[Neighbors] Larger neon sign for the Carlisle Condos.

Thu Mar 22 18:22:57 MDT 2018

Isn't that a distinction without a difference. If two deviations in a 
row are approved, there might as well not be a standard, since every 
applicant afterward will use these two as precedents.

On 03/22/2018 08:49 AM, Jim Strozier via Neighbors_nobhill-nm wrote:
>
> Veronica,
>
> I am sorry, but your email is not accurate on several points:
>
> The minor amendment regarding the Carlisle Sign is specific to that 
> property and that property only. If a text amendment had been proposed 
> (it was not), then the change would apply to the entire Sector Plan. 
> There are two separate processes. The application and the approval was 
> specific to the signs for The Carlisle. I am happy to share the 
> specifics if people are interested. The approval letter you attached 
> very clearly states that the amendment is for this property and 
> project only.
>
> The City Council's rejection of the NHNA's appeal on the Copper Aliso 
> did not change the height allowed in the zone. It confirmed the City 
> staff's interpretation of the height and the allowable decorative 
> parapet provision. Once again, it did not change the height allowed in 
> the CCR-2 zone. This appeal was also rejected because it was not filed 
> timely, however the LUHO's analysis also rejected the NHNA's appeal on 
> the merits.
>
> The rejection of the appeal for the self storage project was solely 
> based on the fact that the appeal was not filed timely. It was 
> determined to have been filed late. The LUHO actually agreed with the 
> NHNA that the storage use should have been done as a Conditional Use, 
> but since the appeal was not filed in time, the project is allowed to 
> continue.
>
> Once again the minor change approved for The Carlisle do not affect 
> any other properties within the CCR-2 zone, only this one. The request 
> and the justification for that was specific to that project and 
> property only.
>
> I personally worked on both the Copper Aliso Appeal and the signage 
> request for The Carlisle. I did not work on the self storage project, 
> but did review the LUHO recommendation.
>
> I think it is important for the neighborhood to have accurate 
> information on these matters.
>
> Jim Strozier
>
> *From:* Neighbors_nobhill-nm 
> [mailto:neighbors_nobhill-nm-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] *On Behalf Of 
> *Veronica Salinas via Neighbors_nobhill-nm
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 22, 2018 6:27 AM
> *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>
> *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 <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Greg Weirs
> 505 265 9995
> vgweirs at gmail.com <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.swcp.com/pipermail/neighbors_nobhill-nm/attachments/20180322/4e17ae4d/attachment.html>