Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey, I'm not interested. I think Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the April 23rd meeting of the city plan commission. My name is Lauren Hansen, chair of the commission and I call this meeting to order at 1:31 p.m. Mr. Massud. Statement to the public. The city plan commission has sole and final approval authority over subdivision maps which is statutoily limited to a ministerial examination of the applicant's conformance to all applicable code provisions. The staff report for an agenda item may include conditions,

exceptions or modifications. The commissions may approve the item with all staff report condition exceptions and 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 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 all that will be forwarded to city council.

Thank you. Are there any changes to the agenda today? Good afternoon, please with planning inspection. No, no changes at this time. So, there was a change to the minutes. Yes. Um Kevin Smith by Inspections. Yes, there was a correction to the minutes. Those were a message to the commission earlier today and um those I believe had to do with commissioners who made motions or read things into the record. Um that those were the changes. Does anybody have any objections to those changes to the minutes? Nope. Okay. Can I entertain a motion to approve those? So for so move.

So actually ma madam chair first uh we typically do call of the public. Okay. So this is a public meeting. Is there anybody that has anything to say before we move on to the regular agenda? This is something to say about items not on the agenda. And that's star six to unmute if you are on the phone. Again that's star six to unmute. Okay, thank you. Public comment is closed. And then now the consent agenda. And I believe Mr. Massud will have to recuse himself on this item. Move to approve the well minutes, I guess. Yeah. Well, you have to recuse yourself from the consent agenda.

Oh, yes.

I apologize. His item on the No, your item is on regular. I apologize. That's my fault. My motion stands to approve the minutes as James. There actually two items on the consent agenda. There's a extension request as well and also to approve the extension request and second are I believe there's two motions. The first motion is to approve the changes to the minutes. The second motion is to approve the consent agenda. Correct? Was one motion just like Okay. So we are making one motion doing both. I have a first approval. Do I have a second? A second.

Any discussion? All in favor? I'll oppose. Moving on to the regular agenda. Madam chair, I'm going to recuse myself from the first item.

Thank you. And that is West River Manor unit one. Good afternoon chair and members of the commission with planning and inspections. Item number three on the agenda is West River Manor unit one involving a major combination application. This development is in the extr territorial jurisdiction of the city of El Paso and it's located north of Borderland Road and east of Strahan Road. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 16.85 acres of vacant land to create 47 family residential lots. The applicant has dedicated 21 ft of rideway along Strahan Road to accommodate future infrastructure. Storm water drainage will be managed from uh by onsite ponding and this development is being reviewed under the current subdivision code. Here we have the preliminary plan. Here we have the final plat. The applicant is requesting the following exception from the city plan commission and that is to weigh the dedication and construction of six feet of additional rightway for all lo local crosssections within the proposed subdivision. Here we have the require and the existing cross-section for all local streets within the subdivision. the exception request to wave the required improvements meet the criteria under title 19 of the El Paso City Court ordinance. And with that, staff staff recommends

approval of West River Manor unit one on a major combination basis and approval of the exception request as they comply with Title 19 requirements. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Any questions? I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Caddy Corner to this place is is another subdivision. That subdivision has sidewalks along uh what the street is, Strahan. Will this subdivision have sidewalks on Straan?

And they are proposed. It's under that dedication and what they submitted. They are proposed. on Strahan. On straight Okay. Thank you. And to clarify, there are no sidewalk reduction requests, correct? It's just for the parkway, correct? Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant? Good afternoon. My name is Al Flores with Del Regineering um representing the case and we concur with all staff's recommendations. Thank you. And if any questions, feel free to answer. Any questions? Thank you.

Okay. Do I have a vote for this one? Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I.

All oppose. Uh motion passes. Thank you. Can somebody send Mr. Massud back in? We'll move on to item number four which is 6017 Strahan. Good afternoon, chair members of the commission. Blanca Perez with planning and inspections. Item number four is a major combination application for 6017 Strahan. The subject property is located south of Artcraft Road and east of Upper Valley Road within the city limits. Access will be through Strahan Road. And as a note, Jets Drive is not a city road. It's a private access easement. This slide shows the proposed development superimposed over the aerial map. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.60 acres of land to create one residential lot. Drainage will be managed by on-site ponding. And this application is being reviewed under the current subdivision code. Here we see the preliminary plat. And here's the final plat. The applicant is requesting the following exceptions pursuant to the El Paso city code. To wave the dedication of 10 ft of additional rideway along Strahan Road and to wave the construction of a 5T uh of sidewalk along Strahan Road. Here we have the portion of Strahan Road that is being considered for the exception requests and here we have the existing conditions

for Strahan Road. Please note that the exception request is to match existing conditions around the neighborhood. The exception request meet the criteria under the El Paso city code title 19. And with that, staff recommends approval of 607 straen on a major combination basis and approval of the exception request from the applicant. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. So, the lot to the I guess it would be south is a or the street to the south is a private ride ofway and Strahan has no sidewalks as of now. Yeah, it doesn't have any sidewalks. Thank you. Any other questions?

Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant? Good afternoon, George with SLI Engineering. We agree with all staff comments. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you. All right. I will entertain a motion for this motion to approve. Second.

Any discussion? I just want to say our current sidewalk I don't know stance is that because this is in the center of a road, it's not on a corner and it's in an area with no sidewalks that this is fine. sidewalks. Does everybody agree with that? Okay, thank you. All in favor? I All oppose. Thank you. Motion. Moving on to number five, which is a reubdivision combination.

Good afternoon, chair and members of the commission. Mir Nagula with planning inspections. Item number five on the agenda is Hassienda del Rio unit 2 involving a resubdivision combination application. This development is in the extra territorial jurisdiction of the city of El Paso and it's located north of Borderland Road and east of Strahan Road. The applicant is proposing to resubdivide 2.91 acres of partially developed land to the north of the proposed subdivision and subdivide 36.62 acres of vacant land for a total area of 39.53 acres to create 90 single family residential lots. The lots will range between 11 and 89 345 square ft in size. Primary access to the proposed subdivision will be from Strahan Road. Storm water drainage will be managed by on-site ponding and this development is being reviewed under the current subdivision code. Here we have the preliminary plan. Here we have the final plan. The applicant is requesting the following exception from the city plan commission and that is to weigh the dedication and construction of 8 feet of rightway along all local streets within the proposed subdivision. Here we have the require and the existing cross-section for all local streets within the proposed subdivision. And here we have the current conditions of the local streets. The exception request to weigh the required improvements meet the criteria under title 19 of the city of El Paso code ordinance.

Notice of public uh hearing was published in the El Paso Times and mailed to property owners within 200 feet on April 3rd of this year. As of today, the planning division has received one email regarding the request, one inerson inquiry regarding the request, and one phone call, but no oppositions or in favor of the request. And with that, staff recommends approval with condition of aendes Rio unit 2 and a resubdivision combination and approval of the exception request as they both comply with title 19 requirements. The condition being as followed that the city plan commission require the applicant to landscape the rear of all double frontage lots per section 19 of title of the city code ordinance. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. The 8T right ofway that they're requesting not to do, it's four feet of parkway on either side. Correct.

Right. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? I do through the chair. Um Mr. Gil, two questions. First one, this one is within the city limits. No, it's in the extr territorial jurisdiction. Okay. Then my other question is back to the sidewalks. There's going to be sidewalks on Strahan on this subdivision. And this subdivision, the first one doesn't have anything, but they do have they do have sidewalk. So, they're going to keep going with it. They're going along with phase one.

So, my question is there they will be required to have sidewalks along Strahan. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant? Hello. Uh, Enrique Yala with CA Consulting and we agree with all staff comments. Why is this partially built already? Partially what? Partially built. Was it purchased from somebody else?

Oh, this is the unit two. So, unit one's already built. This is unit two. Streets have been paved. Um, all utilities have been in because it's a county. It went through county and approved by county already. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move to approve item number five with the condition and approval of the exception. Approving the exception. Great. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Any discussion on that? All in favor?

I. All oppose. Motion passes. Thank you.

We are moving on to number six, which is Albert Saab. Okay. Good afternoon, chair and members of the commission. Alono Hernandez with planning and inspections. Item number six on the agenda is Albert SAP subdivision involving a resubdivision combination application. This development is located within the city of El Paso limits and is located south of Gateway East Boulevard and east of Lit Revenue Drive. Access to the subdivision will be from Albert subdrive. Uh here is the subdivision superimposed on the aerial map and the applicant is proposing to resubdivide 1.43 acres to dedicate the area as a public street right ofway and storm water drainage will be managed through surface drainage within the street right ofway. And this application is being reviewed under the 1974 subdivision ordinance. Here we have the preliminary plat. This is the final plat. And the applicant is requesting the following exception from the city plan commission to wave the construction of five feet of sidewalk along both sides of Albert Saprive. And this is the existing and the proposed cross-section for Albert subdrive. And these are the the existing conditions for Albert subdrive. Here as we can see there are no sidewalks. Uh these images were taken facing away from Gateway Boulevard

and the exception request to wave the construction of 5t of sidewalk along Albert subdrive meets the criteria under the 1974 subdivision ordinance. And it is important to note that this subdivision does not require public notice. However, we receive an email in support from the president of the Mission Valley Civic Association. And with this, staff recommends approval of Albert subdivision on a resubdivision combination basis and approval of the exception request. And this concludes the presentation. Thank you. So, this will be a public rightway, correct? Correct. No gates, access to everybody. It's public.

Okay. And I just want to make sure I know where this is. This is directly across the highway from the Home Depot and Roas. Uh it is on the intersection of Gateway um and Albert Sap is on the west of Litrainho. I'm not sure if it's uh Home Depot, right? Okay. Across the That sounds right. Yeah.

Um this is maybe 500 feet from a park. It's Grand Vista Park. It is if it connects to that park, it will be in the Visa delv neighborhood. It is also adjacent to the Lomat Terrace neighborhood. I don't understand why staff recommended no sidewalks. Um, okay. As we can see here on the images, actually the there are no current sidewalks and this area the surrounding areas are labeled as C4 uh commercial 4

and they are primarily developed with warehouse uses. uh the pedestrian access and activity is very limited. And according to the 1974 ordinance, the the the applicant, they have the the option or it allows uh the applicant and the owner to follow the the same alignments of the streets. And this street was approved back then in in the 1980s with that ordinance. And it was approved with no sidewalks. So they have vested rights not to do something. Why would they have vested rights?

So why do they have to ask us for that exception? Um I would defer that part to the applicant. Um because yeah, I don't know if they have any other personal or interest in I guess I'm asking do we legally have to grant that exception? because if it it sounds like they already have those rights if it's vested.

Madam Chair, this is Miggoia, chief planner subdivisions. Um the reason that we have to come before uh the commission is the again, yes, they're vested, but as part of the 1974 plan, they still need to put sidewalks in, but like the current code, they still need to come in and ask for a waiver. So the vesting vests them to the 74 code that has sidewalks but in it they still have to come to commission for the waiver. Got it. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Any other questions for staff?

I do recite the 1974 ordinance. That's 52 years ago. We're in 2026 now.

Correct. I mean, golly G, the city has come up throughout those 52 years with different ordinances that we have to have 4 foot sidewalks, that we have to have sixoot sidewalks, 5-ft sidewalks, and here we are in 2026 and uh going with the 1974 rule. I mean, eventually this place is going to be developed, right? So at some point we have to be responsible that everything is built right from today forward instead of going 52 years in the past. Some of you weren't born in 1974, you know. So it doesn't make sense that we go back to the 1974 uh rule or what they have vested in because eventually this place is just going to grow and we know it's growing. We know this place is growing. So hey, as far as I'm concerned, throw the street in there and put sidewalks and let's move on.

If I can to commission Kevin Smith with plan inspections. So vested rights is illegal have per state law and so this property was deemed to be granted vested rights from that ordinance and that's the ordinance that the commission has to judge this subdivision under. Um although standards have changed um that is the right that this property owner has and every property owner who is deemed um granted vested rights is able to be reviewed under that ordinance uh from that date. So just want to remind commission that this is to be judged under the 74 ordinance and not under current standards.

So is there something in the 1974 ordinance that says we have to approve this? That ordinance says hey you have to go in front of CPC and ask for this. But is there something that says for whatever reason if you meet X criteria you get to omit sidewalks from your subdivision from your right of way?

Uh Madam Chair. Yeah. Actually chapter 12 of the uh 1974 uh subdivision ordinance. Uh staff is recommending approval but the final decision is um rests with the city plan commission. Uh, as mentioned before, they have the the option to request the waiver for the construction of the sidewalk and staff is recommending approval, but the final decision rests on the CPC commission. Okay. And of course, uh, staff's recommending approval because it does meet the conditions that it's allowed to and also it has not connecting to any existing sidewalks because that entire area. That is correct.

Is C4 commercial industrial type and and there are no sidewalks to connect to. That's correct. Thank you. And we have no public comment on this. Correct. Okay. Can I hear from the applicant with engineering and uh we're in agreement with the staff comments. Any questions?

I'm Jimski, Commissioner. Um I'm curious as to whether you identify any kind of undue hardship that would be associated with putting sidewalks here or what is the reason why you're accepting you're uh asking for this exception. This is an extension to an existing road. So the existing road doesn't have anything and all the roads within this industrial development don't have any any sidewalks. So that's consistent with the with the already established industrial area. This subdivision was also like it's bested with the 74 ordinance.

A good example is the field um subdivision which is also a city uh subdivision industrial subdivision with no sidewalks at all. So that's so the logic is basically the sidewalk wouldn't be connected to any other sidewalk and therefore why put a sidewalk. Okay, got it. Thank you. I don't know if I agree that that's an undue hardship though. That's a different condition from the last subdivision, but I don't know if that's an undue hardship.

Um I don't know what uh the we submitted the waiver for the sidewalk as a courtesy uh and as a recommendation to the staff. Uh we thought that we didn't have to because we're vested. Um so um here we are. Well, the chances what are the chances that if let's just say assuming you do put sidewalk, what are the chances that these sidewalks will be connected to any other sidewalks in the area? There are there in your opinion it's not connected to anything. It will not be. It will not be. Nobody's going to come back after existing roads. Yes. you know, and add sidewalks.

To be honest, we don't want to encourage uh traffic, pedestrian traffic here in this area. We only have industrial buildings. Uh so, uh and and the photos show that we're providing landscaping based on the on the existing conditions on the other on the other portion of Alverap. We're going to continue doing the same uh design and the same landscaping within uh within the writer.

Any more questions? The owner is here also to to respond any questions if you if you have further questions. Thank you. And again, not public comment. Correct. All right. I will entertain a motion before we open this for discussion. Move to approve with the exceptions. Second. Let's open it up for discussion through the chair. Yes.

Again, Nordon's from 1974. We move into 2026. For some reason, they want a road because business is going to expand. Okay. And as we've seen throughout the east side and that area all around businesses expanding. I have uh being an industrial an industrial person. I visit all those places when I deliver and go see my customers. Too many times in some of these already um um industrial places, the employees go out to walk and they're walking on the streets and it's not safe because there was no sidewalks provided because we gave the exception or past uh commission gave the exception for no sidewalks. And I just feel that from here on on they need sidewalks. Eventually more business is going to come through there. No sidewalks. no sidewalks because this is bested because the other side doesn't have sidewalks and sidewalks and I think that we need to as a commission from now until the future we need to set precedence that sidewalks and safety are important. I I hesitate to say that we should judge it based on the 1974 versus 2026 just because I think that's a legal issue and we don't want to open ourselves up to any sort of litigation. But I I do think that um if the 1974 ordinance said that they still had to come forward and ask for permission to get a waiver for this that it is within our um it's within the CPC's decision and based on the

proximity to neighborhoods and more specifically a park. The park is the closest thing to it. I think that there should be sidewalks. I think that that's flat. I I'm not budging from that. So, anybody else have comments on that? Uh,

yeah. I mean, I see the logic. If you don't have sidewalks that connect to other sidewalks, why need sidewalks? But I also agree uh with the idea that I mean, time carries on, things will be built, change eventually. Um, and I think if we can start with one section of sidewalk, all of a sudden when the time comes, it'll make more sense to put the next sidewalk. Um, we're in the vicinity of some residential. Some people might want to walk to work. Um, and as I asked, is there anything creating an undue hardship associated with putting sidewalks in this space? The answer was no. It's just it doesn't fit the character. So, if it's not going to be exceptionally difficult to put the sidewalks, why not put sidewalks? That's my That's my stance.

I just think we need to be consistent when we're asking them asking applicants to put the sidewalks. So, as long as the sidewalk I agree, we need to have the sidewalks in place as long as it's not sidewalk, no sidewalk, sidewalk, no sidewalk. So, um I do think we need to have them, but we need to be consistent with the applicants. Okay. I think the owner wants to speak. Yes. Yes.

Uh there's first of all, let me address Mr. Berago's comment about vesting. You know, that's a legal right and it's not a local ordinance. It's a state law and it's been on the books for decades. It's just what it is. It's one of the vested rights of property ownership. It's just like you can flow your undeveloped water from this guy to that guy. It's a right. So, I just want to make sure that you understand that as much as you'd like to go forward and say, you know what, let's cut this off and start this. Um, that's something you'd have to take up with the state legislature and have them change that law. But it's right now it's a property right as far as safety goes. Um you are right. We have a park to the south of this road and there are residential subdivisions planned all along that. But those residential subdivisions are blocked from the industrial area by a rock wall. We're fe fearful of children. They like to run in the desert and we don't want them on the sidewalks with their skateboards when there's big trucks and we have big trucks there. So, if you'll think of that as a dividing line, we have the residential to the south and to the north. We have industrial. The industrial heavy truck traffic. Lord knows they don't really look out for little kids. So, as much as we'd like to keep those little kids away, they like to run around. We see them in our truck courts and our industrial areas all the time. We don't want to encourage that by

putting sidewalks that they're going to go skateboarding down because it's a thousand foot downhill run. So we feel for dis vested rights and for safety actually that in a way that is a hardship. We are saying you know let's protect those children. We don't want them up there. We're trying our best to keep them away. It's hard. Little kids run but that's what we we feel. So we ask for that as a courtesy. Although in the ordinance it does not require sidewalks. In the required improvements, there is no mention of sidewalks. Butterfield Trails, the city's industrial park doesn't have sidewalks. All of Vistadville Soul Industrial was developed without sidewalks. So, as much as you may not like the vesting law, it is the law. So, please take that into consideration. Thank you. through the chair. Um, the city planning commission also has the right on sidewalks that even city council cannot overturn. Am I correct, Mr. Smith? So, city council has given the subdivision authority to approve or deny items to the city plan commission. Uh, there's no other appeal mechanism that I'm aware of. it it rests here. Um, as you're aware, if it meets city code, you shall approve it. Um, but if these are the um considerations that the city plan commission must must uh evaluate as as these come before you, obviously, as staff sees it, I don't see it's a one-sizefits-all. Is each case is unique. That's why it's not a given that these will be waved or constructed. It's up for the city plan commission to

decide whether it's appropriate to grant the waiver request or to deny the request. Um but each one needs to be looked at on its own merits looked at the surrounding conditions and then it's up the city plan commission to um act on that. Thank you, Mr. Smith. So where is the rock wall for the park? You mentioned or the applicant mentioned the rock wall for the neighborhoods. How high is the rock wall in that park? How protected is that park from anybody else entering?

The applicant would like to come up here and say something. It doesn't show on photograph but at the bottom of the page of the picture to the right hand there is an existing park with a subdivision and that's called ground Vista estates unit one and it has a rock wall and the only entrance into that subdivision is from the south further it's not from the north you can't get to to it from the industrial area and the the rock wall extends to the park. The park is locked in extends to the park. Yes. Okay. And so yeah, staff would like to say something. Staff right next to you.

Yeah. Yeah. And uh Mr. Stop is correct. There is a rock wall. I cannot tell the height, but there is a rock wall that is surrounding the park.

There will never be any residential access from the south to this industrial area. We have made sure of that. We plan on building additional residential to the west, but it will also have a rock wall and no vehicular traffic access to this industrial. That's a detriment. You know, homeowners don't want that. They want to be able to know that they are them and their children are safe. So, we do not want vehicular traffic coming from the south up to this area. This is an industrial area. What is the zoning of the parcels immediately around it?

Uh surrounding areas are labeled as C4. Only the the area where the residential uh unit is located is R R2. No, R3 if I'm not mistaken. So none of the undeveloped area is residential. All of the undevelop Well, specify one undeveloped area. The dirt. Okay. To the south there is a subdivision. There's going to be a new subdivision directly to the west of it. It will be residential. But if you will think of it as you can see on the aerand drive right there it shows right under that building there's a little label.

That is the dividing line between the north and the south. to the south that extension of that road will have a rock wall and to the south of that no access will be allowed onto your and you're developing that. Yes, we own all that. We don't want them there. And the industrial people that we deal with, they don't want them there. Nobody wants to cross over. comments.

May the way I see it, the reason I approved, yes, is because the rest of the subdivision doesn't have a sidewalk. So, I don't think it makes sense to have a sidewalk here and not a sidewalk on the parcels next to it. So u if it's for safety which I agree all the subdivision should have uh uh sidewalks but in this case all the subdivision does not have sidewalks so why are we putting sidewalk just on this lot that's my point may I add that all that yellow that you see down there that will be residential and all of that the existing residential has sidewalks and the new residential will have sidewalks of course but there will not be any connection from the south to the north or vice versa.

And that's already platted the residential. We're getting ready to It's zoned. We reszoned it. You just reszoneed that. We reszoned it about two years ago and then we coming in with a with new subdivision uh plat and improvement plans very shortly. Okay. Okay.

Discussion amongst us. Part of my concern and why I asked for the zoning is that I didn't want future industrial to move further and further towards residential given that they just reszoned it to residential. I don't think that there's much risk in obviously there still is until there are houses on the ground. I don't think there's much risk in that area being zoned to industrial and then, you know, us just continuing not to put sidewalks, not to put sidewalks. I just we do want to establish a consistent rule within the commission of how we enforce sidewalks. So I I'm a little torn on this one.

The question, please. vote. So, there's a motion. There's a motion already. Um, all in favor? I. All opposed? Nay. Nay. Roll call, please. And this is to clarify to approve the plat with the exception. Okay. I will take a vote on item number six. Uh Badil nay.

Massud. Uh yes. Nay. Hansen. Nay. Rebe. Hi. and the ski. Motion fails. I will entertain another motion.

Russell Aland, assistant city attorney. So, as we know, um the subdivision portion of it, other than the approval of the exception is ministerial. So you if it meets all requirements, you are required to at least approve the the subdivision um without the exception. Okay. In that case, I move to approve item number six without the exception, meaning no sidewalk, meaning with sidewalks. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? I.

All oppose. Motion carries. Thank you. Moving on to number seven. I believe on seven. No. Yes. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and commission members. Alejandra Gonzalez with planning and inspections. Items number seven and eight on the agenda will be heard together. They are a comprehensive plan amendment to modify the future land use map in a related resonian application for the subject property located souththeast of America's Avenue and Northeast North Loop. Here's an aerial of the property which is highlighted in yellow. The applicant is requesting an amendment to plan El Paso comprehensive plan to adjust the future land use designation for the property from 03 agriculture to G7 industrial andor rail yards. The proposed future land use designation on the property is to match the existing and proposed resoning district to accommodate for a proposed commercial development. The existing old tree agriculture designation is no longer appropriate for the area as the area has been in transition into commercial and light industrial uh uses. The applicant is also proposing to resone the subject property from AO special contract to C4 special contract. The proposed reszoning request will to match the property under the same zoning district as the surrounding properties. Uh here we see the conceptual site plan that shows a proposed development which consists in six building with main access from America's Avenue. The conceptual plan is not under review for zoning and is not binding. Uh here's an image of the property which is 24 acres in size and is currently

vacant. Properties to the north are vacant also zone C3 commercial. And the properties to the east include vacant land in general warehouse zone C4. Properties to the south include also a general warehouse and vacant land zone C4. And to the west we see loop 375 with property across um zone C3. The property is within the Mission Valley Civic Association and corridor 20 civic association which were notified prior to submittable the resoning application. Public public notices were mailed to the property property owners within 300 feet on April 10, 2026. And additionally, the applicants representative has been in communication with corridor 20 to discuss the to discuss the development and their concerns. Uh the planning division has not received any communication in opposition or support to the request. With that, staff recommend approval of the amendment request to the future land use map and staff recommends approval of the resoning request. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions? All right. Can we hear from the applicant, please?

Good afternoon. My name is Sami Rometo with H2O and we agree with all staff comments. Thank you. Any questions? All right. Thank you. This is not a public comment, correct? So, Alejandra, are we hearing both items seven and eight at the same time? No, this is just seven.

Seven and eight. Okay, this is actually the items for seven and eight. I wish you would have told us that before. Yeah, I I believe she did mention that at the very beginning. This is item 78. And did you discuss anything about zoning? No. Right. Seven is zoning. Seven is the amendment to the future land use map which is the guy that from the comprehensive plan. Number eight is a resoning for the same property. Yes. But in your presentation, did you discuss zoning or was it just the future? Yes, I did. She did both. It's both together. So, Alandre, if you please please just go over the resoning portion for the commission.

Okay. Okay. This is the the resoning request is from AO special contract to C4 special contract.

So, to clarify, I don't know if we have anybody on the phone or listening. Um, this will be for the future land use amendment and a resoning application. So, this is a public comment. So, now that the item has changed, does anybody have any questions? Okay. Thank you. So, we've heard from the applicant. This is public comment. If anybody would like to speak on the phone or in person, it is star six to unmute. again. That's star six to unmute. Okay. Public comment is closed. Do I have a vote?

Motion. Motion. I move to approve item number seven and eight. A second. All right. Any discussion? No. All in favor? I. All oppose. Motion passes. Thank you. And we have one more item, a reszoning of track 17C119.

Yes. Good afternoon, chair, members of the commission. Alejandra Gonzalez with planning and inspections. Item number nine on the agenda is a resoning request for the subject property located at north of Vista delt and west of Joe Battle Boulevard. Here's an aerial image of the property which is 87 acres in size and is currently vacant. The applicant is requesting to resone the subject property from R3 residential to C1 commercial to allow allow for a medical office. The future land use map designates the property as G4 suburban which calls for increasing the housing stock and adding missing civic and commercial uses. Here we have the conceptual site plan showing the area for resoning requests highlighted in yellow. The property will have future access through Joe Battle from St. Dominic Drive and the conceptual site is not being reviewed for zoning requirements and is not biting. Here's an image of the subject property. Properties adjacent to the property are some C4 commercial to the north and to the east and include a self uh storage warehouse and lots that are currently under development. To the south we have C1 commercial. Uh it's also vacant and to the west the it's artery residential and include single family dwellings. Public notices were m to property owners within 300 ft of the subject property on April 10, 2026. And the planning division has not received any communication in support or opposition of the request. With that, staff recommends approval with a condition of the resoning request and the condition is as follows. that a 10 foot landscape buffer shall be placed

along property lines adjacent to residential zone district or uses and this conclude that presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? I do through the chair. St. Dominic is not paved yet. No, correct. No, it's not. It's still a dirt road. Yes.

Eventually, the city will pave it. Um Kevin Smith with planning inspections. So um I'm not aware of any plans to pave San Dominique. Um if it is a dedicated roadway that be fall under the city inventory, but as you're aware there other roadways throughout the city which have been dedicated which have not been improved but um that' be a capital project through a capital improvement department. Thank you. Is there any specific reason you asked or?

Well, uh, supposedly they want to build a medical complex that's not tied into this. This is just a reszoning. And I said, well, wow. Dirt roads. That's all. Thank you. Any other comments? Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant? Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm representing Bratislava Mirich and I agree with the staff member. Any questions? Any questions? Thank you.

So, this is also a public comment. If there's anybody on the phone, that is star six to unmute. Anybody in person? Again, that's star six to unmute. Public comment is closed. I will entertain a motion through the chair. I move to approve item number nine with condition. Okay. Do I have any discussion? All in favor? I I. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.

All right. Before we take a motion to adjourn, it is Mr. Massud's last day here. Thank you very much for all your time. We appreciate it. Thank you very much for I mean staff for all your excuse me one last time your microphone. Oh that's right. One last time you get to tell me that. Yeah. Well, I'm going to thank staff for all their support and help and and being generous with uh their uh information for us. And hopefully some other time I could be appointed again. Thank you guys. I'll entertain a motion. So move to adjourn. Second.

Second. All in favor? I. All opposed. Motion carries. Y'all have a great day.