IDO Annual Update 2023 - Council Memo - Two-Family Detached (Duplex)

To quote the position that was aptly stated by Peter Swift in the previous version of the current IDO update, "The relevant Council Memo is dated October 20, 2021, and appears to have been written after the proposed IDO changes were posted. The change effectively reinstates a provision from 2022 proposed version of O-22-54 Section 1 that was removed from the ordinance following public review and comment on the earlier version. This provision does not appear in the enacted O-23-54, and its inclusion in the IDO updates appears to contravene both due process and the majority position of the City Council."

Per the Water 2120 report, "A significant shift to more high density development and infill would likely reduce overall per capita [water] use significantly". Allowing duplexes in R-1 zones is crucial to our city's sustainability and survival.

Housing costs are too high for us to have such restrictive zoning laws. We should legalize duplexes (and more!) across the city. If you care about reducing homelessness, you should care about increasing density. Let alone the environmental and sustainability benefits.

Both as a professional policy analyst at NMT who has written about urban planning issues, and a citizen of Albuquerque city council district 9 represented by Renee Grout, I am fully in support of policies that would add housing density to R-1 zoning. If we want to keep housing affordable, reduce homelessness, and have a fiscally sound city, policies such as adding duplex housing to R-1 are the least that the city can do. I would go so far as to suggest that all R-1 zoning allow low rise apartments and live-work shops and other small scale commercial arrangements. But given that these other essential changes are not currently on the agenda, adding duplexes is a good, though inadequate, start.

Multiple newer neighborhoods, including SFV and most of those nearby on ABQ's westside, have congregate mail boxes. Will the US Postal Service be required to install new mailboxes each time an additional dwelling unit is added?

Jane Baechle Nov 5 2023 at 9:14AM Jane Baechle Oct 25 2023 at 3:05PM IF passed, what use specific and design specific standards will apply? Protection overlays supersede other provisions; what consideration has been given to assuring that language is included. Would it be possible for a single story home to add a two story unit as a duplex and what limits will be placed to ensure any addition to the structure is consistent with the scale and design of the original structure? reply Agree0 Disagree0 Jane Baechle Nov 5 2023 at 9:27AM Speaking as an individual, I am not reflexively opposed to the thoughtful addition of a duplex to low density residential property. There are a FEW homes in SFV large enough to become a two family dwelling and allow for true off street parking while complying with the current IDO standards for parking on the street facing portion of the property. Having said that, this is not what this proposal can be expected to ensure. It provides no safeguards or standards to ensure that a duplex has no negative impacts on the neighborhood or nearby property. It would provide no limit on the number of properties that could be turned into a two family dwelling or consideration of neighborhood density. This will disproportionately harm older and modest neighborhoods. This reflects no acknowledgement of the availability of public transit to allow for reliance on something other than multiple personal vehicles per household. And, as a permissive use, it effectively precludes any genuine say on the part of affected property owners or the neighborhood as a whole.

Purpose lacks substance, no analysis of risk and benefits. Why is this being reintroduced, when it was defeated 8/21/2023. This is a zone change that requires notification to all R-1 property owners. 2 units do not = R-1. If passed duplexes in R-1 subdivisions would drastically change the character of established neighborhoods. This will result in second-story additions and garage conversions. Lack of conformity leads to diminished property values. Upzoning will lead to higher real estate property taxes. In order for a property to have market value improvements need to conform to existing improvements in the subject's market area. Improvements need to be economically feasible, not likely with today's interest rates. Improvements need to be physically feasible, ie: utility connections, sewer line capacity, access to parking, setbacks, etc.

this will create sacrifice areas in some older neighborhoods (Spruce Park for example). Its proximity to UNM makes it a target for ghettoization. Another case of expectation of R-1 that is changed drastically by change from r-1 to higher densities. It destroys the quality of life to the extent that long-time residents move out and the area becomes high density eventually. Danger is it sets a precedent. Change from C to P destroys established neighborhoods

My husband and I are vehemently opposed to the City going back to the well to try to cram down through the wrong process (an annual general update) duplexes in R-1 zones less than one year after the same proposal failed as a part of Housing Forward after residents finally got wind of it. You know as well as we do that allowing this use will do NOTHING to provide affordable housing for people between 30-80% of AMI. This is sneeky and outrageous. We object!

Amending something out of an amendment one year (taking duplexes out of R-1 in Housing Forward) and re-introducing it again the next year, reinforces my concern about Council's absolute lack of urban planning knowledge. Too bad this plan was not used to guide the wide range of housing types needed so desperately in Albuquerque: link

This change does not belong in the annual update process any more than Housing Forward did!

I am opposed to allowing duplexes in R-1 zoned areas.

This change effectively reinstates language from proposed O-22-54 Section 1 that was removed following public comment. This provision is not present in enacted O-23-54, and including it here seems to be contrary both to the majority vote of City Council in June 2023 and to the intent of the amendment process. This is is a substantive change that has been proposed without adequate public notice or comment. The date on the memo is October 20, 2023, after the proposed change to the IDO had been posted without details.