Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Hey. Hey. Hey.

Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat.

Yahoo! Woo! I feel Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey.

Woo! Heat. Hey, Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Hey. Hey. Hey.

Heat. Hey. Hey.

Notice of a public meeting of the planning and zoning commission of the city of Brownsville. Pursuant to chapter 551, title five of the Texas Government Code, the Texas Open Meetings Act, notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Brownsville, Texas, has scheduled a regular meeting on Thursday, February 5th, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. in the commission chambers on the second floor of the Brownsville City Hall Old Federal Building located at 101 East Elizabeth Street, Brownsville, Cameron County, Texas 78520. Pledge of Allegiance. Roll call. Daniel Elen, present. David Bettincort.

Amalia Benson. Eliza Vasquez. Ida Rodriguez. Cesar Rodriguez. Bob Torres. Approval of the minutes for the regular meeting on January 8th, 2026. I'll make a motion to approve. Second. We have a first and a second motion. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Motion carries. Updates and comments.

We have no updates or comments at this time. Items for individual consideration. Consideration and action to grant a subdivision waiver for Antonio Milan subdivision located in the extr territorial jurisdiction of the city of Brownsville from the municipal platting process and solely proceeding with Cameron County jurisdiction. Thank you.

Good evening uh commissioner. So what's before you is a subdivision waiver as mentioned. Uh this is for a residential type single family subdivision or neighborhood. Uh this uh plat or subdivision is currently proposing five lots and as part of this request it is wanting to proceed with jurisdiction under county's regulations that would apply to their platting process. Um this location is located north of Bokeh Chica Boulevard and uh it is part of the Rancho Viangores Saka region. And again, it's five lots and it's surrounding uh or immediately surrounding vicinity already has an established single family uh residential community there. Staff is recommending approval of this item. I'll make a motion to approve as per staff's recommendation.

I'll second. We have a first and a second motion. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Public hearings. Public hearing and action. an ordinance number 235-2025-028-S to request a specific use permit in a commercial corridor zoning district to allow an event center for lot one lot MG estate subdivision a re a resubdo partition estate subdivision Cameron County Texas located at 7245 this line roadsville Texas 78521

thank you commissioners as mentioned this is a zone change request. Currently, this Oh, actually, sorry, this this uh first item is actually a spec a specific use permit request. Uh currently, that property is zoned for commercial corridor uh that would allow an event center to come in or an event hall. However, a specific use permit has to be issued uh prior to them obtaining a CFO to be able to start operations or even building there. Uh this specific use permit comes before you. This property currently is fronting by this line road. Uh this property has been issued notice of a public hearing. Uh public mailouts have been sent to the vicinity there. A total of 15 mailouts were sent as shown on this map. Uh that encompasses the 200 foot buffer map here or radius. The property is currently located south of I69 and north of Huge uh Emerson Road. Uh as shown on the zoning map here, what immediately surrounds it is corridor commercial to the south and the rest uh to the north and east is an established either high industrial uh zoning district or light industrial zoning district. as shown on the map uh that follows. Uh this is an overall map showing I69 north and Q uh Q Emerson Road to the south of this property. This is the submitted site plan shown on the screen of what is being proposed currently. Um, as we w as we know, uh, this is all subject to change, uh, during the building permitting process, but currently they are proposing a 6, uh,000 square foot event center, an outdoor pavilion shown east of it, and parking that would accommodate this use.

As of uh, our initial counting, there is around around 70 parking spaces being proposed for this uh, development here. Um we should mention that even if uh recommendation of approval is granted uh to this specific use permit, there is sound mitigation regulations that would apply here as mentioned on the site plan. Uh this proposed structure and to the limit uh would be limited to a decibel account of 60 uh maximum. There is also south of this property uh a strip of single family uh residential uses adjacent to this property. However, uh whenever we did the analysis in part in terms of separation, there is enough separation from where the event center would be to that single family uh subdivision or uh uses that exist south of this property to kind of mitigate for that. This request we found it to be consistent with our existing comprehensive plan and our future land use plan. Uh because of this staff is recommending approval to the specific use permit to allow an event center at this location that is currently zoned commercial corridor. If it is approved the use will be subject to the following conditions. Sound mitigation measures and interior finish up materials such as acoustic tiles or other approved sound uh dampening insulators shall be installed to maintain a noise level less than or equal to 60 dB were measured at the common property line shared by the noise emitting use and adjacent residential zoning districts. questions. If not, ladies and gentlemen, this is a public

hearing. If anyone would like to address this topic, if you would come forward and give your name. Is the city planning on doing some work on that street? Because the entrance is kind of uh that street is very very very bad land road sir. No, it's not bad. So, you have to go off to that little street. the one that's uh north of this east west. The one the only entrance that you have to get into that property. It's kind of a north south and it's more like a driveway. Yeah, it's like a driveway. I think you're talking about the frontage road that's adjacent to Pine.

Uh actually we uh are getting confirmation from our engineering department to see if it's uh city within city jurisdiction or not because it could be within text because PZ line road is a text rideway. Okay. It's just in very bad shape. And I mean, we're going to have businesses in there. Might as well. But it might be textile. You might be right. More than likely. Yeah. Thank you. Only question. We'll make sure to to jot down that once it gets forwarded to commission. Yes, sir.

I have concern about noise and the outdoor space. Is that just a portico or are they going to be able to use that outdoor space? If the if this uh outdoor gazebo or patio is used and it would emit a sound, it would have to comply with that maximum 60 dB. if they decide to use it as part of an extension to that main event center building.

Just to clarify, what the developer did mention is that the gazebo was primarily going to be used for outdoor ceremonies like the actual religious portion of the ceremony and then anything related to the event in the evening would be all done indoor. But again, um what Mr. Nunes uh uh mentions is correct. If they were to emit any sounds or have any music, the even outdoor components are required to follow the condition. My concern because I'm sure that the neighbors are not going to appreciate that.

I need a motion to close public hearing. Second. I'll second. We have a first and a second motion to close public hearing. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries. What is the wish of the commission? Do you have any further questions?

We need a motion to approve it. Yes. Make a motion to approve the specific zoning. Second. We have a first and a second motion to approve the specific use permit. All those in favor? I I.

All those opposed? Nay. Motion carries. Public hearing action. an ordinance number 235-2025-029 to reszone from residential single family to residential transition to allow a multif family development for 23.40 acres of land comprised of 5.434 434 acres out of block 17 and 17.963 acres out of block 18, Chicago Garden subdivision, Cameron County, Texas, located at 5000 Buoy Road, Brownville, Texas 78521.

Thank you. As mentioned, this is a zoning change case. Uh, currently this property is a residential single family zoning. uh and they are proposing or requesting to be reszoned to residential transition R3 in order to bring a multifamily development. It should be mentioned that this multif family development will be for affordable housing and that at even at the next city commission they have already submitted a request uh for a resolution of support from the commission to bring in this affordable housing development. Uh this property is fronting Bowie Road. Uh it has been issued of notice of public hearing physically at the property. We have also sent mail outs to the neighbors there totaling 50 mailouts as a required radius shows on this map here. We this is the zoning map showing uh the existing surrounding zonings there. As we can see there's mostly R1 north of here, R1 east and west and even south. However, there are also commercial type uh zonings uh south of there and even further east. There are already existing multif family or R3 districts uh in this area. This is just a map showing that Bo Bowie Road and that is also north of Bokeh Chica Boulevard being its uh most major street that's uh close to this proposed location. This request is consistent when we did our analysis with our existing comprehensive plan and our future land use plan. Uh staff is recommending approval to reszone from residential single family R1 to residential transition R3. We also want to mention that there was a summary that was uh submitted to the board uh by some of the supporters here present and even the

developer or a representative of the developer that is here as well. There is also one resident here that made mention that is present in opposition of the request. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. So, if there's anyone here that would like to address this topic, if you'll come forward at this time, please. You'll just speak into the mic and um state your name, please.

Name is Cassandra Vahas. I live in 45 Bennett Drive, which is on that road on the opposite end. Um my question or basically is um the taxes Um, I mean I I don't want it to affect I mean because from the looks of it it does look like it's going to affect the families around or in the back of the area. I know it's not the main entrance to the Bowie road or to the apartments or whatever it's going to be. Um my question around our our area is towards the the exit is on Bokh Chica but as a single family um I I that's my concern and I understand your concern. And unfortunately the PNZ board has no control over the tax uh situation. That has to go through the appraisal district appraisal district. But is my understanding that that's completely different. Uh single family is not uh compared properties.

Uh I I do understand that. I mean the notice did say it would affect our taxes. Um that's why I came in opposition. Unfortunately, we can't answer that question for you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate your comments.

Just to clarify, there is uh a clause that we put in case because it's a frequent question that comes up. Uh our notice doesn't state that taxes will go up. It's mainly but we add that clause in case they have that question. They can call the number to the to the appraisal district. But generally, as mentioned before, taxes only go up as property value goes up. And this is just this property is the one that's being developed. It's not like the surrounding properties are being developed to where their values are going to increase and therefore be affected. Uh however because of transparency we do have to put the language.

Are you providing the phone number for the Cameron Appraisal District to them? Yes. Is there anyone else that would like to address? Do the commissioners have any questions for the developer or property owner? Um, according to this, there's 324 apartment units and it's affordable housing. Is it all going to be affordable housing or will there be a mix?

Hi, good evening. I'm Richard Ashton with AMD Development, the developer. Um we are uh partnering with a local uh nonprofit um with Sunny Phillip and and he currently has property um his foundation in uh Brownsville that provides affordable housing as well. To answer your question, um we're early in our phases of developing our application, but this will more likely uh be income averaging. So there will be different income bands of different rent levels um that we'll be targeting um because our goal is is to provide um a safe a safe place to live um at different income levels and uh depending on the income level that you qualify for the rent is capped at 30% of your income so people are not overburdened with their rent.

Is there are you going to have ingress and egress through Bennett Road? Uh no, we um will have both the um entrance and exits only on Buoie Road and there will be a loop inside to um have all the traffic onto Buoie. Is this a proposed tax credit development? I see that that's what your specialty is here on the back on the development names. Is that what this is? That's correct. Yes, it's with TDHCA. Thank you. A motion to close public hearing.

Second that. We have a first and a second motion to close public hearing. All those in favor? I. Those opposed? Motion carries. What is the wish of the commission? A motion to approve and go with staff recommendation to change from R1 to R3. We have a first and a second motion to uh approve. All those in favor? I.

All those opposed? Motion carries. Public hearing and action on ordinance number 235-2025-030-s to request a specific use permit in a downtown core zoning district to allow a surface parking lot for lots 7 and8 block 56 original town of Brownsville Cameron County, Texas located at 105 East Levy Street, Brownsville, Texas 78520.

Uh good evening. Um, so this request is to allow the development and use of a surface parking lot on a current located on a currently vacant property at uh 105 East Levy Street. The current zoning is downtown core and the subject property is located downtown. Per the UDC, surface parking lots within the downtown core zoning require special use permit approval. Uh, as required by state law, uh, staff posted a physical sign on the property and, uh, next slide, please. Uh, and notified 12 property owners within a 200 foot radius. Uh we received zero opposition to the requests. Uh next slide please. The area zone downtown core to the north, east, and south and downtown general to the west. Uh next slide. There are several parking lots in the immediate area. Uh the nearest standalone surface parking lot is approximately 100 ft to the east. The next lot over um I think it's next to the Ricardo's uh restaurant and then it's like its own parking lot. Uh, next. Um, and so this is actually part of a two-phase project, right? But what we're approving today is or what we're discussing today is the surface parking part of phase one, right? Um, the first phase is a surface parking area and includes lots seven and eight. Um, and which have a combined frontage of 100 ft. The second phase is the parking garage structure and that encompasses lots nine and 10. That's another 100 ft. Uh, there's a vacant lot next to it and then there's the Oyster Bar right there on the corner of 11th and East Levy. those buildings are going to remain. So, this is just those four lots, right, that we're discussing this project on. You can't I explain that because you can't really tell from this image. Uh, so this project came by way of building permit submitt for the two-phase project. Um, next slide, please. So, staff is recommending approval of the SE request subject to the following conditions. The development of the second phase would have to be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued within 5 years of the specific use permit getting approved. So, as we are if if commission

decides to approve this item and then it goes before city commission and that gets approved and then goes for second reading that ultimately would be done on March the 3 of this year. Um so by March 3rd of 2031 the applicant would have to have completed and received a certificate of occupancy for the parking garage structure. And then of course um the other condition is that all phases of the project have to comply with applicable development standards including building permits. Um, and so again, staff is recommending approval subject to the following conditions. So the project has to be completed within the five years. Yes, ma'am. That's correct. There's no historical buildings that are going to be affected by this.

No, ma'am. We've spoke with the downtown manager and it's been routed internally and and we've gotten the the okay on this. That would be up to us. uh in the planning and redevelopment department through the building department. Um with the building permit for the phase one project, we can put the stipulations with the SCP to kind of remind us like, hey, this needs to get done, you know, within 5 years and then monitor that as we go. Worst case scenario, the city can choose to revoke the SUP, but I mean, say for example, they begin phase two and things happen, right? We had COVID not too long ago, there's delays and so on. the applicant can then come forth and amend the SUP maybe to ask for a little bit more time or kind of explain what the situation is. Um, we don't want to see that parking lot get taken away, but this is a condition of the specific east permit.

Did I Did I hear Kirk? This parking is specifically for the phase two. It's not public. It's private for that building. The the phase two is it's a private parking garage essentially something you would pay for parking basically. Yeah.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If there's anyone here that would like to address this topic, I'll make a motion to close public hearing. I second. We have a first and second motion to close public hearing. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Any other questions, commissioners? Do they know what the rates are going to be for those parking? Uh, that that hasn't been provided to us. So, are they going to do retail on the first on the ground floor?

I know. I do not believe so. I believe it's just a parking garage. His intent would be to do retail on the first floor and continue um the parking levels in the in the next two levels or three levels. But there is there is a building on that site now, right? And and right um he the the owner has been u doing work to it throughout time probably the last two years. uh getting the inside and and refurbishing it. Uh but uh I mean it's part of this uh particular project.

Any other questions? It's your recommendation to approve subject to the conditions that the phase 2 would be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued within 5 years and then subject to any applicable building permits.

I'll make a motion to approve. Second. We have a first and a second motion to approve. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Motion carries. Public hearing in action. an ordinance number 235-2026-00001 to reszone from residential single family to residential suburban to allow a duplex for a 0.167 acres of land out of block 21 Chicago garden subdivision share 26 is spiritu Santo grant Cameron County Texas located at 4715 Bowie Roadsville Texas 78521

uh yes so this case uh is the request is to reszone the property um from R1 single family to R2 residential suburban to allow for the construction of a duplex. Next slide, please. Um, as required by state law, we posted a physical sign outside of the property. You can kind of see the the vacant house next to it. That that truck is, I believe, is Martin's truck. Uh, so it's not the the property owners. Uh, so again, you know, the property is vacant. Um, and the request is to build the duplex. Um, we sent out 10 mailouts um to property owners in a 200 foot radius. We received zero opposition to the request. Next slide, please. Uh so it's the area is zoned R1 to the north, east, west, and south. Um to the southeast there is the Bowie Gardens apartment complex. Um that's about a um a six building apartment complex, multi-story, so definitely like a higher intensity use. Um and there's also the Champion Elementary School located across the street. From this aerial you can see the uh the parking lot. Next slide. So yeah, this is another um aerial just to kind of show you the surrounding area. you know, mostly kind of dense single family homes and then again you have that you kind of more of a multif family use at the apartment complex and the elementary school uh next door. The future land use plan designates the subject property as transition east district. Um the intent of that district is to be primarily residential with an average density of two dwelling units per acre. Um this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the future land use plan. So staff is recommending approval of the reszoning request from residential single family to residential suburban again for the purpose of constructing a duplex

northwest. I mean it could support it in in the future. Um you know but uh those are I don't know how long those single family homes that are in on along Bowie road have been there. Um but that is the intent of of the residential transition district. This is a public hearing. If there's anyone here who would like to address this topic,

make a motion to close public hearing. Second. We have a first and second motion to close public hearing. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Make a motion to approve. We have a first and a second motion to approve. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries.

All right. So, um, originally, you know, when we drafted the agenda, um, the the intent was to provide or to to present the UDC amendment for a specific use requirement for all new bars within the city. Um, we had a workshop with the city council on uh the city commission on on Tuesday and we received redirection to come up with other solutions um that could pertain to new bars um existing bars and uh possible overlays across the entire city. Um so what we wanted to do today in in lie of voting on a UDC amendment is just kind of present where we're at as a department, what we're working on. That way you're in the loop and you know what's going on. And then um you know when the time comes to present to P&Z we'll have we'll be able to make an informed decision you know and hopefully you'll understand you know kind of what we're working with and then you know offer any uh guidance as we go about. So go ahead to the next slide please. Um so just to recap on January 20th the city commission voted to approve the Midtown entertainment district overlay. Uh this was intended to address the cluster of alcohol serving establishments along the Pablo Pisell and Morrison area. Uh there's a lot of there's an increase in crime that we attributed to the density of the bars. Um a lot of activity going on in the parking lots and so on. Um so the city adopted some parameters that apply only to the Midtown area. Um those provisions address enhanced security requirements for bars. Um compliance measures and then more importantly penalties for violators. Uh so the penalties kind of give the city the authority to revoke a certificate of occupancy. Right? So, we have specific violations that we can site to revoke a certificate occupancy for a bar that's, you know, operating in bad faith. Next slide. And so, this is a map showing the uh proposed or the adopted Midtown Entertainment District overlay. Um, again, you know, that main corridor right there is Pablo Cisell and Morrison. It goes all the way north to the canal and then goes all the way south. Um, I believe the uh the Best Buy is included in there and

I'm all the way to the end of Pablo Kisell where it meets the expressway. Um, and these boundaries were formally adopted through the code of ordinances on February the 3rd. And this is just a better image showing the northern boundary. Um, that area is mostly vacant, but you know, development, we expect development to happen there and we want to address that proactively. Uh, next slide please. And then this is the southern area or the southern boundary. Um again it goes all the way down to the expressway. Um kind of where the IHOP is. Um hoping to capture, you know, some of those plazas and any other potential bars that might open up. Next slide. Um so while addressing this Midtown area, the Babokis Morrison area, the city commission considered how do we address this citywide, right? um they've discussed or presented ideas for overlays that would, you know, cover other parts of the city beyond downtown. Um so, as a solution, the planning department is is has several options, right? Uh we're considering amending the UDC to require uh specific use permits for bars. Um creating additional overlays that would apply citywide and kind of go beyond downtown or midtown or excuse me, Midtown or downtown. um or possibly establishing distance requirements uh through whether through the SCP or or across the board. This is a map that has been presented to council to just kind of show that you know the the cluster of existing bars um throughout the city, right? The the kind of central boundary is the Midtown Pablo Morrison area. Um then you have your typical um bar restaurants. These are all places with TABC permits. So that's what we're class we're identifying them. Um mostly like chain restaurants, things like that. And then uh next slide please. Um and then you get to downtown, right? So this is a better image. So you can kind of see the cluster of bars, right? So one of the things that has been discussed is distance requirements. Um as the planning department, we don't necessarily feel that that would be appropriate for downtown considering the cluster and the density. Um but those are things that we're working out,

right? Those are the small details. Uh next slide, please. So what we wanted to present today as part of the agenda when we were talking about um the UDC update, right? Um this would be apply to specific use permits for all new bars. Um they would have to meet the following criteria. So there's a 51% rule with TABC, which is basically if you derive 51% or more of your income from alcohol sales, you're considered a bar. Um but we're we were applying that to what we call restricted hours. So restricted hours would be 12:00 a.m. to 2 am. So essentially any business that is deriving more than 51% of their revenue from the hours of 12 a.m. to 2 am from alcohol sales would be con would be considered a bar or drinking establishment and would require this su. Um the reason for that specific 12 a.m. to 2 a.m. slot is that what was happening was a lot of uh we call them wet restaurants were were popping up. So, these are restaurants that maybe the kitchen closes at like 10:00 or 11:00 and then they operate more like a bar, you know, until 2 a.m., right? So, maybe the kitchen closes at 10:00, uh, they're serving drinks, and then maybe at 12:00 the DJ comes out, right? And they're still serving drinks, but they're not serving food, right? So, in that sense, they're operating more like a bar or a drinking establishment, and therefore it's appropriate to be classified as such, right? um through our proposal, the UDC amendment, the current bars in the city would be grandfathered and they would not fall under these provisions. Um they would only lose that nonconformity if there's a change in ownership or name if there's a change in building footprint um or a change in operating hours, right? So you can't now say like, oh, we closed at midnight, now we're going to close at 2, right? To take advantage like no, you would be required this SCP because you're expanding those hours. Next slide, please. The other uh provision, you know, again, we're redefining what drinking establishments are. Um again, you know, going back to that 12 that 51% rule within the hours of 12 a.m. to 2 a.m. We're asking for enhanced security

measures, and this also applies to the Midtown area. Um these are basic things that that other cities are doing um that many of the businesses that we've already talked to are are already doing, right? Uh they have surveillance retention. Um they would be required to keep them for 14 days and have timely compliance with Brownsville PD. um electronic age verification. Um so in addition to maybe having a bouncer outside, they would have to have a scanning machine that would verify their ID. Um these machines are available through the TAB website, TABC website. Um again, this is something that other bars in other cities do. We also are we're implementing a or proposing a two-strike policy. Um so basically after two police incidents, instead of a providing a security guard, the establishment would be required to provide a licensed peace officer. A licensed peace officer is essentially one step up from a uh security officer. They have a little bit more authority, a little bit more training. Um and those would be in the hours from 11:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. The reason for that is because most of we find that most of them actually work 4 hour shifts. Um, and so it would also be appropriate to have them visible and at the establishment between the hours of 2 am to 3:00 am so they can kind of guide people out of the establishment, out of the parking lot um, and prevent, you know, any issues that we might have in parking lots. Uh, next slide, please. Another proposal from our our UDC amendment would be a one-year trial period. Um, so each new bar that is approved with an SCP would be valid for one year. After the initial year, the planning director may administratively approve the reapplication or based on incident reports may request that the SUP be reppresented to the planning and zoning city commission. And at that time, the commission can decide to put more restrictions or stipulations on the business, right? So, say a bar opens, you know, for and they go through the process, they get their SCP, they're open for one year. Um, after that year, the applicant will be required to reapply. staff will then review any police records uh or uh code violations

and that'll kind of give us grounds, right, to decide whether or not to approve or deny their SUP or present that to council and say, "Hey, they they didn't have 15 arrests, but they had these incidents happen. What do you all think?" And kind of leave that vote up to them. There's also specific penalties for non-compliance. Pretty standard. Uh $500 to comply for failure to comply with police department requests and $2,000 for allowing sales to to minors. um that's the maximum that the city can can find an establishment for selling to minors. Uh another provision um that we're adding and and this this is specific because it gives us those grounds to revoke an SUP or determine that this establishment might be in bad standing. Right? So 15 individual arrests, one incident of a homicide, two incidents of sales to minors, or two incidents of violations to the hours of operations. Those types of violations would give us grounds to revoke their certificate of occupancy and essentially shut down that bar um if that uh provision were to pass. Next slide. One of the other things that uh council had suggested was exploring the possibility for distance requirements. Um so this could actually be done either citywide um you know say the council decides to allow bars without the SCP but you have to be 150 feet away from each other right to avoid that cluster. And that's the idea of it. However, um you know, that could also be part of the stipulation of the of the SUP, right? Other cities do similar requirements. Um so, for example, in the city of Harlingen, um when a bar applies for an SUP, they have a minimum uh distance of 100 ft between any other existing bar lounge and any new bar lounge. Um and then of course, the TABC requirements of 300 feet from a church, school, or hospital still apply. Um these distance requirements have been used by other by other municipalities. Um I know like smoke shops, adult businesses, things like that are becoming more popular. A lot of cities are exploring that. In

Macallen, for example, they have a half mile distance requirement from existing car washes. Um here in Brownsville, we have um gas stations are actually limited now to one per intersection. Um and so again, you know, distance requirements are nothing new. They've been done in other cities before and we can impose them again. Next slide, please. Um, one of the other things that was presented to city commission, but we didn't really receive any guidance or or changes on this was uh was parking. Um, specifically because of the public and Morrison area, there was issues with parking and overflow parking, people parking across the street and so on. Um, this is something else that the council can consider imposing um to all new bars as part of the SCP. Right. So, in um currently bars are regulated just like restaurants. So you need one off- streetet parking space per 250 ft of floor area in Harlingen. That's uh limited to 100 ft of floor area or one off- streetet parking space per each two seats provided. So those are again, you know, ways that the city um can vote to u require more parking spaces specific to those distance specific to those bars. And then in Macallen, there's also one one off- streetet parking space per 100 square feet of floor area. Uh next slide. So, as far as next steps, uh, you know, we're hosting additional work or we plan to host additional workshops with the council members. Uh, we've been, uh, speaking with the downtown business owners. I I presented last night to the downtown business owners, um, just to kind of get an idea or feel of how they would feel about new restrictions on existing bars. Um, and we had an um, I want to say overwhelming, but uh, it was definitely um, in opposition to any new requirements for bars. Right. the the sentiment we're hearing right now from the downtown business owners is, you know, why do why are we getting punished? Why do we need new requirements when the problem area is over here, right? And and we're also hearing that in downtown they serve a different clientele than the public in Morrison area, right? Um and many of

these bars don't aren't open till 2 a.m., right? It's just not the same vibe, if you will, right, than than the bars in in uh Midtown. So understandably so, the downtown business owners feel that any type of citywide provision that would affect them and require additional requirements on them, you know, they're they're against that. They don't they feel like they're being punished. Um so just a few recommendations that we're we're going to consider presenting to the city council um are additional overlay districts. Um like the Midtown area, you know, overlay districts, the provisions apply immediately. Um and so one of the suggestions that we've had from a council member was to apply basically a city-wide overlay. Um you know anywhere bars are allowed uh for example in regional center districts you know would be considered would fall within that overlay and all the bars that fall in there would be required to immediately comply with those provisions similar to midtown. Uh we also uh discussed distance requirements. You know those could be part of the SCP amendment or they could be standalone. you know, they could decide that they're not going to require addition uh SUPs, but they'll require distance requirements to avoid clustering and dense bars. One of the uh other things that we're kind of getting um I think, you know, really need to redefine is is the regulation of wet restaurants. There seems to be a misunderstanding of what a wet restaurant is. You know, again, that's um any anyone serving alcohol is driving 51% or more of their sales from alcohol from 12 a.m. to 2 am, right? there those establishments that stop serving food, continue serving alcohol. Those parameters we're working out and we'll we'll uh you know uh share that at the next workshop with council and try to get um you know some some guidance on that. And then another thing that um the planning department is considering is specific use permit requirements that would apply only to the plaza itself. So say for example you have a five suite plaza and a bar opens on suite A bar opens on suite

E right um and so you have them spaced out right and then somebody else comes in wants to open a bar on suite C right and so now we've got three bars within uh you know five plazas um in I believe it's city of Macallen they they require a specific use permit to the owner of the plaza to basically hold them accountable for what might happen because you have a cluster of bars, right, like what we're having in Papa Morrison, right? And kind of give us the grounds, right, to uh to revoke an SUP or any certificates of occupancy. Um if that plaza, you know, is is acting in bad faith or just has an increase in police activity. Uh next slide. I think that might be it for this one. Yeah. And so that's the end of that presentation. You know, again, in summary, the recommendations that we're exploring are additional overlay districts, uh, distance requirements, uh, redefining what a wet restaurant is, and specific use permit requirements. Um, overlay districts, uh, just like the Midtown one would actually be a code of ordinances update. So, that goes before the city council. Um, the distance requirements and the specific use permit requirements are UDC amendments. So, those would be go before you all, the planning and zoning commission. if approved, those would go before the city council. And um yeah, I just wanted to include as well, you know, this is an ongoing effort. You know, we're we're trying to take into account um feedback and and try to kind of come up with with the best solutions so that council can vote on them. So, that being said, you know, if you all have any questions or comments, you know, on how this might affect the city long term, you know, we'd be happy to hear them. You can please feel free to contact any of us. Um, and that way we can, you know, explain or even have a sit down one-on-one discussion with you all on what we're proposing and get your feedback um, as as representatives of your community.

Can we go back to the slide that showed uh, the Midtown Entertainment District? Sure.

Okay. So, what about the area to the east between where you have it now and Morrison Road? Mhm. So, the area to the east that's outside of that highlighted area that that's outside the Midtown overlay district. Um, so they wouldn't they would not need to comply with the current Midtown regulations, right? If we were to get the UDC amendment approved, it would apply to all new bars. Um, so any new bar, whether or not it's inside this area, would be required that specific use permit. the the the reason for the overlay district is so that the city can immediately get those businesses into compliance. Um and that's where that's coming from. What we've heard from council, the d direction we've received or the question I guess is is how do we address this currently? You know, not thinking about um new bars, but how do we do the existing ones and ensure this doesn't happen again?

You're asking our opinion. Uh, I'm not in agreement with the restricted hours only from 12 to 2:00 a.m. I think that needs to be extended. That's just my personal opinion. Um, what happens if a new bar opens and they they have their SUP for one year and they're not renewed because they have violations. What's going to keep them from reopening a bar in another location?

That's a good question. I mean, they would technically be able to um you know, unless we write in some kind of provision that would prevent the the establishment owner or the applicant, you know, to not be allowed, but um essentially the the SCP would be tied to the location, right? So, yes, to if Yeah, they would be able to move to another location. Um, one of the things that we heard in in engaging with both uh the Midtown bar owners uh in the city council meetings and then the downtown business owners was some of the Midtown owners said, "Well, if you're going to give us these requirements, why don't we just move downtown?" Right? And so, you know, we're kind of kind of butdding heads here on on, you know, two different parts of the city and and we're, you know, just working towards uh updates, you know, that that can address this citywide.

Are there any incidents under TABC? Do they have different incidents that and they report back to to the city so that you keep track of those incidents?

From what we've been hearing from the bar owners is that there's not a very active presence with TABC down here in the real Grand Valley. Um it's I've been hearing that it's a staffing issue. Um what the suggestions that we've been hearing um you know is basically step up TABC enforcement, but you know that's difficult to to get a hold of of TABC. Um, and then one of the suggestions that we heard last night with the downtown business owners is that the city should hire uh compliance officer, kind of like you have a code enforcement officer. So, essentially like a TABC representative, if you will, that can go and and monitor bars and kind of do surprise checks um and make sure that they're in compliance. Um, obviously there's layers to that. We can't just hire someone to do that. Um, but that's something we can consider, right? That that's definitely um a proposal. Um, and I think our current street uh off- streetet parking spaces at 250 square feet of gross floor area should be more in align with what Harlingen's doing at 100.

Sure. Yeah. And I wholeheartedly understand uh the downtown merchants and and you're right, that's a different clientele. They're not having the problems. They should not be uh punished for that, right? But it's going to be sticky if those other uh bar owners are moving and bringing that clientele to downtown area. How are we going to control that?

Right. Um so that was our proposal is is the UDC amendment would apply to any new bar. So in theory, if someone from the Midtown area decides to open downtown, now they're subject to the the UDC requirements. However, they're not subject to any distance requirements. That's what we're proposing. and no parking requirements because the majority of buildings are built to the lot lines. There's there's no parking. Right. Right. So this my understanding using SUPs in this manner would be performance-based zoning. Right. In order for them to get this SU they've got certain metrics that they have to meet to get the renewal. Correct.

That's pretty new in our UDC. Now I want to be very clear. I'm in favor of that. I like that we're doing that but that's not necessarily something we do for other industries. So my question or at least not to that extent. My question is from a process standpoint,

do we have what it takes to make applies for a TABC permit? It will get routed to the planning department and just verify the zoning, you know, etc. Um, so that's kind of started that process for us, right? If we were approved, if uh, you know, to to go with this SE before we take this to council, you know, we would want to have a process for review to ensure that someone is checking the cameras, making sure that there there's retention. And and one of the good things too that's kind of come about this is the coordination with the Brownsville Police Department. Um we've been able to set up a process to where we can um they'll notify us of any uh police incidents at a bar and we can basically uh geographically, you know, code them if you will, right? So that you can in in our GIS system, you can click on on a bar and it'll give you all the violations and and that way we can keep track of of police records like that.

And then I have just a a process question on this a little bit. So when they apply, they have to uh apply within 30 days of it expiring. They they apply for the new one. The city staff recommends based off their record whether or not they should be uh renewed. At that point, it says in here, I think that the city planner can either go ahead and renew it or u if let's be clear, if there's violations, the city planner can choose to not renew it or in some or may keyword may bring it between planning and zoning. Why would it be brought to planning and zoning at that point? What's the may there? I just wanted to fill that out.

Yeah. So, my best example that I could use, um, right, so we we say that, you know, no more than 15 arrests should happen at the establishment, right? So, say an establishment had five arrests, right? That's still concerning. We still want to know why what the what were those arrests related to? Was it like drugs? Is it, you know, assaults? You know, or is it just people just being foolish, right? um that gives us the grounds to review it. Um you know again after 15 that's like a straight up you know we're going to revoke this but anything other under that well then we could present that to the council. Um, you know, I would, you know, just using a general example, if there's an overwhelming amount, say there's 14 arrests, but the majority of those are assaults, um, that's definitely concerning and maybe the the we would present that to planning and zoning and recommend denial of the SUP, right? And then that way it can be discussed like, well, hey, what are you going to do about this situation now? You're going to be required more security guards, whatever those provisions might be. Well, I just like to say for the record, I'm definitely in favor of the UDC amendment that goes in takes this citywide because I think this is a pretty bare minimum to meet. I felt that a lot of the bar owners that were here uh for the city commission meeting also said that they met most of these requirements already. I think the only tweak that I would maybe recommend is the security guard based on occupancy. if maybe we could base that off of some kind of different metric just because I do agree there are some bars here that that they might hit the 75 uh uh occupancy metric but honestly the vibe of the place the security guard would be a little silly right like it they do have wildly different environments including there are bars here that have like a family environment so I do wonder if there's a metric a different metric or something there um that we could we could use uh because I think that would create a little more flexibility but that's Just my recommendation. Okay, great. Thank you.

Under the two strike policy, it says after two police incidents, what do you defi? How is that defined? Uh police incidents would be um a police incident report essentially. So, if there's an arrest there, um if the police were called for, you know, whatever reason, um if the establishment exceeds two of those, um instead of having a security guard, now you're required a licensed peace officer. Can almost see people not wanting to call the police so that it doesn't go on their record.

Right. No, I I can understand that. Um, and I know in, you know, in in reviewing, you know, some of the police incident counts in in the public Morrison area, sometimes if something drags out into the parking lot, it's like, well, where did you guys come from? It's like, we came from there. And so now that bar is kind of stuck with that um that police incident report, right? And I'm glad you changed the uh the number of homicides from two to one,

right? No, I I agree 100%. That was uh modeled from another city, but yes. That would be a finance issue. The uh the city's finance department uh licenses them and and audits them. Um I don't know how often, but that's something that we can we can look into to make sure that they're staying within that requirement. Um generally what what we're trying to do is as kind of a catchall is like if you're required if you obtained a TABC permit, now you're on our radar. Now, we're going to like make sure that, you know, if you're operating from 12 to two as an alcohol service establishment, you're going to be required this this process. Right.

No, I understand that. And yeah, yeah, I I get what you're saying. I I think within the ordinance we can we can write in or within the process that we're talking about, you know, somebody coming through and getting the SCP, you know, to answer that question like who's going to audit that? Who's going to make sure they're staying in compliance? But that's that's a great question. Is that not a requirement under TABC? Do they not do audits?

I believe they do audits. I'm just not sure how how often. Uh yeah, that's and again, you know, the issue that we've been hearing with TABC is that they're short staffed. It's it's hard to get them to come down here. Um some of the downtown business owners have suggested that we do a TABC sting um you know to address like some of these bars that are acting in bad faith. But you know again the there's been no communication you know with with TABC to this point. Yep. Yeah.

Right.

No. Yeah. 100%. And and that's I think in the first downtown business owner meeting um a gentleman had put a number on it. Um you know if you have 52 weekends in a year and and you hire a licensed peace officer I think put it at like 80,000 you know I don't know if that's accurate but it sounds about sounds about right you know because right um and and so you know but you know that was a request you know from council was like well we need someone other than a security guard like because generally a security guard is going to tell them take it to the parking lot get out of here. Um, right. Right. And yeah, and that's kind of been, you know, our our internal struggle, right? Is is like we're hearing, well, the property owner needs to be held accountable, right? And then the property owner is telling us, well, no, the bar owners need to be accountable, right? And so, um, going back to our recommendation about, you know, specific use permits for plazas that exceed two bars, right? Like that holds the property owner accountable. Um, one of the provisions in like Midtown, for example, is that the property owner is responsible for providing and maintaining adequate lighting within the, uh, the parking spaces. Um, so, you know, that's something that because that's a public space, right? That's the property owners area. So, that's, um, something that we've been exploring too, right? is how do we hold the property owners accountable as well?

Any other comments or questions? Thank you for that presentation. You have your work cut out for you. Tell me about it. Thank you. If we have no other business, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second. We have a first and a second motion to adjurnn meeting. All those in favor? I I.

All those opposed. Meeting adjourned at 6:36 p.m. Thank you everyone. Heat. Heat.