Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zone Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board rejects request to add townhomes at Plaza Rio Lot B
Summary
The Rio Rancho Planning & Zoning Board voted to deny a proposed amendment that would have added multifamily townhomes as a permissive use at Plaza Rio Lot B (approx. 1.51 acres). Staff had recommended approval with conditions, but the motion to approve failed on a roll-call vote.
Ben Isaacs, a municipal planner with the City of Rio Rancho, briefed the Planning and Zoning Board on a request to amend the zoning for Plaza Rio Lot B to allow multifamily townhomes as a permissive retail-commercial use. The parcel is about 1.51 acres at the corner of Golf Course Road and Gay Circle, near Southern Boulevard, and staff proposed ordinance language permitting up to 32-foot (two‑story) buildings and updated site-plan and parking standards.
Staff recommended the board forward the amendment with findings and conditions. "The applicant is seeking to add multifamily townhomes to this list of permissive uses," Isaacs said during the presentation, noting staff considers the approach preferable to rezoning the lot to a high-density residential district.
No applicant representative or members of the public spoke in favor during the hearing. After discussion, a board member moved to "approve item 6 as presented." The board then recorded a roll-call vote; Commissioners Hardesty, Richardson, Radosevich, Gabaldon (Vice Chair), Hankins and Koster each registered "No," and the motion failed.
The failure means the requested ordinance change will not be forwarded to the governing body for approval at this time. Staff had suggested the amendment would create a buffer between low‑density residential uses and adjacent commercial uses and that site-plan and parking language be updated to match current code.
What happens next: the board did not postpone the item further, so the applicant may revise the proposal and return at a future meeting. The record shows staff previously postponed the case in October because the applicant was absent; no new action was taken tonight.
Provenance: topicintro SEG 161; topfinish SEG 372.
