[Neighbors] Fwd: Larger neon sign for the Carlisle Condos.

Fri Mar 23 14:17:00 MDT 2018

Dear neighbors:

Sam, that's a great point. Yes, a variance would require a public process which is subject to greater scrutiny. More importantly, a variance requires the applicant to prove the property is exceptional and warrants special treatment. This usually requires showing that special circumstances apply to the subject property that do not apply to other surrounding properties such as size, shape, topography, location, or physical characteristics and create unnecessary hardship for the property owner. (See attachment - Variance criteria for CABQ Zoning Hearing Examiner.)

It is very likely that neither of these commercial properties would have met the criteria for a variance. Therefore, the City may be using a "minor change" as a substitute for a variance because the criteria for a "minor change" does not require a public hearing or proof that the property is exceptional. However, Section 14-16-4-3(D)(2) was written as it was because it must apply to all similarly zoned properties, otherwise, it would directly violate state laws that ensure fair treatment.
If the City is applying the "minor change" provision to individual properties it is effectively using it as a variance, and may be violating state law in the process.

-Veronica

    On Thursday, March 22, 2018, 3:38:33 PM MDT, Sam Bawcum via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com> wrote:  
I believe that the primary question here is "In regards to a single or specific property, why was this put through as a 'minor request' change to the Sector Plan rather than going through a variance process?", which would be subject to greater public scrutiny.  This seems to be a go-around and lacks due transparency that would be more prevalent, and appropriate, in a variance request.
Sam

-----Original Message-----
From: Davis, Pat via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com>
To: neighbors <neighbors at nobhill-nm.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 22, 2018 2:34 pm
Subject: [Neighbors] Fwd:  Larger neon sign for the Carlisle Condos.

Neighbors, I wanted to respond to the concerns shared on the Listserve this morning about the sign approval for The Carlisle. 

It was mistakenly shared that this change would apply to other properties in the neighborhood. I asked our planning staff and attorneys to review that allegation. You can see their analysis below.

As always, if you have other questions about land-use you can always ask the staff in my office to provide some guidance. That’s what we are here for. 

Pat Davis
-City Councilor

_____________________________
From: Foran, Sean M. <seanforan at cabq.gov>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 2:00 PM
Subject: FW: [Neighbors] Larger neon sign for the Carlisle Condos.
To: Davis, Pat <patdavis at cabq.gov>

Councilor Davis,

I asked Shanna to take a look at Veronica’s interpretation of the recent Administrative Amendments; she is incorrect in saying that the amendments apply to the entire Sector Plan.

Shanna’s response is below.

Thanks,
Sean

***

Hi Sean,

Veronica’s interpretation of Administrative Amendments (AA) is not correct – the allowed deviationsdo not apply to the entire sector plan. The Notice of Decision for the two recent AAs in the Nob Hill area (Copper/Aliso and Carlisle/Central) specifically state that the allowed deviations areproperty specific (see below). The same deviations allowed via these AAs would not be allowed on any other properties outside of the properties that made each request. This means, in the most recent example,only The Carlisle development will be able to utilize the additional sign height. I also reviewed the LUHO’s Notice of Decision for both cases and did not see him elude to the idea that the AAs would be applicable throughout the sector plan.

I’ve chatted with Council’s legal staff, who typically reviews and handles land use appeals, and he concurred with this position.

Shanna Schultz,MPA, MCRP
Policy Analyst - Planning
Albuquerque City Council
505.768.3185
smschultz at cabq.gov

======================================================= 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

_______________________________________________
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/20180323/a2d6abd5/attachment.html>