IDO Annual Update 2023 - Citywide Amendments - EPC Submittal

This is the same as Item 23. SEHNA vigorously OPPOSES modification to heights of walls in our front yard setbacks and any argument for doing so are flawed and ill-conceived. When will P & Z start listening to the people who actually live and own property in the neighborhood.

AGAIN? NO! The Southeast Heights Neighborhood Association has consistently opposed this misguided effort to raise the height of barriers between our streets and out homes.
At the Annual Meeting on October 25, 2022 we ONCE AGAIN discussed an effort at the City Zoning Department to modify the 3' height limit for walls within the front yard setbacks. Your neighborhood association has been continually dealing with this issue. We are opposed to this in the strongest possible terms. Someone is trying to convince people that it will make our neighborhood safer: That concept is flawed and just wrong. This item was brought to a vote of the Southeast Heights Neighborhood Association at the Annual Meeting in 2006 and has been discussed continuously since. Our policy and objection to the taller wall within the front yard setbacks has not changed.

Southeast Heights Neighborhood Association Policy - Garden Walls in Front Yard Setbacks

It has been a long-standing policy of the Board of the Southeast Heights Neighborhood Association to uphold the City Zoning Ordinance on walls and fences over 3 feet high within the setback in the front of homes. We therefore OPPOSE any application for a CONDITIONAL USE or a VARIANCE for construction of these walls for a number of reasons:

• In the spirit of keeping the historical nature of our neighborhood which was designed with broad avenues and houses with a primary orientation toward the street.

• One element of good neighborhoods is defensibility. Self-surveillance creates safer neighborhoods. Neighborhoods with private active living spaces with a view of the street activity require less martial resources and promote legal activities on the streets. The tall walls facing the street prohibit self-surveillance and put the legal activities behind walls and leaving the streets unwatched and consequently fewer safe spaces.

• In the same vein tall wall create a complete visual barrier conducive to burglaries and other undesirable activities while one's neighbors would be unable to see or respond appropriately. Additionally, it is a farce to promote tall walls in an effort to reduce crime. Nothing could be further from the truth.

• Tall walls provide spaces behind which people can hide.

• Tall walls disturb the sight lines and views down the streets.

Properties in our neighborhood do not generally have special circumstances that would justify violation of the zoning standards for construction of a wall of that height. Although the Board for the Southeast Heights Neighborhood Association is not the reviewing agency and the ultimate decision will be made by the City Zoning Hearing Examiner, we believe that it is the duty of the Board to promote the zoning standards affecting our neighborhood. The Board trusts that the hearing examiner reviews each case on its merits and ascertains that extenuating circumstances exist that would warrant an exception to any zoning code before granting approval. It is up to the applicant to show the City Zoning Hearing Examiner why any exception to the Zoning Ordinance should be granted.

Most disturbing regarding this effort, is that it seems counter to the fundamental reason we have a comprehensive masterplan and the IDO to guide urban development. The thesis of the document regarding residential areas is to preserve individual neighborhood character and to promote neighborhood interaction and walkability. The plan literally says consult with and listen to the neighborhoods. Closing off residences from the street is counter to maintenance of healthy, walkable, neighborhoods where the residents can keep an eye on neighborhood activities and assist in crime reduction and prevention.

There may be neighborhoods in Albuquerque where this is appropriate BUT NOT OURS! We do not want to live on impersonal, rarely walked-on urban canyons like you see elsewhere in the southwest. We have a very pedestrian, walkable neighborhood where we actually interact with our neighbors and their pets. We can see the street activities and they can see us and that is how we want to keep it.

Please consider what the neighbors want.

Rejecting this concept will make an important contribution to calming the heat island effect in Albuquerque. Last summer there were 15 days with temperatures in the triple digit range in comparison with 3 days the previous year. The NM State Climatologist is already concerned about this problem in our city. Removing trees and landscape to densify residential structures and parking on impervious surfaces in the central city will only intensify the heat island effect. Now is the time to protect the environment instead of making the problem worse.

People who just want to enjoy the homes they own according to the R-1 zoning they purchased should not be displaced by property owners who are driven primarily by the desire for profit. Also, this is an example of why the broad-brush approach to city planning is so problematic. Dividing houses onto duplexes is unworkable in older neighborhoods with smaller lots and narrow streets. Allowing parking to be met along the curbs of narrow lots leaves no room for trash cans, nor emergency and service vehicles like ambulances and mail delivery vans. It is doubtful that firetrucks and garbage trucks could negotiate some narrow, curving streets if curbside parking fills both sides. All this was stated before City Council deleted the provision from O-22-54. Why does it keep coming back?

I acknowledge I am repeating myself here but I am not the only one in SFV with this view. The process of reviewing, thoughtfully considering and providing informed comment on 60 citywide amendments, sorting through technical language and explanations which provide little more than a restatement of the change and no analysis of its potential consequences appears intended to make it as difficult as possible for residents and individual property owners to engage on land use issues. The SFVNA Board and a number of association members have followed these proposals since they were published and will continue to do so. We accept our mandate to serve as a recognized NA. We expect City leadership to engage in good faith. This process does not look like a genuinely good faith effort to us.

"It would be tyranny to say to a poor man who happens to own a lot within a residence district of palatial structures and his title subject to no servitude, that he could not erect an humble home upon it suited to his means, or that any residence he might erect must equal in grandeur those about it. Under his constitutional rights he could erect such a structure as he pleased, so long as it was not hazardous to others. It might proclaim his proverty; it might advertise the humbleness of his station; it might stand as a speaking contrast between his financial rank and that of his neighbors. Yet, it would be his "castle;" and the Constitution would shield him in its ownership and in its use.

If the citizen is not to be left free to determine the architecture of his own house, and the lawful and uninjurious use to which he will put it; if he is not to be permitted to improve his land as he chooses without hurt to his neighbors; if by law he is to be allowed to do these things only as officials or the public shall decree, or as may for the time suit the taste of a part of the community, the law might as well deal candidly with him and assert that he holds his property altogether at public sufferance. It might as well prescribe the kind of clothes he and his family shall wear and the sort of food they shall eat. Some people are as much offended by the clothes and diet of other people as they are by the style of their houses."

-Spann vs the City of Dallas November 2, 1921

Support! The mesa top is sacred to Native Americans. It would be good to get their input.

This amendment needs more explanation as to what clients Group Homes serve and where will they be located. It is important to have a successful program that serves those coming out of the criminal justice system or has addiction issues. We don't want to impact the surrounding Community. It would be good to know what drug treatment facilities Albuquerque has and how successful they are. Does Albuquerque currently have any successful models? Is there anyone that can explain how group homes operate? The more the public learns about these facilities the more we can determine what works, what doesn't and what is needed.

What group of people does this type of Facility serve? It would be helpful to learn more about Community Residential Facilities and how they operate. What City Department does that?

Support! We've had planning documents that promoted the protection of existing mature tree on a parcel of land, by incorporating them in to the landscape. It would be good to promote that practice again as many trees have died in the last few years, due to drought. This amendment is a good start.

Seems OK. What Community Residential Facilities does Albuquerque have already?

Support mailed notice if NA representative does not have an email address.

Agree that graveled front yard landscaped area should not be used as the parking areas for vehicles. Also Agree with Jane Baechle's and Debbie Conger that existing front yard regulations should be enforced.

Agree with Jane Baechle that the National Park Service for Petroglyph National Monument should also be notified of applications for properties adjacent to the monument so they can review and provide comment.

It is unclear why the City wants to change the language for notification. The current language seems stronger. I recommend not removing the adjacency requirement for notification.

It is unclear why the City wants to change the language for notification. The current language seems stronger. I recommend not removing the adjacency requirement for notification.

It is unclear why the City wants to change the language for notification. The current language seems stronger. I recommend not changing the notification language.

I do not understand the need to replace the "Adjacency" language. I believe this will have a negative effect on Neighborhood notification. It is unnecessary to change the language, and therefore I do not support this change.

This amendment needs to be more clear. Currently adjacent does not include the ROW of roadways or utility easements within the 330 ft. distance for notification, so that NAs across the street, or utility easements such as an arroyo, can also be notified. Don't change the current language. Leave the "adjacency " language unchanged.

I do not support this amendment, as this amendment increases the allowable front yard wall height which will negatively change the character of neighborhoods. The majority of neighborhoods want to maintain the character of the existing wall height and the openness it provides for their community. This amendment was brought up last year which received strong neighborhood opposition. Therefore this amendment should not be approved.

Support!

Don't support reducing any landscape requirements or parking requirements for multifamily. Usable open space and parking space requirements for apartments have already been reduced in prior IDO amendment updates. This is a quality of life issue. Landscaping provides a nice space for the tenants and a nice visual appearance as well. Don't reduce anymore landscaping or parking for multifamily.

Don't support limiting parking near a transit shelter or bus stops. Bus riders often rely on the extra space of parking lots in shopping centers or businesses to park and catch the bus. Don't want to discourage bus ridership because there is no place for them to park and catch the bus. Albuquerque lacks parking near bus stops. I have been told by people who work in transit that the more you make it easy for people to catch the bus the more they will ride the bus.

Support, addressing this issue as front yard parking has increased for RV's, and Boats. I'm starting to hear more complaints as a result. Side and rear yard parking could work as long as the vehicles don't stick out beyond the house, or dominate the visual appearance of the lot . They should also not block views of the neighbors or use the street as a parking lot.

Sounds good!

Don't support! There is no reason to support when there is a zoning designation for duplex already.

This amendment will also create a lot of problems in terms of parking and traffic congestion at the corner of residential streets, affecting the access in and out of neighborhoods. Not only will it negatively change the character and status of R-1 zoning, (which is in an Area of Consistency); it also becomes a public safety issue due to street parking that will restrict access into the neighborhood. This should not be approved.

The ICC has made very good points as to why City facilities should NOT be exempt from a conditional use hearing process. The public can give valuable input to solving some of our community issues if given a chance.

This amendment will create a lot of problems in terms of parking and traffic congestion at the corner of residential streets, affecting the access in and out of neighborhoods. Not only will it negatively change the character and status of R-1 zoning, (which is in an Area of Consistency); it also becomes a public safety issue due to street parking that will restrict access into the neighborhood. This should not be approved.

Should maintain Overnight shelters as a conditional use to allow public input to address any concerns.

Support! This will help address neighborhood and business concerns of too many cannabis stores opening up in the same area and will also help avoid diluting their customer base.

Same as above - Have you let the gas stations know about this amendment. It may be an idea they may want to do, but not be forced to do. Not sure how this would work in addressing crime issues. We should not mandate the use of walls and fences to solve crime.

Does retail know about this amendment. It may be an idea they may want to do, but not be forced to do. I agree with previous comments that we don't want to be a city of walls and fences.

Who asked for this amendment? How will making outdoor amplified sound an accessory use make things better? There is already a noise ordinance that has an outdoor sound curfew from 10 pm-7am. I have heard complaints from people who have been awaken by amplified outdoor church services. I have also talked with neighbors wanting to close down a restaurant because of the outdoor amplified music. Will this amendment address daytime amplified sound? I do not want to encourage more amplified outdoor sound, by making it an Accessory use.

The separation of CRFs into Small and Large should be based on square footage of sleeping areas, not numbers of residents. Knowing how many people are actually living in a facility is difficult because operators could move occupants temporarily if they learn of inspections in advance.

We do not support an amendment that would undermine the character of historic Neighborhoods? It is unclear why this amendment is being proposed. Which staff requested this and why? Is this to reduce the load on the ZHE? How does the historic preservation planning staff feel about this? It is very important to maintain the character of Albuquerque's historic neighborhoods.

To state the concern about homelessness problems more specifically, residents are now required by city ordinance to keep the alleys behind their property clean. If this proposed revision moves encampments off commercial property, the alleys are a likely place where they will go. This would place individual residents in the position of having to clear the camps, which could be occupied by people with weapons and who (perhaps) are mentally unstable. Even if the odds of this situation are low, average citizens should not have to assume the vulnerability.

I agree with previous comments that reviewing 60 plus zoning amendments during the Holidays is extremely disrespectful to the community. Why so many amendments with cryptic explanations? Some are very technical, while others are too confusing to understand. These zoning amendments if not carefully thought through could negatively impact Albuquerque's unique character and quality of life. Why couldn't the comment period have been extended to the end of November, instead of the Monday right after the Thanksgiving weekend?

Flag illumination upper limit missing.
Set upper limit on top mounted down facing flag pole luminaries to 3000 lumens at 5000K total emission maximum.

This Ordinance should state the Purpose
And should include “...to prevent the increase of unnecessary sky glow that reduces the visibility of stars in the night sky and to protect natural ecosystems and their biodiversity

Mixed Use in LZ2 has lights on all night. This should be restricted to on as needed or motion detection hardware.

Re: Non conforming lighting - if electric or change of luminaries is needed shall be considered non-conforming thru 2034. What about un-permitted lights and lights non-conforming to the 1999 NSPA? Do they get to operate for 10 more years without having a permit or being constructed out of compliance with the State ACT?
Is this an amnesty program for all non compliant luminaries?

Table 2-14-15 for LZ2 , LZ3 MX-FB Sub Zones is not very helpful. Can this be restructured to be easier to understand? Context is murky at best.

When the draft references ANSI/IES Light Zone X, for different LZ’s, add the ANSI/IES data in the same section for easy review.

Color temperature lights should not have a lower limit or 3000K or 2700K. Narrow spectrum lights with no blue light are 2200K TO 1700K. Phrase as low as possible while providing adequate illumination.

Color Maps need to be added for light zones to identify where the zones apply.

I am strongly opposed to making 5 foot tall walls permissive in R-1 zones because it would cause significant damage to our neighborhoods. We won’t have family-friendly, inviting neighborhoods if the homes are walled-off from neighbors and visitors. This remains true even if the top 2 feet are “transparent;” because there will still be a 5 foot tall wall in the front yard.

If people are worried about a pet or young child getting out, they have their entire backyard, or they can go through a variance process to (possibly) build a taller wall in the front yard. Let’s retain 3 foot walls in front yards, and not destroy the family-friendly character of our neighborhoods.

Finally, why is this proposal, which was defeated last year, being recirculated?

I support these changes , but I'm a little surprised to see them introduced this late in the IDO process without more public notice and comment. Did I miss something in the process? I don't see a date on when the exhibit was posted.

This seems to be an inappropriate use of the IDO update process to make a substantive zoning change without sufficient public notice and comment. This goes well beyond a simple revision of a definition. If the revision is genuinely needed to "make the definition more operational,enforceable, and parallel to other defined terms", the changes need greater visibility.

This same comment appears in the supporting memo also.
Is this aimed at a specific size of angular stone? If so, why? It seems unnecessary--few people want to park on uneven angular boulders or cobbles, so maybe this is aimed at angular gravel coarser than crusher fines? I can imagine advantages to a driveway of compacted angular stones between approximately 1/2 inch and 1 inch in diameter-- particles small enough to pack down flat and but large enough not to get stuck in your shoes like crusher fines. Is there really a pressing zoning issue to exclude this option? If so, please be specific about allowable particle sizes, and explain why. As an editorial observation, the proposed wording needs "or" inserted in front of "crusher fines" to be consistent with the preceding phrase "such as".