Rio Rancho council rejects zone change for Paseo Gateway West after concerns about master plan, parks and traffic
Loading...
Summary
The City Council voted down Ordinance O‑28, a zone map amendment to allow R‑4 single‑family development in the Paseo Gateway West area, after councilors raised concerns about lack of a binding master plan, park configuration and traffic near Shiloh Elementary. The applicant said parkland dedication and bonding would guarantee deliverables, but the vote failed.
The Rio Rancho City Council voted unanimously to reject Ordinance O‑28, a developer-requested zone map amendment that would have changed multiple lots in the Paseo Gateway West area from TZ and R‑3 to R‑4 single‑family residential.
Director of Development Services Amy Rincon introduced the item and said the request had previously failed at the August 14 meeting and carried a planning-and-zoning denial recommendation after public notice issues and other staff concerns. Applicant representative Nikosha Shuttlebauer told the council the team has worked for two years to assemble parcels and refine the proposal, and that the revised R‑4 request would commit the land to single‑family homes.
Shuttlebauer said the full five‑phase concept would yield roughly 350 homes and that by code a full buildout requires about 2.99 acres of parkland; she said phases 1–3 account for fewer lots but the developer would deliver parkland either by building the park at preliminary plat or by a city bond to guarantee completion. She also said a traffic‑impact analysis for all five phases showed no recommended mitigation measures.
Councilors pressed the applicant on ownership and enforceability. The developer said the entire project has 124 lots with 21 not under developer control — about 17% — and that three ownership entities in phases 1–3 remained not yet under contract. Councilor Linnentine and others stressed that without a formally adopted master plan, the city lacks enforceable standards for design, park configuration and future phases. Councilor Linnentine also raised safety and traffic concerns near Shiloh Elementary and the Wilpitt/Shiloh corridor.
City staff explained that master plans adopted by resolution and referenced in zoning ordinances can carry enforceable “teeth” for design standards, whereas a conceptual plan by itself gives staff less enforceability. Staff also noted options exist to relabel and resubmit a conceptual plan as a master plan if ownership and noticing issues are resolved.
After extended questioning about ownership percentages, park size and access, the council took a roll‑call vote and O‑28 failed (councilors recorded 'No' on the motion).
The item ends without zoning change; the developer said it may seek to return with a revised submittal that addresses ownership and master‑plan concerns.
The council moved on to other agenda items.
