Los Ranchos trustees approve Palindrome site plan and preliminary plat, add no‑left‑turn condition at Osuna driveway

The Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque Board of Trustees on April 10 approved a final site development plan for Tracts 1–3 of the Palindrome village center and a preliminary plat covering the full 12‑acre project, adding a condition to prevent left turns exiting the development’s Osuna driveway. Both motions carried on roll calls reported as 3–0.

Planning and zoning consultant Bridal Williams told the board the Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended approval after imposing six findings and conditions. Williams said an alternate parking plan submitted for Tracts 1–3 provides 188 off‑street spaces — 42 fewer than the 230 spaces the code’s strict calculation would require — and noted roughly 150 additional spaces already exist on Parcels 4–6 that the applicant proposes to use in aggregate. Williams also said the recommended buffer wall along Willow Road lies outside the immediate Tracts 1–3 and would be addressed when later phases come forward.

"The planning department is suggesting approval of the site development plan based on findings and conditions," Williams said during the staff presentation.

The applicant’s team — including Palindrome development director Rebecca Delarde and attorney Marcus Rael — defended the submission as compliant with the village code and the project’s prior approvals. Rael reminded trustees that state statute and precedent require the board to apply the code on the books. "You must review this application against the zoning code that you have," he said, urging the board to follow the published procedures rather than substitute preferences.

Residents contesting the project focused on traffic, parking and past process problems. Tom Donlin said the developer began construction while appeals were pending and accused the company of violating the development agreement: "They started construction while this was under appeal means they've been in violation of the development agreement this entire time," he told the board. Several speakers also said the traffic study (completed in 2022) underestimates current volumes and questioned whether shared parking will work in practice.

The board also heard technical testimony from the project traffic engineer, who recommended a compromise limiting one outbound movement at the Osuna driveway: permit right‑in/right‑out and left‑in but prohibit the northbound left‑out that would send traffic west across Osuna. Trustees discussed safety and spillover effects to nearby residential streets if turning movements were restricted.

Trustee Benavides moved to approve SP 2401 "with the conditions outlined in the P&Z report and the one additional condition for no left‑hand turns exiting the Palindrome project on Osuna, Driveway A." The motion was seconded and approved on roll call. The board also removed the word "preliminary" from two findings to reflect that Tracts 1–3 were before the board for final approval.

After a brief recess, trustees considered the related preliminary plat request for the entire 12 acres, which would define six lots/tracts for future development. Planning staff explained that preliminary plat approval follows a two‑step process and that final plat and any title conveyance for Tracts 4–6 cannot proceed until the conditions are satisfied and, where required, future site development plans for those tracts are reviewed and approved.

Trustee T. Bernal moved — and trustees seconded — to approve the preliminary plat for all six tracts "subject to the planning department's recommended conditions and additional requirements that the final plat will not be effective for Tracts 4, 5 and 6 until such time as the site development plan for Tracts 4, 5 and 6 have been reviewed by the planning department, P&Z and finally approved by the Board of Trustees." The motion passed on a roll call recorded as 3–0.

The decisions leave the framework for Tracts 4–6 in place on the preliminary plat but preserve the board’s review of the site development plans for those tracts in later proceedings; planning staff and the applicant noted that final platting and any conveyance cannot occur for parcels the applicant does not yet own or control. Attorney Chapel reminded the board that the village will render a written decision within 15 days describing the factual and legal basis for the orders.

The meeting record shows multiple residents urging a pause or separation of approvals for Tracts 4–6, and several commenters alleged Open Meetings Act and permit‑related violations; trustees and the village attorney discussed those legal issues in the hearing and pointed to prior court orders and the October 2024 settlement that the applicant said leaves prior approvals in effect except for the plat and site plan now under review.

What happens next: the Board’s written decision will be issued in the coming days, and final plat actions for Tracts 1–3 move through the village’s final plat process at Planning & Zoning and then back to the Board for signature and recording when all conditions are met. Any subsequent site development plans for Tracts 4–6 must follow the standard public hearing process, including review by Planning & Zoning and the Board of Trustees.