Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] Heat. Heat. N. [music] [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Heat. Heat. N. [music] [music] [music] Heat. [music] [music] Hey. Hey.

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Woo! [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Hey, hey, hey. [music] [music] [music] [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Hey. Hey. Hey. [music] [music] [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Heat. [music] Heat. [music] [music] Ow. [music] [music] [music] [music] Hey. Hey.

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Heat. Hey, Heat.

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Heat. Heat.

[music] [music] [music]

You do it. [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Woo! [music]

[music] [music] Heat. Heat.

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Heat. Heat. [music] [music] [music] [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] do it. [music] [music]

Notice of a public meeting of the planning and zoning commission of the city of Brownsville. Pursuant to chapter 551, Title 5 of the Texas Government Code, the Texas Open Meetings Act. Notice is hereby given. Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Brownsville, Texas, has scheduled a regular meeting on Thursday, December 4th, 2025 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. 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, December 4th, 2025 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.

We'll start with the roll call. Daniel Elen present. Amalia Benson. Elisa Vasquez. Ida Rodriguez. Cesar Rodriguez. Ruben Oell.

Pledge of Allegiance. Next is approval of the minutes for the regular meeting on November 6, 2025. Everyone had a chance to read over the minutes. If so, I'll entertain a motion. I second. We have a first and a second motion to approve the minutes. All those in favor? I

I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Updates and comments. Uh well, this evening the updates will be provided by Mr. Samuel Nunes um regarding the housing plan.

Good evening board. A couple meetings ago, we brought before uh this this board a uh housing master plan that the city is currently looking into. We had put out a request for proposals uh for potential consultants that we're considering. Uh we're happy to update that. We have already concluded that period and we have even gone as far as evaluating uh some of those proposals and we are scheduled to interview a total of four uh consultants that will be coming um you know in person uh to be interviewed by city staff internally. Uh we will be providing more updates to come but our goal is currently that we present uh whatever consultant we do select out of those interviews uh to a second meeting in January to the city commission board and eventually to this board as well or before then you individual consideration consideration and action to grant a subdivision waiver for centerline track subdivision located in the extr territorial jurisdiction of the city of Brownsville from the municipal planning process and solely proceeding with Cameron County jurisdiction.

So as mentioned this is a request to uh grant a subdivision waiver. The applicant uh wants to move forward slowly with Cameron County jurisdiction for the review of their subdivision. And this property is fronting Centerland Road uh in the northernmost part uh of Brownsville. It's one of the arms that extends very far north. Uh again, fronting Centerland Road close by Fernando East Road on the way to Roya City. Yes. motion.

Make a motion to approve, madam chair. Second. We have a first and a second uh motion to grant subdivision waiver. All those in favor?

All those opposed? Motion carries. Public hearing and action on ordinance number 235-2025-025 to reszone from residential suburban R2 to light industrial LII to allow an existing machine shop for 344 acres out of block 33 Elhardin subdivision of Brownell tract share 28 of the esput Santo Grant Cameron County Texas located at 6628 Calvin Street Brownville Texas 78521

thank Thank you. As mentioned, this is a request to uh reszone a property that is currently zoned as residential suburban R2 to a light industrial uh zoning. And the purpose for that is to continue a legally nonconforming machine shop that currently exists at that property. This property is current is fronting Calvin Street, which is a local street within a an established neighborhood subdivision uh for single family use. Uh this is the notice that we put out to the vicinity informing of this public hearing. This is the sign that is posted physically at the property. This is a map showing a radius of who we sent out uh legal notice to informing them of this public hearing. At the time uh there was zero uh written opposition against uh this item. We should inform the board that as of today or earlier today we did receive one letter but in support of this request. This here is the zoning map showing uh the property uh adjacent to the surrounding zoning. As you can see uh the surrounding zoning is an R2 which is for residential. This is a map showing uh adjacent streets Calvin Street and Zena Drive going north south. This is a broader map and the major street uh would be South Padre Island Highway north of this property. So, it's south of that. Based on our review, uh we consider or our review criteria uh staff did find that this uh request is not not consistent with our

comprehensive plan and future land use plan. Approval of this uh request uh would essentially create what we would refer to as a spot zone. Uh and approval of the light industrial zoning district may allow by right certain commercial and industrial uses that would be at odds against the established residents that live in this area. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of this reszone from residential suburban to light industrial.

I have a question. Yes, ma'am. Um I suppose this has always been residential area uh in terms of the existing or surrounding uses. Yes. So this you said this was a non-compliant Oh. uh in in in terms of what is is there at this property uh it is a mixed use so that it is a residence and it's also used for a commercial industrial use. Uh for more details the the property owner or one of the people considering the property for purchase is here to provide detail on that.

Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. if there's anyone that would like to come forward to address this issue. Miss Eliza, we should mention that the the existing use did was never issued a permit to allow that. Thank you for clarifying that. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this issue? Ma'am, you want to come forward? If you'll come forward, if you'll just state your name.

Sophia Caravo. Munich Fore! Foreign! Foreign! Carlos responsibility.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak on on this issue? If not, I'll entertain a motion to close public hearing. Second. We have a first and a second motion to close public hearing. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries. It can go back to the map. Yes, sir. Which one?

Is there any comparable businesses like in this vicinity? Uh upon scanning it, analyzing, we did not find another similar use in this neighborhood. What's there now? Uh to our understanding it is a machine shop uh which uh uh various welding activities take place and a residence and a res living on the property. Correct.

But if we change the zoning to LI, we're going to be open to other industrial uses coming in if that property gets sold again. In theory, by right, they would have they would be able to bring in a use that whatever LII would permit they could bring in.

Good question. So, why if if there's currently some if they're already there's already a shop there, why are they requesting an approval? um the the current activity or the way the property is currently used is not conforming to its current zoning which is that of a residence. So to allow the the business or the industrial component of that uh property to continue or to potentially sell it to someone that wants to continue that business. Uh they are requesting uh basically to bring it everything into compliance. this reszone change to a light industrial uh without it essentially the current use there is legally non-conforming.

The request for them to the request for them to ask for the reasonzoning was that brought upon some type of citation or to brought to their attention from the city or was it just them trying to do the right thing? are ind are his historically there has been attempts to uh submit for a co or uh an occupancy permit to continue that business but the process at some point or another was abandoned. It was never officially completed. Uh zoning has been brought up in the past and therefore uh they are here requesting it because of staff's information uh informing them about it. So because of the change in ownership and the new co that's why this has come up

the potential change in ownership. Yeah. One additional question does can the resoning be bracketed just to that to that property? Bracketed in in the sense that we only approve it for them just a donut around that property. Approval of this request would essentially do that. Uh only this property would be zoned at light industrial. nothing else around it could could be you know could be everything else would just remain the way it is now with its zoning well with through the chair sorry

or or I think the question is would it be limited to that particular use is a question if or are you asking if [snorts] if the zoning change would limit this particular use because uh to In response to that, this is a zoning change. It cannot be conditioned to where only this use would be permitted. So by changing the zoning designation to light industrial like uh Mr. Nu mentioned, it would leave it the door open to any use that is permitted under LI. We should also mention that uh what tends to happen once one spot zone or one zoning that does is very different from the ones that surround it gets approved is that it begins a trend or it sets president uh for other property owners to then consider changing their zonings to something similar. Are there other avenues for this property owner besides a spot zone, which I would understand is a more dramatic change, maybe something more along the lines of a special use permit or other ways to to get to this for them?

Well, [clears throat] a specific use permit, the way the code is written, is only for specific uses listed in the code. It's not a way to be used as a loophole to allow use in like in this case in the middle of a residential subdivision. Um, one of the main things we want to do or achieve is to avoid any situation in the future similar to Milw White because that's what could potentially happen. Having such a high zoning um will or could [clears throat] potentially allow uses that will create a nuisance to um to surrounding properties. Something else that's uh that that I would like to mention because we did receive calls uh or one call from a a property owner, not so much complaining about the use, but complaining about the fact that they cannot get home insurance because the the insurance agency doesn't want to sell them the the the coverage because they have a use that is a potential hazard. So it's already creating problems for surrounding properties

doesn't reduce

we don't have author um let's say u targeted authority to say you are limited to only do these operations. I assume I assume there's opposition. Uh none that stated that they would be present or that they sent us a written letter of that. So nobody present. No written opposition.

I believe Miss Eliza made the announcement. The official The mass is [clears throat] material. Any further questions?

Real quick, just to clarify on the insurance issue you brought up, were you saying surrounding residences were having trouble getting insurance or the resident on residents on the property? We received one call from a resident whose complaint was uh the fact that they couldn't get insurance. Not so much the operations of the business um but the fact that they couldn't get insurance. Can you show the aerial again?

It is a residential neighborhood. And through the chair I want to clarify in the upcoming erh training that we're putting together in January or February we will explain that the very history of zoning is to avoid incompatible uses and the origin is precisely uh trying not to mix residential uses with industrial uses for pollute pollutants and nuances and noise etc and fumes. So that's why staff is recommending denial. It's a like a very clear case for us even if there hasn't been a complaint so far or even if the neighbors don't may not know that they can complain. H truth is that the new business is essentially buying an illegal business because it has never been approved to be industrial in the middle of a neighborhood.

Thank you. Any further questions? Not I'll entertain a motion.

I'll motion to go with staff recommendation and deny the request. I second. We have a first and a second motion to deny a zoning request. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Motion carries.

Public hearing and action on ordinance number 235-2025-026 to reszone from residential single family R1 to residential transition R3 to allow for a town home development for a 2.82 82 acre tract of land more or less out of block 188 Harin RE subdivision of parts of shares 23 28 29 30 31 and 25 is speed to Santo Grant Cameron County Texas located at 4935 Salida de Luna Brownsville Texas 78526

thank you as mentioned this is a resoning from a current residential single family property to a residential transition R3 property The intent behind this request is to develop to town home development or neighborhood. This property is fronting Salida de Luna Road which is considered a uh a slashcolctor local street. This is the public uh notice that we put out to the vicinity there informing them of this public hearing. This is the physical sign that has been posted at at the property. This is the aerial map. At the time of this map, there was zero zero written opposition from the folks that submitted directly to city secretary. Staff also did not receive any letters uh in favor or in opposition of the request. This is the zoning map. Adjacent properties to the east, west and south are also uh RR1 uh single family residential and we have one agricultural property to the norththeast of this

which is a school

which is a school campus. Yes, this is the broader map. The the major street here would be Rub Ruben Mto Torres Boulevard south of this property. This request staff does find that it is consistent with our comprehensive plan and future land use plan. Staff is recommending approval of the res of from residential single family to residential transition. This is a public hearing. If there's anyone in the audience that would like to address this issue, if you would come forward and motion to close public hearing. We have a first and a second motion to close public hearing. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed? Motion carries. The board have any questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. We have a motion to approve.

Yes, I second. We have a first and second motion to approve the zoning from U R1 to R3. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Public hearing and action. An ordinance number 235-2025-027 to reszone from residential single family R1 to Regional Center to allow for a commercial development for lot 1 block 1 Rabel subdivision Cameron County, Texas, located at Lomax Road, Brownsville, Texas 78526. As mentioned, this uh property is currently zoned um residential single family and is requesting a regional center uh commercial district for a potential commercial development. Staff um has not received any specifics as to which what type of commercial development is taking place, but we have been informed that they are requesting this resoning to potentially sell it to someone else. This property is fronting uh Lowmax Road which is considered a local street in this area. This is the notice of the public hearing that was posted in the vicinity or sent out to to them. This is the physical sign at the property. This is an aerial map. At the time of this map, we did not receive any written opposition or written u letter in favor of this request and 14 total mailouts were sent out. This is the zoning map. As you can see, it is a bit mixed with R1 to the north, east, and west. And there are also other RC districts uh similar to the request that the property owner is making for

this property to the south and to the southwest. This is the broader map. As you can see, the the most major street is the interstate itself, Interstate 69 east. This request is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan and future land use plan. Staff is recommending approval of this resoning from residential single family to regional center. Go back to the previous map.

Yes, ma'am. So it so this property has frontage on Lommax and also on Cortezville Road, but it does not have frontage on the expressway because text dot uses that as their yard for holding material. That seems to be the case. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If there's anyone in the audience that'd like to address this, if you'll come forward, you'll state your name, please. Hi, my name is William Swantner. I'm a a broker representing the Rael Rabel family. Uh the building material or the road materials that are being stored on the west side of the property uh between the service road and our property. Uh we've been in discussion with Texot. they are willing to discuss uh granting us a driveway easement through there so we can have direct access to uh the service road and uh but they would only do it if we were seeking a zoning change to RC. So this is what we're doing. We think that's a more consistent use or a better zoning for the property's location and the uses surrounding it. uh to the north even though it's zoned R1 there is uh several non-conforming uh industrial type uses just on the north side of Cortezville I think is the name of that street. So there's not really a whole lot of discipline about R1 there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Schwartner. Yes, sir. You'll just Good evening. My name is Daniel Mia. I live at 8750 Lomax and my family and I we we fully support developing that area for commercial land and commercial use. So we would like to see that happen. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your comments. Is there anyone else? Yes, please come forward.

Good evening. My name is Deborah Jenny. I'm a resident and property owner on Lommax uh slightly north of of this area. Um although the uh the property that is um in question and some of the properties that are immediately across from it on Cortezville Road do appear to have um non-conformant light industrial going on. Um there is plenty of um residential single family homes in the area both on Cortezville and all along Lulax. Uh that is the basically the main driveway into uh that that neighborhood. Um I've lived there uh since 1996 my grandparents built one of the first houses um there on Lomax and uh we've seen just more and more single family homes being built along that street. Um just about two or three weeks ago um I had a a young uh mother stop me on my way out the door to work. She was looking for a house for sale and there were no houses for sale there. There was one just on the corner and it had just recently sold. There is demand for continued single family homes. Uh there's a a duplex that was just built on uh Cortezville um directly across the street uh from this property. Uh my concern is that if it is developed as commercial um it's only going to increase traffic um on those side roads on Lomx and Cortezville, even if they give you a driveway um text through their uh their gravel yard. Um I'm concerned about children. Um I've seen young kids um in the the new duplex um area. Um and you know, we have school buses uh going through there. Um, we've already seen uh the speed limit raised to 30 m an hour um on Lomax and I guess that's to accommodate uh perhaps light commercial um going on. Um it's it really is mostly families uh that live

there and have lived there for a good long while. Um I would definitely oppose uh this this change. I feel like it would uh be just an impetus to further uh commercialize and industrialize uh this neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate your comments. There anyone else who'd like to address the board? Thought I need a motion to close public hearing. I motion to close public hearing. Ma'am, did you want to say something? Oh, come if you'll come forward, please.

I'm here. I lived there on Cortezville and uh for about 30 years and I really don't approve of it. I really would not let any commercial there. The fact is that where the buses of the school like the lady was mentioning, it's very hard for the buses to to turn especially between Cortezville and and Lomx. And another thing that we have already there some trailers, 18-wheeler trailers going through there. And usually when they turn, they take the whole space and they go over the yards through the dish and they make big holes. The street is a mess. Every time they go through there, there was a lot of holes in the street. And it's only just because of the 18 pillars they go through there. And the traffic is like I mean it like I said the school buses and all that and I don't know how it this is going to affect us on the taxes and uh I mean I don't think as my point of view that it will be something that we would like there. A neighborhood is very quiet and it's peaceful right now as it is. We have enough with the 18 wheelers. It's right there across where that yard where that lot is. just right there in the corner. And some trailers do fall and they take a long time and they stop traffic just to make a turn to go either to the freeway or try to go a shortcut to to 803. And we have to be sometimes waiting for them to finish or just they just make holes in the street cuz they turn and it's not enough room for 18 to turn in that street. Now, if they're going to turn it into something commercial with more traffic, we're just going to be lost there with all that traffic. And it's hard for the school buses to turn. They do, but they have to either go reverse and try to make a a turn through LMAX through Cortez or through

Cortez to Lomax. So, we I mean, I don't uh really approve of it, but we'll see what how it goes. And then if they're going to start raising the tra the taxes and all that for us and it's just it's very hard. I mean the road there is very narrow for everybody to turn there. And especially in that turn right there where the trail where 18 wheelies are. That's the yard. 18 wheelers. We have to turn. Some cars come from that side and we cannot even see them. They're coming from that side. We have to make a long turn to make sure that we don't hit on to another car. So imagine that if we have a lot of traffic there's going to be very hard for us and the street like I said it's it's a mess

right and it's just only with 18 pillars so I mean that was I needed to speak up. Thank you. We thank you for comments. I am familiar with the area. I do understand that both those streets are pretty narrow. Yes. Yes they are. and especially is the dish right there and it's a mess. I think we're fine the way the way we are right now, but I mean it's Let's see how it turns out. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this issue? Yes, ma'am. If you'll come forward.

You'll state your name for us, please.

Um, yes. My name is Caitlyn Mahia and I'm a resident on Cortezville. Um, our neighborhood is made up of elderly residents, retired individuals living on fixed incomes, and families with young children. This is a community built around stability, safety, and affordability. Now that this property has been purchased for commercial use, we're being told our property taxes might go up. That is deeply concerning. Many of us have already been struggling and with rising costs of groceries, utilities, and insurance, and basic living expenses, adding higher property taxes on top of that could push longtime residents out of their own homes. A commercial property in the middle of a residential neighborhood doesn't just affect traffic and noise, it affects our wallets. It places a financial burden on the people who have lived here for years and simply cannot afford another increase. It also affects families raising children here. Higher taxes, increased commercial activities, make it harder for parents to provide stability, and it changes the peaceful environment we chose for our kids. We are not against development or progress, but it must be done responsibly and with respect for the people who already live there. A commercial project should not come at the cost of pushing out elderly residents, overburdening parents, or disrupting the familyfriendly family environment. we work hard to maintain. We are asking for this decision to be reconsidered and for the concerns of the community to be taken seriously. Our home stability and our families deserve protection. Thank you. You appreciate your comments. Is there anyone else that wants to address this issue? Go ahead. Again, I'm William Swantner. I certainly

appreciate the concerns. Thank you. I certainly appreciate the concerns of these people who are living in the neighborhood. Um I I do have uh some reservations about uh property taxes increasing on the residential side of the road. uh you know it's I've been doing uh appraisal work since 1985 and the last 30 years here in the valley and it's it's very clear that you know zoning plays a very large part in how a parcel is uh considered by the market and the value that that market attaches to it as a result. So if your property is zoned R1, then you are going to be treated as if you are an and are a single family residence and your real estate taxes, property taxes will be aligned with those of similar use. Thank you.

Thank you. [clears throat]

I'll remind the audience that uh the city has no control over taxes. That is under the Cameron Appraisal District. Is there anyone else that wants to address this issue? Yes, sir. You'll come forward and give us your name. Thank you. My name is Joshua Jenny. Um I'm also married to my wife over here who just mentioned earlier, Deborah Jenny. um wanting to ask about how um since this is a mixed zone area, how this one in particular will help to um improve the existing residential zone and the commercial zone since it is mixed. Um what is the future plans that the city has for this area? Um it is mixed and I was kind of curious what your thoughts were as is mixed bag of area that we have. Um what you guys thought? I mean, I can't I can't uh speak on behalf of the city. I'm not sure what

what uh plans are for that.

There are no imminent plans for this area right now. The only guidance would be the in the future in the near future, it would be the new comprehensive plan. In the absence in the absence of that, it would be the current comprehensive plan. So if you could describe what's the current designation in the comp plan for this area like what but it's a very broad vision. It's not a specific to this area. It it it paints with a a wide brush a a large swath of land. So if somebody if a planner could please uh pull up the map for the comprehensive plan and take a look at the designation. My question is for Martino or Sam.

Yes. Um, so when we say that the request is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan of future land use plan, the ones that are currently in existence or adopted, uh, we're saying um that this commercial zoning would make sense or aligns with what we saw at that point for the purposes of that property. Specifically, um our future land use plan categorizes this property as a gateway corridor. Uh meaning that uh this corridor would give access or provide access to commercial uh uses that want to come into that area. And that was probably uh very intentional given that there is that interstate to the south of it. I'm not sure that quite answered your question, but that's the best we can too.

If I understand quickly, um it sounds like it's wanting to be used as a a way of like a corridor into residential area that has mixed areas, but in the front trying to use it for a commercial purpose if I'm understanding. Um so the term that was used not necessarily that the the entire area is going to be a corridor. It was just a term that was created by the consultants at the time. Basically, the description or the definition of that is that it this is an area that has very good access to commercial uses uh of this nature. Yeah.

And I imagine mostly because it it so close to the expressway. Since the purpose is wanting to be used for possible commercial usage, um what if there's a compromise instead to have the land still be sold, but maybe it could be sold, let's say, to the city, like as a park or some other type of asset that would still be focused on more for the residents that live there, but still allow the business owner to be able to sell the property, achieving their goal. Um that that is a much bigger question. Uh this is a reasonzoning uh you know case or request in terms of the city city entering a partnership or some kind of agreement for the sale of this land to the city. Uh that is not in question today.

Yeah. Right now there are no plans uh to buy uh land for a park in that area. we should limit our comments to the specific zoning case. It's not necessarily a back and forth or dialogue with the staff. We should address the applicant and the chair and the commission if possible. Uh the reason why I brought it up is because it's currently being used for asphalt for the com for the city and I figured since it already is being used at least in part for city use, I thought maybe we could expand it for a more specific purpose. But it's not being used by the city. is being used by the state of Texas. Oh, sorry. State of Texas.

But since it is being used by the powers that be, I figure maybe we go with something that's more formal that does allow it to be sold in a way that does bring in money for the business owner. Such

uh that would be huge to go through tech stop to do that. Do you want to make one more quick comment, Mr. Swatner? You'll come up. It just occurred to me u the other person that was talking about the difficulty in navigating turns over there. There's already been right away taken from the corners of the parcel uh to widen uh the ingress and egress from Lomax and Cortezville uh to the service road. So they just the city has just not gotten around to doing something with it. Thank you. Is there anyone else that'd like to address this issue?

I motion to close public hearing public comments. Sorry. Second. I second the motion. So, we have a first and a second motion of closed uh public comments. All those in favor? I.

All those opposed? Motion carries. Does the board have any further questions or comments? I mean, the one thing that I I think of now is even though it's even though it's R1 now, if you got a subdivision in there, it would still uh affect traffic. So, no matter what, you're going to get more traffic, whether it's residents or commercial. and we have no idea what what the plans are for the commercial. Um, and I'll remind you that after whatever happens today, there's still two readings before the city commission. So, um, whatever happens today, you always have the opportunity to go before the city commission and voice your opinions. What is the wish of the board? A motion to go with staff recommendation to approve the reszoning.

I need I second that motion. We have a first and a second motion to approve the uh zoning change from single family to regional center. All those in favor? I.

All those opposed? Motion carries. Public hearing and action on ordinance number 235-2025-902 to reszone from agriculture AG to re regional center RC to allow for a commercial development for 13.142 acres more or less out of the southeast corner of block 218 Fresnos Land and irrigation company subdivision Cameron County Texas located at Baris Line Roadsville Texas 78526 Good evening uh commissioners. Uh the request is to reszone from agriculture uh to regional center for a proposed commercial development. This time we don't have any type of building plans for it. It's just for proposed commercial development. Uh the property is uh facing Line Road. So there's a little background to this uh case. Um back in um 2009, a request to reszone from dwelling to light industrial was approved. Um no development had occurred on that property. um even up until the um the adoption of the unified development code in December 2020, the property was still vacant. Therefore, the zoning was reverted back to agriculture. Um and so in that area, um and you'll see in an aerial map soon, you know, that it it is pretty vacant around there. However, there's development trend going on in that area. You know, namely three large subdivisions, um that are going to have residential and some commercial components to it. Um staff as required by state law, staff sent out notices to property owners and we also posted a physical sign on the property. Um we notified four property owners within the area. Um and we received uh no formal opposition to the request. Again, you know, the area is predominantly vacant. Um it is zone agriculture in all directions. Uh this is a better view of of where we're talking about. You know, again, this is in a very vacant area, but there

are proposed subdivisions that are going on. It's directly across from the Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Park along Pisline Road north of Interstate 69. Um, and then again, you know, even closer image of it. Uh, as you can see, the the area is mostly vacant with the railroad to the rear. [clears throat]

The subject property is located in the emerging emerging city central district. So this district is predominantly residential and commercial uses uh in the form of community facilities uh so such as schools, parks, preserves uh things that um serve the community around it that serve the residents close to it. um due to the proposed residential developments that we mentioned, those large three uh developments uh namely the uh Estrea master plan community, the Montage Estate subdivision and the Pedes Ranch subdivision, all of those are located within approximately 3M radius of the subject property. So we know that there's a high demand for residential use in the area. And so although the um the applicant is requesting to reszone to regional center, staff is proposing that are recommending approval of a zoning change to corridor commercial. So instead of going from a to regional center, the um we're requesting approval of a to corridor commercial due to the district's closer compatibility with existing and upcoming land uses as well as the zoning districts in the vicinity. Um if you recall from uh from last month's presentation, you know, we had something similar. Uh the regional center designation allows for larger re larger regional drawing commercial uses. So these are like your big box stores, your your car dealerships, you know, things like that. Whereas corridor commercial is more specific to serving the neighborhood, you know, so it might be in the form of restaurants, cafes, offices, um you know, businesses like that. Um so like we said you know staff is recommending disapproval from a to regional center and alternative alternatively recommending approval to corridor commercial.

Can you go back to the previous slide or you want to more zoomed out one? That's fine. Uh there's not anything up and down in that north of 550 that's regional corridor right? That's correct. and Lasrea is going to have an outlet to Paris Line Road. Is it about where that white spot is? Um I Yes, approximately.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If there's anyone who would wish to address this issue, if you'd come forward. Yes, sir. If you'll give us your name. My name is Ricardo Noosa. We're coming from Corpus Christi and we're owners of that property. Uh my wife and I of my girlfriend of 60 years, but my wife of 55 years. Uh we have lived a long life. We want to enjoy what little life we have left. Obviously, uh we never uh try to prevent progress. Uh if it wouldn't be for progress, we wouldn't have the building like this. I don't remember it being this fancy before, but um we're in agreement with it being commercial. We we see uh the area around there's a few business not real close but eventually and we know that land is very limited. Uh our main concern of course being seniors and my wife being 100% disabled is the taxes and when you go to commercial obviously your taxes are going to be up and we're limited income. Um, that's pretty much what y'all don't deal with the taxes, uh, the adjusting or

right anything like that. What What area would I have to go to to deal with that? The Cameron Appraisal District in San Cameron Appraisal. They're located in Sanito. Okay. Um, and something else uh as far as um I was thinking if if worse comes to worse, the possibility of leasing, you all wouldn't deal with that either. No, sir. Okay. And that would be probably that same department. Uh, no. To lease the land. Yes.

No, you would have to contact a realtor

and have them help you. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Very good. Life has been good to us and uh like I said, we've got a few years left and we want to enjoy it, but we don't want to be in the uh stopping progress. Progress is everywhere regardless of what people and we know that we all have our differences and have different cases, different problems. And it's good that there is a place like this where we can vent concerns. Of course, our concern being elderly would be the taxes going up. But I thank you very much for for your attention and your time and that's pretty much all I have to say.

So you are you're okay with changing it to commercial border instead of regional. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else who wants to address the board? public hearing. motion to close public uh comments. Seconded.

We have a first and a second motion to close public comments. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Does the board have any other questions? Madam Chair, I do just I I didn't think I I caught it. Extremely bad hearing on my left side. Did the Did the witness just say he owned that property or he just owned surrounding property and was No, he owns property, right?

Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, I misunderstood. So, so, so he owns surrounding property and he was worried about the repercussions if this gets approved. Yes, sir. That's my understanding. So, staff is recommending u commercial corridor instead of regional corridor. That's correct.

Does the board have any questions? Not. I'll entertain a motion. does. No, not RC. Well, I mean, staff is recommending commercial corridor and not regional corridor. Do you want to change your motion? Madam Chair, I have another question. Yes. Just to clarify, is there an assessment made by the city how this approval would affect the historical park? The No sir, not at this time. There's There hasn't been

We have a motion on the floor to approve the zoning change from agriculture to commercial corridor. Need a second. No, you made a first. I'll second. We have a first and a second motion. All those in favor? I. All those opposed?

I oppose. Let the record show that Commissioner Oel oppose. Motion carried. Public hearing and action on ordinance number 235-2025-903 to reszone from agriculture AG to commercial corridor CC to allow for commercial development for an approximate 43.72 acres comprised of approximately 38.31 acres out of the residue of reser reserve B of via delorte subdivision 1.53 acres out of lot one Oklahoma station subdivision number one and 3.88 88 acres out of Reserve A of Oklahoma Station subdivision number one, Cameron County, Texas, located at Stillman Road, Brownsville, Texas 78526.

Uh yes. So, this request is to reszone a tract off Stillman Road um Stillman and 77 uh from agriculture to commercial corridor to allow for a commercial development. Um as required by state law, we we created signs just like this one and posted a physical sign on the property um for residents to see. Um and then we also sent out a um 53 mailouts to property owners within a 200t radius. We didn't receive a formal uh opposition, but we did receive a letter which I believe um each of you should have a copy of the letter. Um the adjacent property owner uh expressed concerns about uh her livestock and the type and the uh impacts that development could have on potentially have on her livestock and property. Uh the surrounding area uh the area to the north is uh residential single family. Uh the resident the area to the north uh west over there is also uh is R3. Um and then we have regional uh commercial along the expressway 77. We also have residential estate further south and then a uh residential single family to the southeast. The area is located in North Brownsville um just south of the Brownsville Sports Park and directly across from the 77 flea market. Here's a closer view of it. You can see uh through the aerial image, you know, there's single family uses in the surrounding area. Uh mostly to the north where you have smaller lots uh also single family and then to the south you have some larger lots. Um you have a couple car dealerships around the expressway which is appropriate because those are zoned RC. Um, and again, this request is corridor commercial, which is a less intense use than than RC. The city's future land use plan designated the area as an emerging city central district and linkage corridor. Um, and the purpose of those is a balanced mix of services and support to residents while maintaining the primarily residential character. Land uses in the linkage corridor primarily

commercial. So, we feel like this uh request is consistent with the future land use plan. Therefore, staff is recommending approval to reszone from agriculture to corridor commercial. And I am correct in saying that the property owner did not initiate this. It was coming from the city. Is that correct? Is that right? Does the city initiated? Correct. This this is a city initiated case.

Uh this is a public hearing. If there's anyone in the audience that would like to address this issue motion close public motion to close public hearing second.

We have a first and second motion to close uh public comments. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Does the board have any questions? I will acknowledge that we did receive uh the letter from Mrs. Stillman uh Tidwell. We appreciate her comments. No further questions. I'll entertain a motion.

Motion to approve the staff recommendation to reszone from agriculture to corridor commercial. We have a first and a second motion to approve the reszoning for agriculture to commercial corridor. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries.

Public hearing and action on ordinance number two 2025-235.119. This is to amend the unified development code article 5 supplemental regulations section 5.5 flood damage prevention subsections 5.512- duties and responsibilities of the flood plan administrator 5.5.15 provisions for flood hazard reduction and 5.6.8 general performance criteria for storm water management to enhance the existing storm water management program and dealing with related matters.

Thank you. Uh we were hoping to have a representative from Half and Associates uh present this but uh in lie of that I'll do my best to answer any questions that you all have. Excuse me. I'm here on behalf of half. Uh this is Ann Whit. I'm with Half Associates. I'm here to present. Thank you. Sure. Yeah. Sorry about that. You're fine. All right. Um if you can just tell me with advanced slides when I open. Yeah, just tell me uh when to say or just say next.

Perfect. Uh so good evening commission. Uh my name is Anne Witco. I'm a water resources team leader with Half Associates at our Brownsville office. Um I'll be presenting an overview of the proposed changes to the unified development code in support of the city of Brownsville's application to FEMA to join the community rating system or CRS program. So for context, I'm going to start with a little background on the CRS program. Um, I'll try to keep it pretty pretty brief, but I think it's important to understand what the program is and why we're requesting the changes. Um, and then I'll get into the specific uh changes to the the code, the UDC code that are being requested. Next slide, please. So, the CRS is a a program is a voluntary incentive program that encourages community flood plane management practices that exceed the minimum requirements for the National Flood Insurance Program or NFIP. The goal of the program is to reduce and avoid flood damages to property owners, to strengthen and support the insurance aspects of the NFIP, and to foster comprehensive flood plane management strategies. While enacting higher regulatory standards for new developments can cause challenges and additional expenses for growth in the community, they're important in that they protect existing residents from worsening flooding conditions. They make the community as a whole more resilient with respect to flood risk and they provide benefits to community members through reduced flood insurance premiums for communities that are enrolled in the CRS program. And I'll give some specifics on that in a couple of slides next. Um, so to participate in the CRS program, communities must provide documentation on their storm water management program and what activities are in place that help advance the three goals of the CRS. In total, there's 19

creditable activities and they're organized under four categories that are listed on the slide. And so the first category is related to public information activities described in the 300 series. Next, the 400 series addresses mapping and regulations. um and basically encourages communities to provide flood risk data beyond firm maps, preserve open spaces in significant flood hazard areas, um things of that nature. The 500 series covers specific flood damage reduction activities such as comprehensive flood management planning, um relocating and retrofitting floodprone structures and maintaining drainage systems. And then the 600 series covers warning and response activities. Next slide. So this slide uh shows a breakdown of the points possible under each of the four categories that I talked about on the previous slide with the maximum and average points earned in each subcategory amongst Texas entities that are currently participating in the CRS program. And then the last column just provides percentage of Texas CRS communities that received some credit for each subcategory. Next slide. Um the left column then shows the point ranges that you must achieve to achieve um the the the points that you need to to add up to achieve different CRS class ratings and then the corresponding flood insurance premium reduction for each class is in the third column. So, for entities that are able to score at least 4500 points and achieve a class one rating, um residents that are within those jurisdictional boundaries would be eligible for a 45% premium reduction on their flood insurance. For your knowledge, there are currently no um entities in the state of Texas that have

a class one rating. Uh currently Brownsville residents spend just over $1.9 million per year in flood insurance premiums um which consists of $3,180 total policies. So based on this value, potential cost savings to residents based on varying CRS classes is presented in the column on the right hand side of this table. It's anticipated that Brownsville would likely come into the program as a class 8, which would translate to a 10% reduction in insurance premiums and an annual savings to residents of over $187,000 a year. And again, that's that's an annual uh savings to residents, not just a one-time value. Additionally,

you just you you just said that most of the residents are going to fall under class 8. No. So what it is is the city gets a class rating based on their storm water management practice. And so the whatever the city achieves, all the residents that are within the jurisdictional boundaries get that reduction on their flood insurance premium, but it's based on the city's class rating. It's not um on a resident by resident basis. Thank you.

Sure. And so, like I said, I it we think that with the program that the city has right now and the in the couple changes we need to make to the the UDC code, um they'd come in around a class 8, but likely as the city continues to strengthen their program and get used to um getting the documentation that's required to to prove basically that you um implement the practices that that you have listed in your program. Um, they'd be able to increase that class rating over time. Next slide. So, NFIP participation is fairly high across the state. Um, CRS is a little less prevalent. Currently, there are 219 counties out of 254 total um in Texas that are NFIP participants and 1,042 out of 1,172 total communities that are participants. And that's what all the blue color you see is the blue blue polygons are counties that are NFIP participants and the blue dots are the cities. Um, of those same, you know, 1172 total communities, only 74 currently are enrolled in the CRS program. And those are the yellow stars that you see on the map. Um, they're largely centered around major metropolitan areas like Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, um, around Corpus area. Uh the two highest rated CRS programs within the state right now are city of Dallas with a class three rating and the city of Grand Prairie with a class four rating. Um and those are both cities that we've helped. Um they started at class 7 and we've helped the last few years to get them to those class 3 class 4 ratings. Next slide. So the initial prerequisites to enroll in the CRS program are that the

community must be an NFIP participant. They must submit an application to FEMA and they must provide documentation on their storm water management program and support CRS program goals that include practices that exceed minimum NFIP requirements. The city currently meets all of these requirements um to enter under class 10, but um to meet the class 8 requirements, there are some minor revisions that need to be made to the storm water management ordinance um section of the UDC code. Um specifically there needs to be a minimum 1 foot freeboard requirement for all new and existing manufactured homes, machinery and equipment. And then um well that's pretty much it. The remaining class 8 requirements have been met. Um next slide. So these next five slides I'm going to talk about the specific portions of the code that we're um proposing to make modifications to. And so they address that change I meant that's needed to meet class 8 requirements. And then there's some other proposed changes that will just help strengthen the city's CRS application [clears throat] um and um potentially get to a higher rating um which translates to a greater savings to residents in reduced flood insurance premiums. So each slide structured so that the left side shows the existing ordinance language and the right side has the modification typed out in red. So first the existing ordinance states that no new construction improvements or placement of fill within zones A1 through 30 and AE on a firm unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative impacts will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood elevation or BFE by more than one foot at any point

within the community. Uh, so this section was modified to only allow for a 0.1 foot of elevation change in the BFE instead of 1 foot. Next, where the ordinance currently states that all new construction or substantial improvements shall be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. This section was modified to um to incorporate a more general term for any sort of equipment. Um has to be uh elevated and and kept flood uh be floodproof so that water can't enter uh that area. And then um it further emphasized the need to elevate the listed infrastructure by at least 2 feet above the BF. um which is consistent with other existing language within the ordinance but we're just kind of reinforcing that in this section. Next slide. So the twoft BFE requirement was further reinforced under this section um specifying the requirements for manufactured homes and requirements for on-site waste disposal systems was strengthened to state that they shall not be located within the flood plane. The bottom two bullets on this slide highlight new additions to the ordinance. Um, so the first one prohibits the placement of hazardous materials within the flood plane and is consistent with practices related to Texas pollutant discharge elimination system or TPDS permitting requirements. Um, so this isn't anything really drastically new either. The last bullet on this slide would require that any placement of fill within a special flood hazard area shall

be prohibited unless the fill is mitigated by a compensatory storage requirement at a 1:1 ratio. So this recommendation does create an additional hurdle for new development within the flood plane. However, it's essential in keeping residents safe. It prevents new developments from causing negative impacts to surrounding areas. And so new development can still occur, but this measure ensures that they're not worsening flooding conditions for existing residents. Next slide. All three of the proposed changes on this slide are new to the ordinance, but reflect either ongoing practices or reinforce previously discussed language additions. First, all areas within a flood plane that are excavated or filled, it will be required that a registered professional engineer certifies that the activity will not increase the BFE or base flood elevation by more than 0.1 ft. The engineer must also certify that the project will have no adverse impact to the drainage on, from, or through adjacent properties. So, this requirement further reinforces the modification that I discussed on that first slide. Excuse me.

Yes. Uh can you repeat what you just said about the two feet or the highest adjacent?

So th this one we this one didn't have the two-foot requirement. The two-foot requirement is related to uh new developments within a significant flood hazard area must be 2 feet above the BFE. And so that includes manufactured homes, equipment, things of that nature. What this one is saying is that um you an engineer has to certify that you are not causing any adverse impact to drainage on from or through any other adjacent property as a result of um any excavation or fill that's occurring on your site.

Does that answer? Well, I had a question because under residential construction, it says, and I don't know if this is new, it says all residential uh structures that are constructed outside the designated special flood hazard area shall be elevated 2 feet above the highest adjacent grade. And I know that we've had uh citizens come forward and complain uh and it was residential um homes and there was a commercial property that was constructed right next to them and their elevation was higher. So when it was raining that runoff was going sloping down to the residences.

Yeah. So the two-foot requirement is is to get your that property above the base flood elevation. But what this goes further to say though is that you can't just fill your property to take you out of the flood plane if you're going to cause a negative effect on an adjacent property. So you would have to create storage capacity, which is that other um modification that I mentioned that compensatory storage at a 1:1 ratio. You basically would have to create the storage capacity that you're eliminating by elevating your property on your site so that you are not causing a negative impact to anybody else around you. Okay. Thank you.

Sure. Um Okay. Okay. So, I think we're on the second bullet, which is that it should be um it will be unlawful to dump, deposit, or otherwise cause any trash, landscape debris, or other materials to be placed in any stream, channel, ditch, pond, or basin that regularly or periodically carries or stores water. Um, this is also consistent with Texas pollutant discharge elimination system permitting requirements and I think is is kind of a common sense thing that's already um being enacted by city staff. Uh, the last one on this slide notes that all manufactured home parks shall be designed to be reasonably safe from flooding. Um, this isn't a drastic change either. This is just recommended language from FEMA to include in ordinances for compliance with CRS. Uh, next slide. So, uh, this is another new requirement specifically addressing critical facilities which was not previously in the ordinance. Critical facilities include emergency service facilities, facilities that house populations that are vulnerable or difficult to evacuate, facilities that produce, use, or store highly volatile, toxic, flammable, or explosive materials, and facilities that are essential for providing or restoring normal services. So the proposed requirement would state that such facilities should be located outside the limits of the 500year flood plane to the extent possible or if that's not possible it must be elevated to 3 ft or more above the base flood elevation. And then it further stipulates that access routes um such to such facilities must be elevated to or above the base flood elevation along with any utility and sanitary facilities, emergency

generators and other vital equipment. Next slide. This is this is the last one. Um, so this has proposed uh modifications that will require all roadway improvements within significant flood hazard areas to be constructed at or above the base flood elevation. And then it provides some specific guidelines for design documentation that are consistent with what city engineering already requires. Um, finally, the last major modification reflects requirements that are included in the city's drainage policy manual and have been implemented for a number of years, but we're asking it to be codified in the ordinance. Currently, the existing ordinance states very general requirements to minimize storm water flows from new developments and requires developers to manage peak flow rates to the maximum maximum extent practical. The proposed language will match the drainage policy um in which storm water flow rates for sites over a half an acre must match pre-development flow rates for a 2, 10, 25, and 50year uh rainfall event. Um so those are all of the modifications that I have to present. Um if there's any other questions, I'm happy to take them.

Any other questions? Martin, do we have we're addressing mobile home parks in here, but um are we still allowing mobile home subdivisions? Yes, they are permitted by by the UDC. There's that flexibility in the code. And then who is the flood administrator? I don't know exactly. I don't know. It falls under the engineering department. City engineering

Esther Vet I believe is the flood plate administrator. She's under public works.

Do we have any any further questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. We don't have anybody here for public. Yeah. Well, because it is a text amendment. Uh oh. Still close the public hearing. Okay. Um even though there's no one present. Got it. Thank you. Thank you, Ann. Um I make a motion to close public hearing.

Second. We have a first and second motion to close public hearing. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. If the board doesn't have any other questions, I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I'll I'll uh entertain I'll make a motion to approve as staff recommendation recommends.

I'll second. We have a first and a second motion to approve ordinance number 2025-235.119. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed. Motion carries.

Public hearing and action. An ordinance number 2025-235.120 to amend the unified development code article 5 supplemental regulations section 5.3 signs subsection 5.3.4.8 prohibited signs. Inset four, bandit sign and snipe sign to supplement the existing definition and prohibition of bandit and snipe signs to establish civil penalties for violators of this ordinance and dealing with related matters.

Thank you. As mentioned, this comes as a result of a house bill being passed by the state. Uh the current UDC does have it in place where we do prohibit uh snipe signs or bandit signs. Uh what this house bill is essentially doing is that it's slightly expanding the definition of person uh and even the definition of what a um a bandit sign is. What is new uh and what this text amendment is bringing is the establishment of civil penalties. Um so this is establishing three levels of civil penalties that will be determined and enforced by a municipal court. Um, our current UDC as mentioned does have a definition, but it does not have any civil penalties attached to that prohibition. Uh, this is the example of what is currently in our UDC. Highlighted in yellow, an example to the right of what a banded sign essentially is. This is what we're changing in terms of the definition of what a person is. should be mentioned uh that even though uh even if I should say uh this text amendment is adopted and then enforced, political signs are protected. Uh so this would not affect political signs that are adjacent or along a wide r right ofway area. This is further um examples of what those civil penalties entail. Uh part of the civil penalties is this requirement that the city must issue a written notice or citation warning the person or the owner of such sign that they have a set period of time to remove the sign. The set period of time that we are

giving at this time or at this moment is 14 calendar days. So the person would have 14 calendar days to remove the snipe sign or the prohibited sign or the unauthorized sign as defined by this ordinance. Failure to do so then gives way to the violations that the civil penalties would bring in and that the jur judge would eventually enforce on them. This is an example of the issue that we're seeing with bandit signs uh in the city. Uh the main concern here is really that it's taking a lot of city staff resources and time to go out there and remove them. We basically want to uphold the legitimate sign permitting process. We want to prevent clutter along our proper uh public rideway areas. Um and we also want to pro protect pedestrians for potential hazard of one of these signs blowing into a street and causing an accident. Staff is recommending approval of this text amendment.

It would be up to the code enforcement officers to monitor this.

At this time, there are three departments that oversee the removal of bandit signs. It would be planning, engineering, and public works. Uh it is still yet to be determined once the text amended text amendment is adopted who uh maybe city manager's office would select to go out there and site and remove signs. Uh but at this time it is three departments that at one point or another go out there and remove them. Public comment.

Second. We have a first and a second. Mo, excuse me. [clears throat] Motion to close public comments. All those in favor? I I All those opposed? Motion carries. Board have any further questions? I I do. Sorry. No, go ahead. So, you said that political signs aren't covered. Yes, sir. Um, does the city have an ordinance about placing signs at a certain time frame from this date to this date only that would limit political signs or just any sign in general? Political science campaign. Uh, not to my knowledge though, Mr. Martinez present proudly to pro

the the UDC itself doesn't have a section for political science because it cites the provisions that are in state law. state law does provide a limitation or in a certain amount of uh time frame that uh for which political science can be up. I ask because there's there's plenty of folks over the years who complain that they go up way too early and they stay there way too long after before the election after. So I'm just curious as to the enforcement in regards to these versus the enforcement to those. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you. So we don't have [clears throat] any kind of ordinance for them to take them off after election. I mean there's still a lot of political signs around the city. Well, right right now code enforcement does take up political signs. Political signs are just not left out there to to stay on on on the rightway. Uh we do have a section of in our department where code enforcement goes and drops them off and we contact the the candidate so that they can go and pick them up. We just don't discard them. But uh I mean in the end it's still only three staff members to cover an entire city.

You think those signs are just on city property that they enforce? So as per state law, political signs are only allowed on private property. If the p if the property owner permits the candidate to place them on their property, they're not allowed on on public property or on public right away.

Any further questions? If not, I will entertain a motion. So move, madam chair to approve. Second. So, we have a first and a second motion to approve ordinance number 2025-235.120. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed? Motion carries.

Public hearing and action on ordinance number 2025-235.121 to amend the unified development code article 4 zoning regulations section 4.2 zoning procedures subsection 4.2.1 2.1 noticing hearings and action incent a noticing requirements to incorporate regulations that modify zoning not noticing procedures for zoning atlas amendments in accordance with house bill 24 and dealing with related matters. So this text amendment again comes as a result of a house bill being passed. Currently uh when someone wants to come before this board with a uh reszone request, we are required as per state law to send out uh legal notices by the mail and also publish it in the newspaper. For example, uh this house bill makes it to where municipalities must also post a physical sign uh at the property that is being requested to change zones. Uh this applies to individual zoning cases or even multiple lots that are being requested to be reszoned, such as the case for an entire subdivision that has multiple lots. In the event that the city wishes to reszone or a city initiated case that wishes to reszone the entire city, uh this house bill would not require the city to to literally go out to every parcel in in the city to place a a physical sign. Uh this would only apply to individual cases that come before this board and the city commission. Uh this house bill does stipulate certain dimensions that must be met. Those dimensions are 24 in by 48 in. Again, it must be placed at the property or it could also be placed at a at the at the

right ofway location. I if it's the case that it's addressing multiple lots um at once, the bill does not stipulate um this the language that must be used. It kind of leaves it flexible to the city to decide what to do. uh our city has been using it from the day that it was adopted. As you can see, some of these resoning cases presented today already had that physical sign. We are essentially just wanting to codify that to bring it into compliance and make it official. Um again, the text or the language that we're using uh in these public hearings, as you can see, is uh as an example in this presentation. Essentially, it has the date and time of the meeting, the location of the meeting, the request that is put on the agenda, and also some contact information if a property owner in that vicinity would have questions uh for staff to answer regarding that case. These are a few examples as you've already seen earlier in the meeting. This is the language itself that we are proposing to put into our UDC. At this time, staff is recommending approval of this text amendment. Close public comment. We have a first and a second motion to close public comments. All those in favor?

I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Commissioners have any questions? If not, I will entertain a motion. Motion to approve ordinance number two 523512 duties. We have a first and a second motion to approve ordinance number 2025-235-19 121. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Before you go on, yes ma'am.

I would like to take a five minute break, but I need a If you approve, if you agree, would someone make a motion? Second. We have a first and a second motion to take a fivem minute break. All those in favor? I. All those opposed be back in five minutes.

Yes, ma'am. What's my name?

touch it.

Yeah. Yep.

Want to make a motion to reconvene? I second. We have a first and a second motion to reconvene our meeting. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Meeting back in session. Thank you for that break. Public hearing and action. An ordinance number 2025-235.122 to amend the unified development code article 3 subdivision regulations section 3.1 general provisions subsection 3.1.3 subdivision policy to incorporate zoning requirements as a prerequisite to finalizing the planning process and dealing with related matters.

Thank you. uh this uh request or this text amendment um is actually coming not coming not as a result of a house bill being passed. Uh there is some history and as this board may remember uh there was a case a couple meetings ago that came before this board where there was already improvements in place uh and then they were requesting a reszoning uh be approved uh for what had already been done at that property. Uh there is history behind that. Mr. Martinez is more familiar with it. Uh where that previous property was within the ETJ and then they enexed and it caused an issue. What we're essentially trying to do through this text amendment is be proactive in making it so uh zoning is approved prior to any investment being made by a land developer. This would protect board both the board's authority and review process and the land owner from investing into something that may not get a zoning approval. Uh so that's essentially what we're trying to do and the text amendment is very minor in that change of the language but it would have very important um consequences or effects on how this board gets to review reasonzoning cases in the future. Um the example is shown on the slide here. Staff is recommending approval of this text amendment.

I second that motion. We have a first and a second motion to close public comments. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Motion carries. Does the board have any questions? If not, I'll

it really it's a case-byase basis, sir. Uh with subdivision processes, uh because of the boundaries and the the the scope of their projects. Uh but in theory, if a zoning has not been approved for that subdivision, it could potentially delay them. Could you give us some history, Martin, on what happened in that case? However, that's not the intent behind the text amendment here. Right. To to answer the immediate question, that is definitely not the intent. They can still submit concurrently both the subdivision and the reasonzoning request if if need be.

Yes, sir. However, um to not put any unnecessary pressure on the board, for example, you the planning and zoning commission that uh approve uh zoning changes to allow a use. We don't we don't want uh you guys to be in a position where there's already let's say a finalized subdivision like uh what happened a couple of months ago which is the reason why we're doing this text amendment where a subdivision was completely finalized and recorded and then they came to request a zoning change to accommodate the use and the density that they were proposing for that residential subdivision. And so it really in that particular scenario it forces the board to approve it because then if you don't approve it you'll be leaving a developer with uh a significant investment and with no way to get a return on that investment uh because the the use or the density would not be permitted. Um so in in that particular example uh the subdivision that we're referencing it started out in the ETJ. They wanted to move forward with the development while being reviewed by the county. Apparently, the county took a long time or was taking a very long time to review and once they were already quite uh far into the process, they decided to annex into the city because they were in a hurry to finalize this. The city's typically faster in review than the county. Uh we finished the review. We did tell them when you annex into the city, you automatically come in as agriculture, you need to let us know

what zoning designation you want so that we can uh run it concurrently with uh with the petition to annex. However, if we don't receive uh something in writing by the developer, we cannot act on their behalf because again it puts the city at uh in a position of liability. So, um it moved forward without petition from the developer. it was annexed as agriculture and therefore um when the subdivision was finalized it continued having the agriculture designation that did not allow for uh the density and the single family use that they were proposing. Um but again to answer your question, it's not intended to to uh to delay the process or add if we always when we review a subdivision, tell them up front what they need. That's part of uh the development process to have a meeting with us and and that way they know every everything that they will need to finalize the process. And um if because I cannot say that there won't be I cannot guarantee that but if there are delays it would be simply because the developer did not do their part to uh correctly move forward with the project. It should also be mentioned that this text amendment and most of or all of text amendments don't work uh retroactively. So this is for all future uh developments or requests moving forward.

Further questions? If not, I will entertain a motion. I motion to approve changes to ordinance 2025-235.122.

A second. We have a first and a second motion to approve ordinance number 2025-235.122. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Motion carries.

Public hearing in action on ordinance number 2025-235.123 to amend the unified development code article 5 supplemental regulations section 5.3 signs subsection 5.3.4. C.3. C. Polar [snorts] pylon sign to strengthen the definition of on premises pylon signs. Establish update updated size and elevation parameters, enhance limitations on illumination and changeable copy standards and dealing with related matters.

Good evening. Um so again the purpose of this is to establish new area and elevation parameters for on-remise polar pylon signs. Um the overall goal of this is to limit size and elevation to reduce sign and light pollution in our city. Um so again you know the purpose is a new framework for permissibility. um this greatly reduces the um total square footage that a uh a pylon or pole sign would be allowed. Um and the definition also expands a little bit more. So I'll go into more detail here. Um oh but just kind of backtracking a little bit. So the reason for the current provision, you know, is there was kind of like a intro uh case, you know, here at at Texas Southmost College uh back in 2022. Uh the property is zoned traditional neighborhood mixeduse. Um and at that time the sign was not permitted. Um the previous commission proposed a text amendment that allowed these in different districts. Um and so kind of going through that and what's been a result of that, you know, staff has gone back and made proposals for um for new onremise pylon sites. Um so this is a copy of the old UDC as it is. Um if you look closely, you'll see that the um the current definition is pretty minimal. It's about one sentence. Um, and the maximum allowed square footage is up to three square feet per linear foot of property frontage. So that's a maximum of 630 square feet that a polar pylon sign could be installed. The current provision has a limited definition of a polar pylon sign. And the maximum sign height is 85 ft on highways and 50 ft on major arterials. Currently, they're allowed in your uh traditional neighborhood mixed use, your traditional neighborhood corridor, corridor commercial, regional center, light industrial, and heavy industrial. Um, but they are only permitted along the frontage of highways and major arterials. Specific to the traditional neighborhood mixeduse district, they're only permitted along International Boulevard. So, that's specific to South Southmost College. Um, the rest of the

signs, they are permitted within those districts, but only along highways and major arterials. So this new um provision or proposal is to expand the definition of of what an on-remise pylon sign is. Um so it goes into a little bit more detail about the construction methods and materials that are used to anchor or support the um the sign. Um it also you know mentions that you know any type of changeable copy element like your electronic readers or your electronic signs have to be um compliant with the UDC and also the recommendations from uh text dot with this new provision. Um the only change as far as districts is it is no longer allowed in the uh traditional neighborhood corridor district. Um it's still allowed in the other districts. However, it still only applies to highways and major arterials. Um, one provision that we're that has been added and and is is up to the uh the council if they choose to accept the approval like that or choose to adjust it is the changeable copy. Um, so the changeable copy refers specifically to like the electronic readers, you know, on the pylon signs. So, at this time, what we're approved or of course staff is recommending approval of the request. Um, but it's up to the council if they would like to approve it with the changeable copy or without the changeable copy. Again, the changeable copy is, you know, those pretty bright electronic reader signs that you would see. If you don't allow the changeable copy, then they would not be allowed to put those as uh supplementary to a pylon sign, right? So, you're not denying them flat out. It's just somebody could not add on um an electronic component to it or or a reader board to like a multi-tenant sign, for example. Um you know again uh you know the proposed provisions go into um a smaller sign area. So in this case it would be 1.5 square ft uh of combined property

footage um and the maximum square footage would be 400 ft. So we're reducing the maximum from 630 to 400 ft. The maximum sign height would also be reduced. Um at a highway overpass for example it would be at 45 ft. At ground elevation it would be 35 ft. Um again, previously it would be 85 feet in in the old ordinance. Um and then on major arterials, the maximum sign height would be 30 feet. So we're greatly reducing, you know, the amount and and how big these signs can be along the areas. Um this required spacing remains the same. It should be um you know, about 200 feet apart at least. Um and then it goes into more detail about acceptable sign materials. Again, you know, those are more for uh like building code compliance, making sure that they're sturdy, that they're going to last, that the materials are rust proof, and of course that they're anchored by some kind of masonry or brick. Um yes, so staff is recommending approval of that ordinance. Close public hearing Second.

We have a first and a second motion to close public comments. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries. Commissioners have any further questions or any questions? Not I will entertain a motion.

Madam chair, I make a motion to approve as staff recommends. Second. We have a first and second motion to approve ordinance number 2025-235.123. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries.

Public hearing and action on ordinance number 2025-235.124 to amend the unified development code article 3 subdivision regulations section 3.1 general provisions subsection 3.1.5 exemptions to platting to incorporate plat exemption criteria for properties intended for single family use and dealing with related matters. So the the purpose of this amendment um is more specifically to reduce the time and financial burden um for single family property owners on single family lots. Um occasionally we will have uh people come in and and um you know request to either rebuild a single family home for whichever reason or maybe you know make a small expansion to it. Um come to find out that they'll have to subdivide the property to to bring it into compliance. So this provision uh would give the planning director the the capability to uh make somebody exempt from platting from from creating you know a one lot subdivision for their single family home provided that they meet the uh the criteria you know um that the subject property is and will be a single family residence. Um the residence is being rebuilt or remodeled due to unforeseen circumstances like a fire or flood damage. The subject property has active water and wastewater connection with an authorized utility provider has direct and independent access to water or wastewater or has a direct access or direct and independent access to wastewater. So if it has it's connected to the utilities, if it has a septic system, if it has a well, you know, those are things that would qualify for this exemption. Um also the boundary would be need to be verified um through a recording instrument such as a deed or a survey. Um, and access to the subject parcel will will remain, right? They'll need to provide access a minimum of 12 feet of rideway for an easement. Um, and at least a 30- foot wide uh easement to allow uh reasonable usage by passenger vehicles. So, a driveway, right? So, it' have to at least allow that. Um, and you

know, this again, you know, would apply only to single family to single family uses, right? If somebody wanted to convert it into a duplex, that would trigger, you know, the subdivision requirement because it's a change of use. Um yes and so uh staff is recommending approval of this amendment. So then anybody in within the city that the single family that their legal address I mean their legal description of their property is meets and bounds. This is what you're talking about.

Right. Right. If they can provide the survey that shows you know exactly where their property begins and ends. Um, you know, it's really again, you know, just to not have them, you know, require the whole subdivision requirement. We understand that it can get up there in price, you know, and with, um, you know, engineering costs going up over the years, you know, that's something that we want to consider and really preserve some of these, you know, longerstanding single family homes that are in our city.

Public comment. We have a first and a second motion to close public comments. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries. What is the wish of the commission? Do we have additional questions? I'll entertain a motion.

Motion to approve as staff recommends. We have a first and a second motion to approve ordinance number 2025-235.124. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion carries.

Public hearing in action on ordinance number 2025-235.125 to amend the unified development code article 4 zoning regulations section 4.4 land uses subsection 4.4.3.D D commercial uses autorelated sales and service to establish conditions and permit the sale of used motor vehicles under a franchise business model through a specific use permit within the identified zoning districts and dealing with related matters. So, uh, the purpose again, you know, of this amendment is to distinguish between your small independent-owned, non-franchiseed used motor vehicle sales, um, and your nationally recognized chain of used, uh, vehicle dealerships, uh, that operate, you know, more closely to like what you would see with a new car dealership. Um, just some rough example, you know, like think of like Carvana or CarMax, you know, where where they are used cars at the end of the day, but their business model kind of lends itself to more of of a new car dealership, right? They have their national branding. They have their own business model. They have um you know inventory that's constantly refreshed, right? So, you know, there's an obvious distinction between the two and and that's what this definition attempts to do is is distinguish those between the two. Um so, if you recall, you know, uh the council did approve um used car dealerships within a certain area, right? So they were constricted to um to South Padre Island Highway um and uh Southmost Road, right? And so what you see here on this map in that small little cutout is the concentration of these, you know, smaller scale used car dealerships that are still concentrated to that area. Um so this amendment is not going to change those uses. They're still going to be required or so be only permitted within that area. So they'll still be concentrated to that. What this does is it just draws that distinction between your franchise owned used car dealerships and your uh kind of independently owned car dealerships,

right? Um and so, you know, again, you do need a special use permit, you know, for either of these. Um and so what this text amendment does, you know, not only does it define it, um but it also requires a specific use permit within the corridor commercial regional center or light industrial zones. Um, so these motor vehicle sales, these largecale national chains would still require a special use permit. Um, but they can be beyond that, you know, small southmost or uh, South Padre Island Highway uh, group. Um, you know, some of the things that kind of stand out about the definition of these um, is there's a standardized sales process with these national chains. Um, there's um, their own branding. Um, they have um, a business model that's either franchised or not franchised. Um, and typically they they include um, you know, refreshed inventory, on-site customer service, um, and um, yeah, similar to those of a new car dealership, right? Whereas your um, independently owned, you know, don't necessarily have that business model. They're maybe not nationally recognized brands um, and they don't maybe not, you know, refresh their inventory as often, right? They'll sell sell what they can, you know, when they can. Um, so yeah, staff is is recommending approval of that. Um, so just a reminder, you know, council's approving the definition of of these franchise models. Um, and then they're also approving that they'll be permitted with a special use permit in those districts.

Thank you.

Motion to close public hearing. We have second. We have a first and second motion to close public comments. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Motion carries. Does the board have questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve staff recommendation. We have a first and a second motion to approve ordinance number 2025-235.125. All those in favor? I.

All those opposed? Motion carries. I think that's the end of our our uh items on the agenda before we uh adjourn. Today is uh Commissioner Oell's last day with us. His term has expired. I just want to publicly thank him for his years of service and his input and his insightfulness. We appreciate your time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's been an honor to serve with a with a with a whole bunch of commissioners over the years. I was appointed in 2019 by Mayor Mendes and reappointed by Commissioner Los Santos. So, I appreciate their vote of confidence. Um, I think everything's going to go well under your leadership, Madam Chair. Thank you. And, uh, if I can ever be of service for anybody here, uh, please don't be afraid to reach out. Um, to the PNZ staff, you guys are top-notch. Thank you so much for entertaining all my questions over the years. So, thank you so much. Other than that, thank you. God bless. Happy holidays, everyone. I'll uh I need a motion to adjurnn.

Second. We have a first and a second motion to adjurnn. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed. Meeting adjourns. 7:34 p.m. Thank you everyone.

Thank you. Have a great night. Ow. [music] [music] [music] Woo.

[music] [music] [music]