Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the September 10th meeting of the City Plan Commission. My name is Lauren Hanson, chair of the commission, and I call this meeting to order at 1.33 PM.

Can we hear the statement, please? statement to the public the city plan commission has sole and final approval authority over subdivision maps which is statutorily limited to a ministerial examination of the applications 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 modification, 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 the form of a public hearing. The normal process is as follows. First, the Commission will hear a staff report followed by a statement from the applicant. Then members of the public may speak followed by any final statement from the applicant. Finally, the matter will be closed for further discussion or a motion among the Commission. The Commission shall then make a recommendation that will be forwarded to City Council.

Thank you. Staff, do we have any changes to the agenda today?

Good afternoon, Luis Zamora with Planning and Inspections. We have a couple of changes. Item 4, this is PZRZ 26-00016 for 250 Lindbergh Avenue. We're requesting to be postponed for two weeks for the applicant. Again, this is item 4, PZRZ 26-00016 for 250 Lindbergh Avenue. On number 5, item 5, we have a small amendment to correct on the request. Item 5 is PCST 26-00004 for 4531 Emery Road. On their request, it says special permit and detailed site development plan approval to allow for a reduction to the minimum lot depth for three single-family dwellings in the R2A residential zone district. So we're striking out lot depth and replacing it with average lot width. So it should read special permit and detailed site development plan approval to allow for a reduction to the minimum average lot width for three single-family dwellings in the R2A residential zone district.

Thank you. And Mr. Ramirez, do we have anybody here to speak today? Mr. Ramirez? No. No, we don't. Thank you. Okay. Can I have a motion for those changes? Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. We approved the changes. We approved the changes only. We approved... so no we did not to answer your question that will be later in the meeting yes yes that's the last item in this meeting yes second to last there's going to be a presentation at the end if you want to stay okay um we open up to call to the public if anybody here would like to speak on something not on the agenda that's star six to unmute if you're on the phone Again, that's star six to unmute if you're on the phone for public comment. Okay, public comment is closed. We move on to the consent agenda. I'll entertain a motion for that.

So moved. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries, thank you. We move on to the regular agenda, which is number two, stray hand subdivision.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission. Blanca Perez with Planning and Inspections. Item number two is a major combination application for Strahan subdivision. The subject property is located south of Artcraft Road and east of Upper Valley Road and is within the city limits. Here is a proposed development superimposed over the aerial map. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 4.08 acres to create three residential lots. The lots range from 1.18 acres to 4.08 acres. Access to the subdivision will be from Strahan Road. The applicant is dedicating 10 foot of additional right of way along Strahan Road. Stormwater drainage will be managed by onsite funding and this development is being reviewed under the current subdivision code. Here's a preliminary plat. Here's a final plat. The applicant is requesting the following exception pursuant to the El Paso City Code to allow for the maximum length of the panhandle lot to exceed the maximum length of 100 feet. The exception request meets the criteria under El Paso City Code Title 19. And with that, staff recommends approval with a condition of straightened subdivision on a major combination basis. The condition is as follows. That subdivision improvement plans be approved prior to the recordation of the final plat. And additionally, the staff recommends approval of the previously discussed exception. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you.

Any questions for staff? Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant, please? That would be Ray Engineering. Are they on the phone? Okay. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Luis Salcedo with Ray Engineering here on behalf of Strahan Development, LLC. We concur with all staff comments and accept conditions.

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?

Have a question.

So is it understood that that back lot's gonna have to require automatic fire sprinkler systems when you get to the civil engineering section? Yes, sir. And a turnaround to accommodate for a fire truck, correct?

We have a plat note that the builder's responsible for that turnaround to comply with the fire department. All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Cool, thank you.

All right, I'll entertain a motion.

Motion to approve with the condition.

Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Rudebaugh, I think you need to step out for this one. We're going to move on to number three.

So if I just have a note in the minutes that Mr. Williams recused himself from three. Thank you.

Mr. Smith, can you hear me? My microphone sounds weird.

Hello, hello. We need to start singing. Can you talk, please?

Hello? Hello? That sounds better. I can hear me.

The property is located off of George Cedar Drive, Minnesota La Pasa. This property is five acres in size and currently vacant. Current zoning is R3, presidential. The request is to rezone to AO, apartment slash office, for the proposed uses of multi-family, as well as self-storage. So the future land use map for this area is G-first with walkable, and this calls for supplementing the housing stock, as well as adding any commercial uses that might be missing in the area. So this is just a conceptual plan. Again, this is not being reviewed for compliance under Title 20. This shows a proposed multifamily development as well as self-storage. Access will be from Turner Road as well as from Pendleton Road. And this is not, again, not currently being reviewed for compliance as it is only conceptual. This is an image of the subject property. It's just in the corner of Pendleton and Turner Road. Again, the property is currently vacant. And just looking at the surrounding development. To the north, we have properties that are self-owned bedrooms and zoned AM, apartment mobile home. To the east, we have a property zone A1, and this is currently a self-storage on the construction, as well as R3 in this area, consisting also of single-family dwellings. To the south, we also have single-family dwellings as well, zoned R3. And to the west, we do have single-family dwellings on R3. To the south, we also have a church, a couple of churches on there, so we do have a mix of zoning. So do you have a mix of zoning in the area? So the property does not lie with any recognized neighborhood associations. Notices were sent out on August 26th of this year, and to date we have received one phone call in opposition and five calls of inquiry. The call in opposition was concerns for increased traffic and decreased traffic, or concerns for safety of traffic. Just one of the notices, there were 58 notices sent to 50 different properties in the area. And to conclude, staff does recommend approval with the condition, that condition being a requirement for the landscape buffer to be placed along residential zone districts' uses, which would be to the south and to the west. And again, the staff has recommended this condition to provide an additional buffer to the proposed, or to the existing residential zone districts. With that, that concludes the presentation. And thank you, Commissioner. So do I have to answer any questions?

the self-storage facility is that not you said it was currently in construction is that not part of this rezoning uh that's not part of this reason it's a separate property just to give you an idea of what's around okay thank you any other questions for staff any question what was the reason for the reduction of two feet of the rock wall from ten to eight i'm not sure which letter we're referencing

Yeah, the original information. So we somewhat have a planning inspection. I believe you're referring to the, because the staff report was revised to remove that condition. So initially we have reviewed the property to the east across the street, across Pendleton, had a similar condition there. um so once we we can obviously talk over with the applicant uh we determined that because we're asking for the landscaping that that kind of merits to not having to increase the broke wall uh in the past we've seen issues with existing development because typically the homes already there that we have a short walk and then a new development typically has to go and raise that wall and sometimes then the residents don't want that wall raised uh so we determined that for us i think just having the the buffer the landscape buffer 10 feet and those trees uh suffice for us to kind of provide some some buffer from the residential than having to go two extra feet on the broke wall so it's good to know that a six foot high rock wall is already a requirement per code though okay thank you

So they are not required to bring it up to eight? Were they considering 10 and took it down to eight or they were considering eight and now they don't have to raise it at all?

So again, the staff did revise the staff report. So we removed, there were two conditions initially, the landscaping and the rock wall. We decided to remove the rock wall. So right now per code it's six feet. Obviously the proposal before was for, to require them to have it at eight. And then we struck that condition, second condition.

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

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners Conway with Conway Incorporated. We do concur to all staff's comments.

Any questions for the applicant?

No questions.

Is there only one entryway for the property off of Turner off of Turner?

It's going to be more than one point of aggregate ingress egress, but it is on Alpha Turner, correct?

Any other questions?

Thank you, thank you.

So this is a public hearing since it's rezoning. Do I have anybody here that would like to speak on this item? And if you're on the phone, not star 620 mute. Again, that's star six to unmute if you're on the phone. All right, public hearing is closed. I will entertain a motion amongst the commission.

Motion to approve with condition.

Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries, thank you.

Thank you, commissioners.

All right, I also want to invite Mr. Uribe back in. We're moving on to number four, which is, oh, we skipped number four. Now we're on to number five, which is the Emory parcel.

Hi, good afternoon, chair and members of the commission. Again, I'll serve you with time for the record. So this next item, number five, is a special plan request and a detailed side development plan approval request for 4531 Emory Road. So this is the area of the property I'm showing this location. This is close to Donovan on the west side of El Paso. This property is 0.63 acres in size. So the existing zoning is R2A and this being a special primary request, the zoning will remain as R2A. So no proposed zoning changes. Future land use for the map for this area is G3 post-war and which calls for supplementing the limited housing stock in the area. So as part of the special permit request, there is also a detailed site development plan approval request. Again, this is for three proposed single-family dwellings on their own lot. Each lot will comply with setbacks as well as on-site permit requirements. Access from these lots will be from the other way. And the special permit request is to request a reduction in the average lot width for each lot. So here's the table showing all the required requirements for the zoning district. And on the right side, you'll see what's proposed for each lot. And so we'll see what's being requested here is a reduction in the average lot width from 70 feet to 67.78 feet, which represents the reduction of over two feet, 2.22 feet. As I mentioned earlier, each lot will comply with setbacks, minimum lot size, and minimum lot depth as well. These are the elevations for the proposed single-family dwellings. Again, we have a maximum height of 31.7 feet for each proposed home. So here's the site plan superimposed on the aerial imagery, just to give you the orientation of the development, the proposed development. And as you can see, the access will be from Belleville Way. This is an image of the subject property. There are currently two homes on the property. I believe they are vacant. And as for the surrounding development, these properties are all zoned R2A and consist of single-family dwellings. So as part of the notification, the applicant did notify the three neighborhood associations in the area, which include the Upper Valley Neighborhood Association, the Westside Civic Association, and the Zach White Neighborhood Association. Notices were noted out on August 26th of this year, and today the Planning Division has received seven calls of opposition and nine calls of inquiry to the request. So the opposition has consisted of a concern for an excess number of lots being requested, concerns for traffic, increased traffic in the area, pedestrian safety, and overcrowding were some of the topics mentioned from the callers. And as part of the notice requirements, 31 notices were sent out to 31 different properties. And on-site posting signs were placed on the property as well. So to conclude, staff does recommend approval of the special permit and the site development plan approval requests for the property on 4531 Emory Road. And that concludes the presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have questions for staff?

I got a question. For resident one on Emory Road, what's the standoff from the traffic to the rock? Is there going to be a rock wall between the house

So it will be a rock wall proposed on the left side. Do you mean the corner wall or the lot on the far left?

Far right.

So there will be a rock wall placed there. I'll have the applicant expand a little bit more on that. Okay. But I'll defer to the applicant. Okay.

On-site ponding. That's referenced a couple times. But the detailed site development plan shows water flowing to the street. We'll have public comment in a moment. Thank you.

For land development, I'll defer to the land development department here.

Yeah, the water runner from the street, it should capture the half of the street.

So it's not on-site ponding?

No, it's on-site ponding in there.

Where is the on-site ponding? Is it front yard or back yard?

I think back yard, but it's in each lot.

Okay, because the water flow on the detailed site development plan provided to us, I'm not sure if there was a different one, shows it going to the street. And I have it, if you'd like to see it. Not sure if that was a design issue, but... Yeah, if I might, with some model planning inspection.

So it's something we can have the applicant change before going to City Council. Because, yeah, I think our understanding is that it should be on-site funding. So it should be draining onto the property and not onto the drive.

Because it's mentioned twice. It's mentioned in planning and development comments. Thank you. And in like the main staff packet.

Yeah. And I think another thing to point out is obviously they still will have to rest up the buy, right? To replot the property in order to create the three lots. And at that time, the staff will review that making sure that the on-site funding is being included there on the plot.

Okay. And Is on-site ponding not a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet? I thought that was a minimum lot size, but I could be wrong on that.

They have to include calculations, and they have to comply with the minimum of 50%.

So there's no minimum lot size for on-site ponding?

No. They have to comply with the calculations and the 50% minimum.

OK. I think that was my only question for now. Any other questions for staff? Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant, please? Not yet. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Ray Mancera, and according to the lobby ordinance, I stand before you all, representing the owner. We are excited about the development for three more lots on Emery Road and the Alma Lane. The minimum requirement, to answer your question, is that the R5 versus an R2A or R1 or R3, it's a minimum size lot, but it doesn't matter if you have an R5, which are small lots, you still have to provide on-site ponding. So it depends on the zoning that they exist, and you will provide the on-site ponding. Nobody gets away from with it right now. Because 2006, 2007, that's what created this requirement. We stand before you all and let you all know that this property is one of the few left that is vacant in that area. I went to the central district and got the 1907 plat. and 1945 Platt, and yeah, it was farmland and wide open, but as we get closer to 2026, you can see how areas are being developed, and that's why you see more traffic, and that's why you see more schools, because it's called families, it's called growth. Our request before you all is to develop three lots and we exceed the minimum square footage for an R2A. Our lots are 9,263 and the minimum square footage is 8,000. We also exceed the minimum depth of a lot. It requires 100 feet minimum. We are providing 136.67, just like the other five lots to the west of this property. However, we are stand before you all because of the minimum lot with an art to our to a is 70 feet we are Short by 22 inches in each of those three lots so in the three lots in the frontage we have the minimum requirement is 70 and we have 67 point seven eight feet 22 inches less And in the rear, we also are deficient only 22 inches on lot one and two, but on lot three, we are deficient five and a half feet. That's why the requirement of the special permit to come before you all. The second thing I want to let you know is that I did communicate with the neighborhood association, the three of them, not once but twice, offering to meet with them. Their response was very appropriate, meet with the neighbors. So what I did, I went out there this last Saturday and I did provide a aerial to the Planning department, but I'm for a PowerPoint But suffice to say that I I do have my my map I did provide it on a PowerPoint, but it's not up there I did contact at 23 homes around the surrounding areas 13 I made contact with them physically personally spoke with them and In 11 of them. I left a flyer. There you go. There you go. I left a flyer. I

Second.

is that here's the concern was how big how many bedrooms are going to have I've never been asked that question but it's going to be three bedrooms how big is a property I see I had to ask the engineer the architect how big are the other homes it's going to be minimum 3,000 square feet so very comparable to what's in the surrounding areas and lastly let me share with you is that the There's a letter that I provided as far part of my presentation and you go to the second page in the next one and I did provide the information a lot exactly what we were asking the footprint because you've got to be I think it's only fair if you talk to neighbors and Of what it's going to be developed at versus just putting up a sign special permit. Oh my god, what's going to happen? What are they going to put in there? So I provided this information not only explaining our request but also providing the aerials in the square footage On the if you want to go back to the first slide, which is the home the aerial I did have a conversation with mr. Miguel Ortiz Cortez oh There is Miguel Cortez he is the property immediately to the rear of our property his property runs along all the Three proposed Lots and all the five other Lots it would be eight Lots impact impact so he provoked goes from Emory all the way to Montoya Lane and And he was asking, your property lines or the way it's structured right now is invading into my ability to bring the river water to flood and irrigate his land. And I offered that we do rely on engineers and surveyors just like he does and we do. So I went to the Central Appraisal District and got the aerials, the plats for those three times, and I have them for him because I told him that the question before you all is do you waive the 70, the minimum width, and do you waive, are you going to, is it okay to waive the minimum, that's all we're asking, the width of those slots in the front and the rear. The zoning allows for single family homes. And I did ask them that I would be willing to work with the owner and also the water improvement district, number one, because they're the ones that control the water. And you don't want to ever mess around with the water that people get, not only for irrigation, but also for their homes that they enjoy that and not having to work with a PSB and write them a check every month. So I did bring the information, and I would be willing to work with them and have his engineer or surveyor work with ours because we want to do what's right. And push come to shove, I know the owner, we have 130 feet width. Of course we'll accommodate anything that has to be done. to make sure that we don't impede any water flow to this property. That is my request, and I appreciate the support, and we concur with staff comments. Thank you.

I'm ready to answer any questions.

The detailed site development plan elevations show a max height of 31 feet, 31.8. that's really high for the surrounding neighborhood. Nothing in that area is anywhere close. Part of what we are supposed to evaluate when approving these special permits is whether or not it's compatible with surrounding uses, and that to me seems incompatible with surrounding uses. From the elevations, it seems like 10 feet of that is a design choice.

does the client feel about getting rid of nine feet of that my chairman hanson uh to answer your question is the following uh is there a limit on the height on an r2a in a home i ask planning i can tell you it's 35 feet and ours is 31.

31 and 8 inches so we are under you are

Oh, I thought we were exceeding. Oh my gosh, I was just going to pull them, grab them by the throat and say, how dare you come in and ask for something that does not comply with code. So we meet code in all the other ones. And the question, of course, before the plan commission is a special permit. And we're not rezoning, we're not doing anything else. It is compliant with the special permit.

Now, is it also approval of a detailed site plan?

yes yes so a detailed type plan when it goes to mayor city council as long as the detailed type and compliance with current code state law says that you must you must approve uh and i've been down that road before with attorneys and they say But yeah, you might not like that they're putting the pool too close to the rear, but if it complies with code, state law says you must approve. The detailed site plan is for information. It has no teeth other than.

It does once it's approved.

work that I was going there chairman. Once approved you cannot modify it. If you might find one age, you must come back to the whole process again. I commission and City Council and get final approval, but but the actual these details I plan Once submitted and if it complies with code, state law says that you must approve. Now, as far as the height, it's more architectural. I cannot speak with the owner that instead of three bedrooms, they should have made him four or maybe three baths instead of two baths, things of that nature. I did not have the personal conversation with him on the development or the size of the house or how large the living room. The question only is that because what was left over from years of platting all the surrounding areas, now under the R2A, before it never existed, it went from R1 to R2, R3, and now it's R2A, that we have to now come in and say, would you please pardon 22 inches on each lot? That's the question. And I urge you all and I appreciate your support. Thank you so much.

Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you.

Thank you.

Now we're opening up to public comment. Everyone will have three minutes to speak. You're gonna be timed by Mr. Smith. We do not have a written list of who would like to speak. Can anybody raise their hands just so I can get an idea of who's here? If you'd like to speak, just raise your hands.

Only one person, two, three, three people are here to speak.

Okay, sir, can you please come up? Yes. So please state your name.

My name is Steven Bricker. I live at 215 Belleville Way. I've lived there since 1980. We own the house, it's all paid for. It's a nice, quiet neighborhood. And the reason we like the neighborhood is that most of the houses on the street were built around 1950. They're single family houses on single lots. To put three houses on a lot that now holds just two, is really putting a different value on the neighborhood. It's not a comfortable value either. If the developer wanted to put two homes there, build them up nice, like the rest of the houses on Emory and a lot of them on Belva, then I would have no objection. But to put what amounts to a slum for tomorrow The three houses with no property around them except the backyard. It seems wrong. It feels cramped and crowded. And I'm really concerned for the way the neighborhood would change. I don't know if anyone has seen anything of the neighborhood except from those aerial shots. But if you drive through, these are pleasant, quiet, tree-lined streets. But then three houses, chock-a-block. It just upsets the whole dynamic of the neighborhood. I hope that the Planning and Inspections Department will take that into consideration. I don't hold it against someone trying to make a profit, have a business with building and selling houses, that's fine. But please respect the neighborhood, respect the people who live there. There are two buildings on that piece of property right now. There could be two beautiful buildings put there instead, but three? like that no it would be very very wrong that's what I have to say thank you thank you okay next please state your name you have three minutes my name is Manuel Hernandez and I live across the street from where these properties are being proposed

I didn't speak to the attorney he didn't mention that he had spoken to some of the folks on the property or on the on the area and I wasn't he it shows that I was my house was green I guess that meant that you spoke to me but I never did speak to him. So I just wanted to correct that for the record. I don't believe that. building three homes on that .62 acres is going to improve things. I live right across the street. My property is .62 acres. I can't build another property there. You know what I'm saying? And adding three houses to that property will not improve the value of my property. I know it sounds kind of selfish, but you probably have the same sentiment from other folks living in the area. You know, it's gonna bring in random tenants, because they're not, it's not gonna be for people like myself that's been at that property for over 20 years. It's gonna increase traffic, which already, there's a lot of traffic on that street right now. You know changing the addresses on those properties, you know, like I said, I've been at that at that my my residence for 23 years You know, I also moved to Emory because the properties were big, you know, I wanted more of a farmland type community to move into and that's what I did and I Now we're changing the rules right by adding these properties. It's going to encroach on neighbors. You know there's just going to be lots of other people living there. Well I don't disagree with people having a good living arrangements right. But you've got to consider that little corner is going to be packed with people. I've had people tenants run into me when I'm backing out of my property on the street. I've had people hit me.

That happened once, okay?

No insurance, so I just ended up biting the bullet for it. The other thing is those properties, they've been rental properties for the past 23 years that I've lived there. And those properties are never kept. They're always unkempt. And I'm always having to clean up a lot of the debris and trash that comes from that property. The trees are, you know, just dead. You know, they don't maintain it. Anyhow, that's all I wanted to say at this point. I can see two homes. Sir, you reached your three minutes as well.

I'm sorry? You've reached your three minutes. All right, thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, can we hear from the next person?

Good afternoon, my name is Miguel Cortez. I live across the street and the property behind the property is my property as well. Those properties have been in my family for three generations already. And what I can remember from my grandparents, my parents saying, keep the property in the way it is. Keep the irrigation rights. Keep it clean. Keep it in the way it is. Kind of country style on the street. I'm not in disagreement to build a house or anything, but I will be happy if they reconsider the size of a house. Maybe they can build two houses. It would be better to get three little houses. And maybe, like Mr. Hernandez said, I'm a little bit selfish, but I will keep the value of my house. I want to see that my house is surrounded by little houses. And maybe I pay a lot of taxes, which is fine. That's the place that I choose to live in. But I would rather keep my neighbor in the way it is. And especially, I know right now they're saying it's not going to be a problem with irrigation, but it is going to be a problem because the property land is right there where the canal is. I don't know how they're going to build a rock wall. Maybe it's going to be a very good retaining wall, but the canal is right there next to it in the property land. My property land is property land. So pretty much try to help us to keep our neighbor in the way it is. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak? And if you're on the phone, that's star six to unmute. Okay, thank you. With that, we close public comment for this item. I open it up to the commission for discussion.

Do we need a motion before discussion.

No. OK. I will start and say on its own the high is not a The height is not a legal issue. On its own, the width is not a legal issue. On its own, the mass being straight up and down is not a legal issue. Or the front side back setbacks being basically minimum. The back is longer. But none of those things on their own are an issue. All of them together is an issue to me. They are not here in front of us today to ask for all of those together. They are here today to ask for a lot with reduction. And I don't feel comfortable giving them that when I think that that is one of the issues with this. What do y'all think about that?

I want to ask about the Drainage? And what are the rights on that and what do they have to do to not infringe on that as far as legal rights for not damaging the water canal?

To clarify, when you say drainage, you mean the canal behind them, correct? Right. Okay. Do we have any answers?

Does anybody know what that is?

So if I can, Kevin Smith with Plan Inspections for the record. So there are a couple of things. If there is an existing canal, which does appear that there may be behind this property, that would still have to be retained in any flow if there's anything in this property that is addressing the drainage. I'm not sure if the water rights have been sold or not. That is up to the property owner to decide if they do that or not. It was talked about the stormwater management a little bit earlier. That is within the ETJ where there is a limit of the 10,000 square feet. If it's in the sea limits, there's the stormwater management plan that would come in through the subdivision phase, which obviously this is at a zoning standpoint again this is not a rezoning but it's at the zoning stage that that would be addressed but this does appear that it would be subject to on-site ponding so that's where also on the plat that I would note that all the stormwater the developed stormwater from the site as well as their proportionate share of the stormwater would have to be captured on these properties so that's where it would work with the land development team on those standards once it comes time to develop that. But back to your question, Ms. Regan, on any canals, that flow would still have to be retained or continue.

Is there a setback on canals that they have to go so many feet from the canal?

Not that I'm aware of. I'm not aware of any. Not to say there may not be. I'm just not aware.

Any other discussion.

The onsite funding question that you had that was resolved or will be resolved.

Yes that will also need to be addressed on the site plan so that correction will need to be made with the applicant but also that will be addressed at the subdivision phase as well if it gets to that point.

So just to be totally clear because I'm still trying to understand the irrigation situation. We're not sure how close or how far they may be able to put something like a rock wall to the irrigation canal. What we do know for sure is that they cannot do anything that would impede the flow of water or any neighbors irrigation rights. I understand that correctly. Yes.

Legal. This site development plan is binding correct.

Yes because right now it shows a six foot chain link fence and I do not see anything about a rock wall on it.

Is that part of the site development plan.

The chain link fence.

No to add a rock wall.

It could be I don't think it's binding to its past.

What I'm saying is is this rock wall even an issue if it's not on the site development plan. The detailed site development plan does not show a rock wall on the back of the property where the canal is. If the canal is where I think it is. There's an existing chain link fence there, yes? Okay, and you are on the Emory side of this property? Yes, so right there it shows a existing six inch or six foot chain link fence and I don't see a rock wall there.

Now it sounds like that there's a fence there right now again if there's anything there typically like an irrigation easement that cannot be impeded. So whether it's a rock wall a structure or anything that would not be allowed just because that irrigation would still have to be that flow itself to be retained.

But aside from that. If we're worried that.

rock wall a retaining wall is going to disturb the water in any way that point is moot because there is no rock wall on this plan and this is binding yeah that is correct as well as if there's an easement back there that would also be another prohibition against building anything back there because that would impede the flow

So I have a question to legal, I guess. So Mr. Mancetta mentioned that this files within what we need to approve by law. Is that correct?

No, no. When the site plan goes to city council, they have limited discretion in approving that. But the special permit, you all have discretion on that.

I don't think I'm allowed to make a motion, but I will make a motion, or I will vote when it's ready.

I just want to comment that looking at the site plan, these are four car garages, so you're adding 12 additional cars of traffic. I just want to be clear that you are adding a lot of traffic to a corner.

If I could just remind the commission that at the end of the day, this is not a rezoning. Every property within this area has the same zoning. They're allowed to go up to 35 feet in height. They're allowed to build as many cars. There's nothing that prohibits it. What is before the commission is a request to reduce the lot size from, I believe, 70 feet down to the 67 and change. So that per lot. So that is the request before you. A duplex is not allowed. An apartment complex is not allowed at these locations. So again, it's only a single family dwelling at each site. And what is before you is the reduction request for the lot width.

But I want to clarify. We're supposed to decide if that reduction is in character with the neighborhood. That is what we base our decision on, correct?

That was one of the factors. Okay.

Yes, and I'm looking at this elevation and saying I disagree with that And and that's that's again per the Commission's as they will say that is up to your discretion Any other comments discussion on that? Motion to approve Do I have a second for that motion dies I Do I have a different motion.

I have a question I guess for staff. I'm not proposing this but I'm just trying to understand what we have the option to do here. Would we be able to recommend a new condition related to the height of the building the height of the future buildings or is that outside of our scope of what we're allowed to do as a commission.

I think that is outside. Again, every other property has the same requirements. That is not under discussion at this time. It is simply the lot width.

Okay, understood. Thank you.

So in my opinion, there's two houses here that are not very, very nice houses. So I don't think, I mean, what is it better, two old houses or three new houses? That's the way I see it. So that's why I don't think it's such a bad thing to replace those lapidated homes with new homes. So that's my opinion.

These homes are not in character at all with the neighborhood.

But that's not what we're discussing today, right?

That is what we're discussing.

The architecture of the homes?

Within El Paso code, our job as city plan commission under a special permit and a detailed site development plan is to determine whether or not what they're asking for is within neighborhood character. So altogether, while the height is not what we're considering, the architecture of the elevations, the side setbacks being exact, the, not the minimum square footage, but I think this is too, altogether, those are all too far from what is already in this neighborhood.

Can I ask a question on the houses the one that we saw it looked like the ones next to it were just in the range of the

width that they had to be, or are they a lot bigger lots?

Can we pull up the aerial again?

I'll tell you if you can bring up the presentation.

Because those look like they're just within the range of what they have to be. Is that correct?

So the proposed lots are very similar to the ones existing on the block face of Bellevue. In this case, I guess the existing lots do meet the minimum requirements.

So it's not like we have a half acre lot in the rest of the neighborhood and then these three little lots. It looks like they're all small lots.

Minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet, and these proposed lots will range from, if you look at the table, from 9,022 to 9,237. So we are above the minimum lot size.

So these lots are actually bigger than the surrounding lots?

They're at least bigger than the minimum.

So if I might clarify, what is currently shown on the screen is under required. That is the minimum code requirements under the R2A zoning district. What is being proposed is shown there on the right. And the only request, as is noted previously, is allot with. Everything else either meets or exceeds the minimum zoning requirements that we have in the code.

Again, I don't think that any one of the issues on its own is the problem. It's that it's a giant mass. It's so tall, every other house around it is probably flat 12 feet to the top of the roof. I just don't think it matches with the character of anything near it. I'll entertain another motion.

I entertain to approve on the conditions.

What is the condition.

The conditions of staff.

So the staff recommendation.

Yes staff recommendation.

Any discussion. All in favor.

Aye.

All opposed. Nay.

Also, can we do a roll call please?

Okay, okay this will be Vote on item number five the second motion Coming sure idea Commissioner Hansen. No. Commissioner Cavazos-Cavacier.

Nay.

Commissioner Arriba.

Aye.

Commissioner Regan. Aye. And Commissioner Dabrowski.

Aye.

So you have three ayes and three nays. All right, we move back to deliberation.

discussion another motion I would just say that I largely agree with Commissioner Uribe I don't love the proposed houses I don't love the architecture but that's just not that's outside the scope of what we are deciding right now and ultimately I think that three new houses are better than two dilated old houses um broadly i'm in favor of housing you know increased housing supply in general so it's it's a tough call for me but i'm i'm ready to approve that is actually what we are approving is a detailed site plan i understand that we're approving new housing but the detailed site plan is what we are approving that they're short two inches

We are approving the entirety of the detailed site development plan.

So if they change their plan by two inches, they can be approved, correct? They don't even need to come here.

It's 22 inches, and sure, if they do, they can, but if they find five feet, yeah.

Are you all, the folks who are against this, sort of implying that if they were to come back voluntarily with a different detailed site plan, in that case you'd feel more comfortable approving the exception that they're asking for?

Yes.

Okay.

Yep.

And again.

So can we hear from The developer? It's the representative, I guess. The representative to see if that's something they will consider? It's the height that...

Again, Russell Ablin, assistant city attorney. Both of these, you know, the special permit and the detailed site plan, it's a recommendation at this level. And your recommendation will go to city council and they'll make the final decision. So, you know, if you believe you can make a, get to a majority decision with one more vote, then i recommend you do that if not there's the option that we let city council know that the vote was split thank you

I think we're probably not gonna move. I think that's reasonable.

If I may address, the question has been asked by the developer. So there's, I need to understand, I sat there for nine years, five as a chair, just to make sure on the question before you all, One is approval of a special permit to waive the setback. The other request to the Planning Commission is for approval of a detailed site plan. Is that correct?

Yes, that is what is under consideration. Thank you.

I'd like to ask that on the question of the waiver of the the setback to 22 inches. That's a question that I think it sounds like, but I'm picking up that at least the majority are in favor. It's very similar, 99% of what everybody else in that street has. So we'd like to be just like them with exception of 22 inches. On the question of these detailed site plans, the first time I hear of a detailed site plan on a request such as this, but there's a rhyme and reason why planning, and I respect that. I'd like to ask that, I did ask the owner if they would be willing to reduce the height on the detailed site plan, and the answer was yes.

what would be the height that the chair is concerned with the myth of maximum of the minimum I think they should be one-story houses like the rest of the houses around if they're going to be so hides into the density they should be one-story houses It doesn't seem like these are three story houses. It seems like they're two story. So if the owner is willing to decrease the height, that would be my ask.

I wouldn't recommend negotiating deals for the board. Just look at the application before you. Okay, understood.

If I may, then to answer the question is that I would ask that approval of the request for the special permit be approved. I understand that you want to keep talking.

But because legal has just asked that I stop negotiating. That's right.

Negotiating the details. I'm just suggesting.

I am represented by this legal department and I.

Excuse me?

Yeah. Yeah. So thank you very much. We are going to deliberate. Does anybody think they're going to move on their vote? No. All right. We'd like to make a.

Somebody make a motion to.

A split recommendation.

I guess that the city planning commission did not arrive at a decision so it'll be a neutral recommendation to city council.

Can we say split instead of neutral.

Or split.

Motion for city staff to relay to city council that the city planning commission was split on the decision.

Can I have a motion for that. I can't make it.

Motion to submit a split decision to the city council I suppose.

Second. Any discussion. All in favor. Aye. All opposed. Motion carries. This will be going to city city council for a final decision on this matter if y'all would also like to go speak there. I know that is very inconvenient but. We are not the final decision makers on this matter.

Thank you very much.

Okay, we have one final item on this agenda, which is number six, presentation on extraterritorial jurisdiction release.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission. Alonso Hernandez with Planning and Inspections. Item number six on the agenda is a presentation on the process for the release of land in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. And let's start with the definition of ETJ. Sorry about that. As we all may know, the ETJ stands for extraterritorial jurisdiction. And according to the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 42, the ETJ is the unincorporated area contiguous to the city limits. Also, Chapter 42 establishes the size for the city's ETJ, and this is based on the municipality's population. For municipalities like El Paso with more than one thousand one one more than 100,000 of residents the ETJ is set at a five miles from the city limits and Here we have the map of the the El Paso's ETJ highlighted in gray We have the city of El Paso limits and highlighted in pink. We have the the El Paso CTJ and This next slide is just for reference and general knowledge. El Paso County has more than one ETJ. It has more than one ETJ. In the Upper Valley area, we have the El Paso CTJ, Anthony CTJ, Vinton CTJ, and more in the southeast area, we have El Paso Socorro, Clint, and Horizon CTJ. And what is the purpose of an ETJ? According to Section 42 of the Texas Local Government Code, the ETJ is used to promote and protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the persons residing in and adjacent to the municipalities. And this is mainly done through coordination between cities and counties and municipalities. And let's see some examples of that. Depending on the applicable codes and regulations, cities may implement subdivisions regulations to include street designs, stormwater, parks, and a clear example of these applicable codes is the Title 19 of El Paso City Code and El Paso County subdivisions regulations. These two ordinances establish that all subdivisions within the El Paso's ETJ must comply with both, with city and with county regulations. Okay, now what's the ETJ release? Back in September 1st, 2023, the Senate Bill 2038 established, it was presented and approved, and it established a process by which the property owners could request to be released from the ETJ. The Senate Bill was approved, is now a state law, and it falls under the Subchapter D of the Chapter 42 of the Texas Local Government Code. And this subchapter establishes that for property owners in order to seek the release for their properties from the ATJ, they must submit a petition letter request with the following requirements. The petition letter request must include the signature of the property owner or the signatures of more than the 50% of the property owners if the property belongs to more than one property owner. These signatures shall not be more than 180 days old, which is around six months. And along with the petition letter request, the property owner shall submit a map or a survey of the property and the meets and bounds document. Once the city staff receives the petition letter request and after the review, the municipality shall notify to the property owner of the result of the petition, whether if it was approved or denied. And after the review, if the petition letter request comply with chapter 42 of the Texas Local Government Code, this chapter states that the municipalities shall immediately release the area from the municipality's ETJ. If the municipality fails to take action, but if by the 45th day after the petition is received these releases the area is released automatically and finally of the after the the the land has been released and It may not be included back into the ETJ unless the property owner requests that this area be included back into the ETJ. So after the release, they have the option to be included or re-included into the ETJ. As of September 9th, 2026, the city of El Paso has received five formal ETJ release requests, and all of them have been approved because they complied with Chapter 42 of the Texas Local Government Code. And the first release was done on November 25th of 2025. Here we have all the references for all the items listed in this presentation. And this concludes the presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Was this the Horizon thing that came in front of us?

Not really. That was something different where it was within our ETJ and it was Horizon more willing to or desiring to have that start the annexation process with them.

They wanted to annex.

Horizon, that came from Horizon specifically. This here is specifically from a property owner standpoint is if Kevin owns a property out in the ETJ and I don't want to be subject to municipalities requirements I can petition that municipality to be released from the ETJ it's still county land so in this case say a property as Alonzo mentioned that there are five properties that did go through this process already is they would not have to follow any city requirements for subdivision but they still have to go through the county and go through that process So it's still within the county land. It's just the city has no authority. And that's based on the Senate bill that was approved a couple years ago.

So was the Horizon thing that El Paso's ETJ and Horizon's ETJ overlapped and Horizon was like, can we have that instead?

No, it's more of the city's ETJ. So typically the larger municipality would supersede the smaller. But I think in that case is that was so far out there and it's abutting the Horizon city limits and the way Horizon was growing. Horizon is was requesting that that be released from our ETJ and be incorporated technically into their ETJ and then Commence the annexation proceedings.

Okay, that was my next question. What's the difference between disannexation and ETJ release? I

So this annexation would be the process of being excluded from within a city limits. ETJ release is simply being removed from a city's jurisdiction for the ETJ, which is typically only subdivision control. As you're aware, within city limits is there a whole bunch of other provisions that apply. Obviously, there are all the development requirements, but also the public safety would have to be addressed. How is the public safety aspect, police, fire services, being addressed. If it's in the county, that's being addressed by the emergency services division or department out there in the county. So that is not serviced by the city. Traffic pickup is another example of one that is typically within the city limits as well.

So ETJ is a boundary that surrounds the city of area that land that could be annexed. So if land's gonna be annexed in the city, it has to be into the ETJ first. So it has to be in that area around the city that's identified as the ETJ that's contiguous to the city limits. Has to be.

Okay, what if, this is an edge case, but if a parcel was like partially in the ETJ and partially out, is that? I know it's an edge case, but.

Yeah, I think it'd have to be, they'd have to move it all into the ETJ to be annexed probably.

Okay, so if you have to be in the ETJ to get into the city, Is it opposite, like you have to first leave the city and then you can leave the ETJ? Like they're two separate processes?

If you're asking in relation to the bill that he presented so that's just for etj release it's not for annexation release so that property Somebody who's in the etj could request to be removed from the etj And so yeah if they wanted to be annexed in the future they'd have to move back into the request the property owner to move back into the etj and then they'd have to request to be annexed there's not cities don't have the right to annex without owner consent anymore and so the only way to annex into the city is if the owner wants to the property owner and the only benefit of being released from the ETJ is not having to be in under any sort of subdivision regulation

Yeah, typically, and that's been, honestly, I think one of the frustrations sometimes with some of the developments that have gone on is there's different standards that the city requires and different from the county, and that's been sometimes a trouble point, too, is if you look at the state law as well over the past 10 years, five, 10 years, is they've been really trying to water down the city's ability to regulate in the ETJ, or even annexation laws have really changed where it, like as Russell mentioned, that It has to be owner consent to even be annexed within the city. That has really changed. And with each legislative session, it seems to be a little tighter and tighter, more difficult for cities to regulate outside of the city limits. I mean, even sometimes within the city limits as well.

Kevin can you explain me what as a property owner? How is the ETJ affects my property?

Is it only of the subdivisions or yeah, so that is the only purview the city has All other and it's only title 19. So the zoning code does not apply. There's no zoning in the county We can't enforce that we have no police purview over there so all the city services stop at the city limits and So Title 19, the only thing that we really do, and if it's within the path of annexation, is that's where parkland requirements kick in. So that's where we may require park in that aspect. But most of the other city services obviously do not apply. The only thing is the subdivision control, which comes before the CPC only.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but to annex a property has to be abutting a property of the city. Correct. Correct.

So we can't go out. So picking on that piece by horizon is we're not contiguous with the El Paso city limits. So all the land between the eastern edge of El Paso and to that portion would have to be annexed before we could even consider that. And with the way state law is, I don't really envision the state of El Paso annexing that land, probably ever.

Any other questions from staff?

So what is interesting on this bill is it is by right and so it is literally you ask if you meet the minimum if you meet the requirements it has to be approved so that's one of the interesting things about this this bill too and it's very simple it's just that petition and meet the minimum requirements that Alonzo went over and you're automatically released it there's no other review or approvals that the state allows.

What did it used to be?

It used to be, you're just required to be an ETJ. So there's no, as far as I know, there's no opportunity to be released.

So Kevin, in theory, if my application is not approved by the city, I can request to this, to be removed from the ETJ and then do it?

That is a possibility. But again, they have to meet the county standards. Again, if you follow the last few legislative sessions, there have been some bills that even reduce. Our ETJ right now is five miles, based on our population. I've heard of rumors or rumblings that it could be reduced to a mile, to half a mile, or to eliminate it altogether, so the city may not even have any purview in the county anymore.

so what we'll see what the next legislative session has but that's starting up early next year so we'll see how it plays out that question kevin uh water and sewer lines so if someone gets off city grid how do you correct those lines i'm sorry if so someone does the etj and goes into the county sewer and water lines how are those accounted for

Those are often coordinated elsewhere. So that is technically not a city service. It goes beyond the city limits. They also may create municipal utility districts for the water and wastewater. But that is one service that technically is not a city service. It's more for the region.

Any other questions? All right, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, anything else? One more motion? No one?

Motion to adjourn.

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you so much, everyone. Have a great day.