[Neighbors] Biennial IDO Update, 2025

Wed Jan 21 17:48:36 MST 2026

That sounds right to me Gary!

And that’s why I suggested the alternative stance from the NHNA: Accepting
that lots currently zoned R-1 can go up to R-T, but requesting R-T would
stay R-T (instead of upzoning to MX-T) to retain the Neighborhood Edge
protection for those lots.

Ciaran

On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 5:34 PM meyster1--- via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <
neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com> wrote:

> If I understand Ciaran,
>
> Neighborhood Edge Protection 5-9 is only given to lots in any R-A, R-1 (or
> R-L if that name is changed), R-MC, or R-T zone.
> So if zoning of a lot is changed to a higher level (MX-T) as proposed in
> Section 4, *Legislative Zoning Conversions*, that lot will lose
> Neighborhood Edge protection.
>
> That  protection is.... any portion of a primary or accessory building
> within 100 feet of the nearest Protected Lot property line shall step down
> to a maximum height of 30 feet.
>
> Sound righr, Ciaran?
>
> GE
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Michael Mcdonald <abqmichaelj at aol.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2026 3:23 PM
> *To:* Neighbors <neighbors at nobhill-nm.com>
> *Cc:* meyster1 at me.com <meyster1 at me.com>; Ciaran Lithgow <
> ciaranlithgow at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Neighbors] Biennial IDO Update, 2025
>
> I agree with Ciaran. The comment about "it will result in many properties
> losing Neighborhood Edge protection” makes no sense.
>
> I also call to question: "it will result in many properties losing
> Neighborhood Edge protection.” The definition (in the IDO) of Neighborhood
> Edge is "Any distance required by a standard in § 14-16-5-9 (Neighborhood
> Edges) is measured from the nearest point on the nearest lot line of the
> Protected Lot to the nearest point on the Regulated lot that contains the
> feature being regulated.” The IDO specifically adds "Neighborhood Edges
> apply regardless of area-specific regulations associated with a Center or
> Corridor designation.” How does the IDO result in properties loosing
> Neighborhood Edge protection? How in the world do you conclude that "it
> will raise maximum height in most cases.”
>
> The remainder of the response appears to be equally questionable.
>
> I stand in favor of the proposed IDO. The arguments made below, by being
> so off base, have strengthened my support of it.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Michael McDonald.
>
> On Jan 21, 2026, at 10:55 AM, Ciaran Lithgow via Neighbors_nobhill-nm <
> 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> 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/
> 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
> 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
> https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm
> This Message Sent To: ciaranlithgow at gmail.com
>
>
>
> --
> Ciaran Lithgow
> ciaranlithgow at gmail.com
> (818) 398-1182
> _______________________________________________
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com
> https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm
> This Message Sent To: abqmichaelj at aol.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm mailing list
> Neighbors_nobhill-nm at mailman.swcp.com
> https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neighbors_nobhill-nm
> This Message Sent To: ciaranlithgow at gmail.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.swcp.com/pipermail/neighbors_nobhill-nm/attachments/20260121/15328e0c/attachment.htm>