Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Ha ha ha.

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the August 27th meeting of the City Plan Commission. My name is Lauren Hanson, chair of the commission, and I call this meeting to order at 1.32 p.m. Can we please hear the public statement?

Commission has sole and final approval authority over subdivision maps which is statutorily limited to a ministerial examination of the application's 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 comply with all provisions of the staff report. Commissioners will consider all agenda items other than subdivision items in 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 statements 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?

Hi, good afternoon. Luis Zamora with Planning and Inspections. We're asking that item three and seven be heard together. So three and seven. Number three is SUSU 26-00046, Las Casitas de Montoya. Item seven is PZDS 26-00023. Located on North Montoya Lane and west of South Desert Boulevard. So this both this items are related We as that they be heard together It says that just to know that we have multiple revised star reports Oh, I forgot And then just to clarify on item 6, PCST 26-00012 for 617 Meadowlark Drive. Just to clarify that the public notice included the Mentioned the property being six zero point six nine acres in size and it should be one point thirty eight acres Just for notation And that's those are the changes Okay, thank you.

Can I have a motion for those changes the agenda? Any discussion all in favor aye All opposed motion carries. Thank you Do we have anybody in the public that would like to speak on any items that are not on the agenda today? And if someone is on the phone that is star six to unmute Again if there's anybody here that would like to speak on something that is not on the agenda today, I Okay, public comment is closed. We will move on to the consent agenda. Before we approve that, a few meetings ago, we had an item which we voted no action on. It was Sierra Crest Replat. That has been, before we voted on it, it was postponed multiple times. There were a few legal issues outside of city plan commission authority. It was a very difficult position that we were in to vote no action and I just wanted to let everybody know and have it officially stated on the record in the minutes please that the applicant withdrew their own application. So just wanted to let everybody know that. Thank you. And I have a motion.

And Ms. Hansel, if I could just add on real quick. And if the applicant desires any other action for a subdivision, it would have to start at the very beginning and go through the whole process regarding that item. Just wanted to add that. Thank you.

Okay. Does anybody have any other changes to the consent agenda within the board or have any comments about that addition to the minutes? Okay, can I have a motion to accept those?

Motion to accept the consent agenda as stated. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries, thank you. And that was the motion to accept the changes. Now do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries, thank you. We move on to the regular agenda, which is starting with item number three and seven to be heard together.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission, Mirna Aguilar with Planning and Inspections. I'm gonna present item number three and then after me it's gonna be item number seven. Item number three of the agenda is Las Casitas de Montoya involving a major combination application. This development is within the city of El Paso limits and located south of Artcraft Road and west of Desert Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 9.62 acres of vacant land to create 76 single-family lots as part of the small development lots, five open space lots, one ponding area, and one commercial lot, and one private park. Stormwater drainage will be managed by surface run-up to the ponding. Primary access to these subdivisions will be from Montoya Lane, and this development is being reviewed under the current subdivision code. Here we have a preliminary plot. Here we have the final plot. The applicant is requesting the following exception from the City Plan Commission, and that is to waive the construction of two feet of planter strip along Montoya Lane. Here we have the required and proposed cross section for Montoya Lane. This picture shows the existing conditions taken from the site of the subdivision, proposed subdivision, looking into Montoya Lane. The exception request to waive the required improvements meets the criteria under Title 19 of El Paso City Court Ordinances. And with that, staff recommends approval with condition of Las Casitas de Montoya on a major combination basis, and approval of the exception request, condition being as follow. That the approved detailed site development plan be filed prior to recordation of the final plan, and the exception was thus mentioned before. And this concludes my presentation.

Will you be presenting the zoning as well? No. No, okay. I guess we'll hold off for questions until the other one is presented as well. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and commission members. Alejandra Gonzalez with Planning and Inspection. Item number seven on the agenda is a detailed site development plan application for the property located at north of Montoya Lane and west of South Desert Boulevard. Here we have the area of the property, which is 8.4 acres in size and is currently vacant. The applicant is requesting a detailed site development plan approval with reduction to side yard setback for the use of single-family small lot development. Here we have the existing zoning. The proposed development includes 76 proposed single-family lots, a pool area, pointing site, and open areas. The proposed lots will have the minimum loft width of 34 feet, depth of 78 feet, minimum setbacks for the front five feet, 15 at the rear, and zero to the side. The maximum height will be 35 feet, And each unit will include two car garage. Main access is from Montoya Lane, as previously presented. Here are some images depicting the way the family dwellings will look like. This is the area with the side landing post. This is an image of the property. from Montoya. The surrounding development is to the north, R3A, which includes single-family dwellings. To the west, also R3A with single-family dwellings and vacant property. To the south, PR2C, single-family dwellings in commercial conditions, which is vacant. And properties to the east are treated as well with single family dwellings. With that, staff recommends approval of the request. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, I have a question about the first presentation. Were there three versions of the staff report? Yes. Okay. The version I have shows a request for a waiver of one foot of planter strip within the subdivision as well. That was removed? That was removed. Okay. I believe that was my only question. Does anybody else have questions for staff on either presentation?

I do. Through the chair. zero setbacks between the residential houses on each side so if somebody wants to um go from the front to the back of their property there's not going to be any room through the site is that my understanding zero setbacks on the sides

If I can, I can probably answer that, Kevin Smith, for the record. So the way that they're designed, or can we bring in the presentation, please? Can you go to the site plan? Or can you go to slide five? Okay unfortunately it's not showing it but basically what is happening on each of the little blocks is that they're shifting each of the homes that is proposed to shift it over to one side so that at the end of the day there'll be 10 feet between structures and I believe the applicant can talk more about the intent of why they're doing this as well but there'll be There won't be side by side. So the houses will not be abutting. There will be 10-foot separation between structures. It's just it's loading one of the sides to be 10 feet of setback to allow for a greater opportunity to use that area for however the property overseas fit. But I believe the applicant can address that a little bit more.

Kevin, one question, will it be stated that it's gonna be 10 foot on one side or is it showing zero feet on both sides?

No, it's one, it's only on one side. And that's, I believe, stated in the site plan.

But it is stated as 10 foot on one side, zero on the other side, is that correct?

I'll chime in because I know the detailed site development plan isn't pulling up right now. It does specifically say, and the site plan is binding, that the side setback is either zero or 10, the street side setback is either zero or 10, the front setback is 10 feet minimum, and the rear is 15 feet minimum. So I have this, if anybody wants to see it, I know it's not coming up.

And again, it just depends on the location, whether it's zero or 10 for each one.

One more other question if you don't mind on that major combination application online item for it says well the residential sites has proposed be permitted permit development and full compliance with zoning requirements and existing residential zones and it says no That not all sites will be in compliance

Is done so and that's why they have the detail site development plan that improves the zoning goes through the site development plan So the subdivision can be approved. Okay, that's what we have that condition.

Okay, understood.

Thank you Anyone else any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant please?

in some suit for delivery engineering and for the record I do agree with staff's recommendations the question I guess is regarding the setbacks okay so this is a community that we have done before in the city of El Paso off of West Wind, it's called the Boulders. So the setback is actually on one side to create a 10 foot separation between the buildings. There'll be 10 foot separation between buildings and it creates a side yard. So the homeowners will have a side yard 10 foot from the front to the back so they can barbecue, they can have a grill. But there's no two buildings abutting to each other and every side street will have a 10 foot setback just as required.

Any other questions for the applicant? The two foot request for Montoya is to match existing conditions of the subdivision.

Yes. And there's no other way.

OK. Thank you. And I believe number seven is a public hearing. Yes. Is there anybody here that would like to speak on number seven. Either here or on the phone. Again it's star six to unmute if you're on the phone. Okay, we'll close public comment. Can I entertain a motion amongst the commission for number three and number seven together?

Motion to approve both applications.

Is that with the condition?

With the condition, yes.

Okay.

I'll second that motion.

Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries, thank you. Number four is Desert Bloom Casitas.

Ms. Hanson, I apologize. That was for both items? Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members of the commission. Mirna Aguilar with Planning and Inspections. Item number four on the agenda is Desert Bloom Casitas subdivision involving a major combination application. This development is within the city of El Paso limits and is located south of Dyer Street and west of Railroad Drive. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 8.23 acres of vacant land to create 65 single-family small development lots and one pond. Stormwater drainage will be managed by surface runoff to the proposed pond within the subdivision. The proposed subdivision will have two points of access, one from Dyer Street and the other one from Railroad Drive. And this development is being reviewed under the current subdivision code. Here we have the preliminary plat. Here we have the final plat. The applicant is requesting the following exceptions from the city plan commission, and that is to weigh the construction of a six foot sidewalk along railroad drive, and to weigh the construction of 7.5 feet of additional roadway along railroad drive. Here we have the required and the existing cross section for railroad drive. Here we have the existing conditions from railroad drive, pictures we're taking on the side of the proposed subdivision, facing south, facing towards the property, and facing north. The exception request to waive the required improvements meet the criteria under Title 19 of the El Paso City Court Ordinances. And with that, SNAP recommends approval with condition of Desert Bloom-Casita subdivision and a major combination and approval of the exception request, condition being as follows. that the city plan commission require the applicant to landscape the rear of all double frontage lots as per section 19 of the title of city court ordinances. And approval of the exceptions. And this concludes my presentation.

The subdivision to the southwest, that one has the same sidewalk variance?

Right.

Okay. It does.

There's no sidewalk along railroad for at least Three, two and a half, three miles. And it's only very little.

And that was approved within the last two years or so? Yes. Thank you. Any other questions for staff?

I do. Any concerns against the sidewalk? Isn't it the new city requirement that all new developments have a six foot sidewalk?

Right, that's the waiver they're requesting. And this one, we approve the waiver or recommend approval of the waiver to match the existing conditions of how it's been existing right across from that.

Yeah, but there's nothing abutting it on the railroad side.

Nothing. And I drove that whole railroad to have a sidewalk in an area. I think it will be very not safe for for pedestrians in the area. And there's not nothing like the other subdivisions don't have anything for the same reason. I think they go more towards dire. for the walkability since it's wider than railroad is and the vehicles are not going as fast as railroad with nothing on it so what you're saying creates a safety hazard it will create a safety hazard if they were to improve with the sidewalk okay thank you

I had two questions. So going on that one, is it the consideration that it's used for commercial? Was that part of the reason? Because I understand putting the sidewalk there is also isolating that community just for the sidewalk alone. But if you put sidewalks along a commercial route, high speeds, it's also that safety measure?

It can be?

Yeah, if I can. I don't think we look at it whether it's residential, commercial, it doesn't matter to us. I think the railroad is severely substandard and I believe it would require a full reconstruction effort to do it properly. Part of the problem is the configuration of the lanes as they currently exist as well as the potential introduction of a sidewalk may create some unknown um some unknown repercussions if you will um not only from a traffic movement perspective but also potentially a drainage issue as well um at the end of the day this road needs quite a bit of attention and this um would require in my opinion probably a full reconstruction to make it to the proper standard which would include sidewalks landscaping bike facility if needed to be designed properly But it would be the full it'd be a larger segment than just a small portion under consideration right now.

That's why the follow up for preload for utility review. El Paso what El Paso water nodes Dyer Street water main is restricted to McGregor range. The developer must bore across Dyer Street to reach a 16 inch main. Is that correct.

Yeah, so obviously as part of the development, they'd be required to extend any lines to service this subdivision. So it would be their responsibility to extend the lines. They would coordinate that, obviously, with El Paso Water. But obviously, as with any item that was before the City Plan Commission, too, comments like this would have to be addressed by the applicant.

Any other questions for staff?

I do. Railroad, is that City Street or TxDOT?

That one is the City Street, Dyer is the TxDOT.

Okay, so with what you said right now is that it creates problems for the future as far as railroad driving, correct, with drainage and whatnot. If that's the case, then why are we already building there if the infrastructure there is not correct? Because that eventually, those costs to build the infrastructure are gonna be passed on to the taxpayers. And I thought that it was the builders that's supposed to take care of those costs and not just build and leave that for the taxpayers in the future.

Yeah, so I definitely understand what you're saying, Mr. Borrego. Again, the default for the city code is for the developer to construct those improvements, to bring it up to city code. In certain circumstances such as this, the developer has the ability to petition the city plan commission to grant it or not. Again, this is just simply the staff recommendation. The State Planning Commission has the ability to approve the request or also to deny it, as you see appropriate. I was just mentioning some of those points just for your consideration. You know, this is, in my opinion, this would be a much larger project than just simply the sidewalk request that is proposed here today. But again, with any of these requests, it is not a guarantee that it be approved. Okay, so I want to remind the Plan Commission of that, is you can deny these requests as well. Okay, it does not have to be granted. It is simply asking for permission. The State Plan Commission may approve this. You could also deny it as well. And that's what's under consideration Anymore go ahead

so railroad is is probably two miles right uh long a road and and it's it's not an improved road i mean it's improved but but again it's it's a bad road i think the city eventually like kevin said the city is going to have to redo this road it's mostly used for for an industrial users in the area but i think that's just something that the city is going to have to do in the future they to improve the whole road and to have just a sidewalk for, I think if we improve the road, that sidewalk eventually will have to be demolished to match the whole new infrastructure. So I agree with Kevin's comments.

Anything else? Okay, can we hear from the applicant please?

The record is some suit for the reengineering and we do agree with staff recommendations and comments for clarification you know and I understand we work with staff as a matter of fact we already have a set of improvement plans that submitted to the city and we have we're the ones who developed a subdivision to the south which is called Desert Sage Estate we had the same exact issue on railroad The section that was shown on the screen, it showed railroad where the actual existing pavement is. The center of the road is mostly to our side. So let's say it was seven and a half feet on what would be our portion. And there is 80 foot separation between our property line and the edge of the existing pavement, which is by the way, substandard pavement, 80 feet. So to locate the sidewalk as supposed to per the section, that sidewalk will be just running in the middle of, an area that now currently we're going to use it for drainage so the drainage from the road would stay there so it'll be like kind of a low area okay so the sidewalk would be just a piece of concrete in the middle of nowhere not connected to the north not connected to the south and we have had discussions with the city saying that this railroad will have to be a major project eventually to improve most of the pavement is going to be on the actual east side of the road not to our side if I'm being clear about it so it's whatever we do if if we were to develop it in a couple of years when the city puts a major project to do it our work would basically going to be demolished and wasted so what are the extension plans for the subdivision you did you did the one to the south and now there's this one the center between the two what are those plans excuse me I'm sorry

The subdivision to the south that you were just discussing and this one, what's going between them?

Oh, there's empty land. So there's a separation, geographic separation between them.

Okay, does your client own it?

What's that?

Does your client own it?

Yeah. No, no, the area in the middle now owned by somebody else.

And are they planning to own it? Is this like a master plan thing?

I don't know. I don't know who they are or what they're planning to do.

I don't think that lots of space between a high speed roadway and the sidewalk is an argument against the sidewalk. That makes the sidewalk safer. One of the things that the city considers for recommending approval is that 50% of the lots within the area had the same condition. And the reason that 50% of the lots within the area had the same condition is because the southern subdivision was also granted the sidewalk request. So if the city of El Paso has no current plans to upgrade this road, I mean, yes, they might have to take the sidewalk down later, but I don't, I don't,

But it's going to be impossible to locate the sidewalk in the proper location, you know, commissioner, because because of the way the actual that we have 80 foot separation between where the existing road is and our property line and the sidewalk. If we were, say, hypothetically at the seven and a half feet and then another five foot of parkway and then the sidewalk is going to be like in the middle of nowhere. We're right now is going to impede the drainage from the road going into that low area that we're going to be And it's not going to last. It's going to be buried in the dirt within months because nobody's going to use it. There's no need for anybody to be going on that road. Dyer, on the other hand, we're putting a six-foot sidewalk. We're adding landscaping. And we're taking care of that side because that side is, yeah, it is connected everywhere. But not railroads. It's substandard, and it's not connected anywhere.

Through the chair. In the presentation, they said that in and out to this proposed site will be from both sites, from railroad and from Dyer, okay? And then you say that people won't need to use railroad because it's substandard. Once it's built, people are gonna use it, no matter what, okay? And my concern is that This site goes up, people start using railroad, because a lot of times it's a lot easier, and I've traveled through there many times, it's easier going through railroad than through Dyer, and Dyer is just up ahead where railroad ends, is that once the site is built, then those people are gonna start complaining to the city, hey, we need you to build up a railroad, because it's substandard. And they're gonna push and they're gonna blame. And before you know it, we gotta spend the money there. As opposed to other sites throughout the city and the county, the streets are already built to handle all the vehicular traffic and everything. Here we're going kind of, going the opposite way is my concern. What we call sprawl. which later on we're going to be forced to fix that instead of fixing it before they built these sites. That's my only concern.

Any other questions for the applicant? If I may.

So again, I think we keep having discussions about the sidewalks in general. And as we start approving these exceptions going forward in developments, you know, we're going to make exceptions and they're going to come forward with exceptions for the sidewalks. when the next developer comes forward we're going to make an exception as this is the sidewalk that is there today we'll make an exception so as mr borrego said in the future it's going to become the responsibility of the city to develop that street so we'll continue to make the exceptions until we allow the sidewalks to be fully built out by the developer

I wish, I mean, I swear, if it was feasible for us to build that sidewalk, we would do it. If you could put that section back on the screen, the section of the road where it shows railroad, could you please? just need to explain it a little better to tell you if and i and we're ready to do the sidewalk if it's feasible to do it we will do it it's not major cost okay but that's not the point i'm trying to make we're not trying to get away with anything mr borrego or anybody trust me what is that section the actual cross section Okay, well that's that's railroad in front of the property, but he doesn't show the separation to the property line So I can you go to go back a couple of slide or two? Here there See that section right there That's the pavement the existing pavement as you see it and if you go farther to the left you see that separation that desert piece of land and Our property line is the one on the left, my left. So that's the separation. If we were to do the exact right-of-way, that sidewalk will end up right in the middle of that empty area, not connected anywhere. And we, that area, the way we have an improvement plans, we're gonna make a depression, so the rainwater will be held from the road up until that road needs to be standard. The exact, if you take the center line of that roadway, where the way to be, our site is only seven and a half feet, so still needs to be a city major project to fix it anyway. And on the west, on the east side, there's a railroad. The actual railroad, so they need permission from the railroad to get to work on that side. We couldn't do, we couldn't bring that road to standard. Even if we do the little bit that is required, it's not gonna bring that road to standard. And that bit of sidewalk, I guarantee you it'll be a waste in a couple of years because nobody's gonna, it's in the middle of that empty area that you see. It's 80 feet of separation between us and the existing road. If there was, like on Dyer, where it's coming, it's abutting the property, people are gonna come in right behind the rock wall, yes, gladly, we'll do it. We'll put the six foot, we'll put the landscaping. We're happy to do it. Every subdivision we do, we have the sidewalks.

I'm gonna interrupt you real quick. I have a question for staff and I'm gonna interrupt you. In my mind, what he just said is what I, think is best, which is the rock wall of the ultimate home buyer and then the sidewalk right there. Is that what would be required if we didn't grant this request?

So the typical cross section, if we're going from the edge of the property, so you'd have the homes in the subdivision, just abutting that, obviously you'd have the rock wall, and then you would have the sidewalk typically abutting the rock wall. Then you would have the landscape strip, and then whatever pavement is required. So the sidewalk is typically abutting the, in this case, the residential homes.

The rule is that it's abutting the residential lot line, not that it's abutting the planter strip, which is abutting the road. I know that it kind of ends up being both, but what is the rule there?

So the typical configuration of a roadway is on either side you would have the sidewalks and going inward that's where you'd have the planting strips and then on the very interior would be whatever pavement or median or whatever may be as part of the roadway for the vehicular traffic.

Okay. Did I just hear you say that you were fine with doing the rock wall and then immediately touching the rock wall on the side with railroad, a sidewalk right there?

Well, because we don't know the final look of that road and how the city is going to ever improve it. That's why we asked for that variance, that exception.

but are you okay with putting immediately next to the rock walls?

Behind the rock wall? Yes. I mean, no sweat off my back, you know? Okay. It's not a big deal. If that's what the city wants and that's how they're gonna eventually build the road.

Okay, that is a different issue than the pavement but

We have and whoever that the same homes have sidewalk in the front. So for them they already have mobility in in you know.

But for the double frontage lots along railroad is what I'm asking that you would have they would have sidewalk in front of them and then there would be their lot like fronting the inside street they're not fronting so that'll be their backyard wall. Yes their backyard wall there would be the lot line of their backyard and then on the railroad right-of-way side, immediately abutting their rock wall would be six feet of sidewalk or five feet of sidewalk. Okay, thank you.

One more question. So what you're asking is for us to approve a new facility, but these residents or whoever buys these houses are gonna have to live with a substandard road. Is that correct?

I'm not asking that. The substandard road exists anyway. And no matter what we do, it's still going to be substandard because it needs 30 feet of pavement on the east side anyway. There's a lot of substandards. Strahan is a substandard road. I can name Emory as a substandard road. A lot of streets in El Paso are substandard.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. I will take a, oh, is this a public comment? No, okay. I will take a motion and then we'll open it up for discussion.

I make a motion to approve it with the exceptions.

Do I have a second?

I second that.

Okay open for discussion. I do not think it's a reasonable expectation or ask to ask them to bring the entire 120 foot right of way up to standard especially because it'll just be one section. But I do think it's reasonable to ask that they put the immediate sidewalk. So that would be one of the two exceptions. Who else would like to make a comment discussion.

I think that there's an alternate route for them to go around through the subdivision if somebody needs to walk around and go through, opposed to jeopardizing their safety along railroad. I've seen people drive down that road and along that shoulder and everything else, so I have to agree with staff's recommendations.

the chair i totally disagree because we're in the 21st century and we have to protect the residents and we've gone through this before in other areas and they're going to allow the residents of that area to go in and out through railroad And being that it's a substandard road does not mean that the resident's gonna say, hey, well, it's a substandard road, I'll just go through dire all the time. Their kids, and we've talked about this before, their kids are gonna run around through there, and it's gonna be substandard. So again, it's about safety. Why are we building subdivisions when the roads are not ready to handle them? Why? Because staff recommends it, it's okay. Because the city planning commission can make a waiver on it. But we gotta think of the future for these residents. We gotta think of the future for the residents. At least I do. That's my comment.

all right so the developer very easily could have done only entrance through Dyer Street and that would avoid the whole problem so I think the way I see it the main entrance of the subdivision is through Dyer and railroad is just an additional access point but so again to improve railroad is a major major thing so I don't think it's gonna happen and you know the land needs to continue getting developed

If I could just make one more, I apologize.

Mr. Hrabowski, did you have something?

I was just gonna say that I think I largely agree with Chairperson Hanson's sort of perspective on the topic. I don't think it's reasonable to hold the developer accountable for improving the roads. I don't see it necessary to forego the construction of a sidewalk when there's ample space. It's not overly expensive and I think that It's just something that we want to keep consistent. You know, this is the fringe of El Paso right now It's not going to be the fringe of El Paso forever. You can see all the development going on and Those sidewalks have to be there eventually and I don't see why We leave that right now for someone else or the taxpayers to do it in the future. So that's my take Would you like to say anything

We have a motion to approve with both conditions. All in favor.

Aye.

All opposed. Nay. Roll call please.

This will be a vote on item number four. Commissioner Baddiel.

Nay.

say nay.

Yes, nay.

Commissioner Bryan.

Aye.

Commissioner Borrego.

Nay.

Commissioner Hanson. Nay. Commissioner Cavazos-Gavasear.

Aye.

Commissioner Arriba.

Aye.

And Commissioner Zabalowski.

Nay.

So you have one, two, three, four nays and one, two, three ayes.

Okay, motion fails. Can I entertain another motion?

A motion to approve, but with the not approving the exception of the sidewalk.

Do I have a second? Okay, without a second, the motion dies. I will entertain another motion. Staff, what do we do in absence of a motion?

So again, if there's no motion, the application is approved as presented. So again, there are technically three items you're looking at. One is a subdivision. The second and third are related to the exception request. One is the request for the exception for the sidewalk. The other is the exception for the additional roadway. But again, if there's no motion or no action by the city plan commission, the application as presented is approved.

Okay. With that in mind, I will entertain a motion. Or I guess we declared that one failed. I will entertain a motion. Okay, I will lay out the options. We've already tried approving all. That was four to three. I think if we try approving only with the roadway exception, we're gonna get maybe three to four the other way. And if we do not approving at all, I think we'll get two to five. So I don't think it's gonna get denied anyway, or denied altogether. I personally don't think that they should be required to build the roadway, but I'm not sure I can even make a motion for that. So that would require somebody else's motion to make one or the other. Okay. I would like confirmation on that.

I think generally we don't have the chair make a motion. We follow the same as city council. So it has to be another commissioner besides the chair to make a motion.

Okay. Not yet. OK the applicant would like to say something else. Are we allowed to hear the applicant.

That is at the discretion of the board.

Do you have anything to say that you haven't already said.

the fact that I understand your discussion your concern and it's legit okay and if we do construct that sidewalk be honest with you I mean I'd worry about who can maintain that sidewalk being you know the city has a separation of 80 feet between the pavement and the sidewalk I mean if it makes it any easier like I said you know you mentioned that the cost of the sidewalk is small amount compared to the cost of the whole subdivision and hate to delay this whole thing just for the sidewalk so we can go with building the sidewalk if that's something that would appease all of you and make a motion that way I'm okay with that I think you might be able to amend your application and that might well that's exactly what I'm saying right now if it's acceptable

Again, it's up to the applicant if he'd like to remove the request to require the... Sorry. It's been a long day already. If he would like to remove the exception request for the sidewalk improvements, then that's at his discretion.

As long as we build it right along the rock wall.

Which is typical per city code.

If that's basically conforms and makes you feel better, then we're okay with that.

Perfect. We have a completely new item to vote for. It is number four, Desert Bloom Casitas, and one exception of not having to improve the entire roadway.

Just for clarity, it would be to waive the construction of seven and a half feet of additional roadway.

Seven and a half feet of additional roadway.

Correct.

Do I have a motion for that?

Motion to approve.

So I got one motion and I got a second.

Second his motion to approve with conditions that without the roadway but to add the sidewalk.

Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Aye.

Did you just say aye to oppose? Aye. Okay wait. Not in opposition. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Okay, we're moving on to Mijares subdivision, which is a resubdivision combination.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the commission. Blanca Perez with planning and inspections. Item number five is a resubdivision combination application for Mijares subdivision. The subject property is located north of Cesar Chavez Memorial Highway and west of Alameda Avenue within the city limits. Here is a proposed development superimposed over the aerial map. The applicant is proposing to re-subdivide 0.97 acres in order to create four residential lots. The lots range from 0.16 acres to 0.28 acres. The applicant is dedicating 4,031.83 square feet of additional right of way along Yale Avenue to allow for a turnaround. Access to the subdivision will be from Yale Avenue Stormwater drainage will be managed by on-site bonding and this development is being reviewed under the current subdivision code Here's a preliminary plot and here's a final plan The applicant is requesting the following exceptions pursuant to the El Paso City Code to waive the construction of three feet of planter strip along Yale Avenue and Here we have the required and existing cross section for Yale Avenue. Here are the existing conditions. And the exception request meet the criteria under El Paso City Code Title 19. Notice of public hearing was published in the El Paso Times on July 8th, 2026. Notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet on July 6th, 2026. And the planning division has received one call and one email of inquiry and one call in opposition of the request. With that staff recommends approval. Me had a subdivision and every subdivision combination basis and staff also recommends approval of the exception request from the city plan commission. And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you. Why recommending denial. We recommended approval for the exception for the exception.

Yes. Why did you recommend the denial? Oh first the denial was from the previous from the previous proposed cross section from the owner. He was planning on just having the five foot sidewalk, but not the five foot planter strip. And so this wouldn't allow for it to match the existing conditions. So in the last meeting, he decided to postpone the item in order to be able to come into the existing conditions part of it.

Okay, so now it's recommended for complete approval. Yes.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

So, here we go again. On that area, if you could pull up the picture where it shows the matching of the streets, right there. The city came in and redid those sidewalks, put in those planters and the street, am I correct? Yes. Not too long ago.

That is correct.

But they didn't do the very end because it wasn't developed. So here is another developer coming in and asking to change the way this is designed. They don't want to put in that planter strip. Am I correct?

No, so right now the exception is to meet the matching, the matching. With planter strips. With planter strip, mm-hmm. I think there is a confusion within the first submitted staff report and the revised one.

Because I didn't see the planter strips in the, which you put up there.

In the cross section, here it is. As you can see, they are proposing the two feet of planter strip. That is what is right now, it's existing.

Yeah, and yes, and so the parkway could Is going to be there with landscaping it's gonna match the existing conditions Remember when these roads were reconstructed a lot of it was because there's significant drainage issues in these areas And so a lot of this these improvements that were done a few years ago were to address that and I believe that there were some constraints to make sure the stormwater could be adequately modified and And so the proposal is to match what is out there, which would be a five-foot sidewalk and a two-foot parkway. And part of that parkway or landscape strip would include the landscaping of the trees.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.

Any other questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant, please?

We're accepting the proposal for the planters.

I mean. Do you agree with all staff comments? Yeah. You do. OK. Thank you.

And I'm sorry. Sir can you state your name for the record please. Gerardo Mihares. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant. Thank you. OK. This one is also a public hearing. Do I have anyone here or on the phone that would like to speak on this item. Again that's star 6 to unmute if you're on the phone. All right. We'll close public comment. I will entertain a motion amongst the commission.

I move to recommend approval. Second.

Hold on, you said with the exception, correct? With the exception. And you're approving with the exception? You're seconding with the exception?

And what does the exception get?

That is to waive the construction of three feet of planter strip along Hill Avenue.

Oh, to waive the construction?

Yes. So again, what would be required or what is being requested for the non-roadway segment would be five feet of sidewalk and two feet of planter strip. So they're requesting for a three foot waiver of the planter strip to match the existing conditions. So required, they're going from five down to two is being proposed. And that's again to match the existing conditions.

I second.

Okay, any discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries, thank you.

Thank you Mr. Smith for clarifying that.

All right, we're moving on to number six, which is Meadowlark Good afternoon Alejandro Gonzalez with planning inspections. I know number six on the agenda is a special permit application for the subject property located at 617 Meadowlark This area map shows the property which is 1.38 acres in size and is currently vacant. The existing zoning is R1 residential. The applicant is requesting a special permit and details at the amendment file approval with reduction to side yard setback for the proposed use of a single family dwelling. The site plan shows the proposed layout of the development, which includes a two-story building, highlighting magenta, with a total of 13,000 square feet gross area. The applicant is requesting the side yard setback reduction from the 15 feet required to 8.5 feet proposed. These are the proposed elevations. Homies that picture of the property it's green condition as viewed from metal or drive the request in reduction to decide your setback will accommodate the single family dwelling what we're saving 10 existing a 100 year old pecan trees on the property. These problems preservation inefficient and use one remaining consistent with the development pattern of the surrounding properties. The surrounding properties are sown are one residential and include single family dwellings. The applicant notified the West Civic Association and Upper Valley Neighborhood Association. Notices were made to property owners within 300 feet on August 14, 2026. As of today, the Planning Division has received two phone calls and two emails in opposition, two calls in support, and 12 inquiry calls. With that, here's the notice map. With that, staff recommends approval of the special permit request and the third side development plan request. And this concludes my presentation.

Thank you. Do we have any questions for staff?

Those pecan trees, you said they're 100 years old or older?

Older, yes.

But they don't produce pecans anymore, huh?

Yes, sir.

Can we hear from the applicant, please?

Good afternoon Commission. My name is Jeffrey Huff and I'm the architect that the property owner Wallace has engaged to represent him today and Rick very early on in the design process. Displayed to me a passion to keep these 100 year-old plus the countries. which, as many of you know, are our signature element for the valleys here in El Paso. And so as we were developing a master plan for his residence, he said, under no circumstances, Jeff, do I want you to do anything that would compromise those trees. So I contacted a very well-known uh landscape designer here in town and i said to this landscape designer how far away from these trees do i need to be and she said you need to protect the drip line and for those of you who may or may not know the drip line is the extension of the canopy and so with that in mind we crafted a master plan for mr wallace's single family home which would be done in phases The first phase would be to the east and then if mr. Wallace at some point finds a Life partner who wants to live on the property as well phase two would be put into effect Mr. Wallace I do want to point out that he was so passionate about the trees that when it came to the time when he wanted to put the privacy wall around the property he actually put the easternmost property rock wall, 18 inches inside his property to avoid the pecan trees on his neighbor to the east. When we develop the foundation plan, we're going to use helical piers in order to minimize the disturbance into the root system. So we feel that the setback reduction on the eastern side to eight foot six is a reasonable request. I would also like to point out that we are not asking for any sort of reduction in the aggregate side yard, side street. That will still be the required 40 feet. So what that means is that we're gonna have more of a setback that faces Montoya and I think the neighbors in the area will enjoy that as well as keeping that beautiful canopy. We were out there earlier this week and 100 degree weather, it was noticeably cooler. under those pecan trees. In El Paso, I think we need to do our best to mitigate the heat islands that our area suffers with. So those are my comments, and we would be happy, either Mr. Wallace or myself, to entertain any questions.

Through the chair. One moment. Were you able to protect all of the trees?

Yes, ma'am. I've not turned down a single tree. Amazing. I've actually planted 51 additional trees to the property to keep the agriculture to be seen from Montoya and everybody. All they'll see is canopies, trees, and keeping that pecan farm look to the property.

Amazing. Go ahead.

through the chair, Mr. Huff, define helical piers.

Helical piers are piers that are drilled down into the soil to a distance so that they will not uplift or subside when loads are placed on them, as opposed to a concrete slab, which would cover more of the surface area. We want to get as much area for the water to percolate down into the soil. The helical piers basically will provide a grid which we will build on top of up and over the root system.

So kind of like a screw.

You're going to screw these things in there. You got it. Sorry to say. Okay.

And that's why the reason for that... I don't want to say odd, but different design that we saw to protect the trees and...

Right, so as you're looking at the site plan, the house, the master plan, is actually woven in between the trees, which we think will be a big bonus. Really, it'll be like living in the forest.

Good, and the last comment I'll make is that I'm all for trees. preserving trees, planting more trees, El Paso needs a plan, a million more trees, because we live on an island of heat, as we know when we step out of this nice cool building. So, thank you.

And thank you for preserving those trees, they're beautiful. I know that area very well, so I'm in agreement with you.

If I may, Madam Chair, a couple questions. So it's going to be a pyramid construction, correct? Yes, that is correct. And what's the total square footage of the new home once it's completed?

So we showed, we maxed out what we thought would be the livable area, and it would be in excess of 10,000 square feet.

So we're over a 10K on a home in the Upper Valley, and you're trying to preserve the trees. I understand. You're trying to reduce the setback from 15 foot to 8 foot, but it won't reduce the size of the home.

So the reserve the trees so so given the nature of where the trees are located, they're located centrally in in Rose if you will and regardless of the size of the home. You know we Mister Wallace would basically have to have to shift phase one of his home to the point that one row of trees would need to be sacrificed.

With all due respect, sir, how long have you been an architect?

I've been an architect since, I've been registered since 1992.

Since 1992. And you're telling me that the home couldn't be reduced in size in order to protect the trees?

Well, we can make it a skinny home, right?

I'm just, I'm asking. Could it be a two-story? Could it be a...

Yeah. And there's and there's a series of parking bays on the back of phase one. I understand. And it would we'd have quite a few mini cars if you.

I understand. OK. Thank you. Sure. Thanks.

Any other questions comments.

I did want to clarify. Do you agree with all staff comments.

I'm sorry.

Do you agree with all staff comments.

Yes, we do.

Thank you. OK, I think we're going to open it up for public hearing. Is there anybody here or on the phone that would like to speak on this matter?

Hello, this is Adrian Ordonez. I've signed up to speak on behalf of a client of mine.

OK, before you start, you have three minutes to speak. It sounds like you said your first name. Could you please say your full name?

Yes, it is Adrian Ordonez.

Okay, go ahead and start, you have three minutes.

Thank you, Chairperson. Commissioners, good afternoon. My name is David Ergonius. I'm an attorney representing Robert Urrea, trustee of the Robert Urrea 2025 Living Trust. Mr. Urrea owns the two tracks immediately north of this development. He received your notice, and although he couldn't join us today, he asked that I speak on his behalf today. We did file a written opposition with Ms. Ramirez, and I would ask each of you to read it in full before you vote if you haven't had a chance to do so. uh a lot of information i believe my letter is supported throughout by the recorded flat and the applicant's own drawing and submission and three minutes won't do it justice today but i want to give you four main reasons that this item is not ready for a recommendation today uh in addition to those that forth in my letter and a couple points in response to some comments made by mr huff and the applicant First, the property that you noticed is not the project in front of you. The case captioned is 617 Meadowlark Drive, lot 3, 6,900th of an acre, but sheet A 1.0 states lots 2 and 3, 1.38 acres. So that's twice the notice area. And we just want to confirm that the notice was sent to the correct parties based on this larger legal description. second the residence is drawn across the plotted plotted lot line the phase one garage sits on lot two while the phase one living area sits on lot three and there's no setback at that line shown on the plan submitted and no relief has been requested for that so either plus required which has not been applied for notice or the plan violates standards that nobody has asked you to waive those today so Either way, the finding that this plan complies with the code can't stand. Third, the plan doesn't comply with the flat own condition. to retain the storm water that's generated by the respective lots, plus half the abutting street frontage. The permeability table on this aggregate drawing shows 60,000 square foot number, but there's no core lot showing or anywhere in the record. Additionally, the driveway lays on the dedicated ditch and the utility has been along my client's boundary without any comments from the El Paso County Water Improvement District number one, which manages that infrastructure. And finally, the reason Mr. Arreia is asking me to be here today is that nothing about this land requires relief. The Commission approved this plot on October 2022. The lots were drawn at 30,000 square feet each, and the 15-foot side yard was already in place. Nothing about the land has changed, only the size of the house that the applicant's proposing has. When my client built his home in this neighborhood, he had to redraw his plans to meet the same setback. He did that. He paid for it. He didn't ask for an exemption then. He's not asking for one now. All he's asking for is that the rules lie the same way to the property next door. I'm out of time, so I can't respond to Mr. Huff, but I do request that you recommend denial, and if not, at least postpone this item until the staff can correct the record. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else here or on the phone that would like to speak on this item? Again, that's star 6 to unmute if you're on the phone. All right. Public comment is closed. Legal, I know we received this from Mr. Ordonez as well. He did ask us to read it in full. And I know you read it and probably have some thoughts on it. Can you go ahead and let us know?

Yes, I believe it's, you know, just public comment for you all to read. Treat it as any other type of public comment. I know specifically that the notice issue was raised. I don't know, Louise, if you want to confirm 300-foot notification, if there were any issues with that.

Yes, if I might, Luis, I'm one of the planning inspections. So the notification did provide the legal description for the property. It includes lot two and three, I believe. Yes, there was a typo on the size of the acreage, which was 0.69, I believe, which I raised up at the beginning of the meeting, right? And staff did mention acreage being 1.38. Besides that, the staff did notify all appropriate property owners were in the property including those two bought lots those both lots that are proposed obviously the developments proposed on those two plotted lots right now.

OK. And there were some comments about easements ditches things like that. Do you have any comments about that.

So I would like to know that the city obviously, there's limited structure, well not structure, limited development that may be allowed on an easement. For the most part, the city doesn't allow any structures. uh it seems like right now what's being commented is there's a driveway over an eastman which i believe for per city uh requirements it will be permitted um and then it was noted that it seems like el paso county water improvement district did not provide comments um unfortunately there's not much we didn't get any comments so there's not much we can comment on that though

Think I just had one of the other comments was about the combining of the Lots Lots two and three that is permitted a permitted exemption in the subdivision code These are two complete Lots. They are allowed to be combined through the subdivision code and not require a replat And that's a specific carve out for two Lots for two complete Lots that are residential in nature and

Okay. I will have some questions for the applicant. One of them is that the driveways are permeable, correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Correct.

I will not be putting any asphalt in it. Everything will be permeable. It will be hard. I'd like you to... Sir, sir, if you could just wait a moment. Can you turn on the microphone? Sorry. If you could speak into the microphone, please.

Yes, there will not be any driveways that will have any sort of, it'll all be permeable, just like on UTEP campus, how everything, the rainwater will go through and also feed the trees as well. So that will be not an issue of storm drain whatsoever.

Okay. And you're well aware that anything within an easement, whoever holds that, whether it's a full utility easement or one specific, they can come and tear it up with a backhoe if they feel like it.

We're aware of that. Okay. And we don't have any structures that would be significant. There's no structures. There would just be a permeable driveway that would be part of, go over that easement.

Okay.

Is there anything else that you heard in that comment that you would like to address before we go to discussion?

The trees can't be moved. They're 100 year old trees. That's the only reason we're doing this. The size of the home has nothing to do with it. The only reason we made it that way is for long term planning. I'm not going to be building a massive home. I want to have a pecan farm historical You know, I have friends and family who are in the pecan business here today. It's very special and near and dear to me. I don't think I'm changing anything in the neighborhood that the community would not like and to enjoy. I could go out and tear out all these pecan trees and build a home and not even have to be here. But I've waited almost two years and gone through this process to keep all these pecan trees. Okay.

They mentioned something about the irrigation dishes. Are you planning to to him to do something with them or just gonna leave them alone?

I Mean there is an irrigation easement that extends into the property and Rick you are currently You're irrigating when you're given permission. So it's a it's something he wants to continue to do I feed them regularly.

I have a local Landscape and business we do business with commercially and residential and they feed the trees quite a bit I'm doing everything I can to keep them as healthy as possible even with the Elm beetles that came through Take care of those trees as well It's for the trees all this that we're going through Any other questions for the applicant Okay, thank you, I will take a motion and then we'll open for discussion move to approve item number six

Second that.

All right. Any discussion? I just want to say this is amazing. I think this is a wonderful thing. I would bend over backwards to help y'all, but it seems like you have figured it out. So amazing. Of course. This is an exciting project for me personally, so thank you.

I'm sure. All in favor?

Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. We have no more items on the agenda today. You look like you're ready to speak.

Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. If I might. So we have a staff member that is gonna be leaving us. We lost one, fortunately, some weeks ago. Right now we have one. They just heard her presenting right now. So Ms. Alejandra Gonzalez will be leaving us for greener pastures. So I'd just like you all to acknowledge her today so we all can thank her for her time with us.

Thank you very much. We always appreciate you. Congratulations.

And, well, not necessarily her replacement, we'll have a new staff member that will be soon joining us, well, joining you all presenting, so this is Joanna Rosales. She is back here, so. Hi, Joanna.

All right. Perfect. One more motion?

Motion to adjourn. Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

All opposed. Y'all have a great afternoon.