2025 Update Pre-EPC Submittal Spreadsheet

in reply to Peggy's comment

projectteam Sep 3 2025 at 10:06AM on page 3

Live-work facilities specifically exclude liquor retail uses, which is why the processes are not aligned with liquor licensing.

in reply to Peggy's comment

projectteam Sep 3 2025 at 10:05AM on page 3

The definition of Composting Facility applies only to facilities operated by more than one person or household. Individual household composting is therefore excluded from regulation.

in reply to Eleanor Walther's comment

projectteam Sep 3 2025 at 10:04AM on page 2

“Incidental use” is not a defined term in the IDO. However, community gardens are a defined use and can be either a primary or accessory use, depending on the zone district and context. The proposed update to the definition of Community Garden clarifies that composting is allowed as part of the use.

in reply to pilar's comment

projectteam Sep 3 2025 at 10:03AM on page 6

The easiest way to visualize where this amendment might apply is by using the IDO Interactive Map (which is pinned in yellow on the left). Click Button 2 at the bottom of the map, then check the boxes for Centers and Major Transit Corridors. Activity Centers will appear in orange, and Major Transit Corridors will be outlined in green. This will show where height-related changes could potentially apply.

in reply to Juie's comment

projectteam Sep 3 2025 at 9:57AM on page 5

Section 5-10 (Solar Access) still applies in relevant zone districts and the proposed change does not override those protections. Any accessory dwelling unit built to match the height of the primary structure would still be subject to solar access review and must comply with those standards to be approved.

in reply to Patricia's comment

projectteam Sep 3 2025 at 9:46AM on page 11

Currently, all vacation requests, regardless of scale, are decided by City Council through the consent agenda, which adds time to the process. This change allows the Development Hearing Officer (DHO) to decide on all vacation requests, streamlining review while maintaining transparency. Appeals would still be heard by City Council.

in reply to Patricia's comment

projectteam Sep 3 2025 at 9:40AM on page 9

On corner lots, both the front and street-facing side façades would be subject to articulation requirements, as described in the revised language. This ensures that all visible façades facing the public realm meet the design intent.

Rene' Aug 28 2025 at 6:04PM on page 11

Appeal standing is important and should be for any individual or neighborhoods who have issues or concerns that still need to be addressed. Unfortunately it seems the only way to get issues addressed, is through Appeals. If the goal of the amendment is to place restrictions on Appeal standing for an individual or Neighborhood Association then it should not be approved.
Also, street rights-of-way should not be included in the distance requirement of 660 feet to be notified, or to have Appeal standing. Because this amendment is unclear on several issues related to Appeal Standing, it should not move forward.

Merideth Aug 28 2025 at 5:19PM on page 20

Can staff provide a list of all the aspects of O-24-69 that are being incorporated in these amendments so they can be removed if the lawsuit prevails?

Rene' Aug 28 2025 at 5:04PM on page 21

The C-3 and C-4 amendments: These zoning conversions are major zone changes that are being done to increase density and building heights, along Major Transit Corridor and Activity Centers by changing R-1 to multifamily. The IDO already changed zoning in 2018, to allow zoning categories that allow multifamily. There is no need to do more. There was no prior notification of this amendment to convert R-1, R-A or R-T to RML. This lack of notification is underhanded. 0-24-69 is under litigation and these amendments are premature and should not be approved.

Eleanor Walther Aug 28 2025 at 5:02PM on page 11

Makes it impossible for citizens to appeal. Why don't developers have the same requirement. WHy is this being proposed while 0-24-69 has a lawsuit filed against it.

Eleanor Walther Aug 28 2025 at 5:00PM on page 11

This makes it impossible for citizens to appeal. Why aren't devlopers required to meet the same criteria.

Eleanor Walther Aug 28 2025 at 4:57PM on page 2

Is "incidental use" defined for community gardens?

Rene' Aug 28 2025 at 4:52PM on page 20

Agree, these zoning conversions in C-1 &C-2 are major zone changes that were done during the holidays, without notification, especially to those who will feel the impact of the increased density and building heights, along these corridors. Because of the sneaky way this was handled it is now in litigation and should not move forward.

Rene' Aug 28 2025 at 4:49PM on page 19

The purpose of Dimensional standards are to set lot sizes and setback requirements to maintain privacy, quality of life and to provide fire protection. This proposal, if implemented, could set the stage for devastating fire storms in closely packed neighborhoods. The dimensional standards should not be changed.

Eleanor Walther Aug 28 2025 at 4:45PM on page 2

Once again an incorrect page reference. I am not seeing small and medium composting in the table.

Peggy Norton Aug 28 2025 at 4:37PM on page 21

Couldn't access map. Does this include the new proposed Menaul Corridor designation?

Eleanor Walther Aug 28 2025 at 4:36PM on page 2

It would be appropriate to have public input in this process and public notification.

Eleanor Walther Aug 28 2025 at 4:34PM on page 1

his isn't on page 45.

Eleanor Walther Aug 28 2025 at 4:29PM on page 1

Open space is necessary for the health and well-being of residents.

Eleanor Walther Aug 28 2025 at 4:25PM on page 1

This is nuts. You have to read through the whole IDO to determine whether the "editorial" changes change the meaning.

Eleanor Walther Aug 28 2025 at 4:23PM on page 1

Having to peruse the whole IDO to look for edits is nuts.

Eleanor Walther Aug 28 2025 at 4:22PM on page 11

agree

Eleanor Walther Aug 28 2025 at 4:21PM on page 12

I thought this had already been changed in a prior update.

Eleanor Walther Aug 28 2025 at 4:17PM on page 8

yes

Jaemes Shanley Aug 28 2025 at 4:10PM on page 1

Suggestion

As a write-in candidate for City Council for District 7, I am concerned in reviewing these proposed IDO amendments that there is too much de-facto up-zoning of residential neighborhood areas and too little addressing the deplorable state of our corridors, many of which are in a state of commercial collapse and decay. The appropriate and practical position to take with respect to the legacy of sprawl in ABQ is not to "attack" and potentially destabilize established and healthy R-1 single family neighborhoods. It is to facilitate densification and recovery in their perimeter major corridors, particularly be permitting housing that is lower cost than single family homes and can provide opportunity for more of Albuquerque to have a foot on the ladder of home ownership......not to mention better access to transit for a future date when Albuquerque's public transit can be a resource that all citizens will be willing to use.

Janet Aug 28 2025 at 4:09PM on page 14

Do not support as it lacks clarity.

Patricia Aug 28 2025 at 4:06PM on page 1

It is 4pm on August 28th and I am running out of time to make comments. Here is one last general comment about the IDO Update Process. First, I am grateful that it has switched from Annual to Biennial. Second, I wish Council would respect that. Third, if we have had to have over 600 amendments in the last 5 years, something is drastically wrong with the IDO. Fourth, the continued effort to upzone permissively is disingenuous. And finally, thank you for all the work you do--and could we please let the planners do the planning, rather than the politicians.

Peggy Aug 28 2025 at 4:05PM on page 18

I believe there is something corrupt going on in the development of PC's. I believe that history has shown that several individuals withing the planning department 'friends' group have benefited from amendments and planning activities for these are most vulnerable communities. I request additional time to publicly review and discuss all PD and PC amendments.

Peggy Norton Aug 28 2025 at 4:03PM on page 5

Oppose. This should be 750 useable space, similar to cottage development. A 1500 square foot house (2 stories) is not a casita.

in reply to Patricia's comment

Peggy Aug 28 2025 at 4:03PM on page 17

Where are the necessary beneficiary analysis and the impact statements? Where is a true statement of the source of this amendment?

Janet Aug 28 2025 at 4:02PM on page 2

Support this proposed change.

Janet Aug 28 2025 at 4:01PM on page 8

Support this proposed change.

Peggy Aug 28 2025 at 3:59PM on page 14

I consider this another taking, I ask for risk analysis and I remind you that appeal status is currently being challenged in court so if this passes it can be considered dirty hands legislation.

Peggy Norton Aug 28 2025 at 3:59PM on page 5

Support

Peggy Aug 28 2025 at 3:57PM on page 14

I think all sidewalks need to be ADA compliant. If the RailTrail is running into difficulty with this, how in the world are we rewriting law to accommodate. Who are the beneficiaries, who are those impacted, why do this without attending to RISK issues and loss of ADA compliance?

Peggy Aug 28 2025 at 3:55PM on page 13

Again, seems to put access to waiver into a single person's hands. I don't see this as best practice.

Peggy Aug 28 2025 at 3:54PM on page 13

It is necessary to have a full mapping of all the right of way's that this affects. It is necessary to notify all those along right of ways.

Where is this coming from who benefits who looses property value and access? Dang

Peggy Aug 28 2025 at 3:53PM on page 12

This removes a level of review and I stand against it.

Peggy Aug 28 2025 at 3:50PM on page 12

Does this mean that framework plans set forth for PC's will not follow site plan notifications processes?

Peggy Aug 28 2025 at 3:49PM on page 12

See previous comments regarding allowable uses being reviewed and decided by an individual, not best practice.

Peggy Aug 28 2025 at 3:46PM on page 11

Am I reading this correctly? We need appeal open to all, including tenants, who are affected by the right of way changes. Oppose.

in reply to Jane's comment

Peggy Aug 28 2025 at 3:43PM on page 11

Me too

Peggy Aug 28 2025 at 3:42PM on page 11

I cannot support this. Best practices on decisions for right of way vacations is that they are made by a board or by council after a formal process involving public input and a review of whether good cause exists and if the public interest is being served or if any person is going to be materially injured. By reducing the involvement of those affected, we add risk. Please review this against the source of the amendment, those who will benefit, those who will be affected, known unintended consequences and visit a map of all affected right-of-ways. Putting this decision in the hands of one individual creates an opportunity for influence peddling and abuse of authority. NOT A GOOD PRACTICE.

Patricia Aug 28 2025 at 3:42PM on page 1

Will all the comments on the Pre-EPC Submittal remain available to view after the comment period ends today? I really want to read them all but am having trouble turning off the filtering and cannot see them all right now...

Peggy Aug 28 2025 at 3:37PM on page 10

Wow. Support.

Peggy Aug 28 2025 at 3:36PM on page 10

This reduces the notification and involvement of tribal entities in planning processes. I believe this to be wrong and poor planning for our west side neighbors.

Peggy Aug 28 2025 at 3:35PM on page 10

This reduces the notification and involvement of the Tribal entity in larger planning actions. I believe this is wrong.

Rene' Aug 28 2025 at 3:33PM on page 14

I strongly disagree with changing the definition of the word "Abut" so that it does not include a diagonal corner lot, even when it touches a project site. The benefit of maintaining the definition for the words "abut", and also "adjacent" to include diagonal lots which helps protect our sensitive lands and neighborhoods better. Development needs to be more sensitive to blend with the built and natural environment and be in scale and character with the surrounding area, including abutting and adjacent lots. It is unfortunate the City is continually working to undermine zoning protections which prevents us from achieving attractive developments, which complement the surrounding area. It's important to maintain a strong definition, rather than weaken it. This amendment should not move forward.

Richard Schaefer Aug 28 2025 at 3:33PM on page 9

For the last thirty years the "downtown" area of the City has had the least restrictive zoning within the City. Yet, almost everyone would agree that the planning and development of the downtown area has been perhaps the most visibly failed development effort in Albuquerque. Now, the Planning Department, Mayor and City Council appear to want to apply those same de-regulated zoning standards to the vast new areas of the City. This lack of reliable planning policy helps explain why the City has been losing residents each of the last four years. Yet, the City says it needs to anticipate 2 percent population growth into the foreseeable future. Why? Whose interests does de-regulation serve? No wonder residents are leaving the City.

Warning message

2025 Update Pre-EPC Submittal Spreadsheet

Comments

Commenting is closed for this document.