Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. so Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

notice of a public meeting of the planning and zoning commission of the city of brownsville Pursuant to Chapter 551, Title V 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, September 3, 2026, at 5.30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers on the second floor of the Brownsville City Hall Old Federal Building located at 1001 East Elizabeth Street, Brownsville, Cameron County, Texas, 7520. Pledge of Allegiance. I'd like to do a roll call. Daniel Elkin.

Amalia Benson. Eliza Vasquez. Aida Rodriguez.

Cesar Rodriguez.

Bob Torres.

Next will be approval of the minutes of the regular meeting on August 6, 2026.

Motion to approve.

We have a first and a second motion to approve minutes. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries.

Updates and comments.

Good evening, Commissioner. Yes, sir. Yes, Sam Nunez, Planning Department, including those who are present as well. I just wanted to give a brief overview of some of the progress we've been making with the Housing Master Plan. This slide kind of summarizes the progress we've made from April, and our goal is still set for December or early January to have a finalized and adopted housing master plan. In terms of public engagement, to date we've completed a total of two open house events and two formal presentations. One presentation has been made to our local One Million Cubs organization and another to our local or our Brownsville Housing Authority. We have also set up four tabling events for this plan to collect public input. We've conducted stakeholder fact-finding interviews with local housing experts in Brownsville, and we've collected a total of 242 surveys through our public website for this plan. We've also hosted two technical committee meetings where we've discussed the overview, the timeline, some preliminary goals that the housing plan will have. And at this latest or second technical committee, we also had the opportunity to discuss the current needs assessment that has been prepared out of this plan. Again, we want to repeat or reiterate that we do have an active public website, which is btxhousingplan.com. And this website provides a housing master plan overview, the goals, the timeline, and some of those tasks that we're undergoing. It also is going to provide the public with the full reports of the assessments that we'll be conducting To date, we've completed an ecosystem assessment and the current needs assessment, which will be posted to this website. And once we finalize the future demand study, that will also go into this website so that the public can have access to that and can possibly make comments. The next steps that will follow the housing plan would be to make a progress presentation before city council, and that is scheduled for September 22nd. We'll present key findings from our housing needs study, particularly the current needs assessment and our future demand analysis. From there, we're going to begin developing strategies, recommendations as we move forward and as we continue to interview some local housing experts in Brownsville. In the month of October, we do have another open house and a technical committee scheduled for this plan. And those are all the updates regarding the housing plan. I'm open to any questions.

What date in October?

We don't have a fixed date. It more than likely is going to be the second week of October.

And where will that take place?

Right now we have a plan for either our event center, but also for our local, our main branch of the public library. Any questions commissioners?

Thank you for that. Appreciate your work.

That is for individual consideration, review and adoption of the planning and zoning commission meeting calendar for fiscal year 2027.

Has everyone had a chance to look at, to review that calendar?

So just to give you a quick overview, the calendar is basically established as every other calendar for the previous years. The first meeting or the meeting is the first Thursday of every month, except, for example, well, at least this particular year we shifted on the month of July. In this case, because of the way... the holidays fall during the week, it wasn't really necessary to shift any dates. So everything is gonna be falling within the first week of the month. So specifically on the Thursday.

Good, thank you.

Yes.

Need a motion to approve?

Motion to approve calendar.

I second. We have a first and second motion to approve calendar. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries.

Next will be the workshop. Public hearing. Public hearing in action on ordinance number 235-2026-013 to rezone from residential transition R3 to light industrial to allow a warehouse slash business operation for a 0.906 acre of land out of the north 5.10 acres of the north 10.46 acres. Block 20, El Jardin Subdivision, of Share 33, of Share 19, Espiritu Central Grant, Cameron County, Texas, located at 2616 Old Port Isabel Road, Brownsville, Texas, 7526.

Thank you. As mentioned, this is a rezoning request from this property at Friends Old Port Isabel. from its current zoning designation R3 for residential transition to a requested light industrial district. The purpose behind this request is to continue or establish a warehouse business operation from this property. We did do, we complied with state law when it comes to public hearing notices that we issued to the adjacent owners, notifying them of this a public hearing and the subsequent city council meeting in September 22nd. We also comply with state law and posting a physical sign at the property. And we issued a total of eight mail outs to surrounding adjacent owners within a 200 foot buffer of this property. We received zero written oppositions. However, earlier these past weeks, we did get a call from the landowner adjacent to this property, particularly the landowner who oversees representative of the landowner that oversees the apartment development north of this property. Uh, they did voice their opposition to this request, citing issues regarding allowing a light industrial district. And the fact that if this light industrial district were to get approved, um, uses that would be allowed by right within an ally district would be at odds with residential development or uses in the area or adjacent to that property. This is zoning map, uh, As we can see, there is a majority of our three residential transition district on the north, south, east and west of this property. But we could also see a light industrial district on the far east to the far east of this property and corridor commercial on the far west and our one single family district far north of the property. As we can see on this aerial there is a mix of multifamily undeveloped land and single family uses that surround this property on the East side, there is that light industrial district use. And the nearest public street to the development is on the West side, which would be old port Isabel where they have made the main access to that property. To provide some context, some background, this area, this location was annexed between 1991 and 1995. When we did our research into whether or not that existing warehouse development, how it was permitted or allowed, we were not able to find any permitted or issued certificate of occupancies that would allow the existing use. And it had been operating without a certificate of occupancy is our understanding, so it is considered a form of illegal use at this moment if that warehouse or business operation is still functioning. This item was previously supposed to come or was supposed to come before this board and city council back in July, but it was withdrawn due to the applicants unavailability to attend the meeting. Due to our research analysis, we found that this request is not consistent with our existing comprehensive plan or our future land use plan. So staff is recommending denial of this request from R3 to Light Industrial District.

Can you put up the aerial again? Yes. So I see, I think, what is a little warehouse on there now, and that's being operated illegally at this time.

That is our understanding. We did not find a certificate of occupancy to allow it legally.

And so the property to the east is a residential?

Yes.

And their access is through that driveway through the apartment complex?

Through Old Port Isabel. It provides a form of private easement that gives access to all those uses there.

Did you bring up the long strip directly behind that? What is that zone right now, the vacant?

That is also zoned R3 for residential transition, sir.

So if this were approved, then they would have the right to try to get it changed also?

We can't predict that at the moment. If the owner, that owner certainly received notice. If they were to, you know, request that item, we would see it the same way on a case-by-case basis.

Thank you. I need a motion to open.

A motion to open public hearing.

I second. We have a first and a second motion to open public hearing. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Ladies and gentlemen, if there's anyone in the audience that would like to address this case, if you would come forward, please. Do we not have the owner here?

No.

Okay. A motion to close public hearing? Seconded. We have a first and second motion to close public hearing. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. What is the wish of the commission?

I'll motion to deny the rezone from residential transition to light industrial and follow staff recommendation.

I second. We have a first and a second motion to deny zoning change. All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed? Motion carries.

Public hearing in action on ordinance number 235-2026-019 to rezone from residential estate RE to residential single family R1 to allow single family residential development for a one acre tract of land out of lot 4, block 307, El Jardin Re subdivision, Cameron County, Texas, located at 835 South Indiana Avenue, Brownsville, Texas, 78521.

Thank you. This is a request to rezone this property fronting South Indiana Avenue from its current designation of residential estate, RE, which is a form of single-family district to a new R1 single-family district for a proposed single-family residential development or subdivision. They have not submitted officially for a plat. But what we have been discussing with that applicant is that they're potentially considering a four lot subdivision once they get approval for this R1. We did comply with state law when it comes to public notices that were issued to adjacent property owners to notify them of this meeting and the subsequent city council meeting. We posted a physical sign at the property for adjacent property owners. We also sent a total of seven mail outs to property owners within a 200 foot buffer map, and we received zero letters in opposition. This is the zoning map. As we can see, the location of the property there is zoned RE for residential estate, and it is the same case for properties north and south. And on the west side, we do have an R3 or actually an R2 residential suburban district. On the east side, across South Indiana Avenue, that is outside city limits. Also on the southwest to the southwest of this property we see light industrial district. Is an aerial map showing the existing developments in the areas we can see there is a mix of undeveloped land industrial uses and single family uses in the vicinity. When we did our research, we found this request to be consistent with our existing comprehensive plan and our future land use plan. So staff is recommending approval to rezone from residential estate to residential single family.

It's not going to be single family. They're going to do four lots on that one acre.

Yes, and just to kind of explain, the RE is a form of residential single family district. However, as per the UDC, the lots required for an RE are 20,000. So he wants to benefit from the increase in density rezoning from RE to R1. In the R1 district, it would allow lots at 5,000 square feet. And that's how he would basically bring in the four lots that he wants to design here.

But we haven't seen any design yet.

No, that's just the preliminary plan.

I'll second. We have a first second motion to open public hearing. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carried. Ladies and gentlemen, this is an open meeting. If anyone in the audience wants to address this case, if you would come forward at this time. No one?

Move to close.

Second. We have a first and second motion to close public hearing. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. What is the wish of the commission?

I'll make a motion to approve as per staff recommendation.

Second. We have a first and second motion to approve To rezone. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries.

Public hearing in action on ordinance number 235-2026-020 to rezone from commercial corridor CC to residential single family R1 to allow single family residents for an approximate 0.24 acres of land out of the northeast corner of Grove A, B blocks 172 and 173, Olmito Townsite, Cameron County, Texas, located at 7248 North Expressway, Olmito, Texas, 78575.

Thank you. This request is to rezone this property that currently fronts or that fronts North Expressway or the frontage road by this interstate from its current designation of commercial or corridor commercial to residential single family R1. And they are proposing a single family residence through that rezone or through this rezone. We complied with state law when it comes to public noticing, sending out notices to adjacent property owners to inform them this is public hearing and the subsequent city council meeting. We also posted a physical sign at the property. We sent a total of seven letters to adjacent property owners within a 200-foot buffer and received zero letters in opposition in return. As we can see through the zoning map, what surrounds it by majority is corridor commercial to the north, east, south, and west. On the northeast portion, as we can see on this map, there is also a regional center, which is another or more intense commercial zoning designation, and there's also R3 on the far east, which is residential transition. This is a survey that was submitted to staff showing the primary residence as this exists today. As we can see, there are existing structures that are residential. And it appears to us based on, you know, what we could see on the survey that about three-fourths of the primary residence is actually located outside of the property's boundaries. This is an aerial showing the existing uses in the areas. We can see there are other single-family residential uses in the area, but there are also commercial or office uses here. It's important to note that those existing residential single-family uses are currently considered legal non-conforming or grandfathered uses. So when we go about making our analysis or our recommendation on this request, we can take those legal non-conforming uses into account to make a favorable recommendation on this request. So based on that analysis, we did find it to be non-consistent with our comprehensive plan, our future land use plan, and also incompatible with the development trend that is coming into this area that is mostly commercial fronting the interstate. It is a case of, you know, a single-family use coming into the nuisance as they would say so it is incompatible with current and future development that may come near or adjacent to this interstate because of these reasons and also I failed to mention that when we ran this request by our city engineers department They would also not allow, as per their access management requirements, a driveway to have access on that frontage road. So staff is recommending denial to rezone from the corridor commercial district to residential single family.

Can you put up the aerial again? Yes. So what use do we have on the north and the south?

On the south, our understanding is that it is another single family or commercial use. We would have to look at that more carefully. On the north, it is a commercial office. The residential single families are on the far west.

Sorry. And the property that, or the structure that's on there now is a single family home?

That is our understanding.

And where does it have access now? To the road.

Sorry.

It would be on the frontage facing the expressway at E3 here as per the survey.

There's a Kalicha Drive and then an asphalt drive. So is there anyone living in the house now?

Yes. And the applicants are here present to speak on the item just in If you want more details on on this proposal.

So why is this coming up now.

We we we've been with the information that was provided for us is entertaining either one of 2 options either they would make in addition to the existing single family residential or they would demolish the single family residential to make a brand new single family. house in this area. Now, again, the applicant is here to provide clarity on that. We don't want to speak for them.

So that's what triggered this.

Yes. They want to continue an R1 single family use here.

And what about the issue of the improvements not being on, I mean, a large portion of it on somebody else's property.

That would present issues if, say, the proposal is to make an addition to that existing use that we would see during the building permitting process.

And were you able to send out a notice to that property owner?

So just to point out and give you some context, it's not a private property owner. It's city-owned right away. As per... consultation with the right-of-way agent from the municipality, Mr. Santillan. It's city-owned right-of-way. At one point or another, it was dedicated as right-of-way for whatever reason, because this is a very old subdivision, or it came out of a very old subdivision. throughout time there could have been discrepancies on where the property lines were aligned in reference to the actual geolocation of the property. But it ended up being that majority of it was built outside of the boundary. So even if it's approved this evening, and they decide to build a new home or expand this existing structure, it would have to be, this would first have to be corrected because it wouldn't be able to be within the right of way.

Any further questions?

It's significantly old. Again, the applicant is here to provide some additional information if needed.

Open public. We have a first and second motion to open public hearing. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Ladies and gentlemen, if there's anyone in the audience that would like to address, if you would come forward, please. If you'll state your name, please. Sure. Kathy Fuchs.

I do reside in Brownsville, but I do own the small lot there in Olmito. That property has been lived in by my family since circa 1939. When my grandfather moved into that lot, there was an old structure there that he patched up and made it his house. And therefore, all my uncles and aunts grew up there. I did too. I grew up, my entire childhood was there. And what I would like to do is I would like to return back to home. And I was hoping that my husband and I could build a small structure there to retire. He's nearing 70. I'm 65. And it's where I want to be in this old structure that is right next to the lot where I would like to build a small home. And I'm talking about a small little country house, little like a farmhouse, not your typical basic brick home. And it would be in that lot, which would probably be about 20 feet from the existing structure that happens to sit on a right away. That structure was there long before my grandfather even built his home there. And I would say three quarters of it sits on a right away and about six feet is encroaching into my lot there. I do have a letter of encroachment from the engineering department. They gave me approval to go ahead and proceed. Like I said, I would like to... lived there. I am surrounded now by a growing city. I was never contacted that it was going to be rezoned to commercial, but I suppose it was going to happen someday. But that still doesn't take away from the fact that that's my home. I go there every single day. I don't sleep there at night, but I go there every day to check up on the... on the old house that's got, uh, that is being currently used for storage. I have cats and other wildlife. Um, and, uh, it's my, uh, it's my getaway. It's, it's, it's, it's my therapy. Um, so I really, really like it there. And I would love to be able to build a small house there, uh, for the remainder of our years. And that's it. Um, I'm disappointed that, uh, that it might be denied, but, um, you know, God makes no mistakes. So it's up to you. And that's, that's, uh, that's the gist of it.

Thank you for your comments. We'll certainly consider that. Do we have any further questions? Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on the subject? I have a question.

Yes.

Demolish the existing home or the existing structure?

I don't want to. I don't need that old house that's there, which probably measures no more than 900 square feet. That is a very old house, by the way. Like I said, when my grandfather arrived in 1939, around that time. He discovered in excavating some of the land around it in the process of him restoring that house, he discovered a lot of, quite a few cannonballs. I have reason to think that they are cannonballs that go back to the Mexican-American War and not the Civil War. So I knew that structure's been there a long time. in this old house, which is also one of the reasons why I don't want to demolish it is because my family died in that house in the same room. My aunt, let's put it this way. I grew up with my grandparents, my mother and my aunt. And, uh, Three of them passed away in one room in that tiny little house. It's a very special, dear house to me. It would really, really break my heart if I had to demolish it. But next to that right away is my lot, which appears to me to be more than enough space for me to build a small little house.

Thank you. Make a motion to close public hearing.

Second. We have a first and second motion to close public hearing. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. What is the wish of the commission?

I have some further questions maybe for staff. Is there another pathway towards building something around the lines of like an accessory dwelling unit without us having to do a full spot zone?

To our understanding, when we looked at the residential uses that would be allowed on the corridor commercial, currently the only residential allowed within corridor commercial, even residential or regional center, would be a multifamily structure. So an ADU, an accessory dwelling unit, is something that is primarily a use associated with single family uses. So unfortunately, no, as per our UDC.

At this time, I guess the closest to correcting the issue would be moving the structure within the property and refurbishing it to a habitable condition and making it, you know, to an extent because it was already existing under that. But going back to what was mentioned on the license to encroach, the license to encroach to my understanding from the Other situation speaking to Mr. Santillan is that it's issued at the time based on what's existing, adding to it changes the agreement on that license to encroach. Aside from that, because it is right away, the zoning jurisdiction only is limited to private property. We wouldn't be able to rezone the right away area. That would be the summary of it.

And if we can go back to the zoning map real quick, if I could see that. So you said there are other single family homes that are legal non-conforming. Is that correct? So the concern here would be that if we spot zoned this one, that could potentially set a precedent that these other ones would then be able to make a similar case for a spot zone, right? Which is something we would probably want to

Yes, and also being proactive, the fact that this corridor or this strip of land is developing slowly into commercial development. I mean, recently there was a plaza built close by. By putting or rezoning to residential single family, then it would put a burden on future commercial business because now... they would be subject to residential adjacency requirements because they're next to single family, a single family residential zoning.

Isn't there a convenience store that's being constructed right now? Right.

Just south of that.

What is the wish of the commission?

I'll motion to follow staff recommendation and deny the rezone from commercial corridor to residential single-family. Second.

We have a first and a second motion to deny the rezoning from commercial corridor to single-family. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. That was a tough decision.

Public hearing in action on ordinance number 235-2026-021-PD to establish a planned development district to establish development specific zoning regulations that would permit reduced setbacks, detach accessory structures in the front yard, and...

Thank you, sir. Public comment has ended. Thank you.

That would permit reduced setbacks, detached accessory structures in the front yard, and unique design standards for the proposed residences for 2.817 acres, being all of Common Area 1 of Butterfly Grove Subdivision, Cameron County, Texas, located at 1903 Grove Lane, Brownsville, Texas, 78526.

Good evening, Commissioners. Carlos Guerra with the City's Planning Department. So this request is to establish a planned development district to allow for development-specific regulations that would permit reduced setbacks, detached accessory structures in the front yard, and unique design standards for the 2.817 acres. As required by state law, staff posted a physical sign on the property detailing the meeting events and inviting people out to the public hearing. We also sent out 26 mail outs to property owners in a 200 foot radius and we received zero written opposition to the request. The surrounding area is zoned predominantly single-family and includes similar narrow single-family lots in the subdivision. The area that you see with the winding streets and those kind of smaller lots are part of an original plan development. And this is essentially a continuation of that plan development. So this is why they need to amend that plan development so that they can develop what was originally just classified as open space. So there still will be a component of open space, but there will also be 10... single-family lots on the property. And the request specifically is that they'll reduce the setbacks for each of those. The request is for 20-foot front yard setbacks, and our standard in the residential single-family zone is 25. So this is what we're, it's a fairly minor request. But anyway, the area immediately to the west is zoned regional commercial, but that is home to the Brownsville Sports Park. And then again, the area is predominantly single-family with vacant lots to the north and then to the south. This is an aerial image showing Grove Lane, which is a local street with a 60-foot right-of-way. Again, this will just kind of continue that pattern of single-family home developments that you see adjacent to it. So this request is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan and the city's future land use plan. Staff is recommending approval to establish the planned development district in the zone to allow for the proposed reduced setback of 20 feet, detached accessory structures in the front yard and unique design standards for the proposed residences. My understanding is the design standards will match what's already existing on the previous plan development. So it'll be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. And we're recommending approval.

What size do you think those lots are gonna be?

I believe they're proposing 10 lots. I'm not, don't have the size with me.

They vary, they range from 5,700 square feet to 6,800 being the largest.

Thank you.

Thank you. We can open public comment. Motion to open public comment. We have a first and second motion to open public comment. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. If there's anyone in the audience that would like to address this case, if they would come forward, please. No one?

Motion to close public hearing?

Second. We have a first and second motion to close public comments. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. What is the wish of the commission?

Make a motion to approve as per staff recommendation. Seconded.

We have a first and second motion to approve. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries.

Public hearing in action on ordinance number 235-2026-022-S to request a specific use permit in a regional center RC zoning district to allow an event center for Suite G, Lot 3, Block 1, Spring Mart 1 subdivision, Breed Platte No. 2, Cameron County, Texas, located at 3231 Pablo Quisela Boulevard, Brownsville, Texas, 78526.

Thank you. So yes, this request is to grant an SUP for an event center in a regional commercial zone to allow for an event center in Suite G located on Pablo Quesel Boulevard. As required by state law, we posted a physical sign on the property detailing the meeting invite and inviting people out to speak on the public hearing. We also sent out four mail outs to property owners within a 200 foot radius. we did not receive any objection to the request. This is located in the Sunshine Plaza, and so this area is a mix of retail uses, some bar uses, restaurant uses, and so it fits the character of that area. The surrounding area is its own regional commercial in all directions, and like I mentioned, it's a mix of retail, commercial, and restaurant and bar uses. This is a proposed site plan. There's additional information on there that there's 190 spaces available throughout the entire plaza. The operating hours, which we don't have at this time, will be different from the other establishments. Some of them close, you know, five o'clock. I know that there's like a few medical spas, things like that, that would offer more parking for that area. And then the maximum occupancy capacity of the event venue in Suite G is 80 persons, 80 people, approximately. The areas within the transition central district, which allows for commercial uses that should be neighborhood and service oriented. It is not consistent with the future land use plan. However, it's consistent with the mix of uses that we've seen in that area. And therefore, staff is recommending approval of the request subject to sound mitigation requirements, which states that sound mitigation measures and interior finish out materials, such as acoustic tiles and other approved sound dampening insulators, shall be installed to maintain noise levels less than or equal to 60 decibels when measured at the common property line shared by the noise emitting use and adjacent residential districts. So for now, that's the standard regulation that we have for event centers. And therefore, staff is recommending approval of the request. And I believe the applicant is here if you have any questions.

Motion to open public hearing?

Second. We have a first and second motion to open public hearing. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. If you'll come forward, sir, and state your name.

Hello. My name is Abraham Arredondo, and I would be the owner of the event center. I don't know if you have any questions about the event center that I can answer. I'm here.

Okay. So I'm sorry, I had to step out for a few minutes. What is the parking situation there?

Excuse me. So this is in the Sunshine Plaza, and there's 190 parking spaces available throughout the plaza. It's a mix of retail uses, including restaurants, bars, and I think like medical spa or two. Most of those businesses do close relatively early that would allow for shared parking situations. And the maximum occupancy of the event venue is 80 people.

For the event center would be 80 people?

Correct, maximum.

Is this not the area that we were having problems with? This is the Sunshine Plaza. So how many bars do we have left in that?

Off the top of my head, I don't have that information right now.

I believe there is 11.

11 bars in this plaza?

Yes.

They're all open in the evening.

Right. They're open in the evening. However, based on what was provided through the information submitted from the owner, the majority of their events are going to be related to more family-oriented events. Just to provide some context, this suite is operating as a Christian bookstore. It exists as a Christian bookstore right now. And from the co-owner, who she wasn't able to be here, she mentioned that because of low sales, they wanted to incorporate... the component of the event center because it's a christian bookstore and sometimes they have religious gatherings there um they usually they want a space related to their congregation to have you know perhaps baby showers or birthdays, things of that sort. Not so much related to evening-oriented events such as weddings or perhaps quinceañeras, things of that sort.

But if this is approved, we do not have any control over their hours.

Right. Right. However, based on the use and the size of each of the suites, even taking into consideration the fact that there's either bars or restaurants, the amount of parking that exists complies with the zoning code, the amount that is designated for each particular suite based on their use.

What size is the suite itself?

This one is 2,800 square feet.

2,800?

Yes.

So it's going to continue as a bookstore during the day or in conjunction with the event center or the bookstore is going away?

No, so the bookstore has been gone since April. We have just been waiting on... The whole, like, the papers, the whole application since April. So it's, like, there's nothing there right now.

You continue to rent that space?

Yeah, it's just there. We were trying to open something new because the sales were low on the bookstore and we've been there since the plaza was constructed in 2016. We didn't want to lose the place because it's sort of like a two-story building so it's like half like, second floor and, like, all of the bottom. So, like, it's a very beautiful space. And, like, we wanted to take advantage of the space and, like, just have another, like, source of income, an event center, family-based. I don't think there's going to be, like, it's just, like, very, like, for, like, no kids allowed, just, like, very, like, reunions, I don't know, like, para comer. ¿Puedo hablar español o no? Sí.

¿Cómo?

Sí. Ah, perdón. Como, más que nada, como eventos para poder, pues, rentarle a la gente que pueda ir. Puede ser reuniones como de la iglesia, puede ser como algo, una cena de cumpleaños, una comida de cumpleaños, o sea, algo más tranquilo. Y sí estamos, sí queremos poner una regla, porque sabemos cómo se pone en la noche, que no sea después de cierta hora. Que no sea en la noche, que sea más como, que se termine más como en la tarde.

And I would like to add, if the commission wishes, this is a special use permit, right? So there can be specific requirements placed on the venue. So if the hours of operation, for example, are a concern, that's definitely something that

commission has the authority to impose as part of the special use permit just like we do with the sound mitigation requirements do we have any other questions how about the permitting like alcohol because i know the bars now have regulations for security guards and would be an event that could possibly have or allow alcohol

Currently, BYOB establishments aren't permitted as part of the event centers. Is that correct?

And just to add, a couple of months ago when, let's say, the problems were at their peak, there was a Midtown ordinance that was passed. So a lot of, because of all of the criminal violations, because they felt more towards the criminal side rather than land use, certain regulations were established to control the bars. So just to clarify, those provisions are specifically for the bars, not necessarily for the event center. Now, if the event center were to sell alcohol, and there was transactions of, you know, purchasing alcohol or the serving of alcohol through, and again, monetary compensation, TABC regulations would apply. They would still have to comply with the land spacing requirements. The same ones that the bars have to comply with. Now, as for BYOB, there are also regulations for that. So, there they would be limited through tbc regulations for um i guess the purposes of of the cell of alcohol additional questions so

Can I ask something? So if this were granted for that space, and I'm not talking necessarily for what this gentleman wants to do, but it will carry, so if he leased it to somebody else, could they hold events there on a weekend, nightly basis of having a party?

Can you repeat that last portion?

So specifically, this... Young man wants to do something there, right? He wants to have an event center. If we change the zoning and he sells it or he leases it out to somebody else and they want to do something a little bit different, they'll be allowed to do that?

So the, and just to clarify, the base zoning is not changing. The base zoning is staying the same. It's going to stay as a regional center. The specific use permit is just designed to permit that particular use and that particular proposal that they submitted. It's basically tailored to them and only them. And you Because it runs with the land, yes, it could potentially be transferred to a future manager, but they would have to comply with what was approved in this room or by this board and the city commission. They wouldn't be able to deviate from it. It would have to continue the same way. If they want to make changes, they would have to run it again through the board.

I'm sorry.

We have a first second motion to close public comments. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. What is the wish of the board? Event centers.

So how would that affect? It wouldn't because... Well, I mean, we haven't heard the... Right, since the text amendment is not adopted and their application was submitted prior to the adoption of the new, potentially new regulations, it wouldn't apply to them.

Additional comments? Do we have a motion?

Staff recommends approval.

Yes, sir. Subject to the sound mitigation measures.

Yeah. I'll make a motion to approve. As per staff recommendations.

Second.

We have a first and a second motion. All those in favor? All those opposed? Nay. We have two nays. Is that it? And I'd Just to explain my reasoning, I particularly do not like event centers in shopping strips. And in this case, I think that we did an injustice to the shopping strip by allowing those bars to be in there. And it is a beautiful space. I've been in that space before. But my personal opinion that I'm going to deny.

Right. And that's going to be the intention for the text amendment, which we'll present in a little bit.

So motion passes.

Public hearing in action on ordinance number 2026-235.130 to amend the City of Brownsville Unified Development Code UDC Article 4 zoning regulations subsection 4.4.3 permitted use chart subsection 4.4.4 additional use standards and Article 6 definitions to regulate poker lounges, event centers, quick loop facilities, self storage facilities and dealing with related matters as well as an update on data centers.

Good evening again. So yes, we wanted to give, you know, originally we had planned to share this as a UDC update. We need to do some research into what requirements are. We're comparing this to other cities. So what I'm about to share is not anything proposed. It's not anything set in stone. It's just, you know, just a synopsis of what other cities are doing around the state and how they're regulating data centers and our approach. And then As we evolve, the city commission passed the moratorium this week. And so it gives us a little bit of time to develop the environmental task force and to develop regulations. So what I'm about to share today, again, is just like a synopsis of what other cities are doing and what we could possibly do moving forward. So the first thing is to define a data center. And I know this is a lengthy one. Obviously, it can be whittled down, but we want to make sure that we cover all of our bases. For the record, a data center is a facility designed and used primarily to house, operate, and maintain information technology infrastructure, including computer servers, data storage systems, networking equipment, and related electrical, mechanical, security, and support systems for the storage, processing, management, and transmission of digital data and information. Such facilities may only include closed-loop cooling systems designed to circulate and recirculate water or other cooling fluids within the facility for the purpose of maintaining required operating temperatures without continuous discharge of cooling water to the city's water system. Alternatively, facilities may employ other cooling systems, technology, method, or combination thereof that provide equivalent or greater efficiency in cooling performance energy or water conservation and or results in a smaller environmental footprint as determined by the city. So that provision, you know, as data centers evolve, hopefully they evolve to become more efficient, use less energy, use less water. We want to ensure that whatever definition we propose can capture that and allow for that flexibility. But at minimum, closed-loop cooling systems. Also, and this is taken from the city of Fort Worth, data centers should be intended for information technology uses that provide a broad economic technological or community benefit and shall not be operated for cryptocurrency mining or similar energy intensive activities. Cryptocurrency mining and substantially similar operations are prohibited. So again, a data center cannot be used solely for the purpose or used at all for cryptocurrency mining. So some of the process that other cities are doing and that we would consider is that prior to the SUP application, Just similar to any large-scale development that we see throughout the city, the developer requests a pre-development meeting with the city's planning department and other applicable departments. So this would include the fire department, engineering, building inspections division, anybody related to that project. During that phase, the developer should be responsible for coordinating with the utility providers. So that means reaching out to the utility providers, getting the letter of support, just stating that they can support the data center operation and still maintain operations throughout the city. And then the developer will also present to the City of Brownsville Environmental Conservation Task Force. So this task force was just recently reactivated. I think it began in 2020 and never really got off the ground due to COVID. But while council is defining the roles and responsibilities and authorities that that conservation task force will have, then we'll have more coordination between them and we can identify what specifically they would need to coordinate on or ask of the Conservation Task Force. Also, what other cities do is request a community benefit agreement. And so this is where the developer will be responsible for proposing a community benefit agreement. It would probably work best to keep this broad so that it can be negotiated. So, for example, some hire only local contractors. They also reclaim unoccupied spaces, like turn it back over to the city for anything unoccupied. Self-production of energy. potential transfer of excess energy to the city, and funding for sustainability or environmental projects that would reduce their environmental impacts, or land or park dedication. But we want to keep that flexible. As with other cities in Texas, an SUP is required. And just like we presented on the event center, SUPs indicate that there could be specific requirements based on the specific development. So this would only be allowed in heavy industrial zones, and this is what is done in other cities. Some cities do an initial one-year approval to allow for an annual compliance review. Obviously, this can be formulated. It can be two or three years just to make sure that the operation gets up and running and there can be continued maintenance on it. After that initial period, city staff and the task force will review for compliance and ultimately make a formal recommendation by city staff upon reapplication. And again, the SUPs allow for project specific regulations. So they can limit the square footage, require additional compliance or review measures, and also set timelines like we just discussed. SUPs also require public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Commission. So this gives the community an opportunity to voice their concerns before any SUP is considered. Generally, facilities are required actually to provide their own electricity. With state requirements, anything requiring connection to the state grid will require a letter of approval from ERCOT that they can manage the capacity. And then other cities are doing, specify that you cannot use high emission energy sources as a primary source of power. So no natural gas, no diesel, you know, as the constant source of power. Also coordination with utility providers requiring letter of available capacity and support is required. And then The city of Fort Worth requires a disposal plan for water discharge and ensures that whenever water is switched out or discharged, that a person that is licensed with the state and licensed with TCEQ is qualified to discharge of that water and it's not going back into our system.

Can I ask a question? Sure, absolutely. Going back to the previous slide, explain to me how they're going to provide their own electricity.

They would... install generators to, by providing electricity, they would be responsible for coordinating with ERCOT to get the electricity.

So it's not coming from a local city municipality?

The state requires that they coordinate with ERCOT. And so that was the idea behind that. I mean, we can write that in that they would have to be, you know, coordinate with the city, right? The city utility providers to get that electricity. But that's certainly something we can write it,

And I guess just to provide some context, like Carlos mentioned, what other cities are doing by requiring a benefit agreement, that could definitely be part of that. If that requirement is established as part of the regulations, we could potentially ask them as part of the agreement to tell them, you know what, you have to construct your own grid for yourself so that you won't let's say pull from the existing grid and any excess power, if any that's left over, give it back to the city so that it can be used for, for the residents. But again, that's something that's up in the works and that we will continue working with the input of, of the task force.

Thank you. Thank you. As far as buffers, you know, other cities are doing this, you know, For example, they may not be located within a half mile of residential zones or uses, including places of worship, schools, daycares, or hospitals. Operations also in some cities may not exceed a certain acreage, but kind of going back to the community benefit agreement, if there's a large development that exceeds five acres and there's more that the city can get from that, then that's certainly something that can be flexible and worked out. The property is, in all cases has to be legally subdivided or plotted. So there's no opportunity for an exemption based off the land size. And this holds the developer responsible for funding infrastructure upgrades as necessary. So they would install that infrastructure. Also, one thing that we've considered is requiring them to allow city initiated air quality monitoring devices on site. We've heard concerns about emissions. And in this case, if the city decided to place air quality monitors on the property, they would be able to, as per the special use permit, so that we can monitor and track.

Do we have any, currently, do we have any properties that we're monitoring air quality within the city?

What was the question again? I'm sorry.

If there's any properties within the city, not city-owned properties, right, but properties within the city? I know that there's a few. There was a UTRGV grant that was recent. I don't know the exact locations of the air quality monitoring stations, but they are throughout the city, and that's the idea behind that, to capture that opportunity.

And just to give you an example, the most recent one that I can think of would be Mill White. Because there was that litigation, there was some sort of air quality monitoring on behalf of TCQ to be able to use as evidence or justify the reason why they shouldn't be there.

But do we have other properties within the city limits that are being monitored like that?

Not that I'm aware of.

Right.

Yeah, I don't believe so either. I mean, mostly the monitoring is done by TCEQ on some of the sites. I'm thinking, like, the one that I think about most recently that has closed is Millwhite, where they have TCEQ go out there and review, but, you know.

Sure, we can modify that. We can do a little more research and make sure that that's refined before taking this back to you all. So as far as development standards, you know, SUPs are limited to the square footage, like we saw with the event center, right? Any expansion or addition to the data center would require a new special use permit and have to go through the same process all over again. Some cities do building height standards, for example, you know, 35 feet, which would include rooftop generators, cannot exceed that amount. Setback requirements, minimum 500 foot setback from a non-heavy industrial zone, as well as minimum 100-foot setbacks on all sides. And this includes detached generators or equipment. The rationale behind this is it gives the noise larger distance to travel before it becomes a nuisance. And speaking of nuisances, there's also screening requirements. 20-foot landscape buffers around the perimeter of the property with an automatic irrigation system, including trees required per our UDC standards. Minimum solid screening fences are required surrounding the property, and that includes detached generators, kind of similar to when you see a large dumpster in a commercial development and that's physically screened, same thing would apply for these detached generators. Also, lighting plans are generally required just to ensure that there's no light pollution going into adjacent properties, and this is required prior to building submittal. The noise regulation, again, Fort Worth is a great example. The generators may only be tested Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and consistent with applicable EPA and TCEQ requirements. And then the big one that's kind of continuing to evolve as we have these data center discussions and as the state kind of mulls over what those regulations look like, these are pretty centered, just providing a letter of support from ERCOT if connecting to the state grid, proof of submittal of usage survey from the Public Utility Commission of Texas on an annual basis. During our research, we found that a lot of data centers are not complying with their annual usage surveys, and the state is now requiring them to do so. So this just kind of reinforces the state requirements as far as compliance. And then it's also important to note that any new state regulations, as they evolve, would apply directly to any new data center. Obviously, one might be grandfathered in, but if a new state requirement comes in, the new data center would have to follow that. It's similar to a grandfathered use or any new kind of regulations. Other cities are also doing this where they establish a monitoring process to ensure compliance with the special use permit. For example, the staff and the task force could annually review data centers for compliance and then make formal recommendations during the renewal process. Noise, nuisance calls, and emergency calls for service and other code violations should be documented and monitored and considered when anybody goes for an approval. And of course, important to note, any violations of the SUP requirements could result in revocation of the certificate of occupancy or require a new SUP to be approved to continue operation. This last slide, excuse me. This last slide kind of details the project submittal, we'll call it the project submittal flowchart. So this is what could process could look like right again you know nothing is being proposed um it still needs you know a lot of research and what other cities are doing and so on but you would start with the pre-development meeting utility coordination between the utility provider including obtaining letters of availability and our compliance and support then discussing the community benefit agreement with the city and the environmental task force then it goes to internal staff review so we can you know assure that we can establish those initial sup recommendations before reviewing with the environmental conservation task force. Then the developer would submit the documentation. It would get reviewed by staff and then be submitted for the special use permit. So this is where the project specific requirements could come into place. And that would go before the planning and zoning commission for a public hearing. And the commission can also request or recommend additional regulations. Then it would go to the city commission. It's similar process. It's a public hearing and there can be additional regulations imposed. And of course, city commission has that second reading to finalize. At the top of this yellow chart, you see the initial one-year approval. Again, that can be modified to be two or three years, but it will go back up to annual reporting and back around for the entire process to apply for the SEP. For the second approval, this is where the council can establish a different timeline. whether it's five years, whether it's 10. It's really up to the commission what the community benefit agreement entails. But it allows for the reporting to kind of go back up to the utility coordination and discuss the community benefit agreements. There's constant monitoring every year with these data centers.

I understand this is all proposed and it's new, but the data center that we reviewed to review a few months ago, where were they in this chart, in their process? How far did they get?

There was no community benefit agreement established. They had done the pre-development meeting. They had done the utility coordination and internal staff review and then submitted the submittal. And when I say internal staff review, you know, establishing those SCP recommendations, or making those recommendations. But it wasn't as broad as what could possibly happen with the Environmental Conservation Task Force.

Thank you.

And that's all for data centers, unless you have any questions or recommendations. You know, it's a blank slate at this point, so we're still developing it.

I think I already know the answer to this, but I still want to ask just for, so we all know and we're all on the same page. The overall state legal framework. Once the city's moratoriums expire, right, and they go through two. There are no, the city cannot have any other kinds of restrictions, blanket restrictions on data centers. It's only through the planning and zoning mechanism that you can have any kind of regulatory environment around data centers. Am I painting with too broad a brush or is that generally correct?

It's, I would say yes, because it would go through the SUP process, which gets ultimately approved, which planning and redevelopment proposes, right? So, We're not the only ones reviewing it. So that's the purpose of establishing the protocol and process. But yes, from a zoning standpoint, that would be my understanding.

That would be the strongest policing power the city has is through the zoning. There's some cities like Fort Worth is going through the process that we're going to go through and have a task force. They already had their task force give them recommendations.

Yeah.

We're going to have our task force start giving us recommendations. I want the public to know we don't have. A regulatory scheme yet for data centers. We want public input, make it that very clear. Um, but to answer your question, there is 1 city in Texas that has banned data centers. We suspect that in the next legislative session, that will probably change. I'm sure there will be a bill there that will not allow cities to outright ban data centers. That's anti-Texan. you know, the way they are with business.

And it's the death, what they call the Death Star Bill of two years ago that allows for, or makes it so the cities can't currently do those bans unless, or at least leaves it open to high legal challenge.

Right. So that bill, there's cities that are still trying to, the appeal was denied, and there are cities that are trying to still appeal it to the Supreme Court of Texas. But that Death Star bill basically says if there is no, if it's covered by state law, you can't regulate it, right, essentially. Yeah. And so because state law allows us to adopt zoning regulations and those haven't been amended yet, we are able to police it through that scheme, which is the zoning regs and subdivision and building codes, but we haven't gone to that stage yet. So yes, zoning would be the best method of regulating them.

And we still have opportunity to turn in any additional comments that we have on the subject Absolutely, and there will be more discussions to follow.

Yeah, my understanding is the task force that is made out of seven members and then four ex officios will come up with recommendations. Those recommendations, because they are UDC amendments, will have to come before you all for recommendation to commission. So you all will have an opportunity also to weigh in.

No additional questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

So the next set of updates that we're sharing with you all are related to event centers, poker lounges, quick loop facilities and self storage facilities. And these are up for public hearing. These are up for a vote. The rationale behind these additional use standards are to kind of protect some of these key corridors that you see on this map. On the map, everything that's highlighted in red is currently a vacant property. So those are areas where certain things may be permitted by right, such as event centers and quick loop facilities and self storage facilities. So we want to ensure that we kind of protect those key corridors and ensure that there's no clustering of these types of uses similar to the car washes. And so here's our proposals. So for quick loops and oil change facilities, here's a map of where some of the businesses are located. This does not include car dealerships that also have like a service bay. And we'll discuss that in a second when we get into the regulations. But these are just strictly quick loops areas. I'm sorry? They're freestanding. Yes, ma'am.

Freestanding. And how many of those have come to the city or been constructed in the last year or two? The majority of them?

I can't answer that. I know that there's 12 locations within the Brownsville city limits, but which ones have come in in the past year, we could get that information for you. So first thing we got to do when doing a UDC update is to define the quick lubes or oil change facilities. So this is a facility that provides routine vehicle maintenance services, to units of 10,000 pounds or less in your standard vehicle, primarily oil and fluid changes, filter replacement, lubrication, and other minor preventative maintenance. This may include tire repair or replacement as necessary as an accessory service. Currently, they're permitted by right in the corridor commercial, regional center, and light industrial zones. The parking for that is on a 1 to 500 square foot ratio. So these additional standards, they are specific to oil change facilities. They shall not be visible from an interstate primary arterial or secondary arterial. Their separation requirements, they're prohibited from having residential adjacency, 600-foot separation requirements from residential zones and uses, and 1,000 feet from other quick loops. Quick loop or oil change facilities are allowed by right as accessory uses, to primary commercial retail uses, right? So again, you know, if you have a car dealership and there's a service bay where they do this type of work, those would still be permitted by right because they're an accessory to the car dealership or to that business. Separation requirements to residential zones or uses and to the quick lube or oil change facilities still apply. And I'm sorry, do we vote on the individual ones or are we doing them all at once?

Well, I guess so we won't have so many questions mixed up together at the end. If you have any questions regarding this particular use, we can go or we can have you guys ask questions at the end of every, let's say, presentation for each of the uses that are being presented tonight. I don't know if you want to provide... So you want us to vote after each? Well, not necessarily vote, but if you have any questions, then in the end we'll have just the motion.

A thousand feet doesn't seem very far. What is it? Because that's not what it is for, I mean, not that this is the same thing, but for car washes, don't we have a five-mile radius? I don't.

Not sure if it's five or one, but the average distance right now between locations is about 3,000 feet. So this is just to ensure that there's not one across the street from the other one without being too restrictive, but that's certainly something we can mull over or amend as requested.

And just to provide some additional context, aside from, let's say, the layer of protection that the land spacing will provide, Carlos did mention that they cannot be visible on a primary, a secondary arterial, or a highway. So just from that... it removes the majority of the opportunities. It would be basically limited to collector roadways, which there are very few in the city. And then on top of, like taking that as a reference point, and then on top of that, the land spacing requirement of 1,000 feet, it will greatly reduce the available opportunity to develop this type of use.

Give me some examples of some collector streets.

Collector streets, for instance, Morrison is a collector. It's not an interior between Pablo Quichel, Chaparez. It's not an interior, it's a collector. Other collectors, Price Road is a collector. There's What else? Off the top of my head, those are the only ones I can think of right now.

I'm going to, I mean, just as it pops in my head right now, Spring Mart. Spring Mart Boulevard, is that a collector?

Spring Mart Boulevard is actually a local street. So that wouldn't even be, let's say, a... a potential option. It just has 60 feet of right-of-way, so it would be categorized as a local street.

Any questions?

Okay. So, yeah, moving on to banquet meeting facility or event centers. Here's a map showing the locations of event centers. There's about 46 event centers throughout the city of Brownsville. The average distance between locations is about 750 feet, which is under a quarter mile. They're really concentrated in the downtown area and then along your major corridors. So the updated UDC definition is an establishment that is leased on a temporary basis before the day of an event by individuals or groups who reserve the facility to accommodate private functions, including but not limited to banquets, weddings, anniversaries, receptions, businesses, and organizational meetings, and other similar functions, to which the general public is not admitted and for which no admission charge is required. Such establishments may include kitchen facilities for the preparation of food or catering, of food and areas for dancing, dining, and other entertainment activities that customarily occur in association with banquets, weddings, and receptions. So what we're proposing is just similar to what we heard right now, is that an SUP would be required in the following zones, only with an SUP, so there would be no permission by right. In the corridor commercial zone, regional center, downtown general, and downtown core. Corridor commercial and regional center, obviously, you know, those can facilitate that type of development. And the downtown general and downtown core, you know, is where you have more of the historic core. You know, people like to have this kind of classy event centers, right? So these are the EU standards for event centers. There will be a renewal period every two years. So we can review for code compliance, for PD concerns, you know, anything related to that, and then present that to the Planning and Zoning Commission and requests, you know, additional standards or denial of the request. They're prohibited from sharing a lot boundary with a residential zone or use, you know, again, to limit noise complaints with people that live adjacent to an event center. Outdoor gathering areas shall have a 600-foot separation from residential zones and uses and 1,000-foot separation from other event centers, right, to prevent the clustering and also prevent possible nuisance violations with adjacent residential uses. Indoor events may operate from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. midnight. All outdoor activities shall cease no later than 10 p.m. For event facilities such as banquet halls or event rooms located on any floor of a multifamily building, all event activities shall cease no later than 10 p.m. So that's in a mixed-use zoning district where you might have people that live on the top floors. The event has to end by 10 o'clock. That way it doesn't become a nuisance to anybody living in that building. If an event center serves alcohol or permits BYOB events, the establishment shall be subject to all the applicable regulations governing bar establishments. So there's the security requirement, right, that additionally at least one police officer or licensed security guard shall be required on the premises during all operating hours. Compliance and applicable federal, state, and local regulations regarding activities and substances not explicitly addressed herein remains mandatory. So it would be regulated just like a bar in the event that somebody wants to do a BYOB. And then before we move on to the next item, are there any questions or comments? No, ma'am. It's essentially vested now that they're starting the process and just grandfathered it. Turn it over to Sam for the poker lounges.

We currently have poker lounges within the city?

Yes, we do. We have one.

We have one? That we know of. That we know of.

Yes.

And where is that located?

I can't remember the street name, but it's a street south of Springport Boulevard.

Which one?

The street south of Springmark Boulevard. Oh, okay, okay.

And the way that we're currently regulating any existing poker lounges is by way of the indoor amusement establishment definition on our UDC. So anything that – any UDC regulations that would apply to an indoor amusement establishment would apply to poker lounges today. However, after – We adopt any regulations that we've discussed today for poker lounges. This is what would continue. So this is the new UDC definition that we are proposing for poker lounges, and they are a private or membership-based establishment. that provides facilities for socializing and participating in poker or similar games as a recreational activity. Such establishments may charge membership or participation fees and may serve alcohol in accordance with applicable state and local regulations. Those would be TABC. Poker lounges shall comply with all applicable laws governing private clubs. and operations of such establishments. The zoning designation that we are proposing with this new UDC definition would be corridor commercial and with a parking ratio of one parking space required for every 500 square feet, plus one parking space for every four poker table seats. These would be the new additional use standards that would be attached to poker lounges when we begin to review these requests at the administrative level. And first, we would begin with separation requirements. Currently, we are proposing that they have a 2,500-foot separation from other poker lounges or similar uses. There could be no more than two poker lounges within one common lot, one common property, or a common commercial plaza. So we're proposing that to prevent a clustering or a de facto entertainment district. In addition to these separations, we also are proposing a 600-foot separation from any property with a residential zone or use. We are also adding language on the additional use standard sections for poker lounges that establishes general compliance with state and federal regulations. But particularly or specifically, we are going to be adding language that poker lounges should comply with Chapter 47 of the Texas Penal Code, which has to do with gambling. And that is currently how poker lounges kind of use a loophole. found within the penal code to be able to operate in a state that essentially does not allow gambling. Additionally, compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations remains mandatory for activities or substances that are not explicitly mentioned on the additional use standard. So, for example, if commission ever decides to adopt an ordinance that would regulate, say, smoke bars, If smoking is something or a component that they propose as part of the poker lounge then that would also apply on top of these poker lounge additional use standards just as an example. And that is the and just to clarify this would be an administratively reviewed use, so it is not being proposed for a special use permit that would come before this board or city council. So we are currently proposing it as an administrative or administratively reviewed item, meaning that if we pass this ordinance or this legislation, city staff would be the one to review this use internally. And it would not be a specific use permit that would require a public hearing. That is our current proposal. If we want to move with suggesting that this be a specific use permit similar to event centers, that is something we could consider today. This is just a draft. We can note that. Yes, ma'am.

Can you explain to me if we don't allow gambling, how these... poker lounges function?

That is a good question. I would request some input.

Yes. So the way around it is a lot of these clubs, they'll charge an admission to be a member of it Or they'll charge for, some of them will sell alcohol, some of them will, depending on if they get their license from TABC, some of them will sell like the Cokes and chips and stuff like that and food items so that they can make their own drinks. But at the end of the day, the way it's legal is the house cannot take in what they call a rake. So as long as the house or any of the employees don't get tipped or don't get a cut of what the winnings are, then they're allowed to operate legally in Texas.

So they're making their money off of... Memberships and sales.

Memberships and sales. It's big business in Austin, Dallas. I myself never have gone, but we can do a field trip. Now, a question did come up. And it was one that staff had asked is how would we enforce to ensure that they're not illegal gambling? And that would really be a question for GABC and police because they're the ones that would have to go in there and do a stakeout or something or have someone go in there and see what they're doing. But there have been poker loungers. that come in with that business model and end up taking from the winnings and they get caught and they get closed. And so, you know, that's the risk of their business.

So how are other cities handling approval of this? Are they doing a special use permit?

That is something we see other cities. When we were initially... you know, doing our research across the cities in Texas, there are cities that require SUPs for poker lounges, yes. Now, it should be mentioned that even those cities that consider SUPs, much of the additional use standards we're proposing today are the same ones that the SUP considers. The only difference here is that we're proposing an administratively reviewed process as opposed to a public hearing process.

One coming to my neighborhood, not necessarily in the neighborhood, but opening up one close by as a resident, I wouldn't want to know about it.

And to that point, when we get to the motion, to take a vote on these, that could be a condition that you could recommend that we would then note at city council, just to be specific on that. All righty. We move on to self-storage or mini-storages. This is a map showing the existing uses that have been issued as CO. We found a total of 27 locations within city limits, and they average between 3,670 foot-feet from each other or a little over half a mile in separation. We're proposing to update additional use standards that currently apply to self-storage or mini-storages in the city, beginning with access requirements. Self-storage or mini-storage facilities shall be limited to indoor storage where access is made through a common corridor entryway with an enclosed structure and is permitted only in the Regional Center RC and Light Industrial LI and Heavy Industrial HI District's storage facilities. Outdoor mini-storages shall be limited to LI and heavy industrial zoning So basically what we're saying there is that if they are proposing an indoor self-storage facility, then that first half would apply. They would only be allowed on the RC, LI, and HI districts, but outdoor mini storages or self-storage facilities will only be allowed in LI and HI zoning districts. In addition to the access requirements mentioned, we are also proposing separation requirements similar to the other uses. The first one being that they would have to have a 600-foot separation from any residential zone or use. They would also be prohibited from sharing a boundary with a property with a residential zone or use. And finally, they would be required to have a $2,500 foot separation from other similar uses. And like the poker lounge item, this is also being proposed as an administratively approved process, as it currently is. It's only being updated.

There's a new storage facility. It's probably almost finished, or maybe the construction's already been completed on 511, close to 803 on the south side. Is that area light industrial or heavy industrial? No, that area... Not within the city limits.

Yes, it's within the city limits, and that... particular development started a while back it just took forever for them to develop it um and under the current provisions or you or the provisions that were established at the time that they initiated it was allowed um it's right now the the property is owned regional center and so again it was permitted before we did the change or did also the differentiation because When the UDC was drafted, it did have provisions to regulate this use. However, the provisions weren't very strong. Prior to this, we've done one update to the regulations that allow us to enforce or regulate it. This one is just an additional update to reinforce it even more.

Oh, continued additional use standards. My apologies. We would also have a building placement restriction similar to what we proposed for the event center. So they wouldn't be able to have visibility from an interstate primary arterial or secondary arterial. And these are for standalone self-storage and many storage facilities. If they propose lighting to add an additional measure of security, they would have to submit a lighting plan. They would have to comply with those regulations in our UDC that apply to lighting to prevent light pollution to nearby residential uses. That marks the end of those four land uses that we're presenting today. Staff is recommending approval of this ordinance, 2025-235.130, to amend the Unified Development Code, specifically Article 4 of the zoning regulations, the permitted use chart, the additional use standards, and Article 6. to include those new UDC definitions, which would be the poker lounge. And, sorry. Currently, it would be the poker lounge. And later, once we are ready to present the data center for action, that would also be a new definition that we would create. But currently, it's only for poker lounges.

Okay. I'll just come before the planning and zoning, but that's just my opinion. I mean, there's other people on this board, so please voice your opinion.

Right. Since it's a recommendation to that recommendation, you can add that condition. The Ms. Eliza is, is mentioning.

Yeah, that poker lounges go through the SEP process, basically. I would agree with that as well.

And I need a motion.

So just to clarify, staff is recommending approval. But what we're understanding is that you would recommend approval as per staff's recommendation. with the added condition that poker lounges be required to have an SUP. Yes.

I will motion to recommend approval of the ordinance with the recommendation that the poker lounges have the SUP. Second.

We have a first and a second motion. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries with the SUP.

Okay. Here we go. And that marks, I believe, the end of this meeting.

Okay. It is 727. Do we have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

We have a first, second motion to adjourn. All those in favor? Aye. Motion carries. 727. Thank you.

Bye.