The Waxahachie City Council on Sept. 2025 voted to table consideration of ZDC1742024, a rezoning request to allow a 60-unit multifamily/townhome project at 501 Houston Street, after extended public comment and council debate about parking, trash management, shade structures and upkeep of an existing adjacent development.

The proposed development, presented by Trenton (city planner) and Marissa Brewer (planner with McAdams), would convert the site from Planned Development Commercial (PDC) to Planned Development Multifamily 1 and build 16 one‑bedroom units, 35 two‑bedroom units and 9 three‑bedroom units (60 total). Trenton said the project is roughly 10.19 dwelling units per acre, would include required amenities and meet the Planning & Zoning Commission's conditions, and that staff recommended approval.

The council’s public hearing drew several residents and the property owner. Satya Masina, representing the owner/developer, said the firm has invested in the existing property since buying it in 2021 and pledged that "we'll absolutely maintain it appropriately." Jasmine (property manager for Phase 1) told the council the current complex uses four 4‑yard containers and that routine maintenance and valet trash service are provided.

Why it mattered: Councilmembers and neighbors said details in the submitted plans left open practical questions about how the added units would affect on‑site parking, trash collection and the day‑to‑day livability of the adjacent Phase 1 townhomes. Multiple council members said they support added housing but wanted firm, enforceable commitments from the developer about amenities, shade for playgrounds and long‑term maintenance before changing zoning.

Key project details and staff notes
- Location: 501 Houston Street; applicant: Marissa Brewer McAdams; owners listed as Scanda Investments LLC and Messina Investments.
- Unit mix: 16 one‑bedroom, 35 two‑bedroom, 9 three‑bedroom units (60 total).
- Density: ~10.19 dwelling units per acre (as stated by staff).
- Amenities: applicant proposes a pool (shared with the existing adjacent development), two playgrounds, a pickleball court, sports courts, enclosed garages and additional landscaping. Planning & Zoning required enhanced playground equipment, additional landscaping and a photometric (lighting) plan to meet the City’s zoning ordinance (section 6.03), Trenton said.
- Architecture: the developer presented multiple elevation options developed after Planning & Zoning feedback; some council members characterized the current elevations as more similar to an apartment complex than distinct townhomes.

Neighbors’ concerns and developer responses
Residents and several council members raised recurring concerns:
- Parking: Opponents pointed to existing parking patterns in the current development and said the proposal removes a number of convenient parking spaces used by Phase 1 residents. The developer and staff asserted the project meets the city's required parking calculations (Trenton said required parking is 98 for the northern lot and proposed provided parking is 142–145 in different parts of the presentation), but neighbors disputed those counts and how they translate into day‑to‑day convenience.
- Trash: Neighbors worried about dumpster placement and size; Jasmine said Phase 1 currently has multiple containers and that valet trash service is provided, and the owner said larger containers or additional service could be used for the expanded site.
- Maintenance of existing Phase 1: Several council members pressed the owner to commit to ongoing capital and operational maintenance for the existing complex (Phase 1). Satya Masina said the owner "has every intention to keep the phase 1, you know, up to the standards or above the standards" and that the company would invest in landscaping and ongoing maintenance.
- Playground heat and shade: Councilmembers asked specifically about shade for playground equipment. Trenton confirmed the PD ordinance includes a requirement for a shade structure over the playground, and city staff proposed language to require that shade structures be "maintained in good condition and replaced in event of any damage" both in the zoning ordinance and in the development agreement.
- Elevations and character: Multiple council members said the proposed elevations present a uniform appearance that feels like a garden‑apartment product, not distinct townhomes; the developer said materials meet masonry requirements and that certain panels are embedded and intended to be durable.
- Drainage and detention: Council members asked about detention and whether runoff from the new, higher‑elevation development would affect adjacent yards. Trenton said detention and retention requirements would be addressed during permitting and design review and that final engineering must meet city and state standards.

Owner and manager statements
- Satya Masina (owner/developer): "we'll absolutely maintain it appropriately" and said the company has spent roughly $250,000 on improvements to the previously built phase after buying it in 2021.
- Jasmine (property manager): described current waste collection and said Phase 1 has valet trash and on‑site maintenance. "We currently have 4 4 yard containers there... We've maintained it to its fullest now," she told council.

Planning & Zoning history
Trenton told the council the request went before the Planning & Zoning Commission several times and that the commission voted 5‑0 on its last consideration with conditions (playground equipment, landscaping, lighting/photometric plan and architectural revisions). Staff indicated the applicant had met many conditions but was still working on the photometric plan.

Council action and next steps
A motion to approve the zoning change, subject to staff conditions, failed on a voice/hand vote. The council later reconsidered and then adopted a motion to table the item and continue the public hearing to the Oct. 20, 2025, council meeting so the applicant could return with clarified plans addressing parking counts, trash handling, playground shade maintenance language to be inserted in the ordinance/development agreement, and additional architectural detail. The council asked the applicant to provide clearer parking counts and to show how Phase 1 operations and maintenance will be managed after the new phase is built.

What’s next
The applicant told the council it will return with updated materials at the Oct. 20 meeting and address the specific items raised by council and residents. The ordinance language proposed by city staff to require and maintain playground shade structures would be included in the zoning ordinance and development agreement if council approves the rezoning on return.

Ending
No final zoning decision was made. The item remains under active review and will be considered again at the Oct. 20, 2025 council meeting; the council directed the applicant to bring clarified parking and trash plans, final photometric drawings and enforceable maintenance language for the playground shade structures and Phase 1 operations.