[Music] [Music] Heat up [Music] [Music] I call this meeting to order. This is the land use planning and zoning committee of the city council. Councelor Bassan is excused this evening. All other counselors are present or will be very soon, I hope. Uh we're going to start with the land acknowledgement. The city of Albuquerque was established on the unseated traditional homelands of the Tiwa Pueblo people, the PBLO of Sandia and Isleta. As caretakers of the middle Rio Grande Valley, the Tiwa Pueblo people nurtured and cared for its human and non-human inhabitants, as well as the desert, mountain, and water ecosystems since time memorial. Historically, the PBLO peoples have contributed to and guided the development of Albuquerque and New Mexico, and they can continue to to cultivate the cultural, spiritual, and socioeconomic life of Albuquerque and our land of enchantment. We also recognize that Albuquerque has long been a gathering place of diverse indigenous peoples, tribal nations, and pblo of New Mexico, and indigenous nations from around the world, and that this sacred place continues to be their traditional homelands. All right, moving on. This is a hybrid meeting where all participants will be in um in person or on video or audio conference. Just a reminder that the public is invited to speak on any items before this committee, but we had no um public participation signed up for today. So, we're going to go straight to item A. Councelor Champine. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh yes, item A is for councelor Pena by request. It is 080. It is adopting a zoning map amendment from PD to R1A for approximately 7 acres and from PD to MXT for approximately 44 acres and from R1A to MXT for approximately 22 acres on the Salazar family trust located between 98th and Unserved. Uh this is I make a motion to defer this until May 14, 2025. I'll second that. Um, all right. We'll do a roll call vote. Oh, we don't have anybody online, so we can do them without. Okay. All those in favor of the deferral until May 14th, raise your hand. Say yes. All right. That is four to nothing. Um, all right. We're going to move on to item um B. Councelor Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Item B is R1 135 approving an amendment to the boundary of the Sycamore Metropolitan Redevelopment Area to include approximately five additional adjacent lots totaling just under an acre.80 acres and I move for a due pass. Seconded by councelor Grout. Are there any questions from counselors? Yes, councelor. Uh just the uh motivation behind it. It's taking looks like 300. It looks like one city block and kind of throwing it in there and an extension. Is there specific reason? Thank you, Madam Chair. Great question, Council Champine. I asked the same question. So, it is a a rundown church that's in the middle of well, not the middle just outside of the boundary of Sycamore MRA. So to uh help add to the project, we want to do some um affordable housing or mixed income housing there um to add the benefits that MRA brings to those projects. Including that would help us get what we need to be able to build some housing there. Thank you, Madam Chair. Is the is the zoning going to go to R1 or is it going to is a church is a large function commercial or MX? Yeah, I I'm pretty sure I'll make sure Matt Cox answers, but I'm pretty sure housing is already allowable in this area. Um, Chair, Councelor Shampine. Uh, yes. So the zone is RH right now and the property owner went through a zoning amendment about a year ago uh to go from RML which is residential multif family to RH uh which is a bit more intense and allows for higher um building height in that zone district and uh it was approved at EPC back in sometime 2024. Yeah, Madam Chair. Um, so the zoning change and that was curious because I I read that it was a church and he wanted to keep the structure of the church. Is that why the zoning changed because the church is currently higher so he doesn't have to do we know any of that or I'm just out of curiosity. Chair, counselor, I do know the the property owner is here, but um from EPC the EPC case um when it was going through the resoning process, it sounded like they wanted to keep the church for heritage or um architectural value uh and then maybe build around it. But I believe Madam Chair, will you allow me a little leeway with it? I was going to ask if Mr. Stroer wanted to come down and answer that question. Thank you. Uh Madam Chair, uh councilors, uh Tim Stroer, principal with consensus planning. Um so there's an existing old former church structure that's on the property originally. Um and and this still may be part of the process. Excuse me, my my phone's ringing and it's ringing my hearing aids in my head. So it just stopped. So thank you. Um but um uh so the intent was to re is to redevelop this property for housing and um originally there was a disconnect between the footprint of the existing structure and the zoning district uh setbacks. So making that change. So we we've gone through several iterations of this project that may still be possible to keep the basically the foundation and the existing structure and build up from that to uh provide additional housing on this site. Um or we could could determine that it just needs to be raised and a new building um constructed. keeping those options open. And basically by adding it to the redevelopment uh area and uh the Sycamore redevelopment plan, it brings more tools to in the toolbox to the table to assist in getting multifamily housing move forward at this site. This is an excellent location. It's kitty corner from the university. it is uh walking distance to the ART transit station and the other transit routes. Um we did a lot of work with the adjoining neighborhood association. I think one of the issues just to make sure we're all all all understand is that it is close to the Silver Hill um the Silver um historic district. So there was a lot of uh work on making sure that the zoning and the type of development that could occur here sort of balance between the historic district which is immediately to the south and central avenue and the UNM and the art station and all those policies that you all have put in place to encourage higher density housing and more transit oriented development within that corridor. So, we did change the zoning to uh residential multifamily high uh in density and that's the current zoning and this change really just brings more of those redevelopment tools into play that uh hopefully will help us get a residential development project to the finish line. Madam Chair, thank you for that. That was awesome. Okay, I didn't mean to interrupt. No, that's okay. Any other questions? I I just have a quick one for whoever can answer this and I think we all know what's coming. Um, you know, we approved an extension of an MR in the downtown area the other day that was taking over um an old MR. So, I assume that that those two could be combined. But, this is an actual expansion of an existing MR and there's no study. Um, we've I just want to understand and I I don't know if this is a question for um Director Bruner or if Mr. Stroer can answer or perhaps Mr. Mononttoya, but it seems to me that if we can just randomly add to an existing MR um we can just create a new MR with no study. And so I'm just trying to understand when a study is needed and when it's not. um because I I could designate an MR tomorrow in my district that has no study and how would that be any different than this? So, I can take a stab at at it if it's okay. Um once again, Jim Stroer with Consensus Planning. Um so in our justification um we did provide uh a review of the property's current conditions and I believe very clearly established that this property met the criteria of being blighted and appropriate for an MR designation as a standalone property which we provided as part of the justification to bring it into the sycamore um metropolitan redevelopment area. So I I just want to make sure that it's clear that we did not we did not do an end run around the criteria for being considered part of a metropolitan redevelopment area. We addressed those criteria as part of our application and our presentation to the development commission and I think that's why they recommended approval of this because it met those criteria. Thank you Mr. Strager. Miss Keefe. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I I did inquire about this. Um, and what I learned is that the ordinance itself doesn't expressly require a study, but it requires the council to make a finding that it's a blighted area and it has to go through ADC. And so, it's been a practice for quite some time to conduct a study to go to ADC and to go to the council so that the council can make its finding. And so, I suppose you could do alternative ways. That's how we've been doing it. Um, and we've been doing that if for a new MR or for a substantial change to an MR, but if there's just an addition like we've had these last couple um, meetings that doesn't have to go through that process. Thank you. I and I, you know, I'm going to support this obviously. I want all the MRS to um, thrive. I just um, for the record, we spend a lot of money on studies to prove that we have blight in our city. And I think it's pretty clear to anybody who walks down certain streets that we have blight and the um use of of more and more government funds for those really expensive comprehensive studies. I just question the need for those. And so um I I think it's really important that we get it on the record that those are not necessarily needed. that if we can determine blight in other ways that this council approves that that would be sufficient for an MR designation or an expansion of an existing MR and I think that's really an important point to have out there on the record. Um any other questions or comments? All right, all those in favor raise your hand and say yes. Yes. And that passes unanimously. Um there being no further business, this LUPS committee meeting is adjourned. [Music]