[0:23] I think we have a very good group.
[0:36] Sorry.
Prepare
[1:29] Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. The
time is 6:31. Let the record indicate
[1:34] that a quorum plus uh an alternate is
here tonight and that the agenda has
[1:41] been duly posted.
And Alex, did we have anybody sign up
[1:45] for citizens communication?
>> No, sir.
[1:48] Okay. So, we will move on to consent
agenda and we have one item on there
[1:55] which I assume nobody wants to pull off
for individual consideration.
[2:01] If not, uh I will entertain a motion.
>> Move to approve the consent agenda item
[2:08] 3A.
>> All right. Is there a second?
[2:10] » I'll second that.
>> There's a motion, second on the floor.
[2:13] All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any
opposed or abstain? Motion carries
[2:18] unanimously. At this time, we will move
on to our regular agenda, item 4 A,
[2:23] which is consider and make
recommendations to city council about
[2:27] the church, church of uh Jesus Christ
later Latterday Saints located on the
[2:34] northwest corner of Waco and Village
Parkway. Alex,
[2:37] » thanks very much, chairman. This is the
request as you say it is a for a site
[2:41] plan for the Latterday Saints church
that's located on the northwest corner
[2:45] of Waco and village. Uh this is the
aerial image of the subject property the
[2:49] 8 acre 8 acres in question. Uh you have
the site plan before you. It shows an
[2:54] approximately 21,000 square foot uh
church the associated elevations uh as
[3:00] well as the 300 proposed parking spaces.
Uh there is a detention pond on the far
[3:05] south edge of the property. Uh and this
request is in conformance with the
[3:09] resoning request that was approved by
city council back in October. Uh so city
[3:14] city city staff is recommending approval
of this site plan as recommended as
[3:18] presented. Glad to answer any questions
you may have.
[3:20] » Is there a representative from the
church here tonight?
[3:24] » Yes, sir.
>> Would you like to add anything to what
[3:26] Alex said?
[3:33] » All right. As we get into discussion, we
might have some questions.
[3:36] » Thank you,
>> Alex. Okay, I'll open it up to
[3:40] commissioners for questions.
>> Alex, is this any different than what
[3:42] was proposed earlier?
>> Uh, no. There was a slight relocation of
[3:47] the the dumpster. Um, otherwise, no,
it's essentially
[3:51] » still open spaces on either end. And
>> Yes, sir.
[3:54] » Parking lot hadn't changed. None of
that.
[3:56] » No, sir. They added some parking
landscape parking islands islands per
[4:00] the PD uh approval.
And we had talked about deceleration
[4:07] lanes and things like that. I don't see
these in there. Is that off the table or
[4:12] where are we with that?
>> I would defer to the uh the consulting
[4:15] engineer on this one. They are still
work the civil uh plans are still under
[4:19] review with text dot and city staff.
They're not reflective on the site plan,
[4:23] but they the applicant can comment on
where they are with text and uh any
[4:27] warrants for del lanes uh for this
subject property.
[4:30] » All right. Do you have an answer to
that?
[4:39] » Sir, can you please step up to the
microphone so we can
[4:43] maybe state your name and for the for
the record again once again?
[4:46] » Thank you. Um Brian Boro with Bowman
Consulting Group uh here as the civil
[4:51] engineers on the project. Um to answer
your question, uh we're working with Tex
[4:56] Dot as well as city staff. Um as of
right now, uh the deceleration lanes
[5:02] will be part of the design. Um but
nothing is um until we go through
[5:08] further comments, we can't um I can't
comment whether it's there or not.
[5:12] » So if text dot allows it,
>> yes.
[5:16] » Do you plan on having deceleration lanes
and acceleration lanes?
[5:20] » Yes.
>> Okay.
[5:22] » Yeah.
>> All right.
[5:25] » Do we need to put that in the
recommendation? That's probably going to
[5:28] happen.
>> So, I do have a question though.
[5:30] » Okay.
>> When you added the islands, did that
[5:34] parking spots
>> description says 300 spots. When I count
[5:40] them all, it's only
>> um so we're going through some
[5:45] iterations. The last one that we did,
we've added um an extra row uh closer to
[5:51] the detention pond on the east side, uh
closer to Village Parkway. Um, so the
[5:57] what you see here is going to be
evolving as we go through review with
[6:02] city staff.
[6:07] » Other questions, comments, concerns.
>> Okay, back to what he just said though.
[6:13] If once we if this is the site plan,
this is the site plan. It doesn't
[6:16] change. Correct.
[6:20] » I can use this microphone. So we are
recommending approval of this the um we
[6:25] did receive the site plan 30 days ago
and by uh operation of law we're
[6:30] presenting the site plan uh the
recommendations of approval are on the
[6:33] screen before you and it's it is subject
to engineering review. So to the extent
[6:37] that during civil review diesel lanes
are added or parking is added that
[6:40] becomes reflective in the plan set but
nothing fundamentally um in terms of
[6:46] increased building area, additional
structures or anything more intense to
[6:50] the property can be uh changed without
planning and zoning commission approval
[6:54] » such as parking that he said. Did you
just
[6:57] » Yeah, additional additional parking to
the south end of the site, additional
[7:01] row of parking would be considered a
minor deviation that would be approvable
[7:05] through our engineering process.
>> So, based upon what I'm hearing, he's
[7:09] adding 20 parking places that are not
reflected in the site plan. Is that
[7:13] correct?
So, um my response is once we go through
[7:17] city um review and it is noted that we
require an additional amount of parking
[7:24] spaces, uh we will do so.
>> This is a city review, is it not?
[7:28] » It is. It's this is a recommendation to
the city council to approve.
[7:35] » So, do we need to make that
part of our conditions on our motion?
[7:42] I believe the conditions currently there
um are established with what we we'll go
[7:47] through with civil engineering review.
>> I would concur with that that the that
[7:52] the condition of approval that this is
subject to textile and city engineering
[7:56] review and approval would would capture
the the the additional parking.
[8:01] » Okay. But it would not catch the
acceleration and deceleration lanes. So
[8:07] we can add that as a
>> I believe it would actually be part and
[8:10] parcel of the review by texttop. But if
you would like to make it expressly an
[8:14] expressed condition of approval so that
it's clear and obvious that's the con
[8:18] that's certainly the purview of the
commission
[8:20] » unless unless text dot says no.
>> Correct.
[8:24] » Okay.
>> Yeah. Anything else from the commission?
[8:30] I would entertain a motion to
approve
[8:35] this item with the two staff
recommendations plus
[8:40] uh adding acceleration and deceleration
lanes along uh highway five as allowed
[8:48] by text.
>> So move.
[8:51] » Okay. Is there a second?
>> Second.
[8:53] » There's a motion and second on the
floor. Is there any further discussion?
[8:58] If not, all in favor signify by saying
I.
[9:01] » I.
>> Any opposed or abstain? Motion carries
[9:05] unanimously. We really appreciate it. We
welcome you to town.
[9:09] » Thank you so much. Have a good evening.
>> Thank you.
[9:12] » At this time, we will move on to item
4B, which is to make a recommendation,
[9:17] city council, regarding a site plan for
a convenience store, which would be a
[9:21] 711 with fuel pumps at Panther Parkway
and Kelly Lane. and this is NRJ.
[9:29] » Thanks very much, chairman. As you
stated, this particular item on the
[9:33] agenda, item 4B, is a request for a site
plan recommendation to city council
[9:37] regarding a 7-Eleven. It is located
within the Manua Mud District. Um,
[9:43] before I begin, uh, I did just want to
state that both items, uh, 4B and 4C on
[9:49] your agenda this evening are for site
plan approval. And effectively what the
[9:53] site plan approval as we sort of just
discussed is this is a document that
[9:58] ensures compatibility of the site layout
with the development agreement that was
[10:04] approved back in 2008. Uh and so for
example that the land uses are
[10:10] permitted, the parking that's provided
is adequate, that the the setbacks are
[10:15] satisfied and so forth and so on. And so
I just wanted to be clear that the the
[10:20] two items on the ag on the agenda are
for recommendation approval of the site
[10:24] plans. Um but uh before we get into the
specific items uh related and relevant
[10:30] to the site the site plan consideration
is obviously the adjacent roadway and
[10:36] the other adjacent roadway is Kelly
Lane. Uh, as you can see here on the
[10:40] I've pieced together the two site plans
and on the east side of the property you
[10:44] can see that um both site plans are
reflective of 45 feet of rideway
[10:49] dedication for Kelly Lane. Uh so I just
want to take a moment and provide a
[10:53] little bit of information and hopefully
clarification on uh where things stand
[10:58] with Kelly Lane. Uh because last week
the city council did consider a few
[11:05] items related to Kelly Lane. Uh the city
council did not consider the site plans.
[11:10] Site plans go before the planning and
zoning commission prior to going to the
[11:14] city council. And so I want to make sure
that it's clear the various and
[11:17] different requests that are being
presented before the various bodies.
[11:24] Uh so I'll start uh with the fact that
Kelly Lane
[11:29] depending on which document plan exhibit
plat that you look at there have there
[11:34] have historically been variable and
different alignments of Kelly Lane. Uh
[11:40] you can see on the far left side the
original 2008 agreement shows Kelly Lane
[11:44] veering off to the southeast. the 2003
comprehensive plan and the master
[11:49] thoroughfare plan within that shows
Kelly Lane aligned due south in this the
[11:54] current alignment of Kelly Lane. Um also
the the ride ofway widths and sections
[12:00] have been variable. Uh last week at city
council, the city council did approve a
[12:07] formal amendment request to the
development agreement, an amendment to
[12:12] the 2008
development agreement that effectively
[12:18] showed Kelly Lane aligned due south
along the current alignment of Kelly
[12:22] Lane and also defined it as a as a
four-lane divided roadway within within
[12:29] that within that 90 ft of rideway.
Um so that that amendment um did take
[12:36] place and was approved. Um as a
companion item to that, the city council
[12:41] did also consider a memorandum of
understanding from the developer uh
[12:47] regarding the construction of Kelly
Lane. And uh as you can see on the this
[12:53] the slide at the the top end of this uh
particular page um it Kelly Lane
[12:59] adjacent to this the subject property
the 26 acres has been divided into three
[13:04] segments. Uh the developer and applicant
at the city council meeting were
[13:09] effectively requesting to allow for the
construction of Kelly Lane in three
[13:14] segments.
Um, and along the the the bottom part of
[13:19] the slide here, you'll see a a current
proposal for uh the construction of two
[13:24] additional lanes of concrete adjacent to
uh the urgent care, which is on your
[13:30] agenda this evening, as well as the
7-Eleven site plan. Uh in the midst of
[13:35] cons in the midst of discussion at the
city council meeting, there was some
[13:40] confusion about whether or not and how
much many of the two existing lanes of
[13:44] asphalt would remain during
construction. So, the item was tabled
[13:49] and since that meeting, city staff, our
engineers have met with the developer,
[13:53] their engineers, and we've been able to
confirm that the proposal on the table
[14:00] uh that will go to city council next
month would be to allow for two
[14:03] additional concrete lanes of Kelly Lane
to be constructed
[14:08] while the two existing asphalt lanes
that are currently there would remain
[14:12] open uh and functional throughout the
construction phase. So ultimately
[14:17] meaning there would be four lanes of
vehicular traffic adjacent to this
[14:21] property. Uh and further furthermore the
applicant will uh request city council
[14:26] consider that the two adjacent segments
uh follow later. So I just wanted to be
[14:31] abundantly clear about the site plans
are on the agenda tonight. The
[14:34] development agreement that was approved
uh and the memorand of understanding
[14:39] that's still uh in consideration.
>> Let me make sure that I heard it
[14:44] correctly. They are asking to do it in
three sections. Is it still in three
[14:50] sections or is it down to two sections?
>> Three.
[14:52] » Three. Okay.
>> The first segment being the far south
[14:56] end adjacent to the proposed
developments that are on your agenda.
[15:02] Uh any development that occurs north of
the urgent care would prompt segment two
[15:07] which goes north of Thompson Drive
encompasses the intersection so there
[15:11] can be circulation through to Thompson
Drive and any any adjacent any
[15:16] development north of Thompson Drive
would trigger the third and final
[15:19] segment. So
if 7-Eleven comes a year ahead of urgent
[15:25] care, they still have to do the cement
through to past urgent care.
[15:33] » Yes, the there would be an obligation
that that segment that's shown in the
[15:38] red box that would extend up to the
north of the urgent care even if the
[15:44] urgent care were not to develop.
[15:49] That's proposal.
>> So question
[15:55] that's dealing with the current plaques
that we're looking at or the site plans
[15:59] we're looking at and then they wanted to
continue to build out the road as the
[16:05] land develops. Is there any kind of
assurance or any kind of plan as to how
[16:10] they develop the next part of that?
Because if they go back and they develop
[16:14] the the the end on the far north side
first, are they going to leave the gap
[16:18] in the middle? Are they going to
complete both sections at the same time?
[16:22] Or are they going to develop from south
to north in order? Because if they go in
[16:28] there and they develop towards the
towards section three, the far north end
[16:33] first and they don't do the whole road,
that's going to be a problem. Uh the
[16:37] memorandum of understanding does include
a term that says that that all that the
[16:42] roadway has to remain contiguous.
>> Okay.
[16:44] » And expressly goes on to state that if
you were to get a development at the far
[16:48] north end, it would trigger the
construction of the whole road.
[16:51] » That's that's what I was asking. Thank
you.
[16:54] Alex, you stated that the asphalt
current asphalt,
[16:59] » what about after? It would remain after
construction uh as as the two northbound
[17:04] lanes. Uh the two new concrete lanes
would remain as southbound lanes and it
[17:08] would remain there if and until property
adjacent to it developed or the county
[17:14] or
got funding or it was annexed into the
[17:18] city and the city had funding, but there
there would be no imminent plans that
[17:21] I'm aware of to improve the east lanes
at this time. Um, so how are you going
[17:29] to move
five? How how many feet is that? 300
[17:34] feet. So you're going to have
got 300 feet of new concrete.
[17:43] Let's say it's 300 feet.
Um, so you're going to have two
[17:48] northbound lanes of Kelly Lane for 300
ft. Then you're going to bottle it down
[17:54] to one lane. concrete goes away.
[18:00] » Much like on Lincoln Park.
>> Yeah, except you got a lot more traffic.
[18:06] » More traffic,
>> but that gives you a stick.
[18:09] » Okay, Alex, we're sorry to interrupt.
>> I just wanted to provide some context
[18:13] some to some of the discussions in terms
of what's on the agenda this evening.
[18:16] And again, those that that those items
were pertinent to this discussion. Uh
[18:20] the 7-Eleven does it's a 4,800 um square
foot convenience store, six fuel
[18:26] islands, 12 pumps uh with 36 parking
spaces. Uh jumping ahead to the next
[18:32] item on your agenda, just to to get it
out there, the the medical office or
[18:36] urgent care is an 8,500 square foot uh
facility with 43 parking spaces. And I
[18:42] will note too, I I guess it's shown on
the earlier exhibit, there is cross
[18:45] access uh that's that's required and
you'll see in staff recommendations
[18:50] later that uh we are recommending that
the 7-Eleven be uh approved amongst
[18:55] other things with the condition that
there is a sec that second point of
[18:59] access out to Henry Hines Expressway be
provided so that there are two points of
[19:03] access.
>> What about turning left off of Kelly
[19:05] Lane into those two office two
businesses?
[19:13] There would be two points of access, one
on the urgent care and another on Kelly.
[19:17] » So, so if I'm going north on Kelly Lane
and I want to turn into the 7-Eleven,
[19:23] how do I do that?
>> You can see there's a black asphalt
[19:26] transition um that would be provided to
allow for that left turn movement.
[19:34] » So, does this still include half a
median?
[19:38] » Not quite. It's about 4.5 ft and we've
discussed that. We will have to pick up
[19:42] the remainder of the median um with the
eastern lanes if once they're developed
[19:47] east side.
>> But we have there is the requirement for
[19:51] a curb on the
east side of the southbound lanes. That
[19:57] would effectively be the edge of the
future median
[20:02] » except for where the opening would come
across.
[20:03] » Oh, correct. Yes, sir.
>> I don't
[20:08] just I don't think one section is going
to be enough. I think it needs to be the
[20:12] whole.
>> Well, but that's not what we're here.
[20:16] » I know. I know. I know.
>> Has Alex finished his presentation?
[20:20] » Uh, yes, sir. I mean, with that, I do
have um slides at the end that have
[20:23] staff recommendations which are not too
dissimilar to the ones in our previous
[20:27] item, subject to engineering, subject to
other things, but we can get to that.
[20:30] Um, but those effectively uh conclude my
comments um with the construction of
[20:38] Kelly Lane. Uh, however, uh, the city
council sees fit to approve it in
[20:43] conjunction with the site plans as you
have before you. Uh, these site plans do
[20:47] meet the terms of the development
agreement. Uh, and so with that, I would
[20:50] conclude my comments. Gladly answer any
questions. Uh, you do have
[20:54] representation from the developer in
attendance. Uh, and should there be any
[20:58] further discussion, I've got additional
slides and aerials if the commission
[21:01] needs to see them.
>> I do want to ask so
[21:09] you're going to have
[21:15] they're going to put in a
construction equipment.
[21:25] And with Tinsley Meadow, we did have a a
routing plan for construction traffic. I
[21:29] will I will let the developer discuss
sequencing and and um circulation of
[21:34] construction traffic. I'm I'm just not
aware of what the intent is.
[21:37] » Okay.
>> One more question on the median. If they
[21:41] only have to put in four and a half feet
and it's scheduled for 17 feet, who's
[21:45] responsible for the rest of that?
>> The eastern adjacent property.
[21:49] » So, they're going to have to put up for
more than half the meeting.
[21:52] » Yes, sir. And and that's a that's a
great point. It's it's a function of the
[21:55] situation we're in. But yes, sir. And
we've just we have we've sort of started
[21:59] toiling in some of the details about
lighting and landscaping and other
[22:02] features like that that those are going
to be significant considerations that
[22:06] need to be made. But yes, sir.
[22:10] Okay.
Let's get the question that was asked
[22:13] over here by
representative the developer
[22:19] here.
Are they
[22:24] Okay, please state name and who you're
with.
[22:30] » Uh Tom Coppen with Kimley Horn and
Associates were representing the urgent
[22:34] care property.
>> Okay.
[22:35] » And Irwin GMA with Guggenheim
Development Services representing the
[22:38] developer for 7-Eleven.
>> Okay. And the question was asked which
[22:44] the development that was
north of this
[22:50] we required to put in the entrance to
uh that subdivision
[23:01] from the service road before
the development. and that that was
[23:08] clearly marked as a construction
entrance.
[23:14] Uh, and I would imagine that that's
going to be made as a recommendation
[23:19] tonight. Is that an issue?
>> That's acceptable. As you've seen out
[23:23] there over the last few months, uh,
there's been sewer infrastructure being
[23:27] put in the ground. Obviously, the
detention basin to the south has been
[23:31] constructed in preparation for these uh
these improvements and access for all of
[23:36] that work was off of the frontage road.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[23:41] Open up to commissioners for other
questions, comments.
[23:51] » All right, we have
staff making four recommendations.
[23:58] uh which are pretty standard. Approval
of civil engineering plans. Uh receipt
[24:04] review and approval of road plans for
Kelly. A second point of access for on
[24:11] 75 and approval of a plat subject to
property and adjacent detention pond
[24:16] including easement and rideway
dedication necessary for development.
[24:21] And a fifth one that would be added to
that in our motion, I would assume,
[24:27] would be that all the that it have a
clearly marked construction entrance off
[24:32] of 75
[24:36] with that. Would somebody like to make a
motion? move to recommend and we
[24:44] city council to approve with the staff
recommendations and the addition that we
[24:49] have a construction entrance to clearly
enabled and installed before they begin
[24:54] vertical construction.
>> Is there a second to that motion?
[24:58] » Second.
>> Okay, there's a second at the other end
[25:01] of the table. Is there any further
discussion?
[25:05] » Hearing none. All in favor signify by
saying I.
[25:08] » I.
>> Any opposed? All right.
[25:11] » Any abstain? Motion carries 410.
Uh and
[25:19] that is that on that one and we will
move on to item 4 C which is the same
[25:25] location in the
uh urgent care.
[25:31] And I think Alex, you've already said
what you want to say on that one.
[25:36] Correct.
And
[25:40] we would have the same four
recommendations from staff plus the one
[25:45] from
>> slightly different recommendations just
[25:47] based on the location. Okay, then let me
move down to
[25:59] So there would be a staff
recommendations of approval of the civil
[26:03] engineering receipt and reviewing of
road plans for Kelly and approval of
[26:09] plat subject uh property including
easement and rideway dedication
[26:14] necessary for the development and one
added by commission would be the
[26:21] uh construction entrance. Is there any
further discussion on this item?
[26:26] I'll entertain a motion uh that to
approve this with the three staff
[26:32] recommendations plus the recommendation
from commission that uh has construction
[26:39] entrance.
I recommend that we uh make a motion to
[26:44] approve or recommend the city council we
approve with the three staff
[26:49] recommendations.
[26:54] » Is there a second?
>> I'll second.
[26:58] » Okay, there's a motion and a second on
the floor. Is there any further
[27:01] discussion
hearing? None. All in favor signify by
[27:05] saying I. I
>> opposed. I
[27:08] » Any abstain? Motion carries 410.
Thank y'all. Appreciate it.
[27:15] » Appreciate it. Thank you.
>> Okay. And we're on to commission and
[27:21] staff comments. Alex,
[27:28] thank you chairman. I don't have many
comments uh to make this evening. Um it
[27:32] is the intention of uh city staff to
bring a draft of the comprehensive plan
[27:37] to the planning zoning commission
meeting at your at your next regularly
[27:41] scheduled meeting. Um so we will
continue to work on on that. Um
[27:49] otherwise I think that that pretty much
concludes any comments I may have.
[27:53] » Okay. I have a couple uh one audience
and commission and anybody in hearing
[28:00] distance. There is a meeting on March
9th at 12 noon that will be at the south
[28:07] campus that is text dot to talk about
uh our intersection. Do I need to define
[28:16] what I'm talking about by intersection?
[28:20] » Okay. And
I think we really need to have a good
[28:25] turnout. So invite your neighbors,
friends, puppy dogs. You can bring your
[28:29] lunch with you. Do whatever you can to
get there. There is also a link on the
[28:37] uh on the city's Facebook for a survey
that Tex dot is doing. Uh that is about
[28:45] bike trails. And so uh you might
uh
[28:50] » What time is it?
>> There's a presentation
[28:52] » noon.
>> That's at noon.
[28:54] » Noon.
>> Yes. And they say you can bring your
[28:57] sack lunch or whatever. Uh,
and
[29:04] let's see. Oh, and one other thing is,
uh, I talked to Alex about it and like
[29:11] to put it on public record that we start
adding to our agenda each month. Uh,
[29:18] some preliminary planning on our
overlays.
[29:22] uh getting ready for we don't want to
approve anything before our
[29:27] comprehensive plan is finished but we
can get a head start
[29:32] uh and with commission's approval
uh I'd like to direct uh our planning
[29:40] department to start that process to
where we put in 30 or 45 minutes at each
[29:44] meeting. Uh, and I think the thing to
start with is is downtown and work our
[29:51] way out for all the overlays that we
have. Is that agreeable to everybody?
[29:57] » Okay. I will now open it up to any other
commissioner for any closing comments.
[30:03] » Well, that was on that was at the South
Gring.
[30:06] » Yes.
[30:12] » Hearing none. I
>> you can in about two minutes.
[30:16] » Okay.
>> Uh at this time I will declare this
[30:21] meeting adjourned at 7 o'clock. That's
nice round timing.