Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

County, Kurville, all that area with the flooding. Lord, just watch over those families. Comfort those families uh and uh workers as they begin to rebuild that area. Guide us in all we do and say and thank you for your blessings. Amen. Amen. Please I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please be seated. Okay, get your head on straight. Are there any public comments? If so, please limit your comments to three minutes. None. On the consent agenda is the approval of item number four. If there are no objections, I will entertain a motion. A motion has been made by Commissioner Morales and a second by Commissioner Barney to approve items four on the consent agenda. John, can we have a vote? Commissioner Morales. Hi. Commissioner Walker. Hi. Commissioner Jerasic. Hi. Commissioner Rhodess. Hi. Commissioner Carney. Hi, Commissioner Prager. Hi, Commissioner Longino. Hi, Chair Cross. I vote is unanimous. The vote motion carries. We'll proceed on to item number five, which is FY-25-20-Z. hold a public hearing to discuss and recommend action on a resoning request

and a binding site plan agreement from agricultural to plan development general retail on 8.73 plus or minus acres located in the city of Temple Bell County, Texas addressed as 11717 and 11535 West Adams Avenue. The case will be presented by principal planner Jason Degman. Good evening, chair, commissioners. I'll take the opportunity to welcome uh Mr. Pittz and Mr. uh BJ Little representing the applicant, the engineer for Turley and for Armpits Holdings, which sorry, that's just a great name. You and Lee Armstrong. Got it. One supervised for one day. Your wives didn't approve of that one. And then the other thing on this slide is the city council uh schedule for August 7th and August 21st for first and second reading. So as we show on the address and John if I could get the focus on the PowerPoint please there we go. Um with the address it is out on West Adams. Uh it's just east of the the big intersection of 2271 Morgan Point Road and 2305. And you can see on the aerial that it is not developed at this point that there is residential uh Lakewood neighborhood to the east. And then there's commercial property. There's a real estate office and a liquor store. And there's a a doughnut store going in on the other parcel right next door to on on the western corner there. So, we've got some site photos showing that commercial development both across the street and to the west that there's some residential neighborhood nearby. And then the top left is right along the front edge of the property just showing that that dense foliage. So, this is a planned development for

general retail on 8.73 acres. Uh, as I showed you on the photos, the surrounding area is a mix of residential, commercial, offices. There's a big gas station, convenience store on the opposite corner, Morgan's Point Road, and this would be some type of business park, although no specific tenants have been identified yet. It would be any uses that would be allowed in general retail. They are recognizing that proximity to the residential to the east. They're providing a 20ft landscape buffer with their calling on the site plan, a vegetated barrier. Um, and indicated that they're going to leave those trees there. That's that that was a issue with a recent case. Um those trees are not going anywhere and then any that do need to come down during construction then there would be replantings that would be required that they're showing on exhibit B on that drawing to the bottom that the buildings whatever use it may be that the height of the building is going to be limited to a singlestory height where it's adjacent to those homes next to that residential buffer. So you don't have a two-story dwelling or other type of office looming over the homes to the east. As I mentioned in workshop just found out that um Texot is going to require the TIA. So that's going to drive specifically where that entrance if they get one or if they get more than one uh and whether or not any other improvements or mitigations like a del lane may be necessary. One of the things we we are not requiring, but it was part of the discussion and I did have a very good uh conversation with with Lee Armstrong about trying to implement some of the access management recommendations that came out of a mobility plan for stuff like this where you may only have one entrance onto a main arterial. Is there an option to have shared access with properties on either side? Uh in this

case, it's not prohibited. We're not mandating it at this point. uh during the conversation that there may be an opportunity to do something with the south. It's going to depend on we can't mandate that owner give access but to have the conversation to see the value in it but recognize that it's also going to be highly dependent on the uses that would be developed on this property but also the property to the south. It may not be a great idea to have cross access if those uses start to really draw a lot of cut through traffic. So we don't want to bring in a solution where the cure is worse than the disease. But just to continue having that conversation as this goes through uh site plan review and the subdivision plat that is there something can be done is it the right answer in this location let's keep having the conversation and just not discard it at this point. So we like I said Lee and I did have a great conversation about what could be done and in the logic of having good access management policies. Uh as I mentioned those are both major roads. So you see on the thoroughfare plan map that West Adams is a major arterial. 2271 is a minor arterial heading south across the dam. This area is split by two usage areas from the comp plan. To the east next to Lakewood it's residential neighborhood service. To the west, it's the corridor mixed use. There is a condition that says while the uses will follow general retail, restaurants may not be appropriate next to the homes, but that's also why they're showing that vegetated buffer and that one-story height to recognize that transition of uses and intensity across this PD is going to shift as you get closer to those homes. There's plenty of utilities, water and sewer out here. There there's a force main and a sewer gravity sewer line that runs across the western property and 12-in water line that runs across the top. There's existing fire hydrants and

we talked about this with DRC. Depending on the uses, depending on how it gets divided up, there may be a need for an additional hydrant further in the future. Uh it's not something that needs to be mandated now, just evaluated at the time when they're starting to construct. So this is one of the busier intersections in this part of Temple. Although I would say that the most of the traffic goes to the south 2271 and then east along Adams going back towards 317. It does drop off a bit going towards the lake. But the current volume on the nearest county station we have is closer to 317 was 14,000. And on the crash analysis, you know, the majority of crashes are at the intersection. Most of those were left turn crashes, failure to yield or speeding. Uh there was one that was a fatality over there by Richland Drive and it happened at midnight, single vehicle crash and the factors on that it was DUI and they said there may have been some driver in attention that they they just departed the roadway. As far as the future traffic that could be generated from this, a lot of educated guesswork of what uses might fit based on what the applicant has said. They want to have this be some type of business park. They've made inquiries about restaurants if they could, you know, is a conditional use permit. Could that be something that could be pursued in the future? Uh but until it is just some guesswork of what the traffic could be uh probably between 600 to 1500 trips per day. Um highly dependent you know if it's if it's a higher traffic restaurant on the left hand on the western side that number may be higher. If it ends up being just more offices maybe it's a vet clinic and a lot of real estate law offices. It's probably going to be a lower traffic and we just won't know until they get tenants on

board. And that goes back to the the TIA that's going to be required too. That that TIA should probably uh ask them to give some high and low estimates of the traffic that they think might go in there. Uh and that's going to drive what mitigations may be needed at that entrance. So that will be done by a certified actual licensed traffic engineer, not some overeducated planner like myself standing here at the podium. So we did send out 24 notices. Um, we did receive two notices back. I guess my changes have been I I just updated this. We did get one response in disagreement. That response has been uh provided to you uh from a resident on the uh east side in Lakewood that you know as opposed to losing the what they see as the residential character of that neighborhood. Um it is compliant with the both the zoning evaluation and the some of the criteria out of UDC 3.4 for plan developments. Um and staff recommends approval of the resoning from a to plan development general retail with a binding site development plan subject to the following conditions. So the site plan is shown as binding. That includes that 20 foot vegetated buffer uh and the exhibit B that shows the slope of the building being limited to a single story that the uses will generally follow general retail. But yes, restaurant uses would not be permitted adjacent to homes. You just don't want to have the noise or the smell of the restaurant or the dumpsters or the, you know, the cooking hood. that's just not going to be compatible with the neighborhood. They will have to go through the subdivision plat process. We'll have them drop a ordinance number on the plat notes. Because Adams is a major arterial, sixoot sidewalk will be required once they move to construction. Any lighting

fixture should be designed to be faced downward and shielded to min minimize that glare. and then minor variations could be approved by the director and significant modifications would come back to to this commission and city council for approval. And I'll take any questions you may have. Uh I'm going to be a no on this one because this is what I said on the last time we were talking about this intersection. When I look at the map, that curve where it curves, so that left turn lane when people are on Adams making a left to go over the dam, that backs up for like a good mile and it's it's backed up like well around the curb like like where the tree line is where you get to Lakewood that is just cars waiting to turn left. And so if you have like a plaza here and so you've got all these cars in the left turn lane and then you've got cars that are coming, you know, going west and need to make a left into the plaza, they're just going to hold up traffic. I don't disagree. That was part of my impetus for having the conversation about the access management. Is there could you have an escape valve through the properties to the west or the south? So like through the liquor store, like have it connect to that cuz the parking lot's tiny. There's like no way you can divert traffic. Well, as I said, we're not mandating which one it could be. Um, but just for them to look into and see what's feasible and what makes sense. Yeah. So, yeah, I don't disagree with with your position. Okay. Well, that's my point. So, I'm going to be on this one, Jason. Show the property of the south where that is more likely or more I shouldn't say more likely, but where they're building I don't think they're building out. So, they're building the the doughnut shop and I think there's a couple small offices that's on this plot. And right now, nothing's going on on this larger property to the south. Okay. So, instead of a route on Adams, maybe you have a route on Morgan's Point Road. Is that what you're suggesting? No, Morgan. So, Morgan Point Road is to the north. Sorry. 20. Yeah. 2271. Yeah.

I know. I'm I'm being I'm being pedantic. You're saying a proper possibly entrance or exit at the back from to 2271. What it comes down to, and I want to be clear, we're not mandating this is I'm I don't want this to become a high-speed cut through for people that don't want to wait at the light. Don't be impatient. Just wait at the light. You'll get there. You'll be fine. Um, but you might could design the parking lot in such a way that is it possible if there's an emergency and that road is blocked and someone needs to get out or a first responder needs to come in on the backside, then the option's there. But the parking lot's designed in such a way that it's just not convenient. It doesn't save you any time. Um, but until they have tenants there, I'm not going to design their project for them. So there's there's possibilities here. Yeah. Is is what I think is is that's probably the best way I can put it. There's there's a possibility to do something here, right? To kind of alleviate the traffic. No, I hear you. Um but no, I just don't think putting something there is a good idea. Like there 48 crashes in five years is a lot, guys. Like let's not add to it. But that's my opinion. Jason, would it be appropriate to just explain the basic TIA process in terms of what Tex dot is going to look at and of course BJ? Sure. And the engineer for the project could give more specific information, but in terms of Tex's going to evaluate. Yeah. No, I'm glad to hear that you guys going to do that. Yeah. and they're going to look at, you know, kind of a high to low estimate of what's going to go in there, how much traffic it's going to generate, what's the existing traffic on Adams, project that out a number of years, and and figure out what's the increase look like. Um, factoring in the increase with the town homes that are going in Kitty Corner to that intersection.

No town homes. There are no town homes that got that got shot down. Well, they're so they're single stores, so we don't call them the town home anymore or they're not all commercial. That all got scrapped. Okay. Thank you for correcting me on that point. Yeah. you know, they'll look at the, like you said, that left turn. And there's a reason when I go home, I typically try not to go down Adams. I'll go up through Morgan's Point and come straight down so that I'm not stuck in that left turn. Um, but they'll the traffic impact analysis will look at the volume of straight through traffic, right turn, left turns. Um, and then they'll look at the site distance as you come off of 2271 going east. Where's the nearest driveways on either side? Can they fit the spacing in between? And then whether or not needs other mitigation or if there's just a sight distance issue that with the road curve, you can't see that entrance from the next entrance. So, um, BJ, anything that I may be missing here? That's kind of a high level. Yeah. Um BJ Little 301 North Street in Temple. So um just like Jason said, I mean that's exactly what they're going to do. They're going to evaluate what the existing traffic is. You know, we did look at the possibility of connecting. The problem is we we don't know if the guys of the south want that. Um just like Jason said, we don't want a cut through, but keep in mind also, I mean, this is zoning. We look at those things at the platting stage. We we look at connectivity, how we're going to run through that. The TIA is going to tell us a ton of information about the amount of traffic this is going to generate, what West Adams looks like, but also this is a major arterial. I mean, classification wise, that's as big as the roadways get. So, if you're going to put something with a general retail use, this is the type of road you put it on.

I I completely get that during peak hours, so first thing in the morning, right after work at the end of the day, there's going to be a lot of traffic here. That's going to be backed up. All other times during the day, there is heavy traffic, but you're not going to get that backed up cars all the way around that corner. Um I visit that intersection quite often, too. So, I I recognize that. But for sure, we're going to have an entrance. We're hoping to get two out of this to to help with that. um we didn't want to commit to having access to the south at this time because again we don't know what the TIA is going to say and we don't know what our site plan's going to look like. So leaving flexibility there with that we want to be able to just look at it as our own site plan look at our connection on to Adams from here and then evaluate a cross access through the south uh at the planning stage. So, while I'm here, any other questions on the site? We can talk through anything if anyone has any other questions? I know that there were I mean there were questions about the neighbors to the east. You know, u the developers are very uh conscientious about that back there. So, that area, you know, we didn't go in. We haven't started removing trees. We haven't touched it yet. That east side, that buffer, the intents to not even go in there. Don't build anything. Drainage is running through the middle of this property. water and sewer or not on that back line. So, unless there's a dead tree that's hanging over a fence that we need to contend with or something, you know, the plan's to not mess with that 20 ft. Leave it alone. Only have retail backed up to it. So, no uh restaurants or anything. Uh single story, so you're not going to have someone looking over their fence into their backyard. So, try to try to have a minimum impact. And this is, and I know you brought it up, it's very similar to what was approved by council just kind of northwest of here, you know, west of Commonwealth, but smaller in size. This is a smaller site than what that one was. Um, but very very similar use. And then if you go down the road, Lake uh Lakewood Professional Park, it's is similar in that too. I think the intent the

majority of this would be office type use. So, yeah. And as you said, it's it's zoning requests right now anyway until you get to TIA. Yeah, there's there's lots of I mean there's lots of engineering that goes into this after we get our zoning because if if you know if you don't get the zoning you're looking for there's no point in spending a bunch of money and time on something that you're not sure what that end goal is. So thank you. Thank you commissioners. There any further questions? This case requires a public hearing. We will now open the public hearing. If you wish to speak and are attending in person, please come to the podium. If you are viewing the meeting online, please virtually raise your hand. Provide your full name and city of residence for the record. Limit comments to three minutes. We will have a timer on the screen for your reference. No hands raised online. Seeing none, we will now close the public hearing. If there are no more questions or comments, I will entertain a motion. Make a motion to approve item FY-25-20 ZC as as presented. Second. Motion has been made by Commissioner Carney and a second by Commissioner Rhodess to recommend approval of item 5 FY-25-20-ZC per staff recommendation. John, may we have a vote? Commissioner Morales. Hi. Commissioner Walker. I Commissioner Geras. Hi, Commissioner Rhodess. Hi, Commissioner Carney. I Commissioner Prager. A, Commissioner Longino. Hi, Chair Cross. I vote seven eyes, one nay, no abstains. Motion carries.

We'll move on to item number six, FY-25-2- SIT. Discuss and recommend action on an amendment to the site development plan on approximately 7.903 plus or minus acres in the city of Temple, Bell County, Texas, addressed as 7955 Hogan Road. The case will be presented by principal planner Cheryl Maxwell. Okay. Thank you, Chair Kray. Um, this item is scheduled to go to the city council for final action on August the 7th. And this shows the location of the property. This is on the south side of Hogan Road, uh, just east of South Pidge Road. Um, the other exhibit is an aerial view. The property is currently undeveloped. Um, there's residential subdivisions to the north side and then also on the south side. There's a little strip on the south side of the property, looks kind of like a a road that's actually a city rideway. Um, and then this area on the west side is also city-owned property. It's for the It's where the Hogpin Creek runs through there. It's um um a drainage area for that creek. Um as well as a proposed trail is um planned in that area. So this shows the zoning of the property. The property is uh zone PD office 2. Um the surrounding residential areas are shown in the yellow color. That's single family zoning. And again, those strips of city-owned property that that rideway and the drainage area that's um uh shown in green, that's all zone agricultural district. This property was originally zoned to the PDO2 in 2004. Um that PD was amended in 2023 for proposed apartment complex. One of the conditions of that uh PD in 2023 was site plan approval if there's significant changes um for that to be basically be brought back to the planning commission, the city council. So the property has sold. that's now proposed for worship facility and classrooms which is a significant change. Uh which is why you're the the

site plan is being brought before you today. Do want to point out that screening and buffering is required adjacent to a or residential zoning districts or use. So that would apply on the the east side and then also the south side uh and technically on the west side. There's a PD condition waving this requirement along the west side again because this is a city-owned property and it's a large uh drainage area. So this is the site plan. Um the property is just under 8 acres. They're developing almost half of it. Uh 3.7 acres. It includes uh the main building which will be the worship facility and classrooms about 18,000 square ft. There's also a storage building and a pavilion um on the west side of the parking lot and about 284 parking spaces. So they're meeting the parking requirement. And then they have an on off-site on-site detention pond proposed here in the corner. Um and this is um in the corner of the slide. This is a rendering of of the church facility. So the landscape plan has been provided. Um technically 5% is required to be landscaped. They're landscaping 55% of the total area. Um a large part of that will be based here on the western portion. But you can see along the frontage they've got several trees. Along the rear side they've got several trees. There's also um uh landscape parking islands with trees on the east side um there where the screening is required adjacent to the single family zoning is a a 6ft solid hedge will provide the screening and then on the south side again there's trees and also a 6ft solid wood fence will be provided. Um Hogan Road is a community collector. Uh this is on the city's thoroughfare plan. It's also part of a CIP project uh for the South P Ridge Road um project. This this portion of Hogan Road would be widened to three uh 12 foot wide lanes with storm sewer and a six foot wide sidewalk on both sides. And internally, the applicant is providing um sidewalks

5 1/2 ft wide that will tie into the Hogan Road sidewalks. And this uh M trails master plan also shows a proposed greenway trail along Hog Hogin Creek. With regard to water and sewer, water is available uh via 18inch water line along along the south side of the property. Um the fire code does require that five hydrant fire hydrants be provided along an improved surface. So in this case um hydrants will be required along um adjacent to Hogan Road and that will be addressed with the subdivision plat. Sewer is available via 24inch sewer line along the Hogapin Creek um area and staff does recommend approval uh subject to the following conditions. Um conditions in the 2004 ordinance remain in effect. Compliance with the development site plan, landscape plan and building render renderings. Uh major changes would require review and approval by the planning commission and city council. Uh fencing and screening as required per the UDC except not required along that west property line adjacent to the city property. A subdivision plat is required in compliance with the fire code. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Where would the entrance be on this location? Did I miss that? Um there's entrances. Two of them or one? Right. Uh if I can point there, uh right there there is one and then the other one is right here. uh closing to the corner of the property. Okay. And did you say there was something about um that's part of the South P Ridge? Is is that road gonna expand eventually even more? Well, there's um there's a CIP project. Let me go to that slide. Um it basically is called the South Pidge Road project. It includes um this portion of South Pidge Road which has already been widened, expanded. Um, and then this segment of Hogan Road and then a little bit further to the east, P Ridge picks up again on the south side of Hogan Road. So that's the that part

hasn't been widened yet. Okay. Just to clarify, in this section, we do have all the right of way that's necessary for that project. We do have all the Yes, we have all the right of way that's needed for this project in this section because those duplexes that are just up the road a little bit. I was on the committee where we approved for some reason to point those toward Hogan Road and you've got a lot all those three six seven drive eight driveways which you know I didn't know if there was any traffic issues or anything in that area so that's why I was asking okay sorry that's all I wanted to know commissioners are there other questions or comments If not, I will entertain a motion motion to approve um site. Should I have to scroll up uh FY25 to site as presented? Second. Motion has been made by Commissioner Prager and a second by Commissioner Carney to recommend approval of item number six FY-25-2- site per staff recommendation. John, may we have a vote? Commissioner Morales. Hi, Commissioner Walker. Hi, Commissioner Jerasic. Hi, Commissioner Rhodess. Hi, Commissioner Carney. Hi, Commissioner Prager. Hi, Commissioner Linum. I, Chair Crossy, I vote is unanimous. The motion carries. We'll move on to item number seven, which is FY-25-27-PT. There's been a request to table this

item until August 4th, 2025. I will entertain a motion to table. Make a motion to table FY25-27-PT as requested. Second. Motion has been made by Commissioner Rhodess and a second by Commissioner Carney to table item FY-25-27-PT. John, may we have a vote? Commissioner Morales. I. Commissioner Walker. I. Commissioner Jerasic. Hi. Commissioner Rhodess. I. Commissioner Carney, Commissioner Prager. Hi, Commissioner Longino. Hi, Chair Crossing. Hi. Vote is unanimous. Motion carries. Is there any further business? If not, the meeting is closed at 6:02 p.m. I know. I I just I can see the six ever. Who decided not to make it red? Shoot them. I just got recorded. decision. Okay. You're scheduled to go off.