IDO Annual Update 2022 - Pre-EPC Submittal - Citywide Proposed Changes

I oppose this amendment as written. This proposed change is in conflict with positions taken by neighbors and Neighborhood Associations last year when a similar change was submitted. City Council rejected this amendment last year. The community decided the issue in 2017. I question why Administration would submit an amendment in conflict with community voices. This change in fences would change the character of the community. I have heard that administration said a 3 ft fence does not keep children or dogs in. I don't understand this argument given we have had 3 ft fence in our community for hundreds of years. Having received notice on requests for variances, that route seems to be the best approach to deal with requests for higher fences. I do not want a community of fences.

bay windows should also be removed as an Architectural feature that can encroach--places where a person can be (a balcony, a bay window), should be at least 5 feet from property line.

I am not clear why the definition of Overnight Shelter is not simply changed to delete 24 hours. The explanation so as not to overlap Hotels and Nursing Homes does not make sense for the following reasons. 1. Nursing homes are licensed and require accreditation. If this is an issue it needs to be examined by licensing agencies as currently there appears to be no overlap with nursing homes as overnights shelters. It does appear that there may be an attempt to provide nursing home services at overnight shelters which gets into complex legal definitions and should not be done without intensive and UNBIASED legal research. 2. The term Hotel or Motel being referenced may be confusing. If the city provides vouchers for a whole motel or hotel or leases it, then it might become an overnight shelter and would need a Conditional Use permit. This requires intensive and UNBIASED research. 3. The change of the term Overnight Shelter to Transitional Shelter appears to have no justification. Prior to 2020, overnight shelter had no timeframe, and prior to 2018, overnights shelter did not exist in the Zoning Ordinance. Prior to IDO’s adoption in 2018. The term that was used was Emergency Shelter which had a definition as follows: EMERGENCY SHELTER. A facility which provides sleeping accommodations to six or more persons for a period not normally 1. exceeding 30 consecutive days, with no charge or a charge substantially less than market value; it may provide meals and social services. 4. This change needs to be carefully assessed. Past changes in 2020 have been challenged, even when the specifically defined language occurs. Though this appears to be minimal changes, this language aligns the definition with group homes, which for some reason are not referenced at the end of this section, though SOS are referenced. 5. The inclusion of mentioning Nursing Homes seems redundant as they required medical certification. 6. It appears that the return of the pre 2018 zoning definition would be more appropriate, and more time tested.

This requires an individual to create filtered maps showing UC-MS-PT corridors along with, first--R-1, and then R-A (unless there is a way to turn on two zones at once in the filter). It would sure be helpful if there were some maps already done that showed me this!

as mentioned in the comment on the 'Explanation' column, more specific information is really needed here. For example, if it came from Council, was that a councilor's constituent who has a development in that district? If it says Public, is that a neighbor, a developer, a politician?

While Amendment B10 (passed on May 2nd) added three line items of information, it was a very watered down version of A20 (which failed for lack of a second on March 30th). Please understand that the community NEEDS several of the items not carried forward to the B10 version--especially a summary statement describing the origins of the amendment; justification of the need for the amendment; an explanation of how the amendment benefits the public; an example of the proposed change, a summary of the expected impact (i.e., number of residents that the chang will affect and any possible unintended consequences or comment risks. Adding only a column identifying Source as Staff, Admin, or Public helps a tiny bit--but it would be helpful to know if the Public comment is from the neighborhood or the development community.

Please add a column for "Item Number". For example, this first traunch of proposed changes has 35 items over 9 pages. It's a small thing, but for those of us volunteering our time to review all this, it would help a lot to just be able to say, "#17" instead of "Page 318, Section 5-7(D)(3)(a)2 Walls& Fences"

You have the same requirements for car dealerships but don't enforce it.

Support. ABQ westside contains no designated historic neighborhoods yet contains some important structures with important historical or cultural significance. A mechanism to identify and protect those from demolition is critical to protecting the character of diverse city areas. My understanding is that this does not mandate their preservation, only the opportunity to consider their import prior to demolition.

Is this intended to make front yard walls of 5' permissive citywide in residential zones?

Appeals ‐ Remand Hearings 6‐4(V)(3)(d) - Comments on proposed first part of the change is as follows: If this change goes into effect, two separate results occur, which affects LUHO remand procedures and changes LUHO delegated authority changes. 1. The proposal to Revise Subsection 6 to add text as follows: "The LUHO shall notify the parties and Planning Department staff of the remand." should add the party who the decision is being remanded, such as the ZHE, and shall be given clear instructions on the extent of the remand, whether narrow or complete remand, and instructions on distribution of the Remand decisions, including notification to the LUHO, or to the city council, if so directed by the LUHO in their appeal recommendations to the city council, if there is no additional appeal. This would provide for LUHO directed narrow remands to complete the legal appeal process as identified in the IDO. Currently there does not appear to be direction for narrow remands, when the are to be forwarded to the City Council, which recently has left an appeal process incomplete. 2. The proposal to add a new Subsection 7 has 2 elements that need to be addressed separately. a. The addition of the text; "Planning Department staff shall notify the parties of the date and time of the remand hearing.” clarifies legal procedures that currently are not clearly identified in the IDO. Please recommend that this change be included in changes to the IDO. This correct errors that have occurred which denied parties right to be notified of hearings in the past year. b. The addition of the text “The decision by the original decision making body at the remand hearing is considered final unless one of the parties appeals the decision to the LUHO." takes away the delegated authority of the LUHO to remand single issues. Currently the LUHO can remand a single issue, but under the change, LUHO remands create a new decision, taking away the delegated authority of the LUHO to remand single issues, which are included with the original appeal then is forwarded to the city council with the LUHO’s recommendations . With this language, any remand appears to require a full hearing, repeating the beginning of the application hearing process with the ZHE. Any remand will also require additional paid appeals as the newly remanded decision negates the LUHO original appeal’s recommendations to the City Council.

Do not support this change. A five foot wall, even when the top most 2 feet are 50% open is of a scale which impedes pedestrian access to standard width sidewalks in many small and older neighborhoods. Any wall >3ft should have a required setback from the sidewalk so at least pedestrians can easily transit the sidewalk without one person needing to walk in the area between the sidewalk and the street or in the street or walk single file. The experience of walking next to a 5 ft tall structure is confining and changes the perspective of the streetscape. It is unclear that a wall area which is 50% open permits adequate preservation of sight lines. Agree with prior comments that this changes has been consistently opposed by many residents and homeowners. No compelling rationale for allowing taller walls has been provided.

I disagree with this Admin change. The public has previously said they do not want this. It is my understanding that someone in Planning wants this simply because there are so many people who violate it and therefore many of these cases go before the ZHE. It would be much better if the City would do PSAs to educate people and fence/wall companies about the legality of what they want to do. It should be noted that in cases where walls/fences over 3 feet are approved with the understanding that the portion over 3 feet is "transparent", it is really not transparent because of (1) the pilasters are not transparent and (2) at certain angles/views the iron actually loses its transparency. The rods close together actually block the view.

I disagree with this Admin change. The public has previously said they do not want this. It is my understanding that someone in Planning wants this simply because there are so many people who violate it and therefore many of these cases go before the ZHE. It would be much better if the City would do PSAs to educate people and fence/wall companies about the legality of what they want to do. It should be noted that in cases where walls/fences over 3 feet are approved with the understanding that the portion over 3 feet is "transparent", it is really not transparent because of (1) the pilasters are not transparent and (2) at certain angles/views the iron actually loses its transparency. The rods close together actually block the view.

I disagree with this Admin change. The public has previously said they do not want this. It is my understanding that someone in Planning wants this simply because there are so many people who violate it and therefore many of these cases go before the ZHE. It would be much better if the City would do PSAs to educate people and fence/wall companies about the legality of what they want to do. It should be noted that in cases where walls/fences over 3 feet are approved with the understanding that the portion over 3 feet is "transparent", it is really not transparent because of (1) the pilasters are not transparent and (2) at certain angles/views the iron actually loses its transparency. The rods close together actually block the view.

Keep the "less than 24 hours" standard, and do not add "completely enclosed portions of a building," nor the "personal assistance, personal services" language. The language changes proposed by staff would eliminate coverage of the temporary shelters recently approved by the city.

Change is too broad in nature "revisions for clarity."

This will significantly impact a large number of areas--it changes tree dimensions, and reduces quantity. Purpose of the change is not clear and will impact many landowners.

Non-profits provide great many services, and are accepted as not meeting the same standard as for-profit businesses. Keep text as-is (no revision).

Allow 180 days for submission of the appeal. Takes longer than 15 days for the decision to be processed and the petitioner to be notified. Imposition of a 15 day limit would remove applicants right of appeal due to bureaucratic delays.

Onerous burden on private land owners not in a designated zone, and creates added work on the Historic Preservation staff.

Onerous on private land owners and increases the workload on the historic commission, with no tangible benefit to the community.

Need to specify the impact to walls currently in existence that do not meet this standard.

If I understand correctly; this would remove public notification for a 5' wall in the front yard setback? There really needs to be a higher level of public education about walls and fences--and too many fence contractors don't know the rules or choose to ignore them.

so no variance would be required for a 5' tall view fence (3' solid, 2' 50% open) in the front yard setback? Are the protections still in place for small areas of CPO-3 and the MontVista and College View Historic District? (i.e., "walls greater than 3 feet in height are prohibited..."

Sample comment! I just clicked here and typed in this box to leave a comment!