The January 12, 2012, Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) Meeting will consider an application for Master Plan zoning of the Petroglyph Trails subdivision, approximately 210 acres. This is located on the I-25 Frontage Road, north of Hwy. 165. (See site map here.) It borders on the Placitas Trails and Anasazi Meadows subdivisions.
Here is the Master Plan application. Here is the County Development Department staff report, which the PZC uses in forming its recommendation. Here is the Legal Notice for the Jan. 12 meeting.
This Master Plan is for mixed use of commercial, light industrial, single family residential and higher density residential. According to the Staff Report, most of the property falls within the “I-25 Frontage/Bernalillo Interface Overlay District”. In the Placitas Area Plan this district is designated to include these mixed usages, with a transition to ordinary single family house zoning on the border with present residential subdivisions.
Question – who in the NM Universe has enough money to put in yet another subdivision but Tom Ashe? What a guy! We are in the worst recession since the Great Depression, but he’s been able to round up bankers, whomever, thinking we are all too stupid here in Placitas to make a peep – but we are still alive and well here – and really are wondering if he’s contacted the NMDOT to let them know he’s planning on putting YET more traffic onto the I-25 Frontage Road/Hwy 165 intersection by building over 200 homes (are they again spec homes?) with trucks, etc. stopping at the really small stop sign (and do they do that?) and do you think that just when an overpass is being configured, our friend Tom will step up and ask that Sandoval County consider this?
There’s no use appealing to this man’s community spirit. But, short of being arrested, we can protest?
Agreeing with Chris, this development had better set itself apart from all others in the area if it has any chance of success. I believe the development will fall short, even though it appears to follow the formula that Tom Ashe and Steve Gudelj have used to essentially create the “Placitas character” that I for one appreciate. Had it been affordable to develop with heavy grading equipment to maximize housing density, our area would look like Rio Rancho. Sometimes it seems like the county would have greatly preferred this type of development over what has occurred.
The preliminary 2007 approval of Petroglyph Trails was based upon RRA zoning where each lot minimum is 3/4 acre, and there was no approval of light commercial or business as is in the current application. Before platting approval of the proposed development, County Development and the Planning and Zoning Commission must insist that the mixed use and the commercial/business areas be fully defined. Additionally, the covenants should be publically vetted to ensure the details are sufficient to meet the intent of the Placitas Area Plan (PAP).
This said, the Petroglyph Trails development appears to be in keeping with the PAP where the primary goal is to protect the semi-rural character of the area. It was agreed in the PAP that light commercial and business was the best use of land adjoining I-25. Behind this area and to the east would be a higher density transition zone of more affordable homes to “buffer” to the semi-rural character of the remainder of the Placitas Area. Good job developers and good job County Staff. What happened in County Development when staff ignored the primary goal of the PAP with their support of the proposed Cashwell Development where a 450% increase in density was recommended?
County Development Staff recommend in their review of this current Petroglyph Trails proposal, under “Water Recommendations”, that “a realistic (water) conservation plan” [PAP, Sec.3, p.67] be a part of this request. The Planning and Zoning Commission should enforce this PAP requirement. Though the 2007 preliminary approval was before the PAP, this requirement does apply and should be enforced for the current development proposal. The water use limitation within the Office of the State Engineer (OSE) approval is no greater than any development anywhere in New Mexico. Real or perceived, the Placitas Area has a concern of future water availability. This concern will affect both sales of this development, as well as existing Placitas Area residents’ future property values.
Landscape and agriculture are the greatest uses of water in the Placitas Area. There is likely, due to water rights, not going to be any significant increase in agriculture water use. Future housing development is another issue and this includes the current proposed Petroglyph Trails development. During the development of the PAP citizens strongly suggested that any new development with any impermeable surface greater than 1,500 square feet be required to capture rainwater for re-use. The suggestion was rejected by County Development. Landscape use will be the greatest future use of water in the Placitas Area as it is in housing developments throughout the Southwest. The opportunity now is to get ahead of a future ground water deficiency.
Ashe and Gudelj have been successful by seeing a different reality towards development than other traditional developers. The different reality they now face is a concern of adequate water in the future. They should again be leaders by creating a product that fits this new reality and also protects what they have already created. The Petroglyph Development should require capture of rain water from all hard surfaces, outflow from advanced septic systems, and any other appropriate water should be collected and stored at centralized below grade cisterns for landscape use. A use-for-fee, as is done typically for domestic water, would pay for the maintenance of the system(s). It would be great if all developers considered limited future water to avoid the problems that Sandoval County faces throughout, yet chooses still to view with a blind eye.
Yes, I do agree with Chris that this development may not be marketable as it is currently proposed. Yes, it is intended to blend with the fabric of the land which these developers have done so much better than most. Yet, it does not fully consider the existing community, and potential new residents to our community, without adding sustainability to its list of attributes. This might make the difference it will need to be successful.