PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2007

Transcription

1 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH, 00 Chairman Nicholson, called this meeting to order at : p.m. at the Coronado Council Chambers, located at 0 Civic Plaza Drive. This is the monthly Regular Meeting of the Town of Taos Planning and Zoning Commission. 1. ROLL CALL The following were present: Commissioners: Patrick Nicholson, Chairman Sheila Grainger William Himes Lillian Miller Eugene A. Sanchez Historic Preservation: Leah Slator Absent: D. Dennis Cruz John Delmargo Richard Montoya Peter Wengert Planning Department Staff present: Rudy Perea, Planner Matthew Foster, Long-Range Planner Melinda Vasquez, Planning Assistant Chairman Nicholson elevated Commissioner Leah Slator to the regular Commission this evening as a voting member on all cases.. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Pledge of allegiance was recited. Page 1 of 1

2 APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Nicholson asked for any amendments to the agenda as presented. Rudy Perea noted his recommendation to continue Case No. P&Z00-0. No further amendments to the agenda. Chairman Nicholson noted the lengthy Agenda and stated the Commission will do its best to hear all items listed, also noted the reversed order on the Agenda, and asked the Commission to approve the Agenda as presented. Commissioners voted yes verbally to approve the Agenda as presented.. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY, 00. Commissioner Grainger made motion to approve the minutes as presented. Commissioner Miller seconded the motion. Commissioners voted yes verbally to approve the Agenda as presented.. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution 0-0, ADOPTION OF CODE OF ETHICS Chairman Nicholson noted that this resolution has been developed and modified and is now ready for adoption. Commissioner Grainger commented that the Commission did not pick these items on the code of ethics out of thin air, she and Commissioner Delmargo and the Planning Director went to a conference in Baltimore and attended a seminar on ethics and this code of ethics was developed using those techniques learned. Commissioner Slator made motion to adopt the code of ethics as presented. Commissioner Grainger seconded the motion. Commissioners voted yes verbally on the motion. Page of 1

3 B. Resolution 0-0, Supporting application to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) for the Smart Growth Implementation Assistance Grant Matthew Foster. Matthew Foster explained the resolution s support for the EPA grant application to prepare an LUDC code on the highway corridor. Commissioner Grainger commended Matt on his diligence on this work and made motion to adopt Resolution 0-0. Commissioner Miller seconded the motion. Commissioners voted yes verbally on the motion. C. Resolution 0-0, supporting application for a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for the creation of a Land Use Master Plan- Matthew Foster. Matthew Foster explained the resolution s support for a planning grant application to complete the Land Use Master Plan and development code and land use map. Commissioner Slator made motion to adopt Resolution 0-0. Commissioner Grainger seconded the motion. Commissioners voted yes verbally on the motion.. UPDATE FROM MATTHEW FOSTER, LONG RANGE PLANNER Matthew Foster stated that he did not want to take up too much time and offered his update on the many project he is working on in a Memo format. Rudy Perea read the rules for public hearing. Chairman Nicholson also added to the rules that he would allow the applicants to limit their initial presentation to 0 minutes and allow the public minutes to speak, and if the public would keep their comments to the point and non-repetitive and then allow the applicant a minute rebuttal time. Page of 1

4 PUBLIC HEARINGS CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A. Case No. P&Z Victoria Development LLC, property owner; Jon Evans, Agent; requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness, for new construction and demolition, the 0. acre property is located at Theodora Street, in the R-1 zone of the Town of Taos. Mr. Jon Evans is sworn in, presented the building again in a small scale model for the Commission and public to view. Explained the request for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a new three unit building in the historic overlay zone and requesting permission to demolish an existing house on the property. In order to not sound redundant, will keep presentation on the changes taken place since the last meeting, the driveway will be now located on the south side of the site to accommodate the existing electrical power lines; the driveway is also two feet wider upon the fire chief s request; there will be modifications on the parking to accommodate the fire truck access; and upon recommendation the building will have sprinkler systems; these changes were approved by the fire department. Has also narrowed down the choices of fireplaces one will be a wood burning fireplace insert which emits. grams per hour of particulates which is below the strictest EPA standard, the other is a clean gas burning fireplace, this decision was made by the health concerns at the last meeting and the desire to not contribute to the pollution in Taos. The information submitted for this meeting includes the modified site plan, driveway access, a construction staging plan, a revised landscape plan, and a small utilities map of the area, also submitted a copy of a memo from Patrick Vigil, Public Utilities Director regarding the sewer and water mains, a letter from Mr. Thompson regarding the grading and drainage design, a letter from David Santistevan regarding the overhead electrical power lines and that there is no intention of underground utilities, but the new lines from the new construction will be underground. Reminded the Commissioners of the last hearing on presentation from Mr. Patterson on the suitability of the architectural design for the historic district; Mr. Thompson spoke on the site engineering; and Mr. Adams came to the conclusion that this project will not create any significant changes to the neighborhood property values. Finally, noted the staff report and recommendation for approval. Mr. Evans introduced his legal counsel to make a statement. Ms. Carol Neeley is sworn in, stating she is an Attorney and was asked by Mr. Evans to present interpretation of the Land Use Development Code as it pertains to his project. Ms. Neeley began with section -0., historic overlay zone process; section -0., standards for non-contributing properties; section -. permitted uses in R-1 zone; Section 1- purposes of the LUDC; section 1-..B. inconsistent provisions. Ms. Neeley pointed out, in her interpretation, how the proposed project has met all criteria and is in compliance with the Land Use Development Code. Chairman Nicholson asked about the 1 foot driveway and if that was the minimum recommended by the fire department. Mr. Evans stated the code requirement for the driveway is 1 feet and had presented with 1 feet and Mr. Montoya asked if it could be made to 1 feet. Page of 1

5 Commissioner Grainger stated that last month she cited the code -0. it states the appropriate style for new construction should be in harmony with the predominant type and style of architecture and in making another site visit today this proposed style is not of the surrounding neighborhood, the neighborhood is one story and this will not fit into the neighborhood, as her interpretation of the code and asked Mr. Evans if he wanted to comment on that statement. Mr. Evans stated that there is a conflict that exists, when he purchased the property, zoned R-1 and received help and guidance from the Planning Staff in regard to the sections of the code, and used that as a textbook in designing the project, with the encouragement of the Planning staff. The considered neighborhood is overwhelmingly pueblo style and there are territorial styles, the neighborhood is not just only the three houses adjacent, but the whole area. Chairman Nicholson opened the application for public comment. Ms. Jerry Walkingstick is sworn in, handed a letter to the Commissioners, stating she would like to protect open space, that is her concern, asked the Commission if they are aware that the house to be torn down and the Sanger house were brought in around the s and 0 s for Ag boys to complete. The word appropriateness comes to her, nobody did address the people of the neighborhood, when her house was to be purchased by an attorney the neighbors approached him and told him that a law office did not fit in the neighborhood. Ms. Walkingstick stated she lives at Theodora, some thoughts since the last meeting, this is a community of mixed people living together; this is what makes Taos unique; the proposed project does not fit into the neighborhood, enjoys being at home in her garden which will be blocked by this new building; the integrity of the neighborhood needs to be preserved. Mr. William Burden is sworn in, stating he lives at Theodora, will try not to repeat what he stated last month, as a non-conforming property the preservation committee is not involved in evaluating the project, secondly, the recommendation from staff is to approve, which is beyond the purview of staffs responsibility; the decision is to be made by the Commission; there are three decisions to be made, referenced the land use code and the master plan; is it consistent with development standards and guidelines contained in the historic district section of the code and is it compatible with spirit and purposes of the code; these three things have to be dealt with. This is not compatible with the neighborhood, there are no two story buildings in the area and there are no condos which are known to be rented out to transients. Mr. Glenn Sanger is sworn in, handed out a packet to the Commissioners containing letters from landowners in the neighborhood, stated he was out of town when the last meeting took place, but submitted letter to the Commission, would like to begin by talking about the staff report and speak on several issues. First, commented on the written procedural history of this case, objected to the one preliminary hearing without a prior public hearing; at the last meeting what concerned him was that not all the information from all the department heads was available; there is a comment in the staff report that there were no comments from the public prior to this meeting which is misleading because he was not allowed to submit letters; is concerned with the prejudicial comment that the proposed condo project to the north is to go forward so that this project should proceed also; is concerned that the staff has prepared this report recommending approval, the Commission should make its own decision, stated he is on the property to the north Page of 1

6 side of this project and most affected, the height of the project will cover his entire backyard s southern exposure will be cast in the shadow, with the second story looking down on his yard, this is an invasion of privacy, this should be addressed in the quality of life. Rudy Perea commented on Mr. Sangers statements, the application has followed the procedure for public hearings, the certificate of appropriateness application was presented at a preliminary public hearing and now this public hearing as stated in the code; Mr. Sanger is inferring that he was not allowed to submit documents for the Commission, the packets were already delivered he missed the submittal time; also, for the lofts north the developer did request an extension and it was allowed to continue; just to clarify for the record that all procedures were done properly. Mr. Scott Sanger is sworn in, stating that he did not want to duplicate what was already presented; clarified that there has never been a zone change in this area, the name of the zone only was changed from R- to R-1 - the rules and regulations are the same. In the historic district it is important to have conformity; the proposal is for a two-story building, is concerned it is right next to his brothers house losing his backyard to a shadow and that is not the right way to preserve neighborhood. The comment about the West project to the north, Mr. West worked with the neighbors, he agreed to not have wood burning stoves, he agreed to reconfigure the site to move the density away from the neighbors for less impact, he also agreed to place walls to protect neighbors. In this case the developer is against the neighborhood. In talking about preservation, the code recommends to keep the neighborhoods the same, the historic district is our treasure, recommends the Commission look very closely at the impact of the immediate surrounding neighborhood, there is ample authority in the code to do that, and asks how happy would you be if this happened in your backyard. No further public comment. Chairman Nicholson allowed Mr. Evans to respond to any issues stated. Mr. Evans commented on a few statements; he has worked with Ms. Walkingstick very carefully, her property abuts his on the south side and pointed out how the building that is there now is taller than what is proposed and will not block her view of the mountain; in response to the eventual use of this by people who do not live here and renting out is that is completely conjuncture and not based on fact in any way. Most importantly, on the issue of shadows onto Mr. Sangers yard, had prepared a CAD generated drawing of the shadows cast by the building on different times of the year and showed that to the Commission. In response to the allegation that he has not worked with the neighbors, the first thing he did was to call Glenn and Jill Sanger to come meet with him and review the plans and called several other neighbors to review his plans and got a couple of responses and most no response, so it is inaccurate to say that he did not work with the neighbors. Would like to have Ms. Neeley comment also on the statements. Ms. Neeley commented briefly, the fact that the zoning has been multi-family for years, the question arises then whether it is appropriate for this Commission to consider an application for architectural appropriateness to make a decision not to grant it because you don t like the fact that the neighborhood is zoned R-1, there has not been an effort from the neighbors to rezone the area to a lesser density, since zoning is not an issue and most of the comments were addressed to that very fact, asks the Commission to keep in Page of 1

7 mind that this is not a legislative decision concerning zoning, but the limited task of deciding whether a certificate of architectural appropriateness should be issued under that provision of the Land Use Development Code. Ms. Neeley stated that she did represent Mr. West on his development, there was extensive effort to accommodate every single neighbors concerns and even after every concern was addressed the neighbors still appealed the decision to Council and to court. The costs, fees and efforts to redesign that project over and over again to address the neighbors concerns are what made that project to be put on hold and an extension granted for the building; would not have brought this issue up at this time, but it has been smeared on Mr. Evans face that he has not been as accommodating as Mr. West. Chairman Nicholson closed the public hearing and returned to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Himes stated that yes this property is in the R-1 zone, but it is in the historic district, and understands it may be overbearing at times, but that s what it is, it is intended to keep an historic pattern, this proposed project does not fit with the harmony of the neighborhood as the code states, the two story home is not in agreement with the immediate neighborhood, section -.1.D addresses that and section -0. B addresses that as well, the strict historic guidelines should apply. Commissioner Slator stated this may be an issue of fairness, this may place people in a terrible position, maybe they ll down zone the area and maybe the neighborhood could work towards that, thinks the second story improves the design significantly, the code does allow this second story, it fits within the styles allowed and this is in harmony with the predominant style, does not understand how this project could not be allowed as presented. Commissioner Sanchez stated it is clear there are a lot of problems in this process, has concerns about this project based on the fact of the two story condo, who s going to live in it, are you going to live in it, are you going to rent it or are you going to sell it, has not heard anything about that. The other thing is that section --. B is very specific, it reads the appropriate style for the new construction should be in harmony with the predominant style and type of architectural style of the immediate surrounding neighborhood, that is in conflict with section 1-..B. is specific the most restrictive should apply, this project is in the historical district, the condos do not fit into the traditional neighborhood, to rent or sell these people are not permanent residents. Chairman Nicholson stated that as often as is the case with difficult cases, there are usually several interpretations of the rather cumbersome code and it falls upon this Commission to uses its judgment of what is most proper. Commissioner Himes stated that in the code section.0.b.. old Santa Fe style characterized by construction with adobe and mud finish as defined to include so called pueblo Spanish or Spanish colonial territorial styles, and as more specifically described as follows with rare exceptions buildings are of one story and generally horizontal statements, with rare exceptions, two story is not acceptable, the code states with rare exceptions, its not that hard. Chairman Nicholson called for a ten minute recess and return ready to make a motion. Page of 1

8 Commissioner Nicholson called for a motion on the application. Commissioner Himes made a motion that case number P&Z00-01 be denied, under the Land Use Development Code, Section -0. B (); specifically states "Old Santa Fe Style," characterized by construction with adobe with mud finish, is defined as including the socalled "Pueblo" or "Pueblo/Spanish" or "Spanish Colonial" and "Territorial" styles and is more specifically described as follows: With rare exceptions, buildings are of one story and generally horizontal statements. The fact that this sits in the historic zone not just in R-1, but R-1 within the historic zone and taking the immediate neighborhood within the notification area even out within 0 feet it would be hard-pressed to find one home that is second story. With that, rare exceptions still apply here, in that area that section -0. B applies. Also, under Section -.1.D. In determining the appropriate style for new construction which involves renovation or addition to an existing building, the new construction shall be in harmony with the predominant type and style of architecture of the existing building or of the immediate surrounding neighborhood. Again, the definition of the immediate surrounding neighborhood is within 0 feet and neighborhood being an area around a place or thing. Commissioner Sanchez seconded the motion. Commissioner Slator noted that the section on Santa Fe style is not what is required or allowed for new non-contributing structures, but okay, that s just an historical description of where the styles came from, when you go into the requirements for non-contributing structures, they have pueblo style requirements that allow for fifty percent or less of the first floor to be replicated on the second floor. Chairman Nicholson also noted as uncomfortable as it may be for those who have an interest in this case, it is his understanding that he can and with due consideration for all the comments and concerns expressed this evening that the applicant is deemed to have complied with all the relevant and related provisions in this code which govern a certificate of appropriateness, with the suggested conditions expressed by staff, that is his understanding and reading of the code and best judgment. Commissioners voting yes on the motion: Commissioner Grainger, Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Himes, Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioners voting no on the motion: Commissioner Slator, Chairman Nicholson Motion carried. B. Case No. P&Z 00-0 Kim Goodyear, property owner; Living Design Group, Doug Patterson, Agent; requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness, for remodel and new construction and also requesting a Variance, from the Road Design Standards requirement of a foot turnaround, the 0. acre property is located at 1 Valverde Street, in the R-1 zone of the Town of Taos. (STAFF REQUESTS A CONTINUANCE) Page of 1

9 Commissioner Himes made a motion to continue the application, as requested by Staff, to the April regular meeting. Commissioner Sanchez seconded the motion. Commissioners voted yes verbally.. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. P&Z 00-1 Mitchell G. Feldman, property owner; Mark Yaravitz, Agent; requesting Final Plat review for a lot Subdivision, the property is located on.0 acres at Morgan Road & Roy Road. Mr. Mark Yaravitz is sworn in, stating that this is the final plat submittal, all familiar with, since the last meeting, some revisions were done based upon the staff report, in regard to the staff conditions, agrees with number one, on the second one about the sidewalk it was discussed with Mr. Perea and there is a simple solution, Mr. Perea would like to see sidewalk easements on the survey plat, in discussion with engineer and surveyors, surveyors do not wish to put engineering details on survey plats, so the recommendation from Mr. Perea is to attach an engineering sheet to the survey plat when its recorded showing the sidewalks, easements, roadway designs. Mr. Perea stated that sounds reasonable, all is needed is the four foot sidewalk easement indicated on the plat, so that future property owners are aware of that four foot easement across their property. Additionally, under the conditions number, The Town of Taos shall enforce any or all of the proposed Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to ensure that the interests of public health, safety, welfare, the requirements of the Town of Taos Land Use Development Code, and any applicable Town of Taos Municipal Ordinances are met. After conferring with the Town Attorney this condition is not necessary, it was determined the Town is not in the business of enforcing private covenants, the CC&R s were revised and is now satisfied as they were presented, so that last condition can be deleted from the staff report. Mr. Yaravitz clarified also that on the survey plat, it is identified a foot road easement which is the current design standard for the Town street and for the easement, it does include sidewalk to sidewalk in the engineering sheet put together to meet the requirements of a Class A. subdivision. Chairman Nicholson stated that since this is a PUD, the applicant is at liberty to suggest narrower street design standard at their discretion, is that not in the best interest. Mr. Yaravitz stated that is standard with the other subdivision with the foot easement seems to be OK, this foot is the smallest that the Town allows in a class A subdivision Page of 1

10 that does not have on street parking and the question more so is dealing with fire, safety, concurs that the style looking for is narrower streets, but this size would work. Chairman Nicholson asked if it was not worth the extra effort to get the agreement from the appropriate Town Staff. Mr. Yaravitz stated yes, it currently is a variance not requested on this subdivision. On condition number three, has no objection to that condition, basically, have met all conditions for approval in working with staff and asks the Commission for approval. Chairman Nicholson stated that he did not want to single Mr. Yaravitz out, but since he sits on the Affordable Housing task force, asked to describe what steps if any were taken to make this subdivision more affordable. Mr. Yaravitz stated that he is not at liberty to do that at this point, the property owner gave him specific parameters on what to do on this subdivision, there has been no pricing set, the owner does not know how he wants this developed, there may be an opportunity for a creative affordable housing group but until there is approval he was not interested on that topic at this time. Chairman Nicholson stated that at the last meeting, it was recommended to look at pocket parks, and asked why there were no pocket parks indicated. Mr. Yaravitz stated that he talked to the owner about that also, and he stated that he was already contributing 0 percent of his property for the trails system and why are you asking to give up more lots for pocket parks, he was not interested. Chairman Nicholson asked Rudy why the streets and the sidewalks are not to be dedicated to the Town. Mr. Yaravitz stated that at the DRC meeting the Public Works Director requested that the streets not be dedicated to the Town. Mr. Perea stated that he cannot answer for Public Works, in the DRC review it was discussed and the Public Works Director requested they not be dedicated. The Development Review Committee is formed to give the developer input on their project and give information necessary for completion. Commissioner Slator stated she has question on the bank stability on the arroyo, walked it today, it seemed pretty severe and very vertical, sees in the staff report that first condition, that the applicant not sell lots along that bank until a geotechnical report is submitted that addresses staff concerns about the long-term stability; is also concerned on the safety of the walking area, and most importantly the diversion of the waters for the particular water system. Mr. Yaravitz stated that the new IBC code has a different set of standards as far as distance from the edge, geotechnical reports and depth from the arroyo, Mr. Abeyta is working on these new regulations. Mr. Alex Abeyta is sworn in, stated that the new residential code calls for specific setbacks from the arroyo, or do a geotechnical report, the footage given on the trail easement and the additional setback footage is conservative as presented, the geotech Page of 1

11 report will probably show a lesser setback but if the Commission would like to see a report. Mr. Perea stated the geotechnical report called for in the staff report will address the issue of the long-term stability of the arroyo banks, the building official had concerns on those lots close to that stretch of the arroyo. Mr. Abeyta stated that the Town Council has already accepted the dedication of the trails, they have accepted any potential erosion that might affect the trail, we re assuring with our geotechnical report that any erosion of the channel will not affect building sites. Chairman Nicholson asked Rudy if the Council has accepted the trails. Rudy Perea stated that the Town Council did not officially accept the arroyos as open space, as he understands when the applicants appealed the preliminary plat review decision to the Council, the Council allowed the applicants to move forward with to the final plat with the understanding that they can dedicate the arroyos as open space, that official acceptance needs to take place by the Council and that will be a separate hearing. Rudy reminded the Commission and applicants of the PUD hearing process, after Council reviews the PUD, the code was revised to have the applicant appear before the Commission again after Council review. Chairman Nicholson opened the application for public comment. No Public comment noted. Chairman Nicholson closed the public hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberation. Commissioner Himes made a motion to approve P&Z00-1, based on the findings of fact in the staff report, and conditions two and three in the staff report; also, that a geotechnical firm be hired and supervised by the Town, paid for by the applicant to prepare a geotechnical report; the applicant will implement the recommendations in that geotechnical report or eliminate lots that are affected, if a conflict arises then the strictest recommendation will be implemented; if there are no significant changes in the application between now and tentative Council review then the Commission will allow staff to act as its approval agent and review final PUD eliminating that fourth hearing before the Commission; staff will not sign off on final plat until they are satisfied with the geotechnical report and that the all the recommendations have been applied; that the sidewalk easement is indicated on the engineering reports attached to the final plat. Commissioner Miller seconded the motion. Commissioner voting yes on the motion: Commissioner Grainger, Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Himes, Commissioner Slator, Commissioner Sanchez. Motion carried. Page of 1

12 PRELIMINARY PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. P&Z 00-0 Andres Vargas, property owner; requesting a Conditional Use Permit, to operate a professional office at residence located at 1 Camino de la Serna, in the R-1 Zone of the Town of Taos. Commissioner Miller recuses herself from considerations on this application. Chairman Nicholson confirmed the Commission still has a quorum. Mr. Andres Vargas is sworn in, stated all he wanted was to register his business in October and still does not have a business, he has never received a reason why he can t have a business license, was told to state where the business is to be located, and he indicated the location and confirmed that he had conducted business there for at least twenty years and the sign is still on the fence; in short, would like the Commission to approve the conditional use application to get a business license. Stated all his neighbors welcomed him back after being gone for seven years, states that he can conduct his business at any location he prefers. Commissioner Himes clarified the seven year lapse and asked Rudy about the physical address for the business. Mr. Perea stated that Mr. Vargas may have been grandfathered in whenever he was originally allowed to conduct business at his house, but because of the seven year lapse any grandfathering status goes away and now that he wants to return the new code requirements apply. Mr. Vargas stated that his issue was never addressed properly, there is no respect for procedural due process, there is no fairness in telling in writing why he can t have a business license and after having conferred with Mr. Benavidez he agreed a business license cannot be denied. Mr. Perea stated that the business registration form indicates that all codes need to be complied with prior to issuance of a business license, in this case his business is to be located in his house. Commissioner Grainger asked why Mr. Vargas has to go through all this process again, if he left for just a few years to practice in Santa Fe. Mr. Perea stated again, that because of the time lapse, if he had his practice in his home, any approvals he had received from the Planning Department, if he received any at all, goes away especially after that lapse in time, it becomes a non-conformity. The LUDC code allows an appeal from any decision of the code administrator, if an applicant applies for business registration all codes have to be complied with prior to issuance of a business license. Chairman Nicholson opened the application for public hearing. No public comment noted. Page of 1

13 Chairman Nicholson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sanchez made motion to schedule P&Z00-0 for public hearing on April. Commissioner Himes seconded the motion. Commissioners voting yes on the motion: Commissioner Grainger, Commissioner Himes, Commissioner Slator, Commissioner Sanchez. B. Case No. P&Z 00-0 John & Louise C. Blackwell, property owners; Sharon Porter of Tres Ventanas Architecture, P.C. agent; requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness, for new construction and remodeling. The 0. acre property is located at Ranchitos Road, in the R-1 Zone of the Town of Taos. Ms. Sharon Porter is sworn in, stating she is representing the property owners, the property consists of an upper main house and a lower house which is the subject of this application. It was constructed as a garage around the 0 s, wood frame, cinder block construction, non-contributing property. Ms. Porter walked the Commission through the submitted site plan in the application packet. Commissioner Grainger asked which part the owners will live in and if this a guest house proposed. Ms. Porter stated the Blackwells live in the main house, they have three children, there is a narrative attached that explains the project, they would like to use the new renovated building as a guest house, when the children visit. Ms. Porter continued explaining the application packet. Commissioner Himes asked how large the project will increase the floor plan. Ms. Porter stated the narrative explains, the existing square footage of the combined upper and lower level is 0 sq. ft. and so the second story addition proposed is sq. ft. less than the 0% requirement in the HOZ. Ms. Porter continued explaining the submitted application packet. Ms. Porter pointed the colors the owners prefer in another separate letter submitted to Rudy that the Commission received also, the butterscotch color is preferred with the blue door color. Commissioner Slator asked about the simulated divided light windows. Ms. Porter stated that she will submit the explanation of the simulated divided light windows. Page 1 of 1

14 Mr. Perea stated he had concerns on the proposed exterior elevations, sheet A-, the canopy on the west elevation is not in compliance on pueblo revival style buildings and on sheet A- there is a proposed skylight which is also not addressed in the code and finally, the doors are required to be painted natural weathered wood tones it cannot be blue. Commissioner Himes asked on sheet A- there is a portal and can t tell if it is a shed roof. Ms. Porter indicated on sheet A- what looks like a parapet is actually a guard rail. Ms. Porter asked Rudy what part of the code refers to skylights. Mr. Perea stated that the code does not address skylights as proposed, the point is, the code is silent on the skylight, therefore it is not allowed. Ms. Porter stated that s a section, showing the parapet that encumbers the skylight. Mr. Perea asked for that to be clarified in the drawings and also clarify on A- the new latilla canopy, awning, if those could be addressed at the next hearing. Chairman Nicholson opened the application for public comment. Ms. Terrie Mangat is sworn in, stated she lives two doors down from this property and walks everyday with her dog and this piece of property is the most dangerous for walking, it has a big latilla fence that comes right to the road, there is no room for sidewalk, and would prefer an easement for sidewalk for walking. Mr. Perea responded that this application is for certificate of appropriateness, the applicant would not be required to give easement for sidewalk, the two property owners and the state highway can work together for safer walking areas. No further public comment. Chairman Nicholson closed the public hearing and returned to the Commission for further comment. Commissioner Himes made motion to schedule case P&Z00-0 for public hearing on April. Commissioner Grainger seconded the motion. Commissioners voting yes on the motion: Commissioner Grainger, Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Himes, Commissioner Slator, Commissioner Sanchez. Page 1 of 1

15 C. Case No. P&Z 00-0 Tim & Janet Martinez, property owners; Abeyta Engineering Inc., Alex R. Abeyta, P.E., agent; requesting Variances on the required front and rear setbacks and lot size, to create two equal size tracts on a 0. acre property located at Sierra Vista Lane, in the R-1 Zone of the Town of Taos. Mr. Alex Abeyta is reminded he is still sworn in, stating he is representing the property owners and explained the application, are requesting variances on the lot size and setbacks, in order to separate the two existing buildings and sell separately. Chairman Nicholson asked what the nearby properties, what is the assessment on the immediate vicinity lot sizes. Mr. Abeyta referred the Commission to the property tax map, it appears there are some other lots that are in the area of ¼ acre to 1/ acre lot size. Commissioner Slator asked why these were not turned into condominiums. Mr. Abeyta stated the property owner would like to sell each lot separately. Chairman Nicholson opened the application for public comment. No further public comment. Chairman Nicholson closed the public hearing and returned to the Commission for further comment. Commissioner Himes asked if these properties are in the Historic Overlay zone, won t these lots become non-conforming properties. Mr. Perea stated that this is in the Historic Overlay zone, the underlying zoning standards are at issue here, not the building appropriateness, the only times the historic codes apply is if there is modifications to the buildings. Commissioner Slator made motion to schedule case P&Z00-0 for public hearing on April. Commissioner Miller seconded the motion. Commissioners voting yes on the motion: Commissioner Grainger, Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Himes, Commissioner Slator, Commissioner Sanchez. Page 1 of 1

16 D. Case No. P&Z 00-0 Harbhajan S. Khalsa, property owner; Jacob D. Caldwell, Esq., Natelson Law Firm, agent; requesting a Variance on the required lot size, for new construction. The 0.1 acre property is located at Montano Lane, in the R-1 Zone of the Town of Taos. Mr. Jacob Caldwell is sworn in, stating he is representing the property owners, who are requesting lot size variance to add another structure to the lot. The application packet contains the site plan proposed, indicating the two existing structures, the third structure proposed, the variance application explains the request. In the Development Review Committee meeting there were several concerns addressed. Has not heard any opposition from the neighbors, notice was given to the surrounding property owners, is willing to answer any questions at this time. Commissioner Grainger noted that the existing structures are in violation of the setback requirements, the parking is not appropriate and adding another structure will just add to those violations. Mr. Caldwell stated that at the next hearing he will address the parking, there will be parking along the latilla fence along Montano Lane, the new structure will have the appropriate parking spaces. Commissioner Grainger asked about the wall proposed if that is in compliance with the setback requirements. Rudy Perea stated that he will respond to the wall and the development review committee meeting. He has been permitting that type of wall within the setbacks, only if the fire department approves; in the development review committee meeting the fire department had a concern with the existing overhead power lines with the proposed twostory building; the police had concerns with access onto Montano Lane the clear sight triangle it is difficult to access onto Montano Lane; the Chief Building Official had concerns on the distance between the proposed building and existing residence; the parking issue was also discussed, all existing code requirements would apply and the code would require parking spaces; those were some concerns the committee had. Commissioner Grainger asked Rudy if the fire department could get a truck in the lot. Mr. Perea stated that they could but only with great difficulty the power lines were an issue, a letter from Kit Carson would be needed to indicate proposed burial of the lines. Commissioner Miller commented on the proposed variance request, from the required 1,000 sq. ft. to a requesting, sq. ft., that is a significant variance. Commissioner Himes stated the request before the Commission is for approval to add another building, and there should also be a request for certificate of appropriateness but that has not been presented yet, the number one point is if the practical difficulties were not created by the applicant, the prior split was not carefully considered to allow for the highest and best use according to R-1 zoning, that is exactly the difficulty of the applicant, what is there physically is really, really small, and there are a lot of variances in this project. Page 1 of 1

17 Commissioner Slator stated if you consider the variance criteria in the Code, most of the criteria apply, but the overall variances requested are just too substantial Commissioner Grainger stated that it seems the applicant has created the difficulties not anyone else. Chairman Nicholson stated that if the applicant could rework his application with assistance from staff to one potential outcome. Commissioner Himes stated that there is a huge amount of variances just to bring it into compliance, looking at the site plan, there are at least seven violations of the setback that would all have to be fixed just to move forward, just to bring into compliance, so there are seven separate variances outside of the proposed lot size to get the new unit in; and the parking and everything else, this lot is very difficult, it is not practical. Commissioner Slator stated there just has not been enough documented evidence to support such variances. Chairman Nicholson opened the application for public comment. No public comment noted. Chairman Nicholson closed the application and returned to the Commission for comment. Rudy Perea stated that the applicant will need a certificate of appropriateness if the variances are approved, so they still need more development review, they will need to follow more guidelines. Commissioner Grainger made a motion to deny case number P&Z00-0, the lot size variance request, based on the request being too substantial, the hardships were created by the property owner, the application does not meet the criteria for variance request. Commissioner Slator seconded the motion. Commissioners voting yes on the motion: Commissioner Grainger, Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Himes, Commissioner Slator, Commissioner Sanchez. Chairman Nicholson entertained a motion from the Commission to adjourn the meeting or extend the time and continue with the agenda. Commissioner Sanchez asked the Chairman to excuse him, as he is pre-scheduled to leave at :00pm. Chairman Nicholson excused Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioners Slator, Miller, Himes and Grainger all confirmed to remain and hear the remaining Agenda Cases. Page 1 of 1

18 Chairman Nicholson called for a ten minute break to determine if the Commission still has a quorum. Chairman Nicholson called the meeting to order, and confirmed a quorum is still established, Commissioners Slator, Miller, Grainger and himself. Rudy Perea confirmed a quorum of four is established. Commissioner Himes recused himself from hearing the next case. E. Case No. P&Z 00-0 Plaza de Retiro, property owner; Dave DiCicco, agent; requesting a Conditional Use Permit, and Certificate of Appropriateness, to construct 1 new units. The.1 acre property is located at Valverde Street, in the C- Zone of the Town of Taos. Mr. Dave DiCicco is sworn in, thanked the Commissioners for continuing, is representing the property owner who would like to construct 1 new residential units, part of the Plaza de Retiro development, this is the request for the conditional use permit within the C- zone; these units would be for those individuals who are more independent and can live in those casitas. The certificate of appropriateness is for the new construction of the units in the Historic Overlay Zone. The model for these units are shown in light grey along Valverde St. in the site plan, the units will be identical to those existing, designed for those who need minimal assistance, there are two existing units at this time. On the site plan, indicated the school property location, described the sidewalk proposed to connect to the downtown walking area. Have plans for parking spaces, extensive landscape plan. Had a development meeting with Town staff, in regard to a storage building that may need to be removed; talked about additional fire hydrant; the driveways were designed for fire truck access. The elevations of the buildings are the same that were approved in 00, these are on the northwest off Valverde, the drawing details are included in the packet, color charts marked, windows are bronze, exterior woodwork is stained, straightforward single-story pueblo-revival style units, adobe or rastra block, simulated divided light windows. Request is for certificate of appropriateness for all the units, with the understanding that the interior of the units will change, so that the owners have flexibility within the unit. Commissioner Grainger stated that when the owner built those existing units in 00 he informed the Commission that he was not going to add more units; has a concern with the access onto Civic Plaza drive area, and has concern with using Manzanares only as an emergency access; and has a concern with the tenants accessing the main campus for assistance. Mr. DiCicco stated that the tenants in these units will be self-sufficient, independent tenants who need little assistance; staff has plans to pave and improve Civic Plaza all the way to Valverde with curb. Rudy Perea stated that for the next hearing on the site plan he would like to see the exact location of the fire hydrants and the emergency gate on the property to see what the gate look like; there was some discussion of demolishing the shed to allow visibility onto the Page 1 of 1

19 street and the property owner was in favor of doing that to give the Town a better intersection, that could be one of the conditions of approval; also recommends acquiring a letter from Public Works giving exact time of the street improvements. Commissioner Miller asked about the parking spaces, it indicates but only counted. Mr. DiCicco pointed out the total parking spaces on the site plan and will provide a parking plan next month. Chairman Nicholson stated that a landscape plan should also be provided and a construction staging plan and drainage and grading plan; asked about the sidewalk to the east, if that was owned by the Town or part of this property; stressed the importance to having a breakaway gate not just for fire truck access. Mr. DiCicco explained the reason for the emergency gate not to have a drive through road and stated that sidewalk will be built and it is on this owners property. Chairman Nicholson asked Rudy to get proof from the emergency trucks proving they cannot backup their trucks, this asphalted barrier essentially is a poor use of space. Commissioner Grainger had a concern with the elderly drivers and the safety of all the children in area after school is out, will there be a chain link fence, it seems like a real safety issue. Mr. DiCicco stated there will be a retaining wall along the chain link fence that is already there. Commissioner Slator stated in regard to the certificate of appropriateness, she was uncomfortable saying this is a typical style building and in the historic district there should be a numbering of dwellings do distinguish which building is to built on the lots; had a concern with canale needs to see detail; needs more specs on the divided light windows; the beveling on the buildings corners; the colors need discussion on the bronze windows. Chairman Nicholson asked if the architecture could vary, its too monotonous. Mr. DiCicco stated that the Code has strict guidelines, will talk to the property owner. Rudy Perea noted that on A- on the rear elevations, it looks like a metal mechanical room door, the code does not allow for metal doors, that needs to be corrected; on the issues related to the architecture itself the Commission should discuss the bronze color and maybe a sample of that color would help. Chairman Nicholson opened the application for public comment. No public comment noted. Chairman Nicholson closed the public hearing and entertained a motion on the application. Page 1 of 1

20 Commissioner Slator made a motion to schedule case no. P&Z00-0 to public hearing on April, with the following conditions in regard to the conditional use permit, that the applicants submit a construction staging plan, a grading and drainage plan, a landscape plan, details on the emergency gate and exit details, letter from the fire department on the need of the emergency gate, description on the open space and percentage, the shed removal plan, a letter from Public Works regarding egress onto Civic Plaza drive, fire hydrant plan, STA traffic report, a letter from Public Works on the timeframe on the improvements on Civic Plaza. In regard to the certificate of appropriateness would like to see elevation commitments and numbered dwellings on the basic plot plan, more information on the parapet detail, windows, and swatch of color, the mechanical room door cannot be metal, the possibility of variations on the architectural details. Commissioner Grainger seconded the motion. Commissioner voting yes on the motion: Commissioner Grainger, Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Slator. Chairman Nicholson voted in the affirmative. F. Case No. P&Z 00-0 Plaza de Colores, property owner; Marty Santistevan, agent; requesting a Variance from the Sign Ordinance, to construct an identification monument sign. The property is located at 0 Paseo del Pueblo Sur, in the C- Zone of the Town of Taos. Commissioner Himes returned to the meeting. Mr. DiCicco is reminded he is sworn in, stated he is representing Mr. Santistevan and who has a signed a letter in that regard; the sign variance is for the Plaza de Colores project, the project was developed with an original plan for the signage with only one sign, but have recently discovered that the spaces will not rent out until each individual business has its own signage. The request is for a monument sign in the front of the building at the southeast entrance, for each individual space rented as shown in the packet drawing, and it is an internally lit sign. Have found that this is the only business in Town that follows the sign ordinance would like to request this for the property owner to properly rent the spaces out. Chairman Nicholson commended the property on the finished project, asked Rudy if the new sign ordinance will be enforced on the existing signs, will that be in a certain number of years. Rudy Perea stated that is correct, the sign ordinance requires existing sign compliance within five years from the date of the approval from May 00, technically they have to be in compliance by May 0. Commissioner Grainger stated that the building and landscaping are beautiful, but thinks the monument sign would cause a problem in regard to egress from the parking on the south side, its tight to get out; also in regard to the 0 foot sign it is rather tall. Page 0 of 1