[CALL TO ORDER]
          [00:00:09]
          EVENING. I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME YOU TO THE MARCH 24TH, 2026 MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WILL OUTLINE THE PROCEDURE THAT WE WILL FOLLOW FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING. AS EACH AGENDA ITEM IS CALLED, THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES AND PEOPLE FOR THE REQUEST WILL BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK, THEN PEOPLE AGAINST THE REQUEST WILL BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK IF THERE IS OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST. THE APPLICANT WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A SHORT REBUTTAL. ALL PEOPLE WISHING TO SPEAK NEED TO COME TO THE MICROPHONE AT THE FRONT OF THE ROOM, AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. 
          IF YOU DID NOT COMPLETE A SPEAKER CARD PRIOR TO SPEAKING, STAFF WILL PROVIDE ONE TO YOU. 
          THIS IS TO ENSURE AN ACCURATE MEETING RECORD. ALL STATEMENTS MADE SHOULD BE RELEVANT TO THE AGENDA ITEM AND BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. IF THERE ARE SEVERAL PEOPLE IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED TO A REQUEST, WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO ALLOW 1 OR 2 PEOPLE TO ACT AS A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE GROUP. WHILE PUBLIC DISCOURSE IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE COMMISSION, WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN ORDER IN THE MEETING SO THAT ALL PEOPLE MAY BE HEARD AND CITY BUSINESS MAY BE CONDUCTED, IF SO DIRECTED BY ME, THE SERGEANT AT ARMS SHALL REMOVE FROM THIS MEETING ANYBODY THAT BECOMES UNRULY OR PREVENTS US FROM CONDUCTING AN ORDERLY MEETING. THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE MAKE TONIGHT WILL BE BASED ON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED TONIGHT. 
          AFTER COMPLETING THE HEARING ON EACH ITEM, THE COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER ACTION ON THE ITEM AND THE ACTION TAKEN TONIGHT ON ALL ITEMS EXCLUDING PLATS, WILL BE IN THE FORM OF A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. CITY COUNCIL WILL ALSO CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS ON AGENDA ITEMS EXCLUDING PLATS, ON TUESDAY, APRIL 21ST, 2026, IN THE THEATER OF THE WACO CONVENTION CENTER, 100 WASHINGTON AVENUE. THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OUR. 
          FEBRUARY 24TH, 2026 WORK SESSION AND BUSINESS MEETINGS. ARE THERE ANY CHANGES OR ADDITIONS? SEEING NONE, THEY STAND APPROVED AS WRITTEN. THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA 
          [PUBLIC HEARINGS]
TONIGHT IS NOT NUMBER ONE, IT'S NUMBER FIVE. SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THAT AROUND. AND LAURA, WHAT IS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF CITY STAFF? YES, MISTER CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION CASE Z 26 DASH 13 WHICH SHOWS ON THE AGENDA AS ITEM NUMBER FIVE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3001 MACARTHUR. APPLICANT DAVID MERCER. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CONCEPT POD FOR SELF STORAGE UNITS WITHIN AN R TWO BASED ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED WITHIN THE DEAN HIGHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR. WE DID RECEIVE A REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THIS ITEM PRIOR TO THE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. PLANNING SERVICES IS RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE OF THAT WITHDRAWAL FROM THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM R TWO TO POD. HOWEVER, NOTE THAT THIS ITEM MAY COME BACK AS A NEW APPLICATION IN THE FUTURE AND IF THAT HAPPENS, PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THAT 200 FOOT BUFFER WILL BE NOTICED AGAIN OF THAT NEW TIME AND DATE. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS FIRST, IN CASE THERE'S PEOPLE HERE WANTING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM SO THEY DON'T HAVE. OKAY, I DO SEE THE APPLICANT HERE, MR. MERCER, IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS A WITHDRAWAL? OKAY. DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT OR. YES, WE DO HAVE TO VOTE ON THE WITHDRAWAL. OH, WE DO NOT. OKAY, OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. OKAY. SO NO PUBLIC HEARING WILL. NO. NO, NOTHING. 
          JUST MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER ONE ON THE AGENDA. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. THE SECOND ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER ONE. LAURA, WHAT IS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF CITY STAFF? YES. MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION K Z 2808 IS A REQUEST FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL TYPE ONE IN AN R1B ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 0.2583 ACRES ON PROPERTY. ADDRESS IS 7016 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE ATTENDING A SHORT TERM RENTAL, TYPE ONE IS DEFINED AS AN OWNER OR DESIGNATED OPERATOR. OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WHERE SHORT TERM LODGING IS PROVIDED TO ONLY ONE GROUP AT A TIME PER DWELLING UNIT. THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF COUNTRY CLUB ROAD NEAR WEST STATE HIGHWAY SIX, IN THE VICINITY OF THE YMCA, WHICH YOU SEE WITH THE RED ROOFS RIGHT HERE. IT IS LOCATED WITHIN A LARGE LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WEST OF SANGER AVENUE, PARKDALE. VIKING HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS WHAT IT IS LOCATED IN. ALSO, 
          [00:05:02]
COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER THREE. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED R1B. HERE IS A IMAGE OF THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. THE PROPOSED UNIT IS IN THE BACK AND IT IS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED IN THE BACK. YOU CAN SEE THEIR SITE PLAN SHOWING THE GUEST HOUSE TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. THE SITE. AS YOU CAN SEE, IS OCCUPIED. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED ONE BEDROOM GUEST HOUSE IN THE REAR. THE PROPERTY OWNERS WILL OCCUPY THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND UTILIZE THE GUEST HOUSE AS THE S, T R AND OCCUPY OCCUPANCY LIMITED TO ONE GROUP AT A TIME. THERE IS THEIR SUBMITTED EVACUATION PLAN. 19 NOTICES WERE MAILED ON MARCH 13TH, 2026. ZERO WERE RETURNED FOR THIS ITEM. STAFF PLANNING SERVICES DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THE SPECIAL PERMIT, SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS AND BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. NUMBER ONE, THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. TWO THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE APPROPRIATE AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED. THREE THAT THE PROPOSED USE WOULD NOT BE MORE OBJECTIONABLE TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION, NOISE FUMES, VIBRATIONS OR ANY OTHER CHARACTERISTICS THAN THE USE PERMITTED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. WITHOUT THE GRANT OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AND FOUR THAT AVAILABLE COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES, INCLUDING THE ROAD SYSTEM PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE PROPOSED USE, ARE ADEQUATE FOR THE PROPOSED USE. THESE ARE THE FINDINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY SECTION 20 8-1 22 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR GRANTING OF A SPECIAL PERMIT. THANKS, LAURA. IS THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM, PLEASE GO TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. 
          MY NAME IS LAWRENCE ALLEN. ADDRESS 7016 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD IN WACO. AND YEAH, WE'VE HAD IT FOR EIGHT YEARS, A LITTLE TIME. IT'S SMALLER THAN A GARAGE. A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORS FAMILIES AND STUFF USE IT FOR WHEN FAMILY COMES IN OR WHATEVER. AND THAT WAS KIND OF WEIRD BECAUSE WE GOT A CALL OUT OF THE BLUE IN JANUARY, LIKE, YOU'RE LATE, YOU DIDN'T RENEW IT. AND SO YOU COULD GO ON THE WEBSITE AND RENEW IT. AND WE'RE LIKE, WHAT WEBSITE? YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE MY TEN YEAR OLD GRANDSON HELP US OUT. AND SO THEY'RE LIKE, JUST GO ON THERE, RENEW IT. AND THEN. WE GO IN THERE, WE TRY TO RENEW IT AND THEY'RE LIKE, OH, IT'S TOO LATE. 
          YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. AND SO, OKAY, WE HAVE ANOTHER AIRBNB LIKE HALF A MILE AWAY AND THEY'RE LIKE. TRY TO RENEW IT. AND THEY'RE LIKE, YOU CAN'T RENEW IT. IT'S, IT WAS GRANDFATHERED IN, BUT NOW YOU CAN'T BECAUSE IT'S BEEN TOO LATE. SO YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE IT. SO JUST IT'S A WEIRD BECAUSE WE GET NOTICED, LIKE IF OUR WEEDS ARE TOO HIGH OR, YOU KNOW, LATE ON TRASH OR LATE ON ANYTHING, BUT WE PUT A LOT OF OUR LIVELIHOOD INTO THAT, THAT PROJECT, AND NOW IT'S GONE. YOU CAN'T RENEW IT. SO JUST A SUGGESTION. I KNOW IT PROBABLY NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT THAT, BUT, BUT IT JUST HOPEFULLY THIS GOES THROUGH BECAUSE IT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR LIVELIHOOD. THANK YOU. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. ALLEN? SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY, THIS WAS A PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED OPERATING SHORT TERM RENTAL. BUT YOU ARE BECAUSE THE PERMIT EXPIRED. YOU ARE OPERATING. YOU ARE APPLYING FOR A RENEWAL SPECIAL PERMIT, BUT IT HAD BEEN OPERATING AS ONE PRIOR TO THIS FOR SEVERAL YEARS. YEAH, THIS ONE'S BEEN EIGHT YEARS AND OUR OTHER ONE'S BEEN FIVE YEARS. BUT THEY SAID WE CAN'T DO THE OTHER ONE. BECAUSE WE DON'T LIVE ON THE PREMISES. AND. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? THANK YOU, MR. ALLEN. THANK YOU. 
          IS ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? IS ANYONE ELSE HERE? IS ANYONE ELSE PRESENT? THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? FOLLOW UP FROM COMMISSIONERS. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION? MAKE A MOTION FOR 
          [00:10:08]
APPROVAL BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS. SECOND. CHRIS INGRAM WHO DID THAT? WHO DID THE SECOND? THAT'S IT. THERE'S BEEN A MOTION BY MR. ELLIS AND A SECOND BY MR. INGRAM. ANY DISCUSSION, PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ALLEN. YAY! ALICE? YES. EMERY. YES. ENGLAND. YES. 
          GIVENS. YES. INGRAM. YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. YES. GREAT MOTION CARRIES. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS Z DASH 20 6-09. WHAT IS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM CITY STAFF? YES MR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION K Z 20 609 IS AN APPLICATION FOR THE REQUEST FOR THE RENEWAL OF A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CHILDCARE FACILITY IN AN R3 ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 2.206 ACRES, ADDRESSED AS 10,033 PARKER SPRINGS DRIVE. SORRY. YOU SEE THAT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG PARKER SPRINGS, SOUTH OF CHINA. SPRING ROAD, BORDERED BY RIVIERA APARTMENTS AND TO THE SOUTH, THE WILLOW BEND SUBDIVISION PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE CHINA SPRING NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED R3B, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE BRIGHT GREEN COLOR ACROSS PARKER SPRINGS DRIVE IS A RECENT ZONE CHANGE YOU GUYS SAW NOT TOO LONG AGO. 
          REZONING THE FRONT PORTION ALONG CHINA SPRING TO C TWO AND THE PORTION ALONG SALEM WAY TO R THREE. C PROPERTY IS NEW CONSTRUCTION. IT JUST RECENTLY RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IN FEBRUARY 2025. HERE'S THE SITE PLAN FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS APPROVED. 
          TO DATE, THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE FACILITY. 19 NOTICES WERE MAILED ON MARCH 13TH, 2026, ZERO OF WHICH WERE RETURNED. THE SAME SPECIAL PERMIT FINDINGS ARE LISTED HERE. PLANNING SERVICES DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THAT SPECIAL PERMIT, SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS THAT PREVIOUSLY READ THAT ARE REQUIRED, SO I DON'T HAVE TO READ THEM ALL AGAIN. HOWEVER, CONDITIONS WE ARE RECOMMENDING STAFF CHANGE THE REVIEW PERIOD FROM THREE YEARS TO FIVE YEARS. BEING THAT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMPLAINTS ON THIS ITEM, PREVIOUS PERMITS WAS ISSUED WITH A THREE YEAR EXPIRATION, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE HERE TODAY. SO AT WHICH TIME THE PERMIT CAN PERMIT, WE CAN THEN RENEW IT AGAIN AFTER FIVE YEARS. LAURA. OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? DOES ANYONE ELSE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? DO ANY OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS BASED ON STAFF ITEMS, A SECOND. MOTION MADE BY MR. SECONDED BY MISS GIVENS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ALLEN. YAY! ELLIS. YES. EMBRY. YES. ENGLAND. YES. GIVENS. YES. INGRAM. YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. 
          SALOME. YES. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS Z DASH 26 DASH TEN. WHAT IS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY STAFF? MR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION K Z 2610 FILED BY WALKER PARTNERS ON BEHALF OF BRICK STREET MIGUEL LLC. REQUEST FOR LAND USE CHANGE FROM MIXED USE FLEX TO MIXED USE CORE AND TO REZONE FROM O ONE OFFICE DISTRICT TO C FOUR CENTRAL COMMERCIAL FOR APPROXIMATELY 2.365 ACRES. PROPERTY MULTIPLE PROPERTY ADDRESSES ADDRESSED AS 320 AND 326 NORTH 14TH STREET 325 AND 315 NORTH 15TH STREET AND 1401 AND 1425 COLUMBUS AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS BOUNDED BY COLUMBUS NORTH 14TH STREET, BARNARD AND 
          [00:15:03]
NORTH FIFTH, 14TH STREET AND NORTH 15TH STREET. I'M SORRY, COLUMBUS AND BERNARD. THE. THE APPLICABLE PROPERTY IS ALSO APPROXIMATELY TWO BLOCKS SOUTHEAST OF WACO DRIVE, SITUATED IN BETWEEN WACO DRIVE AND. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS THE FORMER SAUL ROSS FACILITY. 
          JUST SOME BEARINGS ON THAT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND ALSO COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR. THIS IS SHOWING THE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION. THIS BRIGHT PINK COLOR IS THE MIXED USE FLEX AND THEN IF APPROVED, IT WOULD GO TO THE MIXED USE CORE LAND USE DESIGNATION. THIS WHOLE BLOCK IS CURRENTLY ZONED R01 I'M SORRY. OH ONE ZONING. YOU CAN SEE BY THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE'S MANY DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS IN HERE. AND I REFERENCED THIS IN THE STAFF REPORT MULTIPLE. 
          THERE'S R2R3E, R1BO3 C-2 AND C-3 ALL WITHIN A HALF A BLOCK OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THAT HERE ON THE MAP. AND THEN IT'S ONE BLOCK AWAY FROM EXISTING C FOUR. THIS RED AREA IS CURRENTLY ZONED C THREE, WHICH IS ONE OF THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT IS BEING PHASED OUT BASED ON OUR COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. SO IF APPROVED, IT WILL BRING IN THE C FOUR ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THIS THIS BLOCK. C. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY BUILDINGS WITHIN THE BLOCK. THIS IS THE MIGUEL HOUSE. THIS IS LOOKING, I BELIEVE, DOWN BERNARD STREET FROM 15TH. THIS IS LOOKING AT MIGUEL HOUSE PROPERTY. AGAIN THE MANDATORY ZONE CHANGE SIGN. AND THEN THIS IMAGE IS LOOKING BERNARD FROM 14TH. AND THIS IS THE OLD SAUL ROSS CENTER. AND THEN HERE IS ANOTHER SIGN. MULTIPLE SIGNS WERE PUT UP BEING THAT IT'S SUCH A LARGE PROPERTY. AND THIS IS BERNARD AND 15TH STREET, 18 NOTICES WERE MAILED ON MARCH 13TH, 2026. WE DID RECEIVE A LETTER FROM A PROPERTY OWNER ACROSS THE STREET. WASN'T FOR OR AGAINST JUST LETTING US KNOW THAT HE DID RECEIVE THE LETTER. THIS IS JUST A GOOD OVERALL SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OH ONE VERSUS C FOUR ZONING. YOU KNOW. OH ONE YOU CAN SEE THAT RESIDENTIAL. I'M SORRY. I'M GOING TO TURN THIS OVER TO MARK BECAUSE MARK, IF YOU DON'T MIND KIND OF GOING THROUGH THIS, NO PROBLEM. SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS JUST THE BASIC KIND OF OVERVIEW OF WHAT THOSE FIRST TWO ARE TALKING ABOUT WITH DENSITY. SO ANYTHING THAT'S LIKE R TWO DUPLEX, ANYTHING THAT IS LESS THAN THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED IN OH ONE, ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED IN C FOUR. ANYTHING THAT IS GREATER THAN THREE UNITS LIKE MULTIFAMILY WOULDN'T BE PERMITTED IN OH ONE, BUT IT WOULD BE PERMITTED IN C401 DOESN'T ALLOW RETAIL, COMMERCIAL RESTAURANTS, ■THINGS LIKE THAT. C FOUR DOES PERMIT THAT. AND ALSO KEY CAVEAT HERE C FOUR HAS NO MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. OH ONE DOES. THANK YOU MARK. PLANNING SERVICES IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LAND USE PLAN FOR MIXED USE FLEX MIXED USE CORE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. NUMBER ONE, THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE FOR ZONING DISTRICTS ALLOWED IN THE PROPOSED MIXED USE CORE LAND USE DESIGNATION. AND NUMBER TWO, THE CONCENTRATION OF MIXED USE CORE DESIGNATION IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY SUPPORTS THE CONTINUATION AND EXPANSION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PATTERN ONTO THE SUBJECT. BLOCK PLANNING SERVICES ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR THE REZONING FROM OH ONE TO C FOUR, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. NUMBER ONE, THE PROPOSED ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE COMPONENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED. 
          THE EXISTING LAND, EXISTING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS GENERALLY ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE RANGE OF USES PERMITTED WITHIN THE C FOUR CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. NUMBER THREE THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES MEET THE MINIMUM AREA AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE C FOUR ZONING DISTRICT AND NUMBER FOUR, THE PROPOSED C FOUR ZONING IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, WHICH INCLUDES A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL, OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL ZONING 
          [00:20:02]
DISTRICTS AND IS REINFORCED BY THE PRESENCE OF MULTIPLE NEARBY BLOCKS DESIGNATED FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, REFLECTING AN ESTABLISHED AND EXPANDING PATTERN OF THAT TRADITION. 
          TRANSITIONAL AND HIGHER INTENSITY LAND USES. THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JACOB BELL WITH WALKER PARTNERS. ADDRESS 823 WASHINGTON AVENUE. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE TONIGHT. 
          I'M REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT ON THE ZONING CASE. I ALSO HAVE A COUPLE OTHER ITEMS DOWN THE LIST. AND ITEM SEVEN FURTHER DOWN THE LIST IS AN ABANDONMENT RELATED TO THIS ZONING REQUEST AS WELL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE? WELL, I MEAN, I'M JUST A LITTLE CONCERNED ON LIKE THE PARKING. 
          LIKE JUST SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS. I MEAN, I KNOW YOU GOT COLUMBUS AVENUE BAPTIST CHURCH. I'M CURIOUS IF STAFF DID THEY HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR ANYTHING, BUT, YOU KNOW, GETTING RID OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS AREA SEEMS LIKE IT COULD HAVE A LOT OF STREET PARKING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT MIGHT SLOW TRAFFIC. YES, SIR. UNDERSTOOD. AND I WILL TELL YOU WITH WHILE THE DEVELOPER HASN'T TOTALLY DECIDED ON WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IN THE INITIAL CONCEPT PLANS I HAVE SEEN THERE IS ON SITE PARKING. SO THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AS WELL AND AT LEAST IN THEIR INITIAL CONCEPTS, HAVE TAKEN IT INTO ACCOUNT. YEAH. IS HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A PRETTY BIG JUMP FROM OH ONE TO C FOUR AND THERE'S NOT ANY ADJACENT C FOUR. AND THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE ALLOWED IN C FOUR THAT MAYBE WOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED IN A DIFFERENT TYPE OF ZONING. WAS HAS THAT BEEN A CONVERSATION AT ALL OR I HAVEN'T BEEN AS DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THE STAFF AND THE CONVERSATIONS ON THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION SELECTED. BUT I DO KNOW THE I MEAN, THE APPLICANT WAS PURSUING IT FOR THEIR PURPOSES. THEY DIDN'T FEEL THEY COULD MEET IT IN OH ONE. IS THERE AN OVERLAY DISTRICT OVER HERE? NO, NO, NO THERE'S NOT. I JUST I'M TRYING TO THINK THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT USES THAT C FOUR OPENS UP AND THROUGH WORST CASE SCENARIOS ON THAT OBVIOUSLY I'M SURE THE DEVELOPER HAS GREAT INTENTIONS, BUT JUST TO DO IT, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO. SO. SO ONE THING THAT STAFF DID LOOK AT, IF YOU IF YOU LOOK AT THAT AERIAL, YOU GOT COLUMBUS AVENUE BAPTIST CHURCH AND YOU KNOW THEIR ZONE C THREE BECAUSE CHURCHES CAN GO IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE FORM OF THEIR ACTUAL CHURCH, EVEN THOUGH IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN THERE FOR OVER 100 YEARS, IT'S, IT'S FORM IS MORE IN LINE WITH C FOUR ZONING. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF THE CHURCH WAS TO FIT THEIR ZONING WITH WHAT THEY ACTUALLY BUILT TO ALL, THAT WOULD BE C FOUR ZONING. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE LOOKED AT IS LIKE, YOU HAVE THAT DOWNTOWN FORM ALONG WASHINGTON AND THEN EVEN ALONG COLUMBUS WITH THE CHURCH. AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST ONE BLOCK AWAY FROM THAT. SO THAT WAS KIND OF THE THINKING, EVEN THOUGH THE ZONING JUMPS THE FORM IN THAT BLOCK, YOU KNOW, THAT HAS C THREE ZONING IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU WOULD SEE IN C FOUR. AND THINK OF ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. JUST COME TO ME. IS THERE A USE SPECIFIC. I DON'T KNOW, I WAS JUST LOOKING AT IT. THERE'S A LOT OF USES IN C FOUR. 
          WILL YOU BRING THAT COMPARISON CHART BACK UP? WHO'S DRIVING? I DON'T WANT TO JUMP OUT OF TURN, BUT I'M HERE TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS. OH OKAY. OKAY. WE'LL WE'LL WE'LL BE RIGHT THERE. 
          YEAH. YOU'RE YOU'RE COMING UP NEXT. LIKE, I MEAN, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, SMOKE SHOP IS ALLOWED IN SINGAPORE. AND GRANTED, I DON'T SEE THE MIGUEL HOUSE BECOMING A SMOKE SHOP, BUT, YOU KNOW, IS THOSE THINGS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL. YEAH. RESTAURANT MAKES SENSE. RETAIL COMMERCIAL GENERALLY MAKES SENSE. I MEAN, YEAH, I'D LOVE TO HEAR MORE. 
          THE DISCUSSION I HAVE HEARD SO FAR ON THE CONCEPT PLANNING IS THE MIGUEL HOUSE MANSION STAYS FOR SURE, AND THE OTHER HOMES WILL BE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. BUT THE IDEA HAS BEEN SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF A BOUTIQUE HOTEL OR SOMETHING OF THAT VEIN. SO THAT'S WHAT THE OR THE DEVELOPER IS PLANNING AT THIS TIME. THAT WASN'T MENTIONED. I JUST SAID, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT ONE, TWO, THREE ZONED ANY ANY USE WITHIN THAT. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, EXACTLY. 
          YEAH, YEAH. SO THAT IS A VALID QUESTION. EVEN IF THERE'S NOT. YEAH. THAT'S WHY I WAS 
          [00:25:03]
WONDERING IF THERE'S LIKE A MIDDLE OR A POD OR SOMETHING JUST TO KIND OF HELP, BUT I DON'T KNOW. YEAH, MAYBE THERE'S MORE HERE FROM THE OTHER, THE APPLICANT. GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE MOVE ON, COMMISSIONER ALLEN, JUST FOR YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION ON SMOKE SHOP, THAT THAT DOES HAVE A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FROM PARKS. SO NO MATTER WHAT THIS IS ZONED SMOKE SHOPS COULD NOT GO ON THAT. 
          OKAY, GOOD TO KNOW. GOOD TO KNOW. THANK YOU. GREAT JOB CLINT. I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. I MEAN, I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT IS IS THERE A DIFFERENT ZONING THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THEM TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO THAT WOULDN'T ALLOW YOU TO PUT A SMALL SHOP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? SO I THINK WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT, THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS PROPERTY AND WITH THEM TRYING TO DEVELOP AROUND THE HISTORIC MCGILL HOUSE, THE C FOUR ZONING GAVE THEM THE FLEXIBILITY TO DO THAT WITH THE NOT ONLY THE MIXED USE, BUT HOW THEY'RE GOING TO LAY OUT. IT'S KIND OF HARD TO TALK ABOUT IT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE IT BECAUSE BECAUSE WE BECAUSE WE DO HAVE TO CONSIDER EVERYTHING THAT'S ALLOWED IN THAT DISTRICT. 
          YOU KNOW, THAT WHEN WE WHEN WE LOOKED AT SOME OF THE OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS, IT, IT JUST DIDN'T FIT FOR THEIR PROJECT. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE VARIANCES GRANTED, OR THERE WAS SOME OF THE MIXED USE THAT DIDN'T REALLY FIT IN. THERE WAS THE OPTION OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. BUT AGAIN, YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S SOME EXTRA STEPS THAT WE FELT LIKE THERE WAS A ZONING DISTRICT THAT WORKED FOR THE PROJECT AND ALSO FIT IN WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA IN THE ZONING. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT? THE LOVELY MAROON JACKET THIS EVENING. WELL DONE. MR. OKAY. IF YOU'LL JUST HANG TIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON. IS ANYONE ELSE PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM SPEAKING EITHER FOR OR AGAINST IT. OKAY, BUT I'M THE NEIGHBORING LANDOWNER, RIGHT? AND YOU START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. MY NAME IS STUART SMITH. I LIVE AT 1503 COLUMBUS AND HAVE LIVED THERE FOR 32 YEARS. AND MY WIFE WOULD BE HERE TONIGHT, EXCEPT SHE HAD SURGERY TODAY. AND I WOULD NOTE THAT THE MAROON JACKET IS MANDATORY AND IS ISSUED TO ALL PEOPLE AT WALKER PARTNERS. YOU WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO WORK THERE IF YOU CAME IN ANY OTHER COLOR JACKET. SO ANYWAY, WE'VE LIVED ON THE CORNER. I THINK I SAW A PICTURES OF ALL THE CORNERS EXCEPT OUR HOUSE. YOU SEE IT RIGHT THERE ON THE LEFT. IT'S THE ROTEN DORSETT HOUSE. 
          MY WIFE'S FAMILY'S LIVED THERE FOR OVER 100 YEARS, AND WE'VE BEEN HERE THROUGH THE UPS AND THE DOWNS OF DOWNTOWN. AND WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF DIFFERENT USES ON THIS HOUSE. I'M HERE TO MAKE TWO POINTS. I'M NOT HERE TO OPPOSE THE APPLICATION, BUT I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT BY NOT OPPOSING IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE AGREE THAT IN GENERAL, C4 IS GOOD FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THIS PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE NORMALLY ZONED C4, AND SO BY US NOT OPPOSING IT, I'M NOT CONCEDING IN THE FUTURE THAT IF SOME OTHER NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WANTS TO BE C4, THAT I'M NOT GOING TO BE DOWN HERE OPPOSING IT. AND THE REASON WE ARE NOT OPPOSING THIS ONE IS BECAUSE THERE IS A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY. AND WHILE WE WOULD PREFER THAT IT STAY RESIDENTIAL, WE CAN LIVE WITH THAT PLAN. AND SO WE HAVE REACHED SOME COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS WITH THE OWNER IN WHICH HE WILL BASICALLY DO HIS PLAN, WHICH IS A BOUTIQUE HOTEL AND A SMALL CLUB. AND IF HE DOESN'T DO HIS PLAN, HE CAN'T DO ANYTHING THAT'S NOT AN O ONE. 
          SO THAT'S OKAY. AND ON THE PARKING ISSUE, YOU KNOW, C2 REALLY WOULD HAVE COVERED WHAT HE WANTS TO DO. HE'S GOT TO HAVE C ZONING IN ORDER TO HAVE THIS HOTEL BLOCK. BUT SO WE'VE AGREED TO A HEIGHT RESTRICTION. WE'VE AGREED TO SOME OTHER RESTRICTIONS. IT GOES FOR 20 YEARS. BUT YOU KNOW C FOR ZONING, AS YOU HAVE POINTED OUT, ALLOWS FOR A LOT OF THINGS. 
          AUTO REPAIR SHOPS, WHICH WE HAVE AUTO REPAIR SHOPS AND THEY'RE NOT GOOD NEIGHBORS. SO IT WOULD ALLOW FOR LIQUOR STORES, CONVENIENCE STORES, ALL SORTS OF STUFF. AND THAT KIND OF LEADS INTO MY SECOND POINT. AND I'VE HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I'VE BEEN GENERALLY VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BUT I'M A 
          [00:30:04]
LITTLE DISAPPOINTED THIS TIME THAT MORE CONSIDERATION WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA THAT WE'VE REALLY GOT HERE. I MEAN, WHAT WE'VE HAD TO FOCUS ON IS THERE'S A BUNCH OF HAPHAZARD ZONING THAT GOES BACK A LONG TIME, AND THIS ZONING REALLY DOESN'T, TO ME, REPRESENT THE. MY WIFE SAID SHE WOULD GIVE ME HER THREE MINUTES IF YOU ALL WOULD ALLOW ME AND MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. SO THE CONSIDERATION HERE JUST TALKS ABOUT WHAT THE ZONING IS. BUT WITHIN THAT ZONING IS REALLY A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL. AND THERE ARE SIX RESIDENCES IN THIS BLOCK. OUR HOUSE NEXT DOOR IS RESIDENTIAL. AND SO YOU LOOK DOWN AND A LOT OF THIS IS ZONED OFFICE, BUT IT'S REALLY RESIDENTIAL OR IT IS EMPTY PARKING LOTS. AND SO WHILE I UNDERSTAND WHY THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THIS, I REALLY DO THINK IT'S BEEN A LITTLE INFLUENCED BY WHAT THE PLAN IS. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THEY REALLY OUGHT TO COME OUT AND SAY WHAT THAT PLAN IS. BECAUSE THE PROBLEM IS, IF I DIDN'T STEP FORWARD AND DIDN'T NEGOTIATE THOSE RESTRICTIONS AND THIS WAS ZONED C FOUR, AND THEN THIS PLAN FELL APART, I COULD HAVE A LOT OF BAD NEIGHBORS THAT ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I THINK THE CITY HAS RECOGNIZED THAT. THERE WAS A PROPOSAL A FEW YEARS BACK FOR THIS PROPERTY. AND YOU READY FOR ME TO WRAP UP? YES, SIR. OKAY. AND SO ANYWAY, WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT WHEN THE CITY KEEPS LOOKING, IT'S FINE. GO AHEAD AND APPROVE IT, BUT THAT THEY NEED TO TRY TO KEEP THIS TO HAVE A RESIDENTIAL LOOK. AND I WOULD ASK THAT WHEN THEY HAVE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT THEY KEEP US IN MIND, THOSE OF US WHO'VE LIVED THERE A LONG TIME AND PUT A LOT INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I HAVE A QUESTION. YES, YES. WHAT WAS THE PROPOSAL THAT YOU MADE MENTION OF? IT WAS TO HAVE AN EVENT VENUE TO HAVE WEDDINGS AND PARTIES, AND THE CITY STAFF DIDN'T SUPPORT THAT AND SAID THAT'S NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND AND I'M NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. I MEAN, THIS IS GOING TO BE AN EVENT VENUE, BUT I THINK BECAUSE HE'S GOT PEOPLE STAYING IN THOSE HOTEL ROOMS, HE CAN'T BLAST MUSIC. LIKE IF WE HAD HAD AN EVENT, IF WE'D HAD A TRUE EVENT VENUE, THEY'D BE PLAYING MUSIC TILL TWO IN THE MORNING AND DRUNK PEOPLE IN OUR YARD. YOU KNOW, OUR EVENTS ALLOWED FOR LIKE AN EVENT VENUE. YES THEY ARE. IS THERE A TIME? NO, THERE'S NO TIME LIMITS ON C4. 
          DON'T DON'T. ZONING DISTRICT. WE HAVE TIME LIMITS ON USES. IS OH THREE DISTRICT. YEAH. WHAT? OH THREE ZONING ALLOW FOR? NO, NO. AND I WOULD SAY ONE OF THE ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE DID TALK TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT WHEN THE C4 CAME UP, BECAUSE C2 WAS AN OPTION AS WELL. BUT AGAIN, FOR THEIR SPECIFIC PROJECTS, THERE WAS GOING TO HAVE TO BE A LOT OF VARIANCES AND ALLOWANCES MADE. AND, YOU KNOW, IN THE C2 ZONING, WHEN WE RECOMMENDED THE C4, IT WAS WITH THE CAVEAT THAT HE WORKED WITH WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE COMFORTABLE WITH IT BEFORE WE WENT FORWARD. YEAH. BUT YOU CAN'T, YOU KNOW, IF IT DOES CHANGE, THERE'S NO THERE'S NO RECOURSE THAT THE NEIGHBORS WOULD HAVE. RIGHT. IT'S JUST KIND OF IN GOOD FAITH. 
          WELL, AS MR. SMITH MENTIONED THERE, THERE'S A DEED RESTRICTION THAT HE'S PLACING. 
          THE CITY IS NOT GOING TO ENFORCE IT, BUT IT IS A DEED RESTRICTION ON THE PROPERTY THAT I BELIEVE RUNS FOR 20 YEARS. IT'S 20 YEARS AND IT DOESN'T DEAL WITH PARKING. AND TO BE HONEST, BECAUSE OF THE COLUMBUS AVENUE PARKING, I'M NOT REALLY TOO CONCERNED ABOUT PARKING. I MEAN, COLUMBUS AVENUE, AS WITH ALL DOWNTOWN CHURCHES, HAS GOT MORE PARKING THAN THEY NEED. AND SO I'M NOT REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT PARKING. I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT NOISE AND TRAFFIC. AND JUST WHAT YOU SEE IS IF YOU TAKE OUT A BUNCH OF RESIDENCES, WE BECOME AN ISLAND AND EVENTUALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RESIDENCES. AND I'M JUST ASKING THAT THE CITY KEEP THAT IN MIND. AND I MAY HAVE MISJUDGED THIS, BUT IN MY OPINION, THE RESIDENCES JUST SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN A LITTLE MORE NOTICE IN THIS OR MORE EMPHASIS IN THIS PROCESS THAT WE WANT TO PRESERVE THAT WE'VE GOT A NEW YOUNG FAMILY NEXT DOOR TO US. WE HAVE RESIDENTS ACROSS THE STREET. WE NEED MORE RESIDENTIAL DOWN HERE, REALLY TO SUPPORT THE RETAIL. GO AHEAD. 
          I WAS GOING TO FOLLOW UP. THIS ONE WAS GOING TO BE PROBABLY FOR YOU CLINT. YOU SAID YOU GUYS DISCUSSED WELL CONSIDERED C-2 CORRECT. BUT IT WILL REQUIRE A LOT OF VARIANCES. SO 
          [00:35:06]
C2 WOULD WORK FOR THEIR PROPOSED USE IT BECAUSE OF THE THE FORM, THE SITE REQUIREMENTS FOR C2. THERE WOULD NEED TO BE VARIANCES. C4 GETS YOU THE THE FORM THAT THEY NEED. BUT I MEAN THERE ARE OTHER THERE ARE OTHER ZONING OPTIONS THAT WOULD WORK FOR THEIR USE. WOULD THE C2 EVEN THOUGH REQUIRE VARIANCES? WOULD IT ALLOW THE PROTECTION THAT HE'S ASKING FOR? SO SAY IF THE PROPERTY IS SOLD TO SOMEONE ELSE, THEN THEY WOULDN'T BE THEY WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE GRANDFATHERED INTO A C2. SO C2 DOES TAKE OUT SOME OF THE HEAVIER COMMERCIAL USES THAT MR. SMITH MENTIONED. IT STILL ALLOWS COMMERCIAL USES, RETAIL, RESTAURANTS, OFFICE, MULTIFAMILY, BUT IT DOES TAKE OUT SOME OF THE HEAVIER COMMERCIAL USES, LIKE AUTO REPAIR. OKAY. AND THEN BEFORE I ASK THAT QUESTION, YOU SAID THERE COULD BE ANOTHER OPTION TO EXPLORE FOR ZONING IF IF WE DIDN'T GO THE C3 ROUTE, WHAT ARE THOSE? THE THE OPTIONS THAT WOULD WORK ARE C2 ZONING. AGAIN, THERE'S SOME VARIANCES THAT WOULD BE NEEDED. AND THEN WHAT WE CALL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS ZONING THAT'S SPECIFIC TO THEIR PROJECT. OKAY. AND THAT WOULD BASICALLY CODIFY. YOU KNOW, A SPECIFIC PLAN THAT WOULD BE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL AND THE NEIGHBORS COULD SEE, OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THE YOU TALKED ABOUT A DEED RESTRICTION. HAS THAT ALREADY MANIFEST AND BEEN FILED AND IT HAS BEEN SIGNED, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN FILED BECAUSE THE OWNER UNDERSTANDABLY WANTS TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS HERE, BECAUSE THERE'S NO REASON TO FILE IT. IF FOR SOME REASON HE DIDN'T MAKE IT THROUGH THE PROCESS, BUT I AM 100% CONFIDENT THAT IT WILL BE FILED IF THIS IS APPROVED. I MEAN, THE THE THE OWNER IS A GOOD, RELIABLE PERSON AND I TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD ON THINGS. BUT I MEAN, HE IS A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER AND I'M A RESIDENT. SO WE DO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE WE SEE THINGS A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY. 
          BUT I THINK I MEAN, MY, MY COMPLAINT IS NOT WITH HIM. IT'S JUST A LITTLE ABOUT THE PROCESS. 
          AND I'M JUST I THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO COME DOWN HERE AND RAISE IT BECAUSE, I MEAN, REALLY, THIS PROBABLY WAS A BETTER, BETTER SUITED TO UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS PLANNED. 
          BUT I UNDERSTAND THERE'S OTHER REASONS THAT THAT'S MORE HOOPS TO JUMP THROUGH, BUT I'M JUST I DON'T LIKE I MEAN, IF IT HADN'T BEEN ME, THIS WOULD HAVE JUST SAILED THROUGH. AND BECAUSE I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 30 YEARS AND OUR FAMILY HAS LIVED THERE FOR OVER 100 YEARS, AND BECAUSE I'M A LAWYER AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH THIS, AND I'VE BEEN DOWN HERE A LOT OF TIMES ON A LOT OF OTHER THINGS, I KNEW TO GET THESE RESTRICTIONS. BUT IF IT HAD BEEN SOMEBODY ELSE, THIS COULD HAVE SAILED THROUGH NO RESTRICTIONS, AND THEN THE NEIGHBORS WOULD BE STUCK WITH AUTO REPAIR BUSINESSES AND LIQUOR STORES AND CONVENIENCE STORES AND THINGS THAT WOULD, IN MY VIEW, REALLY, YOU KNOW, PUSH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PERHAPS OVER THE EDGE. AND MY ISSUE IS THAT ALL OF THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT OUT HERE. AND THE OWNER SHOULD COME DOWN HERE AND CONVINCE YOU AS TO WHY THIS SHOULD BE DONE. AND I SHOULDN'T BE HAVING TO DO THIS. I MEAN, I THINK OUR PLAN DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE PROTECTING THE RESIDENTS AND NOT JUST PROMOTING BUSINESSES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. SMITH? THANK YOU SIR. IS THERE ANY ANYONE ELSE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? IT LOOKS LIKE THE APPLICANT DID SHOW UP WITH THE APPLICANT. LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. JED COLE, 3024 NOVICE ROAD, WACO, TEXAS. I DON'T NEED TO REPEAT ANYTHING THAT YOU ALL HAVE ALREADY HEARD, SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND OBVIOUSLY ADDRESS ANYTHING THAT STEWART THINKS IS STILL NOT BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE KIND OF SIDE AGREEMENT. BUT WE ALSO OWN A HOUSE ABOUT TWO HOUSES AWAY FROM STEWART, SO WE'RE VERY MUCH ALIGNED THAT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO DO SOMETHING TO THIS BLOCK THAT ONE DAY COULD BE UNDONE OR DONE IN A WAY THAT WOULDN'T BE BENEFICIAL TO, YOU KNOW, WHERE I PLAN TO RAISE MY FAMILY ONE DAY AS WELL. 
          SO I THINK HIM AND I ARE PRETTY ALIGNED AT WHAT WE HOPE THE END GOAL IS HERE. I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          [00:40:02]
IS THERE IS THERE ANOTHER ZONING CATEGORY THAT WOULD BE SATISFACTORY TO YOU, OR HAVE Y'ALL ALREADY HASHED THAT OUT AND YOU'RE WAY PAST ALL THAT? WE'VE PRETTY WELL HASHED IT OUT. 
          I THINK THE FIRST TIME I MET WITH STEWART ON THIS WAS PROBABLY 4 OR 5 MONTHS AGO. SO WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH AND LOOKED THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT USES BASED ON ZONING AND STUFF. AND I THINK I THINK WHAT WILL ULTIMATELY BE THE BEST FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE C4. BIG PIECE OF THAT WAS THE PARKING. WE HAVE TWO MASSIVE CHURCHES ON BORDERING TWO SIDES OF THIS PROPERTY THAT ALREADY HAVE WAY EXCESSIVE PARKING THAT ONE WOULD BENEFIT FROM POTENTIAL PARKING REVENUE OF OUR DEVELOPMENT INTO JUST ADDING MORE SURFACE PARKING TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK TAKES IT IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION THAT BOTH STEWART AND I AND THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORS ARE HOPING TO SEE IT GO. SO THAT WAS A BIG REASON FOR THE C4 IS THAT IT GIVES US MORE FLEXIBILITY TO NEGOTIATE PARKING WITH THE CHURCHES AROUND THAT ALREADY HAVE AMPLE PARKING, RATHER THAN BE FORCED TO ADD MORE SURFACE PARKING TO A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ALREADY HAS ACRES OF IT. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, CLINT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF JED WILL HAVE TO ANSWER IT TOO, SO YOU CAN STAY UP THERE. YOU MENTIONED THE WHAT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ZONING PROJECTS SPECIFIC. THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION. IF YOU DIDN'T DO THE C2 WITH VARIANCES ROUTE, WELL THAT STILL REQUIRE A DISCUSSION FOR ZONING. WOULD IT STILL BE LIKE A C FOR ZONING? AND THEN THOSE RESTRICTIONS FROM THAT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT? OR IS THAT SOMETHING COMPLETELY SEPARATE? AM I UNDERSTANDING IT WRONG? SO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS A SEPARATE ZONING CATEGORY. SO INSTEAD OF GOING OH ONE TO C4, IT WOULD GO TO OH ONE TO P D OKAY, OKAY. AND THAT P D ZONING WOULD BE SPECIFIC TO THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THROUGH THE PROCESS. OKAY. AND THEN THAT STILL WOULD PROVIDE THE SAME PROTECTIONS THAT MR. STEWART WAS LOOKING TO GET FROM THIS PROPERTY. YES. IF SOMEONE ELSE WAS APPROVED, THEN THAT WHATEVER THAT SPECIFIC PLAN THAT WAS PART OF THE P D THAT BECOMES THE ZONING, YOU CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING ELSE. OKAY. THANK YOU. I MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT. WERE THERE ANY SPECIFIC CONCERNS TO THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WE GAVE STEWART THAT WEREN'T WEREN'T ADDRESSED? NOT WE DON'T REALLY KNOW MUCH ABOUT THEM OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT NEIGHBORS ARE OKAY WITH IT. IF THERE'S ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, PER SE. I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION REGARDING COLUMBUS BAPTIST HERE. SHOULD THEY CHANGE ANY OF THEIR PROPERTY? WE SAY, YOU KNOW, COMMENTS BEEN MADE ABOUT A LOT OF THEIR PARKING. THEY HAVE EXCESSIVE PARKING. IF THEY WERE TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT WITH OUR PROPERTY AND SELL SOME OF THAT SPACE THEY HAVE FOR PARKING, WILL THAT IMPACT THIS PROJECT OR THE FUTURE? AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS LIKE STEADY STATE FOR WHAT COLUMBUS IS GOING TO DO. THEY MAY DO SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. SO HAS THAT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS WELL TO YOUR PLANS? IF THEY WERE TO DECIDE TO PUT A BUILDING ON THE PARKING LOT OR DO SOMETHING ELSE THAT WOULD IMPACT? YEAH, WE'VE BEEN MEETING WITH THE CHURCH FOR OVER A YEAR NOW, AND THEY'RE ABOUT TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY RENOVATING THEIR MAIN BUILDING AND STUFF. AND SO AS FAR AS WE KNOW, THEY'RE VERY MUCH COMMITTED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND STAYING THERE. 
          AND SO THEY'RE IN ONE SHAPE OR FORM GOING TO HAVE THE PARKING REQUIRED TO FILL UP A, YOU KNOW, 500 PERSON SANCTUARY. SO WILL IT ALWAYS AND FOREVER BE THE MOST CONVENIENT RIGHT ACROSS THE BLOCK FOR ME. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM ON THAT, BUT WILL THEY CONTINUE TO HAVE AMPLE PARKING FOR THEIR CONGREGATION? YES. AND THAT PARKING IS ONLY NEEDED FOR A FEW HOURS ONE DAY A WEEK. 
          THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE I CAN ANSWER? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR OUR APPLICANT? CAN YOU GO? IS THERE A IS THERE A GOOGLE OR LIKE A SATELLITE VIEW? THERE WE GO. OKAY, SO THAT'S. WHAT'S THE BUILDING BEHIND ON 15TH AND BERNARD, THAT IS THE OLD SENIOR CENTER THAT'S OWNED BY THE CITY OF WACO. THAT'S NO LONGER IN USE. YEAH. AND THEN THIS ENTIRE BLOCK, KIND OF THE PLAN, BOTTOM RIGHT IS OWNED BY SAINT MARY'S, EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE CORNER GAS STATION, BUT THE REST OF THE BLOCK. SO THAT SURFACE PARKING THEY HAVE AS WELL. AND THERE'S NO THEY DON'T OWN ANY OTHER PROPERTY BESIDES THE HALF BLOCK BEHIND COLUMBUS IN THAT BLOCK. AND SO FOR THEM TO CONTINUE PROVIDING THEIR CONGREGATION PARKING WOULD HAVE TO TAKE PLACE IN ONE OF THOSE TWO SPOTS. 
          AND SO THIS IS SIX DIFFERENT ADDRESSES, CORRECT? YES. THERE'S DIFFERENT PARCELS. 
          [00:45:07]
ALWAYS KEEP THEM SIX DIFFERENT PARCELS. NO, I THINK ONCE WE GO THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE, WE'LL PROBABLY REPLOT INTO ONE COHESIVE THING LATER IN THE AGENDA IS THE ALLEY ABANDONMENT FOR THIS BLOCK. AND SO. SO IF WE LOOK SO IF THIS IS WE LOOK GOING FORWARD, THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE ONE PARCEL, CORRECT? YES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT. THANK YOU. MR. THANK YOU. AND I THINK TO BE TECHNICAL ABOUT IT, THE REBUTTAL. MR. BELL MR. SMITH SPOKE IN OPPOSITION OR NEUTRAL OR SOMETHING. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE? WE'RE GOOD. 
          OKAY. WONDERFUL. NO OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS AND IN GENERAL, PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION? I MOVE TO APPROVE BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS? SECOND. AND A SECOND ONE THAT WAS BOTH THE LAND USE AND THE ZONING. IS THAT CORRECT? MR. MOTIONER? YES. BEEN A MOTION MADE BY MR. ALLEN AND SECONDED BY MR. ENGLAND. ANY DISCUSSION BY COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ALLEN. OKAY. ELLIS. YES. EMBRY. YES. ENGLAND. 
          YES. GIBBONS. YES. INGRAM. YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SLOANE. YES. MOTION CARRIES. 
          THANK YOU. ARE WE MOVING ON? LAURA. YEP. THE NEXT ITEM IS Z DASH 26 DASH 11. MR. MERCER, ARE YOU AND I WORKING TOGETHER ON THAT? I, I GOT YOU IF YOU NEED A FUZE. CAN I READ THIS OR WHEN DO I STEP DOWN? YEAH. HOW DO YOU LIKE MY NEW. I'LL REPEAT IT HERE. THANK YOU. SURE. ALL RIGHT, START HERE. JUST DO THAT AND THEN DO THAT. AND THEN OVER HERE. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S TOO MUCH. I THINK YOU JUST DONE THAT. OH, SHOOT. SORRY. ALL RIGHT. MEETING. WE'RE DONE. 
          MEETING IN SESSION. THE ITEM UP IS Z DASH 26 DASH 11. WHAT IS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM CITY STAFF? MR. INTERIM CHAIR AND. COMMISSIONER'S CASE Z 2611 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM O THREE OFFICE LIMITED COMMERCIAL TO O TWO OFFICE RESIDENCE DISTRICT ON APPROXIMATELY 21.853 ACRE TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE JOHN TUCKER SURVEY. ABSTRACT 41 IN THE CITY OF WACO. MCLENNAN COUNTY, TEXAS. BEING A PART OF THE PROPERTY ADDRESSED AS 2600 WEST LAKESHORE DRIVE. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS AERIAL MAP, THE PROPERTY IS A VACANT PROPERTY LOCATED OFF OF WEST LAKE SHORE AND AIRPORT DRIVE NEAR THAT INTERSECTION, APPROXIMATELY HALF MILE SOUTH OF NORTH 19TH AND WEST LAKESHORE. INTERSECTION PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE CEDAR RIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION IS MIXED USE FLEX, WHICH DOES ALLOW THE PROPOSED O TWO ZONING, SO THERE IS NO REQUESTED LAND USE MAP CHANGE FOR THIS ONE. THE APPLICANT OR THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED O THREE. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE DARK PURPLE. AND YOU CAN ALSO SEE THAT THERE IS A MIX OF ZONINGS AROUND THIS PROPERTY, INCLUDING EXISTING O THREE ALONG WEST LAKESHORE, AS WELL AS C TWO ZONING. THE PROPERTY ACTUALLY EXTENDS FURTHER ALONG THE THAN THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST. HOWEVER, THEY ARE ONLY REQUESTING TO REZONE THIS PORTION OF IT. THAT'S KIND OF COLORS ARE SHOWING UP, BUT THIS IS THE AREA THAT WOULD BE REZONED TO O THREE ZONING DISTRICT O TWO I'M SORRY. OH 
          [00:50:03]
TWO ZONING. THEY'RE GOING FROM 032O2. THE PURPOSE OF THIS, AND THIS SHOWS A LOT BETTER. AS I MENTIONED, THE PROPERTY DOES CONTINUE BY JUST REZONING THIS TRACT. IT DOES STILL ALLOW A 200 AT LEAST A 250 FOOT BUFFER TO THE NEIGHBORING SCOTT WOOD DRIVE. RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA. 
          HERE IS THE PROPOSED THE REQUIRED ZONE CHANGE SIGN. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED. WITH LAKESHORE DRIVE, AND THIS IS SOME OF THE O THREE ZONING ALONG THE FRONT OF THAT PROPERTY. MARK, YOU WANT TO SINCE YOU GUYS WORKED ON THIS. 
          DEFINITELY SO SIMILAR TO THE ONE WE JUST SEEN SHOWING YOU DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE O. TWO THAT'S BEING PROPOSED WITH THE CURRENT O THREE. O TWO ALLOWS MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MAXIMUM OF 40 UNITS PER ACRE. THE O THREE ZONING PERMITS, TOWNHOUSES. MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 7.26 UNITS AN ACRE. OH THREE DOES PERMIT SOME LIMITED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH INCLUDES RESTAURANTS, RETAILS SALES. O2 DOES NOT PERMIT THAT. AND SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE A PRETTY QUICK BREAKDOWN BETWEEN THE O TWO USES AND O THREE HERE. LET ME BACK UP A SLIDE. AS I NOTED IN THEIR STAFF REPORT, JUST TO SUMMARIZE THAT O TWO OFFICE RESIDENCE DISTRICT IS INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE LOWER INTENSITY OFFICE USES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND ALLOWS FOR A BROADER RANGE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. IN CONTRAST, THE O THREE OFFICE LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PERMITS A WIDER RANGE OF OFFICE AND LIMITED COMMERCIAL USES AT A HIGHER INTENSITY. O TWO DISTRICT ALLOWS GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN BUILDING HEIGHT WITH NO MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT, AND PERMITS HIGHER RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES, INCLUDING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. WHEREAS, THE O THREE DISTRICT, BY COMPARISON, LIMITS THE BUILDING HEIGHT TO TWO STORIES OR 35FT AND DOES NOT ACCOMMODATE THE SAME LEVEL OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. SO THAT'S KIND OF A BROAD QUICK SUMMARY ON THAT. WE DID SEND OUT 13 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER NOTICES AS WELL AS NOTICE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE RECEIVED ZERO RETURNED STAFF PLANNING STAFF SERVICES IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. THIS REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM OH THREE TO OH TWO BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. NUMBER ONE IS THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING IS CONSISTENT IN THIS CASE WITH THE MIXED USE FLEX DESIGNATION, WHICH IS THE CURRENT DESIGNATION WITHIN THE LAND USE PLAN THAT DOES SUPPORT A RANGE OF RESIDENTIAL, OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES. NUMBER TWO, EXISTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE RANGE OF USES PERMITTED WITHIN THE O TWO ZONING DISTRICT AND THREE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MEETS THE MINIMUM AREA AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE O TWO DISTRICT. NUMBER FOUR. THE PROPOSED REZONING REPRESENTS A REDUCTION IN ALLOWABLE COMMERCIAL INTENSITY FROM OH THREE TO OH TWO, AND SUPPORTS A TRANSITION TO A MORE RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND NUMBER FIVE, COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS MAINTAINED THROUGH THE PRESENCE OF APPROXIMATELY 250FT OF INTERVENING R1 B ZONING BETWEEN THAT SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE HOMES ALONG SCOTT WOOD DRIVE, PROVIDING THAT BUFFER. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. IS THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM. 
          GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS DAVID MERCER. MY ADDRESS IS 1927 COLUMBUS AVENUE. THIS PROPERTY OVERALL IN SIZE IS RIGHT AROUND 49 ACRES, AND IN WORKING WITH CITY STAFF TO TRY TO MEET OUR DEVELOPMENT GOALS FOR THE PROPERTY, IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT WE WOULD LEAVE THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ALONG LAKESHORE, WITH ITS CURRENT ZONING OF C TWO, AND THEN ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THAT ABUTS THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD NEXT TO US. WE WOULD LEAVE THAT OR ACTUALLY WE WERE CREATING IT CURRENTLY HAS A, I THINK, A 200 FOOT BOUNDARY BETWEEN IT AND THE CURRENT O THREE ZONING. WE INCREASED THAT TO 250FT. AND THAT WAS PRIMARILY DONE BECAUSE THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY HAS A REALLY STEEP TOPOGRAPHY THAT MAKES IT TO WHERE IT'S NOT REALLY EASILY DEVELOPABLE. SO WE JUST MIGHT AS WELL LEAVE THAT AS A GREEN SPACE. SO THERE'S KIND OF A NATURAL. YEAH, AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, THERE'S A GOOD NATURAL GREEN SPACE BUFFER 
          [00:55:03]
BETWEEN US AND THE RESIDENCES NEXT DOOR TO US TO THE EAST. AND THEN ON THE SOUTH SIDE THERE, THERE'S A LARGE CREEK DRAINAGE CHANNEL THAT SEPARATES US IN THE APARTMENT COMPLEX TO THE SOUTH. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THERE'S EXISTING BUSINESSES ON THE NORTH SIDE, BUT WANTED TO MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS MAY HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. IS ANYONE ELSE PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR THIS ITEM? IS ANYONE PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ASK A QUESTION. STEPH, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE CHART? OH TWO VERSUS OH THREE. 
          SO. OH TWO WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING TO BE CHANGED TO AS A MAXIMUM OF 40 UNITS AN ACRE AND CURRENT ZONING PERMITS. A MAXIMUM OF 7.2. TOWNHOME TYPE UNITS, AN ACRE. YEAH. EFFECTIVELY THAT'S THAT'S THE BREAKDOWN. IT DOES, YOU KNOW, THERE THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY RESTRICTIONS ON THE, YOU KNOW, MORE COMMERCIAL TYPES OF USES. SO WHEREAS RIGHT NOW THEY CURRENTLY WOULD BE PERMITTED FOR THOSE RESTAURANTS, RETAIL, THIS IS MORE, YOU KNOW, OH TWO IS MORE OF COMPATIBLE, I GUESS WITH THE RESIDENTIAL AS IT KIND OF MOVES INTO THAT MORE ESTABLISHED R1B AND SO YEAH, THE UNITS ACCOUNTS HERE WOULD BE 40 UNITS APPROXIMATELY FOR THE OH TWO. AND THEN OH THREE DOESN'T PERMIT MULTI-FAMILY TOWNHOME IS AS CLOSE AS YOU KIND OF GET TO, YOU KNOW, MULTI-FAMILY TYPES OF USE. AND SO THAT THAT'S, THAT IS CORRECT. 
          THAT IS 40HZ PER ACRE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 22 ISH ACRES. YES. SO WHEN THE WHEN CITY STAFF MAKES THEIR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL AND WE TALK ABOUT EXISTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURES ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE RANGE OF USES, YOU GUYS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SOMETHING LIKE 875 POTENTIAL. YEAH. AND WE DO HAVE THE STAFF REPORT FOR THAT. AND I HAD IS I CAN I CAN KIND OF CARRY ON. SO IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, THERE IS THE LIST FROM THAT WENT THROUGH OUR REVIEW WITH ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS. THERE ARE SOME ITEMS IN THERE, BUT I MADE SURE IT GETS HIGHLIGHTED ON THE TOP THAT A LOT OF THESE ITEMS THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE TO DO AT THE DEVELOPMENT. SO EVEN THOUGH I MEAN, THE PROPERTY ITSELF MAY NOT HAVE THESE UTILITIES DIRECTLY ON IT, IT'S VACANT, BUT IT'S WITHIN A DEVELOPABLE DISTANCE TO GET IT THERE WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER BRINGING IT THERE, NOT THE CITY. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? PUBLIC HEARING. OH YEAH. SORRY, THIS WILL BE FOR LAURA. THEN LOOKING AT THE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS REVIEW FOR THE T I A, I KNOW THAT SAYS IT'S GOING TO BE IMMEDIATE FOR THEM TO DO THAT. THAT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER AHEAD OF TIME BEFORE DOING THE ZONE CHANGE. NO, THAT WOULD BE HANDLED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. 
          THANK YOU. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. ELLIS, SECOND BY MR. LOZANO. PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ALLEN. YAY! ELLIS. YES. ENGLAND. YES. 
          GIBBONS. YES. INGRAM. YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. YES. THANK YOU. GOOD 
          [01:00:10]
JOB. ALLEN. THAT WAS SECOND BEST. THANK YOU. LET'S SEE. THERE'S THAT ONE SUBDIVISION PLAT. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER SIX A SUBDIVISION PLAT. WHAT IS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY STAFF? YES. MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF HUNTER'S CREEK ADDITION. PHASE TWO PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF WACO. EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. LET ME FIND MY. I JUST SORRY ABOUT THAT. SLIDE IS LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE CHAPEL. LET ME MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE SOUTHWEST OF THE CHAPEL AND OLD MARINA ROAD INTERSECTION. THIS IS THE SECOND PHASE OF THE HUNTER'S CREEK ADDITION. THE FIRST PHASE DOES. LAY IS RIGHT OFF OF HERE. THIS SHOWS IT BETTER WHERE YOU CAN SEE THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT IS PHASE ONE. NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT PHASE TWO WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. THE THE SUBDIVISION PLAT. THIS PHASE INCLUDES 62 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, EACH BEING OVER ONE ACRE IN SIZE, WILL BE PROVIDED BY CITY WATER AND ON SITE SEPTIC, AND IT DOES CONFORM TO THE APPROVED 2021 PRELIMINARY PLAT. THERE WERE SOME MINOR UPDATES THAT THEY'LL NEED TO MAKE TO THIS PLAT BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL CAN BE GRANTED. SO AT THIS TIME, PLANNING SERVICES DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OF THE FINAL PLAT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS OUTLINED IN THE MARCH 16TH, 2026 REVIEW LETTER. 
          BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF ON THIS ONE. GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE BIG CITY OR THE APPLICANT. THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL. THAT QUALIFIES, DOESN'T IT? AND FOR EMPLOYMENT YOU ARE EXCUSED. THANK YOU FOR LETTING US KNOW AND AND, AND SIGN UP AND SIGN A PIECE OF PAPER HERE IN A SECOND. ANYONE ELSE HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY? OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? HOWDY AGAIN. JACOB WALKER PARTNERS 823 WASHINGTON AVENUE. THIS ORIGINALLY WAS GOING TO BE ONE WHOLE PHASE. THE DEVELOPER, AS THEY WERE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WANTED TO BE ABLE TO FINAL OUT THE FIRST PHASE. THE PROPERTIES CLOSER TO OLD MARINA ROAD BE ABLE TO START SELLING THOSE LOTS. AND SO THEY WENT THROUGH WITH A SPLIT INTO PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO. SO THIS IS JUST COMING BACK AND FINISHING UP THE SECOND PHASE. AS YOU SAW ON THE AERIAL IMAGES, CONSTRUCTION IS VERY FAR ALONG FURTHER THAN THAT. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR AGGIE FRIEND. 
          GREAT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE ELSE HERE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? DOES ANYONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? DO ANY OF OUR COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS? SECOND, THERE'S BEEN A MOTION BY MISS SALOME, AND IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MISS GIVENS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM OUR COMMISSIONERS? PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ALLEN J. ELLIS. YES. EMBRY. YES. GIVENS. YES. INGRAM. YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. 
          YES. SALOME. YES. MOTION CARRIES. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS AN ABANDONMENT. A B D 20 6-04. WHAT IS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF CITY STAFF? YES, MISTER CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION THIS IS THE SECOND PART TO THE PREVIOUS ZONE CHANGE REQUEST THAT WE HEARD A B D 2604 IS A REQUEST TO ABANDON A 20 FOOT WIDE ALLEY, 0.161 ACRES BEING ALL OF A 20 FOOT ALLEY IN BLOCK NINE. BERNARD SUBDIVISION GENERALLY LOCATED MID-BLOCK BETWEEN COLUMBUS AVENUE AND BERNARD AVENUE AND PERPENDICULAR TO NORTH 14TH STREET AND NORTH 15TH STREET. IT IS LOCATED IN THE DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE ALLEY TRANSECTS. THE OVERALL PROPERTY WHICH THROUGH DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE PLATTED INTO ONE LARGE PROPERTY. OH, WE DID SEND THIS OUT FOR REVIEW. 
          WE DID RECEIVE SOME COMMENTS BACK ON THIS ABOUT AN EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE THAT DOES 
          [01:05:06]
CURRENTLY RUN THROUGH THE ALLEY. SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING SOME CONDITIONS ON ON APPROVAL OF THIS. SO AGAIN, LOCATED IN THE DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HERE IS THE SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY. THE MCGILL HOUSE SITS HERE AT 1425 COLUMBUS. HERE IS LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY. I BELIEVE THIS WOULD BE FROM 14TH STREET. AND HERE IS LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY FROM 15TH. SO AFTER OUR REVIEW, PLANNING SERVICES IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. THE ABANDONMENT REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. NUMBER ONE, FOLLOWING ABANDONMENT, THE PROPERTY COULD BE REPLANTED WITH THE ADJACENT PARCELS TO CREATE A DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY FOR FUTURE USE. NUMBER TWO, THE ABANDONMENT OF THE ALLEY WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT UTILITY ACCESS FOR SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. NUMBER THREE, THERE WILL BE NO ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING STREET AND ALLEY SYSTEM. WE ARE RECOMMENDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. NUMBER ONE, THAT A DEDICATED 20 FOOT SANITARY SEWER LINE EASEMENT SHALL BE RETAINED FOR ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SEWER LINE LOCATED WITHIN THIS PROPERTY OR THE LINE MAY BE RELOCATED AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE. CONTACT WACO INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES TO COORDINATE. AND THEN NUMBER TWO IS OUR STANDARD CATCH ALL. THAT EASEMENT SHALL BE RETAINED AND RECORDED FOR ANY UTILITIES DISCOVERED DURING DEVELOPMENT OF THE ABANDONMENT AREA, OR UTILITIES MAY BE RELOCATED AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE, AS COORDINATED WITH THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY PROVIDER. 14 NOTICES WERE MAILED ON THIS ONE AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OBJECTIONS. IS THE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? MR. BELL, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. JACOB WALKER PARTNERS, 823 WASHINGTON AVENUE. THANKS FOR HAVING ME AGAIN. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BELL? THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? ANY OF OUR COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION? I APPROVAL BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS WITH CONDITIONS? SECOND, THERE'S BEEN A MOTION BY MR. ENGLAND AND SECONDED BY MR. ALLEN. ANY DISCUSSION BY COMMISSION MEMBERS, PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. YES. EMBRY. YES. ENGLAND. YES. GIVENS. YES. 
          INGRAM. YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. YES. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM EIGHT, AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AMENDING CHAPTER 28. WHAT IS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION? RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY STAFF. OKAY. SOME OF YOU WERE ON THE COMMISSION. 
          I'LL SAY END OF 22, EARLY 23, IN WHICH THE FLOYD CASEY OVERLAY DISTRICT WAS CREATED. 
          DURING THAT TIME WITH THE OVERLAY DISTRICT WAS THE ADOPTION OF THE FLOYD CASEY DESIGN BOOK AS THE PROPERTY. AS THE PROJECT HAS PROGRESSED AND CONSTRUCTION IS STARTING TO BEGIN ON THE BUILDINGS WITHIN THE FLOYD CASEY, WE FOUND SOME AREAS WITHIN THAT DESIGN BOOK THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT JUST FOR CLARITY PURPOSES. SOME CONFUSION WHEN REVIEWING PLANS AND JUST SOME OF THAT WORDING THAT NEEDS TO BE REALLY STRENGTHENED WITHIN THAT BOOK SO THAT WE'RE NOT HAVING CONCERNS EVERY TIME THAT WE'RE REVIEWING A PLAN. SO JUST IN SUMMARY. CASEY 2601. IS APPLICANT FLOYD CASEY ONE, LLC AND THE CITY OF WACO. THIS IS A REQUEST TO AMEND CHAPTER 28 ZONING, ARTICLE FOUR, DIVISION 30, WHICH IS SPECIAL DISTRICT, FLOYD CASEY DISTRICT, AND TO AMEND THE FLOYD CASEY DESIGN BOOK FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING CORRECTIONS AND UPDATES TO ENSURE ALIGNMENT BETWEEN THE ORDINANCE, THE DESIGN BOOK, AND THE DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPERTY AS A WHOLE IS LOCATED IN THE CESAR CHAVEZ NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE. YOU SEE, IT'S QUITE A LARGE PROPERTY, THE SITE OF THE OLD FLOYD CASEY STADIUM OFF OF DUTTON AND SOUTH VALLEY MILLS ALONG DUTTON AND VALLEY MILLS, IS MORE OF THE NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AS YOU'LL SEE IN A MINUTE. AND THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS MORE ON THE INSIDE PORTION IN HERE. SO WHEN THE OVERLAY WAS CREATED THERE WERE SOME BASE ZONING ESTABLISHED ASSOCIATED WITH THE OVERLAY. SO THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WAS DESIGNATED AS R1B. AND THEN THE MIXED USE WAS DESIGNATED AS C TWO. SO THE AS OPPOSED TO A ZONE CHANGE AN OVERLAY. I WISH WE GOT TO IT TONIGHT, BUT WE DIDN'T GET TO 
          [01:10:05]
THE TRAINING ON OVERLAYS TONIGHT. BUT THE UNDERLYING ZONING IS STILL THERE. WHEN YOU HAVE AN OVERLAY, THE OVERLAY CREATES AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF RULES THAT GOVERNS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY IN ADDITION TO THE UNDERLYING ZONING. SO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THAT, THE UNDERLYING ZONING DOES NOT GO AWAY. IT'S JUST AN ADDITIONAL LAYER ON TOP. SO THESE ARE SOME IMAGES OUT OF THE DESIGN BOOK. AGAIN, ON ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE IS JUST MORE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN UNDERLYING THOSE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICTS. 
          THE MIXED USE DISTRICT, 19.6 ACRES IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF 54.2 ACRES ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN SHOWS MORE OF THE. JUST A CLEARER PICTURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THESE PINKISH COLORED BUILDINGS ARE ALL THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. THE GRAY ROOFTOPS ARE SHOWING THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THIS MAP ALONE HAS BEEN UPDATED BECAUSE WHEN THE OVERLAY WAS CREATED, THESE. THIS PARK PLAN WAS NOT IN PLACE. THIS IS THE. 
          ALICE RODRIGUEZ. MARTIN. I'M SORRY, I GET IT MIXED UP. ALICE MARTINEZ RODRIGUEZ. PARK. SO. 
          ANOTHER BIG COMPONENT OF THE UPDATES. THIS IS WHERE WE REALLY WOULD GET HUNG UP A LITTLE BIT IN REVIEWING THE PLANS. ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN IS AN IMAGE FROM THE ORIGINAL ADOPTED DESIGN BOOK FROM 2022, AND THERE IS JUST SOME INCONSISTENCIES IN HERE, SUCH AS WHEN YOU ADD WHEN YOU MULTIPLY THEIR DIMENSIONS, YOU RECEIVE NUMBERS THAT WERE OUTSIDE OF THE LOT AREA. JUST CLEAN, CLEAN, THAT KIND OF STUFF. JUST CLEANING IT UP AND GETTING IT RIGHT. SO WE ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED TO REMOVE THIS DIMENSIONAL CAT COLUMN AND JUST FOCUS ON WHAT IS THE INTENDED LOT AREA FOR THESE DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING UNITS. AND WHAT IS YOUR MINIMUM WIDTH? THIS WE ARE SEEING ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, RATHER THAN REQUIRING A A MINIMUM LOT DEPTH, WE FOCUS ON LOT AREA AND LOT WITH. AND THEN THIS IS PROVIDING THE NUMBERS OF ALLEY LOADED, FRONT LOADED, AND THEN THE TOTAL UNITS. THIS MAP HERE HAS BEEN UPDATED TO SHOW THE CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF WHERE THESE UNITS ARE GOING TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA. YOU CAN SEE THERE'S SLIGHT CHANGES IN PARTICULAR LIKE OVER HERE WE SEE IN THIS ONE HAS SOME ZERO LOT LINES. AND THEN HERE THEY'RE CONVERTING THEM MORE TO THE BROWNSTONE UNIT. SO JUST MORE CONDUCIVE TO THOSE PROPERTIES. AS THEY GOT MORE INTO THE DEVELOPMENT. THE DESIGN BOOK ITSELF, THERE IS A RED LINE COPY IN THERE. I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS STILL GOING THROUGH SOMEWHAT OF A STAFF REVIEW. NOT SO MUCH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT, BUT OTHER DEPARTMENTS ARE STILL LOOKING AT THIS. SO THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT BEFORE OR DURING COUNCIL MEETING, JUST TO KIND OF LET YOU GUYS KNOW, WE'RE FOCUSING MORE ON THE ZONING LEVEL OF, OF THIS DESIGN BOOK. 
          SO JUST SOME HIGHLIGHTS. WE DID UPDATE PROVIDE UPDATES THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT. SOME OF THE STREET NAMES HAVE CHANGED. WILLIAM'S LANDING HAS CHANGED TO CARLOS PESINA WAY. 
          WITHIN SECTION 1.4. THERE ARE UPDATES TO THE BUILDING PLAN TYPE PLAN AND LOT TYPE TABLE. 
          THAT'S WHAT I JUST SHOWED YOU THERE. IT ALSO INCLUDES NUMBER UNITS AND LOT DIMENSION CRITERIA FOR EACH LOT TYPE SECTION THREE THREE AND THREE FIVE. THIS WAS BIG FOR FOR OUR DEPARTMENT'S CLARIFICATION OF SETBACK AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL LOT TYPES. 
          THERE IS A LOT OF CLEANUP THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE IN THAT SECTION. JUST TO MAKE IT MORE UNDERSTANDABLE, THOSE THAT ARE REVIEWING THE PLANS VERSUS THOSE THAT HELPED WITH THE DESIGN BOOK, JUST MAKING SURE IT'S CLEAR AND UNDERSTANDABLE. SO WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY HICCUPS DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS. SAME WITH SECTION THREE SIX, WHICH IS ENCROACHMENTS. SOME OF THE ENCROACHMENTS THAT WERE IN THERE IN THE ORIGINAL BOOK CONFLICTED A LITTLE BIT WITH BUILDING SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS, DISTANCES FROM RIGHT OF WAYS, ETC. THAT IS CLEANED UP IN HERE AS WELL. SECTION 311 UPDATES TO IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW PRACTICAL USE ON BROWNSTONE LOTS. SO THINK OF A TRADITIONAL BROWNSTONE. THEY PRETTY MUCH TAKE UP THE WHOLE PROPERTY. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A, YOU KNOW, AS LARGE OF A OPEN SPACE, OBVIOUSLY ON A LOT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SO CLEANING THAT LANGUAGE UP. AND 
          [01:15:03]
THEN SECTION FOUR TWO, INCREASING THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR MIXED USE AREAS FROM 40FT, THREE STOREYS TO 50FT, FOUR STORIES. THAT IS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. AND THEN SECTION FOUR SEVEN REDUCTION OF MINIMUM GROUND LEVEL HEIGHT FROM 16FT TO 12FT. THAT IS ALSO THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. SO THOSE LAST TWO BULLET BULLET POINTS AREN'T REALLY ZONING ITEMS. IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IN THE REVIEW AS THEY GO INTO FURTHER DESIGN WITH IT, THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DESIGN BOOK REFLECTS MORE OF WHAT THEIR ARCHITECT IS DEVELOPING ON THESE THESE PROJECTS WHERE. NO OPINION ON EITHER OF THOSE TWO, BUT IT IS IN THEIR REQUEST. SO WITH THE OVERLAY BOOK, AGAIN, THAT'S JUST A COMPONENT. IT IS ADOPTED BY THE ORDINANCE. SO THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, WE'RE ALSO REQUESTING SOME UPDATES, JUST CLEANING UP THE LANGUAGE AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. IT WAS JUST PRETTY CUMBERSOME HAVING SOME OF THESE DEFINITIONS IN BOTH THE ORDINANCE AND IN THE DESIGN BOOK. SO WE'RE TAKING IT OUT OF THE ORDINANCE AND JUST RELYING ON THE DESIGN BOOK TO DEFINE THESE. SO YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF THOSE HASHED OUT AREAS ARE JUST THAT. THEY ARE DEFINED IN THE DESIGN BOOK, THEN ADDING THAT THE DESIGN BOOK IS THE MOST RECENT AND APPROVED DOCUMENT TO CLARIFY THAT ON FILE WITH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. THAT WAY, WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT THE SAME DESIGN BOOK. THERE'S ONLY ONE DESIGN BOOK, AND THAT IS THE ONE ON FILE WITH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. ALSO DEFINING WHAT A FRONT LOADED LOT IS, AND A REAR LOADED LOT, BECAUSE THAT DOES PERTAIN TO HOW WE DETERMINE THOSE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. AND AGAIN, UNDER THE DESIGN BOOK, MAKING SURE IT LISTS ANY PROVISIONS, REVISIONS IN THERE. IN THE MIXED USE DISTRICT, WE HAVE A LIST. SO BASICALLY ALL THE PERMITTED USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE C2 DISTRICT APPLY. AND WHEN THE OVERLAY WAS CREATED, THERE WAS A LIST OF PROHIBITED USES, ONE OF WHICH WAS SHORT TERM RENTAL TYPE THREES. WE AGREE THAT THIS IS I MEAN, THE SHORT TERM RENTAL TYPE THREE IS AN ELEMENT YOU MIGHT WANT TO ADD IN THIS ONE, BUT THAT IS IF YOU REMEMBER OUR TRAINING. THAT IS MORE OF THE APARTMENT UNITS. AND THEY'RE THEY'RE RESTRICTED BY NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE SUCH IN THE APARTMENT. SO WE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THERE WAS A NEED ANYMORE TO FLAT OUT PROHIBIT IT. IT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH WHATEVER THE C2 REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR A STR TYPE THREE. YEAH. SO BASICALLY ON THE SHORT TERM RENTALS, WE, WE TOOK IT OUT OF THE PROHIBITED USES AND JUST HAVE TO FOLLOW THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT. SO FOR THE MIXED USE AREA, WHICH IS ALL ZONED C TWO, YOU CAN DO SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE LIMITED TO FIVE UNITS PER COMPLEX. AND THEN IN THE THE R1 B ZONING YOU'RE LIMITED TO THE SHORT TERM RENTAL TYPE ONE. SO THE SHORT TERM RENTAL TWOS AND THREES ARE ALREADY PROHIBITED IN R1 B ZONING. SO JUST TO MAKE IT CLEANER AND CLEAR, WE TOOK THOSE OUT OF THE PROHIBITED USES. THANK YOU AGAIN WITH AN OVERLAY. THE UNDERLYING ZONING STILL APPLIES. SO WE HAVE THAT. AND WE JUST WANTED THAT CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE TWO. AND THEN THE LAST SECTION IS THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE. THIS LANGUAGE WAS PRETTY VAGUE AT FIRST. WE'RE TIGHTENING THAT UP A LITTLE BIT, SPECIFYING CHANGING ONE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER TO SPECIFY ONE MIXED USE PROPERTY OWNER, BECAUSE IN THAT MIXED USE DISTRICT, IT'S NOT JUST COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, IT COULD BE MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES IN THERE AS WELL. SO JUST MAKING THAT MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE BOOK. AND THEN THE, THE WHOLE POINT OF THE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY AND LET THE DESIGN BOOK GOVERN. SO PARAGRAPH B USED TO SAY, AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR, THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE MAY REVIEW AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON ANY REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE HERE. WE'RE PUTTING THAT POWER WITH THAT ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE TO DECIDE IS THIS IN DOES THIS MAKE SENSE WITH THE INTENT OF THAT ACTUAL DESIGN BOOK? RATHER THAN SENDING THESE ITEMS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WHICH MAYBE DOESN'T HAVE AS MUCH EXPERTISE ON THE DESIGN BOOK ITSELF? LET ME GO BACK UP A LITTLE BIT. THIS COMMITTEE IS WILL BE CONSIST OF IT HAS TO BE APPOINTED STILL RIGHT NOW IS NOT APPOINTED YET. IT'LL CONSIST OF TWO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE DISTRICT, ONE MIXED USE PROPERTY OWNER AND TWO REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CITY 
          [01:20:03]
OF WACO. AND THOSE HAVE TO BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY. AND SO WHEN WE GET DOWN TO THREE, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO FOR THE AMENDMENT SECTION THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE SHALL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO ANY LANGUAGE AMENDMENTS WITHIN THIS DIVISION. AGAIN, THAT'S THAT'LL BE A LANGUAGE CHANGE ITSELF TO TO THIS SECTION. AND THEN THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE MAY REVIEW AND APPROVE BY UNANIMOUS VOTE ANY AMENDMENT TO THE FLOYD CASEY DESIGN BOOK, NOT THE ORDINANCE, BUT THE DESIGN BOOK. AND THE IMPORTANT PART THERE IS THAT IT HAS TO BE A UNANIMOUS VOTE. THAT WAY, ALL PLAYERS THAT ARE PART OF THIS DESIGN BOOK ARE ON THE SAME PAGE. AND AGREEING TO THIS AMENDMENT DESIGN BOOK. AND THEN AGAIN, THE ORIGINAL COPY HAS TO BE ON FILE WITH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL FOLLOWING THE SAME COPY. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? IT'S A LOT TO TAKE IN. SO YES, SO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE. AND BUT THEN THE FIRST THING YOU TOUCHED ON WERE THE CHANGES TO THE DESIGN. SO WE'RE NOT I'M ASKING ARE WE CONSIDERING. OH ANTRIM AND THE FLOYD CASE DESIGN. OKAY. BUT SO IF WE APPROVED THE AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE, AS YOU STATED HERE, ANY FUTURE CHANGES TO THE DESIGN BOOK WOULD NOT COME HERE. 
          WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO. AMEND. WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO MEET OR DISCUSS AMENDING THE FLOYD CASE DESIGN, BECAUSE THAT WOULD GO TO THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE. YES, THE DESIGN BOOK, ANY ORDINANCE CHANGES STILL HAVE TO COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. 
          ADDITIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION. THAT PART IS ALSO ONE OF THOSE THINGS. PLEASE REVIEW THE INSTRUCTIONS. SO. YOU HAD MADE MENTION OF. INCREASING THE HEIGHT. IS THAT A SUBDIVISION OR IS THAT THE DESIGN BOOK? THAT'S THE DESIGN BOOK, YEAH. IN YOUR PACKET YOU SHOULD HAVE THE WHOLE DESIGN BOOK IN THERE. AND LET ME GET YOU TO THAT PAGE. IT IS THREE STORIES TO FOUR STORIES CAN BE SIGNIFICANT. I JUST IT'S A BIG IS THAT WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON OR. YEAH, THAT IS ONE OF THEIR PROPOSED CHANGES IS TO GO UP TO FOUR STORIES. YES. THIS WOULD BE IN THE COMMERCIAL OR THE NON MIXED USE I'M SORRY, MIXED USE AREA SECTION. OKAY. OR CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN. YEAH. THERE'S THE MIXED USE AREA. MIXED USE AREA IS ALL THESE PEACH COLORED AREAS. SO EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE IN THIS ORANGE IS THE MIXED USE AREA. 
          SO THOSE CAN GO UP TO FOUR STORIES. THAT'S THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. AND IF WE APPROVE. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE COULD MAKE FUTURE CHANGES TO THE DESIGN BOOK. IT WOULD JUST. HEIGHT AND BUILDING OR BASICALLY INDIAN PLACEMENT EVENTS. SO BUT AGAIN, IT HAS TO BE BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. WE HAVE TWO PLAYERS FROM CITY ON THERE, 1 OR 2 RESIDENTIAL PLAYERS. AND THEN ONE OF THE MIXED USE. SO EVERYBODY IN THIS COMMITTEE HAS TO AGREE ON WHAT THOSE CHANGES ARE IN THE CITY. THOSE THE CITY REPRESENTATIVES OR THOSE ON STAFF. OR IS IT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN APPOINTED YET. SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE ON STAFF APPOINTMENT? YEAH, WE'RE GETTING WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO THE POINT. IT'S ALL BEEN ONE OWNER TO THIS POINT. BUT AS PROPERTIES START TO SELL AND DEVELOP, WE ANTICIPATE THAT THOSE APPOINTEES WILL HAPPEN PRETTY SOON. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS IT COULD I BE ON THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE AS A CITY STAFF? SURE. YEAH, IT WOULD BE UP TO CITY COUNCIL AND IT COULD BE A STAFF PERSON. IT COULD BE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER. CITY COUNCIL WOULD WOULD APPOINT. YEAH, YEAH. I MEAN, IS THAT A PRETTY COMMON. CONCEPT OF AN ORDINANCE WHEN YOU HAVE LIKE AN OVERLAY OR LIKE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS A DESIGN BOOK THAT'S SORT OF 
          [01:25:08]
RELEASE CONTROL OF THAT FOR THE ORDINANCE TO AN ARCHITECTURAL. THAT'S SOMETHING. IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT OTHER. CITIES, LOCAL ORDINANCE THAT PERTAIN TO SPECIFIC UNITS IN THE DISTRICT, DO THEY CONTAIN THAT PROVISION AS WELL? SO WE WE ONLY HAVE TWO OVERLAYS THAT ARE SET UP LIKE THIS, THIS ONE, AND THEN THE RIVERWAY OVERLAY, WHICH IS THE NEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON LAKESHORE THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, REALLY, TRULY MASTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE THESE OVERLAYS ON THERE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE FORM OF THAT DOES FOLLOW A LOT OF THE CITIES THAT HAVE THESE TYPE OVERLAYS. THIS IS OUR FIRST ONE. SO WE'RE WORKING THROUGH IT. I THINK FROM A STANDPOINT WHERE YOU HAVE SO SPECIFIC DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO HAVE THAT AUTHORITY WITH A GROUP THAT'S INVESTED INTO THAT PROPERTY, MAKING THOSE DECISIONS. AND IT ALSO STREAMLINES IT, YOU KNOW, AS THE PROPERTY DEVELOPS. SO THAT THAT WAS THE THINKING THERE. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE ALL ALL THE APPOINTEES ARE CITY COUNCIL. SO WHO'S ON THAT? THAT MAKE UP THAT BOARD HAS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. AND THEN THERE'S A GOOD BALANCE BETWEEN PROPERTY OWNERS AND CITY REPS. AND THEN HAVING THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL ALL FIVE HAVE TO VOTE IN FAVOR TO APPROVE ANY CHANGES PROVIDES THAT PROTECTION, THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING COULD GET APPROVED THAT MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE, YOU KNOW, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT THERE. YEAH. CAN YOU FLUSH THAT OUT JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE? BECAUSE I'M KIND OF HUNG UP ON THIS UNANIMOUS VOTE THING BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE, WE'RE DECIDING ON SOMETHING RIGHT NOW THAT WILL GO FORWARD. AND THEN ANY CHANGE TO THAT HAS TO BE BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. OR AM I JUST MISSING THE BOAT COMPLETELY? THAT'S CORRECT. SO IF YOU READ IF YOU READ THE AMENDMENT RIGHT NOW CLAUSE IN THE ORDINANCE, IT TALKS ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE SHALL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. DOESN'T SAY TO WHO JUST SAYS MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO ANY LANGUAGE AMENDMENTS WITHIN THIS DIVISION OR THE DESIGN BOOK. AND SO WHEN WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO PLAY THIS OUT, LIKE HOW THIS WOULD ACTUALLY WORK IN OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE, WOULD IT BE THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL, WHICH IS A LONG PROCESS TO AMEND A SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR, YOU KNOW, LOTS THAT ONLY, YOU KNOW, ONLY IMPACT THIS DEVELOPMENT. OR SHOULD THAT GO TO A BOARD THAT IS FAMILIAR WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S INVESTED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT AND MAKE THEM HAVE THE DECISION. BUT, YOU KNOW, WITH THE COMPONENT OF THE BOARD, YOU HAVE THREE MEMBERS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEN TWO CITY REPS. WE WANT IT TO BE WHERE ALL FIVE NEEDED TO AGREE ON IT BECAUSE WE'RE WE'RE BYPASSING PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. SO WE WANT TO HAVE THAT EXTRA LAYER OF EVERYBODY'S GOT TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE FOR IT TO BE APPROVED. 
          SO THAT'S WHERE THAT FIVE VOTES CAME IN. IT WAS A TRADE FOR REQUIRING EXTRA STEPS OF APPROVALS. YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY AGREES ON IT. AND THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE WANTED ME TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO IF THIS IS A PUD, WOULD IT HAVE TO GO BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL? YES, IT WOULD TO TO AMEND. I MEAN THERE'S THERE'S SOME MINOR CHANGES IN THERE. THIS MODEL IS SET UP TO REPLACE LARGE PEDS. I MEAN THIS IS THE MODEL WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR LARGE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT'S FUTURE. SO THIS THIS ONE THE RIVERWAY YOU KNOW AS MORE COME IN. THIS IS THE MODEL WE'RE LOOKING TOWARDS. 
          THE ORIGINAL ZONING FOR THE. YEAH. SO THE PED IS ONCE THAT PLAN IS APPROVED, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY TO CHANGE IT. LIKE IT'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME VERY MINOR MODIFICATIONS CAN BE MADE BASED ON ENGINEERING, BUT THERE'S NOT THE FLEXIBILITY THAT YOU CAN PUT IN WITH THE OVERLAY DISTRICT. YEAH. I MEAN, SEEMS WORKABLE. IT IS A LOT OF POWER TO FIVE PEOPLE, BUT. I WOULD PROBABLY FEEL BETTER IF IT WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL AFTER IT GOT UNANIMOUS VOTE, HONESTLY. LIKE FOR FOR EXAMPLE, I MEAN, GOING FROM 
          [01:30:02]
THREE STORY APARTMENTS TO FOUR STORY APARTMENTS IS LIKE IT'S A PRETTY BIG JUMP. I MEAN, IT'S, IT GOES FROM KIND OF A. TOWNHOME TYPE FEEL TO LIKE, OH, THAT'S AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, YOU KNOW, AND THAT COULD EASILY, YOU KNOW, WE COULD APPROVE IT. IT MIGHT BE FINE, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER THEY COULD CHANGE IT TO SIX STORIES, YOU KNOW, FIVE PEOPLE. AND THAT'S A, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. SO FOLKS THAT MIGHT NOT THINK THROUGH SOME OF THAT STUFF OR OKAY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A 56 ACRE PLOT WITHIN, I MEAN, 56 ACRE PROPERTY WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE THEM MORE AUTONOMY SO THAT THEY WON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THE RED TAPE OF COMING BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION. RIGHT? SO THIS IS THE EFFORT TO MINIMIZE THAT BACK AND FORTH, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WANT TO FEED HERE EVERY SINGLE CHANGE TO THE DESIGN AND THEN ALSO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. YEAH MAYBE NOT. I THINK WITH I WILL SAY LIKE WITH REGARDS TO THIS SPECIFIC ORDINANCE. IT'S AND THIS IS A BIG DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS KIND OF AN ISLAND A LITTLE BIT. SO YEAH, IT'S 50 ACRES RIGHT IN THE HEART OF TOWN. I DON'T KNOW, I MEAN, MAYBE ANOTHER SOLUTION WOULD BE TO UP IT TO FIVE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS. THAT'S WHO I'M REALLY TRYING TO PROTECT IS THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNER. LIKE, SO I LIVE IN THAT DISTRICT AND I KNOW DUTTON GETS PACKED BECAUSE OF THAT SCHOOL. SO I KNOW ADDING AN EXTRA STOREY FOR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX WOULD BE A NIGHTMARE WITH TRAFFIC. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS THOUGHT ABOUT, BUT GOING TO LIKE RIDING DUTTON AT 5:00 WHEN THE SCHOOL OR 430 WHEN THE SCHOOL LETS OUT. IT'S A TRAFFIC JAM ALREADY, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS DOESN'T CHANGE ANY OF THE ALLOWED DENSITIES. IT'S JUST THE THE FORM OF IT. YEAH. SO THERE'S NONE OF THE CHANGES ALLOW ANY MORE DENSITY. THAT'S THAT'S ALREADY ALLOWED. IS THERE A REASON WHY THEY WANT TO GO TO FOUR UNITS THEN FOR SPORTS MAYBE THEY CAN FIT MORE. THAT WAS A REQUEST OF THE DEVELOPER WHICH THEY WERE HERE TO ANSWER THAT. YEAH. WHAT IS THE WHAT IS STAFF'S GENERAL THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT CHANGE? SO, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE MIXED USE DISTRICT BEING MOSTLY ALONG VALLEY MILLS DRIVE, IF YOU IF YOU LOOK UP AND DOWN VALLEY MILLS DRIVE, MOST OF THAT ZONING IS C THREE ZONING, WHICH YOU ACTUALLY CAN GO HIGHER THAN THAT. AND SO IT'S VERY COMPARABLE. IT'S ACTUALLY LESS THAN WHAT YOU COULD DO IN IN C THREE ZONING. SO YOU KNOW AGAIN WHEN WE SET THIS UP WE REZONE THE BASE ZONING TO C TWO AND THEN PUT PUT THE OVERLAY ON TOP OF IT. BUT IF YOU IF YOU LOOK UP AND DOWN VALLEY MILLS DRIVE, YOU HAVE THAT C THREE ZONING THAT HAS A HIGHER. I BELIEVE YOU CAN GO UP TO FIVE STORIES AND 90FT. SO IT'S EVEN EVEN WITH THE EXTRA FLOOR, IT'S STILL LESS THAN WHAT YOU WOULD SEE IN THE ZONING THAT'S UP AND DOWN VALLEY MILLS DRIVE. SO IN SECTION 1.2 OF THE DESIGN BOOK, IT DOES STATE FOR THE MIXED USE DENSITY, A MAX OF 350,000. GROSS SQUARE FOOT FLOOR AREA. MAYBE THAT'S G G S S GROUND SQUARE FOOT I HAVEN'T SEEN BEFORE. SORRY. AND THEN MAXIMUM GROSS DENSITY OF 0.4 FLOOR AREA RATIO. SO THEY ARE OUTLINING STILL WHAT THAT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY IS IN THAT AREA. REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY STORIES THAT'S NOT GOING TO LIKE CLINT SAID, IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE. I'M NOT TOO CONCERNED ABOUT DENSITY. I'M JUST MORE CONCERNED ABOUT FORM. 
          SO WOULD YOU BE MORE? I GUESS, APT TO GO FOR THE CHANGES IF THEY WERE TO CHANGE? I THINK IT WAS FROM TWO HOMEOWNERS TO FOUR TOTAL, AND THAT MAKES IT SEVEN FOR THAT. YEAH. MAYBE FOR WHAT IS IT ON HERE. JUST YOU HAVE SOME I DON'T KNOW, SOME MORE. YEAH. FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE. OR DO PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE THERE HAVE STAKE IN IS THAT A CHANGE THAT COULD BE MADE OR CONSIDERED. WE CAN CONSIDER ANY RECOMMENDATIONS YOU GUYS HAVE. WE WILL DEFINITELY TAKE THEM PUT THEM IN YOUR MOTION. VOTE ON IT AND WE WILL FORWARD THOSE ON TO THE 
          [01:35:03]
CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR PUBLIC HEARING. SO JUST MAKE SURE YOU SPECIFY IN YOUR VOTE WHAT THOSE ARE SO I CAN GET IT. WELL, THE ONLY THING THAT IF FREE. SO SAY IF WE WERE TO DO THAT FREE FOR YOU AND YOU FELT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH IT, THEN YOU'D BE FINE WITH IT NOT HAVING TO COME BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN CITY COUNCIL FOR EVERY CHANGE TO THE DESIGN BOOK. YEAH, YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK I'M OPEN TO THIS ARCHITECTURE COMMITTEE CONTROLLING IT. I JUST I'M THINKING THROUGH SOME PROTECTIONS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YEAH. THERE THERE'S NO YEAH, THERE'S NO REASON WHY THAT COULDN'T BE TWO, TWO AND TWO. I MEAN, WOULDN'T YOU NEED A TWO AND TWO ONE AND TWO. IT'S 212. YEAH. SO IT'S TWO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS ONE MIXED USE PROPERTY OWNER AND TWO. OH. SO YOU'RE WANTING THE RESIDENTIAL TO HAVE BE MORE REPRESENTATIVE. YEAH. SPITBALLING HERE. BUT YEAH, I THINK SO. MAYBE LIKE FOUR RESIDENTIAL, TWO MIXED USE AND TWO WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES. 
          THEN THEY'RE ALL APPOINTED BY THE CITY OF WACO, RIGHT? CORRECT. REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER, THEY STILL HAVE TO HAVE UNANIMOUS VOTE ANYWAY. CORRECT. SO YEAH, I'M STILL HUNG UP ON THAT BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE GIVING AN EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF POWER TO ONE PERSON. I MEAN, ONE PERSON CAN SAY, I DON'T LIKE ANY OF THIS. NO. AND THAT'S A LOT OF POWER IN ONE PERSON'S HEAD. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT EVEN THE OTHER WAY. THE UNANIMOUS. IT'S UNANIMOUS. YEAH. 
          THAT THAT UNANIMITY KIND OF NET COULD REALLY GUM UP THE WHOLE WORKS OF, YOU KNOW, IF EVERYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY WANTED TO CHANGE SOMETHING. SO YOUR ISSUE IS JUST WITH IT BEING UNANIMOUS. YEAH. SO DO YOU 75% OR. DO IT. OKAY. YOU KNOW, KIND OF LIKE BEATING THE FILIBUSTER OR WHATEVER. OKAY, OKAY. I UNDERSTAND. I'M JUST TRYING TO I JUST THINK IT GIVES TOO MUCH POWER TO ONE PERSON, IF I'M MAKING IT'S PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE. VARIANCES FOR UNDER OUR ZONING CODE REQUIRE FOUR AT A TIME. WE HAVE A BOARD OF ESTIMATE OF FIVE MEMBERS FOR. 
          HAVE TO AGREE. FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YOU COULD SAY THAT 1%. YOU'RE JUST MAKING A SUGGESTION TO MODEL THIS ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE VOTE BASED ON STATE LAW OF THE VARIANCE COMMITTEE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE PUTTING FORWARD? OH, YEAH. I'M JUST SAYING THAT THERE IS A LAW THAT ALREADY HAS SOMETHING LIKE THAT WITH IT. FOR A NORMAL VARIANCE, IT GOES TO OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. TO GET APPROVED FOR VARIANCE, YOU HAVE TO GET FOUR OUT OF THE FIVE VOTES OUT OF FIVE. AND HOW MANY WAS THIS? FIVE. THIS IS FIVE RIGHT NOW. YEAH. THAT MAKES SENSE BASED ON WHAT TIMELINE. BECAUSE RIGHT. THIS IS THE DISTRICT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. WE DON'T HAVE PROPERTY OWNERS, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS HERE, RIGHT? SO WE HAVE BUILDERS THAT OWN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. I MEAN, THERE'S HOUSES BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW, OKAY. BUT THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO HOMEOWNERS YET THERE, THERE WILL BE AND, YOU KNOW, THE NEXT SIX MONTHS. SO WITHIN SIX MONTHS, THEN, YOU KNOW, WHEN IS THIS COMMITTEE FORMED? YOU KNOW, SO LET'S SAY YOU HAVE FIVE HOMEOWNERS, RIGHT? YOU SELECT 2 OR 3 OF THOSE. THEY BASICALLY KIND OF GUIDE THE, THE DECISION MAKING AROUND THIS. YOU KNOW, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IN THE NEAR TERM. CORRECT. SO YEAH, SO I MEAN, RIGHT NOW, IF THE IF THE COUNCIL APPOINTED MEMBERS, IT WOULD BE BUILDERS. YOU KNOW, THERE'S, I THINK THERE'S FIVE DIFFERENT HOME BUILDERS THAT ARE BUILDING IN THAT SUBDIVISION. AND THEN THE MIXED USE AND THEN THE TWO CITY. BUT YOU KNOW, AS IT EVOLVES OVER TIME AND IT MAINLY GOES TO THE END USER OWNERSHIP, YOU WOULD HAVE HOMEOWNERS THAT WOULD BE REPRESENTED ON THAT BOARD. OKAY. ONE OTHER THOUGHT THAT I HAVE FOR YOU, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DESIGN BOOK AND HOW IT DOES REFERENCE DENSITY, BECAUSE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING HEIGHT, RIGHT. AND BUILDING HEIGHT. THE NECESSARILY RELEVANT TO CHANGE DENSITIES. BUT IF SOMETHING LIKE DENSITY IS SIMPLY IS LAID OUT IN THE DESIGN BOOK. ALLOWING AN ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE TO DO CHANGES TO THE DESIGN, DOES THAT ALLOW THEM TO MAKE CHANGES TO ANYTHING IN THE DESIGN BOOK LIKE THAT? AND, AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THAT'S POPPING UP IS BECAUSE I THINK ABOUT YOUR PATH AS A BOARD, HOW MUCH WE RELY ON CITY STAFF TO HELP US UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE DIFFERENT THINGS. SO IS THERE ANY CONCERN THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A ARCHITECTURAL BOARD, PEOPLE THAT THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY. UNLESS CITY COUNCIL APPOINTS ONE OF YOU 
          [01:40:05]
GUYS TO THAT BOARD, THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO HAVE ACCESS TO YOU BECAUSE YOU GUYS REALLY HELP US UNDERSTAND HOW THESE CHANGES IMPACT THE BIG PICTURE. WE WOULD STILL BE THE STAFF LIAISON FOR THIS NEW COMMITTEE, AND IT WOULD BE A SIMILAR FORMAT WHERE WE WOULD BE PROVIDING REPORTS AND, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDATIONS TO THAT BOARD. IT WOULD IT WOULD IT WOULD FLOW PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS IT DOES TO THIS BOARD. THAT'S HELPFUL TO KNOW. I KIND OF ASSUMED IT WAS JUST GOING TO HAPPEN IN A ROOM ON, ON A MONDAY NIGHT THAT NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT. SO YEAH, SO THE THOUGHT IS THAT THIS. BOARD WOULD. APPLY FOR CHANGES TO THE DESIGN PRESENTED TO CITY STAFF. CITY STAFF WOULD MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD THAT HAS DONE THE APPLICATION. THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE IS. APPLIED FOR. CHANGES. SURE. 
          YEAH. SO I'M HEARING A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND CONCERN ABOUT THIS SECTION. AGAIN, THIS WAS SOMETHING NOT REQUESTED BY THE DEVELOPER BUT BY CITY STAFF JUST TO TRY TO IMPROVE, YOU KNOW, THE KIND OF THE RED TAPE AND THE FLOW OF THE PROCESS AND DEFINE IT. BUT BECAUSE WE HADN'T EVEN APPOINTED A BOARD YET, THERE'S TIME TO WORK ON THIS. SO IT SOUNDS, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED TO MAYBE DO A LITTLE BIT MORE WORK ON THIS. SO, YOU KNOW, I WOULD RECOMMEND IF IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS COMFORTABLE WITH THE REST OF THE CHANGES, JUST LEAVING THIS SECTION ALONE, MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION. AND, YOU KNOW, WITH THE WITH, YOU KNOW, THE CAVEAT OF LEAVING THIS SECTION ALONE. AND WE'LL REVISIT THAT IN THE FUTURE. OR IS IT, IS IT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN CONTINUE TO GIVE? BECAUSE I'M NOT LIKE, I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF A COMMUNITY BEING ABLE TO MAKE CHOICES ABOUT WHAT THEIR COMMUNITY LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, HAVING THEIR OWN BOARD TO DO THAT. I JUST YEAH. SO THERE IS SOME URGENCY WITH THE, THE CHANGES TO THE DESIGN BOOK BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING. REQUESTS FOR BUILDING PERMITS IN. AND, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THOSE, THOSE TWEAKS THAT WE'RE DOING WITH IT NEED TO HAPPEN QUICKLY. BUT THERE IS NO URGENCY ON THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. AND SO WE CAN DEFINITELY BRING THAT BACK AT A LATER TIME. YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, I, I CAN EVEN ANTICIPATE WE CAN BRING THAT BACK TO YOU WHEN IT GETS TIME TO ACTUALLY APPOINT THOSE MEMBERS. SO WE KIND OF HAVE THE FULL PICTURE OF HOW THAT'S GOING TO WORK BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE IS NO, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE'S NO COMMITTEE APPOINTED. YOU KNOW, ALL CHANGES RIGHT NOW HAVE TO FLOW THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS. SO, I MEAN, THAT'S CERTAINLY AN OPTION AS WE CAN READDRESS THIS WHEN IT'S TIME TO APPOINT THAT COMMITTEE. YOUR YOUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO APPROVE ALL THE OTHER CHANGES LEAVING OUT THIS SECTION 28. YEAH, YEAH. SO OH, SO APPROVE ALL THE OTHER CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE FOR THAT AND REVISIT THAT DESIGN. YEAH. OKAY. NOT TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE. WHAT'S THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR OH WHO. TWO. YEAH. THERE'S NOT A REQUIREMENT. IT'S ALL BASED ON. SO THE HIGHER YOU GO, THE MORE SETBACKS YOU HAVE TO HAVE. OH, OKAY. I THINK IT'S BUT THERE'S NO SET LIMIT. C2 IS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I REMEMBER WE HAD TO VARIANCE, BUT I GUESS IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE SETBACKS. FOR ANOTHER PROJECT. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. 3 TO 4 STORIES SEEMS LIKE A BIG ASK WITHOUT A LOT OF CONTEXT. KNOW WHY I'M IN? I MEAN, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT. I KIND OF WANT TO JUST, LIKE, ALERT CITY COUNCIL TO THAT. LIKE THAT COULD CHANGE THE LOOK AND FEEL, BUT IT DOES FIT IN LINE WITH WHAT'S ALLOWABLE UP TO FIVE STORIES IN THAT AREA. CORRECT. SO THE DOMINANT ZONING ALONG VALLEY MILLS DRIVE IS C THREE ZONING. LIKE, I MEAN, YOU CAN THINK ABOUT THE TRIANGLE TOWER, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN VALLEY MILLS NEW ROAD AND WACO DRIVE. THAT'S AC3 ZONED PROPERTY. JUST KIND OF THINK ABOUT THAT HEIGHT. SO IT IT WOULD NOT WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING WOULD NOT GO AS HIGH AS WHAT YOU SEE. A LOT OF IN THE C THREE ZONING QUESTION WE'LL DO HAVE ELEVATORS OR THESE STAIRS OR YOU KNOW, FOUR FLOORS. SO YEAH. SO WELL, THREE STORIES REQUIRES ELEVATOR TOO. 
          [01:45:01]
YEAH. SO ALL, YOU KNOW, 3 OR 4 WOULD REQUIRE ELEVATORS. THANK YOU. SURE. AND TO ADD TO THAT, YOU KNOW, A FOUR STORY BUILDING HAS TO ALSO COMPLY WITH FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS AS WELL. SO THAT'S ADDRESSED IN THAT. OKAY. BEFORE WE KEEP GOING, I WANT TO I JUST WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, JUST WE ARE DISCUSSING CHANGING THE FORMAT TO MORE OUT HERE, PUBLIC FACING. AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAD IS MY SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, NOT HAVING THE COURAGE TO SPEAK UP IN HEART, ASK THESE HARD HITTING QUESTIONS AND YOU GUYS HAVE DONE THAT. SO I APPRECIATE THAT AND I WANT TO ENCOURAGE THAT AND EVERYONE ELSE HERE, IF WE NEED TO SPEND MORE TIME PICKING THIS APART A LITTLE BIT, I WANT TO ENCOURAGE THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE WHAT WE WERE DOING BACK THERE. SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT FORWARD. DON'T BE AFRAID. I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF BECAUSE IN REAL LIFE, I WAS AFRAID THAT I WOULDN'T ASK THE QUESTIONS OUT HERE THAT I WOULD BACK THERE. SO I WANT TO ENCOURAGE WHAT YOU ALL ARE DOING. I FEEL LIKE YOU'RE DOING A GOOD JOB WITH THE QUESTIONS. YEAH, LIKE TOO GOOD OF A JOB. WOW. I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO GET OUT OF HERE LIKE 30 MINUTES AGO. BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE. YEAH, NOW IS THE TIME. I WILL PIGGYBACK ON THAT. I JUST LOVE THE TRANSPARENCY. YOU KNOW, THE COMMUNITY CAN SEE THE TRANSPARENCY BECAUSE SOMETIMES I FELT BEING HERE, THERE'S SOMETIMES SUSPICION OF WHAT'S HAPPENING BACK THERE. AND THIS IS SO TRANSPARENT. SO THEY CAN HEAR HOW WE THINK AND HOW WE ASK QUESTIONS AND HOW WE ARE ADVOCATES ON THEIR BEHALF AS WELL. THAT'S THE NUMBER ONE REASON WHY WE DO IT THIS WAY IS SO THE PUBLIC CAN SEE THE TRANSPARENCY. AND ON PIGGYBACK ON THAT, IT'S REAL EASY TO KEEP DOING THIS WHEN THERE'S NO ONE IN HERE. WE DO STILL OUR PUBLIC HEARING. YEAH, I KNOW, I'M ALMOST THERE. I'M JUST ON MY SOAPBOX. I'M GETTING OFF THE SOAPBOX. I JUST WANT TO SAY IT'S REAL EASY WHEN THERE'S NO ONE HERE. BUT NEXT TIME, IN THE FOLLOWING MONTHS, KEEP IT UP. EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT BE HARD. AND I'LL ASK THE STUPID QUESTION. I'LL BE THE FIRST ONE TO GO, BUT LET'S KEEP DOING IT. OKAY, WELL, I'M MOVING ON. IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? I GUESS YOU'VE DONE THAT. ANYONE ELSE HERE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM IS ANYONE IS PRESENT. THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM. ANY MORE COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS IS NOW CLOSED. WE CAN TAKE OUR TIME, BUT I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. 
          I THINK I WANT TO MOVE TO THIS. I'M CURIOUS OF THE IMPLICATIONS. IF I SAY LET'S APPROVE IT. WITH THE TWO ALTERATIONS OF DECLINING THE FOUR STORY AND REMOVING THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE LANGUAGE, WHAT DOES THAT DO FOR CITY COUNCIL? DO THEY HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH ANY MORE HOOPS TO APPROVE THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OR THIS. NO, IT WOULD STILL. I MEAN, HONESTLY, I WOULD I WOULD REVISE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THIS SECTION. THE 2883 THREE IS FROM OUR RECOMMENDATION COMPLETELY. AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO RECOMMEND THE CHANGE FOR THE HEIGHT, THAT WOULD JUST BE SOMETHING THEY COULD CONSIDER. I CAN CONSIDER IT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIKE MAKE A SUPERMAJORITY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. NO SIR. I WOULD JUST OFFER WITH HEIGHT. SOMETIMES IN THESE AREAS, IT'S NICE TO HAVE A VARIATION AND BE ABLE TO LOOK FROM ANOTHER LEVEL AT THE GROUNDS AND PROPERTY. SO, YOU KNOW, IN SOUTH LAKE, IN THOSE AREAS, YOU DON'T OFTENTIMES HAVE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES WHERE YOU CAN GET THESE INSPIRING, YOU KNOW, VISIONS FROM BEING A LITTLE BIT HIGHER UP. SO I WOULD JUST OFFER THAT AS A PERSPECTIVE, LIKE THE HEIGHT RECORD, LIKE GOING UP TO FOUR STORIES MIGHT BE A PERK INSTEAD OF MAYBE A PERK, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU SEE IT IN WEALTHIER COMMUNITIES ALL THE TIME, RIGHT? WHERE YOU HAVE THE HEIGHTS AND IT'S A VIEW YOU MAY BE ABLE TO SEE PART OF THE BUILDING OR YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THESE ELEMENTS. SO I THINK IT COULD BE AN ADDED ADVANTAGE, JUST LIKE THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE LIKE BEHIND DUTTON, RIGHT? THERE'S LIKE A LOT OF HOMES RIGHT THERE THAT JUST WILL LOOK UP. AND WHAT'S THAT SETBACK STORIES? YEAH. I MEAN, IF IT'S A BEAUTIFULLY DESIGNED FOR STORIES IT WON'T BE AN EYESORE. I WOULD. YEAH. I MEAN I DON'T KNOW, THERE'S A NEW APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT I'VE SEEN. I'M LIKE, WELL, THAT IS A REALLY TALL. IT DOESN'T REALLY FIT. I HAVE A QUESTION WITH SINCE THERE'S LIKE THE DISCUSSION, DOES HE HAVE TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING SINCE THEY'RE DISCUSSING THIS AGAIN OR NO, WE'RE DISCUSSING WE'RE FINE. YEAH. OKAY. THANKS. PERFECT. SO ARE YOU. IS THAT YOUR MOTION TO I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST LOOKING AT SITE PLAN. I'M JUST THINKING THROUGH IT. I MEAN, BUT YEAH, LIKE THAT THAT RIGHT THERE THAT THERE ON DUTTON I MEAN IMAGINE YEAH. 
          YOU'RE JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT AND THERE'S LIKE FOUR STORY APARTMENT BUILDING THERE. 
          WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE FOUR STORIES 50 LIKE THE ELEVATE APARTMENTS RIGHT HERE, 
          [01:50:05]
FOUR STORY AT ALL COMMERCIAL OVER THERE. THAT'S LIKE, I MEAN, THAT'S TALL. TAYLOR WHAT'S THAT? IS THAT ALL COMMERCIAL ON THE OTHER SIDE DOESN'T KNOW IT'S IT'S HOUSING IS IT. YES, SIR. 
          RIGHT THERE WHERE THOSE FOUR STAR, IT'S HOUSING LINED UP ALL RUNNING THROUGH THE STREET. 
          THEY HAVE THE HARMONY SCHOOL IN THE CORNER, AND THEN THERE IS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN BETWEEN THAT. BUT THEN IT'S THE REST IS RESIDENTIAL. WOULD WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND FOUR STORIES VERSUS. I'M PRETTY SURE THAT WOULD BE. YEAH. I MEAN, I'D PROBABLY BE OKAY WITH IT ALONG VALLEY MILLS TO CLINT'S POINT, BUT ALONG DUTTON, THAT JUST SEEMS HIGH. YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. I KNOW YOU HAVEN'T MADE A MOTION YET, BUT BECAUSE THERE'S DISCUSSION AROUND, IT'S A MOTION TO BE SOMETHING LIKE. APPROVED THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AS TO INCLUDE THAT SECTION. AND WE WANT TO APPROVE THE DESIGN BOOK CHANGES TO INCLUDE THE TO THE CEILING HEIGHT. HOW DOES SOMEONE UP HERE VOTE ON THAT IF THEY WANT TO INCLUDE. THE CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE? BUT THEY ACTUALLY ARE OKAY WITH THE HEIGHT. YEAH. YOU DON'T WANT TO LEAVE IT. WOULD YOU VOTE FOR THE EXCLUSION OF THE HEIGHT OF THIS VOTE? AND THAT'S MORE OF LIKE, BECAUSE I'M JUST ASKING MIGHT PRESENT A MOTION, I DON'T KNOW. SO YOU HAVE TO. YEAH. 
          LIKE CAN YOU? I GUESS, BREAK IT UP INTO TWO MOTIONS OR AMENDMENT AND THE DESIGN. YEAH, YEAH. YEAH. OPINION ON THAT. I MEAN, THEY ARE TWO SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TASKS. SO I THINK WE JUST HAVE TO. WHENEVER SOMEONE MAKES A MOTION LIKE, CAN I REQUEST THAT WE SEPARATE SO THAT IT'S CLEARER TO THINK ABOUT DOES IT IF YOU ARE. YEAH, LET'S JUST DO THE FIRST ONE. OH HOLD ON. I MOVED TO JUST REMOVE THE ARCHITECTURAL LANGUAGE. THAT'S. WE CAN GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY. RIGHT. YOUR MOTION IS TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED OTHER THAN OR I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO. WAIT A MINUTE. SO THEN HOW WOULD YOU COMBINE. HOW DOES HE SAY IT? I DON'T LAURA, I DON'T WELL, OKAY, HOW ABOUT THIS? CAN I JUMP IN? YEAH. OKAY. I MOVE THAT WE REMOVE THE. 
          ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO MOVE OR JUST DISCUSS? BECAUSE IF IF YOU MOVE, THEN WE HAVE TO GET A SECOND OR IT DIES. IS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT TO DO? IT'S FINE. HYPOTHETICALLY. I HYPOTHETICALLY MOVE. NO, LET'S SAY I WERE TO MOVE SOMEWHERE. YOUR THOUGHT IS YOU WANT TO. OR UNLESS YOU WANT TO MAKE. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU INTEND TO DO. MY THOUGHT IS TO JUST TAKE OUT THE. HAVE A MOTION TO TAKE OUT THE LANGUAGE. PERIOD. TAKE TO TAKE OUT THE DISTINCTION PERIOD. 
          AND THEN A SECOND MOTION WOULD BE TO. APPROVE THE. YEAH, APPROVE THE ORDINANCE. WHEN IS THE COMMITTEE RELATING TO THE. SO, LAURA, WITH THAT WITH WHAT AUSTIN JUST SAID. SORRY. IT'S ME. OKAY. ON THE. SO FOR YOUR PLANNING SERVICE RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT PLANNING SERVICES IN THAT BLANK THERE. IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT WHERE. OH, SEE OKAY, YOURS DOESN'T LOOK LIKE OURS. ALL RIGHT. WELL, EITHER WAY, IF WE WERE GOING TO DO IT, AUSTIN JUST SAID HERE, THEN IF HE WAS GOING TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL, THE ONLY THING I MEAN, MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ALL THIS, THAT FIRST PORTION HERE FOR ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 28 IS WHAT HE'S GOING TO SAY. APPROVE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON. HOWEVER, YOU GUYS HAVE IT WRITTEN HERE, EXCEPT FOR THAT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CHAPTER 28. AND THEN THE SECOND MOTION WOULD BE LIKE, HOW WOULD HE ACTUALLY WORD IT BASED OFF OF WHAT YOU ALL HAVE WRITTEN HERE? I DON'T KNOW WHAT PAGE ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE SAME ONE YOU HAVE UP HERE. OKAY, SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. GOT A LITTLE CONFUSED. SORRY. I MEAN, YOU CAN DO. I PROPOSE A MOTION TO AMEND CHAPTER 28 ZONING. AND THEN PROVIDE YOUR CONDITION. I DON'T KNOW. WELL, I'M NOT GOOD AT. BECAUSE THEN WHAT ABOUT THE 
          [01:55:01]
FLOOR? I THINK IT'S FINE. AND IF IF IF IT DIES, THEN IT DIES. I THINK IF I MOVE RECOMMENDATION BY MR. ENGLAND WILL WORK YOUR YOUR RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF IT WITH REMOVING THE LANGUAGE FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AS ONE MOTION AND THEN YOUR. 
          YEAH. AND THEN YOU HAVE A MOTION TO VOTE ON THE HEIGHT BY 28 880.33. OKAY. SO THAT'S FINE. 
          THANK YOU. DO YOU WANT TO HASH OUT ARE YOU ABOUT TO MAKE A MOTION. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. WE CAN ASK THAT. WELL I'M JUST BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE. I'M NOT I'M NOT SURE I'M WITH YOU ON THE HEIGHT ISSUE QUITE YET. YOU CAN JUST SAY NO. I KNOW, BUT THEN WE HAVE TO START ALL OVER AND DO ALL THIS AGAIN WITH SOMETHING THAT PASSES. AND YOU CAN JUST MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE HEIGHT. DO WE HAVE A EXAMPLES OF HEIGHTS WHERE WE HAVE FOUR STORIES IN THE CITY OF WACO IN A RESIDENTIAL, BUT I'M HAPPY TO HAVE THE EXAMPLES. DO WE HAVE EXAMPLES OF THAT WHERE WE MAY HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S THAT HEIGHT NEXT TO NEXT TO A RESIDENTIAL. EXACTLY. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT. SORRY. HOLD ON. CAN WE HAVE. MR. INGRAM, WERE YOU MAKING A I WAS ASKING QUESTION TO THE CITY. DO WE HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE WE HAVE FOUR STORIES, YOU KNOW, LIKE IN THE CITY OF THE WEEK IN CITY OF WACO NEAR RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT LIKE THIS. SO THE ONE I CAN THINK OF, THAT'S PROBABLY THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU HAVE A TALL BUILDING IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA IS THE LAKE EYRE TOWER. YEAH, I DO KNOW THAT ONE. YEAH. LAKE TOWER IS THAT THAT'S. YEAH, IT'S MORE THAN FOUR. I THINK IT'S 7 OR 8. YEAH. SO NOTHING ELSE FOR. 
          EXACTLY. SO FOR THE BUILDING THAT MR. ALLEN MENTIONED, THE APARTMENT COMPLEX IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE CONVENTION CENTER NEXT TO THE COURTYARD MARRIOTT. THAT APARTMENT IS FOUR STORIES. SO THAT'S THAT'S A GOOD THAT'S A GOOD COMP ON WHAT YOU WOULD ALLOW GOING FROM 3 TO 4. NONE OF THE PUBLIC HOUSING IS FOUR STORIES LIKE ON CALL COURT, THE ONE. I THINK THAT'S FOUR STORIES RIGHT NEAR RESIDENTIAL OFF. THE IN THE BARRON'S. YES, EXACTLY. THAT'S I THINK THAT'S THREE STORIES SIMILAR RESIDENTIAL THE THE THE BARRON'S BRANCH COMPLEX AT CONCORD AND. OH YEAH. YEAH. 10TH OR NINTH. THAT'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE. IT'S BIG NONETHELESS. I MEAN IT'S. YEAH. AND THAT'S RIGHT BY RESIDENTIAL AS WELL. 
          SO ARE WE RUNNING INTO ANY ISSUE THERE. I MEAN IT LOOKS NICELY DONE. AND IT IS NEXT TO ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL AS WELL. SO I'M JUST LOOKING FOR AN EXAMPLE SO WE CAN GET BEYOND THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE WITH THE DESIGN BOOK CHANGES. IF THE WE AS A BOARD, YOU KNOW, REMOVE THE THE HEIGHT CHANGES, DOES IT STILL GIVE THE DEVELOPER? BECAUSE IT'S NOT, THEY STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY THEY COULD SINCE THERE IS NO ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE YET THAT THEY APPLY FOR CHANGES TO THE DESIGN BOOK. AGAIN, NEXT MEETING. WELL, YEAH, THEY LIKE FOR US TO. THE REASON WHY I ASKED THAT IS BECAUSE PERHAPS THAT WOULD GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR CASE OF WHY THEY WANT IT FOR MAKE THOSE CHANGES. WELL, GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL AFTER US AND THEY MIGHT. OH WELL THAT'S TRUE. YEAH. TALK TO THEM ABOUT IT. BUT IS THE APPLICANT LOOKING I MEAN IS THERE A CERTAIN LOCATION BECAUSE LIKE MR. ALLEN WAS SAYING EARLIER, YOU TOUCHED UP ON IT. LIKE IF WE KEPT IT THE SAME, THE THREE STOREY ALONG DUTTON AVENUE AND THEN VALLEY MILLS, WE GO UP TO FOUR, HAVE A VARIANT THERE BECAUSE ALONG VALLEY MILLS, I DON'T CARE AS MUCH AS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THAT, THERE'S A THERE'S SEVERAL STANDARDS IN THAT DESIGN BOOK THAT ARE STREET FRONTAGE SPECIFIC, THAT THEY HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS BASED ON BEING ON VALLEY MILLS VERSUS DUTTON. THERE'S ANOTHER STREET THAT'S ON THE NORTHERN SIDE, SO YOU CAN DEFINITELY YOU COULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR FOR STORIES ALONG VALLEY MILLS AND. THREE AND KEEP IT THE SAME ALONG DUTTON. THAT IS A COMPROMISE. I'M OKAY WITH DOING THAT. AND IT DOES KIND OF. AND YOU GUYS WILL DO A GREAT JOB OF TELLING CITY COUNCIL WHAT OUR CONCERNS WERE. AND MAYBE THEY'LL MAYBE THEY'LL SAY, ACTUALLY, WE DON'T WANT IT ON 
          [02:00:01]
VALLEY MILLS, BUT I FEEL GOOD ABOUT REMOVING IT OFF DUTTON AND JUST WANT TO GO FOR SURE. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT COMPROMISE ON THE TWO. YEAH. WHO'S DRIVING MARK, ARE YOU DRIVING THE YOU'RE DRIVING ARE YOU. ARE YOU ABLE TO PULL UP A MAP LIKE GOOGLE MAPS OR SOME MAPS, OR ARE YOU LIMITED TO THIS? NO, IT'S ALL BACK THERE. ALL RIGHT. WELL, IF Y'ALL JUST CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, JUST REAL QUICKLY, BUT DUTTON AVENUE FROM VALLEY MILLS, I'M LOOKING AT. OH, I'M LOOKING AT A MAP. I'M SORRY. YEAH. THERE YOU GO. YEAH. LOOKS TO ME LIKE THE ONLY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND ALL OF THAT UNTIL THIS WHOLE PROJECT IS ON DUTTON 29TH AND IT'S ONE HOUSE IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME. OH. I DRIVE DOWN THAT ROAD EVERY DAY. THE. MY ONLY CONCERN IS DUTTON IS A TINY STREET, SO ADDING AN EXTRA TEN FEET IS GOING TO MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE FOR THE RESIDENTS BECAUSE THEIR SETBACKS A LOT OF TIMES ARE ONLY 10 TO 15FT BECAUSE THEY GOT GRANDFATHERED IN. I HAVE A LOT OF I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THAT IN THAT AREA THAT THAT WOULD, I'M PRETTY SURE WOULD BOTHER THEM A LOT. THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN ABOUT THE EXTRA TEN FEET. IT'S GOING TO MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE ABOUT HOW CLOSE THEY ARE TO DUTTON AND HOW SMALL DUTTON IS. BUT IF YOU IF YOU LOOK AT THIS LIKE THIS IS HARMONY. YES, SIR. THIS IS SOME STADIUM HARMONY AND A SCHOOL BUILDING, RIGHT? YES, SIR. THIS IS A BOTTLING COMPANY, HVAC COMPANY. THEY SELL HVAC EQUIPMENT AND ALL THAT'S RESIDENTIAL RIGHT THERE. THIS IS A FIELD. THIS IS COMMERCIAL SOMETHING ACCORDING TO THIS MAP, THIS IS A VACANT LOT. THIS IS A VACANT LOT WITH TRASH ON IT. THIS IS THE ONLY HOUSE. YES, SIR. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PROTECTING? WELL, NO, I'M PROTECTING THE PEOPLE IN THE CASE FROM THE INTERIOR SITE PLAN. YOUR CONCERN IS FLOYD CASEY. BUT YOUR CONCERN IS ACROSS THE STREET. I'M MORE IN THE IN THE EXISTING RESIDENCE, CORRECT? YES, BUT YES, I'M IN. THE CONCERN IS VALID AS WELL. IS IT'S GOING TO CAUSE I MEAN, FOR THEM IT WON'T LOOK BAD, BUT I THINK I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S EXISTING THERE. THE RESIDENTS FURTHER DOWN. IT'S THE L LIKE THE L THAT LITTLE L THERE. IT'S IT'S JAM PACKED WITH A LOT OF HOUSES. OKAY. SO I MEAN, IT'S IT SHOWS THAT IT'S GOING TO BE ALL THERE ALL THROUGH DEAD AND RUNNING THROUGH. AND ALSO, I MEAN, THAT'S GOING TO BE A TRAFFIC JAM. THAT'S A WHOLE NOTHER CONVERSATION. BUT THE ENTRANCE AND EXITS ARE JUST. CAN YOU SHOW US WHERE THE ENTRANCE AND EXITS ARE FOR THE HEIGHT, DOESN'T. BUT I THINK IT'S JUST A QUESTION COMMENT THAT HEIGHT DOES NOT AFFECT DENSITY. RIGHT? CORRECT. YOU HAVE WHAT DENSITY IS ALLOWED. TRAFFIC IS TRAFFIC, RIGHT. WHETHER IT'S 3 OR 4 STORIES. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE REASON, THE REASON WHY THEY'RE GOING TO FOUR STOREYS IS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PUT MORE UNITS IN. BUT YEAH, THIS WOULD BE DONE HERE RIGHT NOW. IT'S PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, 40, 40 UNITS AN ACRE, BUT BASED ON THREE STORIES, YOU CAN REALLY ONLY FIT 20 UNITS AN ACRE. SO THEY WANT TO UP THE DENSITY. BUT YEAH, I'M NOT TOO CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC. I MEAN, WELL, TRAFFIC STUDY HAS BEEN DONE. TRAFFIC STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE. YOU HAVE ACCESS FROM VALLEY MILLS. YEAH. I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC. I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE FORM. I WOULD JUST OFFER CALL CAUGHT. 
          I JUST PULLED IT UP ON THE MAP. THOSE APARTMENTS ARE THREE STORY JUST TO KIND OF LOOK AT. 
          I THOUGHT THEY WERE HIGHER, BUT THEY ARE THREE STORIES TALL. YEAH, YEAH. THOSE THAT APPEARS TO BE THREE STORIES, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH. I WAS JUST LOOKING FOR. OKAY. YEAH. ANY MORE HASHING OF THE EXTRA TEN FEET? IS THERE A MOTION COMING? THERE'S A MOTION COMING. ALL RIGHT. TAKE YOUR TIME. LET ME FIND THIS SECTION. I NEED TO EXCLUDE 28 SOMETHING. SOMETHING. 
          THERE YOU GO. NINE. I GOT ON THE SCREEN WHILE HE'S LOOKING. MR. ALLEN, I MOVE. HOLD ON ONE SECOND BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR MOTION SO I KNOW WE'RE THERE'S A TIMELINE FOR GETTING SOME OF THESE THINGS FOR THE BUILDERS TO MOVE FORWARD. SO IF WE DON'T HAVE A DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION FOR THE THREE VERSUS FOUR STORIES, DOES THAT HOLD UP THE BUILDERS FROM BEING ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR PLANS? I WOULD RECOMMEND JUST MAKING A DECISION, A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL AND LET THEM DECIDE ON IT. YEAH, I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THESE CHANGES WITH THE EXCLUSION OF SECTION 20 8-880.33, AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE TO ONLY ALLOW THREE STORIES FOR THE MIXED USE PORTION ALONG DUTTON AVENUE, I 
          [02:05:09]
SECOND. WE DID. LOZANO. YOU KNOW, YOU SAID YOU HAD A QUESTION. NO, I THOUGHT, WELL, NEVER MIND. I THOUGHT WE WERE SEPARATING THE MOTIONS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN VOTE FOR HIGH AND THEN VOTE FOR THAT. SO I SO SINCE SINCE THERE'S A COMPROMISE MOTION, I WOULD VOTE ON THAT. AND IF IT DOESN'T PASS, THEN ANOTHER MOTION CAN BE MADE. WE HAVE TO VOTE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SECONDED. SO WE'LL DO THAT FIRST AND THEN GO FROM THERE. OKAY. THERE'S BEEN A MOTION BY. 
          MR. YOU'LL HAVE THAT RECORDED CORRECTLY. WONDERFUL. AND IT WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOZANO. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ALLEN. OKAY. ELLIS. YES. EMBRY. 
          YES. ENGLAND. YES. GIBBONS. NO. INGRAM. NO. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. NO. AND THAT MOTION CARRIED. PASSED 6 TO 3. OKAY. THAT CONCLUDES THE AGENDA ITEMS, LAURA, I BELIEVE. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? DO YOU HAVE ANY STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS OR REPORTS OR ANY THING FOR THE GOOD OF THE CAUSE OR THE GROUP? NO, I DO NOT, MR. CLIENT. NO, SIR. ANYTHING I CAN ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT THIS TIME. 813. SO ADJOURNED. DO I HAVE TO CALL FOR THAT? WILL, I DON'T REMEMBER, I
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.