Costco Business Center proposal discussed; planners say project will generate fewer trips than prior office park plan

City planning staff and the project applicant discussed POH 24-24, a proposal to rezone about 18.65 acres at the southwest corner of Amasco Road and Pecos Road for a Costco Business Center and associated fuel station. Darcy Omer, a staff presenter, said the project requests rezoning to Planned Area Development for wholesaling, a 41,000-square-foot building, 603 parking spaces (536 required) and 15 fuel pumps.

Darcy Omer (staff) described the site history and the proposed change from a previously approved office park. “The subject site is approximately 18.65 acres,” Omer said, and noted the 2016 PAD approval had envisioned up to 400,000 square feet of office; the current Costco Business Center plan would be about 41,000 square feet. Staff said the applicant’s traffic study shows the business center is expected to generate fewer trips than the previously approved office development.

A staff representative with traffic review told council the developer would be required to build off-site street improvements, including a third lane on Alma School Road adjacent to the project frontage and dual turn lanes at proposed driveways. The staff review said pumps were located and circulation adjusted to minimize the risk of queuing onto adjacent arterials. The applicant, Brian Wright of Kimley‑Horn, said typical hours for the business center would be 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Sundays and estimated construction duration at roughly nine months.

Council members asked questions about loading-dock location, delivery timing and the timing and scope of Alma School widening. Staff said the project team repositioned loading and delivery access to the building’s southeast corner to serve commercial customers and to reduce neighborhood impacts. Staff also described neighborhood outreach: a Dec. 4, 2024 meeting drew 11 attendees, who expressed traffic concerns; staff said no formal opposition was on file.

No formal council vote on the rezoning or preliminary development plan was recorded in the study-session transcript. The item had been called in from the consent agenda for discussion; staff noted Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval with findings of general plan conformance and compatible land use.

Next steps were not recorded in the portion of the transcript provided; the discussion focused on traffic mitigation, delivery operations and construction timing.