's in the North Valley 18 area of town. 19 Essentially, staff evaluates any possible impacts of a Special Use 20 Permit associated with a group child care home to see how it will basically 21 affect the residential area it. We look at the proximity, any possible 22 impacts on the surrounding properties, the design of the site, any potential 23 impacts on traffic in the area. We look at its hours of operation in the 24 general neighborhood and just general neighborhood comments. Just to 25 note: we've only received one neighborhood comment to record, which is 26 essentially a neighbor voicing her approval and support for the Special 27 Use Permit. 28 The subject property is located on the east side of Camelot Drive 29 approximately 390-feet south of that intersection with Hoagland Road. 30 The subject property encompasses just under a quarter-acre in size. It is 31 currently zoned R-1 a, which is Single-Family Medium Density and there is 32 an existing single-family dwelling on the property. With that single-family 33 dwelling the applicant also currently has a Home Occupation to allow for 34 child care services, a home child care for up to six children with that Home 35 Occupation. The existing child care services at the property will be run 36 essentially the same time with the additional six kids. They will be open 37 Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 6:30 pm with child drop-off and 38 pick-up times being staggered throughout the day. 39 Just to note, our Traffic Engineering Department did have some 40 concerns of potential traffic and parking issues with the property. They 41 looked at the possibility of the potential issues that this property might 42 have with twelve potential vehicles parking on the street to drop-off or 43 pick-up children. With that, Traffic Engineering was supportive for the 44 child care services only with the condition that the number be limited to ten 45 children instead of twelve. Just to note, though, as well, the Traffic 46 Engineering Department did not take into consideration that the subject 4 1 property currently has four off-street parking spaces on the subject 2 property itself. They actually have a designated large concrete area for 3 parking that was not taken into consideration when they did their study. 4 On top of that the Las Cruces Fire Department also reviewed the 5 Special Use Permit and recommends that no more than five children 6 under the age of 2 Y2 shall be permitted for the child care services at the 7 subject property. 8 Here is an aerial of the subject property. As you can see it here, it's 9 just about at the end of this kind of "L-shaped" cul-de-sac with that parking 10 area located in the front and a rather decent sized back yard there with a 11 6-foot fence around two sides of it and a 4-foot tall fence on the other side. 12 It'll show in a little more in detail in the following photos. Here are some 13 site photos of the subject property. This is along the front yard, along 14 Camelot Drive. This is the front of the home and this is the front of the 15 home as well where that existing off-street parking exists. As you can see 16 currently there are two vehicles on there. There is kind of a little area here 17 adjacent to the garage that has been converted into the actual child care 18 facility where another vehicle could go so approximately about four 19 vehicles can potentially fit on that off-street parking. Here's a picture of 20 that back yard showing the perimeter wall and, just for reference, the 21 bottom picture is the playroom where the children will be kept, which was 22 a garage. It was converted into that playroom. 23 With that staff reviewed this request and recommended approval 24 for the Special Use Permit. The Planning and Zoning Commission does 25 have final authority regarding Special Use Permits. Of course, that's 26 barring any appeals to City Council. 27 With that, gentlemen, your options tonight are: 1) to vote "yes" to 28 approve the Special Use Permit, which is case SUP-12-01, as 29 recommended by staff; 2) to vote "yes" with any additional conditions 30 deemed appropriate by the Commission, those being possibly the 31 conditions stated by Traffic Engineering or the Fire Department, just as 32 some options; 3) to vote "no" to deny the request and; 4) table or postpone 33 and direct staff accordingly. That concludes my presentation. The 34 applicant is here as well to answer any questions you might have. She 35 cannot speak English very well so I will translate for her as best I can. 36 37 Scholz: Okay, questions for this gentleman? Yes, Commissioner Beard. 38 39 Beard: I was looking through the Regulations and there are quite a few 40 references to the State Licensing Regulations, which I cannot find. So my 41 question is: is a 4-foot fence adequate for those children being in the back 42 yard and are they going to be in that other area to the south, which has a 43 fence that's only 36-inches high and is that adequate? 44 45 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, they currently already have a Home 46 Occupation for up to six children. With that they also have to get State 5 1 approval for that Home Occupation, as well. So even if they do get 2 approval for this Special Use Permit they will still have to receive approval 3 from the State for those additional six children. The applicant has stated 4 to staff, though, that the State did not have an issue with this but we can 5 ask her for clarification if you wish. 6 7 Beard: I was wondering...maybe we should get a copy of the State Regulations 8 so that we can sort of look at those, too, while we're... 9 10 Scholz: Yes, Mr. Kyle. 11 12 Kyle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, I have a copy, all forty-three pages, 13 of the New Mexico Administrative Code related to child care licensing. Mr. 14 Ochoa is correct that the State does have to come, do site visits and will 15 ultimately issue the license, depending on what conditions they receive 16 from the Zoning and Building Authority. In a quick review of this: the play 17 area only needs to be surrounded by a 4-foot fence. So what I've seen in 18 the rules it would appear that the application does meet that requirement; 19 but ultimately the State comes in when they issue the license. They 20 review the size of the rooms; the property to make sure the appropriate 21 amount of square feet per child is present, etc. 22 23 Scholz: So, in effect, what we would be doing here is approving this and then it's 24 conditional upon the State approval? 25 26 Kyle: Mr. Chairman, Commission, ultimately what we are doing is granting 27 zoning approval for the application based on our authority to do so. 28 29 Scholz: Okay. 30 31 Kyle: Ultimately, they have to follow all other licensing requirements issued by 32 the State to carry on that particular business. 33 34 Scholz: Thank you, Mr. Kyle. Does that answer your question, Commissioner 35 Beard? 36 37 Beard: Yes. 38 39 Scholz: But you have another question? 40 41 Beard: Oh, yeah. 42 43 Scholz: Okay. 44 45 Beard: The Fire Department's recommendation: is that going to be...the City's 46 not going to recommend that that be a condition to the approval of this? 6 1 2 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, I believe the State also has a 3 requirement on that as well. Mr. Kyle will enlighten you, I believe. 4 5 Scholz: Yes, sir... the Fire Chief. 6 7 Dubbin: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the International Fire Code 8 allows for an exception up to twelve children if not more than five are not 9 under the age of 2 Y2. It is verbatim from the Fire Code. 10 11 Scholz: Okay. 12 13 Beard: Thank you. 14 15 Scholz: Yeah. Can I get Commissioner Shipley and come back to you, 16 Commissioner Beard? Yes, Commissioner Shipley. 17 18 Shipley: Obviously, what are the ages of the children are going to be there? What 19 are the ages of the six that are there now and...are these all pre-school or 20 are there...what are we talking about? 21 22 Scholz: Well, why don't we hear from the applicant right now? That might clear up 23 some things and then we can come back to the rules and regs. Okay? 24 25 M. Enriquez: Speaking in Spanish. 26 27 Ochoa: She said: Good evening. This is Mrs. Enriquez. They moved here from 28 California about two years ago to Las Cruces and it's a beautiful city. She 29 started helping at public schools taking care of children. She enjoyed that 30 so it's been a year now that she's had her current occupation taking care 31 of children, of up to six children and now she's just requesting to go up to 32 twelve. I will go ahead and ask her now about the age of the children. 33 34 Scholz: Yes. 35 36 Ochoa and M. Enriquez consulting in Spanish: 37 38 Ochoa: Currently she has six children in her care. She currently has a 7-month 39 old, two 10-months old, two 2-year old and a 1-year old. 40 41 Scholz: So everyone is under 2 'h? 42 43 Ochoa: Oh, I'm sorry. One's a year and 10-months. 44 45 Scholz: Oh, a year and ten months. 46 7 1 Ochoa: Yes, sir. 2 3 Scholz: Okay. 4 5 Ochoa and M. Enriquez consulting in Spanish: 6 7 Ochoa: The two that are 2-years old aren't exactly 2-years old...a little older so 1 8 guess they might not fall under that Regulation; but I have spoken to the 9 applicant in the past and she is aware of that Regulation. I believe the 10 State might have something as well to regulate her on those situations 11 because when I brought it up to her in the past she was aware of it. 12 13 Scholz: Okay. 14 15 Ochoa and M. Enriquez consulting in Spanish: 16 17 Ochoa: She has no issues with that Regulation of a maximum of five children 2 Y2 18 or younger. 19 20 Scholz: Or younger. 21 22 Ochoa: Yes, sir. 23 24 Scholz: Does that answer your question then, Commissioner Shipley? 25 26 Shipley: All of them are under 2 Y2 years of age currently then I guess the 27 remaining six we don't know what they are going to be but it would seem 28 like they are going to be younger children, is want it seems. 29 30 Scholz: Right, but they'll have to be older than 2 Y2, obviously. 31 32 Shipley: Okay. 33 34 Scholz: We'll have participation from the public in just a moment, sir. 35 Commissioner Beard, you had another question? 36 37 Beard: (inaudible—microphone not turned on) 38 39 Scholz: Mr. Kyle. 40 41 Kyle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, if I may. Pursuant to, again, the State 42 licensing requirements: in a group child care home, such as this, they can 43 have up to four children under the age of two, provided they have an 44 additional caregiver in the home. So it sounds like, based on the State's 45 licensing requirement, they're okay, and the State, again, would have to 46 confirm that when they do their inspections, etc. The State's limit is at 8 1 two, the age two; anything two and above falls into a separate category. 2 The Fire Code, the Building Code have 2 '/2 as an age limit cap for more 3 than five kids you run into an issue. So she's right on the border but it 4 appears that she is consistent with the State's licensing requirements. 5 6 Scholz: And, of course, the children get older as they hang around. Yes, 7 Commissioner Beard... 8 9 Beard: Well, should we put a condition to the approval for this? 10 11 Scholz: That's up to you. Commissioner Shipley. 12 13 Shipley: Yes, I have a couple other questions that I want to note. First of all, when 14 1 looked through the packet I noticed in the trip section there was nothing 15 filled out about additional trips and there was no calculation done. So, 16 basically if you have up to twelve people dropping off children you are 17 going to have twenty-four trips a day, plus she's also going to hire two 18 additional workers to work there so that's basically four trips a day so it's 19 an addition of twenty-eight trips to the neighborhood over what's there 20 now. 21 The second thing that came up in my review was that...and it does 22 state in the Attachment 1 that she's hiring two additional people that are 23 going to work there that don't live there is what it states. 24 25 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, I'm going to go ahead and ask her. 26 27 Ochoa and M. Enriquez consulting in Spanish: 28 29 Ochoa: The two additional people that will be working there are her husband and 30 her daughter, who both actually live with her so there won't be any 31 additional outside traffic travelling in; and the Traffic Engineer did take into 32 consideration the twelve in the morning, twelve in the afternoon kind of a 33 rush hour, which is how he came up with his recommendation limiting it to 34 ten, sir. 35 36 Shipley: Also, when I looked at your photograph you have a picture: the garage is 37 not heated or air conditioned. Could you ask her if it is? 38 39 Ochoa and M. Enriquez consulting in Spanish: 40 41 Ochoa: Yes, it is. It has a heater and air conditioning, sir. 42 43 Shipley: It has a space heater is what I saw in the picture. There's a space heater, 44 an electric space heater, sitting on a stool. If you'll pull up your picture I 45 can show you where it is. Down here right to the left of where the tree 46 is...that's an air conditioner in the window... 9 1 2 Ochoa: Um-hmm. 3 4 Shipley: Okay. And then down here on the stool there's a space heater. 5 6 Ochoa and M. Enriquez consulting in Spanish: 7 8 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, the applicant has stated that this 9 here is actually an air conditioner and heater. 10 11 Shipley: Okay. 12 13 Ochoa: So it's a dual-purpose is what it is. 14 15 Shipley: What is the item here on the picture right there? 16 17 Ochoa and M. Enriquez consulting in Spanish: 18 19 Ochoa: That is just a fan, sir, is what it is. It's a tower fan. 20 21 Shipley: Not a heater, though? 22 23 Ochoa: No, sir. 24 25 Scholz: Okay, Commissioner Beard. You had two more questions, you said. 26 27 Beard: On the applicant's information sheet, it's our page 5: at the top it says, 28 "Proposed square footage and height of structure to be built..." and it 29 says, 720 square feet." What is that? 30 31 Ochoa and M. Enriquez consulting in Spanish: 32 33 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, that 720 square feet is, I believe, 34 was a mistake on her behalf on reading the application. The 720 square 35 feet is actually the size of the garage and that does not include the living 36 room where they also take care of children and the dining area where they 37 eat, and so forth. So there is no.... 38 39 Beard: It's not an addition. It's a modification? 40 41 Ochoa: That is correct, sir. 42 43 Beard: Okay. On down it says, "How will stormwater runoff be addressed?" Then 44 it says, "on-lot ponding." When I was there I didn't see any ponding. 45 46 Ochoa and M. Enriquez consulting in Spanish: 10 1 2 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, again, I guess there was a 3 misunderstanding on that one. Essentially what is existing on there now is 4 the way that stormwater is being dealt with there, kind of like in the 5 neighborhood, I guess, is what it is. But I don't know if she knows there is 6 an on-lot ponding on there but I believe... 7 8 Ochoa and M. Enriquez consulting in Spanish: 9 10 Ochoa: But she has stated that there is the possibility to build an on-lot pond for 11 any runoff that might be added to the property, sir. 12 13 Beard: That wouldn't be any reason for us not to consider this as a positive thing, 14 1 mean, you don't have to have ponding there do you? 15 16 Scholz: Mr. Kyle. 17 18 Kyle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, there wouldn't be, ultimately, a need to 19 have additional ponding for this particular application. They're not making 20 alterations or adding any impervious surface to property: it already exists. 21 So the historical drainage means for the property and the area would be 22 consistent. Now if they were to do an addition to the home or something 23 like that and it went through the permitting process drainage would be 24 looked at to make sure that the increase in impervious area was being 25 accounted for in an appropriate manner and consistent with the City's 26 Design Standards. But on an existing application like this with no 27 structural modifications the existing condition would be allowed. 28 29 Scholz: All right, any other questions for the applicant or for the applicant or for Mr. 30 Ochoa? Okay, we'll open this to the public. Is there anyone from the 31 public who wishes to speak to this? Sir, come on up, identify yourself, 32 please. 33 34 Collins: Will you put back the map of the area, please? I am James Collins. 1 35 happen to live three houses north, one house west of this property. The 36 house that is two houses to the north is owned by a gentleman who 37 purchased that house three houses north because of its rundown 38 condition, deteriorating the entire neighborhood property. He purchased it 39 and has completely remodeled it inside and out at an expense in excess 40 of $70,000 and now this increase in traffic is going to, once again, 41 decrease the property values and I am totally opposed to the Board 42 approving this request. Thank you. 43 44 Scholz: Thank you. Any questions for this gentleman? 45 46 Evans: Yes, I do. 11 1 2 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 3 4 Evans: Yes, sir. So from the map I see...so you actually live on the cul-de-sac. 5 6 Collins: That is correct. 7 8 Evans: On the other side? 9 10 Collins: Yes. 11 12 Evans: Okay. So you actually wouldn't be seeing the increased...now the area 13 would... 14 15 Collins: What I see is the kids playing and screaming day long in that area. As 16 you can see it just runs straight from my back yard, a straight view into the 17 back yard of that property. 18 19 Evans: Okay, thank you. 20 21 Collins: And that's what I have now. 22 23 Evans: Thank you, sir. 24 25 Collins: You're welcome. 26 27 Scholz: All right, anyone else from the public wish to speak to this? Yes, ma'am. 28 29 Duran: Hi, my name is Frances Duran and I actually work with the State of New 30 Mexico. My child actually attends with Ms. Mangueli Enriquez. He has 31 been there... 32 33 Scholz: Would you stay on the mike please? 34 35 Duran: Oh, I'm sorry. He is 21-months old and he has been there since March. 36 He actually had two day cares that he had prior to me finding Ms. 37 Enriquez. She has really small children that attend her day care so, 1 38 mean, the children are all small in age at this time and they all just play. 39 I'm here for her because she's a really wonderful caregiver. Her house is 40 immaculate. It's clean, I mean, the kids love it there. My sister just 41 recently put her daughter in there although she's only 2-years old. So 1 42 really want the Board to really consider, you know, her having this license. 43 1 really think she's worked hard for it so I just really...it touches me. So I'm 44 sorry... 45 46 Scholz: Okay, thank you. 12 1 2 Crane: Mr. Chairman? 3 4 Scholz: Any questions for this...yes. 5 6 Crane: I have a question for the lady. 7 8 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. Ma'am, could you come back down again, please? 9 Yeah. Don't run off. Commissioner Crane has a question for you. 10 11 Crane: What time in the morning do you drop off your child and pick him up? 12 13 Duran: I drop him off approximately 7:45, 7:50. My sister usually picks him up 14 because she picks up her child between 4:30 and 5:00. But you know 15 what? Honestly, like, I've gone there to check on him and, to me, the 16 traffic has never been increasingly at all, you know, like the gentleman has 17 said. I drop off the kids and there are not a lot of cars, I mean, there's not 18 a lot of traffic in that area. 19 20 Crane: No, the only reason I questioned you, you never got tangled up with other 21 cars... 22 23 Duran: Never. I have never...we never even go through the cul-de-sac, I mean, 1 24 go and there's enough area...like if you look in that one area where it kind 25 of like turns right in front of her house? There's enough area right there 26 where you can just turn around and just drive straight out. I mean, I've 27 never...since March that he's been there...he's going to be there a year a 28 year next month. I've never driven in that cul-de-sac there. 29 30 Crane: Thank you. 31 32 Duran: Okay. Thank you. 33 34 Scholz: All right. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Come down and identify yourself, 35 please. 36 37 Dominquez: Good afternoon. My name is Shirleen Dominguez and my son also goes 38 to Ms. Enriquez. He's been there almost a year. He's 17-months and her 39 day care is amazing. She's great. He's been through probably three 40 centers and I was so lucky to find her and she's just great. She's clean all 41 the time. He's just perfect. He loves her to death. Like Frances Duran 42 was saying, there's never traffic there. I drop him off at 7:30. There's 43 maybe one other car there and that's it. I never run into any other cars, 44 any other parents, none of that. I pick him up around 5:30, 5:45 and 45 there's nobody else there and, like I said, we never go through the cul-de- 46 sac. I always park in her driveway and back out and that's it. But I hope 13 1 you approve her `cause she's worked really hard. She used to be 2 registered with only four kids. She got licensed for six so we're proud of 3 her for that. So I hope you approve it for at least ten or twelve...and that's 4 all. 5 6 Scholz: Okay. Thank you very much. 7 8 Dominguez: Thank you. 9 10 Scholz: All right, I'm going to close this for public discussion then and then we will 11 discuss it among ourselves. Gentlemen, what's your pleasure? 12 13 Crane: I move that this application... 14 15 Scholz: Excuse me. I think we have...do you want to speak, sir? Okay. Mr. 16 Ochoa. 17 18 Ochoa and G. Enriquez consulting in Spanish: 19 20 G. Enriquez: speaking in Spanish... 21 22 Ochoa: He says, "Good evening." His name is Guadalupe Enriquez. He is the 23 husband of Mrs. Enriquez. He's just basically saying that they are just 24 trying to earn a living, trying to earn a living here in these hard times and 25 he's saying that his property actually does not abut the gentleman's 26 property. He says he only has two actual neighbors directly adjacent to 27 him to the rear and to the side and he doesn't actually touch the other 28 gentleman's property. 29 30 Scholz: Um-hmm. All right. Thank you. Questions for this gentleman? 31 Commissioner Evans. 32 33 Evans: No, sir. I do have a question for Mr. Ochoa. 34 35 Scholz: A question for Mr. Ochoa. Go ahead. 36 37 Evans: Going back to the other slide that had the limitations from the City. 1 38 believe it was....right. So the Traffic Engineer looked at it, they were 39 going to stagger... 40 41 Scholz: Commissioner Evans, we need you closer to the microphone, please. 42 43 Evans: I'm sorry. 44 45 Scholz: Thank you. 46 14 1 Evans: So the Engineering Department looked at it and they, you know...as long 2 as we stagger the drop-off times; but they also said: "...supportive of the 3 child care services only if the number of children is limited to ten." So...in 4 going back and looking at the conditions, obviously we can make that a 5 condition but I noticed it wasn't a condition for approval of the City. 6 7 Ochoa: Commissioner Evans, essentially we just put that there as a...it was a 8 recommendation made by Traffic Engineering. Again, like I stated in my 9 presentation, when they did their traffic study he essentially looked at on- 10 street parking only and essentially he feels that only ten cars as a worst 11 case scenario, only ten cars can actually align per property to drop off the 12 children and he did not take into consideration the off-street parking, two 13 additional spaces that they have on their property. That is essentially why 14 Community Development wanted to let you know that this was something 15 that Traffic Engineering, yes, had a concern with; but as your packet says, 16 at Community Development we've had past cases like this and we've had 17 no issues in the past with any type of traffic problems. 18 19 Evans: From what I understand is this doesn't even take into account the 20 staggering of the drop-off and pick-up times. 21 22 Ochoa: No sir. He took into consideration ten cars there at once or all at once. 23 24 Evans: All at once. 25 26 Ochoa: Worst case scenario, ten cars there at one time. 27 28 Evans: Okay. Thank you. 29 30 Ochoa: Sure. 31 32 Scholz: All right. Now we did close it to public discussion, gentlemen. What's 33 your pleasure? Commissioner Beard. 34 35 Beard: I would like to say that when I was there, which was mid-afternoon around 36 2:00, there were four cars there: two in the driveway, two parked outside 37 and I don't believe there was any drop-off or pick-ups at that particular 38 time and we're approving six more children, which is going to add to more 39 cars. I just want to make a point that even though these people say that 40 there are no cars there when I was there, there were cars and they 41 weren't picking them up or dropping them off at that time. 42 43 Scholz: All right. Thank you. Any other comments or questions. Commissioner 44 Shipley. 45 15 1 Shipley: On page six of eight of the report it asks, it says: "How many spaces will 2 be required?" And I think it says "2" here and I would believe that what 3 they're saying is that this is a single-family residence. It has a requirement 4 of two. Since you are now introducing a business, is there a requirement 5 for additional parking? And that's not considered here. Is there a 6 requirement if you are going to operate a business out of that home? Are 7 there additional parking requirements for that business? 8 9 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, the 2001 Zoning Code does require 10 a minimum of two off-street parking spaces for a single-family residence. 11 For a Home Occupation, which is essentially what this would be, all that 12 Home Occupation section requires is one additional off-street parking 13 space for that business. So what they're for, essentially, they're having 14 two for the business and two required by the 2001 Zoning Code for the 15 residence. 16 17 Shipley: And are any of those accessible spaces? 18 19 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, the Home Occupation Regulations 20 actually do not required for ADA parking. All it requires is just one off- 21 street parking is what it requires. 22 23 Scholz: All right, any other questions, comments? I'll entertain a motion to 24 approve. 25 26 Crane: So moved. 27 28 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved by Crane. Is there a second? 29 30 Stowe: Second. 31 32 Scholz: And seconded by Stowe. All right, I'll call the roll. Commissioner Shipley. 33 34 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 35 36 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 37 38 Crane: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 39 40 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 41 42 Stowe: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 43 44 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 45 46 Evans: Aye, findings, discussion. 16 1 2 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 3 4 Beard: Aye, findings, discussions and site visit. 5 6 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye, findings, discussion and site visit. So it's 7 approved. Okay, thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, folks. 8 9 (Applause from audience) 10 11 2. Case A1713: Application of Peters Law Firm on behalf of Juan R. Perez, to 12 vary 20-feet from the minimum required 25-foot garage/carport front yard 13 setback on a property encompassing 0.16 ± acres located at the northwest 14 corner of Arizona Avenue and Espanola Street; a.k.a. 1309 Arizona Avenue; 15 Parcel ID#: 02-10408; Proposed Use: The continued use of an existing non- 16 conforming carport. Council District 3. APPROVED 4-2 17 18 Scholz: All right, our next item is, let's see, A1713 and, Mr. Ochoa, you're up 19 again. 20 21 Ochoa: Yes, sir. 22 23 Scholz: You're doing all the heavy lifting tonight. 24 25 Ochoa: Just one more time; not too heavy. The next case, gentlemen, is case 26 A1713. It is a request for a variance to the minimum required 27 garage/carport front yard setback for property located at 1309 Arizona 28 Avenue. The subject property, as seen here highlighted in the light blue, 29 centrally located right here near the corner of Arizona Avenue and, 1 30 believe, that is Espina Street, approximately about a block east of Solano 31 Drive. 32 33 Scholz: I think it's Espanola. 34 35 Ochoa: Yes, sir. That is correct. I'm sorry. That is Espanola Street. 36 37 Scholz: Espina's a couple blocks from there. 38 39 Ochoa: That is correct. It's west. Yes, sir. East... 40 41 Scholz: West. You're right. 42 43 Ochoa: The code requirements we're going to be looking at today with this 44 variance request under the 2001 Zoning Code, Article IV, Section 38-31 D 45 sets the R-2 Zoning District Minimum Building Requirements for Single- 46 Family as front setback of 20-feet; the garage or carport front setback at 47 25-feet, which is what we're looking at today, a rear setback of 20 and a 17 1 side setback of 5. Additionally, we are also looking at Article VI, Section 2 38-51 D1, which states that: "No accessory structure, whether a building 3 permit is required or not, shall be permitted within the setback of the front 4 yards primary or secondary." 5 With that we'll go into some case specifics. The subject property is 6 located in the northwest corner of Arizona Avenue and Espanola Street, 7 also known as 1309 Arizona Avenue. The subject property encompasses 8 approximately 0.16 acres and is currently zoned R-2, which is Multi- 9 Dwelling Low Density. There is an existing single-family dwelling on the 10 subject property with an unpermitted non-conforming carport. 11 The variance we are looking at today, gentlemen, is a request to 12 keep the existing non-conforming unpermitted carport that is encroaching 13 20-feet into the required 25-foot front yard setback; essentially making its 14 front setback, the carport's setback, 5-feet from the front property line. 15 The front carport is currently unattached from the main dwelling. If 16 approved tonight, gentlemen, just to let you know; the applicant will be 17 required to attach the existing carport to the primary dwelling on the 18 subject property because, as stated before, the 2001 Zoning Code does 19 not permit an accessory structure in the front yard of a subject property. 20 So the applicant would be required to attach the carport to the primary 21 dwelling. 22 The applicant or proposal did go out for review throughout the 23 departments and no significant issues or concerns were brought up for the 24 proposed variance. Traffic Engineering did make a recommendation 25 saying that the sides of the carport shall be required to remain open or not 26 be allowed to be closed off to keep kind of an unobstructed view of the 27 street for any car maneuvering in and out of where the carport is at. 28 Here are some site photos of that subject property. This is looking 29 at it from the actual corner of Espanola and Arizona with the carport on the 30 front property line here; and here's a close up of that carport. As I said 31 before, it is detached from that primary dwelling unit, about 5-feet away 32 from the front property line. 33 With that the Community Development Department and staff has 34 reviewed this request and recommends denial for the variance since it 35 does not meet the 2001 Zoning Code Requirements for a Hardship for a 36 variance. The Planning and Zoning Commission has final authority 37 regarding any variance request, barring any appeals to City 38 Council, of course. 39 With that, gentlemen, your options are to: 1) approve the variance 40 request; 2) approve the variance request with additional conditions 41 deemed appropriate by the Planning and Zoning Commission, one of 42 those conditions being, just as an example, requiring the applicant to 43 attach the carport to the primary dwelling and the requirement by Traffic 44 Engineering of not allowing the enclosure of that structure as well; 3) is to 45 deny the request as recommended by staff or; 4) table or postpone the 46 case and direct staff accordingly. 18 1 That is the conclusion of my presentation. The applicant is here for 2 any questions you might have for him. I stand for questions as well and, 3 just to add, in front of you, you all did get a petition for the approval or 4 support of that carport from adjacent property owners. That was given to 5 us by the applicant tonight. 6 7 Scholz: All right, questions for this gentleman? Commissioner Crane. 8 9 Crane: Mr. Perez has given us three photographs of other non-conforming 10 carports in his neighborhood. What has made him make this application 11 at present? His carport's been in place for five years. Have you had a 12 ticket for non-compliance? 13 14 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, I believe Code Enforcements was 15 involved in this issue. I will allow the applicant to answer that question for 16 you. 17 18 Crane: All right, thank you. 19 20 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 21 22 Beard: Did you take these pictures? 23 24 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, the ones on the slide show were 25 taken by staff. The ones given to you in your packets were actually 26 submitted to us by the applicant and his representative. 27 28 Beard: Well, the reason I asked is because I could only find one of these in that 29 area. The other two I could not find. 30 31 Ochoa: We'll ask the applicant when he comes up if that's okay, sir. 32 33 Beard: Okay. 34 35 Scholz: All right, any other questions for Mr. Ochoa? Okay, may we hear from the 36 applicant, please? 37 38 Peters: Good evening, gentlemen. My name is Lee Peters. I'm an attorney here 39 in town and practicing here twenty-five years. Mr. Perez is with me. The 40 first question that'll come up is, "Why is an attorney involved on a little 41 variance like this?" Mr. Perez is a friend of mine and he asked me to help 42 him out on this and that is why I'm here. 43 We are asking for a variance under these unusual circumstances. 44 The question came up: how is this coming about? Yes, Mr. Perez was 45 cited for not having a building permit on this structure and the reason for 46 that is he's owned this house since 2002. He had this structure built in 19 1 2007 by Desert Sage Construction. As a lot of you may know Desert 2 Sage went bankrupt and left town. They are no longer around. They did 3 not, the contractor that was hired by Mr. Perez, did not get the building 4 permit for this. So the City's building inspector noticed that, cited Mr. 5 Perez and that's what has caused him to come and ask for a variance 6 from the Commission. 7 This is just a short block away from South Solano near Nevada and 8 Solano. There's businesses all around; there's a business across the 9 street. There's businesses right there on Solano. It's a very busy area. It 10 is zoned R-2. You can see the purple is the insurance business right 11 across the street. Very close along Solano is all commercial on both 12 sides. 13 There was an existing pad here and Mr. Perez wanted to provide 14 some protection for his vehicles so he had this carport constructed there 15 and it's a nice looking carport, as you can see. We've provided a couple 16 of the photos in the application. I think those came out in color for you to 17 see, as well as the photos of the area. There's some other non- 18 conforming carports. As I said, Desert Sage is gone. 19 If the variance is not granted the City is going to require Mr. Perez 20 to tear this down. He would lose his $1500 he paid to Desert Sage. He 21 has no recourse against Desert Sage because they're gone; plus he'd 22 have the cost of having to remove the structure. We think that is a 23 substantial hardship under the circumstances where Mr. Perez relied on a 24 licensed building contractor to build this and get the necessary permits. 25 This lot is only a sixth-of-an-acre. It's a very small lot so the 26 setbacks of 25-feet pretty much crimp anything else that you might put on 27 this lot. As I said, there's a slab there that was there when he bought the 28 house in 2002 and that's the only place he could really put a carport to 29 provide any protection. There's no garage for this house and it just made 30 sense to put a carport where it is. There are other carports in the area. 31 Mr. Perez can answer any questions about those. He took those 32 photographs. Mr. Perez's is clearly the nicest of those carports. It doesn't 33 interfere with the sidewalk. You can get by on the sidewalk. The water 34 drains to the street. We did bring a petition; eighteen of his neighbors 35 have said they support the variance. They have no problem with it. 36 Mr. Perez is willing to meet the requirements that Mr. Ochoa 37 described to connect the carport to the house so it's an attached structure 38 and also to leave the sides open so there's clear sight for pulling in and 39 out of the carport. We think that a substantial hardship results from this 40 because of the unusual circumstances and the expense, the lost of cost of 41 this nice carport that Mr. Perez paid for and, by no fault of his own, no 42 permit was obtained. It looks nice in this area. There are other structures 43 in the area like this that do extend to the sidewalk and don't look nearly as 44 nice as this structure. So under all the circumstances we think it'd be 45 appropriate for the Commission to grant a variance here. We think there 46 is a substantial hardship and I appreciate your considering our request. 20 1 2 Scholz: All right. Questions for this gentleman? I have one...but, Commissioner 3 Beard. 4 5 Beard: Well, I was wondering...there's a large back yard. Why couldn't that 6 structure have been put back in the back yard? 7 8 Peters: Let me ask Mr. Perez to... (Conferring with Mr. Perez away from the 9 microphone) 10 11 Perez: Hi. My name is Juan Perez. I didn't put it in the back because I own a 12 yard maintenance business company and I'm going to need another one 13 in the back yard. But I just don't have the money right now to install one in 14 the back yard and when we did that one it was just so I can protect my 15 cars from the sun, from the rain, from the birds because there's electrical 16 wires above the carport and every time, you know, there's a lot of bird 17 droppings on the cars. 18 19 Scholz: Commissioner Beard, again. Go ahead. 20 21 Beard: The pictures that are shown...I drove around within a three block area and 22 only found one structure that's in this picture and that's the very first one 23 after your pictures. I could not find the picture on the bottom and I couldn't 24 find the picture on the back side either. How far away are they? 25 26 Perez: (Conferring with Mr. Peters away from the microphone) 27 28 Peters: Commissioner, is it the blue one that you found? 29 30 Beard: I'm looking at my handout. I didn't receive those types of photographs. 31 It's... 32 33 Scholz: It has white grillwork on it? 34 35 Beard: Okay. The white grillwork I found. 36 37 Scholz: Yes, I found that one, too. 38 39 Perez: This one, actually, is on the same street but on the other side of Solano. 40 41 Beard: On the other side of Solano. 42 43 Perez: Yes, on Arizona Avenue, but it's just on the other side. 44 45 Beard: Okay, I did not go across Solano. I figured that was not your 46 neighborhood. 21 1 2 Peters: Commissioner, that's the one with the blue paint. 3 4 Crane: Mr. Chairman, is that the double carport...the bottom of the page? 5 6 Scholz: It looks like one. Yes. 7 8 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman.... 9 10 Scholz: Ours are black and white. 11 12 Ochoa: It's the very last one on the handout, sir, on your packet, along with the, 1 13 believe, it's a Jeep in it. 14 15 Crane: The one with the iron railings on each side. 16 17 Scholz: And that's on the other side of Solano? 18 19 Perez: Yes. 20 21 Scholz: Oh. Okay, I didn't go there either. All right. So, Commissioner Crane, 22 you had a question. 23 24 Crane: Yes. Well, Mr. Perez, I am sorry you got victimized by an unscrupulous 25 contractor and your carport does look good and I wish I had one like that 26 but I'm in rather similar circumstances. And we've had this kind of case 27 before and what we have gotten hung up on is the precedent would be 28 established if we say to somebody, "Okay, you did wrong. You put up a 29 structure that is non-compliant but you're a nice guy and the sun is hot 30 and the birds are nasty and you can keep it." And then the other people 31 here who you brought up as examples of even worse encroachments or 32 violations would be able to argue to the City if they get a citation that they 33 should be allowed to keep their non-conforming carports, too, and so it 34 goes on; and if we approve this then we might as well not have the 35 regulation. What would you say to that? Rather difficult, wasn't it? 36 37 Peters: May I answer, Commissioner Crane? These circumstances come up by 38 no fault of our own or Mr. Perez's own. I mean, they just arise and I think 39 you...I'm a lawyer and I make those distinctions all the time in arguments 40 of precedent, things like that. I think you can distinguish this one because 41 of the unusual circumstances. You can distinguish it based on its unusual 42 circumstances, the way it arose, the way it came about and not grant them 43 on different circumstances that aren't as compelling. 44 45 Crane: Are you arguing that the particular circumstances that Mr. Perez finds 46 himself in now constitutes a hardship? 22 1 2 Peters: I believe so, Commissioner Crane, under the circumstances where he 3 would have a loss of $1500 plus the cost of taking it down if the variance 4 was not granted. 5 6 Scholz: All right. Commissioner Beard. 7 8 Beard: I agree with the comments that were made. I drove around within a three- 9 block area on your side of Solano. I didn't go across Solano. I only found 10 one violation on that side. So if we were to grant you a variance there's 11 going to be an awful lot of homeowners in that area that are probably 12 going to be upset about it and they're going to want to do it also. I think 13 that most of that area, the neighborhood within three blocks, is in 14 compliance. 15 16 Scholz: All right. Anything else? Commissioner Evans, I thought you were about 17 to speak. 18 19 Evans: Well, thank you, Chairman Scholz. Actually I would parrot the same 20 things that my fellow Commissioners say. However, if you were to look at 21 building another structure on your property and you had to get another 22 variance I think we would look favorable upon that, you know, as long as 23 we got the City's concurrence on that. So even though we have a hard 24 time approving something like this and we would be more favorable upon 25 another variance if, in fact, you did need one to build that structure in the 26 back yard. 27 28 Scholz: All right. I'm not sure that would be necessary because I think...I'm not 29 sure what the setbacks are in the back yard. Mr. Ochoa, can you 30 enlighten us on that? 31 32 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, if the applicant did choose to go ahead and build a 33 structure in the rear of his property, since this is a double-frontage lot he 34 would get to choose which one is his rear and which one is his side 35 setback. It would essentially be a 5-foot setback on the side and a 20-feet 36 on the rear and, again, he could choose which is considered his rear and 37 which is his side. 38 39 Scholz: So there would be enough room there to do something like this? 40 41 Ochoa: Without having an actual site plan, Mr. Chairman, it is difficult for staff to 42 say. 43 44 Scholz: Right! Commissioner Crane. 45 23 1 Crane: I think this might be for Mr. Ochoa. Mr. Perez has violated the law though 2 he didn't know he was doing it and he trusted people he shouldn't have 3 trusted. And I don't think the other guy should be skewering on this but 1 4 can't think of anybody else. Why doesn't the City have Mr. Perez pay a 5 fine of substantially less than $1500 as a condition to having his variance 6 granted? It seems to me to be a reasonable compromise but I doubt that 7 you have the authority to levy a fine, do you? 8 9 Kyle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, actually we do. If construction is 10 done without a permit then ultimately a variance is required for it there is a 11 penalty fee that's assessed. It's part of the application process and it is 12 sliding based on the valuation of the work being done. In additi9on to 13 which, if approved and the Commission conditions that he has to obtain a 14 building permit he will be double-feed for that building permit even though 15 we are dealing with an after-the-fact issue. So there is a penalty in which 16 we can assess in this particular instance. 17 18 Crane: Mr. Chairman, may I follow up? 19 20 Scholz: Yes, please do. 21 22 Crane: How much money are we looking at? The penalty for not doing the 23 building permit and the add-on, I think you mentioned that doubling fee. 24 25 Scholz: Cost of the permit itself. 26 27 Kyle: Mr. Chairman, Commission, off the top of my head I do not recall what that 28 fee is but in addition to the application he's paid for...Mr. Ochoa has it. 29 30 Evans: But, Chairman Scholz, hasn't the company gone bankrupt? So... 31 32 Scholz: I will get back to you. 33 34 Kyle: Mr. Chairman, to answer your question, it would be a $250 fine: assessed 35 fee, penalty fee plus the cost of permitting after-the-fact and as home 36 owner he can permit this particular item or hire a contractor to do it. 37 38 Crane: So the total would be $250 plus? 39 40 Kyle: $250 plus the building permit fee in addition to the application fee he's 41 already paid to get through this process. 42 43 Crane: Thank you. 44 45 Scholz: All right. Commissioner Evans, your question? 46 24 1 Evans: We're talking about reimbursement from the contractor or from the...? 2 3 Scholz: No, what we're talking about is the cost if we put in the condition that he 4 has to have a building permit...that is if we approve this variance but say 5 that he has to have a building permit then he'll have to pay those fees. 6 7 Evans: Okay. 8 9 Scholz: He'll have to pay those fees, yeah. Just to comment on Desert Sage, I 10 knew the participants in Desert Sage and up until the time they decamped 11 1 thought they were a pretty good outfit. But obviously they were cutting 12 corners even before they left so it's unfortunate. All right, any other 13 discussion? I'll entertain a motion to approve or does someone want to 14 amend this or approval with amendments? 15 16 Crane: I move that we approve with the amendment that the applicant be required 17 to pay the fees as just outlined by Mr. Kyle, the fine and the building 18 permit application fee as a condition of approval. 19 20 Scholz: Okay, is there a second to that? 21 22 Stowe: Second. 23 24 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe seconds. All right, would you care to read that, 25 Commissioner Crane so that we have it down? 26 27 Crane: Shall I read the item as on the minutes plus my amendment? 28 29 Scholz: Yes, please. 30 31 Crane: I move that case SUP-12-01... 32 33 Scholz: No, I'm sorry. We're on A1713. 34 35 Crane: Sorry. Case A1713, application of Peters Law Firm on behalf of Juan 36 Perez to vary 20-feet from the minimum required 25-foot garage/carport 37 front yard setback on the property at 1309 Arizona Avenue. I move to 38 approve that provided that the applicant pays a fine and building permit 39 fees to cover the work that has already been done. 40 41 Scholz: Okay. Mr. Kyle, you had a comment? Mr. Ochoa, excuse me. 42 43 Ochoa: Mr. Chair, staff did also recommend two additional conditions to this 44 variance: one being the Traffic Engineer's condition of not allowing the 45 enclosure or leaving the open sides of the carport; as well as Community 25 1 Development's condition of requiring the carport to be attached to the 2 single-family structure, which I believe, the applicant has agreed to. 3 4 Crane: Mr. Chairman? 5 6 Scholz: Yes, Commissioner Crane. 7 8 Crane: I'd have those two points added to the motion. 9 10 Scholz: All right. So what we would be voting on then would be the approval of 11 this variance plus the fact that this applicant would have to pay a fine plus 12 a building permit and the other two conditions are: that the structure 13 becomes attached to the house and that it's not built it; that is, it's not 14 enclosed. 15 16 Crane: Right. It has to be open-sided. Correct, Mr. Chairman. 17 18 Scholz: All right. So everyone's clear on that. I'll call the roll. Commissioner 19 Shipley. 20 21 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 22 23 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 24 25 Crane: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 26 27 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 28 29 Stowe: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 30 31 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 32 33 Evans: No, findings, discussion. 34 35 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 36 37 Beard: No, findings, discussions and site visit. 38 39 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye, findings, discussion and site visit. So it's passes 40 4-2. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you very much, folks. 41 42 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS — NONE 43 44 Scholz: That concludes our regular business but we have another piece of 45 business. Commissioner Shipley, you brought something to me at the 46 beginning of the meeting, actually before we started the meeting. Would 26 1 you please introduce that? 2 3 Shipley: Mr. Kyle gave us a notice in here regarding a question we had at the last 4 meeting regarding the...actually it was basically two things; was that the 5 notification period for notices and the mailing period for notices...in other 6 words, currently it's either nine or ten days. And the second part of that 7 was, was there a requirement of about 200-feet that people who lived 8 within or businesses that were within 200-feet were considered sent 9 notices or required to be noticed? And I felt like that since you got this 10 feedback and a recommendation that the feedback was that the staff 11 would like to hold off amending our current procedures until direction is 12 obtained from this work session as it may result in additional changes in 13 code amendments brought forth, which is the work session we are talking 14 about is with the City Council. And I felt like that we ought to talk about 15 this tonight, give our recommendations to the Council, so that when they 16 are doing their work session they can see what basically we have come 17 up with and, therefore, maybe some of the things that we think are 18 important they might feel that same way. So I thought this would be a 19 good topic for, I guess, under Other Business at this time. 20 21 Kyle: Very well. Mr. Chairman, Commission, as we got to the Staff 22 Announcements I was going to ask for exactly that. If the Commission 23 does want to make a formal statement as a Commission certainly we can 24 do that tonight or you can provide a response to staff which we would 25 forward to the City Council as staff makes their presentation at the March 26 26th work session. I was also going to advise the Commission that if the 27 Commission membership wants to attend that session they would 28 certainly be allowed to that. I just need to know if four or more of you were 29 going to attend to please let me have notice so that we could do a 30 potential quorum notice so we're covered that way. Otherwise, yes, I think 31 it's completely appropriate for the Commission to discuss the issue and to 32 have a recommendation or issue they would like to see forwarded or at 33 least provided to City Council we will be happy to do that. 34 35 Scholz: All right. Commissioner Shipley? 36 37 Shipley: Well, again, I kind of went back and looked at the thing and there was a 38 great disparity between that. One example was tonight that we had notice 39 for the child care center and the notice was published in the newspaper 40 eleven days prior to today's meeting and the notices were mailed to the 41 homeowners adjacent living within the 200-feet the same time. It would 42 seem that everything that we do is done pretty much a month, month-and- 43 a-half in advance. In other words, the agenda for the next meeting has 44 been pretty much set up and you know what's coming next month and the 45 next month after that. There may be some additions or something else 46 that's minor that's added to that but it would seem that the 21-day notice 27 1 period would be plenty of time for mail. In other words, it takes three to 2 five days to put it out. If it goes locally it's generally three to five days 3 before you get a piece of mail out here and then that gives the people that 4 are getting that mail, you know, fifteen or sixteen days' time, and it's not all 5 work days, that's just calendar days; it gives them time to be able to 6 respond or to go investigate or call Community Development or whatever 7 they need to do. And, in my opinion, their 21-day period for notification is 8 more than adequate. I initially looked at fifteen days but if you're given 9 five days, you know...let's say the worst case is five days for mail to get to 10 somebody, especially if they don't live in this area and there are a lot of 11 homeowners that have investment properties here that may be affected 12 that may live someplace else and so they've got to make time to make 13 arrangements and time to get information and then to write a letter or write 14 a letter or do whatever they need to do. So, my thought was 21-days. If 15 somebody else would like to discuss that and...that was it. 16 1 also looked at the 200-feet and, again, it say's 200-feet but there 17 was a clause in there that says there must be a minimum of...what? 18 Fifteen people that have to be notified within...so if there are only five 19 people that live within 200-feet then they have to go out to 300-feet to get 20 ten more people...or 400-feet or 500-feet or whatever that is. So I don't 21 think that is as big a problem as the mailing time. 22 23 Kyle: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would also point out that that 200-feet excludes 24 all public rights-of-way, channels, etc. so very often our mailing 25 boundaries are beyond that 200-feet, especially when you get into 26 compact neighborhood like the variance we were in, lots of streets 27 involved and so you tend to move that. But you are correct: there needs 28 to be fifteen property owners minimum. So, you know, certain cases, 29 especially when you are on the periphery of town, etc. you can end up 30 with quite a large notification boundary. 31 32 Scholz: So, Commissioner Shipley, are you suggesting that we make this 33 recommendation to City Council or a...go ahead... 34 35 Shipley: What I was suggesting it's been...that's my thoughts. If anybody has any 36 thoughts more or less, whatever, would be a good time to discuss it and 37 then I...but I so think we need to tell them what we think works best and 1 38 know that one of goals of the City Council has always been, you know, 39 participation from the people, the residents of the city... 40 41 Scholz: Certainly. 42 43 Shipley: ...and, in my opinion, you must give them enough time so that they can 44 participate and be informed. So I just thought it would be a good topic of 45 discussion and then maybe we could decide tonight if everybody's in 46 agreement or...because it's coming up pretty quick. 28 1 2 Scholz: All right. Other discussion? Yes, Commissioner Stowe. 3 4 Stowe: I see the need for more time for notification and I think 21-days is good. 5 Thank you. 6 7 Scholz: Okay. I keep thinking that this problem will diminish simply because of the 8 electronic notification. I don't know if that's true or not. I keep hoping that 9 it will be true. I tell my students, for instance, that I've posted things on the 10 web and so they can retrieve them; but they don't always do that, you 11 know, and they're the younger, supposedly hipper group who are going to 12 be more attuned to electronic things. Yes, Commissioner Crane. 13 14 Crane: Are you saying, Mr. Chairman, that the public should look on the City web 15 site to see what's there that might be regarding their neighborhood? 16 17 Scholz: Well, that's certainly a possibility and I have had two City Councillors who 18 have web distribution lists or I should say, email distribution lists, in which 19 they distribute things like the minutes of the Council, the Manager's 20 newsletter, you know, things like that; and so I get direct messages from 21 these folks. Perhaps we could ask for email addresses...I don't know how 22 we could do that, though, get email addresses of people in the 23 surrounding areas to send them a message saying that... 24 25 Crane: I see that as quite a problem. 26 27 Scholz: Yeah, I think it would be. 28 29 Crane: I think the City has to be proactive in this. We cannot reasonably expect 30 the people in a neighborhood to keep abreast of these developments on a 31 routine basis. 32 33 Scholz: No, probably not and I know people don't see the signs either. We've had 34 a number of people complain that, you know, "I never saw a sign," and 1 35 drive by and the sign's posted right there. They can't miss it. 36 37 Crane: I didn't see one at 1309 Arizona today. 38 39 Scholz: Oh, yeah. It was there. 40 41 Crane: Yellow sign? 42 43 Scholz: I'm pretty sure it was there. 44 45 Crane: I didn't see it. 46 29 1 Beard: I saw the Arizona one but I didn't see the other one. 2 3 Scholz: Oh, well, I saw both of them this morning, but any way. C'est la vie. Yes 4 Commissioner Shipley. 5 6 Shipley: I would just say that the mail is the excepted form of communication on, 7 especially, legal matters; and you can't assume that everybody has email 8 access because the majority of the citizens of this community have, you 9 know, the median income is less than $30,000. So they may have a 10 computer but they're not watching the government channel. They're other 11 things with that and I would think that, you know, when you get a letter as 12 a property owner then they take notice and a lot of them just throw those 13 away as well. 14 15 Scholz: Oh, I'm not suggesting that we discard the mail thing I'm just saying that 1 16 think eventually this problem may solve itself...but not today. All right, any 17 other discussion on this? Well, gentlemen, do you want to recommend 18 then to the City Council or to the Community Development Department 19 that we make this 21 days? Is that going to be our recommendation? All 20 those in favor say aye. 21 22 All: Aye. 23 24 Scholz: Okay, those opposed same sign. That'll be our recommendation. Thank 25 you, Mr. Shipley, for bringing it up. Mr. Kyle? 26 27 Kyle: Mr. Chairman, Commission, just for clarification: that would be applicable 28 to subdivisions as well as zone requests, etc. that require notice... 29 30 Shipley: I think 21-days is just...make it a blanket 21-days and then there's no 31 question and everybody on the staff knows that they've got to mail and 32 your papers' got to be out 21-days in advance with that so people can 33 have time to respond. And that's the real goal is to say, you know, "We 34 want you to have the opportunity to participate so we're going to make the 35 effort to get it out that time." 36 37 Scholz: What? 38 39 Kyle: And again, just based on something you just said: you're saying 21-days 40 notice for mailing or publishing as well? 41 42 Shipley: Do the same. 43 44 Kyle: Both? 45 46 Shipley: Publish as well. Yeah. 30 1 2 Scholz: Okay. Anything else? 3 4 Shipley: I think the fact that you asked effective when but I think that's what the 5 City Council is going to decide and we're basically recommending to the 6 City Council that that be the time frame that we're talking about as far as 7 notification, both mail and newspaper, etc. 8 9 Scholz: Right. 10 11 IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 12 13 Scholz: I see a lady in the audience. Did you want to say something, ma'am? We 14 have time for Public Participation if you'd like to step up to the 15 microphone, identify yourself and tell us what your concern is. 16 17 Segura: Good evening. My name is Phyllis Segura and, actually, I got a letter in 18 the mail in regards to coming down to this rezoning from a C-2 to a C-3 19 and that's the reason I'm here this evening. 20 21 Scholz: Oh, I see. Well, I'm sorry you missed out on that because we passed that 22 at the beginning of the session. 23 24 Segura: Well, what time did the session start? 25 26 Scholz: Six o'clock. 27 28 Segura: Well, I was here at six o'clock...before six. 29 30 Beard: She probably misunderstood that we didn't bring that forward. 31 32 Scholz: I asked if anyone from the public wished to speak to this and no one 33 spoke up. I'm sorry, ma'am. I didn't mean to ignore you. 34 35 Segura: Well, I was here at six and, you know... 36 37 Scholz: What was your concern about it, ma'am? 38 39 Segura: Well, they said something about...well, I'm sure more individuals in my 40 area must have gotten this letter. But, I've got two sheets here. I'm 41 confused on what letter I was looking at. Where's the letter I got. Yeah, 42 this is the letter I got here, I guess the fax sheet, and it made some 43 reference to: "In that the City's goal is to inform residents within the notice 44 area of actions that may be of interest to them, this notice is being made 45 available to you. For more detailed information about the proposed case 31 1 including the process and timing of review and possible actions..." But you 2 said something mentioned before six or six o'clock." 3 4 Scholz: No, it was the first item on the agenda because it was what we call a 5 consent item. 6 7 Segura: Okay. 8 9 Scholz: So I asked the staff if they had any concerns about it and they did not. I 10 asked all the Commissioners if they had any concerns, they didn't. I said," 11 Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this?" 12 13 Segura: Oh, Okay. 14 15 Scholz: And no one spoke up and so we passed it on consent. 16 17 Segura: That was me, I guess. I just didn't follow along correctly. 18 19 Scholz: I'm sorry, ma'am. 20 21 Segura: So, can you clarify...you want to go from a C-2 to a C-3? 22 23 Scholz: Yeah, the reason for that is the size of the lot. According to the 2001 24 Zoning Code, as I understand, the lot that size, in order to be 25 commercially developed has to be a C-3. Is that correct, Mr. Ochoa? I've 26 run through this drill a number of times so I think I have it down. 27 28 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. The subject property, essentially, is five 29 acres in size so it exceeds the maximum lot size allowed by the existing 30 zoning on it. So the C-3 zoning that's proposed for the property would 31 bring the property into compliance. 32 33 Segura: (away from microphone— inaudible) 34 35 Ochoa: C-3. 36 37 Scholz: Basically, it's a correction, you know, on something that's... 38 39 Segura: Okay. I saw everybody else leaving and I thought, "Well, I didn't know 40 what they were doing." 41 42 Scholz: I saw you here. I thought (inaudible — two people speaking at the same 43 time) 44 45 Segura: No problem. No problem. Maybe I just didn't hear or understand. This is 46 the first time I've been to one of these meetings so maybe I just didn't 32 1 understand what was being transpired. I appreciate your time. Thank 2 you. 3 4 Scholz: Thank you very much. 5 6 X. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS 7 8 1. Public Notice Discussion 9 10 XI. ADJOURNMENT (6:36 pm) 11 12 Scholz: All right, if there's nothing else, any staff announcements? No? 13 14 Ochoa: No, sir. 15 16 Scholz: Okay, we are adjourned at 7:20. 17 18 19 4 •�y ! Z- 20 Chairperson Date 33