Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning O28 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rio Rancho governing body rejects O‑28 zoning change for Paseo Gateway West, citing lack of master plan and ownership gaps
Summary
Council voted down O‑28, a developer request to rezone multiple blocks from R3 to R4, after staff and council members stressed absence of an enforceable master plan, questions about ownership of 'holdout' lots, and concerns about parkland, access and grading.
The Rio Rancho governing body voted down an ordinance, O‑28, that would have amended zoning for parcels in the Paseo Gateway West specific area plan from R3 to R4 (single‑family residential). The applicant, Nikosha Shuttlebauer of CLO/Bonita Development, presented a two‑year history of the project and explained that the developer revised the request to R4 to respond to council feedback seeking stronger master‑plan assurances.
Shuttlebauer said the applicant had submitted a conceptual plan designed to align with the Paseo Gateway West specific area plan and that parkland dedication would meet or exceed minimum code requirements if later phases proceed. She told the council that code would require about 2.99 acres of parkland at full buildout and that the developer was offering a 2.9‑acre park commitment backed by developer obligation or bonding. She also explained phasing (five phases) and ownership/contract issues: of 124 lots across five phases, about 21 lots (roughly 17%) were not yet under developer control, and a few shorthold owner situations complicated inclusion of phases 4 and 5.
Multiple councilors said they could not support rezoning without a binding master plan. As one councilor summarized, a master plan provides enforceable design standards and gives residents and staff assurances about future layout, park configuration, access and grading. Staff and the planning and zoning board had previously recommended denial; the council voted no on O‑28 in a roll call, and the ordinance failed.
The applicant asked the council to approve the zone map amendment with a subsequent requirement to file a master plan within a defined period or as part of preliminary planning actions; city staff reported that legal limits prevent the city from conditioning a straight zoning change to require future master‑plan submission in the same way the city can with planned‑unit or SU zoning. Council members expressed willingness to consider alternative approaches but held that zoning without an enforceable master plan would leave too many future uncertainties for nearby residents.
The vote on O‑28 failed on the council floor.
