Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello everybody. Thank you for coming. My name is Lauren Hansen and I will be running this meeting today. It is 1:34 on January 29th. Mr. Bargo, statement to the public. The city plan commission has sole and final approval authority over subdivision maps which is statutoily limited limited to ministerial examination of the applicants conformance to all applicable code provisions. The staff report for an agenda item may include conditions, exceptions or modifications. The commission may approve the item with all staff report conditions, exceptions or modifications, including additional measures regarding the item as imposed by the commission. Otherwise, the staff report with all modifications, exceptions, and conditions is approved and the applicant shall h comply with all provisions of the staff report. Commissioners will consider all agenda items other than subdivision items in the form of a public hearing. The normal process is as follows. First, the commission will hear a staff report followed by a statement from the applicant. Then members of the public may speak followed by any final statement from the applicant. Finally, the matter will be closed for further discussion or a motion among the commission. The commission shall then make a recommendation that will be forwarded to city council.

Thank you staff. Are there any changes to the agenda today? Hey, good afternoon. Lisa Mo with planning inspections. Uh there's no changes to the agenda. I just wanted to point out that there's one revised staff report. Okay. And what is that?

That's for item five. Okay. Thank you. motion to accept that revision. Do I need to? So, I don't believe there's a need for a motion on that. Okay. Thank you. It's just for notation. Okay. And right now, I'm going to take a call to the public. Is there anybody here who would like to speak on an item that is not related to anything on the agenda today? If you're on Zoom, it is star six to unmute. We're on the phone. Star six to unmute. Okay. And staff, it's not this as well, correct? This is for items on the agenda.

Yes, that is for items not on the agenda. Members of the public will have an opportunity to speak on the items as they come up. Perfect. Thank you. Okay, we move on to the consent agenda. Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Second. All in favor?

I All opposed. Motion passes. We'll move on. Was that somebody that wanted to speak? I think they're just joined and unmuted themselves. We'll move on to the regular agenda and we have number five being presented by Vanessa Durant.

Never mind. Good afternoon, Madame Chair and uh commissioners. Uh Luis Samura with planning inspections. Miss Vanessa Orana is a representative. Uh so item five on the agenda, it's a reszoning request for property located at 7912 Nor Loop. Here we have the aerial the subject property is currently built. Uh property is located on Nur Loop and west of Yabro. Wait until the presentation's over. So current zoning of the subject property is R3 residential. Uh the proposal is to resone from R3 to SD which is a special development district uh to permit the the development of a proposed restaurant use. So the future language map designation from this for this area is G3 postwar. Uh it kind of calls out for adding commercial uh missing commercial uh to supplement the residential area. Uh this property is also located loop which is a commercial corridor uh which makes it make makes it suitable for the proposed resoning. There you go. Uh so as part of the special development zoning district it requires a detail site development plan. Uh so this site plan will be binding. It shows the existing building to be converted from what it's an existing single family home to a obviously the for the proposed restaurant at this time. Uh a maximum parking uh is required of for six parking spaces. Obviously the six parking spaces include one ADA as well as three bicycle spaces which are being provided. Uh main access to to the property will be from Duran through the a driveway for that parking. uh the driveway alone or loop uh will not be able to be used

given that it doesn't comply with uh minimum requirements for a driveway. Uh at this time uh staff is uh recommends a landscape buffer along the frontage of Nor loop and Duran uh just because the property is existing uh ex well currently developed and landscape requirements will not be able to be uh enforced. Uh the site plan demonstrates kind of compliance with this buffer which is five feet. So here we have pictures of of the subject property. Uh this a while ago from street view. Uh everything is still kind of the same right now. Subject property I mean surrounding properties to the north. We have a shopping center. There's a ballroom in there as well. Uh there's some commercial and then properties to the west, south and east are some residential R3. uh for the properties on the east includes uh commercial properties. One is an apartment, another one is like a contractor yard. So uh the applicant did notify all neighborhood associations as required. Uh at this time the staff did send public notice uh for our property owners within 300 feet of the SI property and as of today and that's and I guess there's a um an addition additional backup for for all the commissioners right now uh because we have received a kind of petition letter with 12 signatures in support and we have received one email in opposition to their request. the opposition cited uh kind of held uh issues with the the property values and additional traffic in the in the area. Here we have the notice map just so uh we let you know who got notified of that request. We we sent out 31 notices which included 35 properties

uh as of this um sorry that's the wrong one. uh staff recommendation is approval with conditions of the resoning request. Uh the conditions are to kind of uh make sure that we safeguard uh surrounding properties from the upzoning for this property. The first one will be that kind of landscaping buffer and the front touch just to make sure that more landscaping is provided in the area. The second one will be to restrict some uses. Those will be mostly the automotive uses uh commercial fuel station and convenience store with gas pumps. We don't think those are suitable for this area. And the third one is uh restricting outdoor amplified sound uh just to again avoid negative impact to residential properties. And with that that concludes my presentation.

Thank you. Any questions? Your microphone. Oops. Through the chair. Thank you. I have a few questions. Um, you mentioned that that driveway on North Loop is not suitable or is not aligned, but it will stay there, right?

So, at this time there's no requirement to for them to remove it, but is they cannot use it technically. It is not permitted. Um, okay. I understand that. But if it's not closed, then once the restaurant is operating and I'm passing by and I see it and it's there, I'm parking there. So, uh I think that at this time that needs to be addressed, you know, because it is going to be a problem especially down the line. My other question is um the entrance to that restaurant is going to be on Duran Street. Correct.

Correct. So all the traffic should go not on North Loop but on Duran Street and that house or that restaurant will be facing Duran Street. Uh technically yes the the main door but the address will be on North Loop.

Yeah. So the address has already been assigned. That's the address they have. And just as a to point out a property owner can request a change of address especially when they're obviously in a corner lot to either one. Um, but at this time obviously that that's the the address for the property.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant?

Good afternoon. My name is Vanessa Duran. I'm representing the owner. if you have any questions for me. Um the one assisting with the plans and um process with through the city. Do you agree with staff comments? Yes, you do. Um how are you are you going to address the driveway?

Yes, we actually were waiting for like to present the plans for construction and then if they request that it will be like a kind of like block or put a uh I don't know any restrictions, we'll be okay. like we're okay with that. So, they can go ahead and block that street. We were trying to use it. We make modifications into the entrance to the parking lot, but since it's going to be an existing building, there is no modifications into the square footage on the building. It was kind of hard. So, that's why we decided with uh Louis and Soning that it would be the best to use the Duran Road.

So, you'd prefer not to modify that driveway and just close it off? We can just go go ahead and close it out because we think that at the moment that we presented for the construction they're going to address that it's not the width required like the minimum width to entering and have an exit through the nor loop.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. We'll go ahead and open this up to public comment. Is there anybody who would like to speak on this case? If you could please state your name. And you have three minutes to speak. See residential Seech. Seech.

commercial. Yeah. restaurant. See Um, I don't speak enough Spanish to explain this, but could somebody say that there is parking on the site? And I I know that that wasn't the entire concern, but there is parking on the site, so they won't just be parking in the in the street. Yeah. So, just to you want me to explain to him, right?

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, Mr. I didn't get your name. So, what she's saying Yeah.

That that they're not driving in on North Loop. And that's is that what he's saying? You want to explain? Yes. Well, go ahead. If you allow it. Uhhuh. I'm the son of Cesario Casillas. Okay.

The problem is the entrance is going to be inside the North Loop residential street. It's probably going to be and yes, we did see that it was going to be six parking spaces for the restaurant. The problem is is the traffic coming out of the restaurant and coming in into the restaurant. That area has a school within a block. That'll be North Loop. And then I also have my own son that lives two streets under which will be 433 Duran. We just think the neighbors in the neighborhood and myself think that it's uh very not suitable to have a restaurant there that can possibly endanger the lives of our children. Most of that area is apartment complexes on the I would imagine in the opposite side there's four apartment complexes and the rest of the street is just a bunch of renters. There's at least 10 kids that go through there that I've noticed. And who knows how many kids pass through there to get to the other street, which would be

Lafayette. And then that whole area is basically the school zone of North Loop. We don't want any kids to get in danger. And since one our street is one of the easiest streets to get into, it already causes a big problem with that. We don't want anymore anyone to get run over in that situation, especially me since I have to work in the EMS department. All right, that should be pretty much our main concern is traffic flow. It's not suitable for that area.

Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak? Hi, my name is Israel Fuentes. I'm the president of neighborhood association there from the Rosedale neighborhood association and uh I saw the area I'm for it because we want our neighborhood association to thrive and uh with the school being there so close you have to go pick up your children. The the school does not release the children out to the streets. parents have to go pick up their children and there's long lines of cars that they have to go pick them up and take them back home. So there's there's no children walking through the streets. I know because I have nieces and nephews that go to that school. So about danger for the kids, there's no danger. And for cars to be passing by, they're just going to go in, go out, pick up their burritos, whatever, and they're going to be going out. But uh yeah, we do want our neighborhood to thrive as a newly uh neighborhood association. We want it to grow and stuff like this with new restaurants coming in, we want it to thrive. So that's my input in this.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak? Of course. number is The traffic can for resto. They can

gracias. It is.

Anybody else? Hi. Um, well, first of all, he's not my father. He's not the owner. I am the applicant. Um, I did have been going Oh yeah, my name is Josu. I'm sorry. I've been going through through the house and I have my own son. He's two years old. He has met him. We have met them. Uh but to be honest, I don't I don't see where there's a danger. My two years old son, well, he knows not to cross the like the street. Uh we have been playing around with the with the football and with the car and there's no nothing that has been dangerous of it. Uh the property was uh sold as commercial commercial. At the end of the road, we found out that it was not commercial, but that was when we already bought it and we already had it. We didn't have no knowledge of it and we apologize for that. Thank you.

Anybody else? Okay, thank you. I think it's time for a motion and then we can discuss amongst us. Is that correct? Yes.

Okay. I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve with the conditions. Second. Anybody would like to discuss? Yes, I would. Okay. Um, first of all, that property has been residential. when they bought it. They're coming in here to reszone from residential special development, which would be more like commercial. Okay. One of the reasons that we I like commercial or special development is because we need to take the burden off the property owners somehow in this in this city, in this county. The burden is on the property owners for everything that's paid to the county, to the city, and everything. and we need to switch that. We need more industrial, we need more commercial. So, that's one of the reasons I'm in favor of that. The other thing is I go through there quite a bit going both ways and a lot of times I'm always looking for a restaurant and I've already tried all those. I want to try something else. So, hopefully I'll try that one. But that's my biggest concern is that it's we need more commercial. It is on North Loop, a highly traveled commercial uh state highway. And I think it'll it's a good fit. Uh except that driveway in the front needs to be covered because if it's open and I go by, I'll park there, you know, and they can't give you a ticket because it's a driveway unless they close it. Those are my comments.

I'm not sure I agree that the driveway in the front should be closed because that's a way to keep it off of a residential street. Right. But the city deemed that that's not appropriate for that for that uh special development. Okay. So, having said that, being commercial, close that one up and let them go in through uh Duran Street.

How close is it to being wide enough for that area? So, if I can, Kevin Smith with pl inspections. I think part of the concern obviously it does not meet the width. I believe it is roughly 10 feet in width. The other issue is this is a state highway as well. So they have to coordinate with text dot and typically they've they've expressed concerns. I'm not I'm not going to speak for them, but it is very close to the intersection with Duron as well. So that's something they would have to coordinate with text dot. Um that may be another hurdle that they have to go through.

Correct. Did you want to speak? Okay. Microphones, please. I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said. Okay. All in favor?

I I. All opposed? Nay. Roll call, please. Okay, this is going to be a roll call on item number five. Commissioner Bado,

nay. Commissioner Massud, I Commissioner Borego I Commissioner Hansen? I Commissioner Rean

I and Dosski I We've got five eyes and one nay. Motion passes. Thank you, commissioners.

Okay, we'll move on to number six, which is number 25 to be presented by Mr. time. Good afternoon, chair and members of the commission. Jose with planning and inspections. Item number six in the agenda is a proposed reszoning for the properties located at 8612, 8614, 8616, and 8618 Neptune Street. Here is an aerial image of the subject property. It is 0.94 acres in size, currently vacant, and uh located west of US Highway 54 and north of Hercules Avenue. Current zoning for the property is R4 residential and the applicant uh proposing to reszone the subject property to A2 apartment to allow for multifamily use. Plan El Paso. The future land use map for the northeast planning area designates the property as G3 postwar, which calls for strategic or suburban retrofits to supplement the limiting limited housing stock and add missing civic and commercial uses. Here we can see the conceptual plan showing the proposed development. Vehicular access will be from Neptune Street. And this conceptual plan is not currently being reviewed for compliance under title 20 and it is not binding. This image shows a front view of the subject property. This was taken along Neptune Street looking to the east. Looking to the surrounding development properties to the north are zone R4 C3 commercial conditions, C2 commercial conditions, consisting of single family homes and vacant lots. Properties to the east are property zoned C2, commercial conditions, and consist of a vacant lot and a professional office. To the west and south are property zone R4 and include a ponding site and single family dwellings. This resoning will provide for a buffer between the lower residential uh

residential zone districts to the west with higher residential zone districts to the east as well as providing a buffer between uh the lower density and US Highway 54. So the applicant did uh notify the Sunrise Neighborhood Association of the request. Public notices were mailed to property owners within 300 ft on January 16th of the present year. And to date uh till today, we have not received any communication in opposition or or in favor of the request. So, there were 45 notices sent out to 45 properties as part of the public uh outreach. And to conclude, staff does recommend approval with a condition. This is this condition is for a landscape buffer along the uh property lines abuing residential zone districts or uses except where ponding or open space areas exist. And thank you, commissioners. This this concludes my presentation. Any questions?

I do. Go ahead. Through the chair. Uh, Mr. Mcdana, thank you for the presentation. You said that that place is vacant, but I think it's never been developed. Am I correct? Uh, that's correct. It's never been developed before. Okay. So, it's kind of like infill

in a way. Yes. In Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant, please? Hi, good afternoon. I'm Jessica Escalante representing the owner.

Okay. Do you agree with staff comments? Yes, I do. All right. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Okay. I will entertain a motion. Excuse me. M. Yeah. This is a public hearing. Does anybody have anything? Does anybody have a comment for this case? and it is star six to unmute if you're on the phone. Okay, thank you. Now I will entertain a motion.

Move to approve with staff recommendations. All right. All in favor? I. All opposed. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. We have number seven, a reconsideration.

Yeah. Uh if you if I might a little bit um Louis Amorta with planning inspections, just to point out on this next item, this is brought to you as a reconsideration. So this item came to the city plan commission already got approved. Uh there were some issues that we found out later in the process going into council. uh the property wasn't really the portion that was resone or approved recommended to approve for for the reszoning was apparently larger. So just as I just to point out that that what you're going to see is technically a reconsideration of something you've already looked at before.

Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon chair, members of the commission. Alejandra Gonzalez with planning and inspections. Item number seven on the agenda is a rec reconsideration of a resoning request previously approved on September 25, 2025 for the subject property located at 529 Schwab Street. Here's an aerial of the property. Uh this was the original request. Uh it was for to resone a portion of the property due to split zoning. After research uh it was found that the proposed reszoning I'm sorry flicker uh that the proposed resoning was area was larger than what was previously approved. Um the zoning map has been revised to match with previous resonings. Uh property it's 20 52 acres in size and is currently vacant and is located east of Jarroof Drive. The applicant is requesting to resone the subject property from R5 RF ranch and farm to R3A residential for the proposed use of a single family dwelling. There are no changes from the previous request. Here is a future land map use uh of the Mission Valley planning area which designates the property as G3 postwar. Here we have the conceptual site plan showing um the resoning request highlighted in yellow. U main access to the property is proposed from shop street and the conceptual plan is not being reviewed for zoning requirements and is not binding. Here's an image from the property taken from Shrub Street. Uh properties to the north and east include single family dwellings and are

zone R3A and R3. The south properties vacant zone R5 and property to the west includes a shopping center zone C1. Uh initially 27 public notices will mail to the property owners on September 10. Uh due to the increment of the reszoning area, five more properties uh were within the radius of the property 300 ft from the property and as a result a total of 32 public notices were sent on January 15, 2026. Um, as of now, the planning division received an email support from the Mission Valley Civic Association.

And with that, uh, staff recommends approval of the resoning request. Please presentation. Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant, please?

Hello, my name is Aaron Oves. I'm the engineer and owner. Do you agree with staff comments? No. You don't? Uh, excuse me. Do you agree with staff comments? Oh. Uh, yes I do. Okay. Sorry. Any questions for the applicant? No. Okay. I believe this is a public comment as well. Is there anybody who would like to speak on this?

Star six to unmute. Okay. Thank you. Public comment is closed. Is there a motion among the commission move to approve? Second. Okay. Um, just before we go to an a final vote, I saw that the official FEMA maps have not been released yet to officially declare this as a flood zone, I believe. So, I hope y'all do consider being one foot above that flood plane. Okay, good. I know you're not required to, but I hope you do. Is there any final discussion? All right. All in favor?

I. All opposed. Motion passes. Thank you. We're moving on to number eight, which is a special permit application. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the commission. Jose Delra with planning and inspections. Uh item number eight is on the agenda is a special permit application for the subject property located at 2000 Grand View Avenue. Here we can see an aerial image of the property. It's 10 acres in size and is currently vacant. Here we can see the zoning map of the property uh zoned R5. The applicant is requesting a special permit and detailside development plan approval for an infield development with a reduction to the lot depth and front, rear, and side setbacks for the proposed use of a duplex. The duplex use is permitted by Wright in the R5 zoning district, but the lot does not currently meet all uh zoning requirements. This is the detailed site development plan showing the uh proposed layout of the development which includes includes the proposed duplex structure with a maximum height of 12t 8 in uh totaling 2,453 uh square feet of gross floor area. The developer requires four parking spaces and the applicant applicant will be providing three spaces. Info guidelines allow for an automatic 50% reduction in parking. So the development the development will be providing sufficient parking. Pedestrian access to the subject property will be via dedicated pedestrian paths that will connect from the sidewalk along Grand View Avenue uh to each dwelling unit. And similarly, vehicular access will also be from from Grand View. Public transit is readily available in the area with four bus stops located

within a quarter mile from the property. And this uh proposal will integrate with existing residential development and provide additional housing to the area. As mentioned, this is a detailed site plan that will be binding and does comply with all code requirements. Here we have a image showing the proposed elevations. Again, that is a max height of 12 feet 8 in. Here we can see the site plan superimposed on the uh aerial image. Here's a view of the subject property. This image was taken from Grand View Avenue. So, look into the surrounding development to the north, southeast, and west are properties uh majority of them zoned R5 and one one property zone AO apartment office. And again, these consist mainly of single family homes and one apartment comp one apartment uh development. There is currently again just one development on that same block uh that that is apartments. The applicant did notify the central business association, the El Paso community organization, the Sunrise, and the Sunrise Civic Group uh of these requests and public notices were ma were mailed to property owners within 300 ft on January uh 16th of this year. Uh so far we have received one uh phone call of inquiry, one phone call in opposition and the nature of the opposition was a concern for a an excess number of renters uh present in the area and as part of those notices 56 properties were notified uh of of this request. Uh to conclude, staff does recommend approval of the special permit and

detailed site development plan uh requests. And so this development does uh comply with all requirements of El Paso city code for a special permit uh detail side development plan and infield development. And thank you commissioners. That concludes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.

Any questions? Uh Jim Devolski, is there street parking on the streets in that area as well? There is available street parking. Um the development itself will be providing sufficient parking uh per code, but there is on street parking available. Thank you,

Mr. Ban. Um if I remember correctly, that place has been vacant for a long long time. That's correct. Uh perial imagery since it's been vacant since at least 1956. Yeah, it's always been Okay, thank you. Yeah, the lot is pretty small, so that's part of the special permit request. It's

Thank you. doesn't meet all the the zoning requirements. Any other questions? Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant? I believe they are on the phone. Okay. Star six to unmute. Can we hear from the applicant? Do we know if they're online?

So again, we're looking for the applicant for the item for 2000 Grand View. Um, if you're on the phone, star six to mute, please. Again, the applicant for the special permit at 2000 Grand View. Star 62. Mute your phone, please.

Does anybody have any reservations to approving this without discussing with the applicant? Actually, what Mr. Borggo has mentioned, the property has been, you know, vacant since 1950s. I'm actually quite happy to see it filled up. It's encouraging to see people taking up spaces that are, you know, empty and and could be a problem for the neighborhood and then putting something on it that works. And I'm commend staff for working with them and giving them the special permits that require them to make this property usable. So, I'm happy to make a motion now without any input from the applicant.

Uh, I think we have to make a public this this is a public hearing, so that needs to be held. And I believe there are no conditions proposed as part of this. Is that right? Correct. No. No conditions. Okay. Let me let me ask let me answer what you said about that. Although I totally agree with Commissioner Massud on the infill that needs to be done and it's great to hear it, but the applicant has to be here at least on the phone. We made the sacrifice to be here. Everybody here, again, we've talked about this before. We come in here. They need to be here. If they're not here, I guess it's not really that important to them. And how can I vote for something if they're not here to represent that company or their interest? That's just my opinion.

I think that because we don't have any questions that specifically the applicant needs to answer, yes, they should have been here and yes, it's annoying that they're not, but we don't know why they're not here, why they're not on the phone. So

I I know I know I get it. I have worked with uh Miss uh what's her last name before and she's very very responsible person architect. She's very responsible. I'm find it very strange. She's not

Yes, we can hear you. Oh yes, I'm the applicant for Wisconsin. Sorry, I couldn't uh take out the the new thing, but I'm here. I'm sorry. Could you say that again? I'm the applicant for the 2000 Grand View project.

Okay. Do you agree with all staff comments? Yes. I just couldn't take that take the the new B enough. Okay. Anybody have questions for the applicant? Thank you. This is public comment. Would anybody like to speak? Star six to unmute. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion.

Move to approve. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I. All opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you. Okay, we're on number nine. So, if I could just talk about this really quick as we get into this one. This one's a unique case. Um, again, Kevin Smith for the record. So, this reason this item is before you is um there's a significant structure that was constructed on this property without permits and it's uh in fact encroaching one of the setbacks and and Blanca will get into that as she goes over the presentation. As you're aware, you know, we have our codes and requirements here for a reason. Um in the majority of our development codes it talks about the health, safety and welfare of uh development and that's the reason why we have the requirements. Um setbacks have been in place um pretty much nationwide especially on single family development for for decades uh to to mitigate um certain issues including health and to also discourage uh fires um which is the significant one as we saw unfortunately in Los Angeles in um last year. um fires jumped from property property fairly fairly uh fast in that situation. So the setbacks help to provide some separation between the the two. It also um as as you're aware the different zoning districts throughout the city create the character about what it is um for the uh for each neighborhood. This property actually came in um we were made aware of it when the neighbor came into uh our one-stop shop and asked for a similar request. Um we saw the neighbor and um made us aware of the situation. So as you consider this um this item here, please take these items into account. We don't want to create a precedence um for for this throughout the city and as well as we want to make sure we're sending the right message. At the end of this day, they still have to meet building code requirements and that, but this is uh before use a special permit for a

reduced setback request and Blanca will get in the details. Um if the question comes up, we do have um our chief building official here, Tony de la Cruz here to answer any questions from the building side as well because they also have to comply with all building code requirements as well. But Blanco will get in the presentation.

Good afternoon, chair, members of the commission. Blanka Perez with planning and inspections. Item number nine on the agenda is a special permit application for the subject property located at 3305 Hayawa Drive. The subject property is approximately 24 acres in size and is located south of Edgeir Boulevard and east of George Der Drive. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow for a site setback reduction in an existing single family dwelling. The property is currently zoned R3 residential with a special permit for planned residential development approved in 1998. A plan residential development is a residential master plan project that allows flexibility in setbacks and lot standards while ensuring safe, compatible, and cohesive neighborhood design. The detailed site development plan is binding and it shows a single family dwelling totaling approximately 2,450 square feet including a two-story addition constructed without permits in 2020 that encroaches into the required 5ft sideyard setback prompting the request for a setback reduction to 1.60 ft as seen on red on the site plan. Access to the property is from Hayawata Drive through a panhandled lot. These are the proposed I mean this is these are the existing building elevations illustrating the overall height and design of the existing home addition being 25.57 ft. Here you can see the existing site plan superimposed on the aerial map for context. This is the existing condition of the site as from from Hayawa Drive. The front of the residence and the setback request. Surrounding properties consist of single

family dwellings zoned R3 with a special permit. The property does not lie within any recognized neighborhood associations. Notices were m to property owners within 300 feet on January 16, 2026. And the planning division has received two calls of inquiry, but has not received any communication in support or opposition to the request. With that, 77 properties were notified of this request. Staff recommends denial of the special permit request for the following reasons. Uh the first one being that the structure does not comply with the approved special permit for the planned residential development. There is inconsistency with plan El Paso's goals and policies toward orderly, safe, and predictable development patterns and requirements from the adopted zoning ordinance. And the addition has not yet demonstrated compliance with applicable municipal and building code requirements. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Any questions?

Not at this time, but later. Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant? Good afternoon. My name is Rhys Javier Lopez. I'm representing the property owner. Uh we do have a couple letters supporting the addition. We do have the letter from the neighbor supporting the addition. Did you have any um do you agree with staff comments?

Yes, we Yes, I do. Um but also we can do uh like cutting off the overhang so it can be so we can have more uh space between the property line and the and and the residence. We can also do fire rate walls on encroachment. I don't know if that's if we can do that also.

Mr. Lopez, so you apparently you've been working with the staff trying to resolve this issue. Correct. Yes. Have have you guys suggested any solutions? Because what I heard right now that they're recommending denial and saying that we don't want to set precedents from encroaching on the setbacks. I can see that the cover patio, you know, it's it's encroaching on the rear setback, but this not a structure. It's just a patio, right? There's

it it is a patio, but there's walls. There's there's walls also. There's walls up. Yes. And then on the other side, you know, with the house addition, right, that encroachment. So, have you guys discussed adding firewalls or and and has that been agreed? You know,

yes, that's the part where where I'm telling you the commissioner that we can do fire rated walls, cut the eve or the overhand, same thing. So, we can have more space in between the property line and the and and the house. But the actual house wall is only 1.6 six from the property, right?

Yes. Okay. It's not the eve. The eve is over. It's not over the the property line, but it's right on the Yes. But you will be willing to add the lower fire rated walls that would alleviate the issue about uh fire jumping. Correct.

Correct. What about in the rear? What what would you suggest to do? Well, on the patio that is encroaching, uh, we are allowed to encroach 180 square feet. Okay. Of patio. So, you're you're you're okay on that part. You're okay on that part. Okay.

Okay. So, it's only that portion to the right hand side of the house addition that has not been agreed by the city that as a firewall as a solution. Mr. Smith. So, if I might, I just want to make sure the conversation is kept relevant. is this is about a special permit for the encroachment. The building permits it's a separate issue that will have to be met with staff. So again, this property has not been inspected. This addition has not been inspected. Uh the plans are on hold to determine the outcome of the special permit request. Um again, so before the commission is the is the encroachment appropriate? Um and as you can see and was mentioned by Blanca is staff is recommending denial of that request because we do not feel it is inappropriate and it is sending a bad message as we've also had the neighbor inquiring for similar requests. So we don't want to create a precedence in the neighborhood as well.

I don't think they can be considered separately though. Well, again, um they have to comply with all building code requirements and and so that's that's something that needs to be met no matter what. I'm not sure if it needs to be fire rated or not. Um again, I'm I'm a planner at the end of the day. So, but that's where we'll let our our our building permit staff review the application and make the appropriate um building code requirements to make sure it is built uh appropriately and safely. Did you build this or did somebody else own the house before you?

Somebody else. Somebody else. Um, I called I found I was looking for someone to make the add a Facebook and that's why my that's was that was my error. So, you hired someone to do this? Okay.

Does anybody have questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. This is a public uh item. I believe I will entertain any questions from anybody in the audience or on the phone that would like to speak on this. is star six to unmute. Star six to unmute.

Okay, public comment is closed and we need a motion before we can discuss. Move to deny. Second.

Okay, we can discuss. Okay, if I may go, Madam Chair, first of all, okay, um, we get these setbacks asked for mainly for central El Paso because it was built so long ago and sometimes in order for infill or to do anything inside the central El Paso, those things tend to be allowed. This property is in further east El Paso when these rules and setbacks and fire restrictions and safety were done. Okay, this particular house, if you see it, was built kind of weird because you got houses around and then you have a little alley to get into that middle house and the other middle house. There's two middle houses in there. Kind of funky there, you know. And then um I hate to say it, but the owners decided uh hey, let's not tell anybody and let's add this on and let's add this on without asking for permits. I mean, if they would have uh had the setbacks and done it without permits, nobody would have known about that. Okay? And uh so they get caught. Okay? And here we are. We've we've we've seen this one before. We saw one just like it before last year where uh they did it without permits and you got to get a permit. You got to be safe for your neighborhoods. And that's my discussion on that. That's why I moved to deny.

Can we ask staff um what remediation would be? So, if I might, I'm going to call up Tony de la Cruz. Um he's the assistant director. He's over building permit inspections to address that.

Good afternoon, Commissioner. Tony L Cruz with the planning inspections department. So from the construction angle, remediation is always possible. Okay. So focusing on that, yes, fire rating, basically the residential code requires any component that's less than 5 ft from a property line or from a fire separation distance. I won't go into that too much because it gets convoluted, but one of the fire separation distances is from the edge of the building to a property line. So, anything that's less than 5T would require fire rating. Uh, typically, anything that's less than 3 ft does not allow for any openings on that site that's less than three feet. Fire rating could be accomplished in a variety of different ways. uh they could add additional drywall on the inside but it would have to extend not only to the wall itself but also to any component floor se ceiling assemblies that are within those five ft. So are they are there methods to remediate based on the construction code methods? Are there concerns that just uh unfortunately occur because of the illegal construction is an engineered analysis of that foundation. Our staff never reviewed that foundation. We don't know minimum depths, minimum reinforcements that were done. So the applicant would have to hire a structural engineer to assess that foundation and make sure it's safe to carry the loadbearing weights that are imposed on it. Additional items that of course our staff never looked at were the structural components. I can see that overall we have some relatively high walls. I'm not sure if those high walls extend from the foundation all the way to the roof or there's any intermediate uh support from floor framing or if it's just a a fully open section. The residential code does

have provisions for engineering of tall walls. Uh so that might be an additional factor that the applicant has to consider. So are there methods as far as the construction goes? Yes. And if the commission would like, I mean, I looked at the property earlier today. I can provide you with a chronology of this case itself. This case actually began with our enforcement team back in August of 2024. The complaint was submitted via the 311 app and after an initial investigation was conducted, vi violations were found to be there. Uh similarly on August of 24, 2024, notice of violations were mailed to the property owners uh and following that basically instructing them that they needed to obtain permits within 30 days. September 19th, 2024, planning inspection staff met with the property owners and on September 20th, a follow-up inspection was conducted by our enforcement team and the owners were provided an additional 30 days. On October 30th, 2024, the case was submitted to municipal court. And on January 15, 2025, planning and inspection staff did meet with the property owners to inform them of potential solutions, whether ZBA, which unfortunately does not have the authority to approve uh special privileges requests and as it's far beyond their authorities. Uh and they were informed of the special permit process. On January 28th, 2025, the municipal court granted 60 days for the applicant to submit the applications and or obtain the required permits. And now we're in August of uh 2025. The special permit applications was submitted. And uh construction permits were submitted which again, as Mr. Smith mentioned, have not been reviewed for compliance

with the building codes uh on and those were submitted on September 29th, 2025. Of course. Any additional questions for me? Thank you, Mr. Cruz. You answered my question. I was going to ask about ZBA, but you just answered that.

Yes, sir. Yeah. Thank you, commissioners. I have one question. So, I don't know if I saw it in the pocket or if it was just in the presentation right now, but I think nobody someone no one's been in there to actually inspect what they can see from my inspections team. No, ma'am.

Is there a reason for that? Uh, we don't have authority unless the owner grants us authority. Has that been asked for? Not at this point, ma'am. Okay. Is nobody's wanted to ask for that or there's legal reasons to not ask for that? Well, at this point, we have building permits in play. Uh our main function is not to provide them with design guidance. That's why Mr. Lopez is here. He's been a designer with the city for a number of years. Is well aware of the construction codes. So if this case were to move forward and ultimately uh be approved uh by the CPC and ultimately approved by city council at that point we could definitely coordinate a meeting at the site with the applicant. Madam chair, if I may, Philip applying an inspection. So your question is valid. We didn't do inspections there because we do inspection based on permits. If you don't obtain a permit, there's no need for us to come do inspections. But in this case, no permit was um obtained for that addition. So we couldn't go into their property and say, well, we want to inspect. Inspecting means know we being culpable for what they did to say, yeah, city inspected it, so that means it's good. So because it wasn't inspected and there was no permit, there was no reason for staff to be there. The only reason staff went to that site was because somebody complained and we found out that, you know, it was constructed without permits.

Sure. So you said that if it got approved by CPC and ultimately by city council then the the actual permit will be reviewed and go forward. What happens if it gets denied which is what we have a motion on the ground right now. If it gets denied and dies over here then also the the construction permit dies. So

no we move forward there's options remove the encroachment. So that's the only option you guys have put. Well, that is that is an option. You know, I think if the site setback special uh permit is denied by CPC and city council, then the option would be remove that uh encroachment and leave the 5T that's required for a site setback.

And if I could just add, they would still be required to get the required building permits and inspections. Exactly. For all the additions that were done without inspections or permits. And again, if there are any deficiencies, they will have to correct them as well. So again, staff does not aware of those. They will have to go through the proper review and approval process and then make sure it's built per city requirements. In other words, this was brought to us by the owners see if we could approve it. Okay? But but being that if it's denied then they can start the whole process and then they go through the city if they have to knock on down walls or do whatever needs to be happen happens. So before us is this permit this resident special permit only

but this is a much clearer decision if we know that the encroachment is also not in code aside from being an encroachment. If we knew that these walls were built straight up one piece of wood or like if we knew that this would be a much easier decision to say like hey sorry no

madam chair there's no way for us to know that because it was built without a permit. So if it was if the permit was obtained from the city the city would have reviewed the plans consistent with what they're trying to do and the city would have said okay um you have to make some adjustments to your plans. But that was never the case. So this was built. So whatever you're asking us to do to go in there and examine or inspect this is will be illegal.

I mean in a sense madam chair I think the problem is because it was built without a permit because just a case before that we just approved a special permit for reduction of setbacks on that duplex almost exactly similar conditions. However, they've come in and they followed the proper channels to do that and we granted it quite happily.

And I think that is where the issue lies where Mr. Smith is warning us by not setting the precedence. Correct. I think that is the the core issue. Correct. Uh the applicant would like to address the commission, but that's up to the commission. I know it's close to commission discussion.

Go ahead. Jav Lopez representing the owner. Regardless of of it's approved or not, we going to have to get a permit. If if it's approved, then we had to design according to fire rated walls and what we talk about what we talk about or if it's denied, then it's a different step that that I need to do to make it work or or uh pass through uh through a uh planning department. Anybody else? In that case, I'll take a motion. We're We're voting.

We already have. We already have. Yeah, there is a motion and a second. I believe Mr. Burggo made the motion to deny. Miss Bado seconded. Okay. All in favor to deny this resoning request. I All opposed.

Miss Elsa. If I might just for clarification, this is a special permit request. Special permit. Okay. This is a vote on item number nine. Commissioner Bio.

Commissioner Massud. Hi. Commissioner Borego. I. Commissioner Hansen. I. Commissioner uh Rean I. And Commissioner Dosski.

Nay. So that's five eyes and one nay. Motion passes. Thank you. Okay. We have number 10 which is a special permit and detailed site development plan.

Good afternoon madame chair and members of the commission sa with uh planning and inspections. Um item 10 on the agenda is a request for special permit and detail site development plan uh to allow for a 60 67% parking reduction at 2928 Persing Drive. This is to accommodate the pro the use of restaurant and other retail establishment. So, as you can see from this image, uh the property is located at the corner of Persian Drive and Rainor Street, just east of um Pedra Street in district 2. Um the zoning uh of the property is currently at C4 with uh most of the area being predominantly commercial. uh future land use designation shows uh the properties located in the G2 traditional neighborhood sector which is suitable for uh pedestrian walkability due to its close proximity to the five points transit facility. Uh the current building footprint will not be expanded. Here is an image of the detail site development plan uh showing the uh developments. The plan shows an existing as 16 foot tall um 10,347 square foot building. This same building will comprise of a retail store and restaurant. City code requires a combined 36 parking spaces for this uses. Um seen on this site plan the applicant is providing 12 on-site spaces and three u bicycle spaces. Uh primary access is via Rainer Street uh with egress onto Persian drive. Um the detail site development plan demonstrates

compliance um with all applicable standards and uh is binding. Here we see an aerial view of uh the site superimposed over aerial imagery. Um here we have an image of a parking study. Uh in this image we can see that the areas shown in red represent uh available on street parking uh to supplement uh uh the remaining parking that is required. Here's another image showing overall available parking spaces within the same area. Here is an image showing uh the subject property. Uh this image was taken uh along Persing Drive and uh surrounding developments uh here is predominantly C4 uh to the north, to the south, to the east and west. Uh we can see a commercial uses compatible with uh the area. The subject property lies within all these neighborhood associations shown on screen uh which the applicant notified uh notices were mailed uh to property owners within 300 ft um on January 16 of the present year. As of today, the planning division has not received any communication in support or opposition to the request. Here is an image uh showing the notification map. As you can see from this image, uh 32 notices were sent uh to 35 uh properties. With that, uh staff recommends approval um of the special permit and the top site development plan request as the request uh meets the criteria for special permit approvals and parking reduction of El Paso city code. Um this

concludes my presentation. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant? Jav Lopez representing the order. Do you agree with staff comments? Yes, ma'am. Any questions?

Thank you. This is also a open for public comment. Is there anybody who would like to speak on this? Star six to unmute. Okay. Thank you. I can take a motion.

Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. All opposed. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, commissioners. We have our last item, which is also a detailed site plan, right? We're on 11. Okay.

Good afternoon. Um, sure and commission members. I, Handra Gonzalez with planning and inspections. Item number 11 on the agenda is a detailed site development plan application for the subject property located at 2611 John Hayes, south of Pebble Hills. The subject property is 2.5 acres in size and is currently vacant. The applicant is requesting approval of a details development plan review as required per ordinance 9198 dated May 9, 1989 which requires approval from the city plan commission prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant is also requesting approval of the proposed landscaping modification as allowed per enforce condition. The proposed development includes one building with a total of 60 apartment units. Uh which of them 34 will be onebedroom units and 26 bedroom twobedroom units. The proposed apartment building will have a maximum height of 39 ft. The applicant is providing 72 parking spaces and complies with parking requirements. Vehicular access will provide it from John Hayes Street. Um, the input condition requires a 10-ft landscape buffer, high-profile native trees placed at 10 ft on center, and also it allows for the buffer location with plan to be modified by the CPC. The proposed landscaping modification includes a double row of

trees spaced at 20 feet on center within a 30 uh a 30 ft landscape area. Okay. Um, this is an area with a site plan. Okay, here's a subject property. Um, surrounding developments on the prop around the property are um to the north zone special SD special development district and includes the Pebble Hills High School uh property. To the west is zone R5 residential. developed with single family dwellings and to the east and south properties are some C2 commercial and are currently vacant. Uh staffs recommends approval of the request and the proposed development as the developed development meets the requirements of El Paso city code section 20 4150 uh for the details at development plan and this concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions? I do, Mr. Gonzalez. Being that this is um new um apartment complex that's going to be built. It doesn't have any sidewalks yet, huh?

No. So, are those going to be six foot wide? Yes. Six foot wide. Um yes, I believe so. to comply with the new city standards. Uh Kevin Smith, for the record, they have to comply with all city requirements. Um I don't have Let me look at the details.

It's 5T. Yes. 5T. Just a moment, Mr. Burggo. That's a new um city requirement, right? Six feet. It has to be uh it depends on the roadway, I believe, but a lot of them are six feet. And this, as this is an art, I believe it's six feet. Let me I'm looking at the site plan right now.

Okay.

Turn on your mic. The site plan shows five feet along John Hayes right now. But I'm sure if I might with some water with planning inspections. So typically as part of the detail side building plan, we don't look into the sidewalk. Uh we focus mostly on the property itself. Uh so I believe the requirement will be as to whatever will be uh applicable on the rightway. So my question comes from um understanding that the new sites, new buildings, whatever is being built in El Paso would have six feet sidewalks. Am I wrong here? Again, Lisa Mora for PL with planning inspections. So typically that as you may know uh commission may know that when they plat that's when applicable standards are are set. Uh this property I believe is already platted. Uh so whatever whatever was approved back then that's what will be applicable at this time. Uh is it going to be six feet or 5 feet or less? Uh at this time we're not sure. uh we can check on that but again typically as part of the detail site plan we only focus within the property itself and then everything on the parkway or right away will have to be complying with the applicable standard.

Okay. Again uh my question is applicable can I add something? Sure. So basically the the the new thing that came in in the in the ordinance is is the new street rightway width which is applied now to new subdivisions. So when the new subdivision come in you designing residential street now is different options. You got the 48 you got the 50 and you got the you know 54 and on those streets when you design them that's when the requirement comes in whether it's a six foot or a five foot sidewalk. This is John has already been existing that right away it's already been approved as a five- foot sidewalk back when it was actually built as a street. So what Mr. Zamora is explaining that the property line is this side of the the rideway and that sidewalk requirement has already been passed many years when that when the street was built.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? What was So the or what we're voting on is just changing the landscaping.

Yes. So what was it before and what are we changing it to? It was a 10 ft uh landscape buffer. Uhhuh. Oh, there he is. place that uh 10 feet on center

is what they're requesting. Yeah. No, this is what was imposed on the ordinance and they're requesting and what are they requesting? This is the proposed so on the condition that was imposed a number of years ago. Um it it gave the option for some flexibility um to be considered by the state plan commission. Um if they met the requirements, the 10-ft landscape buffer as prescribed in the ordinance um then this wouldn't be before you. But since they're asking for a modification to be uh as is noted on the screen right now, it is um up to the city plan commission to consider that change as per the uh approved ordinance. So, instead of the singular row of trees that was prescribed, Ally, can you go to the previous slide, please?

Which was a I believe a 10- foot landscape buffer with trees placed every 10 ft. Um, what is being requested is um a modification to make a larger buffer where it's um Can you go to the next slide, please?

Where two rows? There are two rows. So, it'd be it's wider where it's spaced. um 30 feet wide and trees are spaced every 20 feet, but there's a double row of trees and it's staggered. It's staggered. I like that.

Yeah. The the other thing I'll just note too just in terms of spacing of trees, a 10 ft is very close together. Um the only tree that you can probably get is Italian cyprress. Um that close together. And so this one is can be provided more canopy trees with larger um shade and coverage of the area. I I just it's hard for me to understand why somebody would want to put in more trees instead of less

on a developer side. Yeah. I mean, sometimes it's a um design issue, but um I believe the applicant can can uh address that, but um as Ali mentioned, staff has recommended approval of this. Um we feel it's a better design than was previously imposed per that ordinance.

Is there a way to change the language when we put these in position? So, it says the minimum you can do is 10 feet with 10 feet apart um with staff discretion if what you're choosing to do is more than the requirement because I don't think they should have had to come in front of us for this ask.

That's something we could work with legal on in terms of how we word these uh conditions moving forward. Um so that that'd be Thank you for the feedback. Thanks. Okay. Can we hear from the applicant? Is the applicant on the phone? Again, the applicant for number 11, 2611, John Hayes, star 6 to unmute your phone, please.

We have you listed as Wright and Dalbin architects. Are you on the phone? Hello. I'm telling There is a phone someone on the phone online but they're not unmuting himself again. Looking for Ryan Dolvin architects for property on John Hayes for detail site plan star six on your phone to unmute. Yeah. And it is unable to unmute them from their end. Um, you might be able to put on a speaker and just unmute unmute your phone and or unmute your uh your microphone.

point of order here. Okay. And let me No, that's a point of order. Okay. But I I I raise a point of order. I raise a point of order. It is to me it seems illegal and unethical for a commissioner sitting hearing a case using his phone to contact a friend. Please help me there. I don't know if it's illegal, but it there is an ethical question about that. I would say um yeah, you don't need to be calling people um you know. Yeah. Well, absent Fred, does anybody have any questions that would keep us from voting on this without the applicant present? Again, the applicant may be on teams, but they are not muting unmuting themselves.

Okay. Do we want to wait a couple minutes? Give them a chance. How do we want to handle this? Again, if the applicant for writing Dolbin is online, please hang up and call in again. It's for item 11, please. Yes, we can hear you.

Hello. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you. Can you state your name for the record? Yes, my name is Angela with Ry and Ding and I apologize. The system is not very friendly to unmute. That's okay. Are you here to represent the Hay Street case,

the honor? Yeah. Okay. Do you agree with all staff comments? Yeah, I agree with with all the comments. uh we are not providing more trees than required or the only thing that we are doing is spacing them a little bit more uh so they can grow better. So we're not trying to put more money on it. Uh we are using the same number of trees. Uh we want to our intention is to comply with the code but also to provide a a good quality design.

Okay. Anybody have any questions? Thank you so much. Yes, thank you. Yeah, thank you. Okay, this is a public comment. Would anybody from the public like to speak? Star six to unmute. Again, this is open for public comment. Star six to unmute.

Yes. I don't think he's trying to comment. Okay. I'll open this for a motion. Motion to approve. Second. All in favor?

I All oppose. I didn't open that for discussion amongst the commission. I apologize. Did anybody want to discuss? Okay. Thank you. All opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Um

I would like to say that that made me very uncomfortable that situation right there. Um, sometimes I think a lot of us are on our phones and I've been guilty of that before, but that I would like to make it very clear that I will not be personally on my phone doing things like that and I don't think any of us should ever be on the phone doing things like that. I will entertain a motion.

All in favor? I. All opposed? motion. Thank you.