The developer of a project that many see as the
future of how growth should happen in Albuquerque has to go back to the
drawing board -- literally.
The Albuquerque City Council approved a zone change for 2000 Gold
property last night but rejected the design of a 46-unit condo project
that Sheffield Partners has proposed should go there
Referring to the issue as a "watershed case," City Councilor Isaac
Benton led the way in trying to find a middle ground, proposing what
turned out to be the council's decision -- approve the zone change for
the site but deny the site development plan. The unanimous vote in
favor of Benton's motion means the developer will now have to revise
the building's design to the satisfaction of the Environmental Planning
Commission to move forward. At the same time, by allowing the zone
change at the site the City Council signaled that leaving the property
as a parking lot is undesirable.
It was unclear last night whether the developer would revise his plan.
The Environmental Planning Commission rejected both the zone change as
well as the plan for the building's design in two separate votes April
17, which led Sheffield to appeal that decision to the City Council.
The site development plan rejected last night was for a 46-unit,
four-story residential building that the area neighborhood organization
thought was too large and too dense for the neighborhood. Neighbors
were concerned particularly with potential parking problems plus loss
of views and privacy given the height of the building, which would
tower over single-family homes to the south. But the developer said
that the economics of digging out a garage to provide parking for the
site required at least 46 units, and that the building could not be
scaled back any further.
By splitting the difference last night -- allowing a zone change but
rejecting the site plan -- the Council sought a creative solution to a
sticky situation, which pit an environmentally laudable project against
neighbors who viewed the project as threatening the character of the
neighborhood.
How the council decided the issue was, to some, a test of Albuquerque's
commitment to infill development in line with the planned growth
strategy, as well as the green building goals of the city. For
instance, the Sierra Club gave testimony in favor of the project due to
its energy efficient design and 1000 Friends of New Mexico, a smart
growth organization, gave testimony about the value of infill
development.
Elizabeth Doak, an environmental designer speaking on behalf of the
neighborhood associations, though, said that "green is about lowering
the impact of a project on our environment," as she urged Councilors to
not let the developer solve his parking problem "on the backs of
neighbors."
Benton said he was surprised when reading the minutes of the
environmental planning commission that there was very little discussion
among commissioners before they took an “up or down vote.” He said
there was a “preponderance of evidence” that changing the zone was
appropriate, from a designation that allows parking, to one that allows
residential buildings and lets the EPC set the degree of density for
the project. Several other councilors agreed, saying that the current
use of the site as a parking lot is not its "highest, best use."
Nor did Benton feel that the opponents of the project were against a
zone change for the site. Rather, they weren’t in favor of the project
itself, he said. “I have a concern about the denial of the zone
change," he continued, "not the denial of the site plan.”
In voicing support for Benton's motion, Councilor Debbie O'Malley said
she wasn't hearing from the neighbors that they were resistant to
change, just that they were against this particular site plan. We want
change, she said, but the goal is quality development.
Councilor Rey Garduno weighed in that they were dealing with a
"double-edged sword," with competing things at play: on the one hand
the goals of the city's planned growth strategy; on the other the
validation of neighborhood sector plans that at times conflict with
that strategy.
Benton said it's a problem he sees throughout the city: outdated sector
plans being used under changed conditions. Referring to the year the
particular sector plan in question was written, he said "we have a
different environment today than we did in 1986."
In urging Councilors to support his motion, Benton said that the denial
of the zone change by the EPC set precedent for bad policy in conflict
with the planned growth strategy, as well as other current goals of the
city. And the change in zoning approved by the Council, he said, should
be seen as a strong statement in support of the PGS and infill
development at the same time it doesn't give the green light to a
project not wanted by the surrounding community.
