Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 07/08/2026 MINUTES PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION July 8, 2026 PRESENT: Jeremy Woodward •chairman Blake Haney •Vice-Chair Jack Browne •Member Brady Enlow •Member Michael Grassi •Member Matt Marrs •Member Doug McCulloch •Member Alan Sizemore •Member Lisa Stephens-Musick •Member Naomi Barron ♦Alternate#2 Councilor Tom Taylor •Council Liaison Paul Menzies, Assistant City Manager •City Staff Fabian Medellin, Director of Development Services •City Staff Rita Miller, Assistant Director of Development Services •City Staff Kinley Hegglund, City Attorney •City Staff Christal Cates, Planner Ill •City Staff Karen Montgomery-Gagne, Principal Planner •City Staff Ricky Branum, Development Coordinator Public Works •City Staff Robin Marshall, Admin Assistant ♦City Staff ABSENT: Luz Lerma ♦Alternate#1 Teresa Rose •SAFB Liaison GUEST: David Coleman •CC Candidate I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Mr. Jeremy Woodward, at 2:00 p.m. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Woodward asked if there were any comments from the public for items not on the agenda. No one came forward to make any comments. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning and Zoning 2 July 8, 2026 Chairman Woodward called for a motion to adopt the June 10, 2026, minutes. Commissioner Alan Sizemore made a motion to approve the minutes as presented and Commissioner Matt Marrs seconded the motion. With no comments from the public or the Commission, the motion passed unanimously with a vote of 9-0 in favor. Executive Session — Moved up from item IV. At 2:01, Chairman Woodward called to move to Executive session, and stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission will now recess in the open meeting, and convene a to a closed executive session pursuant to Section 55— or 551.071 of the Texas Open Meetings Act to discuss privilege and legal advice on how recent laws impact procedural due process and the commission's potential. At 2:30, Chairman Woodward adjourned the executive session and moved back into regular session. He stated the subjects described in the certified agenda were deliberated and no votes of further action were taken. Items discussed in the executive session are to remain confidential except provided by law. No Planning and Zoning Commission member, staff member, legal counsel, or any other persons present, may discuss or reveal the proceedings of an executive session to persons not present during the executive session. Chairman Woodward declare the open meeting reconvened at 2:31. IV. CONSENT AGENDA P 26-32— Groves Addition, Lots 1-7, Block 1 Chairman Woodward asked if there is anything on the consent agenda that needs to be brought down to the regular agenda, and it was stated that there was not. Commissioner Jack Browne motioned to approve the consent agenda, and Commissioner Marrs seconded the motion. It was asked by Chairman Woodward if anyone from the public would like to make a comment. Mr. Blaine Boswell came forward to speak. He noted that he works with Corlett, Probst and Boyd and that the Groves Addition plat is one that they are working on. He had a couple of items he wanted to discuss, the first item being about providing a preliminary plat and said that the State is silent on preliminary plats. He asked if it is a State or a City requirement, and asked how we could get those to align between the State and the City. Director Fabian Medellin replied that the State does not distinguish between types of plats, and that it delegates that authority to the City. He added that the City has determined and codified different types of classifications: Preliminary Plats, Final Plats and Minor Final Plats, distinguishing when each one should apply, the criteria Planning and Zoning 3 July 8, 2026 that each one must meet and show, and approval for each one of those different types of plats. Director Medellin stated that from the discussion from the April P&Z meeting, and follow up discussion at a Stakeholders meeting, he felt that there are instances that can be changed in our ordinances that could provide some relief in certain instances. He gave the example of when a larger tract is being divided, but a portion - or a large portion (or even the majority of the tract) is being undeveloped or untouched, and asked is it really necessary to include that? Our current ordinances say if all parts of that tract being divided are greater than five acres, then it is exempt. However, if any of those parts are less, then it must be included in either a preliminary or a final plat. Director Medellin said it can be more aligned. He stated that it is his goal to help make the ordinances more open for development and allow for instances and removal of redundancies. Mr. Boswell asked about the cost, and said we are still passing a cost on to the citizens, that sounds like the cost shouldn't be there by state law. (When the city requires a preliminary plat.) A preliminary plat is not filed at the county. He feels it is not worth the paper it's printed on, and said we are creating a document and an expense that doesn't really go anywhere besides City Hall offices. Mr. Boswell stated his request would be to extract this from the conditional approval. There was discussion over what the board did at the April meeting, and how it might be similar to this situation, but Director Medellin said the preliminary plat requirement was kept for the plat in question at the April meeting. Attorney Kinley Hegglund added, that based on reading of the state law and the ordinance, he doesn't think they are in conflict. That being said, what's the purpose behind it? Attorney Hegglund said that's why Fabian is talking about potentially allowing, in the future, changes to our ordinance that would be more developer friendly. He also stated that the paper it is written on is worth something. That a preliminary plat has value, particularly when you have a large tract of land that you intend to develop over time. The value in a preliminary plat is the vesting of rights for developers. But, for situations like today, Attorney Hegglund agreed that the value is very little, but our ordinance does require it. He said he doesn't see where the P&Z Commission has authority to go against the 4.6 subdivision regulation that the City Council has passed. Adding, that when they passed that, they felt it was in conjunction and consistent with the laws of the State, and that was their evaluation of the law at the time. From his view, that hasn't changed. (The City Council's viewpoint on that decision.) With that though, Director Medellin is going to look at potentially making changes, which this board would work with him on, and then it would go to Council to make those laws differ from what they are today. He reiterated that he believes that it's not in direct conflict with the State law as it exists today. Mr. Boswell mentioned section 212.004 and said it states if it's greater than five acres and does not require public improvements, and has public access, you don't even have to plat it. Attorney Hegglund replied, it says the division of land under Planning and Zoning 4 July 8, 2026 this subdivision does not include a division of land into parts greater than 5 acres. We believe that one part of yours is over 5 acres, but the remainder is smaller, and you have to have all, all of your part, all of your divisions to be greater than 5 under 4.6 to do what you're asking. Mr. Boswell asked, the remainder doesn't matter because we are subdividing the part below five acres? Attorney Hegglund stated, yes. Commissioner Doug McCulloch asked Attorney Hegglund what vested rights are being established with this preliminary lot? Attorney Hegglund said, vested rights is a legal doctrine whereby when you have a portion of land (whether it's an acre or 1,000 acres), and when you do a preliminary plat you then are locking in the laws that belong to that development. The vested rights being you don't have to worry about the city coming in later and changing the subdivision regs, making development harder or more expensive and whatnot. You vest your rights with that preliminary plat. Commissioner Michael Grassi asked, doesn't there have to be activity though? Attorney Hegglund replied, yes there has to be continued activity for that vesting to remain_ Commissioner Brady Enlow asked Director Medellin, based on this exchange, you're proposing that we do make some changes and submit that to the City Council to avoid this redundancy in the future? Director Medellin stated, yes. Asked on how long that might take, Director Medellin said it would be a rough timeline. A draft of an ordinance would need to be made, based on some of the key topics that we have talked about, this being one of them. We would have a workshop with the Commission, and then begin the 60-day notice to the Commission and to the public that there are changes being proposed. That will probably start once we have had a couple workshops and include the Stakeholders group as well in that timeline. Once we have worked out all the details in the language, then present a reading— and then a second reading, then we will present that to the City Council. A rough timeline based on some of those dates and groups that we want to include in any kind of changes (That's not including the time after the ordinance, after it's approved - if approved), could be four to five months. Chairman Woodward said, even though it's not in effect today, the plan is to make it easier and less costly to fit under the strategic pillar of growth. There was discussion if a sub committee would be able to help review the plat ordinances. Director Medellin said that would depend on the goal of the amendment, that it would be beneficial only if there is a large overview of the ordinance. Chairman Woodward asked if there were any additional comments by the Commission or by anyone in the audience. There were no more comments or questions. Planning and Zoning 5 July 8, 2026 Chairman Woodward took the motion to vote and it passed unanimously 9-0. V. REGULAR AGENDA C 26-16 129 Cartwright Road — Manufactured Home Consider taking action on a request to allow for a manufactured home in a Single Family-1 (SF1) zoning district. Applicants: Jenny& Garland Prince Chairman Woodward asked if there was a motion for the case. Commissioner Marrs motioned to approve the case and Commissioner and Commissioner Blake Haney seconded the motion. Ms. Christal Cates presented the case and informed the Commission that staff met with Mr. & Mrs. Prince to discuss bringing a manufactured home to their vacant parcel. This property is located in the northwestern area of the city,just south of the Reilly Road and Cartwright intersection. Aerial views of the property were shown, and the board was informed that the owners are wanting to put a 30-foot by 56-foot manufactured home in a Single Family-1 zoning district. Our ordinances require a conditional use for the placement of a manufactured home in this zoning district. Specs of the manufactured home and setbacks were discussed, noting that the home will be far within the setback requirements. Additional photos of the property and surrounding properties were shown to the board, and Ms. Cates described the surrounding uses, most being used for manufactured housing_ She stated this would be in line with the other uses and character of that area, and would help increase value as well as reduce the number of vacant lots. Staff notified ten property owners that are within the 200-foot notification area, and it was stated that we did not receive any responses back. Ms. Cates informed the board that staff does recommend the approval of the proposed manufactured home at 129 Cartwright Road, subject to the following conditions: • The manufactured home meets the requirements of Section 5600 for infill manufactured housing of the zoning ordinance for manufactured housing. • The placement of the home must comply with all applicable building codes, permitting, and inspections leading to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Planning and Zoning 6 July 8, 2026 Chairman Woodward asked if the applicant would like to add anything, and they said they don't have any comments, but they are here for the board if they would like to ask any questions. Discussion was opened to the public but had no additional comments. Discussion was opened to the board, and no questions or comments were brought up. Chairman Woodward took the motion to vote, and it passed 9-0. R 26-04 2944 Seymour Hiahwav— Request to Rezone Consideration a recommendation for a rezone +1- 8.14 acres of land located at 2944 Seymour Hwy. (23.32 acres out of Abstract 377, J V Wheeler and Business Personal Property) from General Commercial (GC) to a Manufactured Housing Residential (MHR) zoning district to allow for an RV park expansion. Applicant: John Barnes A motion to approve case R26-04 was made by Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Sizemore. Ms. Cates informed the board that Mr. Barnes is the owner of Wichita Falls RV, and has had that business for 37 years. Mr. Barnes is looking at expanding his business due to the fact that Wichita Falls is growing in that area, and there is a need for this. She explained that their property has dual zoning on the parcel, with one section of the parcel being zoned General Commercial and the other part is zoned for Manufactured Housing Residential (MHR which currently has the designation that would allow the RV Park expansion by right.) The section that is zoned General Commercial would need a conditional use permit for that use. In rezoning, this would allow them to bring in more pad sites by right instead of having to get a conditional use for those. Aerial photos and slides of the property were shown, and surrounding land uses were discussed_ When staff was evaluating this proposed rezone, the surrounding land uses and zoning designations were taken into consideration as well as any potential impacts of the infrastructure to determine if the change is consistent with the objectives of our Comprehensive Plan. Amending the zoning boundary will better align the property zoning with the current development pattern, and promote compatibility with those surrounding uses there. The proposed development at 2944 Seymour Highway is an expansion of the existing RV Park on the east side of the parcel. Ms. Cates noted that the site is buffered from adjacent properties by the Wichita River and the hike and bike trail that is located to the north, and Planning and Zoning 7 July 8, 2026 Seymour Highway to the south. Staff feels that will minimize potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhood land uses there. Staff sent out eleven notices to property owners within the 200-foot notification area, and we received one response, which was in favor of the proposed use. Staff does recommend the approval of the proposed rezoning of 8.14 acres of land located at 2944 Seymour Highway from General Commercial to a Manufactured Housing Residential zoning district_ Chairman Woodward asked if the applicant would like to make any comments, but he responded that he was here to answer any questions that the board may have for him. Discussion was opened up to the public, and then opened up to the Commission, but there were no further questions or comments. Chairman Woodward took the motion to vote, and it passed 9-0. R 26-05 2500 Bacon Switch Road -Annexation Zoning Recommendation Consideration a recommendation for a zoning designation of General Commercial (GC) and a Land Use Plan classification of Commercial (C) related to an owner- petitioned annexation at 2500 Bacon Switch Road/0 Interstate 44 (8.32 Acres out of the Thomas Curry Survey, Abstract 345, Wichita County, Texas). Applicants: Bengal Pantego Plaza, LLC. Chairman Woodward asked if there was a motion for the case. Commissioner Marrs made the motion to recommend the rezone request to the City Council, and Commissioner Haney seconded the motion. Ms. Karen Montgomery-Gagne presented the case to the Commission, and explained to the board that the action today is a voluntary owner request to annex land into the City of Wichita Falls. She showed images and described that the location of the property is immediately north of the city municipal boundary (just north of Bacon Switch Road). Staff was contacted by the developer's consultant in November, seeking to develop a commercial truck stop/restaurant/convenience store at this location. The company currently has eleven of these similar facilities in the DFW area. She also explained in order to move forward with that proposed commercial development, and to have access to city utilities (water & sewer), they would need a voluntary annexation request to access those municipal services. The applicants had a pre-development meeting with staff, and after the meeting we received a plat submission which came before this Commission early this year. This board reviewed the plat and it moved forward — and are creating two lots in Planning and Zoning 8 July 8, 2026 this area (shown to the board in a slide). Though they are creating two lots, the request is to annex the southern portion of lot 1 that will be combined with the parcel along Bacon Switch Road that was already addressed 2500 Bacon Switch Road. Existing land use and zoning for the portion within city limits was pointed out to the board, and it was noted that this requested zoning recommendation is in line with what the proposed use will be, and ensure that it follows zoning requirements and standards looking at General Commercial. And also, a land use classification of Commercial which follows the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne said some of the things that staff considered was when the last annexation was. (The laws have changed significantly since the 1970's.) The last annexation in this area was the section that is currently (showing on the map) in the city limits that went 1,000 feet north of Bacon Switch Road, and that was in the late seventies. It has been decades since we have seen significant development in this area. She also noted the industrial properties of Vitro and Howmet that are located on the west side of 1-44, stating that they actually have non-annexation agreements so this proposed project will be an improvement and added development for our city moving forward. Additional photos of the property and surrounding area were presented, with one of the photos showing the former fireworks building which is just outside of the existing city limits. A copy of the petition was shown, as well as some of the standard requirements following state statutes, and additional details that are part of the annexation proposal. Ms. Montgomery-Gagne told the board that we have come before them today seeking a recommendation for the actual permanent zoning moving forward, because when a property is annexed into the city limits it goes to the most restrictive zoning district, which is Single Family-1_ The Single Family-1 zoning would not align with the proposed development for a commercial truck stop/restaurant/convenience store, that is why we are seeking your recommendation for an assignment for General Commercial and land use to Commercial. Your recommendation will move forward to City Council for them to consider at a public hearing as to whether they will move forward with annexing this tract of land. The applicant was present and did not wish to make any comments, but would answer any questions the board might have for them. Chairman Woodward asked if anyone from the audience would like to speak on this matter, and no one came forward. Discussion was then opened up to the Commission, and there were no additional comments or questions. Planning and Zoning 9 July 8, 2026 f""` Chairman Woodward took the motion to a vote, and it passed with a 9-0 vote. TA 26-03 -Workshop— Legislative Updates A workshop to discuss Senate Bill 785 — HUD-code manufactured housing and potential zoning amendments. Ms. Christal Cates presented the TA 26-03 workshop that went over the recently approved Senate Bill 785, which will be in effect September 1, 2026. This bill modifies municipal authority regarding the regulation of the new HUD Code manufactured homes. The legislation prohibits municipalities from requiring a special use permit approval, such as our conditional use that we currently use for new HUD Code manufactured homes in zoning districts where single-family residential uses are permitted by right. The bill further requires municipalities to allow new HUD Code manufactured homes within at least one zoning district. This may be accomplished by designating a zoning district specifically for manufactured housing, which we already currently have. The provisions of Senate Bill 785 do not supersede local regulations adopted to protect designated historic districts or private deed restrictions. Ms. Cates explained to the board that the term "HUD Code manufactured home" is the same as a manufactured home. All factory-built homes that are constructed after June 15th, 1976 are legally classified as manufactured homes and those still have to conform to those strict national building standards that are set forth by HUD. So, the phrase "HUD Code manufactured home" serves to clarify that the home meets federal requirements of HUD, which ensures specific quality, safety and energy efficient standards. SB 785 does not mandate placement in every zoning district. It does require that the city allow any manufactured homes, by right, in at least one zoning district. The one designated zoning district that Ms. Cates had previously mentioned is our Manufactured Housing Residential zoning district. So, we do already meet that requirement. She pointed out that this does not eliminate the local zoning authority this board has, and said we still retain zoning and land use authority. This bill just limits the ability to single out, or unfairly ban, manufactured homes compared to other housing types. Protections are still going to be given to historic landmark and local historic districts. Our ordinances currently conditionally allow manufactured homes in Single- familyl, Single-family2, Multi-family Residential, Residential Mixed Use, Limited Commercial and General Commercial zoning districts. We can no longer require those conditional use permits like you just awarded in our case today on Cartwright Road. We will have to allow manufactured homes by right in all residential zoning districts, or not allow them at all. This Commission will have to determine that. Ms. Cates did some comparative research with similar cities within Texas, and there are currently no municipalities that will allow manufactured homes in any Planning and Zoning 10 July 8, 2026 zoning district in their municipality. Some cities have not made any changes yet, still deciding what they will do, while quite a few cities have gone in the direction of having manufactured housing districts, or they have manufactured home parks. With that, they do not allow manufactured housing anywhere else in the city. She explained that she did not write up a draft ordinance, because she didn't know which direction this board would want to go. There was discussion between staff and the board members to get a clear understanding of what this will mean for our ordinances, and development. Current districts were discussed, and staff clarified that spot zoning is not allowed within city limits. Director Medellin gave insight on differences between Manufactured Homes/ Prefabricated Homes and Modular Homes/Industrialized Homes, and he added that today we're asking for some guidance on HUD homes, HUD code homes, and what the commission feels is best for the community. The Commission started discussion of what possible actions might help with the changes. Deed restrictions were talked about, but the board was informed that the City does not currently enforce those. That is usually reserved for cities that don't have zoning. Staff said they will do additional research to present at the next P&Z meeting. If any board members have any questions, concerns, thoughts or suggestions, they were encouraged to reach out to staff. VI. ADJOURN Chairman Woodward adjourned the meeting at 2:30 pm. .5/, / e oodward—Chairman Date g 4;771° n Medellin, AICP—Director of Development Services Date