Transcript Slide 1

Alamogordo Zoning Rewrite
An Overview
Alamogordo Zoning Rewrite

Previous CD Director (Arthur
Alterson) directed by City
Commission in 2006/7 to
undertake comprehensive rewrite
of the City’s Zoning Code

This is the product of that effort
Zoning Rewrite Group
 Two
main groups of
participants:
 Live
participants
 Email
participants
Zoning Rewrite Group
The frequent in-person
participants:
 Mike Drunzer
 Tommy Messer
 Klad Zimmerle
 Mark Goga
 Bill Schimmer
 Deb Alton
 (con’t)

Zoning Rewrite Group


Wyatt Earp
Andrew (JR) Gomolak

Several members of the Community
Development Department

And occasional visits from various other
folks with an interest in the process
Zoning Rewrite Group
E-mail participants?
 Won’t provide a complete listing,
but the group included:
 Commissioners Griggs and Cole,
Former Commissioner Brockett,
the Otero County Builders and
Contractors Association, and 2530 other persons or groups.

Alamogordo Zoning Rewrite
Fundamental Principles
1)
Focus on Necessary Changes
2)
Focus on City-Wide Impacts
Why Rewrite?
 Present
Code from 1950
 Obsolescences
variances
 Variances
lead to
are not desirable;
the rules should be clear and
consistent
Why Rewrite?

Zoning has changed significantly
from 1950 to present

Biggest change is from “usebased” zoning to “form-based”
zoning
Use Based Zoning



Specifies property uses in various
zones
For example, you can have a little
bakery shop here, but you cannot
have it there
Very traditional and what
Alamogordo has had since 1950
Use Based Zoning

“The use-based zoning of the
1950’s deserves to die, but not
simply to be replaced by a dumb
“smart code” or a simplistic rating
system.”
W. Paul Farmer, FAICP
Executive Director
American Planning Assoc.
in Planning: The Magazine
of the APA (April 2009)
Use Based Zoning

We didn’t do that (completely eradicate
the old system)

What we tried to do was rework what
we already had, add a number of items
missing from our current code, and
explore limited form based proposals in
a couple of categories
Form Based Zoning

Began to be developed across the
country in 1970’s

Focus is on “how it looks/how it
works” instead of “what it is”
Form Based Zoning

The fundamental approach of form
based zoning:

Do we care what the use is? Isn’t
our concern what the impact will
be on surrounding properties?

Obviously a much more complex
system
Form Based Zoning

So, we’re recommending a very
incremental approach, focusing on
adding form based components in
two zoning categories: R-4 and
C-1
Alamogordo Zoning Rewrite
Biggest Impediment
Zoning is supposed to follow
planning not lead it
Zoning will be continue to be
revisited after completion of
comprehensive plan
Alamogordo Zoning Rewrite
Biggest Changes
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Definitions
Planned Unit Developments
Conditional Rezonings
Parking
More form-based approach in
R-4 and C-1
Definitions

Absolutely necessary to the proper
functioning of a zoning system

Almost totally missing from the
current zoning regulation

Home based occupation rules are
included in this section
Planned Unit Developments

More commonly known as PUD’s

Allows for comprehensive
development of a parcel of
property according to the coherent
design of the developer
Planned Unit Developments

PUD’s have been a standard
planning and zoning tool across
the US since the early 1970’s
Planned Unit Developments

A good local example of a
development that could have been
addressed more rationally by the
city is Mesa Village on the
northwest side of the city.
Conditional Rezonings

What is a “conditional rezoning?”

An example is the property @ White
Sands and N. Scenic that First Baptist
Church of Alamogordo

The church wants the property zoned C3, but the neighbors want assurances in
case the church ends up not using the
property
Conditional Rezonings

The conditional rezoning would
allow the City Commission to
determine that the property is
being rezoned for a specific use. If
that use doesn’t happen, or if the
use ceases over time, then the
zoning reverts to its previous
classification.
Conditional Rezonings

We thought we had conditional
rezoning authority but a
succession of city attorneys have
concluded that we don’t

We will when this revision is
complete
Parking

Actually required for the 1st time!

Minimum parking requirements
will be somewhat less than current
3:1 open space rules

Maximum parking is also
established @ 2X the minimum for
each category, BUT
Parking

There isn’t really a maximum on
parking; what’s proposed is a maximum
on impermeable surfaces. As long as
the amount greater than 2X the
minimum is permeable, the
owner/builder/developer can have as
much as they can afford

Dirt and gravel are not permitted (we
have enough dust already).
Parking

Also includes minimum parking
space size (generally 10’x18’;
parallel 10’x22’), but no
restrictions on orientation of
spaces (90O, 45O, parallel, etc.)
The R’s

Changes in Setbacks

Allowing of HUD-Plated
Manufactured Housing Units, such
as modular houses
RR-1

Agreement to Disagree

Minimum ¾ acre lot

No requirements for curb, gutter,
and/ or sidewalks
RR-1

Would not be required to tie into
the City’s sewer system

Full discussion/debate on this
proposal at next Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting
(Thursday 1 October, 6:00 PM,
Commission Chambers)
R-4

Currently Multi-Family plus
professional offices

Will become a ‘transitional’ zone
between residential and small
retail/ office

But still allow multi-family
R-4

Proposal will be to limit the size of
these “professional” offices and to
also allow “small” retail
establishments by limiting the size
of the lots they can be on
R-4

What is “small”?

In both cases the size is under
10,000 sq feet

For reference: 10,000 sq ft is
(approximately) an Allsup’s lot
(the building is about 2,500 sq ft)
C’s

C-1 (Neighborhood Retail) is
narrowed down to smaller scale
(see next slide)

C-2 is new: Office with retail
included (see later slide)

C-3 is regional retail: Mall, WalMart, Home Depot, etc.
C-1

Current rules result in very little
difference between C-1 & C-3

New proposal is designed to
encourage actual “neighborhood”
retail

How?
C-1

Limit size of buildings in C-1 zone
(to 25,000 square feet: about the
size of the Hastings strip @ 10th &
White Sands)

Pull the buildings closer to the
street (so people in neighborhoods
don’t walk across acres of parking)
C-1

One more change in C-1: Single
family residential development
would no longer be allowed in C-1
zones

Current single-family uses
grandfathered
C-2

Recognize the development of
office/professional building parks

Parking requirements scaled to the
needs of offices rather than stores

Would still allow for some retail to
accompany/service the offices
M’s

M-1 is new: Office with light
manufacturing

M-2 is old M-1

M-3 basically says anything that’s
industrial, legal and you can get
P&Z and City Commission to agree
to is acceptable
M-1

This is designed to be a mixed use
type of facility: a professional
office where some manufacturing
happens

Examples: computer software, film
production (on CD/DVD), a
publishing (not printing) company
M’s

One other new wrinkle in M’s:

M’s & R’s can’t touch (except
across 54, 70, or White Sands)
MH
Old MH-1 disappears; single
manufactured housing (HUD
plated) units now allowed in R
zones
 Old MH-2 is now MH: this is for
manufactured housing/mobile
home communities
 Current Chapter 25 is eliminated

RV

Completely new category (h/t Klad
Z)
●
RV-1 is for temporary stay RV’s
●
RV-2 is for a “condo”-style RV park
where the RV owners actually own
their own spaces (h/t Mesa AZ!)
RV

We don’t currently have any of the
RV-2 style developments in
Alamogordo (because they are not
currently legal) but the committee
agreed that this might be
something that a property
owner/developer might want to
consider.
X

Annexations will be allowed
directly into any zone

A new zone to allow for
annexation w/o designation of a
specific zone

A holding pattern
G

Another new zone: for property
that is governmentally-owned
Discussion Process

October P&Z (1 Oct): R’s, MH, & RV

November P&Z (5 Nov): C’s & G

December P&Z (3 Dec): M’s & X

January P&Z (7 Jan): Final decision
Discussion Process

If approval is recommended, the
proposal would be presented to
the City Commission at either the
2nd January (est. date 26 Jan) or
1st February meeting (est. date 9
Feb).
A Final Word (Hooray!)
All P&Z meetings are @ 6:00 in
Commission Chambers.
 If you have comments, ideas,
opinions, please come and share
them at those meetings.
 Or come into Community
Development @ City Hall: unless
you hit a previous engagement I
will be happy to meet with you at
any time.

A Final Word (Hooray!)
Some CD’s of the draft proposed
documents are available for the
taking
 The draft proposed documents and
other ancillary documents relating
to RR-1 will be on our website
(ci.alamogordo.nm.us) sometime
tomorrow for downloading
