Planning commission pauses vote on Village Center overhaul, sends draft changes back to staff

The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque voted July 8 to continue consideration of reshaping the Village Center zone and creating a new Core Commercial zone, sending staff back to prepare an updated, redlined draft for the commission's August 12 hearing.

The commission’s staff report described TA‑25‑02 (text amendments to the VC zone) and ZMA‑25‑01 (a corresponding zoning map amendment to change parcels from VC to the proposed CC designation) as related items that will require separate votes. Staff said about 45 property owners received notices in May and June and recommended the commission forward the package once outstanding technical questions are resolved. The commission did not vote on the substance of the draft; instead it approved a motion to continue the item to August 12 so staff can incorporate commissioner and public input.

Commissioners and members of the public pressed staff and the working group on several technical points that must be clarified in the next draft. Common threads included how the use matrix defines permissive/conditional/prohibited uses, whether civic support should be permissive or conditional, how residential density is calculated (gross versus net acreage), setbacks where CC abuts residential neighborhoods, and signage rules such as sandwich‑board placement.

‘‘We need to get the right documents to people so they can give useful input,’’ Commissioner (voice 7) said, urging staff to circulate an updated packet before the next hearing. Multiple commissioners also asked staff to confirm whether earlier approvals and project‑area vesting (notably existing multi‑phase projects) should remain subject to previous terms or be adjusted under the new code.

Public commenters who participated at length included Robert Chavez, who co‑chaired the working group and said the committee’s recommendations responded to a petition of about 650 signatures focused on limiting height, residential density and setbacks. Chavez said the committee intended to preserve approved project parcels inside the VC project area while moving other parcels into the lower‑height CC zone (26 feet) to limit further high‑density development outside the project area. ‘‘That was the attempt to make sure the other properties go to Core C so the new height restrictions go into effect,’’ Chavez said.

Property representatives also urged caution. Matt Myers, representing Peterson Properties, said there may be legal consequences if the change operates as a quasi‑judicial rezoning or as a down‑zoning for individual properties; he recommended clearer cross‑references to state condominium statute language and asked staff to narrow the circumstances that trigger a site development plan review so ordinary tenant changes do not require lengthy reapproval.

Staff reminded the commission that a moratorium affecting the VC zone has been extended and advised the commission to prepare a working draft with specific edits from commissioners and the public. The commission’s motion to continue the items passed on a roll‑call vote; the continuation explicitly included the corresponding zoning atlas/map amendment. The item will return to the commission on Aug. 12.

Next steps: staff will compile commissioner and public comments, publish a redlined draft and packet, and bring a revised legislative record back to the commission for further review and separate votes on the TA and map amendment.