Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Afternoon everybody. We apologize for that. Uh we'll get back into our meeting at uh 5:46 p.m. Miss Rodriguez. Thank you.

Good evening, Chairman Commissioners Jud Rodriguez Planet with the city of Sakoro. We'll continue with the next item of the agenda which is item number six and this is a reszoning request application for the property at 11580 Norloop Drive. We'll now proceed with the general information beginning with an overview of the property. The property is located at 11580 Norloop Drive. Legal description is being tracked to B3A4A and 4 H block 11 Soro Grand. The property owner it's Blaza Real Estate Martha Griala who is also acting as her own authorized uh representative. The lot size is 14 acres. zoning it's an A1 agriculture current land use is vacant future land use is a rural residential summary request is for approval of a resoning of a property from A1 agriculture to GMG general mix use to allow for commercial and residential development and staff recommends approval of the resoning request with condition that a master zoning plan MCP be submitted review and approved in accordance with the ordinance. Now we have the zoning map where the subject property it's outlined in white. The green shading uh denotes the the A1 agriculture. The surrounding zonings are R1 in yellow which is the single family residential R2 medium density residential in orange and C2 general commercial in red.

followed by the future land use map from our Sakoro 20 240 comprehensive plan where the subject property is outlined in red. The beige color represents the rural residential zoning district surrounded by regional commercial in red and suburban residential and yellow. Now we have an aerial image of the property. which is outlined in yellow. Uh the site contains an existing structure and is but is currently vacant and has the red um axis of frontage along North Loop Drive. Surrounding land uses include established residential subdivisions to the east and vacant land to the west and additional undeveloped uh tracks uh nearby. Then we have some photos of the property. The top image shows the property is viewed from Nor Drive and the bottom image shows the property from the right uh rear side. This slide shows the public notice map highlighting the area within the 200 ft of the property that was notified uh as required by law regarding the proposed reszoning followed by the public notice letter that were mailed uh both in English and Spanish to uh property owner ers within those 200 ft around of the subject property and no support support has been received in person, by mail, by phone or via email. However, we did receive two

calls requesting information and expressing um concerns. Then we have the conceptual plan. This is this plan is just conceptual but it's not a final plan. Uh here we can see the applicants proposed concept including residential and commercial uh buildings uh landscaping areas, parking and the access point to the property. During the uh prede pre-development meeting, staff emphasized that the applicant needed to coordinate with Texad for access from Nor Drive and with El Paso County Water Improvement District number one for the canal crossing. And the applicant was also informed that all related development cost are responsibility of the property owner. This plan, the conceptual plan, uh doesn't specify any uh number of units or their square footage because it's just conceptual. Okay. First, no. Can you please please just uh first let me just explain a little bit of what is the the purpose of the general mix use uh zoning districts as this is the first time a reszoning request to general mixed use is being uh presented. The general mixed use zoning district is intended to provide flexibility for the integrated development of residential, neighborhood, commercial, and institutional uses within a single unified plan. It promotes a coordinated approach to land development while

helping preserve preserve the city's historic and rural character. and some uh general mixed use development. Developments are guided by several key designs principle and we have some of them. Encouraging field and rede redevelopment within existing neighborhoods. Providing a mix of housing types and densities. Promoting walkable mixeduse environments. integrating residential, commercial, and civic uses rather than separating, including parks, open spaces, and community gathering areas. Reducing the visual and functional dominance of vehicles being uh secondary in design. So, according to can you please go back? According to section 46, a master zoning plan is required for all general mixed use resoning applications and must be submitted with the application. This plan must include enough detail for the city council to evaluate land use compatibility and potential impacts on surrounding uh properties. And also it's important to note that um minor modifications to a submitted or approved master zoning plan may be authorized by the city planner if they if they are not uh that significant uh or modify the overall development intensity layout or impacts of the project. With all that said, after staff review and discussion with the applicant, the applicant has chosen to move forward

with the general mixuse reszoning based on just a conceptual map plan. Staff explain that a master zoning plan is required, but the applicant wishes to proceed at this time understanding that a complete master zone plan will still be required and must be approved by the planning and zoning commission and the city council before any development activity. And once again, summary request request is for approval of reszoning of property from A1 agriculture to GMU general mixed use to allow for commercial and residential development. And at this time, staff and the applicant, Miss Mahia, we're available to answer any question you might have. Thank you.

I I have a quick question. is the applicants are here, right? Correct. Yes. Do do you mind stepping up? Just got a couple of questions.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Maya Mahia and I'm the business consultant for Mr. and Mr. Melendez. um they've owned this property for about three and a half years and seeing the growth that's happening in Soooro, they wanted to be a part of enhancing the community and we're not here to to change um we we met with staff for almost a year. It's been almost um nine months or 10 months that we met with staff. We do understand the requirements and we're not here to just um build something that is not going to go with the master plan that the city has. We're here to enhance and to make the community better. And we are going to meet with staff and we're also going to meet with the water district so that we can that is definitely um we're here to work together. were not here to um come and um you know do their own and you can hear from the the owners

but they are um they're aware that there's a lot of residential areas in that in that section but there isn't any commercial as far as stores and things that they could just even walk. So we looking at a walkable communities in the city of El Paso. Um for for example Montesio of course not to that level but um they they thought that having mixed use would help the community so that they don't have to get in their car and drive. And as you could see across the street the residential area is just um booming. So there's nothing there's I think a gas um where they sell gas next door that business next to the lot. So there isn't any stores or anything where they could just walk and you know get the basic supplies. So that's what we want to do. We're not here to change anything. We want to be a part of the community and not to change what you guys are already building.

Yes, sir. And and that was actually one of my questions. I just really really wanted to make sure that you guys understand um especially seeing the the W here, you've got to be sure that you that you're in compliance with them and that it's going to function and and because you know they that's that's a big hurdle that you've got to cross and stuff. And then my second question was um is there a I don't remember if I heard anything whether there was a a um dedication easement for the future expanding of North Loop. Um we did talk about that. So go ahead.

No. So, we did whatever we need to do, they're they're um willing to do it to dedicate whatever it needs, whatever whatever we need to do just to make, you know, to make sure that we're helping as well. So, we're not That's great. That's great because we're we're Yeah, that's one that's a big uh issue that we've had Long North Loop. Yes. We're really trying to push text dot to, you know, come in faster than I know there's been a feasibility study already and um it's there's it's a long process, but we're we're trying to push them to where, you know, I know that businesses have to come in and

more rooftops and all that for them to, you know, pressure them to come in quicker than what they probably would or what not. But, right, I'm I'm glad you guys, you know, are are willing to work with us on that. Oh, absolutely. Right. But so they're they understand the process and we like I said, it's going to almost be a year that we've been working on this. So we work very close with staff and they're so amazing and they make it easy to work with and we do understand we do have to come back and do the master zoning plan. So we do understand and we're going to do everything that is required on our behalf.

So I have a question. So, I think um there's some concern from the um uh water district. Um I guess um if they're asking for engineering plans, I would assume that you guys haven't submitted that to them so that they could review them. um because it looks like there's some concern uh with irrigation rights for some that still have them in that area, right?

And so I I would have concerns about uh approving a plan and not really thoroughly getting all the information that is required to make sure that in fact you can put these buildings there.

Right. and and we will work with them if if what we have um what we have the vision we have doesn't work as far as the mixed use. I mean we don't have an actual they don't know how many buildings they don't know we're we're still going to work with everybody that we need to work with in order to make that rights that decision. So we don't have a set amount of residential or a set amount of commercial. So that's what we wanted to do is come before you to see if if if it was approved so that we could move forward with working with the other entities. We did speak to Mr. Dan, Mr. Miguel Dan works with you. Um so he was aware but I think he stepped down because he's now going to be our next um commission county commissioner. So um we so we did we did reach out but we didn't we haven't um done any engineering plans or anything but we will do whatever is required of us to work together with the community.

I have a question for the water improvement district possible. Who's Mr. or go ahead with the application if they submit it if we approve this condition. Correct. So no development can take place until the master zoning plan is approved. So then why is staff approving this with condition? What is what's the difference between it fulfilling the requirements as the ordinance requires of all the

would have been if they had come with the plan complete ready to go with the densities the um the dedication of uh not just north loop but the side road uh abudding the properties that the gentleman was uh discussing to the north part of their property uh the landscape the the commercial part. So, the whole plan, they weren't ready to develop that and submit it yet. Uh they're just asking for your consideration with the request for this as a general um mixed use zone. Okay,

Mr. So, that answers some questions in regards to the water that that leaves again, right? Once we reszone it to commercial, it can pretty much go any route at that point. Correct. And it if it were commercial, but this request is going to be general. This is general mixed juice. Correct. It allows some flexibility. The it um with this with the um the layout, the fact that you can have both commercial and residential. So that is their uh request before you today. Um at that point there is commercial and mixed use, right? Yes. So it couldn't go any route in the commercial aspect, right?

Not just not any route. Uh do you have the list of what some of the commercial types of uses that would be allowed in general mixed use? So it's not heavy density or heavy activity commercial mixed use. It's meant to be retail to create these walkable communities. Uh still keeping in the character of our future. No warehousing, no anything like that.

Yeah. So, so still also keeping in the character of the future land use map which asks for rural estate. So, it can still by their design could still have a rural feel to it even though it's apartments, even though it has some commercial. I guess my question is why not bring this back once the requirements of the ordinance are met? That was a request of the applicant. they'd kind of been working on it for a while and just wanted to keep moving forward. But your your recommendation can be to deny the not deny the request, but maybe if they're they're interested in tableling it till they're ready to move forward.

Um that would definitely be an option. Um and also so the cost involved, right? So just for the conceptual plan that was $5,600, right? So the cost that comes with preparing for this. So to go ahead and do the next phase, we'd have to um of course spend more money. And we do have to come, we understand we still have to come before the planning and zoning. So there's nothing that we can do anyways if it's approved with um uh a what is it? With the condition

with the condition. So, if it's approved with a condition, we really can't do anything until we come back with the master. And I I think that's my point. I mean, the ordinance is written as a requirement to bring it forth with a master and zoning plan. And so, I feel uncomfortable. That's written in our ordinance. It's a requirement and that has to happen. Anyways, and so I unfortunately I just don't feel comfortable approving it as is true. I apologize. Quick, um, we have a caller, Diana Martinez. She just joined the call. Do you want me to address her right now? Do you want me to address her to the next item? No. If she is Oh, we've already closed the public hearing for this item. So, after this item. Okay.

Yeah. I think um I think it's um it's uncomfortable because of the fact that um we might be opening doors that we don't want to open. You know, I think um I think that um as a master plan, I I I think I'm just uh concerned about the reasoning why you you you want to go this route and not just have just thrown it all out there for us. Okay. Because I'm I'm concerned about number one, water rights. When you say that, you know, there's there maybe maybe not. uh are we going to cut off people that

So that is one of the that's the process, right? If you the property has water rights, they need to submit an irrigable plat to the water improvement district and we wouldn't re we would not approve a final plat for this property until that irrigable plat has been submitted and approved by the water improvement district. Okay. In that plot, they need to identify what they're going to do with the water rights. if they are keeping them uh or they're distributing it to the development itself. uh if they are giving it to the Blower Valley Water District and if it is that the case and it's the case in this uh instance where you have to make sure that the flow continues on to the recipients of the water on the canal and down downstream that that is clear and unobstructed and the easement is uh included in the plat irrigatable plat and the plat that gets submitted separately to the planning and zoning department. But if it would be important for their development plan to have all of that in place to know where their uh where that easement is going to be.

I have a I have a comment on the on the water rights. Um an attorney a few years back told me he said he said David there's there's regarding irrigation rights he said there's God and then there's the state of Texas and then there's irrigation rights and uh meaning in the state of Texas irrigation rights go with the land and it is very difficult to give away those rights or to sell those rights. Um, what happens a lot of times, and this is again an attorney explaining it to me, is saying developers sometimes tend to overlook and get away with not honoring those rights and sometimes municipalities as well in order to push a development through. And usually it falls on the land owners that have those irrigation rights to just stay on the forefront and make sure that that they retain those rights and that access. In this case, I think everybody's on board to to make sure that

that the irrigation rights are honored, but um at the end, irrigation rights in Texas are right up at the top.

I I agree with that. uh uh WID really really on top of their stuff and any rights that they have or easements or any community um uh any canals that go through there or whatnot almost for sure will not be touched. Um, I don't know if I can have somebody from the water improvement district just come up and um I just want to make sure that everybody understands that you know how the W works. There's a canal there, it's going to stay there probably 99.9% 100% right.

That's correct. And if if if there's water running to a certain if there's a community ditch per se that feeds, you know, seven lots or whatnot, it those those people have to get their their water, they it can't be blocked or anything. Correct. Correct. So if if they have water rights, even ourselves when we're cement lining our canals, if there's a turnout there, even if it hasn't been used in years, if the land has water rights, we cannot remove the turnout. Correct. and it will stay. So, in other words, whatever they do or what not, it's got to go through you and it's got to be approved by you. Correct.

If it's not approved by you, then that's the risk that they take. And I mean, they've got to follow your your ordinances and your rules and and Yes. And and that's for all all lands that have water rights. In this case, they also have water rights. So we we will work with them as well as long as all easements are respected. Right. Okay. And you guys understand that fully. Okay. If you could step into the mic

and and and I I I'm sorry. And one more thing and maybe this to the public because I know there's a lot of them that that this is going to affect or whatnot. I to everybody in the audience, right? you uh if you have water rights right now, they can't be taken away from you just because a developer goes in there and builds or whatnot. They're they have to find they've got to go to the WID and and follow their their rules and they they can't just take away your water rights. Okay.

I have that's the only question I have for the W. Um, regarding the master plan, it's a master plan for that parcel only is what is in the ordinance. Correct. Everything that you listed right now, easement, access onto North Road. And so that would be a full set of plans that we're used to seeing like when a development

not a not a plat probably more in line with the what you see when we have um a reasonzoning to the ICMUD. where everything is laid out and that is a plan that they had to adhere to. They can't change their mind later. If they need to make a minor amendment that can be done administr administratively, but if it's a major change, it needs to come back to the planning and zoning commission for recommendation and to city council for approval.

Okay. Um, and so let's let's let's assume that if this goes through, it can it can get approval from planning and zoning for for the reasonzoning to to the mixed use and then it can get approved by city council. Um, at that point it's reszoned to to general mixed use. No, it has a condition. It has a condition and it can't move forward until they

the develop the development can't move forward but at that point it's already reszoned if if let's say let's assume that it gets passed here and then it goes to city council and they pass it. So it gets reszoned to mixed use but we have that condition but even if they don't come back with any conditions or with any mass with a master plan in the future it's already reszoned. No, because it's got the condition that it needs to satisfy before it can get reasoned. So then why present and ask to be voted on for their comfort in knowing that they they can go ahead and make the investment and move forward is my best guess, but you can ask the applicant.

That's correct. Like I mentioned before, the cost for the plans for anything that we have to do. So if if it wasn't going to get approved, then we don't we didn't want to move forward with um doing anything else. So we want to make sure before we go move forward with this development. And like we said, we're not here to change anything that you guys are working on. We're here to work together and um we're not here to change or bring something that is not of Soo. Um Mr. Melendez has his business here on um He has a trucking company there and he's he's been there for a long time. So, he's a part of of Soooro and he doesn't want to see any changes as you know as much. Um I did hear that a lot of the agricultural um land is is um people are looking at reszoning because nobody is is using the land for for the use anymore. So that's why Mr. Lendas wanted to go ahead and invest and not in something that is not going to be useful for Soooro, something that is going to enhance and we're here to work together. We understand we have to go through text and we did meet with the utilities. Um, we did talk to gas company and they said that this development would help to bring the residential area behind, right? We could get gas our development to them. So, we're here to help your community. We're not here to change or to do anything that is out of what you have planned.

If I may, I I again I speaking from I I don't think that's the concern. The concern is that the ordinance requires a master zoning plan to be submitted with the application that's in front of us. I understand that and empathetic to the understanding that there's an investment to the master zoning plan that's going to need to happen anyways. And in the next step, there are still whatifs, but as the ordinance is written right now for the city of Sakoro and everybody who submits applications. It's a requirement for mastering zoning and it is I'm going to go ahead and fulfill my role to ensure that we follow that ordinance. Um, so again, that's I have no concern or I'm not talking to what you plan to do. My focus right now is the ordinance as it's written. Requirement is a master and zoning plan. I I just why we would come back to do this

over and over again and that's why we're requesting with conditions. We understand that, you know, we can't do anything without the conditions, right? So, we wanted to see if we could move forward with I think this would be the first mixeduse development here in the in Soo. So, we wanted to bring something different that could help the community and we just wanted to make sure um see how you guys feel how if we could get it approved with conditions. We're fine with that so we can move forward in scheduling meetings so that we could work on that master plan.

Do do you have a a ballpark dollar amount of what a master plan would cost you?

Just a general idea. I I have no idea, but I'm sure it's more than 20,000 because this this conceptual plan was 5600. So, and we had to go back and forth with this one. So, that's that's why we we want to make sure that it's approved with conditions. We just want to see if that's something that you would want to see in on North Loop. Well, I I guess I I understand everything that's here uh or that's being presented. I think overall it's 15 acres is what it is, right? And so I'm on I understand the ordinance part, the master plan part, but the bigger question that crosses my mind is let's say this is denied and then down the line we're getting presented with another warehouse for example,

right? Or high density apartments or something. I mean, this is overall I think the concept is is good, you know? I think it's good. I think that's what Sakor is looking for overall.

I agree. I think that this is this is something that Sakoro needs. I think it's um um if there's conditions um I I wouldn't want the applicant to walk away is what I would I would say is I wouldn't want the applicant to walk away and and not come back again because we might end up with something that we don't want. I also agree with that and just the only reason is uh that's why we have conditions that we can um we can incorporate

incorporated into there or whatnot. I just um I feel the same way you guys do and um I just my main focus was just to make you guys understand and really understand that there's some hurdles that you guys have to cross. if you guys are willing to cross those hurdles and at the end it doesn't work out right. It was at your expense or whatnot. Um but uh I I am happy to see businesses come come and uh again I know it's a frustration to a lot of the public because it's on North Loop and it's a lot of traffic. I I myself live off of right off of North Loop and it takes me 5 10 minutes sometimes just to get on North Loop.

I deal with that struggle every single day. But again, I go back to wanting to bring businesses more rooftops or whatnot so that text dot can actually come out and really do what they need to do. I fear that, you know, if it gets to a halt, we already have a problem with the traffic. And if it comes to a halt, that problem's going to be there forever. But if we push them, and again, there's growing pains. when the city grows, it's growing pains and it's uncomfortable and it, you know, it's frustrating, but that's growth and um yeah, I just want you guys to understand that there's a lot of hurdles that you guys got to go through.

Oh, absolutely. I absolutely understand. I'll be the one um leading this project. So, I give you my word. There is nothing going to be there that the community is not wanting. We we wanted mixed use because we understand walking to the store and not having to use your car, right? We see it in the city of El Paso how how nice it is to not have to get in your car and get through that traffic and just be able to go buy milk or bread with the basics. So, that's what they want to bring. They're not thinking of bringing anything that is not going to enhance what your master plan is. And that's what we want. We want it's going to have his name and he's he wants to do something that the community we feel is in need of which is a mixed use. And we are proud hopefully if it gets approved to be the first of this type of of community in Sootoo which will hopefully bring more mixed use um to the city. I also want to uh make it clear to the public also, right, that this is just this is just a step. It's the planning zoning. We're here only just to make our recommendation to city council.

Whatever happens today or what not, you guys can still go to city council and they have the last vote on this. Okay? We we're just making our recommendation to city council. Um and from there, I I don't have any questions. No, I don't have any questions. No, you Mr. Stra. Yeah.

Um, so I I'm I don't have any doubt that you that you and the and the owners have all the best of intentions, but things happen economically, financially, life happens. And so I'm I'm wanting clarification. If, for example, the applicant for whatever reason changes their mind, right? And a year later, does this go or does it stay on the books as as a reszoned parcel to mixed use if the condition is never met? Because it it'll get passed. It will remain A1 until the condition is met. It'll remain A1 until the condition is met. And if somebody else if they were to sell the property, then that would be another zoning application.

Okay. I think this is just like a step that it's just you knowward. Correct. With with more money. Right. Right. Okay. Um, another question I'm looking at. I can find it. Okay. So, I'm looking at at this sheet right here, right? And so, I'm wondering, are these parcels right here, are they currently landlocked? They have access as the gentleman who spoke second. Uh they have um a road a dirt road that's a private easement

that connects them to North Loop. I don't know if you want to go to the aerial and maybe zoom in. Okay. So private private road on whose parcel on the on all of theirs? It runs along all of theirs. So that would be another item that we would we would request. uh and is that they this parcel dedicate their proportionate share for a future road along the edge of that property. Okay. So the to connect the existing private road comes across all those parcels all those parcels.

Okay. And then so part of what you'll or or the city will be requesting is that the applicant dedicate their share. Is that is that what I understood? Yes. Which is how much? Like how much? Like how wide? 50 feet, 30 feet, 20 feet. I don't have no idea. 15 15.

Okay. And the applicant is willing to to dedicate. This also is again uh something that can be discussed as as part of their plan. If their design is unique and can offer something that's beneficial to to to them and and to the city, maybe something else can be worked out. But uh if this were just any other development uh it would the city would request that section of the road for a future road on that side. The city does not have plans to um build a road for the other side currently, but that is something that could be brought forward considering that this new development is coming now.

And you guys are okay with with if so nobody will be landlocked. You guys are okay with that and open to dedication to an accessibility easement for them also? Yes, of course. Yes, definitely. Okay. So, I understood from the gentleman that um he doesn't have any water running to these partials there. Was that correct? That these uh those parcels that we are looking at u north east west of the yellow line they don't have water and sewer. Yeah, there are still pockets in Sakuro that do not have water and sewer and this is one of them.

The irrigation dishes on the Okay.

I I don't have any more questions. Okay. No, David, I still see you kind of No, I'm good. You're ready to vote? You ready? Okay. I'd like to make a motion to approve with staff recommendations for the resoning with the condition of that the master zoning plan be submitted, reviewed, and approved in accordance with the ordinance. I second. I have a motion made by Andrea Royos to approve, second by Yolanda Rodriguez with staff recommendations. All those in favor of the motion? I I Any nays? Nay.

Any abstain? I that's motion carried. Moving on to item number seven, public hearing for the proposed amendment to the city of Sooto's master plan. And

thank you so much. Thank you. and resoning of lot 8, block 4 via Espa located at 10484 Elcid Drive, city of Sakoro, El Paso County, Texas from R1 single family residential to R2 medium density residential with a variance from section 46-2602 to allow for 10 dwelling units exceeding in the eight minimum permittable units in a R2 zoning district. Mr. Aoyos.

Good afternoon everybody. We will open public hearing at 6:28. So uh I have Miss Diana Martinez on the line. Let me just address her caller with the number 0224. Can you hear me? Hello. I can't I can barely hear anybody. Okay. Um, are you calling an item uh to call an item? Are you calling on behalf of an item?

Yes. Uh, it was on the water permit for the detention center. And I just wanted to say that we need to deny the water permit for the detention center. Um, the detention center is going to, how can I say? It's it's going to be a a human rights crisis and water should be going towards supporting the community and agriculture and supporting life and nurturing life rather than uh going towards an institution that will take away people's humanity. I don't think this is on the agenda, right?

No, thank you ma'am for your comments. Uh that item is not related to anything that we currently have on the agenda. If you'd like to reach out to staff, uh we can help you find uh the item that you maybe were looking at. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. We do have a speaker, Mr. Jesus Ariano. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Uh my name is Jesus. I live in 10492 LZ and I'm uh and I'm uh uh I'm here over here to give my two cents regarding the resoning of 1048 84 L. I believe they want to build uh 10 apartments. Uh the area is really really small. Even the entrance the entrance to to that property is very small. Um I strongly believe that that the single family dwellings instead of apartments because uh right now this existing uh duplex and the years I've been living in there for 40 odd years I've seen in those uh duplex um uh domestic violence drug dealing and there's a lot of traffic there. Uh I believe that the area that trying to develop for eight apartments, 10 apartments is too small. It's really too small. Um hopefully um this thing won't get through and because uh there's a lot of kids in there and u traffic is one of them. Um thank you. Thank you,

Miss L. Ariano. Okay. Drug traffic. Fire truck. parking spaces. Apartment

Thank you. Michael Manaka.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Michael Anthony Manaka and my I have lived in in Alsid for over 40 years. I want to describe what this street actually is in real life. Alsit is not a through street or a corridor. It functions like a closed residential system. We have codac conditions, limited turning space, and homes that directly face each other with um driveways entering into a narrow shared space. This multi-generational block, this is a multi-generational block. families, older residents, children, people who walk, who use the street slowly and locally. The way this street works today depends on low traffic, breability among neighbors. This proposal changes that. It introduces a level of activity and movement that this street was simply not designed to handle. I'm asking you to see this not as a vacant lot, but as part of a living neighborhood system that already functions in a specific way. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Christina Menaka Dominguez.

Hi, good evening. My name is Christina Mencho Dominguez and I also lived in 1045 Alid. I want to focus on safety and the daily impact of this street. We're already seeing unsafe um driving behavior on this block today. Vehicles, they come into this culde-sac, they turn really quickly, they accelerate toward Santa Pa. This isn't uh theoretical. It's happening right now. Um the street design contributes to it, especially at the elbow near the culde-sac where um Jesus and his wife live. And the yellow guardrail that's already at 10 uh 504 and 10500 um that site exists for a reason, that guardrail. And it's there because cars have been coming in too fast and too close to the home. If you see it, it's bent, you know, um all those cars are coming in fast. So that means this is already a known safety condition, right? Adding more units means more vehicles, more turning movements, more entries and exits. um and on a street that already showing that strain and now we have new sidewalks, thank you to the city, right, being used by both the elders and the children. Um that increases that risk. This is not just about more housing. It's about what happens when you add intensity to a street that already has safety challenges. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you. Erica Ortiz Joiner.

Hi, good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Eric Ortiz Joiner. I strongly oppose a resoning proposal because it will fundamentally alter the character of our small, close-knit neighborhood. The increased density will strain our existing infrastructure, create more traffic, and reduce the sense of safety and quiet that we all value so much. I hope you can reconsider the impact on the residents like myself who have lived here for decades. Everyone in this area knows each other for many many years. We are basically familia. There's a level of comfort and security that money cannot buy. So I hope that you reconsider all that. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. We have no more speakers. There's another speaker.

I'm so sorry. Mr. Carlos Menaka. Uh my name is Carlos Manaka. I live at 10485 Alcid across the street. And I'm also here speaking against this proposal. And the applicant is requesting two things today in this one action. a reasonzoning from R1 to R2 and a variance to exceed the R2 limit to 10 units. And that's what we're talking about today. But even under the requested zoning, this project does not comply. Staff has already recommended against exceeding the 8 unit cap. That alone should give us pause. Second, this site sits within a subdivision that is overwhelmingly R1 with the future land use designation of suburban residential. This is not a transition zone or a corridor. And you keep hearing that over and over again. It's an interior neighborhood street. Third, approving both a zoning and a variance here sets a precedent. something that I've been hearing you all talk about today with other applicants, other applications. It signals that similar lots in this neighborhood may be considered for increasing density beyond what the code already offers. So, I want to be clear, this is not opposing housing zoning already allows for eight units in the R2. The question before you though is whether we go beyond that on this street on this location. We have not heard a public benefit that justifies this increase. A zoning tra a zoning change creates value. It increases development potential, residential, uh rental potential, uh ultimately a profit. That is part of why

we are all here tonight in a public forum debating this request. So that much is clear. But if the broader goal is to truly address housing needs responsibly, then that conversation should happen through a city-wide process, a city-wide planning process, not one parcel at a time, and not through an isolated exception uh for an interior neighborhood street. So this commission and the city have an opportunity to lead a broader public conversation about where additional density makes sense, where it's safe, where infrastructure can support it, and how growth can occur responsibly with community engagement across the cororo. Now, importantly, the city has already adopted a Sakoro 2040 plan. I'm beginning to process that. It's a big document, but I'm reading it. And this comprehensive planning exists so that growth decisions are guided by this broader vision. That's not happening here. So good planning is not measured simply by how many units are being added but by whether growth fits in the context of the infrastructure surrounding it. So commissioners uh earlier tonight you talked a little bit about some of the precedent that you get set. So I'm hoping that you can bring that sentiment here tonight. I understand the pressure of local governments you fit that you're facing. So there's always concern that standards if they're not too high then people will walk away. I think I even heard it tonight that applicants will walk away. But really what we're doing is we're threading a threshold and we're saying if you want to build this is how you build. We're going to do it together but this is it. This is how we do it. And we're asking you to not make an exception tonight. Uh and instead we're asking for three things. One, deny the application tonight because it has the variance for the 10 units. uh if you want to reconsider R2, let's talk about the zoning, I'll invite you to come to the neighborhood and you can see what we're talking about so you can h have

eyes on it. Um and then three, uh really make sure that as we're moving through safety and and standards here that you're understanding that this interior street needs your support, but not there and not in more zoning, more um out of scale apartments. Thank you for your time tonight. Thank you. We have no other speakers. Okay. So, we will p close public hearing at 6:41.

Thank you. Moving on to item number eight. consider and take action on the proposed amendment to the city of Sakoro's master plan and resoning of lot 8 block 4 via Espña located at 10484 LCD city of Soro El Paso County, Texas from R1 single family residential to R2 medium density residential with a variance from section 46-260 section two to allow for 10 dwelling units exceeding the eight minimum permittable units in an R2 zoning district. Mr. Ree, thank you. Uh good evening, chair and members of the commission. Uh Diego Ree with the city planner with the city of Sakoro. We will be continuing with the resoning request of the property located at 10484 Elsa Drive. The reasoning request pertains to lot 8, block 4 of the VAS PA subdivision. The property owner, Marisella, is represented by David Oolin from EPG Planning Consultants. The property consists of approximately 24,276 square ft, which are.56 acres. It is currently zone R1, which allows for single family residential use. Uh the summary of the request to reszone the property to R2 which allows for medium residency res residential development and a variance to allow for 10 units uh which exceeds the eight maximum units permitted under R2 zoning. Uh staff recommends approval of the eight maximum permitted units excluding the v the variance. Here's the zoning map depicting the property with a red outline and colored yellow signifying the R1 single family residential zone. Uh, additionally, the

surrounding properties include multiple residential and commercial zones. The properties located within the VS Pay subdivision which is which was platted in June of uh 1978. The subdivision consists of primarily single family residential lots, specifically 54 R1 lots, uh, one R2 lot and two C2 lots. Next is the future land use map showing the subsequent zones according to the Soro 20 240 comprehensive plan. The future land use designation for this area is suburban residential. This area image provides context to the surrounding area. As you can see, the property is integrated with an already developed residential neighborhood. Here we have uh site pictures. Um the first picture being the view of the property as seen from Elsie Drive and the second picture is a closeup of the property inside the the dwelling inside the property. The public notice map currently shown uh illustrates the surrounding properties on a 200 foot radius to which they were sent the following public notice letters shown here. Um the development plan provoses a total of 10 dwelling units on the property that include two existing units and eight additional units. This exceeds the R2 zone maximum of eight units in total which is why the variance request is included.

Here are the u elevations of the uh apartments. Uh summary of the request is for is for approval of reszoning from R1 uh single family residential to R2 medium density residential with the variance uh to allow for 10 dwelling units exceeding the eight maximum permittable units in R2 zoning district. and present Lee staff and the applicants representative are available to answer any questions. What what um for the the ordinance 46 the one stated up there 46-260 what's the math that's being used there to show that the eight units are allowed? What's the what's the formula there? Um I think on the ordinance it just says that the maximum uh dwelling units uh will be eight. That's the the number that is it's giving.

15 per acre. 15 dwelling units per acre for our Okay. Um how many? 15. So this is about half an acre, right?

Yeah. I I'll make a comment. Hadn't we reviewed where there was an ordinance where it was allowable for a duplex on half acre and we didn't want to cross that limit? That that's what we're going to try to keep it at. Isn't that what we're referring back to? I mean, I wouldn't want to open a can of worms eight units even within half an acre. That's just way too much. Not only that, for the sake of the residents, I mean, we're disturbing older people, grandkids, etc. I mean, I'm okay with a duplex in half an acre or a quarter of an acre at the most, right? So, maybe allowing for two units because we can't tell again, right, residents, we can't tell owners what to do or not to do with their land, right? So, if they have the space, an additional duplex on half and and at that point, it would be four units on half acre at most, which is what we've always been trying to keep it, right? Let's say you have your own current residence, you live in the front, you have to now convert a living quarter in the back. Something like that would be allowable. But eight units within a residential area to me, I'll tell you right off my stance is is a no.

Well, I think the the biggest issue I have is that um it is currently an R1, but it's operating with apartments. Correct. Am I right? Yes. And I think it's operating as as an R2. Correct. So staff did some research and uh the applicant could also answer, but the duplex was in existence before the city zoning ordinance of 1989, but we I don't have any record of them or the original or of anyone coming to request a legal non-conforming status or letter for that property. And I staff and the applicant can can correct me if I'm wrong.

Okay. So the that duplex existed before the city reinccorporated and established zoning ordinances. Oh, okay. Okay. So it was it was never identified as an R1 or an R2 or or as zoning is what you're saying. Yeah. Okay. But I thought I saw in here that the zoning um the plat was recorded in 1978 and you had 54 R1's and you had one R2. Am I right? I was that R2 a zoning change?

Okay. Because it said there's only there was only one R2. So that is uh we can check to see if that's a zoning change or if the original zoning for that whole area was just a blanket R1 with the idea or the motivation that over time they would all develop into R1 as the legal nonconforming statuses uh were lost. But we did not find any record of a legal non-conforming request or letter for this property. Okay.

Just anecdotal uh records that say that was a duplex prior to 89. Okay. But we can check if that other R2 that is an R2 in the neighborhood if that was a zoning change or if that was something that had was identified at the time.

Okay. To me, it's just that we can't to aid units within a residential area. It's just disturbing residents. I mean, this is people that have been there, established there. Uh, I'm ready to make a motion. If nobody else has comments or questions,

so I I I agree with Mr. Dasada. the current ordinance that giving 15 acre 15 units per acre. Those 15 units on one full acre works. It works well. It's a large parcel. It's 43,000 and something square feet. But what we've been doing is working backwards on that. And if you do the math, it comes out to about 2900 square feet per unit. And so you take the 24,000 that this parcel has and you divide by the 2900, it gives you 8.35. And so that needs to be addressed with the new code that it really does because it brings us to this issue time and time again. Um, in the past we've been doing a duplex for every 10,000 square feet. On this one, I'd be maybe vote yes and give them that fifth one because of the 4,276 ft extra that they have.

Well, adjusted additional, not a fifth one, right? Cuz they already have a duplex, so it would just allow another duplex. Total. I'm thinking total. Okay. Total. So, it's five unit. So, if we go on what we've done in the past. Yeah, that's we're not changing anything that that we haven't looked at. It's a duplex for every 10,000 square feet on these infill lots. Yeah. Specifically for the reasons that you stated, this one is going to eight as a recommendation. I understand why because we're following the local numbers that are in the books right now. 10 is I mean it's way out there. Yeah.

Um but I I think the applicant might be present. I'd like to hear from the applicant to see if they may Is that okay? Yes. Good evening. Good evening, commissioners and director. My name is David Hogin. I'm with EPG Planning Consultants. Uh we're in agreement with uh staff with the go going with the eight uh working with the current u laws that are on the books. Uh so we have no problem with that.

Right. But I think I think the problem is I think I don't think anybody's on on board with adding another eight or whatnot. And I think with the calculations that what Mr. Estrella was doing is in the past we've passed uh some of them with duplexes on every 10,000 square feet. And that that's again these are just our recommendations, right? uh you still go to city council and then it goes to them or whatnot, but I think you're saying that we just add if the applicant was willing to just build another three, so a total of five. So that kind of the the math that we were kind of following, kind of sticking to that. But

but then we also got to keep in mind when we've approved them is because they do the lot splits, right? Here they they're not even doing the lot split. Not only that, they're considering it full straight. It'd still be under the same address when we've usually done for every 10,000 acres because they go through a lot split. There's no way to split this lot. Yeah. My biggest concern is um is that we're we're taking a residential area and we're going to start making it all. We're going to start chopping it up. Exactly. And I I I I'm very uncomfortable with that.

Me, too. I um um the residential area here is already set. I think in other cases that we've approved, they were already R2s or empty lots or empty lots or empty lots or exactly or we already had we already had a a density of a few R2s out there.

Okay. And I this is this is not the case here. Okay. We have one R2 which was back in 1978. Okay. And you have 54 R1s and I um I'm not comfortable with that. So I'm in agreements. Anybody have any other questions? No. No questions.

But I'm going to make a motion to deny uh the resoning um request. I will second. I have a motion made by Yolanda Rodriguez to deny, second byesa. All those in favor of the motion I Any nays? I'm going to I'm going to say nay. I think we should allow something on there, but up to five, but denying the the the request alto together, I'm going to say nay.

Any abstain? Motion carried. Moving on to item number nine. Considering take action on the proposed approval of a replat for Aienda Silva unit 2 replat age being a replat of lot 5 block 10 Asienda Zilva unit 2 and located at 321 Veroso Drive city of Soro El Paso County Texas miss Rodriguez thank you Yadita Mr. Chairman, can we take a five minute bathroom break recess? Recess. Yes. Before we that

Yeah. Just make a motion to go to a recess for five minutes. Need to make a motion to take a fivem minute recess. Second. I have a motion made by Andrew Aoyos to take a break. Second by Isidro Torres. All those in favor of the motion. Any naysay? Any abstain? Motion carried.

Okay, everybody. We are back from recess at 7:02.

Uh, thank you. Uh, we were on item number nine, Miss Rodriguez. Thank you, Yita. Good evening, chairman, commissioners. U Rodriguez, planner with the city of Sakoro. We'll continue with the next item on the agenda. Item number nine. This is a repl application for the property at 321 by Yermoso Drive. We'll now proceed with it. Uh general information overview of the property. It is located at 321 by Yeroso Drive. Legal description is lot five block 10 asendas unit 2. Property owner is Rosa Alwinia who is given permission to Mr. Amaya he present uh representative is a GRB integrated engineer solutions LLC lot size is 47 acres zoning it's an R1 single family residential and current land use is a residential summary of request uh requests for approval of a reply for asendas unit H and staff recommends approval of the reply for asendas Unit two, unit sorry rep. H. Now we have the zoning map here. The subject property it's outlined in red. The yellow shading represent the uh our one zone uh single family residential. Now we have an aerial image of the property which is outlined in red and it's located along Bayoso Drive and developed with a single uh residential structure situated toward the southern portion of the lot. Then we have some photos of the

property. The top uh image shows the frontage along Moso Drive. The bottom left image shows the left side of the property uh which will correspond to proposed lot one and on the right is a view of the property from the right side proposed lot two. This slides uh presents the original plat for asendas debay. It was recorded in 1987 which included 184 residential lots and uh the subject property is outlined in red. For a little background, uh this case, this property, uh the applicant was granted three variances by the board of adjustment by BOA on March 26, 2026. This include a variance for an existing accessory structure encroaching into the sideyard setback, a variance allowing the accessory structure to remain in front of the principal structure and a variance for a reduced side yard setback for an existing dwellings. Those variances are circled in that u in yellow. And those uh variances were necessary for lot one on the left side to proceed with the replat process and they were approved. This is the replet submitted by the applicant um which divides the property into lot one on the left side and lot

two. Both lots meet the minimum required area of 10,000 square feet for uh replanting and will include on-site storm water ponding. Both uh lots keep the R1 single family residential once they're replatting. Summary request request is for approval of a form unit 2 H. And at this time, staff and the applicant, Mr. Amaya, are available to answer any question you might have. Thank you. I don't have any questions.

I don't have any questions either. You know what? I'm just just for curiosity. Okay. Yeah. On on the second lot, uh I'm looking at the site plan and it uh shows like a big ponding area. Is there a certain reason for that? I mean it's just no your uh is this a design right? I'm just curious. I mean it's

I'm uh nice to meet you. So I'm assuming that that huge pond that they created GRV Engineering it's for future purposes either to be within that certain area dimensions and everything will be as soon as it's proposed to move. Oh. Oh. Okay. So, it's just a proposal as to where it should be located. Okay. Question. Are you I'm assuming you're splitting it to be able to do a new uh dwelling on that second lot. Yes. A single family home. Okay. Question. I'm good. Make a motion. Oh, go ahead. Yeah. Ju just the the variance on that on that where the yellow circle was at, that's a setback variance, right?

Yes. And so we're voting on that as well. No, the BOA already approved that. That's already approved. And then what was the second variance? Was there a second variance? It's three sheds. The what? As you could see, there's a shed circled within that that area. Oh, the shed is Yeah. It's not at that 5 foot setback as well, but that was built before even purchasing the land. Okay. And it's being used as as a storage. Okay. Okay. Like to make a motion to approve. Second motion. Thank you. Thank you. I apologize, gentlemen. Who second the motion?

Second. Thank you. Thank you. I have a motion made by Andrew Royos to approve, second by Raphael Caro. All those in favor of the motion. Any nays? Any abstain? Motion carried. Moving on to item number 10, presentation and discussion of the draft review of the unified development code UDC. Miss Lorine. Um, excuse me. I would like to um I have a personal letter that I need to leave for and I wanted to see if I could uh be excused. Of course, Miss Thank you for joining us today, Mr. Aroy. Yes.

Uh Mr. David, I think you want to come. Mr. and I apologize for that. I I couldn't get out of it. Understand. Thank you so much. Thank you. Just for the record, Mr. Andrea Royos is leaving at 709.

Thank you, Yadira. Jimmy and Mr. Estada taking the and Mr. David Estada will be um taking over as chair at 710.

Uh thank you Adira. Joining us today for another discussion on the UDC is uh Victoria Chavez with Able City. So I'll let her uh start her presentation. All right. Uh they're just going to put the slides up right now. Uh good to see everyone again. What we wanted to do was continue the discussion because uh some uh conversation with the stakeholders. They just felt like it was getting a little rushed. So we decided we should do a little bit more review and discuss with you guys some of the changes and go a little bit on the niche side of what these are happening in the UDC. I think

no. Okay. Yeah, you can change it uh again. Okay. So just as a review um again this UDC was built upon from the comprehensive plan that you guys have. So looking at the policies and then the goals and then also with the stakeholder engagement and talking with you guys as well. Can you change the slide again? So the main point of the UDC col um um consolidation clarity andability visual standards and modernization. So uh again as you see here we have our chapters. So in the proposed UDC we have uh authority, we have zoning districts, development and design standards, accessory uses and accessory structures, subdivision regulations, environmental management, utilities, building construction, nonconformities, administrative bodies and approvals, permits and procedures, enforcement, historic landmarks and mission trail historic district and then of course appendix with definitions and submittal requirements. and one more time. So, we're going to discuss some of the few topics that are really in focus. The starting with our accessory dwelling units in your existing code. Right now, ADUs are kind of silent. It's uh um talked in your section 46-624 that no more than one principal structure housing is permitted in use. may be allowed on a single lot and most of it's for accessory storage buildings. And then in if you look at the section following that in 46- uh 623 the accessory structures cannot be used for habitation cannot be uh for that erected until the principal structure is at least 50% complete. So looking at the procedures to even make a accessory dwelling unit currently there needs to

be land um subdivide platting procedures other procedures maybe like reszoning. So it kind of makes it a big barrier for ADUs or casitas to really be uh accomplished here in Sakoto. So looking at what the UDC is proposing is we wanted to expand upon uh allowing for ADUs. So it's touched upon in chapter 2 in zoning districts on where it is permitted which is a variety of zoning districts and then also expanded on on the regulations uh in chapter 4 with the accessory uses and accessory structures. So right now as you can see in chapter 4 it creates a dedicated uh regulatory pathways for ADUs. It is defining what ADUs are for and how they should be located on the same lot with the primary single family residents. Permitted zoning districts is in the agriculture uh rural res estates R1, R2 and R2A. And then it needs to meet the criteria designed to protect the neighborhood and character of the existing uh neighborhoods because a lot of people are worried that it might be changing or turning into multif family. We want to prevent that from happening making these accessory structures. So we make sure it's capped at 800 square f feet or it's 50% of the gross floor area of the primary structure. So with the maximum of 1,200 ft. And then also there still needs to be that 5 foot separation from the primary structure and the detach ADUs and with setbacks that mirror the zoning districts on there. And then moving on with additional standards, we really wanted to require that the property owner has to be uh occupying either in the main structure or in the accessory dwelling unit. So this would be recorded in a con uh

convenient with the county. So real properties records. uh it requires one additional off- streetet parking space for ADUs that are exceeding that 800 square feet and then ADUs uh be physically integrated in place in the rear for detach to minimize those visual impacts. Another aspect that's in the UDC is the adapted reuse uh incentive which is in chapter 4. So it's conversion of existing structures into ADUs. This includes structures that aren't really meeting the modern uh frontage for building standards and it provides uh that they're they have to remain their existing um wall and height. So moving on or right before I move on I just want to ask if anyone has questions on ADUs at this moment. No. Okay. So landscaping and buffering as of right now in your existing code this is another aspect where it's kind of not really mentioned about there it creates this inconsistencies with the visuals upon um emerging properties. It also the buffering really relies on your generic uh wall requirements. So it's very vague. It talks about how it's 8-oot fence is for commercial zones with continuous uh access or connections to residential and it's missing vegetative screening um materials as well. So in the proposed UDC what we have is in chapter 3 there is a landscaping article uh article 3.02 and it goes into the details of landscaping standards. is is the type of plants um the buffering, the screening and then it also goes follows that with the next uh article which is

fencing standards which includes the fencing, screening and buffering. Big things that just wanted to highlight here is mandating a specific percentage of the property's areas to be landscaped. Also tree uh preservation and planting. We want to be protecting the existing trees there and requiring planting of new ones often u very specific on the types and sizes and then the material specifically in C2 and I um industrial zones now require durable um missionary rather than just simple wood fencing. And this is just examples. I kind of broke this up in the actual UDC. It's a full image. I just wanted us to hone in on each of these. So there's a type A, B, and C. So type A, there's, as you can see, A1, A2, and A3. A1 is the buffer. So it has to be a a 10 ft deeper uh buffer. A2 is 35 ft of the center tree spacing and A3 is the 6 foot uh missionary wall along the property line. We'll move on to the next slide. type to B is B1 has 20 feet uh deep buffer. We have 25 feet for B2 for the center tree uh spacing and B3 for the 6T missionary uh property line wall and then type C C1 35 ft uh deep buffer 15t of the center tree spacing and again the same with the six foot. And as you can see here, this table breaks down how each of the zoning districts when they're adjacent to other zoning districts, what type it would fall under. So for example, you can see uh let's go to C2 district going down. And if you go to the first one to re it,

it has to meet to type B. So if we can go up two times just to go back to type B, it has to meet those requirements for the spacing and buffering. All righty. Uh, next one. Any questions? Okay. So, parking standards here. We did change quite a bit. I wanted to really focus on your warehousing uh parking. As of right now, you kind of have it layered. So, you have the floor area, office space, truck docks, all these different elements that apply to it, and it can kind of get complex with it. So, in the UDC, we try to simplify it with just having uh the warehousing uh industrial uses and the parking from there. So, as you can see, you have uh what your code is now, how it's broken down. If you go to the next slide and then the UDC chapter 3 again development standards there is a parking section 3.01.03 and we try to standardize these the baseline. So for warehousing and pretty much a lot of the industrials it's two spaces per thousand square foot. So this really uh applies for a lot of those industrial uses. We wanted to remove those layered calculations. So, not really having that office ratios and things like that. Uh, we didn't really want to do too much case by case unless there was a specific use that we didn't list on there. So, we wanted to really have the baseline as flexible in real world uh conditions. This is just an example again of showing what the UDC parking uh st requirements can be and look like. So you have the

category of uses and then the use type and then the parking ratios any reduction opportunities or any uh notes that we just wanted to apply for the reasons for these. All righty. Plat reviews. This is a big conversation especially when we were talking for the stakeholder meetings. We wanted to make sure that we weren't applying too much uh work for planning zoning nor putting too much work for the planning department. So we had the preliminary plat being reviewed and the final plat being uh approved and reviewed by the planning and zoning as well as a replat. Whereas a minor plat amending plant uh commons plat and plat vacation are all by the planning and zoning uh department here. I wanted to see before we move on any questions on this because we know with the stakeholders they wanted to make sure that you guys understand the process of where your authority would come in for these. Okay. All right. Next. Okay. And I don't know if you guys noticed we hung up a few of them around the building as well, but uh we did share out the flyers. So, the flyers out and about. The UDC is still up and running. I haven't heard any comments back yet from the public other than what we heard from our stakeholder meetings, but if more information comes out, we'll uh let you guys know. So, with that, I'll open the floor for any comments. I actually wanted to go a little bit deeper about your comment earlier of the reasonzoning to R2 and the densities and what problems you were seeing with that. Actually, So, you're opening that that

Yes, I'm gonna start with that. Thank you. Well, okay. So, I know there's an open invitation to come talk to to you, right? Okay. So, and that's one of the things that's been on the line because we consistently see that

and we got to look at it on an individual basis and so we've discussed it in the past. Um, so the current formula states 15 units per acre or 15 dwellings per per acre. And so when you use the math, we're using that we're breaking it all the way down to small parcels. And so it doesn't work in certain situations. We take it by case by case basis. So like like the one you saw today doing the math, it's eight units on a half acre. Basically, it's a little bit more than half acre. So, I think we'd like to see something addressing that. Specifically, uh the 15 units per acre, I think works well, but anything less than that, there should be something addressing that, right? Um and so what we've been using is two units. Thank you. Two units for every 10,000 square feet. So, it's basically 5,000 square feet per unit. um when we're in the 20,000 30,000 square foot range of a lot or a parcel.

Yeah. Is that correct? Yeah. But we also got to keep in mind that it's like for undeveloped Yes. land per se. Yeah. That too cuz there's vacant lots that we see and then there's existing one acre in the middle of a residential halfacre parcels to go put 15 units in there just because it's a residential area. Yeah. you know, we got to take it on a case by case. Yeah.

Yeah. I think it's important for um for us to develop some kind of a a um a guideline uh when we have these kind of cases because like today my biggest thing was that this was a a 98% residential area and and we're getting an item that that puts us on the spot to say, "Okay, let's take this piece and make it an art tomb when when it's difficult for us because we all live either we live in a residential area or we live in a in a mixed area and we know what kind of issues we have with that. And it would be nice to have a a guidance to to say that when an applicant comes and you have an area that is 90% or 98% residential, should we even bring it up to say so that we don't put the applicant through this uh doing all these apartments and and drawing and going to an engineering is for us to stop there and say we're not going there because 98% of these properties are an R1. I think that was my biggest concern today. And so it we either say no after they've spent all this money to to engineer and to do 15 apartments or we get them at the beginning and say these are residential and we recommend that this is where we're going to stay. I mean I I think we have to draw the line somewhere. Good point

because like we we talked before is that yes, we've had acre lots and we say, "Yeah, we'll put four dwellings on there, okay, but it's in the middle of nowhere and uh people haven't really come to us and said, we complain because we're trying to put something in this property, okay, and we want to give the applicant an opportunity to build something, but when we have something like today, it makes it very difficult for us because we don't want to um say that we're isolating them and oh you did this here but no you're not doing this here. So is there a a a is there anywhere with any town that can say we we don't we we're never going to convert this into an R2. It could be a little more complicated than that just because

like we we can have stuff in the code that uh supports the type of vision for it, but if they do want to go for a reason um they have the right to, right, and apply. That's why when they talk to staff, staff can point them to the right direction. Um, but I can see my big thing that I'm kind of thinking maybe we can look at is maybe breaking down uh like how you said, not just having the acres on there, but having it a little bit smaller and so it has a simplified number or breakdown of the um density requirement allowance for those uh lots that don't really apply that's not single family. Uh something like that. Also, uh I was looking at has to be a standard to meet to be allowed to be a reszone. So, if you're reszoning from an R1 to an R2 and R2A, you need to make sure your lot meets the standard. Um but I'm going to look into it. That's something I I when I was hearing today, I want to see if other cities have applied it and if so, how and how we can kind of uh implement it. If I'm not mistaken, Victoria, I the UDC wouldn't the UDC address that by the maximum percentage of the lot. I think that helps.

So, yes. Um, so for example, I believe R2 the maximum lot is 40% whereas R2A is that 75%. So you have the maximum density, you have the maximum uh minimum lot area and minimum lot width and then the maximum lot coverage. That should uh be some type of assistance. Also, uh just looking at four minimum lot areas for housing types that are outside of single family. This is an R2. Duplexes need to have 8,000 square feet whereas triplexes need 10,000. So that's maybe something that we

It becomes a bigger formula. It adds for a bigger more Exactly. direct formula of what that looks like which I think would have solved what we saw today. I like that. Yes. All righty. Any other uh questions or aspects that we've seen in the UDC?

I have a really and I hope this is a quick one. Um, I was looking at the table and in the table in ar agriculture there a double wide trailer, excuse me, a double wide manufactured home is allowed, but a manufactured home single wide and tiny homes weren't. Is there a reasoning behind that? So, single wide is actually uh I think it was conditional. Is it conditional? Let me look. Let me just scroll down real quick.

Like my thought is why be okay with the double wide but not the single wide and especially not okay with a tiny home on Archiculture. I think the single wides are if you're replacing a new one with an old one. Got it. I think

so. Manufactured home singlewide condition use permitted districts. Manufactured homes consisting of one section singlewide may be permitted in the A and RE zoning districts subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Manufactured homes shall only be permitted within subdivisions approved by the city uh prior to the year of 2000. Uh single wide shall comply with manufactured home development uh character. So let me look at the act to See because it in the con in the residential zoning districts use specific regulations uh section it is saying it is permitted uh for tiny homes. I believe we do have a condition to approve those in egg. Let me pull up. If not, I think it starts in rule.

I think my thought is just like if you're allowed to put a single family home on, why not a tiny home?

No, that's valid. Um, let's see. I just want to find it real quick. Yeah. So, we only have tiny homes for R1, R2, and R2A. Uh, so if we are okay with allowing them into a and our our uh E, we can apply it to it. uh it just it matters what the density and what uh conditions we can apply there if I can make a comment. I mean, I think it'd be the more reasonable because they have the space to do it and then per say like for in-law quarters or something like that in the back

and we're already I mean, we're already allowing a single family homeact double wide. We don't want to do like 20 small homes, right? Or um mobile homes on on our something like that. But yeah, like an additional small dwelling would be okay in my opinion. points.

So, I'll make sure to uh look at a way we can really apply it. Okay. Um any other questions? Do we have any uh concerns that we've been seeing uh coming in a lot with either reszoning plats uh setbacks anything like that that I we just want to create an emphasis on I can make sure

well I think we had given those to Lorine right the the foot the height of the buildings the parking spaces Um I think those were just like regular ones that we we'd get because they weren't ordinance and they we had to do variances on those um location of logistic centers. Yeah. Already talked about wanting them outside of the core of the city, not wanting to see them inside the city center. I know we also talked about data center um detention.

Oh yes, we've already also included recent uh ordinance changes that the city council approved. One being the data centers additional requirements to show uh how they are going to be meeting um their energy require energy needs and there was the detention center one as well. I saw so that's been included in the in the UDC as well. I think it was a max of 150 people after that. Then they had to get approval or or it wasn't approved because u it was an ordinance now that it the a maximum warehouse could only house up to 150.

Perfect. That's what I understood. So I do have a question on the legal side. So, so we are clear there's a certain date that the UDC draft that you have is good until and then we're aware of that date from then until now when the ordinances are still constantly changing that they're going to be updated like we know there's a cut off point right when they started on the draft then because you're aware of some of these ordinances that change that recently changed so how far back do we know what time or like what date they go back to because this draft on the UDC process started a while back, right?

So, h have we kept up in the interim? I know these different Oh, yeah. With ordinances and changes that have been um changing in our current one to make sure that you were addressing them in in the UDC. Yes. and that the final draft with all of the changes that we've made through our discussions here, discussions with uh if we get any comments from the public and addressing those that that will be the one that we introduce. Okay. In this next uh meeting, yeah, I would say the intro for planning and zoning that meeting will be the date where we can't make any more revisions, right?

Yeah. So originally it was the plan to do it for this meeting but after stakeholder and just wanting to discuss it a little bit deeper we decided to just uh push it back a little bit. So we do have a a little about two weeks now. So yeah I just want to make sure that we caught all the ordinances in between that there wasn't maybe a couple that got left behind in between. The last time we had a change in the code, we took everything and went digital. Things got missed at that point that were on paper and a lot of things didn't get moved and that's why there's gaps, which is why we're having to go now and get the UDC to fill in all the gaps that were missing. Yeah. Just make sure we don't

Yeah. We've been sending our changes process. So, I'm sorry. So, I did see that it was posted on social media, but I didn't see that there was a deadline for people to respond. And did I miss it or No, that's a very good point. We can include that. Um, yeah, because I did I did see the posting, but I didn't see like the deadline for for you to go in and do this. We will go ahead and post those on uh any on those if we can edit those or add that to the ones that have already been posted, but definitely to the ones that we'll be putting out for the rest of this week highlighting different areas. Maybe that will help um motivate folks to comment

because I did go and click on the the link, but it didn't open anything. It just went to the page. It just stayed there. It didn't take me anywhere. Oh, okay. We'll take a look at that as well. So, you might want to look at that, too, because I did I did click and I say, "Okay, let me go see." But it didn't take me anywhere. So, I think if we can just make it a little bit more um user friendly, I think you might get a better response because I mean, as it is, we do have poor response like nobody goes in there looks at it. So, if we could make it easier, it would it would definitely help.

And that's it. I don't have anything else. Thank you. Thank you, Victoria. Yes. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Victoria. Okay. Moving on to item 11, planning and zoning commissioners report. Commissioners, thank you, Yadira. I just have a few. I'm sorry. Is the commissioner Hi, Commissioner. I'm jumping ahead. Sorry. I'm all excited to share. We don't I don't have anything. I don't have anything. Do you have anything? Okay. Now for uh item number 12, planning and zoning department report. Miss Kito.

Thank you, Adira. And I'm going to ask Alfredo if he can pull up a couple of items on up onto the screen. Uh the first of which is the mission trail uh community feedback precinct number three is asking for the public to provide input on a public art project. their project is going to have uh three art pieces at the three missions and want and uh the county. This is an El Paso County project and it would be great for us to provide some input on the projects that this uh the county will be uh putting forward in along the mission trail. This is one of many uh community initiatives that the county is leading through their economic economic development department to enhance uh the mission trail. It's uh difficult to believe that some people have lived in El Paso their whole lives and didn't know that the mission trail existed and it exists. The other item that I wanted to so on from this screen you can um take a screenshot uh or go to the QR code to get the link to the survey and provide your feedback. This one is also available on the social media page.

I did see that there. Yes, the MO is currently uh taking fe taking public input on various documents that are important to the future of transportation in the region. The 20 19 202 uh M MTP, so that's the long range transportation plan. uh the TIP which is the short-term four-year transportation plan and they will are have they are hosting various public meetings throughout the county. Tomorrow the they will be hosting one at uh the Rio Vista Center right across the street and that starts at 5:30. This is the two flyers that that I included in the email. But what Alfredo is currently sharing on the screen before he leaves this screen is a text. Asking for public input regarding the Texas Mexico border transportation plan. If you click on the link, you can get to a map and provide comments. And this is for a transportation plan that stretches across the whole Texas uh Mexico border.

I haven't seen that one.

Yeah. Public comment for that. And it closes uh I believe May 26. And this is the flyer for the MO public meetings. This is a draft of the 2022 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. the 2017 2030 2027 2030 transportation improvement plan. These are all important documents. They lay out uh transportation funding for all of the transportation pro projects in the region and your input is vital to getting our voices heard for projects and many of the projects that we mentioned today. uh north loop and the expansion of the north loop just for example with that uh I don't have any other items

so you have something here scheduled tomorrow tomorrow right across the street at Rio Vista at 5:30 this is being hosted by the no and it would be uh wonderful for everyone to share this information so that we can have uh great attendance and provide some input into these documents Okay, thank you. Thank you, Miss Kamo. I'm moving on to item number 13, considering take action on the adjournment of this meeting. Do I have a motion? Motion to adjurnn. Second.

I have a motion made by David Estada to adjurnn, second by Isidro Torres. All those in favor of the motion. I. Any nays? Any abstain? Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:43. Thank you all for