Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. Do we have questions for staff?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All right, can we hear from the next person?

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

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

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

Legal. This site development plan is binding correct.

Is that part of the site development plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am represented by this legal department and I. Yeah. Yeah. So thank you very much. We are going to deliberate. Does anybody think they're going to move on their vote? No. All right. We'd like to make a.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other questions? All right, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, anything else? One more motion? No one? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you so much, everyone. Have a great day.