2026-10-22 - City Plan Commission

00:00Good afternoon,

00:01everyone.

00:41We're about to start the meeting, if you don't mind.

00:55Good afternoon, and welcome to the October 22nd meeting of the City Plan

00:59Commission. My name is Lauren Hansen, Chair of the Commission, and I call this

01:02meeting to order at 1:30 PM. Statement to the public.

01:06The City Plan Commission has sole and final approval authority over subdivision

01:10maps, which is statutorily limited to a ministerial examination of the

01:13application's conformance to all applicable code provisions.

01:17The staff report for an agenda item may include conditions, exceptions, or

01:21modifications. The commission may approve the item with all staff report

01:25conditions, exceptions, or modifications, including additional measures

01:29regarding the item as imposed by the commission.

01:31Otherwise, the staff report with all modification, exceptions, and conditions is

01:35approved, and the applicant shall comply with all provisions of the staff report.

01:40Commissioners will consider all agenda items other than subdivision items

01:44in the form of a public hearing. The normal process is as follows.

01:48First, the commission will hear a staff report, followed by a statement from the

01:52applicant. Then members of the public may speak, followed by any final

01:56statement from the applicant. Finally, the matter will be closed for further

01:59discussion or a motion among the commission.

02:02The commission shall then make a recommendation that will be forwarded to city

02:06council.

02:07Thank you. Staff, are there any changes to the agenda today?

02:10Good afternoon. Luis Zamora with Planning and Inspections.

02:14We request that item five and six be heard together.

02:18Item five is

02:19PLCP26-00003,

02:23a future land use map amendment, and item six is

02:28a rezoning, PRC

02:30BCRC26-00030.

02:35Both requests are for the same property located on

02:39the west side along Artcraft Road.

02:42Thank you. Can I have a

02:46record notice that Mr. Darovski came at 1:32? Thank you.

02:51Do I have a motion for that change to hear numbers five and six together?

02:55So moved.

02:56Second.

02:57Any discussion? All in favor?

02:59Aye.

03:00All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.

03:03At this time, we'll do a call to the public.

03:05Is there anybody here who would like to speak on something that is not on the

03:08agenda today?

03:11Again, that's speaking on something that is not on the agenda today.

03:15Star six to unmute if you're on the phone.

03:21Okay. Call to the public is closed. We move on to the consent agenda.

03:24Do I have a motion for that?

03:30Move to approve the consent agenda.

03:33Second.

03:34Any discussion?

03:36All in favor?

03:37Aye.

03:37All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.

03:40We move on to the regular agenda, starting with number four, the street name

03:44change.

04:06Good afternoon, chair, commissioners. Isabel Segovia, Planning and Inspections.

04:10This is item number four. It's a street name change for Bob Mitchell Drive

04:14to Fred Loya Drive.

04:18So we received a request from the applicant

04:22to rename a .35-mile stretch of Bob

04:26Mitchell Drive, stretching from Montwood Drive to

04:30Paseo del Rey Drive after Mr. Fred Loja.

04:35There were no properties fronting this as we checked or addressed off of

04:39Bob Mitchell, so no notifications were sent.

04:44Again, it's this stretch as you see on the aerial.

04:48It actually dead ends as you see where Montwood is, goes up north.

04:52This is the latter end of Bob Mitchell Drive dead-ending at Paseo del

04:56Rey.

04:59What follows are site pictures. This is looking from

05:02Paseo del Oro Lane, looking south towards Montwood.

05:06Then we've got another one looking north from the same area.

05:12Here's another site,

05:14Paseo Antigua Drive, looking south,

05:17and then also facing north.

05:21And then here's the terminus looking from Paseo Real Circle

05:25north and also looking south. And you can see on that northern picture, that's

05:29where it terminates at the private development at the end of

05:33Bob Mitchell Drive.

05:37So with that, staff recommends approval of the street name change from Bob

05:41Mitchell Drive to

05:44Fred Loja Drive, and this is again from Montwood Drive to Paseo del Rey

05:48Drive. And we do have representatives for this request here.

05:52Thank you. Any questions for staff?

05:56I do.

05:58Mr. Segovia-

06:01Only .35 miles?

06:04Yes, sir.

06:06That's it?

06:06That's it.

06:08Not a mile, mile and a half? The whole Bob Mitchell?

06:12No, it's just this stretch of Bob Mitchell stretching from Montwood to Pasillo del

06:15Norte, which again, measured was 3.5 miles.

06:18Or sorry, 0.35 miles.

06:20Okay. And

06:24the private company's going to be in charge of, or whoever's sponsoring

06:28this, of all the name changes and whatnot?

06:31Correct.

06:31The same way we did when we changed Rosa to Hope?

06:35Correct.

06:36Correct. Okay.

06:36We'll get the cost estimates from Streets, and those cost estimates will be

06:40presented to the applicant to where they'll be required to

06:44make the payments for the changes.

06:46I was just only hoping it'd be longer.

06:49I mean, .3, it's not even half a mile, but

06:53I guess it is what it is. Thanks.

06:55Yes, sir.

06:56Any other questions?

06:59Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant, please?

07:08Good afternoon, commissioners. Mariela Mejen.

07:11I'm the representative

07:13that submitted the application. We are requesting your

07:16support. As you know, I

07:21wrote some

07:23notes because

07:25he was a very dear friend of mine, and I got to know him.

07:28I got to know his heart.

07:30I got to know him personally. So

07:33I want to let you know that Mr. Loya was a successful businessman.

07:37He was a philanthropist, a community supporter, and someone who

07:41believed in giving back to the city he called home.

07:44Through his generosity, he supported families, children,

07:48schools, and organizations throughout El Paso.

07:52For many of us, the Loya family home became a symbol of Christmas in El

07:55Paso. His beautiful Christmas light displays brought joy to

07:59thousands of families and created memories that will last for

08:03generations. But his legacy goes far beyond those

08:06Christmas lights. It's about generosity, community, and the

08:10belief that

08:11success carries a

08:15responsibility to give back. Today, that legacy

08:19continues through his family's extraordinary commitment to our city.

08:23What makes this street naming request especially meaningful is that the very

08:27neighborhood where Fred Loya lived and created so many

08:31memories for so many of us with his Christmas light,

08:35it will pass on

08:37to our generations, and when people see his name on

08:41this street, it will have so much meaning, especially when

08:45Christmas comes along and they see the light display that

08:49he so always wanted to give our community as a

08:53gift. So I would

08:55request that you would please support this item.

08:59Thank you.

09:00Thank you. Are you in agreement with all staff comments?

09:03Yes.

09:04Including the one about y'all paying for any changes?

09:06Absolutely.

09:07Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?

09:11No. Thank you.

09:12Thank you.

09:13Okay, we're opening it up to public comment.

09:15I do have a Jorge Cuevas listed here to speak.

09:20You'll have three minutes. If you could please state your name.

09:22Of course. Thank you again. My name's Jorge Cuevas.

09:27I am Sylvia's grandson.

09:29I just want to say thank you again for this opportunity for hopefully

09:33having the street named after him.

09:36Keep it short and sweet and just talk about the street itself and the impact that

09:40he had on it.

09:41Twenty-one years ago, he started this thing called El Paso's Christmas Light Show.

09:45I hope you've all had the opportunity to go see it. It's a great show.

09:50But all the memories that he's created there with families,

09:55I know I have friends here with me today that I grew up

09:59watching the show with.

10:02But the thing is that it was never about

10:05our family of, "We're going to do this show for us." It was always about

10:09El Paso first. That's why it's called El Paso's Christmas Light Show.

10:13It's always about El Paso and what we're trying to give back to the community

10:16itself.

10:19So with that, I just want to say thank you, and I appreciate the opportunity that

10:22you gave us today, and I'm hoping that with this small request to

10:26have this street named after him, hopefully his name could live on forever.

10:30Thank you.

10:31Thank you.

10:32Is there anybody else from the public who would like to speak on this item?

10:36If you're on the phone, that's star six to unmute.

10:40Again, that's star six to unmute if you're on the phone.

10:46Okay. Public comment is closed.

10:49Do I have a motion from the commission?

10:52Motion to approve the name change.

10:55Second.

10:56All right. Any discussion?

11:02I just wanted to say,

11:04my mom worked for Mr. Loya. I called her immediately when I saw this,

11:08and before I even said, "What do you think about this?" Her first

11:12answer was, "That is amazing. What a wonderful thing." So I wanted to hear

11:16from somebody who

11:18knew him personally. So with that,

11:21all in favor?

11:23Aye.

11:23All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.

11:26Thank you.

11:27We'll move on to numbers five and six, comprehensive plan amendment and

11:30rezoning.

11:51Good afternoon, chair and commission members.

11:53Andrew Swearingen with Planning and Inspections.

11:57Item number five and six on the agenda will be heard together.

12:00It is a comprehensive plan amendment to modify the future

12:04land use map and a related rezoning application for the subject

12:08property located west of Westside Drive along Artcraft

12:12Road.

12:15Parcel 1 is 14.91 acres in size and was

12:18previously used as a farm.

12:22Parcel 2 is 24.49 acres in size and is currently vacant.

12:29The applicant is requesting an amendment to Plan El Paso, the city's

12:33comprehensive plan, to adjust the future land use designation

12:37for the subject property from O-3 agriculture to G-4

12:41suburban walkable to allow proposed neighborhood commercial

12:44development.

12:47This proposed use aligns with the existing Northwest Upper Valley plan.

12:53The O-3

12:55agriculture is obsolete due to the state highway and nearby

12:59development.

13:02The G-4 designation is most in character with the proposed

13:05development for the property,

13:07which is similar in scale and character to nearby residential and

13:11general mixed-use zoned properties and uses.

13:15It also aligns with the proposed regional corridors on new future land

13:19use maps that is currently in the works.

13:24The applicant is requesting to rezone Parcel 1

13:29from

13:30RF ranch and farm to C-3 commercial,

13:34and Parcel 2 from RF ranch and farm

13:37and C-1 commercial to C-3

13:40to allow for a commercial development.

13:44In addition, the applicant requests the existing conditions imposed to

13:48the C-1 commercial property to be rescinded.

13:53The recommended conditions addresses the properties as a whole to protect the

13:57neighboring properties.

14:01The conceptual plan is not being reviewed for compliance and is not

14:04binding.

14:06The conceptual plan shows the proposed layout for multiple commercial developments,

14:11and access to the property will be from Westside Drive.

14:20Any proposed vehicular access from Artcraft Road to the development

14:24will require a separate review and approval from the Texas

14:28Department of Transportation. And again, this conceptual plan is not

14:32being reviewed for compliance and is not binding.

14:36This is the subject property viewed from the Westside Drive along

14:39Artcraft Road.

14:42This is Parcel 1, which is north of Artcraft,

14:46and this is viewed from the Westside Drive, Parcel 2,

14:50which is south of Artcraft.

14:54To the north,

14:57it's single-family dwelling zoned R-2A, and also

15:01an irrigation ditch.

15:03To the south are vacant lots zoned RF ranch and farm, and also

15:07single-family dwellings zoned R-2.

15:10To the east, it's a vacant lot zoned GMU, and

15:14also single-family dwellings, which are R-2A residential.

15:18And to the west, it's a vacant lot in the State of New Mexico.

15:24The applicant notified the Upper Valley Neighborhood Association

15:28and the Westside Civic Association,

15:31and public notices were mailed to owners within 300

15:35feet on October 9th, 2026.

15:39Staff has not received any communication in support or opposition to the

15:42request. However, we did receive one email directed to

15:46CPC, which has been included in the revised staff report.

15:51The public inquirers focused on the following items, which is a

15:55detailed site development plan,

15:57traffic, drainage, the irrigation ditch preservation,

16:01setbacks, landscape requirements, and construction noise

16:05impacts.

16:09There were 56 notices sent to a total of

16:1359 properties.

16:18Staff recommends approval of the amendment request to the future land use

16:22map.

16:24Staff also recommends approval of the rezoning request with conditions to

16:28safeguard any negative impacts on existing properties.

16:34Furthermore, the proposed rezoning is in character with the proposed

16:38amendment to the future land use map designation of G-4

16:41suburban walkable

16:43as per Plan El Paso, the city comprehensive plan.

16:47The conditions are as follows.

16:50Number one, that the following shall not be permitted within 100 feet of

16:54any residential or apartment zoning districts or uses,

16:59which is automobiles,

17:01light trucks, major motor vehicle repairs, and

17:05automotive repair garage.

17:11Number two, that no buildings shall be constructed

17:14closer than 50 feet to the property line adjacent to residential

17:19zone districts or uses.

17:21Number three, that any egress for semi trucks shall be

17:25directed towards Artcraft Road.

17:30Number four, ingress and egress from and onto Valley

17:34Drive shall be limited to emergency

17:38vehicles only.

17:41Number five, that a sidewalk along

17:45Westside Drive shall be constructed prior to certificates of occupancy

17:49or completion.

17:51And number six, that a minimum of a 500-foot distance be required

17:54between any establishments meeting both of the following criteria,

17:58which is establishments deriving 51% or more of their income

18:02from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption

18:07and providing outdoor amplified sound.

18:13The proposed rezoning and recommended conditions align with the

18:17Northwest Upper Valley plan and the Artcraft corridor vision,

18:21an identified regional corridor on the new future land use map.

18:25The proposed C-3 commercial district is appropriate and compatible

18:29with planning policies and the TXDOT expansion of Artcraft Road,

18:33which is classified as a freeway.

18:36The area has steadily been transitioning from farmland to

18:39commercial and residential developments.

18:43The current TXDOT construction of the Artcraft expansion will further

18:47transform the roadway.

18:49And ultimately, the plan calls for compatible commercial uses that will

18:53effectively serve the surrounding neighborhood.

18:57And this concludes my presentation. Thank you.

19:01Thank you.

19:04The site plan

19:07is completely non-binding, correct?

19:11That is correct. It is non-binding. It is only a conceptual plan.

19:18Okay.

19:19Thank you.

19:21Any other questions for staff?

19:24Through the chair.

19:27Go ahead.

19:27Mr. Salih,

19:31this site has come before us before,

19:35correct? And we approved that C-1, I think, on the

19:39little corner.

19:42That is correct.

19:43So now you're coming before us and telling us to allow the

19:48C-3,

19:49bigger area, on both sides of the highway and

19:53eliminate that C-1.

19:56Okay? Now,

19:58you're asking us to go to a C-3, so you're going to have

20:02heavy trucks going in on the entrances on the sides

20:06on the, I think, Westside Road?

20:11Westside Drive.

20:12Right, Westside Drive?

20:15Yes, but they may be possible to enter through Artcraft.

20:19They would have to have a separate permit review and approval by

20:23TXDOT.

20:25So they haven't done that through TXDOT.

20:28If not, why not?

20:29They have not.

20:34I reached out to TXDOT. I haven't received any comments from them.

20:38It's still under review.

20:41When the building permit application comes in, they will reach out

20:45to TXDOT to confirm for access before they issue the permit for development.

20:50Okay, because my concern is we're going to a C-3, which is fine,

20:53on both sides

20:56of the highway.

20:58You're asking for a C-3, but I would think that

21:01the developer should have

21:05contacted TXDOT and, "Hey, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do that," and

21:09blah, blah, blah. And now you bring it to us where there's

21:13entrances and exits to Artcraft. That way, you

21:16eliminate all the traffic on Westside.

21:23It is possible to enter through Artcraft or Westside.

21:27The access is limited. That's why we're recommending that condition,

21:31that the only egress from the property will be directed to

21:35Artcraft. That is our condition recommendation.

21:39Okay. Thank you.

21:39And if I can, to Mr. Bray, hopefully the applicant can shed more light onto their

21:43coordination with TXDOT thus far.

21:47Does

21:48staff have the Artcraft plans relevant to this spot?

21:54They don't seem to.

21:56I am familiar with them. I can pull them up if needed.

21:58Okay. Thank you.

21:59Yeah.

22:00Any other questions for staff?

22:03Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant?

22:10Good afternoon.

22:12I also have with me Pedro. He's the owner of the land.

22:18We have conducted many, many meeting with TXDOT.

22:22We're designing a structure from Artcraft to our property-

22:26Excuse me

22:27... last week. That might get approval on Wednesday of this week or

22:31maybe by next week.

22:32Sorry.

22:34We have many, many meetings with TXDOT

22:38to conduct traffic from Artcraft onto the property on both

22:42sides of the road.

22:44We also have

22:46on the site plan, we have a 70-foot roadway on both

22:49sides,

22:51on the north side and the south side of every

22:55parcel.

22:57To have it, we can probably dedicate it as a public

23:01road or like a private, but it's going to be a 70-foot roadway

23:05in the back of the parcels.

23:0760.

23:0860, 70.

23:085,070.

23:09But here, we're not talking about site plans because there's no site plan here.

23:12No, but I'm trying to shed the light on the traffic because you said we should

23:16have contacted TXDOT.

23:18Right.

23:19We've had many, many meetings with TXDOT.

23:22I get that, but now-

23:23Yes

23:23... you're talking about site plans, but this is not a

23:25site plan. If we agree on this

23:29change of zoning,

23:33things could change. The whole site could change.

23:35Anything that could be fit in C-3 would fit under C-3.

23:40Okay?

23:41I may ask a question.

23:42Go ahead.

23:43We're in agreement with placing a easement

23:47and a con-

23:48Real quick, can you please state your name?

23:49Sorry. Pedro Romero, one of the property owners.

23:52And so

23:55our intention has always been to place an easement

24:00on that private drive that we, in a condition to the zoning, that we have to

24:05place the 60-foot road. This is something that we spoke with staff

24:09at length, and so we can put the 60-foot road.

24:14Also per code, we have to abide by

24:17a landscaping barrier. That was in the application as

24:21well,

24:23with a certain set of trees and a

24:27four or six-foot wall.

24:29With regards to the access from TXDOT, we've been in conversations with

24:33TXDOT since 2021 Our intention has always been to get

24:37access from TXDOT.

24:39SH

24:41178 is in an access denial, so you do not

24:45have

24:47permitted

24:49access from TXDOT. You have to obtain a break in the

24:53denial.

24:54We

24:55right now can say

24:57we had

24:59preliminary approval in one spot,

25:04then TXDOT changed the access drives to be elevated.

25:08They're now about 10 to 15 feet, depending on where you see from

25:12the grade level. Because of that change, and it

25:17was from a safety perspective to de-sell the traffic that's coming off from

25:22the Pete Dimittie Highway,

25:24that's going to get off onto Westside Drive.

25:27We have set back that access on the

25:30southwest corner,

25:32and you'll see it on the site plan, on the conceptual site plan.

25:36Again, the access drives,

25:38while you see them there, I can tell you that the one on the southwest corner is

25:41not changing. We've had meetings

25:43with the district engineer, with the access management committee.

25:47We had a call with them yesterday. We are pending structural

25:51review of the ramp. It's literally going to be a ramp that goes from 15 feet down

25:55to grade,

25:57and we're keeping the bike and walk path.

26:00That was very important to TXDOT and to the neighborhood, that we not disturb

26:04the walk and bike path. So we're actually creating a culvert or a

26:08place-in-cast

26:10tunnel that's going to go through underneath the ramp so that people can continue

26:14to use the walk and bike path.

26:16Again, taking

26:18the neighboring and the city staff recommendations and TXDOT

26:22recommendations of not limiting those improvements.

26:26And so we're fine placing a condition that

26:30we need TXDOT access. We agreed that

26:35traffic should go and come from

26:38the access roads in Arkraft.

26:41We're doing everything we can to do that.

26:43The reason the site plan is conceptual is because we

26:47originally, when you said, sir, we were before you with C-1,

26:51we had intended to place a larger

26:54size commercial fueling station there. Not a truck stop, I want to add.

26:58It was just a gas station with some commercial fuel stops.

27:03Part of what we heard back from the community when we were knocking on doors and

27:06talking to people and some of the feedback that we got back was people were asking

27:10us for a pharmacy. People were asking us for a grocery store.

27:13People were asking us for, "Hey,

27:16where's somewhere that I could walk my dog to and maybe have a bite?" I

27:20mean, something that adds a benefit to the community.

27:23We didn't turn around and we could have done a gas station deal immediately

27:28afterwards and monetized our land.

27:30We said, "No, let's see if we can actually deliver the community what it is they

27:34ask for."

27:35We are currently in lease negotiations with a grocer

27:41to follow that site plan. The reason we can't go and

27:45abide by that site plan is because we don't control if the

27:49grocer executes or not. So the grocer could come back and say,

27:53"You know what? I'm not doing the site." But by then, we've already made the

27:57improvement to the TXDOT ramp. We've added about three or four

28:00feet in outside elevation to take it out of the flood zone.

28:04We've committed to you, the city, and to the neighboring community

28:08for the 60-foot road with the landscaping barrier.

28:12So we make a substantial investment

28:15into the site without having any assurances

28:19from that grocer, which is with the pharmacy, that I might add,

28:22that that's what we had some of the community say they wanted.

28:27And so our intent is to follow that site plan, but

28:32we don't control the grocer, and if they pull out, we'll have a

28:35conversation with another. Our intent is to come

28:39before you and say, "Hey, we kept our word." I mean, the community's

28:43proud of what we're doing. The city's proud of what we're doing.

28:46So

28:47that's it.

28:49Let me ask you.

28:50So

28:52right now, if this is approved, there won't be a gas

28:56station there. That's what you said, right?

28:58No, there's not. Right now, our intent is to move

29:01forward with the grocer would have a small gas station.

29:05You could see it on the site plan.

29:08So the grocer does have its own gas station in the corner.

29:12But we no longer have the-

29:16The C-1.

29:17No, we no longer have. Just a gas station.

29:21So you're expanding it into-

29:22Right. So before the gas station was half of the front lot

29:26alongside Westside Drive on the southwest corner on the south side.

29:30As you can tell now, it's about an acre, and it's tied into

29:34the grocer. So the gas station belongs to the grocer.

29:37And you're putting the ponding area right on the state line.

29:41Yes, sir.

29:42Okay. Good. Thank you.

29:47And the other side has an intended use or no?

29:51Correct.

29:53Right now, the other site, we have a gas station and a

29:59restaurant that we're working with.

30:02But again, very preliminary, very conceptual.

30:05That's not

30:06final.

30:10What could be, and we're fine tying this to is, again, the 70-foot

30:14road on both sides and the landscape barrier that's required per

30:18city ordinance. So

30:21regardless of what happens on the site,

30:24we will follow and place that road and place that landscape barrier.

30:29But I don't have anything

30:35more concrete as we do on the south side, on the north side.

30:38Okay.

30:39Any other questions for the applicant?

30:43Thank you.

30:45Okay. This is a public hearing, and

30:49I do not have anyone signed up for this.

30:51Is there anybody here or on the phone that would like to speak to this item?

30:58I have someone signed up for seven. Did they mean to sign up for this item?

31:03No. Okay. Anybody here or on the phone that would like to speak to this item?

31:08Again, if you're on Teams, star six.

31:12I do not see anyone on Teams.

31:19Okay. Okay, we'll go ahead and close public comment.

31:21I'll entertain

31:23a motion, and then we can discuss.

31:26Through the chair, I move to approve item number five

31:31and item number six with the conditions

31:34stated.

31:36I second that motion.

31:38Okay. We'll move to discussion.

31:41The site

31:45plan as presented

31:47is great, and this area needs that

31:51desperately.

31:53The issue is that it's not binding and that we

31:59regulate the use and not the user.

32:04Once we pass this, we cannot stop any other C-3 use

32:08from happening in this area.

32:11I don't know how else to approve

32:15a

32:16superstore. I think it was superstore or supermarket, because

32:20that's great. A supermarket can't be in C-1, and this area

32:24needs a supermarket, and

32:27a gas station can be, but

32:30I don't know what else our options are than

32:34approve or deny, because this area needs this.

32:37But it doesn't need a Home Depot, but we can't stop a Home Depot from

32:41coming here later and being there.

32:47I don't think it's big enough for a Home Depot. Is it?

32:51So if I can, Kevin Smith for the record as we look up some of these points here.

32:55So a C-3 is the lowest zoning district for a supermarket,

33:00and that's just the way the code is written.

33:04And as you're all aware, the code is very outdated, but

33:08that's the least. But that is something we've also heard is that

33:12there's a lack of these type of amenities in this area.

33:16Otherwise, you have to go all the way down to Artcraft, or I guess in terms of

33:20Paseo del Norte and I-10, where you have West Town Marketplace that

33:24has a number of these amenities. But

33:28there's nothing generally in this area.

33:32Now, a detailed site plan could be imposed on this.

33:35But again, it doesn't regulate the uses.

33:39Again, anything under the C-3 would be allowed.

33:43There are a number of conditions that staff is recommending to

33:47try to discourage the impact or minimize the impact on the neighborhood.

33:52We're checking on the

33:53Home Depot-type development here.

33:58Mr. Smith, let me ask you.

33:59Yes, sir.

34:01In the motion that I made, those businesses that were stated

34:05cannot be allowed in this,

34:08right?

34:09Of what Mr. Salum presented.

34:12So under the C-1,

34:14the current zoning doesn't allow these uses.

34:18So the ones that were mentioned, I think a

34:20restaurant could go into a C-1.

34:23No, but the automobile repairs, the automobile sales.

34:29On the conditions, Andy, can you-

34:30Those are the conditions, correct?

34:32Correct.

34:33Okay. All right. Thank you.

34:33Yes, those are the conditions. Yes.

34:36So items

34:38one through six are the conditions recommended

34:43to be imposed on this property,

34:45and they'd be applicable to both sides, the north and south portion.

34:50Just to confirm, home improvement center, which will be kind of your

34:54Home Depot,

34:56it starts being permitted at C-3.

34:59Yes.

35:03One second.

35:05Nothing is stopping...

35:07Okay, so when this code changes, because it's outdated and everyone's working

35:11on it-

35:12It's

35:13changing

35:17... then C-1 will allow... You get what I'm saying?

35:20And then C-3, they'll still be allowed to do a Home Depot here, and

35:25I do think that this area should be allowed to have this site plan, but this

35:29site plan isn't binding, and if we say

35:32conditional on a site plan, a site plan just says you have to follow the rules,

35:35right? That's not-

35:36Yes, basically

35:37... that's not subjective.

35:38But basically, yes, ma'am.

35:40Yeah. Okay. This is not a

35:44conditional use, right? A superstore inside of this is not a conditional use.

35:48No, no, it is allowed by right at this zoning.

35:51In C-1.

35:52In C-3.

35:53In C-1, we can't give a conditional use.

35:56Oh, correct. No, unfortunately, and that's one of the problems with the

36:00code.

36:01I don't know if C-1's appropriate, but maybe potentially a C-2,

36:06for a supermarket type, especially as we look at different type sizes.

36:12Maybe, but again, that's not the way our code is currently written, and

36:16the earliest it would be allowed is a C-3-

36:20Okay

36:20... the lowest zoning district.

36:22Okay.

36:25I think you're okay.

36:26Oh, okay.

36:27I just wanted to add-

36:29If you wanted to add, we're fine about-

36:32You're okay.

36:32Okay.

36:33You're okay. Thank you.

36:34Any other discussion amongst the commission?

36:38All right. We have a motion and a second to approve with all

36:42of staff's recommendations.

36:45All in favor?

36:46Aye.

36:46All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.

36:51Okay. We're moving on to number seven, which is

36:55a special permit application.

36:58Good afternoon, chair and members of the commission.

37:01Andrew Sloan with Planning & Inspections.

37:03Item number

37:04seven on the agenda is a special permit application

37:08for the subject property located at 2215,

37:112225, and 2227

37:15Murchison Drive.

37:17The applicant is requesting a special permit and a detailed site development plan

37:21to allow for a governmental use building for an existing development to be

37:25converted into the office,

37:27storage of vehicles, and storage of equipment for the City of El Paso.

37:31The subject property is approximately 1.52 acres in size

37:35and currently zoned R-5 residential.

37:39The plan indicates that an existing

37:426,384 square feet building will

37:45remain on-site.

37:48The applicant is also providing a total of 35 parking spaces,

37:52and the project also includes three bicycle parking spaces as

37:56required. Access to the property is via Murchison Avenue.

38:02This is the building elevation, illustrating the overall height

38:06of 24 feet of the existing building.

38:13Here you can see the proposed site plan superimposed on the

38:16aerial map.

38:20And this is the existing condition of the site viewed from Murchison.

38:26The surrounding properties are all zoned R-5

38:30residential and consist primarily of single-family dwellings, while

38:34the property to the north across the street is a ponding area.

38:40The applicant notified the El Paso Central Business

38:43Association and the Sunrise

38:47Civic on November 19th, 2025.

38:54On November 19th, 2025, a community meeting was held at Memorial

38:58Gardens Center with the City of El Paso Street and Maintenance Department.

39:02Public notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of

39:06the subject property on October 8th, 2026, and staff

39:10has not received any communication in support or opposition

39:14of the special permit request. There were 52 notices

39:18sent to 53 properties,

39:20and staff recommends approval of the special permit and detailed site development

39:24plan. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you.

39:28Thank you.

39:32In reviewing this plan,

39:35is this the detailed site development plan or this is a conceptual?

39:39Yes,

39:40the special permit does require an approved detailed site development plan.

39:43Everything is binding.

39:44Okay. In our packet, at least, I did not have a link to a larger

39:48version of this, so I'm going based off of the small version that I can see.

39:53There are not trees immediately lining the street in front of the parking.

39:59Just

40:01because we have a platform to say it,

40:05I would prefer to see them there to block the giant

40:09parking lot that this is for than to have them in front of the pretty

40:13building,

40:14and I think it should be the same on the other side.

40:18Because what are street trees for, right? They're to hide the parking lot.

40:23And especially because it's the city doing this.

40:25So given that there's a requirement that

40:29if you exceed a certain ratio of parking spaces, you have to do more trees,

40:34I think that those trees should be put there.

40:36But like we discussed, a detailed site development plan is not subjective.

40:43Any other questions, comments, concerns for staff?

40:48Through the chair?

40:49Mm-hmm.

40:50I totally agree with you. El Paso needs more trees, and if the

40:54City of El Paso is going to bring up this

40:58lot and building,

41:01golly gee, at least put trees around it. That's all.

41:04The building already exists. There-

41:06The whole area surrounded with trees.

41:10Anything else?

41:12All right. Thank you.

41:19Good afternoon. Rene Barraza, City of El Paso, Streets and Maintenance Department.

41:24We concur with all of the findings, and we're more than happy to put the trees.

41:29Thank you.

41:30A tree farm?

41:32Through the chair-

41:32You're the one who signed up to speak

41:34... Mr. Barraza?

41:35Yes.

41:37So I guess Streets is going to use that area-

41:40Yes

41:40... your department.

41:41Yeah. So the idea is-

41:42... under Streets and Maintenance, just so you guys have a better idea.

41:45Okay.

41:45Under Streets and Maintenance, we think of streets and maintenance, and that's all

41:48we think about is streets, right? Well, under Streets and Maintenance, we also

41:51maintain our 304 city buildings and

41:543,000

41:57light vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles, so we do that as well.

41:59So what we're going to do is on the facility side of things, right now we have some

42:02staff that is

42:03housed

42:05in a building on the corner of Texas and Cotton, which is the old Sun

42:08Metro trolley building. It's over 100 years old.

42:13I don't know how old it is, but it's in terrible condition.

42:16That's where you're at right now?

42:17Yes.

42:18Oh.

42:18Yeah. And the reason we're there, it's another long story, but the reason we're

42:21there is we kind of get kicked out of buildings.

42:24So now we saw the opportunity for this building when the previous occupant

42:28left. We saw

42:30the ability to repurpose it. We'll be putting roughly 15

42:34to 20, 25 people in there that will go in there in the morning with their

42:38vehicles, get their assignments for the day, and then go out and

42:42maintain buildings in the central area.

42:46Thank you.

42:48Any other comments, questions for the applicant?

42:54Okay.

42:56Quick question for staff.

43:00Given that I am specifically asking that this detailed site development plan

43:04is approved conditioned on the trees, A, I don't

43:08know if I can ask for that, and B, does that mean they have to come back?

43:13No, it'd just be before they'd be allowed to develop or occupy, they would have to

43:17impose that. So that'd be a requirement.

43:20Okay.

43:20So, they wouldn't have to come back.

43:22I think to just make it clear what the proposed condition would be,

43:26would be to

43:28install street trees or buffer trees along the frontages of

43:33at least Murchison, at a minimum. I know that there's a significant slope from

43:36Tremont

43:38down towards the site, so that would have to be looked at

43:42just from an engineering perspective.

43:44But at least along Murchison, that is definitely

43:47feasible.

43:48Okay. Do I have a motion?

43:50And ma'am, this one is a public hearing.

43:53This is a public hearing. I apologize.

43:55I only had one person signed up to speak and they already did.

43:58Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak, or on the phone?

44:01That is star six to unmute.

44:05Again, that's star six to unmute.

44:09All right.

44:09Just a question. Do they have to get-

44:11Let me close public hearing real quick.

44:12With that, public hearing is closed

44:14With that, do they not have to

44:17do a zoning change?

44:19No. That's this item. It is an

44:23allowed use in this site, but it is not by right.

44:26That's what they're asking for is the special permit,

44:30that it's additional layer of approvals they

44:34have to go through.

44:35In these cases, this would have to

44:39go before city council. And then, as well as we could

44:43work on the site plan with the applicant so that

44:47condition for the

44:49trees, if it's imposed, would be on the site plan

44:52before it goes to city council.

44:57Okay. Thank you.

45:00Do I have a motion?

45:02Mr. Chair,

45:03I move that we approve item number seven with a condition to

45:07plant as many trees as possible.

45:13Do I have a second?

45:14Second.

45:15Any discussion?

45:18All in favor?

45:18Aye.

45:19Aye.

45:19All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.

45:22I have to ask a question. I didn't vote. I have a question of clarification.

45:25How seriously are we taking this condition? Because as many trees as possible?

45:29Russell didn't say anything.

45:32I don't know if that's

45:34legally advisable.

45:35That's a good point.

45:37Not to be-

45:38You might want to be more specific

45:40on that

45:42condition to follow. I

45:46take as many trees as possible to follow our standard tree plan

45:50for the city,

45:51for that district.

45:54I would take that to be an installation of street trees and buffer trees at

45:58appropriate spacing for the health of the trees.

46:01That's the way I'd view that motion.

46:03And based on the discussion-

46:04The way you guys plant trees.

46:06Yeah.

46:07As many trees as possible the way the city does it.

46:11Yeah. So typically, it would be the street and the buffer

46:14trees in this case that would be imposed.

46:18I don't mean to be a butt letter, guys. I just was taken a bit back by that.

46:22In that case,

46:24the prevailing party may request that we redo that

46:28vote,

46:30that we reassess that motion.

46:31The vote's already taken. The vote already passed.

46:34The prevailing party can bring it back on the table.

46:37So someone has to vote. I'm not allowed to bring in a motion.

46:42Jim?

46:44He didn't vote.

46:44If we have successfully defined

46:48the meaning of the motion in a reasonable way, I don't think we have to vote again.

46:52And in fact, I'll-

46:53I think we have it on the record that afterwards clarification

46:57that as many trees as possible is following

47:02the city's

47:03standard guidelines for tree spacing.

47:06I think that should work.

47:07Thank you.

47:09All right.

47:11With that, the motion carries. Thank you.

47:14Thank you.

47:15We move on to other business, which is discussion and action on an

47:19ordinance amending Title 20.

47:32Yep. Good afternoon to the chair and the commission. My name is John Ruffier.

47:36I'm with the City Planning and Design division, and I'm here to

47:40discuss this proposed ordinance amending section

47:4420 of the zoning to introduce a downtown density bonus

47:48program.

47:52So, for some context, the City of El Paso zoning

47:55regulations have had to adopt new guardrails that were set by the state,

48:00and we are trying to ensure that our downtown rules

48:04work in accordance with those guardrails, but also while ensuring that we're

48:07reflecting the city's vision for what downtown ought to look like.

48:11The state regulation in question is Texas SB 8B40,

48:15which was introduced as law in 2025.

48:19What it did was it required the city to allow for multi-family and

48:22mixed use residential development by right in zoning districts that

48:26allow for office space, retail warehouse, or mixed use

48:30development more broadly. When the city interpreted

48:34this law, it allowed for more housing elsewhere, but it actually

48:38imposed restrictions on how many units can be built in our downtown

48:42area.

48:43So, the way that this all came about is that the highest

48:48allowed density in our residential districts is

48:51145 units per acre, and that has now been imposed on

48:55commercial districts, when previously there were no density limits

48:59for residential properties in our downtown area.

49:03So, this means that several properties, all of different sizes, including the

49:07Blue Flame project, Modern Lofts in Electric City, and Savoy Lofts,

49:12all of them are above the threshold that has now been set for

49:15residential density downtown. So again, Blue Flame has

49:19actually 376 units per acre, which is well above the new

49:23standard that has been imposed. So, in order to solve for this

49:27problem and go back to the previous standards that were set for residential density

49:30downtown, we are proposing the introduction of a density bonus

49:34program area, where an eligible residential or mixed use

49:38property in the shaded area would not be subjected to its base zoning district's

49:41density limit for residential use.

49:45So, what this does is it exempts qualified buildings from

49:49baseline residential density requirements, which means that downtown

49:52development can proceed as it had prior to the passage of SB 840.

49:56But there are important limitations to note.

49:58This only applies to residential density.

50:01Other requirements that buildings have to face in the code, be it height,

50:05setbacks, open space requirement, or site-specific conditions,

50:09all of them would continue to apply within the density bonus program area.

50:14So again, prior to SB 840, there was no residential density limit

50:17downtown. Now we have imposed it to 145 units per acre.

50:22We're trying to remove that base limit specifically in our downtown area

50:26to ensure that development can continue on the path that it was prior to the

50:29passage of that legislation.

50:31So, we believe that the implementation of a downtown density

50:35bonus program is in alignment with city and state goals.

50:39It aligns with our strategic plan in that it advances the economic

50:43mobility pillar of the city's plan through infill and efficient land use.

50:47Through enabling housing envisioned in Plan El Paso in the

50:51Downtown/Uptown and Surrounding Neighborhoods Master Plan, we're

50:55ensuring alignment there. And we're also actually ensuring alignment with the

50:59core mission of SB 840, which sought to increase the amount

51:03of units that we're permitting in our

51:06historically and typically non-residential zoning

51:10types.

51:12So, with that being said, the staff recommendation is to approve the ordinance

51:16adding Section 2010170 to Title 20 in order

51:20to restore downtown residential density flexibility and advancing state

51:24and city housing goals.

51:27Thank you.

51:29I just want to make sure I have the flowchart right.

51:31So, the Senate bill

51:34added zoning density to multiple different zones, or

51:38just the high-density zone that it created?

51:41It adds density to,

51:43again, our typical

51:45non-residential, so C4 and C5, as well as manufacturing districts.

51:49Certain manufacturing districts, it allows for residential use where it previously

51:52wasn't permitted.

51:54Okay. And then this

51:58is removing the density

52:02cap altogether for the

52:05properties within this map.

52:06Yeah, as long as it's for residential use.

52:08Only for residential.

52:10Yeah.

52:10Okay, thank you. Any other questions?

52:12If I can, just for clarity, a manufacturing doesn't allow for

52:16apartments or housing of any kind.

52:18So, this would typically hit the commercial, some of the mixed use zoning

52:21districts, as well as the apartment zoning districts.

52:25And as John just mentioned, is that the other

52:28limitations such as height, that still applies

52:33in the base zoning district, so they cannot exceed the height.

52:36C5 is the one zoning district where there is no height limitations,

52:40but that Senate bill basically

52:44did a restriction there where it was an unintended consequence of the

52:48bill, so this will help to reverse that so we can encourage the density we

52:52want, especially in the downtown core of our city.

53:00I guess

53:02nothing in this says... It says number of dwelling units.

53:05It doesn't specifically-- There's never a dwelling unit in a manufacturing

53:08district. I don't know.

53:10Anyway, any other questions for staff?

53:13Through the chair.

53:15In the map that you showed, why were some areas carved out and not

53:19included?

53:22We wanted to make sure that we were targeting the types of

53:26zoning districts and buildings that were most impacted by SB 840, so the carve-outs

53:30were largely in residential areas where there wasn't commercial to begin with.

53:35So there was what again?

53:39Alex Huffman with City Planning Design.

53:41So just to give a little bit of broader context.

53:44So, we know that in this geography,

53:47there are certain neighborhoods where there's a lot of concerns about displacement.

53:51So, City Council actually directed staff several months ago to look into

53:55developing an anti-displacement strategy.

53:57And so one of the things that we wanted to be sensitive to is not knowing what the

54:01recommendations are going to be that come out of that work specifically about this.

54:04We wanted to make sure

54:06that we avoided those areas that there's going to be further conversations about.

54:10And so one of the ways that we can do that is just by avoiding residential

54:13neighborhoods altogether. So again, we're looking at this as providing

54:17opportunity for additional development rights, and what we're trying to do is not-

54:20But you included all of Chihuahuita.

54:22No sir, that's actually carved out.

54:26Yeah.

54:30That's on there. There's a label on it.

54:33Okay. Yeah, so just-

54:34It's just, I guess the label is

54:38maybe not directly on top of it.

54:41Yes, sir. So we intentionally-

54:43Okay, got it

54:43... avoided Chihuahuita-

54:44I see. Yeah

54:44... Segundo.

54:46All right.

54:46Just specifically for those reasons.

54:48For that.

54:49Yes, sir.

54:49Thank you, Alex.

54:52Thank you.

54:54Okay.

54:56Is this a public

54:58hearing?

55:01I guess if there is public comment, people are able to comment on this.

55:05I do not have anyone on Teams specifically.

55:07Okay.

55:08But you are able to open up for public comment if there are any.

55:12Any comment on this item?

55:16Star six to unmute if you're on the phone.

55:20Okay, public comment is closed. Do I have a motion amongst the commission?

55:34Through the chair?

55:35Yes.

55:38I move that we accept this ordinance,

55:42Title 20 zoning, Chapter

55:4620.10.170.

55:55Second.

55:58Do I have a second?

55:59Second.

56:01Any discussion?

56:03All in favor?

56:04Aye.

56:04Aye.

56:04Aye.

56:04All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.

56:08One more item.

56:10Do I have a motion?

56:13Does anyone want to adjourn?

56:15Motion to adjourn.

56:18All in favor?

56:19Aye.

56:19All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.

56:24We can hang out. That's fine.

56:28I won't

56:28look-