[00:00:02]
ASKED. OH. GOOD EVENING. I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME YOU TO THE APRIL 28TH, 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 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 THEN ALL ITEMS, EXCLUDING PLATS, WILL BE IN THE FORM OF A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL.
CITY COUNCIL WILL ALSO CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THESE AGENDA ITEMS, EXCLUDING PLATS. ON TUESDAY, MAY 19TH, 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 MARCH 24TH, 2026 WORK SESSION AND BUSINESS MEETINGS. ARE THERE ANY CHANGES OR ADDITIONS? SEEING NONE, THEY STAND
[PUBLIC HEARINGS]
APPROVED AS WRITTEN. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS Z-26-13. WHAT IS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY STAFF? MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. OUR FIRST CASE TONIGHT IS Z 2613 ON PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 3001 MACARTHUR DRIVE. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A LAND USE CHANGE FROM URBAN RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE FLEX, AND THEN ALSO A REZONING FROM R-2 TO CONCEPT PUD FOR SELF STORAGE UNIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPERTY IS 1.385 ACRES LOCATED IN THE HIGHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR. AS NOTED, THE PROPERTY IS 3001 MACARTHUR DRIVE. THIS IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR AND MCFERRIN BETWEEN MACARTHUR AND NORTH 32ND STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF THE HIGHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, ADJACENT TO THE LAND AND BRANCH NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. SORRY, I GOT A SLOW CLICKER TONIGHT. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED ON OUR LAND USE PLAN AS URBAN RESIDENTIAL. IT IS ADJACENT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF MACARTHUR TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE FLEX. IF & APPROVED. THE PROPOSED. THE ADJUSTED LAND USE DESIGNATION WOULD BE MIXED USE FLEX AS SHOWN THERE. FOR ZONING. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED R TWO, WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. IT IS ADJACENT TO. SURROUNDED BY OTHER R-2 AREAS R ONE, B, AND THEN ALSO THE BLUE THAT YOU SEE IS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING. IF APPROVED, THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.HERE ARE SOME IMAGES OF THE PROPERTY. AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS IS GOING SO SLOW. I'M SORRY. I'M TRYING TO GO FASTER. ALL RIGHT. HERE IS A COPY OF THE PLAN. IT IS BASED ON THE PLAN. THERE ARE FIVE TOTAL SINGLE STORY BUILDINGS. APPROXIMATELY 25,350FT■!S. THERE ARE FOUR BUILDINGS LOCATED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY. THE
[00:05:01]
PURPOSE OF THE PERIMETER UNITS IS TO HELP PROVIDE SERVE AS SCREENING FROM THE ACTIVITIES ON THE INTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY. ALL DOORS WILL BE FACING INWARD AND WILL NOT BE LOCATED OUTWARDS ON THOSE PERIMETER BUILDINGS. ALSO, THERE WILL BE SOME BRICK FACADE. I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO THE APPLICANT TO GO OVER MORE THE AMENITIES THAT THEY WILL BE PROVIDING. BUT THIS IS JUST A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE SITE WILL LOOK LIKE. 50 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT FOR THIS PROJECT AND ZERO HAVE BEEN RETURNED. PLANNING SERVICE DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LAND USE PLAN FROM URBAN RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE FLEX BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. NUMBER ONE, IT IS NEAR MAJOR THOROUGHFARES, IN THIS CASE MACARTHUR DRIVE AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH IS ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE FOR ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THE PROPOSED MIXED USE LAND USE DESIGNATION. AS SUCH, WE'RE ALSO PLANNING SERVICES IS ALSO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. THE REQUEST TO REZONE FROM R-2 TO PUD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONCEPTUAL PUD PLAN FOR THE MACARTHUR STORAGE UNITS. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. FINDING NUMBER ONE IS THAT IT IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED. NUMBER TWO, IT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE INTENT OF THE PUD ORDINANCE BY KEEPING WITH PROVIDING SOME HEIGHT, SOME URBAN AMENITIES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING CONDITIONS, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT IT. NUMBER ONE, IT MUST MEET ALL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CONSISTENT WITH THE SITE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE, INCLUDING SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE, VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND CIRCULATION, LANDSCAPING AND STREETSCAPE REFUSE, LOCATION AND ACCESS AND FIRE PROTECTION. LOCATION AND ACCESS. THE PROPERTY MUST BE PLATTED. MEETING ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF WACO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. ALSO AS A CONDITION, SIDEWALK IS REQUIRED ALONG ALL BOUNDARY STREETS, INCLUDING PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SIX FEET IN WIDTH ALONG MACARTHUR, FIVE FEET WIDTH ALONG THE REST. ANY PORTION OF THE PEDESTRIAN WAY THAT REMAINS UNPAVED MUST RESIDE BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE STREET AS LANDSCAPING OR GRASS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. LAURA, IS THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE HERE? TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS DAVID MERCER. MY ADDRESS IS 1927 COLUMBUS AVENUE HERE IN WACO. I THINK STAFF JUST DID A GREAT JOB DESCRIBING THE DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT OUR INTENTION IS. I'D JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT I'M AWARE THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS PREVIOUSLY COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TO BE REZONED FOR OTHER COMMERCIAL ZONINGS, WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON WHY WE DECIDED TO GO WITH THE PUD TO ALLOW A LITTLE BIT MORE CITY INPUT, AND THAT WITH THE PREVIOUS REZONING REQUEST, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS REVOLVED AROUND AN INCREASE OF TRAFFIC WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SELF-STORAGE AS A WHOLE IS A VERY LOW IMPACT TRAFFIC USE. IT HAS A USE VERY SIMILAR TO A CEMETERY. IT'S NOT VERY OFTEN IT'S A LOWER USAGE THAN A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE. SO I FEEL LIKE WITH THE DESIGN THAT WE'VE PUT IN PLACE WITH THE ONE ENTRANCE OFF OF MCFERRIN TO ELIMINATE ANY TRAFFIC FLOW HINDRANCE ON MACARTHUR AND NO DRIVE APPROACHES ANYWHERE NEAR ANY OF THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, SO IT WON'T HAVE AN EFFECT ON THEM. WE'VE TRIED TO TAKE ALL THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IN ADVANCE.OUTSIDE OF THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS MAY HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT. THANKS, MR. MERCER. THANK YOU. IS ANYONE ELSE PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? IS ANYONE PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? DO ANY OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION? CAN WE TAKE BOTH AT ONCE WITH THE REZONING? OKAY, THEN I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE BOTH THE LAND USE CHANGE AND THE ZONE CHANGE BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS. SECOND, THERE'S BEEN A MOTION BY MR. SMITH, SECONDED BY MISS SALOME.
ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ELLIS. YES. EMBRY. YES. ENGLAND. YES. GIBBONS. YES.
LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. MOTION CARRIES. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE
[00:10:01]
AGENDA IS Z-26-15. STAFF. WHAT IS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF CITY STAFF? YES. MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION KZ2615 IS ON PROPERTY. ADDRESS IS 1125 AVENUE APPLICANT DAVID MERCER. THIS ONE IS A REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM C FIVE TO OH TWO.PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 0.2 ACRES LOCATED IN THE BAYLOR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS PICTURE, THE PROPERTY SITS MIDBLOCK BETWEEN LASALLE AVENUE AND PROSE AVENUE. IT CURRENTLY DOES HAVE A LASALLE ADDRESS, HOWEVER, THAT WILL LIKELY BE REASSIGNED WHEN THE PROPERTY DEVELOPS. THE. THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY, I BELIEVE, IS LOOKING AT DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE CORNER PROPERTY, SO IT WILL LIKELY RECEIVE A DIFFERENT ADDRESS WITH THAT CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION IS MIXED USE FLEX, WHICH DOES SUPPORT THE PROPOSED OH TWO ZONING. SO THEREFORE LAND USE CHANGE IS NOT REQUIRED.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C FIVE. THE C FIVE ZONING DISTRICT IS ONE OF THE DISTRICTS THAT, PER OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IS PROPOSED TO BE PHASED OUT OVER TIME. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS A LOT OF EXISTING O TWO IN THIS AREA. THE LASALLE CORRIDOR IN GENERAL IS SEEING A LOT OF TRANSITION FROM THE C FIVE INTO C TWO AND OH TWO ZONING DISTRICTS. THIS IS WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE IF IT IS APPROVED. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE BAYLOR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE OAKWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. HERE ARE SOME PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY. AND AS YOU'LL SEE AS I GO THROUGH THESE PHOTOS, YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF OTHER MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE AREA. LIKE I SAID, IT IS KIND OF TRENDING TOWARDS THAT WAY.
THERE'S SOME IN THE BACKGROUND THERE. IT IS ALSO DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM A PROPANE BUSINESS AS WELL. SO THERE IS THAT MIX OF MULTIFAMILY AS WELL AS SOME LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES. THIS IS A COMPARISON CHART BETWEEN THE EXISTING C FIVE ZONING AND THE O TWO ZONING. SO C FIVE IS A PRETTY INTENSE, INTENSIVE ZONING DISTRICT. IT ALLOWS FOR VARIOUS COMMERCIAL AND EVEN SOME INDUSTRIAL USES WITH ZERO RESIDENTIAL USES PERMITTED. THE O TWO, HOWEVER, DOES PERMIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 40 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THERE IS NO HEIGHT LIMIT. HOWEVER, ADDITIONAL SETBACKS DO APPLY AS BUILDINGS INCREASE OVER 25FT. SO WITH THE C FIVE, AGAIN, MULTIFAMILY IS NOT PERMITTED, BUT IT IS IN THE O TWO OFFICE USES THE SAME. IN BOTH OF THEM. GENERAL COMMERCIAL IS NOT PERMITTED IN THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT, NOR IS INDUSTRIAL. 27 NOTICES WERE MAILED FOR THIS REQUEST, AND WE DID RECEIVE TWO. BACK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION.
PLANNING SERVICES DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE FROM C FIVE TO OH TWO BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. NUMBER ONE, THE PROPOSED ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING MIXED USE FLEX DESIGNATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. EXISTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE RANGE OF USES PERMITTED WITHIN THE O TWO DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MEETS THE MINIMUM AREA AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE O TWO DISTRICT, AND THE PROPOSED REZONING REPRESENTS A REDUCTION IN ALLOWABLE COMMERCIAL INTENSITY FROM C FIVE TO OH TWO AND SUPPORTS A TRANSITION TO MORE RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. HELLO AGAIN. DAVID MERCER, 1927 COLUMBUS AVENUE. AS STATED, I ALSO OWN THE PROPERTY ON THE CORNER OF 12TH AND PROSE, DIRECTLY ADJACENT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TONIGHT. THAT PROPERTY HAS AN O TWO ZONING. I RECENTLY HAD BOTH PROPERTIES REPLATTED INTO ONE PROPERTY, AND I'M JUST LOOKING FOR CONSISTENT ZONING ACROSS BOTH PROPERTIES. ANY QUESTIONS I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER. ANY QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT. THANK YOU, MR. MERCER. ANYONE ELSE PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? ANYONE IN PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? DO ANY COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION? DO WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON
[00:15:01]
STAFF FINDINGS? I SECOND, THERE'S BEEN A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM MR. SMITH AND SECONDED BY MISS GIVENS. ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ELLIS. YES. EMBRY.YES. ENGLAND. YES. GIBBONS. YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. MOTION CARRIES. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS Z-26-14. WHAT IS THE REPORT AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF CITY STAFF? MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION CASE Z 2614 IS A REQUEST FOR CONCEPT PUD AMENDMENT. THE PARCEL ADDED TO THE EXISTING SEVEN OAKS VILLAGE PUD IS 0.31 ACRES. THE EXISTING CONCEPT PUD IS 1.156 ACRES FOR NEW. TOTAL SIZE OF 1.466 ACRES. PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE OAKWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE PROPERTY DOES SIT BETWEEN SOUTH SECOND STREET AND GRADUATE ROW NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF CHURCH AVENUE. YOU'LL SEE THIS FURTHER IN ANOTHER SLIDE, BUT IT DOES HAVE THAT LITTLE ODD SHAPE. SO THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO. THERE WE GO. THIS. THE WHAT YOU SEE HATCHED IS TO ADD THIS STRIP OF LAND. THE APPLICANT ALREADY OWNS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THAT OVERTURE COURT. AND IT'S TO WRAP THE DEVELOPMENT AROUND AND PROVIDE SOME ACCESS. AND YOU'LL SEE THAT IN A LITTLE BIT HERE. SO THE CURRENT LAND USE PLAN IS URBAN RESIDENTIAL.
THERE IS NO PROPOSED CHANGE TO THAT. THIS SHOWS IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER. SO THE APPLICANT OWNS THE PROPERTY AND IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPING THE R3 B PROPERTY THAT YOU SEE IN GREEN RIGHT THERE FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS A PERMITTED USE. HE ALSO OWNS THE BLUE, WHICH IS THE CURRENT CONCEPT PUD OF SEVEN OAKS VILLAGE, WHICH DID NOT EVER GET FINISHED BEING BUILT. HE DOES DID OWN THE PROPERTY IN BETWEEN THAT IS ZONED R1, B, AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF CIRCULATION, AS YOU'LL SEE ON THE PLAN COMING UP, PROPOSING TO ADD PUD ZONING TO THIS PORTION SO THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AS A WHOLE CAN CIRCULATE AROUND AND PROVIDE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION. PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE OAKWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. HERE IS A PHOTO LOOKING DIRECTLY AT THE PROPERTY. THE. I BELIEVE THE HOUSE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE. THAT IS THE HOUSE THAT WILL REMAIN AS THE R1B THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. AND THIS IS LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY SITTING OFF TO THE RIGHT. THIS IS THE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEING BUILT ON THE R3 B PROPERTY. IT'LL BE SIMILAR LOOK AND FEEL AS WHAT YOU SEE HERE. ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE IS THE EXISTING CONCEPT PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED FOR THE SEVEN OAKS. AND THEN I BELIEVE THAT WAS 16 DWELLING UNITS. SO THOSE ARE EACH DUPLEX BUILDINGS IN THERE TO THE RIGHT. YOU CAN SEE WE TURNED IT SO IT'LL LINE UP WITH EACH OTHER. THEY'RE PROPOSING AN ADDITIONAL THREE UNITS. SO ONE SINGLE FAMILY AND THEN ANOTHER DUPLEX BUILDING FOR A TOTAL OF 19 DWELLING UNITS. SO WHEN YOU WHEN YOU ADD IT UP, THE PREVIOUS PUD WITH 16 DWELLING UNITS ON 1.156 ACRES GAVE A DWELLING UNIT PER ACRE OF APPROXIMATELY 14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. BY ADDING THE ADDITIONAL LAND AND EVEN WITH ADDING THE THREE UNITS, IT DROPS IT DOWN TO ACTUALLY 13 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. SO BY ADDING THAT PROPERTY, IT IS DECREASING THE DWELLING UNIT PER ACRE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT.
AND AGAIN, ON THIS RIGHT HAND SIDE, YOU CAN SEE HOW THE ROADS GOING TO CONNECT INTO THAT OTHER DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS SHOWING THE LANDSCAPING THAT IS PROPOSED WITH THE PUD IS GOING TO BE SOME OPEN SPACES, PARKING. FOR NOTICES. WE DID MAIL OUT 48 NOTICES. WE HAD ZERO RETURNED.
PLANNING SERVICES DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONCEPTUAL PUD PLAN FOR THE HADLEY'S PLACE PUD, WHICH IS WHAT IT WILL BE RENAMED TO BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. NUMBER ONE, THE
[00:20:04]
PROPOSED PUD IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE COMPONENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO. THE PROPOSED PUD IS IN KEEPING WITH THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE PUD ORDINANCE. BY PROVIDING A HIGH LEVEL OF URBAN AMENITIES AND DESIGN STANDARDS, WHILE ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY IN THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT THE FINAL PUD MUST MEET ALL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CONSISTENT WITH SITE REQUIREMENTS PLAN REVIEW, INCLUDING SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE SIGNAGE, PARKING SITE COVERAGE, ACCESS, CIRCULATION, LANDSCAPING, COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT OVERLAY, REFUSE LOCATION AND ACCESS AND FIRE PROTECTION LOCATION ACCESS DRAINAGE FOR THE SITE MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CITY OF WACO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS. IF OFFSITE DRAINAGE IS NEEDED TO MEET REGULATIONS, APPROPRIATE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE APPROVAL OF ANY CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR THE SITE, AND THEN THE PROPERTY SHALL BE PLATTED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS TO MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF WACO SUBDIVISION, WHICH THEY ACTUALLY HAVE COMPLETED. PLATTING OF ALL THEIR LAND ALREADY INTO ONE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS SUZETTE DOZIER AND I AM A RESIDE AT 2627 SOUTH UNIVERSITY PARK DRIVE. I'M HERE REPRESENTING JUSTIN SOTO FOR PIPER'S PLACE, LLC. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. SHE DID A GREAT JOB OUTLINING WHAT OUR PROPOSAL IS TODAY. IN CONTINUATION OF WHAT WE SPOKE, WE ARE ADDING TWO THREE ADDITIONAL UNITS TO WHICH WOULD BE ON .31 ACRES. IN ORDER TO DO THIS, WE BELIEVE THAT IT WILL RECONFIGURE THE SITE FOR BETTER, BETTER USAGE.NOTABLY, THE MATH WORKS IN THE COMMUNITY'S FAVOR. THE ACREAGE IS GOING TO GO UP, THE DENSITY IS GOING TO GO DOWN WITH THE. ORIGINALLY IT WAS 16 UNITS AND. AND NOW WE'VE MOVED IT TO 19 UNITS TOTAL. BUT ADDING IN. YOU SEE, WE'VE ADDED THE ONE DUPLEX AND THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. AND YOU CAN. AS YOU SEE, SHE HAD EXPLAINED PRETTY WELL, WE'RE GOING TO BE REDUCED. WE'RE GOING TO BE ADDING THE LAND WITH THE OVERALL DENSITY, IT ACTUALLY DECREASES. IT GOES FROM 13.84 DOWN TO 12.96 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS A NET REDUCTION OF 0.88 UNITS PER ACRE. IF YOU TURN IF YOU SAW THE LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT SHE SHOWED, WE'VE ACTUALLY UPDATED IT RECENTLY AND I APOLOGIZE THAT THAT WASN'T INCLUDED. BUT ONE, ONE ITEM THAT WE ARE GOING TO ADD TO, TO CREATE A BETTER. USE OF THE LAND. WE WERE GOING TO PUT A PICKLEBALL COURT BEHIND THAT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. IT'S GOING TO ENCOURAGE, YOU KNOW, A COMMON AREA FOR THE RESIDENTS. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S A SOMETHING THAT IS A GROWING SPORT IN THE COMMUNITY. AND WE FEEL LIKE THAT IT WILL KIND OF ADD TO THE ADD TO THE NUANCE OF HADLEY'S PLACE, WHICH IS WHAT WE THE DEVELOPMENT OVERALL DEVELOPMENT IS CALLED. SO IN SUMMARY, I HOPE YOU GUYS CONSIDER OUR REQUEST FOR APPROVAL. AND THANK YOU. I WILL TAKE QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT? JUST ONE QUESTION FOR ME. PLAN LOOKS GREAT. JUST MAKING SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS WOULD CONNECT ALL THE WAY AROUND. CORRECT. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A CONTINUATION OF CORRECT THE EXISTING. YES, YES.
SO ON THE OTHER, YOU KNOW, ABOVE THAT PLAN THAT YOU SEE THERE IS WHERE SHE HAD SHOWN THAT PICTURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THERE WILL BE A ROADWAY THAT CONNECTS ALL OF IT. IT'LL ALL BE THAT WOULD BE PHASE ONE DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE IN PHASE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PHASE TWO OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS. IT'S A GREAT PLAN. THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR DO WE NEED TO ADDRESS A PICKLEBALL STRUCTURE WHILE WE'RE DOING THIS OR CAN WE MOVE ON? WE CAN WE CAN DEAL WITH THAT AT THE OKAY. VERY. JUST TWO BIRDS, ONE STONE. WE'RE ALREADY HERE. OH, I DIDN'T KNOW. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? IS ANYONE PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? ANY OTHER COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF. JUST KIND OF A NEW THING FOR ME. IF
[00:25:01]
WE HAVE A CONTINUOUS DEVELOPMENT OR ONE HALF IS R3B AND ONE HALF IS PUD. THAT ALL MAKES SENSE ON THE ADMINISTRATION SIDE. FROM Y'ALL'S END, THERE'S BE NO REASON TO COMBINE THE WHOLE THING INTO ONE. CORRECT. THE ONLY REASON THEY DIDN'T EXPAND THE PUD INTO THE EXISTING BECAUSE IT ALREADY MET THE CRITERIA OF THE R THREE. I MEAN, IT'S THEY'RE MATCHING THIS TO THAT THROUGH THE PUD PROCESS. SO IT ALL WORKS PERFECT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION MEMBERS. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS WITH CONDITIONS.SECOND, IT'S BEEN A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS BY MR. ENGLUND. IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. SMITH. ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ELLIS. YES. YES. ENGLAND. YES.
GIBBONS. YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. THE MOTION CARRIES.
THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS Z-26-12. CITY STAFF. WHAT IS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, MR. CHAIR? MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, CASE Z 2612 IS LOCATED AT 1704 SOUTH 17TH STREET FOR A REZONING APPLICATION FROM C TWO TO OH TWO ON 2.32 ACRES. CESAR CHAVEZ NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE YOU SEE HERE, THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED BETWEEN SOUTH 18TH STREET AND SOUTH 17TH STREET AND ABOUT HALF A BLOCK FROM LA SAL AGAIN AND DOT TREE AVENUE. PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS MIXED USE FLEX ON THE LAND USE PLAN MAP, WHICH DOES SUPPORT THE PROPOSED OH TWO ZONING. SO A ZONE MAP AMENDMENTS LAND USE AMENDMENT IS NOT REQUIRED. PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C TWO, WHICH. I DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY ON IT, BUT PERHAPS WAS CHANGED IN THE PREVIOUS TIME. BUT C TWO AGAIN IS YOUR GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. IF IT IS AMENDED IT WILL FIT NICELY WITH THE O TWO ZONING. AGAIN, THIS IS A BOUNDARY RIGHT ON THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN MULTIPLE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN CESAR CHAVEZ, BAYLOR AND ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. TO THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN IS THE PROPERTY, AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE BACKGROUND THE WACO ISD BUSSES. THAT PROPERTY THERE IS ACTUALLY ZONED M2 INDUSTRIAL ZONING. AND THEN HERE LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE SOME OTHER O TWO RECENTLY ZONED O TWO ZONING THAT IS HAVING SOME MULTIFAMILY CONSTRUCTION GOING ON. AND THAT IS RIGHT ON LASALLE AND LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES. THIS EXISTING C TWO ZONING IS A MIX OF COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, OFFICE AND MULTIFAMILY. RESIDENTIAL DOES HAVE A HEIGHT LIMIT OF 35FT OR TWO STORIES. C TWO DOES PERMIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 25.03 UNITS PER ACRE. PROPOSED O TWO ZONING DOES ALSO PERMIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 40 UNITS PER ACRE. THERE IS NO HEIGHT LIMIT. HOWEVER, IT IS SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURES OVER 25FT. YOU CAN SEE IN THE CHART JUST A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE EXISTING, WHICH PERMITS ALL OF THOSE MULTIFAMILY OFFICE, GENERAL RETAIL AND RESTAURANTS AS OPPOSED TO THE O TWO, WHICH IS MOSTLY YOUR FAMILY AND LIMITED OFFICE TYPE DEVELOPMENT.
FOR THIS ONE, WE DID MAIL OUT 35 NOTICES AND WE DID RECEIVE ONE NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT. PLANNING SERVICES DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THE REQUEST TO CHANGE FROM C TWO TO OH TWO BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. NUMBER ONE, THE PROPOSED ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING MIXED USE DESIGNATION OF THE COMP PLAN, WHICH DOES SUPPORT A RANGE OF RESIDENTIAL, OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES. EXISTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE RANGE OF USES PERMITTED WITHIN THE O TWO ZONING DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MEETS THE MINIMUM AREA AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE O TWO ZONING DISTRICT, AND THE PROPOSED REZONING DOES REPRESENT A REDUCTION IN ALLOWABLE COMMERCIAL INTENSITY FROM C TWO TO OH TWO, AND SUPPORTS A TRANSITION TO A MORE RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THAT WE'RE SEEING ALONG THAT CORRIDOR. SO THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS VALENTIN DELEON. 1306 TRAVIS
[00:30:12]
HEIGHTS BOULEVARD, AUSTIN, TEXAS. 78704. WE ARE THE REPRESENT VECINO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. WE'RE WORKING WITH A LOCAL NONPROFIT, FRIENDS FOR LIFE, TO DEVELOP AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ADULTS WITH DISABILITIES. THAT'S INTELLECTUAL, PHYSICAL, AND.INTELLECTUAL, PHYSICAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES. SO THIS WOULD BE KIND OF THE FIRST KIND OF HOUSING LIKE THAT FOR THE CITY OF WACO. FRIENDS FOR LIFE. I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL HAVE EVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND AS RUSSELL, BUT SHE'S, YOU KNOW, DEFINITELY HAS A HIGHER CALLING. AND WE'RE REALLY PROUD TO BE WORKING WITH HER ON THIS. SO STAFF DID A GREAT JOB IN SUMMARIZING THE CASE AND JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT. THANK YOU SIR. ANYONE ELSE PRESENT. THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM. ANYONE PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? ANY OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. SECOND. READING. LOZANO THERE'S BEEN A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MR. ELLIS, AND IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. LOZANO. ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ELLIS. YES. EMBRY. YES. ENGLAND. YES. GIBBONS. YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES.
SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. MOTION CARRIES. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS Z-26-16. WHAT IS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY STAFF? MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION KZ26-16 IS LOCATED AT 1839 NORTH 25TH STREET. THE REQUEST IS FOR BOTH A LAND USE CHANGE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE FLEX TO MIXED USE FLEX, AND A REZONING FROM THREE TO C TWO. PROPERTY SIZE IS APPROXIMATELY 0.633 ACRES. LOCATED IN THE NORTH WACO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE PROPERTY DOES SIT AT THE INTERSECTION OF MAPLE AVENUE AND ALSO AT THE CORNER OF THE CONVERGENCE BETWEEN THE ONE WAYS OF NORTH 25TH STREET AND 26TH STREET. PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE FLEX, WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT C TWO ZONING.
THE HIGHEST ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE FLEX IS OH THREE, WHICH IS THE CURRENT ZONING. THE PROPOSED ZONING IS, I'M SORRY, EXISTING ZONING IS OH THREE. AND YOU SEE SOME OTHER OH THREES ALONG THAT CORRIDOR AND IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE LAND USE. IF APPROVED, THIS WOULD BECOME C TWO ZONING. AND THERE CURRENTLY IS NOT ANY C TWO ZONING WITHIN THIS CORRIDOR AT THIS LOCATION. AGAIN KIND OF BORDERLINE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION RIGHT BETWEEN NORTH WACO. IT IS LOCATED IN THE NORTH WACO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION NEAR THE DEAN HIGHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE PROPERTY DOES CONTAIN A RETAIL TYPE STRUCTURE, OFFICE SERVICE USE, I BELIEVE AT ONE TIME MIGHT MAY STILL HAVE IT LIKE A NEIGHBORHOOD GROCERY STORE. IT IS ACROSS FROM CHURCH USE. THERE'S THAT INTERSECTION OF THE ONE WAY PAIR. AND THEN IT IS ALSO ACROSS CATTY CORNER FROM THE SOME MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AS WELL. SO IN COMPARING THESE TWO ZONING DISTRICTS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED OH THREE, WHICH IS THE EXISTING ZONING DOES PERMIT UP TO TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT MAXIMUM OF 7.26 UNITS PER ACRE, HEIGHT LIMIT OF 35FT, OR TWO STORIES. THOSE THREE ZONING DOES PERMIT LIMITED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING RESIDENCE AND PERSONAL SERVICE RETAIL SHOPS. C TWO, HOWEVER, WOULD INCREASE THE PERMITTED COMMERCIAL USES AND WOULD NOT HAVE LIMITS ON HOURS OF OPERATION OR LIMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL OR TOBACCO SALES. C TWO
[00:35:01]
IS A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL, RETAIL OFFICE AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE IS 25.03, SO PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL. INCREASE HEIGHT LIMIT OF 35FT OR TWO STORIES. SO THE USES THAT THAT ARE THERE NOW, SUCH AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE STORE AND THE SERVICE, THOSE ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THERE AMONGST THE WITH THE REQUIRED LIMITS ON HOURS. WE DID SEND OUT. I 29 NOTICES. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS BACK. IN THIS CASE. PLANNING SERVICES DOES RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL OF THE LAND USE PLAN FOR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE FLEX TO MIXED USE FLEX BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. NUMBER ONE BASED ON THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED, THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE FOR THE ZONING DISTRICTS ALLOWED IN THE PROPOSED MIXED USE FLEX LAND USE DESIGNATION, AND THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE FLEX AND URBAN RESIDENTIAL LAND USES, WHICH ARE GENERALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF USES PERMITTED BY THE MOST INTENSE ZONING DISTRICTS PERMITTED IN THE MIXED USE FLEX LAND USE DESIGNATION. THEREFORE, WE'RE ALSO PLANNING SERVICES, ALSO RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM OH THREE TO C TWO BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. NUMBER ONE, THE PROPOSED ZONING IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE LAND USE COMPONENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE EXISTING AND PLANNED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE FOR THE. THE LIST OF USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE C TWO ZONING DISTRICT. PROPOSED C TWO ZONING IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND OTHER USES LOCATED ALONG MAPLE AVENUE, AND THERE IS ALSO EXISTING UNDEVELOPED COMMERCIAL ZONING.APPROXIMATELY 0.25 MILES FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT IS ALREADY ZONED ACCORDINGLY, I HAVE, THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? GOOD EVENING. PLANNING COMMISSION ATTORNEY CARLOS DIAZ FOR KAJI CORPORATION, 3801 NORTH 22ND STREET, WACO, TEXAS. 76708. MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I WISH THAT PLANNING WOULD HAVE BEEN FAIR AND SHOWED THAT JUST TWO BLOCKS NORTH OF MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY, THERE'S A C THREE. I DIDN'T SEE THAT UP ON THE PICTURES, BUT WE WERE PROVIDED WITH A PLAT WHERE THERE IS A C THREE JUST TWO BLOCKS AWAY IN FRONT OF THE CHURCH. WE DISAGREE WITH THEIR DISAPPROVAL, OF COURSE, AND WE THINK THAT THIS THIS REQUEST SHOULD BE APPROVED FOR TWO PRIMARY REASONS. WE TOLD THEM THAT IN. 21 AND WE'RE GOING TO TELL THEM AGAIN. NUMBER ONE, IN REGARDS TO COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING USES, MIXED USE IS INTENDED TO INTENDED TO FUNCTION AS A TRANSITION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND MORE INTENSIVE USES. IT ALLOWS FOR LOW IMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING USES SUCH AS OFFICES AND SMALL SCALE, SMALL SCALE SERVICES SUCH AS A CONVENIENCE STORE, WHICH IS WHAT MY CLIENT HAS. THIS USES ARE OFTEN LESS DISRUPTIVE THAN HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND LIKE I STATED BEFORE, THERE IS ALREADY A SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTY APPROXIMATELY 1000FT IN FRONT OF RIKER, WHICH, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA LIKE ME, IT'S A C THREE. THAT EXISTING USE DEMONSTRATE THAT MY CLIENT'S USES. THE DEVELOPMENT CAN COEXIST WITH THE NEARBY NEARBY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHOUT AN ADVERSE IMPACT. NUMBER TWO, IN KEEPING WITH THE CONSISTENCY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MODERN PLANNING PRINCIPLES SUPPORT THE FLEXIBILITY AND INTEGRATION OF USES RATHER RATHER THAN A RIGID SEPARATION. THIS REQUEST ALLOWS FOR PRACTICAL NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING USES THAT ALIGN WITH WITH OUR COMMUNITY NEEDS. IT PROMOTES ACTIVATION OF PROPERTY AND REDUCES THE RISK THE RISK OF LONG TERM VACANCY. I DRIVE UP AND DOWN THAT STREET EVERY DAY BECAUSE MY OFFICE IS UP THERE. THERE IS A LOT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE VACANT, AND THIS COULD BE ONE OF THE REASONS, BECAUSE ALL THREE ZONING IS MORE RESTRICTIVE AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE CURRENT MARKET REALITIES OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. FOR THOSE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THIS PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE MY CLIENT'S APPLICATION, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT MY CLIENT'S BUSINESS, IF ANYBODY WILL. HAS ANY ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE? YEAH, I HAVE ONE. SO WE SAW FROM THE PRESENTATION THERE IS SOME OVERLAP IN THE COMMERCIAL USES IN THE TWO DISTRICTS. SO WHAT ABOUT YOUR CLIENT'S REQUEST FOR THE CHANGE IN THE
[00:40:02]
ZONING? WHAT WHAT REQUIRES THE CHANGE FOR YOUR CLIENT'S USES IS MY QUESTION. SO IT'S REALLY JUST A BUSINESS. OUR TYPE CHANGE. MY CLIENT HAS A CONVENIENCE STORE. HE'S GOT A COUPLE HERE IN WACO. THE ONLY PERMIT THAT HE CAN GET IS FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD GROCERY STORE LIKE H-E-B, WHICH IS NOT H-E-B, AND THAT IS THE ONLY REASON THAT HE WANTS TO DO THE CHANGE. HE'S NOT GOING TO BUILD A TEN STORY BUILDING THERE. HE'S NOT GOING TO BRING AN ATV. SO IT'S JUST THE HOURS OF OPERATION. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? THANK YOU, THANK YOU SIR.ANYONE ELSE PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? ANYONE HERE PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? DO ANY COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE CAN KEEP WHERE IT'S CURRENTLY AT AND JUST ADD A VARIANCE FOR TIMING? IS THAT POSSIBLE? COMMISSIONER ELLIS, THE IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, THE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT THAT WE HAVE GIVEN THROUGH THE SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS, EXTENSION OF HOURS, AS LONG AS IT FITS WITHIN THE USES THAT ARE LISTED WITHIN THE THREE. WE DID THAT RECENTLY IN CHINA SPRING. OKAY. SO DID Y'ALL PROPOSE THAT TO THE APPLICANT? I'LL DEFER TO MARK CONTACT. SO I DON'T RECALL THAT THERE WAS A SPECIFIC DISCUSSION ON THE HOURS. AND OBVIOUSLY WE COULD DO THAT. C TWO ZONING COULD ADDRESS IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT IS NECESSARILY COMPLETELY ADDRESSING THE DESIRED USE HERE BECAUSE HE'S TRYING TO SAY THAT IT'S A GROCERY STORE, HE DOESN'T WANT TO, OR THE CLIENT'S NOT ABLE TO FIT WITHIN THAT PARTICULAR CATEGORY. SO KIND OF ADDRESS THAT, YOU KNOW. SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT A VARIANCE TO ADDRESS THE HOURS WOULDN'T ADDRESS THEIR NEEDS? NOT COMPLETELY. CAN I ADDRESS MARK OR DO I NEED TO GO? OKAY. BUT I THOUGHT THEY WANTED A CONVENIENCE STORE. CORRECT. AND THAT STILL WOULDN'T. I GUESS THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY MAY HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT. OR HOW WOULD THAT NOT? MR. CHAIR, WE CAN'T DISCLOSE WHAT THE PROPOSED USES. THE PROPOSED USE THAT WAS PROVIDED TO STAFF DOESN'T MEET THE CURRENT ZONING THAT WORKS. THANK YOU. AND I KNOW WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS BEFORE, BUT ONE THING THAT WE WANT TO CONSIDER TOO, IS THAT WHEN WE CHANGE ZONING, IT STICKS WITH THE PROPERTY. SO IF THE PROPERTY SELLS IN TWO YEARS OR FIVE YEARS OR TEN YEARS, IT NOW HAS THIS ZONING THAT NO MATTER WHAT SOMEONE DOES WITH IT CURRENTLY, SOMEONE NEW COULD DO WITH COULD DO ANYTHING PERMITTED WITHIN THE NEW ZONING TO THINK ABOUT. WOULD THAT WOULD THAT APPLY TO A VARIANCE AS WELL? NO, BECAUSE THAT THAT PARTICULAR ALLOWANCE IS THROUGH A SPECIAL PERMIT, AND THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED JUST TO THE PARTICULAR USE AT THAT TIME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION. I THINK I'LL THROW IT OUT THERE THAT I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL SAW MY SIGN ON THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR, BUT I TRIED TO REZONE THAT TC2 AS WELL. AT LEAST I HAD THIS DISCUSSION WITH MARK PROBABLY ABOUT A YEAR AGO, AND I GOT THE SAME ANSWER. SO IN MY OPINION, THE CITY IS AT LEAST BEING CONSISTENT FOR THE SAME REASONS, WHICH I RESPECT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION? I'LL MOVE THAT WE DISAPPROVE BOTH THE LAND USE CHANGE AND ZONING BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS. I'LL SECOND THAT. THERE'S BEEN MOTION TO DISAPPROVE, AND THEN IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. SMITH AND BEEN SECONDED BY MISS GIBBONS. ANY DISCUSSION? I'LL JUST ADD THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE A VARIANCE MIGHT BE A WAY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THE APPLICANT'S HAVING. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND PERHAPS FOLLOWING THAT AVENUE WITH THE CITY AND MAYBE GETTING THE RESULT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE PULL THE COMMISSION, PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ELLIS. YES. YES.
[00:45:07]
ENGLAND. YES. GIBBONS. YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. THE NEXT ITEM I AM GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO OUR VICE CHAIR DASH 26-17. ALL RIGHT. I'LL JUST ADD MY CHAIR IF THAT WORKS. ITEM Z-26-17 CITY STAFF. OKAY, THIS ONE'S GOING TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA EXPLAINING ON THIS ONE. SO KZ2617 IS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 365 AND 379 VALVERDE ROAD. THE REQUEST IS A LAND USE CHANGE FROM SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL TO INDUSTRIAL AND REZONING FROM R1, B TO M2, WHICH SOUNDS QUITE EXTREME. PROPERTY SIZE IS 1.69 ACRES.THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AT THIS PROPERTY AND IT IS LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE. SO THIS PROPERTY WAS PART OF AN INTERLOCAL BOUNDARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF WACO AND THE CITY OF MCGREGOR. IN 2023, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 28-249 OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE. IF ZONING IS NOT ESTABLISHED THROUGH THAT ANNEXATION PROCEDURE, IT AUTOMATICALLY DEFAULTS TO AN R1 B ZONING DISTRICT. THE PROPERTIES HAVE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL USES ON THEM. SO THE BLUE HERE IS WACO CITY LIMITS AND THEN TO THE THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. THAT'S THE MCGREGOR EXECUTIVE AIRPORT. IT IS SITTING ON OFF OF MCGREGOR ROAD ON VALVERDE. SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE ON THERE. NOW. THE ONE NORTH MAP NORTH PICTURE NORTH IS A CABINET CONTRACTOR AND THEN SOME LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OFFICE USE ON THE SMALLER PARCEL THERE. AND THEN THE ADJOINING NEIGHBOR ACTUALLY OWNS THE SMALLER PARCEL THERE AS WELL. AND HE HAS HIS HOUSE ON THAT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
SO THIS IS THE R1 B. SO THIS WHOLE STRETCH HERE WAS AUTOMATICALLY CLASSIFIED AS R1 B ZONING. I PULLED THE ORDINANCE. IT DIDN'T EVEN MENTION ZONING IN IT. SO THEREFORE JUST WENT TO AN R1 B ZONING. DURING THAT PROCESS. SORRY MISS CLICKER IS NOT BEHAVING VERY WELL. THERE'S THE LOCATED SIGN. YOU CAN SEE THE COMMERCIAL TYPE INDUSTRIAL USE ON THESE PROPERTIES. VALVERDE ROAD. SO THE PROPERTY IS SITTING RIGHT ON THE THE CITY LIMITS. AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW. OOPS SORRY. TOO FAST. SO I MEAN THERE'S QUITE A DIFFERENCE IN THE ZONING DISTRICTS HERE OBVIOUSLY. SO R1 B ZONING DOES PERMIT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND COMPATIBLE USES, WHEREAS THE M2 ZONING IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, WHICH WOULD ALLOW MANUFACTURING, WHICH IS MORE THE USES THAT ARE THERE NOW AS WELL AS OFFICES. SO RIGHT HERE, WE'RE LOOKING AT A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SOME PROPERTIES THAT WERE GRANDFATHERED IN WITH THEIR USES. WE TALKED TO THE CITY OF MCGREGOR AND UNDER THEIR ZONING, THEY WERE ALSO GRANDFATHERED IN UNDER THEIR LAND USE AND ZONING DISTRICT AS WELL. SO WE'RE TRYING TO CLEAN UP THE SITUATION IN THIS CASE. OOPS, SORRY. SO PLANNING SERVICES BASED ON THE LOCATION OF WHERE THIS PROPERTY SITS IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO CHANGE THE LAND USE PLAN TO INDUSTRIAL. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE FOR THE USES OF INDUSTRIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION, AND THEN SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL IS THE DEFAULT LAND USE ASSIGNED TO NEW PROPERTY. ANNEXED LAND SWAPPED INTO THE CITY OF WACO. AS THESE PROPERTIES ARE ACTIVE, INDUSTRIAL USES, THE INDUSTRIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION WOULD CONFORM BETTER. AND LOOKING AT THE BUILDINGS TOO, THEY'RE NOT EVEN BUILDINGS THAT COULD EVENTUALLY CHANGE INTO A RESIDENTIAL USE. PLANNING SERVICES RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THE REQUEST TO CHANGE FROM THE R1, B TO M2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, PROPOSED ZONING WOULD ALIGN WITH THE LAND USE COMPONENT OF THE COMP
[00:50:02]
PLAN AS RECOMMENDED. EXISTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS ADEQUATE TO ACCOMMODATE THE USES PERMITTED IN THE M2 ZONING DISTRICT, INCLUDING NEARBY ACCESS TO A MAJOR HIGHWAY THOROUGHFARE. U.S. 84 PROPERTY MEETS ALL MINIMUM AREA AND WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE M2 ZONING DISTRICT, AND THERE ARE CURRENTLY OPERATING INDUSTRIAL USES WITHIN THE VICINITY AND ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ACROSS VALVERDE IS ACTUALLY THE. MCGREGOR LOOKS LIKE A LAY DOWN YARD FOR SOME OF THEIR. THEIR EQUIPMENT FOR THEIR UTILITIES DEPARTMENT. A LITTLE CONFUSING ON THAT ONE, BUT THAT IS ALL I HAVE. OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THAT'S YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE COMMISSION PLEASE. GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY. A COUPLE THINGS. I'M THE OWNER OF GEORGE EGGERT'S AT 361 VALVERDE. I ALSO OWN 365 VAL VERDE AS WELL. THIS APPLICATION THOUGH IS ONLY FOR 365 VAL VERDE. IT IS NOT FOR 379 VAL VERDE, SO THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN OFF OF THE AGENDA AS IT RELATES TO TO THE REZONING ITSELF. SORRY. MR. MR. CHAIR, CAN I ADDRESS THAT? YES. THE CITY HAS TAGGED ALONG AS A CO APPLICANT TO REZONE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. IT WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE TO JUST ZONE ONE PROPERTY AND NOT THE OTHER. SO THE CITY OF WACO IS CO APPLICANT ONTO THIS APPLICATION.AND AS SUCH WE WAIVE THE APPLICATION FEES. I CAN'T AGREE WITH THAT. AND THE REASON IS, IS THE CURRENT OWNER OF 379 VAL VERDE. I BELIEVE THAT'S THE ADDRESS IS UNAWARE OF THIS HEARING AS IT RELATES TO HIS PROPERTY. SO I'M AWARE OF IT. WE WERE THE ONES WHO REQUESTED THE ZONING. WE SPOKE WITH NATHAN AND WE ALSO SPOKE WITH MARK. I BELIEVE IT IS AS IT RELATES TO THIS. AND WE SPECIFICALLY ASKED THAT THAT BE TAKEN OFF OF THE AGENDA. OKAY.
SO HOW IS YEAH, I SPOKE WITH THE THE NEIGHBOR. ON THE PHONE DIRECTLY. AND THE CITY OF WACO CAN ACTUALLY REZONE PROPERTY WITHOUT A PROPERTY OWNER'S PETITION. BUT YOU SPOKE WITH THE PROPERTY. I DID SPEAK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, HAD NO ISSUE WITH THE REZONE. THEY WERE A LITTLE CONFUSED BY THE FACT THAT THEY WERE ZONED RESIDENTIAL, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT WAS A FINE CONVERSATION. OKAY, I DISAGREE, I TALKED WITH THE OWNER. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THEM. HIS NAME'S JOSE HERRERA. HE HE DOESN'T SPEAK GREAT ENGLISH. HE DOES NOT WANT HIS PROPERTY REZONED. SO THAT IS SEPARATE. IF HE WANTS TO HAVE IT REZONED, HE'S MORE THAN WELCOME TO COME UP AND AND HAVE IT REZONE. BUT YOU CAN'T FORCE HIM AGENDA. SO WE'RE HAPPY TO HEAR IT FOR FOR BOTH. WELL, LET ME JUST EXPLAIN THE HISTORY. MAYBE THAT WOULD HELP. SO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY BACK IN 2021, I BELIEVE IT WAS. IT'S BEEN A IT'S IN IN MY CASE, IT'S BEEN A SIGN COMPANY FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS. SO GUYS RETIRING, I BOUGHT IT FROM THEM, DID A LEASE BACK TO HIM. HE'S BEEN OPERATING IT FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS. WE'VE DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND SELL THE BUILDING. AT THE TIME OF THE SALE, WE WERE INFORMED THAT IT SHOULD BE REZONED TO WHAT THE CURRENT ZONING IS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS DURING THE LAND SWAP, WE'RE NOT WE CAN'T BE FORCED INTO REZONING. IT'S ACQUIRED UNDER EXISTING USE AND GRANDFATHERED IN. SO THAT'S WHY HE DOES NOT WANT HIS REZONED. I DO BECAUSE WE'RE SELLING THE SELLING THE PROPERTY. OKAY. SO SO IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO HIM TO THIS BOARD TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES FOR HIM WITHOUT HIM BEING REPRESENTED. OKAY, SO YOU'RE FINE WITH YOUR PROPERTY BEING REZONED. YOU'RE SPEAKING PURELY FOR YOUR NEIGHBOR NOW ON THE REZONING. WELL, ON THE AGENDA 379 SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THAT IN THAT REQUEST. AND SO IF ON THE AGENDA THERE TOGETHER, MY QUESTION FOR YOU WOULD BE WOULD YOU RATHER WAIT AND CONTINUE THIS HEARING SO THAT WE CAN TALK TO THE NEIGHBOR? OR WOULD YOU PREFER FOR YOUR MOTION TO GO FORWARD? I DON'T THINK WE CAN SPLIT THE. I'D PREFER MINE TO, BUT I'M NOT I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR HIM. I KNOW HE DOES NOT WANT HIS REZONE. OR ARE YOU WILLING TO WAIT ON YOURS BEING REZONED IN ORDER FOR US TO SPEAK TO THE NEIGHBOR, I DON'T. YOU CAN SPEAK TO HIM. HE'S ALREADY BEEN SPOKEN TO. I THINK HE. HE WAS CALLED BY THIS LADY AND HE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE WAS ASKING HIM TO DO. WITH THAT REZONING COMES SOME STIPULATIONS AS IT RELATES TO, YOU KNOW, HIS PROPERTY AND HE'S NOT WILLING TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, MAKE THOSE CHANGES. SO I'M JUST
[00:55:03]
TELLING YOU WHAT, YOU KNOW, I SPOKE TO HIM DIRECTLY. HE CALLED ME, SAID, HEY, WHAT'S GOING ON? WHY ARE THEY TRYING TO REZONE MY PROPERTY? AND, AND AS I EXPLAINED TO HIM, WE'RE REZONING OURS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO REZONE YOURS IF YOU DON'T WANT TO, WHICH HE STATED HE DOES NOT. AND I CALLED AND SPOKE TO NATHAN. I SPOKE TO MARK. IS IT? YES. I THINK I SPOKE TO YOU DIRECTLY. I EMAILED YOU DIRECTLY. I HAVE SEVERAL EMAILS STATING, HEY, THIS IS JUST FOR THIS PROPERTY. AND TONIGHT I COME AND IT'S NOT. SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT.AND I HAVE THE EMAILS, YOU KNOW, I DO VERY CLEARLY STATING WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR. I DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THAT NEIGHBORS WAS NOTICED. SO THEY WERE IN ENGLISH AND IN SPANISH. SO THEY ARE AWARE THAT THAT IS PART OF THIS. NO, HE'S NOT AWARE OF IT. HE THOUGHT THE SIGN ACTUALLY BLEW OVER ONTO HIS PROPERTY AND BROUGHT IT BACK OVER TO OUR BUILDING. SO HE'S NOT AWARE OF IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S I DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT TO DO THAT. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WANT TO PROCEED. THAT'S UP TO YOU. I'D LIKE TO SELL OUR PROPERTY, OBVIOUSLY, BUT I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO HAVE A, YOU KNOW, UPSET NEIGHBOR WITH ME BEING I LIVE RIGHT NEXT DOOR AND I'VE ALREADY SPOKEN TO HIM ABOUT IT. SO THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR ON THIS ITEM? ANYONE OPPOSED WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. CITY STAFF, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD? I DO, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT THE APPLICANT. THE CITY OF WACO IS A CO APPLICANT, AND BY LAW, THE CITY OF WACO CAN APPLY FOR. WE CAN REZONE PROPERTY PROVIDED WE GO THROUGH THE CORRECT NOTICING REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WE DID. STAFF WILL CHANGE RECOMMENDATION. IF IT IS JUST THE ONE LOT, WE WILL NOT SUPPORT A ZONE CHANGE FOR ONE LOT. COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY THAT RESIDENTIAL ZONING. AND THEN YOU SPOKE DIRECTLY WITH THIS NEIGHBOR. I DID ALONG WITH MR. PEREZ, IN CASE HE NEEDED SOME TRANSLATING SERVICES, WHICH HE DID NOT. HE SPOKE VERY WELL. ENGLISH ON THE PHONE WITH ME. OKAY. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE ONE. THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT IF THE PLOT OF LAND THAT THE CITY IS A CO APPLICANT FOR, IF THAT ZONING CHANGES THAT THE CURRENT OWNER WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SOME IMPROVEMENTS. I UNDERSTAND, BUT JUST I THINK FOR THEIR BENEFIT, I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO KIND OF EXPLAIN THAT THE OWNER WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO THEIR PROPERTY. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. I MEAN, THE USES WOULD ACTUALLY BE MORE PERMITTED THAN WHAT THEY'RE ZONED CURRENTLY. IF THERE'S ANY STRUCTURAL NON-CONFORMITIES, THEN IT WOULD JUST BE TREATED AS A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AS IT WOULD BE NOW. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION. YOU SAID NOTICE WAS SENT TO THIS LANDOWNER IN QUESTION. YES, SIR. IF YOU SEE THE BOUNDARY THERE, EVERYBODY THAT WAS WITHIN THAT DASHED AREA IS THE ONES THAT ARE MAILED IT TO HIM, JUST LIKE YOU MAIL IT TO EVERYBODY ELSE. RIGHT. IT WAS IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH. YES, SIR. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? OKAY, THEN WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN WE WILL HEAR A MOTION OR DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION. IN MY MIND, I'LL JUST I'LL JUST SPEAK FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES.
OR DO I NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO DISCUSS OR CAN WE DISCUSS WITHOUT THE MOTION? OFFICIALLY, I THINK YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE. OR CAN I PUT A MOTION FORTH AS THE CHAIR FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? YES. OKAY. THEN. MY MOTION ON THE TABLE IS TO APPROVE THE THE LAND USE ZONING CHANGE DISCUSSION PART OF THAT OR. SORRY, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES NOW I, I HAVE NO ISSUE REOPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUING THIS. IF THAT'S THE APPLICANT'S PREFERENCE OR MOVING FORWARD WITH THE APPROVAL, I DO NOT CARE WHICH BASED ON STAFF'S PRESENTATION, I FEEL LIKE THE PROPER NOTICE WAS SENT. DISCUSSIONS WERE HAD. SO AGAIN, I HAVE NO PROBLEM
[01:00:04]
WITH MY MOTION TO APPROVE, BUT ALSO AND MORE THAN FINE CONTINUING, IF THAT'S THE APPLICANT'S PREFERENCE, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NEIGHBOR IS IS GOTTEN THE PROPER NOTICE. AND SO I KNOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT CAN WE HAVE THE APPLICANT COME UP TO AT LEAST ADDRESS THAT, THAT POINT? YEAH. AND I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT. TRUST ME, I WANT TO SELL THE PROPERTY, OBVIOUSLY. SO THE CONCERN IS, AND SHE MAY HAVE STATED IT, AND I'D LIKE IT ON THE RECORD THAT THOSE TWO PROPERTIES THEN WOULD NOT NEED TO BE UPGRADED TO THE CURRENT WACO REQUIREMENTS AS IT RELATES TO SEWER, SEPTIC OR ANY OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ZONING CHANGE. THAT WAS, I THINK, PART OF THE CONCERN. OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A TAX ISSUE AS WELL THAT FALLS INTO PLAY ONCE THOSE ARE REZONED INTO THOSE THOSE CATEGORIES. BUT THOSE THOSE WERE, YOU KNOW, WE WERE WE THERE WAS A LAND SWAP DONE THAT WE WEREN'T EVEN MADE AWARE OF. AND SO IT'S REALLY KIND OF A THORN RIGHT NOW. I UNDERSTAND AS IT RELATES TO MY, MY QUESTION IS JUST YES OR NO. WOULD YOU RATHER US MOVE FORWARD ON THE APPROVAL OR WAIT IF WE HAVE THOSE GUARANTEES THAT I JUST STATED AND CITY STAFF HAS SPOKEN TO IT. BUT GO AHEAD, MR. CHAIR. WE CAN DEFINITELY SEND OUT A STANDARD LETTER THAT EXPLAINS NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES THAT OUTLINES THAT FROM OUR ORDINANCE. THANK YOU.OKAY, THEN WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THEN PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ELLIS. YES. ENGLAND. YES. GIVENS. YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES.
SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. MOTION CARRIES. EXCELLENT. MR. VICE CHAIR. WELL DONE, SIR. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS JUST. LET'S SEE. SUB DASH 26-02-FP. WHAT IS THE REPORT RECOMMENDATION FROM CITY STAFF. MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THE NEXT ITEM IS TO CONSIDER THE FINAL PLAT OF THE WACO DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT EDITION PHASE ONE. THIS WENT BEFORE YOU A FEW MONTHS AGO FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. THE FINAL PLAT OF THESE LOTS ONE THROUGH 11 BLOCK ONE LOTS ONE THROUGH FOUR, BLOCK TWO AND LOTS ONE AND TWO. BLOCK THREE. WACO DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT EDITION HAS A TOTAL ACREAGE OF APPROXIMATELY 34.42 ACRES. 17 LOTS ARE PROPOSED. THIS IS TIED TO THE FORM BASED CODE ZONING THAT WE ARE WORKING THROUGH RIGHT NOW. THE PROJECT FOR PHASE ONE ANYWAYS IS LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR AND IN THE DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AGAIN, THIS IS THE FIRST PHASE TO BE PLATTED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND IT IS GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN WASHINGTON AVENUE AND WEST WACO DRIVE AND THEN NORTH FOURTH AND UNIVERSITY PARKS. THIS IS.
THANK YOU, ENRIQUE, FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. THE PLAT IS A VERY COMPLICATED MULTI-PAGE PLAT. SO THIS IS ACTUALLY A GOOD RENDITION OF WHAT WE HAVE. SO A LOT EASIER TO READ THAN THE PLAT ITSELF. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE LOTS WITHIN HERE. AND AGAIN IT IS GOING TO BE TIED TO THE FORM BASED CODE. SO IT'S ONE OF THOSE CART AND HORSE SITUATIONS.
WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THE ZONING DISTRICT ESTABLISHED. THAT'S GOING TO BE GOVERNING THIS SUBDIVISION. SO SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE WITHIN THE LETTER THAT I SENT ARE TIED TO THAT. SO THE WAY PLATS WORK, I'M GOING TO MOVE MOVE FORWARD A LITTLE BIT. HERE'S SOME OF THE PLATS HERE. THE WAY PLATS WORK IS ONCE THE PLAT IS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS, THEY CAN CONTINUE WORKING ON IT. THEY SUBMIT LIKE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. THE PLAT ITSELF DOES NOT GET RECORDED UNTIL ALL THOSE IMPROVEMENTS ARE DONE. SO THERE IS STILL TIME IN HERE TO GET THAT FORM BASED CODE GOING. ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IS TO PROVIDE REFERENCE ON THE PLAT ITSELF, TO TIE IT BACK TO THAT FORM BASED CODE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE PLAT COULD NOT BE APPROVED BECAUSE THERE'S NO ZONING DISTRICT THAT IT WOULD WORK WITHIN. SO THEY'RE KIND OF HAVE TO GO THROUGH SIMULTANEOUSLY. BUT THIS REVIEW WILL GET THEM MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO, TO BUILD THE DEVELOPMENT. SO AT THIS TIME, PLANNING SERVICES DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS BASED ON THE COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE APRIL 22ND, 2026 REVIEW LETTER. THEY ALREADY HAVE ADDRESSED SEVERAL
[01:05:04]
OF THEM ALREADY. WITH ME, THE BIGGEST ONE IS JUST MAKING SURE THE ZONING IS GOING TO BE IN PLACE BEFORE THIS PLAT GETS RECORDED. LAURA. YES, SIR. OKAY. LET'S SEE. I'LL GO BACK TO THAT.DOES ANYONE LIKE TO HEAR THAT? WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? IS ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? ANY PLAN? MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS.
COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION? MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. SECOND. MR. THERE'S A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MR. ELLIS AND SECONDED BY MR. SMITH. I THINK THAT WAS. YES, YES. ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CALL THE COMMISSION. ELLIS. YES. EMBRY. YES. ENGLAND. YES. GIBBONS. YES.
LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. MOTION CARRIES. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. CITY STAFF. WHAT IS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION? ALL RIGHT. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, CITY OF WACO. WE ARE PROPOSING SOME CHANGES TO OUR R1C ALTERNATIVE TO ALLOW ALTERNATIVE SMALLER LOTS WITHIN THE R1C ZONING DISTRICT. THE REQUEST IS AMENDING SECTION 28-349 LOT AREA TO PROVIDE FOR AN ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM LOT AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 4000FT■!S PER DWELLING UNIT AND A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 40FT, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. I'M GOING TO GO OVER THESE IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL IN A MINUTE. SO THIS WOULD BE A CITY WIDE REQUEST ALTERING OUR R1C ZONING. SORRY ENRIQUE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HELP ME OUT HERE. I ALREADY I DID NOT WRITE THE NUMBER DOWN. WE ONLY HAVE. HOW MANY LOTS 5555 LOTS IN ALL OF THE CITY OF WACO THAT ARE CURRENTLY ZONED R1C. SO WE DECIDED THAT THIS IS A GOOD ZONING DISTRICT TO INTRODUCE THE IDEA OF HAVING SOME SMALLER LOTS ABILITY IN.
DURING THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION. FOR CITIES THAT ARE LARGER THAN 200 150,000, THANK YOU. 150,000 PEOPLE OR. AND, AND THE COUNTY HAS TO BE OVER 300,000 OR THEY'RE REQUIRING CITIES TO ADOPT SMALLER LOT SIZES. WE'RE NOT THERE YET. WE'RE CLOSE TO THE CITY POPULATION, BUT WE HAVE TO MEET THE COUNTY POPULATION TOO. SO WE'RE WE'VE BEEN RECEIVING A LOT OF INTEREST IN HAVING THE ABILITY TO HAVE SMALLER LOTS. SO WE THOUGHT, WELL, LET'S DO SOME BABY STEPS AND START WITH MAYBE INTRODUCING NOT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO A 300 ZERO SQUARE FOOT LOT LIKE THE STATE WANTS US TO DO, BUT SOME, SOME SOMETHING SMALLER, BUT WITH SOME CONDITIONS THAT GO ALONG WITH IT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S A GOOD FIT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS. SO WE WENT WITH THE R1C BECAUSE WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ZONED THAT OTHER THAN THESE 50 LOTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN, IN THE CITY. AND THOSE ARE ALL DEVELOPED ALREADY.
SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY SITUATIONS WHERE IT COULD BE IMPACTFUL TO ANYBODY IN AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. THIS WILL BE GEARED FOR OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT TO UTILIZE.
THAT'S REALLY HARD TO READ. SO I'M GOING TO START ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SLIDE. SO THE FIRST THING THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS CHANGING THE LANGUAGE, WHICH USED TO SAY FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, HAVING AN AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 7000FT■!S, CHANGE THAT DOWN TO 4000FT■!S WITH THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF INSTEAD, 60. CHANGING THAT DOWN TO 40 AS A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH COULD ALWAYS GO LARGER. HOWEVER, LOTS WITH THE WIDTH OF LESS THAN 50FT SHALL BE SERVED EXCLUSIVELY BY AN IMPROVED ALLEY FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS AND NO DRIVEWAY OR OTHER VEHICULAR ACCESS TO A PUBLIC STREET SHALL BE PERMITTED. SO BASICALLY REAR LOADED LOTS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU REMEMBER, BUT WE HAD THE. WAS A HILL, HILLTOP, HILLTOP, HILLTOP, HILLTOP SUBDIVISION. WHEN THAT WENT TO COUNCIL. COUNCIL HAD SOME CONCERNS OVER HAVING THE SMALLER LOTS WITHIN THERE AND WHERE PEOPLE GOING TO PARK, WHERE VISITORS GOING TO PARK.
ONE OF THE SOLUTIONS THAT CAME UP DURING THAT TIME WAS, WELL, WE'RE OKAY WITH THE SMALLER LOTS, BUT WE'D RATHER HAVE THE PARKING IN THE BACK. THAT WAY. IT'S FREEING UP THE STREETS.
[01:10:01]
IT'S NOT SO CLUTTERED AND CONDENSED IN THERE WITH WITH DRIVEWAYS EVERY SO MANY FEET ALONG THE STREET. SO, SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE COMING UP WITH THE ALLEY LOADED. AND THEN FOR SETBACKS, WE'RE PROPOSING FOR SO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS THAT HAVE THAT LOT WIDTH OF LESS THAN 50FT, HAVING A MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 15FT AS OPPOSED TO THE 25FT, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY VEHICLES PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT MINIMUM REAR SETBACK OF 25FT FOR THAT VEHICLE, AND THEN MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACKS OF FIVE FEET ON EACH SIDE. SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO THROW IT OUT THERE JUST TO START HAVING SOME VARIATION SO THAT DEVELOPERS DON'T HAVE TO COME FORWARD WITH A EVERY TIME THEY WANT TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THEIR START, PROVIDING THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE, THEY CAN GO THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS FOR PORTIONS OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND GO THROUGH THE R1C. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? SO OUTSIDE OF THESE CHANGES, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN R1C AND R1B? SO R1B REQUIRES 7000FT■!S. 6000 6000 6000FT■!S MINIMUM 6050 FOOT WIDE LOT. I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE THE NUMBERS DON'T ADD UP TO ME, BUT THEY'RE ALL MINIMUM. JUST BIGGER HOMES, BIGGER LOTS, BIGGER SETBACKS. IT'S NO DIFFERENT USES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S PURELY SIZE. YES. SO THE IDEA WOULD BE THAT IF A DEVELOPER WANTS TO TRY THIS, THEY WOULD ZONE EVERYTHING R ONE, C IF THEY WANTED TO BUILD BIGGER LOTS ELSEWHERE IN DEVELOPMENT, THEY COULD, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO USE THESE SMALL LOTS OR EVEN A PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT.ADRIAN IS HERE. YOU PROBABLY RECOGNIZE HER FROM THE BLUEBONNET SUBDIVISION OUT THERE. AND THEN THAT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION IS LIKE, WE WANT TO HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE SOME SMALLER, LOTS MORE AFFORDABLE HOMES WITHIN THESE SUBDIVISIONS. SO YEAH, SO USE WISE, NO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE WOULD SEE IN R1B PURELY JUST THE ABILITY TO DO SMALLER LOTS.
YES. IT IS STILL AN R-1 ZONING DISTRICT. SO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. GREAT. YOU SAID SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS COMING FROM THE STATE LEVEL WHERE YOU'RE JUST KIND OF BEING PROACTIVE. YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF IT. BUT IT'S THIS IS WHAT'S GOING ON ELSEWHERE. AND SO IS SIMILAR SIZE, LARGER SIZES. SO THEY PUT AND I CAN'T REMEMBER THIS, THE SENATE BILL NUMBER, I APOLOGIZE ON IT. I FORGIVE YOU ON THE. 15 I WANT TO SAY 8415 A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. THEY'RE REQUIRING CITIES TO ADOPT SMALLER LOT SIZES STRAIGHT OUT REQUIRE IT CAN'T CAN'T REGULATE TO MAKE THEM LARGER. SO BUT WE DON'T MEET THAT THRESHOLD YET. SO WE JUST WANTED TO KIND OF BABY STEPS INTO IT AND GIVE IT AS AN OPPORTUNITY. THE REASON WE PICKED AGAIN, THE R1C IS JUST SO THAT IT'S JUST, IT STARTS OUT TO WHERE THERE ARE SOME CHECKS, YOU KNOW, THAT HAVE TO GO. SOME PROPERTIES HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW THIS WITHIN THEIR DEVELOPMENTS, RATHER THAN JUST STRAIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD, ALLOWING 40 FOOT LOTS IN R1B ZONING DISTRICT EVERYWHERE. YOU KNOW, JUST A LITTLE MORE THOUGHTFUL IN THIS WAY DOING IT. SO THE PURPOSE FOR THAT AFFORDABILITY. AND THE STATE SAYING THAT THEY ACTUALLY WANT DOWN TO 3000FT■!S WHERE THEIR CURRENT GUIDANCE IS. SO IF WE EVER DO GET BIG ENOUGH THAT THE COUNTY LEVEL, THEN WE'LL HAVE TO AMEND THIS TO GO DOWN TO 3000. WE'LL HAVE TO DO A LOT OF AMENDMENTS, NOT JUST THIS ONE. YES. AND NOT JUST AFFORDABILITY, BUT I THINK A LOT OF TRENDS ANYMORE ARE JUST PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO TAKE CARE OF A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO TAKE CARE OF A BIG YARD. IT'S LESS HOUSE TO TAKE CARE OF, LESS YARD TO TAKE CARE OF. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR THIS ITEM? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. ADRIAN DONAHUE, G, 109 WEST SECOND STREET, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS. I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF IT. I KNOW WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT, BUT YES, SENATE BILL 15 IS TRYING TO WELL, IT WAS PASSED ALLOWING MUCH SMALLER LOTS. AND IT IS FOR COUNTIES WITH 300,000 POPULATION OF 300,000 CITIES, 150. I KNOW WACO IS CLOSE TO, I THINK, YOU KNOW, 145,000 AND THE COUNTY AT LIKE 275,000. SO GETTING CLOSE. SO I THINK IT IS GREAT THAT THEY'RE THINKING FORWARD THINKING AND TRYING TO
[01:15:03]
PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE TO HAVE CONTROL OF IT. AND, YOU KNOW, STARTING TO MAKE SOME PLANS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS NOW IT'S HELPFUL. BUT, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THIS, THE WAY THAT I SEE IT HELPFUL IN APPLYING IT IS IN A SUBDIVISION. I DON'T THINK DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS REALLY WANT TO GO AHEAD AND BUILD A LOT OF ALLEY, YOU KNOW, A WHOLE SUBDIVISION OF ALLEY LOADED 40S.I THINK IT IS GREAT TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE, YOU KNOW, R1B AND R1C MIXED BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES CITIES LIKE TO SEE SOME OF THOSE LARGER COLLECTOR ROADS IN BIGGER SUBDIVISIONS AND TO HAVE THOSE NON LOADED COLLECTOR ROADS WHERE YOU'RE NOT HAVING DRIVEWAYS COME OFF THEM BECAUSE IT'S THE MAIN TRAFFIC IN THE SUBDIVISION AND IT GETS A LITTLE SCARY BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALL YOUR TRAFFIC AND ALL YOUR LOCAL ROADS COMING ONTO THAT ROAD, AND THEN YOU HAVE EVERYBODY BACKING OUT OF THEIR DRIVEWAY. SO I DO SEE THIS AS A NICE WAY TO ALLOW FOR MAYBE SOME R1C ZONING ALONG THAT COLLECTOR ROAD WHERE YOU COULD DO SOME ALLEY FED 40 FOOT LOTS. THAT WAY YOU HAVE NO DRIVEWAYS BACKING OFF THERE. SO IT ALLOWS FOR SOME TRAFFIC SAFETY IN THAT AREA. AND THEN MAYBE YOU HAVE YOUR, YOU KNOW, R1B IN THE BACK AND LARGER LOTS IN THE BACK THERE. AND THEN ALSO IT ALLOWS FOR A NICE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AREA. SO YOU CAN HAVE UNINTERRUPTED SIDEWALKS ALONG THAT LARGE COLLECTOR ROAD IN THE SUBDIVISION. SO I SEE THIS KIND OF MAKING A REALLY NICE SUBDIVISION TO, TO HAVE THAT MIXED ZONING. IT ALLOWS FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY, PEDESTRIAN, YOU KNOW, FRIENDLY SUBDIVISIONS TO HAVE THAT MIX. AND THEN ALSO FOR AFFORDABILITY REASONS, IT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO HAVE MULTIPLE OPTIONS. THERE COULD BE 60 FOOT LOTS, 50 FOOT LOTS, AND THEN THIS 40 FOOT LOT PRODUCT. SO PEOPLE HAVE OPTIONS. THEY COULD MULTIPLE PEOPLE COULD AFFORD THE SAME SUBDIVISION BECAUSE THERE'S DIFFERENT PRICE POINTS IN THERE. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I SEE THIS APPLICATION COMING INTO PLAY AND BEING REALLY HELPFUL. SO I'M HERE FOR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
ANDREW. ANYONE ELSE HERE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? ANYONE PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? DO ANY OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? GOOD JOB STAFF BEING PROACTIVE. ANY OTHER NICE COMMENTS? I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. WELL, IS THAT A LEGAL SECOND, A NICETY? OKAY. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION MOVE WE APPROVE. SECOND, IT'S BEEN A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MR. SMITH SMITH. IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MISS GIVENS. ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ELLIS. YES. YES. YES. GIBBONS. YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME.
[REPORTS]
YES. SMITH. YES. CITY STAFF. ARE THERE ANY COMMISSION? DID WE HAVE ONE MORE THING OR STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS OR ANYTHING? I DID INCLUDE THE SUBCOMMITTEE FORM BASED CODE SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES IN THERE JUST FOR YOUR PERUSAL. BUT THAT WAS IT. THERE'S NO ACTION NEEDED ON THOSE. I LIKE THAT, NO ACTION NEEDED. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN OR DO I JUST ADJOURN IT? I DON'T REMEMBER KICK US OFF. IT'S ADJOURNED.* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.