Oct 27, 2026 Plan Commission

[00:00:01]

ARE YOU READY, WILL? GOOD EVENING. I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME YOU TO THE OCTOBER 27TH,

[BUSINESS SESSION - 6:00 P.M. BOSQUE THEATER]

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. IF YOU ARE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF A GROUP OF TEN OR MORE INDIVIDUALS PRESENT, PLEASE HAVE THOSE PERSONS STAND AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR COMMENTS AND YOU WILL BE GIVEN TEN MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.

PLEASE NOTE THAT IF YOU STAND IN SUPPORT OF A PERSON GETTING TEN MINUTES TO SPEAK, YOU ARE FORFEITING YOUR RIGHT TO SPEAK ON THAT ITEM. FOR ANY PERSON ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION THROUGH THE USE OF A TRANSLATOR, THE SPEAKING TIME WILL BE DOUBLED TO ACCOMMODATE THE TRANSLATION SERVICES. WHILE PUBLIC DISCOURSE IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE COMMISSION, WE MUST MAINTAIN ORDER IN THE MEETING SO THAT ALL PEOPLE MAY BE HEARD IN THE CITY. BUSINESS MAY BE CONDUCTED. IF SO, DIRECTED BY ME, THE SERGEANT AT ARMS SHALL REMOVE FROM THE MEETING ANYONE WHO, WHILE ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION OR WHILE ATTENDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAKES PERSONAL, IMPERTINENT OR SLANDEROUS REMARKS, BECOMES BOISTEROUS OR MAKES UNAUTHORIZED REMARKS FROM THE AUDIENCE, CLAPS HANDS, STOMPS FEET, WHISTLES, YELLS OR MAKES SIMILAR DEMONSTRATIONS. THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE MAKE TONIGHT WILL BE BASED ON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED TONIGHT. AFTER COMPLETING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON EACH ITEM, THE COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER ACTION ON THE ITEM. THE ACTIONS TAKEN TONIGHT ON ALL ITEMS WILL BE PRESENTED IN THE FORM OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ALSO CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE AGENDA ITEMS ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17TH, 2026 IN THE THEATER OF THE WACO CONVENTION CONVENTION CENTER AT 100

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

[PUBLIC HEARINGS]

ACCESS ALONG SPEEGLEVILLE ROAD WITH SUNNYDALE DRIVE ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LOCATED HERE.

THIS IS RIVER VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL LOCATED ACROSS SPEEGLEVILLE ROAD, AND THERE ARE EXISTING MODULAR HOMES ALONG SUNNYDALE DRIVE. SOME PICTURES OF THE AREA. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL. SUBURBAN

[00:05:01]

R1B ALLOWS GENERALLY A 6000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT AREA, 50 FOOT MINIMUM WIDTH AND A DENSITY OF 7.26. PROPOSED ZONING IN THIS CASE IS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITH THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF APPROXIMATELY 7.62 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AS REVISED. THIS IS THE REVISED PLAN. I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT SOME UPDATES. DRIVEWAYS HAVE BEEN NARROWED ON THE NORTH AND NORTH SIDE OF THE STREET, AND BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN SET BACK FURTHER, ALLOWING FOR GENEROUS FRONT LAWNS, GREEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING, RESULTING IN MORE LINEAR CURB TO ACCOMMODATE SANITATION SERVICES, EMERGENCY VEHICLES, ETC. LANDSCAPING COVERAGE HAS ALSO BEEN INCREASED ON ALL NORTHERN LOTS DUE TO CHANGES OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT, SETBACKS AND DRIVEWAYS. WITH THE ADDITION OF MORE PARKING SPACE AND MORE URBAN AMENITIES IN THOSE AREAS, SIDEWALK LINES THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY TO SPEEGLEVILLE ROAD AND SUNNYDALE DRIVE, PROVIDING SAFE PEDESTRIAN PATHS FOR RESIDENTS, AND THEY ALSO HAVE SUBMITTED, AS WE'LL SEE IN THE NEXT SLIDES, SOME ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN ELEMENTS WITH DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS, EIGHT DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS TO ALLOW FOR NEIGHBORHOOD DIVERSITY. THERE WILL BE A HOA GOVERNANCE IN PLACE FOR ALL INTERNAL MAINTENANCE OF COMMON AREAS.

THERE'S ALSO A COMMENT DURING OUR REVIEW FROM TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT STATING THAT SPEEGLEVILLE ROAD, ANYBODY THAT'S OUT IN THAT AREA, KNOWS THAT IT'S IN THE PROCESS OF BEING WIDENED WITH SIDEWALK SHARED USE PATH AS PART OF A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, WHICH WILL IMPROVE ACCESS FOR VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS TO THE SMALL SUBDIVISION. SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THERE IS ORIGINALLY THERE WAS THIS CORNER THAT WAS OPEN SPACE.

THIS IS NOW PARKLAND IN HERE WITH SOME AMENITIES AS WELL AS A TRAIL SYSTEM AROUND THE THE DETENTION AREA. THIS IS THE FLOOR PLAN, THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR. AND THEN HERE ARE FOUR OF THE DEVIATIONS. YOU CAN SEE THE CHANGES IN COLOR, SOME OF THE MATERIAL DEVIATIONS, ROOF LINE DEVIATIONS. SO I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT THE DEVELOPERS HAVE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH CITY STAFF IN PARTICULAR SINCE THE LAST MEETING, TO FIND SOME TYPE OF MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN THE EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS VERSUS THE FLEXIBILITY THAT COULD BE ALLOWED THROUGH A PUD PROCESS AND REVIEW. AS SUCH STAFF, WE DID PERFORM AN ANALYSIS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE AREA NORTH OF HIGHWAY 84, JUST TO GET A FEEL FOR WHAT IS THE DENSITY CURRENTLY IN THAT AREA. SO NORTH OF HIGHWAY 84, DENSITY AVERAGES, THEY WERE ABOUT 2 TO 2.4 UNITS PER ACRE, BUT ALL THE WAY TO 84 WE DID SEE FIND A POCKET WITHIN THE TWIN RIVERS PUD AT A DENSITY OF 5.502 UNITS PER ACRE, STILL LESS THAN THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF 7.62. SO IT ALSO SHOULD BE NOTED, TOO, THAT THERE IS ANOTHER AREA WITHIN THE TWIN RIVERS PUD WE DID LOOK AT. IT IS THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY. IT DOES HAVE A LICENSED CAPACITY OF UP TO 156 RESIDENTS, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 19.4 UNITS PER ACRE. SO WHILE THAT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY IS PART OF THIS AREA, BECAUSE OF ITS COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION AND THE SPECIALIZED USE AND THE BASIS OF APPROVAL FOR THAT, WE DID NOT USE THAT

[00:10:01]

I'M NOT GOING TO READ ALL OF THIS, SO DON'T DON'T PANIC. SO AS FAR AS CONDITIONS NUMBER ONE, THAT THE CONCEPT PUD SHALL BE REVISED TO LIMIT THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TO A MAXIMUM OF 5.7 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, ALLOWING NO MORE THAN 36 UNITS WITHIN THE PUD.

CONSISTENT WITH CONVENTIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DENSITY NORTH OF HIGHWAY 84 UNITS MAY INCLUDE A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY DUPLEX UNITS. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS MAY INCLUDE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF DIVISION NINE OF CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. THE NOTE THAT YOU SEE THERE IS BASICALLY WHAT I ALREADY EXPLAINED REGARDING. WE DID NOT COUNT THE ASSISTED LIVING WITHIN THAT RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT CONDITION. NUMBER TWO, OUR STANDARD CONDITION THAT THE FINAL PUD PLAN MUST MEET ALL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CONSISTENT WITH THE SITE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SITE GRADING, DRAINAGE VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND CIRCULATION, LANDSCAPING AND STREETSCAPE REFUSE, LOCATION AND ACCESS AND FIRE PROTECTION, LOCATION AND ACCESS. AND NUMBER THREE, THE PROPERTY SHALL BE PLATTED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, WE DID MAIL OUT 20 NOTICES, FOUR WERE RETURNED, TWO WERE IN OPPOSITION AND ARE INCLUDED WITHIN YOUR REPORT PACKET AND TWO WERE SUBMITTED WITH STATING NO COMMENT. AND THAT IS MY REPORT. OKAY. THOSE COMMENTS, LAURA, ARE ON A DIFFERENT ATTACHMENT, NOT THE PAGE 66. I'M BEING TOLD THEY ARE DIRECTLY IN YOUR REPORT PACKET. WONDERFUL. PAGE 66. COMMISSIONERS FOR THE COMMENTS.

I HOPE THOMAS THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO TAKE APPROACH THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, SIR. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS STAFF. MY NAME IS CHRIS MCBRIDE. 250 TERRACE MOUNTAIN IN WOODWAY, TEXAS, REPRESENTING THE PINES AT WACO. I LIVE ALONG THE SPIEGEL VILLE ROAD CORRIDOR AND DEEPLY CARE ABOUT THE AREA. I WANT TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR HELP IN THIS PROCESS. WE BEGAN DISCUSSING THE PINES WITH THE CITY STAFF ALL THE WAY BACK IN DECEMBER OF 2025. BEFORE WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, WE PRESENTED A INITIALLY A HIGH QUALITY 52 UNIT DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT, AND THE STAFF GENERALLY SUPPORTED IT. SO WE WENT AND PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR EIGHT MONTHS. WE HAVE FOLLOWED THE STAFF GUIDANCE ON TECHNICAL DETAILS, AS LAURA SAID, AS THEY ADVISE US TO SUBMIT A PUD AND THEN AN R2, AND THEN WE WENT BACK TO THE PUD. WE MADE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. WE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF UNITS, WE INCREASED GREEN SPACE, ADDED RECREATIONAL SPACE AND A WALKING PATH. IN JULY, OUR PRELIMINARY PLAT ADVANCED WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. THEN ON AUGUST 24TH, JUST BEFORE THE DEADLINE TO PRESENT TO THIS COMMISSION, STAFF FIRST FORMALLY NOTIFIED US THAT THEY WOULD RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL, CITING DENSITY AS AN ISSUE. THIS, OF COURSE, WAS QUITE SHOCKING. WE HAD DISCUSSED THIS DENSITY AND MORE WITH THE STAFF SINCE DECEMBER BEFORE PURCHASING THE PROPERTY, AND DENSITY HAD NEVER BEEN PRESENTED AS AN OBSTACLE. SO WE MADE CHANGES. WE REMOVED ANOTHER LOT. WE ADDED PARK SPACE, PLAYGROUND, COVERED

[00:15:02]

AS WAS NOTED, IT SITS ON AN EXPANDING THOROUGHFARE ACROSS FROM RIVER VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL.

IT'S NEXT TO A TRAILER COMMUNITY NEAR HIGH DENSITY ASSISTED LIVING AND CLOSE TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. HIGH QUALITY DUPLEXES. THIS IS NOT JUST NORMAL RUN OF THE MILL DUPLEXES, BUT HIGH QUALITY DUPLEXES ARE A REASONABLE TRANSITION BETWEEN THOSE USES AND THE LARGER HOMES NEARBY. THIRDLY, THE SPEEGLEVILLE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS DIRECTLY ADDRESS THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS POSED BY PEOPLE THAT WERE OPPOSING IT AND POSED NO OBSTACLES TO THE PINES. FOURTH, REALLY, THIS IS A JUDGMENT CALL THAT WE WANT TO PUT BEFORE YOU GUYS. WE CAME TO THE CITY BEFORE BUYING THE PROPERTY AND CLEARLY PRESENTED OUR PLANS. WE'VE ALREADY REDUCED THE PROJECT FROM 52 TO 48 UNITS, SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL COST, REDUCING IT TO 36 CHANGES THE ECONOMICS FUNDAMENTALLY AND PUTS THE VIABILITY OF THE PROJECT IN QUESTION. WE BELIEVE THAT 48 UNITS IS A REASONABLE BALANCE LOWER DENSITY, MORE GREEN SPACE AND AMENITIES, APPROPRIATE TRANSITION, AND A VIABLE PROJECT. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO APPROVE THE 48 UNIT CONCEPT PUD AS WE PRESENTED IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. IS ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT? I'M ALSO ONE OF THE APPLICANTS. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. GOOD EVENING. SCOTT INGLE, 4208 MACKENZIE AVENUE, WACO, TEXAS. I'M ONE OF THE DEVELOPERS REPRESENTING THE PINES AT WACO. A BRIEF HISTORY IS THAT I'M A LONGTIME WACO DEVELOPER AND BUILDER, BUT I'VE BEEN LIVING OVERSEAS FOR THE PAST TWO DECADES. I'M VERY EXCITED TO BE BACK IN THE WACO AREA DEVELOPING REAL ESTATE AGAIN. I WAS ONE OF THE INITIAL DEVELOPERS ALONG CHINA SPRING HIGHWAY IN THE CITY OF WACO, IN VARIOUS PHASES OF COUGAR RIDGE, CONSISTING OF COMMERCIAL, SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEXES AND MULTIFAMILY. AT THE RIVIERA APARTMENT COMMUNITY, 160 UNIT APARTMENT COMMUNITY THAT MY BUSINESS PARTNER AND I BUILT AND DEVELOPED. I ALSO BUILT THE RIDGE OFFICE PARK ON HIGHWAY SIX, OWNED BY OUR COLLEAGUES JIMMY BANKS AND LISA MONROE OF TRILOGY GROUP. ALL OF THIS IS SIMPLY TO SAY THAT WE LOVE WACO AND HAVE A LOT OF HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE IN THIS MARKET. AND ON THIS PROJECT, WE'VE HAD AN EXCELLENT WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH CITY OF WACO PLANNING STAFF, FROM WHOM WE'VE LEARNED A LOT AND BEEN GRATEFUL TO WORK WITH THE ORIGINAL IDEA OF WHAT'S BECOME THE PINES TOOK ROOT IN MY HEAD. DURING THE FALL OF 2025. I'D REGULARLY DRIVE BY AND SEE THE THREE ACRE VACANT PLOT WITH A SIGN ON IT AND THOUGHT TO MYSELF, ON ITS OWN, IT'S JUST NOT BIG ENOUGH AND DOESN'T WORK. SO AFTER STUDYING THE AREA MORE, CHRIS AND I HAD THE IDEA TO PURCHASE THE OLD SINGLE FAMILY HOME NEXT TO IT SO THAT WE COULD DO MORE THAN DOUBLE THE ACREAGE TO 6.32 ACRES AND HAVE TWO WAY STREET ACCESS ONTO SUNNYDALE DRIVE, AS WELL AS SPEEGLEVILLE. WE TOOK OUR PRELIMINARY PLAN TO STAFF AND FOLLOWING THEIR POSITIVE FEEDBACK, WE CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY AND MOVED FORWARD. IT'S IMPORTANT TO REITERATE THAT OUR INITIAL CONCEPT HAD 52 UNITS, AND WE'VE NOW REDUCED IT TO 48. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT WE'VE MOVED FORWARD ON EVERYTHING IN GOOD FAITH. AFTER MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH STAFF AND PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE OVER EIGHT MONTHS, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE KEY STICKING POINT NOW, WHICH CAME TO US LATE IN THE GAME, IS THE QUESTION OF DENSITY. WHILE WE UNDERSTAND THAT STAFF IS SIMPLY DOING THEIR JOB AND THEY NEED TO MAKE THEIR CALCULATIONS, SOMETIMES WE NEED TO LOOK AT THINGS FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. A QUICK EXAMPLE TO CONSIDER IS THE NEARBY LINEAGE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY. IT HAS 95 UNITS ON 4.9 ACRES, A GROSS DENSITY OF MORE THAN 19 UNITS PER ACRE, LOCATED LESS THAN HALF A MILE AWAY ON SPEEGLEVILLE ROAD. WHILE THIS IS NOT EXACTLY AN APPLE TO APPLE COMPARISON, WE SEE IT AS MAYBE A GRANNY SMITH TO A GOLDEN DELICIOUS KIND OF COMPARISON. THEIR RESIDENTS DON'T HAVE VEHICLES, BUT THEY HAVE A LARGE STAFF THAT WORKS ON SHIFTS AND LOTS OF TRAFFIC FROM MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS, FAMILY, FRIENDS, ETC. WHICH IS WHY THEY HAVE 64 DEDICATED PARKING PLACES AS WELL. SO PLEASE JUST BEAR THAT IN MIND WHEN CONSIDERING DENSITY AND OTHER FACTORS. LASTLY, WE'VE MADE THE EFFORT TO REACH OUT TO THE TWO ADJACENT NEIGHBORS WHO'VE EXPRESSED OPPOSITION TO THE PINES. OUR COLLEAGUE JIMMY BANKS MET WITH MR. SWANSON, AND CHRIS AND I REACHED OUT TO THE SCHROEDERS BY LETTER, BUT WEREN'T ABLE TO MEET WITH THEM, LARGELY BECAUSE WE ONLY BECAME AWARE OF THEIR POSITION LATE FRIDAY AFTERNOON. WE DID ACTUALLY JUST HEAR FROM THEM BY TEXT A FEW MINUTES AGO. IN CLOSING, WITH DEVELOPMENT AND LAND COSTS BEING EXTREMELY HIGH THESE DAYS, ANY REDUCTION OF THOSE 48 UNITS COSTS US A GREAT DEAL AND HITS US VERY HARD. WE

[00:20:05]

THANK YOU. MR. BANKS. YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS JIMMY BANKS.

I LIVE AT 2913 SOUTH OLD ROBINSON ROAD, LORENA, TEXAS, SEVEN SIX, 655. I AM THE BROKER FOR TRILOGY GROUP REAL ESTATE HERE IN WACO. BEEN WORKING IN THIS MARKET FULL TIME FOR 39 YEARS AND HAVE KNOWN SCOTT FOR 35 YEARS, I GUESS, AND WAS INVOLVED IN, LIKE HE MENTIONED, THE MARKETING AND HELP OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF COUGAR RIDGE ONE, TWO AND THREE RIVIERA APARTMENTS, LAKELAND ESTATES, RIVER OAKS AND CHINA SPRING WITH SCOTT. AND WHEN WE STRATEGIZE WITH DEVELOPERS FROM A BROKERAGE STANDPOINT, WE WORK THROUGH THINGS LIKE INGRESS, EGRESS, ACCESSIBILITY, TRAFFIC PATTERNS, TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ON WHAT IS GOING TO, WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT MAY DO TO THE AREA. AND OBVIOUSLY, AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, SPIEGEL ROAD IS CURRENTLY BEING EXPANDED. THIS IS A VERY NICE DEVELOPMENT. I FEEL LIKE IT'S THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE FOR THIS SITE. SO MUCH OF AN IMPROVEMENT FROM WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE, AND SOMETIMES IT HELPS ME TO THINK OF WHAT OTHER DEVELOPMENTS OR COMMUNITIES ARE SIMILAR. AND FROM A DENSITY STANDPOINT, IF YOU THINK OF MAGNOLIA VILLAS, IF YOU THINK OF CAMERON HEIGHTS, IF YOU THINK OF MILL CREEK, BRADFORD SQUARE, THERE, FISHPOND VILLAGE, THERE'S NUMEROUS OTHER DEVELOPMENTS WITH A SIMILAR OR GREATER DENSITY THAT HAVE DONE WELL AND BEEN AN ASSET TO THIS COMMUNITY, AS WELL AS AN ECONOMIC BENEFIT FROM THE CITY, FROM AN AD VALOREM TAX STANDPOINT. SO I ASK ALSO FOR APPROVAL OF THE 48 UNIT DENSITY FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, AND THINK IT WILL BE A REAL PLUS FOR THIS AREA. ALSO, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, ONCE AGAIN, THEY'VE SHOWN THEIR WILLINGNESS TO WORK THROUGH TRYING TO PROVIDE WHAT THE CITY WANTS AND WHAT WOULD WORK BEST BY GOING TO PUD ROUTE IF THEY WOULD HAVE ASKED FOR A DUPLEX ZONING, THEY COULD HAVE HAD 14 UNITS TO A MAXIMUM OF 25 UNITS OF DENSITY PER ACRE. IN THIS CASE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST UNDER EIGHT. SO I THINK IT'S A VERY REASONABLE REQUEST. AND ONCE AGAIN, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE GRANTED. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS LISA MONROE. I'M JIMMY'S BUSINESS PARTNER AT TRILOGY GROUP. AND I JUST WANTED TO DEFINITELY SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE 48 UNITS HERE, RATHER THAN SIZING DOWN A LITTLE BIT. AND I THINK THEY'VE SAID JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING. BUT AS YOU GUYS CAN LOOK AT THE THE ACTUAL LAYOUT, LOSING SIX OF THOSE BUILDINGS, I'M NOT SURE I CAN SEE WHAT THAT BENEFITS. I

[00:25:06]

AGAIN, JIMMY MENTIONED AD VALOREM TAX. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO THE CITY AND HELPS. AND THEN ALSO TO HAVE SOME MORE DIVERSITY FOR HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES IN THAT AREA, I THINK IS REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT. AND SO WE JUST WANT TO ASK THE CITY, ASK YOU GUYS TO ACTUALLY TAKE A LOOK AT OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THE CITY AND NOT JUST IN THAT AREA, SINCE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN BUILT YET, TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS COULD WORK VERY EFFECTIVELY THERE AND BE VERY BENEFICIAL TO THAT COMMUNITY. AS TRILOGY GROUP, WE MANAGE A LITTLE OVER 2000 UNITS AND WE ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT THIS PROJECT AND WOULD LOVE TO SEE THOSE PROPERTY THAT THOSE UNITS COME TO THE MARKET SO THAT WE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE LOOKING IN THAT AREA AND THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND FOR JOBS THAT HAVE RECENTLY BEEN OPENED UP IN THAT AREA. AND THIS WOULD PROVIDE THAT FOR THAT COMMUNITY. SO I THINK THAT SEEING THOSE 48 UNITS MAKES SERIOUS, SERIOUS SENSE, RATHER THAN REDUCING IT BACK DOWN TO 36 BECAUSE WE NEED THEM. AND IT DOESN'T HELP, YOU KNOW, TO LEAVE THOSE OUT OF THE PROJECT, IN OUR OPINION. SO IF WE CAN HELP, LET US KNOW. THANK YOU. LISA. YES, SIR. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS KIRK RAYMOND. I'M WITH GOALS FOR THE ENGINEER SURVEYORS ON THE PROJECT AT 4901 BOSQUE. I'M HERE JUST TO SPEAK ABOUT THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF THIS.

IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NUMBER OF LOTS, THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE ROAD UTILITIES. ET CETERA. THAT COST IS THERE AND IT DOESN'T MAKE IT AS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE FOR THAT INVESTMENT. I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE PROJECT SINCE THE GET GO BACK IN LATE LAST YEAR, AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU RECOMMEND THE 48 UNITS. THANK YOU, MR. TULLIS. YES, MY NAME IS ROSS TULLIS. I LIVE AT 1605 OAK HOLLOW DRIVE, WOODWAY. I URGE YOU TO RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF THE PINES. FULL 48 HOMES. YOU KNOW, RECENT U.S. CENSUS CENSUS ESTIMATES SHOW THAT OUR POPULATION IS GROWING FASTER THAN THE STATEWIDE AVERAGE. SO I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE EXPANDING HOUSING CHOICES QUICKLY. OTHERWISE WE MAY BECOME LIKE OTHER METROPOLITAN AREAS IN THE STATE. FOR INSTANCE, NORTH TEXAS, WHOSE CRUNCH BETWEEN HOUSING SHORTAGES ARE FORCING SOME OF THEIR PLANNING COMMISSIONS TO APPROVE SOME LESS GOOD DEVELOPMENTS. I WORK IN THE LEGISLATURE FOR A MEMBER WHO SERVES TARRANT COUNTY AND HAVE SEEN THAT EXACTLY FIRSTHAND. YOU KNOW, CUTTING THE PINES FROM 48 HOMES TO 36 HOMES, I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE PREVIOUSLY SPOKEN HAVE ENUMERATED WHY THAT MAY NOT MAKE SENSE, BUT TO SPEAK TO THE NEARBY ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY THAT HAS 95 UNITS. I'M 4.9 ACRES, OR 19.4 UNITS PER ACRE, MORE THAN TWICE THE PINES. GROSS DENSITY, I BELIEVE, SHOULD ACTUALLY BE CONSIDERED, YOU KNOW, WHETHER COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL, I THINK IS A MOOT POINT. HOUSING IS HOUSING, WHETHER ZONE IS RESIDENTIAL OR OTHERWISE, AND THE STARK DENSITY COMPARISON DESERVES, I THINK, A CLEAR EXPLANATION. EXPLANATION BEFORE REQUIRING FEWER HOMES AT THIS DEVELOPMENT. SO I THINK IT'S SHOULD BE NECESSARY TO APPROVE THE FULL 48 HOMES UNLESS IF THERE IS A REAL PRIMARY CONCERN FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IN WHICH, YOU KNOW, I THINK MANY OF THE THINGS LIKE TRAFFIC EXPANDING, SPEEGLEVILLE, ROAD DRAINAGE, YOU KNOW, AN EMERGENCY SERVICES ARE TYPICAL THINGS THAT AREN'T CONCERNS HERE. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THAT SUPPORTS APPROVING THE FULL 48 HOMES. LASTLY, I THINK IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT MEN LIKE SCOTT ENGEL AND THE OTHER DEVELOPERS ARE ALL OF HIGH CHARACTER, REAL MEN OF GOD, WHO HAVE GONE TO EVERY LENGTH AND WILL GO FURTHER TO WORK WITH RESIDENTS IN THE AREA TO

[00:30:04]

NAME IS GORDON SWANSON, ADDRESS 114 BRADFORD SQUARE, WOODWAY, TEXAS. I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEVELOPMENT. APPROXIMATELY FOUR YEARS AGO, I BOUGHT 200 ACRES. RIGHT.

JOINING THIS ON THE PREVIOUS MAP YOU HAD. AND THAT'S PERFECT. I LIKE THAT ONE TOO. THAT WAS A GOOD ONE. SO IT SHOWS MY DEVELOPMENT BEHIND ME. AND AT THE TIME THERE WAS NO MULTIFAMILY, HIGH DENSITY PUDS, NOTHING AROUND ME, THE SINGLE FAMILY I. AM ALREADY EXPERIENCING WITH ONLY 12 HOUSES FINISHED, THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC JUST GETTING OUT OF MY SUBDIVISION WITH THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE BUILDING AND AVERAGING TWO CARS PER PER UNIT.

THAT'S 96 CARS TRYING TO COME IN AND OUT THERE DURING THE DAY. I'VE GOT 92 LOTS WITH 180 CARS COMING OUT AND THAT TWO WAYS OUT. THE TRAFFIC ON SPEEGLEVILLE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU'VE HEARD, IS, IS A STANDSTILL TWICE A DAY, BACKED UP FOR OVER HALF A MILE, AND THERE'S NO WAY TO GET OUT ON SUNNYDALE BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF SCHOOL AND AFTER SCHOOL BECAUSE IT'S BACKED UP PAST SUNNYDALE. SO YOU'RE AT A STANDSTILL BACKING UP THROUGH BOTH NEIGHBORHOODS. THE OPPOSITION I HAVE TO IT IS THE DENSITY. I THINK THE. THEY SPENT A LOT OF TIME DEVELOPING A PLAN. THE LOOK OF THE. THE UNITS ARE FINE. I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE ENOUGH PARKING. WITH A ONE CAR GARAGE AND A DUPLEX. THERE'S 2 OR 3 BEDROOMS, BUT I JUST FEEL LIKE THE SAFETY OF COMING OUT OF SUNNYDALE RIGHT THERE AT SPEEGLEVILLE ROAD. AND YOU GOT PEOPLE TURNING RIGHT ON OAK COMING AT YOU, PLUS ALL THE TRAFFIC. THERE'S SO MANY NEAR MISSES JUST FROM MY PEOPLE ALONE TRYING TO COME OUT OF SUNNYDALE. SO I THINK, NUMBER ONE, I'VE MADE A STRONG INVESTMENT IN THE BACK, WHICH I DON'T THINK THIS. HELPS MY SUBDIVISION AT ALL. I THINK IT'S MORE OF A NEGATIVE AS FAR AS THE HIGH DENSITY. BUT NUMBER TWO, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS I DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE AND MORE ACCIDENTS.

AND THE TRAFFIC RIGHT NOW IS UNBEARABLE, AND IT'S GOING TO BE WORSE AS MY DEVELOPMENT GROWS AND HIS DEVELOPMENT GROWS. THAT'S 150 NEW VEHICLES A DAY TRYING TO GET OUT OF A SMALL LITTLE AREA RIGHT THERE. THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY. I, I JUST WANT YOU TO CONSIDER THAT.

[00:35:01]

THANK YOU, MR. SWANSON, FOR YOUR COMMENTS. AND WHILE WE HAVE THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR MR. SWANSON, AND WE'LL CERTAINLY RESPECT HIM GOING FORWARD AS OUR NEIGHBOR, I JUST WANT TO REFER BACK TO THE COMMENTS THAT LAURA WAGSTAFF HAVE MADE AND OR CHRISTINE MILLER COULD SPEAK TO WITH REGARDS TO TRAFFIC, THAT THAT IS A NON-ISSUE. I DON'T KNOW THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY TO SAY, BUT BASED ON THE TRAFFIC REPORTS AND THE EXPANSION OF SPEEGLEVILLE ROAD, I THINK THE FACT THAT WE'VE GOT THE THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT ON SPEEGLEVILLE ROAD ITSELF, AND THEN ALSO THE ACCESS ON SUNNYDALE. AND WITH ALL OF THE EXPANSION GOING ON, BY THE TIME WE GET FINISHED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT, IT BECOMES A MOOT POINT AT THIS STAGE. AND I WOULD JUST ALSO ADD THAT EACH OF OUR DUPLEXES DOES HAVE THREE DESIGNATED OFF STREET PARKING PLACES. SO ONE GARAGE PLUS TWO IN FRONT OF THE OF EACH UNIT. WE DON'T NECESSARILY ANTICIPATE THREE BEING THE AVERAGE. THE AVERAGE WOULD BE FEWER PER. SOME MIGHT ONLY HAVE ONE, SOME MIGHT HAVE TWO, WHATEVER THE CASE MIGHT BE. BUT WE DO HAVE AMPLE ROOM FOR THAT AND HAVE HAVE THOROUGHLY THOUGHT THROUGH THAT WITH OUR ENGINEERING TEAM AND DISCUSS THAT AT LENGTH WITH CITY OF WACO. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MCBRIDE. YOU'RE A CO APPLICANT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A SHORT REBUTTAL? I THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. I, I LIKE I SAID, I LIVE IN THE AREA. I THINK THE BIGGEST ISSUE WITH THE TRAFFIC IN GENERAL IS ACTUALLY THE CONSTRUCTION. SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT CONSTRUCTION BEING FINISHED. I REALLY THINK THAT ONCE THAT IS ADDRESSED, THAT THERE WILL NOT BE THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE SEEN. WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO SEE GROWTH UP AND DOWN THE WHOLE AREA. AND I KNOW THE THE STAFF HAS PUT A LOT OF WORK INTO MAKING SURE THAT THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS CAN SUSTAIN NOT JUST ONE SMALL DUPLEX AREA, BUT A GROWTH UP AND DOWN THE CORRIDOR. SO WE ASK YOU TO AGAIN, CONSIDER THE, THE IMPACT THAT REDUCING IT WOULD HAVE VERSUS THE ANY PERCEIVED GAINS OF REDUCING THE REQUEST. BECAUSE I REALLY THINK THAT THAT REDUCING IT IS JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. IT DOESN'T HELP THE ISSUES THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED. THANK YOU. AND MR. KIRK RAYMOND, HE WAS HERE.

RIGHT. YOU ARE ALSO A CO-APPLICANT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE MOVE ON? THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO REITERATE ALL THE GOOD POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. THE THE DENSITY IS A BIG CONSIDERATION FOR THE OVERALL COST. AS I SAID EARLIER, YOU KNOW, THE ROAD LENGTH IS THE ROAD LENGTH, WATER, SEWER, ETCETERA. THAT COST IS THERE. WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION WITH THE EFFORT THAT'S BEEN PUT FORTH OVER THE LAST YEAR TRYING TO WORK THIS OUT. I AGAIN, APPRECIATE YOUR OPPORTUNITY AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION ON THE 48 UNIT DENSITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. RAYMOND. DO ANY COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS FOR THE STAFF? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF.

BASED ON THE STUDIES THAT WERE DONE, WILL A SIX UNIT REDUCTION REALLY HAVE THAT MUCH EFFECT ON TRAFFIC THERE CONSIDERING SPEEGLEVILLE? IMPROVEMENTS? ARE YOU LOOKING FOR CHRISTINE? SHE'S BACK. SHE'S BACK THERE. I WOULD PREFER THAT OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER ADDRESS THAT.

CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? YEAH. WHAT A SIX UNIT REDUCTION. HAVE THAT

[00:40:01]

I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. SO FOR THE CITY STAFF, WHEN YOU GUYS ARE CALCULATING DENSITY FOR AN AVERAGE AND A COMPARISON, MEG, CAN YOU TALK IN THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORDING WHEN YOU'RE CALCULATING DENSITY AND GATHERING THAT AVERAGE, ARE Y'ALL CALCULATING NET OR GROSS DENSITY. WE ACTUALLY CALCULATED BOTH WITHIN THIS LITTLE STUDY THAT WE DID WITH ROADS AND WITHOUT ROADS AND GOT, GOT, GOT THAT RANGE OF TWO POINT SOMETHING TO FIVE POINT WITHIN THAT. AND WE WEREN'T JUST LOOKING AT TRAFFIC, WE WERE LOOKING AT JUST FIT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MORE THAN A TRAFFIC. SO WHEN, WHEN YOU SO YOU SAID YOUR RANGE WAS TWO POINT TO FIVE POINT SOMETHING WITH GROSS DENSITY TYPICALLY BEING LOWER RIGHT THAN NET BECAUSE. SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU'RE GROSS DENSITY WAS ACTUALLY LOWER? SO IS THE NUMBER YOU GAVE A NET DENSITY? YEAH. I THINK THAT WOULD BE MORE THE SORT OF GENEROUS SIDE OF IT. WE WERE TRYING TO GO WITH, TRYING TO GET THE THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING THIS QUESTION IS BECAUSE I NOTICED IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE DEVELOPERS IDENTIFIED IT GROSS AND NET DENSITY. AND THAT WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS FOR Y'ALL. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU YOUR PLAN LISTS A GROSS DENSITY OF 7.59 AND A NET DENSITY OF 8.89 IN YOUR PLAN.

AND SO ONE OF MY QUESTIONS WAS ON THE NET DENSITY LISTED AT 8.89. WHAT ACREAGE ARE YOU USING? ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'RE. BECAUSE IN LOOKING AT. THE GRAPH. I CAN'T FIND IT THAT MAYBE THE CITY OF WACO PREPARED. IT WAS UP IN THAT TOP CORNER. RIGHT. SO IF YOU'VE GOT RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE OF 4.45. I. DON'T. AND AGAIN, TO ANSWER THAT FOR YOU. YES PLEASE. YEAH.

SO AS AS WE CALCULATE IT BASED ON WHAT ISAAC AND STAFF EXPLAINED TO US, THE NET DENSITY IS BASED ON THE RIGHT OF WAY BEING TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. SO WHEREAS WE HAVE A GROSS OF THE 6.32 ACRES, I'M DOING THIS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I CAN'T READ ALL THAT EXACTLY. WE WE TOOK OUT ALL OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND AREA OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND WE'RE LEFT WITH A SMALLER AMOUNT AND THEN DIVIDED IT THAT WAY. SO THAT'S WHERE THAT 8.69 I THINK IS. SO YOU LEFT YOU ONLY REMOVED THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT? AND YOU LEFT IN THE COMMON AREA AND DETENTION AREA. CORRECT. OKAY. YES. YEAH. OKAY. IT'S THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. IS THAT CORRECT? KIRK? IS THAT PROBABLY HOW I DID IT? OKAY. YEP. OKAY.

THANK YOU. OKAY. AND THEN SO FOR CITY OF WACO. YOUR. NET DENSITY, WERE YOU SAYING.

REMOVES PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY? BUT DOES IT INCLUDE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE'RE SPEAKING DENSITY AND DENSITY NUMBERS, THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES AS FAR AS THE ACREAGE THAT WE'RE USING TO CALCULATE THE DENSITY, BECAUSE IT COULD MAKE ALSO THEN A BIG SWING IN NUMBERS WHEN WE'RE COMPARING. DENSITY PER THE

[00:45:03]

[00:50:13]

WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN IS THE 48 UNITS. SO IN EFFECT, IF IF THE COMMISSION WAS TO GO ALONG WITH THE CITY'S POSITION, YOU WOULD ELIMINATE ROUGHLY SIX OF THESE. CORRECT. AND DO WHAT WITH THAT SPACE, SPREAD IT OUT. IT COULD BE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THEY CAN MIX SINGLE FAMILY WITH DUPLEX UNITS AND JUST BRING THAT DENSITY DOWN. COULD IT BE SINGLE FAMILY IF THEY'RE MAXED OUT AT 36, COULD YOU ADD MORE UNITS? REPLACE THE DUPLEXES WITH SINGLE SOME SINGLE FAMILY UNITS TO BRING THAT NUMBER DOWN. ELIMINATE SIX. YOU'RE STILL AT 36, RIGHT? RIGHT NOW IT RIGHT.

AM I. OR IS YOUR GOAL DENSITY NOT NECESSARILY LIKE TO BRING THE PLAN TO. OH, YOU CARE MORE ABOUT LOOKING AT DENSITY NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY, NOT SPACE DWELLING UNITS. OKAY. CAN I ASK A QUESTION. SURE. WHY? BECAUSE WE WERE LOOKING AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMENTS THAT WE DID RECEIVE AT THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT CONCERNS.

WE WENT BACK AND WE LOOKED AT THE DENSITY WITHIN THAT REGION NORTH OF 84, JUST TO COME UP WITH A BASIC NUMBER OF, OKAY, DOES THIS DEVELOPMENT FIT IN THIS, THIS DEVELOPMENT OR THIS AREA? THIS IS A PUD. IT HAS IT'S NOT JUST A STRAIGHT ZONING. WHEN THIS WENT THROUGH PRELIMINARY PLAT, THEY WERE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. AND THAT CONFORMED WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY R1B ZONING. BUT IN ORDER TO LOOK AT A PUD, WE ALSO LOOK AT THE LAND USE PLAN. AND IN THIS CASE THE LAND USE PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY IS R1A. I MEAN I'M SORRY. SO. SORRY. SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL. MY WORDS MIXED UP TONIGHT I APOLOGIZE. YES SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT PARAMETER AND IN THAT PARAMETER THAT IN THE R1A DISTRICT WHICH IS THE TYPICALLY THE ONLY ZONING DISTRICT THAT'S ALLOWED IN IT, IT ONLY ALLOWS 3.5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT A PUD, INSTEAD OF JUST LOOKING AT, OKAY, THIS IS THE LOT SIZE. THIS IS DWELLING UNITS. YOU'RE LOOKING AT LAND USE PLAN. YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT AMENITIES DO THEY HAVE? HOW DOES IT FIT WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? YOU'RE DEVIATING FROM THAT BASIC CORE ZONING DISTRICT. SO FROM STAFF REVIEW WE HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL THOSE THINGS. I THINK THEY HAVE PRESENTED A VERY GOOD CASE HERE TONIGHT. AS I SAID, KIND OF COMING INTO THIS MEETING AT OUR WORK SESSION, WE'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE ORDINANCE. WE'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM A NUMBER PERSPECTIVE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION GETS TO HEAR THE BIG PICTURE AND SEE ARE WE HAVE WE REACHED THAT MIDDLE GROUND TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS SATISFIED THE DEVELOPER CAN WORK WITHIN THEIR REALM? SO THAT'S WHERE WE GOT THE NUMBER NUMBER FROM. LONG STORY SHORT, FROM THAT, SORRY, DRAGGED ON A LITTLE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS, I'M GOING TO CLOSE IT. MR. MCBRIDE, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. YES, SIR. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SAY, SIR? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE? I JUST I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT THE TEAM HAS PUT INTO THIS. I WOULD JUST TAKE US BACK AGAIN TO THE. THE UNDERLYING REQUEST IS THAT YOU CAN MAKE A CASE JUST BASED ON DENSITY. BUT WE FEEL LIKE THAT THE DENSITY IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE HERE. IF YOU LOOK RIGHT NEXT DOOR, WE'RE DEALING WITH A ROW OF TRAILER HOMES. WE ARE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVING THE AREA. IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT BLACK AND WHITE. LIKE, OH, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HIT A DENSITY NUMBER. WE ARE IN A TRANSITION SPACE BETWEEN, YOU

[00:55:04]

BUT AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR FOR CITY STAFF PER SE FOR PLANNING STAFF. BUT I THINK THEY'RE THEY'RE MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE 5.54 BASED ON CALCULATIONS THAT WE'VE DONE. WE'VE PRESENTED A CASE TONIGHT, I THINK, EFFECTIVELY THAT WE CAN THINK OUTSIDE OF THAT PARTICULAR BOX. SO WE'RE REQUESTING THAT YOU APPROVE THE CONCEPT PUD AS SUBMITTED WITH THE 48 UNITS I.E. 24 INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS. SO EXACTLY WHAT YOU'VE SEEN ON THE SCREEN TONIGHT, I BELIEVE LAURA CAN CAN ENLIGHTEN US AS TO HOW YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO VOTE AND, AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS. I KNOW THERE'S FLEXIBILITY IN THAT. SO SOMEWHERE, SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE, WE'RE JUST SIMPLY SAYING THAT THE 36 FINANCIALLY, IT HITS US VERY HARD. AND THAT WAS NOT HOW THE HISTORY OF THIS WENT. AND SO WE FIND THAT I DON'T WANT TO USE A NEGATIVE WORD, BUT WE FIND THAT DIFFICULT, A TOUGH NUT TO CRACK, LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY. AND SO AT THE SAME TIME, WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE CAN TO LEARN FROM AND LISTEN TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO GET TO WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. GOT IT. SO THE REQUEST IS FOR THE 48. GOT IT. THANK YOU. MENTIONED SOMETHING BECAUSE I ABOUT 3.5 UNITS AN ACRE. THAT IS THE 3.5 ACRES IS TIED TO THE UNDERLYING LAND USE OF SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL. UNDER OUR COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ALLOWS UP TO 3.5. BUT AGAIN, THIS LAND USE PLAN IS NOT A REGULATORY DOCUMENT. IT'S A RECOMMENDED DENSITY THROUGH A PLAN. RIGHT. SO AS. BUT THIS IS CURRENTLY ZONED R1B WHICH IS NOT WHICH REALLY SHOULD BE URBAN RESIDENTIAL. OUR LAND USE AND OUR ZONING DON'T MATCH UP ON THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL. CORRECT. IT SHOULD BE THE ONLY LAND USE DESIGNATION ALLOWED IN THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL R1A ZONING. AND THAT WAS A VERY LARGE LOTS. YES. FIVE THERE IS SOME INCONSISTENCY. GOTCHA. WHY DIDN'T IT MAKE MORE SENSE TO GO R TWO. THE R TWO TO STRAIGHT R TWO. I STAFF REALLY WASN'T GOING TO RECOMMEND JUST A STRAIGHT R TWO JUST BECAUSE OF.

[01:00:08]

I SECOND THAT. OH, AND A SECOND. WOW. WELL DONE. OKAY. THERE'S BEEN A MOTION BY MR. ENGLAND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, BUT CHANGING THE CONDITION TO THE 48 UNITS. AND KEEPING THE OTHER CONDITIONS. AND HAS BEEN SECONDED BY MISS GIVENS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? YEAH.

GOOD. PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. DUNHAM. YAY! ELLIS. YES. ENGLAND. YES. GIVENS. YES.

LOZANO. YES. RESETAR. YES. SALOME. YES. EMBRY. YES. MOTION CARRIES. WHAT'S. WELL, HOW DO I ASK FOR A THREE MINUTE BREAK? AND I HAVE A THREE MINUTE. CAN I JUST TOUCH IT FROM THE AGENDA. OH MAN. THANK YOU THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. YES. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS Z-26-43. WHAT IS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF CITY STAFF? YES, MISTER CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, THIS IS A REQUEST FROM JEREMY FULBRIGHT ON BEHALF OF NEW CHAPTER. THIS IS A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TRANSITIONAL SHELTER TWO IN AN OH THREE ZONING DISTRICT. PROPERTY SIZE IS 0.81 ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE SANGER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR. FOR THE BENEFIT OF THIS APPLICATION, AS WELL AS THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, I'M GOING TO QUICKLY GO OVER WHAT IS A TRANSITIONAL SHELTER? TWO DEFINITION A TRANSITIONAL SHELTER TWO IS DEFINED AS A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY PROVIDING TEMPORARY SHELTER FOR PERSONS WHO ARE RECEIVING THERAPY AND OR COUNSELING FROM SUPPORT STAFF WHO ARE PRESENT AT ALL TIMES. THE RESIDENTS ARE PRESENT FOR ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES A TO HELP RESIDENTS RECUPERATE FROM THE EFFECTS OF DRUGS AND ALCOHOL ADDICTION. B TO HELP HOMELESS PERSONS OR FAMILIES ACHIEVE INDEPENDENCE AND OBTAIN PERMANENT HOUSING, OR C TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY SHELTER FOR PERSONS WHO ARE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE. SO THE PROPERTY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN. AS I SAID, THE SINGER HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND IS LOCATED ALONG GORMAN AVENUE BETWEEN THE 17TH 18TH STREET. ONE WAY PAIR AND APPROXIMATELY A THIRD OF A

[01:05:05]

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE HERE. TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. HOW ARE YOU GUYS DOING? MY NAME IS JEREMY FULBRIGHT. ADDRESS IS 221 ROCKFORD ROAD, WACO, TEXAS 76712, SIR, MY NAME IS SARAH

[01:10:03]

WE ARE NOT SIMPLY PROVIDING BEDS, WE ARE PROVIDING ACCOUNTABILITY, STABILITY, RECOVERY SUPPORT, EMPLOYMENT EXPECTATIONS, CURFEWS, DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING AND AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE INDIVIDUALS ARE EXPECTED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS. THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, WE. WE HAVE HEARD CONCERNS FROM NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS AND I WANT TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS DIRECTLY. SOME NEIGHBORS HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE TYPES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL BE LIVING IN OUR COMMUNITY. I UNDERSTAND THOSE CONCERNS. EVERY FAMILY DESERVES TO FEEL SAFE IN THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE WE MUST RECOGNIZE THAT A PERSON'S PAST DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY DETERMINE THEIR FUTURE. THE MEN ENTERING NEW CHAPTER ARE FATHERS, SONS, EMPLOYEES, AND INDIVIDUALS AND INDIVIDUALS ACTIVELY WORKING TOWARD RECOVERY. WE ARE NOT ASKING OUR NEIGHBORS TO OVERLOOK SAFETY. WE ARE ASKING THEM TO RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT SUPPORT AND AN INDIVIDUAL LIVING IN A STRUCTURED ENVIRONMENT WITH EXPECTATIONS, SUPERVISION AND ACCOUNTABILITY. ANOTHER CONCERN HAS BEEN HAS BEEN TRAFFIC AND PARKING. BECAUSE NEW CHAPTER HAS THE CAPACITY TO HOUSE 34 MEN. I WANT TO MAKE SOMETHING VERY CLEAR. JUST BECAUSE OUR FACILITY CAN HOUSE 34 MEN DOES NOT MEAN THERE WILL BE 34 VEHICLES ON OUR PROPERTY. WE UNDERSTAND THAT PARKING AND TRAFFIC MATTER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE TAKE THOSE CONCERNS SERIOUSLY. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SOMETHING ELSE EQUALLY CLEAR. NEW CHAPTER IS NOT SIMPLY ASKING TO OCCUPY A PROPERTY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE WANT TO HELP BUILD A BETTER NEIGHBORHOOD. WE WANT OUR PROPERTY TO BE WELL MAINTAINED, OUR RESIDENTS TO RESPECT THEIR NEIGHBORS, AND OUR ORGANIZATION TO BE INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY AROUND US. WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBILITY, NEIGHBORHOOD PRIDE, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR RESIDENTS TO GIVE WE BELIEVE THAT WHEN INDIVIDUALS ARE GIVEN STABILITY AND HELD ACCOUNTABLE, HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME PART OF OF A COMMUNITY'S PROGRESS. AND I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I HAVE LIVED IT, THERE WAS A TIME WHEN MY OWN LIFE LOOKED VERY DIFFERENT. THERE WAS A TIME WHEN SOMEONE COULDN'T, WHEN SOMEONE COULD HAVE LOOKED AT MY PAST AND DECIDED I HAD NOTHING POSITIVE LEFT TO CONTRIBUTE. BUT SOMEONE BELIEVED IN MY FUTURE. AND TODAY I STAND BEFORE YOU. TODAY I STAND BEFORE YOU AS AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND A BUSINESS OWNER AND ADVOCATE FOR RECOVERY. I'M LIVING PROOF. I'M GOING TO LEAVE YOU WITH THIS. IF WE RECOGNIZE THAT WACO NEEDS SOLUTIONS TO ADDICTION, HOMELESSNESS, AND REPEAT INCARCERATION, AND WE HAVE AN ORGANIZATION WILLING TO PROVIDE STRUCTURE, ACCOUNTABILITY AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR INDIVIDUALS TO REBUILD THEIR LIVES WHILE INVESTING IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. THEN WHERE DO WE EXPECT THOSE INDIVIDUALS TO GO IF WE ARE UNWILLING TO MAKE ROOM FOR THEM IN OUR OWN COMMUNITIES? THANK YOU. JEREMY, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD? SHE SAID IT ALL WONDERFUL. YEAH. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU GUYS. ANYONE ELSE PRESENT? THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM.

ANYONE PRESENT LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION? I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS.

ARE WE DOING IT FOR BOTH? WE'RE JUST TAKING THE ONE CASE IS ALL WE'VE READ INTO THE RECORD.

OKAY. CORRECT? YES. SECOND QUESTION IS THAT LOZANO BEEN A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL BY MR. ENGLAND AND SECONDED BY MR. LOZANO. ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. I DO ACTUALLY. OH, I'M SORRY FOR THE CITY. WHERE DOES THE NUMBER 34 COME FROM? WHERE I NOTICED THAT THERE'S A LIMIT OF 34. AND IS THAT TENANTS, RESIDENTS. SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE ANY STAFF TOO. BUT I'M JUST WHERE DOES THE NUMBER 34 COME FROM? YEAH. SO THAT'S WORKING WITH THE APPLICANTS WITH THE APPROXIMATE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF WHAT'S ALLOWED BY CODE AND THE THAT

[01:15:09]

OKAY. THAT'S BASED THAT NUMBER COMES BASED ON WHAT CODE ALLOWS FOR THE BUILDING'S SQUARE FOOTAGE AND NUMBER OF BEDROOMS, I GUESS BECAUSE THERE WAS THAT. OKAY. CORRECT. YES. AND NUMBER OF BEDS. YEAH. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF. FROM THE OPPOSITION LETTER THAT WAS RECEIVED, WOULD SOMEONE BE, I GUESS, REACHING BACK OUT TO THIS HOMEOWNER BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT, THEY TOUCHED IN WHAT THEY PROPOSED TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY. SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED THERE.

OR I GUESS THE EXPECTATION FOR HER WOULD BE TO KIND OF GUESS, MAYBE VIEW, VIEW THIS HEARING, THIS PUBLIC HEARING ONLINE, OR WILL SOMEONE FROM THE CITY REACH BACK OUT TO TYPICALLY, WE DO NOT REACH BACK OUT TO THOSE THAT SUBMIT COMMENTS, BUT THE THE WHOLE MEETING IS LIVE STREAMED AS WELL AS IT'S ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. WHENEVER ANYBODY WANTS TO GO ON AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT, AND THEY WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME HERE, AND THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TO COUNCIL. AND THE COMMENT THAT'S SUBMITTED. PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO GETS INCLUDED WITHIN THE CITY COUNCIL'S PACKET AS WELL. THANK YOU. SO HOW DO WE FOLLOW UP LIKE ON THESE CONDITIONS, LIKE SAY TEN FOR FOR THE TRAFFIC? I MEAN, HOW DOES THAT NORMALLY HOW IS THAT FOLLOWED UP? LIKE IF THEY'RE MAINTAINING NO CONGESTION, THERE IS ANOTHER GENERAL CONDITION. SORRY, MY COMPUTER WOULDN'T TURN ON BECAUSE OF THE INTERNET, BUT THERE IS A GENERAL CONDITION PRIOR TO NUMBER EIGHT THAT STATES THAT VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE CONDITIONS OR ANYTHING COULD RESULT IN REVOCATION OF OF THE PERMIT. SO IT'S JUST BASICALLY IF WE RECEIVE A COMPLAINT, IF IF CODE NOTICES THAT SOMETHING'S NOT BEING FOLLOWED OR PLANNING STAFF, THEN THEN THERE IS A MEANS TO ADDRESS THAT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. DONNA. YAY! ELLIS. YES. ENGLAND. YES. GIBBONS. YES.

LOZANO. YES. RESETAR. YES. SALOME. YES. EMBRY. YES. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS Z-26-44. WHAT IS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF CITY STAFF, MISTER CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF SENECA FOUNDATION FOR 3015 HERRING AVENUE. THIS IS A RENEWAL. SORRY. LET ME MOVE MY SLIDE.

THIS IS A RENEWAL OF A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A TRANSITIONAL SHELTER TO. IN AN OH TWO ZONING.

PROPERTY SIZE IS 2.89 ACRES. LOCATED IN THE DEAN HIGHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SLIDE, THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION GOES. BUT DATES BACK TO 2011. THEY WENT THROUGH THEIR FIRST RENEWAL IN 2016 AND THEN SECOND RENEWAL 2021, AND THEY'RE UP FOR THEIR THIRD RENEWAL AT THIS POINT. SO THE EXISTING PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO THE OLD HILLCREST BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER COMPLEX, LOCATED BETWEEN LYLE AVENUE AND WEST HERRING AVENUE, AND ALSO BETWEEN NORTH 30TH AND 31ST STREETS. THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS INSTITUTIONAL LAND USE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP, WHICH IS SORRY, THERE'S SOME PICTURES OF THE EXISTING FACILITY, WHICH IS PART OF AN INSTITUTIONAL POCKET CENTERED IN THE FORMER LOCATION OF THE HILLCREST BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER. THE INSTITUTIONAL DESIGNATION IS INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE LARGE EDUCATIONAL AND MEDICAL CAMPUSES. URBAN RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION ALSO REPRESENTS LARGE AREA OUT IN THIS AREA AND SEVERAL CORE AREAS OF THE DEAN HIGHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD. MIXED USE COMPLEX IS THEN LOCATED ON THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN. THEY'RE LOCATED TO THE SOUTHWEST AND CENTERED AROUND THE HERRING AVENUE AND MACARTHUR DRIVE INTERSECTION. FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE, THE

[01:20:03]

THANK YOU, MISS SMITH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? ANYONE PRESENT LIKE TO SPEAK? LET ME START OVER. ANYONE PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION? RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT SUBJECT TO SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDING. SECOND. IT'S BEEN A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL BY MR. LOZANO AND SECONDED BY MISS GIVENS. ANY DISCUSSION? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF. THIS IS TECHNICAL, AND IT'S PROBABLY JUST FOR ME, SINCE THIS PERMIT WAS RENEWED IN NOVEMBER 2022 FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS. TECHNICALLY, IT DOES NOT EXPIRE UNTIL NOVEMBER OF NEXT YEAR. SO HOW COME THE IF WE APPROVE IT FOR TODAY TO GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL, IT'S ONLY GOING TO 2031. SHOULDN'T IT BE 2032 OR BECAUSE THEY. THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO APPROVE

[01:25:05]

ANOTHER FIVE YEARS. OH IT WAS YEAH, IT WAS 21. BUT THE BUT THE BUT IT WAS DECEMBER OF 21 WAS WHEN IT WAS WAS BROUGHT. I BELIEVE THAT THAT MIGHT HAVE MOVED IT ACTUALLY TO. 22 BUT IT WOULD, IT WOULD BRING IT IN LINE THERE. YEAH. I COULD SEE WHERE THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL KIND OF AT THE END OF THE, THE YEARS, IF YOU SEE DECEMBER. YEAH, SORRY ABOUT THAT ONE IS WHAT SAID. NOVEMBER 2022. YEAH. THROWING ME OFF WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THIS AND THEN BACK AT THAT. YEAH. NO THAT WAS A GOOD CATCH THOUGH. THANK YOU. YEAH. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? PLEASE POLL THE COMMISSION. DONNA. YAY. ELLIS. YES. ENGLAND. YES. GIBBONS. YES. LOZANO. YES.

RESETAR. YES. SALOME. YES. EMBRY. YES. MOTION CARRIES. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS Z-26-45. WHAT IS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF CITY STAFF? THIS ITEM. SORRY. THIS ITEM Z 2645 WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 28-127, WHICH STATES THAT IF SOMEONE WITHDRAWS AN APPLICATION AT LEAST FIVE DAYS PRIOR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NO ACTION IS NECESSARY BY THE COMMISSION, SO WE CAN JUST MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS Z-26-46. WHAT IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REPORT, MR. CHAIR? MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THIS IS AN APPLICATION FROM TEXAS K J INVESTMENTS AND CHARLIE MERRITT. MERRITT ENGINEERING REQUEST IS IN TWO PARTS. THERE IS IN YOUR ATTACHED MAPS ATTRACT A WHICH WILL REQUIRE A REZONE OR REDESIGNATION FROM URBAN RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE FLEX AND REZONE FROM O3 TO C TWO FOR 2.197 ACRES AND TRACT B IS O TWO TO C TWO FOR 0.3544 ACRES. PROPERTY SIZE IS APPROXIMATELY 2.5514 TOTAL ACRES. LOCATED IN THE OAKWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE. PROPERTIES ARE VACANT PROPERTIES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION OF GARDEN DRIVE AND SOUTH UNIVERSITY PARK DRIVE, CLOSE TO THE EDGE TO THE CITY LIMITS, WHICH IS JUST ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF GARDEN. I MEAN OF UNIVERSITY PARKS. THIS IS A MEDIUM TRAFFIC AREA THAT HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN AGRICULTURAL LAND WITH SOME INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES TO THE SOUTH TOWARDS LOOP 340. THERE ARE ALSO A FEW APARTMENT COMPLEXES WITHIN THE AREA ON THIS SIDE OF SOUTH UNIVERSITY PARKS. HERE ARE SOME IMAGES OF THE AREA. OKAY, SO CURRENTLY THE LAND USE MAP IS A LITTLE BIT MIXED IN HERE WE HAVE A CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE 2.197 ACRE TRACT, WHICH IS SHOWN IN YELLOW AS URBAN RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED ZONING IS C TWO, WHICH WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE URBAN RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION AND THEREFORE NECESSITATES THE NEED TO CHANGE IN LAND USE DESIGNATION TO MIXED USE FLEX. THE SMALLER TRACT YOU CAN SEE IS ALREADY MIXED USE FLEX IN HERE. THE APPLICANT DID A LAND. THERE WAS SOME LAND PARCEL EXCHANGES, SO TRYING TO GET THE PROPERTY ALL. WITHIN THIS CORNER THERE WILL BE A REMNANT OF OF URBAN RESIDENTIAL WITHIN THERE THAT WOULD BE LATER ADDRESSED.

DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY. FOR ZONING. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS O3 ZONING FOR THE LARGER TRACT, AND THEN AN O TWO STRIP FOR THE SMALLER TRACT. IF REZONED, IT WOULD GO TO THE C TWO ZONING. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT? YES. OKAY. SO CURRENTLY PURPLE GOING PINK.

[01:30:03]

INFRASTRUCTURE IS GENERALLY ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE FOR THE USES ALLOWED IN THE C TWO ZONING DISTRICT. THREE THE PROPERTY MEETS ALL THE AREA AND WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE C TWO ZONING DISTRICT AND FOR THE PROPOSED C-2 ZONING IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES AND IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF A COLLECTOR STREET, GARDEN DRIVE AND ARTERIAL STREET UNIVERSITY PARKS DRIVE OR FM. 434 WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS BACK.

THANKS. IS THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE HERE? SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS CHARLIE MERRITT. I LIVE AT 711 EAST FREDERICK STREET, RIESEL, TEXAS, AND I'M REPRESENTING TEXAS CK INVESTMENTS. BASICALLY, WE JUST FIND THIS AS A REALLY GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP AROUND THE UNIVERSITY PARKS AREA, A LITTLE BIT MORE COMMERCIAL AREA AROUND THAT, JUST BECAUSE IT'S A AROUND A COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. ANYONE ELSE HERE PRESENT? THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM. ANYONE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM? DO ANY COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? CITY STAFF, CAN YOU GIVE SOME EXAMPLES OF SOME USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN C TWO, AS OPPOSED TO CURRENT ZONING? YEAH. SO THE CURRENT ZONING YOU HAVE A OF O THREE AND O TWO. THOSE ARE YOUR OFFICE LIMITED COMMERCIAL WHICH IS THAT DARKER PURPLE. AND THEN THE O TWO IS THE OFFICE RESIDENCE DISTRICT GENERALLY WITHIN THE O TWO YOU'RE GOING TO GET MORE OF A PRETTY HIGH DENSITY ALLOWANCE. 40 UNITS AN ACRE O THREE.

YOU'RE KIND OF A LITTLE BIT LIMITED ON THAT. MOSTLY THE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT YOU COULD GET IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE RESIDENTIAL ARE GOING TO BE MORE LIKE SINGLE FAMILY, HIGHER END SORT OF DENSITY WITH THAT IS GOING TO BE TOWNHOMES. ASIDE FROM THAT, YOU GET INTO COMMERCIAL WITH C TWO. SO YOU'RE GETTING MORE OF A RESIDENTIAL AND MULTIFAMILY TYPES OF RESIDENTS THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED. NO SINGLE FAMILY WOULD BE ALLOWED OR DUPLEX. YOU GET CONVENIENCE STORES, TYPES OF USES ALONG THOSE LINES. THAT'S THAT'S GENERALLY THE RETAIL KIND OF USE. AND THEN THEY'RE GENERALLY GOING TO BE KIND OF LOCATED, YOU KNOW, ALONG SOME ROADS LIKE THIS. INTERSECTIONS. SO. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. DO WE NEED TWO MOTIONS OR ONE JUST JUST THE ONE. ONE OF ONE. UNLESS YOU'RE LIKE MAKING ANY MODIFICATIONS TO ANY OF IT. IS THERE A MOTION? I RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE PLAN FROM URBAN RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE FLEX AND THEN APPROVAL OF O THREE TO C TWO OR O3 AND O2 TO

[01:35:04]

BUT WHAT I, I DON'T SEE THE I DON'T SEE THE HOW CHANGING THIS LAND USE AND ZONING ALIGNS WITH A CITY PLAN. YEAH. SO THIS HAS ACTUALLY COME UP FOR A REQUEST IN THE PAST. AT THAT TIME, WE HAVE, WE HAD RECOMMENDED DISAPPROVAL OR WE WERE NOT GOING TO NECESSARILY SUPPORT IT.

I THINK THAT SORT OF THE, OBVIOUSLY, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENED ALONG HERE, WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT KIND OF CONCERN THAT YOU HAVE WITH TRYING NOT TO ENCROACH FURTHER DOWN GARDEN TO THE RESIDENTIAL. WE FEEL THAT WHAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW WITH THAT O TWO REMAINING IS GOING TO BE A GOOD ENOUGH BUFFER. WE ARE TRYING TO KIND OF WE SEE THIS AS MORE OF A LIMITED SCOPE AND NOT ENCOURAGING THE REST OF THAT TO, TO REZONE. I MEAN, EVERY CASE THAT COMES UP IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. I THINK IN THE PAST THAT HAS BEEN KIND OF THE FULL REQUEST FOR THAT TO GO TO C TWO. SO WITH THIS KIND OF MORE NARROW, I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST FROM DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD INTERNALLY, THAT THAT KIND OF ADDRESSES THAT CONCERN TO THE BEST OF THE ABILITY THAT I THINK THAT WE'RE TRYING TO STILL KEEP THIS, YOU KNOW. MORE ALONG YOU PARKS AND NOT HAVE IT, YOU KNOW, ENCROACH FURTHER DOWN GARDEN. MR. CHAIR, IF I, IF I CAN ADD, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAND USE MAP, THIS IS THE EXISTING LAND USE. AND THIS WHOLE PARCEL CURRENTLY IS DESIGNATED WITHIN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS A MIXED USE FLEX, EXCEPT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS DIRECTLY AT THE CORNER, WHICH TYPICALLY WOULD BE THE OPPOSITE. OPPOSITE, YOU WOULD HAVE THE MIXED USE FLEX WITHIN THE CORNER AND THEN A RESIDENTIAL USE, PROVIDING A BUFFER BETWEEN TO THE SINGLE FAMILY AND THEN LOOKING AT THE ZONING AS WELL. STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF CONSOLIDATING IT INTO THIS CORNER BECAUSE THE O TWO IS THERE AS A BUFFER WITHIN THAT AREA, SEPARATING IT FROM. THERE HAS BEEN AN APPLICATION IN THE PAST FOR THAT WHOLE AREA. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN, AND WE DID NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WHOLE AREA TO BE CHANGED. BUT RATHER THAN JUST KEEP IT WITHIN THIS CORNER TO PROVIDE SOME COMMERCIAL SERVICES TO THE RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA. AND THE OTHER THING TO NOTE IS THAT GARDEN DRIVE IS IMPROVED. AT THIS POINT. IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN QUITE A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL BE ABLE. YEAH. SO WE HAVE SOME BIKE LANES. IT IS QUITE IMPROVED WITHIN THIS AREA UP TO UNIVERSITY PARK. SO THIS IS A WELL IMPROVED INTERSECTION TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. PLEASE PULL THE COMMISSION. DUNHAM. ELLIS. YES. ENGLAND. YES. GIBBONS. YES. LOZANO. YES. MR. YES. SALOME.

[01:40:01]

THIS ONE WAS CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST MEETING. STAFF CITY OF WACO REQUEST TO DO AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE PLAN FROM OFFICE INDUSTRIAL FLEX TO MIXED USE FLEX AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE FLEX, AND TO REZONE FROM C THREE GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND M2 TO R-2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE AND THREE OFFICE LIMITED COMMERCIAL TOTAL PROPERTY AREA. INCLUDED IN THE CHANGE IS 15.29 ACRES LOCATED IN THE NORTH EAST RIVERSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE. I'M GOING TO PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE DETAIL FOR OUR NEW MEMBERS SINCE THEY WEREN'T HERE IN AUGUST, BUT THIS IS THE GENERAL AREA THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. IT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF HARRISON AVENUE, HILLSBOROUGH DRIVE AND NORTH LOOP DRIVE, US BUSINESS HIGHWAY 77. THIS IS AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, PRIMARILY SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX. RESIDENTIAL USES SCATTERED VACANT LOTS AND THEN SOME LIMITED COMMERCIAL USES ALONG THE EDGES AND MAJOR STREETS. THE NEIGHBORHOOD INTERIOR THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN THE INTERIOR OF THIS AREA IS LARGELY RESIDENTIAL, WHILE THE MORE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING IS AROUND THE PERIMETER, THE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY IS. YOU SEE ON THE BLUE IS THE OFFICE INDUSTRIAL FLEX, WHICH SUPPORTS A MIXTURE OF COMPATIBLE OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL USES WITH LIMITED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, AND THEN STAFF THROUGH INQUIRIES THROUGH THE CITY. BECAUSE THE CITY DOES OWN, AS YOU'LL SEE ON A FUTURE SLIDE, A FEW PROPERTIES IN HERE BECAME TO CAME TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE OFFICE INDUSTRIAL FLEX LAND USE DESIGNATION DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. A LOT OF NON-CONFORMING USES, AS YOU'LL SEE HERE IN A MINUTE, THE PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WOULD AFFIX A LOT OF THAT. THOSE ISSUES THE ORANGE. THE PROPOSED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE FLEX FOR THE HIGHER RESIDENTIAL AREAS, AND THEN THE PINK IS MIXED USE FLEX ALONG THE INTENDED AREAS TO ACCOMMODATE COMPATIBLE OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES. SO THIS IS THE ZONING AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW. THE RED IS OUR C-3 ZONING, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A ZONING DISTRICT THAT, AS RECOMMENDED IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IS PLANNED TO BE PHASED OUT OVER TIME AND GO TO A C-2 ZONING DISTRICT. THE THE ORANGE AREA IS R-2, WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL.

AND THEN THE GRAY IS M2, WHICH IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. AND THEN IF APPROVED, WE ARE RECOMMENDING MODIFYING THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE WITHIN THAT HAVE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL USES OR COULD BE DEVELOPED BASED ON LOT SIZE TO AN R-2 ZONING AND THEN ALONG HILLSBOROUGH DRIVE GOING TO THE O3 ZONING, WE ARE KEEPING THE C-3 ON THIS CORNER BECAUSE THERE IS AN EXISTING BUSINESS THERE, AND WE DO NOT WANT TO CREATE ANY NON-CONFORMING SITUATION. SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING KEEPING THAT C-3 IN PLACE AT THIS TIME. AND ALSO AFTER WE WENT BACK AND REVIEWED IT, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THERE IS A BILLBOARD ON THIS TRIANGLE DOWN HERE AS WELL.

SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING KEEPING THAT AS C-3 IN ADDITION, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT CREATING ANY NON-CONFORMING SITUATIONS. WE'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE THINGS, NOT MAKE IT MAKE ANY OTHER PROPERTIES WORSE. SO HE ASKED FOR MORE INFORMATION. AS FAR AS WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON IN THE AREA. SO KUDOS TO ISAAC BACK THERE FOR PUTTING THESE MAPS TOGETHER. SO HOPEFULLY I DON'T DON'T BUTCHER THEM. TOO BAD GOING THROUGH THESE. SO THIS MAP IS SHOWING THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND THEN CITY OWNED PROPERTIES. SO THE OUTLINED PARCELS WITH THE BOLD LINES AROUND THEM. THOSE ARE CITY OWNED PROPERTIES. THE YELLOW BOXES LIGHT YELLOW THOSE ARE RESIDENTIAL. AND THEN THE MAROON IS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

[01:45:08]

EVERYTHING THAT HAS A RED OUTLINE AROUND IT ARE NON-CONFORMING USES. SO AS YOU CAN SEE MOST OF THOSE NON-CONFORMING USES ARE GOING TO BE FOUND WITHIN THIS C-3 AREA. AND THEN ALSO WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL THE M2. AND AGAIN THIS THIS IS A NON-CONFORMING COMMERCIAL USE HERE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE MAKING ANY CHANGES ON AS WELL AS THIS, THIS PARCEL RIGHT IN HERE AS WELL, WHICH IS ACTUALLY CONFORMING. SO WITH THE PROPOSED ZONING, I'M GOING TO FLIP BACK. SO YOU SEE THE RED OUTLINE WITH THE PROPOSED ZONING, YOU SEE MORE A LOT MORE OF THE GREEN. SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE NON CONFORMING PROPERTIES INTO CONFORMANCE THROUGH ZONING. WE DO STILL HAVE THESE REMNANT PARCELS THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE. AGAIN WE DON'T WANT TO MESS WITH ANY TYPE OF NON-CONFORMING STATUS. WE'RE LEAVING THOSE. THIS PARCEL HERE. QUESTIONS CAME UP DURING THAT LAST MEETING ABOUT WELL WHAT IS DEVELOPABLE UNDER THE THE EXISTING ZONING BASED ON LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS. SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING NOW IS BASED ON THE EXISTING ZONING. SO EVERYTHING OUTLINED WITH PURPLE, THOSE ARE REALLY THE ONLY DEVELOPABLE PROPERTIES BASED ON LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. AGAIN THIS PROPERTY HERE LOOKS PRETTY LARGE, BUT THAT IS THE CITY OF WACO. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP. AND THEN WITH THE ZONE CHANGE, IT OPENS THE DOORS FOR A LOT MORE DEVELOPABLE. SO THE LOT SIZES WOULD WORK BASED ON WHAT IS PLATTED. NOW WITH THE PROPOSED ZONING. AND THEN THIS IS THE OUTREACH MAP. SO THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT OUTREACH PRIOR TO THE LAST MEETING EMAILS, PHONE CALLS, AS WELL AS OUR STANDARD NOTIFICATION LETTERS. SO THERE'S PLENTY OF OUTREACH. THIS PROPERTY. IS VACANT RIGHT NOW. WE DID EMAIL. WE SENT OUT OUR NOTICES. REACHED OUT. NO COMMENTS WERE EVER RECEIVED BACK. THIS PROPERTY HERE, WHICH IS ALSO GO FROM THE M2 TO THE THE I'M SORRY. THE OH THE PROPOSED ZONING IS THE COMMENT THAT IS ATTACHED TO YOUR REPORT IN SUPPORT OF THE THE CHANGE. HOPEFULLY THAT THAT SHEDS A LITTLE MORE LIGHT ON WHAT'S CHANGING WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NOTHING REALLY COMES UP AS FAR AS. WHAT IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO DEVELOP IT UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING. WE WE NOTICED AGAIN, PRIOR TO THIS MEETING, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. WE ONLY HAVE THE ONE COMMENT IN SUPPORT, AND I FEEL THAT STAFF HAS GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND REACHING OUT TO TO ALL THE THE RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THIS AREA. AND SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE PLAN FROM OFFICE INDUSTRIAL FLEX TO MIXED USE FLEX AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE FLEX BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. ONE. THE PROPOSAL APPROPRIATELY AMENDS THE LAND USE COMPONENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO SUPPORT THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBLE COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS TO THE PUBLIC. INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE FOR THE ZONING DISTRICTS USES ALLOWED IN THE PROPOSED MIXED USE FLEX AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE FLEX LAND USE DESIGNATION. AND THEN WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. THE REQUEST TO REZONE FROM C3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND M2 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO R-2 TWO FAMILY AND ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND THREE OFFICE LIMITED COMMERCIAL. AGAIN, WE REMOVED THE THE ONE C2 ZONE CHANGE THAT WAS IN HERE DUE TO

[01:50:02]

SO FOR FOR IT TO BE IN BLUE UP THERE, WE HAD A DIRECT PHONE CALL TO THEM AND LEFT A VOICEMAIL, OR WE PROVIDED THEM AN EMAIL TO AN EMAIL. AND WE GOT THOSE CONTACT INFORMATION BECAUSE WE HAVE WATER BILL RECORDS. AND SO YOU'LL SEE THERE'S SOME OF THOSE PROPERTIES THAT WE WEREN'T ABLE TO CONTACT. WE JUST DON'T HAVE CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THEM THAT IS AVAILABLE TO US. BUT ANYONE WE DID, WE DID DIRECT OUTREACH, BUT SOME OF THEM WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE CONTACT WITH, AS IN WE'RE ACTUALLY ON THE PHONE WITH THEM. AND REGARDLESS OF THE VERBAL CONTACT, EVERYBODY RECEIVED LETTERS FOR THIS PROPERTY. AND THEN ON THESE MAPS ARE GREAT. ISAAC, ON YOUR MAP WHERE YOU'RE INDICATING EXISTING COMMERCIAL USE. RESIDENTIAL. CITY OF WACO PROPERTIES. VACANT PROPERTIES. SO LIKE NEXT TO THE TWO CITY.

NOT THIS ONE. IT'S THE MAP THAT'S GOT THE DOTS ON IT. THAT ONE. YES. OKAY, SO JUST SO THAT I'M CLEAR FOR THAT LOT NEXT TO THE THE TWO CITY OF WACO PROPERTIES THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE YELLOW. YEAH. THAT ONE. SO THAT IS VACANT EXISTING C THREE. OKAY. BUT ACROSS FROM THAT YOU'VE GOT VACANT EXISTING C THREE WITH DOTS. AND THEN THE PROPERTY NEXT TO THAT C THREE.

BUT WE DON'T SEE A LITTLE YELLOW STRUCTURE ON THAT. SO DOES THAT MEAN IT HAS. A NO STRUCTURE ON IT. OR DOES THAT MEAN IT'S GOT A NON RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON IT. THAT PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY SPLIT ZONED. SO IT'S NOT VACANT BECAUSE OF THAT RESIDENCE NEXT TO IT. SO THAT SPLIT ZONE YOU'LL SEE WHERE IT'S ORANGE AND IT HAS THE YELLOW. AND THEN THE OTHER HALF OF THAT PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER. AND IT IS C THREE. SO I DIDN'T CALL IT VACANT BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME OWNER FOR BOTH. GOTCHA. OKAY. I THINK THAT CLARIFIES MY MATH QUESTIONS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION MEMBERS. AND WE HAVE THE ONE LETTER IN FAVOR FOR THAT CHUNK OF PARCELS. DO WE HAVE VERBAL SUPPORT FROM PROPERTY OWNERS OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS? FROM FROM THE THIS PROPERTY OWNER THAT SUBMITTED THE LETTER OR ANY. OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS? I MEAN, NOT AN OFFICIAL LIKE, HEY, SOUND, YOU KNOW, SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION FOR ME? SO I KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE ONE WRITTEN

[01:55:01]

THE, THE ONE THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET FOR THAT BOTTOM LEFT. I WAS ACTUALLY ON THE PHONE WITH HER AND SHE OWNS MORE PROPERTY THAN JUST THAT CORNER THERE. HER FAMILY HAS A LOT OF PROPERTIES ON HARRISON, WHICH IS THE BOTTOM BORDER THERE, THAT BOTTOM STREET. AND SHE WAS IN SUPPORT NOT ONLY FOR THAT PROPERTY, BUT FOR ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THERE AS WELL. AND SOME OF THEM ARE NOT PART OF THE REZONE, BUT JUST PART OF THE LAND USE PLAN. AND THEN. DID WE HAVE SUPPORT FOR THE R STREET ON THE TOP RIGHT WHERE THOSE. OKAY. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. THE THOSE RESIDENCES THAT ARE EXISTING ON THE, THE TOP RIGHT ON OUR STREET. IT MIGHT BE BEST TO GO BACK TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURES. YEP. SO YOU'LL SEE THAT WE'RE PUTTING THOSE INTO CONFORMANCE RIGHT THERE. AND I'LL NOTE THAT ALL EXISTING RESIDENCES THAT ARE CURRENTLY NON-CONFORMING ARE GOING TO BE CONFORMING WITH THIS REZONE. BUT WE HAD SUPPORT FROM ONE OF THE THOSE RESIDENCES UP THERE. AND I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE NEIGHBOR TO THE OWNER THAT HAD ACTUALLY REACHED OUT TO US INITIALLY THAT STARTED THIS WHOLE THING. SO I THINK THAT IS ALL WE HAD AS FAR AS VERBAL SUPPORT. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO ADD TO THAT THOUGH, VERBAL SUPPORT DEFINITELY IS GREAT, BUT WE ONLY CAN ACCEPT THE WRITTEN COMMENTS. SO OKAY, JUST MAKING SURE. JUST WANT TO CLARIFY DISCUSSIONS WITH PEOPLE YOU GOT TO SPEAK TO OR MET. NO ONE THAT WE WERE ON THE PHONE WITH WAS OPPOSED. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE I CLOSE IT? PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION? MOVE THAT WE. PARDON ME RECRUIT APPROVED THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE FROM OFFICE INDUSTRIAL FLEX TO MIXED USE FLEX AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE. BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED REZONING AS WELL BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS. SECOND. THERE'S A MOTION BY MR. ENGLAND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR BOTH THE LAND USE CHANGE AND THE ZONING CHANGE, AND HAS BEEN SECONDED BY MR. DUNHAM. ANY DISCUSSION? I'M JUST SORRY. I DON'T KNOW WHY I'M TALKING SO MUCH TONIGHT, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO SAY, AND THIS WAS VERY SIMILAR TO MY POSITION LAST TIME, LIKE AS A COMMISSIONER ON THIS BOARD, I REALLY APPRECIATE THESE BEING PRESENTED TO US AS A CHUNK OF PROPERTY WITH ONE MOTION. BUT AS A CITIZEN, I DO NOT. I OBVIOUSLY, I'M OKAY WITH THE CITY OF WACO REQUESTING THESE CHANGES ON THE PROPERTIES THAT THEY OWN. AND I'M EVEN OKAY WITH THE CITY OF WACO, LIKE REQUESTING THESE ZONING CHANGES TO BRING EXISTING PROPERTIES INTO CONFORMANCE. BUT I DO NOT THINK AND I AM OKAY WITH THE CITY OF WACO REQUESTING THE ZONING CHANGE FOR THE PERSON THAT THEY HAVE THE LETTER WITH. SO IF I WERE TO LOOK AT THESE PROPERTIES INDIVIDUALLY, I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH SEVERAL OF THEM. BUT AS A CHUNK, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. FOR THE CITY OF WACO TO REQUEST REZONE ON PROPERTIES THAT THEY DO NOT OWN, THAT DO NEED THAT, DO NOT NEED TO BE BROUGHT INTO ANY KIND OF CONFORMANCE FOR THEIR EXISTING USE OR EXISTING STRUCTURES. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION I MIGHT HAVE ONE. ONE SECOND. LET ME JUST DOUBLE CHECK. WELL, BEFORE I EVEN SAY ANYTHING. OFFICE INDUSTRIAL, CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE RECORDING? THE OFFICE INDUSTRIAL FLEX THE MAP WITH ALL BLUE. CORRECT. SO THAT'S BEFORE ANYTHING IS BEING CHANGED. AND SO WE ALREADY CURRENTLY HAVE PROPERTY LIKE WE

[02:00:04]

LET ME GO BACK ON MY MAP. YEAH, THAT'S ALREADY SEE THREE. BUT THEN THERE'S A PORTION OF THAT THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT THE BUILDING, THE STRUCTURE THAT'S THERE IS NOT IN CONFORM CONFORMITY WITH THE ZONING. IF I'M FOLLOWING ISAACS, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT PARCEL, I DON'T THINK IS PART OF THEIR APPLICATION. WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING WITH THIS ONE. OKAY. I MEAN, THE RIGHT MAP. I. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE PULL THE COMMISSION? OH, ONE OTHER QUESTION AND THIS IS PROBABLY FOR YOU, ISAAC, OR CITY STAFF. THE OWNER OUTREACH FOR PROPOSED REZONE PROPERTIES. THE ONE ON PAGE 127, IF IT WAS OUTLINED IN THAT THAT HEAVY BLUE. THAT MEANS THEY REACHED OUT TO AT THAT BOTTOM QUADRANT, THERE'S A PORTION THAT DOESN'T HAVE BLUE.

IS THAT JUST BECAUSE IS THAT CITY PROPERTY? CITY OWNED PROPERTY OF THE MAP HASN'T CHANGED. THAT MAP HASN'T CHANGED. SORRY. I THINK THEY HAVE TO CHANGE IT. KEEP GOING.

THAT ONE. GO BACK UP, PLEASE. YES. THIS ONE. SO. THE THAT VERY. I DON'T WANT TO STAND UP UNLESS YOU GUYS WANT ME TO STAND UP AND POINT UP THERE. OKAY. I'M. I'M ASKING YOU ABOUT THIS ONE RIGHT HERE. THIS CITY OWNED PROPERTY. NO, THAT THAT'S A PRIVATE OWNER. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN THAT GOES INTO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YEAH. AND I THINK THEY SAID SOME OF THEM THEY COULDN'T CONTACT BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T. CORRECT. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY MORE DISCUSSION, PLEASE CALL THE COMMISSION. DUNNAM. YAY, ELLIS. YES. ENGLAND. YES. GIVENS. YES.

LOZANO. YES. RESETAR. YES. SALAMI. NO. EMBREY. YES. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ZA-26-07. WHAT'S THE STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION? ALL RIGHT, MISTER CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, WE ARE LOOKING AT ESTABLISHING A DEFINITION FOR COFFEE SHOP. CAFE ONE CURRENTLY DOES NOT EXIST WITHIN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, AND WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF INQUIRIES WITH WITHIN THE CITY TO ESTABLISH THEM. AND WITH THE CREATION OF THAT DEFINITION, WE ARE RECOMMENDING SOME LANGUAGE TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY FOR LIMITED ALCOHOL SALES WITHIN THOSE CAFES. SO THE REQUEST WOULD BE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ADDING A DEFINITION FOR COFFEE SHOP, CAFE, DETERMINING WHAT ZONING DISTRICTS THEY WOULD BE PERMITTED IN AND EXEMPT COFFEE SHOP CAFE FROM DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FROM R1, B AND R2 DISTRICT FOR THE ON PREMISES SALE OF ALCOHOL. OH, THAT IS REALLY BLURRY. I CANNOT READ THAT ON THAT SCREEN. SO THE PROPOSED DEFINITION COFFEE SHOP CAFE SHALL MEAN AN ESTABLISHMENT PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN THE PREPARATION AND RETAIL SALE OF COFFEE, TEA AND OTHER NONALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, AND WHICH MAY ALSO OFFER PASTRIES, BAKED GOODS, SANDWICHES, LIGHT MEALS AND SIMILAR FOOD ITEMS. THE ESTABLISHMENT MAY INCLUDE THE INCIDENTAL SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR ON

[02:05:03]

ALTERNATIVELY, THE ESTABLISHMENT MAY SUBSTITUTE RECEIPTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE REQUIRED AUDIT AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DIRECTOR. THAT LANGUAGE GENERALLY IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE IN THE ORDINANCE AND OTHER LOCATIONS SMOKE SHOPS, RESTAURANTS. THE REASON WE'RE PULLING OUT THIS DEFINITION IS BECAUSE A LOT OF YOUR CAFES, COFFEE SHOPS ARE NOT FULL RESTAURANTS THERE MAY NOT HAVE A COMMERCIAL KITCHEN INCLUDED WITHIN AN EXAMPLE. FABLED, I BELIEVE WOULD IS MORE OF A CAFE TYPE ESTABLISHMENT AS WELL AS DICHOTOMY. THOSE AREN'T YOUR TRADITIONAL RESTAURANTS. SO IT'S LIKE AGAIN, NOT TO BRING UP APPLES AGAIN, BUT APPLES AND ORANGES BETWEEN THE THOSE TWO USES. SO THE DISTRICT'S PROPOSED ARE YOUR STANDARD. OH, I WANT TO NOTE HERE. SO THE OH THREE WE WANT TO LIST IT AS A PERMITTED USE C ONE. IT WILL BE LISTED AS A PERMITTED USE. BUT THE CAVEAT ON THAT IS NO ALCOHOL IS ALLOWED FOR ANY USES IN THE C ONE DISTRICT. AND THAT IS STRAIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD. SO. THEN ALSO IN THE C2 THE C3C4. SO BASICALLY ALL OF OUR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS C FIVE. AND THEN AS A SPECIAL USE IN THE M2 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BECAUSE IT FITS IN WITH RESTAURANT IS ALSO A SPECIAL USE WITHIN THAT DISTRICT. AND THEN PROPOSED WOULD BE TO MAKE SURE SIMILAR TO RESTAURANTS IN THE SUCH THAT THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FROM R1 AND R2. DOES NOT APPLY FOR COFFEE SHOP CAFE THAT ALLOWS THESE TO BE CLOSER TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND HAVE LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD COFFEE SHOPS AND CAFES. IF I CAN MAKE.

YES, PLEASE. WELL. CLINT PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL. I GUESS IT WAS OUR LAST MEETING.

WE ARE DOING KIND OF AN OVERHAUL OR REVIEW OF ALCOHOL IN THE CITY. SO THIS IS FITTING IN WITH THAT. BUT THIS IS OBVIOUSLY IS SOME OF THE DEFINITION. IT MAY BE SUBJECT TO A LITTLE BIT OF CHANGE DEPENDING ON THAT. WE'RE DOING KIND OF A MORE COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT ALCOHOL. SO I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU. WELL YEAH, THERE'S WE HAVE VERY POOR DEFINITIONS WHEN IT COMES TO MANY USES THAT INVOLVE ALCOHOL, NIGHTCLUBS, EVENT CENTERS. SO THE CITY HAS REQUESTED A FULL COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT THAT. WE ARE RECOMMENDING PULLING THIS ONE OUT JUST BECAUSE WE NEED TO HAVE THIS DEFINITION. THE STAFF STAFF'S JOB IS VERY DIFFICULT WHEN WE DO NOT HAVE DEFINITIONS TO TO FIT USES IN. SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS. AT THIS TIME. PLANNING SERVICES IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THESE AMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED. THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF WACO. IS ANYONE ELSE PRESENT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM. IS ANYONE PRESENT? THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM. ANY COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. IS ARE THESE WAS THIS ALSO NOTICED TO THE COMMUNITY? YES, THROUGH OUR PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE. I MEAN, EVERYBODY DIDN'T GET A LETTER, BUT IT IS IN THE NEWSPAPER ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. IT'LL AGAIN GO TO CITY COUNCIL. AND THAT IS ALSO NOTICED ON THE CITY PUBLIC HEARING PAGE. BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THIS WILL AFFECT SOME HOUSES IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, ACTUALLY. BUT THE COMMON GROUNDS BACKS RIGHT UP TO. SO JUST AN OBSERVATION, I GUESS.

SO THERE IS NO DEFINITION NOW FOR COFFEE SHOP CAFE. CORRECT. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT COMMON GROUNDS, WHAT DOES THAT. CLASSIFIED. YEAH. YOU KNOW, LIKE HOW IS IT? IS IT A RESTAURANT? YEAH. YOU KNOW, WE'VE WE'VE CUSTOMARILY LOOKED AT THEM AS RESTAURANT. I MEAN,

[02:10:02]

IF THEY'RE C TWO, THEY COULD EVEN REQUIRE TO GET A SPECIAL PERMIT. SO YEAH, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE THERE. SO. BUT THE WAY THAT YOU GUYS ARE PROPOSING WE WRITE IT WOULD. GIVE THE PERMISSION OR THE RIGHT TO SELL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES SUBJECT TO THOSE GUIDELINES. BY. RIGHT AND EVERYTHING EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE DISTRICT RATHER THAN. LIKE, WHY NOT? WHY NOT HAVE A DEFINITION OF A COFFEE SHOP AND THEN HAVE AN ALCOHOL SALE BY PERMIT? SINCE YOU JUST SAID THAT'S WHAT WE DO IN SOME PLACES. SO THE SO WITH RESTAURANTS. YEAH, WITH WITH RESTAURANTS. SO THERE'S ONLY SPECIFIC TYPES OF RESTAURANTS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GET A, A SPECIAL PERMIT. THAT'S IF THEY'RE GETTING A DRIVE THROUGH. IF IT'S LIKE AN A OH THREE, I BELIEVE THAT ALREADY PERMITS RESTAURANTS C TWO SAME C ONE DOES, BUT C ONE DOESN'T PERMIT, YOU KNOW, ANY TYPE OF ALCOHOL SALE. SO THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THAT. AND SO I THINK THAT WE'RE BASICALLY TRYING TO JUST GET THAT TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEARER ON WHAT WE MEAN WHEN WE SAY A COFFEE SHOP, IF SOMEBODY'S COMING IN AND ASKING, BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT UPTICK IN IN INTEREST IN THOSE AND THOSE, THOSE CAN BE KIND OF IN MORE SELECT, YOU KNOW, MORE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, TYPES OF THINGS THAN RESTAURANT. RIGHT, RIGHT. RESTAURANT, I GUESS. YEAH, YEAH. BUT THEIR APPROVAL FOR ALCOHOL WOULDN'T NECESSARILY MIRROR WHAT A RESTAURANT IS, TO MY UNDERSTANDING. YES. THAT'S RIGHT. I MEAN, IT WOULDN'T BE LIKE SPECIFICALLY MEANING THE SAME. IS THAT RIGHT? OR IS IT. I CAN'T TELL. THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A RESTAURANT DEFINITION IS RESTAURANTS REALLY GETTING INTO REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL KITCHENS, REFRIGERATOR, FOOD STOCK, OVEN, STOVE, FOOD PREPARATION, PENCILS, THE SEATING CAPACITY, PARKING CAPACITY. SO IT'S A MUCH MORE INTENSIVE USE THAN WE WANT TO SEE IN FOR A CAFE. WE DO NOT WANT A BAR TO BE LOCATED, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE PUTTING THOSE RESTRICTIONS ON FOR THAT. BASICALLY, A QUARTER OF THE INCOME MAXIMUM ON THAT FOR RESTAURANTS. IT ALSO GOES ON. THAT'S WHERE THE 25% GROSS INCOME COMES FROM HAS TO BE. LET'S SEE. OKAY, I'M JUST GOING TO READ THIS WHOLE THING, ENGAGE IN PREPARATION AND RETAIL SALE OF FOOD AND BEVERAGES FOR CONSUMPTION ON PREMISES OR OFF PREMISES. BEVERAGES SOLD FOR ON PREMISES CONSUMPTION MAY INCLUDE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. DETERMINING WHETHER AN ESTABLISHMENT IS A RESTAURANT, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MUST INSPECT THE APPEARANCE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT FOR A FULL KITCHEN, COMPLETE WITH REFRIGERATOR, FOOD, STOCK OVENS, STOVES, FOOD PREPARATION TABLES, DISHES, UTENSILS AND SUFFICIENT QUANTITY TO SERVE THE SEATING CAPACITY. AND A CHEF. IF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL STILL HAS REASON TO QUESTION WHETHER AN ESTABLISHMENT IS A RESTAURANT, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MAY REQUIRE THAT ANY PERSON OWNING OR OPERATING AN ESTABLISHMENT TO PROVIDE A CERTIFIED AUDIT FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR, SHOWING THAT AT LEAST 25% OF THE GROSS INCOME OF THE ESTABLISHMENT WAS DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF FOOD. SO THE REASON THAT IS IN THERE, SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T SAY, HEY, THIS IS A RESTAURANT, SO I CAN SELL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WHEN TYPICALLY IT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. SO THERE ARE SOME EXEMPTIONS FOR RESTAURANTS FOR

[02:15:03]

SO WE'RE TRYING TO SEPARATE THE TWO USES TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR. THERE'S A LOT OF COST FOR SOMEBODY TO HAVE TO PUT IN A COMMERCIAL GRADE KITCHEN IF THEY'RE NOT PLANNING ON USING ONE. NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I, I JUST MEANT. OH, NO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT WAS YOUR QUESTION.

BUT YEAH, I JUST MEANT LIKE, IF WE HAVE SITUATIONS WHERE WE'RE GRANTING THEM BY SPECIAL PERMITS FOR SOME. USES, WHY WOULDN'T THE CAFE MIRROR THAT? BUT. YES, I GUESS WHAT AND MEG, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT IS, ARE THERE ARE THERE TIMES WHEN ALCOHOL SALES ARE PERMITTED SEPARATELY FROM RESTAURANT AND CAFE USE OR WHATEVER? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE THIS IS KIND OF I DON'T I MEAN, CRAMMED DOWN IS NOT REALLY THE RIGHT PHRASE, BUT YOU'RE SHOEHORNING ALCOHOL SALES INTO COFFEE SALES AND PASTRIES AND ALL OF THAT.

IT JUST SEEMS IT SEEMS A LITTLE OFF TO ME, YOU KNOW? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE AT ALL? YEAH. MARK, IF YOU CAN GO THROUGH WHEN IS ALCOHOL SALES PERMITTED WITHOUT IT BEING A RESTAURANT, THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL. YEAH. SO, AND I, AND I CAN KIND OF, AND I CAN, AND I CAN GO OFF OF THIS PRETTY BROADLY, BUT I'LL DO IT OFF OF MY MEMORY. SO IF YOU LOOK AT C3 AND C4, THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS WOULD PERMIT WHAT'S BASICALLY CALLED A BAR. THOSE HAVE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS. AND THIS IS WHERE IT GETS REALLY TECHNICAL. THE BUILDING IN WHICH YOU'RE DRINKING HAS TO BE AT LEAST 100FT AWAY. IF IT'S NEXT TO PROPERTY ZONED R ONE, B AND R TWO. AND THAT'S WHAT THAT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT IS SPECIFICALLY GETTING INTO, BECAUSE THEN WE GO BACK INTO THE ALCOHOL RESTRICTION BASED ON WHERE THE BUILDING IS LOCATED, NEXT TO PROPERTY THAT'S ZONED R1, B OR R2. THAT'S IN BOTH C3 AND C4 ZONING DISTRICTS. AND THAT'S WHEN YOU CAN JUST HAVE AN ITEM FOR THE EASIER WAY TO SAY IT, JUST AS A BAR C3 AND C4, YOU CAN'T HAVE A BAR IN C2 AND YOU CAN'T SELL ALCOHOL AT ALL IN C1, AND YOU CAN'T. BUT YOU CAN HAVE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY RESTAURANTS, CAFES, THINGS LIKE THAT. IN C1, THEY'D STILL HAVE THAT PROHIBITION ON ALCOHOL IN C1. SO IN GENERAL, THE ONLY PLACES THAT YOU CAN. YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE A BAR IS ANYTHING THAT'S ZONED C3 AND C4 WITH CONDITIONS THAT THEY DON'T, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT INSIDE OF A BUILDING CLOSER THAN 100FT TO A PROPERTY ZONED R1 OR R2. YOU CAN HAVE RESTAURANTS, AS WE'VE MENTIONED IN THE DEFINITION THAT ARE ALLOWED IN C2, C3, C4, BUT THOSE HAVE TO HAVE THAT AUDIT REQUIREMENT OF 25%. THERE'S A CAP ON HOW MUCH YOU'RE ALLOWED TO MAKE IN TERMS OF ALCOHOL SALES, BUT THERE'S NO DISTANCE REQUIREMENT, NOT WHEN IT'S A NOT WHEN IT'S A RESTAURANT, BUT THE BUT THE, THE REQUIREMENT FOR RESTAURANTS VERY HIGH. IT'S A VERY HIGH THRESHOLD. WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CAFE SHOP, CAFE, YOU KNOW, OR COFFEE SHOP, CAFE, THOSE ARE THAT'S WE'RE TRYING TO BASICALLY BREAK THOSE OUT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A CLEAR DEFINITION ON THOSE OTHER THAN JUST SAYING THEY'RE A RESTAURANT. AND THEN NOW THEY HAVE TO MEET THIS, YOU KNOW, VERY HIGH. YOU GOT TO HAVE A CHEF AND, AND ALL THAT. BASICALLY. I'M SORRY. SO BASICALLY TO OPERATE, TO ALLOW PATRONS TO DRINK ALCOHOL, YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT AS AN ACCESSORY TO A RESTAURANT. YOU CAN'T JUST UNLESS IT'S IN, LIKE MARK SAID, THE C3 AND C5C4OC5. YES, THE HIGHER C'S. YES, PLEASE. WELL, FORM BASED CODE JUST. YES, YES. FULL DISCLOSURE FORM BASED CODE. I FORGOT ABOUT THAT. SO I DON'T WANT TO FORGET OUR NEW. SO REALLY WHAT WE'RE SHOWING HERE ARE DISTRICTS WHERE RESTAURANT ALREADY HAS THE SAME EXCEPT EXEMPTION. CORRECT. MARK. IT'S JUST WE'RE SEPARATING OUT A

[02:20:01]

YEAH. AND SINCE I HAPPEN TO KNOW THAT THAT IS THEIR, IT'S NOT A RESTAURANT LIKE TO. AND I KNOW THAT THAT IS A SCENARIO IN, IN A FEW NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND WACO, SINCE IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE'RE GOING TO STOP THE THE WORLD IF WE DON'T PASS THIS TONIGHT, ONE SUGGESTION MIGHT BE TO TABLE IT AND UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT BETTER, SINCE WE HAVE A MEETING IN THREE WEEKS, RIGHT? YES. NOVEMBER 1816. I LIKE THAT BETTER. ARE THERE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ANSWERS THAT YOU WANT US TO COME BACK WITH TO THAT MEETING? I'LL EMAIL YOU. OKAY. AND I'LL EMAIL THEM. ALL RIGHT. NO I'M KIDDING. NO PLEASE DON'T. WELL, SINCE I CAN'T MAKE A MOTION, DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION? I WILL MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS SECOND, I CAN'T SECOND. I NEED US TO SPECIFICALLY. WE DON'T TABLE NECESSARILY PLANNING COMMISSION. CAN WE MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONTINUE A SPECIFIC MEETING? I THINK WE HAVE TO DO LET ME REVISE MY LANGUAGE. I MOVE THAT WE CONTINUE THIS. I KNOW WE'RE STILL. NO, IT'S NOT, BUT MISTER CHAIR, MARK REMINDED ME THAT WE DO HAVE OUR MEETING IN NOVEMBER. WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THAT AGENDA FAIRLY LIMITED BECAUSE WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THIS FACILITY. WE'RE GOING TO BE AT THE STEAM CENTER, WHICH IS A MUCH SMALLER SPACE, SO WE WOULD RATHER IT BE MOVED TO THE DECEMBER MEETING IF ALL POSSIBLE. COOL. WITH THAT. THERE WAS A MOTION, MR. ENGLAND, IS THAT. YEAH. MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS AGENDA ITEM TO THE DECEMBER MEETING. SECOND. THEN A MOTION MADE BY MR.

[02:25:09]

RESETAR. YES. SALOME. YES. EMBRY. YES. THAT'S ALL THE AGENDA ITEMS. LAURA. DID YOU

[REPORTS]