[Neighbors] Larger neon sign for the Carlisle Condos.

Sam Bawcum via Neighbors_nobhill-nm neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com
Thu Mar 22 07:51:40 MDT 2018




-----Original Message-----
From: Veronica Salinas via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com>
To: TheBoard NobHill-NM <theboard at nobhill-nm.com>; Greg Weirs <vgweirs at gmail.com>
Cc: Nob Hill <neighbors at nobhill-nm.com>; Elizabeth Vencill <e at esvlawfirm.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 22, 2018 7:33 am
Subject: Re: [Neighbors] Larger neon sign for the Carlisle Condos.




            







Dear Neighbors:



The new Planning Director, David S. Campbell, just approved another "minor change" to the Nob Hill Highland Sector Development Plan (see attached).



As the Land Use Hearing Officer (LUHO) pointed out during the Copper/Aliso appeal, a "minor change" cannot apply to one property, it must apply to the entire sector plan (see note below). This means that with the approval of this "minor change", the size limit on signage is no longer 18", it is now 30" for SU-2/CCR-2 in Nob Hill. 


(Note: Section 14-16-4-3(D)(2) of the Comprehensive Zoning Code states "The Planning Director may approve minor changes to an approved Sector Development Plan..." By definition the "minor change" is made to a sector plan not a property. Therefore, point (9) does not apply. The Planning Director, David S. Campbell, must know this since he is a very experienced Land Use Attorney with over 35 years of experience. See  https://www.cabq.gov/planning/code-enforcement/comprehensive-city-zoning-code.)


Same with the Copper/Aliso appeal. The 3-story, 39-foot maximum building height limits no longer apply in CCR-2. City Council's decision to reject our appeal increased the maximum building height to 4-stories, 42 feet in CCR-2 because, by definition, the "minor change" must apply to the entire sector plan, not just one property.


Ditto self-storage units. City Council's decision to reject our appeal means self-storage units no longer require a conditional use permit through a public hearing process. Self-storage units are now a permissive use in CCR-2 in Nob Hill.



Further, I don't see why any of these "minor changes" should be limited to CCR-2. If the "minor change" is (1) consistent with other written requirements (2) the building is of the same general size (3) vehicular circulation is similar or not affected and (4) the community is not substantially aggrieved, then the "minor change" could apply to CCR-1 in lower Nob Hill or CCR-3 in Highland, too.



I do not think this is going to stop with the implementation of the new IDO. If the "minor change" provision makes it in to the new IDO, the new Planning Director just demonstrated a willingness to continue using it.



-Veronica



                        














                        
                
                                        
                        On Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 11:17:03 PM MDT, Greg Weirs <vgweirs at gmail.com> wrote:                    
                    


                    


                    



I don't get those letters.


Changing the signage requires a conditional use, I think; if not, then a variance. When staples went into the Daskalos they needed a special exception for their larger (30") letters, as did IMEC on Amherst.


Greg



On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Timothy Jack Ross <ross at unm.edu> wrote:

All,
I am in receipt of a letter from the City’s Planning Department, approving a request by the Carlisle Condominiums LLC, to increase the height of their neon signage letters from 18 inches to 30 inches.  A copy of the letter was sent to the Nob Hill NA and the SE Heights NA.  I expect Adrian also got this letter and, perhaps, Greg.  


I don’t recall this matter being first considered by our Board prior to city action.  Does such a “minor change to the Sector Plan" have to go before our Board?  In case this is a surprise to us, I would ask that this matter be placed on our April meeting agenda.
Thanks.
Tim




 
I agree that such a "minor change" undermines the Sector Development Plan.  This issue falls under Variance and should have been presented as such.  What are our options to address this and to have Mr. Campbell rescind this action?
Sam







-- 

Greg Weirs
505 265 9995
vgweirs at gmail.com


                
            

_______________________________________________
Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com
https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm



More information about the Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list