Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 08/12/2026 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION August 12, 2026 PRESENT: Jeremy Woodward •Chairman Blake Haney •Vice-Chair Jack Browne •Member Brady Enlow ♦Member Michael Grassi •Member Matt Marrs •Member Lisa Stephens-Musick •Member Luz Lerma •Alternate#1 Councilor Torn 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 Robin Marshall, Admin Assistant •City Staff ABSENT: Alan Sizemore •Member Naomi Barron •Aitemate#2 Doug McCulloch •Member Teresa Rose •SAFB Liaison 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 Chairman Woodward called for a motion to adopt the July 8, 2026, minutes. Commissioner Matt Marrs made a motion to approve the minutes as presented and Commissioner Lisa Stephens-Musick seconded the motion. Commissioner Jack Browne noted wording on page 8, the third paragraph from the top, that should not have the terminology "no play against any commission member, staff member, legal counsel, or any other person's present may discuss or reveal proceedings of the executive session to anyone other person's present during the executive session." Planning and Zoning 2 Aug 12, 2026 Director Medellin stated that typographical errors will be corrected. The correct version will be: "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." With noting the correction to be made, Chairman Woodward took the motion to vote to approve the minutes with the correction, and the motion was approved by a vote of 8-0. IV. CONSENT AGENDA P 26-38 - Falls Ranch RV Addition, Lot 1, Block 1 P 26-39 - Encounter Church Texoma Addition, Lot 1, 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 Marrs motioned to approve the consent agenda, and Commissioner Browne seconded the motion. It was asked by Chairman Woodward if anyone from the public would like to make a comment. A resident came forward to discuss a letter he had received from the city, but it was explained to him that his public comment can be made when public comments are opened for the case he is here to talk about, which is what the letter is regarding. With no further comments from the public or from the Commission regarding the consent agenda, Chairman Woodward took the motion to vote, and it passed unanimously 8-0 Commissioner Michael Grassi asked some questions about the right of way on the Falls Ranch RV Addition plat. Director Medellin and Attorney Kinley Hegglund responded to his questions. V. REGULAR AGENDA C 26-17 - 2236 Airport Drive -Warehousing - Data Center Consider taking action on a request to allow for a warehousing use (data center) in a General Commercial (GC) zoning district. Applicants: Star Texan Properties LLC DatallovaX -Ahmed Abdelghani Planning and Zoning 3 Aug 12, 2026 Chairman Woodward asked if there was a motion for the case. Commissioner Jack Browne motioned to approve the case and Commissioner and Commissioner Blake Haney seconded the motion. Director Fabian Medellin presented the request for the conditional use permit to the Commission. He stated that staff had met with the applicant multiple times to discuss the proposal. The location (2236 Airport Drive) was a former grocery store, but more recently had been used as a call center. The call center was classified as office uses, so primarily desks, reception areas for the call workers remain in the building. He stated that there was a small server room in that existing call center that supported their IT needs within that building. The owner would like to remodel the existing footprint so that the greater percentage of the floor area would be used for the housing of data servers. Some of the typical questions came up when speaking with the applicant. Some of answers to those that were addressed were: • They will only be remodeling the existing 26,000 sq. foot footprint of the building. • The data center will only use a capacity of up to 12 megawatts, which is below the 75 megawatts threshold, for large load classification by ERCOT. I Images of the property were presented to the board, and properties in the area were pointed out, noting that the properties to north is vacant land and has an industrial wholesale distributor business, the east is vacant land, and to the south is a car wash and more land that is vacant. To the southeast is a manufactured home park, and further east, towards the spur, is a church. He also pointed out that to the west of 1-44 is a range of commercial uses, from retail, auto repair, to restaurants. 1-44 is completely in the General Commercial zoning district. Staff did notify property owners within the 200-foot radius, with a total of ten property owners being notified. We received zero in response to the petition. While working through this project, the negative impacts were a concern to staff. So, a number of conditions and limitations on the project were created (should the Commission deem appropriate and should they approve the Conditional Use Permit). They are as follow: Screening — All ground-mounted equipment will be fully screened on all sides. The screening shall be at least one foot taller than the ground mounted equipment. Openings or perforations for ventilation are permitted, provided the equipment remains fully screened from view. All Rooftop equipment shall be fully screened on all sides by an opaque wall. Openings or perforations for ventilation are permitted, provided the equipment remains fully screened from view. The screening shall be at least one foot taller than the rooftop equipment or five feet in height, whichever is greater. Planning and Zoning 4 Aug 12, 2026 Fencing — Staff wanted to add some conditions on the location to ensure placement of fencing doesn't create any kind of traffic hazards. The location and requirement for fencing shall be in location so as not to create traffic hazards for vehicles entering the property. Perimeter fencing shall be a minimum of six feet and a maximum of eight feet in height. Fencing shall not be located in front of required landscaping adjacent to public roads. Landscaping shall be provided between the fence and any adjacent public road. Noise element— Limitations have been placed for both daytime and nighttime readings. Fifty-five decibels during the night and 65 during the day. That is also coupled with specific details on when those should be measured, how those should be measured, including a pre-submittal study. When construction plans are submitted, we will want a study showing the anticipated decibel reading to be at the property line. (Based on the proposed improvements and the proposed equipment.) And a post-study study would be required to be submitted to ensure compliance with the initial study at the property lines. (Compliance on paper prior to construction permitting — permit approval — is when they would have to produce the study.) Lighting — Blocking the direct visuals of the lighting sources. A limit of .25-foot candles would be allowed to leave the property. (Maximum light spillover.) Any kind of up lighting (attached to the building that shines vertically on the building) would have to be contained on the building wall itself, and not beyond the edge of the wall or the screening on the rooftop. Security lighting would need to comply with this as well. (To ensure protection to Sheppard AFB) Water usage — The applicant is committed to only using domestic water. Staff felt we could place a condition on the petition limiting it to that domestic use, and any expansion of that water usage would constitute an expansion of use. (Which would be subject to a conditional use permit.) Staff wanted to offer the applicant four options for cooling methods. However, staff did want to prohibit the water-intense use of an evaporative system, so that was prohibited in the allowance of this use. In addition, continual monitoring of the site just to ensure the water compliance will be required, and if there is any coolant water discharge to the sanitary sewer system it would need to be compliant with our standard requirements as well with TCEQ requirements. Staff does request your consideration on this conditional use permit with those various conditions, which are expanded on in the Commissioner's book. Mr. Justin Mahan, from Stoic Infrastructure, present to support DatallovaX in its request, gave a brief presentation to the Commission. He cited history on the original use of the building, and spoke about the following uses and noted one of the uses was in the technology sector in the early 2000's. The property is 8 acres with a building that is approximately 37,000 square feet. They are not proposing to build anything new, and they will be staying inside of the building itself. He stated this permit will help this facility Planning and Zoning 5 Aug 12, 2026 come back to being a productive piece of the community. He reiterated that they are not anticipating utilization of evaporative coolers. The existing backup generator that is still onsite is being assessed to make sure that it can be used for the backup. If it is determined that it is the right capacity for the backup, then screening will be put around it. This backup system would only be used in emergency operations, and we would follow the necessary protocols of the city when it comes to testing and maintenance during normal business hours during the day. Mr. Mahan said, right now, we are asking to utilize the building as it already sits. It will just be redevelopment inside of the existing structure. The existing structure already has a wonderful backbone to it that has already been utilized to very similar technologies as what a data center utilizes. Mr. Mahan spoke about the location of the property and stated that this development would actually decrease the amount of traffic that is at this intersection, because with the call center there was a high volume of traffic in and out of the area. With the data center it will only be what is necessary for individual operations once it is up and running. He noted that they are not planning on making any large changes to the existing facility or the existing structure. From the outside, you are not going to see anything really change. There will be a security fence put in around the perimeter (with access controls), and there will be some light changes to the exterior such as painting the building. But nothing that will negatively impact the area. He spoke about a room within the building that had been used in the past as a server room and said it would basically just be expanding that to being a majority of the facility. The strong electrical room needs to be redeveloped, and the existing backup power will stay. (It is just a backup power, not a primary generative power.) Mr. Mahan also said they would be expanding upon the air cooling that's on top, not utilizing anything that is going to be a water usage, citing that modernized cooling systems have gone primarily to air cooling, no matter what type of data center is being built because the cost of water has become too high to utilize as a primary source of cooling. Mr. Mahan spoke next about the megawatts and noted that the 12 megawatts is not speculative. This is what they have under contract with Oncor. He wanted the Commission to know that this is not a big campus creating issues and all of the light pollution like the large-scale multi-campuses. His team met with the city to make sure they would be fitting within what has already been approved for water usage for that site. Right now, the plan is only domestic use as necessary once systems are full. He said we will not need any more than what's already approved for the site. "Ultimately, we see this as a very positive reuse, reconditioning of an existing site that's already there, hasn't been operational for a few years, and are looking to put this building back into a positive state with the city." Mr. Mahan closed his presentation with; "DatallovaX has agreed to all the enforceable conditions that we've covered with the city already, staying within the 12 megawatts that we already have approval of from Oncor, staying within the confines of the building itself. Generators on site are only for backup power and will be tested during the approved time frames in the day. We are not going to be utilizing evaporative cooling Planning and Zoning 6 Aug 12, 2026 technology for the site. We won't be processing any chemicals or manufacturing anything on site. We'll fall well within the normal compliance requirements that the city sets out for noise, fire, building, and safety codes. And we'll go through the same process, if and when in the future there is ever a need to make any changes to the site going forward. What we are asking from you on this conditional use permit is to allow us to move forward with the 12 megawatts that we have, allow us to utilize the building for the purposes that we think that it has been utilized generally for, for the last roughly 20 years, and growing upon its utilization in the technology infrastructure space, allowing it for an adaptive reuse that works within those bounds and staying inside of the building. We're not asking for this to be an approval of a hyperscale or mega scale campus. We're not planning on adding any additional buildings or changing anything to the overall footprint itself. So, at this point, we're just asking for that conditional use and open to any questions that you have." Commissioner Brady Enlow noted that Mr. Mahan had used the words "right now" and said that Mr. Mahan had reiterated they didn't have any future immediate plans. He asked if there were any anticipated future expansions beyond the immediate future. Mr. Mahan said with the size of the site and the current footprint — and the way it is laid out, he personally doesn't see from an engineering standpoint being able to expand_ Commissioner Luz Lerma asked how Governor Abbott's pause on everything plays into the expansion or footprint. Mr. Mahan answered that because of the small size and scale of this, it generally does not apply. It can still, at Oncor's discretion, have to be reviewed, but since it falls below that 75-megawatt threshold that they utilize for this type of review. Commissioner Enlow asked about compliance, and what would be done if the site is louder than 55 decibels (or whatever the requirement is) or if the lights were too bright? Director Medellin stated that enforcement language that gives us the ability to either by complaint or just routine inspection, allows us to either require a study to prove that they are still in compliance. If they are out of compliance, there would be standard enforcement procedures, basically operating beyond the bounds of the conditional use permit, they could be required to stop operations until back in compliance. At this time, comments/questions were open to the public. Mr. George Bailey spoke about noise concerns and water usage. He then asked about the system that would be using water, and if they are using a closed loop system. Mr. Mahan said it would be a closed loop system and would use only a few thousand gallons. Mr. Bailey also stated that the company's webpage states there will be a phase 2, and questioned that. Mr. Ahmad Abdelghani said they will not do a phase 2 in Wichita Falls, and noted the webpage is outdated, and the stated phase 2 has been completely moved from Wichita Falls. Planning and Zoning 7 Aug 12, 2026 With no additional comments from the public or the board, Chairman Woodward took the motion to vote. The vote passed with a 7-1 vote, the opposing vote coming from Commissioner Lemma. C 26-18 — 505 Elm Street - Manufactured Home Consider taking action on a request to allow for a manufactured home in a Single Family -2 (SF-2) zoning district. Applicant: Kimo Needham Chairman Woodward asked if there was a motion for the request. Chairman Matt Marrs motioned to approve the request, and Commissioner Michael Grassi seconded the motion. Ms. Christal Cates presented the case to the Commission and explained that currently a manufactured home is not allowed by right, so we do need the conditional use. She noted that Mr. Needham lives in Hawaii right now, so he cannot be in attendance of today's meeting. She spoke of the location and the uses of the property and surrounding properties, and she noted that this property is in the eastern area of Wichita Falls just north of Jalonick Park. Aerials of the area were shown to the Commission, and it was pointed out that it is just vacant land to the north of the subject site and there are residential uses that are around it. Mr. Needham is proposing to place a new 28 by 56-foot, 4 bedroom/2 bath manufactured home. The proposed placement of the home meets, and in most areas exceeds the setback requirements that we have. The site plan was shown to the board, and it was noted that there is another manufactured home just about a block down to the south from this one. This proposed manufactured home is consistent in the size and placement with the surrounding properties in the area. Ms. Cates stated that placing the home on a vacant lot will only help infill the neighborhood and reduce the number of vacant properties — and continue to support neighborhood investment and revitalization. Staff sent out notices to 14 surrounding property owners, and we received zero responses. Staff does recommend the approval of the proposed manufactured home at 505 Elm Street, 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 this home must comply with all applicable building codes, permitting, and inspections leading to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Ms. Cates mentioned the changes from last month's Commission meeting regarding manufactured homes and stated those changes will be taking effect on September 1st Planning and Zoning 8 Aug 12, 2026 No additional comments from the public or board were made, so Chairman Woodward took the motion to vote. It passed with an 8-0 vote. C 26-19 — 2007 & 2009 Allen Road — Daycare Consider taking action on a request to allow for a daycare center in a Single Family -2 (SF-2)zoning district. Applicant— Gary Mehan Autos & Parts Commissioner Marrs made a motion to approve the request, and Commissioner Lisa Stephens-Musick seconded the motion. Ms. Cates started the presentation and informed the board that the location of the proposed daycare site is currently vacant, and staff did advise the clients that daycares in the Single Family-2 zoning district would require conditional use approval from the board. The property is located directly behind Crunch Fitness, and aerial views of the area were presented to the Commission_ There is currently a plat in review to replat 2007, 2009 and 2011 Allen Road together. Ms. Cates pointed out through the aerial images that there is ample parking available, and there is also a drop-off and pick-up lane. To the north of the site is the gym, to the northeast and west are garages and service repairs, and to the south there is residential uses. Staff feels the function and operation of a daycare will be more of a buffer for the residential uses from the more intense uses to the north. Street views of the area were shown to the Commission to show the area uses. Also shown to the board was the preliminary site plan but noted that there may be changes, but that this is close to what it would look like. The setbacks were shown on the site plan and all required setbacks would be met. Ms. Cates said the proposed use is expected to have minimal impacts on the surrounding area with traffic primarily generated by the employees and drop-offs and pickups, which would primarily utilize the parking spots. (Since they are small children, most parents will park and walk the children in.) The cars would not be stopping in Allen Road to do any kind of drop- offs, and the site's infrastructure was designed to accommodate the proposed use as well as any future development that would happen along Allen Road. Staff sent out 20 property notices to 20 property owners within the 200-foot notification area. We received a total back of 6 responses, five in favor and one that was opposed. Staff does recommend approval of this request for 2007 and 2009 Allen Road to allow a daycare in the Single Family-2 residential district with the following conditions: • The subject property must submit a site plan for review subject to the standards of Section 7100, which does comply with all other required site improvements and building codes. Planning and Zoning 9 Aug 12, 2026 • The applicant must provide and maintain adequate parking for the development, and any lighting should be directed away from the single- family residential dwellings surrounding it and the roadways. Comments and questions were opened to the public, and Mr. Michael Mitchell asked for verification of the setbacks, and after getting clarification he stated he is not opposed to the development. There were no further comments from the public. Chairman Woodward took the motion to vote, and it passed unanimously with a vote of 8-0. C 26-20 — 1801 Grant Street - Conversion of a Non-Conforming Use Consider taking action on a request to allow for a non-conforming use to a commercial classification of a service use, fitness training, in a Single Family -2 (SF-2) zoning district. Applicant— Mr. Juan Escutia Commissioner Marrs motioned to approve the request and Commissioner Blake Enlow seconded the motion. Ms. Cates informed the board that staff met with Mr. Escutia of Pueblo Boxing, and the design team from Sid Litteken Architects to discuss having a portion of his building for a boxing ring to allow for some one-on-one training sessions. Being in a Single Family-2 residential zoning district, that use would not be allowed by right, however the structure has operated as legal nonconforming use since the implementation of our zoning ordinances almost 40 years ago. We inform our clients that there could be a path to do that conversion of a non-conforming use at that location. The subject property is located in the central area of the city. It is west of the Kemp Blvd. and Avenue H intersection. Views of the subject site and areas around it were shown, which showed it is surrounded primarily by the Single Family-2 zoning district and primarily residential uses. Since it is an older neighborhood, there are other nonconforming uses in the area. Ms. Cates pointed out just a couple of blocks down, there are some churches, and on Buchanan there are some parking lots. Just a couple of blocks over to the west there is a retail shop on Hayes Street, and about a block to the east is Kemp Blvd that has a variety of mixed uses, such as retail, automotive sales and services, offices and some residential uses. The boxing lessons at this location would be one-on-one lessons, so it wouldn't have a negative impact on the area. A floor plan that was submitted by Syd Litteken was shown to the Commission, and it shows the warehouse that is currently being used is 4,220 square feet and is currently being used by Pueblo Boxing for offices in the front and warehouse in the rear — where they store and ship online merchandise orders. The owner is proposing to use 1,276 square feet in the center of the structure for the boxing ring. Noise and activity will be limited due to the nature of the one-on-one training sessions, and the proposed boxing ring use is also Planning and Zoning 10 Aug 12, 2026 comparable to the existing warehouse and office uses, so it is not expected to create additional impacts to the surrounding residential property owners. They already have some existing parking there, but will place some more along Avenue H. Staff did send out 19 property notices, and we received one response in favor. Taking into consideration the nature of the site and the proposed use, staff have determined the impacts on the adjacent properties to be minimal. Staff does recommend the approval of the conditional use to allow for the conversion of a nonconforming use to a commercial classification of service use (fitness training) in a Single Family-2 zoning district with the following conditions: • The development shall comply with all applicable building, health, zoning, and fire codes leading to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. • Any further expansion or next phases would require a new conditional use permit. Ms. Cates clarified for the Commission that the location is already existing as a nonconforming use, and the owner is just wanting to use that conversion for the boxing ring/lessons. This is not spot zoning. Chairman Woodward took the motion to vote after there were no more comments from the board or from the public. The motion passed 8-0 R 26-06 — PUD - 2206 Lucas Ave - OPG Lucas Partners LLC Public Hearing and take action on a request to rezone +/- 7.46 acres of land from Single Family -2 (SF-2) to Planned Unit Development— Mixed Use (PUD-MU) located at 2206 Lucas Avenue (Lot 1, Block 1, Lamar Elementary School Addition out of Block 15, Cherokee County School Lands), and amend the Land Use Plan from Institutional to High Density Residential to allow senior living and a neighborhood communal meeting space Applicant: OPG Lucas Partners, LLC Chairman Woodward opened the public hearing at 2:54pm. Ms. Cates presented the case and stated that this proposal is the 6th or 7th low-income housing tax credit project for the applicants here, and the clients informed the staff that they have done more projects in the city of Wichita Falls than any other city that they have worked in. The purpose of this request is to allow an existing 55,836 square foot— former Lamar Elementary School building — to be reused and converted into 49 senior living units. The existing 4,694 sq. ft. gymnasium will be converted into a neighborhood communal meeting space for community events, meetings, and any other kind of neighborhood activities that could be used there. Staff reviewed the existing Single Family-2 zoning district regulations and determined that the proposed development Planning and Zoning 11 Aug 12, 2026 would not meet the current by-right allowed uses. It was determined that a Planned Unit Development would allow the proposed senior living use while establishing specific development standards for the property. The site is located in the eastern area of Wichita Falls, northeast of the Central Freeway and Windthorst Road intersection. Images and aerial photographs were shown of the former school district property, and the surrounding properties. To the south of the subject site is the park. A rezone map was used to point out the area to be rezoned to the PUD. Under the city's PUD approval criteria, staff evaluated the request based on three areas. 1) Consistency with the City's plans and policies. 2) Comparison with the development that could occur under the existing zoning. 3) Potential impacts on public services and infrastructure. Regarding the land use and surrounding development, the applicant is requesting to amend the land use from Institutional to High Density Residential. This property was previously occupied by Lamar Elementary School and is currently vacant. The proposed senior living provides a residential use consistent with the requested high density change for the land use. The surrounding area is primarily single-family use. The land use plan, and what would be amended, was presented to the Commission, as well as the site plan to show the layout of what is currently there and the additional structure that will be built to the west for more housing units. �,, Staff considers the proposed senior living development to be appropriate transition from the property's previous institutional use to residential use, that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Cates stated that city staff has worked closely with the OPG group on crafting this PUD and the key components, including a maximum of 49 senior living units and a maximum building height of 19 feet. There will also be maximum building coverage of 50%, and retention of a minimum of 50% open space. Of the proposed units to be developed, 19 will be efficiency units, 28 will be one- bedroom units and then there will be two 2-bedroom units. There will be several different floor plan layouts of those units. We feel the proposed development is also expected to generate less traffic, noise and overall activity from the property's previous use as an elementary school. Staff found that the PUD was compatible and appropriate controlled development pattern for the property. The potential impact on utilities and infrastructure was considered, and the development will utilize the existing property and infrastructure associated with the former school. This PUD will be limited to the existing two curb cuts that are already there, with one designated for ingress and one for egress. No additional curb cuts will be allowed. This PUD establishes minimum setbacks and a minimum of 67 on-site parking spots that are currently available to accommodate the senior living units, and the community meeting space. A landscape buffer will be provided along Lamar Park to the south, and it will include canopy trees, understory trees, and shrubs that will provide visual separation from park users but still make it nice to look at. A six-foot privacy fence will Planning and Zoning 12 Aug 12, 2026 also be required along the northern interior lot line to provide a visual buffer between the development and the adjacent residential uses that are currently there. The city will require enhanced landscaping beyond our minimum standards, including additional shrubs and ornamental plantings around building foundations, entrances, park areas and other highly visible areas there. Outdoor lighting will be directed away from adjacent residential properties and comply with the city's applicable lighting requirements. Signage is also going to be regulated under applicable single-family to institutional and apartment sign standards. This PUD will also continue to require compliance with all regulations that are not specifically addressed in the PUD. Based on staffs review, the PUD is consistent with the requested land use amendment. It provides specific development standards that are more controlled than a general zoning designation, and it's not intended to overburden existing public services or infrastructure. The city mailed 59 notices to property owners and received two responses, both in favor. Staff does recommend approval of this request. These are some of the regulations that would be in place with the PUD: • Land Use Regulations/Development regulations - All development shall be consistent with Section 3100, Single-Family Residential Development Regulations, as amended. The guidelines shall apply to new structures built on the site and exclude any existing structures. • Parking - The requirement of 67 on-site parking spaces will be provided as outlined, and it has a breakdown, as well as development regulations to any kind of parking lot design. • Screening Requirements - to promote open space and green spaces and encourage outdoor activities. That landscape buffer will be provided along the developed portion of Lucas Lofts, excluding the open space property boundary adjacent to the public park. • Development regulations listed for landscaping, outdoor lighting, sign regulations, and then all other requirements. All other regular zoning ordinances that have not been specifically addressed in this ordinance shall apply to this Planned Unit Development ordinances as they are hereby made a part and herein included. Ms. April Engstrom came to the podium and told the board that this is their 6th development in town and their 2"6 historic rehab in Wichita Falls. Post construction for this project, this building will be listed on the National Register of Historic Places! The housing will be for seniors, 55 and older. She spoke a little about the location and noted her excitement for the future residents and neighborhood. The public hearing was closed at 3:06 pm. Planning and Zoning 13 Aug 12, 2026 Commissioner Marrs made the motion to approve the case, and it was seconded by Commissioner Stephens-Musick. The public hearing was reopened at 3:06 pm for David Preston to make a comment. He spoke about access on the back of the properties to the east of the school. He also asked if the basketball court would stay in place for the kids to use, but was informed that the court would not be retained. Mr. Preston also asked about the park, and Director Medellin clarified that the park and Lucas Lofts are two completely separate developments. Lucas Lofts will focus on their particular site and building. With no other comments, the public hearing was closed at 3:11. The motion was made by Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Stephens-Musick. There were no additional comments made by the board. The motion was taken to vote, and it was approved unanimously. 8-0 TA 26-03 -Zoning Amendment—SB 785 Public Hearing and take action on an ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Appendix B: Zoning, multiple zoning districts Conditional Uses, Section 5600 §5615 — Manufactured Housing as in-fill development, and §6130 — Nonconforming use and structure reconstruction to comply with the 89th Texas Legislative Session, Senate Bill 785. TA 26-04 —Zoning Amendment— SB 785 Public Hearing and take action on an ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Appendix B: Zoning, multiple zoning districts Conditional Uses, Section 3250 — Residential Mixed Use, §3270 — Permitted Uses, §5615 — Manufactured Housing as in- fill development, §6130 — Nonconforming use and structure reconstruction to comply with the 89th Texas Legislative Session, Senate Bill 785. The text amendments will be presented together, but there will be separate public hearings that will be opened and closed, and voted on. Director Medellin stated that at last month's meeting, we were given direction from the board to propose an option to be in compliance with the House Bill. After the meeting we took a deep dive into many aspects of manufactured homes, where they are and where they have been petitioned for. We came up with two proposals for the board today. The first option was essentially limiting manufactured homes by right to the manufactured housing residential district. Our second option is to potentially allow for manufactured homes, within Manufactured Housing Residential Zoning District (MHR), as well as the Residential Mixed-Use District (RMU), which is primarily where they are, and where they have been petitioned for since zoning inception. Planning and Zoning 14 Aug 12, 2026 We sent notices to all manufactured homeowners living in the city. There was some strongly worded language as required by the state within the notices. Director Medellin wanted to state that existing manufactured homes existing today have both state and local protections that will allow them to continue to be occupied, repaired, and even replaced if need be. Ms. Cates continued the presentation. She informed the board of the notifications that were sent out, and the timeline of doing so, and explained that the verbiage that was used was required by Texas Local Government Code Section 211.006.2.1 a-1.3 to be used. She also reassured those present that it will not change the current use for those that already have manufactured homes. The new Bill prohibits municipalities from requiring special permits like our conditional use permits. The Bill also allows manufactured homes in zoning districts where single- family residential uses are permitted by right. It requires municipalities to allow new manufactured homes within at least one zoning district, which we already have one, being the manufactured housing residential district where they are already allowed by right. (These provisions do not supersede local regulations adopted to protect designated historic districts or private deed restrictions.) With our first text amendment, it just brings us into compliance. Allowing manufactured homes (MH) only in MHR districts. With the following amendments made: Section 5610 — Manufactured Housing and Temporary Use Vehicle Regulations — state no replacement of a manufactured home would be allowed. Section 5615 — Manufactured Housing as infill development, we have removed all those development guidelines. Section 6100 - We added replacement MH lawfully placed could be replaced without obtaining a conditional use permit, provided the replacement home complies with the definition and requirements established by the Texas Occupations Code. These text amendment changes will take out the conditional use permit requirements under all zoning districts. We will no longer allow them anywhere in any zoning district other than the MRH zoning district. Text Amendment 26-04 has the same amendments as 26-03 with the exception that we would also allow MH by right in the Residential Mixed-Use zoning district. The research that was done by staff was spoken about in length, and they presented how, and why, they chose to include RMU zoning district in the TA26-04. Chairman Woodward verified the understanding of both Text Amendments and their differences with staff for the Commission, and then he opened the Public Hearing at 3:23pm for Text Amendment 26-03. Planning and Zoning 15 Aug 12, 2026 The existing use of current MH's within the city was verified by Ms. Cates that they will be allowed to continue, can be repaired, can be replaced and the use will continue if a new owner takes over the property. The use stays with the property. It was stated that the existing manufactured home parks (MRH) are essentially built out. (Which is the only allowed use with TA26-03) or they can be allowed in the RMU zoning district which would be allowed with TA26-04. Commissioner Grassi stated, if we don't accept either of the Text Amendments before the board today, then Manufactured Homes will be allowed in any zoning district that allows single-family use. (Which would be a third option) Director Medellin said that is correct. Ms. Cates told the Commission she would encourage the board to consider the ramifications and gave the example if someone (heaven forbid) had their property burned down, they could decide to bring in a manufactured home and they could do it anywhere they wanted. (With exception to Historic zoned areas or deed restrictions) There were some public comments made, mostly regarding being able to continue the already established use for their manufactured homes. Director Medellin gave information regarding the differences of pre-fab homes, manufactured homes and modular homes. Tiny homes and modular homes (pre- fab/Industrialized) are treated by state law just like an on-site residential home, so we would permit those and treat those in that fashion. Manufactured Homes are built and licensed by federal HUD agency. The Public Hearing for TA 26-03 was closed at 3:36. There was discussion with the Commission members. Zoning districts were discussed in detail, and discussion of where Manufactured Homes could fit the best. Director Medellin explained spot zoning and how it would not be able to single out a specific tract, so it would not be allowed. To expand a zoning district, it would need to be adjacent to (abutting) the zoning district it would be changed to. Hud versus industrialized homes were discussed further, and it was stated that HUD homes are built to HUD codes and Industrialized homes are built to residential code. Then the modular style homes (or finishing out a shell) are treated like a single on-site stick home. We would permit it and inspect is as such. If a modular home was completed before being put on site, our inspectors would need to verify compliance with the IRC. So, there would be portions that would need to be demoed for the inspectors to be able to verify everything from framing, plumbing, electrical and all the inspections that would be required for an on-site built home. Planning and Zoning 16 Aug 12, 2026 Chairman Woodward asked if there was a motion to approve TA26-03. There was no motion made, so it died for lack of motion. Chairman Woodward opened the Public Hearing for TA26-04 at 3:47pm. Mr. David Preston said maybe we don't need either of these two amendments. There is a huge market for Manufactured Homes, and they could be used in many areas of the city. Mr. Sabian Santistevan came forward and stated he lives in a MH and said he does not like either of these options because it does restrict the ability to put one where someone buys a piece of property and may want to put one. He stated that MH's are very nice and are on par with a stick-built home. Not as great, but on par and something that people can afford. "You're not going to see manufactured homes going into Tanglewood or any of that just because it's going to be restrictive. People know most of the places that they go to, there are other manufactured homes there. They're not looking at putting it right in the middle of a brand new, you know, $300,000 neighborhood because it's just not going to happen, shouldn't." They tend to stay where everybody else is, and don't clash with the neighborhood. He said state regulations should take control and allow it where it needs to be. "I think it'll take care of itself as far as the neighborhoods where they're going to go. People aren't going to move them where they know they're not going to be welcome. That's just not going to happen." The Public Hearing was closed at 3:51pm. Director Medellin clarified to the board that the P8Z Commission's decision is not final because it will go to the City Council for required council action. He also stated we could look into creating a whole separate district (MAG district) that would allow for Manufactured Homes, but that would be for something to look at in the future. The board will still need to deal with this today. Commissioner Enlow asked if we don't do anything today, the state law goes into effect, and it is allowed by right everywhere. Then we can go back later and say, you know what, we've identified these other areas, and this could be a new zoning classification. Could we do that? Director Medellin said yes. The Chairman then asked, could you also say we're going to go with one of these and then still do that later as well? Director Medellin stated, yes. Commissioner Enlow stated, "I understand the comments made that that probably wouldn't happen, but it could. You know, a home that is not aligned with the neighborhood, if they had a vacant lot or whatever, that could happen. It probably wouldn't, but it could. Whereas if you go with the second option, Option 26-04, we are Planning and Zoning 17 Aug 12, 2026 restricting it to RMU and MRH. We're restricting it to those 2, and we could review later and look at the entire zoning map and identify areas and maybe rezone or have a new classification and say these areas are most likely, or we would define that and then perhaps we wouldn't be so restrictive on those uses." Commissioner Enlow made a motion to recommend TA26-04 to City Council, and Chairman Woodward seconded the motion. The motion was taken to vote and it failed with a vote of 3-5. In favor: Opposed: Stephens-Musick Browne Woodward Grassi Enlow Lerma Marrs Haney VI. ADJOURN Chairman Woodward adjourned the meeting at 3:57 pm. �s z _ dward - Chairman Date Ob.& Medellin, AICP- irector of Development Services Date C C o