Aug 08, 2023 Planning &amp; Zoning Commission Meeting

AGAIN, UNDER PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS IS ITEM B, THIS IS. CONSIDER THE REZONING REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL PRIMARY DISTRICT.

THE EAST 100FT OF WEST 303FT OF LOT FOR TWILIGHT PARK SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 113 EAST CHAPIN STREET.

YES, SIR. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON CHAPIN STREET, JUST EAST OF KLAUSSNER BOULEVARD, LOCATED BEHIND THE FAMILY RESTAURANT THAT'S LOCATED ON CHAPIN AND KLAUSSNER. CURRENTLY, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO RESIDENTIAL PRIMARY.

CURRENTLY, THE RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN REQUIREMENTS FOR LOT AREA IS 15,000FT².

RIGHT NOW THOSE SETBACKS THAT THEY CALL FOR ARE 30IN THE FRONT, 30 IN THE REAR AND 15 ON THE SIDES.

THEY WANT TO GO AHEAD AND REZONE TO RESIDENTIAL PRIMARY, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR MORE BUILDABLE SPACE FOR 20 IN THE FRONT, 20 IN THE REAR AND SIX ON THE SIDES BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE LOT. RIGHT NOW, IF THEY WERE TO GO WITH THE OTHER SETBACKS, IT WOULDN'T ALLOW FOR NOT MUCH BUILDABLE SPACE.

THEY DO HAVE AT LEAST 100FT OF FRONTAGE ALONG CHAPIN AND 119 OF A DEPTH.

SO IT'S LIKE POINT 27 OF AN ACRE.

WE DID MAIL OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS OF 14 NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS AND WE RECEIVED ONE COMMENT IN FAVOR AGAINST THIS REQUEST.

WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST, AND THIS IS BEFORE THE BOARD.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS, PLEASE STEP UP TO THE PODIUM.

THEN WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

PERMISSION TO APPROVE MOTION.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ITEM C AGAIN, WE'LL OPEN FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

[C. Consider the Rezoning Request from Residential, Suburban (RS) District to Commercial, General (CG) District, 3.03 acres out of a 6.01 acre tract of land out of Lot 5, Section 243, Texas-Mexican Railway Company’s Survey, located at 3101 North Interstate 69C, as requested by Art Resendez on behalf of Khit Property Management LLC]

THIS IS CONSIDERED THE REZONING REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN DISTRICT TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT.

3.03 ACRES OUT OF A 6.01 ACRE TRACT OF LAND OUT OF LOT FIVE.

SECTION 243 TEXAS MEXICAN RAILWAY COMPANY SURVEY LOCATED AT 3101 NORTH INTERSTATE 69 C.

SIR? YES, SIR.

SO THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF I-69, JUST SOUTH OF MONTE CRISTO ROAD.

IT IS NORTH OF THE IDEA PUBLIC SCHOOL, AS WELL AS THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB HERE IN EDINBURG.

THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN DISTRICT, WHICH IS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THEY'RE LOOKING TO REZONE TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL.

THEY ARE WANTING TO BUILD LIKE A CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE.

IT'S A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

IT IS ALONG THE EXPRESSWAY ON THE FRONTAGE.

THIS AREA DOES CONSIST OF SOME COMMERCIAL JUST NORTH AS WELL AS THE INSTITUTIONAL ON THE SOUTH.

WE DID MAIL OUT TO THE PUBLIC TO SIX NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS AND RECEIVED NO COMMENTS IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THIS REQUEST.

SURROUNDING ZONING DOES CONSIST OF VACANT LAND.

WE DO SEE THIS AREA IN A TRANSITION FOR COMMERCIAL, SO STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS CASE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YES, SIR.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS? PLEASE STEP UP TO THE PODIUM.

NONE. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION.

MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND.

SECOND FOR APPROVAL.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ITEM D AGAIN IS OPEN FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS IS TO CONSIDER THE REZONING REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL PRIMARY DISTRICT TO DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS.

[D. Consider the Rezoning Request from Residential, Primary (RP) District to Downtown (DT) District, Lot 1-2, Block 237, Townsite Plat of Edinburg, located at 600 East McIntyre Street, as requested by Manuel L. Ruiz, Jr.]

LOTS ONE THROUGH TWO BLOCK 237.

THIS IS TOWN SITE PLAT OF WITTENBERG, LOCATED AT 600 EAST MCINTYRE.

SIR? YES, SIR.

SO THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MCINTYRE, JUST EAST OF 16TH AVENUE.

THE SURROUNDING AREA DOES CONSIST OF A MIXTURE OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH, SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST.

YOU DO HAVE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH.

YOU DO HAVE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT JUST TO THE WEST OF THAT PROPERTY.

THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS 100FT OF FRONTAGE, SO IT'S TWO LOTS.

USUALLY LOTS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA ARE 50 BY 142.

THIS ONE IS TWO LOTS, SO IT'S 100 BY 142.

THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE IS FOR URBAN USES.

WE DID MAIL OUT TO 29 NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS AND RECEIVED NO COMMENTS IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THIS REQUEST.

[00:10:03]

THEY'RE LOOKING TO REZONE TO DOWNTOWN DISTRICT SIMILAR TO WHAT IS TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY AND SOUTH OF IT.

STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST.

ANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT WOULD NEED TO GO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE? THANK YOU. AGAIN, THIS IS PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE WISH TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS, PLEASE STEP UP TO THE PODIUM.

NONE. WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSION TO APPROVE MOTION.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ITEM E AGAIN WILL PUT FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION.

[E. Consider the Rezoning Request from Agriculture and Open Space (AO) District to Residential, Multifamily (RM) District, Being a Tract of Land of 6.439 Acres out of the South 1⁄2 of the of the North 1⁄2 of Lot 71, Kelly-Pharr Subdivision According to map thereof recorded in Volume 3, Pages 133 & 134, Located at 5502 South Sugar Road, As Requested By James E. Rose and Dalia Sierra on behalf of Lana Sue Heina]

THIS IS TO CONSIDER THE REZONING REQUEST FROM AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY BEING A TRACT OF LAND. 6.439 ACRES OUT OF THE SOUTH.

HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 71 KELLY FOR SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME THREE, PAGE 133 AND 134, LOCATED AT 5502 SOUTH SUGAR ROAD.

YES, SIR. SO THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SUGAR ROAD, JUST NORTH OF OWASSO ROAD.

THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE.

THEY ARE LOOKING TO REZONE TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOOKING TO BE THE SECOND PHASE OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS JUST LOCATED TO THE NORTH.

THERE IS A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT'S LOCATED TO THE NORTH AND THEY'RE LOOKING TO GO AHEAD AND REZONE THE SOUTH HALF TO BE PHASE TWO OF THAT.

IN ORDER FOR THEM TO DO THAT, THEY WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS.

THEY WILL ALSO BE GOING THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS AND DO AN ACCESS AGREEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY JUST TO THE NORTH OF THEM.

WE DID MAIL OUT TO NINE PROPERTY OWNERS AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THIS REQUEST AT THE TIME OF THIS REPORT BEING THAT WE ALL ALREADY SEE SOME MULTIFAMILY IN THE AREA AND THIS IS A SECOND PHASE.

STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

THANK YOU. GENERAL, PUBLIC HEARING ANYONE WISH TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS? STEP UP TO THE PODIUM.

NONE. WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION.

APARTMENT COMPLEX ON THE NORTH? YES, SIR. THEY ARE LOOKING AT THE PHASE TWO, WHICH WOULD BE THIS PROPERTY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

IT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE FIRST PHASE.

AND THEN IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ACCESS, THEY WOULD GET THROUGH PHASE ONE ON TOP.

SO THEY'RE LOOKING AT DURING THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS, PROBABLY DOING A COMMON ACCESS AGREEMENT.

IN PHASE ONE AND PHASE.

THE REASON I ASK IS THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE COMMON DRIVEWAY.

A SINGLE ONE? YES, BOTH PHASES.

SO WHEN WE HAD INITIALLY TALKED ABOUT THIS PROJECT AT THE BEGINNING, BEFORE THEY WENT THROUGH THE REZONING, IT WAS LIKE A SITE PLAN REVIEW, JUST LIKE A PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETING BASED ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT THEY WERE WANTING THAT THEY HAVE IN THE FRONT.

THEY WERE ALREADY MEETING THE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS AS PER THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.

SO WITH THEM ADDING IT THE SOUTH HALF, THEY ALREADY THE ADDITIONAL COMMON ACCESS THEY WOULD HAVE TO.

SO YES. SO THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE A SECOND ROAD.

YES. SO IF LET ME PULL IT UP REAL QUICK.

SO THEY WOULD HAVE.

HERE AND THEN HERE, SO THEY WOULD NEED IT.

YEAH, BECAUSE THEY'RE ALSO LOOKING AND IT WAS JUST TALKS, RIGHT, THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT DEVELOPING THIS AREA HERE AS WELL.

SO THE ONLY ACCESS TO SUGAR ROAD IS JUST WHERE IT SAYS LIKE TWO A AND THREE.

SO THERE'S ONLY ONE DRIVE GOING TO SUGAR ROAD.

CORRECT. BUT WE WOULD CONSIDER THESE AS ACCESS POINTS AS WELL.

BUT MOST OF THAT IS ALREADY DISCUSSED IN THE SITE PLAN REVIEW.

OKAY. AND DURING THE SITE PLAN REVIEW, WE HAVE ALL DEPARTMENTS THERE AS WELL.

FIRE DEPARTMENT, UTILITIES, ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW.

COMMISSION. I MOTION TO APPROVE MOTION.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ITEM F AGAIN OPEN FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

[F. Consider the Rezoning Request from Residential, Primary (RP) District to Residential, Multifamily (RM) District, the north 114.0 feet of Lot 1, Wood]

THIS IS A CONSIDERED REZONING REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL PRIMARY DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT TO NORTH 114.

ZERO FEET OF LOT ONE WOOD SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 513 SOUTH FOURTH AVENUE.

YES, SIR. SO THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF BAY AND FOURTH AVENUE.

THEY'RE LOOKING TO DO MULTIFAMILY.

CURRENTLY IT IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL PRIMARY.

YOU DO HAVE A MIXTURE OF RESIDENTIAL PRIMARY WITHIN THE AREA AS WELL AS MULTIFAMILY BASED OFF OF THE AERIAL.

YOU DO HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME THAT IS JUST SOUTH OF IT, BUT THEN A LOT SOUTH OF THAT YOU DO HAVE MULTIFAMILY, SO YOU DO HAVE A MIXTURE OF THAT WITHIN THE AREA.

WE DID MAIL OUT TO THE PUBLIC FOR 67 NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS.

WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS IN FAVOR, BUT WE DID RECEIVE TWO COMMENTS AGAINST THIS REQUEST BASED ON THE TRANSITION WITHIN THE AREA.

[00:15:04]

WE DO SEE APARTMENTS TRYING TO COME UP WITHIN THESE AREAS.

WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THIS REZONING.

ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE WISH TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS, PLEASE STEP UP TO THE PODIUM.

NONE. WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

PERMISSION. MOVE TO APPROVE.

MOTION. SECOND.

SECOND FOR APPROVAL. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE VARIABLES. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM G AGAIN OPEN FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

[G. Consider the Rezoning Request from Commercial, Neighborhood (CN) District to Commercial General (CG) District, 5.125 acres out of Lot 1, Block 2, Steele & Pershing Subdivision, located at 2900 South McColl Road, as requested by Mario A. Reyna, P.E. on behalf of Nico Holdings, LTD.]

THIS IS TO CONSIDER THE REZONING REQUEST FROM COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT 5.125 ACRES OUT OF LOT ONE BLOCK TO STEELE AND PERSHING SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 2900 SOUTH MCCALL.

YES, SIR. SO THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MCCALL AND CANTON.

IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT.

THEY WANT TO GO A GRADE HIGHER TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL.

THEY'RE LOOKING AT BUILDING A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT MORE LIKE A PLAZA IN THE AREA.

THIS AREA DOES HAVE A MIXTURE OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS COMMERCIAL.

WE DO HAVE COMMERCIAL LOCATED ALSO DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH, WHICH ARE THE TO THE FRONT LOT IN FRONT OF THAT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.

CURRENTLY, WE DO HAVE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD JUST EAST OF IT.

THIS WE DID NOTICE TO 20 NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS AND DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THIS REQUEST AT THE TIME OF THE REPORT.

STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS THIS IS MCCALL ROAD.

SO WE DO SEE A TRANSITION FOR ANY PROPERTIES THAT ARE ALONG MCCALL ROAD TO BECOME COMMERCIAL.

THANK YOU. AGAIN, THIS IS FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WAS MAKING A COMMENTS.

PLEASE STEP UP TO THE PODIUM.

CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION.

I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

PROPOSED TO BUILD THERE.

IS IT A PLAZA OR CORRECT? TO MY UNDERSTANDING, THEY WANT TO DO IT.

IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMERCIAL.

GENERAL WOULD ALLOW FOR LIKE A PLAZA, A HIGHER INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT TO BE THERE.

RIGHT NOW, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THEY'RE BUILDING IS DOES THE ZONE ALLOW FOR WITHIN THAT AREA? CORRECT. I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD.

CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION MOVE TO APPROVE.

MOTION AND SECOND FOR APPROVAL.

FURTHER DISCUSSION. OH.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ITEM G AGAIN FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS IS TO CONSIDER THE REZONING REQUEST FROM AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT.

3.214 ACRES OUT OF LOT FIVE BLOCK ONE JOHN KLAUSNER ET AL.

[H. Consider the Rezoning Request from Agriculture and Open Space (AO) District to Commercial, General (CG) District, 3.214 acres out of Lot 5, Block 1, John Closner, Et Al. Subdivision, proposed Garden Walk Subdivision, located at 3403 South Raul Longoria Road, as requested by Melden & Hunt, Inc. on behalf of Ramon Estevis]

SUBDIVISION PROPOSED GARDEN WALK SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 3403 SOUTH LONGORIA ROAD.

GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSION.

ITEM SEVEN IS A REZONING REQUEST OF 3.214 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURE TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL.

THIS IS AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH RAUL LONGORIA AND EAST WISCONSIN ROAD.

THE EXISTING ZONINGS ARE AGRICULTURE TO THE WEST, EAST AND SOUTH AND THEN MULTIFAMILY TO THE NORTH.

BECAUSE THIS IS A HARD CORNER AT THE AT A MAJOR INTERSECTION DOES NOT OBJECT.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP ALSO SUPPORTS COMMERCIAL AT THIS AREA.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ITEM SEVEN.

AND THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS, PLEASE STEP UP TO THE PODIUM.

THEN WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION.

MOVE TO APPROVE. MOTION.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ITEM I GIVEN UP FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

[I. Consider the Rezoning Request from Agriculture and Open Space (AO) District to Residential, Multifamily (RM) District, 8.823 acres out of Lot 5, Block 1, John Closner, Et Al. Subdivision, proposed Garden Walk Subdivision, located at 2301 East Wisconsin Road, as requested by Melden & Hunt, Inc. on behalf of Ramon Estevis]

THIS IS CONSIDERED THE REZONING REQUEST FROM AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT 8.823 ACRES OUT OF LOT FIVE BLOCK ONE JOHN KLAUSNER ET AL.

SUBDIVISION PROPOSED GARDEN WALK SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 2301 EAST WISCONSIN.

YES, COMMISSIONER, WITH REGARDS TO ITEM SEVEN, I, THIS IS THE REMAINING 8.823 ACRES OF A 12.037 ACRE TRACT OF LAND.

IT'S DIRECTLY ABUTTING THE ITEM THAT WAS JUST APPROVED.

IT'S THE WEST SIDE OF OF THE 12 ACRE TRACT AND THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE IT FROM AGRICULTURE TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE THERE ON THE ON THE EXHIBIT TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH, WE ALREADY HAVE ZONES THAT ARE ZONED FOR MULTIFAMILY.

SO THIS WOULD JUST BE A CONTINUATION.

IT'S ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

SO THERE WAS NO COMMENTS AGAINST THIS REQUEST.

SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AND IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL FOR ITEM SEVEN H, I MEAN SEVEN.

I'M SORRY. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WAS MAKING A COMMENTS.

[00:20:01]

PLEASE STEP UP TO THE PODIUM.

NONE. CLOSE PUBLIC COMMISSION.

MOTION TO APPROVE MOTION.

SECOND. SECOND FOR APPROVAL AND FURTHER DISCUSSION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

WE'LL GO UNDER SUBDIVISIONS AND VARIANCES IS ITEM A.

THIS IS CONSIDERED A VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.

TABLE 3.102 DASH FOR DUPLEX AND MULTIPLEX LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS.

[8. SUBDIVISIONS (VARIANCES)]

[A. Consider Variance Request to the City's Unified Development Code Table 3.102-4 Duplex and Multiplex Lot and Building Standards, Lot Width for the proposed Garden Walk Subdivision, being a 12.863 acres tract of land out of Lot 5, Block 1, John Closner Et Al Subdivision, located at 2301 East Wisconsin Road, as requested by Melden & Hunt, Inc on behalf of Ramon Estevis.]

LOT WIDTH FOR THE PROPOSED GARDEN WALK SUBDIVISION BEING A 12.863 ACRES.

TRACK OUT OF FIVE BLOCK ONE JOHN KLAUSNER ET AL.

SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 2301 EAST WISCONSIN ROAD, SIR.

MISTER CHAIR. ADAM ALEXANDER.

FOR THE RECORD. THIS IS THE SAME PROPERTY THAT WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT A MOMENT AGO.

IN ITS ENTIRETY, THE WEST PORTION WILL BE THE MULTIFAMILY, AND ON THE EAST WILL BE THE COMMERCIAL.

THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS ONLY TO THE MULTIFAMILY PORTION.

IT WAS PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ESTEVES ESTATES.

AS YOU SEE HERE IN THE LAST WEEK, WE RECEIVED A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE NAME TO GARDEN WALK, WHICH IS WHY YOU'LL SEE GARDEN WALK IN YOUR REPORTS.

THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THE PROPERTIES TO HAVE A LESS THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE OF 80FT AND THE MAJORITY OF THIS SUBDIVISION, THE LOT WITH MINIMUM IS 72FT.

LAST YEAR WE IN AUGUST CHANGED THE CODE FROM THE MINIMUM OF 100FT TO NOW 80FT.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING FOR APPROVAL BECAUSE OF THE TABLE THAT WE SEE HERE.

NOW, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE REASON BEHIND LOT WIDTH AND THINGS LIKE THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE, WE TALK ABOUT THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE AND WHAT THE INTENTION OF THOSE TWO THINGS IS, IS TO KEEP LOTS FROM BEING OVERLY DENSE, RIGHT? AND SO WE HAVE THESE TWO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY LOTS AND THE MAJORITY OF THESE PROPERTIES, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 9720, WHICH IS 21% OVER WHAT THE MINIMUM IS.

IF YOU LOOK AT THIS TABLE, THE MINIMUM ALLOWS 8000.

SO THE REDUCTION IS AROUND 10%, BUT YET WE HAVE A 20% INCREASE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE.

SO WITH THAT, THEY CAN ARRANGE THE BUILDINGS VERY EASILY IN A WAY THAT DENSITY WILL NOT BE AN ISSUE.

AND FOR THAT REASON STAFF IS RECOMMENDING FOR APPROVAL.

COMMISSIONER MR.. DO I HEAR A MOTION? MOVED TO APPROVE. MOTION.

REAL QUICK, THE ADDITIONAL, I GUESS, SQUARE FOOTAGE IS JUST BECAUSE THE LOTS ARE LONGER.

YES, SIR. SO THAT WILL ALLOW THEM JUST TO MAKE THE BUILDINGS A LITTLE BIT LONGER.

YES, SIR. AND IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT IT AND SAY, WELL, MAYBE WE COULD PUT A SECOND ROAD, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY FEASIBLE EITHER.

IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE REQUIRED MINIMUM WIDTH OF A MULTIFAMILY RIGHT OF WAY, IT'D BE 60FT.

SO YOU COULD ALSO LOSE A LOT GOING EAST AND WEST AND HAVE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM FRONTAGE.

CORRECT? GOING EAST AND WEST LOSE LEFT AND RIGHT.

YOU. YEAH. YOU COULD REARRANGE THE LOTS IN A WAY THAT YOU COULD SPREAD OUT FROM 1 OR 2 OF THEM.

THE REST. RIGHT? TAKE 72 DIVIDED OVER THE LOTS AND ADD IT TO THE FRONTAGE.

THAT WOULD. THAT WOULD ALSO WORK.

YES, SIR. OKAY. OKAY.

I'VE GOT A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF.

DO I HEAR A SECOND? GOT SECOND.

OKAY. GOT A SECOND FURTHER DISCUSSION.

GO AHEAD. GOT A QUESTION? SO WHEN DID WHEN DID STAFF START TECHNICALLY, AND I JUST WANT TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD, THIS IS GOING AGAINST THE UDC.

BLACK AND WHITE GUIDELINES, RIGHT? YES. AND THIS ISN'T VERY TYPICAL THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL, BUT WHAT YOU SEE ALMOST ALWAYS IS THAT THEY'RE BARELY MEETING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THEN THEY'RE ASKING FOR A REDUCTION OF LOT WIDTH.

SO NOW WE HAVE TWO THINGS THAT WE UTILIZE TO MINIMIZE DENSITY BEING VIOLATED.

AND IF IT'S BARELY THAT YOU'RE A LITTLE BIT ABOVE, THEN WE WOULD STILL RECOMMEND FOR DENIAL.

BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A 20% INCREASE AND A 10% DECREASE IN THE OTHER, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO WORK IN SYMMETRY TO CONTROL DENSITY.

SO I GUESS IF THEY WERE TO SAY, WELL, LET'S REDUCE IT TO 50 SOMETHING MORE EXTREME LIKE THAT, BUT WE HAVE SUPER LONG LOTS THAT ALSO WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE.

BUT IT'S IT WAS A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO VIEWING IT.

[00:25:01]

AND REALLY THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU HEAR A LOT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.

RIGHT? SO AND WHAT IS THAT? RIGHT? SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH DENSITY ISSUES.

SO THEY PROBABLY HAVE TO MAKE SLIGHTLY SKINNIER AND LONGER BUILDINGS.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE LOTS, THERE'S QUITE A BIT TO WORK WITH.

I GET IT. SO. SO BECAUSE THEY'RE BIGGER LOTS.

SQUARE FOOTAGE WISE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE.

AGAINST THE UDC.

AGAINST? YES.

GOT IT. I JUST WANT.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.

ALL RIGHT. A MOTION TO SECOND FOR FOR RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ITEM B AGAIN, THIS IS A VARIANCE TO CONSIDER.

[B. Consider Variance Request to the City's Unified Development Code Table 3.102-4 Duplex and Multiplex Lot and Building Standards, Lot Width for the proposed Gem Estates Subdivision 27.84 acre tract of land out of Lot 3, Section 276, Texas- Mexican Railway Company’s Survey Subdivision, located at 3000 West Schunior Street, as requested by Melden & Hunt, Inc, on behalf of Elite Development 786, LLC.]

VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.

TABLE 3.10 DASH FOR DUPLEX AND MULTIPLEX BUILDING STANDARDS.

LOT WIDTH FOR THE PROPOSED GEM ESTATE SUBDIVISION 27.84 ACRE TRACT OUT OF LOT THREE SECTION 276 TEXAS MEXICAN RAILWAY COMPANY SURVEY SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 3000 WEST JUNIOR, SIR.

MISTER CHAIR. THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN SEEN TWICE BEFORE.

THE FIRST TIME IT WAS KNOWN AS NORTH MCCAUL AND THEN IT WAS REINTRODUCED EARLIER THIS YEAR AS GEM ESTATES.

IT'S BEING REINTRODUCED A THIRD TIME AS GEM DUE TO THE LOT LINES CHANGING.

THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE LAST ONE THAT WE JUST SAW.

HOWEVER, THE REQUEST IS IN A COUPLE OF WAYS SLIGHTLY BETTER.

SO IF WE LOOK AT THE LOT HERE, THESE ARE MULTIFAMILY LOTS.

THE AVERAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOTS ARE 10,000 AND THE REDUCTION IS FOR ON THE LOW END THREE FEET. SO THE SMALLER LOTS HAVE A LOT WIDTH OF 77FT.

SOME OF THEM HAVE A LOT WITH UP TO 132FT.

SO BECAUSE OF THOSE THREE FEET, THEY'RE NEEDING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO GO AGAINST THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE MANDATORY MINIMUM 80FT OF LOT WIDTH.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THE SAME TALKING POINTS AS THE LAST ONE.

THANK YOU. MR.. MOTION.

SECOND AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL IS BEING RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

ITEM C, THIS IS A VARIANCE.

[C. Consider Variance Request to the City's Unified Development Code Section 5.203-1 Right-of-Way Widths & Paving Width for Sea Subdivision, being a 8.350 acre tract out of Lot 5, Section 250, Texas-Mexican Railway Company’s Survey Subdivision, located at 1534 North Kenyon Road, as requested by Melden & Hunt, Inc.]

THIS IS CONSIDERED A VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.

SECTION 5.203-1 RIGHT OF WAY WITH AND PAVING WIDTH FOR C SUBDIVISION BEING AN 8.350 ACRE TRACT OUT OF LOT FIVE.

SECTION 2.50 TEXAS MEXICAN ROAD COMPANY SERVING SUBDIVISIONS LOCATED AT 1530 FOURTH NORTH CANYON ROAD.

SIR. YES.

THIS ITEM WAS PREVIOUSLY SEEN BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ON MAY 9TH OF 2023, AND THEN IT WAS HELD OFF FROM TAKING TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION UNTIL LAST MONTH.

LAST MONTH IN JULY, IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL AND WHEN IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL THE ITEM WAS TABLED.

I DID HAVE A CHANCE TO MEET WITH THE ENGINEER AND THE OWNER OF RECORD PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED WAS THE POSSIBILITY OF ANNEXING THE PROPERTY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, THE PROPERTY ABUTS THE CITY BORDER THERE ON KENYON AND 17TH.

SO IN TALKING TO THE OWNER AND TALKING TO THE ENGINEER, THEY DID AGREE TO ANNEX THE PROPERTY.

SHOULD WE GRANT THEM THIS VARIANCE? AND THE ENGINEER OF RECORD IS HERE.

HOWEVER, STAFF STILL IS INCLINED TO DENY THE VARIANCE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO STICK TO THE UDC.

BUT IT IS A FAMILY PARTITION.

IT'S EIGHT ACRES AND THEY CAN DIVIDE IT INTO FOUR LOTS I BELIEVE.

SO IF THE IF THE WISHES TO TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST, THAT COULD BE APPROVED WITH WITH THE CONDITION THAT THEY ANNEX HAVE A REUBEN JAMES HERE FROM ELGIN AND TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

AND THE CONDITION OF THE ANNEXES IS PRESENT OR THAT WOULD BE BASED ON THE MOTION.

AND WHEN DOES THAT ANNEX HAPPEN? AND IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK.

NO, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THAT.

BASED ON THE MOTION THAT WE WILL DO, IF WE DO AN ACCEPTANCE, WOULD THAT BE SET IN THE MOTION OR DOES IT ANNEX THE PROPERTY JUST YET? BUT THAT WOULD BE A CONDITION OF OF THE VARIANCE APPROVAL.

CONDITIONAL APPROVAL. OKAY.

GOTCHA. BUT.

GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD COMMISSIONERS.

RUBEN DE JESUS, FOR THE RECORD.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE BACK AGAIN TODAY.

I KNOW WE GOT DENIED PREVIOUSLY, BUT WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE.

AND WE ARE WE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ANNEX.

AND THAT'S A DISCUSSION WE HAD WITH STAFF AND THE OWNERS ALSO WILLING TO DO THAT.

[00:30:03]

SO WE ALREADY STARTED THE PROCESS OF PUTTING ALL THE PAPERWORK TO SUBMIT FOR THE ANNEXATION.

GOT A QUESTION? JUST. UH, IF IT'S BEEN ALREADY DENIED, CAN WE SEE IT AGAIN WITHIN 12 MONTHS? OKAY. YOU KNOW, I HAVE A FEELING THAT THE COUNCIL WILL PROBABLY ACCEPT AS A.

AS AS A.

AS AN APPROVAL, IT'LL BE A CONDITIONAL.

IF WE HAVE IF IT'S A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION.

IS THAT CORRECT? WILL BE A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

IF WE APPROVE IT NOW, IT'LL EVENTUALLY GETS COME BACK TO US.

ACTUALLY, IT'S GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU FOR THE ANNEXATION.

WE'LL HAVE TO SEE IT FOR ANNEXATION AFTER.

SO NO CONDITIONS WOULD BE MADE.

NOW, IS THAT CORRECT? I GUESS THAT WAS MY CONFUSION.

WELL, THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED NOW IS THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO TO NOT HAVE TO DO THE WIDENING COST OF THE STREET.

THEY'RE WILLING TO DEDICATE THE RIGHT OF WAY, BUT THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO PAY THE THE STREET WIDENING COST.

I THINK THE QUESTION IS, CAN OUR APPROVAL CAN BE CONDITIONAL ON GETTING ANNEXED? YES, THAT'S WHAT WE'LL VOTE ON TODAY.

EXACTLY. OKAY.

SO IT'S A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.

CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, CORRECT. ALL RIGHT.

DO I HEAR A MOTION? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE BASED ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY.

WAIT A MINUTE. THE STAFF WITH THE DENIAL AGAINST STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

YES. SORRY.

WITH THE CONDITION. WITH THE CONDITION.

WITH THE CONDITION. THEN IT GETS ANNEXATION.

OKAY. AND I'LL SECOND THAT.

OKAY. A MOTION AND A SECOND TO AGREE ON THE VARIANCE WITH THE CONDITION.

WITH THE CONDITION. ALL RIGHT, EVERYBODY CLEAR.

ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

[9. CONSENT AGENDA]

CONSENT AGENDA, SIR.

I WAS A SURVEYOR ON 98, SO I WOULD LIKE TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON THAT ITEM.

OKAY. SINCE IT'S A CONSENT, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN JUST TAKE IT AS CONSENT.

YES. WITH HIS NOT VOTING ON IT.

OR WE CAN PULL IT OUT WHICHEVER WAY THAT WE'D LIKE.

YEAH, IT'S PROBABLY BEST JUST TO PULL IT OUT.

OKAY. FROM OUR CONSENT.

ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL.

[A. Consider the Preliminary Plat approval of Closner Point Subdivision, being a 15.84 acres tract of land out of Lot 11 & Lot 13, Subdivision “C”, Original Townsite Amended City of Edinburg Map Subdivision, located at 221 East Schunior Street, as requested by Supreme Engineering, PLLC.]

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM A UNDER CONSENT AGENDA.

A MOTION? MOTION. SECOND, SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. ONE ABSTENTION.

[B. Consider the Final Plat of Golden Acres Subdivision, being a 30.01 acre tract of land out of Lots 20, 21, & 22, Caledonia Estates Subdivision, located at 3701 East Curry Road, as requested by Melden & Hunt, Inc.]

[C. Consider the Final Plat of Stone Oaks Subdivision, being a 12.43- acre tract of land out of Lot 3, and Lot 6, Section 236 Texas-Mexican Railway Company Survey Subdivision, located at 3101 Trooper Moises Sanchez Blvd, as requested by Supreme Engineering, PLLC.]

NOW I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS B AND C AS BEING PRESENTED.

SO MOVED. MOTION SECOND.

SECOND FOR APPROVAL.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.