I am writing today to announce the closure of the New Mexico Independent. After three and a half years of operation in New Mexico, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news…
While environmental activists played their part yesterday during demonstrations at the capitol building, going so far as to dress up as solar panels and to sing the tune of “You Are My Sunshine,” their counterparts, the anti-cap-and-trade contingency who has…
Roughly one quarter of University of New Mexico students are unimpressed with the state’s flagship public school, according to a survey that questioned college students about their higher education experiences.
The developer of a project that many see as the future of how growth should happen in Albuquerque has to go back to the drawing board — literally.
The Albuquerque City Council approved a zone change for 2000 Gold property last night but rejected the design of a 46-unit condo project that Sheffield Partners has proposed should go there
Referring to the issue as a "watershed case," City Councilor Isaac Benton led the way in trying to find a middle ground, proposing what turned out to be the council’s decision — approve the zone change for the site but deny the site development plan. The unanimous vote in favor of Benton’s motion means the developer will now have to revise the building’s design to the satisfaction of the Environmental Planning Commission to move forward. At the same time, by allowing the zone change at the site the City Council signaled that leaving the property as a parking lot is undesirable.
It was unclear last night whether the developer would revise his plan.
The Environmental Planning Commission rejected both the zone change as well as the plan for the building’s design in two separate votes April 17, which led Sheffield to appeal that decision to the City Council.
The site development plan rejected last night was for a 46-unit, four-story residential building that the area neighborhood organization thought was too large and too dense for the neighborhood. Neighbors were concerned particularly with potential parking problems plus loss of views and privacy given the height of the building, which would tower over single-family homes to the south. But the developer said that the economics of digging out a garage to provide parking for the site required at least 46 units, and that the building could not be scaled back any further.
By splitting the difference last night — allowing a zone change but rejecting the site plan — the Council sought a creative solution to a sticky situation, which pit an environmentally laudable project against neighbors who viewed the project as threatening the character of the neighborhood.
How the council decided the issue was, to some, a test of Albuquerque’s commitment to infill development in line with the planned growth strategy, as well as the green building goals of the city. For instance, the Sierra Club gave testimony in favor of the project due to its energy efficient design and 1000 Friends of New Mexico, a smart growth organization, gave testimony about the value of infill development.
Elizabeth Doak, an environmental designer speaking on behalf of the neighborhood associations, though, said that "green is about lowering the impact of a project on our environment," as she urged Councilors to not let the developer solve his parking problem "on the backs of neighbors."
Benton said he was surprised when reading the minutes of the environmental planning commission that there was very little discussion among commissioners before they took an “up or down vote.” He said there was a “preponderance of evidence” that changing the zone was appropriate, from a designation that allows parking, to one that allows residential buildings and lets the EPC set the degree of density for the project. Several other councilors agreed, saying that the current use of the site as a parking lot is not its "highest, best use."
Nor did Benton feel that the opponents of the project were against a zone change for the site. Rather, they weren’t in favor of the project itself, he said. “I have a concern about the denial of the zone change," he continued, "not the denial of the site plan.”
In voicing support for Benton’s motion, Councilor Debbie O’Malley said she wasn’t hearing from the neighbors that they were resistant to change, just that they were against this particular site plan. We want change, she said, but the goal is quality development.
Councilor Rey Garduno weighed in that they were dealing with a "double-edged sword," with competing things at play: on the one hand the goals of the city’s planned growth strategy; on the other the validation of neighborhood sector plans that at times conflict with that strategy.
Benton said it’s a problem he sees throughout the city: outdated sector plans being used under changed conditions. Referring to the year the particular sector plan in question was written, he said "we have a different environment today than we did in 1986."
In urging Councilors to support his motion, Benton said that the denial of the zone change by the EPC set precedent for bad policy in conflict with the planned growth strategy, as well as other current goals of the city. And the change in zoning approved by the Council, he said, should be seen as a strong statement in support of the PGS and infill development at the same time it doesn’t give the green light to a project not wanted by the surrounding community.
