An argument over development density for land in the city limits is highlighting discord between Santa Fe's long-range plans and agreements about annexation.

The crux of the problem is that the city and county settled a series of lawsuits by codifying that the city would annex nearly 10,000 acres of land around its borders, then hold off on future annexations for 20 years.

An area they agreed would keep its "rural residential" character but still become part of the urban city limits is causing heartburn for some at City Hall as well as landowners who planned to develop there.

The City Council is scheduled tonight to talk about the idea of establishing a new zoning rule, and councilors are likely to hear an earful about why some think it's a bad idea.

Although tonight's vote would not assign the new zoning to a particular area, it's aimed at complying with the city/county settlement on "Area 1," which is about 1,300 acres west of the city limits between Agua Fría Street and N.M. 599, and "Area 12," about 123 acres along the south side of Rodeo Road just west of Richards Avenue.

Last week, the city Planning Commission, a citizen panel, issued a recommendation against the proposed zoning category. Meanwhile, the councilors on the city Public Works Committee and the city attorney emphasized Monday that the city is more or less obligated to the plan.

Planning Commission Chairman Matthew O'Reilly said the group acted out of a concern to uphold the city's existing policies and adopted a general plan that calls for urban density zoning on any newly annexed land.

"Our thought was that if it was going to remain rural, then maybe it should remain in Santa Fe County," he told the Public Works Committee, adding later, "Having that under an existing city zoning category would provide more affordable housing than if it were annexed at a rural density. The Planning Commission would like to see annexations happen that are driven by the general plan and less so being driven by the settlement agreement."

Of particular conflict in the drama are large undeveloped parcels of Area 1. For example, Michael Herlocker represents three property owners who collectively control about 42 percent of the land there.

"Our vacant tracts are all large, eminently suitable in topography and proximity to city water and sewer for residential development," he wrote in a letter to elected officials who opposed what he called "politically inspired" rural residential zoning category and favored the city's previous policy.

"This is legislated sprawl prioritized by a private contract — the (settlement agreement) — rather than utilizing the extremely publicly vetted general plan," he wrote.

City councilors are getting inundated with opinions about the proposed zoning rules, according to Councilor Patti Bushee, who chairs the Public Works Committee and who described the idea as creating "a new category for those that hate annexation."

Councilor Miguel Chavez, a longtime supporter of the large annexation plan, said he realizes the details are not an exact fit with city policies, but he supports the proposal.

"The concept of this ... was looking for a way to sort of protect or accept, if you will, the existing conditions," he said. "It's not the best, but with all the debate that we had, pro and con, it did not make a lot of sense not to annex it."

At its most dense option, the zoning proposal would allow two dwelling units per acre if development will use city sewer and water, with less housing allowed per acre if those services are not available. City Attorney Frank Katz said it's an attempt to closely mirror the allowed development under the most recent rules there.

The 2008 settlement agreement happened largely behind closed doors as city and county officials worked to end litigation over development decisions in an area they jointly administer just outside the city limits.

The logic for including the "rural residential" clause came from a vocal group of residents in the areas in question who were "noticeably present and were noticeably concerned" about annexation changing their lives, according to Mary Helen Follingstad, director of the city and county's Regional Planning Authority. That group was charged with developing an annexation strategy before the litigation began.

County Attorney Stephen Ross did not return a phone call requesting comment Tuesday.

Contact Julie Ann Grimm at 986-3017 or jgrimm@sfnewmexican.com.

GET INVOLVED

City Council
What: City Council public hearing on proposed "rural residential" zoning rules
When: 7 tonight
Where: City Hall, 200 Lincoln Ave.

Extraterritorial Land Use Commission
What: The Extraterritorial Land Use Commission will review the future land use and zoning map for the entire annexation area.
When: 6 p.m. Thursday
Where: County Commission Chambers, 102 Grant Ave.

WHAT IS RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING?
The proposed zoning category attempts to mirror rules in place under the Extraterritorial Ordinance. It would allow a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres if no city water or sewer is available for a development and up two dwelling units per acre if municipal water and sewer is available.

Examples of the city's other residential zoning categories are R-1 though R-9, which allow the designated number of dwelling units per acre. The most dense residential designation is RM2, which allows up to 29 units per acre. All those zoning categories can be eligible for up to 15 percent more density when they comply with the city's affordable-housing and other development rules.