[Neighbors] Biennial IDO Update, 2025

[P. Davis Willson]

I really appreciate responses from folks like Ciaran and Petra Morris—it is so important to hear from planners! My understanding is that LUPZ approved Councilor Rogers’ amendment at Jan. 14 meeting to strike R-L and keep designation as R-1. And of course R-1 Single Family has already effectively become two-family, as ADU’s are permissive in all R-1 (assuming they meet dimensional standards). According to Mikaela, it still counts as R-1 because the single house is the primary use and the casita is an accessory use.

I have confusion about the Legislative Zoning Conversions (#ZC-3 and #ZC-4) versus the changes wrought by O-24-69. On the abq-zone.com website, it says “The map below shows zoning before and after the proposed zoning conversion…within Major Transit (MT) corridors (660 feet from the centerline of the street)”—but then the slider only changes the zones within the 660’ MT corridor, not the 1,320’, 1/4 mile wide corridor as defined in O-24-69. I thought the Leg. Zoning Conversions were to map the changes passed a year ago in O-24-69.

I made a PDF about this, but don’t think I can attach it thru this list serve. I’ll try emailing it separately to Gary and Ciaran. Please note that my opposition to O-26-2 has to do with process, loss of notification and appeal rights, and marginalization of neighborhood associations. I am very supportive of gentle density: my block has (2) two-family homes, 4 duplexes, a triplex, and a Short Term Rental.

thanks,

Patty Willson
 
Willson + Willson Architects, LLC
505 Dartmouth Drive SE
Albuquerque, NM 87106

email: info at willsonstudio.com
http://www.willsonstudio.com




> On Jan 21, 2026, at 1:17 PM, Nick Wilson via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> I am in agreement with Ciaran's input. They are very knowledgeable and thoughtful on these issues, and they have been an asset to our neighborhood e-mails for always being able to communicate the complexities well. I am a homeowner and resident of Nob Hill.
> 
> I'll also add that this proposed zoning update does not change any rules regulating historic designated properties. Those regulations remain the same.
> 
> I agree we should request that any property currently zoned in an R district not be upgraded anywhere above an R-T (neighborhood edge protection)
> In favor of IDO 2-3(B)(1) (allowed duplex/triplex in R-1).
> In favor of allowing small retail in R-1 zones. (unlikely to have any real impact in Nob Hill, but may be helpful in other parts of the city) 
> In favor of accepting EPC's clarified language (allowing R-ML in R-1 (which would become R-L)) 
> 
> Thank you,
> Nick Wilson 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 11:13 AM Ciaran Lithgow via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com <mailto:neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com>> wrote:
> Good morning neighbors, 
> 
> Gary, I am not sure it's fair to claim that zoning changes will cause property taxes to rise. While zoning changes are technically allowed to be considered for tax reassessment under State law, Bernalillo County's actual practice for determining value and triggering reassessment is to monitor individual properties for building permits and sales. The City legislatively changed zoning for all properties back in 2018 when it adopted the new IDO, and we did not see sweeping tax increases then based on new zoning. I think the County only cares about use changes, not zoning changes. Additionally, residential properties are protected by a maximum 3% annual increase (unless you sell/redevelop). This goes for apartments and single-family homes alike. 
> 
> The map below shows the potentially impacted properties. (I am also including a screenshot of the Neighborhood Edges language in their proposed update.) Anything that is marked R-T is currently R-1; anything marked MX-T is currently R-T.  
> 
> My feelings on this are mixed... perhaps, rather than carte blanche rejecting this proposal, I would propose requesting that any property currently zoned in an R district not be upgraded anywhere above an R-T (which is the highest density protected under Neighborhood Edges). That would address the Neighborhood Edges concern while allowing more gentle density to grow in and around our commercial corridor. 
> 
> <image.png>
> <image.png>
> 
> I am in favor of IDO 2-3(B)(1) (allowed duplex/triplex in R-1). I am also in favor of allowing small retail in R-1 zones. I doubt the small retail would change our neighborhood's character very much (we have Central Avenue right here! Who could compete with that?), but it could greatly benefit other neighborhoods that don't have access to walkable neighborhoods and grocery stores like we have the privilege of enjoying by allowing coffee shops, corner stores, or other small commercial neighborhood uses. 
> 
> RE: allowing R-ML in R-1 (which would become R-L) - this is not a new change. R-ML is allowed in R-1 within 1/4 mile of Main Street/Premium Transit Corridors under today's zoning code. The update seems to be a clarification rather than a major change (see redlined text below). I am fine with the EPC's proposed language and I am against the request to remove it. 
> <image.png>
> 
> Thank you!
> Ciaran 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 4:42 PM meyster1--- via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com <mailto:neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com>> wrote:
> 
> Friends and neighbors,
> 
> City Council is performing the 2025 Biennial Update of the Integrated Development Ordinance, Albuquerque's zoning code.  
> You can find background at Integrated Development Ordinance, Biennial Update 2025 » Nob Hill Neighborhood Association <https://www.nobhill-nm.com/integrated-development-ordinance-biennial-update-2025/>
> You can see a discussion focused on Nob Hill at Integrated Development Ordinance, Biennial Update 2025 » Nob Hill Neighborhood Association <https://www.nobhill-nm.com/integrated-development-ordinance-biennial-update-2025/>
> Council's Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee (LUPZ) considered the Update on January 14. NHNA is developing a statement of position for the committee's next meeting Jan. 28. A draft appears below. We would value your comments before January 23 at 5 pm so we can firm it up. You may reply to sender or to all. When you do, please indicate if you are a resident or own property or a business in our boundaries. https://www.nobhill-nm.com/about-the-nhna/nob-hill-boundaries-2/ <https://www.nobhill-nm.com/about-the-nhna/nob-hill-boundaries-2/>
> We will put our statement out here and tell you how you can reach LUPZ personally.
> #VivaNobHill, Gary Eyster, member, NHNA Urban Planning Team
> <image.png>
> 
> __________________
> Chair and Councilors, 
> This is the position of the Nob Hill Neighborhood Association on the IDO Update, O-26-2. 
> 1…IDO 2-3(B)(1) adding additional uses in the R-1 Single Family Zone District, namely duplexes and triplexes. Neighbors, please reply with your take on this. 
> 2…Section 4, Legislative Zoning Conversions: Convert R-1 to R-T, R-T to MX-T, and R-ML to MX-L in Major Transit Corridor Areas and Activity Centers. These areas are pictured at https://abq-zone.com/2025-update-proposed-legislative-zoning-conversions <https://abq-zone.com/2025-update-proposed-legislative-zoning-conversions>
> CABQ has not provided direct notice to property owners, it will likely cause property taxes to rise, it will result in many properties losing Neighborhood Edge protection, and it will raise maximum height in most cases. We request that you remove Section 4 from the update. 
> 3…A change to 4-3(B)(8)(e) that Council made earlier this year says the R-ML use is prohibited in the R-1 and R-T zone districts except in or within ¼ mile of Main Street or Premium Transit areas north of Central Ave. and east of the Rio Grande. EPC recommended changing that to either north of Central Ave. or east of the Rio Grande. That means R-ML apartment cubes 30 ft. tall can be built on any R-1 property in the entire city east of the Rio Grande. 
> We don’t want historic houses surrounding our historic houses demolished for 30-foot-high apartment cubes. Historic character isn’t just stucco and tile roofs. It includes the context of the community. There are plenty of vacant sites all over town where multi-family can be built. R-ML in the middle of neighborhoods is not gentle. We request that you remove 4-3(B)(8)(e) from the IDO. 
> 4…Table 4-2-1 Allowable Uses and Use-Specific Standards; The update proposes allowing General Retail, Small in residential zone districts including R-1; on corner lots abutting at least 1 collector or arterial street this would be permissive. On corner lots abutting at least 2 local streets this would require a conditional use permit. The use could not exceed 5,000 sq ft. 
> Table 4-2-1 Allowable Uses and Use-Specific Standards; The update proposes allowing Grocery Store in residential zone districts including R-1. On corner lots abutting at least 1 collector or arterial street this would be permissive. Otherwise, it is prohibited. The use could not exceed 5,000 sq ft. 
> These uses would be adjacent to residences. Individuals have expressed concerns around hours of business and other matters like solid waste disposal. We urge you address these in the use-specific standards.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com <mailto:Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com>
> https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm <https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm>
> This Message Sent To: ciaranlithgow at gmail.com <mailto:ciaranlithgow at gmail.com>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ciaran Lithgow
> ciaranlithgow at gmail.com <mailto:ciaranlithgow at gmail.com>
> (818) 398-1182
> _______________________________________________
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com <mailto:Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com>
> https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm <https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm>
> This Message Sent To: ndwilson5 at gmail.com <mailto:ndwilson5 at gmail.com>
> _______________________________________________
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com <mailto:Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com>
> https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm <https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm>
> This Message Sent To: info at willsonstudio.com <mailto:info at willsonstudio.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.swcp.com/pipermail/neighbors_nobhill-nm/attachments/20260121/b1870d40/attachment-0001.htm>