Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Elizabeth Cruz, Grants and Special Projects Compliance Officer for the City of Socorro. Thank you for joining today's meeting. Before our meeting begins, we would like to remind our guests to please remove all hats and silence all electronic devices. No disruptive behaviors or outbursts will be tolerated, and violators are subject to rejection or possible prosecution.

Hello, my name is Judy Rodríguez, planner of the city of Socorro. Thank you for participating in today's meeting. Before the meeting begins, I would like to remind our guests to please take off their hats and silence all electronic devices. No disturbing or abrupt behavior will be tolerated, and the offenders will be subject to expulsion and possible processing.

Good afternoon, everybody. This is Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Socorro, Texas. It is July 7, 2026, 5.31 PM. We call this meeting to order.

Establishment of quorum. Andrew Arroyo?

Here.

David Estrada?

Here.

Osvaldo Reza, absent. Yolanda Rodriguez? Here. Rafael Carrillo, absent. Isidro Torres? Here. We have a quorum of four commissioners, with four commissioners present. Alfredo, do we have anyone that would like to speak?

Not at the moment.

Item number four, consent agenda. Do I have a motion?

Motion to approve. Second.

I have a motion by David Estrada and second by Isidro Torres. All those in favor of motion? Aye.

Aye.

Any nays? Any abstain?

Abstain.

Motion carried. Item number five, consider to take action on the proposed approval of a replat for McAdoo Acres, replat B, being a replat of lot one, block two, McAdoo Acres, and located at 111260 Rust Road, city of Socorro, El Paso County, Texas. Mr. Diego Ruiz.

Thank you, Erica. Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. Diego Ruiz, planner with the City of Socorro. We will begin with item number five, McAdoo Acres, Replat B. The property address is 11260 Rush Road. The legal description is lot one, block two, McAdoo Acres. Property owner is YEC LLC. The representative is Solis Salcedo with Ray Engineering. The lot size is 20,092 square feet. The zoning is R1 and the current land use is residential. Requests for approval of a replat for McAdoo Acres Replat B. Staff recommends approval of the replat for McAdoo Acres Replat B with condition that review comments be addressed prior to recording the replat. here's the zoning map of the property it is highlighted in it is outlined in blue and it is highlighted in yellow representing the r1 single family residential here's an aerial image showing the property in a already developed lot Here are the site pictures showing the existing property. Here is the original plot of McAdoo Acres. The lot is located at the upper left side of the map. Here's the replat drawing showing the division of the property lots. And here's an enlarged version of the subdivision. Summary of the request is for approval of a replat for McAdoo Acres, replat B. And now we're taking any questions.

Any questions?

What were the comments to be addressed prior to the recording of the request?

Some of the comments included just identifying the line types, small details of the replat. We were in contact with the engineer and the comments should arrive soon and we'll keep updated with the engineer. Nothing major? No, nothing out of the ordinary.

Where are the review comments coming from? From staff or engineering?

Yes, it's from staff. From staff.

Okay, each lot is gonna be larger than 10,000 square foot? It's gonna be about 10,000, yes. Because this is our one and I'm thinking the minimum lot size is 10,000. So just to make sure.

Yeah, both lots are above 10,000. I don't, I'm sorry, go ahead.

I don't believe the question. I'm just looking for somewhere where it says that they are actually 10,000.

I thought it said 11,254. Is that what it says on one? I'm thinking that's the address. Is that the address or is that the size of the?

It should be on the table at the bottom. I don't know if IT could zoom in.

I saw that but I just can't read it. They'd love to be 10,000 by what I can see on that plot, but that's my only concern, that they're minimum 10,000. But I think this is good.

So if you see the small table at the bottom where it says lot table, lot number one is 10,000 square feet. And lot number two is 10,082 feet. Okay. Thank you.

Just out of curiosity, is there a reason lot one has like a little tail on bottom lot two? Do we know why that's there?

It was more than likely to complete the 10,000 square feet. Thank you.

If there's no more questions, I'd like to make a motion to approve with condition that review comments be addressed prior to recording the replant. Second.

I have a motion made by Andrew Arroyo, second by Isidro Torres to approve with the condition that review, that all comments be addressed prior to recording the recap. All those in favor of motion?

Aye.

Any nays? Anyone abstain? Motion carried. Item number six, consider and take action on the proposed approval of a replat for McAdoo Acres Replat C, being a replat of lot three, block 11, McAdoo Acres, and located at 620 Jewel Drive, city of Socorro, El Paso County, Texas. Mr. Diego Ruiz.

Thank you, Erica. We'll be moving on to item number six, McAdoo Acres Replat C. The property address is 620 Jewel Drive. The legal description is Lot 3, Block 11, McAdoo Acres. Property owner is YEC LLC. The representative is Luis Alcedo with Ray Engineering, and the lot size is 21,572.43 square feet. The zoning is R1, single-family residential, and the current land use is residential. The request is for approval of a replat for McAdoo Acres replat C. Staff recommends approval of the replat for McAdoo Acres replat C with the condition that review comments be addressed prior to recording the replat. Here's the zoning map showing the property lot outlined in blue and highlighted in yellow representing the R1 single-family residential zone. Here's an aerial image outlined in blue, the property lot, and showing the property already in a developed residential zone. Here are the side pictures showcasing the front of the property. Here's the original plot of McAdoo Acres with the property located on Jewel Drive. Here's the replant of the property lot showing the proposed subdivision. And here's an enlarged version. Summary of the request is for approval of a replat for Bank of New Acres replat C. And with that, we can take any questions.

I have a similar question to the first one, a summary of what the review comments were.

That's pretty much the same thing, just minor details.

Can you say that again?

Pretty much the same thing as the replay before, just minor details like identifying line types, small errors in the names, and just small details that are missing.

So I think we should be presented with the review comments and where they're coming from. Because we have no idea. We've asked on both items. We have no idea what they are. And they may be minor. I don't disagree. But I think we should be presented with, OK, these are the comments. It doesn't have to be anything super large. But if it's whatever it is. Because we're sitting here thinking it might be something major or something big. We don't know.

Do you mind talking into the microphone please yes, no, I just agree So I have another question um

Okay, so the original lot is like 21,500 something square feet, right? And so same thing here, they're dividing this into two, at least minimum 10,000 square feet on each lot. But just like you asked on the other question, they have a little panhandle across the easement trying to get to that 10,000 square feet. And they're kind of doing the same thing here, but the other thing that they're doing here is they're trying to get access off of Jewel Drive. And so that lot number two only has 26 feet of frontage. So that's very narrow. And so my first question is, is what's the minimum frontage in R1? I don't ever remember having discussed frontage on any previous ones, but the width of that frontage is only 26 feet for a lot. So for example, it should be like R3 should have minimum of 40 feet frontage. R2 should have 100 feet. frontage or whatever it is. And so my first question is, is there anything right now in the current ordinance stating a minimum frontage for R1?

No, there's not.

Okay.

Is it because they're just using that as an accessibility easement practically just to get into that backlog, correct? It's just the driveway. Okay.

Okay, so if this was a five acre parcel or a one acre parcel or a hundred acre parcel, we've seen similar designs trying to gain access off of like Socorro Road, for example. And so it's a hundred foot frontage, but you look at the drawing, it seems like a very narrow area trying to give access to the back five acres or whatever, right? But this is only a 20,000 square foot lot in a subdivision of 20,000 square foot lots. And so the creativity here, is there's no backstop on it. There's no way to stop the creativity on it. And so this opens up for a whole bunch of designs to come through if there's no minimum frontage for access off the road, off of Jewel Drive. This is a secondary road. It's a small neighborhood road. And so 26 feet is not very wide at all. It's wide enough for a driveway. But now look at the lot that's being created. And again, I go back to the minimum on the, there should be a minimum dimension on frontage per each zoning for R1, R2, C1, C2. This one being passed like this at 25 feet, this opens it wide open to anything coming up in the future, unless it's gonna be addressed in the upcoming ordinances. Yeah, so even, with a variance on something like this, I would be opposed because of the width. It's only 26 feet and what opened, it's gonna just open it up for everything else coming down the pipeline.

I think the only additional comment I'd make is my only concern when I see these little panhandles is like once these lots are then sold off and they have two different owners, if they're not, the boundaries aren't lined out correctly, just leave room for possible property disputes in the near future just because of, again, how creative they get with their panhandles and both these lots. But that's my only comment.

Any other questions?

I don't have questions, but that's my concern. I'm hoping that I'm making the point clear enough. But I would make a motion to deny based on the fact that the width on this for the reasons that were stated up here right now. It's only 26 feet. It's creating. It's not uniform. The lot doesn't go with the rest of the subdivision. They're all minimum 20,000. And I get it that we can go down to R1, minimum 10,000. I get that part. but there's no controlling factor on the frontage, on the width, on the frontage for their entrance off of a road, for their access. There's nothing on the books right now, and I think that that is very important. We should be able to control that. If not, as a buyer, as an investor, as an owner, anybody coming in, they're gonna look at this and they're gonna say, game on, we can do this on all these lots without any issue going forward. And so that's a good point that you're saying that in the future, I mean, the neighbor going on there, maybe it's the same owner right now gonna build whatever investment property, whatever, but this is set in stone. I'm curious to see the rest of the plat, what the rest of the plat looks like for this subdivision, like an aerial to see how many lots are in this and how many have been divided already. We have the original plat, but we don't have what's out there right now. In other words, how many lots have been subdivided?

Currently on the zoning map there isn't many lots that show subdivision or any rezonings.

I guess the biggest question would be is how many properties within that subdivision have that oblong that already have two homes on it that have to have access to the back? That would be the question. Because I understand maybe back in the 1970s, yeah, there might be two houses there. They might come back and ask us to, we're gonna separate these now because they're gonna sell. And Mr. Estrada is correct, is that we're gonna find ourselves there's going to have to be a driveway that takes you to that property toward the back because this is not the only property that is oblong. And they're trying, I understand, they're trying to utilize all of it, but we have to have some kind of criteria that we can follow so that we don't open up a can of worms with everybody else that is going to look, oh gosh, let's do this now because we can't. I think there has to be either an ordinance that we can follow to say there's a 30-foot frontage that needs to go instead of a 20 or whatever. But there has to be a guideline for us to follow. And also the comments is that, okay, we're going to review comments, but we don't know what they are. And we're signing off on something we have no idea what we're going to sign off on. So I think in order to protect us as commissioners is that we would like to have something that is more set that we can follow either an ordinance and some kind of regulation so that we can say it's okay.

I'd like to ask them typically on a driveway We usually look about what 20 to 25 feet on any entrance from any Street or whatnot correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's like 20 feet For a double card Yeah, for a double car entrance or whatnot, it's usually about 20 feet, I think, right? So maybe if, you know, I think what I'm reading off of the other commissioners is that, well, my personal opinion, like this one, I get what they're saying, but 25 feet to me is an appropriate size for a driveway to go into a lot or whatnot, as long as, whatever they're gonna build back there, it seems like an odd shaped lot meets the variances that have to follow the code here in Socorro. So, I mean, that's just something that I think that the homeowner or whoever's dividing this lot understands that they're gonna be minimized to building whatever they want, but it's their land, they can do whatever they want with it. But I think that we should look into maybe having something in the future or whatnot, and look at that and say, a typical driver or whatnot should be, on the front it should be 20 feet, 25 feet, or whatever.

So I would agree with Mr. Arroyos. If there is already a standard for a driveway and the minimum is 20 feet, then I would say, okay, that's fine. But I think we should have the guidance to say, okay, the minimum is 20 feet and he's going 25, okay? And that we stay that and state that for any future properties that are gonna be like this so that there is some kind of regulation. Okay, so if that's already in the books.

Correct me if I'm wrong, is the driveway 20, 25 feet? Is there like a... Usually, like on ponding areas or driveways that go into houses or whatnot, they're typically, if it's a two-car garage, it's typically about 20 feet. Okay. Commercial, I don't really remember what it is, if it's 20 feet also or 25 feet. So if it falls under that, again, I'm okay with this one as long as the homeowner, again, understands that they're gonna be limited to building certain house there, right? Because you've got to follow the front setback, the side setbacks, the back setbacks and stuff like that.

If you'd like, we can table it and get the information that Ms. Rodriguez is requesting about the subdivision as a whole, how many have been already replatted. There only looks like one rezoning from R1 to R2 in the McAdoo, but it's a little difficult to tell for sure how many have been replatted. replatted and split, and then also to just get a definitive answer on the size of the driveway.

Right, and on the driveway, I think it's just important for any emergency services or whatnot to be able to get back there or whatnot, so at least try and follow at least the minimum size of the driveway that's required. Other than that, I don't have any other problems with, again, the design, it's there a lot or whatnot, but I just, hope that a lot of them, or maybe they have questions and they come in, they can be answered as far as them understanding what can be built on that lot. Sometimes I think that's very important that the applicant shows up to see if he's got any questions that need to be answered or questions that we want answered or whatnot, they can respond. Again, that's my opinion.

And to one of the points Chairman Arroyo made there at the end, do we know if the building would meet the setback requirements of the new driveway?

They don't have a drawing of the building yet, but they would need to build to the setbacks.

But the building, there's already a building there.

Is this building built to the setback requirements?

That's my, yeah, that's my question.

Do we know? Sorry, what was the question?

Do we know if the- If the existing building is following the setbacks.

Yes, it is.

So I guess to move forward or whatnot, I guess we can maybe table it and come back and ask just to see if Planning and Zoning can give us just an answer on as far as what the width of a driveway minimum at least would be and that they're gonna be meeting it. and then go from there. But again, other than that, I just, that's the only issue, not issue that I have, but I just want them to fall at least under the width that's needed and then go from there or whatnot.

Is the applicant present?

No. Is there anyone on the call for this item?

So the city doesn't?

No, not for this item.

I'm sorry, Lorraine, so the city doesn't have, you don't know that there is a, already a regulated driveway length or width? no there isn't but the 22 feet is a minimum for fire safety okay so there's a 22 feet minimum already as an ordinance no no that well indirectly yes for the emergency services okay and this guy is asking for what 25 he's got 25 26 actually he would more than enough so he would have more than enough okay okay so if the requirement from the fire department is 22 then i would think that his 26 is is going to fit in there within the guidelines from the city of saguaro correct okay okay so then i i would not have a problem to approving this so so this there's an existing structure right there where they're

So they're needing this design to leave the existing structure in place, right? And meet the setback. I'm sorry.

And meet the setback.

And meet the setbacks. But what does this do to vacant lots, right? Let's assume there's 30 vacant lots in this subdivision. What does that do going forward with vacant lots?

You assess each one on its own merit. You don't need to address everything in the future right now. Right now we're looking at this lot. This does have the current existing building. This is what they're proposing to be able to access the rear and not remove the property up front. If in the future, another vacant lot, they might have a different configuration. We'll see what the UDC says about the minimum frontage requirements and we can address them at that time.

Okay, I think it should be tabled at the very least, if not denied. But I would like to cross-reference minimum frontage and minimum lot width and cross-reference other data from other municipalities, I don't know, but I think that is very important to be said, needs to be established. I don't agree with the, I get the driveway part, but 24 feet, 25 feet is very small on a minimum lot width for any lot. I think the minimum that we have right now on like an R3 is like 30 feet or 35 feet minimum. And that's an R3, this is an R1, a minimum lot square footage of 10,000 square feet. And so bringing that down to 25 feet is very, very narrow. If this was a cul-de-sac lot, something shaped like a pie, something with minimum frontage to begin with, it'd be a different thing for me, but this has 115 feet across the front. Why would we go down to 25 foot on frontage? But I'm also curious to see what else is going on in the rest of the subdivision. So if we can see that information, maybe we can decide and table it for now.

I'll make the motion to table number six to ask staff to return it with clarification on some of the questions and comments brought forth by the commissioners.

Do I have a second?

What was the motion again? Motion to table number six to ask staff to bring it. I second. To the next meeting? Okay. To the next meeting.

I have a motion made by Isidro Torres, second by David Estrada to table item number six for next meeting. All those in favor of motion?

Aye.

Any nays? Any abstain? Motion carried. Item number seven, consider to take action on the proposed approval of a replat for Merida Subdivision Replat B, being a replat of lot six, lot one, Merida Subdivision, located at 9911 Floralia Drive, the city of Socorro, El Paso County, Texas. Mr. Diego Ruiz.

Thank you, Erica. Next up is item number seven, Merida Subdivision Replat B. Mérida subdivision, replat B, general info. The address is 9911 Floraria Drive. The legal description is lot 6, block 1, Mérida subdivision. The property owner is Francisco Basurto. The representative is Manuel Calderón, Calderón Engineering. The lot size is 21,208.47 square feet. The zoning is R1, single family residential. The request is for approval for replat for Mérida subdivision, replat B. Staff recommends approval of the replat for Mérida subdivision, replat B, with the condition that the review comments be addressed prior to the recording of the replat. Here's the zoning map depicting the property outlined in red and highlighted in yellow, showing the R1 single-family residential zone. Here's the aerial of the property, showing the lot already in a developed subdivision. Here are the side pictures, view of the proposed location for the new dwelling. Here's the original plot. Here's the replat showing the proposed residential dwelling on the right side of the lot. Here is the replat showing the boundaries, the proposed boundaries for the subdivision. the replet does show a small encroachment on the front of the property on the existing house it's currently about nine the the setback for the front is 25 feet but the house is located 24.3 feet from the front We did, however, found a photograph of an area taken in 1988 showing the existing structure, which means that the encroachment is validated. So there's no need for a variance. The summary of the request is for approval of a replab for Mérida subdivision, replab B. And with that, we're not taking any questions.

I don't have any questions.

I think just similar to earlier, I mean, you have that, you get creative with it, and then again in the future, because the line has that six foot, it just leaves for possible dispute between owners in the future. Just, it's not clearly... This gets interesting.

Anybody else? No? Okay. So I'd like to make a motion to approve also with the condition that the review comments be addressed prior to recording the plan.

I have a motion made by Angela Royals to approve. Do I have a second?

I second.

I have a motion made by Andrew Arroyos to approve second by Yolanda Rodriguez. All those in favor of motion? I'm sorry. With the condition the review comments be addressed prior to recording the reflat. All those in favor of motion?

Aye.

Aye. Any nays? Any abstain? Motion carried. Item number eight, consider and take action on the proposed approval of a premillenary plat and final plat for Virgin Ranch subdivision, being tracked 18F, block 13, Socorro Grant, located at 364 Vineyard Road, City of Socorro, El Paso County, Texas. Ms. Judith Rodriguez. Thank you, Erica.

Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners, the City of Socorro. We'll continue with the next item of the agenda, this is item number eight, for preliminary plan and final plan request for meeting by subdivision. Let me proceed with the general information, beginning with an overview of the property. The property is located at 364 Binger Road. The legal description is Track 18F, Block 13, Socorro Grand. The property is owned by Boses and Gabriela Virgen, who are represented by Alfonso Perez from ADP Engineering. The lot size is 1.30 acres. It is zone A1 agriculture, and the current land use is agriculture. The summary request is requested for approval by preliminary and final plan for the Beattie Hand Ranch subdivision, and staff recommends approval for this request. Next is the zoning map. The subject property is outlined in light blue and Shaded in green is the A1 Agricultural Zoning District. The surrounding area includes a mix of residential and commercial properties with nearby R1 single-family residential zoning, shown in yellow, and R2 medium density residential, shown in orange. This aerial image shows the property outlined in light blue. The site is a long and narrow track with frontage along Binger Road, and it is surrounded by existing neighborhoods and large agricultural properties. The property is currently undeveloped and is used just for agricultural purposes. And it has just the horse stables and some accessory structures located inside. Then we have the front view of the property as seen from B&J Road. This is the main entrance to the property. Next is the preliminary plat that was submitted by the applicant, which shows the proposed layout and topography of track 18F. As part of the application, the applicant submitted the engineering reports, for example, the soil analysis and stormwater drainage plan. This slide shows the final plot for the proposed subdivision. The plot creates lot one containing about 1.30 acres, and identifying the legal boundaries, dimensions, overall shape of the property, and its relationship to adjacent tracks and subdivisions. Once subdivided, the property will retain its current A1 agricultural zoning designation. Once again, summary request, request is for approval of preliminary and final plan for Wittgen Ranch subdivision. And at this time, staff and the applicant, Mr. Wittgen, are available to answer any questions you might have. They're present on Zoom call.

I don't have any questions. If anybody else does.

Move to approve. No, but well, I'm sorry. So it's currently in track form and all we're going is from a track into a flat.

Correct, yes.

Okay, lot lines don't change, nothing changes?

No.

Okay, no questions.

I second.

I have a motion made by Isidro Torres, second by Mr. Andrew Arroyos to approve. All those in favor of motion?

Aye. Aye.

Any nays? Any abstain? Motion carried. Item number nine, consider and take action on the proposed approval of a final plot for Pettus subdivision, being all of track 17-B-2 and a portion of track 17-C-1-D. Block 13, Socorro Grand, located at 321 F.E. Jackson Road, City of Socorro, El Paso County, Texas, to allow for residential development. Ms. Judith Rodriguez.

Thank you, Erica. Once again, Judith Rodriguez, planning with the city of Socorro. We continue with next item, item number nine, and this is a final plan request for Perez subdivision. We'll proceed with general information and our review of the property. The property is located at 321 F.E. Jackson Road. The legal description is all of track 17B2 and a portion of track 17C1D, block 13, Socorro Grand. The property is owned by Randy Ruben Perez and Cristina Magallanes. who are represented by Luis Armando Saucedo from Raid Engineering. The lot size is 2.94 acres. The zoning, it's an R1 single family residential and the current land use is residential. Summary of this request, this request is for approval of the final flat for Perez subdivision The staff recommends approval of the final plat for Perez subdivision with the condition that the soil analysis is submitted prior to recording the final plat. The soil analysis is part of the engineer reports. Now this is the zoning map where the subject property is outlined in red. The yellow shading denotes the R1 single family residential zoning district and the surrounding green areas represent nearby A1 agriculture zoning. This aerial image, shows the property outline in yellow. The site is irregular in shape and has access through F.E. Jackson. The surrounding area is mostly developed with residential lots located to the south and east and larger agriculture properties to the north and west. As previously mentioned during the preliminary plot, a portion of the adjacent track will be dedicated as a public right-of-way to continue parallel street and provide access to the proposed subdivision as required by the City of Socorro. Now this is a view of the property. This image shows the current and parallel street. With the property located behind the existing barricade, the proposed improvements will connect the street to the new subdivision. followed by the final plat, submitted by the applicant, which shows the proposed subdivision with a total of 2.94 acres in block one, and clearly defines the legal boundaries and dimensions of the property, and also showing the proposed addresses for each of the six residential lots, and the extension of with a 60-foot right-of-way. Once again, submit a request. Request is for approval of the final plat for beta subdivision with the condition that the soil analysis is submitted prior to recording of the final plat. We know the science staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.

I think we had talked about this one and we came in for a preliminary plat, right? Correct. And nothing changed from preliminary plat and it was approved? Okay, I don't have any questions.

I think I was absent that day. Oh yeah? I don't remember. So access from Effie Jackson Road, is that a private driveway? Is that a dedicated road? Because it looks like that access belongs on another parcel.

Effie Jackson is a dedicated driveway. Well, I see the name on the main road, but the- The small spur that goes up to the highlighted property in yellow, yes, that is how they access their property. So that's how they access it, but- And it is a dedicated right-of-way there, except for a small sliver for the property up front to the right that did not grant the dedication of their strip.

Dedicated, what do you call it?

Dedicated right of way.

Dedicated right of way.

So now they're just asking for access to perlet drives.

They're gonna open up.

So that road, it looked like, because there was a roadblock there, it looked like. That's where it ended. Yeah, so it looked like it was intended to keep going, eventually, and this is where we're going now. is we're gonna open it up and they'll have access to these tracks that are gonna be in here. Correct. Okay.

And I believe I asked a question last time to where that small entrance, they were gonna do the improvements on that, correct?

Correct. That's correct. Yes. Yeah.

Okay, I'm good. Okay.

Make a motion to approve with the condition that they also turn in the soil improvements. Second.

I have a motion made by Andrew Arroyos to approve, second by Isidro Torres to approve with the condition the soil analysis is submitted prior to recording the final plant. All those in favor of motion? Aye. Any nays? Any abstain? Motion carried. Item number 10, planning and zoning commissioner's report.

Yes. I know that we can't go back into reopening up the one that we tabled or anything, but we can talk sort of about what we would ask moving forward or whatnot, right? So for future lot splits that come in like that, would it be possible to have, I know that we're working on the unified development code and all that right now and stuff, Would it be possible to come up with something like that to where, like you said, emergency services is 22 feet. I think that as long as they meet that, it should be okay only if it's used as an accessibility entrance for that lot. And very important that maybe planning and zoning explained to any applicant that comes in that it's solely gonna just be used for an entrance for that lot, and that they understand that odd-shaped lot in the back or whatnot, they have to follow variances, I mean, not variances, setbacks. And I know maybe some of them might not understand that, but I think that would be good if Planning and Zoning can do that. I don't have any questions.

Do you have anything?

No, I'm curious. I'll go back to the frontage, and I'm curious to know if they're going to be addressed or if they're in the new UDC ordinances that are coming in. I don't ever remember having discussed minimum lot widths, so I guess that would be a question if they're going to be in the new UDC.

We can discuss that next week when we present the UDC.

Okay.

I don't have any other questions.

Anything else? I don't have any questions. Thank you.

Item number 11.

You know what, I'm sorry. I do have a question. Do you have dates on the bridges for, I think it was Vineyard and Passmore, no?

We currently don't have any dates yet. The current status is we're reviewing the bid documents. Legal is reviewing the contracts, sorry, the bid documents and the attachments so that we can put those out to bid.

And when those go out to bid, is there a sequence? Is it going to be Vineyard first and then Passmore, or Passmore first and then Vineyard?

Oh, good question. There is a sequence. They didn't want to do them together because they're too close together to have both roads closed at the same time. And I would have to get back to you on the sequence. And maybe by next... I think there's an upcoming progress meeting on that project, so maybe we can get a better sense of the schedule and timeline.

And I do have something. Anything on the traffic lights down north on Bauman?

Yes. We had a very productive meeting two weeks ago with TxDOT, and those are going to be more where we will be getting updates on various projects. They did mention the Bowman traffic signals at North Loop. They are currently waiting for construction season to start as some of the work is going to be done in the El Paso County Water Improvement District, number one, or easement. So that is part of the delay. The initial delay had been that the project had been lumped together with a lot of other traffic signals and it was being managed by the west side's maintenance office or construction project office. So we don't currently have a start date or an end date but we do also know that it's going to be a four light traffic intersection instead of just the three with bowman being extended into that bowman commercial subdivision that you all saw that we got just approved last week at city council okay great thank you item number 11 planning and zoning department report miss camito thank you erica i don't have any items for you today

Item number 12, consider and take action on the adjournment of this meeting. Do I have a motion?

Make a motion to adjourn. Second.

I have a motion made by Andrew Arroyo, second by Isidro Torres to approve. All those in favor of motion? Aye. Any nays? Any abstain? Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 622.