City Council - Regular Meeting

Coming up next on ECN, [music] a regularly scheduled meeting of your Edinburgh city council. on the council. Mayor Omar Ooaha, Mayor Prom David [music] Salasar, Council Member Dan Diaz, Council [music] Member Jason DeLeon, and Council Member Jerry Losano. [music] sitting in his adviserss, city [music] manager Myra Ayala and city attorney Josie Ramirez Solis. [music] And now, live from the Edinburgh City Hall, the Edinburgh City Council. [music] Time now is 6:01 p.m. and we're starting this uh regularly scheduled city council meeting. Uh looking around, I see that all members of council are present. So, we do have quorum. Uh if we can go to item 1A, prayer. We do have Mr. Pastor Colin Rodimel. Please come on up, sir. Let's pray. Dearly Father, we thank you God. We thank you for your goodness. We thank you for your faithfulness to us, Lord. And we thank you for the distinct privilege it is to get to serve your people in the city of Edinburgh. And so, Lord, in this day where we gather as a city um in support of our council, Lord, we pray that you would supply them with wisdom. Lord, I pray that you would bless them. God, I pray that you would help them to walk with integrity, to make choices that honor you and that that build up this city in the best way, God, to the glory of your name. Lord, we pray, God, that you would find in this city not just favor, but you would find

people, God, who are willing uh to hear your instruction and step forward in obedience, Lord. God, we pray asking your blessings in Jesus name. Amen. Amen. Thank you. Thank you. Uh if I can ask Council Member Dan Diaz to lead us in the pledge. Everybody stand please and move ahead here. Let's face the flag together with liberty and justice for all. All right, moving on. Item number two, uh, certification of public notice.

Yes, sir. Mayor, the meeting is posted in accordance to Texas Open Meetings Act on January 28, 2025 at 5:20 p.m., sir. Okay. Item three, the disclosure of conflict of interest. Yes, mayor. Under state law, a local government official is required to disclose a substantial interest for themselves or certain family members and abstain from voting on matters related to such a conflict. Are there any conflicts to disclose related to the pending matters on today's agenda? No, ma'am. Thank you.

Um, is that me? Item four, mayor's report. Just real quick on this one, uh, we concluded the Navy week last week. We had the United States Navy doing a number of different events throughout the city all week long. It was a phenomenal thing and I just want to thank all the residents for coming out to support the United States Navy. Uh they were blown away by the hospitality of Edinburg and South Texas and also a big thank you to the city staff for all that you did to get this together. It was not easy. There was a lot of planning and a lot that went behind the scenes to make sure that United States Navy week uh went smoothly. So, thank you so much, city staff, for putting that together. Can we all give them a round of applause, please? [applause]

All right. Um, moving on to item five, uh, proclamations and recognitions. Uh, let's start with item A.

Yes, sir. Mayor, presentation proclamation recognizing the Utrgbettos football team for their inaugural 2025 season. If you're here to receive the proclamation, if you can come up to the podium, I will now read the proclamation for the record. Utrgv Vakos football team. Whereas the Utrgv Vaker football team kicked off their inaugural 2025 season competing in the Southland Conference within the NCAA Division 1 Football Championship subdivision FCS FCS and quickly built a strong local following. And whereas they had exciting home game experiences, feature tailgating, pep rallies, and was broadcast on ESPN. The program averaged 12,539 fans per game, ranking 16th best in the FCS for average attendance. And we're under the leadership of President Dr. Guy Bailey, senior vice president, and director of athletics Chase Conch, and head coach Travis Bush, the Vaker football team achieved the most successful debut for startup FCS program in history. They had an overall record of 9-3, home record 70-0 undefeated at home, conference play 5-3 in the Southern Conference, a notable achievement for the first few FCS program to start from scratch in years. And whereas the entire team was instrumental to the historic 2025 inaugural season with key contributions on both offense and defense. Utrgv ranked six in the FCS for scoring, averaging 39.6 six points per game and led the nation in fewest fumbles lost, losing only one a muff punt the entire season. And whereas the program's first year achieved great success, including multiple players, earning all Southland Conference honors. Senior quarterback Eddie Lee Marberger was named Southland Conference of the Year. Wide receiver Tony Diaz was named freshman of the year. Offensive lineman Nick Hughes and pun punter Nathaniel Wallace Dilling are all conference second team offense selections. and junior defensive end box is an all-conference second team defense

selection. The seven honors are the fourth most of any team in the conference. And whereas Utrgv's first ever football season marked a new chapter for South Texas, this season represented opportunity, growth, community support, and the beginning of a tradition that brought students, families, alumni, and residents from across the valley to witness a historic moment and the birth of a new tradition. And whereas the Edinburgh city council would like to congratulate the University of Texas Real Grand Valley for the success of the Vaker football program in inauguration. Another for the mayor council of the city of Edinburgh. By the power of resident by law do hereby recognize the Utrgv vaker football team. [applause] [applause] I just want to say appreciate y'all and this has just been a been a storybook beginning and I've said it since day one. There's no better place to start college football in America than the real Grand Valley and right here in Edinburgh, Texas. Uh just can't thank the city of Edinburgh enough for everything you've done through the entire process to make this uh to make this happen, to bring football here and uh keep it here for a long time. So just proud to be a small piece of it. We're excited about the future and uh football is going to be around Edinburgh at the real Grand Valley for as long as it can. Thank you'all so much. [applause]

I think uh coach certainly said it best. Uh but thank you all so much for everything. Uh not just to the elected officials here uh but to the uh city uh hall staff. Uh what we were able to accomplish together this past fall was truly remarkable. I don't think we could have scripted it any better. But it starts with this guy here, a phenomenal leader for our young men and I have to add not just a nine and three record and all the success we saw on the field, a 3.1 GPA this fall in the classroom. And that's not something you see. [applause] Thank y'all for everything. We're about seven months to kick off for the next season. He's got a lot of work to do, so we're going to get back to campus and get after it. So, thank you all. Visa,

excellent. Well, if you could stick up stick around here just for a second, I think, you know, the council members have some things to say about this. Um, but this is a remarkable thing for the city of Edinburgh. It was a long time coming. Uh, and there was a lot of people involved in getting this program up and running um and and making it happen. I remember being out there for the first home game and just the magic of the tailgate atmosphere, the fans, uh, it really was electrifying. So, I really hope everybody who hasn't had a chance yet to get out to see a game make it a point to get out there in the fall because it is a fantastic experience. Very proud of everything that you've done for the city of Edinburgh, for the Rio Grand Valley, all the pride, right, that you have brought to this area. Undefeated at home, right, Fortress Edinburg. Uh, we got to come up with some nickname. Um, but it's an amazing thing what you've done. Thank you so much for all the effort. You've got an amazing team. You know, your athletic director, President Bailey, the RSC in the back. You all do wonderful things. Thank you all. [applause]

Yeah, to echo the mayor Chase great job in choosing the right coach for starters. Uh I have to recognize Terry, Representative Terry Canales, big big advocate for keeping this in the city of Edinburgh. We're glad it stayed here. We're glad it's going to be here for the future. It was so surreal to be there and see it for the very first time. Um I just couldn't believe we were there. literally starruck with the whole program. I was just floored. And there's still people that didn't get to see the game. So, everybody be ready for the next season. There are tickets available. Reach out to your friends and family. A lot of people have them. Thank you very much to all that attended. And we all say it. Friday night we're we're all rivals, but Saturday nights we rally the valley. Thank you very much everyone. [applause]

Yes. I just wanted to add to just want to say it was a great season. It was exciting to see it. I think uh the city of Edinburgh, not just just Edinburgh, but the whole valley coming together to just support a program that I think everybody was dying to have here in the in the RGV. So, thank you and congratulations on a great season and looking forward for many years to come. [applause] I just want to simply say uh you know this season was an amazing season that we had. Uh my ultimate goal is we need to get every single city to start painting their city orange because this is not just an Edinburg pride with the Utrgveteros. This is the real Grandandy Valley pride and we need to paint the whole Hago County orange and Cameron County. So that's all I want to say. Thank you. [applause]

I want to congratulate you guys on an awesome season. I wish you nothing but the best this upcoming season and looking at the guys that you brought in. Let's go. Excellent. Thank you all so much. Congratulations. [applause] All right. Okay. Next item we have is um um presentation on uh item B.

Presentation proclamation recognizing the legacy of coach David Chavana. If you're here to receive a proclamation, if you can come up to the podium. I will now read the proclamation for the record. Coach David Chavana. Whereas on September 23rd, 1952, coach David Chavana was born in Edinburgh to Jesus and Lydia Chavana. Coach Chavana lived in Edinburgh his entire life. In high school, he played baseball and graduated from Edinburgh High School, class of 1971. And where Coach Chavana married Gracie Chavana, and had two sons, Vito Chavana and Noah Chavana, and one grandson, Trey Chavana. At the age of 24, David began running as a way to improve his health and lose weight. He ran several marathons in New York, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio, and began questioning why races of this caliber were not being held in Edinburgh. And whereas 19 in 1982, Coach Chavana advocated to the Edinburgh Parks and Recreation Department to create a community competitive race in his hometown. In the fall of that year, Coach Chavana along with former parks and recreation director Frank Garza and local attorney Mick Sawyer began the development of a 6.2 mile race. The first All-America City 10K race was held in February 1983 with 253 participants. Now known as the David Chavana All-America City 10K, the race has grown to approximately 10,000 participants annually. And whereas that same year, Coach Chavana became an educator in the Edinburgh School District. As the years continued, he learned to sway back and forth from being a full-time educator to also being race director. And whereas in April of 1998, coach David Chavana was appointed to the All-America City All-America 10K advisory board. His unwavering service led to his appointment as a tenure member on April 5th, 2022. And whereas in 2002, a fundra was created for younger children because coach Chavana and members of the planning committee noticed that the children couldn't keep up with the adults. Uh David Chavanas said the Edinburgh 10K was all about family and the miracle mile was added to the race for those with special needs wheelchairs

or walkers. And whereas in 2012 he decided to retire as race director to focus on family but stated the Edinburgh 10K will always be part of me was the heart of the event was always there at the finish line to congratulate runners and encourage the next generation. And whereas the number A, 2018, in honor of Coach Chavana's dedication, the Edinburgh city council approved a resolution renaming the Edinburgh All-America City 10K to the Edinburgh All-America City David Chavana 10K run walk. And whereas on December 27, 2025, Coach David Chavana passed away at the age of 73, the community mourns the loss of an icon, a true legend. And whereas beyond the race, as a dedicated educator at Edinburgh North High School, forever a Cougar, he made a lasting impact on so many. an icon whose life and leadership touch generations of students, staff, and community members. His legacy of health, service, and community spirit will continue to inspire us. Now, therefore, the mayor council of the city of Edinburgh by the private law do hereby recognize coach David Chavana. [applause] Um, in in addition to the uh city recognition, we also have uh State Representative Terry Canales uh who has uh his own recognition that he would like to present.

Mayor, City Council. So, I have a moment of personal privilege. So, I did not know David Chavan until I met him in 2012. And I know he ran the 2012 race because it was an election year and I thought it was a bright idea to put water in a table with water in the middle of the race. And I see this man that makes a quick U-turn all the while running and he never stopped running and he looks at me and says, "Don't ever do that again." [laughter] That was how I met David Chavana. But after that, he was always a dear friend and a icon. And so um in memory of David and in honor of David, we passed a resolution. And I'd love it if I could read it to you. It says, "Whereas the citizens of Eddieberg lost a community icon with the passing of David Chavana on December 27th, 2025 at the age of 73. And whereas the son of Jesus Chavana and Lydia Vasquez Chavana, David Chavana was born in Edinburgh on September 23rd, 1952. And he grew up with the championship of four siblings, Jesus, Himedana, and Norma. And whereas in the course of a rewarding career that spanned more than three decades, Mr. Chavana served as a teacher and a track coach at Edinburgh North High School in the Edinburgh Consolidated Independ Independent School District. Always greeting people with a smile and a handshake. He was respected for his leadership and his willingness to help others. And whereas Coach Shavana further benefited his community as a co-founder and organizer of the Dave Chevan All-American City 10K and Fun Run, which was established in 1983 and renamed in his honor in 2019. Since its inception, the race has grown to become one of the largest running events in South Texas. And whereas in all his endeavors, Mr. Chavana enjoyed the love and support of his wife of 29 years, Graciella Chavana. He was a proud father of two sons, Vto and Noah. And through the years, his cherished family grew to include a grandson, Trey, in his leisured hours, he delighted in running, reading, and spending time with his loved ones. And whereas although the loss of David Chavana is keenly felt by all those who were privileged to share in his life, his legacy will remain a source of inspiration in the years to come. Now therefore, be it resolved by

the Texas House of Representatives, that a tribute be paid to the memory of David Arnold Chavana, and that the sincere condolences be extended to the members of his family, to his wife, Graciella Moreno Chavana, to his sons, Vto Chavana, and his and his and I'm sorry, excuse me, and his um to his siblings, Jesus, Jose Chavana, and his wife, Na Haime Chavana, and and his wife, Marisa, Diana Gara, and her husband, Domingo, and Norma Guusman and her husband Joe, to his nieces and nephews, and to all his other relatives and friends, signed by the Texas House of Representatives. It's my honor to present it to you. And we've also got a flag that was flown over the Texas State Capital in his honor. [applause] And if we may, we'd be honored to come down and take a photo with you. shirt.

Today Feel free. of course.

That's right. My toes. We can see right here. Bless you guys. [applause]

I will I'll just say something. Yes, please.

Uh, I just wanted to say to thank you, Mayor Oaha, the city council, and Mr. Teranales for honoring my husband this way. Um, he will be missed. I know if he were here, he'd probably uh say these three things. He would start off with one of his corny jokes, and he would tell everyone that his name, David H. Chavana, had more A's in it than he ever made in high school. and I never told him, but that was my favorite joke of his. Um, the second thing he would say is how much he loved this city and this community for always supporting and loving him through all these years. And I know the third thing he would say is Puro Edinburg. So again, thank you for honoring Dave. The Chavana family truly appreciates it. Thank you. Have a good evening. [applause] We we are just so thrilled uh that we could recognize Mr. Travana tonight. Uh and I I personally am so happy that the race that is to honor him is going to be the largest what we've ever had in city's history this coming weekend. Uh we verified Yes. Thank you. [applause] As of yesterday, we had over 10,500 signes. So, we'll see how much more we can get. Tomorrow is the last day to sign up. So, if you haven't signed up, everybody, please make sure to do that. Um, but you know, Mr. Chavana, David Chavana, he was Puro Edinburg, right? Aside from saying it, he himself was he gave his heart to this community. He did so much for everybody, the youth. Um, I've known him since I was a little kid. Uh, and he was always just the sweetest man. So, thank you so much for sharing with him with the community. I know it's a sacrifice on your part, too. Uh, and in addition to David Javana, the Javana family in general is Puro Edinburg. We love you guys and all the contributions that you all do.

Gracie and I just want to say behind every great man there's a great woman. Thank you for always supporting him. Um, I met him during elections, you know, other other people running and just, you know, would talk about the race. And it wasn't until I ran that I called him and asked him for support and he said, "Well, you have you have to go through my wife." And I didn't know who his wife was, but I've known Gracie probably 30 years. For those that don't know, she's been taking care of very sick babies for the last 30 or 40 years at McKela Medical Center, the NICU department. And I've known her for so long, I just never put it together. And so when he told me, I said, I think I might have your support, David. But thank you for everything you've done. I'm so glad that the city has honored a man like him, the parks and recck department, everybody that that does such a great job year after year. But thank you, Gracie, for all your support. [applause] [applause] All right, the um uh next item that we have for item C, there was actually a scheduling conflict, so that will not be tonight. That will be uh actually in two weeks at the next city council meeting. All right, moving on to item six, public comments. Any public comments, Madam Secretary?

Yes, sir. Mayor, the Adam City Council allows for specific portion of the city council meeting to be dedicated to public comments. Public comments are limited to three minutes. I will be taking time. Please note the public comment period is not interactive. The council may not respond to public comments. At this time, council, there are three public comments. The first public comment is Miss Fern McCclarity regarding taxpayers money. Good evening, gentlemen. I am here to say that every 12 months our property values increase. The city is just one of the taxing entities we have and without your understanding the financial limits of the families who live here. This council needs to understand that the more you take, the poorer families become. 30% of our families live in poverty and they do not get an annual salary increase. Why is that so difficult to understand? The ma the majors the majority of our families are just like everyone else. They want the American dream. No matter how small or rund down it is, they put up a fence and call it home. They cannot do that if the city keeps selling bonds and increasing the taxes. How does this council make it more difficult to live here? They increased the water rates by 67%. They gave away $10 million to DHR and then they had to sell bonds to supplement the solid waste department. This is like getting a bank loan for $20. In 2021, the city sold $23 million in bonds for the purpose of improving the downtown. Every one of the projects

exceeded its budget and left $6 million for the building of a downtown parking garage. It is going to be interesting to see how that works out because I believe it's already over budget. I am also concerned about the variances considered by this council tonight. This purpose of an ordinance is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents. If the council approves a variance, it says you do not have to comply with with the orders that everyone else must obey. So, what happens to the objective of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public? There are some comments about the city starting its own emergency medical transportation service. Keep your eyes on the ball. All you got to do is look at Mission and some of the other cities and they're going in the hole. The problem is water. It is not infrastructure. There are also some comments about a new library and information center. Gentlemen, the city hall is three blocks away from the University of Texas. the largest group of young computer geniuses. Why start our own? Let's use them. They're there for us. And I hope tonight that everyone remembers and thanks uh Israel that they got all the um the the men, the young man finally came back the hostage. And I'm so thankful and I hope that everyone keeps praying for Israel and for our country right now. Do I do these?

Uh yes. They're not public hearing items. So, you should do them now.

Well, that's what I'm waiting. She going to put my time up. All right. I have these are all variances tonight. And I'm hoping that tonight that the department head will explain uh what the first one is 8A. It says staff recommends denial of the variance requested including a blocked link make a blocked length making it difficult for emergency services to reach there. I would like uh someone to explain why you would want to do this. Why again why do we have ordinance and y'all keep changing them for certain ones and I would like to know about that one. And then also there is uh 8B. Same thing. The staff recommended dying the variance and asked for the applicant complying with the current UDC [clears throat] and all the requirements that it calls for. Again, why do y'all make these rules and ordinances and then go, well, you don't have to abide by it. And the last one is 8D. This one again, the staff recommends denial of the six variances. If uh approved, the applicant would need to comply with all other requirements during the permit process. I have no problems with people looking at things, but why do we have rules? I know that when I had rules with my two sons, uh they knew what the rules were, and I'm just wondering how the city changes. So, I'm hoping that the department head or someone will answer these questions cuz I got several people that called about it. Thank you. The next public comment is June Job regarding too many tanks.

Thank you for allowing us to speak. My husband and I moved here probably 30 years ago because the valley looked so inviting. We live on Orange Avenue. We have four properties on Orange Avenue. We bought it for clean air out of the city limits. And we became part of the city limits. And we didn't know it was part of the city limits until the sewer come down the street. And they said, "Well, everybody's been notified." No one was notified that we we're part of the city limits. And now I understand we've got 54 houses in our area going to be built, but the worst part is more fuel tanks. We have these bombs just across the road from all of us. We couldn't sell our houses if we wanted to. when they come into Orange Avenue and see all of these tanks. There's five right there by the highway. You're a you're asking for more uh 22 acres more. So, no telling how much. At the last meeting, uh, someone mentioned one of the tanks or not tanks, uh, the fuel um, y'all can see it, the fuel thing. And someone said, "Oh, I think it's about three feet wide." That's not three feet wide. that burns most of the time and that's right in our neighborhood. I do

not know what all this burning in there, but I don't think it's just trash. It's polluting our air and now you want to put many more tanks and no telling how many more of these fuel these burners. Uh, I don't know the city ordinances, but I've never lived anywhere where fuel tanks were legal in the city limits, especially in South Texas where there's so much acreage not being used. I think it's a health problem to all of us. And I would like the people to consider moving these fuel tanks or the new ones anyway somewhere else instead of just building more and more in our city and not helping us. And this is my daughter that's also on Orange Avenue. Our daughter-in-law.

Yes. I live uh in Norwich Avenue and I live in front of the tanks and lately ma'am are you are you uh Terry Joe? Yes ma'am. Okay, I'll start your tank. I'm sorry. Uh lately we having a lot of allergies every day. Every day me and my family and I talked to the neighbors and the neighbor said, "Yes, I wonder. I don't know why we having a lot of allergies." And one of the neighbors says, "I get up early in the morning and I put my clothes outside in the in the in the line. You see, my clothes smell like a gas. I don't know. Could be those things. And that's not a good It's not healthy for us. Thank you. Thank you.

There. No further public comments, M. Okay. With no further public comments, we will move on to item seven, which is the public hearings. Um, at this time we will open the public hearings on all items A, B, C, D, E, and F. Uh, if there are any those who wish to make a public comment on any of these agenda items, please come up to the front.

Okay. Good evening. I'm asking the council to table the resoning request for public hearing 7B at 500 West Engle Road and take a deeper, more comprehensive look before making a decision that will reshape this part of Edinburgh's small community. This is not a routine zoning case. It is a major upzoning from residential to industrial general immediately adjacent to established neighborhoods. Industrial general is the highest intensity industrial category in the city zoning code and approving it at this location places homes at a disadvantage and even dangerous. There will be fuel storage, chemical handling, heavy truck operations and 24hour activity. All of this, all of which will increase air, light, noise, and runoff water pollution for this neighborhood. Additional tanks, increased truck traffic, and higher intensity industrial activity can proceed without further public hearings without a traffic impact study and without any environmental or hazard mitigation review. The critical decision point is the reasonzoning itself. These are not abstract measurements. They represent families who will live with the consequences of your decision. The planning and zoning commission approved this request without a traffic impact study, without a hazard buffer analysis, and without any modeling of fire risk, vapor dispersion or emergency access questions which should have been asked. I asked you to review the video of the PNZ meeting as I did and listen to the resident comments and the reasoning for the PNZ votes. And as I

recall, Mr. Asda stated all of this in-depth analysis will be done during the building permit phase. But will all these analysis be completed then and how will the public interact with its decisions? Then the question before you is straightforward. Does this resoning expose nearby residents and what are the necessary facts? I urge the council to table this item and require a full compatibility review per the request of the residents. We will appear before the PANZ and are here tonight. Request the data, traffic analysis, safety buffers, and emissions or hazard modeling. And please do not rely on TCEQ, which has been called the reluctant regulatory agency by the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission. In addition, couldn't the IG zones be moved out further to the ETJ or further from established neighborhoods and stick with a consistent zoning plan instead of the current Swiss cheese method of zoning changes in different areas, poking holes in different zones with no clarity for residents. Thank you.

[applause]

Good evening. My name is Oralia Rodriguez and I live on Orange Avenue. Uh the address is 305 West Orange and u my concern here is as much as the lady has stated we all of us on Orange is a dead street and we are going to be sandwiched between two industrial locations. It's like being in a rock between a rocket and a heart place. The hard place would be the tanks. There's 22 acres more. Totally hazardous. Would you like to be sleeping next to a pump, a gas pump? And don't light a cigarette and don't answer your cell phone or don't call because it might explode. this this area other than affecting Orange extremely from odors, gas, heavy traffic, everything in general, there is no buffer probably that would be established. No matter what the city would be saying at at a permit stage or otherwise, it is hazardous to the people that have made Orange their home. Now, when the first tanks came in, this was way back and they basically said it would be like a convenience store for selling gas. You know, we could go get the milk and everything, but this time it's 22 acres. The the properties but up against each other. There's no there's not even an alley. and Engle Road. Since the tanks were put in, the first tanks, you can go down Engle Road. The city of Edinburgh has not made any improvements on Engle Road.

The revenue that they generate from these tanks being there, who knows where it goes, but it's not on Engle Road. And now 22 more acres of tanks. What do you We on Orange don't even have street lights. totally dark if you go into orange. Orange doesn't even have a good rote. So now you bring this well we give this company okay so they can put we can it's an all good rosy kind of feeling for the city but you forget about the neighbors who've been there for many many years and have a big investments. A lot of my neighbors are here. They're all here and they all want to talk. They have big investments in their homes and in their business. I have a business 305. Who do you think's going to want to buy it? I want to sell other neighbors. They want eventually want to sell their properties. But when they see the tanks that [snorts] will be there, you know, you're you're robbing us of the investment we've made and the a profit that we could at least have in the future. That's all I've got to say. [applause] Good evening. Uh Houston KEK with New Star Logistics and uh senior manager environmental compliance. And then

uh Brian Pots U senior project engineer.

Uh so just wanted to specifically address the concerns about the environmental issues here. uh we will be getting all our permits through you know whether it be TCQ uh we have done the air permitting um additionally we are looking at you know there's OSHA that regulates this facility as well um there's something called process safety management that we're subject to uh that will dictate the safety requirements of how we operate this facility and we'll be regul regulated by them as well uh additionally we're also uh regulated by uh EPA on certain different levels uh so you can just see that there's multiple layers of, you know, safety and environmental protections here associated with this project. Um, additionally, I would I would add like this current scope of the project is just two tanks that we're looking to construct here. Um, you have anything else to add?

Uh, yeah. I mean, basically, we'd only be utilizing about 2.2 acres of the property at this time. Um, you know, as the area continues to grow, it's going to need more fuel, and that's what Newar does. We bring fuel to the area. um to allow the the community to grow and prosper. Um and we you know our goal is to do it in the most safe and reliable manner possible. Um and that's the goal of this project as well.

Yeah. And to our knowledge, we're not aware of any current like any historical incidents at this facility. Um and then additionally like we recently um upgraded our vapor combuster device to a vapor recovery unit. Uh so rather than actually combusting those you know they previously showed the picture of the vapor combuster device uh we now recover those um and then return that as a product stream. Uh so a more efficient unit from an air mission perspective. Uh and then I would also add that you know we're subject to NFPA as well. So the National Fire Protection Association and we have to go through sighting studies through the PSM. We have to go through uh the NFPA reviews and things like that. So I mean we are you know working through all the permitting and and the process to ensure that this is a safe and reliable fuel terminal.

How long how long have these uh I guess tanks been outside been there? I believe the um terminal was built in the mid 90s over what 20 30 years I guess 30 years. So you're trying to add two more correct? Yes sir. Were residential homes around there already built there when when the tanks were originally there? Were were there any houses around there at that time? I can't for certainly answer that question. I can I could confirm it though.

Okay. And now as far as safety concerns, um is is it polluting any type of these tanks polluting any type of the area there with with the gas because the gas is in the tanks or anything? So our our tanks do have emissions from them. Uh but they are allowed I mean there's that's what the permitting process is for through the TCQ which is subject to EPA oversight. Um so there are certain dimminimous like thresholds that were allowed to per you know emit. So there are emissions but they're within the what TCQ and EPA you know deem as allowable to human health.

And how far are they going to be away from the homes with these new two tanks that are coming up? Um, so the the two tanks are going to be as close to our the existing property line as we can get them. Um, I think they're within 300 ft of the existing property line. So, you're going to try to get them as close as you can to the other tanks. Correct. Correct.

Okay. And what is the future of of this development that you're trying to do? So, they're saying 22 acres. Where are they getting the 22 acres from? So the the entirety of the property is 22 acres. This project would only util utilize uh 2.2 acres of it. Uh there's no current project or plans for the remainder of the So what is the business concept of this plan? What what what is it exactly does it entail? So essentially um it will allow us to bring between two and a half to three million additional gallons of gasoline to the area. Um,

so you have a lot of like truckers that come in and they they fill up there or

So the the facility is primarily fed by pipeline. Um, so the majority of the product that comes into the facility is by pipeline. Uh, this project will also have some trucks coming in. Um, we also have a pipeline that goes to Haringen and then to Brownsville. And so this project would feed the entire region. it wouldn't just be this specific site. So, as the entire region grows, you know, the fuel would be able to be spread out across the entire region. So, when you're out there, do you smell gasoline anywhere in that area or is it to the point where residents can smell it in their household?

None that I've ever smelled. No. And I would to answer your question about the additional trucks. So, this is a a butane project, not a not actual gasoline project. So we simply offsetting the gasoline that's coming into our facility via pipeline. So like the actual truck traffic exiting our exiting our facility taking that gas to the local gas stations would not inc we're not expecting an increase there. Thank you

gentlemen. A few questions. Um the first question I have immediately is why don't why not put the two tanks in the existing property now that I know that the other property next to it is yours? um just you know spacing between tanks. So as Houston mentioned uh we're going through a facility sighting study and and basically what we're doing there is we're looking at the locations of tanks of pumps of you know all the equipment uh buildings that have occupancy for personnel. Um we're looking at all of those things that um approximate approx proximity to 281, you know, Interstate 69 and and so we're taking all of those u items into consideration to to site these.

Right. And um listening to the to the neighbors concerns, have you ever had any formal complaints filed against your company on the existing uh property or the uh business you have there? None. None that I'm aware of. And you said that this is to help bring uh fuel to the area. How how does your project benefit the area, right? Yeah. So, basically uh like I said, this project will allow uh two and a half to three million gallons of gasoline to be brought to the area every year. So, you know, as demand increases, as the area grows, um

so it's just uh more supply for the area, correct? Um, I I always try to, you know, balance the concerns of development and the the neighbors. So, have you ever reached out to the neighbors or the neighborhood to try and work something out? Because right away, I think what's alarming is not only what's going there, but also changing 22 acres. What if you changed two acres? what have you reached out to them because you're saying you're only going to put two acres of tanks where there's a happy medium that you guys can accomplish your task and also have the neighborhood have some say and have some at least some peace of mind. Oh, we have not reached out to this point. Um

or maybe move one tank to your existing property and then only need one acre. Something something that that we could work out with the neighbors. So, we we would want to keep the tanks together. you know, they'll um we'll be offloading butane into them. So, so having them together and and also it, you know, minimizes the area that that that hazard uh presents itself at. And what's your what's your plan for the remaining 20 acres? There currently is not a plan. Um the the property was purchased many years ago um without, you know, a specific plan in mind for it. Um and and so this project is utilizing the amount of the property that that it needs.

Would you be amidable to meeting with the residents and trying to work something out? Um we wouldn't be opposed to it. I mean I I to be honest, I don't have that authority. I would need to go back to and discuss with our management. But I mean I could take that request back.

That's all I have. Thank you. Um, so not to get kind of put the app before the cart, uh, I just want to understand kind of this this process and maybe Hime, our planning and zoning director kind of help with this discussion too. So right now what's in front of us, we're not we're not here to approve the project. We're here to talk about the zoning right of these 22 acres that are adjacent to the existing facility. Um, so this is not so e if even if this were to pass, we're not approving the project itself. So I think so fir first I think what I want to understand maybe from you all is what happens um what what is the process for you all to construct what it is that you intend to do what's the review what's the public participation in all of that I if you are aware

well I mean there's we have the state permits where we are you know preparing and submitting um through the permit process that we're going through right now with the state there is no public you know comment period on that on that piece. And then from the local perspective, right, we would obviously, you know, this is the first step before we submit, you know, a a building permit through the city of Edinburgh and work through all the different, you know, the fire studies, the safety studies, and things like that through the through the actual building permit process. Right. Could you talk a little bit about that what that process is from the city side?

Yes, mayor. Hi, Miss Planning and Zoning Director. For the record, um, at this time, you're correct. This is strictly a resoning we're considering here tonight. Uh they own the whole 22 acres. So they're applying for the whole 22 acres to be reszoned. But once the resoning is approved, the next step would be to come in with a set of plans. And like with every other project, staff would get an opportunity to look at what's being proposed. Uh we would meet with the fire department, with um with fire marshall's office, we would meet with solid waste, with building permits and planning staff and the engineering department, and we'll take a look at it. And uh if everything meets uh the city guidelines, then a permit would be issued. But um this is just a resoning at this time.

Yeah. Okay. And um like I said, for for me, it was really important just kind of understand what it is that we're doing because I do I do see that um what's being proposed to be resoned is is literally adjacent to an already existing industrial zone. Is that right? That's correct, Mayor. This is an area that's got a mixture of zonings. There's industrial to the north, industrial to the south. Uh there's a lot of industrial to the south, as a matter of fact. Yeah. I mean, it's the it's the industrial park, right? That's

nearby. [clears throat] Yes. So, uh it is in an area and that's why staff recommended favorably because uh even uh the residents that came up here tonight mentioned that they own commercial property on the south side. So, there is a mixture on that street of both houses and commercial businesses. Um so, it's like a mixture. And the future land use map does um say that this area should be commercial in nature. So we recommend it for it. PNZ did vote for two against though.

Okay. In terms of um if if any if any portion of the industrial um I guess zone now buts are residential. Is there some type of a wall requirement? Is there some type of buffer requirement between the two zones?

Absolutely. Uh anytime you have industrial next to a residential zone, we require a solid masonry buffer as well as a landscape buffer uh of an open gap between any structures and the rear wall that is to be built. Plus, we also try to work with the developers, try to mitigate with them and try to come up with the best area for these tanks. I mean, we would meet with them and see if they can put them closer to the other street on the north side and not so close to the far back. So, those are all things we can we can take a look at once they apply for a building permit, right? Okay.

So, if this is approved, uh, will you all I want, if this is approved, um, I want to make sure that you all are going to go and speak with every residents, making sure in that area, making sure that they're okay and know exactly what you're doing and getting the staff's input would be highly uh, appreciative on that. Like, so we can all know what they're what's getting done. I think they were probably under the assumption that you were going to do 22 acres of it. And if you're doing two acres, that's a little bit different as far as uh uh you know, they're probably think you're going to, you know, building a huge bunch of tanks everywhere, but I would definitely think I don't I don't know what way it's going to go, but if it does, just make sure that everything is approved uh with staff and I would highly want you to recommend to get the the residents input and making sure they're comfortable with that as well. And at the end of the day, I think it should still be brought back to us. Correct. Not necessarily. Once the resoning is approved, the building permits don't come back. What would come back um to the PNZ would be the subdivision part if it needs to be platted.

So, right. Okay. Any other questions? No. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Um public hearing is still open. Uh so if there are any additional comments on items A, B, C, D, E, or F, come step up to the podium.

Good evening. Um letter E, the res um consider consider the ordinance for the resing of property 1021 Sundance Drive. Right now it's currently listed as agriculture. I think it's a mistake. It's in a residential subdivision. Uh I'm supposed to build a house for my client on the property. Um he's been paying residential taxes, but it's marked agriculture. So if it could be considered to be changed to residential, it is again in a subdivision where there's a bunch of houses. I think it's just a paper mistake. You can fix it. Thank you.

Yeah, there's a historical reason for that. um you when when the city you know first annexes property and it doesn't come in with the zoning the base level is agriculture. So if the city annex this at some point in the past when annexing was actually a thing it's not anymore um then it would have come in as agriculture and if it never had any remodeling if it never had any building on top of it would never need necessarily the reasonzoning. So this is in line with all of that historical practice and I can see actually that at least two properties in here have done just that. It looks like there were homes that were built on these two lots and that required them to change the zoning on those. So, yeah, we understand. Thank you. Did you have something, sir?

Yeah. Come on up, please. I thought you might need to come in on that.

Uh again, I'm on on B. Uh, I am a resident of and homeowner on on Orange Avenue and uh, I understand you all had a question about where were their homes before they built in the late 90s, I think they're saying. Yes, there definitely was. Uh, my mother-in-law lived there almost 50 years. Uh, so we're on her lot now. Uh, so I built a a brand new house, finished it in 2023. And uh, so the majority of what's on Orange Avenue is still residential. There is some grandfathered in what you would consider commercial. And there's some other people that are looking to try to do some other commercial. Even the lot right next to me needs, somebody's wanting to build a few warehouses. uh to I guess lease out. I don't think he's ever followed through, but I don't know. But uh just to answer that one question, there's definitely been houses before it was city limits. It was county I assume and uh many people live there and uh they probably couldn't do anything about those things going in uh other than going to county and but it that probably all took place before they ever knew it was going to happen. I heard some people saying that they were told it was like a filling station. Well, yeah, it's a filling station. All right. with billions of gallons of or however many gallons it is. Uh the other thing I'd like to add to what's been said tonight is okay, you he's bought 20 something acres. Well, most anybody if if I bought

20 lots and I'm only building two houses, I'm going to build more houses eventually. they're they're going to utilize that 20 acres, you know, 10 years from now, 20 years from now, and it'll be easy because it's already been approved. It already has been zoned. So, they'll be able to put as many tanks as they want that they can fit on those acres. So, just because they're only needing two acres right now doesn't mean that stops the whole process or even changes it for that matter. It's still reszoning. And the heaviest point I want to mark out is the way it's when you c call it industrial. Well, you know, I I like to emphasize it's heavy industrial. It's dangerous industrial. It's it's like building a SpaceX pad out here. You know, that's that's more than what's to the south of us. to the south of us is FedEx and and and some uh produce companies and some stuff like that. There's no hazardous stuff going on there. There's a little bit of noise, a little bit of traffic. Yes. Yes. But I don't have to worry about something blowing up on us. And so my concern is please don't give this an approval of reszoning just because there's other industrial. There's nothing like that type of industrial anywhere near you and it shouldn't be in the city limit. Obviously you can't do anything about the tanks that are already there, but you can certainly stop the flow from this point on. Looks like they've already done all their underground piping because they've been putting pipes in for the last year. So they they're already thinking it's all approved and

don't know quite where you stand, but it feels like you're you're in favor of all this. I don't hear any uh you know concerns other than Yeah. I wish there was a big fence, maybe 20 foot tall big fence between them and us. But the main thing is is it's how heavy of an industrial it is and it shouldn't be considered lightly when I was here a few weeks back. Uh you know, they've just made it sound like, oh, it's a it's a storage facility. Well, when I hear it's a storage facility, it sounds like there's a warehouse with big boxes or pallets or something like that. That's not what they're storing. They're storing extremely flammable material and they're continually moving it in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out. I don't know how the process works and I don't really care. I just don't want it in my neighborhood. And uh we if I got a little more time uh if you did uh approve it, then obviously we would expect the city to do something for the roads, something for fire protection at the property line. Uh as many things as as they could do to help that, but the damage would already be done as far as a property owner is concerned. And I'm a property owner. uh you know that new house will not hold its value if this kind of industrial keeps coming in. The industrial park on the southside is not considered heavy industrial that I understand. You may be able to correct me there. Industrial.

It's industrial but it's not something you can put a gas tank on. All right. It had to be reszone to be the heavy general indust. It is just curious. All right. Anything else, sir? No. Thank you. Thank you very much. [applause]

I'm not sure. Sure. I wished you would show things up there, but I think each of you should go over there and ask the people what time or if there's certain time of day that they smell this or it's out there. Uh to me, it sounds dangerous and you know full well when you all okay this tonight if you do, they're going to do more tanks. They're going to do whatever cuz it's it's done. So like he said, they they don't come back to y'all. So you have a chance to either table it or don't pass it and go and check it out yourselves cuz how would you like your families and I said I don't know where it's at but just listening to this is making me sick just thinking about it again it's the people that live in Edinburgh need to check y'all need to check it out. You kill them off they won't be able to vote for you next time. So let's see if we can't help them and y'all go out there and check it yourself. Thank you. [applause]

Uh public hearing is still open. If there's any other comments on items A, B, C, D, E, or F. Okay. Seeing no other comments, we will close the public hearing. Um at this point, uh council, if there are any motions, we could take uh items individually or all in one or however motion you would like to make. Make a motion to approve A through F. Uh approve all agenda items. There's a motion to approve items A through F. Second. There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Could we pull B out for discussion? We have a motion on the floor. Okay.

All right. Any discussion on on B? I would rather be able to table to consider the smaller reasonzoning to talk with the residents. Uh sometimes it's hard for people to get the the letter, but we started a process a few years ago where we put a sign so you can know what's going on there. Um and I'd love for the residents to be able to have a discussion with the developers to not kill the project or maybe scale it down and also give the residents a buffer they might want. Sometimes developers have discussed um a walkway, something what whatever. I'm not saying that would work, but at least they have some discussion. Um, versus it getting reszoned right away, the whole 20 plus acres.

22.

And I agree on that. Even though the motion's on the floor, I do think the I do want the the business to go out there and speak to the residents and and I know that this is just the reasoning part of things. Yeah, I know they still got to do the whole due diligence and the process of that. I just want to make this very clear. This is just the resoning. This is not anything that has to do with safety concerns or anything that this is strictly just the resoning of the of the land. Uh we will definitely make sure that all protocols are followed and uh I do want the the res the residents to be included in these plans as well. Uh that way their concerns are are met. And and the other comment I have is there's some things I wanted to discuss and that I am for in the in items A through F, but all at once I I it might change my vote and but I do have some that I was for. Just want to say that for the record.

All right. And I'll I'll jump in on this too just to be transparent with my thoughts on this as well. Um, it would be one thing if this was a request to to um to change the zoning um of a um of land that's adjacent to a residential area where there was no industrial anywhere around it. All right, that I think would be a really easy no. But I think it's just really clear that this is an industrial zone. Uh and it's grown up to be that way. Even if you look on Orange Avenue itself, uh the the lot there are lots on this street that are zoned industrial. I see for example a lot with R&D logistics is is zoned industrial. Um and so uh when you're looking at this from a pure land use standpoint I think it's pretty clear right that this uh area is is is for industrial uses. Um you know it's it seems like okay you do have it up. Uh it seems like maybe you know some of these areas are in uh the areas that are residential right now maybe perhaps are in transition. Um, but the fact that we're looking at land use, um, and what this part of the city is for, I mean, it's it's pretty clear, right, that it's industrial uses kind of all the way around. And when I look at it that way, I think it keeps it keeps the idea, or I guess the matter pretty simple. Now, in terms of what's going to go out there, is it safe, is it not safe, there's processes for all of that. And that's where I land uh on this, right? If we're looking at this strictly from a land use standpoint and that's all the decision is, we're not permitting anything, we're not granting any permissions in any way, there's still a lot of process that goes on, there's still opportunity for the residents to engage uh with the developer uh to ensure a safety to understand what those safety measures are. Um and so that's that's where I am at on this issue.

So H a question on that. So resoning happens um and they move forward with their project. Is there any stop other stop gaps that the city will have for this project? Um during the plotting process, I mean you guys are going to get another opportunity or the planning and zoning will get another another opportunity to look at what is being proposed. Um but if everything meets code, um

it's hard to Yeah. and and I recognize uh this is obviously at the outer limits of our city limits [clears throat] and and it's it's encompassed by industrial um I just I I can't ignore the resident's concerns and um that's all I have on that. Any other questions or discussion? All right, there's a motion and a second to pass items A through F. All those in favor raise your right hand. All those opposed. All right. Motion passes. Moving on to item 8A. Uh secretary can read the caption.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. Consider variance request to the city's unified development code article 3 section 3.102-B3 table 3.102-1 single family detached lots and building standard for rear yard setback and article 5 section 5.206A 206A blocks for Sapphire at Lassienna phase 2 subdivision as described located at 4498 Lassienna Parkway as requested by Melden and Hunt. All right. Is there a motion on this item? Motion to approve. Second. There's a motion to approve and a second. Uh discussion.

Yes. So, uh on this particular item, there's two variance requests is my understanding. That's correct, mayor. And what is the city's uh what is the staff's recommendation? Is it the same for both? Is it different for one or the other? Our recommendation was for denial. Uh PNZ did approve it 6. Okay. The recommendation was denial of both variance requests. Correct. From staff, it was denial. Correct. Correct. Yes. Okay. Can you explain that a little bit? Just lay out for us like what these variance requests are and the basis for the staffs.

So A and 8B are kind of identical. It's phase two and phase three of the subdivisions. they're abudding each other. Uh and it was the same request for both of them. They requested to have a 10-ft rear setback. Uh reducing the the buildable area from uh we typically require a 10 uh 20 foot rear setback. Uh they want a smaller backyard. They want to be able to build up to the 10 foot uh from the property line. So, uh that hasn't been the Edinburgh way. The Edinburgh way is always have has been to be uh to have a bigger backyard. However, their their argument is that times are changing. uh lots lots are getting more expensive. So they want to maximize the buildable area. These are smaller lots. So they're requesting a 10-ft rear setback. Uh the other variance was to have the block length exceeded from 1,000 ft, which is what the UDC requires to 1655 in in one case and 1772 in the other case. So their argument is that they're curved streets. So being that they're curved, it's going to slow down traffic. Um but um we don't want to set a precedence. We want to keep uh them to be at a thousand.

Yeah. It's just safer. Okay. So if just if I can understand it um or just confirm my understanding, the first one related to the setback, the reason for the request is to have a larger home on the property. Correct. Okay. um what what is happening in the market right in ter in terms of this because um I I would think people still want backyards but but what what is happening maybe I'm just not I'm not in the business I'm not as attuned

we're starting to see a trend for smaller homes uh see smaller lots I'm sorry um so they're trying to get more creative because land is expensive so we're starting to see garden homes uh in the past the typical lot was 60 by 100 and now what we're starting to see is a request for lots to be like 38 ft wide by 80 ft deep. Mhm. So, not even 4 4,000 ft, under 4,000 square ft. So, what's happening is that they're having to go up, they're having to go twotory.

Um because once you consider your front setback at 18 to the garage, 20 to your front door, it kind of pushes the home back 20 ft. You've already lost 20 ft in the front. Um so, if the lots are only 70, you only have 50 to work with. And then if you have a 20 foot setback in the back, you can only do like a 30 foot deep home. So that's why they're they're asking for a variance to have a deeper home. Um and it's probably going to be a two-story home. Mhm. So that they can maximize the space of the

Okay. I mean, you know, so I you a developer wanting to have a larger home on a property uh that's not safe is not in my opinion is not really a great idea. But if it's if it's in response to a market, there's an actual demand for it, it's not unsafe, other cities are doing it, that I think would require or at least, you know, lead us to potentially change our zoning rules, right? So I I I would much rather address things in a systematic way saying, okay, um, yes, you can go ahead and um, you know, build with a 10 foot instead of a 20 foot, but then so can everybody else, right, if that's what the market is asking for. But can you comment on that a little bit? Where's that going?

Yeah, actually there's been a push by the by the state for us for for cities and municipalities to participate in smaller homes, smaller lots. Okay. Uh there's even an initiative for tiny homes where you have like a 400 foot tiny home. Um we we haven't implemented that here in Edinburgh. So you're right. I mean any changes would would I mean any transitions to those smaller homes would require changes to the unified development codes. Is is there I'm sorry I keep going the microphone. I got one more question. Is there is do you have a an opinion on can somebody comment on the safety of having a 10-ft setback versus a 20 foot setback?

That would be more of a fire department call um because I know it's a it's a they don't want a fire to spread from one lot to the other. So they typically ask for a minimum of a 10-ft separation. Um so yeah, I don't know if the fire chief is here to answer that one. He's

in the back. Good evening, Mayor Troa and uh city council home mark as a fire chief for the record. So on the on the the one we really look at is more on the side setbacks and according to UDC code that gives us kind of this particular type of construction or setting gives us the the I guess allowance to go from a 5ft to a six foot from a 6ft to a 5ft side setback. Uh so when we do that when we do go to a 5ft side setback and certain conditions that we require that the overhang or the eve of the home that protrudes into that setback that that be protected. So long as they're doing that, then we're we're pretty much comfortable with it. So we're more looking from the on the side step back then from the front of home to the other side of the from the other home. So that's what we kind of look at in this particular project.

Um we we should be okay. We we feel comfortable with it. So as long as they build it to code and they meet building code at that part of the house is being protected and rated, uh the windows are offset, uh we should be we should be okay with it. Okay. I'm sorry, Mayor Bert. No, I was just going to say I was I agree with you, mayor, as far as I think we do need to look at all our variances and everything that ordinances to kind of make it unified for everybody because I am seeing that other cities are adjusting theirs and I think that's hasn't been touched in a while. So,

okay. Yeah, I I would agree, right? I mean, if this is a thing uh that the market is moving towards, if safety is okay within certain rules, then we should make sure all the rules are written that way, right? that it's that it is allowed, but you have to do X, Y, and Z to keep it safe. And we started gathering data from other cities to see what our neighboring cities have been doing. Uh we're compiling that data and uh we're going to be recommending some changes to the unified development code in the next couple of months. Okay. Any other questions on the first variance? Because there is a second one.

Okay. Now on the second variance, um my understanding right is that this is this this has to do with the length of the street and how far um how far someone has to travel, right, to get kind of from one end to the other.

Well, typically we like to see a break in between streets so we can put some stop signs. It helps to slow traffic down. Um when you have a long stretch, typically what you see is people's speed because there's no stops or breaks in the streets. So, um, we have capped it at a thousand. That's what the Unified Development Code requires. After a thousand feet, you're required to have a break, put a stop sign, slow traffic down. He's requesting 1655. Now, they are proposing possibly doing some speed bumps to help slow down traffic. Uh, it is a private and gated subdivision. So, that would be at their cost if they do go that route. So, if we were to add this to our a motion, uh, they would they would have to put the speed bumps in there on their cost. Correct.

Correct. You can make that as part of the of the motion. I don't know if the council would be open to making the motion with adding the speed bumps in there. I [snorts] know there's already there any other streets longer than that in that subdivision in that area, in that development longer than 1,000 ft. Yeah. If there is, they would have had to have gone through the same process. Um, so question I have again is is safety related, right? So the street being so long, how does that affect first responders, emergency responders where where there's no break? I I can't answer for the first responders. Yeah.

[snorts]

Um, so on this situation, it, like I said, really didn't hinder us. I mean, we're more looking at when we're looking at ISO rating and and uh we're more looking at the distance from the station to the location, right? So, we get rated on how far that one house is from like three and a half miles, 5 miles. Once it goes to the 5 mile line, then that kind of affects our response time. So, uh, if the street is windy, I mean, as long as it's within that radius of the fire station, uh, which is that 5 mile radius for a pumper and 2 and a half miles radius for a ladder truck, uh, we should be okay to respond to there. And this actually has, uh, I think multiple ways to get in there. So, there's at least two or three entrances to get into that subdivision. So, I don't see it hindering response. Uh, now traffic and all the other stuff, that's not my my deal. But actually to respond there, I I wouldn't say it would hinder us getting there any faster or any slower. And then

like like I say, it's more if it's further out, then it's more of a it's going to hinder our response, right, to get there. But um I don't think it would hinder anything right now the way it is, the way the layout is. Okay. Uh let me ask this. Is this something we would be willing to standardize that we're going to allow every developer now to have 1,600 feet without a break? My my thinking is probably not. I would uh recommend against it, right? Uh we used to be at 7 or 800 feet. We upped it to to a,000. Mhm. So

yeah. Yeah. I mean, so for so for me that's that's telling, right? If this is not the type of variance that we would want to adopt as a rule, then there's something wrong with the variance. I mean a question. They they have a phase one of this development and these are the similar variances that were approved before. I don't recall off the top of my head uh councilman if we applied for any or if they applied for any variances for phase one. I I just remember the winding roads and kind of the same the same uh layout the same design in this phase. Um yeah. Can anybody answer that?

Mara within and Hunt. So as Mr. Dan Diaz was mentioning we did get these exact same variances approved for phase one. Uh this was always master planned as a true master plan subdivision phase one two and three.

Um and as fire marsh as fire chief was mentioning we do have two entrances to the subdivision off the boulevard which we are extending for Lassienna Boulevard. Right. So we've already extended phase one which was for phase one of this subdivision. We are in the works of extending for phase two which is meant to service phase two and three for this master plan subdivision. uh they have to answer one of their his points. Fire station number five, if I'm not mistaken, is just north of this area for Lassienna. Um and I think one of the other questions that was mentioned before, not in phase one has a longer block length than what phase two and three does. And in Lassienna area, if I can zoom out on the

on the map, um there is two other developments that have longer block lengths uh due to their design. So you have silos at Lassienna here. If you take what block lengths are directly from this culde-sac all the way to this other culde-sac, it's about 2,800 feet in distance. And that's it block length for that one. So that one's a lot longer. As you can see, it's also more pronounced in the way that it winds in the road. Ours is a lot less at 1600 and 1700. Our curves are not that pronounced as well. So the traffic calming that we mentioned is due to that. We reduce it in uh to be kind of in accordance, right? We're not trying to abuse what the block length is meant to be. We're trying to really give one aesthetically, two, our lot pitch for the for the subdivision and then our utilities for the subdivision as well. Right? There's always several aspects that we aim for whenever we're designing a subdivision. Um the other subdivision in this same almost a budding to it um is the coes at uh Lassienna. So from this culde-sac all the way to the rear of the subdivision is also just over 2,000 ft in block length which exceeds already. So it's already set precedent in this area of the city of this development. And so I think if you were to ask the citizens or residents that live there, they all like Lassienna. Lassienna is one of the fastest growing areas of the city. The Cove is is one of those. Silos is another one of those. Water lily is another one of those. Sapphire just this subdivision it's one of the fastest growing and most aesthetically pleasing subdivisions or developments of the city. Um one of the other points we do have you know walking trails that are planned in this amenities that are planned in this um one of the walking trails actually goes through the middle. So, there is already anticipated, as we mentioned, and we're working this out with staff,

uh, anticipated traffic calming measures because there's going to be crosswalks right through the center. This indention that you see right here is the largest part of the common area for phase one, and that trail continues north and connects to phase two and phase three. So, obviously, we don't want a drag strip going on those long roads that we're exceeding blocking. Um, but the the main purpose is like I mentioned either drainage, utilities, uh, or just the overall aesthetics of the subdivision. So, I don't know if y'all have any other questions for for us at the time.

So, if if this were to get approved, uh, you know, I I'm okay with it, but I I just want to make sure we have speed bumps in it. as far as that, as far as for me personally, uh I I just think it is a long road and and I know you're going to we're going to be getting a lot of complaints on traffic flow and all that. So, I think that's something that I would ask council to reconsider their motion and just add the speed bumps for for the phases. I know I don't I I'm I'm remembering we approved the first phase one and we didn't add speed bumps on that one.

No, we don't we don't currently have any. We are planning to add some both to phase one, two, and three. Um, for the same reason that I just mentioned, right? We have that walking trail that goes through the rear of the lots on phase one on the south side, connects to that common area in the middle, continues to go north. So, naturally, we'd want to have some sort of traffic control at that point for them to be able to slow down to allow that traffic, that walking pedestrian traffic to go through the subdivision. So, Hime, if if this were to get approved, HM, do we need to make a motion to approve it with speed bumps right now, or is that something that you would take care of on your end at the end during the the No, we would we would need to do it now. It's best if you in include it in the motion. So, mayor, I'm going to go ahead and amend my motion.

Well, let's let's finish the discussion first before we get into voting and then we'll resort. I I want to say that I agree on the speed bumps, but I our current code for street length that depicts straight street length, correct? And in this case, it's not straight. It there's actually curves and turns. Uh it's not a drag strip, which which is what the variant or what is what the code is supposed to uh uh keep from happening. Correct. It's not your typical street. It's not a straight shot. Correct. And so with that thought, is there is the street long enough in the code before it does some sort of a curve or a turn? No. Thank you. It curves on on one of the ends. Correct. Thanks.

We've been seeing a lot of these subdivisions from I want to say is it uh Esparansa too? I think they've been they I've been seeing a lot I even saw in Westlico too. they're getting very unique with the designs of these trails and these these uh these subdivisions that I'm noticing that. So, it's not as uncommon as, you know, as we think here in the city because they're already here. It's just a matter of of uh we're going to be seeing more and more of them. That's what it's looking like where I guess where it's going towards. Yeah. Um, I'm not against windy roads, but all you got to do is cut a path, right, to connect one of the windy roads to the other windy road, right?

How how difficult is that or what does that do to the development by doing that? Yeah. [snorts] Sorry.

Guess the the biggest impact that you see, one, uh you don't always see stop signs or two-way stops or four-way stops being as effective as you really mean them to be. Um they tend to be ran a lot of the time. Um but the other thing, as I was mentioning earlier, is kind of like your your storm and drainage for the site. it would impact it and uh in this situation the way that the community was master planned to have those amenity areas through the middle um that's where it really disrupts it right um that's really the Espiransa homes and and roads enterprises they really focus on on their amenities for the sites and their subdivision developments um and so that's something where where they provided here right instead of having a road through the middle they provided the amenity area through the middle uh to be able to create some of that traffic calming in that sense Um, but yes, I mean the way that you mentioned it, if you were to just place a rail down it, uh, the biggest impact is utilities and storm, uh, having to redesign that portion to be able to fit it, uh, possibly changes your your lot arrangement for the for the subdivision. Um, but those are really the the key points, right? Uh being that we had already master planned this development with phase one in that amenity area, that's the biggest disruption at this stage for phase two and three.

Uh Still Water Cove, that one is the same type of layout too as well. Uh correct.

Yeah. Everything. So most of Lassienna except for I mean even these are are kind of curved on this side. They're not exactly straight roads. Um, but the biggest ones would be silos, water lily, and still water are the ones that have the the the winding roads in in this situation. And they all have, you know, green areas uh and they're either in the center of the lots or the road kind of divides and they have green areas like an island uh in them to provide for for more trees and that nature in the development. And so that's the same thing that developers trying to do here. uh within those uh common areas or amenity areas, they have a clubhouse, they have playscapes, they have a walking trail. Uh that walking trail is actually meant to connect with VA, which is a development south that got recorded already as well. Um so they they really see this as a whole, not just peace meeting uh as other developments might do.

Oh, no. No. I've seen it's a beautiful the way y'all have made that area to be. It's very, very beautiful. Any other discussion? Okay. At this point, I think you wanted to revise your motion. I would I would suggest if you're up for it. It's your motion. Uh taking them one by one. Okay. So, I'll go ahead and So, I need to retract my first motion, right? Okay. So, I make a motion to retract. Well, you don't have to make a motion. Just state it and then you can retract it then. Uh I do want to make a motion to approve the first one. All right. Motion. Motion to approve the first variance. Is there a second? And then I'll make a motion.

Yes. Hold on. One at one at a time. One time. Is there a second on the motion to approve the first variance? Second. Okay. Motion in a second. Um any discussion, questions? No. Only thing I'll say, right? Um like I said, if if 10 ft setback's good, we should be looking at our rules to revise so that we allow this to be a thing going forward. Okay. All right. All those in favor raise your right hand. All those opposed. All right. Motion passes. So on the second one, I want to make a motion to approve but to add uh speed bumps to it. Okay. There's a motion to approve uh the second variance but with the requirement that speed bumps be added to the road um pursuant to approval by a planning and zoning department.

Yes. Second. The engineering department preferably. Sorry. Okay. By the engineering department. Got it. Are you all clear on that? All right. So there's a motion and there's a second. Any questions or discussion? No, but I just want to make uh how would we make sure phase one gets these speed bumps as well. That would be up to the developer if he wants to to put them in. We can add it in this motion though, right? No, it's a private subdivision, but it's a whole another thing. Would y'all be open to making sure that phase one also has speed bumps as well?

Okay. I just want to make sure that it's consistent if we're going to do that, you know. Okay. All right. Um I I still think that the thousand foot rule is a good one. Uh and I do think that there is at least some type of safety concern when you have a long street like this that's hard to navigate through. Um so I I would prefer, right, that we not that we not grant this variance. Um, if we do grant the variance, then again, I I would like for the staff to look at, is there a way to commonize this? Um, is it a windy road makes it easier to have a longer block length than a straight road? I don't think that's what we're trying to get at, but if it is right, then we should revise the rule.

We'll do that. All right. Other discussion. All right. All those in favor of the motion, raise your right hand. All those opposed. Motion passes. [snorts] Okay, moving on to item B. And I think this is identical, correct? That's correct, Mayor. Uh 8B is identical to AA. Same requests. All right. Is there a motion? I make a motion to to approve just like we did in the first one, which is to approve the first one the way it did the first variance and then on the second variance, they also do the same thing to require speed bumps.

Okay. There's a motion to approve the variance uh the first variance request and a motion to approve the second v variance request with the condition uh that speed bumps be uh added uh at the subject to the approval of the engineering department. Second. All right. Motion and a second. Uh any discussion? All those in favor raise your right hand. All those opposed. Motion passes. All right. Item C,

consider various requests to the city's unified development code, article 3, section 3.202, table 3.202-1, minimum lot area and lot width for King's Landing subdivision as described located at 2700 West Wisconsin Road is requested by Kintina Headley and Associates. All right. Is there a motion on this item? Motion to approve to approve. Motion to approve and a second. Uh any discussion? Same thing on this one, right? Um this seems pretty reasonable to me too. Um it's a it's a commercial uh property and all those things, but if the if the request for the variance makes sense to recodify so that others can do the same thing, then we should do that. We'll do that, Mayor.

Okay. Because there's no there's no safety concerns, there's no public there's no public issue, health, whatever concerns. What is it they're doing? It seems to fit right the the market that they're trying to satisfy. That's correct. Okay. All right. There's a motion in a second. All those in favor, raise your right hand. All those opposed. Same sign. All right. Motion carries. Item D. Uh my understanding on item D is that there was uh discussion earlier today between the requesttor and the city. There may be some type of agreement perhaps. Um but the the the paperwork, the summary and the recommendation does not currently reflect those discussions. Is all of this accurate?

That's correct. Mayor, we made some um I guess we you don't have to get into the subject of it. Just confirm. Yes, because we we don't have a motion yet, so we can't really get into Yes, Mayor. We did into the motion of it. We [snorts] did meet with the engineer and one of the developers and we did discuss possibly some changes to what's being presented tonight. Okay. So that that being the case, um we may want to table this uh so that we can finalize whatever it is that discussions happening um and make sure we get a full record um and uh u recommendation that applies to whatever the discussions are. If council wants to continue uh to learn all about this for the first time tonight uh and see how it goes, you're more than welcome to, but I think tableabling would be appropriate. All that said, is there a motion from the council?

Uh can we make a motion to suspend the rules? Yes. Motion to suspend the rule so we can discuss without a motion. All right. Uh all those in favor raise your right hand. All those opposed. Okay. Motion. The rules are suspended so we can discuss now without Hey, what were the changes from the variances?

So the first one for the variance number one to have a 40ft rideway instead of the required 50ft rideway. Um the engineer record brought a new exhibit showing the way the water lines are going to be laid out, the way the sewer lines are going to be laid out, how it everything is going to be um laid out there on site uh within that 40ft section of rideway and how it's going to impact the lots both on on both sides. So that wasn't an exhibit that we had in the past. Um actually our utilities department was kind of okay with the exhibit uh that was presented. I was not okay with it. I still preferred to have the 50 foot rideaway. Uh but um the consensus was that it would work. So that's a new exhibit that they're they were going to hand out here.

Can they speak on it briefly? Who's uh who would be the one to speak on that part? Jerry or Jerry? Either or or both. Good evening, mayor and council. Herado Carmona, director utilities.

So, basically on the exhibit that they're providing is that they were able to push back uh I think the setback for the garage was 18 ft, right? I mean, and then the front uh setback for the home is going to be about 20 ft. So, um what they're proposing is to uh uh install the utilities 3T within that 15t utilities. Right. So we did this we did have the conversation with the engineer and the developer about the other utilities as to what is it going to be where can they put these uh other utilities right like uh spectrum AT&T um I believe there's also gas in the area um and especially power right that's one of the main concerns now uh for this uh we are going to have sufficient area within the the u utilities eman right and and some of the concerns were that the foundation was going to be too close to to the uh to our utilities, right? Where we could potentially get into a situation where they, you know, the owner can claim uh or make several claims and then uh you know, we could we can be in a uh lawsuit or some sort right. Um now by them reducing the rideway um again our utilities are within water and sewer are within the easements right now removing that reducing the rightway does does give us less room to work with right um obviously whenever we go out there and we respond to some kind of leak uh the more room that we have the better um in this situation the sidewalk is going to go adjacent or is going to go into the utilities so probably have to be a sidewalk and utilities. Um, could we make it work? Yes. But, uh, um, again, in the situation, I guess depending on the leak, uh, that we have or the type of repair, it could potentially where we have to maybe break

the sidewalk or maybe even cut into the street. Right now, when we have to go out there and stage the area, put our equipment, we're probably going to have to put all of our equipment uh, within this street. Okay. So, are you okay with it or you're not okay with it? It's not the ideal situation, but it will work compared to the last the the current variance that is there. Yes, sir. Because it will work because we can put equipment in the street. Yes, that's what you're saying. Yes. And it's and that's the ideal situation or solution, but

it's not the ideal situation, right? But uh the one of the main things that I believe from last time, correct me if I'm wrong, but uh the foundation or the homes were going to be closer to the to utilities. So in this in in this case, they they kind of moved that back, which uh helps us out a lot. How often do you run into these same scenarios in other subdivisions? Currently,

we do run into it. Um quite often especially with Vexes run you know uh doing all these improvements they have been breaking our our water services or actually even boring into sewer lines and manholes uh very frequently. Um, but as a matter of fact, you know, like to answer your question, we run into it all the time, right? Um, it does make it a lot difficult for for staff to, you know, to uh make repairs whenever you have the the power line right next to it, right? Um, so it again, the the more room that we have to be able to work with, uh, it makes it makes it easier and a lot safer for our staff to to to make those repairs. Thank you.

Which variance is that? Of the six, which one? The very first one, mayor. The one on the street right away with Uhhuh. of going from a 50ft rightway to a 40ft rideway. Mhm. Now, uh what Jerry was alluding to was the front setback of the town home. If you build a town home or if you have a property zone town home, you could have a 10-ft front setback. Uh that's standard. You don't have to get a variance. You can build a a town home 10 ft from the property line. the developer and the engineer have agreed to push it back to 20 ft giving us the additional room to work with. So what is the agreement on what would the the the agreement change on this variance be

that now they're they've agreed to um within that rideway that is left they've pushed the set back of the building to 20 ft instead of 10 giving us more ample room in the front property line to work on on the utilities. And where where is that recorded? That it would have to be a plat note. Have to be a plat note. Okay. Do we have the plat with that note? A draft of the plat with that note? No. No. Okay. And what was the other changes that they made?

Uh the other changes were initially they were going to show 34t lots, now they're 38 foot lots. Uh they also agreed to um the buildings having a 6 foot or 12t separation from one to the other. Uh they had requested a variance to be at 5 ft uh for a total of 10 ft and uh they agreed to have a side setback from one building to another at 12 ft. Now the way they're proposing it is a little different. They're proposing zero on one side and 12 in the other. Uh but the end result is still the same where you get 12 feet from one building to the other. So which variance is that? That would be variance number four to have a five foot side setback instead of the UDC required six foot side setback.

So I guess maybe we should just take this one variance at a time then. Uh wait, hold on. I'm sorry. Just which which variance was that that you talked about with the with the agreement that you just It's the one that uh variance table one 3102-1. It's the fourth one down of the list. And now, and now what? Now what? What? Huh? Instead of having a 5 foot and 5 foot u for a total separation of 10 feet from one building to the other, they've agreed to have a 10 a 12t separation between buildings. Um, but the way that they're requesting it is they want one side to be at zero and the other side to be at 12 ft. Is that something we would have to write in to the varian?

That's something that you would have to write in. Do we have do you have like a draft text? Yeah. So, we don't even know what we're voting on. We don't we didn't put it in the write up. No.

Right. Yeah. And see, this is this is the concern that I have is we don't even know what we're voting on. And we can talk about these things, right? But what what's the what's the action actually going to be? I think is going to is going to end up being unclear. And I don't I don't want to spend two hours right now getting the specific verbiage on these variance requests so that we can make sure that the record is clear as to what action we're taking. So that's why I still I still think we should table this thing um so that the proper work can be done, the right writeup can be done, the recommendation can be made based off of whatever the agreements are and we know what actions we're taking uh on these. But again, that's just me. Hopefully not just me, but that's me. Mary, if I may, good evening. Ruben James Deus, uh, with Mother Hunt for the record.

Um, one thing, there's a few discussions going on and I think the the clearest way is to go through the variances one by one and I did prepare a presentation. We did submit um, our plat our plat that we want to move forward with that we presented at PNZ. We presented a plat with a 30 uh, well, let's go one by one. There is six variances on on the table. Um, we had presented a I'm sorry I don't mean to cut you off. So, you do want to go one by one. I think uh detailing them to the to the council. I think it'd be clear and understanding of what we're willing to commit to as a developer and an engineer.

Okay. All right. I I still urge council to really think about this, right? Because we still don't have the language that we're going to vote on. And are you proposing that we're going to be writing rewriting Well, that that's something that we would probably look at staff because we did submit um the new plant and I think in preparation to coming to this meeting uh what was discussed at P&Z probably should have been in the write up today. Um but I you know we didn't as far as working with staff we didn't present that or wasn't presented to you guys as the revisions to the to the request. Okay.

But it is it's been submitted. It's been talked about at PNZ. When was it submitted? Um, prior to the P&Z meeting. Okay. When was the PNZ meeting? It was January 8th. Okay. The Thursday. So there is documentation. There is submitts that have happened. So did did you have more discussions today with the staff in regards to so if I may at PNZ there is a split vote of 33 in regards [clears throat] to six variances.

Uh the first variance is to the lot size. Uh the variance that we're requesting is from 4,000 ft² to 3100 ft². Um the second variance is the lot width. What we presented and we submitted to staff is we're proposing a 38T lot versus what's required at a 40 foot uh requirement. The third variance is a 50-ft rideway which uh we originally presented uh 40ft rightway. That discussion happened today as far as uh utility placements um discussions with staff on there was concerns on a subdivision that we weren't part of that there was some infrastructure left too close to to buildings. All our original submitts had always set a 18T setback and today what we agreed to is going to a 20 foot um you know working with staff as far as a front setback. The fourth variance is on the buffer yard uh that was originally presented where as far as the requirement from the city there's a requirement that there's a block wall be placed between um town home residential to suburban residential and that block long block length is 13 1320 ft. Um, and for us that's impractical. And the reasons for that is because buffer yards are used be when there's a conflict between land uses. And the original request that we've always gone after is single family detached homes. The land use to the adjacent to us, it is um residential. Um, it's undeveloped. Um and at this moment I think we would be safe to say that moving forward any recommendation for resoning would be single family residential. So that is why that request there for buffer yard to be instead of block wall what is it wouldn't be a

conflict with single family would be a standard 6oot cedar fence which is what the developer is willing to do. The fifth um the fifth request was on the the setbacks which was discussed the the the fifth request and the sixth request are really caveats to your code. Um there's [snorts] footnotes in your code. This footnote on the setback, it's really deferred to the fire marshall to make the call on what's being built. There's a standard sixoot setback and we can go to 5 foot if we provide the fire rating walls. Uh the six one is also a caveat to your code. We went through the reszoning request from uh the current zoning to residential um town homes which we went through PNZ. We came to the council to get this uh zoned and the intent behind that is really public comments were notices were sent out. The joining land owner is in favor of this development and is looking for sanitary sewer connections which we've reached out to and are willing to connect her. without this development, she wouldn't she would still be on septic. So really the last two are caveats to your footnotes that are in your code. Um I think those are the six are presented. And I know it seems like a lot, but um you might ask me why so many, but as far as what we're asking for is not what it really is is I'm asking for form not versus functionality. working with staff. We've provided a I think a product that works for your staff. I think you've heard I think the fire marshall can also tell you and attest to you that we uh worked with him in the form of public safety. Uh it's being met, public infrastructure is being met. All engineering standards are being met. Um again, I go back to form not

functionality and that's what we're requesting today. We're requesting uh dimensional revisions, not uh functionality to what the intent is with single family uh dwellings. Um I did prepare a whole presentation for you guys which would probably clear this up. I know there's probably discussion about tableabling, but what I mentioned before when we go through these feasibility periods with developers, [snorts] time is of an essence. there's under contracts, they only have 60 days, sometimes maybe 90 days if they're lucky to get a feasibility study um through and and before they actually purchase the property. Uh

when is there when is the deadline for their that they need an answer for this? I understand how that that feasibility study works and all that. Uh it's a the Monday after Valentine's Day. So the 14th [cough] I think it was like the 16th I believe.

So if we don't approve something right now and all that, what happens then? So, you leave it up to maybe the seller to decide to do something else and keep the earnest money from the from all the work they've already done and decide to go with somebody else. Now, I can't tell you what the other person might do. They might come back with a different uh layout. Um, they can come back with a layout of 60 lots. Well, we're proposing 54. Working with staff, what we're what we're doing is single family detached. the the what we have now is a town home zoning which will allow for attached units and this would allow maybe 60 to 62 units on there work we've been working with staff this whole time and we've reduced the amount of units that we can do to 54 um so how long would it take I understand I don't want to delay any projects either uh if we table this item for right now and pick it up at the end of the meeting how long would it take for you to get it on paper all these changes that y'all made today that you all met today.

I think the reason working with staff was that uh my understanding and with him is that we you can approve them contingent to what we discussed and what was presented. Um and that's why I think we were working that in that correct but how long would it take to get it on paper? Um I believe we have it on some exhibits that we can give you guys. the way this is you guys have developed this in any other city would you have to have variances or is it just here?

Yeah, so in my presentation and I think the mayor was alluding to this earlier um the state really did pass a new law into effect. Um let me pull it up and it's called state senate bill 15. Um this was passed last September and it's in effect now. Now, I presented it at PNG and really it's the intent behind it. Um, it doesn't apply to Edenburg uh in a sense because this Senate bill is for municipalities that are over 150,000. Edinburgh is just shy of that. I would say closer to 110,000. Um and the intent for that is that uh that no municipality can adopt or enforce an ordinance rule or other measures that require residential lot to be larger than 3,000 ft u wider than 30 feet 35 ft or 30 ft um and not deeper than 75. Now to answer your question um at me as an engineer we work with other municipalities as well. So, when we're looking at a feasibility study, presenting something to to our client, um your neighboring city as far as doing this, uh they allow for a 20 foot uh wide lot, a minimum of 2500 square foot lot. Uh Macallen as well is similar and not exactly the same. Um Mission Haringen Brown could go on and show all those uh codes. So yes, it does not apply to Edinburg as far as the Senate bill. It can't be enforced with you all. But the valley is really you can't just look at Edinburgh as one, right? You know, this I think the Senate bill the intent behind it is for growing communities for affordability is what they're trying to cater to. A new market is kind of what I believe the mayor was

kind of talking about. So, I do believe maybe Edinburgh should look at the current standards so that we can work together on some of the stuff that we're trying to bring to Edinburgh. Uh, the client's looking to develop or invest at least $1.5 million to this project that would generate over almost close to a million dollars over the next 10 years to the tax base to y'all's community. Um, and so I would like to if we could work something out tonight, it would help our client move forward with a decision to make on purchasing the property and making this project feasible for himself and the community.

It was only a few weeks ago, right, that we approved the resoning. Close to a month ago. Yeah. But at the time, your client hadn't bought it yet. They're under They're under contract to buy it. Okay. But we we agreed to reszone it. And to be fair to you all, you all told us from the very beginning you were going to come with a bunch of variances if we granted the reszoning. Um but but at the time that we granted the resoning, your client didn't even own the property yet. The owner of the property has signed an owner's authorization uh to the buyer to move forward with the project. So the the current owner knows of the project and is uh fully aware of what we're trying to do.

Yes. Um there's two options, the detached version and an attached version. Clearly stated from the beginning, what we're trying to do is single family uh to allow affordability to one structure of a property. Um and that's what we're working with. Uh we knew that we were probably going to have to come to variances if we really wanted that model. Uh we could go to a attached version with no variances and that could we would move forward with a development. But that's not the model that the developer wants nor staff is really liking as well. Um, so that's the history behind it.

And yes, 30 days ago, we do move pretty fast on on what we need to make decisions on and to the clients. And that's kind of why we're here today. I understand.

Yeah. I'll just remind council when we did this when we did the the resoning request right I I had urged us to not do it and to wait until we got a final submission on what it was that they wanted to do right before we would approve it but we council approved it anyway. Um and that's kind of one of the one of the issues right with not having everything kind of laid out when we're making these decisions. And so again I I think the better route to go on this is to table it. um wait until we get full information of what it is that we're taking action on. Um so that we so that we know what we're doing. Any other discussion?

There's no there's no action motion. Still open for discussion.

Hi ma'am. Um, obviously I understand they're in a feasibility study, so I'm I'm taking that into consideration. What can we do to expedite that because I know we we're we are time is uh, you know, it's it's we're time we they don't have any time, right? So, because our next council meeting is past their 14th deadline. So, so obviously they're relying on today to get an answer whether it's approved or denied. Uh, I do like that they came back and worked with you all after some of these variances and all that, but I do understand uh it's not on paper either, right? So, I can understand that point, too. You're going to prove something that you're just saying out loud. I guess this would be a question to our city attorney. What can we do to to grant their variances as discussed?

Approve with the contingencies. Yeah, with the contingencies. What would we be able to do on that? You would have to approve it with those conditions as stated in the record. Now, how would we be able to get it approve it like that but also somehow get it back to us after after today? That's it. Okay. But with approval, they they wouldn't be able to move forward, right? Unless you decide to table the item, right? PNZ PNZ would would get a crack at the plat. Uh and being that it's a plat that has variances, the mayor would sign off on the plat. Um But that would be the only way.

So what would be a motion if we would approve as whatever was what they discussed? And I wrote some down, but what was some of the things that that uh how would be able to make that motion? You would want to approve one at a time with the specific conditions that you're placing or the agreements. That's that's the way I would recommend it. So, make a motion to approve uh with the uh I would Yeah, I would recommend going one at a time with the specific conditions or agreements that have been made with staff.

I I don't know. I mean, I don't know what those are. That's between staff and and the developer at this point. So the first variance would be like to approve the variance as presented but with a 20 foot front setback. The one on the 40 foot rightway going to 50 foot because here it says 40 foot, right? So prove it at 40 ft with the understanding that the front setback for the town homes is going to be 20 ft.

So the 40 foot then requires the rightway width of 20 ft. No, the rideway is front step back of 20 ft. Front set back of 20 feet. Yeah, because the road is still going to be paved 32 feet back to back. Uh that doesn't change. What changes is the rideway that we have from the end of the curb to the front of the property line. Uh typically we have about 9 ft. This only gives us about 5T. So um but being that they're pushing the home back to 20 ft, um that's not something that is in the plat though. Um so they would need to revise the plat to reflect a front setback of 20 ft. to the primary structure.

So that would be part of the motion to approve the variance the first variance as presented uh with the understanding that the engineer uh and the developer have a 20 foot front set. Okay. I'll go ahead and make that motion as that presented. What's the motion? Sorry. Repeat that. To have a 40 foot rideway instead of a 50 foot rideaway. Uh with the understanding that there will be a plat uh with the front setback being at 20 ft to the primary structure. And that's for each lot. Each lot in the flat that the house has to be pushed back. Instead of 10 ft, it has to be pushed back 20 feet. confront that back.

All right. Um, do you want to restate the motion or how do we want to do this? This is tricky. This is difficult. Yeah. No, because there it makes it difficult because there there is a lot of errances. So, it doesn't make this. So, can you repeat? I think I think the way and and of course Josie can correct approve variance one with contingency as stated and you state the contingency. Okay. So correct. I'll make a motion to approve variance one with the contingency of state a 20 foot front set back to the primary structure as well as the plat requiring

the plat the plat requiring the to have a 20 foot front setback in on the plat. Okay. So that's my motion. 20 foot set back on each structure, each lot. That's going to be their front setback, 20 feet. You can't build a house 10 feet from the property line. You got to push it back 20 ft. So, the actual variance is going to be from a 50 to a 40 foot, right? Correct. With a condition that the platin note be placed limiting the front setback to 20t as stated.

Correct. And all right, so we have a motion. I'll second it. All right. Motion and a second discussion. Uh I'm I'm just glad it's town homes, not apartments. And so thank you for for working it out. I know it's confusing today and uh I know time is of the essence because we don't have a council meeting until past the the timeline for the developer. Um, and what's staff's recommendation on this with the condition? Our recommendation is for denial. And why is that?

Uh, one, it's going to likely set a precedence and we don't want to do that. Um and um it restricts the area where the utility lines are going to go and it's going to hinder the operation should they need to go in there and and make a repair, right? Yeah. Person, I don't think having equipment on the street, right, is the is the solution to not having a wide enough right away. Any other discussion? No. All right. All those in favor of the motion, raise your right hand. All those opposed. Motion passes.

Variance two. Variance 2 is to have a 2,844t lots instead of the required 4,000t lots of which is for detached homes. And um that one wouldn't have any changes. It would be stays as is. Stays as So there's a motion to approve no conditions. Is that right? That's correct. Yeah. All right. There's a motion. Second. Motion and a second. Discussion. What is staff's recommendation on this? Our recommendation is denial. The lots are too shallow.

Okay. To deny it because it makes the lots too shallow. And what's the what's the problem with that? I mean, typically it would require at least 100 feet, but the way that this subdivision is designed, uh, they're trying to get two rows of lots instead of just one row lot. Mhm. Thus creating shallower lots, right? Okay. Other discussion, questions?

No, I just want to make a note that this was something we spoke to at linked at at Pac, so I'm a little familiar with it and that's the only reason I would have more discussion. Same here. Um, uh, I know that we asked a lot of things for them to work with the engineers. Uh, one of the things I did mention, uh, I didn't hear it come back, but I asked for a, uh, one one, uh, one side collection of trash to kind of ease up the the traffic. Was that was that represented? That was discussed with the engineer record and uh, it wasn't something that they didn't go for an hour. I just thought I'd throw it out there. No, because we really did discuss this in great length and feedback. though. So, yes, that we did

and you're okay with the having a shallow lot. Well, I just think that with town homes, you're we're starting to see more town homes in our community and I think for the push away from multif family and and I think it's something that we're going to have to probably update our our UDC code and and that's something that I think we're going to actually be seeing more in our community because we're having to be more creative with the cost of lots going up and with the designs. I think we still need to work with the developers and not to mention how much land is right now. You know what I mean? uh if the land's going so high, so make it affordable for our residents to come in and move in our area. The tax dollars, I do think that's something that that uh we do need to work with uh our developers.

Okay, there's a motion and a second. All those in favor, raise your right hand. All those opposed. Motion passes. Third variance is to have a 38T wide lots instead of the UDC required 40 foot wide lots. Is it 30 foot? 38 instead of the required 40 foot lots. Okay. So, it says 36 right here in the packet that's available for the public, but it's 38. Yeah, I believe it leads us to 38. Correct. Submitted plan. We revised to 38. It was it starting, I think, at 34 and then 36. Now, it's at 38. So, they're getting closer to 40, but it's still not there. It's 24 in shy.

Um, no special conditions on this one. It would just be approved the way that it was presented. And what does that extra two feet do? It's closer to code. It's closer to code and it the lock configuration lends itself to that configuration 38 ft. And like I had mentioned, it's uh really what we're trying to do is achieve something uh feasible and econ economically feasible to to not just the client but to the the community. As stated, you know, Senate Bill 15 allows to go to 35. Yeah. It's it's the future of development. We just we don't have the population at this time. Okay.

All right. And what's staff's recommendation on this? This one, Mayor Bean, that they've lengthened it some. We would recommend approval of this variance. Okay. You're okay with the variance request at the 38T. They're okay. They're 24 in shy of what code requires. Okay. Discussion questions? No. All right. All those in favor of the motion, raise your right hand. All opposed. Motion passes. And just to make make it clear for the record, the request was for the 38 foot width, right? Not 36. Okay. Correct.

Then the fourth one is to have a 5-ft sight set back instead of the UDC required sixoot sight setback. Being that they're asking for zero and 12, this one would require the motion to to state the setbacks to be at zero on one side and 12 on the other. Explain that again please.

They're asking for a um initially in the variance they had requested to have 5 foot sight set back mean meaning that your side of the home needs to leave 5t to the side property line. Now they've agreed to keep it close to code. They're they're asking for zero on one side but 12 on the other side. So we're still going to have that separation of 12 ft from structure to structure. It's just going to be in a different form. It's going to be zero on one side and 12 on the other. Not six and six. Yeah. So, the one side is going to be right on the property line, right? But 12 ft away on the other side. Okay.

But then when the the other building on the on the opposite side is going to also have a 12t gap. So, there's going to be 12t gaps between all the structures. Okay. Any staff recommendation on that one? I'm okay with that one because it we're we're still at 12 feet from structure to structure. It's just oriented differently, but but the intent is still there to have that 12t gap. Okay. We didn't get a motion on this one yet, right? So, I'll make the motion to do a zero one side and 12t on the other. Second.

All right. Motion and a second. Any other discussion? All those in favor raise your right hand. All those opposed. Motion passes.

Variance number five. This is a variance that states that anytime you have a property that's zoned town homes next to residential suburban and it is zoned residential suburban to the east that your properties that your lots should uh meet the residential primary requirements which are a lot larger with than what they're proposing. Um the residential primary lot standards are 5,000 square foot lots, 50 feet wide and 20 feet front and rear setbacks with six foot side setbacks. Um this is a footnote that is in the UDC. Um but the property is own town homes. So um that's why they need a variance to exclude this footnote from consideration. Is there a motion?

Make the motion motion to to go what your their last conversation I guess because it's kind of confusing still between everything what was presented and what you guys have talked to you about. All right. Do you want to clarify what action you're you're if you can translate at least what what action the developer is asking for from council.

Well, there's there's a footnote in the UDC that requires the lots to be a certain measurement when they but residential suburban lots which are larger lots. Uh there's larger lots on the east side. There's one that's residential suburban. So, because there's that one lot, the UDC has a footnote that says that anything that's built on the town home properties must mimic a residential primary size lot, which is bigger, 5,000 foot lots. So, they're they're asking for that section or that footnote of the UDC to be excluded from consideration and that they be allowed to proceed with building the property that or the the plot the way that they're showing it. Obviously,

I was just going to state it or restate it. It's essentially um a waiver of the application of that footnote to their development. Okay. So, I'll make that motion to waiver of the footnote. W the footnote for their development. Yes. To proceed as presented. What's the footnote? Can you like cite it or is the language here that's presented to us sufficient? It's on there. It's on the It's on the uh on the write up. Uh has it It's It references the section. It references the section. Yeah. All right. So then this is good as is to take action as presented if that's the wishes of the council. No, no, no. Is that the agreement? Is that what what's being requested that we do? Yes.

Okay. Yes. All right. So the motion to approve as presented. Yes. Yes, sir. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second. All right. There's a motion and a second. uh stats recommendation on this on this one. Um I feel that if the property was zoned town homes, the town home requirements should apply. So um what I'm thinking is that that footnote needs to be stried out when we amend the the unified development code. Okay. So this is a um scrier's error. I wouldn't say a scrier's error, but it was put in there. I don't I don't know why they put it in there, but it it was on there. All right. But your recommendation as the director is moving forward, we should get that revised so that this type of variance doesn't need to be requested. That's correct. If the properties own town homes, those town home setbacks should apply.

Okay. What is your recommendation on this variance? On variance number five. Oh, he said that they they're okay with it. All right. Um there's a motion and a second. All those in favor? All those opposed? All right. Motion passes.

And then the last one is to have a wood fence buffer instead of the masonry buffer that's required by the unified development code. Uh, again, this goes back to the Unified Development Code states that anytime you have a town home district next to a suburban residential district that you must put a masonry block wall between that section of the property. Uh, along the east side, there is a property that's zoned uh, suburban residential. So, uh, they would be required to install at least on that section or the east side, uh, a masonry wall, and they're asking to be excluded from that and and to be allowed to install a cedar fence.

All right. Any conditions on this one? Any updates, revisions? No, this is a variance that we've seen in the past. And in the past, it's it's typically granted whenever it's single family to single family. uh when it's commercial to single family then it does usually stick that they put the masonry wall. What is your recommendation on this recommendation since it is single family single family? Uh I'm okay with this with the cedar fence. All right. Is there a motion on this? I'll make a motion to approve to go with the cedar fence. Is there a second? Second.

Uh is this one that we'll look at too? Right. I mean, if if you're okay with it being a wood fence instead of a masonry, then probably just update the code on that. We I did have a chance to look at other cities and typically that's the norm. Whenever it's a single family next to a single family, we typically other cities typically don't require a a masonry fence. All right, the motion and a second. All those in favor? All those opposed. All right, motion passes. Thank you, gentlemen. Greatly appreciate your consideration. All right. Next item. E.

Madam Secretary, if you read the caption. Yes. I'm sorry. I has trouble with the button. Consider varants request to the city's unified development code, article 3, section 3.202, table 3.202-1, 202-1 non-residential and mixeduse lot standards for Garco Industrial Ranches subdivision as described located at 104 Constitution Drive as requested by Gandinia Headley and Associates. Motion to approve. Second.

All right. Motion to approve and a second. Any discussion? All right. My understanding is is that the intended use right with this with this variance is still industrial, right? There's not it's not commercial oriented, nothing like that. That's correct. It falls in line with industrial uses. It's just that the developer owns this large lot and he's cutting it up into smaller lots, but they're still going to be industrial in in nature. For for our purposes on the city, is there a reason why we require something so large? I mean, the the the idea here, right, is to have a a smaller footprint of an industrial building. That's correct.

Right. So, is there is there any reason why we're not in line with that already? He was it it was close to meeting the requirements but uh it wasn't quite there. So um initially he had requested to uh do a resoning but being that the the character of the business was in line with the industrial u we recommended he go through the variance process instead of reszoning the property which would have created spot zoning. Right. Uh so this was something that we recommended. Yeah. But again I'm just more concerned about the rules. Right. We can look at this what the minimums are for industrial lots and if they're too excessive, maybe we can bring it down a little bit.

Okay, great. All right, any other further discussion? All right, there's a motion in a second. All those in favor, raise your right hand. All those opposed. All right, motion passes. Uh, moving on to item 9A. Consider the petition providing for the voluntary annexation of a 0.918 acre parcel out of lot 6, block one, Santa Cruz Gardens unit number two, Davo County, Texas, located at 1099 East FM2812 as requested by Box Family Limited Partnership, LTD. Is there a motion? Motion to approve. Second. All right. Any discussion? All those in favor, raise your right hand. All those opposed? Motion passes. Uh item 10 A,

consider authorizing the city manager to renew a master service agreement and small government enterprise license agreement with environmental systems research institute for licenses on geographic information system citywide as a sole source item for an amount not to exceed 268,200. Is there a motion? Motion to approve. Second.

All right. Motion to approve and second. Any discussion? All those in favor raise your right hand. All those opposed. Motion passes. 10B. Consider awarding bid number 2026-02 Brenaline Cedar Detention Pond project phase 3 to2GS LLC for an amount not to exceed 216,162 through the community development block grant number B-24-mc-48-0503 and authorize the city manager to execute any documents related there too pursuant to the city's ordinances and procurement policies. Is there a motion? So move second.

All right. Motion to approve item 10B. Um, any discussion? All those in favor raise your right hand. All those opposed. Motion passes. Um, consent agenda. I will entertain a motion uh to approve all items A through J. So move. Is there a second? Second. All right. Motion in a second. All those in favor raise your right hand. All those opposed. Uh motion passes. Uh 12A. Future items. Anything council? No. All right. Uh 12B,

consider cancelling or rescheduling the Tuesday, February 17, 2026 city council regular meeting. The recommendation would be for Thursday, February 19th. Is there a motion? Can't be the Monday or what? There was a when was the the council meeting date? The recommendation is for February 19th. The council meeting date would be Tuesday, February 17th. I'll make So, it's moved from Tuesday to Thursday. Yeah, I'll make the motion to approve that. Second.

All right. Motion and a second to approve rescheduling from February 17th to February 19th, the city council meeting. Any discussion? No. All right. All those in favor, raise your right hand. All those opposed. All right. Motion passes. All right. All right, moving into executive session. Um, is there a motion to go into executive session? Move. Second.

All right, motion in a second. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. We are entering executive session. Time now is 8:19. Item A, consultation with city attorney. Item B, consultation with city attorney regarding personnel matters. Item C, discussion and possible action regarding economic development matters. Number one, project Gilmore. Item D, discussion of possible action regarding economic development matters agreement with EDC regarding Ebony Hills development project project workforce resource center.

Myra, there's your pen cap. Thank you. You still have it or you got rid of it? I think I have it over there. Time is 9:07. We are coming back uh out of executive session. Can I get a motion to get back in the open? So move second. All right. Motion in a second. All those in favor raise your right hand. All those opposed. Motion passes. All right. We are back in open session. Um madam city attorney, uh any action required at this time? Yes, mayor. We need action on item 13D. I recommend a motion to approve the agreement on the terms and conditions as discussed in executive session. So moved. Second.

Motion and a second. Uh all those in favor raise your right hand. All those opposed. All right. Motion passes. Uh there being no other business, meeting is adjourned.

[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] [music]

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

[music] [music]

[music] [music] [music]

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

[music] [music]

[music] [music] [music]

[music]

Heat [music] up here. [music] [music]