Jan 10, 2022 January 10, 2022 City Commission Meeting (trimmed)

[1. Rezone from R-1 (single family residential) District to R-3A (multifamily residential apartments) District: 1.77 acres out of Lot 59, La Lomita Irrigation and Construction Company’s Subdivision, Hidalgo County, Texas; 2801 Auburn Avenue.]

REZONINGS. OK, THE FIRST ITEM FOR REZONING IS ITEM 1B1.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2801 AUBURN AVENUE, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AUBURN AND 29TH STREET. SURROUNDING ZONING IS R1 TO THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTH AND AO TO THE NORTHEAST AND ALSO TO THE WEST.

SURROUNDING USES. YOU HAVE SINGLE FAMILY, YOU HAVE THE MCALLEN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, FAA FACILITIES SANCHEZ ELEMENTARY, THE MCALLEN YOUTH COMPLEX, AS WELL AS VACANT LAND.

PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO R1 IN 2015 AS PART OF THE CITY PROJECT, A0 PROJECT THAT WAS A C2 REQUEST IN 2016.

NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL THAT WAS DISAPPROVED BY THE CITY.

THE REQUEST DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE OUTER URBAN RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION, THE FORESIGHT PLAN. HOWEVER, THE REQUEST DOES PROVIDE FOR OPPORTUNITY FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES FACING AUBURN AVENUE, WHICH IS A MAJOR COLLECTOR, AND 29TH STREET, WHICH IS A MINOR ARTERIAL IN THE CITY'S THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

THE ITEM WAS CONSIDERED AT THE DECEMBER 21ST PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

THERE WAS THREE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WERE PRESENT IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST.

THEY HAD CONCERNS REGARDING PARKING, PRIVACY, TRAFFIC AND DECREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES.

THE APPLICANT ALSO WAS PRESENT AND ADDRESSED THE BOARD AND INDICATED THAT HE'S WILLING TO MOVE SOME WINDOWS TO KEEP AWAY FROM SOME OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

FOLLOWING DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD OF THE ITEM.

THE BOARD VOTED THREE TO TWO TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST.

THERE WERE SIX MEMBERS PRESENT.

WE DID RECEIVE ALSO SOME EMAILS AND A PETITION BASED ON THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE AREA

[00:05:05]

THAT'S WITHIN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS PERCENTAGE IS 19.5, WHICH IS BELOW THE 20 PERCENT REQUIRES THE SUPERMAJORITY.

SO IT IS BELOW THAT THRESHOLD.

THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT THEY EXPRESSED IN THE EMAILS WERE THE SAME ONES THAT WERE TALKED ABOUT AT THE MEETING.

THEY ALSO INCLUDED SOME CONCERNS WITH FLOODING AND TRAFFIC IN THE AREA INCREASING WITH THE APARTMENT COMPLEX.

OK. ANYBODY SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE REZONING? PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON, CAN YOU HEAR ME OK? YES. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

THIS IS CERTAINLY CAUSED US A LOT OF CONCERN AT FIRST I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE REZONE ITSELF. AS YOU HEARD, ALL THE HOMES AROUND THIS AREA TO THE SOUTH, TO THE NORTH, NORTHEAST, SOUTHEAST ARE ALL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS IN THE ANALYSIS THAT IT IS THIS CHANGE DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE URBAN SINGLE FAMILY USE DESIGNATION, BUT IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP SOME VACANT LAND. BY THAT REASONING, I WOULD THINK THAT ANY VACANT PLOT OF LAND COULD BE RESOLVED IF IT WASN'T VACANT. SO I WOULD THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE MAYBE SOME, GREATER NEED HERE, SOME MORE COMPELLING REASON TO REZONE THIS LAND.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S A NEED FOR RESIDENTIAL HOUSING THAT NEEDS TO BE MET OR PROPERTY TAXES THAT NEEDS TO BE MET.

BUT WHEN YOU DRIVE AROUND NORTH MCALLEN ON 29TH STREET, 23RD STREET, A LOT OF THOSE STREETS, THERE'S JUST LARGE DEVELOPMENTS JUST POPPING UP EVERYWHERE, EVEN ON MY STREET OF AUBURN. YOU ALREADY HAVE TWO.

AND THIS ONE IS PROPOSED TO BE THE THIRD COMPARED TO ALL OF THOSE.

THIS IS A RELATIVELY VERY SMALL PIECE OF LAND.

I DON'T SEE THAT IT COULD BE GIVING YOU THAT MUCH PROPERTY TAXES OR RESIDENTS THAT MUCH PLACES TO LIVE COMPARED TO EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE HAVE.

SO FOR THAT REASON, I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER IF THIS IS REALLY WORTH A REZONE, GIVEN THAT EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND IT IS SINGLE FAMILY.

I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IN MY COMMUNITY, I LIVE RIGHT IN BACK OF THE PROPOSED REZONE. WE DID HAVE A PETITION.

WE DID SURVEY 25 HOUSEHOLDS, 16 OF THEM SIGNED THE PETITION IN OPPOSITION.

THE REST OF THEM WERE SIMPLY NOT AVAILABLE.

WE WOULD TRY MULTIPLE TIMES.

THEY JUST WEREN'T HOME.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY WOULD HAVE VOTED.

THE FIRST FIVE HOUSES IN THE FIRST 5 OUT OF 7 ALL SIGNED A PETITION IN OPPOSITION.

THE OTHER TWO COULDN'T BE REACHED, AND ALL THOSE SEVEN ON THAT SIDE ARE IN THE TWO HUNDRED FEET NOTIFICATION.

IF I COULD STOP AND ASK A QUESTION, I THINK I HEARD THAT WE WERE UNDER THE 20 PERCENT CUT OFF. YES.

WAS THAT TRUE? THAT'S CORRECT.

WE MISSED IT BECAUSE I THINK WE HAD SO SEVEN WAS NOT ENOUGH, SEVEN TIMES FIVE IS NO FIVE TIMES FIVE IS TWENTY FIVE.

THERE WERE MORE THAN TWENTY FIVE.

IT HAS TO DO WITH LAND AREA.

OH OH OK, I GET IT NOW.

I THOUGHT IT WAS BY HOUSEHOLD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YES SIR. SO FOR THOSE REASONS.

I THINK THAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER THAT THE REZONE ITSELF ISN'T REALLY COMPELLING JUST TO CHANGE THIS LAND SIMPLY FOR THE SMALL AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAXES AND THE SMALL AMOUNT OF EXTRA HOUSING THAT IT MIGHT PROVIDE.

BUT EVEN IF YOU YOU DO FEEL LIKE THIS IS VACANT LAND, SO WE DO HAVE TO BUILD THERE.

I WOULD ALSO STILL ASK THAT YOU NOT APPROVE THIS ONE.

AND FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.

ONE IS THAT WE DID NOT HAVE VERY GOOD COMMUNICATION FOR US TO HEAR ABOUT THIS.

ONE OF THE REASONS WAS THE TIMING WE GOT THE FIRST NOTICE THE WEEK BEFORE CHRISTMAS AND THE FIRST REZONE MEETING WAS THE TWENTY FIRST.

SO FOUR DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS, A LOT OF PEOPLE HAD ALREADY LEFT.

YOU GET A LOT OF CHRISTMAS CARDS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF.

SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WALKED AROUND, A LOT OF PEOPLE TOLD ME THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW ABOUT THIS.

NOW I KNEW THAT SOME OF THEM SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE EMAILS.

I MEAN, SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE NOTIFICATION, BUT MAYBE THEY DIDN'T BECAUSE IT WAS A VERY DIFFICULT TIME. AND THEN EVEN THEN, THE WHOLE NEXT WEEK, GOING UP TO NEW YEAR'S, IT WAS REALLY HARD FOR US TO GET ANYTHING DONE.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, THIS IS ALREADY THE 10TH.

I ALSO WANT TO MENTION THAT THAT'S JUST THE NOTIFICATION OF THE REZONE WHEN WE ACTUALLY GOT TO THE MEETING, WE WERE VERY SURPRISED TO ACTUALLY SEE THE SITE PLAN.

AND FOR ME, ESPECIALLY AS I LIVE RIGHT IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY TO SEE THE SITE PLAN, WHICH I ASSUME YOU'VE YOU'VE ALL SEEN THAT HAS TWO BUILDINGS NOT ON THE LAND, BUT RIGHT AGAINST OUR BACK FENCES.

[00:10:02]

SO AS CLOSE AS IT COULD POSSIBLY BE 15 FEET IS, I THINK THERE'S AN ALLEY AND THEN THAT'S WHERE IT WOULD BE. SO I DID SEND A PHOTO ABOUT THAT.

SO FROM WHERE I LIVE, IF I LOOK OUT MY PATIO CURRENTLY, I SEE MY PRIVACY FENCE AND I CAN SEE SOME PASTURE AND THEN I CAN SEE THE AG FARM.

I CAN SEE THE 29TH WITH EVEN TEN FEET, AND I DID SEE A PICTURE.

I ADMIT THAT I DID IT AS BEST I CAN.

I HAD A TEN FOOT POLE AND I WENT OUT THERE AND MY WIFE TOOK THE PICTURE.

IT JUST SIGNIFICANTLY, EVEN AT 10 FEET, TAKES AWAY SO MUCH FROM WHAT I CAN SEE.

AND THIS WOULD BE NOT 10 FEET, BUT 20 FEET.

AND ACTUALLY, AT THIS MEETING, THE DEVELOPER DID NOT ACTUALLY CONFIRM IT WOULD ONLY BE TWO STORIES. I MEAN, MAYBE IT'S GOING TO BE MORE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF TOPPING THEY'LL HAVE ON THE TOP OF THE BUILDING, SO THIS COULD BE 25 FEET.

AND IT'S NOT JUST A SMALL STRUCTURE.

IT EXTENDS TWO HOUSEHOLDS.

SO MY NEIGHBOR, TO MY NEIGHBOR, TO THE SOUTH.

IS THAT RIGHT? THE SOUTH. SO SHE HER ENTIRE BACKYARD WOULD BE THE SAME THING AND THEN MINE. SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY TWO BACKYARDS JUST COMPLETELY FILLED WITH CEMENT OR WHATEVER.

I UNDERSTOOD THERE'D BE AN EIGHT FOOT WALL, WHICH I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE ON OUR SIDE.

BUT THEN ABOVE THAT WOULD BE BALCONIES OR WINDOWS.

I DID UNDERSTAND THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD TRY TO MOVE THOSE WINDOWS, BUT OUR PROBLEM IS REALLY MORE BASIC THAN THAT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE HOMEOWNERS WHERE I LIVE, WE'VE GOT TREES IN THE FRONT, WE'VE GOT TREES IN THE BACK.

IF YOU LOOK AT OUR HOUSE FROM EITHER SIDE, YOU'LL SEE OUR HOUSE, BUT YOU'LL ALSO SEE A TREE. IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE NO TREES.

THERE WAS JUST THAT BUILDING PLACED AS FAR AS POSSIBLE TOWARDS US, AND I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. AND WE DID MENTION IN THE LAST MEETING WHY THE BUILDINGS WOULD BE PLACED THERE AND PUT SUCH A GREAT IMPACT ON OUR VIEW FROM OUR BACKYARD AND ALSO ON THE RESALE VALUE. I HAVE TO THINK THAT WHEN PEOPLE COME TO THE HOUSE, THEY MIGHT LIKE YOUR HOUSE, BUT WHEN THEY WALK OUT IN BACK AND THEY SUDDENLY SEE THIS WALL TO THE SOUTH AND THEN ALL THE WAY ACROSS MY BACKYARD, THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, ZILLOW CAN SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT ABOUT MY PROPERTY VALUE.

BUT SOMEONE'S GOING TO WALK IT IN AND SAY, NO, THIS IS NOT, YOU KNOW, I CAN SEE PEOPLE UP THERE. THEY'RE GOING TO TURN AROUND AGAIN.

I'M ALSO CONCERNED. OH, THANK YOU.

THEY HAVE MY PICTURES ON THE SCREEN.

I'M ALSO CONCERNED THE PICTURE THERE ON THE LEFT IS THIS PROPERTY, AND YOU PROBABLY HAD YOUR OWN PEOPLE GO OUT THERE AND DO ALL THE SURVEY AND EVERYTHING, BUT THIS PROPERTY IS AT A HIGHER LEVEL.

WHEN I FIRST MOVED IN, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH FLOODING.

NOW RECENTLY. YOU KNOW, AT A CERTAIN LEVEL, I CAN SEE THE WATER START TO POUR IN, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE FENCE.

AND THAT IS ONE REASON IS BECAUSE THIS LAND IS BUILT UP A LITTLE BIT HIGHER.

BUT AT LEAST IT'S PASTURE, IT'S GROUND.

IT'S GOING TO SOAK IN THE RAIN.

NOW WE'RE TALKING WITH THIS PROPOSAL TO PUT IN, YOU KNOW, PAVEMENT.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE BUILDINGS THAT'S GOING TO PAVEMENT, THAT'S NOT GOING TO ABSORB THE WATER, THE WATER IS GOING TO GO SOMEPLACE.

I'M NO EXPERT, I'M NOT A CIVIC ENGINEER, CIVIL ENGINEER.

I DON'T KNOW ALL THESE THINGS, BUT I DO KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD OTHER COMMUNITIES DOING WE DID THE BEST WE COULD, BUT STILL IN TRES LAGOS AND OVER CROSS ON WARE IT HAPPENS, THAT WE MAKE CHANGES TO COMMUNITIES TO BUILDING OR WHATEVER AND THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA KIND OF PAY FOR IT. AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT WE START TO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH FLOODING.

I MEAN, WHO DO WE REALLY TALK TO? I MEAN, THE DEVELOPER IS NOT GOING TO COME OUT AND MAKE CHANGES.

AND ALREADY AT THAT POINT, WE'RE ALREADY DAMAGED BY THAT POINT OF VIEW.

I DID ALSO WANT TO TALK ABOUT MY NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH.

THEY WON'T HAVE THOSE BUILDINGS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM, BUT IT WILL BLOCK THEIR SOUTHERN VIEW, AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE PARKING LIGHTS.

AND WE TALKED ABOUT FILTERS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF.

BUT, YOU KNOW, FROM A DEVELOPER POINT OF VIEW, ONCE YOU APPROVE THE REZONE, I DON'T SEE THAT HE'S REALLY HELD TO IT.

AND THAT'S WHAT HE TALKED ABOUT IN THE REZONE. THE REZONES ARE UP OR DOWN.

SO ONCE IT'S APPROVED, YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T REALLY BLAME THEM.

LET'S SAY HE HAS PROBLEMS WITH HIS BUDGET.

LET'S SAY HIS PARTNERS SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU MADE THAT AGREEMENT, BUT THAT'S NOT NOTHING THAT WE CAN REALLY DO. WE DON'T REALLY KNOW THAT HE'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THE WINDOWS, MOVE THE BUILDING, PUT FILTERS OF THE LIGHTS, YOU KNOW, HE CAN'T CONTROL THAT KIND OF STUFF. AND I ALSO WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THAT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN EASY THING.

I THINK THAT ONCE THIS SITE PLAN WAS MADE, I THINK SOMEBODY COULD'VE LOOKED AT IT AND SAID, YOU KNOW, THE RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WHEN THEY SEE WHERE THIS BUILDING IS AND SOMEONE COULD HAVE CAME OUT AND TALKED TO US ABOUT THAT.

AND THAT WASN'T WASN'T REALLY DONE.

I WANT TO MENTION ALSO ABOUT THE SIDEWALK OR LACK THEREOF.

SO A LOT OF US, ESPECIALLY DURING COVID, WHEN EVERYTHING WAS SO CRAZY THAT BALL FIELD, WHICH I ASSUME YOU GUYS WERE ALSO RESPONSIBLE AND THANK YOU FOR THAT WAS JUST THE GREATEST THING. EVERYBODY WAS WALKING OVER HERE WALKING AROUND WITH THEIR FAMILIES IN A CIRCLE, AND IT WAS JUST A CHANCE TO GET OUT OF THE HOUSE.

BUT IT'S TRICKY TO GET OVER THERE BECAUSE AUBURN IS BUSIER AND BUSIER.

[00:15:04]

THERE'S NO SIDEWALK, SO YOU HAVE TO KIND OF PICK WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO WALK AND WATCH FOR CARS THIS WAY, AND THEN YOU GOT TO CROSS 29TH, WHICH IS EVEN MORE DANGEROUS.

SO THE OTHER COMMUNITIES ON AUBURN, FOR EXAMPLE, THE NEW ONE THERE ON 23RD IN AUBURN AND THE ONE WE JUST PUT IN OVER HERE ON 27TH STREET.

THEY ALL PUT SIDEWALKS IN FRONT AND OUR COMMUNITY, MIRABELLA HAS A SIDEWALK IN FRONT, BUT NOW THIS ONE THAT'S COMING IN AND YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

BUT WHEN I READ THE TEXT, IT SAID THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PUT IN A SIDEWALK.

SO THEY'RE PUTTING IN THIS BUILDING WITH NO TREES RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPERTIES WITH PARKING LIGHTS AND LOTS OF PARKING LOT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY FLOOD US.

AND THEY'RE NOT EVEN PUTTING IN, I ASSUME, BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ROOM, BUT THEY'RE NOT EVEN GIVING US A SIDEWALK SO THAT KIDS OR OLDER PEOPLE MYSELF CAN WALK SAFELY THROUGH THAT VERY BUSY SECTION, WHICH THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A MAIN ENTRANCE THERE FROM THE SPEC FROM SEVENTY TO A HUNDRED AND FIFTY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LIVE THERE.

THOSE CARS WILL BE COMING IN AND OUT.

AND SO WE'LL HAVE EVEN MORE TRAFFIC.

AND NOW WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A SAFE WAY TO APPROACH 29TH AND CROSS OVER TO THE BALL FIELD.

I THINK IF THIS THING CAN'T BE DEVELOPED IN A WAY THAT'S CONSCIOUS OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE AND OF THE REASONABLE GROWTH, LIKE SIDEWALKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER REASON THAT YOU WOULD THAT I WOULD ASK YOU NOT TO APPROVE THIS.

WELL, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO INTERRUPT A LITTLE BIT.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE SPEAK THANK YOU SO MUCH. OH, NO, DEFINITELY.

CAN WE JUST ASK YOU TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR OUR RECORD, PLEASE? SORRY I SHOULD'VE DONE THAT FIRST. RICHARD ESTHER 7813 NORTH 27TH I'M RIGHT IN BACK OF THE FIRST BUILDING THERE.

THANK YOU. DOES ANYBODY HAVE SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THIS OR ANY WANT TO SPEAK OUT? HI, GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE] AND I'M 7817 NORTH 27TH LANE IN MCALLEN, I'M ACTUALLY NEXT TO HIM TO RICH.

AND HE DID EMPHASIZE A LOT OF POINTS, WHICH IS PRIVACY.

PRIVACY IS A BIG ISSUE HERE BECAUSE OF LET ME JUST GO BACK A LITTLE BIT.

ON THE FIRST HEARING, WE DID NOTIFY.

THERE WAS TWO TEXT MESSAGES THAT I DID NOTIFY THE DEVELOPER AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM HIM. AFTER OUR FIRST HEARING, HE DID SAY THAT HE WANTED TO WORK WITH US AND PROVIDE US A PLAN TO SEE WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS BUILDING WAS GOING TO BE.

IT NEVER HAPPENED. HE NEVER CONTACTED US AND WE WERE IN A MATTER OF WORKING WITH HIM TO SEE EXACTLY HOW THIS WAS GOING TO COME UP.

SO IT'S REALLY DISAPPOINTED THAT THE DEVELOPER IS NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE US WITH THIS INFORMATION AND KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING.

WHAT IS IT? A THREE STORY? WELL, HE MENTIONED TWO STORY.

HE SAID, LIKE RICH MENTIONED, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND REMOVE WINDOWS.

WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND REMOVE BALCONY.

BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S RELATED OR IN REGARDS WITH THE GUIDELINES OF THE HOW DO YOU CONSTRUCT A BUILDING CORRECT? BECAUSE ONE CAN SAY, YES, I CAN REMOVE ALL THIS, BUT IS IT ACTUALLY GOING TO BE APPROVED? SO THAT'S ONE EMPHASIS THAT I JUST WANTED TO TOUCH BASE.

AND AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, IT'S A PRIVACY ISSUE IS THAT WE DON'T KNOW HOW BIG THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO BE. IT'S RIGHT BEHIND MY BACKYARD AND IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHO.

OF COURSE, WE DON'T KNOW PEOPLE.

SINCE IT'S AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, PEOPLE COME IN AND OUT.

IT'S NOT A RESIDENTIAL.

WHAT WE KNOW ITS FAMILIES ARE GOING TO BE PRESENT, BE LIVING IN THERE.

WE HAVE CHILDREN.

WE HAVE ALSO CONCERNS ABOUT DANGER WISE.

I MEAN, THIS HAS BEEN A RESIDENTIAL, A COMMUNITY WHERE IT'S BEEN SAFE FOR SO MANY YEARS AND WE DON'T KNOW THE OUTCOME OF HAVING JUST AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.

THANK YOU MA'AM. OK, THANK YOU.

ANYBODY ELSE, ANYTHING DIFFERENT? DO WE HAVE THE DEVELOPER OR THE OWNER? GOOD AFTERNOON, GENTLEMEN.

I'M SORRY IF I FEEL LIKE I'M UNDER THE WEATHER HERE, A LITTLE BIT SICK SO I'M WELL, I GOT MY THIRD VACCINE. IT'S NOT.

DON'T GET SCARED.

ALL OF THEIR POINTS I WENT THROUGH WITH THEM.

THEY'RE VERY VALID POINTS AND WE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION ALL OF THEIR POINTS.

SOME OF THEM SIDEWALKS, LANDSCAPING, PRIVACY.

ALL OF THIS WILL BE TAKEN CARE.

ANY BUILDING IN THE CITY OF MCALLEN IS GOING TO REQUIRE A LANDSCAPING.

IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE SIDEWALKS, AND IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE TO MEET THE PARKING CODE.

SO FOR THAT MATTER, WE CANNOT GO TO A THREE OR FOUR STORY BUILDING.

IT'S NOT ENOUGH PARKING FOR A THREE OR FOUR STORY BUILDING.

AT THIS POINT, WE'RE PROPOSING 32 APARTMENTS, WHICH I HAD TALKED TO HIM BEFORE AND I EVEN

[00:20:06]

SHOWED HIM. I SENT A PLAN SHOWING THEM THAT NONE OF THE WINDOWS WILL BE FACING THE BACK OF THEIR YARDS ON TOP OF THAT, WILL BE REQUIRED TO BUFFER, WHICH WOULD BE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON THEIR BACKYARD.

I KNOW THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT WATER GETTING INTO THEIR BACKYARDS OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

THAT'S ANOTHER REQUIREMENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKED FOR FROM THE CITY OFFICIALS WHEN WE SUBMIT FOR PERMITS.

WE HAVE TO PROVIDE ALL THE SOILS, THE DETENTION PONDS, WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WATER DOESN'T GO TO THEIR TO THEIR BACKYARDS.

SO THAT'S MOST OF THE ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE.

AND WE HAD TAKEN THOSE INTO CONSIDERATION.

AND LIKE I SAY, THERE'S ONLY TWO ACTUALLY THREE WINDOWS THAT WE'RE FACING THEIR BACKYARD, WHICH WE TOOK CARE OF.

I THINK I SENT IT TO MR. RUDD MORE OR LESS A SKETCH OF WHAT OF WHAT WE HAD PROPOSED TO DO.

I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAD IT OR IF NOT, I HAVE SOME HERE THAT I CAN PROVIDE FOR YOU GUYS, SO YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? WHAT I HEAR FROM THE RESIDENTS IS THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE DRAINAGE SIDEWALKS, THEY ARE REQUIRED BY THE SUBDIVISION.

YES, SIR. SO JUST FOR THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT SIDEWALKS ARE GOING TO BE PART OF IT AND IT'S PART OF THE SUBDIVISION THING.

THE DRAINAGE. OF COURSE, YOU HAVE TO CHECK THE GREEN AREAS THEY ALL REQUIRE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE ALSO FOR THAT AND YOU'RE GOING TO INCLUDE THAT IN YOUR PLAT, RIGHT? YES. AND ALSO IN THE MATTER OF TAX BASE, IT'LL BE CLOSE TO A $3 MILLION DOLLAR PROJECT IN APARTMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT.

SO IT WILL INCREASE THE TAX VALUE FOR THE CITY OF MCALLEN FOR THAT AMOUNT.

SO IT'LL PROVIDE 32 MORE HOMES FOR PEOPLE SINCE MCALLEN IS GROWING SO, SO MUCH AND SO FAST. SO THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION OF THEM THAT IF IT'S PROBABLY NOT, NOT BIG ENOUGH, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE CLOSE TO $3 MILLION DOLLAR PROJECT.

WE HAVE A VERY SIMILAR ISSUE HERE ON DOVE AND SECOND STREET, BUT THAT OF COURSE, WAS PRETTY MUCH A HUNDRED PERCENT RESIDENTIAL.

THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WITH A [INAUDIBLE], WITH A PARK, WITH THE SCHOOLS, WITH EVERYTHING. THEN WE JUST.

AM I CORRECT, ROY? THE DRAINAGE JUST WAS IMPROVED THERE ON 29TH STREET, BUT CONSTRUCTION? RIGHT. AND WE'RE STILL MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO DRAINAGE IN THAT AREA.

YES, SIR. SO SHOULD THE COMMISSION DECIDE TO DO IT, REST ASSURED THAT.

IT IS NOT GOING TO BE, ESPECIALLY IN NORTH MCALLEN, IT CANNOT BE ANYTHING THAT WOULD LOWER PROPERTY VALUES THAT WOULD DO ANY OF THAT SORT.

I LIVE IN NORTH MCALLEN TOO AND THE MATTER OF FACT, WE JUST APPROVED SOME OTHER UNITS BECAUSE THE CITY IS KIND OF STARTING TO GO A LITTLE BIT INTO THE MIXED USE AND THOSE TYPE OF ISSUES.

BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIG, WE'RE STARTING TO LOSE A LOT OF LAND.

BUT NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS THE RESIDENTS, MAKE SURE THAT THEIR PROPERTY VALUES ARE ALWAYS PROTECTED.

AND OF COURSE, THE COMMISSION DOES WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO.

MAYOR, I'M GOING TO INTERJECT HERE FOR A MOMENT ON A DISAGREE SLIGHTLY WITH YOUR COMPARISON. THE USE THAT THE DEVELOPER AT THIS TIME IS REQUESTING TO REZONE IS MORE INTENSE THAN MAYBE AN R2 DUPLEX REZONING AND CERTAINLY MORE INTENSE THAN AN R 1.

ALSO, KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS REZONING DIDN'T TAKE PLACE IN 1979, DID NOT TAKE PLACE IN 1985, DID NOT TAKE PLACE IN 2000, DIDN'T EVEN TAKE PLACE IN 2010.

IT TOOK PLACE IN 2015.

SO SOME BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WITHIN THE LAST SIX YEARS THOUGHT WHEN IT WENT FROM A0 THAT THE AREA OR THE ZONING THAT FIT BEST IN THAT AREA WAS SINGLE FAMILY R1.

ALSO, KEEP IN MIND THAT AUBURN RIGHT NOW IS A TWO LANE, ESSENTIALLY COUNTY ROAD WITH AN UNDEVELOPED SHOULDER.

THERE IS NO STORMWATER SEWER.

HAVING LIVED IN THAT PART OF TOWN FOR PRETTY MUCH MY WHOLE LIFE, THERE IS A SMALL KNOLL WHERE THIS SITE PLAN WOULD BE LOCATED THAT IS APPROXIMATELY ANYWHERE FROM TWO TO FOUR FEET ABOVE THE HEIGHT OR ELEVATION OF THE RESIDENCES OF NORTH 27TH POINT.

SO THERE'S OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES AREAS THAT I CAN THINK OF PRIMARILY OFF WARE ROAD AND [INAUDIBLE] MILE ON A RECENT DEVELOPMENT IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS, WHERE THE ELEVATION OF

[00:25:04]

THAT SUBDIVISION WAS ABOUT TWO OR THREE FEET.

BUT ON THE STRONG STORM EVENT, THE RAIN DRAINED SOUTH INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH.

SO THAT'S THE OTHER CONCERN, BUT ALSO FROM A TRAFFIC SAFETY POINT OF VIEW.

THAT IS A VERY INTENSE USE FOR AN INTERSECTION THAT HAS NO TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THIS TIME.

AUBURN IS STILL HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW SOON THAT WOULD BE.

YOU'RE GOING TO THROW IN THIRTY TWO UNITS THAT HAS APPROXIMATELY 70 PARKING SPACES, LESS THAN TWO HUNDRED FEET NOW WITH APPROXIMATELY EVEN ONE HUNDRED FEET FROM A VERY BUSY INTERSECTION. IF WE DID TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THERE IS THE BASEBALL FIELD THAT WE HAVE BLANCA SANCHEZ ELEMENTARY AND IF AUBURN, WHERE TO DEAD END IT WOULDN'T HAVE AS MUCH TRAFFIC, BUT ACTUALLY AUBURN WILL INTERSECT WITH THE FUTURE NORTH 33RD STREET, WHICH I UNDERSTAND IS GOING TO HAVE A ROUNDABOUT WHICH WILL MORE THAN LIKELY GENERATE MORE TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA.

SO THE CONCERNS THAT THE RESIDENTS HAVE RAISED ARE IMPORTANT.

BUT ALSO THERE'S OTHER CONCERNS WITH TRAFFIC AND SAFETY AND PEDESTRIAN USE.

IN TERMS OF THIS AREA, YOU'RE THROWING IN ANYWHERE FROM 50 TO 70 CARS, VERY CLOSE TO AN INTERSECTION THAT WILL BECOME A VERY BUSY INTERSECTION IN THE YEARS TO COME WHEN IT COMES TO PARKS AND RECREATION.

AND CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, WITH EDUCATION IN SCHOOL AND CERTAINLY THE CONCERNS ARE VALID WITH REGARDS TO THE DRAINAGE.

I KNOW THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN MINIMUM DETENTION REQUIREMENTS, BUT IF YOU COMPARE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN TERMS OF THE CONCEPT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER, YOU HAVE A VERY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT, AT LEAST BASED ON YOUR SITE PLAN.

I KNOW I'M NOT HERE TO MAKE A JUDGMENT CALL ON YOUR SITE PLAN.

THE BASE ASSUMING THOSE ARE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS AND YOU PUT THE ROOFTOPS OF THE APARTMENTS. THAT IS A LOT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER COMPARED TO WHAT IT IS NOW WHICH WOULD OBVIOUSLY ABSORB. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S GOING TO PREVENT FLOODING BECAUSE I'M SURE IT STILL FLOODS. BUT I THINK THE ISSUE OF FLOODING IS GOING TO BE WORSENED BY THE FACT THAT YOU'RE NOW GOING TO HAVE MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER.

SO THOSE ARE THE ISSUES THAT I'M JUST RAISING AT THIS POINT BECAUSE OF MY FAMILIARITY WITH THE INTERSECTION AND THE AMOUNT OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC IN ADDITION TO PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING TO BE PUT INTO THAT PARTICULAR AREA.

WELL, IF I MAY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THERE WITH MR., I THINK IT WAS MR. RUDD THAT THAT STREET IS BEING ALSO PROPOSED TO EXPAND.

WHEN I MADE A SUBDIVISION IN NORTH MCALLEN I WANT BICENTENNIAL THERE, BUT I THINK IT'S FOR THE BETTER OF MCALLEN AND FOR THE BETTER OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, NOT JUST FOR ME.

THAT'S ONE AND THE OTHER ONE.

I KNOW THAT THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, THE BIGGER THE BUILDING, THE MORE REQUIREMENTS FOR DETENTION. IF I BUILD A HOUSE, IT'S A SMALLER RETENTION FOR WATER AND DRAINAGE.

SO AT THIS POINT, I CAN'T EXCEED IF I CAN'T CONTROL THE WATER FOR THAT PARTICULAR LAYOUT. SO THAT'S ANOTHER OBSTACLE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET AT THAT POINT.

BUT REST ASSURED THAT WE CANNOT OVERBUILD AND IN A MATTER THAT WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CONTROL THE WATER THAT RAIN OR DRAINAGE CANNOT HOLD.

THAT'S WHY GREAT CITY ENGINEERS ARE LOOKING AT US VERY CLOSELY IN EVERY SUBDIVISION, IN EVERY HOME WE BUILD. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN REST ASSURED THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

AND THE OTHER, LIKE I SAID, ALBERT IS BEING PROPOSED TO EXPAND AT SOME POINT AND AGAIN IN PRIOR SUBDIVISIONS THAT I'VE DONE.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT A DEPOSIT FOR THE STREET.

SO IN ESSENCE, WE'RE CONTRIBUTING WITH THE CITY WITH A PAVEMENT THAT'S ON OUR AREA.

SO THERE'S ANOTHER SAVINGS ALSO FOR THE CITY OF MCALLEN, AND THAT STREET WAS IT'S GOING TO NEED TO GROW AND IT'S GOING TO BE SOONER THAN LATER.

AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS APARTMENT WILL PROBABLY TAKE WITHIN THE FIRST NEXT YEAR OR A YEAR AND A HALF. SO THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF TIME STILL BEFORE WE CAN START BREAKING GROUND. WE'VE GOT TO GO AND MEET EVERY REQUIREMENT FROM LANDSCAPING, LIKE THEY SAID, ALL THE TREES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO REQUIRE THE GRASS, THE SWALES, THE SIDEWALKS, ALL THAT WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED AT POINT OF GETTING THE PERMITS.

AND AS FAR AS VIEW FOR THEM, LIKE THEY SAY, THAT THEY CAN'T SEE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO [INAUDIBLE] BUILDING, WE BUILD FOUR HOMES OR FIVE HOMES, IT'LL BE THE SAME THING

[00:30:01]

EVENTUALLY. AND SO AT THIS POINT, I THINK THAT ALL THEIR CONCERNS, I THINK IN REALITY, IT'S MORE OF NOT KNOWING THE PROCESS AND NOT KNOWING THE SYSTEM BECAUSE ONCE WE GET THE PERMITS GOING.

ALL THOSE CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE WILL BE ADDRESSED TO US AND HAVE TO BE MET IN THE GETTING PERMITS DEPARTMENT.

ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I HAVE WITH THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, IT'S THE ARE YOU GOING TO BE HAVING THE BALCONIES ON THE SECOND FLOOR.

IF I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE THE PLANS BELOW THERE? IN REALITY, THERE'S NO BALCONIES.

THERE'S LIKE A LITTLE WALKWAY TO GO INTO LIKE A STORAGE, BUT IT'S LIKE A THREE FOOT WALKWAY. THERE'S NO BALCONIES THAT YOU CAN HAVE LIKE A CHAIR OR YOU CAN HAVE A TABLE OR NOTHING. IT'S MORE LIKE A WALKWAY FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS AND FOR THE WATER HEATER AND ALSO FOR THE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS. SO ALL THE DOORS FACING THE BACK.

THE LITTLE SQUARE IN THE BACK OF THE PART THAT'S FACING.

THE SOUTH.

YES, WHERE THE HOUSES ARE.

YEAH, WELL.

[INAUDIBLE] THAT'S NOT A BALCONY? WELL, YOU COULD CALL IT A BALCONY, BUT IT'S A THREE FOOT BALCONY.

IF ANYTHING, IT'S MORE LIKE A WALKWAY AND AN EMERGENCY ACCESS IN CASE OF A FIRE AND TO MEET ALL CODES FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

BUT THE DOORS FACING BACK THERE, THEY HAVE A VERY SMALL WINDOW ON THE TOP AND THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH SOLID BECAUSE THEY'RE ON THE BEDROOM.

AND BY THAT MATTER, THE PERSON ON THE SOUTH I TALKED TO HIM PERSONALLY AND HE'S OK WITH IT. HE DOESN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH US DOING THAT TOWARDS SEASIDE.

OK. MY MAIN CONCERN WAS TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEIGHBORS ON THE EAST SIDE.

SO FOR THAT REASON, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THE ONE THAT HAS THE PINK MARKS.

THAT'S WHERE THE WINDOWS WILL BE MOVED TO.

I DON'T KNOW YOU GUYS RECEIVED THIS ONE.

YEAH. YES. OK, SO WHERE THIS ARE, IT'S WHERE THE WINDOWS ARE GOING TO BE.

THERE'S NO WINDOWS FACING TOWARDS THEIR HOMES.

SO WE TRY TO ACCOMMODATE ALL THE ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE TOLD US IN THE PRIOR MEETING.

YEAH, THEY TRY TO CONTACT ME, I TRY TO CONTACT THEM.

IT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN AND ALL THE HOLIDAYS CAME IN AND IT JUST SO HAPPENED THAT IT WAS UNFORTUNATE THAT WE COULDN'T MEET.

BUT I HAD TOLD THEM THAT I WAS GOING TO TRY AND TAKE CARE OF ALL THE ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE. AND BY THAT MATTER, HERE WE ARE.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING RIGHT NOW.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD DEPRECIATE NONE OF THEIR HOMES BEING NEW APARTMENTS, AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE HOUSING APARTMENTS.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE ON THE HIGHER END.

SO UNFORTUNATELY, LIKE I SAID, EVERYBODY WAS ON VACATIONS.

THE DESIGN GUY FOR THE ELEVATIONS, HE JUST GOT BACK TODAY OR YESTERDAY, SO I COULDN'T GET THE FACADES, BUT REST ASSURED THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A HOUSING PROJECT.

I AGREE THAT THE HOLIDAY'S GOT OBVIOUSLY IN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN THE DISCUSSIONS.

WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN MEETING WITH NOW IF YOU HAD ADDITIONAL TIME? LIKE I SAID, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM MEETING WITH THEM.

WOULD YOU BE REQUESTING ADDITIONAL TIME SO THAT YOU CAN? WELL, I THINK THAT AT THIS POINT, WE'VE PROPOSED ALL THE ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE IN HAND.

WE HAVE MENTIONED THEM.

I HAVE SHOWED IT TO THEM THAT DAY OUTSIDE OF THE MEETING.

I TOLD THEM IT'S THREE WINDOWS THAT ARE FACING YOUR SIDE.

I WILL REARRANGE THEM SO THAT THEY CAN COMPLY WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT CODES AND THAT WOULD NOT BE FACING THEIR BACKYARD, WHICH WAS THEIR MAIN CONCERN OF PRIVACY.

MA'AM, CAN YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE? THANK YOU, CAN YOU PLEASE PUT YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOUR ADDRESS.

YES, HI, SO MY NAME IS MONICA [INAUDIBLE] AND MY HOUSE IS 7821 NORTH 27TH LANE HERE IN MCALLEN. SO MY HOUSE IS A HOUSE IN THE CORNER WHERE MIRABELLA PARK STARTS.

AND I CAN SAY THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'M HEARING ABOUT THIS.

I DIDN'T GET THAT FIRST NOTICE AND I HEARD ABOUT THIS MEETING ACTUALLY FROM MY NEIGHBORS

[00:35:02]

BECAUSE OF THIS MEETING HAPPENING.

SO I KNOW HE'S MENTIONING THAT HE COULD REQUEST EXTRA TIME TO SPEAK WITH US, BUT I FEEL LIKE HE REALLY DOESN'T WANT TO SPEAK WITH US.

AND I AM CONCERNED BECAUSE I'VE BEEN THERE FOR 10 YEARS AND I AM CONCERNED WITH THIS PROJECT HAPPENING BECAUSE, OF COURSE, PRIVACY FIRST THING I HAVE FOUR CHILDREN.

I JUST INVESTED A LOT OF MONEY INTO MY BACKYARD.

WITH COVID HAPPENING, I'M SURE EVERYONE HAS INVESTED IN THEIR HOMES AND I KNOW THE AUBURN HAS BEEN WORKED ON AND I KNOW FOR A FACT BECAUSE EVERYONE WAS HOME THIS PAST YEAR.

AND WE HAD TO ENDURE ALL THE DIRT AND EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED, WHICH WAS A TOTAL OF LIKE SIX MONTHS, I THINK IN TOTAL.

AND I'M CONCERNED THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE FLOODING IN MY AREA BECAUSE BEFORE, LIKE I SAID, I'VE BEEN THERE FOR 10 YEARS AND BEFORE I WOULD SEE THE WATER THAT WOULD JUST PASS AND NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN NOW WITH THE PROJECT, WITH EVERYTHING THAT WAS WORKED ON TO KIND OF ASSIST WITH THE DRAINAGE ISSUES THAT WERE HAPPENING ON WARE I SEE WHERE THE LEVELS OF WATER START TO RISE ON AUBURN.

I'M CONCERNED THAT IF YOU BUILD APARTMENTS, THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE AN EVEN WORSE ISSUE.

SO I FEEL LIKE WE NEED SOME MORE TIME AND HAVE SOME MORE INFORMATION.

MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS PLANNED OUT CORRECTLY SO THAT WE CAN ALL BE HAPPY WITH WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

MR. ZAMORA CAN YOU CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT SHE ACTUALLY RECEIVED NOTICE? OK.

MEETING. NO FOR THE FIRST MEETING, I DIDN'T NOT GET ANYTHING FOR THIS SECOND MEETING MY NEIGHBORS WERE THE ONES WITH THE PETITION AND EVERYTHING.

THEY WERE THE ONES THAT REACHED OUT TO ME TO LET ME KNOW ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON.

THAT'S HOW I LEARNED ABOUT THIS MEETING.

AND THAT'S WHY I CAME TO LISTEN.

I DON'T KNOW.

I HAVEN'T SEEN THE LAYOUT, THE PROJECT, ANYTHING.

AND LIKE I SAID, MY HOUSE IS THE FIRST HOUSE RIGHT THERE.

AS SOON AS YOU WALK INTO, YOU GO INTO 27TH STREET.

MAYOR SEEING THAT AT LEAST WE HAVE ONE PERSON HERE PRESENT THAT IT'S NOT QUITE UNEQUIVOCAL WHETHER OR NOT SHOULD WE NOTICE WOULD THE BOARD ENTERTAIN OR I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE SAID ITEM UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.

I WOULD JUST INTERJECT THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR NOTICE IS TO MAIL NOTICE REGULAR MAIL, RIGHT? NOT TO CONFIRM RECEIPT.

NOT TO WHAT? CONFIRM RECEIPT.

I COULDN'T THE CITY MEETS ITS OBLIGATION WHEN IT DEPOSITS THE NOTICE IN THE REGULAR MAIL.

OH I SEE, WE DON'T HAVE TO CONFIRM RECEIPT.

JUST THE FACT THAT IT WAS MAILED. SO CAN WE CONFIRM THAT IT WAS MAILED MR. ZAMORA? OK, SO THEN.

THERE'S A SIGN ON SITE THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR OVER A MONTH? I UNDERSTAND. BUT LEGALLY, UNDER THE CITY ORDINANCE, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A MAILED OUT NOTICE. THE ISSUE, THE CONCERN I HAVE ABOUT EVEN TABLING.

I THINK Y'ALL EITHER DO IT OR NOT, BUT IN TABLING THEN WE GET INTO THE ISSUE OF, OKAY, WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE POSSIBLY GET INTO THE SUPERMAJORITIES.

AND I KNOW THAT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO THE DEVELOPERS, EITHER.

SO IT'S YOU'VE GOT TO BALANCE OUT.

WELL SO IT'S UP TO Y'ALL WHAT Y'ALL WANT TO DO. IT'S NOT CLEAR WHETHER OR NOT SHE RECEIVED NOTICE MAYOR, AND I THINK THAT'S THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT THAT'S REQUIRED BY OUR CITY ORDINANCES. COUNCILOR.

MAYOR, AGAIN, THE REQUIREMENT THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE NOTICE BE MAILED U.S.

MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID FIRST CLASS.

OKAY CAN THEY CONFIRM THAT I RECEIVED IT? AND THAT'S WHERE MR. ZAMORA JUST REPLIED THAT HE CANNOT CONFIRM IT AT THIS MOMENT.

THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT TO BE CERTIFIED. THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL.

I'M NOT ASKING WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS CERTIFIED MAIL.

I'M ASKING IT WAS SIMPLY MAILED OUT, AND HE CAN'T CONFIRM THAT.

YOU'RE ASKING IF SHE GOT NOTIFIED OR NOT.

THAT'S NOT THE REQUIREMENT.

THE MAIL NOTICE IS A REQUIREMENT.

WE DON'T KNOW, THAT'S THE ANSWER.

THAT'S YEAH, WE DON'T KNOW.

THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT, BUT YOU HAVE THE PEOPLE THAT WERE NOTIFIED.

SUPPOSED TO BE NOTIFIED, NOTIFIED.

THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED YES SIR. SHOULD HAVE BEEN. BUT I THINK WE OPERATE.

YES. BUT 99 TIMES OUT OF 100, THE ANSWER IS YES.

YEAH, I THINK WE GENERALLY OPERATE WITH THE BELIEF THAT THE NOTICES WERE SENT AND RECEIVED, WHETHER THE PERSON SAW THEM OR NOT.

NOW TO SATISFY COMMISSIONER ZAMORA, IF WE COULD SIMPLY PUSH THIS ITEM OFF, CONTINUE WITH

[00:40:04]

THE AGENDA. IF MAYBE IN 10 15 MINUTES, YOU COULD PULL THE LIST OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE NOTIFIED TO BRING THAT TO A CONFIRMATION, THAT NOTICE WAS AT LEAST SENT OUT, RIGHT? AND THEN WE COULD COME BACK TO THIS ITEM TODAY.

WELL, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE.

AND YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT WELL, BUT YOU'RE PART OF IT.

YES. [LAUGHTER] OK, SO WE'LL TAKE A LITTLE TIME OUT ON THIS ONE.

OK, NEXT ONE.

[2. Initial zoning to R-2 (duplex-fourplex residential) District: 9 acres (7.73 acres net) out of lot 452, John H. Shary Subdivision, Hidalgo County, Texas; 7000 Mile 6 Road.]

7000 MILE 6 ROAD THAT WE ARE ASKING THAT THE ITEM BE TABLED, THERE WAS NO PRE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT SUBMITTED.

SO MOVE TO TABLE. SECOND.

NEXT ITEM. THE NEXT ITEM IS LOCATED AT THE ADDRESS IS 9000 NORTH SHARY ROAD.

[3. Initial zoning to R-3A (multifamily residential apartment) District: 25.140 acres out of Lot 445, John H. Shary Subdivision, Hidalgo County, Texas; 9000 North Shary Road.]

IT'S AN INITIAL ZONING FOR R3A.

THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN OUR ETJ SINCE 1979, AND IT'S UNDERGOING VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION WITH THE INITIAL R3A ZONE.

IT IS AN 84 LOT SUBDIVISION AND IT'S UNDER THE NAME OF THE HILLS THAT'S SHARY LAND SUBDIVISION. IT HAS RECEIVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL BY THE P&Z BOARD.

SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE VACANT LAND, SINGLE FAMILY, PIONEER HIGH SCHOOL AS WELL AS VACANT LAND. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR ESTATES RESIDENTIAL IN THIS AREA.

THE REZONING REQUEST WILL ALLOW FOR A DIFFERENT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO OCCUR ALONG THIS SECTION OF SHARY ROAD.

THE ITEM WAS CONSIDERED DECEMBER 21ST BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

NO ONE WAS IN OPPOSITION AND THE BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE INITIAL ZONING, WITH SIX MEMBERS PRESENT IN VOTING.

WAS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO ANY OF THESE ZONING? NO, SIR. LET ME ASK YOU ONE QUESTION, MR. ZAMORA, SINCE THIS AREA IN PARTICULAR IS IN THE ETJ., WERE THERE ANY AREAS THAT WERE IMMEDIATELY CONTIGUOUS THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED OR TRIGGERED THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THEY ANNEXED? AND THE INITIAL ZONING AS FAR AS THE NOTICES OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN.

CITY LIMITS, AT LEAST DEPICTED ON THE.

CORRECT? WELL, PROBABLY THEY GET NOTICE TO THE OWNERSHIP, RIGHT NEXT TO IT THEN AND I DON'T LIVE THERE I GET THE NOTICE ANYWAY BECAUSE SPEAKERS] NO YOU'RE NOT, IF YOU'RE NOT IN THE CITY LIMITS THEN THE NOTICES DON'T GO OUT.

OH IT'S ETJ. EXACTLY LIMITS. GOT IT THERE IS A SIGN THAT'S PLACED ON THE PROPERTY.

ON A PROPERTY. BUT AS FAR AS NOTICES THEY WOULDN'T GO TO THE PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. MOTION TO APPROVE.

NEXT ITEM IS THE 9400 NORTH SHARY ROAD.

AGAINST.

[4. Initial zoning to R-1 (single-family residential) District: 10.201 acres out of Lot 445, John H. Shary Subdivision, Hidalgo County, Texas; 9400 North Shary Road.]

THE MOTION CARRIES.

NEXT ITEM.

IT'S IN THE ETJ SINCE 1981.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A 40 LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

THE ITEM WAS CONSIDERED DECEMBER 21ST BY THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION, AND THEY VOTED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING ON THIS ITEM.

SO MOVED. SECOND.

AYE. AGAINST. MOTION CARRIES.

[5. Initial zoning to R-1 (single-family residential) District: 1 acre out of west ½ of the west ½ of Lot 131, Pride O’ Texas Subdivision, Hidalgo County, Texas; 11208 North Bentsen Road.]

NEXT ITEM.

ON ITEM SIX AND SEVEN.

I'LL BE ABSTAINING FROM THOSE TWO ITEMS. YES SIR. OK, THE NEXT ITEM IS ELEVEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHT NORTH BENTSEN ROAD.

THIS PROPERTY IS IN OUR ETJ SINCE 1981.

IT ALSO IS GOING TO VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION.

THE REQUEST DOES CONFORM WITH THE URBAN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE AREA.

STAFF IS RECOMMEND.

I MEAN, THE BOARD DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ITEM, WITH SIX MEMBERS PRESENT VOTING AT THEIR MEETING OF DECEMBER 31ST.

DO I HEAR MOTION TO APPROVE.

SO MOVE.

SEVEN. OK, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INITIAL ZONING TO C3.

AYE. AGAINST MOTION.

ITEM NUMBER. YES.

[6. Initial zoning to C-3 (general business) District: 1.75 acres out of Lots 147 and 148, Pride o’ Texas Subdivision, Hidalgo County, Texas; 9500 North Ware Road.]

NO I SAID AYE.

IT IS IN THE ETJ SINCE 1979, AND IT TOO IS [INAUDIBLE] VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION.

IT'S A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION UP NORTH ON WARE ROAD APARTMENTS AND BUSINESS CENTER.

THE REQUEST DOES CONFORM WITH THE AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL FOR THIS AREA.

AT THE DECEMBER 7TH 2021 MEETING THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION VOTED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST, WITH FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING.

MOVE TO APPROVE.

IS THERE A SECOND. DISCUSSION.

ON THIS ITEM THE INITIAL ZONING IS GOING TO GENERAL BUSINESS, CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND ON THE NEXT ITEM, I UNDERSTAND THAT TO BE RESIDENTIAL.

YES, SIR, IT'S FOR R3A APARTMENTS.

[00:45:02]

OK? IS THAT SEGMENT OF MILE SIX BETWEEN WARE ROAD AND I GUESS, THE IRRIGATION CANAL? IS THAT GOING TO BE LIKE THE FUTURE EXTENSION OF FREDDIE? EXCUSE ME. IS THAT GOING TO BE THE FUTURE EXTENSION OF FREDDIE THAT MILE SIX? YES, IT IS. THAT'S PROJECTED TO BE EXTENDED AS EITHER FOR CITY PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT.

OK. IT SEEMED KIND OF ODD TO HAVE A COMMERCIAL REZONING IN THAT PART, BUT IF I IMAGINE FREDDIE GOES THROUGH, THEN I SEE.

YES. THEN A FIRST AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.

[7. Initial zoning to R-3A (multifamily residential apartment) District: 8.70 acres out of Lots 147 and 148, Pride o’ Texas Subdivision, Hidalgo County, Texas; 9500 North Ware Road (Rear).]

ALL AGAINST.

OK THE NEXT ITEM IS A REQUEST FOR INITIAL ZONING OF R3A.

NEXT ITEM.

IT'S BEEN IN OUR ETJ SINCE 1979.

IT'S THE SECOND LOT OF THE PREVIOUS ITEM THAT YOU JUST CONSIDERED.

THE REQUEST DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE URBAN WITH AN URBAN AUTO COMMERCIAL.

HOWEVER, THE INTENSITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL USE PROPOSED WOULD BE LESS THAN THAT OF THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND IT IS FOLLOWING A TREND OF HAVING COMMERCIAL AND APARTMENTS AT THE REAR AT THE INTERSECTION OF PRINCIPAL ROADWAYS AND HIGH SPEED ARTERIALS.

ITEM WAS CONSIDERED AT THE DECEMBER 7TH MEETING AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST OF THE INITIAL ZONING, WITH FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING.

AND ON THIS ITEM AS WELL.

NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED BECAUSE EVERYTHING AROUND IT IS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS.

[C) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT]

RIGHT. MOVE TO APPROVE. SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR.

OK THE FIRST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.

[1. Request of Roberto Garza, on behalf of Garman Investments, LP, for a Conditional Use Permit, for life of the use, for a Planned Unit Development at 13.116 acres out of Lots 234 and 235, Pride o’ Texas subdivision, Hidalgo County, Texas; 6100 North Bentsen Road.]

THAT ITEM IS REMAINS TABLED.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MCALLEN.

OH WAIT, WE NEED TO TABLE THAT ITEM.

[D) Amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of McAllen.]

MOTION TO TABLE SAID ITEM.

[E) Public Hearing and Ordinance providing for the annexation of 9 acres (7.73 acres net) out of Lot 452, John H. Shary Subdivision, Hidalgo County, Texas; 7000 Mile 6 Road.]

NEED A MOTION TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MCALLEN.

SO MOVED.

OK ITEM E, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION.

MOTION CARRIES. ITEM E.

IT WAS ITEM 1 B2 THAT YOU CONSIDERED FOR A REZONING, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE FOR ANNEXATION.

I'M SORRY THIS ONE IS BEING TABLED.

MOTION TO TABLE? YES, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

[F) Public Hearing and Ordinance providing for the annexation of 25.140 acres out of Lot 445, John H. Shary Subdivision, Hidalgo County, Texas; 9000 North Shary Road.]

SECOND. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR.

NEXT ITEM. OK, THIS IS ALSO A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION.

THE MOTION CARRIES.

IT'S AT 9000 NORTH SHARY ROAD.

IT'S BEEN UNDER ETJ SINCE 1975, 1979, EXCUSE ME, AND IT'S PROPOSED FOR AN 84 LOT SUBDIVISION. THE SURROUNDING USES DO INCLUDE VACANT LAND PIONEER HIGH SCHOOL AND THE [INAUDIBLE] IS FOR SINGLE FAMILY.

STAFF RECOMMENDS ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE FOR ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY.

[G) Public Hearing and Ordinance providing for the annexation of 10.201 acres out of Lot 445, John H. Shary Subdivision, Hidalgo County, Texas; 9400 North Shary Road.]

SO MOVED. SECOND.

MOTION CARRIES. THE NEXT ITEM.

THE NEXT ITEM IS 1G 9400 NORTH SHARY ROAD, ALSO VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION.

THE INITIAL ZONING IS R1, AND YOU CONSIDER THAT AT THE PREVIOUSLY IT'S A 40 LOT SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS THE PIONEER ESTATE SUBDIVISION.

THE TREND FOR THE AREA IS SINGLE FAMILY AND THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE FOR ANNEXATION.

MOTION TO APPROVE.

[H) Public Hearing and Ordinance providing for the annexation of 10.45 acres out of Lots 147 and 148, Pride o’ Texas Subdivision, Hidalgo County, Texas; 9500 North Ware Road.]

THE NEXT ITEM IS ONE FOR ANNEXATION, ALSO VOLUNTARY 9500 NORTH WARE ROAD, IT'S IN OUR ETJ SINCE 1979.

THE TREND FOR THE AREA IS SINGLE FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL AND THE INITIAL ZONING FOR THIS AREA IS FOR C3 AND R3A STAFF RECOMMENDS ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE FOR ANNEXATION OF THE

[I) Public Hearing and Ordinance providing for the annexation of 1 acre out of Lot 131, Pride O’ Texas Subdivision, Hidalgo County, Texas; 11208 North Bentsen Road.]

PROPERTY. SO MOVED.

ITEM I IS A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION ALSO.

ITEM I.

PROPERTY HAS BEEN UNDER ETJ SINCE 1981, WITH THE INITIAL ZONING OF R1.

THE TREND FOR THE AREA IS SINGLE FAMILY AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VOLUNTARY ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION FOR ANNEXATION.

SO MOVED. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. AGAINST MOTION CARRIES. MAYOR.

THESE MATTERS WERE ALL RELATED OR ALL ITEMS WITHIN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WAS ANYBODY AGAINST ANY OF THESE ITEMS?

[END OF PUBLIC HEARING]

[2. CONSENT AGENDA]

WE DIDN'T THINK SO. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

OK. CONSENT AGENDA.

IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO PULL OUT?

[3. BIDS/CONTRACTS]

MOVE TO APPROVE.

[A) Consideration and Selection of Top Ranked firms for McAllen Fire Station #8 and authorization to negotiate scope of services and fee schedule.]

DO I HEAR A SECOND. SECOND.

THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE. ALL AGAINST.

ITEM THREE 3A IS CONSIDERATION SELECTION OF THE TOP RANKED FIRM FOR MCALLEN FIRE STATION NUMBER EIGHT AND AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE SCOPE OF SERVICES.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COMMISSION.

[00:50:01]

TODAY'S ITEM IS FOR THE SELECTION OF A FIRM TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS TO CONDUCT DESIGN SERVICES FOR FIRE STATION EIGHT.

WE RECEIVED 12 STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS.

WE HAVE INCLUDED THE SCORING CRITERIA IN THE BACK OF A PACKET FOR YOUR REVIEW.

I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT IN THIS ITEM AND ITEM 3B THE SAME FIRM WAS RANKED THE TOP FIRM SO IF COMMISSION WANTS TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN OUR RECOMMENDATION, RIGHT? I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT THAT IT'S THE SAME FIRM FOR BOTH ITEMS. STAFF'S RECOMMENDING SELECTION OF THE TOP RANKED FIRM AND SEEKS AUTHORIZATION AND NEGOTIATE SCOPE AND FEE FOR THESE SERVICES.

ADDITIONALLY, IF NEGOTIATIONS ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL WITH A RECOMMENDED FIRM, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY MANAGER WITH CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL NEGOTIATIONS CEASE AND COMMENCE WITH THE NEXT RANKED FIRM ON THE LIST AND I'LL OPEN IT FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

WERE THE SAME PEOPLE INVOLVED IN BOTH ITEMS. DID THE SAME RANKING OR THEY INVOLVED DIFFERENT PEOPLE? YES, SIR, IT WAS THE SAME FIVE PEOPLE THAT RANKED IT, AND THE CRITERIA WAS FAIRLY CLOSE BECAUSE BOTH WERE FIRE RELATED.

RIGHT. AND THEN ALMOST ALL THE SAME FIRMS SUBMITTED THE SAME, PROPOSAL.

THE ONLY THING WAS THE FIRE STATION TRAINING FACILITY HAD A LITTLE BIT, A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFERENCE. THERE'S SOME DIFFERENT CRITERIA, SO THERE WAS A SLIGHT FLUCTUATION.

BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THAT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THINGS KIND OF STAYED PRETTY, EVEN BETWEEN ALL THE FIRMS. WE WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER SPLITTING THE FIRMS. BUT WE HAVE WE HAVE ITEM 3, A AND B, WHICH IS THE SAME FIRMS THEY HAVE BEEN RANKED BY STAFF BROUGHT TO US COUNCILOR.

COMMISSION COULD CONSIDER ITS CRITERIA, BUT LIKE YOU SAID, MAYOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN OR THE FIRMS HAVE BEEN EVALUATED AND RANKED BY STAFF.

WE'RE PICKING THIS ONE FIRM FOR EACH ITEM.

YES, THAT WOULD BE CORRECT, SIR.

HAVE WE DONE ANY RECENT PROJECTS WITH THE TOP RANKED FIRM.

WE HAVE IN THE PAST.

NOT RECENTLY. LARGER PROJECTS HAVE YOU OR MEDIUM SIZED LARGE.

IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE'VE WORKED WITH JENAK, BUT THEY HAVE WORKED WITH THE CITY.

DIDN'T THEY DO THE CONVENTION CENTER? THEY DID. I THINK THEY DID THE CONVENTION CENTER IN THE LAST ONE.

THEY DID LIKE A DOOR REHAB AT [INAUDIBLE] DO WE EXPECT ANY SAVINGS IF LIKE IN THIS CASE, JANAK IT WOULD BE SELECTED AS A TOP FIRM FOR EACH ONE.

WOULD THERE BE ADDITIONAL SAVINGS? JUST BECAUSE. I THINK WE'LL COME BACK AT THE SAME PERCENTAGE.

[INAUDIBLE] THERE WON'T BE A SAVINGS, WHETHER YOU WORK TO ONE OR TWO SEPARATE FIRMS. AND IT CAN'T BE BASED ON PRICE EITHER.

RIGHT.

ROY, HOW DOES IT WORK WITH THE BUDGETED AMOUNT? WHAT'S THE EXPECTATION ON FIRE STATION EIGHT AND TECHNICALLY FUTURE REIMBURSEMENT FROM WHETHER IT'S THE TIRZ OR TRES LAGOS? IS THAT CAPPED OR? NO, I DON'T THINK SO.

I WANT TO SAY THAT THE ESTIMATE THAT WE HAVE IN THE TIRZ IS ABOUT $3 MILLION DOLLARS.

SO EVEN BACK THEN, WHAT IS IT? TWO POINT THREE. BUT IT'S NOT CAPPED.

YEAH, WE SHOULD GIVE TIRZ MONEY TO.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO. WE'RE PROPOSING WE PAY FOR IT UP FRONT.

SURE. AND THEN GET REIMBURSED.

BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE A CAP.

SO, YOU KNOW, NO, IT SHOULDN'T BE.

MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED BY.

BUT WE'RE MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE.

FOR BOTH ITEMS. I THINK WE'RE JUST DOING THREE 3A.

[B) Consideration and Selection of Top Ranked firms for McAllen Fire Fighter Training Facility and authorization to negotiate scope of services and fee schedule.]

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. AGAINST. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. 3B.

IT'S THE SAME THING. ALSO, THE SAME ARCHITECT RECOMMENDED.

I WOULD LIKE TO SPLIT IT AND NOT GIVE THE SAME ARCHITECTURAL FIRM BOTH.

I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE BECAUSE SCALE AND LIKE, ON THE FIRST ONE ITEM THAT WE JUST PASSED.

THEY RANKED LIKE A TOTAL OF 1.1.

AND THEN ON THE SECOND SCALE, THEY RANK A TOTAL OF 133.

LEGAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS? ABSOLUTELY. MAYOR I'D BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY ISSUES LEGALLY THAT THE I WOULD SUGGEST THAT AFTER WE FINISH, THE REST OF THEM POSSIBLY GO INTO THE ISSUE UNDER PRIVATE CONSULTATION WITH COUNSEL, THAT WAY WE DO NOT DISCLOSE OR TALK ABOUT ISSUES THAT

[00:55:05]

WE SHOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT.

I GUESS WE CAN. WE CAN ALSO REASSESS ON THIS ONE AND TAKE THE OTHER ONES.

AND THEN WE'LL GO INTO EXECUTIVE.

AND I JUST WANT TO HEAR THE REASON WHY I'M SAYING THAT BECAUSE IT'S THE EXACT NUMBER OF POINTS ON THE SCALE AND ON THE SCALE, IT'S A TOTAL OF 32 POINTS ON THE [INAUDIBLE] RIGHT.

AND ONE OF THEM IS WHAT THEY RANK ABOUT FORTY ONE AND THE OTHER ONE, THEY RANK ONE THIRTY THREE AND THEY'RE EXACTLY THE SAME QUESTIONS.

RIGHT. BUT IT'S A DIFFERENT PROJECT SO WHAT THE STAFF IS DOING IS THEY'RE EVALUATING THE ABILITY OF THE CONSULTANT TO DO THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT.

AND SO EACH PROJECT'S GOING TO BE EVALUATED DIFFERENTLY BY EACH EVALUATOR.

LIKE THE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE STAFF IS EXACTLY THE SAME.

MAYBE WE CAN ADDRESS THEM WITH OUR COUNCIL.

THAT'S THEY SHOULD BE AT THE SAME NUMBER.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? YEAH, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

WE'LL DISCUSS THAT. WE'LL DISCUSS THAT ONCE WE GO INTO DISCUSSION WITH OUR ATTORNEY.

OK.

THANK YOU. SO WE'LL TIME OUT ON THAT ONE.

[4. VARIANCES]

[A) Consideration of a variance request to not require the subdivision process at the South 76.8 ft. Lot 218 EXC east 155 ft. for D/D 1.67 AC GR; 1.63 AC Net, Pride O’ Texas Subdivision, Hidalgo County, Texas; 7004 North Bentsen Road.]

LET'S SEE, GOING BACK TO THE OTHER ONE DID THEY TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

OH, OK. THEN WE'LL GO INTO ITEM FOUR.

4A IS CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST AT 7004 NORTH BENTSEN ROAD.

OK, ITEM NUMBER 4.

OK, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS REQUIREMENT.

PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BENTSEN ROAD.

THE USES AROUND THERE ARE A SINGLE FAMILY AND VACANT LAND.

THE PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY.

TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY SIX SQUARE FEET.

THE PROPERTY IS DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS, AND IT WAS SPLIT FROM A LARGER TRACK WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF SUBDIVIDING.

THE REQUIREMENT FOR NORTH BENTSEN ROAD WOULD BE FOR A FUTURE 100 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY WITH 65 FEET OF PAVING. THE DEDICATION WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THEIR SECTION.

THERE IS AN EXISTING WATERLINE ALONG BENTSEN, AND THERE IS A SEPTIC TANK THAT'S PROPOSED TO SERVE AS THE RESIDENCE, WHICH IS SUBJECT TO BEING APPROVED BY MCALLEN PUBLIC UTILITY AND MEET THEIR REQUIREMENTS.

THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS THE BASIS FOR THE REQUEST IS THAT THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS WOULD ELEVATE THE COST OF THE PROJECT.

UNDER THE CURRENT CODE OF THE CITY.

FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THE SUBDIVIDE ARE STANDING ALONE SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE UNDUE HARDSHIP. THERE'S NO NON-FINANCIAL HARDSHIP THAT HAS BEEN CITED.

WE DID LOOK AT THE AREA.

THERE IS 10 RECORDED SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF THIS SUBDIVISION.

OF THOSE 10, SIX ARE ONE LOT SUBDIVISIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THERE'S TWO THAT HAVE FOUR LOTS OR LESS.

WE DID ALSO LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING AREA AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY VARIANCES PREVIOUSLY GRANTED.

WE DID FIND A COUPLE OF VARIANCES.

ONE WAS ON FIVE MILE AND TAYLOR, AND THAT WAS FOR AN ADDITION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY. IT WAS NOT A VACANT TRACK.

AND WE'D ALSO FOUND ANOTHER ONE ON AUBURN, JUST EAST OF BENTSEN ROAD.

AND THAT ALSO HAD AN EXISTING RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY, AND THEY WERE PROPOSING TO DO SOME ANNEX ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY.

THE OTHER HOMES, WE DID HAVE A COUPLE OF FIVE ACRE EXEMPTIONS IN THE AREA UNDER THE ORDINANCE, SO THEY WERE ALLOWED TO GET A PERMIT WITHOUT THE PROCESS FOR HAVING TO SUBDIVIDE. THEY WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT CONDITION.

THE CITY COMMISSION DID CONSIDER THE REQUEST AT THE NOVEMBER 8TH MEETING AFTER DISCUSSING THE SURROUNDING AREAS AND CONCLUDING THAT THE PROPERTIES IN ALL DIRECTIONS HAD GONE THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS.

THE COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO DISAPPROVE THE REQUEST AND REQUIRE THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS. THE APPLICANT WAS NOT PRESENT.

THERE HAD BEEN AN EMAIL INDICATING THAT THE ITEM COULD BE ON FOR THE 8TH OR THE FOLLOWING MEETING. THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING OPTION NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS DISAPPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND REQUIRING THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PREVIOUS ACTION OF THE COMMISSION. ANY QUESTIONS.

IF NOT WHAT ARE THE WISHES OF THE COMMISSION.

WAS THE APPLICANT HERE.

WHEN WAS THE PROPERTY? IT WASN'T SUBDIVIDED, BUT WHEN WAS IT SEPARATED BY METES AND BOUNDS? DO YOU HAVE THE YEAR? I WOULD HAVE TO FIND THAT.

I'M NOT SURE OF THAT, SIR.

IS THE PROPERTY OWNER. YEAH.

OR A REPRESENTATIVE.

[INAUDIBLE]. IS IT POSSIBLY THIS SIGNATURE OF PABLO PENA? LUIS PABLO PENA IN 2006.

[01:00:01]

IS THAT POSSIBLE? IT'S POSSIBLE THAT OK. THAT'S POSSIBLE MR. IT WAS BEFORE WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.

IT COULD HAVE BEEN IN 2006 WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE IN THE OK.

YES, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON.

GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD EVENING, HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION, MY NAME IS ESTEBAN FLORES AND I'M REPRESENTING MY FATHER, JOSE FLORES, WHO WISHES TO BUILD A 2200 SQUARE FOOT HOME IN WHICH MY PARENTS PLAN TO LIVE THE REST OF THEIR LIVES IN ON 7004 BENTSEN ROAD. THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS WOULD ADD AN ADDITIONAL NINE MONTHS TO OUR PROJECT AND WOULD REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL $19 DOLLARS PER SQUARE FOOT, WHICH EQUALS TO OVER FORTY ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS OF UPFRONT COSTS FOR ENGINEERING AND ESCROWS FOR THE EXPANSION OF BENTSEN ROADS, PAVING CURB GUTTER AND SIDEWALKS FOR WHICH THERE IS CURRENTLY NO DETERMINED PROJECT DATE.

TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 212.004 STATES THAT A SUBDIVISION OF LAND IS REQUIRED WHEN A PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN EITHER THE CITY LIMITS OR THE ETJ DIVIDES THE TRACT OF LAND INTO TWO OR MORE PARTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE DEVELOPMENT OR THE EXTENSION OF UTILITIES TO THE PROPERTY TO BE SUBDIVIDED.

IN THIS CASE, THE PROPERTY IS NOT BEING SUBDIVIDED IN TWO OR MORE PARTS, BUT WILL REMAIN A SINGLE TRACT OF LAND, AND THE PURPOSE IS TO BUILD ONE SINGLE HOME ON THAT ONE TRACT OF LAND. MY FATHER IS A 78 YEAR OLD CANCER SURVIVOR, AND HE WISHES TO BUILD HIS HOME THIS ONE HOME TO SPEND THE REST OF HIS LIFE IN.

IT IS HIGHLY LIKELY THAT SHOULD THE VARIANCE NOT BE APPROVED, THE PROJECT WOULD NO LONGER BE FEASIBLE AND WOULD HAVE TO BE ABANDONED.

IN THE MEMO FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THEY CITED 10 SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN A QUARTER MILE RADIUS. BUT THE MAJORITY OF THOSE SUBDIVISIONS ARE ON THE WEST SIDE OF BENTSEN AND NOT ON THE EAST SIDE, WHICH IS MOSTLY SINGLE TRACK PROPERTIES, MANY OF WHICH HAVE NOT HAD TO GO THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS BETWEEN FOUR MILE AND FIVE MILE THERE IS A MINIMUM OF 20 PROPERTIES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN REQUIRED TO BE SUBDIVIDED.

17 OF THOSE HAVE HAD IMPROVEMENTS AFTER 1999, INCLUDING MADDIE'S PUMPKIN PATCH, WHICH IS LOCATED JUST TWO LOTS DOWN FROM US, AND THEY JUST RECEIVED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FROM THE CITY OF MCALLEN TO OPERATE AN EVENT CENTER THERE.

MADDIE'S PUMPKIN PATCH HAS HAD IMPROVEMENTS TO THEIR PROPERTY IN 2014 AND 2017, AND AGAIN, I MENTIONED THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS.

IN HIS MEMO, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR ALSO STATED THAT THIS ITEM HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY HEARD BY THE CITY COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY DISAPPROVED AND THAT THE APPLICANT WAS NOT PRESENT.

I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE WERE NOT PRESENT BECAUSE WE WERE NOT NOTIFIED THAT THE ITEM HAD BEEN PLACED ON THE AGENDA AS WE HAD REQUESTED.

WE JUST WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR CASE BEFORE YOU TODAY AS WE THINK THAT OUR PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT BE DIFFERENT THAN THE MAJORITY OF SINGLE TRACT LOTS ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF BENTSEN ROAD, NORTH OF FOUR MILE.

IF THE CITY COMMISSION IS TO GRANT US THIS VARIANCE, IT WOULD ADD A BEAUTIFICATION ELEMENT TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. IT WOULD INCREASE THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY VALUES AND RESULT IN THE CITY BEING ABLE TO COLLECT MORE PROPERTY TAXES.

LASTLY, IN HIS MEMO, MR. GARCIA PROVIDED SEVERAL OPTIONS.

WE BELIEVE THAT OPTION NUMBER TWO IS A REASONABLE COMPROMISE THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO MOVE QUICKLY ON OUR PROJECT AND GIVE THE CITY THE ASSURANCE THAT WE WILL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS WHEN THEY ARE NEEDED.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. QUESTIONS.

YES. OK. OK.

THE WAY I SEE THIS, AM I READING IT RIGHT THAT IT'S ONLY 76 FEET WIDE? CORRECT? OK. VERY NARROW.

SO RIGHT THEN AND THERE.

THERE'S NO WAY THAT YOU CAN.

OF COURSE, IT'S A LONG STRIP.

THIRTEEN HUNDRED OR WHATEVER.

ABOUT A THOUSAND. YEAH, ABOUT A THOUSAND OVER A THOUSAND FEET.

SO OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN'T BUILD A STREET BECAUSE IT REQUIRES 50 FOOT AND THEN YOU ONLY HAVE TWENTY FIVE, TWENTY SIX FEET REMAINING.

SO IT DOES HAVE TO BE A ONE RESIDENCE SCENARIO.

SO I THINK IN THE OPTION B, OR TWO SORRY.

YOU WILL BE ABLE TO PAY SOME OF THE REIMBURSEMENTS WHENEVER BENTSEN IS DONE AND WHATEVER THE THE PUB WILL MAKE THEIR DECISIONS ON WHAT TO DO AND WHATEVER.

SO I MEAN, I'M TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS IS EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. IT IS GOING TO BE FOR ONE DWELLING AND IT'S ONLY SEVENTY SIX FEET WIDE.

YOU CAN'T DO MUCH MORE WITH THAT.

YOU CANNOT DO. AND I AGREE WITH MR. AGUIRRE THAT IT IS. IT'S TOO NARROW.

IT'S LONG. IT CALLS FOR ONE SINGLE I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

WHAT WAS THE MOTION.

IT'S FOR OPTION TWO.

AYE. ALL AGAINST MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OUR NEXT ONE IS DID WE.

[01:05:01]

CAN WE BRING IT BACK UP.

YES.

MONICA [INAUDIBLE] I THINK IT IS.

THAT WAS AN END THAT SHOWED UP ON THE INFORMATION THAT WAS MAILED TO WHETHER IT WAS RECEIVED OR NOT THAT WE WOULDN'T VERIFY, AS MENTIONED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

THANK YOU, MR. ZAMORA. I'M SORRY IF I HAD YOU DO THAT EXTRA EXERCISE, BUT IT WASN'T INFANTILITY. IT'S SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A PROCESS TO THE REZONING IN OUR CITY AND THAT ALL CITIZENS ARE AFFORDED EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

AND SO I WANT TO HAVE THEM FEEL AND UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A PROCESS THAT EACH DEPARTMENT IN OUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HAS CERTAIN RESPONSIBILITIES AND CERTAINLY ACCOUNTABILITY. SO THAT WAY THEY FEEL AT LEAST OR AT LEAST TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE DOING YOUR PART IN TERMS OF PROVIDING THE NOTICE.

OF COURSE, THEY HAVE THEIR PART TO BE ENSURING THAT THEY'RE CHECKING THE MAIL AND RECEIVING IT. THANK YOU, SIR.

OK, WE'LL GO BACK TO THAT ISSUE.

WHAT ARE THE WISHES OF THE COMMISSION? MAYOR I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST TO REZONE FROM AO TO R3A? IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

THERE BEING A FIRST AND A SECOND WHAT ARE THE WISHES OF COUNCIL.

ALL IN FAVOR AYE.

AYE. ALL AGAINST.

AYE.

MOTION FAILS. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

MOTION TO APPROVE.

DO I HAVE A SECOND.

MOTION PASSES. I WILL RECOMMEND JUST TO THE DEVELOPER, MR. PENA PLEASE HAVE SOME MEETING WITH [INAUDIBLE] IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT COMMUNICATION FOR THEIR PEACE OF MIND.

AYE. ALL AGAINST.

AYE AGAINST.

PLEASE MAKE WHATEVER YOU CAN TO JUST COMMUNICATE WITH THEM.

THANK YOU. MAY, I RECOMMEND TAKING ANOTHER MOTION TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

I THINK YOU ALREADY CONSIDERED ITEM D.

OK. THIS MATTER HAD NOT YET PASSED.

I RECOMMEND

[5. MANAGER’S REPORT]

[A) Immigration and Respite Center Report.]

SO MOVED.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE.

AGAINST.

AYE. MOTION PASSES.

MANAGER'S REPORT IMMIGRATION THE RESPITE CENTER REPORT.

HONORABLE MAYORS COMMISSIONERS.

OVER THE LAST THREE WEEKS, WE'VE SEEN AN AVERAGE OF ABOUT ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY IMMIGRANTS DROPPED OFF PER DAY HERE AT ANZALDUAS PARK WITH ABOUT EIGHT OF THOSE DAILY TESTING POSITIVE GIVES US ABOUT A FOUR POINT NINE PERCENT POSITIVITY RATE, WHICH IS PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

AT THIS POINT, I'LL POINT OUT THE ANZALDUAS PARK CAPACITY REMAINS ABOUT FIFTEEN HUNDRED AND WE'RE AVERAGING A LITTLE LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED PER DAY AT THE PARK FOR THE LAST WEEK OR SO. STAFF CONTINUES TO WORK HARD TO ALLOCATE THE FEDERAL DOLLARS THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO THIS PROJECT.

AT PRESENT, WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE FUNDING IN PLACE TO KEEP THE OPERATIONS GOING THROUGH ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF APRIL OF THIS YEAR.

ADDITIONALLY, YOU MAY HAVE SEEN OR HEARD THAT ANZALDUAS PARK HAS NOW BEEN PARTIALLY REOPENED TO THE PUBLIC THAT WAS EFFECTIVE TODAY.

THIS WAS A REQUEST FROM HIDALGO COUNTY.

THEY HAD SOME MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO HAD ASKED FOR ACCESS TO THE PARK FOR PURPOSES, BOTH OF BIRDWATCHING.

AND THEN THERE'S ALSO SOME REMOTE CONTROLLED AIRPLANE ENTHUSIASTS THAT UTILIZE THE PARK, AND THEY HAD ALL ASKED FOR ACCESS AGAIN TO THE PARK.

SO WE WERE APPROACHED BY THE COUNTY.

WE WORKED WITH THEM TO DEVELOP A PLAN.

AND IF YOU CAN IMAGINE THE PARK, IF YOU'LL DRAW A LINE DUE SOUTH FROM THE BOAT RAMP, EVERYTHING TO THE WEST OF THAT NOW IS CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC.

THAT'S PART OF THE OPERATIONS THAT WE HAVE DOWN THERE.

IT'S ABOUT THIRTY FIVE ACRES, WHICH LEAVES THE VAST MAJORITY THEN OF THE PARK STILL AVAILABLE NOW TO THE PUBLIC.

THE PARK IS OPEN FROM EIGHT O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING UNTIL 4:30 IN THE AFTERNOON DAILY AN OUR STAFF AND A.M.R.

STAFF, CATHOLIC CHARITIES WILL CONTINUE TO DO THEIR WORK TWENTY FOUR SEVEN THERE AT THE SITE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE.

THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS AND I THINK THAT'S GOOD THAT THE PARK IS REOPENED AT LEAST PART OF IT BEING REOPENED.

GREAT. I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION HOW MANY INDIVIDUALS DO WE HAVE CURRENTLY AT THE PARK ? TODAY COMMISSIONER, IT'S LESS THAN A HUNDRED.

OKAY? AND OF COURSE, THANK YOU TO COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] FOR ALL HIS EFFORTS FOR HIS

[B) Future Agenda Items.]

HELP. WE COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT WITHOUT HIM.

ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY.

A LOT OF HELP FROM THE COUNTY.

YES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. THANK YOU.

HEY [INAUDIBLE] YOU KEEP BUSY.

I DON'T HAVE A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM, JUST A NOTE FOR CITY MANAGEMENT AND FOR THE PUBLIC.

I KNOW WE'VE GOT THE ABBOTT HAD SIGNED A LAW RELATED TO DOGS ON LEASHES AND THEIR COLLARS. THAT IS TO TAKE EFFECT ON THE 18TH.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT MCALLEN PD ANIMAL CONTROL IS OBVIOUSLY AWARE AND TAKING THE

[01:10:01]

APPROPRIATE MEASURES OR UNDERSTANDS WHAT ACTIONS THEY ARE ABLE TO TAKE TO BEST ENFORCE THAT LAW BECAUSE I'M SURE WE WILL GET CALLS.

AND I THINK IT'S IN OUR DUTY TO RESPOND TO THOSE CALLS APPROPRIATELY.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD LAW AND ONE THAT HOPEFULLY WILL IMPROVE THE SITUATION.

YES SIR.

ON THE SAME TOPIC I'D LIKE TO HAVE A REVIEW FROM OUR CHIEF ON THE ANIMAL AND THE ANIMAL CONTROL AND ALSO THE SHELTER AND THE PROGRESS THAT WE'RE DOING THERE.

MAYBE IN THE NEXT MEETING TO SEE THAT A REPORT ON THAT PROGRESS AND HOW WE'RE WORKING

[6. TABLED ITEM(S)]

TOGETHER. ITEM SIX TABLED ITEMS, DO WE WANT IT ALL FOR NOT.

[A) Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Appointments.]

WHAT DO WE DO? YEAH, WELL, WE WOULD ASK THAT WE TAKE ACTION IF YOU'RE READY TO DO SO.

YES, SIR, WE ARE LOOKING TO TAKE ACTION ON IT.

WE DO HAVE THE CONSULTANTS COMING DOWN ON THE 31ST AND HAVING A KICK OFF ON THE FEBRUARY 1ST MEETING, SO WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE COMMITTEE IN PLACE SO WE CAN MAKE SURE WE NOTIFY THEM AS TO THE TIME SCHEDULE.

AND THIS IS ON THE UPDATE OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

[INAUDIBLE] AND NICHOLS IS THE CONSULTANT THAT HAS BEEN HIRED AND WE ARE LOOKING TO HAVE A 14 MEMBER COMMITTEE AND WE DO HAVE SOME NAMES LISTED THERE REGARDING FROM THE ARCHITECTURE, THE NONPROFIT DEVELOPMENT, THE ENGINEERING DEVELOPERS.

AND WE ARE LOOKING FOR SOME FOR THE REAL ESTATE EDUCATION AND MEDICAL COMMITTEE.

WITH REGARD TO THE PERSONS THAT ARE IN FACT NAMED ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION HAVE THEY ALREADY BEEN APPROACHED.

THEY'VE BEEN APPROACHED YES. AND INFORMED OF THE UNDERTAKING OF WHAT WAS REQUIRED OF THEM TO DO RIGHT, AND THEY'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT.

YES, BUT WE STILL NEED A COUPLE THREE THAT ARE MISSING.

IF THAT'S STILL SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION WANTS TO CONSIDER, WE WOULD ASK THAT THE LIST THAT'S THERE NOW BE APPROVED AND THEN WE CAN ADD TO THAT LIST AND WE CAN GET STARTED WITH THE COMMITTEE. WELL, WE NEED TO HAVE A FULL COMMITTEE.

YES SIR.

NAMES THAT YOU HAVE LISTED ON THIS SHEET.

AYE. AGAINST. MOTION CARRIES, I GUESS, BRING THE WHATEVER IS LEFT AND WE'LL TAKE CARE OF IT. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE US TO.

IF YOU ALL HAVE NAMES THAT WE CAN ADD TO THE ONES THAT ARE STILL NEEDED, OR IF YOU'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND FORWARD THOSE ADDRESS NAMES TO US AND WE CAN GO AHEAD AND REACH OUT TO THE PEOPLE. ON THE REAL ESTATE.

CAN I CONSIDER OR NOMINATE MR. ADRIAN ARRIAGA? YES, SIR.

HE'S PART OF THE GMAR'S.

YES, YES. HE'S ONE OF THE FOUNDERS IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

AND HE'S BEEN ON THE PLANNING [INAUDIBLE] COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY.

WELL, IF I HAVE SOMEBODY I NOTIFY YOU, LUIS, IS THAT THE PLAN? YES, SIR. OK, WELL, WHAT WE'LL DO IS THAT WE'LL VET THEM AND SEE IF THEY ARE INTERESTED.

YOUR APPROVAL. SOMEONE CAME TO MIND, SO I'M NOT SURE IF HE'S INTERESTED, BUT HE MIGHT BE, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT CATEGORY MIGHT PUT HIM IN.

BUT ANDREW HEFNER WITH HEFNER DESIGN TEAM.

HE HEAVILY UTILIZED FOR LANDSCAPING AND BEAUTIFICATION, AND I THINK IT'D BE A GOOD ADDITION TO WHETHER IT'S ARCHITECTURE OR REAL ESTATE OR DEVELOPER HE WOULD FIT THE MOLD OF. THAT WOULD BE GOOD.

A LOT OF THAT. YOU KNOW WHO'S GOOD ON THAT ALSO, [INAUDIBLE] SAWYER.

WELL, THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T WANT TO KIND OF JUST THROW OUT NAMES BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW.

WE'VE GOT TO CONTACT OK, AND THEN WE CAN GET THE NAMES AND WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO SERVE IN THIS CAPACITY. THEN, LIKE CITY MANAGER MENTIONED, WE BRING IT BACK TO FOR YOUR ACTION.

VERY GOOD. OK.

[7. EXECUTIVE SESSION, CHAPTER 551, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071 (CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY), SECTION 551.072 (DELIBERATION REGARDING REAL PROPERTY), SECTION 551.074 (PERSONNEL MATTERS) AND SECTION 551.087 (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT).]

WHAT DO WE HAVE? OH, WE'RE RESETTING TO EXECUTIVE FOR THAT ITEM, WHATEVER ITEM IT WAS.

3B. 3B.

MOTION TO RECESS.

LET'S GO.

AND WE'RE BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION THE TIME IS 6:28 AND WE'RE GOING BACK TO ITEM NUMBER 3B.

CONSIDERATION SELECTION OF TOP RANK FIRMS FOR MCALLEN FIREFIGHTER TRAINING FACILITY.

DO I HAVE A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE.

THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR.