Loading...
06-04-2012 t v �A L City of Las Cruces UNIVERSITY DISTRICT CITIZEN'S DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA The following agenda will be considered by the University District Citizen's Design Review Committee of the City of Las Cruces at a meeting to be held on Monday, June 4, 2012 at 10:00 a.m., in room 1158 at City Hall located at 700 North 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 list above. I. Call to Order Il. Approval of Minutes — September 6, 2012 III. Old Business — None IV. New Business 1. Case No. UD-12-01: A request for a new commercial building proposed to be located at 351 University Avenue. The subject property is located within the University District-University Avenue Zone (UD-UAZ). Submitted by DS Realty and Development on behalf of John Hoffman, property owner. V. Other Business VI. Public Participation VII. Adjournment 1 UNIVERSITY AVENUE CORRIDOR 2 CITIZEN'S DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 3 4 The following are the minutes of the UAC meeting held on Monday, June 4, 2012 at 5 10:00 a.m., located at City Hall, 700 North Main St., Conference Room 1158, Las 6 Cruces, New Mexico. 7 8 PRESENT: Nancy Binneweg —Acting Chair 9 Greg Smith (Councillor) 10 Sally Cutter 11 Greg Walke 12 13 ABSENT: John Curry 14 John White 15 16 STAFF PRESENT: Adam Ochoa, Planner, Community Development 17 Rocio Dominguez, Community Development 18 Susana Montana, Community Development 19 Bonnie Ennis - Recording Secretary 20 21 OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Salazar, Wilson & Co. 22 Cheryl Reome, Mary Winfield Business Broker 23 Danya Salazar, DS Realty & Development 24 Teo Regglado, IHOP 25 Miriam Velasquez, IHOP 26 Christina Marmolejo 27 Michael Dixon, Prestige Development Group 28 29 I. Call to Order (10:02 am) 30 31 Binneweg: Okay, I'm going to call this meeting to order. I'm Acting Chair because our 32 former Chair is no longer with us. My name's Nancy Binneweg and 1 33 started out on the University Corridor when it first was put together twenty- 34 some-odd years ago. Then, of course, my Councillor bumped me up to 35 higher and better things so I had to get on the P & Zs and I wrangled that 36 for years and years and then I'm back in the Corridor because I live in the 37 Corridor and I have property there and a business there. So I'm up to here 38 in corridor. 39 40 11. Approval of Minutes —from September 6, 2011 41 42 Binneweg: Okay, I call this meeting to order and we'll do the approval of minutes. Are 43 there any revisions or corrections to the minutes held on September 6th last 44 year? You all have good memories, I'm sure. I read through them and I 45 didn't find anything because I was at the meeting. Just don't go by my 1 1 memory; that's why I asked everyone else. There's none? Okay, may 1 2 have a motion to approve the minutes? 3 4 Unknown: Move to approve 5 6 Binneweg: Anyone second it? No one was here, probably. 7 8 (Several people speaking at the same time — cannot transcribe) 9 10 Ochoa: Adam Ochoa, Community Development Services. We can just have 11 somebody make a motion to approve and somebody to second, when you 12 vote on it everyone just abstains and whoever was there can either 13 approve or deny. So would we have a motion for that, please? 14 15 Smith: I'll make that motion. 16 17 Walke: And I'll second it. 18 19 Binneweg: And I vote on it being the only person present. 20 21 Ochoa: So one vote for approval... 22 23 Binneweg: One vote for approval and ... 24 25 Ochoa: ...and three abstentions. 26 27 Binneweg: ... three abstentions. All right? (Several people speaking and laughing at 28 the same time— cannot transcribe) 29 30 Ill. Old Business 31 32 Binneweg: There's no old business so we move right into New Business. 33 34 Ochoa: Yes, ma'am. 35 36 IV. New Business 37 38 1. Case No. UD-12-01: A request for a new commercial building proposed to be 39 located at 351 University Avenue. The subject property is located within the 40 University District-University Avenue Zone (UD-UAZ). Submitted by DS Realty 41 and Development on behalf of John Hoffman, property owner. 42 43 Binneweg: And this is a request for case number UD-12-01. It's a request for a new 44 commercial building, restaurant, to be located at 351 University Avenue. 45 The subject property is located within the University District-University 2 1 Avenue Zone (UD-UAZ). Submitted by DS Realty and Development on 2 behalf of John Hoffman, property owner. 3 4 Ochoa: Adam Ochoa, Development Services. The first and only case we have 5 today is case UD-12-01. It's a request for a new commercial building, as 6 Acting Chair, Ms. Binneweg, just said. It's a proposal we're looking at, at 7 351 University Avenue, submitted by DS Realty and Development on the 8 behalf of John Hoffman. 9 Just to kind of give you a...for some reason my computer and the 10 projector aren't speaking very well. But the subject property's located right 11 here right on the corner of Turrentine and University. The Park Drain, 1 12 believe, is right here just to the west of it. University Avenue is here and 13 it's an existing Principle Arterial roadway. It's located in between South 14 Valley Drive, another Principle Arterial roadway and EI Paseo Road, which 15 is an existing Minor Arterial roadway and the Mesilla property, of course, to 16 the south; and the new Convention Center here to the east of it. 17 To give you a better idea where we're at, here's an aerial of the 18 area. The subject property's here in this triangular-shaped lot right behind 19 there is the Plaza Suite Hotel; the Ramada is located to the west of it here. 20 Here is the What-a-Burger, NMSU property and, from the aerial, the 21 Convention Center's under construction but it's actually done. So it's just 22 to give you a rough idea where it's at: the western section of the University 23 District. 24 The subject property, as I said, is 351 University Avenue. The 25 subject property is actually located within the University Avenue Zone, 26 which are all the properties located adjacent to or within a couple hundred 27 feet of University Avenue itself. The subject property encompasses 28 approximately 0.64 acres and is currently undeveloped or vacant. There is 29 some kind of overflow parking area on this property from the Plaza Suite 30 Hotel but, other than that it is basically a vacant property. 31 The applicant is requesting to develop a new commercial building, a 32 restaurant which will actually be an IHOP, on the subject property. The 33 building will encompass approximately 4800 square feet and will 34 incorporate design elements of the University District. These design 35 elements would include, but not limited to, of course: front fagade 36 requirements, requiring the front entrance to be located along the actual 37 front street of the property; the window requirements, a minimum of 50% of 38 the exterior of the building has to be windows along the streets, 20% on the 39 other two sides; the elevation is a minimum height requirement from the 40 floor of the building to the ceiling of the building, which they'll meet. 41 The entire site itself is along the entire subject property and will 42 follow all requirements of the University District and 2001 Zoning Code as 43 well. That would include, but not limited to, again, are: the landscaping 44 requirement requiring an 80-foot landscape buffer between the streets and; 45 the parking area, the required number of parking stalls on the property, 46 ADA parking, ramps, and so forth. Just as a minor note: the new 3 s I development will have a Shared Parking Agreement with the adjacent 2 Plaza Suites Hotel and that is something that is actually recommended and 3 encouraged by the University District Plan and Overlay and this will allow 4 the property to meet the minimum requirements for parking on the 5 property. 6 Here's kind of a rough look at what the exterior of the building will 7 look like. Here is the very front portion along University with all the 8 windows, as you can see here...the front entrance area. This is the 9 eastern side of the building along Turrentine; again 50% of the exterior is 10 windows. So this is all dining area, office, the kitchen area and, I believe, 11 the freezer area. This is the rear of the property with the minimum 12 requirement of windows around there and, of course, the left or western 13 side of the building. That's to give you a little bit better picture. The 14 applicant did bring in some colored renderings of a building that's kind of 15 like this one. The difference is: there's more windows on this building than 16 is being proposed, as well as that blue column that's right next to the entry 17 area that goes straight up; that is not incorporated into this building. But 18 the color, the finish on the outside with the canopies, the sign and so forth, 19 is what the building will somewhat look like. Of course, anything that is not 20 covered by this will still have to follow the University District Requirements, 21 as well as the 2001 Zoning Code, including signage. 22 Here's a site plan, just to show that property; again, that triangular 23 lot here. The subject property will have a Shared Access Agreement with 24 the Plaza Suites Hotel to the University Avenue right here, as well as 25 another entrance onto Turrentine. The building "B" will be located at the 26 farthest southeast corner of the property closer to the front with a more 27 (inaudible)-type of feel. 28 With that, staff has reviewed the proposed plan and building 29 elevations and has found that everything proposed is in keeping with the 30 guidelines of Section 38-44, which is the University District Overly of the 31 2001 Zoning Code, as amended and, with that, staff recommends 32 approval. 33 Your options today are: 1) to approve the proposed development as 34 recommended by staff; 2) to approve the proposed development with 35 stipulated modifications, anything that you see that might have to be 36 changed; 3) deny the proposed development, or; 4) to table/postpone the 37 case and direct staff accordingly. With that I stand for questions. The 38 applicant is here as well to answer any additional questions you might have 39 for them. 40 41 Cutter: Sally Cutter. I'm new to the group; but does the Parking Agreement have 42 to be in effect before the project can begin? Can that be a sticking point? 43 44 D. Salazar: It's already in effect. 45 46 Cutter: Oh. Okay. 4 1 2 D. Salazar: It'll be a recorded document. This is Danya Salazar, DS Realty and 3 Development. And I'd like to talk a little bit about the finishes. These 4 finishes were the project that we developed in Rio Rancho, just to give you 5 an idea of what finishes would look like, but they will be tailored to the 6 elevations that are approved by the University Corridor. So... 7 8 Binneweg: That's what I was going to ask about because we don't have a chalet roof 9 option in the University Corridor do we? 10 11 Walke: No, but that's what's shown. 12 13 Binneweg: Yes. 14 15 D. Salazar: Right. Well, that's kind of their standard for a typical IHOP building but 16 what was more important, I think, in working with Adam was to make sure 17 that we met the facade requirement for windows and doors. So on the 18 elevations that are here and part of your package you'll notice there's 50% 19 more and they go all the way to the ground. This is just more to give you 20 an idea of what the standard finishes for IHOP look like. 21 22 Walke: What are those finishes? What are the materials? Is it stone or stucco? 23 24 D. Salazar: Brick. 25 26 Binneweg: Brick? 27 28 Walke: What's at the bottom? 29 30 D. Salazar: Brick; but a lot of that will be gone because there'll be windows that go to 31 the ground. But they'll also match the local Corridor so our task after 32 leaving here is to take pictures of other architecture within that Corridor and 33 get it back to the architect to finalize it. (Several people speaking at the 34 same time — cannot transcribe) No, what they do is come in and they'll 35 pick local finishes that match the area. So there're four or five different 36 options that you can get nation-wide so they can adhere to the local... 37 38 Binneweg: Will we still have the snow-shedding roof there for Las Cruces? 39 40 D. Salazar: Yes. 41 42 Smith: That's a point that comes to me is that on one hand that's an iconic look for 43 IHOP and I understand the importance of that piece but I also think we've 44 been working hard on the University Corridor to start being sensitive to a 45 sense of place and design along there and so that would be the question, 46 and I know in different communities we don't have those restrictions in 5 I place. But we are wondering how sensitive you all might be, or at least I 2 am and I suspect others are, how sensitive you might be to a modification 3 that either with the colors or with the shapes that might be more in keeping 4 with the comfort zone and what's considered traditional along that area. 5 6 D. Salazar: I think they would be open to... especially like the little roof piece. It's just 7 an added element. It doesn't do a lot. Design-wise it doesn't offer a lot of 8 structural...I don't think it would be hard. But the blue, the IHOP blue, is 9 something that they're more sensitive. 10 11 (Several people speaking at the same time — cannot transcribe) 12 13 D. Salazar: The roof of that needs to be tweaked a little... 14 15 Binneweg: From my point of view, if you carried it across like a Territorial instead of a 16 snow-shedding peak like that. 17 18 Smith: And I think that's probably the biggest concern, I suspect. A shaped roof 19 just seems out of place here. 20 21 D. Salazar: Just the entrance, right? You're not going to carry the Territorial... 22 23 (Several people speaking at the same time— cannot transcribe) 24 25 Smith: No, actually the coping around the rest of the building is almost an ode to 26 Territorial as it is. In fact, if you could replace it with new bricks it might 27 be... but, you know, certainly be that type of stone Greg and I are familiar 28 with has been used already along University. I would suggest that perhaps 29 either going to the full Territorial-look or doing the brick coping at the top or 30 doing away with the brick altogether and just saying, you know, the stone 31 is... 32 33 D. Salazar: I think the brick would go away because windows come all the way to the 34 ground now so it would be easy to just remove the brick. 35 36 Smith: Yeah. 37 38 D. Salazar: There's not a lot of area for the brick anyway. 39 40 Smith: So, yeah, I think probably the biggest concern is with the roof (Inaudible) 41 porch... 42 43 D. Salazar: Well, how do you propose that? What do you see that element looking 44 right there? 45 46 Binneweg: A continuation of the straight fagade like the rest of it. 6 1 2 Smith: I think that may be... 3 4 D. Salazar: Well, there's got to be some pop-out for the entrance. You have a covered 5 area when you walk in... 6 7 Binneweg: Yeah. 8 9 D. Salazar: ... so it would be a flat roof. 10 11 Smith: It could be a flat roof, sort of a Pueblo or Territorial-style, maybe, with a big 12 band of blue going around to denote the IHOP logo, like you have on the 13 side sort of capturing that blue piece but then having the architectural 14 element a little softer, if you will...is my contribution to that. 15 16 D. Salazar: So how do we without coming back to this Board, can we get a conditional 17 approval based on that change and give it to you for your approval before 18 we submit for approval? 19 20 Binneweg: So we can approve it with that condition. 21 22 D. Salazar: Right. 23 24 Binneweg: Then you don't have to come back and .... 25 26 Smith: I think so. That works for me. 27 28 (Several people speaking at the same time— cannot transcribe) 29 30 S. Salazar: As long as it's complying...I guess the elevations that were done, complied 31 by the University, apply District-wide, right? Was this acceptable within 32 that Plan or is there documentation that stipulates that this is not 33 acceptable with that Plan? 34 35 Binneweg: There are like four different styles that are allowed in the Corridor... 36 37 Ochoa: They are recommended in the Corridor... 38 39 Binneweg: ... recommended in the Corridor as being indigenous, local... 40 41 D. Salazar: Um-hmm. 42 43 Binneweg: ... and they all have the more traditional parapet, flat roof parapet, around; 44 not that big, "slopey" (sic) roof like that. 45 46 D. Salazar: Um-hmm. 7 1 2 Binneweg: So if you just pretty much continue that roofline around to the front... 3 4 Smith: You could still create an entry there but... (Several people speaking at the 5 same time— cannot transcribe) ... a pitched roof is difficult. 6 7 Binneweg: Yes! Exactly! 8 9 Walke: This would be maybe on the porch element here. 10 11 Binneweg: Um-hmm. 12 13 Walke: I was just trying to clarify what Nancy's asking about. This is Greg Walke. 14 This element right here, is that what you're talking about? 15 16 Binneweg: Yes, that's it. That's pretty much a parapet, I think, isn't it? 17 18 Walke: You could do something to create a porch with that. 19 20 Binneweg: Yeah. 21 22 S. Salazar: And still keep the pitch that's kind of like the branding of IHOP. 23 24 Binneweg: No, no. 25 26 Cutter: No pitch. Just flat. 27 28 (Several people speaking at the same time — cannot transcribe) 29 30 Binneweg: We'll do the colors of IHOP. 31 32 D. Salazar: This is the way it needs to be, I mean is to.... 33 34 Smith: When I went to college the IHOP then was like a two-story, pitched, A- 35 frame building so I understand that this is nod to that but I also know that 36 companies like IHOP have done very well in communities where they've 37 modified to meet the local expectations and standards; and I suspect in 38 that particular location this one is going to do especially well. And do 1 39 don't think it will be considered a loss at all to do away with that. 40 41 D. Salazar: No, I think it's so. And like I said: it's more of an element. It's a porch is 42 what it is. It's a covered porch. It's not outside the shell of the building. 43 44 Smith: I think you could accomplish the same thing and still look more in keeping 45 with the rest of the area. So if that can be accommodated I think I'm okay 46 with it. 8 7: 1 2 Binneweg: This is Nancy Binneweg. So I expect an architect to tell us what the 3 language would be. Would that be "continue the parapet around on top of 4 the entry and eliminate the pitch?" Because I think that's what that is up 5 high there. Is it just a parapet? I mean there's a flat roof line along there. 6 7 D. Salazar: I think it would just say "modify existing entrance to eliminate pitched roof." 8 9 Binneweg: Yes. Yes. 10 11 D. Salazar: And then not specify, and then just let it come back and say, "Yes, this is 12 what we're thinking." 13 14 Smith: Okay. 15 16 D. Salazar: That's my opinion. So we don't get real technical. We just say, "Hey, you 17 don't like the pitch part of the roof. We've got to go back and tweak that," 18 and as long as you approve it then... 19 20 Binneweg: Yeah. 21 22 D. Salazar: And we'll go back to the University Plan and I'll get that language to the 23 architect. 24 25 Binneweg: Good. 26 27 (Several people speaking at the same time— cannot transcribe) 28 29 Smith: We can't go and micromanage the architects. 30 31 D. Salazar: Right. That's what I'm saying. We won't get real in-depth: we'll just say, 32 you know, "The pitch is not preferred for the Corridor Plan. Modify existing 33 porch element to match Corridor." 34 35 Smith: Do we have members of the community here who might wish to speak on 36 the subject? 37 38 Binneweg: Yeah. 39 40 Ochoa: Madam Chair, the Chair would like to open it up to the public. 41 42 Binneweg: Yes, I will open it to public input. 43 44 Regalado: Yes. I would like to speak. My name is Teo Regalado and I am the new 45 owner of the IHOP here in Las Cruces. My concern is that particular 46 location where it's located might affect my business tremendously. It's 9 1 about...I don't know exactly how many miles it is to the IHOP that I 2 currently own. 3 4 Smith: Where is yours? 5 6 Binneweg: On 70. 7 8 Regalado: I'm located on 2900 Telshor, the new owner of the IHOP and I just 9 currently have spent a lot of money on remodeling and getting it to IHOP 10 standards. I signed a new lease for twenty years. So that particular 11 location where it's at is probably going to affect my business. 12 13 Smith: Now is your location the one that's right off of 70? 14 15 Regalado: Yes. 16 17 Smith: Okay, the one up there by K-Mart and Ashley... not Ashley's...but okay. 18 Sort of where Telshor bends up and... 19 20 Regalado: Right. 21 22 D. Salazar: I think it's about six miles. I think it's about six to eight miles. But IHOP 23 Corporate did an impact study and so this... 24 25 Regalado: No, no, no, no, no... it's not six or eight miles. It's probably two-and-a-half 26 miles. 27 28 D. Salazar: You know, I'm not sure but I know that IHOP Corporate approved the 29 location and so, in my opinion, this has to do with the two franchisees. We 30 don't represent the franchisee and the business. 31 32 Regalado: Right. It's a taxpayer is the same as a citizen and a business man. I live 33 here in Las Cruces so it does affect my business. It does affect my 34 community and does affect my employees. That's why I'm here. 35 36 Binneweg: Thank you. 37 38 Smith: Well, we do appreciate that but we're tasked with the design aspect of this 39 so that's our charge. 40 41 Regalado: No problem. I understand. 42 43 Binneweg: Thank you. 44 45 Regalado: Thank you. Any other members of the public? 46 10 I Dominguez: Yes, Rocio Dominguez, Chief Development Engineer. To do a little bit of 2 the correction of the proximity of the place: University Avenue is at Exit 1. 3 The place where he's talking about is Exit 6 and if we go by the mileage on 4 the Freeway those are six miles. 5 6 Regalado: Oh. Thank you. 7 8 Smith: Right. 9 10 Binneweg: And different Freeways. 11 12 Dominguez: No. Actually it's on 1-25... 13 14 Binneweg: Oh, yeah. 15 16 Dominguez: Exit 1 is University.... 17 18 Binneweg: But no one from 1-25 is going to see the IHOP sign way down there. It'll be 19 on 1-10. 20 21 Dominguez: I don't know the exact distance; but to just give a little bit more of an 22 understanding the distance is: Exit 1 is University. Exit 6 is where the 23 other IHOP is located today. 24 25 Binneweg: As we said: that's not our issue. 26 27 D. Salazar: Right, and IHOP Corporate did an impact study and approved the location 28 before we ever got this far. 29 30 Walke: I have a question regarding signs. This is Greg Walke. Are these dashed 31 lines on the elevations to indicate where signs would be located with that 32 kind of sign right there? 33 34 S. Salazar: Yes, sir. This line centered? Yeah. 35 36 D. Salazar: And, again, it will meet the local Code so as we get into the building permit 37 process and the sign criteria is provided. This was the signage that we 38 used in Rio Rancho so it's not necessarily reflective of what will be 39 approved here. 40 41 Walke: It is lit? 42 43 D. Salazar: Yes. 44 45 Walke: All the way around? On all four sides? 46 11 1 D. Salazar: No, they won't have them on all four sides. 2 3 Walke: (inaudible) 4 5 D. Salazar: Right. That's just like I said: a proposed location so as you get into 6 building permit they'll pick, probably, two elevations that make the most 7 sense to stick the sign on. 8 9 Walke: What's the long rectangle? What would be there? 10 11 D. Salazar: Probably signage. It would say, "24-hour Restaurant" or there's various 12 types of signage, I think...we didn't bring that elevation but some of those 13 signs are not lit. So where you've got the long, rectangulars (sic) on that 14 particular elevation, I think it's individualized letters. 15 16 Walke: It's actually showing on the back elevation so you probably wouldn't have 17 much there. 18 19 D. Salazar: Right. Again, those were just to show you conceptually if there was 20 signage on that particular elevation where it would be located. But it won't 21 have to meet your local sign criteria. 22 23 Walke: On the plan there is something called a "Freeway Sign." Is there an 24 intention to have...? 25 26 D. Salazar: It's existing. That's existing. 27 28 Walke: Oh. Is there? 29 30 D. Salazar: Yes, sir. 31 32 S. Salazar: So that's going to be relocated. It's actually ... 33 34 Walke: I don't remember seeing a freeway sign. 35 36 S. Salazar: Yeah, there's an 1-10 freeway sign at (Several people speaking at the 37 same time— cannot transcribe) 38 39 Walke: Oh, the 1-10 sign! Yeah, so that's going to be... (Several people speaking 40 at the same time — cannot transcribe) Oh, okay. I was going to ask about 41 that. 42 43 D. Salazar: Part of that will get fleshed out as we go into building permit. This is just to 44 get us to the point that we can start the design. 45 46 Walke: Have you talked to DOT about it? 12 1 2 D. Salazar: We started it. I think ideally, I dunno, we could leave it, but... 3 4 S. Salazar: No, it's going to be relocated. 5 6 Walke: It would be (inaudible)... 7 8 S. Salazar: Yeah. 9 10 Walke: So there's no intention for a pylon sign or any (Several people speaking at 11 the same time— cannot transcribe) 12 13 D. Salazar: No, it's not allowed within the Corridor. 14 15 Binneweg: They're not allowed in the corridor. This is Nancy Binneweg. I was just 16 harkening back to how much time they put in with the criteria for the 17 Corridor. So when I looked at this it seemed that...yeah, I knew that 18 because we were going up against staff and the conditions to build in the 19 Corridor. So I didn't have any... 20 21 D. Salazar: Adam was very helpful in us trying to get it right the first time so he's spent 22 a lot of time us going back and forth getting it to the point that it matched 23 the Corridor requirements. 24 25 Binneweg: Yeah. You didn't suspect that pitched roof would be a sticking point? 26 27 D. Salazar: You've got to start somewhere. 28 29 Binneweg: Exactly. You didn't want to try and sneak that in. (all laughing) 30 31 D. Salazar: No, I don't think he wanted to tell us either. 32 33 Ochoa: Well, because it's part of their...as they're saying: their logo or their brand, 34 if you will and it was such a minor... Well, it's just the front porch area, not 35 the entire building. A large majority of the buildings, you know if you drive 36 around the area, that's kind of what they look. So we didn't see too many 37 issues with it considering it's just a front area. But, of course, if the Board 38 feels that it's out of place could condition to eliminate the chalet-style 39 pitched roof; and could keep it to that because there are other types of 40 roofs that are kind of pitched that can be allowed, you know, the mission- 41 style type of roofs that have stepped forward with this Board. 42 43 D. Salazar: I'm wondering: is there the ability for us to do that but just to not have such 44 a huge... What if IHOP Corporate wants us to keep some sort of that pitch 45 but just not chalet-style, but it's allowed within the Corridor? 46 13 I Binneweg: Well, if it's allowed in the Corridor. But I can't think of an architectural style 2 that has a 3 x 12 pitched roof with Territorial-looking... 3 4 Walke: Yeah, they're not... I don't think, though, that they're arguing it from that 5 point of view. They're saying that this is an iconic emblem like a .... 6 7 Binneweg: McDonald's sign. 8 9 Walke: ... a sign of some kind that had a funny shape to it and wanted to use that 10 sign and so the question is: how far can we go with that kind of branding? 11 12 Binneweg: Well, signs are different. As long as they fit in ... 13 14 Walke: But the building itself has a flat roof and it ... 15 16 Binneweg: Yeah, exactly. 17 18 Walke: ... and we can accept that entrance porch, which is totally non-offensive. 19 20 S. Salazar: Most of the newer prototypes, all of the prototypes now, as Danya was 21 saying, has that front fagade porch entryway and so that's kind of like their 22 branding similar to what Lowe's does on their front entry and those types of 23 commercial, you know, national tenants. 24 25 Binneweg: But I know if you go into towns, like in California, you don't recognize the 26 IHOP. It is so toned-down. It doesn't have that distinctive look to it. I have 27 a hard time finding them. 28 29 D. Salazar: Yeah, I think we can work with it. We just need to get back... 30 31 (Several people speaking at the same time— cannot transcribe) 32 33 Smith: This is Greg Smith. Not only in California, where I've seen what you've 34 described, Nancy, but also in Santa Fe and other places here in New 35 Mexico. You know, McDonald's has a very iconic look and yet you will see 36 places where they have dispensed with that to meet the local expectations. 37 So I don't think, you know... in fact, I appreciate their willingness to work 38 with us on this because I do think we're still developing the look and the 39 feel for the University Corridor and that is something that I know some of 40 us at this table have worked very hard on in the past and will continue to 41 work on. But I do think that if you can work with us on this and still have a 42 distinctive, fine look, but also recognize that stark contrast of that steep 43 blue roof does present a kind of jarring effect. 44 45 Binneweg: What about a blue but shed-roof starting from the front of the building and 46 shedding down to the height that they want? 14 S 1 2 Smith: I think that could be done, sort of in keeping with the look of the awnings, 3 perhaps. 4 5 Binneweg: Yes. Yes. 6 7 Smith: I do think there's also that potential for something that's sort of Territorial- 8 looking or even Pueblo-looking. You know, the rest of the building lends 9 itself more to sort of a Territorial feel. It's not precisely Territorial. So I do 10 think maybe a nod to Territorial and how the porch is handled could be 11 done in a way... and Territorial is often done with a pitched shed roof so... 12 13 Binneweg: The shed roof, not the pitched. 14 15 Smith: ... I'm sorry. But... yeah. 16 17 D. Salazar: I think we can. We've already had to modify the elevation. You can see 18 windows that go to the ground so there're some architectural elements that 19 are being totally redesigned right now from their standard prototype. So 20 we just need to get back with the architect and have him look at a couple of 21 other ones and then get some people to look at them to give us the yay or 22 nay on it. 23 24 Binneweg: So you want to come back again? 25 26 D. Salazar and S. Salazar: No! 27 28 (Several people speaking at the same time— cannot transcribe) 29 30 S. Salazar: No, we don't. What we want to do is go ahead and make that conditional 31 approval .... 32 33 D. Salazar: No, we'll get the conditional approval that we talked about and then get it to 34 staff. 35 36 Binneweg: And then go to staff. 37 38 S. Salazar: ... and then we will work with the architect to come up with that. 39 40 D. Salazar: Right. 41 42 S. Salazar: ... and then handle it, I guess, with staff's (inaudible). 43 44 Binneweg: Sure. 45 46 Smith: So staff understands where we're going with this? 15 1 2 Ochoa: Yes. 3 4 Smith: Thank you. 5 6 Ochoa: Yes, staff is understanding of what you all are looking for. 7 8 S. Salazar: Yeah, we can accommodate that. Great! 9 10 Walke: I do commend you for this plan. It's a good layout with the... you have a 11 very difficult site. 12 13 Cutter: Very, very difficult. 14 15 Walke: It has a lot of difficult things to deal with here and I think you did a good job. 16 17 D. Salazar: Thank you. 18 19 Cutter: And I appreciate the reciprocal parking because the parking is never used 20 there. The parking lot, it's an eyesore and it'll be an improvement to the 21 beginning of the Corridor, which would be hoped all the other parcels that 22 needed (inaudible)... 23 24 D. Salazar: We're excited. The landowners have been very easy to work with and it's 25 been about a year in the making. So we appreciate the good feedback. 26 27 Binneweg: Are there any more input from staff, audience, Board people? All right, 28 then, I guess we'll call for a motion... 29 30 Ochoa: Condition. 31 32 Binneweg: Yes. Would someone like to make a motion with the condition? Mr. 33 Smith? 34 35 Smith: I motion that we approve the plans with the staff taking looking at the 36 modification to the porch as a condition for approving. 37 38 Binneweg: Is there a second? 39 40 Walke: I second. 41 42 Binneweg: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. 43 44 All: Aye. 45 16 I Binneweg: Any nays, abstentions? Nope? It looks like we're very pleased with some 2 improvement in the Corridor. 3 4 D. Salazar: Thank you. 5 6 Walke: Speaking on behalf of all the students at NMSU... (Several people 7 speaking at the same time — cannot transcribe) ... they'll be very, very 8 happy. 9 10 S. Salazar: We have a vested interest because we are both Aggies. 11 12 V. Other Business 13 14 Binneweg: Do we have any other business? Staff? Public participation? 15 16 Ochoa: I do have something to add. Just to let the Board know: I know these 17 meetings are a little hard to come by, a little sporadic... 18 19 Binneweg: Few and far between? 20 21 Ochoa: Yes...but since the last one we had, it was on September 6, 2011 until 22 today; just to kind of keep it as a note to yourselves, at the next meeting 23 maybe we could do an election of officers since Mr. Maggard is no longer 24 with us and Mr. Curry is not here so I don't know if he is up for being 25 Chairman any more. So that is something to consider and we'll put that on 26 the agenda for the next meeting. So start thinking about who to nominate 27 somebody or yourself for Chair and Co-Chair of the Board. That's it. 28 29 Binneweg: That's important. Well, public participation? Anyone who hasn't spoken 30 have something to talk about? 31 32 VI. Adjournment (10:35 am) 33 34 Binneweg: All right, I guess we're adjourned. 35 36 37 38 Chairperson 17