STARTING THIS THING? MARK YOU GOOD? GOOD EVENING. I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME YOU TO THE JULY
[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:09]
14TH, 2026 MEETING OF THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION. BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WILL OUTLINE THE PROCEDURE FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING. AS EACH AGENDA ITEM IS CALLED, THE APPLICANT, THEIR REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PEOPLE IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST WILL BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK. THEN THE PEOPLE OPPOSED TO 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 MUST COME TO THE MICROPHONE AT THE FRONT OF THE ROOM. AT THE PODIUM. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. IF YOU DID NOT COMPLETE A SPEAKER CARD, STAFF WILL PROVIDE ONE TO YOU. SO MAY. WE MAY ENSURE AN ACCURATE MEETING RECORD. ALL STATEMENTS SHOULD BE RELEVANT TO THE AGENDA ITEM AND LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. IF THERE ARE SEVERAL PEOPLE IN FAVOR OF 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 MUST MAINTAIN ORDER IN THE MEETING SO THAT ALL PEOPLE MAY BE HEARD IN CITY BUSINESS MAY BE CONDUCTED. IF SO, DIRECTED BY ME, THE SERGEANT AT ARMS SHALL REMOVE FROM THIS MEETING ANYONE WHO 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 PUBLIC HEARING ON EACH ITEM, THE COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER ACTION ON THE ITEM. THE ACTIONS TAKEN TONIGHT ON ALL ITEMS WILL BE PRESENTED IN THE FORM OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ALSO CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE AGENDA ITEMS ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 4TH, 2026 IN THE BOESKY THEATER OF THE WACO CONVENTION CENTER AT 100 WASHINGTON AVENUE. THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OUR JUNE 23RD. DO WE HAVE A MEETING IN JUNE? WE DID SPECIAL CALL MEETING. OH, OKAY. THAT'S RIGHT.JUNE 23RD, 2026 SPECIAL CALL BUSINESS SESSION MEETING. ARE THERE ANY CHANGES? ADDITIONS.
SEEING NONE, THEY STAND APPROVED AS WRITTEN. THE NEXT ITEM IS Z-26-19. WHAT IS THE
[PUBLIC HEARINGS]
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION? MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FILED BY GEORGE LUCAS OF SELCO SURVEYING ON PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 1204 GULSON ROAD FOR THE REZONING OF 0.643 ACRES FROM R1B TO OH THREE PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE CARVER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE. THIS IS A MORE OF A ZOOMED OUT MAP SHOWING THAT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF GULSON ROAD AND PRETTY MUCH IN BETWEEN WACO DRIVE AND HERRING AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS ALSO NEAR THE SOON TO BE COMPLETED CENTRAL TEXAS FOOD BANK AND IS ALSO IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE MKT HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL, WHICH PROVIDES ACCESS TO COMMUNITY SERVICES AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL AMENITIES. HERE'S JUST A ZOOM IN OF THAT. YOU CAN SEE ITS PROXIMITY TO THE CITY OF BELLE MEADE. IMAGE OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN AT THE CORNER ACROSS GHOLSON. YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE BACKGROUND, A LITTLE BIT THERE. THERE IS A REMAINING FOUNDATION. OTHER THAN THAT, IT IS OTHERWISE VACANT. THIS IS LOOKING DOWN GHOLSON TOWARD CITY OF BELLE MEADE. PROPERTY WOULD BE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN. AND THEN THIS IS LOOKING THE OTHER DIRECTION ALONG GHOLSON TOWARD CLIFTON STREET. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS URBAN RESIDENTIAL ON THE WACO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. LAND USE MAP. URBAN RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION IS INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE A VARIETY OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSING TYPES.LOWER END DENSITY, SUCH AS SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEXES, MAXIMUM DENSITY OF UP TO TEN DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. IT ALSO ALLOWS SUPPORTING USES SUCH AS CHURCHES, SCHOOLS, PLAYGROUNDS, CIVIC BUILDINGS, AND LIMITED OFFICE AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES. WITHIN THIS DESIGNATION, THE PROPOSED ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE URBAN RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION, WHICH DOES SUPPORT THE R1BR1CR2 AND UNDER SPECIFIC CRITERIA WHICH THIS PROPERTY MEETS, ALSO ALLOWS THE O THREE ZONING DISTRICT. YOU CAN SEE THAT SURROUNDING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, PRIMARILY URBAN RESIDENTIAL. GOING BACK TO THE ZOOMED OUT MAP, YOU CAN SEE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MKT TRAIL, THERE'S ALSO MIXED USE FLEX, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
[00:05:01]
OFFICE FLEX, AS WELL AS OFFICE INDUSTRIAL FLEX. FOR THE ZONING. THE PREDOMINANT ZONING SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY IS R1B, MOVING TOWARD THE INTERSECTION IN THIS DIRECTION, UP TOWARDS THE HERRING AND GHOLSON ROAD, AS WELL AS WEST OF THE MKT HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL. YOU CAN SEE MORE OF A TRANSITION TO A MIX OF R THREE, B, R, THREE C AND M TWO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AS WELL AS SOME C TWO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING. SO VERY BROAD MIX OF ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS WITHIN THIS AREA. AGAIN, THERE'S JUST A ZOOMED IN OF THAT MAP. AND THEN IF THE ZONING IS APPROVED, THIS IS REPRESENTS THE O3 ZONING AS IT WOULD LOOK. SO FROM A ZONING COMPARISON, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE O THREE THAT IS PROPOSED DOES PROVIDE FOR. MORE USES, INCLUDING TOWNHOUSE DWELLINGS, GENERAL RETAIL SALES. HOWEVER, THEY ARE LIMITED, SUCH AS HOURS OF OPERATION AS WELL AS RESTAURANTS WITH LIMITED HOURS. ONE THING TO NOTE R1B ALLOWS TWO AND A HALF STORIES OR 35FT, AND THEN THE O3 ALLOWS TWO STORIES OR 35FT. 47 NOTICES WERE MAILED, ZERO WERE RETURNED FOR THIS ITEM. PLANNING SERVICES DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM R1B TO O3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS.NUMBER ONE THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING IS IN KEEPING WITH THE LAND USE COMPONENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE PUBLIC, INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE FOR THE USES ALLOWED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. THREE THE PROPERTY MEETS ALL AREA AND WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT, AND FOUR THERE IS O THREE IN THE VICINITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 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 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 QUESTIONS? JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. THE ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT. IS THAT STILL R1B? I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONTAINERS ACROSS THE STREET. THAT LOOK LIKE TRASH. OH, RIGHT HERE. CLEARING THOSE TREES OUT. OH THAT WAS OVER THERE. OH THERE'S THE STREET DUMPSTER. OH I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT USE IS. I'LL GO BACK TO THE ZONING MAP. IT COULD BE A GRANDFATHERED R1 B USE LIKELY IS EVERYTHING AROUND IT IS R1 B, BUT THERE'S PROBABLY A LOT OF GRANDFATHERED NON-CONFORMING USES IN THE AREA. ACTIONSCRIPT. BUT WE'RE DOWN QUITE A BIT. THERE. YOU GOOD? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION MOVE? WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS. SECOND MOTION TO APPROVE BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS BY MR. SMITH. IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. ELLIS. ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CALL THE COMMISSION. ELLIS. YES. ENGLAND.
YES. LOZANO. YES. SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. EMBRY. YES. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS Z-26-21. STAFF. WHAT IS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY STAFF? MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FILED BY TYLER APPLE OF MAMD ENGINEERING LLC ON A 18.687 ACRE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ADDRESSED AS 2300 SOUTH NEW ROAD FOR A LAND USE CHANGE MAP CHANGE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE PLEX TO MIXED USE FLEX, AND THEN REZONING FROM R3C TO R3D. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE KENDRICK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO, SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SHOWN HERE IN THE SOLID YELLOW LINE, IS PART OF A LARGER 52.15 ACRE PARENT TRACT
[00:10:01]
THAT WAS REDESIGNATED AND REZONED IN 2020. FOR THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY IS LOCATED GENERALLY BETWEEN SOUTH NEW ROAD AND BAGBY AVENUE AND KENDRICK LANE, ALSO NEAR PROXIMITY TO INTERSTATE 35, WHICH SERVES AS A MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALONG WITH NEW ROAD AND BAGBY AS OUR SPECIAL CALL MEETING IN JUNE. WE ALSO APPROVED A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE EXTENSION OF HOLLY VISTA STREET THAT COMES ALONG NEXT TO THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY BEING REQUESTED TO BE REZONED, WHICH WILL SERVE AS A COLLECTOR AS WELL. SO IN GENERAL, COMMERCIAL AND HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES ARE CONCENTRATED MORE ALONG SOUTH NEW ROAD AND INTERSTATE 35, WHILE ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY OR CONCENTRATED MORE NORTH AND WEST OF BAGBY AND KENDRICK AVENUES. THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN ACTUALLY FROM THE NEARBY QUICK TRIP PARKING LOT. LOOKING TOWARDS THE PROPERTY. TO THE LEFT OF THE SCREEN IS NEW ROAD PROPERTY. BEING THAT IT'S A PARCEL, PART OF THE ORIGINAL PARENT TRACK ACTUALLY SITS BACK IN THIS DIRECTION AWAY FROM THE FENCE, BUT IT IS LOCATED IN HERE, UNDEVELOPED CURRENTLY.THE NEXT PHOTO DOES SHOW LOOKING DOWN SOUTH NEW ROAD. THE PROPERTY AGAIN IT'S IT'S BACK THERE QUITE A WAYS FROM SEPARATED FROM NEW ROAD AT THIS LOCATION. AND THEN THIS IS SHOWING THIS IS THE INTERSECTION OF HOLLY VISTA AND BAGBY. AND THIS IS THE POINT WHERE HOLLY VISTA WILL BE EXTENDED TO CONNECT DOWN TO SOUTH NEW ROAD WITH THE COLLECTOR. AND YOU CAN SEE SOME CHURCH USES AND SUCH WITHIN THIS AREA. AND THEN THIS IS LOOKING DOWN BAGBY AND THAT IS KENDRICK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN THE BACK. SO THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE FLEX, WHICH DOES SUPPORT THE ZONING DISTRICTS OF 0103R2R3AR3B AND R3C, WHICH IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THIS PORTION HIGHLIGHTED HERE, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 18.687 ACRES TO MIXED USE FLEX. CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGNATION ALONG SOUTH NEW ROAD, WHICH WAS CHANGED IN 2020 FOR THE CHANGE TO MIXED USE. FLEX ACCOMMODATES THE PROPOSED R3D MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT SURROUNDING LAND USE. SEE. THE MAJORITY IS MIXED USE.
FLEX SOME OTHER REMAINING PROPERTIES IS MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE FLEX, AND THEN SOME URBAN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WHICH ARE THESE LARGER RESIDENTIAL LOTS. WITH THE ZONING YOU CAN SEE THE MAJORITY OF THIS IS R3C, THE 2024 ZONE CHANGE REZONED.
ALL OF THIS YOU CAN SEE ALL THE WAY CONNECTING TO KENDRICK AND BAGBY AVENUE AND ALSO REZONE THE C-2 PORTION IN THE FRONT. THE APPLICANTS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED THEIR APPLICATION A FEW MONTHS AGO, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM ON THIS. THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS TO REZONE SOME OF THE PROPERTY ALONG KENDRICK TO ADD MORE ACREAGE TO THE EXISTING R3C TO ACHIEVE THE DENSITY THAT THEY WERE NEEDING FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT. THROUGH DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER, WE. WE ENCOURAGE THEM TO LOOK AT REZONING TO AN R3D ON THIS SIDE OF THE HOLLY VISTA EXTENSION. THAT IN TURN WOULD THEN KEEP THE R3C AS A BUFFER, LEAVING THE R1B ALONG KENDRICK LANE. AND ALSO, THE HOLLY VISTA EXTENSION WOULD ALSO SERVE AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE HIGHER DENSITY R3D AND THE SURROUNDING R3C, SO IF APPROVED, THAT IS THE ZONING. SO DOING SOME COMPARISONS USES ARE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME. THE MAIN THING LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENCE IS DENSITY AND THEN BUILDING HEIGHT. SO IN THE MULTI THE R3C WHICH IS THE EXISTING. IT DOES ALLOW UP TO 25.03 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THE PROPOSED WOULD ALLOW UP TO 32.03 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. AND THEN IT DOES ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL HEIGHT EXISTING R THREE, C TWO AND A HALF STORIES OR 35FT AND R3D3 AND A HALF STORIES OR 45FT. SO THAT'S THAT GOES IN LINE WITH THE IMPORTANCE OF KEEPING IT MORE INTERNAL WITHIN THAT DEVELOPABLE AREA AND KEEPING THE R3C CLOSER TO THE THE MORE
[00:15:03]
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AS A BUFFER. PLANNING SERVICES DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LAND USE PLAN FOR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE FLEX TO MIXED USE FLEX BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. NUMBER ONE, THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE FOR ZONING DISTRICTS ALLOWED IN THE PROPOSED MIXED USE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND TWO. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO TWO MAJOR THOROUGHFARES, NEW ROAD AND INTERSTATE 35, AND THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF HOLLY VISTA STREET.SECOND PART OF THE APPLICATION IS THE ZONING. PLANNING SERVICES RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM R3C TO R3D BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. NUMBER ONE, THE PROPOSED ZONING IS IN KEEPING WITH THE LAND USE COMPONENT PLAN AS AMENDMENT AS AMENDED. NUMBER TWO, THE PROPERTY MEETS ALL THE AREA AND WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE R3 ZONING DISTRICT. NUMBER THREE, THE PROPOSED REZONING SUPPORTS THE GOALS OF THE WACO STRATEGIC HOUSING PLAN BY INCREASING THE DENSITY OF RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES, THUS ENHANCING OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. AND NUMBER FOUR, ALLOWING ADDITIONAL MULTIFAMILY DENSITY WITHIN THIS PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT HELPS ACCOMMODATE FUTURE HOUSING DEMAND WHILE REDUCING PRESSURE TO EXPAND HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INTO THE ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD ALONG KENDRICK LANE. EIGHT NOTICES WERE MAILED ON JUNE 30TH AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RETURNED. THANK YOU. WHAT IS THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. HI, MY NAME IS AUSTIN MARTIN. I'M WITH MARTIN ENDERMAN DEVELOPMENT. TYLER APPLE IS OUR CIVIL ENGINEER. SHE SUBMITTED THIS REQUEST ON BEHALF OF US. WE'RE OUT OF LUBBOCK, SO SHE COULDN'T MAKE IT. I CAME INSTEAD, BUT I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL HAVE, IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY. THANK YOU. ALL GOOD.
COOL. THANK YOU ALL. DOES ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? IS ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? DO ANY OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I DO, I THINK SO, I GUESS FOR LAURA, THIS WAS IN 2024 REZONED. IT WAS THERE WAS AN APPROVED LAND USE DESIGNATION AND REZONING. RIGHT.
DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS BEFORE? THE URBAN. HISTORICALLY THAT THAT WAS PART OF THE FUTURE ESTATES ABOUT LAW AND. AND STAFF IS COMFORTABLE WITH THIS BECAUSE IT STILL PROVIDES A BUFFER FROM THAT R1 B OVER ON KENDRICK. I GUESS I'M JUST A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT THIS MOVES THIS ZONING INTO THIS AREA WHERE THERE ISN'T ANY. AND THEN IS THIS I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE GOING TO COME BACK. WE'VE ALREADY DONE ONE LAND USE CHANGE IN DESIGNATION AND ZONING CHANGE ON THIS PROPERTY TO MAKE IT ALL R3. C, IF THEY WERE TO COME BACK AND THEN REQUEST, YOU KNOW, IN SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR, A CHANGE FOR THE EXISTING R3 C. I THINK THAT MY CONCERN IS THAT ON A PIECE OF PAPER, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE, BECAUSE THERE'S NOW THIS NEW ZONING, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NEXT TO IT. AND SO IS THAT SETTING A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT TO ALLOW FOR MORE OF THAT ZONING IN THIS AREA? TO ANSWER THAT, COMMISSIONER, THE MY UNDERSTANDING AND THE APPLICANT CAN MAYBE IF I'M OFF, LET LET US KNOW. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS A DIFFERENT OWNER THAN WHAT ORIGINALLY REZONED THE R3 C ORIGINALLY IN 2024. THE OTHER ITEM TOO, IS THAT THROUGH OUR DISCUSSIONS, WE MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE WEREN'T RECOMMENDING ENCROACHING TOWARDS THAT KENDRICK AVENUE WITH ANY HIGHER DENSITY, OR REZONING THE R1 B INTO ADDITIONAL R3 C ZONING TO INCREASE THE AREA. JUST BECAUSE
[00:20:06]
I DON'T RECALL THAT THERE WAS ANY OPPOSITION AT PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT CITY COUNCIL WHEN THAT LAST ZONE CHANGE WENT THROUGH IN 2024 HAD CONCERNS OVER THE R3 C ZONING. AND THEN SO WE PASSED THAT ON TO THE APPLICANT, AND WE WOULD NOT SUPPORT ANYTHING HIGHER WITHIN THAT AREA TO KEEP THAT BUFFER. SEPARATING THIS FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY AREA. AND EVEN THESE ESTABLISHED LARGER LOTS. SOME OF THESE ARE CHURCH USES OVER HERE, BUT THERE ARE HOUSES WITHIN THESE LARGER LOTS THAN THE KENDRICK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION. HAVE WE TALKED TO THE I MEAN, THE BEACON HILL BAPTIST CHURCH? I MEAN, IF WE'RE GOING UP AN EXTRA STOREY, 45FT, I MEAN, WERE THERE ANY CONCERNS FROM ANYONE IN THAT AREA? I'M NOT SURE HOW TALL TUSCANY RANCH IS, BUT JUST HAVE YOU HAD ANY FEEDBACK FROM ANYONE ELSE IN THAT VICINITY? THAT BLOCK RIGHT THERE, COMMISSIONER ELLIS, ARE THEY WITHIN? I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHERE THAT IS. ARE THEY? IT'S RIGHT THERE. OKAY. YEAH. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY FEEDBACK FROM ANYBODY THAT RECEIVED NOTICE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I WOULD JUST ADD THAT THAT LAST FINDING THAT WE PUT IN THERE ABOUT KEEPING THAT BUFFER WILL BE ON, ON RECORD.SO FOR FUTURE REQUESTS, WE CAN LOOK BACK AT THAT, THAT THAT CAN BE A REASON FOR NOT RECOMMENDING ANY FURTHER REZONINGS IN THE FUTURE. HIGHER DENSITY CLOSER TO KENDRICK IS NOT LOOKING GOOD, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WOULD BE DIFFICULT? OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION? I MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF BOTH THE LAND USE CHANGE AND ZONING CHANGE BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS.
SECOND. THERE'S BEEN A MOTION FOR BOTH THE LAND USE AND THE ZONING BY MR. SMITH AND HAS BEEN SECONDED BY MR. ENGLAND. ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ELLIS. YES. ENGLAND.
YES. LOZANO. YES. SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. EMBRY. YES. WE ARE WITHDRAWING. Z-26-23, I BELIEVE.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES. SO THE APPLICANT FOR Z 2623 SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO WITHDRAW WITHIN THE FIVE DAY PERIOD PRIOR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SO NO ACTION IS NECESSARY ON THAT ITEM. WE DID RE NOTICE THOSE THAT RECEIVED NOTICE STATING THAT THE ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN, HOPEFULLY WITH THE MAIL WE WERE ABLE TO RECEIVE IT ON TIME. AND ALSO ON THE SAME NOTE FOR THE SAKE OF THE AUDIENCE, WERE ALSO REMOVING Z-26-25 NUMBER FIVE ON THE AGENDA. IS THAT CORRECT? DUE TO QUORUM ISSUES? YES, WE WILL CALL THAT. AND BASED ON. OH, THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THE NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA IS Z-26-24. OKAY. OUR NEXT APPLICATION, MR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FILED BY ERIC GIVENS, WAFFLE HOUSE, INC. REQUESTING A REZONING FROM OH TWO TO C TWO ON PROPERTY ADDRESSED AS 722 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 0.070707 ACRES LOCATED IN THE DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS. RIGHT NOW IT'S A CONCRETE PARKING LOT, SO PRETTY MUCH VACANT. IT IS A PLATTED LOT LOCATED ALONG SOUTH SEVENTH STREET BETWEEN CLAY AVENUE AND CLEVELAND AVENUE. THE AREA IS CHARACTERIZED BY A MIX OF COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL, MULTIFAMILY, AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES THAT THAT'S COMPATIBLE WITH ITS PROXIMITY TO THE DOWNTOWN CORE AND THE ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND SERVICE ORIENTED BUSINESSES ARE CONCENTRATED ALONG THE SOUTH STREET, SOUTH SIXTH STREET AND PORTIONS OF SOUTH SEVENTH STREET, WHILE THERE IS A POCKET OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES OR STRUCTURES WITHIN THIS AREA HERE ADJACENT. HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THERE IS A
[00:25:03]
NOTABLE CONCENTRATION OF SHORT TERM RENTAL TYPE TWO USE WITHIN THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THIS IS A PICTURE LOOKING TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. THE STRUCTURE YOU SEE IN THE BACK IS ON THE ADJOINING LOT THAT FRONTS ON SOUTH SIXTH STREET. THIS IS LOOKING TOWARDS CLAY AND YOU DO SEE THERE'S MULTIFAMILY ACROSS THE STREET. AND THEN THIS IS LOOKING TOWARDS CLEVELAND AGAIN, A LOT OF MULTIFAMILY AND THEN SOME OTHER COMMERCIAL USES NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED IN A MIXED USE FLEX LAND USE DESIGNATION, WHICH DOES SUPPORT BROAD MIX OF RESIDENTIAL OFFICE COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT USES AND ALSO PROVIDES A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY FOR INFILL PROPERTIES SUCH AS. THIS REQUEST IS C TWO. ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MIXED USE FLEX, SO A CHANGE TO THE LAND USE PLAN IS NOT NECESSARY. THE SURROUNDING ZONING PATTERN DOES REFLECT A MIXED USE CHARACTER BEING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA, YOU HAVE A SCATTERING OF PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING YOU GOT. OH TWO WE GOT C2, C3, C4. MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOU CAN NOTE THAT THE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO EXISTING C2 PROPERTIES. SO FROM A COMPARISON, A COUPLE DIFFERENT ITEMS STAND OUT. SO THE DENSITY BETWEEN AN OH TWO PROPERTY AND A C TWO ACTUALLY IS A DECREASE IN MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. OFFICE USES ARE ALLOWED IN BOTH, AND GENERAL RETAIL AND RESTAURANTS ARE NOT PERMITTED IN THE O TWO, BUT THEY ARE PERMITTED IN THE C TWO AND THE PROPOSED ZONING. AND THEN AS FAR AS HEIGHT, THE STRUCTURES IN THE O TWO ZONING, UNRESTRICTED HEIGHT, AND THEN C TWO TWO STORIES OR 35FT. SO PLANNING SERVICES DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM O TWO TO C TWO BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. NUMBER ONE, THE PROPOSED ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING MIXED USE FLEX DESIGNATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. NUMBER TWO, EXISTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE RANGE OF USES PERMITTED WITHIN THE C TWO ZONING DISTRICT. NUMBER THREE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MEETS THE MINIMUM AREA AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE C TWO ZONING DISTRICT. AND NUMBER FOUR, THERE IS C-2 ZONING ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 15 NOTICES WERE MAILED ON JUNE 30TH AND ZERO HAVE BEEN RETURNED. 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. ERIC GIVENS 1616 RIVERDALE, GEORGIA. I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS THIS TIME AND THE WILLINGNESS TO HAVE THIS EXPEDITED MEETING AS WELL. AS MENTIONED, I'M WORKING WITH MINDY YEE, THE OWNER OF 722 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET. WE'RE CURRENTLY UNDER CONTRACT WITH WAFFLE HOUSE TO PURCHASE THE SITE, AND WE ARE REQUESTING THE REZONE FROM AFOREMENTIONED THE PROPERTY FROM O TWO TO C TWO TO ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL AND RESTAURANT USE. THERE. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT COUNCIL MAY HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISTER GIVENS. I'M EXCITED FOR A WAFFLE HOUSE AS WELL.NICE. EXCITED TO BRING YOU GUYS SOME WAFFLES. SO. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT? IS THERE A HAND RAISED OR IS THAT A. NO, NOT AT ALL. YOU'RE RESPONDING. MR. SMITH. IS THAT AN OKAY. THANK YOU SIR. ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK THAT'S OPPOSED TO THIS ITEM? ANY COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ARE THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON RETAIL OR RESTAURANT SPACE IN SITU LIKE WE HAD TALKED ABOUT WITH SOME OF THE OTHER ZONING? NO, NOT IN THE C-2. THAT WOULD BE THE OH. TWO ZONING, WHICH IS CURRENTLY OH THREE. I'M SORRY, I GET THOSE TWO MIXED UP. OH TWO ZONING HAS THE TIME RESTRICTIONS, NOT THE C TWO. I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR READY. IS THERE A FOLLOW UP. NO, THAT'S JUST WONDERING. GOOD. OKAY, COOL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY THE COMMISSION MEMBERS. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS? SECOND. A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONE REQUEST BY MR. SMITH AND SECONDED BY MR. LOZANO. ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ELLIS. YES. ENGLAND.
[00:30:08]
YES. LOZANO. YES. SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. EMBRY. YES. OKAY. NEXT ITEM. WILL. I'LL SPEAK ON THIS ITEM REALLY QUICKLY. SO ITEM Z-26-25. OUR ONE OF OUR MEMBERS IS DISQUALIFIED FROM HEARING THIS ITEM DUE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. AND WITH THAT MEMBER NOT BEING ABLE TO HEAR THE ITEM, WE WILL NOT HAVE A QUORUM. SO THIS ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA TONIGHT AND WILL BE HEARD AT OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS JULY 28TH. SO THIS ITEM WILL BE MOVED TO THAT MEETING DATE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SMITH. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE A DASH 26-04. WHAT IS THE STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION? MISTER CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THIS IS A REQUEST TO AMEND CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE TEN OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF WACO, TEXAS. IN PARTICULAR, SECTION 28-1134 TO REVISE THE CRITERIA FOR MEMBERS OF THE LPC OR HISTORIC LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THEN ALSO PROVIDE MINOR UPDATES THROUGHOUT. SO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE STATES THAT, TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, PRACTICABLE, THE COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP SHOULD INCLUDE INDIVIDUALS WITH SPECIFIED AREAS OF EXPERTISE AND INTEREST, AND IT ALSO REQUIRES MEMBERS TO RESIDE WITHIN THE CITY OF WACO, WHICH ACTUALLY IS PRETTY COMMON. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT DOES EXPAND THE RESIDENCY ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW MEMBERS TO RESIDE EITHER WITHIN THE CITY OF WACO, OR THEY CAN WORK WITHIN THE CITY OF WACO WHILE RESIDING IN MCLENNAN COUNTY. THIS CHANGE WE'RE PROPOSING IN ORDER TO BROADEN THE POOL OF QUALIFIED APPLICANTS, MEETING THESE EXPERTISE CRITERIA WHILE MAINTAINING STILL A STRONG CONNECTION TO THE COMMUNITY. WITH THIS, IT'LL HELP. MAYBE REACH SOME HAVE SOME MEMBERS ON THERE, AND WE CAN GET A QUORUM MORE OFTEN AND BE ABLE TO CONDUCT IMPORTANT BUSINESS WITH THAT COMMISSION. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE SOME MINOR AMENDMENTS TO CLARIFYING MEMBERSHIP OF THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA AND UPDATING THE NAMES OF CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE. AND THEN THERE IS ONE TYPOGRAPHICAL CORRECTION IN THE ORDINANCE AS WELL. SO STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE TEN OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF WACO, TEXAS. SECTION 28-1134. TO REVISE THE CRITERIA FOR MEMBERS OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PROVIDE MINOR UPDATES THROUGHOUT. DOES ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? ANY COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION APPROVAL? SECOND MOTION TO FOR APPROVAL WAS MADE BY MR. SMITH AND THEN IT WAS SECONDED BY MISS SALOME. ANY MORE DISCUSSION, PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ELLIS. YES. ENGLAND. YES. LOZANO. YES.SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. EMBRY. YES. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ZA-26-05. WHAT IS THE CITY STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, MISTER CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THIS IS A REQUEST BY THE CITY FOR AMENDMENTS TO VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 28 ZONING OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF WACO, TEXAS TO ALLOW FOR HUD CODE MANUFACTURED HOMES AS PERMITTED AS A PERMITTED USE BY RIGHT IN AN RE ZONING DISTRICT AND UPDATING DEFINITIONS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND. THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE'S RECENT LEGISLATION THAT WAS PASSED UNDER SENATE BILL 785, WHICH REQUIRES CITIES TO PROVIDE AT LEAST ONE ZONING DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS, BY RIGHT HUD CODE MANUFACTURED HOMES. SO TO ACHIEVE THIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE REQUIREMENTS, A FEW THINGS. WE ARE PROPOSING AN UPDATE TO THE HUD CODE MANUFACTURED HOME DEFINITION. AND THIS IS BASICALLY JUST TIDYING IT UP JUST TO MAKE SURE OUR DEFINITION MATCHES, SO THAT THERE IS NO CONFUSION BETWEEN DEFINITIONS ON WHAT A HUD CODE MANUFACTURED HOME IS. AND THEN I THINK IT'S NOT WORKING. THERE WE GO WITH THAT. WE ARE PROPOSING OUR OUR ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS ALSO A
[00:35:04]
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, BUT IT IS FOUND IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION. SO IT'S IN THAT TRANSITION AREA BETWEEN CITY COUNTY. AND WE FEEL LIKE THAT WOULD BE FOR NOW, THE BEST FIT FOR THEM AS A PERMITTED USE. SO CURRENTLY WITHIN THE RE ZONING DISTRICT, WE DO LIST HUD CODE MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS OR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKS OR HUD CODE MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISIONS AS SPECIAL USES WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT. SO THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REMOVE THEM FROM THE SPECIAL USE SECTION AND TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE, PUT HUD CODE, MANUFACTURED HOMES, HOME PARKS AND SUBDIVISIONS AS PERMITTED USES WITHIN THAT ZONING DISTRICT. ANOTHER JUST KIND OF A CLEAN UP CHANGE. WE DO HAVE A SECTION UNDER OUR GENERAL PROVISIONS, SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS THAT TALKS ABOUT MOBILE HOMES. SO MOBILE HOMES ARE DIFFERENT THAN HUD CODE MANUFACTURED HOMES. THEY ARE GENERALLY THOSE STRUCTURES THAT ARE BUILT BEFORE JUNE 15TH, 1976, AND SINCE JULY 7TH, 1992.THE CITY OF WACO PROHIBITS MOBILE HOMES. THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THE SECTION ON YOUR SCREEN THAT TALKS ABOUT BEING ABLE TO REPLACE A LEGALLY PERMITTED MOBILE HOME. AND THEN WE HAD SOME LANGUAGE AT THE END OF THIS PARAGRAPH THAT TALKED ABOUT HUD CODE MANUFACTURED HOMES, WHERE STREAMLINING THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE TO REFERENCE THAT HUD CODE MANUFACTURED HOMES MAY BE ESTABLISHED ONLY WHERE PERMITTED BY THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THIS CHAPTER. SO CLEAN UP ON THAT PARAGRAPH AS WELL. SO WITH THIS ONE, PLANNING SERVICES RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 20 ZONING OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF WACO, TEXAS TO ALLOW FOR HUD CODE MANUFACTURED HOMES AS A PERMITTED USE BY RIGHT IN AN RE ZONING DISTRICT AND UPDATING DEFINITIONS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO COMPLY WITH RECENT LEGISLATION. DOES ANYONE ELSE HERE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? IS ANYONE HERE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? DO ANY COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? QUESTION ON DRAFTING JUST BECAUSE IT CATCHES MY ATTENTION IS IF IT'S A DEFINED TERM, IT IS THE WHOLE THING DEFINED AND ONLY LOOKING AT THE RED LINES. BUT THE DEFINITION SECTION, JUST HUD CODE IS CAPITALIZED, MANUFACTURED HOME IS NOT. AND WE GO TO THE NEXT RED LINE WHERE IT HAS DEFINED TERMS FOR HUD CODE, MANUFACTURED HOMES, HUD CODE, MANUFACTURED HOME PARK AND HUD CODE, MANUFACTURED HOME, SUBDIVISION. ALL THOSE ARE CAPITALIZED. THEN YOU GO INTO THE GENERAL SECTION FOR MOBILE HOMES AND HUD CODE MANUFACTURED HOMES IS NOT CAPITALIZED. SO IS THE WHOLE THING A DEFINED TERM OR HOW I JUST I'M SORRY, I JUST DO THIS ALL DAY AT WORK SO IT OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE DEFINITELY HAVE THAT. IT SHOULD BE. THAT'S HOW THE STATE DID IT IN THE BILL. OKAY. AND THAT'D BE MY ONLY RECOMMENDATION. WE'LL GET THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO ME KNOW KIND OF WORKING ONE UP. NO NO I'M GOOD STRANGLING. OKAY.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION? MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FINDINGS? SECOND. SECOND BY SMITH. OKAY. MOTION BY MISS SALOME FOR APPROVAL. RECOMMEND APPROVAL. SECONDED BY MR. SMITH. ANY MORE DISCUSSION, PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ELLIS? YES.
ENGLAND. YES. LOZANO. YES. SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. EMBRY. YES. THAT CONCLUDES THE ITEMS
[REPORTS]
ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. UNLESS. LAURA. CLINT. Y'ALL HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? ANYTHING I'M FORGETTING? NOT ANY ITEMS. BUT I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT. LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS HAVE BEEN VERY BUSY, AND IT ALLOWED US THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPLIT UP OUR AGENDA A LITTLE BIT. WE DO HAVE NOW 15, I BELIEVE, ITEMS FOR OUR JULY 28TH MEETING, SO I'LL SEE YOU ALL IN TWO WEEKS. YOU GOT ANYTHING, BUD? IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN?* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.