The beauty of Corrales was the center of a discussion at Tuesday’s Village Council meeting.
Councilors took no action on changing the village’s lot coverage rules, but talked about whether the zoning ordinance should remain unchanged, switch to a lower percentage allowed for building or adopt a standard based on square footage instead.
Several said homes being built in Corrales have gotten bigger in recent years and questioned the impact of the trend on the village’s rural nature.
The current rules, Councilor Mel Knight noted, allow 35% of a lot to be occupied by impermeable surfaces such as concrete slabs, driveways and buildings.
Under those rules, she said, the owner of a one-acre lot could build a home larger than 15,000 square feet.
Reducing the maximum lot coverage would make the largest permissible home 10,890 square feet, Knight said.
She said the lower percentage was brought up by a number of people as the village’s comprehensive plan was developed; the plan was approved earlier this year.
Councilor Stuart Murray said he prefers the square footage standard, as owners of larger lots would then be permitted to construct even bigger homes.
He noted that with the maximum reduced to 25%, 60,000 square feet of lot coverage would be permitted on four acres.
“That to me is just insane,” Murray said.
He said oversized houses require more resources, including more time and effort from firefighters if they need to extinguish a fire.
Councilor Zachary Burkett said changing the lot coverage rules could have unintended consequences.
Using Murray’s example of a four-acre lot, Burkett said a property owner might have incentive to subdivide the land into four smaller lots, each of which could then be improved.
“Instead of one really big house, we’ve got four kind-of-big houses, and it’s more lot coverage,” he said. “So we’re pushing people’s financial incentives towards smaller lots so they can maximize their sales dollars instead of building whatever monstrosity of a house they want.”
Murray said some of the lot coverage will necessarily be outbuildings, pools or other surfaces, which have less impact on views than the actuarial house.
Councilor Rick Miera said a property owner could also strategically place a residence on the edge of a large lot, and subdivide it later.
Councilors also discussed the current parking restrictions in the village. Planning and zoning administrator Laurie Stout said the rules need to be tightened up.
In September, she said, planning and zoning commissioners voted unanimously to recommend the council support updating language in the municipal code to enable enforcement of no-parking zones.
She said residents have for a while complained about commercial customers parking on residential streets
“Sometimes, they block the driveway,” Stout said. “(Residents) have to call the police. Right now, there’s no way that the village police can issue a parking ticket.”
She showed a photo of a “no parking” sign at Fire Station No. 1, which indicates that other vehicles are not permitted and warns of towing and tickets as consequences of unauthorized parking.
She said the code should be modified to establish that commercial parking isn’t allowed where no “no parking” signs exist, and establish specific fines for the violations. Stout said the signs would be placed in identified “problem areas.”
Murray said the rules change should also be used to address film permits and when crews obstruct pathways.
Stout said that could be managed by the use of temporary “no parking” signs.
Village Attorney Randy Autio said the code should take into account a way to accommodate residents who park as they visit others.
“‘No parking’ means ‘no parking for anyone,’” he said.
Burkett said he’s concerned about widespread enforcement of no-parking zones without safe ways to cross the streets and walk to or from available parking lots.
Staff will bring each of the items back to the council later for possible action.