[Neighbors] Larger neon sign for the Carlisle Condos.

Sat Mar 24 15:07:02 MDT 2018

 Dear Neighbors:
There was some confusion about how my response to Jim Strozier was posted. Here is the original e-mail.

-Veronica

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Veronica Salinas <veronique_salinas at yahoo.com> wrote:

Jim,
You are eithermistaken or you misrepresent the matter.

It doesn't matterwhat the Planning Director said in his approval letter, he cannot restrict a"minor change" to a specific parcel. 

That is not only myinterpretation. That is how the City Council's Land Use Hearing Officer (LUHO)interpreted Section 14-16-4-3(D)(2) at the Copper appeal hearing on January 22,2018.

I'm surprised youdon't remember. I remember it well because I had not read the provision thisway and was stunned to hear the LUHO's interpretation of how a "minorchange" cannot be restricted to a single property. 

I believe it happenedduring an exchange between the LUHO and Planning Department Division Manager,Russell Brito. The LUHO pointed out that the language in Section14-16-4-3(D)(2) authorizes the Planning Director to make a "minorchange" to a Sector Plan not a single property. He further stated that a"minor change" cannot be restricted to a single property, even if thePlanning Director explicitly states it in the approval letter, because thelanguage simply doesn't allow for it. Russell Brito confirmed the LUHO'sinterpretation.

This exchange is onrecord and can be confirmed with the audio or written transcript of the appealhearing. 

A plain reading ofSection 14-16-4-3(D)(2) below, confirms the LUHO is correct in hisinterpretation. There is no language anywhere in this section that authorizesthe Planning Director to approve a "minor change" for a specificparcel or to restrict a change to a specific parcel once a "minorchange" to a Sector Plan has been approved. Therefore, the "minorchanges" approved for the Copper/Aliso and Carlisle properties necessarilyapply to the entire Sector Plan.

Section 14-16-4-3(D)(2)of the Albuquerque Comprehensive Zoning Code states, "The PlanningDirector may approve minor changes to an approved Sector Development Planor Landscaping Plan if it is consistent with the use and other writtenrequirements approved by the Landscaping Commission or City Council, if thebuildings are of the same general size, the vehicular circulation is similar inits effect on adjacent property and streets, and the approving official findsthat neither the city or any person will be substantially aggrieved by the alteredplan." (Emphasis is mine.)

-Veronica

    On Thursday, March 22, 2018, 10:29:36 AM MDT, Christine Mermier <cmermier at unm.edu> wrote:  

Hello Jim and neighbors-  On a slightly different and less pressing topic, but the difference in the cleanliness of the site on Carlisle vs. the one on Aliso is striking.  I even had out-of-town visitors comment on what a mess and trash heap the site at Aliso and Central is.  Any way they can be made to clean up a bit?  I am sure that the trash is blowing into adjacent yards.

Thank you,

Christine

From: Neighbors_nobhill-nm <neighbors_nobhill-nm-bounces@ mailman.swcp.com>On Behalf Of Jim Strozier via Neighbors_nobhill-nm
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:50 AM
To: Veronica Salinas <veronique_salinas at yahoo.com>; 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.

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 approvedSector Development Plan..." By definition the "minor change" is made to a sector plannot 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. Seehttps://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

--

Greg Weirs
505 265 9995
vgweirs at gmail.com

-- 
Greg Weirs
505 265 9995
vgweirs at gmail.com  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.swcp.com/pipermail/neighbors_nobhill-nm/attachments/20180324/e0d14859/attachment.html>