Rio Rancho Planning & Zoning Board Meeting – October 13, 2026

The Rio Rancho Planning and Zoning Board convened on October 13, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. per the agenda, with Vice Chair Robert Gabaldon presiding because Chair Scottie Richardson was excused. Commissioner R. Wayne Lampson participated online and recused himself from item 3. The board considered 19 public hearing items: one contested zone map amendment, 16 related utility variance requests, and two City of Rio Rancho applications.

Consent Calendar

• The board approved the August 25, 2026 and September 22, 2026 Planning and Zoning Board meeting minutes unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Numerous Lomas Encantadas residents opposed the PG Properties rezoning (item 3). They described the proposed 55-unit, three-story development as incompatible with a single-family neighborhood, cited traffic and pedestrian safety risks near schools, challenged the sale of 0.5603 acres of Parks & Recreation land for $17,500 as far below market value, and argued the rezoning conflicted with the 2025 Lomas Encantadas Master Plan.
• Speakers against item 3 cited 229 pages of opposition letters, more than 300 petition signatures, resident traffic counts of 3,402 vehicles over 465 minutes (about 439 vehicles per hour), and a separate count of 732 vehicles through the nearby T-intersection on October 1 from 4:22 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Others noted 27 dwellings within 100 feet of the site, approximately 1,400 existing single-family homes in Lomas Encantadas with 2,340 anticipated at build-out, nearly 1,500 apartment units in six complexes within two miles, and the proximity of Sandia Vista Elementary and Mountain View schools.
• Several residents said they were not notified of or invited to the applicant’s community meetings; others asked the board to deny the request, reacquire the parkland, or place city facilities on the site.
• A written public comment from Avelino Marsanicha opposing the Arroyos, LLC variance requests (items 4-19) was entered into the record; no oral public comment was made on those items.

Item 3 – Zone Map Amendment: PG Properties, LLC (Lux at Lomas Encantadas)

• The applicant, through Modulus Architects & Land Use Planning, requested a zone map amendment from approximately 1.23 acres of C-1 Retail Commercial and 0.5603 acres of Parks & Recreation to SU Special Use for R-6 Multi-Family Residential and C-1 Retail Commercial, covering a combined 1.7895 acres. Staff recommended approval to the Governing Body with findings and conditions.
• Tim Dvorak, city planner, presented the staff report, noting the site’s 2004 zoning history, the applicant’s purchase of the adjacent remnant parcel, the combination of parcels as Tract LE-5A, and the proposed 55-unit, three-story development with 1,851 square feet of ground-floor commercial space.
• Applicant representatives from Modulus Architects, including Angela Parowski, presented the project in support. They stated the original C-1 zoning already permits commercial uses by right, and that alternatives such as a gas station, drive-thru restaurant, car wash, bar, hotel, or gym could build without a public hearing. They highlighted that the proposal has 103 parking spaces, 22,273 square feet of open space (412% above the minimum), more than 19,000 square feet of landscaping (over 250% of the 7,795 square foot requirement), and a maximum height of 36 feet instead of the 50 feet allowed under C-1.
• The applicant’s traffic analysis by Lee Engineering estimated 36 morning and 38 evening peak-hour trips for the proposal, compared with 239 morning and 230 evening trips for a convenience store/gas station, 196 morning and 284 evening trips for a 50,000-square-foot retail strip center, and 96 morning and 204 evening trips for a gym. The applicant said this was about 84% fewer combined peak-hour trips than any other scenario evaluated under existing zoning.
• The applicant also said the acquired remnant was never designated for park development in the master plan or city records, that building elevations were compared to neighboring homes, and that two community meetings were held on September 21 and October 8, 2026, followed by design revisions. The city’s planning director added context about access constraints and the decision to pursue a land sale rather than an access easement.
• Board members questioned the applicant about the “luxury” label, the leasing office, trip-generation methodology, and whether a smaller two-story option was considered. The applicant said “luxury” distinguished the project from low-income housing, the leasing office would initially use a one-bedroom unit, the trip estimates came from ITE standards, and the 36-foot height was a compromise from the 50-foot allowed height.

Items 4-19 – Sixteen Variance Requests: Arroyos, LLC

• The applicant requested variances from Rio Rancho Ordinance Chapter 154.60(A)(8), which requires underground utility connections, to allow above-ground electric utility connections on 16 lots in Unit 25, Blocks 155, 156, and 157. Staff recommended denial for all 16.
• City planner Michelle Costilla presented the staff findings together: the lots are approximately 0.5 acres each, zoned TZ Transitional, are not irregular in shape or size, and have no physical condition preventing underground installation. Staff argued approval would promote scattered single-family development, discourage lot consolidation, and create an inconsistent standard in the area.
• Applicant representative Jared Likar participated online and argued that PNM’s new September 2025 standard requires a separate pole, that the pole could be placed only five feet from the existing overhead line, and that the service would run down the pole and then underground to the meter, making the connection roughly 95% underground. He also noted recent nearby homes with overhead drops and said Amrep’s future master-planned development south of the area would use underground utilities.
• The board took a separate vote on each lot; all 16 motions to approve failed on 3-3 votes, meaning each variance request was denied.

Items 20 and 21 – City of Rio Rancho Zone Map Amendment and Wall Variance

• Item 20 was a City of Rio Rancho request to rezone approximately 5.4722 acres of R-1 Single-Family Residential to SU Special Use for streets, right-of-way, and an operational annex facility, covering properties in Unit 17, Blocks B and AA off Idalia Road. Staff recommended approval to the Governing Body. Michelle Costilla presented the request, noting the rezoning would extend and unify an established special use district, support municipal operations, and include a 50-foot perimeter separation buffer compatible with surrounding residential uses. The accompanying site plan covers approximately 28 acres and is attached as Exhibit A to the ordinance.
• Item 21 was a related variance from Chapter 154.61(B)(1) to allow a six-foot partially opaque wall along Idalia Road instead of the otherwise required solid nonresidential buffer wall. Staff recommended approval, citing Idalia Road’s minor arterial classification, a 50-foot gas easement providing additional separation, and the wall’s location approximately 150 feet from adjacent vacant properties.
• No public comment was offered on items 20 or 21. The board unanimously recommended approval of the zone map amendment and unanimously approved the variance.

Public Forum

• Corinne Rios spoke in public forum. She said she was denied the opportunity to speak on the two zoning changes she had registered for, that she lives 0.9 miles from one property and 2.7 miles from the other, and that she did not see a public notice sign posted at the Idalia Road property despite the city code requirement for posting before a zoning hearing. The board took no action on her comments.

Key Outcomes

• Consent calendar approved unanimously.
• Item 3: The board recommended approval of Zone Map Amendment 26-100-5 to the Governing Body by a 4-1 vote, with Vice Chair Gabaldon, Commissioner Kofchur, Commissioner Hankins, and Commissioner Barela voting yes and Commissioner Fischer-Pedraza voting no. Chair Richardson was excused and Commissioner Lampson recused. The item was noted to still require Governing Body consideration.
• Items 4-19: All 16 variance motions failed by 3-3 votes, resulting in denial of each above-ground utility variance request.
• Item 20: Recommended to the Governing Body by a unanimous 6-0 vote.
• Item 21: Approved unanimously by a 6-0 vote.
• The meeting moved to adjournment after the public forum; no further board action was taken.