Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the August 13th meeting of the City Plan Commission. My name is Lauren Hanson, chair of the commission, and I call this meeting to order at 1 30 p.m.. Same into the public.

The City Plan Commission has stolen final approval authority over subdivision maps, which is statutory, limited to ministerial examination of 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, or conditions is approved and the applicant shall 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 the 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 along the commission. The commission shall then make a recommendation that will be forwarded to the city council.

Thank you. Staff, are there any changes to the agenda today?

Madam Chair, Ismael Segovia, Planning Inspections. Item number two, the applicant is requesting for a two-week postponement, and that's all the changes that we have.

Thank you. Do I have a motion for that?

Motion to approve the two-week postponement.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Now we will do the public comment. I have one person here listed. Her name is Patricia Osmond. Will you please come up? Just to let you know you have three minutes to speak. Please state your name.

Okay, so in going through, I normally don't go through city plan commission because I have enough time going through all of the city agenda matters.

I just want to interrupt you because I know you're listed as two items. This is specifically to discuss? Yes. Okay, thank you.

This is not an agenda item. Perfect, thank you. Okay. I might be referencing slightly, but it's not speaking on that. I want to bring to the attention of city employees in this room and the commissioners. Texas Penal Code Section 3710. It is tampering with government record. Making false entry in a government record is a crime. When it involves a permit, a license with the intent to defraud, it can be evaluated, elevated rather, to a felony. So what you vote on here, in the documents in which you use to vote, Let that permit or application move forward. It all rests on documents that are guarded by criminal law, okay? When there is a false statement made in any of the documents that are sent to you, and then you all approve something off of false documents, I'm making this statement so that everybody is clear, everybody is aware of this, and there is no plausible deniability. Because as commissioners making and giving that approval, it is your fiduciary duty to ensure that everything that you are reading is true and accurate. Not just taking the word of somebody in a department that is trying to push something forward. I typically speak in front of city council quite a bit and I typically, uh, pull up a lot of FOIA records. I can review a lot of records because I do have a legal background. So when I read title 18, 19 and 20, I know exactly what I'm reading. Okay. I have crafted law before I have lobbied the halls of Congress and I've spoken on the lawn in front of the Capitol. So when I see documents that do have fraudulent information that y'all are gonna vote on, I'm gonna say something about it. So that did occur with item seven. And because I brought that to the attention, it was partially, partially revised. But my public comment is to make sure that every one of you is aware, that that liability, that fiduciary duty is not just with the employees. It flows through to you because you do have that duty as well. And with that, I'll let you all go to get onto the rest of the agenda items so then I can speak on the other two. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there any comment on that from staff or if there's anything to address, will we do that later.

Kevin Smith for the record. I don't believe typically we would comment on this here because it's under call to the public. If there's an item you would like to bring forward at a future agenda. This may be a reference to item 7 so we can address it on item 7.

Understood. Thank you. Is there anybody else here or on the phone that would like to speak during this public comment. If you're on the phone that's star 6 to unmute. Again, that's star six to unmute to speak for public comment. Okay.

Public comment is closed.

We will move on to the consent agenda. Do I have a motion for that?

So moved. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. We are postponing number two for two weeks, so we move on to number three, Skyview Estates Unit 6.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission. Mirna Aguilar with Planning and Inspections. Item number three on the agenda is Skyview Estates, Unit 6, involving a major combination application. This development is in the city of El Paso extraterritorial jurisdiction, and it's located south of Pelicano Drive and east of Mission Ridge Drive. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 49.75 acres of land to create 186 single family lots, one 2.13 acre park, and two public drainage ponds with a combined acreage of 4.08 acres in size. Primary access to the subdivision will be from Payton Hills Road, and this development is being reviewed under the current subdivision code. Here we have the preliminary plot. Here we have the final plot. The applicant is requesting the following exceptions from the City Plan Commission, and that is to waive the dedication and construction of six feet of right-of-way along all cross-sections within the proposed subdivision. Here we have the required and the proposed cross sections for our local cross sections within the subdivision. And here we have the existing conditions of the subdivision that is adjacent to this proposed subdivision or shows what they're requesting matches what it already exists. And they do extend to this subdivision. The request for the waivers and improvements, they do meet the criteria of Title 19. And with that, staff recommends approval of Sky View Estates Unit 6 on a major combination basis and approval of the exception request.

And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. So they're asking for six feet fewer of pavement, but they're going to do more than the county standards, which is they're going to install a bike lane on one side, or not a bike lane, hike and bike on one side, 10 feet of parkway on that side, and then on the other side, parkway and sidewalk for the larger one and the other one. Also, they're doing more than the standards.

Correct. I mean, they did ask the variance to the county and in their court on December 15 of 2025, they did approve the variances. It's shorter, but this is what they're proposing and county approved as well.

Okay.

Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Thank you.

Can we hear from the applicant?

Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jorge Escarte with CA Group and we concur with all staff comments.

Any questions? Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

This is not a public item, so we are open to a motion among the commission.

Motion to approve.

Second. Any discussion?

All in favor? Aye.

All opposed? Oh, to clarify, was that a motion to approve with the conditions?

Motion to approve with the conditions, I apologize.

And the second was also for that? Perfect. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. We move on to number four, which is Mission Ridge Subdivision Unit 1 Replat.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission. Alonso Hernandez with Planning and Inspections. Item number four on the agenda is Mission Reach Subdivision, Unit 1, Replat C, involving a subdivision combination application. This development is located outside the city of El Paso limits in the extraterritorial jurisdiction and is located north of Rojas and west of East Lake Boulevard. This is a subdivision superimposed on the aerial map, and the applicant is proposing to subdivide 15.06 acres to create three commercial lots and to dedicate 0.077 acres of additional right-of-way along Calvary Road. Stormwater drainage will be managed through a surface flow to an existing regional pond located outside of the subdivision, and this development is being reviewed under the current subdivision code. This is the preliminary plot. This is the final plot. And the applicant is requesting the following exceptions from the City Plan Commission. To allow Block 1 to have a block perimeter in excess of 2,400 feet and to waive the construction of one foot of planter strip along Calvary Road. This is a proposed street cross section for Calvary Road. And these are the existing conditions for Calvary Road. The waiver request for the construction of one foot of planter strip is to match the existing conditions of Calvary Road. And the exceptions request to waive the right-of-way improvements and to exceed the maximum block perimeter meet the criteria of El Paso City Code Title 19. And with this, staff recommends approval of Mission REACH Subdivision Unit 1-C on a subdivision combination basis and approval of the exceptions request. And this concludes the presentation.

Thank you. Any questions for staff?

Through the chair?

Yes.

Mr. Hernandez, can you put that slide back? Because I didn't quite catch that drainage pond. I think it was to the west of it.

Is the north of the subdivision? Yeah, it's the purple one. Highlighted in purple.

And it's already in existence and it's already taken in water? Correct. Okay. And it's assumed that whatever runoff from this new development that... Has the capacity for...

Exactly.

Correct. Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Thank you. Oh, go ahead.

Sorry. I was a little slow on that one. As a preload for future construction, is it understood that all the improvements for ADA traffic engineering will be absorbed by the developer?

Correct. The developer will make the improvements for the Calvary Road.

Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant? Hello. My name is Diana Motzik.

I am with Kimley Horne and Associates, and I'm the engineer of record for this project.

Do you agree with all staff comments?

Yes.

OK. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. OK. I will open this up for a motion among the commission.

So moved.

And that is with the exception? With the exception. All in favor?

Aye.

Was there any discussion on that? All opposed? Motion carries, thank you. We move on to the resubdivision combination of Upper Valley Ranch Unit 2.

Good afternoon Sharon members of the Commission Alonso Hernandez with planning and inspections item number five on the agenda is Opera Valley Ranch unit to involving a subdivision combination application This development is located outside the city of El Paso limits on the extraterritorial jurisdiction and is located north of borderland Road and west of West West Side Road from a primary access to the subdivision will be through borderland Road and This is a subdivision superimposed on the aerial map, and the applicant is proposing to receptivite 25.69 acres to develop 74 residential lots. Stormwater will be managed through on-site ponding, and this development is being reviewed under the current subdivision code. This is a preliminary plat. This is the final plat. And the applicant is requesting the following exceptions from the City Plan Commission. Number one is to exceed the maximum block length and block perimeter of block two and to waive the dedication of two feet of additional right of weight on both sides of all proposed streets within the subdivision. This is a proposed cross-section for all the streets within the subdivision. And these are the current conditions for the subdivision. Currently, there are no improvements. And this picture was taken from Borderland Road. And these are the existing conditions for secondary access for the subdivision, which is . And the exception request to weigh the right the right of weight improvements and to exceed the maximum block perimeter meets the criteria under the El Paso City code title 19. And notice of public hearing was published in the El Paso Times on June 5th 2026 and notices were mailed to the property owners within 200 feet on June 5th 2026. And as of today the planning division has not received any communication in support or opposition to the request. And with this, staff recommends approval with conditions of Upper Valley Ranch Unit 2 on a subdivision combination basis and approval of the exceptions request. And the condition states the following. The applicant must obtain the El Paso County's approval of the revised plots prior to the recordation of their final plan. And this concludes the presentation.

The right-of-way exception that they're asking for, is that just pavement? The two feet that they're asking for, is that just pavement?

Correct, it's road. The SDM actually currently for that area requires 60 foot right-of-way, and the applicant is proposing, initially he proposed 60, 54 right-of-way, but the county requested 56, and he revised the plats, and this is what he's proposing now.

But the sidewalk in the parkway is remaining within.

Correct. Actually the SEM does not require either parkway or sidewalks in that area of the city. But the applicant is proposing those pedestrian amenities.

Thank you. Any other questions for staff. OK. Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant please.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners Conrad, Gonde. With Gonde Incorporated, we do control all staff's comments.

Any questions? Through the Chair, Mr. Gonde. On that one street that they showed that was... blocked off coming in from the other neighborhood that's going to be open that's what that's one of the intersections we're connecting to correct you're correct that's the one to the east okay yes sir a little lost there okay and then that um crooked line is a state line i'm assuming correct and you're also going to have another entrance to that subdivision through the other street

So you're basically having two points of ingress, egress. One's from borderland and the other one's from Vilta. This is the one that you just saw the pictures of. That's coming from the east. So you got one from the east and you got the other one from the south, which is borderland. And then we're providing access to the tracks behind this on the north. That's still in city limits. Not in city limits, but within the state of Texas. Everything else to the west of this is state of New Mexico. Hopefully that helps. Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, this is a public hearing. Is there anybody who would like to speak about this either here or on the phone? Star six to unmute. Again, that's star six to unmute if you're on the phone. Okay, public hearing is closed. I will open this up for a motion amongst commission.

Through the chair, I move to approve item number five with condition and approval of the exception. Second that motion.

Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. We move on to Billy Rogers Arroyo Park.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission. Myrna Aguilar with Planning and Inspections. Item number six on the agenda is Billy Rogers, Arroyo Park, involving a resubdivision combination application. This development is within the Sierra of El Paso limits and it's located east of Stanton Street and north of Schuster Avenue. The applicant is proposing to re-subdivide 84.57 acres of vacant land to create two residential lots. for the formal dedication of the property for the public use as Billy Rogers at Royal Park. Lots will range between 10.35 and 74.04 acres in size. As part of the proposed resub division, that the pride is vacating portions of streets that currently exist on paper only and because the city um does not have a use nor has ever had a use for them we are vacating them for that storm water drainage will be managed through the onsite ponding and the existing natural drainage patterns primary and only access to the proposed subdivision will be from the 70-foot Virginia access easement that is being dedicated by this plan and this development is being reviewed under the current subdivision code I'm gonna give a little bit of background on this one. This one is the cleanup. It's a cleanup of a plot that, again, because on the original Kern and Alexander subdivisions, these streets exist. Back in 2000, El Paso City Council adopted the Arroyo Park as a natural resource area site. And in 2001, it was also approved by the city plan commission and city council again in 2001 to keep the park as open space and natural resources. And with that, here we have the preliminary plot. Here we have the final plot. Notice of public hearing was published at El Paso Times on July 23rd, 2026, and notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet of the subdivision on July 23rd of 2026. As of today, the planning division has received multiple emails and calls requesting information on the subdivision, re-subdivision, but no opposition has been expressed. And with that, staff recommends approval with condition of Bailey Rogers Arroyo Park on a resubdivision combination basis, the condition being as follows. That all easements requested by El Paso Water be added prior to the recordation of the final plan. And that concludes my presentation.

Madam Chair if I could just jump in real quick just to clarify these lots are residentially zoned only but this is a formal dedication to be a park facility there's no proposed changes to the Billy Rogers Arroyo is going to remain the same this is simply a cleanup as the real estate team gave a presentation I believe a number of weeks ago that said these are becoming periodically because they were either never formally dedicated it could be a park a biggest street this is a formal dedication so that it will remain a park so right now it's r303 or something right r3 and r3a say that again

R3 and R3A.

But isn't it also a reserve designation or is that not? I thought I saw it.

NCO. It's an NCO. So is it going to be changed just to NCO? No, it stays the same. Nothing's changing on it, which is, again, cleaning it up. It's the formal dedication of the park. So nothing needs to be done as like a protective measure?

No, no. For the zoning, and I think that's what you're talking about, the residentially zoned is the R3 or the R3A. The NCO, which is the Neighborhood Conservancy Overlay for the Rim University area, which requires additional standards for development. Again, those are only applicable to those properties that are looking to be developed. This is not looking to be developed at all, so this would not be applicable. It just happens to be in the areas of the, that area.

So NCO is not part, NCO is more of a...

It is part of the NCO, but obviously there's nothing that would be, have to go and be held since it's remaining undisturbed.

Okay.

Any questions for staff? Through the chair. So what you're saying is since 2001, it wasn't addressed correctly. And it's been a little bit in limbo there for a while. And this that's proposed today to us is just to clean it up. It's simple. Correct.

Correct.

Thank you.

And the access road is that little curved piece that comes up, is that the access road that's being dedicated? Correct.

So it already exists, but because that was vacated as part of the streets and alleys, but it was also dedicated as an access easement.

Okay, perfect. Any other questions? Thank you. Who's speaking for the city? Is the applicant?

Good afternoon, members of the Commission. I'm going to share. My name is Jerry Green. We're the engineers and builders preparing the plot. And we agree with the staff recommendation and what's required of the trash to go a little bit further with the vessel water to make sure that we get it to all the use that's required for the water and sewer.

What are the easements? Are they above, are they above ground?

Currently, there's a, there's a lot of, it's actually electric. There's several utilities, including water and sewer, underground, that we've identified, community water to, to locate those, and we're, that's what they want us to make sure that all the facilities are covered, that they have an easement to, Okay, this is a public hearing. We have Mrs. Patricia Osmond listed to speak.

Again, please state your name. You have three minutes.

Patricia Osmond. Actually, Kevin Smith did answer some of my questions that I had. My concern mainly was to make sure that it does not become a subdivision. The plat map information left it in question. I know that because of our 100-year storm, if some of us do still remember that, Um, a lot, some of the west side, and what flooded away, because, um, some areas, you know, subdivisions were planned in areas that were flood zones. In the Arroyo, there's a natural floodplain, so I wanted to make sure it was done, Kevin did respond that it will be kept that way, which is best for the health and safety of everybody, because if you know the Arroyo, I know, I personally know Billy Rogers, who it was named after. So it is, it's basically a gully. You know, it's great if you want to go hike, take your dog, whatever. So my concern was to make sure that families it wasn't subdivided into residential and families were put in a danger zone because that has happened in El Paso and I It's still happening, quite frankly. Although I don't always speak at your meetings, I do watch them on YouTube. So I do try to keep up. But thank you for cleaning that up and ensuring that it is not going to be built upon. Thank you.

Yeah, if I could just maybe reinforce with what Commissioner Obrego said. Back in 2000, 2001, it only partially did it. It was piecemeal. This is making the formal dedication, so it's a park. On the statement, on the plat itself, this is formally dedicated as a park facility, as we all know. That other instrument dedicated as open space, and again, it will remain as such. No development is going on here except for what's existing.

Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak either here or on the phone on item number six? Yes, ma'am. One moment. Please state your name. Can you say your name again?

Okay. 911 Kirby. When the subdivision plan is filed or the new adopted subdivision that is file. There are 3 residential Sony states. Is there going to be a way around that to change the Sony and then we would not be notified or is it that action of filing the subdivision plan establishes as a dedicated park.

If to the chair, if you'd like me to respond.

So zonings are also public comments or public hearings. There is a certain radius around the subdivision where letters have to be sent. And then at the edge of the property, I think it's certain amounts of intersections. There has to be a sign posted that says, this is the date of the hearing. This property is going to be rezoned. And I think it even says the time of the meeting. But no, there is public. Yes, there is public notification. It has to be there. I don't know if I missed anything.

I think the other thing, too, and it's just for everyone on the public, either here in person or who's maybe watching online, too. By this formal action, it makes it a whole lot harder to develop it in anything else but a park. The zoning is not changing. Every property in the state of El Paso is zoned. a park I believe can go in I believe every zoning district it's just there but again there's public notification some big huge beautiful signs would be put up to notify the public everyone within 300 feet would be notified the neighborhood would also be notified and they're invited to the meetings both here at the city planning commission as well as the city council and that's a formal process too if they wanted to rezone the property so there are a lot more steps too but then also because of this action that has been considered once it's finally formally filed at the county then that's the other issue is that that has to be reversed which i hear is very difficult to undo a park once it's formally dedicated okay and the subdivision plan will be filed approximately when It depends there's typically a time frame I would defer to the real estate team who's working on this but It's something I guess where it's fairly straightforward.

I would say it's in the next six to twelve months but and the action of the restoring would be up to City Council not the City Planning Commission, right and

Again, typically you would address the commission. I don't want to give this back and forth with staff, but City Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the rezoning to council approves it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else here or on the phone that would like to speak? Again, it's star six to unmute if you're on the phone. All right, public comment is closed. I will now take a motion amongst the commission for item number six. And please clarify if your motion with the commission, yes.

I move to accept item number six with condition for the cleanup that was stated.

Second. Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries, thank you. We move on to number seven, which is a special permit application.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission. Blanca Perez with Planning and Inspections. Item number seven on the agenda is a special permit application for the subject property located at 2810 Sacramento Avenue. The subject property is approximately .12 acres in size. It is currently zoned R5 residential. It currently has a single family dwelling which is proposed to be renovated and incorporated into the development as one of the dwelling units for a duplex. And just as a note, this is not a zoning change request and a duplex is allowed in an R5 residential zone. The applicant is requesting a special permit and detailed site development plan approval for an infill development with reductions to the average lot width and site yard setback for the proposed use of a duplex. The site plan illustrates a proposed one-story development with a maximum building height of 16 feet 5 inches. The development will consist of two dwelling units with a combined gross floor area of approximately 1,858 square feet. The proposal includes the four required parking spaces and pedestrian access will be provided from Sacramento Avenue while vehicles will access the property from the rear alley connecting Elm Street and Piedra Street. Because the proposed parking is located at the rear of the property, staff is recommending improving the alley to provide the future residents with safe, reliable access and to minimize those related nuisance. Staff recommends this, staff considers this recommendation appropriate because the project is an infill development and with infill projects they may provide property owners with opportunities to apply for development incentives and in return staff wants to ensure that the property is adequately served and that the supporting infrastructure provides safe and functional access for the future residents. And also there, we're showing a table that summarizes the applicable development standards and the requested modifications. And with the exception of these requested modifications, the Detail Site Development Plan complies with all other applicable standards of the El Paso City Code, and it is binding. These are the proposed building elevations, illustrating the design of the project as a Spanish Mission architectural style. This is the existing condition of the site as viewed from Sacramento Avenue. Surrounding properties are consistent with single family and duplex development. So the north, south, east, and west are all single family dwellings, and all are zoned R5 residential. The applicant notified the Sunrise Civic Group, El Paso Central Business Association and the Chivas Town Neighborhood Association. Notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet on July 31st, 2026. And as of now, the planning division has received one call and two emails in opposition to the request from the president of the Chivas Town Neighborhood Association. And that's just in regards to safety and the alley pavement. 53 notices were sent to 56 properties. And with that, staff recommends approval with a condition of the special permit request, and that is that the alley shall be paid from the subject property to an improved right-of-way abutting the alley prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. the elevate the front and back elevation seems to show a garage is that is that a garage yes so both the plexus will have a garage for both okay so it's going to be one concrete parking space and then one garage parking space yes but we usually do account just for the concrete uh parking spaces okay and then at the back on the I guess the aerial plan. It shows lot 27 and lot 26 at the back. And then It kind of makes it look like a resub division just the way that it's labeled.

I don't think it is No, it's just part of the like legal description. It's lots 28 and I think 27 if I'm not mistaken 26, okay I just wanted to make sure it looks a little strange but okay.

Are there any other questions?

through the chair miss Bettis on the paving of the alley is the rest the alley in good condition?

It is not. IT, can you show the presentation?

Because our background or materials, it didn't show us anything. So it seems that they're going to pave just that site alone, but the rest is going to be in bad condition. So my goodness. Yeah.

So this is a current alley condition. It looks like at some point it was maybe improved, but as of now, it has just deteriorated for the years.

So is there a plan for the city? Because there used to be dirt, and the city came in, I'm gonna say 20, maybe 25 years ago, and started paving these alleys with concrete. guess recycled asphalt that they would tear from the cities and they would lay in there so is the city coming in to do anything here as you know as of now um i do not

I do not know however streets and maintenance didn't have any objections as of now but that would be up to the property owner to reach out to streets and maintenance to maybe see the chance of improving that alley for that development.

Okay because my concern is that looks like they use the alley a little bit somebody does but when this um duplex house with the parking in the back there's going to be a lot more use there and the rest of the alley is not in compliance so you know makes it hard for me to approve something like this yes that's just my concern

And the requirement that's recommended as a condition is that they only pay from their property to any abutting roadway, but that's realistically gonna be Elm Street?

Yes, just to give them, the owner, a little bit of flexibility within having at least their access to be able to get to the property, okay?

Is that pavement gonna be in both directions or just in one direction now?

As of now, just one direction based on the condition.

What do you mean one direction? I didn't quite understand. The whole alley will be paved, or just half the alley?

Not half.

That's why I'm understanding that this is in the middle of the alley and only one side is getting paved, one egress, not the opposite. Is that correct?

If I might, Lisa Motta with Planning and Inspections. So we do have some requirements for when we have a two-way access or one-way. So I think the city requires a minimum at least 12 feet of width for access. Technically, it's 24 minimum for two-way. Obviously, it's an alley, and I think this alley is 24 wide.

Is it a one-way alley, Luis? Is it one directional?

so i think that's something we the city typically doesn't you know we don't identify whether it's one way or two ways you know typically if it doesn't stay this one way people use it as either way if it's not designated mark as one way then it's bi-directional correct yeah but yeah so typically it's very directional it should be kept that way i think what staff's asking is obviously to improve the the width uh to make sure that obviously if you're driving through there you know you're not driving through half of a paved alley and half unpaved. But one thing I want to clarify is we also don't want to overreach saying you have to pave the entire thing because it's like saying, you know, you have a home and you have to have a driveway from the front all the way to the rear when you're only going to use one side. uh so at this moment we're kind of uh recommending that at least from the property line to one of the roads be paved and obviously the hope is i'm pretty sure they're going to use that side rather rather than go to the unpaved side i have a comment so going with that one isn't there a requirement if they're going to require back alley parking that

improved road not dirt road has to be established and if it's only half way. The shoulder of that as well may be loosened over time and then cause erosion.

So in the Texas Administrative Code Chapter Title 30, it does reference that there needs to be a paved surface for El Paso. So it does, it is required to be a paved surface from this if it is to be used. As this is proposed to be used, that's why we're asking for the condition to be imposed so that we can make sure that that alley is improved to at least allow access to this property. now i think there are some other things there like mr braga like you were asking about the streets and maintenance and the improvement of the alley um obviously there are a lot of needs throughout the city um a number of years ago the city was improving the number of the alleys um i'm not sure if streets and maintenance has a plan to improve uh alleys such as this to um it's used for a number of reasons one of them is is desk control Here but obviously as users of the right-of-way It's we haven't viewed for such a lot of this especially here as I was mentioned in the Texas administrative code It is predominantly for dust control.

I Want to clarify because I think there's different understandings of what this halfway paving is going to be It's from this road that we're seeing right now the full width to their property, not like one half of the alleyway all the way down, correct? I know this is a weird way to say it, but it's like hamburger, not hot dog all the way down. I know that's a strange way to say it, but it's the best way I can explain it. Correct. Okay, without a diagram. Perfect. Okay, any other questions for staff?

I do.

Let's clarify this. So the pavement will be from half of the alley to this property, am I correct? Or is it gonna be from the back of this property to the back of the property on the other street?

So it would be from at least the property line all the way to either Elm Street or all the way until Piedra Street. So the condition reads, oh. So this is a condition. So, yeah, the alley shall be paid from the subject property to unimproved right-of-way abutting the alley prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy. That means either to Elm Street or Piedras Street.

The full alley, not just half of it.

No, so just...

If I might, with some model planning inspections, I'd like to remember, well, remind you that you obviously have the option to clarify this condition if you see fit, if it's something you'd like to do. We can further the language of this condition and we can assist in that as well.

It'd be the full width from either ELM or PA address to the subject property.

Okay. Okay.

So we can't go all the way from Elm to Piedras.

I get that.

But we can go from the subject property to either Elm or Piedras. We're leaving it up to the property owner to decide which one is more feasible.

Well obviously they're going to use the shortest one.

In theory, correct.

Right? Yeah. This is why I ask. Because throughout the years I see where the city does potholes. And we have a pothole here in the street and they come in there and fix it. But what that does is the existing pavement, once it rains, gets cold, temperature changes, then another one forms right next to it. And then they fix that one. And because it's not smoothed out, this pothole's already higher and the other one's a little bit lower. And as we drive by, it's just a big old shake and mix thing in your cars. And that's my concern that if we don't do the full alley, then we're gonna burden the property owners that did not get the paving. That's my only concern.

Any other questions for staff? Yes.

What were the other letters of opposition? There was one listed here, but you said there were two others?

So it was two different emails from the president from Chivas Town Neighborhood Association and they are included in the staff report and the revised one at least. But they're just two different from the same person. In regards to the alley? To the alley or also to safety as well.

And the four parking spaces that were referenced, they'll all be in the alley or along the street?

Just three parking spaces will be on the alley and then just one provided in the front.

One of the parkings will be special needs, right? In the alley?

For this one, since it is a duplex, it is not required since it is a duplex.

Just to make sure we understand, the letter that was from the President of the Neighborhood Association is Ms. Patricia Osman, the one who's spoken already. Any other questions for staff? Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant? Is that you?

Hi, this contrast I am the owner of the property and I try improve the property because it's very bad condition right now two or three properties on this street and I try to give the improve this property because it's very bad right now the house of the homeless.

Do you agree with staff comments?

No.

Do you agree with staff comments?

Yes, I agree with all conditions.

And you are okay with paving one half? Not one half, but from your property to the other street. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?

Good evening, Chair. Let me just say, I'll pass through this area, and I understand what you're saying. And properties like this attract vagrants, more problems, and I commend you trying to fix it up. This is what we're supposed to be doing. My only concern is the other half of that alley. One half of those residents on both sides' streets, back and forth, Again, be okay. The other ones are not. That's my concern.

Yeah. I do have one more question, Madam Chair. Who's maintaining this alley after it's paved? Who's maintains? Who is going to maintain the alley once it's paved?

I don't know. It depends on the city.

If the is the alley being dedicated owns it who's responsible for maintaining once it's paved?

At least some other way playing inspection. So the alley will be responsible for the payment will be responsibility of the city Now maintenance regards to to trash and those things. Yes, the the property owners adjacent property owners are responsible for keeping it clean but technically payment reconstruction those things is responsibility of the city since it is a city right away and

So why is the homeowner, the property owner being asked to do that and pave it now if it's the responsibility of the city?

So let me clarify. We're not asking the property owner to be responsible for it. One of the avenues he has is he can contact the city, see if the city will be paving it. I think the concern for us will be that we have people living there, residing there, using the alley. If it's not paved when they're using it, we cannot open the door for having to deal with dust and those things. If there's a rain, have to deal with mud. That's kind of why we're recommending this condition to make sure before anyone resides in that new development that they don't have to deal with that. But again, the condition is the language is We try to make sure it's clear that we're not asking the owner to do it Just that before anyone resides there.

It needs to be paved Any other questions, yeah That was a little hard to understand because My understanding is that in my house, I have an alley. I'm responsible for half of the alley to my property, maintenance, everything on there. The city went ahead and paved it, but not with real pavement, with that, I guess, that recycled pavement where they heat it up, they take it off the streets and redo it, which is okay, which is good. And I can see that in this area they did it too. But again, to have one half of that block paved and the other one not is a real concern.

I mean, the whole block will be paved.

All right, not a problem. But just one block? I mean, I think we're doing a disservice not just to those other people, but to our city by doing and allowing this.

In other words,

One year long will not have debris falling out and the other half will. When it rains or whatever.

We have a couple of public comments and I think after that we should discuss what you're talking about. Any other questions specifically to the applicant. Thank you. OK. We have Miss Patricia Osmond signed up to speak.

So the city has no plans to pave any of this alley. I've been trying to fight to get this alley paved, because there's other homes further down the alley. Actual homes that have been there, my family's owned the property for over 100 years. Been on there since 1909, okay? Still reside on the same property that my grandfather, Antonio Garcia, bought back then. So I'm very familiar. That property, is the opposite alley of mine across okay this is the thing i know who owned that property before he bought it for like seventy thousand dollars and he's trying to flip it yes put in some rentals the the requirement is it's a legal requirement you cannot build a residential property unless there is paved access which is what they're doing so that is a that is a law okay They didn't have that in there initially so they were when you state Yes Aside from the reductions requested the detailed site development plan Demonstrates compliance with all applicable standards heard the city code and it didn't it did not that was a false statement That's not the first false statement that has come through you guys, and then to City Council. I know because I was the one that got the Union Depot amphitheater killed because the city didn't own most of that property, and I had to pull the documents from the flat map, Union Pacific, who owned the property, and show that the plans they brought to you were false, and they pulled that off. But in this case, no, there are no plans. But I have had to because I do have cameras in the alley. Another neighbor at the other end has cameras. Several times, emergency vehicles have tried to traverse that alley. They can't. It's a nightmare. Okay? If they do, the duplex, as he's saying, in the way in which you saw it, cars coming in have hit the other neighbor's fences, houses. There are photos that I submitted showing that. I have watched EPPD, fire, and EMS struggle down that alley because they can't really access the way it is from Piedras. You can't go back and forth. You should be able to, but once you're kind of in there and if he builds the way he is, it's going to stick any emergency vehicles in a very tight spot. But yes, it would be far better if the entire thing, as it is per law, regulated to have paved. In that fact, I am fine with somebody improving that property. It needs to be. I know that sister, Lulu, finally sold it. Her sister owned the red house, and their brother used to live in his car on the property. In some of those photos, you can see the car he was living in, okay? This is the thing. Is that any time some duplex comes into the area in the block and they they have let other people on the block? Improve house with only alley access and they didn't do this the last time on the same block 2817 mobile missus when you reach your three minutes Either way this shouldn't be approved in which in the way in which it is because it's illegal. I

Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this matter? If you're on the phone, that's star 6 to unmute. Again, that's star 6 to unmute for public comment on this item. OK. We're going to close public comment on that. I will go ahead and start by saying I believe that because of Miss Osmond's comments the request of pavement was added. Is that correct. Because of the two emails that were received that pavement request was added.

If I might lose a model with planning inspections. So we did talk to Ms. Osman during this week. So one of the things we had clarified and we did tell the property owner from the very beginning is that the city requires the alley to be paved if they're having access. That was communicated from the very beginning. One of the things, yes, we talked, she talked to us and because of that, we wanted to make sure it was transparent because it was not, nothing included that. It's already a requirement, right? So we typically don't include that. If it's already a requirement, it has to be applied once building construction. So that was kind of stated to her. But we wanted to make sure it was transparent. So we wanted to make sure also that this doesn't get, there's not an oversight and people say, well, we missed this. That's something she pointed out. So we decided, okay, let's make sure it's clear and put it here. So it's clear that We want this alley to be to be paved to be improved to make sure that we're not creating a nuisance because of dust and again If it rains is modern that's the way they're gonna have access to that this proposed development, right?

So that's part of it All their properties currently abutting this alley that are Using this alley for access I clearly there are but I'm saying I The imposition on this owner Is it being held across the board and is it not because it's kind of like vested rights why I

So I would say I'm looking at the alley. I've not been out there personally, but I just looked just now. It does appear there are fences that do allow access off the alley for other properties.

It does or it does not?

It does up here. It does. One of the things we look at too is I'm not sure when those came about. is we can only require something that comes across our desk. And that's why typically when the subdivision comes along, that's why they were required to improve their proportionate share. When rezonings come along, they require certain things as well. So this one here, they're proposed to be developed, so that's why we're asking for them to do this. If it was something else, whether it was a potential building permit, I believe we would require them to do it the same way, to improve it, and which we've done to other properties who are doing some improvements, not in this part of the city, but others, is you need to improve the roadway to a improved surface, as per this section of the Texas Administrative Code. So we have required it on other properties, and they have chosen to sometimes develop, they have sometimes chose to hold off.

Through the chair, since we're in discussion. All these older areas that have alleys, some houses have access for the cars through the street. Some of them were designed to have access through the alley. I live in an older neighborhood. That's the way my neighborhood is. In this case, what I really like about this one is that It's an infill, and we saw the condition of that house, okay? And here's somebody that wants to invest, and that's okay if it's a rental or a duplex, not wrong with that, that's great. We need to upgrade our neighborhoods. Again, my concern is that, just the alley, if, the gentleman would improve the whole alley from one block to the other, I wouldn't have a problem. But my problem is that some of these neighbors are gonna win and the other ones are gonna be left, okay? And all alleys are not one way, they're all two ways. You can come in, you can go out. I do it in my house all the time. Everybody around comes in through the left, through the right, okay? And what's going to happen is that the old part of the alley, if only half of it is paved, the old part's going to get worse and worse. And I don't think it's fair for the other neighbors that this is allowed. That's my problem there.

I'm sure if I may just one one thing that I want to present and question to legal it was brought up that that this is illegal by Miss Osmond is is there anything on the city side on the legal side that is Within your reason to understand and believe that there is something illegal here within what has been requested?

no i believe what is being requested is legal generally when the improvement public improvements like this are required the applicant or the developer is only required to complete what is known as their proportionate share and anything beyond that can be be known as a regulatory taking REQUIRING THEM TO COMPLETE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS BEYOND WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT COULD BE SEEN AS WHAT IS KNOWN AS A TAKING BY THE GOVERNMENT.

THANK YOU, SIR. FURTHER QUESTIONS, MADAM CHAIR?

SO THEIR PROPORTIONATE CHAIR WOULD HAVE BEEN HALF OF THE ALLEY PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE BEHIND THEM, CORRECT?

Yes, that is correct. As per this Texas administrative code.

Okay. And when we say takings, we usually mean development scale, 300 cars an hour in the morning. Now you need an on-ramp kind of thing.

Usually that that's the kind of thing that you would need Tia for and now we're saying this is not a disproportionate burden to put on you because you're going to cause significant downstream effect I think it's I think and I'll let Russell chime in where I miss mess up here is it We cannot be excessive in terms of what we require in a property owner is that's why certain laws are in place so I can't we can't go require a a sidewalk three blocks away to be improved because of this development. It has to be reasonable and appropriate for what is being proposed. In this case, that is why the condition is being, I guess if you want to call it reinforced, that's why it's being proposed. And so it's reinforced so that We make sure that the full alley is built so that it meets these standards that are in this provision of the state law.

Madam Chair, Kevin, but in all due respect, so is this a requirement being put on to the property owner? Is this a requirement of the city, a responsibility of the city to maintain the alley?

Well, when a property comes in, generally it is responsible of the city, but if a property comes in to develop in something substandards, the city does require them to improve it to minimum standards. That's why when subdivisions come up that have a deficiency, that's where we can, the teeth come in for the city and say, you have to require it, even though the city hasn't gone in and retrofitted that.

Yes, sir, I understand, but this is not a piece of strip that was vacant land, that was desert land, it was dirt, it was already developed by the city and maintained by the city. It has not been maintained by the city, so how is it the responsibility of the property owner to go back to correct this I would understand if it was a new development.

Frankly, it is a new development. It's a redevelopment of an existing site, and that's where the city does have some ability to upgrade those facilities to minimum standards. In developed areas where you have a subdivision, That's where often they'll ask for exceptions or waivers because something is substandard. Sometimes it is required for them to build up to full city standards. In this case, as the alley is deficient, that's where we're asking for the condition that the alley, or as the condition has stated, for the alley to be improved. Because that's the trigger right here is that the trigger is they're asking it to develop it. That's where the city has ability for the property owner to improve it and not the city to.

Through the chair, sir. And that is mainly because it's a duplex and they're requesting to park through the alley. If they weren't going to park through the alley and it wasn't going to be a duplex, then this would not come up, correct?

Correct. And as this is a detailed site plan, remember the detailed site plan is binding. So one of the portions of the duplex will have access off Sacramento, the other half of the duplex will have access off the alley. If it was just all access off Sacramento and that's where I don't think we can require the alley because they're not going to be using it and it wouldn't trigger. But because if they're asking for access off both of the right of ways, that's where it gives us the ability to ask for these improvements.

Thank you.

I think it is. think it is reasonable to say from one point of access to their lot line the opposite lot line I don't think it's reasonable to say both sides of the alley I don't I don't think it is especially because I'm not sure who pointed it out but the side that's paved is the side that they're gonna use it's gonna be more comfortable to use they're gonna use that one it is not the applicant's job to put in infrastructure that is disproportionate to what they're going to use?

I question that. I really question that because here's the deal. Let's say it's paved, okay? And I rent. portion back from this gentleman and I'm coming around the area where it's not paved I'm still gonna go through the unpaved and get in there or the other way so once it's done they're gonna come in through both sides People are already going through the unpaved section I get that but what she's pointed out was not true because people will use it from both sides

Is there any other comment before we open up to discussion. We did this a little bit out of order but. Do I have a motion. No motion.

Through the chair.

I move not to approve item number seven.

Is there a second? Motion dies. Do I have a different motion?

I'll second his motion.

That motion died, so you'll have to make it again.

I second my motion. Go ahead. I motion to not approve item number seven.

Second.

Any discussion?

Madam Chair, just for clarity, is that a recommendation of denial? Yes. Okay, thank you.

Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Nay. Roll call, please.

Okay, this will be a vote on item number seven. Commissioner Radillo?

This is to not approve.

Yeah. If you vote yay, you are voting to disallow this item.

Aye.

Commissioner Bryan?

Nay.

Commissioner Borrego?

Aye.

Commissioner Hanson? Nay. Commissioner Cavazos?

Nay.

Commissioner Regan? Nay. So you have one, two, two ayes, one, two, three, four nays.

Motion dies. Do I have another motion?

Okay. Under the understanding that this is all legal under legal Texas code, I'm going to motion to approve this with the conditions.

Item number seven.

Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

All opposed? Nay. Roll call please.

Okay, this is a second vote on item number seven. Commissioner Badillo?

Aye.

Commissioner Bryan?

Aye.

Commissioner Borrego?

Nay.

Commissioner Hanson? Aye. Commissioner Cavazos?

Aye.

Commissioner Regan?

Aye.

So you got one two three four eyes. And one two nice.

So I carry.

And so again this is a rezoning item. So you have all the recommending body and your recommendation goes forward to city council who will make the final decision on this one.

This is not a rezoning this is special permit.

Which is a rezoning.

Okay, it's a zoning council City Council.

Yeah, it's not a subdivision item where you all are the final approval.

Okay Thank you very much for coming. We appreciate your input and your emails Motion carries. Thank you. Um We have no more items on the agenda today. Is there anything else to discuss before we adjourn? All right one more motion please motion to adjourn I Second. Any discussion. All in favor.

Aye.

All opposed. Thank you all so much. Have a great afternoon.