|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MINUTES
May 7 2014
Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting
Town Council Chambers - 120 Civic Plaza Drive
5:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
CALL TO ORDER BY THE CHAIRMAN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm.
(No Audio or DVD Available at this point in the meeting) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No DVD available showing Roll Call
Those present were:
Billy Romero
Dennis Garcia
Justin Lea
Pavel Lukes
Eddie Lucero
Also present were:
Planning, Zoning and Buildings Director, Martha Perkins
Senior Planner, Amy Rincon
Town Attorney, Jacob Caldwell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No DVD available showing Pledge of Allegiance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No DVD Available showing Approval of Agenda.
Commissioner Lukes made a motion to approve the Agenda.
Commissioner Lucero seconded the motion. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | A. | Planning & Zoning Minutes 3/5/2014 | | | | | | | | P&Z Minutes 3/5/2014 | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | No DVD available showing Approval of Minutes for the March 5, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Garcia made a motion to approve the Meeting Minutes from the March 5, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Lukes seconded the motion. The motion was Passed. Those voting AYE were: Commissioners: Romero,Garcia, Lea, Lukes, Lucero | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | B. | Planning & Zoning Minutes 4/2/2014 | | | | | | | | P&Z Minutes 4/2/2014. | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | No DVD available showing Approval of Minutes from the April 2, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Garcia made a motion to approve the Meeting Minutes from the April 2, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Lucero seconded the motion. The motion was Passed. Those voting AYE were: Commissioners: Romero, Garcia, Lea, Lukes, Lucero | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | No DVD available showing the Citizens Forum
No one came forward. | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Citizens wishing to speak shall limit their comments to 5 minutes or less at the Chairman's discretion. No action may be taken. | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | A. | Case No. PZ 2014-7 Rezoning Request from C-1 and C-2 to C-2 | | | | | | | | Continuation of consideration and possible approval of a request for a Zone Change from C-1(Neighborhood commercial) and C-2(General Commercial) to C-2(General Commercial) for approximately 8.789 acres located at 1127 Paseo del Pueblo Sur with the Town of Taos limits. The property owner is Goose 24 LLC., with Agent Mark Yaravitz. | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | No DVD available for first part of Item 8. Public Hearings A. Case No. PZ2014-7 Rezoning request from C-1 and C-2 to C-2.
Mr. Mark Yaravitz commented there was not much difference between C-1 and C-2. He didn't see much difference in whatever traffic would be created in a C-1 zone and a C-2 zone. The round-abouts on Paseo del Canon East were designed to handle more traffic than what is currently being generated. Mr Yaravitz stated he does not think that the traffic generated on Gusdorf with a C-1 or C-2 zone will be that much different. Mr. Yaravitz stated this property is the center of Town and gave a summary of an expired access permit from the New Mexico Department of Transportation and asked to add the letter of expiration to the Record to show what had been approved. Mr. Yaravitz stated his concerns on developers coming in from out of town wanting to place a business there and having to deal with two zones and thus two sets of rules.
Commissioner Lukes had lots of questions. He didn't understand what the problem was with rezoning the property.
Chairman Lea asked if anybody was signed in to speak.
Those signed in to speak were:
Stevens Hall - Mr. Hall spoke against the rezoning and stated there was nothing wrong with split zoning.
Chairman Lea closed the public discussion and asked the Commissioners if they had any further discussion.
Chairman Lea asked questions concerning the process of the site plan approval.
Ms. Perkins explained the current code reads they are combining the rezoning with the site plan which is contract zoning. Ms. Perkins stated the code needs to be changed and she described the process that she is using now.
Chairman Lea asked the acreage of the property fronting Gusdorf.
Mr. Yaravitz answered three and a half acres exists in the front off of Paseo and five acres in the back off of Gusdorf Road. The larger half is zoned C-1.
Commissioner Lukes made a motion to approve Case No.PZ2014-7 Rezoning from C-1 to C-2 based on findings of facts and staff recommendations.
Commissioner Lucero seconded the motion. The motion was Passed. Those voting AYE were: Commissioners: Garcia, Lea, Lukes, Lucero
Commissioner Romero abstained. | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | B. | Case No. PZ 2014-8 Variance for 214 Morada Lane | | | | | | | | Consideration and possible approval of a request for a Variance in lot size for approximately 0.037 acres at 214 Morada Lane within the Town of Taos. The Applicant, Erin Duddy, who is also the property owner is requesting this variance. | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Ms. Amy Rincon gave a summary on Case No. PZ2014-8 Variance for 214 Morada Lane and stated she would like the staff report added to the record.
Ms. Martha Perkins stated in addition to the Lot Size Variance the applicant is also requesting a Variance for all the development standards. Ms. Perkins gave a summary on the background of the property.
Commissioner Garcia stated he doesn't understand why, since it is an existing structure and was granted way back when it took place; they were bringing it to the Commission to make modifications to what was already approved way back when.
Ms. Martha Perkins explained there has not been any changes to the property since 1999. The applicant and the previous owners have not made any changes to the structure. She stated the problem is the structure is a non conforming use. Financial institutions are getting more strict, which may make this property harder to sell in the future. Also the appraiser did not make any adjustment for this duplex being a non conforming use, which had been approved administratively.
The Applicant, Erin Duddy, spoke briefly and explained Centinel Bank urged her to seek a variance. She stated she has no intention of adding to or selling the house. It is just in the event that something horrible happens, like a fire, so she can rebuild the house.
Chairman Lea opened the Public Hearing.
Nancy Woodworth came forward. Ms. Woodworth questioned if there had ever been a building permit for the property. She stated her concerns about putting a duplex on a piece of property that is so tiny. There are parking issues. Ms. Woodworth stated by giving a variance or building permit after the fact staff is rewarding illegal building in Town. It has happened too many times. Ms. Woodworth asked if the house were to burn to the ground what would be allowed to be built there on the size of that lot.
The Commission answered nothing could be built unless there is a variance.
Ms. Woodworth stated it should never have been built to begin with. She stated there have three owners in three years and who knows in the next ten years. Ms. Woodworth stated she does not like to reward people for building illegally and then asking for variances after the fact.
Chairman Lea stated they agree as a Commission; they are not trying to give out rewards for people taking advantage of the system.
Ms. Martha Perkins stated she had a letter from a neighbor, Catherine Jones that she would like to read into the record. Ms. Catherine Jones' letter supported Ms. Duddy's request for a variance. She stated that she was more concern about how the Historic Kit Carson Park lost its Historic Overlay Zoning, which has more impact on this neighborhood.
Ms. Nancy Woodworth stated the adjoining neighbor on the other side built that structure, subdivided it, and stated it is a non-conforming lot. Ms. Woodworth does not know their name.
Commissioner Romero stated if there was a Certificate of Occupancy issued on the house that it seems like the Commission cannot act on variance.
Chairman Lea stated he thinks the applicant is just essentially clearing up the record.
Commissioner Lukes stated they were legitimizing what happened.
Commissioner Garcia stated he wanted to follow up on those lines. He understands they are correcting something that the Town approved. If the Commission is approving this, then the minutes need to reflect why the Commission is providing the approval. Mr. Garcia thinks it is important to document the Commissions reasons behind approving the lot size variance, because he can see other neighbors coming in and requesting this.
Mr. Jacob Caldwell stated he wanted to back up the comments made by Mr. Garcia. It strikes him as a slippery slope issue; he does not have a solution for it; and he agrees with Ms. Perkins that this house and lot is currently a non-conforming use, which doesn't mean it is an illegal use. It is perfectly legal under the Towns definition of non-conforming use because they recognize it. It is not a typical non-conforming use in the sense that it didn't exist prior to the zoning regulations that went into effect, but the Town will have a very tough time arguing that it can't be continued. Mr. Caldwell stated the real question is do we have an obligation to allow this use to continue if it abandoned or destroyed. These are two examples of the the type of things that could happen to non-conforming use, which would make it go away. The Town Land Use Code does not encourage the survival of non-conformities. Mr. Caldwell made it clear to the Commission that the policy of the Town is not to encourage non-conformities to continue after destruction. Mr. Caldwell stated he is not saying the applicant didn't have the option of making a variance. When he thinks of a variance he thinks of a hardship. He thinks that is the gap that may be bridged here. There may be a recognition that there is a real hardship that wasn't brought on by this particular owner, but she is trying to remedy it. He thinks the Comission has the means to do that through the variance procedure, but it is not ideal. It would be his desire if the Commission were to proceed with granting the variance that they would condition the granting of the variance in such a way that they prevent other non-conforming uses from coming in and trying to accomplish the same thing.
Chairman Lea stated one issue with other non-conforming uses is the Commission's standard policy to treat each case on an individual basis. The Commission will not develop a trend or pattern. They have proven that in the past.
Commissioner Lukes made a motion to approve Case No. PZ2014-8 Variance for 214 Morada Lane based on staff recommendation and findings of fact and the fact that the applicants reasoning for this variance is hardship if we were not to grant this variance; hardship that was not caused by the applicant.
Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion. The motion was Passed. Those voting AYE were: Commissioners: Romero, Garcia, Lea, Lukes, Lucero | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | C. | Case No. PZ 2014-12 Conditional Use Permit for a daycare at 114 Dona Luz | | | | | | | | Consideration and possible approval of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare to be located at 114 Dona Luz within the Town of Taos. The Applicants Inspire Bilingual Early Learning Center, owners Rachel Wetmore and Taylor Etchemendy with the property owner Michael Barrett of Sun Ripened Moon, are requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare. | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Ms. Amy Rincon gave summary on the Staff Report for Case No. 2014-12 Conditional Use Permit for a daycare at 114 Dona Luz and stated she would like the staff report to be added to the record.
Ms. Rachel Wetmore gave a presentation on Case No. 2014-12. Ms. Wetmore stated they received a grant for a Pre-K Program. They are preparing children for the dual language programs the elementary schools are offering.
Chairman Lea opened the Public Hearing.
Those in attendance to speak were:
Cecilia Griffin - Ms. Griffins is not thrilled about it, her concerns were the noise, how long the children will be outside, the traffic and where the parents will be dropping the children off and picking them up.
John Lacher - Mr. Lacher is one of the owners of the Las Casitas on Padre Martinez Lane. His concerns were traffic on Padre Lane. He hopes that access is not blocked throughout the day. He hopes they don't take away the minimal parking that is already on Padre Lane. He would like the applicants to send a copy to Bill Jenson so they can find out more about the project before it is granted.
Chairman Lea asked if the neighbors were notified.
Ms. Perkins stated the database is outdated and apologized if they missed anyone; it was not their intent.
Ms. Rincon stated they can check it. There is a map in the application showing the 300 feet.
Chairman Lea asked if notice was sent to Mr. Jenson and Mr. Lacher.
Ms. Rincon stated she did not see them on the list.
Ms Perkins stated the applicants posted a notice on the property and placed a legal ad in the newspaper.
Ms. Wetmore apologized. She did send notices to all the property owners that were on the list. Ms. Wetmore stated the hours of operation were going to be 7:30 am to 5:30 pm and parents start dropping off their children between 8:00 am and 9:30 am. The children are not all there between 7:30 am to 5:30 pm. That is just the hours they are open. Staff arrives at 7:30 am. At their current location they have not had many cars there at the same time.
Ms. Taylor Etchemendy stated Padre Martinez will not be used by parents at all. The staff will park back there.
Ms. Wetmore stated there are four staff and six parking spaces.
Commissioner Lucero questioned Ms. Perkins concerning them taking up all the parking in the front. Why is the applicant taking away parking in that commercial zone?
Ms. Perkins explained it is in the code under the Historic Overlay in the Commercial Business District. The code states that you do not have to provide additional parking for the buildings that are there. In addition, Ms. Perkins stated they need to have a fenced play area for the children per the state requirements for having a daycare.
Ms. Wetmore stated there will only be six children out there at a time.
Ms. Etchemendy stated the children at that center are ages 6 weeks to 2 years old so they will be quiet. They will be inside most of the time but when they take them out there will be six at a time. They will take the children in the buggies to the park or they go across to the other playground.
Commissioner Lucero asked why they did not consider placing the play area in the back. Ms. Wetmore stated there were power lines in the back, so it does not meet licensing requirements.
Ms. Wetmore stated there will not be a set recess time. It is dependent on the children napping. They are licensed for 25 children but do not intend to have that many; they plan to have 15 to 20 children.
Mr. Lacher stated he could not speak for everybody but he suspects none of them are against the bilingual daycare center. His only concern is Dona Luz is very narrow, that it doesn't get congested and that the applicants work with them if there are any problems. Mr. Lacher stated he does not have any objections.
Ms. Griffin stated she wanted to make it clear that children will not be dropped of on Dona Luz.
Ms. Wetmore and Ms. Etchemendy confirmed they would not be dropping the children of on Dona Luz.
Chairman Lea closed the public meeting.
Commissioner Lukes made a motion to approve Case No. PZ2014-12 Conditional Use Permit for a daycare at 114 Dona Luz based on findings of facts and recommendation of staff with the stipulation that any traffic will be discouraged on Padre Martinez Lane and to the extent they can on Dona Luz by the applicant.
Commissioner Romero seconded the motion.
Chairman Lea asked if there was any discussion from the Commissioners.
A discussion ensued between the Commissioners concerning putting so many stipulations within the motion and making it too restrictive for the applicant. Must the applicant ask their clients not to use Dona Luz and Padre Martinez be in the motion? A stipulation by the Commission should be simply asking the applicant to inform their clients not to unload on the roadways. How do the applicants feel about it?
The applicants stated drop off and pick up locations were stated in their policy and procedures.
Chairman Lea stated stipulations are discouraged but in this particular case it is non-binding. He feels it is a good faith effort by the applicant who really want to make sure their neighbors are happy. Chairman Lea stated the motion stands.
The motion was Passed. Those voting AYE were: Commissioners: Romero, Garcia, Lea, Lukes, Lucero
| | | | |
| | | | | | | | | 9. | MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | A. | Jake Brake Ordinance | | | | | | | | Discussion and possible direction to staff on the creation of a Jake Brake Ordinance to prohibit the unlawful use of engine compression brakes within the Town of Taos. | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Ms. Martha Perkins explained this item was a request from Commissioner Lukes. She gave an explanation concerning jake braking along Paseo del Pueblo Sur and Paseo del Pueblo Norte where the culturally significant buildings are within downtown Taos. It creates a lot of noise and vibration. They are concerned about the buildings downtown. The Historic Preservation Commission suggested the Town have a jake brake ordinance. Ms. Perkins stated they have two examples of ordinances from other municipalities.
A discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff. The Commissioners directed staff to write a jake brake ordinance and to bring it back to the Commission.
Commissioner Lukes stated they should address the issue of Boom Boxes. He was told there is a noise ordinance but stated the ordinance is meaningless. It doesn't do anything. No enforcement is provided. He stated he thinks there is nothing more obscene or obnoxious than a car that vibrates down the road and vibrates everything within 300 yards. He thinks it is pollution, evasive and he doesn't think it does anything for the welfare of this community or its visitors. Commissioner Lukes asked if there was a way to address that issue specifically, a boom box ordinance aside from the noise ordinance.
Mr. Jacob Caldwell stated he is sure there is a way and can be looked into.
A discussion ensued concerning the boom boxes.
| | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | A motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Lucero to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
| | | | |
| | | | | | | | APPROVED:
_____________________________________
Chairperson | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | PLEASE NOTE: The Town of Taos video records all meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission.Copies of DVDs are available upon request at the Town Clerk's Office located at 400 Camino de la Placita (575-751-2005) at a fee of $5.00 per recording. Additionally, video recordings can be viewed at www.mediataos.org. You may also view agendas, agenda packets, and minutes at http://public.taosgov.com/. | | | | |
|