Jul 28, 2026 Plan Commission

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:03]

BOY. WACO CONVENTION CENTER AT 100 WASHINGTON AVENUE. COULD THEY HEAR ME? CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME IN THE BACK? YEAH. EVERYTHING'S OKAY. COOL. NOW YOU CAN. OKAY. THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OUR JULY 14TH, 2026 SPECIAL CALL BUSINESS SESSION MEETING IN JULY 9TH, 2026 SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING. ARE THERE ANY CHANGES OR ADDITIONS? SEEING NONE, THEY STAND APPROVED AS WRITTEN. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS

[PUBLIC HEARINGS]

AND IT ALSO SUPPORTS LONG TERM MANAGEMENT OF CITY FACILITIES. PLAN. KEY FACTS ABOUT ANNEXATION. ONLY THE CITY OWNED PROPERTY AND THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS INCLUDED IN THE CITY INITIATED ZONE CHANGES. STATE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW CITIES TO DO ANNEXATION UNLESS IT IS A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO THESE ANNEXATIONS DO NOT INCLUDE ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY. AND THEN THE CITY'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IS DOES NOT EXPAND BASED OFF OF THESE ANNEXATIONS EITHER. THAT ALSO IS NOW WITHIN THE STATE PURVIEW AS WELL, TO WHERE WE CANNOT EXPAND OUR ETJ BASED ON ANNEXATIONS ANYMORE. AND THEN ALSO NO CHANGES IN TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS FAR AS RULES, REGULATIONS, OR IMPOSING ANY OTHER CITY REQUIREMENTS ON ANYTHING THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE ANNEXATION AREA. SO JUST TO SUMMARIZE, JUST A QUICK CHART, WHAT DOES THE ANNEXATION MEAN FOR NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS? WILL IT CHANGE PROPERTY TAXES? NO UTILITY SERVICE? NO. EVERYTHING WILL STAY AS IS WITH THE CURRENT PROVIDERS. WILL THERE BE ANY ZONING RESTRICTIONS ON NEARBY PROPERTIES OR CHANGES OF USE REQUIRED? NO. ADDRESSING WON'T CHANGE. EXISTING EMERGENCY SERVICES WILL NOT CHANGE. AND THEN AGAIN, FUTURE ANNEXATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. THERE ARE NO PLANS OR INTENT BECAUSE AGAIN, THOSE HAVE TO BE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION, VOLUNTARY PETITIONS FOR ANNEXATION. AND THEN AGAIN, THE CITY'S AUTHORITY OVER PRIVATE PROPERTY DOES NOT CHANGE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. ONLY THE PROPERTY BEING ANNEXED. SO WITH THAT, I'LL GET INTO DETAILS ON OUR FIRST REQUEST. SO, MISTER CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, THIS IS A CITY INITIATED VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 153.7 ACRES OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF BUSTER CHATHAM ROAD, ADJACENT TO THE BRAZOS RIVER, TOGETHER WITH PORTIONS OF THE ADJOINING RIGHTS OF WAY, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AND IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MAIN RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANNEXATION IS THE DESIGNATION OF LAND USE AND ZONING ON THE PROPERTY. OUTSIDE OF THAT, THE STATE IS SILENT ON PLANNING COMMISSION.

BEING EVEN INVOLVED IN ANNEXATIONS IS TYPICALLY A CITY COUNCIL DECISION, BUT WE. YOU WILL BE ALSO PROVIDING THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THEM, ALONG WITH THE APPROPRIATE ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. AND I'LL GO INTO THESE A LITTLE MORE DETAIL, BUT THE REQUEST ALSO INCLUDES THE PROPOSED LAND USE MASTER LAND USE DESIGNATION AS RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND PROPOSED ZONING, AS ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. AND I'LL OUTLINE THOSE IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL AS WELL. SO THE PROPERTY, AS I MENTIONED, IS LOCATED ADJACENT OR NEAR A COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE AND NEAR THE NORTH LAKE WACO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. IT IS. THE SURROUNDING AREA REMAINS PREDOMINANTLY AGRICULTURAL, RURAL, RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS OPEN SPACE. THE MAP IS A LITTLE

[00:05:02]

INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET IS A SURVEY FOR THE TRACKS. THERE IS A PORTION OF THE BUSTER CHATHAM ROAD, AS WELL AS A PORTION OF RIVERBEND ROAD. THE STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT IF A CITY ANNEXES PROPERTY ADJACENT TO A COUNTY MAINTAINED RIGHT OF WAY, THE CITY NEEDS TO ANNEX THAT PROPERTY AND MAINTAIN THOSE ROADS MOVING FORWARD. SO AS YOU'LL SEE ON THE OTHER ONES, THAT'S DIFFERENT BETWEEN COUNTY ROADS AND TXDOT ROADS. AND I'LL GET INTO THOSE ON THE OTHER TWO ZONING APPLICATIONS. SO 25 NOTICES WERE MAILED. WE DID RECEIVE FOUR WRITTEN RESPONSES AND THEY ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET. ONE ADDITIONAL RESPONSE WAS EMAILED THIS AFTERNOON. I BELIEVE THAT'S PRINTED OUT AT YOUR LOCATION UP THERE. AND THEN LIKE I MENTIONED ALREADY, WE ALSO MAILED A FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS HANDOUT TO HELP ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THAT WERE RECEIVED. BUT I'LL GO OVER SOME OF THOSE HIGHLIGHTS HERE. SPECIFIC TO THIS ANNEXATION REQUEST. SO PLANNING FOR FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE. WHAT IS THIS ANNEXATION? HOW IS THIS ANNEXATION TIED INTO THAT? SO THE CITY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2023 FOR A POTENTIAL FUTURE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. CONSTRUCTION WILL OCCUR ONLY WHEN GROWTH AND WASTEWATER CAPACITY REQUIRE IT. CURRENT PLANNING ANTICIPATES DESIGN OF APPROXIMATELY 2030 AND POTENTIAL OPERATION APPROXIMATELY 2034. AGAIN, THOSE ARE JUST APPROXIMATE DATES. IT'S ALL BASED ON TIMING AND CAPACITY FOR THAT. ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT CHANGE THE T, C, E, Q PERMITTING PROCESS OR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. DEVELOPMENT OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IS NOT CONTINGENT UPON THE PROPERTY BEING LOCATED INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. THE CITY IS JUST SIMPLY WANTS CITY OWNED PROPERTY TO BE WITHIN THE CITY OF WACO BOUNDARIES SO THAT WE CAN HAVE GOVERNANCE OVER THAT PROPERTY THAT'S WITHIN THE CITY, AND THAT THE CITY OWNS. SO PLANNING SERVICES DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VOLUNTARY REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION, THE DESIGNATION OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL AS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION, THE ZONING OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT AND EXTENDING THE BOUNDARY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF WACO TO INCLUDE SAID TERRITORY

[00:10:07]

OH, YOU CAN'T HEAR THAT. OKAY, SPEAKERS, IF Y'ALL COULD SPEAK TO THE MICROPHONE CLOSELY. MY NAME IS GINA MORGAN. I LIVE AT 2353 BUSTER CHATHAM ROAD, RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROPERTY THAT WAS PURCHASED IN 2023. I DON'T REALLY WANT TO GET INTO THE STUPIDITY OF DUMPING WASTEWATER UPSTREAM FROM OUR CITY RIGHT NOW, BUT WHAT I WANT TO DISCUSS IS THE REASONS THAT WERE GIVEN WERE CONSISTENCY OF THE SERVICES. IF WE COULD GO BACK TO YOUR SLIDE AND SHOW WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. BACK UP, BACK UP THERE. SO I DON'T SEE ANY CITY SERVICES ANYWHERE CLOSE TO THAT PROPERTY. I GUESS YOU'LL BE SPENDING OUR CITY MONEY TO HAUL SERVICES OVER THERE. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO FOR SERVICES? IT MAKES NO SENSE THAT THIS CITY DOESN'T HAVE ANY MONEY TO FIX THINGS AND TAKE CARE OF THE RESIDENTS, AND WE PAY TAXES.

AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THAT WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND INCORPORATE THIS. THERE WASN'T ONE REASON GIVEN FOR ANNEXING THIS, NOT ONE. I MEAN, THAT WAS VALID. YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT AS RURAL RESIDENTIAL. WELL, IT'S ALREADY RURAL RESIDENTIAL.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY SERVICES THAT ARE GOING TO BE BROUGHT TO IT. IT'S NOT GOING TO HELP WITH ANY KIND OF TRAFFIC. IT DOESN'T SERVE THE CITY OF WACO AT ALL, OR ITS RESIDENTS OR TAXPAYERS IN THE LEAST FOR YOU TO ANNEX THIS AT THIS POINT, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF THE T, C, E, Q PROCESS AND GONE THROUGH EVERYTHING ELSE, AND YOU FEEL THAT WE COULD AFFORD TO PROVIDE WATER FOR MORE PEOPLE MOVING IN HERE AND MORE DEVELOPMENTS, AND WE NEEDED THAT WASTEWATER. THEN AT THAT POINT, I THINK THAT IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO GO AHEAD AND ANNEX IT. BUT AT THIS POINT, RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NOTHING THAT YOU'VE STATED THAT GIVES US ANY REASON FOR US TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, EXCEPT FOR YOU JUST HAVE IT AS NEXT ON THE LIST. IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO ANNEX SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY ACCESS TO IT WHATSOEVER. AND, YOU KNOW, OKAY, SO NOW WE CALL THE POLICE DEPARTMENT INSTEAD OF THE SHERIFF. AND HOW CLOSE ARE WE TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? IF THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON OVER THERE, IT YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE FOR YOUR CITIZENS AND YOU FAIL TO SEE THE NEED FOR OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS WARRANTED. PUTTING THESE THINGS UP FOR DEVELOPERS WHO ARE NOT FOOTING THEIR OWN BILL, IN ORDER FOR THEM TO COME AND

[00:15:06]

THANK YOU. THANKS. YES, MA'AM. MY NAME IS NANCY LACY. I LIVE AT 1102 OLD STEINBECK ROAD IN THE CITY OF WACO. I'M A TAXPAYER. I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT WE ARE HAVING TO KEEP FIGHTING

[00:20:07]

WE CANNOT AFFORD TO DEFILE THE LAST BIT OF WATER THAT COMES THROUGH OUR CITY. I LIVE OBVIOUSLY IN THE CITY OF WACO, SO BUSTER CHATHAM IS NOT DOESN'T AFFECT ME. BUT AS A TAXPAYER, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE BETTER NEIGHBORS. AND WE CERTAINLY DON'T NEED TO BE SHIPPING WASTEWATER FROM ONE COMMUNITY, WHICH IS IN CHINA, SPRING OVER TO ANOTHER COMMUNITY THAT DOESN'T HAVE VOTING PRIVILEGES. I GET TO VOTE FOR OUR CITY COUNCIL.

THESE PEOPLE DON'T GET TO VOTE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL. I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR, AND I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT WE ARE GOING TO ANNEX A PROPERTY THAT IS SO FAR AWAY FROM OUR CITY THAT WE CAN'T SERVICE, AND WE CAN'T EVEN TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN CITY STREETS, WATER LINES, INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WITH EVERYBODY MOVING TO WACO, WHICH I'M VERY GRATEFUL THAT PEOPLE ARE MOVING TO WACO, BUT WE'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO CATCH UP AFTER YEARS OF NEGLECT.

AND WE DON'T NEED TO BE ADDING MORE PROPERTY WAY FAR AWAY FROM OUR CITY JUST SO WE CAN FORCE A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT THAT'S GOING TO BE FOUGHT. WE'RE GOING TO FIGHT BECAUSE I WILL NOT HAVE THAT WASTEWATER COME DOWN THE BRAZOS RIVER IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE AND DOWN IN FRONT OF, YOU KNOW, OUR DEVELOPMENT IN WACO, TEXAS, WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO PROMOTE GROWTH INSTEAD OF RUN PEOPLE OFF BECAUSE OF AN ALGAE BLOOM. WHEN WE HAVE MALFUNCTIONS.

THANK YOU. HELLO, I'M GAIL LAMPARD, IS THERE. IS THAT OKAY? SOUND OKAY? MY PARENTS JUST SAY YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. OH, SORRY. 1848 BEVERLY COX DRIVE. AND OUR PROPERTY. MY FATHER AND MOTHER BOUGHT IT IN 1986, AND IT BORDERS THE EAST SIDE OF THAT PROPERTY THAT OUR WHOLE PROPERTY GOES ALL ALONG THE BORDER. SHARES A FENCE LINE. AND MY DAD STARTED PLANNING THE ORGANIC ORCHARD IN 1986. AND IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO ALL OF THAT. SO I HAVE A LOT OF EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT TO THIS ISSUE. THE LAND WAS INITIALLY PURCHASED BY THE CITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT WITH A PIPE GOING UNDER THE BRAZOS RIVER FROM CHINA SPRING, TAKING THEIR SEWAGE OVER THERE. AND SO IT SEEMS A LITTLE DUPLICITOUS TO CALL IT A RESIDENTIAL NOW, WHEN THE WHOLE PURPOSE WAS ORIGINALLY AND PROBABLY STILL IS SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT. SO THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS, YES, IT'S IN A FLOODPLAIN. THAT'S A BIG PROBLEM. BUT LOOKING BACK, OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN MANY PROBLEMS WITH SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS HERE IN WACO, AND IT CAN BE DUE TO A LIFT PROBLEM. MECHANICAL FAILURE, SOMETIMES HEAVY RAINS, WHICH WOULD BE A BIG FACTOR HERE. AND ALL OF THOSE HAVE CAUSED IN SOME CASES. I'VE GOT A LIST OF THEM, A LOT OF RAW SEWAGE OR UNTREATED WASTEWATER GOING INTO EITHER THE BRAZOS OR LAKE WACO. AND IF YOU LOOK BACK, HISTORICALLY, THERE ARE QUITE A FEW, AND THERE HAVE BEEN SERIOUS. THE MOST RECENT WAS 120 GALLONS RELEASED BECAUSE OF A LIFT PROBLEM. FAILURE WASN'T INTO THE BRAZOS RIVER, BUT IT WAS STILL AN ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP GOING ONGOING. THAT WAS IN JULY 9TH, JULY 19TH, VERY RECENT. SO THOSE KINDS OF PROBLEMS ARE INHERENT IN SEWAGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT. I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH AN ENGINEER SAID

[00:25:01]

THEY FIND OUT ABOUT A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT UPSTREAM FROM WACO. I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, THE CITY HAS DONE AN INCREDIBLE JOB OF BEAUTIFYING THE RIVER, MAKING IT AN ECONOMIC ENGINE.

OKAY, COULD I HAVE YOUR TIME, CALEB? OKAY. YOU FILLED OUT A FORM, RIGHT? SO IS THAT OKAY? WELL, YEAH. CAN YOU CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? THAT YOU'RE GIVING UP YOUR TIME? YEAH. CALEB SCARBOROUGH. BOX, 1997. OKAY. IS THAT OKAY? YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY. SO, YEAH, ALL THE BEAUTIFICATION PROBLEMS ALONG THE RIVER ARE PROJECTS ALONG THE RIVER HAVE BEEN AMAZING. AND SO FROM CAMERON PARK ON FROM WHERE THAT IS PLANNED, IT'S ONLY SIX MILES TO DOWNTOWN WACO. AND I MEAN, YOU THINK ABOUT EVERYTHING ALONG THE RIVER FROM CAMERON PARK EVENTS ALL THE WAY DOWN. PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH THAT. AND JUST FOR AN EXAMPLE I'LL GIVE YOU IS I DON'T THINK CITY LEADERS IN SAN ANTONIO, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD OKAY, A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT UPRIVER FROM THE SAN ANTONIO RIVER, GOING THROUGH SAN ANTONIO'S RIVERWALK. I MEAN, DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD. I DON'T THINK SO.

SO ALL OF THE EFFORT AND TIME THAT IS BEING PUT INTO BEAUTIFICATION OF THIS ECONOMIC ENGINE AND BEAUTY FOR THE FOR THE CITIZENS OF WACO ALONG THE RIVER. I JUST THINK IT'S COMPLETELY NEGATED BY THIS PLAN. AND PERSONALLY, I FIND IT VERY DUPLICITOUS TO CALL THIS A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION AND TO CALL IT A RESIDENTIAL PLAN. IT'S NOT A RESIDENTIAL PLAN.

IT'S FOR A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT. AND SO THAT THAT JUST FEELS WRONG TO ME TO, TO USE THAT, THAT WORDING, BUT AND CALL IT THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION. BUT ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. MARK. I LIVE AT THE SAME ADDRESS AS GAIL. SHE'S MY WIFE.

1848 BEVERLY COX. I'M GOING TO ADDRESS THE CITY'S PLANS AS WELL FOR THE PROPERTY AND FOCUSING FIRST ON HOW IT AFFECTS OUR FAMILY'S LIVELIHOOD, AND THEN ONTO HOW IT AFFECTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE WIDER WACO AREA. SO OUR OUR PECAN ORCHARD IS RIGHT ABOVE THAT.

THE TOP DASHED LINE IS ACTUALLY THE NORTH SIDE. OUR PROPERTY GOES FROM BEVERLY COX DOWN TO THE RIVER. SO IT'S ON THE TOP SIDE OF THAT SQUARE. AND. WE HAVE AN AGRICULTURAL WELL THAT IS 35FT FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE. AND IT IS REGISTERED WITH THE TRINITY SOUTHERN TRINITY GROUNDWATER. AND. A PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY. WELL, LET'S SEE, PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING. THE ANNEX IS A WATERSHED FOR OUR PROPERTY. A LOT OF THAT PROPERTY DRAINS DIRECTLY INTO OUR ORCHARD. OUR ORCHARD IS AN ORGANICALLY GROWN ORCHARD. AND IF ANY CONTAMINANTS COME INTO THAT ORCHARD OR INTO THE WELL, I CAN NO LONGER SELL MY PECANS AS ORGANICALLY GROWN. SO THIS IS A THREAT TO OUR OUR LIVELIHOOD. I ALSO OPERATE A DRONE. I'VE OPERATED FOR MANY YEARS TO CHECK ON MY GOATS. WE HAVE GOATS AND PECANS AND BECAUSE IT'S A LONG WAY FROM THE HOUSE DOWN TO THE RIVER, AND I USE IT TO GO DOWN AND CHECK ON THE GOATS, SEE IF ANY HEADS ARE STUCK IN THE FENCE AND WHATNOT SO I CAN. IT'S VERY CRITICAL FOR US TO CONTINUE TO USE THAT DRONE. I KNOW THAT OPERATION DRONES AROUND SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS IS AN ISSUE THAT COULD COME UP. SECONDLY, THIS SITE IS ENTIRELY WRONG FOR SEWAGE

[00:30:08]

SO, SO CONSEQUENTLY, THE BUFFER ZONE THAT YOU HAVE IS JUST NOT ADEQUATE. SO AND THIRD, THE CITY'S LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IS IS ALARMING. WHEN THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED, THE SURVEYORS ENTERED OUR PROPERTY UNDER FALSE PRETENSES. AND THE SELLERS OF THE PROPERTY DID NOT EVEN KNOW WHO THE BUYER WAS UNTIL THE CLOSING. HE'S ALREADY GIVEN HIS TIME. I YIELD MY REMAINING. JOHNNY, CAN I HAVE YOUR TIME? NO. WE GOT WE GOT TO STOP DOING THIS. ALL RIGHT? WE GOT TO FINISH UP TIME. IF YOU WANT TO COME UP AND SPEAK, THEN YOU CAN USE YOUR TIME. BUT YOUR TIME IS UP, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ROBERT. READY, MR. CHAIR? THE SPEAKER AT THE PODIUM FORFEITED HIS TIME EARLIER. YES, I THINK YOU DID. YOU DID DONATE YOUR TIME TO YOUR SPOUSE. DID YOU HAD A QUESTION FOR THE PREVIOUS I DID. DO I NEED TO WAIT UNTIL THEY ALL MAKE THEIR COMMENTS BEFORE I ASK YOU A QUESTION, LAURA, ABOUT THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER'S PROPERTY AND THEN JUST AN EXPLANATION ABOUT THE MAP THAT WE HAVE UP HERE. I CAN WAIT, I WROTE IT DOWN IF I HAVE TO, OR CAN I JUST ASK HIM NOW? OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. MY NAME IS RALPH GOODMAN. I LIVE AT 2022 WASHINGTON LANE. MY PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION. JUST TO KEEP THINGS REAL, THAT PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE CITY UNDER A VEIL OF SECRECY FOR THE PURPOSE OF A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. OBVIOUSLY, WE ARE AGAINST THAT PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE ANNEXATION TODAY BECAUSE IT'S BEING PRESENTED AS RURAL, RESIDENTIAL, LARGE LOTS, WHEN IN FACT WE ALL KNOW WHAT THAT'S GOING TO BE. SO I JUST THINK YOU OWE THE CITIZENS OF MCLENNAN COUNTY AND THE CITY OF WACO TRANSPARENCY. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. HELLO. MY NAME IS NANCY ANDRE. I LIVE ACROSS FROM THIS PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY. I'M IMMEDIATELY. MY PROPERTY IS AFFECTED BY THIS HEAVILY. IN 2023, WHEN THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WAS PROPOSED TO GO IN, MYSELF AND A COUPLE OTHER NEIGHBORS ORGANIZED A BIG MEETING IN OUR AREA, BUSTER CHATHAM ROAD. IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS, WE HAD 90 FAMILIES COME WHO WERE REALLY UPSET, VERY UPSET ABOUT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, AND WE WENT OUT TO LORENA AND VISITED OUT THERE AND SAW WHAT THEY HAD. AND WE DO NOT WANT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.

YOU THE OUR PROPERTIES ARE DEPRECIATING. THE LAND THAT YOU BOUGHT IS DEPRECIATING. THERE HAVE BEEN PEOPLE LEAVING ALONG THIS RIVER. THERE ARE PRESTIGIOUS ESTATES THAT ARE PAYING A LOT OF PROPERTY TAX TO YOU ALL TO THIS WACO, AND YOU ARE DEPRECIATING. THESE PEOPLE ARE LEAVING AND YOU'RE TRADING IT FOR ONE ACRE PLOTS WITH PEOPLE THAT ARE THAT THIS PROPERTY IS GOING TO GO DOWN. YOU'RE MAKING A GRAVE MISTAKE IF AND AND WHEN THIS HAPPENED, LINDA TYREE TOLD ME THAT THERE WERE SOFT INQUIRIES. AND THEY KNEW THAT THIS TREATMENT PLANT WAS GOING IN, BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT US TO KNOW. AND THEN WE FOUND OUT. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS NOT THE WAY THAT NEIGHBORS TREAT NEIGHBORS. WE ARE GOOD, GOOD PEOPLE OUT THERE AND WE ARE BEING SABOTAGED. AND, AND, AND OUR PROPERTY VALUES ARE BEING DESTROYED. AND IF NOBODY HAS NONE OF YOU THAT I KNOW OF HAVE COME OUT, COME TO MY BACKYARD, COME STAND ON MY RETAINING WALL AND LOOK AT THE RIVER AND SAY, IF THIS WAS YOUR HOUSE, WOULD YOU DO THIS? WOULD YOU WANT IT? WOULD YOU DO YOUR DOING THAT TO ALL OF THESE PEOPLE OUT HERE THAT HAVE

[00:35:02]

IT'S JUST OUTRAGEOUS. IT'S JUST HORRIBLE. COME SEE ME. YOU'RE INVITED TO COME TO MY HOUSE.

2155 BUSTER CHATHAM ROAD. WALKED DOWN AND LOOK AT THE RIVER AND SEE IF YOU WOULD DO THAT TO YOUR BEST FRIEND OR NEIGHBOR. THANK YOU. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS JANET PRICE. MY ADDRESS IS 3715 RIVERBEND LANE. I LIVE ABOUT A QUARTER OF A MILE FROM BUSTER CHATHAM. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE NOT HEARD TONIGHT HAS TO DO, FIRST OF ALL, WITH THE TERMINOLOGY, AND I'M SURE THAT IT'S ALL LEGALESE, BUT YOU'RE CALLING THIS A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION. DO YOU GUYS VOLUNTEER TO HAVE IT ANNEXED? NO. SO ANYWAY, THAT'S JUST A LITTLE POINT. WHAT I'VE NOT HEARD DISCUSSED TONIGHT IS THE POTENTIAL FOR HAVING LARGE ONE ACRE LOTS FOR HOUSING. THERE'S 150 ACRES THERE. SO LET'S SAY THAT YOU DID 100 ACRES, MAYBE 120, AND YOU SOLD THEM OFF IN ONE ACRE LOTS. MY QUESTION THEN IS, FIRST OF ALL, WHAT ABOUT THE WATER USAGE? CHALK BLUFF, WATER SUPPLIES US. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF GROWTH ALONG BUSTER CHATHAM. I LIVE AT THE END OF THE WATER LINE. ALMOST IS. I DON'T KNOW THAT CHALK BLUFF WATER CAN SERVE 100 OR 150 EXTRA FAMILIES, AND ALSO ALL OF OUR HOMES OUT THERE HAVE SEPTIC SYSTEMS. SO WHAT'S THE EFFECT OF ADDING 100 TO 150 MORE SEPTIC SYSTEMS ON ALL OF THE AGRICULTURAL WELLS THAT SEVERAL OF US DEPEND ON FOR OUR LIVESTOCK? I DON'T HEAR ANY CONSIDERATION OF THAT. I ALSO DON'T HEAR ANY PLANS FOR BUSTER CHATHAM ITSELF. NOW, SOMEBODY SAID THAT WHERE THE CITY, YOU KNOW, OWNS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT, THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING CARE OF THE ROAD. BUSTER CHATHAM IS TWO AND A HALF MILES LONG. AND IF YOU ARE TAKING WASTEWATER WATER, SOLID WASTE UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD IN THOSE BIG TRUCKS, THE ROAD WILL NOT STAND IT. IT IS ALREADY VERY NARROW AND VERY BUMPY. IF YOU HAVE TWO PICKUP TRUCKS THAT WANT TO PASS EACH OTHER ON THAT ROAD, SOMEBODY'S GOT THEIR TIRES IN THE DITCH. IT'S JUST NOT WIDE ENOUGH. SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REDO AND TOTALLY REMAKE AN ENTIRE TWO AND A HALF MILES OF THAT ROAD. NOT JUST THE HOWEVER MANY MILES YOU HAVE ANNEXED TO IT. AND THE LAST QUESTION IS, WHAT ABOUT THE BURDEN ON THE SCHOOL SYSTEM? YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE WE HAVE 101 HUNDRED FAMILIES. HOW MANY OF THEM HAVE KIDS? WHAT'S THAT GOING TO DO TO THE CONNOLLY SCHOOL SYSTEM? HOW MUCH IS THE CITY OF WACO GOING TO SUPPORT THE CONNOLLY SCHOOL SYSTEM? SO IF YOU COULD TAKE THOSE INTO CONSIDERATION, I WOULD BE VERY GRATEFUL. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MARVIN ROACH. I LIVE AT EIGHT, SIX TWO BUSTER CHATHAM, WHICH IS UP AT THE TOP, NOT ADJACENT TO THE EXCESS PROPOSED ANNEXATION PROPERTY. IT'S AT

[00:40:05]

HOW ARE THEY GETTING THE SEWAGE THERE? ARE THEY PIPING UNDER OVER CARRYING IT? THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN BECAUSE IF YOU'RE PIPING IT, THAT'S IN THE FEMA FLOOD ZONE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S VERY SAFE. IF YOU'RE TRUCKING IT LIKE THE LAST MAN SAID, THAT ROADS NOT GOING TO HANDLE IT. I USED TO BUILD THEM. SO I'M CURIOUS, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DO IT? AND THEN ONCE YOU DO THAT, IT'S ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT ROAD ON BUSTER CHATHAM. IS THERE A BRIDGE BEING PLANNED TO GO TO CHINA SPRINGS WHERE THIS IS COMING FROM? ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TRAFFIC COMING THROUGH FROM CHINA SPRINGS, CUTTING UP BUSTER CHATHAM TO CUT OFF THE CIRCLE, GOING TO 35 SO PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY AROUND THE LOOP NOW, THOUGH, TO SHOOT UP AND DOWN BUSTER CHATHAM THERE WITH THEIR TRASH AND FLYING. I MEAN, DO Y'ALL ACTUALLY TAKE THE ENTIRE ROAD AND FIX IT COMPLETELY? HAVE TO PUT IN LIGHTS, GOT PEOPLE WALKING UP AND DOWN AND THEIR DOGS RIDING THEIR BIKES, AND YOU CAN HAVE BIG TRUCKS AND ALL THESE PEOPLE GOING THROUGH THERE IS IT'S ALL IN THE FUTURE PLANNING. DO WE HAVE ANY IDEAS? IS MY IS MY WHAT I WANT TO KNOW? AND THEN WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THE SMELL IF IT FAILS AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF? I HEARD THIS IS GOING TO BE A MODERN PLANT. ORIGINALLY I THOUGHT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON THIS SIDE. THAT WAS THE PAPERWORK I GOT IN 2020 WHEN WE FIRST MOVED OUT THERE, TYPE OF DEAL. AND NOW I SEE IT'S OVER HERE AND THAT'S MY THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT. I MEAN, YES, WE'RE ALREADY THEY'VE ALREADY MADE ALL THE OTHER STATEMENTS. I'M CURIOUS. BRIDGE PIPES. HOW RETURN. GET BACK. THAT'S ALL I SAY. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A REBUTTAL? YES. LET ME GET TO MY CORRECT SLIDE. THE FIRST THING I WANT TO DISCUSS IS THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY IN ALL CITY ZONING DISTRICTS, PUBLIC UTILITIES AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS ARE PERMITTED USES. SO IT WAS NOT MENTIONED BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST AUTOMATICALLY ALLOWED IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS. THE REASON BEING IS WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH A PUBLIC UTILITY, IT'S FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE. AND YEAH, A LOT OF PEOPLE MAY NOT WANT THEM IN THEIR BACKYARD. SO THEY ARE PERMITTED WHERE THEY NEED TO BE LOCATED TO SERVE THE, THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. BUT WHEN WE SAY RURAL ESTATE ZONING OR

[00:45:02]

THAT'S THAT'S ALL I HAVE. REGARDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PURVIEW OF THIS ITEM. OKAY. DO ANY COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH, I'VE GOT A COUPLE. I THINK A LOT OF REALLY GOOD POINTS WERE MADE, AND CERTAINLY SOME EVEN WITHIN OUR PURVIEW FOR THIS HEARING. THAT DESERVES SOME DISCUSSION. SO MY QUESTION FOR STAFF IS, WOULD IN THE EVENT THAT A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WERE TO BE BUILT, WOULD IT HAVE LAND USE CHANGE OR ZONING CHANGE NEED TO HAPPEN AT THAT POINT, OR WOULD THE LAND USE THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING ALLOW FOR A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT? YEAH. THE WAY IT IS WORDED IN THE ORDINANCE, PUBLIC UTILITY, INCLUDING TRANSMISSION LINE, DISTRIBUTION LINES, APPURTENANCES, THOSE ARE PERMITTED USES IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS. OKAY. AGAIN, WE CHOSE THE RURAL ESTATE ZONING JUST AS IT WAS THE CLOSEST FIT FOR A CITY ZONING DISTRICT. IN FACT, WE DO NOT EVEN HAVE LAND CURRENTLY ZONED RURAL REZONING CURRENTLY, SO NO LAND USE CHANGE, ZONING CHANGE WE NEEDED BUT T, C, E, Q AND ALL THE OTHER REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ISSUES WOULD STILL COME INTO PLAY. YES. AND THAT WOULD NOT COME TO PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT WOULD GO THROUGH INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES, THROUGH PUBLIC PROCESS WITH COUNCIL. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WITH THIS PIECE OF LAND, AND WHILE I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT THE ZONING, THE PROPOSED ZONING IN GENERAL, AND ALL OF THE USES THAT COULD BE USED IN THAT ZONING. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE MAP ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. THAT R1 B DOWN THERE, THAT'S THE CLOSEST CITY OF WACO CURRENTLY ZONED LAND. AND SO I THINK THAT. I TOOK A LOT OF NOTES. I'M TRYING TO READ THEM, BUT. IF THIS PROPERTY IS ANNEXED WITH THIS ZONING, REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER DEVELOPMENT IS ON IT. HOW CAN THE CITY OF WACO LIKE SERVICE THIS PIECE OF LAND, WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MUNICIPAL SERVICES OR WATER OR SEWER ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, NO MATTER WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT OR USE IS WHEN WHILE IT IS TECHNICALLY ADJACENT TO CITY OWNED LAND, CITY OWNED LAND IS THE RIVER RIGHT NOW. SO HOW WOULD THEY HANDLE THAT? YES, A LOT OF THAT WOULD BE HANDLED DURING ANY TYPE OF PLATTING OR INFRASTRUCTURE REVIEW FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY, WHETHER IT BE ANY A, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY RESIDENTIAL, SUBDIVISION OR WATER TREATMENT PLANT. THOSE GO THROUGH A THOROUGH DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. WE WOULD TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES THROUGH CONSOLIDATING EFFORTS WITH THE COUNTY. BUT AT THIS POINT, AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE PLANS TO REALLY KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING. I MEAN, IF THIS WERE LET ME GO OUTSIDE THE BOX. LET ME GO OUTSIDE THE BOX AND THINK ABOUT I'M GOING TO REITERATE THAT I DON'T HAVE. YOU DON'T HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THE CITY'S INTENT IS FOR THAT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. THANK YOU. THIS THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION

[00:50:10]

THERE'S A PUBLIC PROCESS FOR THAT. AND THE CITY WILL GO THROUGH THAT AND MEET ALL THE STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITTING AT THAT TIME. AGAIN, WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT PROCESS TO EVEN START UNTIL 2030. BUT AGAIN, THAT WILL BE DEPENDENT ON CAPACITY NEEDS AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. OKAY. SORRY. GO AHEAD. NO. GO AHEAD. NO NO NO. I'M FINE. I MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING LATER. GO AHEAD. WHAT IS THE DENSITY ALLOWED WITHIN THIS PROPOSED ZONING? IF THIS ANNEXATION WERE TO HAPPEN, IT'S SO REZONING. THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 40,000FT■!S. AND AND AS LAURA MENTIONED, THAT'S THE LOWEST DENSITY WE HAVE ZONING DISTRICT THAT WE HAVE. SO WE YOU KNOW, AS PART OF ANNEXATION, WE HAVE TO DESIGNATE IT WITH ZONING DISTRICT. SO THIS IS THE VERY LOWEST ONE, THE ONE THAT'S CLOSEST TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL. AND IT GOES ALL THE WAY UP THROUGH HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONING. AND SO FOR, FOR EXAMPLE, THE R1 B ZONING THAT YOU SEE THAT'S ON THE STEINBECK BEND AREA, THAT ALLOWS PUBLIC USES, RESIDENTIAL USES, AGRICULTURAL USES, BUT IT ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL USES DOWN TO 6000 SQUARE FOOT A LOT. AND WE DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AREA. WE FELT LIKE THE LARGER LOT RESIDENTIAL WAS MORE APPROPRIATE. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHY THE R E IS BEING PROPOSED. MR. CHAIR, IF I CAN ADD A LITTLE BIT TO THAT AS WELL, GOING BACK TO THE LAND USE DESIGNATION THAT WE SELECTED

[00:55:03]

SO THE THE CITY'S INTENT ON THE MAINTENANCE OF THE ROAD ADJACENT TO OUR PROPERTY WOULD BE TO MAINTAIN IT AT ITS CURRENT CONDITION AND LEVEL, WHICH WOULD MATCH UP WITH WHAT THE COUNTY DOES IF AND WHEN THAT PROPERTY DEVELOPS, IF IT'S GOING TO CAUSE IMPACT. AND THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS. IF THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE PORTION OF THE ROAD THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS, THEN WE'LL DEFINITELY WORK WITH THE COUNTY TO MAINTAIN THAT ROAD. YOU KNOW, THAT'S OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. IF THAT IF THAT'S CAUSING ACCESS TO THAT PROPERTY, IF IT IF IT DEVELOPS FOR THE TREATMENT PLAN IS CAUSING ISSUES WITH THE EXISTING COUNTY ROAD, WE WILL DEFINITELY WORK WITH THE COUNTY TO MAINTAIN THAT. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A LOT THAT WE'RE THAT'S BEING ADDRESSED HERE THAT WE

[01:00:13]

WE CAN WE CAN PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO Y'ALL. AND I THINK I, I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT SHOULD THE WASTEWATER PLANT GO FORWARD? SO IF THEY WANTED TO DO THAT, PCEC WOULD REQUIRE THE POSTING OF PUBLIC NOTICE OUT ON THE PROPERTY, WOULDN'T THEY? THERE.

I DON'T KNOW ALL THE SPECIFICS FOR THEIR REQUIREMENTS, BUT WE'LL FOLLOW ALL THEIR POSTING REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE PERMITTING PROCESS. THAT. YEAH, I MEAN, WE CAN GET THAT INFORMATION TO YOU. IT'S AGAIN, IT'S A PROCESS AND WE'LL FOLLOW IT. I KNOW I'M OUT OF TIME.

SURE. IF YOU'VE GONE. SO WE THEY'VE SHE'S HAD HER CHANCE TO SPEAK. WE NEED TO MA'AM. AND THEN YOU'RE CHASING MA'AM. WE NEED TO FOLLOW THESE RULES, I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? IS THAT THE POINT WE WERE DISCUSSING AMONGST OURSELVES? LIKE. OKAY, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER THE ORDER. YEAH. IT SEEMS TO ME STAFF, IF THIS IS ZONED, IT'S MORE RESTRICTIONS THAN IF IT WERE NOT ZONED, IF IT WAS ANNEXED AND ZONED R-3, WHATEVER. RE EXCUSE ME, YOU CAN'T PUT A ROCK QUARRY OR WHATEVER ELSE ON THERE. WHEREAS IF IT WAS NOT ANNEXED, IT'S LESS PROTECTION FOR THE NEIGHBORS IN THE SPEAKERS. IS THAT TRUE OR NOT TRUE. SO SO RIGHT NOW IT'S IN THE ETJ. THERE IS NO ZONING ON THE PROPERTY. THE ZONING DOES RESTRICT IT TO, YOU KNOW, USES ALLOWED IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT.

RIGHT NOW. IT CAN BE USED FOR FOR ALMOST ANYTHING ON THE SERVICES. LET'S SAY THAT A PORTION OF IT DOES WANT TO GET DEVELOPED FOR THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL. WOULD THEY HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET CITY WATER TO IT? THEY RELY ON. YEAH, THERE THERE WOULD BE THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS, YOU KNOW, IF THE CITY DECIDED TO SELL THIS OFF FOR DEVELOPMENT, THEY

[01:05:04]

YEAH, IT'S DUAL CERTIFIED FOR WATER AND GENERALLY MORE SEPTIC TANKS IS NOT ALLOWED IN CITY ANNEXED PROPERTY. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. SO INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS YOU HAVE TO HAVE 20 ACRES TO PUT A SEPTIC TANK IN. OUTSIDE IT'S ONE ACRE. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION MEMBERS? THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO ANNEX ONLY. THEY'RE NOT ASKING US HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT US SEWER TREATMENT PLANT ANNEXED THE LAND. IS THERE A MOTION? DO WE NEED A MOTION FOR DISCUSSION? IS THAT RIGHT, WILL? OR CAN WE? OKAY, SO THEN I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION. BUT WITH I WANT SOME DISCUSSION IF THE MOTION IS SECONDED. YOU WANT TO DISCUSS IT IF IT IS SECONDED. YEAH. I MEAN, I CAN'T I CAN'T DISCUSS IT UNTIL THERE'S A SECOND TO THE MOTION. OH. I'LL SECOND SO WE CAN START THE DISCUSSION. OKAY. SO MY THOUGHT PROCESS HERE IS THAT THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF VERY VALID CONCERNS ON THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SPECIFICALLY. HOWEVER, AS MR. ENGLUND KIND OF FLESHED OUT WITH HIS QUESTION, THE CITY COULD PUT A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ON THAT LAND.

RIGHT NOW, AS THE OWNER, THERE'S NOT A LOT THAT WE AS A BOARD CAN DO RIGHT NOW IN THIS HEARING TO STOP A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FROM GOING ON. AND AGAIN, MR. BRADY, YOUR POINT IF WE DO HAVE SOME ZONING THAT ACTUALLY DOES PUT MORE RESTRICTIONS THAN THERE IS ON THE LAND NOW, THE CITY IS IN CONTROL OF IT REGARDLESS, BUT IT'S AT LEAST NOW ANNEXED FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAINTAINING THAT LAND. AGAIN, I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULDN'T APPROVE WHEN THAT IS OUR PURVIEW, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF CONCERNS WITH A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, BUT NOTHING OUR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CAN DO TODAY AFFECTS WHETHER OR NOT A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CAN GO ON THE LAND, IS MY UNDERSTANDING, FROM OUR QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION. SO THAT IS MY REASONING FOR MOVING THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL. SO. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I THINK THAT MY CONCERN WITH THIS ANNEXATION, NOT CONSIDERING THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AT ALL, ARE WHAT THE ZONING THEN ALLOWS FOR. AND DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO ANNEX THIS PROPERTY INTO CITY LIMITS AND GIVE ACCESS TO CITY SERVICES? CONSIDERING WHERE THAT PROPERTY IS LOCATED? BECAUSE, YES, EVERY YOU KNOW, THERE'S A PLAN FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN. BUT IF THAT WERE TO FALL THROUGH, IF THAT WEREN'T TO COME TO FRUITION, WE NOW HAVE A HUGE PARCEL OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF WACO THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED IN TO THOSE ONE ACRE LOTS. YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE DENSITY THAT THE CITY OF WACO MAY NOT BE ABLE TO FEASIBLY SERVICE. AND I WAS JUST SAYING THAT BECAUSE OF THE SMALL AREA OF MAP THAT WE SAW. BUT IF THIS WAS ANNEXED, ARE WE.

AND NOT NOT CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED USAGE, BUT CONSIDERING ANY USAGE, ARE WE SORT OF SETTING THAT PARCEL UP FOR FAILURE BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING, LET'S BRING IT INTO THE CITY OF WACO, LET'S ZONE IT R E AND AS THE CITY OF WACO PROPERTY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ACCESS TO SERVICES. BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW THOSE SERVICES ARE GOING TO GET THERE. AND, YOU KNOW, WITH THE WE TALK ABOUT, WELL, THAT HAPPENS IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BUT I'M NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT NECESSARILY LIKE WATER OR SEWER. ALL THOSE ARE VALID. BUT IF THAT A CITY OF WACO LAND AND A DEVELOPER COMES IN AND DEVELOPS IT AND PUTS HOUSES OUT THERE, HOW ARE OUR CITY SERVICES, OUR POLICE, OUR FIRE, ACCESSING THAT PIECE OF CITY OF WACO LAND? AND THAT'S MY CONCERN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ANNEXING IT IN NOT THINKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC USE, BUT ANY USE. AND I'M JUST AGAIN, LOOKING AT THE MAP THAT SMALL IS WELL, I THINK I THINK HOW DOES HOW DOES THE CITY OF WACO

[01:10:01]

AND I, I THINK THAT I MEAN, THAT DEFINITELY ANSWERS MY QUESTION, BUT I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WHY WOULDN'T WE ANNEX IT? BECAUSE NOW BRINGING THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT BACK IN, WHY WOULDN'T WE ANNEX IT? BECAUSE THE CITY CAN PUT A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT THERE NO MATTER WHAT. I THINK MY COMMENT IS, WHY WOULD WE ANNEX IT IF THE CITY CAN PUT A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OUT THERE NO MATTER WHAT? BECAUSE. JUST LOGISTICALLY, IT AND I AND

[01:15:09]

AND THEN THE THE NEW TRANSFER STATION FOR THE LANDFILL THAT'S OFF THIRD. AND YOU'LL SEE THAT.

SO THIS IS ONE OF FOUR PROPERTIES. AND SO IT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO THIS, BUT WE ARE THAT THAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET PROPERTY THAT THE CITY OWNS, THAT WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ANNEX INTO OUR CITY LIMITS FOR TRANSPARENCY. CAN YOU SPEAK INTO WHY YOU'RE PURSUING ANNEXATION AND WHY YOU WOULDN'T JUST DO LIKE WHAT YOU DID WITH BULLARD? SO IT'S ALL WHAT LAURA WAS SAYING. WE HAVEN'T HAVING THEIR JURISDICTIONAL CONTROL ON THE PROPERTIES THAT WE OWN, THAT WE CAN ANNEX IS, IS THE GOAL OF WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THESE FOUR PROPERTIES PRACTICALLY. YEAH. IS THERE IS THERE A TECHNICAL OR PRACTICAL EXAMPLE THAT CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND AND THE AUDIENCE UNDERSTAND WHY? LIKE THE BENEFIT, I THINK IS WHAT HE'S TRYING. YEAH. THE BENEFIT IS HAVING IT IN THE CITY'S CONTROL AND JURISDICTIONAL CONTROL. AND LAURA WENT THROUGH THOSE AND WE CAN PULL THAT SLIDE BACK UP IF YOU WANT. BUT WE THAT IS THE GOAL FOR THE FOUR PROPERTIES. INCORPORATES EXISTING CITY OWNED PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF.

OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? YEAH. BACK TO YOUR POINT. I CAN'T THINK OF A REASON WHY IT WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE FOR ANNEXATION. SO UNLESS YOU CAN HAVE A. I THINK IT'S A VALID QUESTION, BUT UNLESS YOU HAVE A PRACTICAL ANSWER OF WHY WOULDN'T WE DO IT, I'M INCLINED TO APPROVE IT. BUT OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. IF ANYONE HAS AN IDEA OF LIKE, OH YEAH, THIS LISTENING TO THIS, THIS IS A GOOD REASON WHY WE WOULDN'T WANT TO DO IT. AND I GUESS MY RESPONSE TO THAT WOULD JUST BE LIKE, TO ME IN LOOKING AT THE MAP AND THEN TALKING ABOUT LIKE WHAT THE ZONING WOULD BE. AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE WASTEWATER PROPOSAL, BUT NOT CONSIDERING IT. LIKE IF THEY CAN DO THAT ANYWAY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS BROUGHT WITHIN WACO CITY LIMITS, I WILL SAY THAT FROM A MAP AND A LOGISTICS STANDPOINT, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT MAKES SENSE TO ME. AND SPECIFICALLY, SPECIFICALLY, JUST BECAUSE IT IT DOESN'T CONNECT OR. AND YOU THINK IT'LL BE A DRAIN ON WACO'S RESOURCES OR WHAT? WELL, AGAIN, LIKE I'M CONSIDERING ANY FUTURE USE ALLOWED WITHIN THAT ZONING, THE SIZE OF THE PARCEL, WHAT COULD BE DONE WITH IT IF A WASTEWATER FACILITY TREATMENT ISN'T THERE AND. THAT WE ARE BRINGING A ESSENTIALLY NONCONTIGUOUS PARCEL OF PROPERTY INTO THE CITY OF WACO LIMITS THAT. WE CAN'T REALLY SERVICE, WE CAN'T REALLY ACCESS. I MEAN, IT'S IT'S ONLY TECHNICALLY CONSIDERED CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY OF WACO BECAUSE IT BUTTS UP TO WATER. YEAH. YEAH, TOTALLY. THAT MAKES SENSE. I MEAN, MY, MY OPINION MIGHT BE DIFFERENT IF THAT PARCEL WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER AND BUTTED UP TO CITY OF WACO LAND. SURE. I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. AND I JUST MAYBE

[01:20:07]

YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. NO. SMITH. YES. EMBRY. YES. THE MOTION CARRIES.

THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS AN ANNEX 26-03. I'LL WAIT. 60S AND ASK FOR THE REPORT. FROM THE CITY STAFF. YEAH, IN ABOUT 30S AND I, AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S IT'S VERY IT'S REALLY.

TRULY, PROBABLY NOT A DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE HAVING. IT'S VERY FRUSTRATING. CAN WE TAKE I THINK WE LOST CAN WE TAKE A BREAK? WHAT'S THE RULE L? THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, YES, IS ANNEX 26-03. WHAT IS THE REPORT FROM THE CITY STAFF? MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, THIS IS AGAIN A CITY INITIATED VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 240.9 ACRES OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG SOUTH UNIVERSITY PARKS DRIVE. FM 3400.

ANNEXATION INCLUDES EIGHT CITY OWNED TRACTS, APPROXIMATELY 2.33 MILES OF UNIVERSITY PARKS DRIVE RIGHT OF WAY AND THEN PORTIONS OF ROSENFELD ROAD AND RAIL ROAD. RIGHTS OF WAY.

PROPERTY IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS AND LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY'S ETJ.

SO THIS IS A CASE WHERE UNDER. SINCE 2023, THE STATE OF TEXAS UPDATED LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWS CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN PROPERTIES AND CITY LIMITS THROUGH THE MEANS OF A RIGHT OF WAY. IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE THE UNIVERSITY PARKS DRIVE RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS TXDOT JURISDICTION. WE ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN ACCEPTANCE OF THAT RIGHT OF WAY. AND AS PART OF THE ANNEXATION, THEY HAVE 61 DAYS FROM THE ADOPTION OF THE ANNEXATION TO PROVIDE ANY OBJECTIONS. AND WE ALREADY RECEIVED TEX DOT'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE ANNEXATION OF THAT RIGHT OF WAY. SO SURROUNDING BACKING UP A LITTLE BIT, LOCATED ADJACENT TO COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE AND IS ALSO NEAREST NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT WOULD BE THE OAKWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. SURROUNDING AREA IS CHARACTERIZED AGAIN BY AGRICULTURAL LAND, RURAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES, AND THEN EXISTING CITY OWNED PUBLIC FACILITIES, INCLUDING THE RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED TRANSFER STATION, WHICH IS LOCATED HERE ON PARCEL ONE. FLAT CREEK BISECTS PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY AND MUCH OF THE AREA.

LIES WITHIN THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN. THE REQUEST ALSO INCLUDES. PORTIONS OF COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY

[01:25:07]

THERE'S ALSO SOME INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATIONS THERE. AND THEN AGAIN, WE'RE PROPOSING THE RURAL RURAL, RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION. AND IN THAT LAND USE DESIGNATION, OUR E IS THE ONLY ALLOWABLE ZONING DESIGNATION. AND AGAIN, RE-EMPHASIZING THAT PUBLIC USES AND UTILITIES ARE PERMITTED IN ALL OF OUR ZONING DISTRICTS. PLANNING SERVICES. NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS. AND ON THIS ONE WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY WRITTEN COMMENTS. WE HAVE 52 NOTICES MAILED. NO OBJECTIONS WERE RECEIVED. AND AGAIN, WE SENT OUT THE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS HANDOUT WITH THIS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS VOLUNTARY REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION, DESIGNATION OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND RE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT AND EXTENDING THE BOUNDARY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF WACO TO INCLUDE SAID TERRITORY. DOES ANYONE ELSE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS SUE HANSON AND MY ADDRESS IS 8628 SOUTH THIRD STREET, BUT I OWN LAND ON THE ROSENFELD ROAD, AND IT'S STRICTLY GOING TO BE JUST RESIDENTIAL. RURAL. THERE'S NO CONSTRUCTION OR ANYTHING DESIGNATED FOR THAT AREA BECAUSE I KNOW THE BIGGEST PART OF IT. IT'S THE OLD DUMP SITE, JUST LIKE YOU BUILT THE TRANSPORTATION ON RYDAL ROAD WAS AN OLD DUMP SITE. AND SO, I MEAN, THAT'S ALL I WANT TO KNOW IS IT'S STRICTLY GOING TO BE RESIDENTIAL AND RURAL. THERE'S NO IDEA OF BUILDING ANY KIND OF ANYTHING ELSE ON IT. YEAH. CORRECT. THERE'S NO PLANS FOR CITY FACILITIES ON THE PROPERTIES. TWO THROUGH EIGHT THE TRANSPORTATION HAPPENING ON THE OTHER PROPERTIES. ARE YOU GOING TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE LAND OR IS IT JUST JUST SO IT BECAUSE IT'S CITY OWNED, IT'S JUST UNDER YOUR JURISDICTION. OKAY. IS THAT THE SAME THING ON TREATMENT ROAD BECAUSE THAT'S ALSO LAND OVER THERE. THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S CORRECT. JUST.

ANNEXING THE EXISTING FACILITY THERE. OKAY. AND TO ADD THE TREATMENT PLANT, ROAD ONE IS NOT GOING TO BE CONSIDERED TONIGHT. WE HAVE PULLED THAT OFF THE AGENDA. OKAY. I MEAN, IT'S STRICTLY THAT'S ALL I WANT TO MAKE SURE IS I DON'T WANT TREATMENT PLANT. WE'VE ALREADY GOT SOMETHING OUT THERE. SO ON MY NEXT TO MY LAND ALREADY. OKAY. THANK YOU. WAS THAT IN FAVOR OF OR WAS THAT, WHICH ONE DID I GET THERE? OH, THAT WAS A QUESTION IN FAVOR OF NEUTRAL.

IS 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? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. DONALD JAMES, 1830 EAST TINSLEY ROAD, HADN'T BEEN ABLE TO HEAR HARDLY ANYTHING THAT'S GOING ON HERE. SO I'M TALKING TO THE MIC HERE. THE CITY OF WACO NEVER ANNEXES ANYTHING WITHOUT A REASON. THEY'VE GOT A REASON FOR IT. AND ON THE WRITING, I CAN'T HEAR THE LADY OVER HERE. BUT ON THE WRITING UP THERE, NO TAXES, NO ANYTHING.

EVERYTHING'S GOING TO REMAIN THE SAME AS IT IS. THAT BEING THE CASE, WHY AN EXIT? THERE'S

[01:30:09]

I GUESS YOU'RE CALLING IT THE TRANSFER STATION, THE GARBAGE. ALL THE GARBAGE OUT OF WACO COMES OUT THERE AND WE WERE BLESSED WITH THAT. THEY'VE NEVER SAID ANYTHING TO US ABOUT HOW THE TRAFFIC WOULD BE INCREASED, WHICH IT HAS ALL THE ALL THE GARBAGE TRUCKS COME OUT THERE AND UNLOAD AND THEN LOAD AGAIN. SOMEONE HAS BEEN PICKING UP THE TRASH ALONGSIDE UNIVERSITY PARKS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY'RE GOING 100 FOOT ON EACH SIDE OF UNIVERSITY PARKS. I GUESS THAT THEN PUTS UNIVERSITY PARKS DRIVE IN THE CITY OF WACO.

RIGHT NOW, UNIVERSITY PARK DRIVE IS A FARM TO MARKET ROAD, AND I UNDERSTAND MAINTAINED BY THE STATE. IT'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC ON IT, A LOT OF TRUCK TRAFFIC. WELL, THAT BE WACO'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN THAT ROAD. AND WHY THE HUNDRED FEET ON THE WEST SIDE OF UNIVERSITY PARKS, IF ALL THEY WANT IS THE TRANSFER STATION? AND THEN APPARENTLY THE OTHER BLOCK OF LAND THAT'S IN THE ORANGE UP THERE THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSE OWN. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. BUT WHY THE ANNEXATION OF 100 FOOT ON THE WEST SIDE OF UNIVERSITY PARKS DRIVE? I DIDN'T SEE THAT ON THE PREVIOUS DEAL WHERE THEY HAD ANNEXED ANY PROPERTY LEADING UP TO THE PROPERTY THAT THEY WERE ANNEXING THAT BELONGED TO THEM. AND IF THEY CAN ANNEX IT WITHOUT ANNEXING ANYTHING ELSE, WHY NOT DO THAT? WHY NOT JUST ANNEX WHAT THEY OWN OUT THERE INSTEAD? INSTEAD OF 100 FOOT OF OUR PROPERTY THAT'S ALONG THE ROAD OUT THERE, IT JUST SEEMS THAT THEY'VE GOT OTHER PLANS THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO DISCLOSE TO US. I THINK IT SHOULD BE TRANSPARENT. I THINK WE SHOULD KNOW WHAT THE PLANS ARE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. JAMES. MR. JAMES, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. WHEN YOU'RE MR. JAMES. I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU. WHEN YOU WERE REFERRING TO THE 100FT ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF UNIVERSITY PARKS ROAD, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE DASHED LINE THAT APPEARS ON THIS MAP? I'M LOOKING AT THE DASHED LINES.

YES. SO, LAURA, THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. LAURA. THAT DASHED LINE, RIGHT. THAT REPRESENTS NOT THE AREA THAT THE CITY OF WACO IS REQUESTING TO ANNEX.

THAT DASHED LINE IS THE NOTIFICATION BORDER. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. WE ARE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT OF THE ANNEXATION. SO THE DASHED LINE THAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THE SCREEN IS THE THAT 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA, THE ONLY LAND IN THIS ANNEXATION BEING ANNEXED IS WHAT'S SHOWING AS ORANGE ON THE SCREEN. NOT NOT THE WHITE DASHED LINE, THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR UNIVERSITY PARKS. JUST TO CLARIFY AS WELL, JUST THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR UNIVERSITY PARKS IS BEING ANNEXED, NOT LAND ON EITHER SIDE OF IT. AND UNLIKE THE OTHER COUNTY ROAD ANNEXATIONS, WHEN ANNEXING A TXDOT ROAD, IT MAINTAINS IN TXDOT OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE, IT JUST IS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AT THIS POINT. IF APPROVED. DO I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'RE NOT ANNEXING ANYTHING ON THE WEST SIDE OF UNIVERSITY PARKS DRIVE? NOTHING OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, EXCEPT FOR THOSE ORANGE CITY OWNED PROPERTIES. OKAY, MAY I ADD SOMETHING TO THAT? THAT'S ME SPEAKING OVER HERE,

[01:35:10]

AND THAT'S JUST THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO, AND ANOTHER THING THAT YOU MENTIONED IN LAURA STATED THAT FOR UNIVERSITY PARKS BEING THAT THAT'S BEING ANNEXED IN AND THAT CITY PROPERTY, SO TXDOT PROPERTY, THEN THE STATE OF TEXAS WILL STILL MAINTAIN THAT ROAD. AND THAT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL. WELL, I DO HAVE PROPERTY THERE THAT GOES OUT TO UNIVERSITY PARKS, AND I WAS NOT NOTIFIED, BUT MY NEIGHBOR WAS AND I CAME UP WITH HIM. IT HAS TO BE WITHIN A CERTAIN FEET OF THE PROPERTY. THAT'S WHY YOU MAY OR MAY NOT EVEN KNOW YOU HAD PROPERTY THERE. IF YOU'RE OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION PARAMETER, THAT'S WHY YOU MAY HAVE NOT HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER. AND THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU.

PROPERTY GOES OUT TO UNIVERSITY PARKS, SO I SUPPOSE I'M WITHIN THAT PERIMETER. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. JAMES. IS ANYONE ELSE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A SHORT REBUTTAL? I BELIEVE I HAVE ADDRESSED THE THINGS I WAS GOING TO BRING UP. ONE OTHER NOTE I HEARD ABOUT RAILROAD ROSENFELD ROAD, JUST LIKE THE PREVIOUS ANNEXATION BASED ON STATE LAW, THERE ARE COUNTY ROADS, SO WE ARE REQUIRED TO INCLUDE THEM IN THE ANNEXATION, AND THEN WE WOULD CONTINUE MAINTAINING THOSE ROADS. DO ANY COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE ONE AGAIN, THE CITY OWNS THIS PROPERTY, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. HOW LONG IS THAT STRETCH OF UNIVERSITY PARKS APPROXIMATELY? DOES IT SAY IT? IS 2.33 MILES? OH THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME IN THE AGENDA. I KNEW IT WAS IN HERE SOMEWHERE. 2.33 YEP. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION MEMBERS? THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL? I GUESS IT'S THE ANNEXATION, THE LAND USE AND ZOF FINDINGS. I SECOND MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SMITH AND SECONDED BY MISS GIVENS. ANY DISCUSSION, PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION.

ALLEN J. ELLIS. YES. ENGLAND. YES. GIBBONS. YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. YES.

SMITH. YES. EMBRY. YES. MOTION CARRIES. THE NEXT ITEM. ITEM THREE. I THINK NO ACTION UPON LAURA. IS THAT CORRECT? 26-04 YES. A ANNEX 2604 IS WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS ANNEX 26-06. WHAT IS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY STAFF? OKAY, MISTER CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, THIS IS A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION REQUEST. UNLIKE THE OTHER TWO, THIS IS SUBMITTED BY WBW LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC SERIES 122 FOR THEIR OWNED PROPERTY. UNLIKE THE OTHER TWO, YES, THIS IS A PRIVATE. THIS IS NOT THE CITY OF WACO PRIVATE ANNEXATION. THIS IS NOT A CITY OWNED PROPERTY. OKAY, OKAY. THE REQUEST INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 104.5 ACRES CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 96.35 ACRES OF PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY AND APPROXIMATELY 8.16 ACRES OF COTTON. BELT. PARKWAY FM 2188 RIGHT OF WAY PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG COTTON BELT PARKWAY, SOUTH OF U.S. HIGHWAY 84, ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS. THERE IS A LOCATION MAP. THIS PINKISH COLOR IS MACGREGOR CITY LIMITS. THE BLUE IS CITY OF WACO, AND THE SOLID YELLOW LINE IS THE ANNEXATION AREA, AND THE DASHED LINE IS THE NOTIFICATION AREA.

HERE IS A ZOOMED IN. YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS. MACGREGOR ACTUALLY OWNS THE HIGHWAY 84 OR

[01:40:01]

THAT IS. RECENTLY WE DID AN AMENDMENT TO THAT ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR SMALLER LOTS THAT HAVE ALLEY LOADED LOTS. AND THERE'S THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS ONE THAT KIND OF GOT THAT BALL ROLLING ON THAT. I HAVE PROVIDED THE SURVEY FOR REFERENCE. THIS AGAIN SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE R1C, WHICH IS THE SMALLER AREA, AND THEN THE R1B ZONING. SO PLANNING SERVICES DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VOLUNTARY REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION. DESIGNATION OF URBAN RESIDENTIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AND R1B ZONING. APPROXIMATELY 78.08 ACRES FOR THE ZONING OF R1B AND 18.27 ACRES FOR THE ZONING OF R1C29 NOTICES WERE MAILED AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RETURNED. IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. HELLO ADRIAN DONAHUE GWBW DEVELOPMENT, 109 SECOND STREET, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS. I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD. I THINK EVERYTHING WAS SAID, BUT I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL MAY HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU. WELCOME. ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? THE ANY COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? WITH REGARDS LIKE FOR CITY STAFF, WHAT. WHAT MOTIVATES THE CITY OF WACO TO ANNEX A PROPERTY LIKE THIS? LIKE TAX REVENUE OR. TO ANNEX THE PROPERTY? WHAT'S THE MOTIVATION FOR FOR DEVELOPMENT, FOR GROWTH TO TO, TO MANAGE GROWTH THAT'S HAPPENING IN AND AROUND THE CITY. YEAH. OKAY. AND THEN IS THIS. SO THIS IS ETJ LAND, RIGHT? CORRECT. HAS ANY DEVELOPMENT STARTED HAPPENING ON IT NOW YET? NO, NO.

OKAY. NO. YEAH. THERE'S BEEN A PLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT'S COME THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. BUT THERE HASN'T DEVELOPMENT HASN'T STARTED YET. OKAY. IF I CAN ADD TO THAT ANNEXATION WAS THEY DID SUBMIT THE PHASE ONE FINAL PLAT FOR REVIEW. IT'S CONTINGENT UPON THIS ANNEXATION BECAUSE THE COUNTY CANNOT MAINTAIN THAT KIND OF DENSITY WITHIN THE COUNTY. SO AND THEN THERE IS SOME AGREEMENTS HAPPENING OUT THERE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S ALSO TIED TO THAT PHASE ONE PLAT THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PURVIEW. RIGHT. I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK WHAT MADE ME THINK DEVELOPMENT HAD STARTED ON IT. YEAH. WHAT WE HAD SEEN ON IT. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION, LAND USE CHANGE AND ZONING CHANGES BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS? SECOND. THERE IS A MOTION MADE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR ALL THE ITEMS BY

[01:45:04]

SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. EMBRY. YES. NEXT. ITEM NUMBER FIVE. I'M GOING TO STEP OUT AND THE FLOOR IS NOW THE VICE CHAIR. COMMISSIONER SMITH. MR. EMBRY. LEAVE THE ROOM. HE'S GOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. HE'S ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE. OKAY. THIS IS ITEM Z-26-25. CITY STAFF, WHAT IS YOUR REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION? MR. CHAIR? MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THIS IS KC 2625. THIS REQUEST INCLUDES TWO RELATE RELATED REZONINGS WITHIN THE SAME BLOCK IN NORTH WACO. THE PROPOSAL REQUEST TO REZONE 1901 NORTH 25TH STREET FROM O THREE OFFICE LIMITED COMMERCIAL TO R3C MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND THE CITY IS CO-APPLICANTS FOR REZONING. SIX SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL LOTS FROM R3 MULTIPLE FAMILY TO R-2 TWO FAMILY AND ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY. THE PURPOSE IS TO FACILITATE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE VACANT OFFICE SITE, WHILE BRINGING THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL ZONING INTO CLOSER ALIGNMENT WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. HERE IS A LOCATION MAP. AGAIN, THE SOLID LINES REPRESENT THE PARCELS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION, AND THE DASHED LINE IS SHOWING THE NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTH WACO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR. THE BLOCK CONTAINS A VACANT FORMER OFFICE BUILDING AT THE CORNER OF 25TH AND MAPLE AVENUE, AND THEN THE REST OF THE PROPERTIES HERE AND HERE ARE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT IS PRIMARILY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR TWO FAMILY RESIDENCES. THERE IS ALSO AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE PROPERTY, AND A SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING COMMERCIAL USES. CLOSER TO THE INTERSECTION IS GOING TO GO THROUGH THESE PICTURES PRETTY QUICKLY. THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW. JUST FOR THE SAKE OF TIME. THESE ARE THE RESIDENCES. THEY ARE SHOWING SINGLE FAMILY. OKAY. OKAY. SO ALL PROPERTIES ARE DESIGNATED AS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE FLEX. BOTH REQUESTED ZONING DISTRICTS ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THAT LAND USE DESIGNATION. SO NO FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED.

PERMITTED ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN THIS DESIGNATION FURTHER INCLUDE THE O1O3R2 AS REQUESTED R3A, R3B, AND R3C AS REQUESTED. SO, WITH THE ZONE CHANGE, YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING O THREE ON THE CORNER AND THEN THE GREEN IS THE EXISTING R THREE ZONING. R-3 ZONING IS A MULTIFAMILY ZONING. AND AS YOU SAW IN THOSE PICTURES, I WAS GOING THROUGH PRETTY QUICKLY THE USE OF SINGLE FAMILY. SO THERE IS AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT THEY'RE IN AND THE LAND USES THAT ARE ON THESE PROPERTIES. SO CURRENTLY, IF WE WERE DEVELOPING ALL OF THIS RIGHT NOW, SAY THAT THERE'S NOTHING ON THESE PROPERTIES, AND WE'RE GOING TO DEVELOP THESE LOTS TO THE EXISTING ZONING. THE CURRENT ZONING WOULD ALLOW 52 DWELLING UNITS GOING TO THE PROPOSED ZONING OF R THREE. AND SO WITH THIS ZONING, IT WOULD ONLY ALLOW 30 DWELLING UNITS. SO IN ESSENCE, EVEN THOUGH WE WOULD BE INCREASING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN THIS CORNER, WE WOULD BE DECREASING THE POTENTIAL ALLOWABLE DENSITY BY DOWN ZONING THIS TO THE APPROPRIATE ZONING DISTRICT. AND THEN JUST SOME COMPARISON SLIDES. JUST THE THE MAIN HIGHLIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW, THE O THREE IS EXISTING. IT DOES ALLOW MULTIPLE SORRY TOWNHOME DWELLINGS, RETAIL SALES AND RESTAURANTS WITH LIMITED HOURS.

[01:50:06]

AND THAT WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKETS. THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT OR HIS OR HER REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? THANK YOU. HIS NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. CAMERON GREEN 5409 EDINBURG DRIVE. JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? THANK YOU SIR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? ANYONE OPPOSED WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YES. HELLO. MY NAME IS TATIANA ROSENFELD. THE ADDRESS IS 1403 DESERT WILLOW PLACE, CEDAR PARK. MY HUSBAND AND I OWN 2600 MAPLE AVENUE, WHICH IS INSIDE THE NORRIS AREA. FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE. AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE REZONING REQUEST. I DID SPEAK WITH MR. POLGREEN DIRECTLY, AND I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION. HE EXPLAINED THAT THIS HIS CURRENT PLAN IS IS A CERTAIN NUMBER OF APARTMENTS INSIDE THE EXISTING BUILDING WITH NO EXPANSION. HE ALSO TOLD ME HE WOULD NOT OPPOSE A FUTURE REZONING REQUEST FOR OUR PROPERTY. 2600 MAPLE AVENUE. I HAVE NOT SEEN THE ACTUAL PLANS YET, SO I CAN ONLY SPEAK FROM THE NOTICE, THE ZONING REQUEST AND THE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. MY CONCERN OR QUESTION IS THIS. SO IT'S ABOUT THE PLANNING RECORD AND HOW THE DECISION MAY ACTUALLY AFFECT PROPERTIES NEARBY PROPERTIES LATER. I BELIEVE THAT THIS AREA ALREADY HAS A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USE, AND OUR PROPERTY, AGAIN, 2600 MAPLE AVENUE SITS IN THAT SAME IMMEDIATE PATTERN, AND IT'S A CORNER PROPERTY NEAR A TRAFFIC AREA. AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS PART OF WACO SHOULD BE LOOKED AT WITH MAYBE A MORE BALANCED, FORWARD LOOKING APPROACH. YES, IT'S IT'S CURRENTLY A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE COMMERCIAL USE. AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS AREA HAS A GREAT POTENTIAL IN BRINGING IN MORE SMALL LOCAL BUSINESSES, MAYBE OFFICES, STUDIOS, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING COMMERCIAL USES, WHERE THAT MAKES SENSE.

AND CURRENTLY FROM THE MAP, IT DOES MAKE SENSE. AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS KIND OF COEXISTENCE CAN ACTUALLY BRING ACTIVITY SERVICES AND MONEY BACK INTO THE AREA. SO I WANT TO MAKE

[01:55:05]

YOU KNOW, MOVING THIS AREA ONLY TOWARD RESIDENTIAL WHERE IT CAN SERVE BOTH PURPOSES COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE SPACE. AND MY REQUEST TONIGHT THAT THIS CASE BE POSTPONED, MAYBE ENOUGH FOR THE CITY TO REVIEW THE SURROUNDING LAND USE DIRECTION MORE CLEARLY. AND IF THE COMMISSION DOES MOVE THIS CASE FORWARD TODAY, I WANT TO ASK THAT THE RECORD CLEARLY REFLECT THAT APPROVAL OF THIS CASE DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RESIDENTIAL ONLY DIRECTION FOR THE AREA, AND SHOULD NOT BE USED LATER AS A REASON TO DENY COMPATIBLE COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL OR OFFICE TYPE ZONING IN THE SAME AREA. FOR, SAY, MY PROPERTY, WHICH IS 2600 MAPLE AVENUE. AND THAT IS THE REQUEST TONIGHT. PROTECT THE BROADER PLANNING AS OPPOSED TO AS OPPOSED TO MOVING IT ONLY TOWARD RESIDENTIAL AND HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION FOR THAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO A QUICK REBUTTAL. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, MA'AM. YOU WERE YOU'RE NOT WANTING RESIDENTIAL ZONING. YOU'RE PREFERRING THAT WE DISAPPROVE THE APPLICATION TO KEEP IT FOR OFFICE SPACE WAS ASKING FOR KEEPING THE THE STRUCTURE AS IS SO EITHER STILL HAVE THE SAME MIXED USE OR IN CASE THIS CASE TODAY'S CASE GOES FORWARD AND GET GETS APPROVED THAT IN IN THE NEAREST FUTURE. AND I BELIEVE AS AS SOON AS NEXT MONTH, THE CITY DOES NOT COME BACK TO ME AND SAYS, SINCE WE JUST APPROVED THE. THE ADJACENT SPACE ONLY FOR RESIDENTIAL. THAT'S THE REASON WE CANNOT APPROVE APPROVE ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR CHANGING TO THE MIXED USE AS OPPOSED TO THE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL. OKAY. LAURA, GO AHEAD. I WAS GOING TO ASK IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN THE ZONING AGAIN SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND, LIKE THE PERMITTED USES IN THIS SPACE, OR EVEN SHOW THAT CHART THAT MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL. SO THANK YOU. SO IT'S SHOWING THAT THE O THREE IS WHAT'S EXISTING. WELL, I'M READING IT BACKWARDS. NEVER MIND. I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK.

IT SOUNDED TO ME LIKE HER CONCERN WAS THAT SHE'S CONCERNED THAT THE AREA IS GOING TO MOVE ONLY RESIDENTIAL. I'M NOT SURE IF IF THAT WAS YOUR CONCERN. CAN YOU AS FAR AS MEDIUM DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE FLEX, WHICH IS THE LAND, IS THAT THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THIS AREA? AND YOU HAD IT ON ONE MAP, RIGHT? SO ZONING IS GUIDED BY LAND USE, RIGHT. AND SO LIKE MEDIUM DENSITY OFFICE RESIDENTIAL FLEX DEFINITELY HAS COMMERCIAL TYPE USES IN IT. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. LET ME REVIEW THE ALLOWABLE ZONINGS WITHIN THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE FLEX, WHICH ARE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN AS ORANGE IS O1O3R2, R3AR3B AND R3C. SO WHEN MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE, THE LAND USE MAP IS THE FIRST THING THAT WE PULL UP. WE HAD ANOTHER REQUEST JUST A COUPLE MONTHS AGO, RIGHT ACROSS MAPLE AVENUE FROM THIS, AND WE RECOMMENDED DISAPPROVAL OF THAT ONE AS WELL BECAUSE IT THE REQUEST WAS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE THE LAND USE PLAN, SO DEPENDENT UPON SPECIFIC SITUATIONS FOR EACH ZONE CHANGE REQUEST. THIS IS THE FIRST THING THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT.

YEP. OKAY. AND WE PUBLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. IT'S FOR FOR THE SPEAKER. IF

[02:00:03]

YES. GIBBONS. YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. ALL RIGHT. MOTION CARRIES. WE CAN BRING MR. EMBRY BACK IN. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THEY WERE. THEY WERE LEFT. ARE WE GOOD? QUORUM WISE? WE'RE GOOD. OKAY. YEAH. COOL. THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR SMITH. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. NUMBER SIX. LAURA, WE ARE REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. FOR NO, ACTUALLY CASE Z 2626. THE APPLICANT WE RECEIVED TODAY A REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF HER. I'M SORRY. NO CONTINUANCE. YOU'RE RIGHT. SORRY. I'M AHEAD. WRONG ONE.

LONG NIGHT. YES, WE DID RECEIVE A REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS AUGUST 25TH, 2026, SO THAT SHE CAN ATTEND THIS MEETING AND ADDRESS CONCERNS. WE NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE CONTINUANCE. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND NO PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RIGHT NOW. I THINK YOU DO. YEAH. WE YEAH.

WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND HAVE ANY TESTIMONY THAT PEOPLE CAME TO TALKS. OKAY.

WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE NORMAL MOTIONS, BUT THE ACTION WILL BE A REQUEST TO. SO YEAH.

SO WE'LL THERE'S A REQUEST TO CONTINUE. SO WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, HEAR ANY TESTIMONY FROM FOR OR AGAINST. WE'LL TAKE ACTION ON THE CONTINUANCE. IF IF THE COMMISSION APPROVES A CONTINUANCE AND THAT WILL BE IT. IF YOU DENY THE CONTINUANCE, THEN WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CASE. YEP. AND I WOULD REVIEW THE REPORT FULL REPORT AT THAT TIME. OKAY. AT THIS TIME YOU'RE GOING TO DO THE REPORT OR WHAT TIME IF WE DON'T CONTINUE IT, YOU DON'T CONTINUE. IF WE DON'T CONTINUE IT. OKAY. SO SO RIGHT NOW, WHAT AM I DOING? YOU'RE YOU'RE OPENING THE HEARING, THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK, HEARING PRESENT? THEY'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM. YES. MY NAME IS DONNA DILL, AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON MAGGIE MCCARTHY'S BEHALF. SHE'S UNABLE TO BE HERE TODAY. I, I RECENTLY RETIRED FROM BANKS WITH 35 YEARS AS A CREDIT RISK ANALYST, AND I'VE BEEN A LIFELONG ADVOCATE FOR THE DISABILITY COMMUNITY SINCE MY TIME AS THE NATIONAL POSTER CHILD FOR MARCH OF DIMES. AND THROUGHOUT MY TIME THAT I'VE LIVED IN WACO. I KNOW MAGGIE, THROUGH OUR COMMON SERVICE AS VOLUNTEERS AND DISABILITY ADVOCATES THROUGH MOBILIZE WACO, A LOCAL NONPROFIT WORKING TOWARD FULL PARTICIPATION, ACCESS, AND OPPORTUNITY BY PEOPLE'S BY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN THE WACO AREA. WE WANT A COMMUNITY THAT IS DESIGNED FOR EVERYONE, SO PEOPLE OF ALL TALENTS AND ABILITIES CAN THRIVE. MAGGIE HAS FORMALLY REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE AS SHE IS OUT OF TOWN. SHE HOPES THAT THIS WILL ALLOW HER THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS FEEDBACK WITH HER NEIGHBORS AND SHARE WITH THEM THE RULES FOR TYPE ONE RENTALS, ALONG WITH HER APPROACH TO THE RENTAL OF HER PROPERTY, MAGGIE INTENDS TO PRIORITIZE PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES VIA REFERRALS FROM HER INVOLVEMENT WITH THE DISABILITY COMMUNITY. THERE IS A GREAT SHORTAGE OF ACCESSIBLE RENTAL PROPERTIES, WITH LESS THAN 1% OF AVAILABLE RENTS LISTED AS ACCESSIBLE. MAGGIE'S HOME IS ONE OF THE FEW THAT IS ACCESSIBLE. MAGGIE HAS DIRECT AND FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE VALUE OF ACCESSIBLE LIVING. AS SHE SHARED HER HOME WITH HER HUSBAND, JIM DURHAM, WHO WAS PARALYZED AND USED A WHEELCHAIR.

MAGGIE WAS ACTIVE IN WORKING WITH THE DISABLED COMMUNITY THROUGH HIS WORK AS A REGISTERED ACCESSIBILITY SPECIALIST AND AN RAZ170. HE DID A GREAT DEAL OF WORK RELATED TO ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE CITY OF WACO. MAGGIE'S HOME IS A SINGLE STORY, RANCH STYLE HOME THAT IS LEVEL AND FLAT, WITH WIDENED DOORS AND AN ADA ACCESSIBLE BATHROOM, MAKING IT A GREAT OPTION FOR MANY PEOPLE WITH DECREASED MOBILITY. HER INTENTION IS TO WORK ON A REFERRAL BASIS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY THAT SHE KNOWS AFFECTED BY DISABILITY OF SOME

[02:05:05]

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE? IS THERE ANYONE ELSE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? YES, MA'AM. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I'M VALERIE FILLMORE AND I LIVE AT 3224 MAPLE AVENUE. MY NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET HAS HAD AN AIRBNB FOR PROBABLY TEN YEARS. SHE WAS A POLICE OFFICER. SHE SINCE MOVED. HER PARENTS ARE IN THE HOUSE. THE ONLY WAY WE KNOW THAT ANYBODY IS RENTING THE THE PROPERTY IS THAT THERE ARE LITTLE DIFFERENT CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY. THERE'S NOT ANY PROBLEM AT ALL. THE ONLY PROBLEM WE'VE EVER HAD WITH HER AIRBNB WAS ON A BAYLOR GRADUATION WEEKEND AND THE MOM FORGOT HER HAIRDRYER AND THE GIRLS TOOK THEIRS WITH THEM WHEN THEY VACATED THE PROPERTY.

FOR THEM TO HAVE RENTERS IN. AND THEY CALLED ME AND ASKED ME TO BRING THEM A HAIRDRYER. MOST PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT THEIR PROPERTY DON'T WANT TO RENT IT TO SOMEONE WHO WON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR PROPERTY. I KNOW YOU'RE WORKING ON A CONTINUANCE FOR THIS CASE, BECAUSE MISS MAGGIE WOULD LIKE TO DO SOME REPAIR WITH HER NEIGHBORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO TO LET THEM UNDERSTAND WHERE HER HEART IS, HER HEART IS, AND WHAT IS GOING TO BE GOING ON IN HER PROPERTY WITH THESE RENTALS. AND I WOULD PLEASE ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THIS CONTINUANCE. THE OTHER THING IS, DONNA, DONNA DILL IS MY BEST FRIEND, AND I'M JUST GOING TO TELL YOU, WHEN HER HOUSE BURNED A FEW YEARS AGO AND SHE AND HER HUSBAND, WHO BOTH NEED ACCESSIBILITY, COULD HARDLY FIND ANY PLACE IN THE WHOLE COUNTY TO LEASE WHILE THEY WERE REBUILDING THEIR HOME. YOU NEED TO TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A DIFFERENT THING WITH SHORT TERM RENTALS.

THE HANDICAPPED POPULATION NEEDS TO BE RECOGNIZED, RESPECTED AND CONSIDERED IN THIS SITUATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE PRESENT? I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM. IS ANYONE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. FEEL FREE TO LINE UP BEHIND THE PODIUM IF YOU'D LIKE. HI, MY NAME IS TOM ALBERS. I LIVE AT 3001 WOODED ACRES, WHICH IS 200FT WITHIN THE RESIDENCE IN QUESTION, WHICH IS 3001 INVERNESS DRIVE. THIS IS STRICTLY AN AIRBNB FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, AND THERE'S NO REASON FOR US TO HAVE A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. THIS IS A PROMINENT, NICE AREA. I DON'T WANT SOMEBODY RENTING A HOUSE NEXT DOOR, MUCH LESS AN AIRBNB IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I WORKED REALLY HARD. I'VE SINCE RETIRED. I RESPECT THOSE WITH DISABILITIES. TO THE NTH DEGREE.

[02:10:04]

I'M SIMPLY OPPOSED TO THE CONTINUANCE TONIGHT BECAUSE WE'VE COME DOWN HERE FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE. PLENTY OF NOTICE WAS GIVEN. AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT MAGGIE CAN'T BE HERE, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE THE DISCUSSION AND THE AND THE THE VOTE BY THE BY THE COMMISSION. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS DAVID DALLAS. I LIVE AT 2911 INVERNESS. I'M DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO MAGGIE. 20 YEARS AGO I CAME TO THIS CITY. I BOUGHT THIS LOT. IT TOOK ME A NUMBER OF YEARS TO BUILD THAT HOUSE. I WENT TO THE CITY BEFORE I STARTED ANY OF MY BUILDING. I ASKED THEM ABOUT THE ZONING, WHAT WAS ALLOWED, WHAT WAS NOT ALLOWED. THEY GAVE IT TO ME.

SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, NO RENTALS, NO BUSINESSES. SO I BUILT MY HOUSE THERE. WE'VE BEEN THERE NOW FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW. ALL OF A SUDDEN, I'M FACED WITH THIS ISSUE OF AN AIRBNB NEXT DOOR TO ME. NOW, I KNOW IT'S BEEN CALLED UNDER SEVERAL DIFFERENT NAMES. NOT EXACTLY AN AIRBNB. IT'S CALLED AN AIRBNB WITH RESTRICTIONS, AND IT'S CALLED SOME OTHER THINGS THAT HAS BEEN PUT TO ME. WHAT THIS IS, THIS IS AN AIRBNB. IT IS A BUSINESS. NOW WHILE SHE IS SELLING IT AS A PLACE FOR THE DISABLED OR HANDICAPPED, I HAVE A HANDICAPPED SON AND IT'S NOT RIGHT FOR HIM OR ANYBODY TO BE ABLE TO GO INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A PROBLEM AND ALL OF A SUDDEN CHANGE THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M TOTALLY OPPOSED TO THIS. I'M VERY EMPATHETIC AND SYMPATHETIC TOWARDS PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. I'VE DEALT WITH MINE AND MY SON FOR 31 YEARS NOW, AND I UNDERSTAND A LOT OF THE DIFFICULTIES IN IT, BUT YOU JUST DON'T GO CHANGE THE RULES BECAUSE ONE PERSON WANTS TO CHANGE THEM FOR THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS A VERY NICE, INFLUENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. I LIKE IT, BUT HAD I KNOWN AT THAT TIME WHAT THE POSSIBILITIES WOULD BE, I WOULD HAVE NOT MOVED HERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ABIGAIL LAWSON. I LIVE 3100 WOODED ACRES DRIVE. AFTER SPEAKING WITH SEVERAL OF MY NEIGHBORS, WE'VE COME TO THE CONSENSUS THAT OF THE OPINION THAT THE REQUEST TO ALLOW A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL TYPE ONE IN OUR. FOR AS AN AIRBNB ZONING DISTRICT, BE DENIED. THE REASONS ARE. CONCERN FOR THE INTEGRITY AND CONTINUITY OF THE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS I'M SURE MANY OF YOU BELIEVE, IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHO'S IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK MANY OF US IN THE COMMUNITY KNOW EACH OTHER. WE KNOW OUR NEIGHBORS. WE KNOW OUR KIDS. WE KNOW WHO'S COMING AND GOING. THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMMUNITY. NUMBER TWO, SAFETY CONCERNS. PERSONS WOULD BE OCCUPYING THE HOME WOULD NOT BE VETTED. I KNOW IT WAS INDICATED EARLIER THAT THERE WOULD BE A VETTING PROCESS. WE'VE NOT HEARD WHAT THAT PROCESS WOULD BE, HOW INTENSE IT WOULD IT BE IF PERSON IS COMING? AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A GREAT EMPHASIS ON THE FACT OF OF DISABILITY, BUT WHAT I HEARD WAS THAT IT WOULD BE PRIORITIZED, BUT NOT LIMITED TO

[02:15:06]

THAT IS WHAT I NEEDED TO SPEAK TO THE COMMITTEE ABOUT. WE'RE HOPING THAT YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT WE SAID AND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER. HI, MY NAME IS KAREN MILLER. I LIVE AT 3011 WOODED ACRES. I KNOW MAGGIE, I THINK SHE'S A VERY NICE PERSON. AND MY MOTHER WAS A HANDICAPPED PERSON. AND. THEY LIVED IN WACO ALL THEIR LIVES. AND I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE WE WANT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS TO STAY AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND NOT HAVE A BUSINESS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I HOPE YOU WILL REALLY CONSIDER THIS. I HAVE THE MOST RESPECT FOR ANYONE WITH A HANDICAP. MY MOTHER HAD CANCER AT 18 AT BAYLOR. FELL, HAD WENT, HAD BONE CANCER, HAD HER LEG AMPUTATED BEFORE SHE MARRIED MY DAD. THEY WERE BOTH AT BAYLOR AND THEY. AFTER ALL THAT, SHE HAD THREE CHILDREN. RAISED US ALL HERE IN THE WACO AREA. AND SO I. I UNDERSTAND THE HANDICAP WORLD. I GUESS I WANT TO SAY MY MOTHER WAS ALSO THE TYPE OF PERSON WHO WENT OUT AND WATER SKIED AND WENT SKIING AND SNOW SKIING. AND SHE WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, SHE SAID SHE COULD DO EVERYTHING BUT DRIVE A STANDARD CAR OR RIDE UP AN ESCALATOR BECAUSE SHE HAD CRUTCHES AND THE CRUTCHES WOULD GO UP BEFORE SHE COULD GET ON THERE. SO I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT HANDICAPPED WORLD, BUT MY MOTHER NEVER STAYED IN AN AIRBNB FOR A HANDICAPPED SITUATION. THERE ARE SO MANY HOTELS. MY SISTER RAN THE ALOFT HOTEL HERE IN WACO FOR A WHILE. SHE WAS THE MANAGER GENERAL MANAGER. THEY HAVE A LOT OF HANDICAP ROOMS, AND ALL HOTELS NOWADAYS HAVE HANDICAP AVAILABILITY WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S ARRANGED FOR THEM TO USE THAT AND IT'S WONDERFUL.

AND FOR THAT TO BE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT THING THAT THAT BRINGS STRANGERS INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND LIKE ABIGAIL SAID, WE KIND OF IT'S A TIGHT KNIT NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO, YOU KNOW, YOU KIND OF RECOGNIZE THE KIDS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE, THE ANIMALS, YOU KNOW, OUR PETS, ALL OF THAT KIND OF THING. AND SO I'M JUST HOPING THAT YOU'LL, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER NOT CONTINUING THIS BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S NOTHING AGAINST MAGGIE.

AND IT IS NOTHING AGAINST HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUALS. IT IS JUST THAT WE ALL LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCY. AND WE WOULD JUST LIKE IT TO REMAIN THAT WAY.

THAT'S WHY WE BOUGHT OUR HOMES THERE. AND SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS MILLER. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A SHORT REBUTTAL? SHE'S NOT HERE. OH YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. SO GOING MY OPTIONS RIGHT NOW ARE TO BECAUSE IT SEEMS WEIRD OR STRANGE TO ME TO NOT READ IN YOUR REPORT. SO I THINK WE HAVE THE A VOTE ON THE CONTINUANCE. IF IT'S CONTINUED

[02:20:03]

OKAY. I JUST SAID I DIDN'T WANT TO CONTINUE, THAT'S ALL. YEAH. OKAY. WE NEED TO PUT THAT NOTICES. OKAY. ANYWAY, WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY. YEAH. SO IF IT'S NOT CONTINUED, THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH THE FULL CASE AND YOU'LL VOTE ON THE CASE. IF IT'S CONTINUED, WE'LL TAKE UP THE CASE NEXT MONTH. OKAY. AND YOU'LL GET THE REPORT NEXT MONTH. SO RIGHT NOW I'M ASKING THE COMMISSIONERS. YEAH FOR A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS. YEAH. OR NOT OR NOT CONTINUE. OKAY.

WE CAN'T EVEN DISCUSS OR ASK QUESTIONS. RIGHT. ANYONE WHO SPOKE, I WOULD I WOULD CONCENTRATE YOUR QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW JUST ON THE CONTINUANCE. OKAY. AND THEN IF IF IT'S VOTED DOWN, THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH THE THE FULL REPORT ON THE ON THE CASE ITSELF. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, WHAT DO WE THINK? I HAVE ONE QUESTION. HOW HOW MUCH NOTICE WAS GIVEN. YEAH.

THE NUMBERS. MY LETTER SAYS IT WAS DATED JULY 13TH. OKAY. I RECEIVED IT ON THE 18TH. MINE ALSO WAS ON THE 14TH. CAN WE LIMIT YELLING FROM THE GALLERY? WE CAN'T HAVE THAT. WE HAVE TO STOP THAT. I'M SORRY. THERE ARE 19 NOTICES THAT WERE MAILED WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BUFFER ON SEVEN, 14, 2026, INCLUDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND SEVEN WERE RETURNED AT THE TIME THAT WE ACTUALLY I UPDATED IT TODAY. SO SEVEN WE RECEIVED. PROBABLY LIKE THE CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE THAT. WE CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE REASONING BEING THAT IT SEEMS LIKE MISS MCCARTHY WANTS TO TALK TO HER NEIGHBORS ABOUT.

THIS. DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE'S BEEN MUCH DISCUSSION THERE, SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF GIVING HER THE TIME TO REACH OUT TO HER NEIGHBORS AND DISCUSS THEIR CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS, AND THEN HOPEFULLY AT THE CONTINUED HEARING, WE WOULD HAVE MORE OF A CONSENSUS FROM FROM EVERYBODY. SO I'M GOING TO MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONTINUANCE. SECOND, THAT.

THERE'S BEEN A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SMITH FOR THE CONTINUANCE, BEEN SECONDED BY MISS SALOME. ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION, ELLIS. NOW, WE CAN ACTUALLY ASK A QUESTION NOW THAT WE HAVE THE MOTION TO CONTINUE OR THE DISCUSSION OR. NO, AFTER WE VOTE ON THE CONTINUANCE. YEAH. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CONTINUANCE, LET'S DO IT NOW. OKAY. AND THEN IF IF THE IF THE CONTINUANCE FAILS, THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH THE FULL REPORT ON THE ACTUAL REQUEST. OKAY. SO THEN MY ONLY THING WOULD BE IF IT DOES GET CONTINUED, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT MENTIONED THE OPPOSITION OF THIS, THIS MENTIONED THAT SOMEONE, I GUESS NEARBY HAS A, I GUESS STR ONE THEY ALREADY APPROVED FOR AIRBNB. IS THERE ANY WAY IF IT DOES GET CONTINUE THAT WE CAN GET PROOF IF THAT'S ALREADY A ZONING OR SPECIAL PERMIT THAT'S ALLOWED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD? SURE. YEAH, WE CAN GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION IF IT'S CONTINUED. NEXT MEETING. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION THAT'S MADE? TYPE ONE IS THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO LIVE OR RESIDE IN THE PROPERTY WHILE THEY WERE LETTING IT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M. YEAH. THAT'S CORRECT.

YES. SORRY. MY MOTION MOTION TO CONTINUE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR. PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ELLIS. NO. ENGLAND. NO. GIBBONS. YES. LOZANO. YES.

RODRIGUEZ. NO. SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. EMBRY. YES. WHAT'S THE VOTE? COUNT ON THAT? FIVE.

FIVE. THREE. FIVE. THREE FIVE. THREE CARRIES. SO THAT THAT CASE WILL BE CONTINUED TO OUR AUGUST 25TH MEETING. WE WILL RESEND OUT NOTICES AS WELL. WE'LL MAIL OUT NEW NOTICES AS WELL. CONTINUED HEARING. WE CAN ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK TO HER NEIGHBORS IN THE MEANTIME TO HOPEFULLY THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. OKAY, GREAT. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA ITEM SEVEN IS Z-26-22. WHAT IS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF CITY STAFF? MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION Z26-22 IS A REQUEST THAT INVOLVES TWO RELATED ACTIONS ON

[02:25:01]

SO A AND B IS TO GO FROM R ONE, B AND M TWO TO SEE TWO COMMERCIAL. AND THEN THE REMAINING. LET ME GO BACK. SO YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE A LOT OF R1B. IT WOULD REZONE IT TO THE M TWO ZONING. SO THIS LAND WAS DESIGNATED AS R1B WHEN IT WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY BY THE DEFAULT ZONING. HOWEVER, IN THE 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THAT'S WHERE THE INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATION CAME FROM. WAS DETERMINED TO HAVE SOME INDUSTRIAL LAND IN THIS PORTION OF THE CITY TO PROVIDE SOME SOME EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THE AREA. SO THIS REQUEST IS ACTUALLY MATCHING WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE MAJORITY. SO PLANNING SERVICES DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LAND USE PLAN FROM INDUSTRIAL TO MIXED USE FLEX FROM APPROXIMATELY 2.7834 ACRES. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE FOR ZONING DISTRICTS ALLOWED IN THE PROPOSED MIXED USE FLEX LAND USE DESIGNATION. THE PROPOSED MIXED USE FLEX LAND USE MAY PROVIDE SERVICES TO EXISTING INDUSTRIAL USES AND FUTURE AREA USES ANTICIPATED WITH THE 12TH STREET EXPANSION AND THREE OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF TWO MAJOR STREETS. LET'S SEE. AND THEN PLANNING SERVICES RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 2.7834 ACRES FROM R ONE B AND M22C2, AND APPROXIMATELY 63.83 ACRES FROM R1B TO M TWO. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, THE PROPOSED ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE COMPONENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS RECOMMENDED TO BE REVISED. THE EXISTING AND PLANNED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS GENERALLY ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE FOR THE USES ALLOWED IN THE C TWO AND M2 ZONING DISTRICTS. PROPERTY MEETS ALL AREA AND WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE C TWO AND M TWO ZONING DISTRICT, AND THE PROPOSED C TWO AND M2 ZONING IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND OTHER USES ALONG A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING SURROUNDING AREA. USES AND FUTURE AREA USES ANTICIPATED AFTER THE 12TH STREET EXPANSION, 11 NOTICES WERE MAILED. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RETURNED. IS THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? IS ANYONE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? DO ANY COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE CHANGE IN ZONING BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS? SECOND,

[02:30:01]

ELLIS. YES. ENGLAND. YES. GIBBONS. YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. YES.

SMITH. YES. EMBRY. YES. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 8Z-26-27. WHAT IS THE CITY STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION? MISTER CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION Z26-27 IS A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 0.82 ACRES FROM R1B SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO OH THREE OFFICE LIMITED COMMERCIAL. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF NORTH 18TH STREET AND GORMAN AVENUE WITHIN THE SANGRE HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR. HERE IS THE LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE WHERE THE SITE LIES. IT DOES LIE ALONG THE EIGHT 17TH, 18TH, 19TH AREA CORRIDOR, WHICH ALSO FUNCTIONS AS A TRANSITION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CLOSER TO WACO DRIVE.

WITHIN THIS AREA, THERE IS DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS. WE HAVE. THE MAJORITY IS R1B, AND THEN SOME C TWO ZONING. I'M SORRY, THIS IS THE LAND USE MAP. THE LAND USE DESIGNATION DOES NOT NEED TO BE CHANGED ON THIS. IT IS ONE OF THE PERMITTED ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF URBAN RESIDENTIAL. SORRY I LOST MY SPOT HERE FROM THE ZONING. HERE WE GO. ZONING. LOOKING AT COMPATIBILITY, WE HAVE EXISTING OH THREE WITHIN THE AREA. IN FACT, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET IS EXISTING OH THREE BOTH DIRECTIONS. WE ALSO HAVE SOME R3C IN THE AREA. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS SOME TRANSITIONING GOING ON ALONG 18TH STREET. SO OH THREE IN GENERAL IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICING OFFICE USES WHILE MAINTAINING COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. AND THEN HERE IS WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE. LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY. CURRENTLY THERE ARE SOME NON-CONFORMING HOUSES. THEY ARE PLATTED LOTS, BUT THE HOUSES DO NOT LINE UP WITH THE EXISTING LOT LINE. SO THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT WILL HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT WITH DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS SEPARATE FROM THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST. SO PLANNING SERVICES DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM R1B TO OH THREE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. ONE THE PROPOSED ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE COMPONENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. PROPERTY FRONTS NORTH 18TH STREET, WHICH IS CLASSIFIED AS A MINOR ARTERIAL, THEREBY SATISFYING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CRITERION THAT OH THREE ZONING BE LOCATED ON A COLLECTOR OR HIGHER CLASSIFIED ROADWAY. NUMBER THREE, THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE FOR THE USES ALLOWED IN THE OH THREE DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY MEETS ALL AREA WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OH THREE ZONING DISTRICT, AND THERE IS OH THREE IN THE VICINITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 12 NOTICES WERE MAILED. WE DID RECEIVE TWO BACK IN OPPOSITION AND THEY WERE INCLUDED IN YOUR REPORT PACKET.

THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM. YES.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD FROM THE PODIUM, PLEASE. THIS IS BEING RECORDED ON VIDEO FOR POSTERITY FOREVER. NO PRESSURE AND THE WHOLE WORLD NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO FIND YOU. JEREMY FULBRIGHT, ADDRESS 221 RUTHERFORD ROAD, WACO, TEXAS 76712. GO AHEAD.

OKAY, SO OUR PLAN IS TO BASICALLY TRANSITION THIS FROM R1B TO O THREE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO SET UP SOBER LIVING FOR MORE THAN ONE HOUSE. BASICALLY WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS A SOBER LIVING COMMUNITY. AND, AND IT'S, IT'S A SUPER HIGH DEMAND. THERE'S, THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE OUT HERE THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST DON'T HAVE HOUSES OR STRUCTURED LIVING IN ORDER TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE IT TO THAT NEXT LEVEL OF SOBRIETY. AND, AND WE HAVE A PLAN, WE HAVE RULES AND REGULATIONS AND STRUCTURED ENVIRONMENT. WE JUST GOT THROUGH RENOVATING ONE OF THE HOUSES LOOKS BEAUTIFUL. WE HAVE TVS ON ALL THE WALLS. WE HAVE COUCHES, YOU KNOW, AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT PEOPLE IN PLACE TO HELP MANAGE THE FACILITY AND GET THIS, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, CHANGE THE FACE OF WACO AS FAR AS SOBER LIVING GOES. YOU WANT TO SPEAK? YEAH, SURE. OKAY. SO MY NAME IS SARAH PAISLEY. MY ADDRESS IS 2201 MORROW. I'M. I AM THE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS

[02:35:01]

AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE GOING FOR. I'M NOT GOING TO TALK TO THE HAND. SORRY. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE GOING FOR. BUT WE JUST WANT TO BE BIGGER AND WE WANT TO CONTINUE THE RECOVERY HERE. WE WANT TO GET THE PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS, AND WE WANT TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE A HOME TO RECOVER IN, WITH A STRUCTURED ENVIRONMENT, WITH ACCOUNTABILITY. FAITH BASED AND RECOVERY BASED IS THE GOAL. THAT'S IT. THAT'S GREAT. GREAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE ELSE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? IS ANYONE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ZONING REQUEST? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS MARY BRINKERHOFF. I LIVE AT 910 NORTH 18TH STREET. IT'S DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, ONE UP 18TH STREET. SO OUR PROPERTY IS THERE'S A FENCE BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY AND THIS PROPERTY. WE HAVE SIX CHILDREN LIVING IN THAT HOUSE, AGES 10 TO 7 MONTHS, AND WE ARE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER IS GOING IN HERE, THIS SOBRIETY HOUSE HAS SUFFICIENT OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SAFETY FOR CHILDREN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BACKGROUND. THIS LOT WAS PREVIOUSLY OCCUPIED BY SOME GENTLEMAN OF NOT COMPLETE CAPABILITIES, I BELIEVE, WHO WERE VERY PLEASANT NEIGHBORS. AFTER THAT, IT WAS EMPTY. AND THEN THERE WERE SQUATTERS IN IT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, END OF THE LAST YEAR, WHO WERE BURNING TRASH, WHICH SMELLED AWFUL. AND THEN THERE WAS A POLICE LOOKED LIKE A SWAT VAN THAT STOPPED BY THERE WITH SOME SHOTS FIRED AT THE END OF JANUARY FOR A DRUG POSSESSION THERE. SO WE DO WANT IT TO BE OCCUPIED AND OCCUPIED WELL, BUT WE ARE VERY CONCERNED SINCE WE HAVE CHILDREN IN THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR, THAT IF THERE ARE PEOPLE COMING IN THERE WHO HAVE COME FROM TROUBLED PASTS OR ISSUES WITH SOBRIETY, THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN PLACE TO PROTECT THOSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CITY STAFF, BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR DOWN THIS ROAD, WE'RE NOT REALLY SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT THE INTENDED USE IS. THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS THE ZONING. THAT'S CORRECT. SO THIS IS A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST. 203 SO YOU'LL NEED TO CONSIDER ALL THE THE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN. OH THREE YOU KNOW, I WILL SAY THESE THE APPLICANT TALKED ABOUT IT'S WHAT WE CALL TRANSITIONAL SHELTER. IT IS A USE THAT'S IN OH THREE AS A USE BY SPECIAL PERMIT. SO IF THEY WANT TO PURSUE THAT, THERE WOULD BE A SECOND STEP TO THIS THAT YOU ALL WOULD GET TO SEE IN THE FUTURE WITH A SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION THAT WOULD ADDRESS ALL THE CONCERNS THAT THE NEIGHBOR BROUGHT UP. AT THAT POINT, WE CAN GET INTO MORE APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF, BUT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE.

YEAH. RIGHT NOW YOU'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE ZONING CHANGE. IS IT APPROPRIATE? IS THE OH THREE APPROPRIATE FOR THOSE PROPERTIES? IF THIS WERE CHANGED, THAT ZONING WOULD RUN WITH THE LAND FROM HERE ON? THAT'S CORRECT. SO THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE Y'ALL'S CONSIDERATION IS DO YOU THINK THAT OH THREE IS AN APPROPRIATE ZONING? BECAUSE ONCE IT'S CHANGED, THEN IT WOULD ALLOW ANYTHING THAT'S PERMITTED BY. RIGHT. YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF THEIR PLANS. SO IF A SOBER LIVING HOUSE AND I HAVE SOME FAMILIARITY WITH THOSE, IF THAT WERE TO TO LEAVE THAT LOCATION, WHAT ELSE COULD GO IN THERE? SO OH, THREE IS A LOW INTENSITY MIXED USE DISTRICT. SO IT ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL USES, LOW, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES, OFFICE USES, AND THEN LIMITED COMMERCIAL USES, YOU KNOW, RETAIL. BUT THE HOURS ARE RESTRICTED 7 A.M. TO 7 P.M. IT IS A IT IS A ZONING DISTRICT THAT'S DESIGNED TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH SINGLE FAMILY AREAS, ESPECIALLY ALONG COLLECTOR STREETS LIKE 18TH STREET. KIND OF A SERVICE. YEAH, YEAH, MORE OF A SERVICE TYPE ZONING FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA.

AND THAT'S WHY YOU SEE A LOT OF THE OH THREE UP AND DOWN 18TH STREET. THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR YOU ALL OR FOR THE FOR PLANNING SERVICES OR MR. FULBRIGHT, IS THIS THE SAME

[02:40:01]

SO IT ALLOWS SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX AND TOWNHOUSE. WHAT I MEAN IS IT'S PROBABLY A QUESTION FOR THE SPECIAL PERMIT. I'M JUST CURIOUS IF WE DO A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, DOES THE DENSITY GO UP WITH THAT SPECIAL PERMIT. NO. SO WHAT. YEAH. SO TYPICALLY ON SPECIAL PERMITS FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LIKE THAT WILL WILL PUT A CAP ON THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE EVENT IT WOULD, IT WOULDN'T EVER BE MORE THAN WHAT WAS ALLOWED IN. CORRECT, CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. SO DOES IT HAVE TO CHANGE TO OH THREE IN ORDER TO GET A SPECIAL PERMIT? YES, SIR. YES SIR. YEAH. THE THE, THE TRANSITIONAL.

SHELTER, YOU KNOW, AS A AS A CONSOLIDATED COMPLEX WOULD NEED THE REZONING. THERE WOULD BE SOME OPTIONS FOR THEM IF THEY BECAUSE THERE'S MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THOSE PROPERTIES, THERE WOULD BE SOME OPTIONS FOR THEM TO OPERATE THEM AS INDIVIDUAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITHOUT CHANGING THE ZONING. BUT I THINK THEY WANT TO HAVE MORE OF A CONSOLIDATED CAMPUS TYPE. SHELTER, TRANSITIONAL HOUSE. SO THAT'S WHY THE ZONING IS NEEDED.

MR. DIRECTOR, SHOULD I I'M STILL IN OPPOSITION. CAN WE KEEP MOVING AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO QUESTIONS. YEP. WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS CALL FOR MORE OPPOSITION AND THEN GIVE A CHANCE FOR THE APPLICANT FOR A SHORT REBUTTAL. IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A SHORT REBUTTAL? YOU CAN BEGIN. IT'S FINE IF YOU DO. JUST KEEP IN MIND WE CAN'T. WE'RE NOT HERE TO DEBATE THE STRUCTURE ITSELF. WE'RE NOT HERE. OKAY? I JUST WANTED TO LET HER KNOW THAT WE DO HAVE A LOT OF THAT IN PLACE. CAMERAS AND EVERYTHING. I'M A MOTHER, TOO, SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTIONS AND YOUR CONCERNS, AND I WOULDN'T BRING SOMETHING LIKE THIS INTO THE COMMUNITY IF I DIDN'T THINK IT WASN'T NECESSARY. WE NEED A PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO GO TO MORE OF A SAFE HAVEN FOR ADDICTS. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THAT. YOU MIGHT GRAB HER OUT IN THE HALLWAY. YEAH, YEAH. COOL. VERY GOOD. OKAY. WHERE ARE WE? ANYONE ELSE? WE'RE THERE. DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION MOVE? WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS. SECOND, THERE'S BEEN A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER SMITH AND SECONDED BY MISS GIBBONS.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ELLIS. YES. ENGLAND.

YES. GIBBONS. YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. EMBRY. YES. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NINE. LAURA. THAT ONE IS WITHDRAWN, IS THAT CORRECT? SO ITEM NUMBER 9 OR 29. I'M SORRY. YEAH IT'S BEEN A LONG AGENDA. ITEM 9-26-29. YES. 26-29. THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT A REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THIS ITEM. HOWEVER, UNLIKE THE ANNEXATION THAT WAS WITHDRAWN, THIS ITEM DID NOT. IT WAS TOO CLOSE TO THE MEETING. WE ALLOW ITEMS TO BE WITHDRAWN UP TO FIVE DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. I BELIEVE WE JUST GOT THE REQUEST EITHER YESTERDAY OR TODAY, SO YOU WILL HAVE TO VOTE ON ACCEPTANCE OF THE WITHDRAWAL. WE'LL NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TO. YES. OKAY. THIS HAS BEEN GREAT TONIGHT. THIS HAS JUST BEEN A PEACH. OKAY, BUT YOU'RE NOT DOING THE REPORT. BUT I'M CALLING FOR THE NORMAL SPEAKING PART. YEAH. SAME THING.

OKAY. IF IF Y'ALL DON'T WANT TO WITHDRAW, THEN WE'LL DO THE FULL REPORT. I THINK I'M BEING PUNKED TONIGHT. THIS IS RIDICULOUS. CANDID CAMERA. OH MY GOSH. OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? OKAY. IS ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? OKAY. QUESTIONS? AM I CALLING FOR QUESTIONS? NO.

OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION? MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE WITHDRAWAL. OKAY. THERE'S BEEN A MOTION BY

[02:45:03]

LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. EMBRY. YES. THE NEXT ITEM WE'RE DOING, I THINK NUMBER TEN. Z-26. NO, THIS IS Z26-30 IS ALSO A REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL. OH, NO, YOU'RE KIDDING ME. OKAY. OH, YEAH. OH, YES. BOTH OF THEM. OH MY GOODNESS. OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING THOUGH. OKAY. IS THERE ANY IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NO. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? ANY QUESTIONS? IS THERE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE WITHDRAWAL? MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER SMITH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SALOME. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. YES.

YES. GIBBONS. YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. EMBRY. YES. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 11 ABANDONMENT. 26-06 WHAT IS THE CITY STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION? MISTER CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION A BD26-06 IS A REQUEST TO ABANDON APPROXIMATELY 0.038 ACRES OF A TEN FOOT ALLEY LOCATED BEHIND PROPERTIES ADDRESSED AS 35, 25, 35, 17 AND 35 OR. SORRY. BOTH OF THOSE WERE I'M GOING TO BUTCHER THIS CARONDELET BOULEVARD AND THEN 3512 CASTLE AVENUE. PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE CASTLE HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE. YOU CAN SEE IN THE BOLD OR THE SOLID YELLOW LINES. THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE ALLEY TO BE ABANDONED. THE SAME OWNER OWNS ALL OF THE ADJACENT TRACKS. THE THREE PARCELS. SOME IMAGES OF THE PROPERTY. AGAIN, THE ALLEY LOCATION. I'M GOING THROUGH THESE PRETTY QUICK, SO FEEL FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS LATER.

HERE'S A SURVEY OF THE ALLEY AGAIN. THE PROPERTY OWNER OWNS ALL THE SURROUNDING LAND. IN THIS CASE. THERE ARE NO. THERE IS. LET'S SEE. THERE ARE NO CITY UTILITY LINES LOCATED WITHIN THE ABANDONMENT. THERE IS AN ENCORE. THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED AN EXISTING ELECTRICAL FACILITY WITHIN THE ALLEY. THOSE FACILITIES MUST BE EITHER RELOCATED OR BE PROTECTED BY A NEW UTILITY EASEMENT. SO WE HAVE PUT THAT AS A CONDITION. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ABANDONMENT REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS. FINDING ONE THAT ABANDONMENT. FOLLOWING ABANDONMENT, THE PROPERTY COULD BE REPLANTED WITH THE ADJACENT LOTS UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. THE ABANDONMENT OF THIS TRACT WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT UTILITY ACCESS FOR SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THERE WILL BE NO ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING STREET AND ALLEY SYSTEM. CONDITIONS ARE STANDARD CONDITION THAT ANY EASEMENT SHALL BE RETAINED AND RECORDED FOR ANY UTILITIES DISCOVERED DURING DEVELOPMENT OF THE ABANDONMENT AREA, OR UTILITIES MAY BE RELOCATED. THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE, AS COORDINATED WITH THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY PROVIDER.

AND NUMBER TWO, THE ENCORE POWER LINE SHALL BE RELOCATED, OR A NEW EASEMENT MUST BE CREATED BEFORE THE ABANDONMENT OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. QUITCLAIM DEEDS TO TRANSFER THE PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE RECORDED UNTIL WRITTEN CONFIRMATION IS RECEIVED FROM ENCORE. STATING THAT THIS CONDITION HAS BEEN SATISFIED. WE DID SEND OUT NOTICES ON THIS REQUEST AND DID NOT HAVE ANY 19 NOTICES, AND WE DID NOT HAVE ANY RETURNED. IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? DOES ANYONE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THIS ITEM? ANY COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? AT THE RISK OF SLOWING US DOWN, IS THERE A REASON WHY THE REST OF THE ALLEY? I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE ABANDONMENT. WE HAVE NEIGHBORS.

I KNOW THIS ONE HITS THE END OF THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A SIMILAR ISSUE IF WE MOVE DOWN THE STREET FOR THE NEIGHBORS? ON ABANDONING THE ALLEY. SOME OF THE ALLEY ACTUALLY HAS BEEN ABANDONED DOWN HERE ALREADY. IT'LL PROBABLY JUST CONTINUE IF THE ADDITIONAL PORTIONS NEED TO BE ABANDONED. IT'S UNUSED. THERE'S NO REMNANT OF ANY ALLEY THERE.

WELL, EXPECT TO HEAR THOSE IN THE COMING. I'M SURE SOMEONE WILL DECIDE. THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION MEMBERS? PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS

[02:50:02]

ELLIS. YES. ENGLAND. YES. GIBBONS. YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. YES.

SMITH. YES. EMBRY. YES. REDOING. PLATS. LAURA. YES, SIR. WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER 12. SUBDIVISION PLAT 26-07. WHAT IS THE CITY REPORT? YES. THIS ITEM IS A REQUEST FROM SCOTT INGLE THE PINES AT WACO, LLC. CHRIS MCBRIDE THE PINES AT WACO, LLC. KIRK RAYMOND G. L S ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND ARCHITECTS. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE PINES AT WACO. PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF WACO, A TOTAL AREA OF 6.378 ACRES. 25 LOTS AND ONE BLOCK. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF SPEEGLEVILLE ROAD AND OAK ROAD, JUST OUTSIDE OF THE HIGHWAY 84 WEST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOUNDARY. COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE. HERE IS THE PLAT. SO BASED OFF OF THE REVIEW, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE SOME MINOR AMENDMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE AND CORRECTIONS, ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTIONS. THE LOT SIZES AS THEY ARE SHOWN, DO MEET THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT OF R1B.

THERE IS A NOTE ON THE PLAT AND WE HAVE ADDRESSED IN OUR CONDITION LETTER THAT THE INTENT OF THIS PLAT IS FOR DUPLEXES. WE SUGGESTED THAT, IN FACT, ONE OF OUR CONDITIONS IS THAT THAT NOTE IS REMOVED UNLESS THE ZONING IS CHANGED OR PUD IS APPROVED. BUT RIGHT NOW THE PLAT ITSELF, THE WAY IT'S THE LOT SIZES, MEETS THE R-1 REQUIREMENTS. THERE IS ANOTHER ITEM THEY WILL HAVE TO EITHER. IT'S MORE WITH THE. I DON'T REMEMBER THE. ANYWAYS, THEY'RE LIKELY TO EITHER BE COMING BACK FOR A SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FOR STANDARD. OR THEY CAN ADDRESS THAT REQUIREMENT IN THEIR REVISIONS. WE GAVE THEM THAT OPTION, SO I'M NOT SURE WHICH COURSE THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE ON THAT YET. SO ALL THOSE CONDITIONS ARE ADDRESSED IN THE JULY 24TH REVIEW LETTER. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS WITH THOSE CONDITIONS OF THAT JULY 24TH REVIEW LETTER. THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE HERE. TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. GOOD EVENING, SCOTT ENGEL, REPRESENTING THE PINES AT WACO LLC, P.O. BOX 7920, WACO. AND I'M CHRIS MCBRIDE, REPRESENTING THE PINES WACO LLC, 250 TERRACE MOUNTAIN. 76012. THANKS. AND WE'RE JUST HERE BASICALLY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR ALL THE HELP THEY'VE GIVEN US SO FAR. THAT'S RIGHT. YOU SAW THIS LETTER WITH THE CONDITIONS? YES, SIR. AND YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT? THANK YOU, THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE ELSE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? DOES ANYONE PRESENT THEY'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM. DO ANY COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION MOVE THAT WE APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS? SECOND, THERE'S BEEN A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SMITH TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GIVENS. ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MOTION, PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION.

ELLIS. YES. ENGLAND. YES. GIBBONS. YES. LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. YES.

SMITH. YES. EMBRY. YES. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 13, SUBDIVISION 26-08. WHAT IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REPORT? THIS IS A REQUEST FROM BLACK LAND SURVEYING, LLC FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MAY SPRINGS, ELMONT SUBDIVISION. LOTS ONE THROUGH TEN BLOCK ONE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE ETJ WITH A TOTAL AREA OF 10.262 ACRES. AGAIN, TEN LOTS ONE BLOCK PROJECT IS LOCATED EAST OF I-35 ON OLD DALLAS ROAD BETWEEN ELMONT AND ROSS. THIS PLAT IS QUITE A STRAIGHTFORWARD PLAT. THE. THE LOTS MEET THE SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR SEPTIC SYSTEMS ARE ALSO SERVED BY. I DON'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF IT AND I CAN'T READ IT. LEROY TOURS. YES.

[02:55:02]

GIBBONS. YES. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. EMBRY. YES. THE NEXT AND LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS SUBDIVISION 26-09. WHAT IS THE STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION? YES, MISTER CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THIS IS A TWO PART REQUEST. WE HAVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOTS ONE AND TWO BLOCK ONE OLD MARLIN EDITION. AND WITH THE REQUEST, WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FROM THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. APPENDIX B, SECTION 5201 B REGARDING UTILITIES PUBLIC UTILITIES ONTO THE PROPERTY. THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE CITY OF WACO 12.32 ACRES AND AGAIN TWO LOTS, ONE BLOCK. MAYBE ABOUT A YEAR AGO WE SAW ANOTHER SIMILAR REQUEST JUST TO THE EAST OF THIS PROPERTY, A REQUEST FOR SEPTIC SYSTEM. THE CURRENT CITY MOUSE CURRENT CITY SEWER LINE IS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE RAILROAD AND THE HIGHWAY. SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE, IT'S IN THE CITY. WE REQUIRE CITY SEWER. UNIQUE ABOUT THIS SITUATION, HOWEVER, IS THAT ON THE PROPERTY THERE ARE EXIST TWO HOMES AND TWO SEPTIC SYSTEMS ON THE EXISTING PROPERTY. SO THEY WANT TO CREATE A LOT FOR EACH HOME AND EACH SEPTIC SYSTEM. SO IT'S AN EXISTING SITUATION.

WE'RE NOT BRINGING IN OR CREATING A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM WITHIN THE PROPERTY. WE DO HAVE A COUPLE CONDITIONS, HOWEVER WITH THE THE VARIANCE. SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH WITH CONDITIONS THAT WE FEEL LIKE THERE IS EXTRAORDINARY HARDSHIP ON THIS PROPERTY BASED ON THE THE DIFFICULTY OF BEING ABLE TO GET THE SEWER TO THIS PROPERTY, BUT TO PROTECT FUTURE USE OF THE PROPERTY, ANY ALTERATION OR REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM WILL REQUIRE FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE WACO MCLENNAN COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICT'S REGULATIONS.

ALONG WITH THE FINAL PLAT, THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICT DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OS REGULATIONS. FINAL PLAT SHALL ESTABLISH LOT LINES CONSISTENT WITH THEIR REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING MINIMUM LOT SIZE, STANDARDS AND PERMITTED LOCATION OF EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS. SO THOSE PROPERTY LINES, AS PROPOSED BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS, MAY SHIFT A LITTLE BIT BETWEEN PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT BASED ON OS S F PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS.

FURTHER SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY THAT INCREASES THE NUMBER LOTS WILL REQUIRE THE EXTENSION OF THE PUBLIC SEWER MAIN TO SERVE THE NEW SUBDIVISION, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL SIGN AND RECORD WITH MCLENNAN COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. AN AFFIDAVIT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO BE SERVED. I'M NOT GOING TO READ ALL THAT.

AND THEN. OH, I'M MISSING MISSING A SLIDE. HOLD ON. LET ME GET MY REPORT. BEAR WITH ME.

YOU GOT IT. I THINK WE'RE MISSING ONE. WE HAVE FIVE CONDITIONS. THE PROPERTY SHALL BE PLATTED. IS ONLY TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS. WE HAVE THAT ONE IN THE REPORT AS WELL. AND THEN FOR THE PLAT ITSELF, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. AGAIN, THE CONDITIONS ARE GOING TO BE BASED ON THE JULY 14TH REVIEW LETTER. AND MOST OF THOSE WERE ADMINISTRATIVE. OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM. IS ANYONE IN OPPOSITION HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ANY COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? WE MOVE ON BOTH OR WE HAVE TO HAVE A SEPARATE MOTION EACH TO THE PLAT. PLEASE. JUST ONE. I CAN

[03:00:06]

ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. ELLIS. YES. YES. GIBBONS. YES.

LOZANO. YES. RODRIGUEZ. YES. SALOME. YES. SMITH. YES. EMBRY. YES. THAT CONCLUDES THE AGENDA ITEMS. ARE THERE ANYTHING OTHER FUN ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR? NO, JUST THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. AND IT WAS A LONG. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR DINNER. AND THANKS TO OUR OFFICERS IN THE BACK WHO KEEP US SAFE. YES. SOMETHING YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO USE THEM TODAY. ALMOST, ALMOST.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.