Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I'd like to call the planning and zoning commission meeting to order. Roll call. Henkins here. Morrage here. Van Austin here. Vogle here. Halupnik here. McCann here. Okay. The next item is the approval of the agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as presented? A motion. Um it's been second. Um all those in favor say I. I. I. Same sign. I.

Okay. It's been properly motion. Motion carries. Um approval of planning and zoning m minutes. Um, do I hear an approval of the planning and zoning commission meeting minutes from January 19th, 2026? Motion to approve. I'll second. Okay. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. Post. Same sign. Motion carries. The next item is the West Street Bridge commercial amend preliminary plan. Um, do we have a report from the developer?

Good evening. Uh, my name is Daniel Sto with MLOR Engineering. I'm here to present on behalf of ATI uh project uh West Bridge commercial site plan and preliminary plot. The uh proposed building is a multi-tenant uh commercial building with associated drives, utilities, and underground detention. here to uh answer any questions that you may have.

Any questions from the board? Who's going to maintain that underground detainage? It will it will be uh it will be owned by um ATI. Okay. Okay. Is there a report from the city engineer?

Yeah. [clears throat] So, as as Daniel mentioned, um you're you've got two motions. I'll I'll focus on the amended preliminary plat first. Um so, the proposed subdivision exists at 1401 West Bridge Road directly across from Quickstar, North Bridge Road. It was an existing uh single family residential building. Um but this proposed commercial use is um compliant with the C2 zoning. Um the proposed split will result in three commercial lots. Um ATI realy has um proposed localized detention for each individual lot. Um because at this point in time they have they feel that they have a good idea of what the uses for the center building are going to be and a reasonable idea of what the southern property is going to be but that northern property is still up in the air. um so they did not want to overdetain and potentially impact the developability of that property. So each individual lot will be responsible for um detention. Um that is noted on the amended preliminary plat. Um those detention basins will be contained within a storm water management facility easement and covenant. Um basically stating that the each individual property owner is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of those facilities. they'll be subject to an annual inspection um through the detention bas or for the detention basins per city code um and then each lot can be kind of handle and develop those those detention basins um as they wish. Um this is an amended preliminary plan back in March of 2025. The original preliminary plan for this site was appro approved by the city council. Um, and the purpose of that original preliminary plan was to allow the developer to construct a more shovelready pad for the commercial property, removal of trees, removal of

several thousand yards of um, soil. Um, and then we had basically noted that any before any further development can occur that there were several um, requirements had to be met including addressing detention, access, traffic impact studies, things of that nature. the proposed amended preliminary plan address all of those. Um, as part of the review of this project, Snider and Associates as a city engineer uh completed a traffic impact study. Um, we found that the only recommendation at this time is that the city and citizens should monitor the operation of the Parker and West Bridge Road signal for any minor signal timing adjustments that may need to occur after this um building is completely built out. Um, this amended preliminary plan does include a requirement that if a proposed use is applied for via the building permit stage or a site plan approval that does not comply with the assumed uses in the traffic impact study, the city engineer remains the right to evaluate those uses and re-evaluate the traffic impact study and the results thereof that study. Um staff approve or recommends approval of the West Bridge Road commercial amended preliminary plat subject to the following any comments that the commission may have. Um specifically approval of a development or a deferral a trail deferral agreement that defines the schedule for the construction of the Pulk City Junction Trail phase 6 project. Um the explanation on that is ATI realy has proposed to the city staff that um phase six of the Pulk City Junction Trail, which is the trail that runs along the frontage of Bridge Road, be deferred until such time that um lot three, which is the southernmost lot,

develops, citing concerns of trail reconstruction as well as um potential dangers that could occur with that trail being used directly adjacent to a site construction site. Um staff is currently working through [snorts] those um with those exact details, but we would welcome any comments, questions, or feedback that the commission has as we continue to finalize that deferral agreement. Um the recommendation is also subject to payment of the Parker Boulevard construction assessment prior to the approval of final plat. Um all proposed uses again being evaluated and approved in general [clears throat] performance of the traffic impact study prior to a certificate of occupancy just gives us the right um to go back and reevaluate that traffic impact study and then payment in full of all fees and professional buildings. Be happy to answer any questions. Um we can we'll dig we'll dive a little bit deeper into the site plan on that next agenda item, but wanted to focus specifically on the amended criminal at this stage. when it comes to the deferral of the the trail construction. Um how much time are we talking about here?

So that's one of the details we're working through right now. Um the city would prefer having some sort of um notice protocol where if the rest of the Pulk City Junction Trail is completed, we notify the developer and they're responsible for constructing that within a certain period of time. Um we just got marked up versions back from the city attorney this morning. So we've not gotten that over to the developer yet, but that's kind of what we're thinking. Um, is there any specific concerns that the commission has about that approach or is there a time period you would want to see, anything like that? Um, with the understanding that the city does intend to have the Pulk City Junction Trail at least substantially complete to its corporate boundaries by the end of the 2026 construction. My only concern would be if

the that was it plot three is it the southern one? I mean is that going are we thinking that's something that will happen within a year? Is it within 5 years? What I mean what's the we don't know the exact timeline but I can't guarantee that's probably not going to be more than 5 years. So that's we're still working through uh trying to find someone to come in and develop that area. I mean, one of the goals of the trail is to connect to the Neil Smith Trail, and that's a major part right there. So, delaying it, I don't think, is is not really matching up with the plans of what the bike trail was. Ron, did you have something? Uh yes, I did. Uh just want to express my concern uh regarding any deferment of the trail. Uh first of all, I think we have from a historical perspective, I think we have likely issued more deferrals on sidewalks and trails than we probably should and on occasion that has come back to haunt us. Uh also when we uh are talking to developers uh and not this particular developer but developers in other areas of the city, we commonly will you know get phased approaches to development where you know phase one is this year, phase two is next year and phase you know three and so on and so on and 10 years later you know phase two hasn't happened yet. And so we have to be very wary of that uh that uh in my opinion this is a very key piece of uh trail infrastructure for our city. Uh

essentially what we have now from the west is a dead end uh you know that uh does connect to the Neil Smith trail and dead ends there on Parker Boulevard. And then uh from a wreck trail perspective uh a piece of trail that is captive or dead ends on both ends uh further uh upbridge road. And so this piece is key to let not only outoftowners using the bike trail being able to access uh you know Poke City's fine uh commercial citizens uh you know further uh east on the trail but also Poke City uh citizens that live on the west side being able to also you know get to restaurants, subway uh banking and other types of things. Uh and also a a concern I need to express as things I have witnessed there. Uh unsafe acts that I have seen uh bikers and pedestrians do to try to get around this missing trail section now. And uh so I mean if there's concerns about uh you know future construction and how that might impact the safety of trail users, well that can be accomplished with signage and and fences, but we are currently experiencing some unsafe acts as well by the act of the trail uh missing. And I would think if we would try to tie this to completion or substantial completion of the uh of the connector trail from uh from High Truck Pessle to Neil Smith. Uh I would like to see that wording uh be such that the trigger started so that

this trail would need to be completed at the time that trail was completed or projected to be completed, not that we issue a notice to them to start construction at the time the rest of the trails are completed. And if we're currently looking at a date of late 26 for completion of those other trails, as I look at it, that notice should be issued now. And so why are we even looking at a deferral if the issue if the notice needs to be issued now? With that in mind, the commission could move to approve the site plan, making modifications to the trail deferral agreement, either noting that it should be constructed by the end of 2026 in accordance with the city's current plans for the remainder of the trail. You could omit that subject to and say that the commission does not recommend deferral. Um or you could recommend it as stated in the memo. Um it the opportunity that you have is you can make those modifications and then we can reflect those in our correspondence between the city's city attorney and the developers in or the developers attorney as well.

When you say we can elect to get rid of the deferral then when would the trail be required to be done? So the way that it is noted right now on the um amended preliminary plan is that it would be constructed as part of the first site plan contained within the preliminary plan. So it would be part of and both documents are set up that if the deferral of agreement agreement doesn't happen, they're they're in the documents you're considering today. So if you were to omit that recommendation, you would basically be saying that that would be triggered as part of the first site plan construction within this plan.

And do we have a timing on the first project? If you approve it tonight, they've indicated to us they're ready to rock and roll. So

I think it'd be in the city's best interest to get that trail done as soon as possible. So, I be leaning more towards uh not approving the the deferral. If I may, I'm Maxeller with McCclair Engineering. Um, before we proceed with that, um, without disclosing anything I shouldn't, um, I believe the intent was that if lot three were to have interested parties, it would then be, um, constructed with lot three and avoiding damage to the trail without um with the construction of lot three. And I don't again back to the statement that the staff is concerned about right now it it is when is that when is lot 3 going to be constructed and I feel like you know with coordination with the staff maybe and with ATI itself we could determine when lot 3's construction would be better better determined without I guess I'm just trying to say I don't want to disclose anything I'm not supposed to. So, um, guidance may be better determined with staff and, uh, the city engineer on that deferment statement. Again, I know you mentioned uh that legal consult had been received this morning. [clears throat] So, um, I guess I I'm not dismissing the council's concern. And I'm just maybe guiding it to where lot 3's construction could be soon sooner rather than later. So, I think if you guys would make a recommendation based on when you want to see it done,

I think that would give staff enough steering by which to work through that any [clears throat] deferral agreement that would occur. Um, knowing full well that the remainder of the Pulk City Junction Trail is not going to be constructed until at least summer of this year. So, if you guys were comfortable with it being the end of 26, maybe that's the best route to go. That gives the staff the guidance to be able to work through that deferral agreement. Um, and if we don't need it, we don't need it, you know. Um, but I would welcome whatever recommendation the commission takes and we would use utilize that as direction to try and work through that one particular item. Yeah, this is Ron and uh end of 26 is something that I believe I could live with.

Yeah, I think that would be a good recommendation and and still be a positive vote on this. Yeah, in line with the the remainder of the trail for the city.

I I agree. I don't think we should tie it to that lot three, but tie it to more when [clears throat] the when we expect the trail to be finished, the rest of the trail to be finished. Because I think right now what I would probably set it up as is so right the draft that I have to be sent basically says it's with lot three or once the city provides notice I think what I would probably do is I would probably modify that not that notice statement to be with lot three or constructed and accepted by the end of 2026 whichever comes first. And I think that would give us the opportunity then to be able to leverage, you know, if if those conversations go well, lot 3 gets under construction and gets built this year, it's a moot point. You know, if it doesn't, then we go back to ATI and say, "Hey, it it fell through. This is your responsibility." I I think that that's kind of where my head goes. If that's the recommendation of the commission.

Yeah, I think I think I like that to align with that. hearing lot three is could be in in line and and get built, but things fall through all the time. So, I think that would protect the city's best interest also. So, if that's the path you want to go, I don't know, Ron, if you're comfortable making that recommendation because you always make the more complex ones, but basically, you would recommend approval and then modifying item two to reflect what the commission would like to. Quick question. When you say the end of 2026, does that mean like the end of December or the end of construction season or what does that mean?

We typically tie it to December 31st and then just they got to figure out how to get it done. Is that is that what the estimated date is right now for the trail or is the trail estimated for something end of a end of a certain month or what is that?

Right. Right now the latest one is also the biggest question mark. So phase four, five in the trail head. So the chunk that goes from Kuanas Park goes through town and then ties in at Home State Bank. It's in the March DOT letting and it has a construction period of 90 working days. What that basically means is that's 90 Monday through Fridays where it's not rained that day or rained enough recently that it's unworkable. So everything else is tied to early to midfall is going to be done. Um the roundabout project will be completely done or the completion date is uh November 16th of 2026. So I think by setting it to be the end of calendar year 2026, I think it's it allows the developer to be flexible in how they get it done on their schedule. And I don't think at most it would be a month where you've got that gap if they push it right to that very last day. But we all know how risky that is once you get past Thanksg. So Travis uh refresh me on what you had said regarding uh the the whichever came first. Was it construction commencing on lot three or is it the issuance of a construction permit? What would you look at look at for a motion as a point in time when that would be uh triggered? So I think the way that I would phrase it would be commencement of construction of lot three or construction completed and accept or

I think com I think you do completion of the trail by end of calendar year 26 and then it's just a matter of which party is responsible. So if a if a lot if a site plan for lot three has been approved, they're responsible for it being completed by the end of the calendar year. If it has not been, then the uh then the owner of the property will be responsible for Okay. So there's really no reason to reference slot three in the motion as I'm hearing that. I think I would like you to. Okay.

Because then we have that that two-fold completion criteria that allows us to work with the developer to establish that that agreement to complete or the development agreement. Okay.

Are we ready for a motion? Do we have any public comment? No. Okay. Uh the chair will entertain a motion regarding a recommendation to city council on the emitted preliminary plat. Uh before I would start on trying to make a motion, uh are you able to hear me? Okay. Yes. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, I would like to make a motion uh that we recommend to council uh their approval of the amended preliminary plat review for West Bridge Road commercial preliminary plat and site plan uh subject to city staff and engineers comments dated February 26th uh with the exception of recommendation number two referring to a trail deferral agreement. And uh that trail deferral agreement which is currently being written should reference uh that the trail wreck trail across the south end of this property and lot three more specifically should be completed uh with the com commencement of construction of lot 3 or uh 2026 year end whichever occurs sooner. I'll second.

Second. Second. Roll call. I have Morazz. Second. [laughter] We all Morazz. Uh, yes. Dan Alstein. Yes. Bogle. Halupnik. Yes. McCann. Yes. Henkins. Yes. Thank you. Motion carries. Uh, the next item is the approval of the West Bridge Road commercial lot 2 site plan. Um, do I have a report from the developer?

Uh, again, Max Eller McClure representing the uh site plan on this and very similar description to the prelim plat. It's uh this is focusing on lot two which has the uh commercial tenant building space with associated improvement site improvements. So, I'm here to answer any questions in related to just lot two. uh city engineer report.

Yep. So, as Max alluded to, this is the site plan for that middle parcel um that would be created as part of the uh West Bridge Road amended preliminary plat. Um one item of note is when you review my memo for this site plan, I knew it was going to happen somewhere. In the second paragraph, I got lots one and three mixed up. So, in the second paragraph, flip those. Um this lot three is the southern one, lot one's the north. Um the proposed site plan includes five tenant spaces ranging from 83 or totaling 8350 square ft. Um as of right now, I've listed the proposed uses. Um ATI has made clear that those are perspective based on current conversations. As we kind of mentioned at the amended preliminary plat discussion, um a TI a traffic impact study was created as part of and conducted as part of this approval process and the site plan as well as the prelim preliminary flat and inevitably the final flat will all note that any uses will have to be double checked against the traffic impact study. Anything with lesser demand is allowed as a blanket statement. Anything more so than was noted in that traffic impact study will have to be evaluated. Um the proposed structure is a mixture of black brick, red brick, matte black, fiber cement board and matte sighting. Um as well as some architect or some accent aluminum um all painted black. the uh the proposed materials as well as the proposed proportions adhere to the Pulp City architectural design standards with that um western facade facing the Parker Boulevard rightway at 60% brick or acceptable alternatives with all other sides exceeding 50%. Uh the monuments signed and trash enclosure have been included in the site plan middle and they are being architecturally coordinated with the primary structure in accordance with folks city code. As

we mentioned at the amended preliminary plat stage um privately maintained underground detention basin is being constructed as part of this site plan. Um that is going to be contained within a storm water management facility easement and covenant. It will require uh annual uh inspection by a licensed engineer to submittal to the city for their records and then remedy actions should they be needed. Uh landscape and planting materials will be required as part of the site plan to meet the city pul city's open space parking area and headlight screening requirements. Um this site plan also includes parkway trees along Parker Boulevard in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Um the site plan because it directly adjoins um this particular because it directly adjoins the C zoning district on all four sides does not require any buffer plantings. Lot one to the north will require buffer plantings and that buffer easement will be established as part of the final plan. Um, we re staff recommends approval or recommends the PNZ recommend approval for the West Bridge Road commercial lot 2 site plan and storm water management plan. Subject to any comments or concerns that you have being addressed prior to this going to city council. approval and recording of the final plat including all necessary supporting documents and easements prior to a building permit being issued for this property by the building official and then all proposed uses including those in the future being evaluated and approved in general in conformance with that TIS as we've discussed um extensively and then payment in full of all fees and professional buildings. be happy to answer any questions that you may have, but generally speaking, uh, this site plan is in general conformance with P City Municipal Code.

Uh, so this is, uh, Ron and I just have a couple of, uh, comments and questions. Uh first comment is I'm I'm just thrilled to see this property get developed and uh really like the proposal that's been put in front of us tonight and just you know it's going to be a great addition to our community. Uh, and also sometimes it's the little things that get me. And I wanted to point out and thank you for having sidewalk access from the sidewalk on the west into the property without forcing uh pedestrians to walk in on the driveway uh in order to get to the the building site. And just to plant the seed, I hope that also rings true on lot three where I'm hoping to see uh bike trail access into at least the parking lot uh for lot three off of the wreck trail uh so that those users can get into this entire development and hopefully incorporate a bike uh rack with that as well. Uh just one question I did have uh regarding the development of all three lots is this uh lot two uh does show just using the one access point uh for the five proposed uh units in this one building. And u my question focuses around you know how the rest of the lots are developed. uh you know the I think the developer is confident that lot three will develop before lot one. Uh however you know things change and folks city has certainly seen that in other areas with other developers. And so my question is uh is if lot one would develop before

uh lot three uh does the city have a way to force a second access the access further south to be built? Uh if indeed it deems that the both buildings in lot uh one and two would generate more traffic than that one access could allow. So the mechanism by which we would be able to address that issue would be fire marshall access and fire chief access. Um she would have the ability to question the function and the accessibility as well as the amount of users that would be generating a need. um that would likely fall under um the equivalence of 30 single family users operating off of a single access point which bolt city code does not allow. Um, one thing that is worth noting that I didn't mention that as Ron was talking, I thought about, um, as part of this fi as part of the final plat that's associated with the amended preliminary plat, an ingress egress easement is going to be established for both access locations as well as what we call the loop through lot 2, allowing access for all three properties to use that. That ingress egress easement will then be extended once the interconnected parking lot drive is extended to the east to connect to the lakeside fellowship parking lot and then any necessary overlap that occurs on lot one would also be um included in that ingress egress easement. So I guess Ron to answer your question it's emergency vehicle access is our mechanism by which to determine if that needs to happen. Okay.

How many parking spots are there in lot two? Off the top of my head, okay, 55 is what I've been told. So, and as Travis suggested that that was just a combination of uh using what we can assume as the high highest um traffic rate uh per uh spot per square footage assuming users what we can what we know now and and just trying to generate as many stalls as we could. So we didn't trigger another uh change

and that will be another thing that's reviewed as part of that TIS update as well. Okay, perfect.

They've shown for the middle three tenant spaces. They are high volume as P as defined by P city code and then the outer so the northern and southern tenant spaces are more specifically defined. And what I will tell you is those two spaces they used higher generation than what our high traffic volume generator is. So I think it is very it should be very conservative outside of a handful of uses. There's no more comment. Is there any public comment? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion to recommend action to the city council on the site plan. Uh, I'll go ahead and make a motion uh that we recommend to council their approval of the site plan review for West Bridge Road commercial lot number two, subject to staff and engineers comments uh dated February 12th, 2026, including all review comments and recommendations.

Is there a second? I'll second. Roll call. Halupnik, yes. Macan, yes. Henkins, yes. Morazz, yes. Vanolstein, yes. Vogle, abstain. Thank you. Motion carries. Uh, the next item is reports and particulars. Anything from council liaison? Oh, city manager. I don't have anything. Thank you, staff. Anyone on the commission?

Okay. Is there any further business to come before the commission? Would anyone like to make a motion to adjurnn? A motion to adjourn. A second. Perfect. All in favor? I I [clears throat] planning and zoting commission meeting has been adjourned. And thank you folks.

Good [laughter] job. 12 years ago there. [snorts] Good job. [snorts] Yes.