|
Report – Placitas Area Plan Meeting, November 5, 2008
[The two full presentations, with illustrations, can be downloaded: Facilitator’s (Mr. Spirock’s) Presentation PDF 2.2MB
County Planner’s (Mr. Gonzales’) Presentation PDF 14.8 MB]
Staff Goals & Recommendations
Presenters:
Planning & Zoning Commission Members Present:
Reported by: Orin Safier
The announced purpose of this meeting was for the Area Plan facilitator to present his derived consensus of the goals and recommendations from the Placitas community, and for the county Development Department to present its goals and recommendations to the county Planning and Zoning Commission. On the basis of these, the P&Z Commission intends at its Nov. 13 meeting to announce what the goals of the Placitas Area Plan should be, and then commission the Development Dept. to produce a draft Area Plan that implements those goals. This draft plan will then be submitted to a public review process, with the intention that by Jan. 29, 2009 the P&Z Commission will recommend to the County Commission adoption of the final Area Plan.
Mr. Spirock announced that he would not be reporting on consensus positions of the community. Instead he produced a report which he submitted in writing, and without detailed presentation or discussion, to the P&Z Commission. This report – which is reproduced below – lists various top issues, along with a “premise” regarding each topic, and the facilitator’s private, professional recommendations regarding the topic. Vice Chairman Hathorne inquired whether these recommendations were the result of meetings with community groups and other communications. Mr. Spirock answered that this was not the case, that they were his own personal views, based on his professional experience. He emphasized that he recommends in many cases a “use by application” approach, whereby the Area Plan would include conditions for approval of applications, along with definitions for aspects of the applications, then each decision as to zoning, for instance, would be done based on those conditions and definitions. This contrasts with the approach, favored by the county Development Dept., of specifying zoning, subdivision standards, etc., within the Area Plan itself, so that applicants and the community know beforehand exactly what requirements must be met for approval, and the county Commissions know more specifically how to judge applications as per the Area Plan and the zoning and subdivision ordinances that derive from it.
Mr. Spirock also announced that this would be his final meeting as facilitator, unless the county hired him for future work on the Area Plan
An objection was raised from the floor that the community expected Mr. Spirock to compile the community consensus on the major issues and present those to the P&Z Commission for their consideration. Much of the community activity regarding the planning process has consisted in establishing consensus positions, which were reported in the two previous Goals & Recommendations meetings. There was no expectation that Mr. Spirock would be presenting his own recommendations as part of the facilitator function for which he was hired. Vice Chairman Hathorne responded by saying that many of the functions of the parties in the planning process – the facilitator’s, the commission’s, the planner’s, and those of the various community groups – have changed since the beginning of the process. Mr. Spirock was hired in large part because of his experience with planning, so that his recommendations were welcome. However, Vice Chairman Hathorne continued, Mr. Spirock’s recommendations are only those of one party in the process, implying that they do not carry undue weight.
What follows are Mr. Spirock’s recommendations, taken from the PDF file of his presentation. That file, as well as the PDF file of Mr. Gonzales’ presentation, can be found on Mr. Spirock’s FTP site, which he intends to keep open for the next 2 weeks or more. (I have been unable to retain all the formatting in these presentations, but have tried to include all the relevant text.)
ISSUE: TRANSPORTATION – LOOP ROAD OR BLM ROAD
SENSITIVITY: VERY HIGH
PREMISE:
NO LOOP OR CONNECTING ROAD TO NM 14 IS DESIRED BY COMMUNITY!
A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT SHOULD INCLUDE A “TRANSPORTATION” SECTION.
IT IS NOT WISE FOR A PUBLIC PLAN TO SAY “THERE SHALL BE NO LOOP OR CONNECTOR ROAD ANYWHERE”. (THIS STATEMENT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS TOO GENERIC OR INDEFENSIBLE UNLESS ALL POTENTIAL LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED (AS CORRIDORS) IN THE CURRENT PLAN.”
RECOMMENDATION:
THE PLACITAS PLAN COULD INCLUDE THE EXTENSIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS AS PART OF THE INPUT SUMMARIES (FOREWORDS) AND THE ADDRESS OF USE OF BLM PROPERTIES SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED AS THE CONTROLLING SECTIONS.
EXAMPLE: BLM PROPERTIES, NOW OR IF ACQUIRED BY OTHER ENTITIES, SHALL BE PRESERVED FOR OPEN SPACE, PUBLIC USE AND IF ANY DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED (INCLUDING MAJOR ROADWAYS) THEY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARINGS ... MUST BE JUSTIFIED AS A STATE OR NATIONAL PRIORITY FOR FUNDING AND
NECESSITY ... INCLUDING CORRIDOR STUDIES ... (ETC.)
THE TRANSPORTATION SECTION OF THIS PLAN SHOULD STATE THAT NO ADDITIONAL ARTERIALS ARE WARRANTED TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY.
THE IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENTS SHOULD INCLUDE PARTICIPATION AND NOTICE TO MRCOG, BLM AND NMDOT THAT SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND WARRANTS ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ANY CONSIDERATION OF CORRIDORS, ALIGNMENTS AND JUSTIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED.
IISSUE: TRANSPORTATION JUSTIFICATIONS
ISSUE: TRANSPORTATION – NMSR 165 AND ARTERIAL EXPANSIONS
SENSITIVITY: VERY HIGH
PREMISE:
THE PROJECTED POPULATION, PHYSICAL LIMITS AND CURRENT PROJECTED ROAD CAPACITIES DO NOT WARRANT EXTENSIVE RIGHTS OF WAY OR ADVANCED FUNDING BE FLAGGED AS PART OF THE PLAN (BEYOND CURRENT PROGRAMS - THERE ARE NONE).
THE COMMUNITY SHOULD DESIRE THAT THE DATA NOW COLLECTED BE PART OF THE PLAN – BUT NOT SO CONFINING THAT AN ALTERNATE ROAD LOCATION BE CONSIDERED IN THE FUTURE.
RECOMMENDATION:
THE PLACITAS PLAN SHOULD INCLUDE A MAP OF PROJECTED GROWTH AND CAPACITY LIMITATIONS ON NMSR 165 (CURRENT ADWT AND PROJECTED CAPACITY(S) WITH ANY “SIMPLE” IMPROVEMENTS
(ADDITIONAL LANEAGE FOR PORTIONS).
IMPLEMENTATION SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE FUNDING SOURCES AND SUGGEST THAT SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS THAT CAUSE CONGESTION DUE TO A NEW DEVELOPMENT BE BORNE BY THE DEVELOPER.
STATEMENTS REGARDING ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (SIGNALS, SPEED LIMITS AND SIGNAGE) COULD BE ADDED AS CRITERIA TO BE CONSIDERED IN DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. ARE REQ
ISSUE: TRANSPORTATION – LOCAL ROAD SYSTEM AND EMERGENCY ACCESS
SENSITIVITY: HIGH
PREMISE:
EXISTING ROADS ARE BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, GATED AND OPEN ACCESS. THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ONLY “REACTS” TO MAINTENANCE CALLS. EMERGENCY SERVICES STATE THEY CAN
SERVE THE COMMUNITY WITHOUT ANY FORMAL “IMPROVEMENT PLAN” OR NEW MAJOR ROADS.
PORTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT NEW DEVELOPMENT CONNECTING TO EXISTING ROADS WITHOUT UPGRADING.
RECOMMENDATION:
THIS PLAN’S IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT (FUTURE G.I.S. WORK) SHOULD INCLUDE A CONTINUALLY UPDATED DIGITAL MAP FOR USE BY THE PUBLIC, ADMINISTRATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) AND FOR FUTURE PLANNING DECISIONS. THIS COULD INCLUDE ROAD CONDITIONS AND EMERGENCY INGRESS AND EGRESS ROUTES (FOR PRIORITIZATION OF MAINTENANCE) AND MADE PART OF FIRE / RESCUE PERSONNEL.
THE PLAN’S TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE ELEMENT SHOULD STATE THAT NEW DEVELOPMENTS CONNECTING TO THE EXISTING SYSTEM WILL BE REQUIRED TO UPGRADE THE CONNECTION(S) TO AN ACCEPTABLE STANDARD, THROUGHOUT THE CONNECTION REACH, TO THE NEAREST PORTION OF PUBLIC ROAD THAT IS OF SUFFICIENT STANDARDS. THE DETERMINATION OF THOSE STANDARDS SHOULD BE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND THE FIRE MARSHALL AND DEBATED AT THE APPROVAL HEARINGS PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL.
ISSUE: LAND USE – NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATIONS
SENSITIVITY: VERY HIGH
PREMISE:
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BOTH PROVIDES COUNTY INCOME (GROSS RECEIPTS) AS WELL AS PROVIDING LOCAL GOODS AND SERVICES (REDUCES TRANSPORTATION TRIPS, ETC.)
HOWEVER, THE COMMUNITY STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT NEW COMMERCIAL BE DISALLOWED OR AT LEAST LIMITED TO CERTAIN FORM, SHAPE, SIZE AND LOCATION. THEY DESIRE INPUT TO THE DECISION PROCESS AND ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PLAN’S ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW ZONING DISTRICTS (E.G. THE “RC” OR “MP” ZONE). OVERLAY AREAS OR AREAS OF SPECIAL CONSIDERATION MAY BE ACCEPTABLE FOR LOCATION AND TYPE OF USE (YARN SHOP IN HISTORIC VILLAGE?). ALSO A “JUSTIFICATION OF NEED” HAS BEEN SUGGESTED AS PART OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS.
RECOMMENDATION:
THE CURRENT “USE BY APPLICATION” SEEMS TO WORK (CONDITIONAL PERMITS) AS WELL AS A “USE BY RIGHT” (ZONING DISTRICT, ESTABLISHED AFTER THE PLAN’S ADOPTION).
AN “OVERLAY” IS MERELY A GUIDING LOCATION WITH CONDITIONS AND DESIRES AS STATED IN THE PLAN, FOR FUTURE DECISIONS ON EITHER TYPE OF LAND USE.
CONTINUING THE “USE BY APPLICATION”, WHETHER AS A SPECIAL USE, CONDITIONAL USE OR A UNIQUE DISTRICT IS RECOMMENDED WHEREVER A NEW COMMERCIAL APPLICATION IS CONSIDERED. THIS PROVIDES ADDITIONAL HEARINGS ON THE STYLE, JUSTIFICATION BY THE
APPLICANT, LIMITATION AND WILL REQUIRE MORE SUPPORT MATERIAL BEFORE CONSIDERATION BY THE P&Z.
ISSUE: LAND USE – NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SIZE AND APPEARANCE
SENSITIVITY: HIGH
PREMISE:
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE LACKING IN THE CURRENT CODE (EXCEPT FOR URBAN COMMERCIAL). TESTIMONY FOR “DARK SKY”, SIZE AND APPEARANCE OF STRUCTURES AND ORIENTATION HAVE BEEN TENDERED AS WELL AS A DESIRE FOR BETTER “DEFINITIONS” TO ACCOMPANY THE CODE (E.G. OFFICE / RESIDENTIAL).
RECOMMENDATION:
THIS PLAN’S IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT SHOULD INCLUDE ZONING CODE REVISIONS AS WELL AS ADDITIONS (SIMILAR TO JEMEZ VALLEY OR CUBA PLANS) FOR LOCATIONS AS WELL AS CONFORMANCE TO NEW RULES, STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES.
FOR APPEARANCE AND AESTHETICS / FUNCTION, GUIDELINES AT THE VERY LEAST SHOULD BE PART OF THE “IMPLEMENTATION” OF THE PLAN. FOR SIZE AND ALLOWED PERMITTING, THE CODE SHOULD RECITE BY PICTURES AND SPECIFICATIONS THE IMPERVIOUS AREAS ALLOWED, MAXIMUM STRUCTURE SIZES, PROHIBITIONS FOR FRANCHISED ARCHITECTURE, ETC. CONVENTIONAL FLOOR AREA RATIOS
(F.A.R.) ARE NOT ENOUGH FOR GUIDANCE WITHOUT AN EXPANSION OF DESIGN PRINCIPLES THAT DESCRIBE WHAT THE COMMUNITY MAY ACCEPT (AS A PLACE TO START DELIBERATIONS FOR THE
PERMITTING). SLOPE AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD BE CAREFULLY STUDIED AND INCLUDED.
ISSUE: LAND USE – ATYPICAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TYPES
SENSITIVITY: MEDIUM
PREMISE:
EXISTING AND FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEFINITIONS IN THE CODE MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR A LONG RANGE PLAN. EMERGING HOUSING TYPES AND CONVERSIONS (TWO-FAMILY TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY) MAY BE A FUTURE CONDITION DESIRED BY SOME.
PATIO HOMES HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED AS A WAY OF CREATING CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT FOR LAND AND SLOPE SENSITIVITY.
RECOMMENDATION:
THIS IS ANOTHER “USE-BY-APPLICATION” RECOMMENDATION. FOR TYPE-OF-USE AS WELL AS APPEARANCE, GUIDELINES SHOULD BE PART OF THE “IMPLEMENTATION” OF THE PLAN. FOR ALLOWED PERMITTING, THE CODE SHOULD RECITE NEW DEFINITIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR WHAT THE COMMUNITY MAY ACCEPT.
ISSUE: LAND USE – NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WATER AVAILABILITY
SENSITIVITY: VERY HIGH
PREMISE:
NEW RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ONLY IF SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLY IS AVAILABLE OR COULD BE DEVELOPED.
RECOMMENDATION:
THE INTERRA (AND OTHER) STUDIES HAVE IDENTIFIED “ZONES” OF PROBABLE SUCCESS IN DEVELOPING A WATER SOURCE. CURRENT REQUIREMENTS (100-YR. SUPPLY) IS A STATE STANDARD, BUT THE PLACITAS PLAN COULD GO FURTHER BY REQUIRING INCREASING LEVELS OF SCRUTINY FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS (BASED ON THE INTERRA STUDY).
AN IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT (FOR FUTURE WORK) IS SUGGESTED: TO DEVELOP DIFFERENTIAL LAND-USE ALLOWANCES (DENSITY? LOT SIZE?) AND OVERALL PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT BASED ON “DISTRICTS”, WITH RECHARGE POTENTIAL (SIMILAR TO THE SANTA FE DEVELOPMENT CODE). ALSO, LARGER DEVELOPMENTS COULD BE LIMITED TO INITIAL PHASES UPON APPROVAL, WITH FUTURE EXPANSION BASED ON WELL AND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FOT THE INITIAL AREAS. WATER CONSERVATION (AUDITS AND CONSERVATION) COULD BE A REQUIRED PORTION OF A DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL. WATER SYSTEMS WITH FIRE STORAGE AND DROUGHT CONDITION
RESERVES SHOULD BE DESIRED OVER SHARED WELL DEVELOPMENTS. SHARED-WELL PROGRAMS SHOULD BE FAVORED OVER INDIVIDUAL WELL SUBDIVISION PROGRAMS.
ISSUE: LAND USE – NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, REVIEWS
SENSITIVITY: HIGH
PREMISE:
NEW RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS SHOULD REQUIRE MORE SCRUTINY WITH AN UN-BIASED DESIRE TO CONSIDER OWNER’S RIGHTS AS WELL AS BETTER (SUBJECTIVE) STANDARDS.
RECOMMENDATION:
THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL CODE PROVISIONS SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY NEW GUIDELINES FOR THE PLACITAS PLAN AREA (AND OTHER STEEP-SLOPE AREAS). DEFINITE AND INFLEXIBLE “RULES” FOR ITEMS SUCH AS HILLSIDE HOUSING, DRIVEWAY ACCESS, VIEW SHEDS, ETC. SHOULD BE MINIMIZED IN FAVOR OF MORE FLEXIBLE “GUIDELINES” AND CRITERIA. THE PLACITAS PLAN COULD UNDERSCORE A LARGER DEGREE OF SCRUTINY (THAN OTHER COUNTY NON-PLAN AREAS) FOR COMPATIBLE ISSUES.
COMBINATION OF OWNERSHIPS FOR INTEGRATED PLANNING (OR AT LEAST ATTEMPTING PLANNING FOR MULTI-PARTIES) FOR ACCESS, DRAINAGE CONTROLS, CLUSTERING IN LESS STEEP AREAS
SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED (EVEN WITH DENSITY BONUSES AS A POTENTIAL INDUCEMENT).
ISSUE: LAND USE – EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AND PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS
SENSITIVITY: MEDIUM
PREMISE:
EXISTING SUBDIVIDED LANDS (SOME WITH COVENANTS) AND RE-SUBDIVISION OR REPLATTING OF OLDER PLATTED AREAS MAY BE ADVERSELY IMPACTED AND DEVALUED IF THE PLACITAS PLAN SETS
NEW STANDARDS THAT INFRINGE ON EXISTING RIGHTS AND EXPECTATIONS (TO DEVELOP HOUSING EVEN IF BY PIONEER SERVICES).
RECOMMENDATION:
CONSIDER THIS CAREFULLY IF ASSIGNING “LAND-USE AREAS” OR OTHER DESIGNATIONS IN THE PLAN.
GRANDFATHERING CLAUSES AND / OR SPECIFIC DESIGNATIONS SHOULD BE INCLUDED. BLANKET REQUIREMENTS FOR COVENANT PROVISIONS (TYPES OF HOUSING OR APPEARANCE) WOULD BE ADVERSE TO THESE OWNERS.
THE PLAN OR AN IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT COULD INCLUDE A DRAFT OF ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS, SHARING OF UTILITY EXTENSION COSTS, ETC. AS AN INCENTIVE FOR LOT-SPLITS,
FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS OR REPLATTING TO CONSIDER. FIRE AND EMERGENCY ACCESS SHOULD GUIDE THE ADEQUACY OF LIMITED SERVICES AND ROAD MAINTENANCE.
ISSUE: LAND USE – HISTORIC VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL
SENSITIVITY: HIGH
PREMISE:
THE VILLAGE CORE IS ATYPICAL AND UNIQUE.
OWNERSHIP AND USE PATTERNS, AGRICULTURAL USE AND LONG –STANDING FAMILY TRADITIONS ARE EXTANT.
RECOMMENDATION:
CONSIDER ASSIGNING SPECIAL DISTRICT OR OTHER DESIGNATIONS IN THE PLAN.
INCLUDE SETBACK AND LOT SIZE / HOUSING RESTRICTIONS AS “SPECIAL” AND PROVIDE ALLOWANCES FOR PRESERVING WHAT YOU HAVE.
ARTICULATE THIS IN THE PLAN AS A “GOAL”! INCLUDE RIGHT-TO-FARM NOTICES AND AN ORDINANCE FOR STRENGTHENING THIS BOND.
ISSUE: LAND USE – OPEN SPACE, COMMUNITY RECREATION AND WILDLIFE
SENSITIVITY: VERY HIGH
PREMISE:
THE PLACITAS AREA AND ADJACENT BLM AREAS ARE AN OPPORTUNITY. TESTIMONY HAS INCLUDED SUGGESTIONS FOR WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AND VIEWSHED / OPEN AREA PRESERVATION.
WHILE THE BLM AND CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE AREAS COULD BE TRANSFERRED AND DEVELOPED, THE PLAN SHOULD STATE THE COMMUNITY DESIRES FOR THE TENETS EXPRESSED IN THIS TESTIMONY.
RECOMMENDATION:
CONSIDER THE W.H.O.A. AND OTHER TESTIMONY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
RE-REVIEW THE CYNDIE TIDWELL STUDY AND EMPHASIZE SUPPORTED DESIRED FOR TRAILS, OPEN AREAS AND POSSIBLY IMPLEMENTATION BY ACQUISITION FOR SELECT LANDS.
IDENTIFY AREAS AT VILLAGE ENTRANCES FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION TO UNDERSCORE A “SENSE OF ARRIVAL” APPROACH BY LAND PRESERVATION, SIGNAGE, LANDSCAPING AND UNIQUE FIXTURES.
WORK ON AN ACEQUIA TRAIL SYSTEM IN A “SMALL SCALE” FASHION (E.G. NOT A 12’ PAVED PATHWAY, JUST ENOUGH TO PROVIDE PASSAGE WITHOUT LIABILITY OR ALIENATING OWNERS.
—end of recommendations by the facilitator, Cliff Spirock—
The meeting was then turned over to Mr. Gonzales, who presented and discussed his recommendations, based on existing condition studies, community input, and the planning principles he advocates. He emphasized that these are general rather than specific goals. Once the Planning and Zoning Commission states what the goals should be of the Placitas Area Plan, Mr. Gonzales and the Development Dept. staff will then arrive at an implementation of those goals in the form of a draft Area Plan. Therefore all his recommendations are subject to modification, amplification, etc., in the further course of the planning process.
Mr. Gonzales stated that the Development Dept. does not favor the “use by application” process recommended by Mr. Spirock.
What follows are the various text sections of Mr. Gonzales’ presentation, followed by a brief report of his amplification of the presentation points, and also selected discussion with the commission and attendees.
Plan Goals and Recommendations
- Land Use Community Districts
- Area Plan Wide Land Use Recommendations
- Transportation
- Open Space/Cultural Resources
- Water/Waste Water
- Storm Water/Drainage
- Public Facilities
Discussion: These are the main topics covered in the presentation. There are two approaches to the topics, one from the perspective of specific recommendations for different parts of Placitas, contained in the “Land Use Community Districts Recommendations”, and the other from the perspective of Placitas as a whole, contained in the “Area Plan Wide Land Use Recommendations”.
Land Use Recommendations
Due to the uniqueness of the various neighborhoods within the Placitas Area Plan, Staff recommends various Community Zoning Districts within the Plan Area:
Proposed Districts:
- West Placitas Residential District
- West Placitas Rural Commercial District
- Village of Placitas Community District (Includes Rural Commercial District in Village)
- Ideal Acres/San Francisco Community District
- Diamond Tail Zoning District
Discussion: A considerable amount of time was spent discussing the boundaries of the “Village of Placitas Community District” as it relates to the Area Plan. The commission requested that this be more explicitly mapped before the commission gives its goal recommendations. Roughly, the area in question includes the Historic Village and a certain amount of area to the West, including the Windmill Mercantile structure, but not necessarily the Placitas Heights Area, plus a number of the areas to the east and north of the Historic Village. Whatever is to the west of this Village District (with the possible exception of Indian Flats), will fall into the “West Placitas” district. This includes most of the larger established residential subdivisions in Placitas, such as Overlook, Ranchos de Placitas, and all subdivisions to the west of the S-curve. There was some discussion as to where the Cashwell property, and the Grevey-Lieberman property to its west, fits into the proposed districts. Mr. Gonzales made it clear that he considers them to fall within the West Placitas Residential District.
West Placitas Residential District
- Allows for the existing Minimum lot size of ¾ Acre (1 du per Acre)
- Allows for Home Based Business
- Allows for Design Criteria that Promotes and Favors Southwest Architectural Design
- Minimizes the ability of Manufactured Housing (Similar Design Guidelines as Rio Rancho Estates)
- Conformity of Housing Types and Design Style
Discussion: More specification is needed as regards “home based business”. Placitas is home to many artists, and the definition of this needs to recognize this. Chairman Arango in fact suggested that the artistic activity characteristic of Placitas be considered a Cultural Resource, and so there might be less restrictions on their home based activities in line with protection under that classification.
OnePlacitas had proposed that subdividing lots of 4 acres or less be subject to approval by all adjoining property owners. Chairman Arango commented that he felt that would be too restrictive, and would allow for too many legal problems. At present all adjoining owners are notified of subdivisions, and so can register their protests if they wish. These are considered by the P&Z Commission during the application process. Perhaps something more formal could be included in the ordinances regarding such subdivision, though less restrictive than agreement by all adjoining owners. Mr. Gonzales feels that limits as to minimum lot sizes should set the standard here, on the basis of which the P&Z commission can decide what would be appropriate to subdivide.
Vice Chairman Hathorne mentioned that Bernalillo has not participated in the Area Plan process after the first meeting at El Zocalo, apart from a few email communications. Bernalillo has backed away from any claim to there being a 3 mile “extra territorial zone”. However, as attendees pointed out, Bernalillo is still doing the building permit and inspection of Placitas properties as far as 3 miles from its borders. Mr. Gonzales said that the plan should make recommendations regarding annexation by Bernalillo of land within the Placitas plan area. There might be recommendations to annex certain portions of land along the I-25 frontage road, to be included in the transit-oriented district and with some high-density housing, but restrictions on further annexations. Mr. Gonzales is looking for some guidance from the Bernalillo town staff regarding their intentions regarding annexation. Vice Chairman Hathorne questioned how the county can place restrictions on such annexation. Mr. Gonzales acknowledged that this would be difficult to do if the property owner requests the annexation. However in other cases annexation requests go before the state “municipal boundary commission”, and it is appropriate for the county to make strong recommendations there.
West Placitas Rural Commercial District
- Restricts “Rural” Commercial Development to Two Existing Nodes (La Puerta Realty and the Homestead Mercantile)
- Allows for a maximum floor area of a structure to be no larger than 8000 Square Feet
- A maximum lot build out of 50%
- Architectural Design Criteria that reflects a Southwestern Vernacular
- Screening of Mechanical Equipment and Refugee Facilities
- Landscape Buffering adjacent to residential uses (Berm and Landscaping)
- Restrict building frontage of commercial structures from opening to NM 165
- Height Restriction of 28 ft from grade to Highest point of a structure
Discussion: In the Homestead area, Mr. Gonzales recommends a piazza style of development, with buildings opening onto the central plaza rather than onto 165. Details need to be worked out regarding what is feasible there. Also, he feels that the signage presently at the Homestead center is inappropriate to the Placitas vernacular, which should reflect more the rural nature of the area.
Due to the narrowness of the land near La Puerta Realty, it would be difficult to implement a piazza style. So other criterion would be appropriate there.
A question was raised by Mr. Seavey, representing the Cashwell property, regarding why commercial was not appropriate on that property. Mr. Gonzales responded that he believed it was out of place given the residential character of the surrounding subdivisions. Mr. Seavey countered that the county recommendation for public facilities (see below) is for the area between the Fire Station and the site of the new library, thereby introducing a nonresidential character into the area. He also pointed out that La Hacienda, which used to be run as a Bed & Breakfast, is a commercial property. Mr. Gonzales however pointed out that Hacienda is zoned conditionally, and is not being used commercially at present. Vice Chairman Hathorne indicated that the Cashwell position has already been stated in its rezoning application, which was made at the May P&Z meeting, and then tabled for consideration until after the Area Plan is produced.
Village of Placitas Community District
(Includes Village, DomeValley, Canon, Tecolote )
Residential Criteria
- Designate Placitas Community District as a “Right to Farm” area
- Reduce Set back requirement to 10 feet from all property boundaries, and allow for an administrative variance procedure for property owners that cannot meet a 10 Ft Set back
- Require a 10 ft. setback on all structures as well the from the center line of a community Acequia
- Due to the diverse housing types, keep existing residential standards and design criteria for the district
- Continue to Allow Home Based Business as currently allowed.
- Height Restriction of 28 feet
Discussion: Chairman Arango pointed out that “existing residential standards and design criteria” means essentially no standards and criteria. This might be fine with the commission. However much depends on the exact boundary of this district, which needs to be mapped before final planning decisions can be made. Also the Village needs to more closely evaluate acequia setback standards.
Commercial Overlay Criteria
- Allows for a commercial node located in the village on properties located adjacent to NM 165 from the Camino de Las Huertas westward and terminating at the Windmill Mercantile
- Allows for a maximum floor area of a structure to be no larger than 8000 Square Feet
- A maximum lot build out of 50%
- Architectural Design Criteria that reflects a Southwestern Vernacular
- Screening of Mechanical Equipment and Refugee Facilities
- Landscape Buffering adjacent to residential uses (Berm and Landscaping)
- Restrict building frontage of commercial structures from opening to NM 165
- Height Restriction of 28 ft from grade to Highest point of a structure
Discussion: Mr. Gonzales acknowledged the challenge of planning for commercial properties here, due to the length of the commercial node, the sparse presence of commercial and other nonresidential (e.g. post office) buildings there, and the existence of residences interspersed along the node. Also, as with all commercial development in Placitas, he emphasized that the restrictions on floor area, design, height, etc., was to preclude there being franchise-like businesses that the community feels are inappropriate.
Ideal Acres/San Francisco Community District
- Increase the minimum lot size from a ¾ acre minimum lot size to a 2 acre lot minimum.
- Due to the diverse housing types, keep existing residential standards and design criteria for the district
- Continue to Allow Home Based Business as currently allowed.
- Height Restriction of 28 feet
Diamond Tail Community District
- Based on Existing Master Plan Approval
Discussion: It was pointed out by an attendee that only part of Diamond Tail has been built out, however Mr. Gonzales and the commission responded that other parts of Diamond Tail have been master planned.
Area Plan Wide Land Use Recommendations
- Slope and Ridge Top Development Criteria
- Night Light Protection
- Incentive for Ridge top Protection and Protection Wildlife Corridors by Allowing Cluster Housing
- Drainage/ Ponding Requirement to be developed by ESCAFCA
Discussion: Work needs to be done in specifying the slope and ridge top criteria, and Mr. Gonzales mentioned that guidance is needed from the P&Z regarding these and similar issues. Cluster Housing can be environmentally preferable to the spread out residential development typical of Placitas. However some in the community still have concerns about what will be allowed in such clusters, for instance, patio homes.
All participants in the planning process are in favor of protecting the wildlife corridors. Chairman Arango suggested that support for wildlife corridors be a planning principle in itself, not specifically linked to the topic of clustering.
The passage of ESCAFCA, Mr. Gonzales commented, makes the job of the county easier as regards all issues regarding drainage, flooding, etc. The county needs to meet with the ESCAFCA board to determine appropriate criteria and procedures.
Transportation Recommendations
- No major plans or alteration to Road Networks in the Placitas Plan Area
- Recommend that a Placitas Bus Line Be Added to the Easy Sandoval Express along NM 165 (Connectivity to 550 Rail Runner Station)
- Add a Park and Ride Location at Homestead Mercantile and the Village of Placitas
- Develop NM 165 as a Pedestrian/Equestrian Trail from the Village to Bernalillo.
- Ensure that the redesign of the 550/I-25 Interchange include connective for pedestrian access
Discussion: It is abundantly clear that Placitas residents in large part reject a northeast loop road through Placitas. The plan will acknowledge this. But it will stop short of ruling this out for all time.
There was a question from the floor about leaving out the recommendation of OnePlacitas regarding new subdivision roads that connect to existing subdivision roads, namely that if such extensions require that the existing roads be brought up to present county subdivision road standards. Mr. Gonzales indicated willingness to consider this provision, but stated that the problem here involves roads in the Historic Village, which would be very difficult to widen. However an exception could be made for that specific area, while making this provision general for the rest of Placitas. But Vice Chairman Hathorne pointed out that if some present Village road is presently not wide enough for emergency vehicles, then it would be poor planning to extend that road into a new development.
Open Space/Cultural Resources Recommendations
- Work with the congressional delegation to transfer the BLM’s Montezuma tract to the Forest Service and protected as national wilderness designation (with cultural protections)
- Ensure permanent protection of the City of Albuquerque Open Space Tract (The county should be prepared at any point in time to purchase or acquire the tract if ever disposed by the City of Abq.)
- Support the Las Huertas Land Grant in Acquisition of BLM tract located in the center of the Planning area if identified for disposal by the BLM.
- Develop NM 165 Trail System and Las Huertas Creek (Below NM165) as a trail system for the Plan Area
- Sandoval County Should Develop an Open Space Program attached to and Open Space Bond for the Purchase of Critical Open Space, Cultural Resources, and parcels critical to Wildlife Passage.
- Support incentives for development patterns that preserve open Space
Discussion: Chairman Arango suggested placing recommendations in the plan regarding the future of the large BLM parcel to the north of the plan area, given that at some time in the future it might be subject to development that would impact Placitas. He also pointed out that there have been traditional uses in the land including the Montezuma Crest, and these should be preserved if that land is turned over to the forestry service.
Vice Chairman Hathorne proposed an ad hoc committee under the P&Z commission devoted to open space/corridor planning. He expressed a concern as regards asking people to give up property in order to define open spaces and corridors.
Water/Waste Water Recommendations Water
- Restrict domestic water well usage per dwelling by Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance to 1/5 of an acre feet (with no outdoor water use for landscaping
- Require appropriate water availability reports for master plan at the time of application submittal
- Sandoval County Should Continue to develop studies to understand water conditions in the plan area to develop better water policy for the plan area
- Support the expansion and upgrade of the Placitas Village water system
Waste Water
- Work with the Village of Placitas to plan and develop a community scale community waste water system
- Develop studies that regularly evaluate water contamination due to septic tanks
Storm Water/Drainage Recommendations
Support ESCAFCA in the Development of Policy and Regulations that improve drainage and storm runoff
Generalized Recommendations
- Support ESCAFCA in the implementation of the Wilson Report
- Set back requirement for banks of drainage ways
- Implementation of proposed interventions recommended in the Wilson Report
- Require an engineered storm water detainment plan approved by ESCAFA for residential permits
- Work with ESCAFA for drainage facilities to serve multi-purpose function such as recreation and trails (La Huertas Creek)
Discussion: Vice Chairman Hathorne suggested that sometime soon there be a work session for the P&Z commission and ESCAFCA to work out these recommendations. He also emphasized the importance of using the Intera map showing the varied availability of water in Placitas to make decisions regarding subdivision density and the like.
There was a good deal of discussion between Mr. Gonzales and Vice Chairman Hathorne concerning the restriction of water well usage to 1/5 acre feet, with Hathorne stating that this might serve to increase density, and Mr. Gonzales disagreeing.
Some attendees living near the Historic Village questioned whether there needs to be an expansion and upgrade of the water system there. Much here depends on mapping out exactly what this area includes.
Public Facilities Recommendations
- Develop a Public Facilities campus location on approximately 10 Acres of land owned by Sandoval County (Existing Placitas Fire Station Site and Placitas Library)
- Allows for any other future county facility in the plan area to locate at this location for the purpose of clustering public facilities.
- Allow for the development of some recreational facilities at this location for youth
- The Sandoval County Fire Department is Planning Fire Station for West Placitas and would like to Locate Near Anasazi Trails
There was some discussion of topics not included in the above recommendations. Vice Chairman Hathorne brought up the topic of solid waste management. At present the Placitas solid waste that is not recycled is dumped in Rio Rancho. Adequate long term planning for Placitas needs to take into consideration possible better ways to handle its solid waste.
There were some other topics discussed, but I did not get a chance to record them. I would welcome others who were at the meeting supplementing my report.
This meeting constituted an important and positive step in the Area Plan process. Mr. Gonzales’ recommendations have taken into consideration and given respect to the diverse views of the Placitas community, and the P&Z commissioners have demonstrated a similar commitment to making this plan work for both Placitas and the county as a whole. There is still quite a bit of work to be done by all parties involved, however, before a final plan is presented.
Results from community meeting of One Placitas Group 8/17/08
By Wendy Aman
In a meeting that was open to the greater Placitas community, a group of about 75 individuals met to discuss the themes of commercial, transportation, water, and safety issues.
Consensus statements:
- Commercial development should be limited to existing areas, the village, the Merc and the adjacent undeveloped properties and the La Puerta Realty area.
- Commercial buildings should be small in size (3000-8000 sq ft maximum) and in a style consistent with existing architecture.
- There was consensus support for “dark skies” ordinances in the area plan.
- The group agreed that there is no need or interest for a “loop road” connection to Highway 14.
Areas of general agreement:
- Support for the wildlife corridor.
- Support for the general concept of moratorium in zoning, platting and subdivision. However, there were concerns mentioned regarding the rights of individual homeowners to subdivide.
- Passive commercial should be the only allowed commercial development.
- Support water study submission prior to application for rezoning, subdivision or master planning in areas of compromised water.
Small group generated ideas:
- Allow current commercial zones to be “uncommon”, particularly in Village.
- Consider a height restriction of 1 story for all commercial buildings.
- Create a Placitas Architectural Control Committee to develop standards and monitor commercial building requests.
- Home based offices are okay with parking, delivery, traffic limits and no signage.
- No HOA areas in acecias, village and other small tracts currently non-governed.
- The reengineering of the 1-25/165 intersection to be made safer and more efficient prior to any additional commercial and residential development east of I-25 and on the Frontage Rd.
- Preserve the current lifestyle & historic nature and character of the village.
- A shuttle service between the Village of Placitas and Railrunner.
- Cashwell Property should remain zoned RRA.
- No more traffic signals on 165.
- Lower priced, high density, tract houses are not appropriate for Placitas.
- We need to establish minimum standards for roads, slope & kind….
Additional informational needs:
- There was a request for information on the timing and funding for the revision of the I-25/165/550 interchange.
- The group expressed the need for extensive information on water quality and supply in Placitas, there appears to be some inconsistency in the reports from experts.
- What is the maximum of septic systems that can be allowed in Placitas, lots of questions about waste water issues…
27 JULY 2008
MEETING IN BERNALILLO RELATED TO ANNEXATION ALONG I-25, MONDAY
Notice is hereby given that the REGULAR MEETING of the Governing Body of the Town of Bernalillo will be held on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall at 829 Camino del Pueblo, Bernalillo, NM 87004.
Agenda Item:
a) Discussion, Consideration and Action on Adoption of Ordinance # 224 & #225 Extending and Increasing Corporate Limits and Implementing an Initial Zoning to S-U and a Change in the Zoning Atlas from C-1 to S-U for A Master-planned Retail Shopping and Business Center. Presenter: Kelly Moe
Contact Information for Bernalillo: http://www.townofbernalillo.org/council.htm
Report: BernalilloTown Commission Meeting, July 28 2008
Shopping Center Annexation Under Piedra Lisa Dam
Submitted by Orin Safier, 7/28/08
With only 24 hours official notice given, the Town of Bernalillo added an agenda item for their council meeting on 7/29/08, that read:
a) Discussion, Consideration and Action on Adoption of Ordinance # 224 & #225 Extending and Increasing Corporate Limits and Implementing an Initial Zoning to S-U and a Change in the Zoning Atlas from C-1 to S-U for A Master-planned Retail Shopping and Business Center. Presenter: Kelly Moe
Researching this vague item on the day of the meeting led to our discovery, just about 2 hours before the meeting, that this was a resolution to annex and zone the entire area below the Piedra Lisa Dam, just east of I-25 and south of highway 165, for Special-Use, to be developed as a large shopping center. The area is approximately 25 acres. There was an article in the June 08 Sandoval Signpost (http://www.sandovalsignpost.com/jun08/html/up_front.html#2), that provided some details about this proposed development.
To jump to the end result, the Bernalillo commission proposed to table the resolution for now.
The company proposing this development is “One Placitas Corp LLC”, which representative is Eric Schoen. The company name is ironic, since it implies that the proposed shopping center will be the first address in Placitas, yet the developers are attempting to have the Town of Bernalillo annex the property. The identity confusion here is obvious. Presumably if Bernalillo were to annex that property and a shopping center were to go there, it would not be titled “OnePlacitasShopping Center”.
A commercial development was proposed for that property in 2006, and there was a meeting in Placitas at that time to discuss it. But there have certainly been changes to the proposed uses since the first proposal. The town attorney has indicated that public discussion on this matter is closed, but that is probably not appropriate given that the plan has changed.
In August, 2006 the Bernalillo Town Council tabled the application. After that there was a moratorium on such developments, which was lifted in November, 2007. The issue came before the council again in May, 2008. At that time the application was tabled pending study regarding drainage and flooding issues.
At last night’s meeting the town planner, Kelly Moe, presented the resolution. Previous to this the Bernalillo Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the approval of this annexation and zoning. Mr. Moe indicated no substantial objections to the plan on the part of his department. There are legal problems involving annexing and zoning a property simultaneously, and one of the four Bernalillo commissioners raised a question about that. Mr. Moe replied that that is the way they had done it in the past.
Mayor Chavez remarked that such annexation provided an opportunity for increased gross receipts taxes.
Mr. Moe gave vague assurances that the traffic issues had been addressed with NMDOT (state Department of Transportation), though the plan would require approval of the NMDOT District Traffic Engineer.
On the crucial issues of drainage and flooding, one of the commissioners mentioned objections to the development raised in a letter by ESCAFCA (East Sandoval County Arroyo Flood Control Authority, http://escafca.com/), on grounds of safety were there to be a major flood. The reply, I believe by Mr. Moe, was that ESCAFCA does not have jurisdiction in that area.
There was considerable discussion about drainage. The developers claimed that this would be handled by means of ponds, and that the development would not increase run-off from the property. They claimed that the water flow problems that affect East Bernalillo are primarily from the Sandia property immediately to the south.
When asked about increased liability involved in annexing and zoning the property, Mr. Moe responded that there would be no increased liability, though without explaining why that would be the case.
An important issue raised here, which relates also to other proposed “master planned” or “special use” rezoning in Placitas, is whether zoning can be approved before a full site plan is specified. Such a site plan gives fairly full detail as to what the final development will be. The developers claim that they first need to get the annexation and zoning approved before they can produce this site plan. However this is not how the zoning process customarily works. There is typically a burden on the developers to submit detailed plans with the zoning application, including traffic impact studies, water studies, and the like. The reason is that no government body can be expected to make an intelligent decision regarding zoning unless these details are adequately specified. In this case, however, the Bernalillo planning department did not express concern about the lack of final site plan and accompanying studies.
The commissioners then expressed various criticisms of the proposed resolution: Something this complex requires more time for study and discussion, possibly with workshops to address specifics. The FEMA participation was not yet spelled out. ESCAFCA’s concerns, and those of the Coronado Soil and Water Conservancy District (CSWCD), had not been adequately addressed. One commissioner pointed out that this would have an impact on the neighbors in Placitas which needs to be taken into consideration.
Due to these concerns the commissioners voted unanimously to table the resolution. They also requested a walk through of the area with the developers, which was tentatively to be scheduled by the City Manager for Tuesday, August 5, 2008.
Quite a few Placitas residents attended the meeting. One of them wished to read into the record a public comment, stating that this planning should be part of Sandoval County’s general planning process for the Placitas area, in which Bernalillo is now a participant. However the town attorney told him that the public comment part for this resolution was closed in 2006.
—TOP OF PAGE—
|
