Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the July 30th meeting of the City Plan Commission. My name is Lauren Hanson, chair of the commission, and I call this meeting to order at 1.34 p.m. Statement to the public, please.

The City Plan 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 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 do have a couple of changes. We're asking that item four, SUSU 26-00005 for Sierra Crest Replat I be moved after item eight. Again, this is item four for Sierra Crest Replat I to move this item after item eight. Additionally, item 5, SUSU 26-00031 for Upper Valley Ranch Unit 2. This is for a postponement of two weeks to the next city plan commission. Again, this is item 5 for Upper Valley Ranch Unit 2. Item 7. SUSU 26-00044 for Mejiares subdivision. Request is to postpone this item for four weeks. Again, this is item seven for Mejiares subdivision. Other than that, just as a note that we have a couple multiple revised staff reports and we have currently two items on consent.

Do I have a motion for those changes?

So moved.

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye. All opposed? Aye.

Motion carries. Thank you. Now we will open it up to a, did we have any more changes to discuss? No. We'll open up to a call to the public. Is there anybody here that would like to speak on something that is not on the agenda today, that does not include anybody who has signed up? And if you're on the phone, that's star six to unmute. Again, opened up to public comment for anybody who would like to speak on something not on the agenda today. Okay, public comment is closed. Thank you. We move on to the consent agenda. Do I have a motion for the consent agenda?

Madam Chair, got something to say about the consent agenda? For item two?

Wait, actually, we need a motion and a second before we can discuss. So moved.

Second.

Discussion.

All right, so I wanna point out for item number two, before we cast votes for the consent, a piece of historical continuity. We're reviewing this modern commercial site layout for America's Avenue today because 47 years ago, the city of El Paso enacted ordinance number 6567 over this dirt. Lock in a special contract condition that requires this commission site plan approval before a single building permit can be issued. It just shows a reminder that our zoning oversights create long term structure in order for commercial corridors. So just the members of 47 years ago they did the right thing.

Thank you. Any other discussion. All in favor.

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries, thank you. We move on to the regular agenda, which is number three, resubdivision combination.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the commission. Mirna Aguilar with Planning and Inspections. Item number three on the agenda is Cantera Commercial Center One involving a resubdivision combination. This development is within the city of El Paso limits and it's located south of Pebble Hills Boulevard and west of Joe Battle Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to re-subdivide 63.38 acres of vacant land to create four commercial lots. Stored water drainage will be managed by on-site ponding. And the development will have access through Pebble Hills and through Joe Battle Boulevard. And this development is being reviewed under the current subdivision code. Here we have the preliminary plot. Here we have the final plot. And with that, staff recommends approval with condition of Cantera Commercial Center 1 on a resubdivision combination basis, condition being as follows. That a traffic impact analysis be approved by streets and maintenance prior to recordation of the final plan. Thank you. And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

I do. Ms. Aguilera, you said that stormwater would be On it?

On-site ponding.

On-site, not at the little place that's outside the orange boundaries?

Correct, they have removed that. If we can see it, it no longer shows on the plot. And they moved it inside as it shows on the preliminary. It's right inside that dark square.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

That's pond number three, correct? It's moved inside? Yes.

Okay. I also have another question.

The stormwater from lot three shows to be discharging into a adjacent private property. Is that still correct? Or is that corrected?

So this plot, no, but I can refer that to the applicant.

And then is staff still requesting Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to do an inspection?

I can defer that to the applicant as well.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant, please?

good afternoon members of the commission madam chair my name is marvin gomez with grb integrated engineering solutions and we agree with the staff only on the comment on the on the tia we actually submitted already a tia but there was a comment that street menu wanted us to address so we'll just wrap up that on the on the traffic impact study okay i think there was a question about drainage

All right, so is stormwater from lot three being discharged to a adjacent private property?

No, although the entire subdivision, it's within the interior of the subdivision is being maintained with ponding areas. So we have three ponding areas. And actually, we're actually collecting a very large ponding area, a large watershed area on the other side of Route 375 that comes into the property. And we're also taking care of that pretty large watershed area as part of the development. Okay. Thank you.

I did actually I usually don't look at those tables but I did look at the table. There's a really high coefficient for I guess the streets the highway and you guys are using a really high water event. What do you use to get that number.

The ceiling has the drainage design manual, and there's some tables. The high coefficient is because commercial. So even though, I mean, it's going to have landscaping, but because of the code, how the drainage design manual is set up, that's why it has the high value, and it's all based on the Cedarville-Passo drainage design manual.

Okay. All right. Any other questions? Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll entertain a motion.

Move to approve item number three. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries, thank you. We have moved number four to after number eight, so we are on number six, Mulberry Estates.

Good afternoon chair and members of the commission. This is Blanca Perez with planning and inspections. Item number six on the agenda is a resubdivision combination for Mulberry States. Here is the aerial map. This development is located west of Donovan Drive and south of Red Road. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 1.99 acres in order to create six single family residential lots. The lots range from 0.25 acres to 0.43 acres. Access to the subdivision will be from Mulberry Avenue. Stormwater drainage will be managed by on-site ponding and this development is being reviewed under the current subdivision code. Here is a preliminary plat. Here's a final plat. Notice of public hearing was published in the El Paso Times on July 13th, 2026, and notices were also mailed to property owners within 200 feet on July 9th, 2026. And as of now, the planning division has received one letter in opposition of the request, that including 30 signatures in opposition. With that staff recommends approval of Mulberry states on every subdivision combination basis as it complies with the title 19 requirements. And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you. Quick questions. So it complies with all subdivision requirements. Yes. And they're not asking for any variances. No. Thank you. Any other questions.

I got a question. Can staff confirm that residential finished floor elevations will be at least one foot above these flood elevations?

I think that this is Ms. Moscovia, chief planner for subdivisions. When it comes to that, that will be at the building permit stage at the subdivision. We don't take a look at that other than land development.

Is that online?

I don't know.

OK. I think it was an accident.

The only reason I ask is, is it in a FEMA flood hazard zone?

Right. And that'll be handled at the building permit stage.

OK. And the second question is, is a developer contractually required to relocate and restrike the traffic calming humps at their own expense?

Again, at the platting stage, yeah, that's more at the building and dealing with the streets department.

OK. Any other questions? Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant, please?

Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jorge Garcia with Site Work Engineering. And we're in agreement with staff comments. And if I have some time to address the letter of opposition, I would like to do so. And if you have questions, I'll be happy to answer.

Did anybody, before you walk away, did anybody have any questions for the applicant?

Thank you.

So this is a public comment item. We have two, three, four, five, six people signed up to speak on this. The first person is Cesar Chaparro. And just to let you know, you have three minutes to speak. If you could please state your name.

Yeah. Well, I'm Carlos Robles. I'm not Cesar Chaparro. I'm in the next. Cesar is not here. I'm in the next. OK. So I'm part of the Developers and we're not asking to We're asking the council to ignore the neighbors concerns. You're asking to review the The land is gonna be right now. It's residential land and we just gonna be like Five more families.

We're gonna convert for one family to six families Okay, thank you and Did you want to speak on your own behalf? Were you better? Were you Pedro?

I'm Carlos. Carlos, okay. Carlos Robles.

Perfect. Now we have Pedro Urias.

Urias.

Are they here, are they online? And that's Pedro Urias for number six. Carlos, could you come back up? You're the next one.

You're the next one.

Oh, you had the same thing to say? Okay, thank you.

We have, is it Sandra Guerrero?

Thank you. You have three minutes, if you could please say your name.

Hi, nice to meet you. My name is Sandra Guerrero. I live in 1157 New Drive, zip code 79932, right next, behind the two lots they want to change. So good afternoon, Chairman and members of the City Planning Commission. My name, I already said, and I'm here today to speak about critical safety and infrastructure issue that cannot be ignored. stormwater runoff and flooding. For years, we have watched the city make major improvements to surrounding streets, including Mulberry, but our streets were completely left behind. To this day, Serrania Drive and Charlotte Streets had absolutely no municipal stormwater infrastructure. Charlotte Street in particular is an apathetic neglected state We have no stone grains no underground pipes in no city system to carry heavy raining water away We are completely forgotten when it comes to infrastructure And we rely entirely on the natural open soil of the remaining back and lands to absorb rainwater. I When you propose to pay over this land, you are taking away our neighborhood defense against flooding, one of them, very important. Those of us who have lived here for decades still carry memory of the devastating storms in 2006. During those historic rains, our neighborhood was completely overwhelmed. because we have no drain systems. The water has nowhere to go. Our homes literally look like an island. isolated islands, surrounded by deep water, standing water. We were trapped. We couldn't get out of our cars, out. Emergency vehicles could not get in. And we watched helpless the water rose around our properties. It took weeks for the neighborhood to dry out. That was a traumatic event for our community and proved that our street level of geographic cannot handle heavy volume. To this day, every time dark clouds gathered in the sky, the neighbors in there fear of being turned into Iceland once again. This is not a hypothetical concern. We don't have to wait for another historic storm to like 2006 to see the immediate danger. Right now, directly behind Serrania Street, those two vacant slots in question, those are for construction of single homes and are able to have animals in their homes.

Ma'am, you have your three minutes.

Let me finish. Do you have, like, a couple more sentences left? I have more. I'm sorry. Thank you very much. It's only three minutes per person. They didn't tell me that.

I need to finish at least one minute. One minute.

That's a reminder, yeah. It's a reminder CPC may allow for extension.

Do I have a motion among the Commission to allow one more minute? I need to finish.

Motion to approve for one more minute. Second.

All in favor? All opposed? Okay. If the developer allowed to pave all this land to will six or 12 homes, do you think the water will, where the water will go? Water doesn't disappear. It cannot sink into the ground. Those lots will sink to where the means that is instead, the houses that are behind and certainly in Charlottesville homes. The thing that I want to tell you is that if you decide to do this plan, we need a comprehensive independent engineering hydrological study to prove exactly how this development will impact Ranaf and Serrania and Charlotte street homes. And the requirement that the developer will have full funded on-site funding area capable of retaining 100% of the stormwater runoff, ensuring that a single drop of water is put to our homes, our patios. Please protect our homes, our streets, and our safety. I don't know. It's much that I have to say, but we pay every month to El Paso Water for stormwater, and we don't have it.

Thank you. Okay. I have Todd Roberts. You have three minutes to speak. If you could please state your name. Yes.

Thank you. My name is Todd Roberts. I'm one of the neighbors. You know, it's funny that they have 200 feet to send letters out. The piece of property you're talking about is basically farmland. So I live five houses away and probably 1,500 feet away. You know Mulberry is a very crowded street right now. There's a pre K through. 8 is Don Haskins. So I think when you're looking at adding six more houses in a place that should be one house. You're adding more to the traffic. We do have a problem with drainage, so that's obviously the second part of that is what she was saying. I think when you do look at the traffic, it's toward the railroad track, which is maybe even a little bit worse when you start talking about the buildup of cars, especially during school hours or especially when school's letting out or school's going in. And there's not really too many outlets. You can go all the way down to Montoya, which is, like from that area almost a mile, or you can go down Equestria, which gets you to Red Road, which then also gets you to another railroad crossing. So it's problematic, I'd say, traffic-wise for that. Um also to I know it's um the zoning is probably 3040 years old. I think you should really adhere to what it was when it was first implemented, which was single family special case, I'm sure was more toward Farming and that sort of thing it did have water rights. I don't know if he sold the water rights yet or not But it's you know, we're losing more and more of our land that way There are plenty of apartments. There's plenty of multifamily around there I do think that limiting it to a single family. It would help the community more And also maybe conserve some of our property values as well I don't know. This is my wife. I don't know if you want to comment.

Hi, I'm Jocelyn. I just was going to say pretty much what he said and what Sandra said. But I don't know if you are familiar with Mulberry Avenue. Have you been to Mulberry and where it is at Donovan? And they put a stop sign there where the railroad track is. And from seven to 830 in the morning and from about 230 to 430, it's it's crazy. And there's so there's hardly enough room for two cars to cross that Mulberry. They come in front of our house. We can't get out of our driveway since they consolidated three schools. They closed Roberts, they closed bond and they put it all at Lincoln. And that really caused a terrible problem with traffic and adding six or what was 12 to begin with. How do we know they're not going to change how many houses they want? I was watching the clock.

I added another I restarted hers when she started.

Thank you. I appreciate that. So the traffic and then the street there that had been redone a few years ago the street literally is like a roller coaster right in front of that property because it's sinking down. It is in a flood zone. We all have to pay FEMA. We're forced to pay flood insurance. There's a problem. We do have irrigation rights, and that property did. We're not sure if it still does. But there's nowhere for the water to go if you drive down that street. And so I really think that traffic is a problem. When school buses get on there, there's those traffic things that stick out into the street and a school bus can't fit through with another car. And if we have cars from those houses parking on Mulberry, it's gonna cause even more of a problem. So I think mostly just with traffic is the biggest problem and the fact that we love how Mulberry and Lindbergh and a couple streets there still have the valley feel, the upper valley feel. it's farmland all the way up through probably the 70s 80s we have so many horses not us personally but people on the street we love the rural aspect of our neighborhood and we just we don't want multi-family homes we don't want more property they're squeezed into a little property our our property is about an acre and a half and we just have our house on it and that's how it is going almost all the way down mulberry until you even pass Serenia. Actually, all the houses there are like that. So we would really like to ask that you keep our street from being overdeveloped, especially when we don't have the room for more houses there. There might be actually room there in the two acres there, but that doesn't mean that we should do it. I think we should keep it the way it is, and it's going to cause a lot of problems for us that live down Mulberry to even get to our houses in and out of that neighborhood. So thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Thank you. Alea? Is it Alea? Clea? Aguirre?

I'm Aguirre, but I'm here on the first.

Oh, apologies. Ronald Powell. Are you both wanting to speak?

I'm going to speak briefly because we live our property but right up.

One moment. Did you both want to speak separately.

OK.

Perfect. If you do just let us know so we can separate your three minutes. You have three minutes please state your name.

OK. I'm Ronald Powell. We live on Charlie and the property is right at our property and on Charlie and there is that stop sign but It is so dangerous. Turning off of Charlene onto Mulberry and you add more people, that's gonna make it even crazier because people will run that thing trying to make the light getting onto Donovan. The other concern is Is there ponding? Is there something that's going to address the fact that that water is going to run onto our property? And that will just flood us. And we've been flooded. So those are my concerns. So it's going to be six units, because when I originally heard, it was going to be 12. So we wanted to make sure that they weren't going to be blocking our view with these big, huge buildings and what have you. We want to be able to say that the land that we've had for over 20 years is not going to be impeded by massive structures.

Yes, if you'd like to. Please state your name.

Yes, my name is Sylvia Powell, and yes, our property is on trial land, but it connects to, we are connected to that property. Biggest thing is traffic. Traffic is absolutely horrible. Nobody stops at the stop sign on Mulberry. Even though they have a sign, stop sign, with reflective lights all around it and they also have an extra little sign that says the incoming traffic that comes from donathan does not stop because we have to turn on charlotte before the train gets us or the other cars that come right behind us very very dangerous situation we live in every day every day that we have to leave to drop off kids or go to the store or go anywhere to work. We have that situation. So 12 more cars, if there's going to be six units, most units are going to be occupied by two people, two more cars each. So that's 12 more cars, more deliveries. And the flooding, I mean, we're already paying extraordinarily amounts of insurance because we're in the flooding area and our property is gonna be most affected. So please think of us, think of all the people that have been there for decades and that should be at least at most three units, not six. Thank you.

I believe that I got everybody that signed up. Is there anybody else here? Of course. Come on. Please say your name and you have three minutes.

Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Hector Gonzalez. I live at 200 Mulberry, just two lots over from the proposed development and also here to speak against it. I've lived at my property. I've got two and a half acres. I've got horses. I've lived at my property for close to over 30 years. My grandmother lived in the adjacent home for well over 20 years before me and Traffic just continues. This has been mentioned to increase on an ongoing basis. I have difficulty getting in and out of my Property in mornings and afternoons because of the amount of traffic there is no no one obeys the speed limits even though it's I believe 30 miles an hour everyone flies by at 50 miles an hour at all times of the day and night and And I'm also very concerned about what effect this would have on property values by having additional homes. I've spoken to a number of realtors over the years and the one thing that my property has that some of the others do not is I've got a multi-family development already in front of my home and every realtor I've talked to in the past tells me that that doesn't help me being able to obtain a fair price on my home because of the multi-development that's there. So I think by adding to that, it's only going to continue to depreciate values in surrounding properties. If there's any opportunity at all for voting against this, I might add for those that are not familiar, I think this request or similar request has come to the commission in years past, and it's never been approved in the past with previous owners that have attempted to subdivide it because of the similar concerns. except now the traffic again has gotten considerably worse than what it was or has been over the years so i appreciate any consideration you can give as mentioned to the to the neighbors neighbors and the surrounding property owners thank you thank you anybody else here that would like to speak anybody on the phone anybody online thank you staff i have some questions could we pull up the preliminary plot

I believe that'll show some drainage information. Is it on-site ponding? It's on-site ponding. OK. And that's for the full amount of required, do you know how many years? Is it 100-year rain flow?

I'm not sure about that information chair.

This is also go again chief for subdivisions according to the comments that we received from the stormwater division looks like it's for a 100 100 year flood that they'll need to meet and they're on site on site ponding the wall stormwater runoff discharge volume is required to be kept within each of the subdivision units.

And is it doing that. They haven't done it yet, but they're okay, but that's that's gonna be that's the requirement by stormwater in regards to their review Okay, and if my understanding is correct storm 2006 was a 200 to 500 year storm event I don't know if anybody here is we've got Oscar from land development I'm sure and Commissioners, excuse me. Thank you

Oscar Villalobos, I'm floodplain administrator for the state of El Paso and also oversee the land development department. As you stated, these developments and on-site funding development, they will be subject to all the requirements that entitles until 100-year storm event criteria that we use. And like you said, in 2006, it was actually more than a 100-year event that we got in that area. So that's why it got flooded. There's two things that we need to consider on this. One is that it's an on-site funding area. Therefore, there's no drainage infrastructure in the area. And it's very typical for this area on the upper valley, just because of the high water table. When you have a large pond, a deeper pond, you know, water will just be ponding there. It will not percolate. That's why on this area we have on-site ponding lots for the area. And then we have to consider the flood zone or the floodplain, which we're also looking at the requirements. As the Commissioner has mentioned, one of the comments that we made was that Every building needs to comply where they need to build the house one foot above the BFE. That's a requirement that we have on the floodplain. So they also be subject to this. I don't know if you have any more questions regarding drainage or the floodplain.

Okay. So most of the lots in the area have the same sort of flooding or same sort of on-site ponding. Do you know off the top of your head when we had our last 100-year storm event?

I think the last one that we got, I was on, I believe it starts in 21.

21?

Yes, I think the Northeast got heavily hit by a couple of rain events. Some of them were more than 100-year events, so that was the last time that we got one that I can recall. And as you said, these lots, on-site funding lots, they need to meet certain requirements. Unfortunately, some of the property owners, they're not aware that their lots are subject to on-site funding. For example, I can give you that on-site funding lots, any development or any construction that they do, cannot exceed the 50% of the lot, just because you need to remain 50% of the area needs to be pervious, so it allows the stormwater to go to the property and be able to pump on the property. Like I said, some property owners, they don't know this requirement, and they start developing, they do improvements without getting permits, and then that impervious area get re-losed, and that, of course, affects the drainage and properties get flooded just because of that.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff?

Through the chair. Right now on that empty lot farmland, when it rains, where does that water go to?

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. This is just for staff. Thank you.

We don't know. Of course, you know, like I say, there's some properties that are not compliant with the on-site funding requirements that will prevent water from the street going into the property. Each lot needs to retain their developed runoff and also their proportion of share from the street. So whatever, you know, falls in the street, it also goes to the property and ponds there. If there's some, you know, like I said, I don't know what it's been there, but that property, though the new development, they're entitled to capture just their developed runoff and their proportional share of all the other properties must be following that criteria.

Okay, my question is, right now, when it rains a lot, That waters conveyed as I heard to the other properties to the street which adds to it but but If it's developed a hundred percent of that water captured there will go to on-site ponding It will not be allowed to go to the neighbors, correct? Correct. It will not be allowed to go into the street That's correct.

Thank you

who's speaking no ma'am no ma'am respectfully no thank you okay I have a couple more questions but is there anybody else who would like to ask first okay if I was somebody who lived near that lot and I felt like my neighbor was not complying with drainage requirements who would I contact code enforcement code enforcement okay and that is online where do I find that number Can somebody please read it out loud into the record right now?

The number for code enforcement, ma'am, would be 311.

311. Yes, ma'am. All right. 311 is who I would call if I felt like my neighbors were not draining adequately and it was coming into my lot. Thank you. Traffic. Has there been a traffic impact analysis? Is it too small to require one?

For that, I think, I don't know if Steph has that information.

So the streets and maintenance department, they didn't require a TIA. They didn't have any objections over the development.

And that's usually a result of the percentage of traffic it would add based in relation to what's already on that street?

Correct. Correct.

Correct. Okay. Our responsibility for resubdivision combinations like this is to check if it complies with everything and if there are no variances or other sort of special requests, what do we do?

With subdivisions in the state of Texas, your authority comes from 212 of the Texas Local Government Code. And your approval is limited to a ministerial approval. And what ministerial means is that you're required to approve the application if it meets all the minimum requirements. So the only way you can deny a subdivision item is if it specifically does not meet a criteria of state code or of our local code. So if it meets all the requirements you are required by law to approve the subdivision. In order to deny it you would need a specific code section that it did not meet and you would need to provide that in writing.

And this meets all code provisions.

That is my understanding, yes.

Can we require a traffic count? Can we require a TIA?

No, it's not one of the requirements. There's not authority to add additional requirements beyond what the city code or state code requires.

Any other questions? I have a question.

Did the developer confirm that it was going to be six units that were going to be on the property or 12? There's six on the application, I think.

Right now, the zoning doesn't allow more than what it's being proposed. Right now, the zoning, it's R2. It only allows single-family dwellings, so it's only six lots for six single-family dwellings. Yes, so the zoning, it's R2 residential? It's not R2. It is R2.

I'm I'm well I'm sure at least somewhat our planning inspections zoning district is R2 which is a residential zoning district and allows only technically single-family homes single-family yeah minimum lot size will be 10,000 square feet which is the minimum lot size for on-site ponding as well I believe so no ma'am thank you okay

I understand that there are people here. Any more questions staff or applicant. There are some people that would still like to speak.

The portion of public comment is closed. The board could reopen it. It's it's up to the board if they would like to reopen public comment or not. I don't know if there would be additional information that has not been shared or additional comments. It's up to the board.

All right, if there are no further questions, do I have a motion?

Move to approve item number six. I'm going to second that motion.

As far as discussion, I appreciate that This property has sentimental value both because it has been there developed that specific way for a long time. There are very few things that we can do in this situation regardless of how any of us feel on this commission. They are not asking for anything special. Hopefully the drainage situation gets better specifically because of what Commissioner Borrego said of the new development will require 100 percent on site ponding of both the street that they're developing and every single one of the six lots. If anyone feels that they are not developing their ponding adequately whether that's because of the developer not doing it correctly or the home builder filling it for whatever reason 3 1 1 is the number you call. Tell them I sent you if you want to. I'm sorry, there is nothing else we can do. No, ma'am. No, no, no, ma'am. 311. Thank you very much. 311.

Through the chair. I understand the frustrations, but we as a commission have to adhere to state law. And this is what the state says. This is what the city law says. That's why I made sure that all the stormwater will be captured within that site, which right now is not being captured. It's going into y'all's homes and to the streets. So again, that's why I made the motion. Thank you.

Thank you. No, thank you. No. You said it was R2. Okay, okay, thank you, thank you. Can I have someone from staff please clarify what zoning it is?

Luis Zamora with Planning Inspections again. So the zoning is R2, residential. Again, it allows single family homes. I think just to make some clarification, I know that it was mentioned that this kind of went through something similar a while ago. So some history on this property. It went through a rezoning request back in 2019, which was denied by the City Plan Commission at that time. So it was never rezoned and it continues to be R2, just similar as surrounding properties adjacent to this one. They're all zoned R2.

Okay. Can we please pull up the plat because the plat should say zoning, correct? Did they not say that? And if it does say zoning, it is binding. I can't read it from here. No? Okay. That's a New Mexico thing I guess. Okay. I don't know what legal authority we have if it is not R2. I am sorry. I believe that that would just mean that they are not conforming with the zoning and that is just illegal. And again, that's 3-1-1. I don't think they could do what they're doing without being the zoning of R2. So we have a motion and a second. Is there any more discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Yes, sir. I guess there is. Is there for subdivisions?

Through the chair.

No, there's not. I apologize. No, there's not.

Through the chair. This goes to city council. A lawsuit. No, this lawsuit would have to be filed in county court to overturn the decision, I believe. The appellate matter of the United States. Russell Ablin assistant city attorney the appellate mechanism would be to file a lawsuit in County Court Okay, and that would be individuals versus developer I guess It would be for whatever relief they were seeking That is the appeals process I Shouldn't say because it's me giving legal advice.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not your lawyer, but I

would be a real estate it would be whatever relief was sought whatever the lawsuit was claiming

We have the zoning map pulled up for El Paso Open Data Web Services. It also reflects R2. There is only so much that we can do right here in front of you, but from everything that we as a commission and the staff in front of us can show, it is R2.

Madam Chair, the vote was taken. We voted. We need to follow the agenda and move on.

All right. So that was number six. Number seven has been postponed. We have number eight.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission. Pratika Banjara with planning and inspection. Item eight on the agenda is a rezoning application for the subject property located at 1800 Winslow Road. This is the aerial map of the subject property, which is approximately 13.89 acres in size, and it's located south of I-10 and west of Hunter Drive. The applicant is, this is the existing zoning map, and the applicant is requesting to rezone the property into two different parcels. Parcel one is proposed to be rezoned from R3 residential to AO, apartment office, to allow for offices, and parcel two from R3 residential to C1 commercial to allow for automobile parcels. Plan El Paso, the future land use map for the Mason Valley Planning Area designated the property as G4 Suburban Walkable. And this is the site plan and it shows the existing vacant school buildings to be repurposed as offices and portioned to the east to be developed as future commercial area. And at this time, the site plan is not being reviewed for compliance and is not binding. And here we can see the current condition of the subject property from Winslow Road. This is the left portion, and here is the right. The surrounding area is mix of residential and commercial properties. Properties to the west and south are joined R3 residential and consist of single family dwellings. Properties to the north and east are C1 commercial and consist of apartments, government use offices, shopping center, gas station, and a retail store. the applicant notified nearby neighborhood associations of the rezoning request and planning divisions and the public notices to the property owners within 300 feet on July 16. And as of today, the planning division has received one call and one petition with six signatures in support, two calls and three emails in opposition and four calls of inquiry. The main concerns were increase in traffic, property value going down, and opposed to large scale developments or apartments. And here we have the notice map. With that, staff recommends approval with condition of the rezoning request. The conditions being as follow. No outdoor amplified sound be permitted. 500 feet distance between businesses deriving a majority of their income from alcohol. No access to semi trucks from Winslow. Heavy truck trailers are not allowed to access, load, unload, or park within 100 feet of the residential properties and that the property be platted. We also removed the condition one, which required a 10-foot landscape buffer along the property adjacent to the residential district. Due to the potential issue on pipeline easement, there is like 78-foot easement there. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Could you explain the 78-foot easement again?

Oh, yeah. There is. Just a second. If you see the portion right down here inside the yellow line, inside the property line, on the darker, that's like a 78-foot easement.

The darker purple? Oh, yeah. Yeah. And is that the piece that's AO? Because there's an R3.

Parcel one is supposed to be AO and parcel two is C1. So it's on both parcels.

Any other questions?

I do. Ms. Banhara, this is an old closed school for the sled independent school district, right? Okay. Now, is this just the rezoning or, because it also has parcel one offices, parcel two automobile parts sales, is that binding?

This is just the rezoning application, and at this time, the site plan is not being reviewed for...

So it's not binding?

No.

What you guys put here, like the offices or... So it's just the rezoning.

Only. Yeah, if I might, it's a model we're planning inspection. So yeah, so as part of the rezoning, obviously we ask the applicant, they provide us with a proposed use. We noted there because that's as much as we know right now, but nothing is binding. This is just the rezoning, which opens the door to any allowed uses for the zoning district if it gets approved.

Okay, because in other items that you bought in the past, you guys specifically said non-binding, and this time it wasn't saying non-binding. That's my only reason why I question. Thank you.

Any other questions? No? Can we hear from the applicant, please?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners Conde with Conde Incorporated. We do concur with all staff comments and we're glad to entertain any questions you may have. Yes, sir.

Just one. If this passes as a C1 commercial, the traffic would come in through Hunter?

Only from Hunter. Only from Hunter. Correct. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Other questions for the applicant? Thank you.

Thank you all.

OK. I have two people signed up. First is Jaime Esparza.

Hold on real quick.

It says BC 2334. I have a Jaime Esparza to speak for this item. Are they here, are they online? No, okay. We're moving on to Vincent Dominguez. Are they here? Go ahead. She covered it, okay, thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak about this item? here or online? Okay, discussion is closed, or public comment is closed, thank you. Do I have a motion amongst the commission?

Through the chair, move to approve item number eight from parcel one from R3, parcel one from R3 to AO and parcel two rezone from R3 to C1. Second.

Any discussion? Note two, that I'm abstaining. Any reason? Personal involvement. Okay.

If I might, just for clarification on the motion, that includes the recommended conditions.

Did your vote include the conditions? That includes the recommended conditions.

So you were abstaining? Yes. Is there anybody else that needs to abstain, make any comments? All in favor?

Aye. All opposed?

Motion carries. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioners.

All right. We have number four, which is Sierra Crest.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the commission. Magna Aguilar with planning and inspections. Item number four on the agenda is Sierra Crest Re-Plat I involving a resubdivision combination application. This development is within the city of El Paso limits and it's located north of Schuster Avenue and east of Stanton Street. The applicant is proposing to re-subdivide 15.64 acres of land to create four residential lots with a combined size of 9.89 acres and four open space lots with a combined size of 5.73 acres. Stormwater drainage will be managed by on-site ponding onto the open space within the subdivision 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 exception from the City Plan Commission, and that is to allow the existing right-of-way cross-section on Piedmont Drive to remain as is. Here we have the required and existing cross-section for Piedmont Drive. Here are the current conditions for Piedmont Drive. Picture on the left is taken from the north looking south and the property is on the left hand side. Picture on the top right will be taken from the south side where the property is on the right hand side. And the picture on the bottom right that would be across from the property showing the current conditions of no development of sidewalks. The evaluation request conforms with Title 19 requirements. Notice of public hearing was published into the El Paso Times on March 6th and on June 29th of 2026. Notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet of the original subdivisions, again on March 6th and June 29th, 2026. And as of today, the Planning and Inspections Division has received multiple emails and calls in opposition to this request and one in favor. And with that staff recommends approval of Sierra Crest reply aye on a subdivision combination basis and approval of the exception request. And that concludes my presentation.

Russell label and assistant city attorney. So the recommendation is we kept the recommendation on there the same because that that's what it was at the time of posting. But the situation has changed a little bit. And so the legal recommendation is going to be for a vote of no action. And as you all may know, there's some litigation surrounding this property. Generally, in this situation, the city is not party to that litigation, and we are not party. And so that's not something the city looks at. Yesterday afternoon, the city received a copy of a temporary restraining order from the attorney representing the homeowners association. homeowners association again the the city was not a party to that that temporary restraining order and it did not direct the city to do anything and it did not direct city plan commission to do anything and we've spoken with the applicant they're obviously aware of the temporary restraining order and they their representative has said they would like to continue Recommendation is to take public comment as through the normal process and then would be a vote of no action.

Through the chair.

action not a postponement to further know the the only way it can be postponed is if the applicant desires to postpone it if City Plan Commission postpones it there's a shot clock on subdivisions and what that means is after a certain time it's automatically approved so it's approved if if there's no action it's approved if you approved it but like the like the previous item this does meet all the requirements of the city code um we're not again a party to the uh the lawsuit between the the homeowner i mean the applicant and the other party but uh we believe the best recommendation is uh no action

motion of no action yeah what timeline can we address and attach to no action because it's set to go to court in September correct and then we don't even know if this was transmitted properly to anybody this plot of land so we say no action do we tie a timeline to it or just indefinitely until the courts date so functionally no action will

Approval no action or postponement would all have Functionally the same thing which would be to approve it So, you know, whatever again, we're not a party to The lawsuit and you know, whatever happens in the future with that We change it. But at this time That's pretty much what what happens I

Do you have a copy of you said there were two notification letters sent out right. The certified letter sent out.

The certified letter.

The notification letters of going to CBC.

The reply is required to send out notifications. Mirna do you have copies of them? We have them on our system.

Can I see both of them.

Notification to the property owners of the hearing.

I'd like to see it.

Yeah both of them. So what purpose are we here for.

For subdivisions.

For this particular item if there's no action and we are not postponing. I think it's the same ministerial as the last one.

Right. So we're here. The application the applicant has requested to continue. And so you know we're presenting it as requested by the applicant.

It's gone.

So if I may ask a question on while back we're speaking and you said that you know if as long as it meets a criteria that state law requires us as a board to pass it if it meets that requirement. So now you're coming back and say well you are you required to do it if it meets requirement we're required to pass this. But now the city in the city attorney's office is saying well we're not involved in the lawsuit but we're asking you to take no action. after you addressed and said that we have to approve something as long as it complies?

right by state law so are we are we breaking state law by not complying no no I don't think you're breaking state law by by taking no action I think this is just a very unusual circumstance different from the other ones where you know there's no outstanding other items but yeah we generally don't don't consider any other outside you know disputes between other parties it's not something that's considered but in light of the the temporary restraining order that was that is the recommendation to take no action the other option I mean would be to approve But between those options, I believe, you know, the best one is to take no action.

If I may, can we postpone it for six months or something like that?

No, that would have the same effect. A postponement would approve it. The 30-day shock clock today is the last day of that, so a postponement would functionally approve it also.

Again, this is Ismael from P&I, chief from subdivisions. For a postponement, that would have to come from the applicant. As per state law, we as staff or CPC can't trigger the postponement request.

Can we see the restraining order?

Sorry, what's that?

Can you put the restraining order up? We don't need to read it. I was just going to have it up.

You know, I don't want to get into that right now.

But by no action are we as a city and CPC allowing a plot of land that we can't determine who is the ownership of to go into the developers hands if we can't verify that it was transferred correctly.

So We're kind of getting into legal advice where maybe we should go into a closed session. I would say that in this situation, it's a private dispute. The land was transferred, and there has been no decision whether it's invalid or not. So we have to move forward with that information. Okay. The recommendation would be to proceed as normal and take public comment and then a vote of no action.

Okay, can we hear from the applicant?

Why the applicant? Aren't we gonna move forward with it and go through the procedure?

Did we not just hear from Seth?

Huh?

We just heard from Seth.

Sorry.

Did you do your full presentation? Yes, okay, can we hear from the applicant?

Good afternoon, again, Madam Chair, Commissioners Connery, Grande, with Grande Incorporated. First, I do concur with all staff's comments. And second, just to simplify this for you all, this replat is basically doing two things. A, it's taking your existing open space in this area from two acres to now 5.7 acres. So they're increasing the open space over three acres. Because they're doing that, they're going from originally six platted lots that were done back in the 70s and 80s to now only four platted lots. So they're reducing the number of lots and they're converting that all into open space. In a nutshell, that's what this replat's doing. Hopefully that helps.

We'll get to public comment. We'll open it.

Anything else from us?

You're welcome to answer the question of why are you proceeding without?

Like staff says, because what the owner's trying to do is what I just stated. They're trying to make more open space than what there is now. We've complied with the state and city codes to try to do that. We're trying to follow the comp plan in terms of increasing open space, not decrease open space. That's all this is doing. That's it.

Any questions? Thank you. Thank you. I have two people listed for public comment. It is first, Alea Aguirre.

No.

No comment. No comment. Okay. We have one more person here to speak in person and then we'll get to you.

Thank you. Now we have Robert Curry.

You have 3 minutes to speak. Could you please state your name?

Thank you. My name is Robert Curry. I've been a 28 year resident of subdivision. I am frankly puzzled by the city's recommendation that you take no action and not do your job. If you do take action, there's no irreparable harm can always be overturned and reversed. Think that the public comment you received you'll find that many of the commenters are not homeowners They are lot owners who have a very different view uh look at the subdivision uh the subdivision is 50 years old approximately 100 lots only 50 of them were developed it's a failed subdivision and what we have is we have a rift between non-resident lot owners and the people who live there i think you'll find many of the people who live there are in support of this action thank you

Okay, whoever was on the phone, will you please state your name? You have three minutes.

Please press star six to unmute.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, yes, hello. My name is Alex Barron. I'm the Sierra Coast Humor Association president. Yesterday, Judge Annabel Pettis from the 41st District heard for over an hour a temporary restraining order application or petition, and she awarded it. She said that the parties are gonna go back and speak about this issue in seven days, and that the committee shouldn't be having this meeting today. We posted the bond this morning. Did you have anything else to say? Yes. Well, basically we're contesting the ownership of the property. We don't believe Mr. Francis is the rightful owner of the property, nor that he took possession in the correct manner, nor that he paid the proper amount. So all those issues are under dispute. In addition to the fact that he's trying to privatize a street that belongs to all the members. He's trying to get it and prevent members from going inside that street. He's trying to annex property that does not belong to Sierra Crest. There's many violations of our CCNRs and this is going to be going on for a legal dispute for a long time. So we don't believe it's proper to approve it considering all those serious actions.

Can you clarify, did you say that you put up a bond?

Yes, this morning I went downtown at 8 o'clock and I paid the bond that the judge agreed to or ordered us to give yesterday.

And how much was that?

$100.

$100, okay.

I have a copy of it. I emailed Ms. Mirna before that meeting started to confirm that this agenda item would be canceled, but she didn't reply. and I copied district eight where our community sits.

Thank you. Is there anybody else here who would like to speak about this item?

No?

I'm gonna close public comment and that will be it. So is there anybody else here who would like to speak? Or on the phone, it's star six to unmute. Okay, public comment is closed. I'll take a motion and then we can discuss amongst the commission.

Through the chair? I move that this commission does a no action on item number four as per legal counsel.

I don't know if I want to make that second but if we don't have a motion it dies.

With all due respect to legal counsel based on what you were saying before that we're legally obligated to to vote on something in favor of if it meets requirements and now you're coming back and asking us to do something different. I'd like to abstain.

Abstain as well. I mean you have a council here. You have a committee member here that you're asking us to You're basically asking us to sit here for no action.

So can I get a motion to go into closed session?

Yes motion to close session Discussion all in favor aye all opposed. Thank you. I

Under 551071 of the Texas government code, we're going into closed session for consultation with attorney.

Thank you. Do we leave the room? Does everybody else leave the room? Okay. Thank you. We'll be back, everybody.

Thank you.

Oh, we've been here until 5.30.

My first meeting. First meeting, 5.30.

I was like, I don't know if I get this. There you go, Mr. Borrego. So for everyone,

You're for this item, item four. So right now, they're gonna go into no station. They have to come back and then either make a decision or complete the item. So for now, we will have to wait here. I'll leave you free to leave if you need to, but just know that they have to come back and finalize this. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. One, two, three. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, so right now obviously we need to recommend a meeting so we need a motion to reconvene the regular meeting motion to reconvene Reconvened 318 Mr. Russell

with the item number four.

I don't think we had a motion carried or a second. So do I have a motion.

OK sure. I move to approve item number four. As no action as per legal counsel.

Can you clarify that motion again?

I move, let me clarify that motion. I move no action on item number four as per legal counsel.

So for whoever may second this.

We can't discuss it unless we get a second.

I just wanted to clarify, if anybody wanted to second this, they will be seconding no action on this item. Do we have a second?

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? I guess the no action carries. Is that how that's? Carries, thank you. We move on to number nine, presentation on proposed code amendments.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Commissioners. Luisa Mora with Planning and Inspection. So item nine, it's a presentation. Almost there. This is for a couple of title, or not a couple, some amendments to Title 20 for correctional facility and halfway house uses. So this is coming back. We got direction from City Council what the NICU City Council gave direction to the city manager and city attorneys To go ahead and make some revisions to the zoning ordinance based on the correctional facility uses And so we coming back with this and today what we need is obviously a recommendation to take this item to council So we'll go through those provisions Can you click on that Okay, it's working now. Okay, stay there. So really quick, an overview is what we're doing is providing clarification on the definition of correctional facility that they use. We're creating supplemental use regulations for correctional facilities and adjustments for halfway house. And we're making sure that the uses are only permitted via a granted special permit by city council. So the first thing is that clarification to the definition of correctional facility. So to that, we can obviously add some kind of what seemed to be missing language, which is the detention center in there. Throughout the code, it is called, like in Appendix A, the table of permissible uses. It's already called correctional facility or detention center. or facilities, we're gonna clarify that. And then obviously making sure that this is not just for someone who is detained because of criminal action, but it may be just because of pending legal process. We also, again, a part of the direction is we are creating a new supplemental use regulations. So these are, in effect, every time the uses could be permitted or anything, there's additional regulations that will apply to this. So one of those, again, all this is new, so the first thing is, in what instance shall these use be operated within one mile from, and then we're gonna go to those uses. So it needs to be one mile away from residential apartment, districts or uses. I want to make sure that we clarify that residential uses not only happen on residential districts or apartment districts, they may also come in in other zoning districts like commercial, which is the instance of multifamily. So I want to make sure that we account for those residential uses. Obviously, within a mile of a park or school, that's the right clarification I want to make sure. The school doesn't only include just elementary, middle school, or high school. It goes from early childhood all the way to university and including business at trade schools. Obviously, a baker and a church is also that buffer. In addition, we're going, making sure that city council has some flexibility as it may be the case. I just wanna make sure that we have this language here that obviously council has preview on it. And if they decide that it is something they wanna change that one mile away from some of those uses, they can do that as part of this special permit. So now what happened is we're looking at correctional facility users and because halfway house is similar in some regulations when I make sure that we go and Also clear some other stuff in this one. So one of the things is when we when we're looking at this there's a requirement that a special permit can only be technically granted for to a two-year period so that makes people having to go back again to continue a use and So we think that this kind of creates a burden So we're moving this creates a burden on the property owner on the city having to make sure that checking every two years we know that sometimes uses they continue without maybe without doing the Licensing or processes that they need to do and also a special permits are already granted by City Council and technically on a kind of permanent basis if they want to comply with it. So there's typically no time frame for special permits on all other special permits that we have. So I want to make sure that that's consistent. Furthermore, City Council always has just a city plan commission with the recommendations. City Council has that purview of if they need to impose any conditions they think seem fit. They can always do it, so it's open to them if they think that's something they want to do for a time frame. Additionally, again, we clarify there's an existing 1,000-foot distance from residential for halfway house. Want to make sure that we can clarify and match that of correctional facilities. Again, one of those things is the residential. Residential not only happen in residential zone in districts or apartments. It may also happen commercial. So we clean that up to match. And that's kind of what we went and do with that use. We're also amending Appendix A. That's our table of permissible uses. So this is to allow control for City Council about any new uses, any new facilities. So we make sure that this use is not permitted by right in any of the zoning districts. So we went ahead and removed those zoning districts. And this is only gonna be permitted by special permit. We also added additional zoning districts and removed some of the other ones that we didn't think were appropriate. And obviously our reference in that new section that we're proposing to be created for supplemental use standards. In regards to the halfway house, again, we went ahead and looked at it. Is everything appropriate? Is everything good? Or do we need to make some corrections? So one of those things that we corrected was the use is currently permitted in C5, which is the downtown, the central business district. Be a special permit. We don't think this is appropriate So we're just gonna we're going ahead and removing it and say this is not permitted use at all in c5 We are also added additional son in districts like the m2 and m3 where we think it's appropriate So we still can have other ways to put it there So all in all and this kind of the table And this is where it looks so again correctional facilities not permitted by right We're proposing there's no permit by right on any some districts only be a special permit on those something districts Identify same thing for halfway houses. They're only permitted via a special permit and not by right With this what I want to say about existing facilities or uses that are already as hallway houses or correctional facilities is This amendments will not impact those existing facilities as long as they register as legal non-conforming That that's per state law we allow we were required to continue allowing them there's some Change if some changes happen in some instances, there's obviously where we can go ahead and say, okay You can no longer operate but for the most part they can continue operating with minimal changes and The other thing is I want to bring up the Texas Local Government Code, Section 211.013, which it calls that obviously we don't have authority for state or federal agencies. So this will not be applicable to obviously uses being operated by a state or federal agency. So the takeaways is this amendment will allow stronger oversight by city council, which is the directive, something they want. This will ensure property owners are notified by mail, given that the special permit, just having to go through a special permit requires public hearings. City Plan Commission is the first one, then it goes into council. So everyone will be notified, either they're close by, they will notify those within 300 feet. Public hearings obviously are public. We have their post on the newspaper going to city council. They're posted on the website when something is going on so people can be notified they can know what's going on We're making sure that there's a clear distance requirement from other users again residential is very important making sure that's clear and Lastly again the regulations will not apply to federal or state agencies And with this, I recommend that the title 20 amendments for correctional facilities and halfway houses, house uses be approved. That concludes my presentation.

Thank you. Couple questions. Page two, you removed the two-year, on the halfway houses, the two-year check-in, right? Flat out for the whole thing. I believe you said you did that was just like On sea of page two It says a compliance report must be submitted to the director every two years after the date of passage of an ordinance Granting a special permit and with each application for renewal of a special permit for a halfway house So I guess does that last line need to be removed?

no so that one's staying as it is um let me just confirm on those red lines so you said page two so on and obviously just for for everyone to know so you're looking at the red lines anything red is added if it says track strike means obviously wish we were moving it. So page 2, you mean. See right security submitted. Yes, the best thing is it is I think that the changes because of modifications is going to. I think we have a through E because we're moving some stuff changing to see about that last thing I said is again that's going to be there. We're just keeping it there.

But the last sentence of what is now C refers to the two-year special permit renewal, and that's being removed, right?

Correct. Okay, yeah.

So that won't be there anymore, right?

Yes. Okay, perfect. Yeah, so if I can just do, once you do a motion, it can be added, obviously. to remove anything referencing that two year. Okay. Just as we move to council, we'll put it there. Perfect. We'll remove it.

Okay. Why is a halfway house not allowed to be within a thousand feet of another one?

I'm sorry, for what?

A halfway house, why is it not allowed to be within a thousand feet of another one?

So currently what I can answer is that's the way it is currently right on the code. We don't want to change anything drastically other than, again, what we've been directed. There could be multiple things. Obviously people don't want to cluster it. I don't want to use it, but let's think like bars, right? We know that clustering creates an issue. And my assumption is that that's what it is. We want to avoid the clustering. And so I wanna keep it away, especially again, going back to the uses, the residential, the acres, those things, also to kind of give them away from creating a negative environment.

Okay. B2 of the red line, any residential or apartment zoning district or from any residential or apartment use located on any other zoning district. So that feels really restrictive, just like for any apartment that goes into a C2 or something like that. Is that one of those changes that you didn't want to take out? Or that's an addition?

Where is it again? On B, the new one?

B2, the last part of that.

Number two, okay. Any residential apartments in the district or from any residential?

Basically saying you can't be near a house or an apartment even if it's in a C2, C3, whatever.

Correct. So that's part of the clarification we're making is we want to make sure that homes or a home, simply a home, can be in C2, right? An apartment is a home for someone. So I want to make sure that we're protecting anyone, any homes being close to these uses. And so again, right now, currently, it is from residential areas. But apartments, you have homes. Apartments are homes. And apartments are permitted in commercial district. So I want to make sure we're still protecting those homes. for example, the commercial zoning district doesn't mean you can have one apartment here and everything else commercial. Everything could be just apartments. And that's one of the things we want to make sure that we're protecting. Obviously, when they start operating, that's something we're going to be checking for those uses. You know, it's not like they just go and start operating. So we can check and then let them know hey you you're close by so be aware You're not being that you're not gonna be permitted to operate here. You have to find our location. That's more appropriate It's not gonna be have negative repercussions for the residential areas

Okay. And same one B, but now it's four. Totally understand the school, early childhood, high school, higher education, trade school. It seems like that might be the best place to be near a halfway house. Like that's where that would be a great way to rehabilitate people, get them back into

you know a sustainable way to transition so I think if that's presented to City Council and say hey this might be something to do I think it should be there I think you should be allowed to have a halfway house right next to a trade school okay so yeah so again the existing is there we cannot just cannot remove what was there cannot replace and make more clarification and match it to the correctional facilities so right now what's there is a university, college, vocational, or business school. So we feel like that's still part of that within that group of schools. And that's why we added it. Again, making sure that we're capturing everything. Obviously, city plan commission can make a recommendation to strike that if you all feel that that's something, a suitable, appropriate area for that if there's a trade school close by.

Okay. Anybody else have any comments?

This was or I understand that you need a motion order to remove the 2 years from that other section is that correct and most most from the board is that correct.

Yes, so if the obviously the commission's going to move into approving this we're going to approval and you if we can have that kind of reflect that maybe strike that out of the year and we can check right now to see exactly what. just to, you know, to help us with that. Otherwise, so we can provide city council with a clean red lines.

Perfect.

Through the chair. So you said that these halfway houses will have to apply for a permit every two years, right?

Can you repeat that? Sorry.

Every two years a halfway house has to apply for a new permit.

So currently, I just want to make sure it's clear the permit is not like a building permit, right? It's a special permit which goes through the entire process the public hearing and needs to be approved by City Council As you may be aware or not when we go through to public hearing process it typically we see items Going through four to six months to entire process to get to council. So it is lengthy You know, we're going every two years you have to start at least half a year before. And so I want to make sure that, again, there's not that burden trying to go through that because also then we get into the trouble or the property owner can get into trouble and, well, you know, you're one month late. So what's gonna happen? And I know people may have a negative impression of that, right? When, again, for items going through public hearings, there may be multiple things happening. Meetings can be canceled because we don't have forum or something happened. There's some issues we know, as the commission knows, sometimes we would like applicants to discuss it with the public, with the residents, the neighborhood, and that takes time. So I wanna make sure this is not a burden Trying to get this and then again All special permits technically do not there's no time frame for for them So when I make sure that we cannot go there everything is the same right if they approve it then it's approved the other thing I want to make sure I didn't Mention is Anytime we go through a special permit. There's a detail side development plan that's binding so anytime if they want to change something and then it triggers having for staff to review that detail site plan. If we admit it's a major change, they have to go through the entire process again. If it's a minor, then we still at least have overview of that oversight and we can address minor things. But yes, so.

Okay, and then the halfway houses that are grandfathered in, do they need to reapply every two years too once it passes?

So and I don't know if I Think can you bring up the presentation? so that the policy for the city for legal non-conforming registration is Once you register something and it could be multiple right now Let's focus on the use because that's what we're talking about. If you register they used as non-conforming meaning once Regulation change you no longer complying but you can demonstrate that before that you were in compliance The the city obviously by per state requirement the city has to allow it to continue until eventually you no longer want to continue and you want to use the property for an appropriate use that's permitted and That's when it's gonna avoid it There's some instances also about like timing typically is 120 days Or what we call abandonment. I thought the happens under and 20 days like you say well, I'll just leave the property We're not gonna do this You're not actively pursuing trying to bring back the youth and that that's terminated as well but for the most part again if they're registered the city has to allow them to continue operating and

And my last question now methadone centers though, they're not classified as halfway houses I'm not sure about that But again, there's a permanent process again I cannot

Well, right now I cannot go back and see what it is.

Because I think that if we're gonna do these type of situations with halfway houses and correctional facilities, drug rehabilitating centers should come into the picture too. And then one other thing is the, Chairperson says that that would be good to have the halfway houses close to a trade school and get different trades. But if we're going to do that well we should allow them next to churches right next to them so that they can repent. I mean it falls on the same thing.

Any other comments, questions? No?

Thank you.

You're welcome. So I believe our recommendation goes in front of city council for approval of these changes to the ordinance. Do I have a motion?

Are we going to make a motion to remove the two years from that other section?

I believe so. That would be my motion. I don't make one, but that would be mine.

Okay. I'd like to make the motion. This was more to remove that two-year section. That's still stated, please I'm sorry and approved There's a section in there that still has a two-year stating that to your reinstatement that the chair had brought up to motion it is to remove that section and then to approve the presentation

Do I have a second.

As far as discussion I still want to push for trade schools but I understand that that is not everyone's agreement. So I will take a motion if there's not any more discussion any more discussion on this. All in favor.

Aye.

All opposed. Motion carries. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We have discussion and action on ordinance amending

authority of decision-makers for floodplains Good afternoon commissioners Tony de la Cruz with a planning inspections department. I apologize. This is a very lengthy presentation So just heads up.

Okay, so item number 10 is proposed amendment sick We have quantity bit and Lisa by Leo both leaving. Thank you very much. I know it's been a long meeting One, two, three, four, five. We do, yes.

Thank you. So item number 10 is proposed amendments to Title 19, subdivision, subsection 19.31.080, specifically the flood plains administrator. So as I believe we provide red lines and the proposed changes, basically what we're looking at doing is replacing the criteria under the specific section of city code that would replace the criteria for requiring a Texas licensed professional engineer and we would replace it with a Texas certified flood plains manager. Currently the job description for that specific posting does not require a P but city code does so it really by proposing modifying this change with word which would also impact title 18 because similar verbiage is in title 18 it would simply align the city code requirements with the job specifications that are already published but by the Human Resources Department Of course, with the flood plains administrator, we would still have an engineering division manager that oversees the administrator that is required to be a professional engineer and ultimately has the ultimate review and authority for any conflicts that might arise. That being said, that concludes my presentation and I would appreciate a vote of approval for the proposed changes.

So this is just internal floodplain administrator. This is not requirements for outside engineering firms presenting stuff.

Correct.

Any other questions?

That's good. I like that. Really, I do. When I first read it and I saw it, I said, well, all right, now we're moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Motion?

I make a motion to approve.

Second. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Any discussion before we adjourn today?

Move to adjourn. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you all so much. Have a great day.