Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

you 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 ejection or possible prosecution.

Hello, my name is Judy Rodriguez, 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 the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Socorro, Texas. It is August 18th, 2026, 536 p.m. We call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon. Establishment of quorum. Andrew Arroyos.

Here.

David Estrada.

Here.

Osvaldo Reza. Absent. Yolanda Rodriguez. Here. Rafael Carrillo.

Here.

Isidro Torres.

Here.

We have a quorum with five commissioners present. Item number three, open forum. Alfredo, do we have anyone that would like to speak?

Not for open forum.

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

Make a motion to approve.

Second.

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

Aye.

Any nays? Any abstain? Motion carried. Regular agenda. Item number five, public hearing request for a proposed amendment to the City of Socorro's master plan and rezoning of lot 27, North Loop Acres located at 660 Stedham Circle, City of Socorro, El Paso County, Texas from R1 single family residential to R2 medium density residential to allow for a quadruplex. Mr. Arroyos?

Good afternoon, everybody. We will open public hearing at 538.

We have no speakers on that item.

We will close public hearing at 538.

Thank you. You guys would be the applicants, correct? Item number six, considering to take action on the proposed amendment to the City of Socorro's master plan and rezoning of lot 27, North Loop Acres, located at 660 Stedham Circle, City of Socorro, El Paso County, Texas, from R1 single family residential to R2 medium density residential, to allow for a quadruplex. Ms. Rodriguez?

Thank you, Miriam. Good evening, Chairman, Commissioner. Jure Rodriguez planning with the city of Socorro. We'll continue with the next item on the agenda. And this is item number six. And it's a rezoning request for the property located at 660 Stedham Circle. We'll proceed with the general information and overview of the property. The property address, 660 Stedham Circle. Legal description is lot 27, North Loop Acres. Property owners are Francisco and Leticia Vaquera, who are represented by LV Agape Homes, LLC. The lot size is 13,677 square feet. It is zoned R1 single family residential. Current land uses vacant and future land use suburban residential SR. Summary of this request is for approval of rezoning a property from R1 single family residential to R2 medium density residential to allow for a quadruplex. And staff recommends approval of the rezoning request with the condition that the proposed development be limited to a triplex. Next is the zoning map where the subject property is outlined in light blue and is zone R1 single family residential shown in yellow. The surrounding area is mostly residential with R1 in yellow, R2 medium density residential in orange, There are also C1 light commercial in pink, C2 general commercial in red, special use property in blue. Followed by the future land use map from the Socorro Comprehensive Plan 2040. The subject property is outlined in light blue and is designated as suburban residential. The surrounding area shown in yellow is also planned for suburban residential land use. This is the subdivision map where the subject is outlined in light blue, and it's located within a subdivision named North Loop Acres, outlined in red. This subdivision was recorded in November 1956 with a total of 47 lots. Today it contains 41 R1 single family residential lots, two R2 medium density residential lots, two C1 commercial light lots, I'm sorry, three C2 general commercial lots, one lot which is a special use SU, and it contains two vacant lots. This aerial image shows the subject property outlined in light blue. The property is currently vacant and is surrounded primarily by existing residential development. Also, as you can see, the lot has an irregular shape that narrows to the northeast and curves along the state hand circle. Next, we had different views of the property, including the right side, left side, and the corner lot of the property. Followed by the public notice map highlighting the area in green within 200 feet of the property that was notified as required by law regarding the proposed rezoning. followed by the public notice letter that were mailed in both English and Spanish to property owners within those 200 feet around of the subject property, and staff has not received any comments in support or opposition of this request. This is the conceptual plan submitted by the applicant showing the proposed quadruplex layout, covered patios, parking spaces, parking areas, driveways, and side access. The proposed units range from 726 to 1,230 square feet. Due to the irregular property line, the eastern portion of the lot creates a wet shape building area which limits the available building space. This is the floor plan. Here we can see the property line setbacks. Although the property may meet the minimum lot size for the R2 zoning, it's irregular shape limits the usable building area. The plan, this plan shows the building number four, which is the larger building, very close to the regular property line, which will require further review for service compliance during the building permit review process. Once again, the summary of this request, request is for approval of rezoning a property from R1 single-family residential to R2 medium-density residential to allow for a quadruplex. And at this time, staff and the applicants are available for any question you might have. Thank you.

Quick question. So planning the zoning is, just to be clear, they are allowing a three, a triplex instead of a four because it does fall in the R2 zoning. That's not exceeding the permittable units, correct?

Correct.

And the applicant is okay with just three units?

We mentioned to the applicant, but they are still going to request the four, the quadruplex. Okay.

Okay.

So I have a question. So the R2, the minimum was 10,000 square feet. Am I correct on an R2? Correct. Okay. And so is there a max for an R2?

For an R2, they meet the minimum requirements for the R2.

So they meet the minimum requirements for an R2 with a triplex, not a... Correct.

And it is because under R2, it's one acre per 15 dwelling units.

Okay.

So this...

Okay.

So that's the only way, just with the triplex and they will meet the R2?

Yeah, the max, like I mentioned, they meet the R2 lot area requirement. I think it's four units for the 13,000 square feet. But in this case, for the regular shape of the lot, stuff is... recommending a triplex instead of a quadruplex.

Okay. Mr. Carrillo, any questions?

David? A quadruplex, it's a...

It's encroaching on the 20, if you see it. Yeah.

They're not meeting the setbacks.

Right. Right, and on the corner we see it's kind of encroaching on the 20 feet in the front, right? If you see the side plan.

Yes, that's why.

So that's why you all are recommending for a triplex zone.

Correct, the reduced space, the buildable area.

And again, the clients are here, right? Yes. So if you'd like to come up, please.

Good afternoon, I'm Francisco Vaquera, and this is my wife, Leticia Vaquera, and we are here requesting from city council and mayor the rezoning of 660 Stenham from an R1 to an R2. We have heard the- Sir, I apologize.

Can you speak into the microphone, please?

We have heard from Ms. Judith about the, our fourplex, and the, 20 feet setback that I see in the plan would not be an issue to decrease the size to make sure that it's under the, or it meets the required setback. This is just a conceptual plan, but I mean, I am in agreeance to make sure that it falls within the setbacks And the reason why we asked for a fourplex instead of a triplex, actually the triplex would have more people. Usually the triplexes have three bedrooms. So three times three is nine. So that would be a nine bedroom. So it would contain more people. And what we're trying to do, it's more for... single family or just the couples, these would only contain a total of six bedrooms. And when I presented this to Ms. Judith, she said, you know what, we're gonna go ahead and just recommend three instead of four. And I asked her kindly, you know, I mean, what's the reason? And she didn't really have a response for me other than saying that that's her recommendation from the, from the zoning department. So if you do see the actual zoning requirements from Socorro, section 46-2-259 states that you can have up to 15 units in one acre. If you do the breakdown comparing our square footage in the lot to the 15 units per acre, we do fall under. It's actually, it's less than 12 units if you compare it per square foot. So we are here for your guidance and hopefully your approval for our quadplex.

Hello, good afternoon. I'm gonna go ahead and state that we do have, in August of 2025, we did have a quadruplex approved in 11631 Riverside Road. There was a quadruplex approved. And then in December 4th of 2025, again, from an R1 to an R2, it's 366 Tanya Drive was also quadruplex approved. And... I would like to say that Harvest View Village is more than a zoning request. It is our commitment to invest in the city of Socorro with a thoughtfully planned residential community. We have worked to design a project that respects the neighborhood, provides quality housing, and follows the city's development standards. We respectfully ask for your support and we thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you.

Any questions? We've been through the same application process constantly and this one usually falls within a duplex range. That's what we've done in the past. But you're making a good argument from my point of view.

Well, I have a question. So on these other two properties that you say that it was approved for the quadruplets, do we have information on the lot sizes of those? Can you help us, Lorraine, with that to see?

I know that the 11631 Riverside Road, that one is track 8B, block 17 of Socorro. Is that the one?

I'm sorry, could you repeat the address? Okay, 11631 Riverside Road.

And the other one was 366 Tanya Drive.

I recall the one on Riverside, and I think that lot size was 20,000 square feet. And so the general rule of thumb was two units per every 10,000 square feet. And so that's why I'm thinking Riverside. The other one, I don't remember.

So the section 46-259 doesn't apply where it says 15 units? That's what the actual ordinance for the city itself is. So that's where we actually. We did our homework. We did our homework. We've been on this like for four months and that's actually why we purchased a lot because we looked at the ordinances and that specifically, that's what it said. So we're basing ourselves off of what you guys have as actual putting it out to the public. And land is not cheap right now. So we did do our homeworks before we bought it, and we actually came with Ms. Judith here for guidance, and she said, yes, it does technically fall under the less than 15 units.

I'm sorry, if you could please speak into the mic. It does need to get recorded. Thank you.

And actually, R2 right behind us on Hesse Drive, that's a two-door. but each duplex has three bedrooms. So three bedrooms here and three bedrooms, that's six bedrooms. That's kind of like we're putting six bedrooms as well, but we're calling it a quadruplex.

So the units on these are a mixture of one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom units?

Correct. I'm sorry, it's just one bedrooms and two bedrooms.

They're all just, no three bedroom, just a mixture of one and two bedrooms.

One and two is one bedroom, and then three and four are two bedrooms.

The triplex would be three bedrooms.

Yeah, if they would change it to a fourplex, and then they would change it into a triplex.

So it's a smaller unit, lower rent, less expensive to build.

More affordable for our community.

More affordable for people moving in. Understood, we understand. I'll tell you that I'm just trying to be fair with everything else we've seen the last, you know, whatever number of years, five years, 10 years, whatever it was, because we've tried to decide based on the code that you're reciting. And so for us, the code is open to interpretation and there's a lot of gaps in it, right? And so you do the math and yeah, you're correct. You come out with, I believe my math is 4.7, right? And so... yeah technically it's four units but in the past we've always looked at minimum lot size 10 000 square feet doing two units per every 10 000 square feet so in order to do a four unit we've decided in the past that you need the 20 000 square foot lot so i understand what you're saying we've never looked at anything per bedroom right because bedroom affects number of people vehicles and the whole thing right um but we've never looked at one of these based on bedrooms But I understand where you're coming from and that's a I think I think that's a trend that that needs to happen smaller Smaller homes right smaller apartments less bedrooms so that they're more affordable. They're less expensive to build So I think definitely it's gonna go in that direction as the years continue right but and and land prices increase and cost of material and cost to build in general, but I Right now, I'm stuck between two and three. I don't know about the four because we've never done it in the past. There are a ton of people that have come through here and we've just said no on the four units. So it's been a flat out no. But if we go back and look at the number of bedrooms that they had and so on and so forth.

And I do understand where you're coming from, sir. But we do have to understand that Socorro's changing now. Socorro needs housing and affordable housing. This is an opportunity for the actual citizens to have something that's affordable. We pass through Nuevo Hueco all the time. There's a ton of people and there's no rentals. There's no housing that's affordable for our city or for our citizens. So that's why we're providing this understanding that Socorro's changing People are coming to Socorro, so we believe that this is actually a good thing for the city.

I think it's gonna help us avoid like, crowdiness, which, you know, my husband just mentioned, we've gone through different, we did our homework searching, and when we go to a different apartments or, you know, plexus, there's clutter of vehicles, you know, like a lot of people living in three bedrooms or, you know, they're just trying to all fit in there. And so this would also kind of give us more

I have a technical question. Can we see the first conceptual plan? So on the first conceptual plan, the building is not crossing the 20-foot setback. On the second conceptual plan, it is. Which one is staff using?

That is the driveway, sir. That's not the actual building. Yeah, right, the building.

Yeah, this one, the building's not crossing the setback. But on the second conceptual plan, it is.

We are meeting the standards, sir, and it's not, right there it shows like we're over, we're going over. I don't know why it's doing that, but it's not supposed to do that.

So it's the first one. Yes. When we submit the actual plans, they are going to be within the setbacks for sure.

The first one should be correct.

yes i i hadn't seen that one but it's it's actually just a conceptual plan like i said it's not like 100 so we will be within the setbacks correct so was staff making this decision based on the conceptual plan was it based on this conceptual plan can we go on the first one to the first one that one

I think, you know, just on the legal side, I can add that whatever you guys decide, make sure that on the setbacks you make it clear that it follows the legal setbacks.

So, question. I'm sorry, did you get your answer? Yes, I did.

Go for it. Okay, you're good?

Okay. We're going off of the existing ordinance, right, that's in place, and then understand there's a UDC that got, it's not in effect yet, is that what I heard earlier?

It's adopted but not effective.

It's adopted but not effective. And so is it appropriate to discuss that during, because we're not looking at that, we're not looking at that future ordinance, but I'm wondering if there's literature or, or if there's something in that ordinance that would allow what they're proposing, but that's not gonna be adopted until a future date, I guess. And is it appropriate to even discuss?

You can discuss it, but yeah, the current ordinance of central tax is what counts.

That's what it is.

So right now they fall within the ordinance. We can take, go back. table this, take a look at what the difference is, and see if this works better for them, but it would still put the discretion of the applicant to want to wait, if it would be beneficial for them to wait. And I do also have an answer on your other question. The properties that the applicant mentioned, the one on Riverside Drive, it was very good memory. It was 20,000 square feet. The one on Tanya was different. The one on Tanya was a property that had been inherited by the son. did not know when it had been converted. He was under the impression that everything was fine. When they came to the Planning and Zoning Department for something, it was determined that we didn't have any legal non-conforming record for that property, so that's why they came to Planning and Zoning and Planning and Zoning Commission for the rezoning to R2, and that property was under 10,000 square feet. But we approved that.

that Tanya had an existing structure on it, I think, right?

It was existing.

Existing and, okay. Okay. So I tend to agree with what the applicant is saying, right? Yeah. I'm just trying to be fair with past, but there is change involved and there's trend and housing is needed and there are a lot of these lots that are out there that need a higher density so that builders and investors come in and make it profitable. And so that's where we're at, right? And everybody here's gonna have a different opinion or a different take on it. So we're just trying to decide.

I agree with you, David. I think that, yeah, in the past we've gone with trying to keep it to 10,000 square feet for a duplex. But they did their homework, they fall under ordinance. I mean, they fall under the ordinance or whatnot. And I think that as long as they fall and they don't encroach into that 20 feet, they do change that encroachment. And I think we do take into consideration from moving forward the amount of units, whether it's a two bedroom, a one bedroom, or a three bedroom. I mean, there's some of them that are in four bedroom units. um so i'm i'm i i understand and i feel the same way you know we've got to be fair with everybody in the past we've voted to try and keep that but at the same time i'm with david and i you know you guys fall within the ordinance so um if nobody has any other questions i'd like to make a a motion or if anybody else has any other questions

Well, all I'll say is that the next item is also similar to this one. And so it's, and we have a room full of neighbors.

And on this one, we didn't have anybody opposed to it, right?

We didn't have nobody opposed, but the next item is very similar to this, but it's a smaller lot size.

Yes.

And so, you know, it just opens up a new branch, it opens up a new, so I'm just, I'm curious to the new code, like, for example, the number of bedrooms affects your parking spaces, just straight up, the number, like this one, for example, if it was four units times three bedrooms each, that's 12 units, so you need however many parking spaces, two parking spaces per unit, so that's eight parking spaces that you need, for example, and then it reduces by, based on the number of bedrooms. So I think it's a Pandora's box if the new code doesn't address all this. We're gonna be- Right.

And it does, and it also interjects something that we haven't had before, which is lot coverage. So only a certain percentage of the lot can be covered by a building, so that will also impact whether you could have That will help out a lot. Yeah, a duplex with however many bedrooms, the lot covers.

Yeah, that would really help a lot. But we are where we are right now with this one, so we have to make a decision. What's the motion?

Was there a motion on the table?

No, there's not a motion. I wanted to make a motion if anybody else had any questions or if anybody else...

I think the only consideration is just to ensure that the setbacks are gonna be within our unified code.

Yes, and you don't need to make that a part of the motion. They aren't requesting variances for the setbacks, so they will have to meet the setbacks, and that would be taken care of during the review, planned review of the construction.

Okay, and I did wanna, I know he mentioned that the one bedrooms are 750 square feet. And your two bedrooms are? Between 1,100 and 1,200. OK.

So if we were to make a motion to approve with, but staff recommendations is for a triplex.

If you don't want to go with staff recommendation and you want to go ahead and make a motion to approve the applicant's request, it could be a motion to approve the applicant's request of a rezoning from R1 to R2 for a quad request.

Okay. I have another question. And I'm just... There's a duplex behind you, right? And so that one came through here and they were only allowed a duplex. I don't remember the details on that, but I'm wondering, you don't have to answer, right? But I'm wondering if you're the owner, if not the owner or whatever, because if I'm the owner of that duplex, right? And I wasn't allowed four units and I have to build a duplex. And now I find out there's four units come up behind me. I'm not happy. So I'm wondering, who the owner is, right? But it's what it is, right? But that's what we come up against here.

And maybe they would come back and turn in another application to see if the mood in the room has changed.

So was it a two or was it a four? I thought it was a four.

Oh, hold on.

I thought it was a four.

Which one?

The one behind us. It's a duplex. It's a duplex.

It's already constructed. It's a duplex.

It's a duplex, yeah.

Okay, what we're talking about.

And then further on Steadham, on the other side of the block, there's another duplex on there, there's another lot.

Yeah, that one's a duplex.

That other R2 is a duplex as well, so everybody's, or the people that have come in have been granted duplexes, and so we need to be able to justify why this would end up being more than just a duplex, right?

And so I have another question, on the R2, because David has brought up a good point that is behind this one. What is the square footage of that R2 where we said they could only do a duplex there?

I don't have that information on what the ordinance was that was approved, but let me double check for the size.

And do we know that they came for a four? And we said two?

No, that's the information I don't have. I would need to check. So we don't know that. We don't know. We don't know that.

We don't know. But what came here, they might have been advised before it got to us, you can only do a duplexer. We don't know. But that's a good point. What did they ask for? And that's what we're trying to base it.

That lot is 13,460 square feet. Okay, so it's actually almost the same.

It's actually larger than this one.

A little bit. This one's 13,670 square feet.

Yeah, and that one was 13. Oh, okay, yeah, it's a little smaller.

It's smaller. So it was smaller. But almost in the same square feet. Okay, but. Like they brought up a good point, right? The R2 over here, how many bedrooms were those? I mean, how many square feet?

You've researched that.

That's right. So you brought something up. So it's six bedrooms there total. You know, so were these three bedrooms or four bedrooms? And now we're going to one and two bedrooms. Which is really a good point. I think the coverage of the property we need to look at that to make a better assessment of when we approve. For future ones. Yes, for future ones, because it's not now about the size of the lot, it's about the size of the coverage that is going to take place on the lot.

Okay, so. Okay. I'm ready to like, I guess defend my opinion or my position on turning the corner and trending in a different direction going forward. Right. And that's because I see Socorro is just, my God, it's just so much is going on. So much is happening. Okay. So I'm willing to go in that direction. Okay.

Again, I go back to you did your homework, you followed with an ordinance. I know that we've done different things in the past, but I know that in the future, in a couple of weeks, I think the new ordinance should go into effect. Am I right, correct? Correct. So it's something that we're gonna have to start looking at for future ones. But since we've talked about that, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to approve with the quadplex based on what I heard today.

And I second.

This is for the four.

This is for the four.

Okay, can I go back on my motion? All right. Correct. I wanna ask Mr. Boddy a question. So the plans that they turned in is two one bedrooms and two two bedrooms. Can we make, with the condition that they stay to that number of units, or can they go back and change it to where they say, well, we wanna change it now and say three, three, three, and three?

You know, I think technically, yes, you can kind of stipulate what you're making the motion to approve based on the plan that are submitted.

Based on the plan that we're submitting?

That's something that we're approving. But then between now and city council, because city council can always change it around. Right. Yeah, and then they could change, because city council may have, they may allow more, they may allow less. Right. So they may modify it, so then they may have to then go modify it a second time. But, yes, the way you guys want to prove it, you can put a stipulation that we're approving it based on the plans submitted, you know, showing a 2-1 bedroom and a 2-2 bedroom or whatever.

And, again, remember, everybody, this is just our recommendation to city council. You guys still got to go to city council and they make the final decision. This is just a recommendation from us. So I'd like to make a motion to approve with a special condition that on the site plan that we saw with the two one bedroom units and the two two bedroom units. So it's two, four, five, that's six total bedrooms?

Six total bedrooms and four units?

Yes.

So six bedroom is like a duplex with three bedrooms?

Yes.

That's what they're saying.

Yep. Okay. I don't know if I worded it right, but. Then we can fix it up.

Do I have a second? I second. I have a motion made by Andrew Arroyo, second by Yolanda Rodriguez to approve a quadruplex based on a special condition on site plan presented to one bedrooms and to two bedrooms. Correct. All those in favor of the motion?

Aye.

Any nays? Any abstentions? Motion carried.

Thank you.

Item number seven, public hearing request for a proposed amendment to the City of Socorro's master plan and rezoning of Block 28, Block 9, Country Green, located at 659 Milo Drive, City of Socorro, El Paso County, Texas from R1 single family residential to R2 medium density residential with a variance from section 46 to 60 subsection two to allow for a dwelling unit four dwelling units exceeding the three maximum permitted units in an R2 zoning district. Mr. Arroyos?

Afternoon, everybody. We will open public hearing at 614.

Mr. Morales, if you may please come up to the podium and state your name. You do have three minutes.

Good afternoon. Hi, my name is David Morales. I live at 650 Milo. I'm opposing the building of the quadruplex that's being built in 659. I'd like to know when a quadruplex got converted into a duplex. First of all, to start, the city of Socorro is not even prepared for that type of conditions or building right now. I'm talking about building water storage, electrical, even the Lower Valley Water Company or the electric company are prepared for that. Second of all, There's going to create a great congestion in the community. Estimating it's going to be at least eight hours. That's a big eight cars being parked. There's not enough parking in the street. It's a corner street. There's a stop sign right in the corner. There's a bus pickup right in the corner adjacent to the front of that. There's no sidewalks. There's no streets. The kids are going to have to walk on the street because of the congestion of the vehicles. Two. It's an old community. It's quiet. We like to keep it that way. We understand that there's always room for improvement, but now is not the time. They need to pick an area which is a horizon area. There's a lot of communities where they're supposed to be building. This is not the time for that type of building. We don't have the resources. I mean, it'd be great, but the other question it's going to do is, what's it going to do with property taxes? Are they going to go up or go down? It's a monopoly right there. One of the things is property values. Of course, we're introducing four new families, what the condition of the families are and what's gonna go on, chaos. We're not ready for that either way. Let's see. We alone have problems with the drainage. I mean, like I said, I want to go back to the city of Socorro is not prepared. The streets have no sidewalks, no drainage. It's a big model. When we call them alone to pick up the water floods, they do not do that. That creates a big problem. I'd like to know what the definition of, again, when did a quadruplex turn into a duplex? The lot measures 130 by 90, which is insufficient for a quadruplex to be built in that area. We enjoy a quiet community and I could tell you I think it's gonna create a lot of chaos for the community the children the school bus in area and I object to that being built But I think they could find a better place or a busier area where it could be built. I Think that's all I have to say one more area. I'd like today I asked for a They're going to talk about R2s. That area is about 50-something years old. A lot of those areas have been grandfathered, so there's basically nothing we can do about that. We're trying to look into the future and upgrade things, but we can't focus because the area behind it is an R3 and R2. Those have been grandfathered for many years, so that should not be considered in my perspective. Hold on, give me a second. We would like to maintain it a residential area, not an apartment complex area. Today I requested from the planning and zoning if they could give us a manual, a guide, so we the people ourselves can see what you're basing all your information, basing in the total environment and situations, all the surroundings. I noticed that they put something in the background about a ponding. Is on the ponding, is that building a pond, or is that just a normal ground? I see the picture here, I don't see any. They call it the ponding, but I'm not sure what it is that they're defining it as. Is it a pond for the water to go from the, I was all going to add the utility companies. That area alone has more outages than you've ever seen. Water shortage. You use a water hose and anybody in the area or neighbor turns the water on, it goes down. We cannot have that. We will not allow that. It's four units. I understand a residential area, but not four units. Maybe a duplex, still not. The congestion of the vehicles, no. There's many people here today with the same ideas. if you would like to hear from them. This is my point of view. This is what I wish. I thank you all for hearing me out, and I hope you can consider.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Sorry. Yes. Sorry.

Buenas tardes. Estoy aquí porque... Si nos puede dar su nombre, por favor, disculpe.

Su nombre.

Estoy aquí porque necesitamos... Jaime, sorry. Estoy aquí para... Estoy inconforme con lo que se está tratando de hacer estos apartamentos. En primer lugar... No es el espacio para construir esos apartamentos. La segunda es que el carrerío, no hay driveway. No hay driveway donde se van a parquear esas personas que van a rentar esos apartamentos. Ahora, si se trata de hacer negocio, pues para eso hay lugares comerciales. Ahí es residencial. No puede ser posible. que se esté aceptando una cosa que es al contrario de la ley, porque el terreno no está preparado para cuatro personas, ni es residencial, no comercial. Si ellos quieren hacer apartamentos, que compren un terreno comercial y lo hagan, porque ellos van a vivir de eso, no van a vivir allí. Pueden hacer dos, sí, conforme, pero no cuatro, para que haya driveway y todo. Hay camiones, hay criaturas, y todos esos carros que se iban a rentar esos apartamentos van a perjudicar el tráfico. Ya estamos llenos de carros aquí, de tráfico, no se puede andar. Entonces, el agua, los texas nos van a subir por tener esa clase de proyectos allí y aceptar. Por favor, les pido, muy con… Que sean un poco más justos en lo que están proponiendo las personas que vengan a hacer un permiso para las áreas, ¿verdad? Que por favor pongan más atención en eso y que no pase lo mismo. Porque en un terreno, si yo tengo un terreno que viene lo mismo de este terreno, no me permitían a mí hacer otra casa atrás. Ahora quieren permitirles hacer cuatro apartamentos en un área igual que la mía, de terreno. Eso no es justo. Por favor, tengan más conciencia para eso, porque nos perjudica a nosotros, a las criaturas. No hay que tomar las cosas a la ligera. Sony Plumbing can investigate first if it is commercial, if it is essential, or if it has 700 square feet, then they can approve it, but not in a land that measures 90% or 130 pounds. It is not possible for them to do that and accept that. Erin Romero.

Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Aaron Romero. I live at 698 Supima. I am right next door to the lot. I don't like the idea of a quadruplex being put in. It's a very quiet neighborhood. I've lived there for 30 years. My grandmothers lived there, and my great-grandmother had lived there before she had passed up. I know a lot of the neighbors around there, a lot of older community, very community oriented. You see everybody walking around, you wave. Everybody kind of knows everybody in the neighborhood. Bringing in something like this on a lot that size, it does bring a lot of congestion. He did mention that there is a school that has their bus pickup in that area. You're gonna have a lot of kids in that spot. It is nice to know that it is going to get renovated. The lot was an eyesore before. I do believe as the city of Socorro, allowing that house have gone as long as it did was kind of disrespectful to our neighborhood. The house didn't have water, no sewage, the trash was piling up. There's a lot of areas I notice around Socorro that's like that. We talk about, I saw up there, the future of Socorro. I believe you guys should go ahead and take into consideration that there are properties out there that are like that, that shouldn't be in the, shouldn't be looking like that. So that way we could have nicer neighborhoods and stuff like that. When it comes to the property next door, I've As being there as long as I have along with our neighbors, I believe we would like to see a single, keep it a single family home where you have somebody that comes in and builds a house and takes pride in their house like any of my neighbors have. We don't want to see a bunch of cars coming in. One of them had mentioned, you don't know who's going to be moving into this house. Yes, it is great for the community as far as low income and having a place for somebody, a single family, maybe a mom and her kid and stuff like that move in, but we don't know what we're going to get. It's more, it's easier to say that we're going to get somebody who moves into a nice house in that area and they're going to be taking pride, they're going to become a neighbor and be there for maybe as long as many of us have been there. We have certain, a few duplexes, I believe down the street there's a quadruplex, and even then, that one, if you drive by, it's not very nice. It's not a, it looks like someone just kinda went, put it there, and is just trying to make income off of it, and doesn't really even take pride in that property that they even own. And we don't wanna see that put up there again, and now you're just adding more to it. It's a nice neighborhood that we would like to see become a nicer neighborhood. Putting in, like I said, putting in a nice home would be ideal for that neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Ms. Ordonez? Yes.

Good afternoon.

You have three minutes.

Good afternoon. My name is Maria, and my husband is Oscar Ordonez. And when we live at 700 Milo, it's in the corner of Joway and Milo, where the apartments will be across us. And we oppose the building of those quadruplets just because we We don't feel comfortable or safety because of, you know, we've been living there for over 30 years and we know our neighbors. We We contact each other so we can take care of each other. Like I said, we're elderlies. We depend on each other when we go out. Like when I go out of town, I ask them, please take care of my house while I'm gone, and I do the same for them. So we've known each other for years. And then my husband, right here, he has several physical, disabilities and everything so now that the city of sokoto has built a sidewalk only on our side he has the ability to go around but i also i'm concerned because of the traffic so when these apartments come in there's going to be more traffic there i live right in the corner where the bus school bus stops and they pick up the kids and i see when the cars rush to go through there they don't even obey the signs that are there or nothing and this happens every day and night day whatever so with these other cars coming in there's gonna be more traffic and who knows if my husband will be able to enjoy his walks and enjoy the neighborhood where we can go out there safely without having to wonder what kind of people are gonna be coming in and out because I know there'll be people coming in and then there'll be people leaving and more coming in. So what I'm trying to say is how would I be able to go out of town and be safe that those other people that are coming in will be, okay people to leave my house there without having to be worried about what would happen or something like that.

Besides, yes, it's not a duplex, but it's a fourplex. But, I mean, it's a one bedroom, maybe for one person, for a couple. Then again, you never know, there might be more people living in there, and there might be you know, more than two cars per each apartment. So you don't know what kind of people are in there. Yeah, the landlord, you know, wants to build the apartments, but he doesn't actually know what kind of people are gonna be in there. All he knows is that, you know, he just wants to collect his money and that's about it. And what worries me the most is that the school buses stop by there. and there's children, kids that are walking through there. Elderly. Elderly also, and I mean, it's a good neighborhood, let me tell you that. I know the majority of these people. Our neighbors. And I mean, to have a quadruple built there, it's gonna change everything around.

I'd just like to add something else. If I were to sell my house today or another time, would one of you buy my house? Because there's going to be those apartments there, and I don't know how safe you would feel if I were to sell my house, and would you guys buy my house?

Is that a question, or?

think about, if it was your house, I mean, I was selling my house and you would go sell my house, would you buy my house?

That's, I mean, that's a metaphor. If the price is right, yeah. Once those apartments are built there, then it's going to go down. And that's what we don't want.

You know,

Yeah, I understand he wants to build four. I don't mind for him to build a duplex. I will be fine with that. But once you build four apartments, then that becomes a lot different. Because at least with a duplex, yeah, you're going to have two families. And with four, you'll only have maybe one person or a couple. or there might be somebody else living, let's say within the living room, and they have a sofa, they might end up sleeping. Who knows? You never know. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Maria Giron?

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Maria Giron. I just moved into the neighborhood. I'm new there. But when I was Getting the house, I went around Socorro, and I liked the neighborhood. Now, they're telling me that they're gonna build some duplex there. I mean, like my neighbor says, there's no parking. I mean, where are they gonna park? In front of my house? I mean, my son goes to school. He takes a bus in the corner. Like my neighbor say, they don't stop. I mean, there's a lot of traffic there. And it's a nice neighborhood. That's why I bought the house there. So I object to the duplex that they wanna try to do there. And that's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Bryan.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes, if you have three minutes, if you could please state your name.

Yes, I am Brian Savala, and I live across the street from this house that they want to rezone on Milo Street. I live on 700 Supima Drive.

If you would like to state your comment.

Yes, ma'am. So... I just wanted to bring up that I do oppose quadruple units right there. A lot of the people already covered a lot of the topics that I was going to go through. One was if our utilities were up to date. I heard a gentleman did say we had a lot of power outages here, which continues occurring with the weather and all that. So would we even be adequate to support four more families on the grid? Where are our sewer systems up to date and all so we can support more people? And the other thing I want to say was also touching up on congestion. Congestion has been really bad getting out of the neighborhood. There's times there'll be 10 to 15 minutes just trying to make a left turn up here on North Loop or even trying to get out the opposite direction that there's really no good entrance. We don't have enough, I guess, streets. We need to make them bigger to actually support more people coming in if they do approve it. So my opposition on this is also stemming from a lot of negative. I've had a lot of negative experience with duplexes across the street. I'm going to touch back to, this was in March of 2011. The duplex across the street from my house, I was awakened in the middle of the night due to a stabbing that occurred there. And it was somebody living in one of these R2 zones. It happened in the middle of the night. I was a witness. So it wasn't even comfortable coming to my house. And you gotta consider, this is always a quiet neighborhood, like a lot of people have touched on. And I had KFOX here. Every day when I get home from work, trying to talk to me, I had KVIA, all the news stations, Univision, you name it. A lot of these neighbors ended up moving out after this happened, out of those duplicates. So it was just a big negative experience there. And throughout the years, countless times, we've seen the cops there. We have to call them. And I know a lot of people touched up on that. You never know what type of people you're going to get. It's a gamble. You could say like, I know Mr. Romero said that we could get a, like maybe a single mom with her daughter, which would be great, but not always the case. And like other people have touched up on, I mean, you can always get somebody who's staying there as well as well. And what's that going to cause more cars on the driveway. It is a bus stop, like everybody's mentioning there. So we're going to have more, put traffic going through there. Kids are probably gonna have to be walking through the streets. Like a lot of people have said, I don't mind a house being built there for a single family, but not too comfortable adding four quadruple duplex is not, or quadruple, I should say quadruple units is not the greatest idea to my opinion. There's not enough space there. And the neighborhood doesn't seem ready for it at this point. I mean, a lot of people mentioned there's no sidewalk, infrastructure isn't as great, the road isn't as great to get in and out of the neighborhood. So if it was up to me, I'd oppose it because of all my negative experiences I've had with different units that were converted as well. I appreciate everybody for their time and hopefully you all take my consideration. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Gracie Zavala.

Yes, this is Gracie Savala.

Yes, if you may please give your statement.

Okay, well, I'm sorry, okay, I'm sick. That's why I'm not with my neighbors there. I'm opposed for the change of lot 659 Milo from an R1 lot to an R2. uh this is a very quiet neighborhood our neighbors we all know each other look after each other okay and years back i had a very bad experience with uh um duplex that i have over here across the street they got in a fight with one of my neighbors and they stopped him okay and that was very hard on me because my neighbor left okay this is a two uh duplex Okay, right here, they're trying to build four, and I just don't think that it's right. My daughter-in-law bought a big lot. She put a trailer in there, and she wanted to put a smaller trailer beside it, and they didn't let her. Okay, which I understand. But right here, you're letting these people want to put four, four duplex right here. And I just don't think it's fair or right either. You know, like everybody says, the utilities are going to affect us, congestion, bus stop, and everything. And I hope you take this into consideration, please.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you. That would be all the speakers, unless anybody else would like to speak?

Good afternoon, Commission, City of Socorro, people of Socorro. Thank you guys for giving us this opportunity to speak really quickly. I have a little presentation. I'm going to go ahead and, while they get that set up, I'm going to introduce myself. My name is Josue Baquera, 20 years old. I was born and raised here in the City of Socorro. I'm representing my family business, Diamond Homes, and I'm in approval of the quadruplex on 659 Milo Drive. Um... So it is, we are requesting a quadruplex. It's with variance. It's 9,911 square feet, 81 square feet short of the 10,000 square foot minimum for an R2 to build a quadruplex on. And the reason we're requesting a quadruplex instead of a triplex, because even though a quadruplex is more expensive to build, a triplex is more expensive to rent. And so a quadruplex would actually be cheaper for the people moving in. So I'm just going to give this brief little presentation. Like I said, my name is Josue Baquera. Perfect. Thank you. 659 Milo Drive. The current zoning is an R1 residential. We're requesting an R2 medium density residential. The lot size is 9,914 square feet. and we're trying to build a quadruplex. So, like I said, we're asking for a change from R1 to R2. The variance is needed because the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet on a quadruplex zone R2, we're at 9,914, making it 86 square feet just below, which is less than 1% of the difference for the required lot size. Why not build a triplex? A triplex is an option, but a quadruplex is a better bang for your buck because the cost is spread across four units instead of three, making the cost per unit go down and allowing more affordable housing for future residents. So the neighborhood compatibility. So that blue dot right there is 659 Milo Drive. Next to it is a C1, commercial one residential. A lot down is an R3. Another one, which is a quadruplex across the street from the R3, is an R2 residential. Behind the C1, R2. On Supima, there's an R3 and an R2 as well. And then further down on Joe, R2 and then also in Sudan there's more R2s. So it is compatible with the neighborhood. There's multiple R2s and it's consistent with the surrounding area. So these are just some of the renderings. As you can see parking really wouldn't be an issue because there's eight parking spaces which is going to be on the driveway so they're not going to be parking on the street. And this is just another rendering of the side of the house. As you can see, it would bring the quality of life of the neighborhood up. Beautiful housing. And then this is just some of our work. This is the Mission Grove Apartments, which are on the corner of North Loop and Horizon on Horn Circle. At Diamond Homes, we take pride and quality in our work. We make sure that our tenants are screened, so you're not just getting... People, just anybody, you have to apply and you have to be approved in order to live here. We take care of our landscaping. We make sure that there's not gonna be any weeds and we make sure that it all looks nice and clean for the neighborhood. Thank you guys for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, so we will close public hearing at 6.44.

Thank you. Item number eight, consider and take action on the proposed amendment to the City of Socorro's master plan and rezoning of lot 28, block nine, country green, located at 659 Milo Drive, City of Socorro, El Paso County, Texas, from R1 Single Family Residential. to our two medium density residential, with the variance from section 46-260, section two, to allow for four dwelling units exceeding the three maximum permitable units in our two zoning district. Mr. Ruiz.

Thank you, Miriam. Good evening, chairmen and commissioners. Diego Ruiz, planner with the city of Socorro. We'll continue with the next item, item number eight, Rezoning requests with the variants on 659 Milo Drive Next is the General information the property is located on 659 Milo Drive The legal description is lot 28 block 9 country green Property owner is Juan C. Vaquera the representatives resilient management team here present Lot size is 10,000 square feet. Zoning is R1 single family residential. Current land use is vacant. Future land use is suburban residential. Summary of the request is for approval of a rezoning for a property from R1 single family residential to R2 medium density residential with the variance from section 46-260 subsection two to allow for four dwelling units exceeding the three maximum permittable units in an R2 zoning district. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request with the condition that the proposed development be limited to a duplex. Here we have the zoning map. The subject property is outlined in light blue and is zoned R1 currently, and it's shown in yellow. The surrounding area is mostly residential with R1 properties in yellow, R2 medium density residential in light orange, and R3 high density residential properties in dark orange. There is also C1 light commercial properties shown in pink located next to the subject property. Here's the future land use map where the subject property is outlined in light blue and is designated as suburban residential. The surrounding area shown in yellow is also planned for suburban residential land use. Here's the subdivision map. The subject property is outlined in light blue and is located within the subdivision named Country Green, outlined in red. This subdivision was recorded in June 1972. There are five R3 high density residential lots, one C1, eight C2 general commercial lots, and four vacant lots. And the residential lots are R1 226, R2 10 lots, and R3 five lots. This aerial image shows the subject property outlined in light blue. The property is currently underdeveloped so that the mobile home shown in the image is no longer there. The subject property has a rectangular corner lot configuration with frontage along Milo Drive, located near intersection of . The surrounding area is primarily residential with properties of similar character and use. Here are the side pictures. The top picture is front view of the property from Joe Way. The bottom picture is view of the property from Joe Way and Milo Drive intersection. Here is the current view of the property from Joe Way. There has been some changes to the property where It appears that dirt was moved. Here's the public notice map. It highlights the area within the 200 feet of the property that was notified as required by law regarding the proposed rezoning. Here are the notification letters that were mailed in both English and Spanish to the property owners within those 200 feet around the subject property. Staff did receive one phone call requesting information regarding this rezoning application. The caller expressed concerns about the proposed rezoning and indicated that she is opposed to the request. Additionally, we did receive letters. I believe that you guys were presented with those. Here are the opposition letters. Here we have the conceptual plan submitted by the applicant showing the proposed layout for a four-unit multifamily development on a 10,000 square foot property. The proposed development consists of four dwelling units with each unit containing approximately 714 square feet of living area. The plan also shows the proposed building design required setbacks for the R2 zoning district, including a minimum of 12 feet of the front and rear yards and five feet from the side yards, as well as the proposed parking spaces. Pretty much just to mention the same thing about the ordinance, the R2 zoning district regulations allows for Multifamily dwellings at a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre. Based on the size of the property, the maximum density permitted would allow for approximately three units. Therefore, the proposed quadruplex exceeds the maximum density allowed in R2 zoning district and will not be permitted by right. The applicant is requesting for variance to allow the proposed four-unit multifamily development. Some of the request is for approval of a rezoning for property from R1 single family residential to R2 medium density residential with a variance from section 46-260 subsection two to allow for four dwelling units exceeding the three maximum permitable units in an R2 zoning district. And now at this time, staff and the applicant representative is available for any questions.

Okay, so this one I see a little bit different because they're asking for a variance because it doesn't meet the 10,000, right? So I think it goes... We voted on the previous one, and so they were already, they met at this one. They're asking for variance and the maximum of four flex. So I think it varies, right, from case to case or whatnot. On this one, I kind of agree with planning and zoning. Since it doesn't meet the 10,000, But if you do give them that variance and it goes to 10,000, so you're only suggesting that they don't go higher than a duplex, correct? For planning and zoning, you guys are just approving for a duplex?

Can you go back? Three was the recommendation.

Oh, I thought it was two.

It says duplex on this one. I'm sorry.

Yeah, it was two. Duplex. My apologies.

Yes.

That would be the recommendation.

That would be the recommendation. That's a max. And only because it doesn't meet the 10,000 square feet for an R2.

Previously that we had been discussing. Right. Feeling like in the older neighborhoods, exceeding that was not keeping with the character of the neighborhood. A duplex still feels like a single family home.

Yes.

But as previous conversations that planning and zoning commission has had.

Right, okay.

Okay, so when I look at the overhead on my aerial map, is there a structure there? Because it looks like there's a structure.

Oh, no, it's not. It is now vacant. The photographs are the most recent.

Okay, so it's already been knocked down. So this was a prior photo?

Correct.

Okay, I was losing my mind here. Okay, and then somebody did say that there is a C1 next door to it, but it does look like it's... It's just a residence.

One of the audience members did alert me to the fact that that was converted to a home about 30 years ago, that it used to be a laundromat.

This is what was conveyed to me just right now.

We didn't have a chance to look into that.

Okay, so it's a C2, but there's a residence there. Currently it is residential. Okay, and also the R2 that is behind the C1 also looks like a resident. a residence home, not a duplex.

So R2 behind C1?

Yes.

That's a duplex, a two-story duplex.

Okay, so somebody in the audience also said that a lot of these R2s, and I think R3s, were grandfathered in. So are these, is this what I hear, is that most of these are grandfathered?

not new buildings i'm sorry dude i think uh if you can come up and um do we have to open public hearing or is it okay if we can allow him okay uh so that r2 behind the c1 that you're mentioning it does it's a two-story duplex it's been there

for years, as long as I can remember. Like I said, I've been there since I was a kid. It's been there for a while. The only new one that, one of the new ones that I had mentioned would have been going down to the R2 right underneath Country Green, that first one. That would be on the same street. That one's the newer one. I believe that one's a quadruplex as well.

It's a quadruplex.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you. Okay, and I think for, just for information for those that are attending, is that as commissioners here, we try to be fair to those that come and apply. We do wanna see Socorro grow. We do want, but there are also, because we all live in these neighborhoods, is that we have set up precedents for a minimum of 10,000 square feet for a duplex. And so I think it's important because we all understand nobody wants apartments around our new homes. We live in residential areas as well. We found out today also that maybe the square footage of some of these duplexes have to be taken into consideration. because you guys are right. You can have eight vehicles compared to four vehicles, even because the square footage of some of these duplexes or triplexes and quadruplets that are coming up is that they can either grow in size or they can get smaller in size. So we do take all that into consideration for all of you that are present. I think it's important also that we have adopted a new unified code system that we're barely reviewing and adjusting to it as well. So we wanna be fair to everybody. But there is a minimum that we have set for a lot of these residential lots that are being requested to go to R2s. that there is a minimum square footage of 10,000 square feet for a duplex. That's the highest that we can go. Especially with this particular one, there's variances that are being requested, but the lot size isn't there to accommodate a four quadruplet building. Yes. Okay, that's all I have to say.

So I'm thinking that the subdivision, when it was first platted out or whatever back whenever, that all of these lots of minimum lot size in here is 10,000 square feet, right? And so staff is saying that the property area is 10,000 square feet, but the applicant stated that it's 9,914 square feet. So I'm curious to see if the applicant has a survey or how he's determining that the lot is 9,914 square feet. On clarification, what is it actually, what the applicant is saying or what staff is saying? And again, I go back, because these subdivisions, the minimum lot size on a lot of these are 10,000 square feet unless, the original lots, unless they've been divided over the years. But I'm curious to see what central appraisal has Right now.

Yeah. In reviewing the central appraisal, it does say 10,000. 10,000. Was the 9,000 what was supplied by the applicant? Yes. Yeah.

Yes, he did mention.

9,914. Yeah, 9,000.

So can the applicant tell us if there's an existing survey that they've ordered, they've recently purchased?

That one that's right there in the app.

Well, a survey by a... Do you have a survey from a licensed surveyor?

I don't have the survey. I know we did get one, but I don't have it at the moment.

I think that's important. Okay, so we're looking at the site plan. The site plan was done by but there's no... engineering seal from a licensed surveyor on here. And so I'm just going back to that these subdivisions are all minimum 10,000 square foot, right? And we're getting 9,914 off the applicant and he's getting it based off of that diagram right there, right? Done by, that's a site plan done by a draftsman. And so I think that that's, very important right there it needs to be determined exactly central appraisal district says that it's ten thousands per feet so it needs to be verified i think and the in my opinion the only way to do that is with a with a with a survey from a licensed surveyor which isn't too too expensive considering right um but that changes our equation here everything that everybody has said so far.

Okay, so I know what he's saying is that we're like, you know. Like 100 square feet short of the 10,000.

It's still the three. It's still less than the complete four for the, if it's just the 10,000 square feet.

So exactly, let's say, yes, you're correct. If it's 10,000 square feet and you apply the math, it comes out to like 3.44 units, maximum three units. But right now what's being stated to us is 9,914, which gives us the option of saying not even a duplex is allowed unless we do the variance, right? To get the extra 84 square feet or whatever to get to 10,000 square feet. But it's important because all these lots, minimum, when they were platted, were minimum square foot lots of 10,000 square feet. So again, I'm just trying to be fair. I think it should be, I think it should be tabled in a survey provided from a licensed surveyor with actual square footage. It needs to be platted and it needs to be, are there, I've driven by here and so I didn't see property pins and the little red flag that they put on property pins. But you're saying that you haven't done a survey on this property?

Not that I know of, sir. Okay. But I can get one as soon as possible.

Okay. Do you know if they placed like a pin with like a stake, a metal rod with like a little red flag or something?

they did survey.

So I think the most, the license behind the surveyor, he's the one that can tell us exactly, okay, this is 10,000 square feet or the plat, the original file plat, you know, whatever, wherever, I don't know where you can find that. But I think, you know, as far as my decision, it's like, it's important.

it's important the variance how many units we just voted on the previous one i was going to add you know it's up to planning zoning commission but it's all you know you could entertain also tabling it if you wanted to give them more time to come with a survey and also if they want to do that if it's a mutual thing then that's an option

so if if if you guys get a survey and it and it it it's less than if it's 99 14 like it state like you stated or whatnot and the city and when the planning zoning gives you a variance of 10 000 are you okay with just building a duplex on there because that i mean that's important too right if you that's a decision that you need to make also uh if possible uh we would want to build a triplex

The problem with the duplex is you're going to have the same amount of bedrooms as a quadruplex, which is four. Because on the floor plan, it's showing that it's four one-bedroom, and if you build a duplex, it's going to be two two-bedrooms, which is the same amount of bedrooms. So it possibly would be a triplex of three one-bedrooms, which would just be three bedrooms instead.

Okay, so if there are flagged posts out there, then it looks like somebody surveyed already. And so either it's surveyed when it's sold or when you bought it. If it's a recent purchase, then it had to have been surveyed in order to have figured out what the diameter or the square footage of your property is. So I would suggest that we make a motion to table to give the applicant an opportunity to verify the square footage of the property, and then we can look at whether it's gonna meet the minimum of the 10,000 square feet that we have required in the past with all of our applicants, and then we can move forward.

Can I just ask a question for clarity? So we're saying if it is 99-14, that it's not gonna meet the minimum that we've set as a president for a duplex?

That's right.

Just to clarify. The other thing I'm taking into consideration is that neighbors were notified and they are making an effort, they are here.

That's right.

And that is a factor as well that we take into consideration.

Okay. Okay. Any questions?

No more.

No? No. So I'd like to make a motion to table and give you an opportunity to get the survey. Yes, sir. And then come back.

Sounds good. Thank you guys so much.

Second.

Thank you.

I have a motion made by Andrew Arroyo, second by Isidro Torres to table this item so they could get a survey. All those in favor of the motion?

Aye.

Any nays? Any abstain? Motion carried. Item number nine, planning and zoning commissioner's report.

I think we were wanting to see if once the all the codes and variances are going to have a change or whatnot, maybe we can have a a copy of it or what was approved and what wasn't and maybe I don't know if everybody feels maybe we can have a special meeting or what not and maybe kind of go over the more important things that we see here in the planning zoning which is like the variances, the setbacks, the square footages and all that. I think that's a big part of what we're here for.

We can definitely do that. That's a great idea.

So when is, what's the timeline for it to go into effect, for it to be signed, sealed?

The effective date was the date it was approved. So if you read through the ordinance, the effective date was August the 6th. But we kind of need a little time to put everything in motion, update our applications, and what was it? I was going to say something else. Update everything. put it up on the website, whether we're going to put it in the municipal code or whether we will be able to just put the document up as it stands. If we move it to the municipal code, the numbering may change. So we're just trying to work through details.

What's the time? And just for the timeline, would it be like January 1st or 60 days?

Ideally, we would want to, you know, we're wrapping up everything with the consultant by the end of August, which is very quickly approaching, so like aiming for the beginning of the fiscal year, so October 1st.

Beginning of the year. Okay, but that's not written anywhere, that's the goal.

No, no, that's just, stop.

And so there's nothing we can go back to and reference right now?

Yes, of course, the website is still up. And the items from the packets are still in your emails, but you don't immediately delete them

I'd like to make a suggestion. When we get these applicants like we have today, okay, and because we're going into a new unified code, is there a possibility to get a copy of what we're looking at so that we can say, okay, I have backup and support for this particular item because we've adopted new ones, we've changed old ones, and so Is there a possibility to get that with the attachment that we are looking at in front of us? You know what I'm talking about.

I think you're asking like, for example, one sheet where it just summarizes that.

Yes, something so that we can go back and review it. Look at the difference? Yes, because we're used to an old code. There's new variances. There's new setbacks. There's new things. And so it's to look at it and say we have this in front of us and we're not. completely lost, okay? Of course. Okay, thank you. Nothing.

David, you good?

No, but I'm looking at everyone that's here and I'm thinking just a mention of, so they kind of get more familiar, I guess, but how many pages are in this code again?

400 and some what? Roughly. Like 400 and some what? Okay, so. I think it was like 400 now, something like that? A real 400.

Of a new ordinance that's gonna govern everything that we talked about, everything that comes through here. So it's a new ordinance coming into play. It was voted on and put into play August 2nd, I think? 6th. Or August 6th, and so that's the discussion, right? So it's a lot of information that's out there that I already memorized it, I don't know about you guys. It's a lot of information, so that's why we're asking, because it helps, because that's where Sapporo's going, right, and so, yeah.

And is the new code already on the website?

It's online, we can share that with you.

Okay, I don't have anything else. Do you have anything else? No, I'm good. No, no, we're good.

Thank you. Planning and zoning department report.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, commissioners. I only have a few items. We do wanna bring your attention to an upcoming project on the railroad tracks at Moon Road. This was a part of a safety improvement project that was approved before I got here. Mr. Gallinat had worked on submitting that request to TxDOT for safety improvements at the railroad tracks at Moon Road. This involves additional sidewalks, upgrading of the signals, However, with that comes construction and a bit of disturbance. August the 23rd to the 25th, UPRR will be working on the railroad tracks themselves to upgrade that piece ahead of the traffic work and traffic improvements that will be implemented by tech stuff we don't have a timeline for when those improvements are coming but we do know that they've already requested that they were requested to close moon at the railroad tracks from August the 23rd through the 25th and a social media notices will be sent out shortly I did attend a Certification at TxDOT last week, Judith and I did, and this is for local governments to certify and better understand the process for managing local projects through TxDOT. So if TxDOT funding or federal funding is spent on a project, but it is the local community that is managing the project, that includes preparing the bid documents, preparing the construction documents, the bid documents, bidding out the project seeing it through construction they the the community the local government has to have somebody who's certified uh through the process to uh be able to manage the project so my certification had expired in april luckily i was able to get in this past week and know that this information is going to be useful as we continue through our our new projects with with techstock I don't have any other items, thank you. Oh, I do have one more item. So at your last meeting, you did request more information about the FTZ, the Federal Trade Zone. Unfortunately, Ms. Alejandra Valadez, who manages that program, was in a crunch to submit a grant, and then she followed that with two weeks of vacation. So she will be back and presenting to you all the information on the ftz and other economic development efforts the city has in place to bring businesses and grow the businesses in support thank you that's all thank you sorry

I think he went to the bathroom, so we have to wait.

We still have quorum.

Okay.

Yeah, we still have quorum. Considering take action in the adjournment of this meeting, do I have a motion?

I make a motion to adjourn. I second the motion.

I have a motion made by Andrew Arroyo, second by Rafael Carrillo to approve. All those in favor of the motion?

Aye. Aye.

Any nays? Any abstain? Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7.15. Thank you.