Jubilee zone change request takes hit before going to council

Editor's Note: This morning (Thursday, Oct. 9), the News-Bulletin learned that Avalon Jubilee, LLC has withdrawn its application to change designation of a portion of land around Jubilee Los Lunas' clubhouse from special use (SU) to mixed-density use (MD). Village of Los Lunas Community Development Director Alex Ochoa confirmed this information to the News-Bulletin and added that the matter will still be addressed at tonight's regular council meeting to keep the issue in the public record.

LOS LUNAS — A request to subtract part of the nine acres surrounding the clubhouse at Jubilee Los Lunas met with vociferous opposition at a recent village of Los Lunas Planning and Zoning meeting.

More than 60 residents of the Jubilee Los Lunas community showed up on Wednesday, Oct. 1, to testify against a request to rezone 3.13 acres of land from the nine acres surrounding the community’s recreation center/clubhouse at 601 Jubilee Blvd. SW.

The issue initially came up for action during the planning and zoning meeting on Sept. 17, but was tabled. With the decision to recommend disapproval, the full village council will now have a final vote on the matter at its next meeting, tonight (Thursday) at 6 p.m. at Los Lunas Village Hall, 660 Main St., Los Lunas.

After more than an hour of testimony from both residents and Avalon Jubilee LLC’s representative, the P&Z commissioners voted unanimously, 4-0, to recommend that the Los Lunas Village Council deny the change from special use (SU) to mixed-density use (MD).

District 1 Commissioner Michael Doyle was absent from the meeting.

During her presentation to the commission, Los Lunas Community Planner Sonia Walker said village staff had reviewed the municipal code in the application and found “potential non-compliance with the application as requested.”

She added that one letter was received by the community development department in support of the change. The office fielded one call, 37 letters and one three-part petition opposing the change.

Walker cited a part of the municipal code, which she said “establishes requirements for the provision of suitable public park land within a subdivision.” She reported that “Section 16.44.020 specifies that dedication shall be made of 723 acres per 1,000 persons in single-family areas …”

“Applying the municipal code standard results in a park recreation requirement of approximately 6.74 acres. The applicants proposed rezoning to add 33 dwelling units would increase that requirement to 7.4 acres.”

She explained that the existing recreation parcel “generally meets the current potential future park recreation requirements; however, the applicant’s proposed reduction of 3.13 acres would reduce the recreation parcel to 6.08 acres,” which would fall below the current municipal code standard.

Sheldon Greer, who represented Avalon Jubilee, LLC and Community Design Solutions, said the change should be permissible because the entire development was planned to be much larger than it is today.

“The original Jubilee was somewhere in the range of 1,400 to 1,800 lots,” he testified. “There was an area carved out for the rec center, estimated based on the number of residences. The rec center was going to be much larger.

“The economics changed things, and Jubilee got smaller as a community. The rec center was constructed, obviously at the peril of the developer at that time, so that parcel is (now) nine-plus acres.

“I would question, kind of, staff’s calculation regarding parks because this is not a park, one. Two, there is other recreational acreage within Jubilee that I’m sure would be much larger,” Greer concluded, to jeers from the crowd.

Jubilee resident David Darling took the lead in public comment with a lengthy presentation. Though the commission has a three-minute time limit on public comments, it allowed residents to give their time slots to him, which was agreed to by eight residents.

Darling began by saying he submitted the petition in opposition to the change, which contained “more than 270 signatures, which included more than 60 percent of the affected and notified property.”

In his comments, Darling pointed out that the proposed reduction of 3.13 acres would reduce the recreation parcel to 6.08 acres, which falls below the municipal code standard for both the current 336 units and any additional future development. This change, he said, would potentially compromise recreation facilities for residents.

Darling added there are several areas within Jubilee that remain undeveloped, and those parcels should be developed rather than land be taken away from the area around the clubhouse.

“There are plenty of additional vacant plots of land with readily-available pad sites within Jubilee that are designed and ready for development,” he said. “This is simply, as Mr. Greer stated, the declarant trying to take land from the residents. We paid for this land. We paid for this easement. We paid for this right. It’s attached and affixed to my home and to my lot.

“I paid for this property and I’m not giving it up without a fight,” he concluded to cheers from the audience.

In total, nine other residents spoke to the commission, all echoing Darling’s sentiments while also adding information in their calls for disapproval of the zoning change. Residents voiced their fear that crowding more homes would degrade the community’s ambiance and quality, and negatively impacting their property values.

Concerns were also raised about the developer’s motives, with residents suggesting the rezoning effort is being made to extend control and extract value before the community’s home owners association agreement expires. In the end, the commission accepted a motion and voted to recommenddisapproval.

After the meeting, Darling said he approved of the commission’s decision.

“I’m happy that they followed the law, they followed the ordinances, and that they did what’s right for the community of Jubilee,” he said. “I’m happy that tonight we prevailed in our first step. Hard work pays off.

We intend to come back in the same level of force on October the 9th.”