[Neighbors] Larger neon sign for the Carlisle Condos.

Fri Mar 23 13:49:12 MDT 2018

When were the neon sign decisions made?  What is the time frame for filing an appeal?  

Nancy Koenigsberg

*****************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT:  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under law. Any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all attachments without copying it and notify Disability Rights New Mexico by return email, or call 505-256-3100.

-----Original Message-----
From: Neighbors_nobhill-nm [mailto:neighbors_nobhill-nm-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Davis, Pat via Neighbors_nobhill-nm
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 1:31 PM
To: Eliza Peralta; Dave Dixon
Cc: neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com
Subject: Re: [Neighbors] Larger neon sign for the Carlisle Condos.

Eliza and Dave, 

I appreciate your email.  As you may know, city councilors do not have any standing to challenge a decision made under the planning department's administrative authority.  Instead, the Neighborhood Association is empowered to do that.  There is a tight timeline for filing challenges so I encourage you to use the process the board has established to review zoning and planning decisions.  

pat

Pat Davis
City Councilor, District 6
Phone 505.768.3100 | email | website |

________________________________________
From: Neighbors_nobhill-nm [neighbors_nobhill-nm-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] on behalf of Eliza Peralta via Neighbors_nobhill-nm [neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 10:31 AM
To: Dave Dixon
Cc: neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com
Subject: Re: [Neighbors] Larger neon sign for the Carlisle Condos.

Frankly, I am appalled. This is not a minor change. Plus, giving special treatment to these two establishments only sets precedents for other businesses to claim they want/need the same treatment .I definitely stand with Veronica Salinas and I second Dave Dixon's statements. I ask that Pat Davis, Sean Foran and Tim Keller stand with us as well and not just quote statements from the planning department who are not capable of following their own guidelines.

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Dave Dixon via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com<mailto:neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com>> wrote:

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><mailto:theboard at nobhill-nm.com>; Greg Weirs <vgweirs at gmail.com><mailto:vgweirs at gmail.com>
Cc: Nob Hill <neighbors at nobhill-nm.com><mailto:neighbors at nobhill-nm.com>; Elizabeth Vencill <e at esvlawfirm.com><mailto: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<tel:(505)%20265-9995>
vgweirs at gmail.com<mailto:vgweirs at gmail.com>

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

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

--

Eliza Peralta, RN BSN

=======================================================
This message has been analyzed by Deep Discovery Email Inspector.

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