Loading...
PZ 10-09-2013124s1►1►11►[f!_6 1 / ► ► u! October 9, 2013 The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened on October 9, 2013 at the Municipal Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CITY STAFF David Richmond, Chairman Brian James, Executive Director Development Ernie Evans, Vice - Chairman Michelle Sanchez, Director Development Services Ken Greenwald Bert Crawford, Jr. Richard Brand Michael Dahle Christian Glombik William Rumfelt, Alternate Yolanda Suarez, Alternate COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Lesa Wood, Senior Planner Bryce Cox, Planner I Larry Busch, Jr., Engineer in Training Patti White, Executive Asst. Development OTHERS PRESENT Keith Sanders, A -OK Storage Eddie McNew, Don McCrary and Associates Dan Miller, Petroleum Wholesale Bert Wellman, KFW Engineers Mr. Richmond called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M. 2. SEAT ALTERNATE TO ACT IF REQUIRED No alternate was required. 3. HEARING OF RESIDENTS No one spoke. 1!• 1111111CI7118I1 E7 ►E11 A. ZC2013 -011 Hold a public hearing and consider and make a recommendation on a request by Keith Sanders to rezone approximately 7.57 acres of land from General Business (GB) to General Business — 2 (GB -2). The property is more specifically described as a portion of Lot 2R, Block 1 of the Sanders Subdivision, City of Schertz; Guadalupe County, Texas and located at 200 FM 3009. Ms. Wood presented the item by stating that Public Hearing notices were mailed out to 9 property owners on September 27° 2013 and as of this date the City received 1 in favor (the owner), 1 notice neutral and 1 notice in opposition. The notice in opposition has to do with an ingress /egress easement that he, Mr. Gutierrez, feels has been blocked. The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" and the "Herald" for the City Council Meeting on October Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission October 9, 2013 Page I of 10 22ad. The Applicant is proposing to rezone a portion of a 33 acre property to General Business — 2 to move the current RV parking to the rear of the property. The property is currently zoned General Business, which does not allow for RV storage. The Comprehensive Land Plan identifies this area as parks and open space; however, this property is already zoned General Business and has an existing use as commercial. Staff recommends approval of ZC2013 -011. Mr. McNew, Applicant's Engineer, gave a presentation about the rezoning of the Sanders Subdivision also known as A -Ok Mini Storage. The rezoning request is to allow the current RV storage to be relocated to the rear of the property, freeing up the more valuable property on FM 3009 for a higher and better use. This will also allow a road to be built to grant access to the back of the property, and to allow the subdivided property to be sold for commercial use. A regional detention pond will be built on the rear of the property that is large enough to accommodate the runoff for the entire property. Mr. Richmond opened the public hearing at 6:1 Opm. Steve Layton, 12231 Lost Meadows, expressed a concern with the proposed detention pond and the impact that it would have on the drainage way. He expressed a preference to maintain the current zoning or to time the drainage with the storm surges. Mr. Richmond closed the public hearing at 6:13pm. Mr. Rumfelt asked if the proposed 7.5 acre rezoning area was the same size as the current area being used for RV storage. Mr. McNew answered that 7.5 acres was larger to include the detention pond, but the storage area would be the same size. Mr. Rumfelt asked if the City or applicant had requested the rezoning. Ms. Wood replied that the applicant had requested the zoning. Mr. Rumfelt asked what the benefits to the City were for rezoning this property. Ms. Wood answered that the City would benefit from the aesthetics of moving the RV storage to the rear, that the current RV storage area would be grassed in, and that there would be potential for creating a commercial subdivision. Mr. Rumfelt asked what makes the proposal consistent with the comprehensive plan. Ms. Wood answered that although the comprehensive plan identifies this area as parks and open space, it currently is zoned commercial. Mr. Dahle asked why the City is requiring asphalt to be put down in the proposed parking area when the current area is caliche. Ms. Wood answered that the UDC requires concrete or asphalt in parking areas for new development. Mr. Crawford asked if concrete or asphalt would be required taking into consideration drainage concerns. Ms. Wood replied that the whole area is currently zoned for commercial, and any development would have to be correctly drained. Ms. Wood rcminded the Commission that the request being considered was for rezoning, and that site preparation could be discussed with the specific use permit. Mr. Richmond asked the reason for rezoning from GB to GB -2. Ms. Wood answered that mini - warehouse, public storage and RV storage was not allowed in GB zoning district. Mr. Dahle asked about the proposed future expansion of FM 3009 through the property. Ms. Wood answered that the proposed expansion would be addressed when the remainder of the property was platted. Mr. Evans asked if only the RVs were going to be moved to the proposed GB -2 Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission October 9, 2013 Page 2 of 10 area. Ms. Wood answered that the RV parking would be moved, and explained that the current construction on site was the approved future expansion from the 2006 site plan. Ms. Suarez asked what would happen if the RVs are visible from FM 78. Ms. Wood answered that screening along the public ROW would be required with new development depending on the elevation of the railroad tracks. Mr. Rumfelt asked who would decide what needs to be screened and when that decision would be made. Ms. Wood answered that the City would make that determination with the site plan before building permits. Mr. Dahle asked if the detention pond would be built outside of the existing floodplain lines. Mr. McNew answered that there may be some overlap with the floodplain, but the majority of the pond would be outside the floodplain. Mr. Dahle asked if the proposed area would increase the RV parking capacity. Mr. McNew answered that it was of similar size and he was unsure if it would increase the capacity. Mr. Crawford asked if the tree line along FM 78 could be removed by the railroad. Mr. McNew replied that the railroad could remove the trees in their right -of -way. Discussions followed between Commission and Staff as to what comments could be considered for the rezoning case, and what needed to be held for the specific use permit consideration. Mr. Dahle moved to recommend to City Council approval of ZC2013 -011 with the conditions as submitted. Mr. Crawford seconded the motion. Vote was 7 -0. Motion carried. B. SUP2013 -002 Hold a public hearing and consider and make a recommendation on a request by Keith Sanders for a Specific Use Permit to allow RV Storage & Mini - Warehouse /Public Storage on approximately 7.57 acres of land. The property is more specifically described as a portion of Lot 2R, Block I of the Sanders Subdivision, City of Schertz; Guadalupe County, Texas and located at 200 FM 3009. Ms. Wood presented the item by stating that the property owner is requesting a specific use permit to allow RV storage in G13-2 zoning district. The property is currently being used for mini - warehouse /public storage/ RV parking which requires a specific use permit in G13-2 zoning districts. Staff recommends approval of the specific use permit with the following conditions: 1. The permit be approved for a period of 5 years, at which time the use will become a nonconforming use; and 2. The new RV parking area will be constructed out of chip -seal, concrete or asphalt; and 3. Omit the requirement for screening of the open parking area if it can be shown that the area will be screened by trees in the railroad right-of-way and not visible from FM 78; and 4. Additionally the area currently being used for RV parking will be re- established with grass. Mr. McNew commented on the drainage and parking surface explaining that detention and asphalt may not be in the best interest for this site, but the code requires it, and that the applicant is open to listening to any suggestions from the Commission. The screening along FM 78 needs to be discussed, and the applicant would prefer to not put up additional screening along FM 78. Mr. Richmond opened the public hearing at 6:32 pm. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission October 9, 2013 Page 3 of 10 Mr. Gutierrez, 2221 FM 3009, is the owner of the old Gutierrez land fill site, and he stated that the only ingress /egress shown on the deed is off of FM 78. This goes through the middle of the RV park, and he is landlocked with the current fence in place. He talked to Mr. Bierschwale about 5 years ago when the fence went up and thinks that this needs to be addressed. He also stated that he has sent the information to Ms. Wood. Mr. Richmond closed the public hearing at 6:35 pm Ms. Wood stated that the responses to the public hearing notice include one (1) neutral to the request and one (1) opposed to the request with comments from Mr. Gutierrez about the ingress /egress to his site. Mr. Rumfelt asked for an explanation on the Staff recommendation regarding the approval period and non - conforming use. Ms. Wood explained that the requested use is not permitted in the current zoning. The City feels that an SUP expiring in 5 years would limit expansion of an existing non - conforming use, but allow expansion during the 5 -year period with an approved site plan. Mr. Rumfelt asked what happens after 5 years. Ms. Wood stated that in 5 years the SUP would expire, and the applicant could run his business as a mini RV storage, but could not expand it further. Mr. Rumfelt asked without coming back for another. Ms. Wood answered yes, he would need another SUP. Mr. Dahle asked if this is a non - conforming use, and the applicant decides to retire in 20 years and sells the business, could the new owner continue the business. Ms. Wood answered that if the use has not been abandoned for more than 180 days he could continue the use; however, if the use has been abandoned for more than 180 days, it would cease to exist, and the new owner would need to conform with permitted zoning uses. Mr. Evans asked for clarification between enclosed storage and covered parking in the new area. Ms. Wood stated that the applicant has an approved site plan from 2006 that has future expansion with enclosed storage. Mr. Evans asked what is the covered parking. Mr. Brand stated that new covered parking for large RVs is under construction at this moment, and can be seen from FM 3009 and FM 78. Mr. McNew stated that is correct and is on the 2006 approved property. Mr. Evans asked why are we constructing if it's moving. Mr. McNew stated that the top area is moving and the mini - storage is not moving, but adding covered parking. Mr. Crawford asked if they are building high covered parking today on the approved existing plat. Ms. Wood stated yes. Mr. Brand asked Staff to find the portion in the UDC that requires the parking area to be asphalt. Also Mr. Brand asked if there is a difference between asphalt and what they are parking on now — permeable vs. non - permeable. Ms. Wood stated that what they are parking on now is permeable, and in the 10 months of working with Mr. Sanders, Staff has held firm on this portion of the UDC to put in asphalt or concrete parking. Ms. Wood stated that if someone else came in to develop that entire area, they could do up to 80% of impervious coverage and also would have to comply with our drainage requirements. Mr. Crawford asked if this is business friendly. Ms. Wood stated that it is a code requirement. Ms. Sanchez read the Section 21.10 in the UDC under Parking, Subsection E. Mr. Brand stated that he doesn't see this as required off street parking. Ms. Sanchez stated that he is creating a parking area for boats, RVs and campers, and any parking surface has to be paved. Mr. Brand said that this isn't what our UDC says. Ms. Sanchez stated that Staff has had lengthy discussions with the applicant; also Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a driving area for the existing site in 2006, and the driving surface and parking areas must be asphalt. Mr. Crawford stated in spite of the fact it might cause drainage concerns. Ms. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission October 9, 2013 Page 4 of 10 Sanchez stated that drainage concerns will be taken into consideration during the platting process with the drainage study. Mr. Crawford stated that people are not walking on the surface like Target or Walmart as off street parking. Ms. Sanchez stated that it's still a parking area. Mr. Richmond stated that if you read the 2" d sentence in the UDC, drive approach is pretty broad and indicates anything coming off the thoroughfare. Mr. Crawford stated that we are not talking about a drive approach. Ms. Sanchez stated that in order to get to the back at the facility, you have to drive. Mr. Brand stated that the UDC is poorly written and we should consider other options because of drainage issues. Mr. Crawford asked if Board of Adjustment could make any exemptions. Ms. Sanchez stated that the applicant could ask for a waiver. Mr. Crawford stated that it's an issue of impervious coverage. Ms. Wood stated that they are looking at developing other properties around it and the potential of other retail. Mr. Crawford stated then could we look at what he is going to do and how much that will change the drainage and how things play out. Mr. James stated that because it is a SUP, you have the ability to modify requirements of the UDC, but you cannot on a zoning case. There may be circumstances where a different condition or provision is appropriate. Mr. James stated that there are a lot of areas of the UDC that do not have clarity and are subject to interpretation; if someone takes issue with it, they can take it to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. James stated that if there are areas that don't make sense in the UDC, the solution is to come back and work through the standard so that everyone knows what to expect. Mr. James stated that you can specify in a SUP on what surface materials should be and still be business friendly when it makes sense for the business owner and the community. Mr. James stated that we allow for detention and the City Engineer or the City Manager has the ability to approve gravel; it depends on how you compact the surface to determine if it is impervious or pervious. Mr. Dahle stated that he is guessing that the existing surface was allowed, because it was not required when the original facility was set up. Ms. Sanchez stated that on the approved site plan it is supposed to be a concrete surface. Mr. James stated that it didn't get done, but has been this way for years. Mr. Evans asked if the City is in the position to ask for permeable asphalt. Mr. James stated yes; however, this requires certain maintenance and he can't say it should be imposed on a property owner who hasn't studied it. Ms. Sanchez wanted to clarify that the approved site plan for the storage area showed the concrete, but Staff cannot find the site plan for the RVs done separately. Mr. Rumfelt asked are we asking for concrete. Mr. James stated yes, we are asking for concrete, asphalt or chip seal. Mr. Dahle asked as we went through the discussion if Staff discussed a PDD. Mr. James stated that a PDD is intended to be unique and creative and for mixed use to tweak our standards. Mr. Dahle asked if other options accomplishing the same thing, such as crushed granite could be a consideration. Mr. James stated that we are open to discussing. Mr. Crawford stated that the Commission could approve or disapprove, look at other alternatives, look at developing the back part of the property, look at Mr. Gutierrez's position, plus the railroad land. Mr. Evans stated that chip seal is sprayed on and you pack it in. Mr. James stated that we don't normally allow chip seal, but that it was a good compromise. Mr. Richmond stated that this is only one area for discussion; we also need to be aware of the ingress /egress challenge Mr. Gutierrez discussed, plus the proposed barrier along PM 78. Mr. McNew stated that Staff has required a 25 foot access casement along the entire parameter adjacent to Dietz Creek which provides access to Mr. Gutierrez from FM3009. Ms. Wood stated that the plat that is recorded today already shows an ingress /egress easement from FM3009 which Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission October 9, 2013 Page 5 of 10 is 24 feet. Mr. Evans stated that the City needs to ensure that it is outside the fence. Mr. McNew explained that railroad track and ballast and the trees behind it could be seen over a fence if the trees were not there. Mr. Sanders stated that his business has been there for 17 years, it would not make sense for the railroad to take out the trees, and the railroad track is higher than the roadway. Mr. Evans asked if the screening wording could be postponed to a later date. Mr. James stated that it would be problematic to do that and enforce it. Mr. Brand asked if the screening requirement is omitted, who defends it. Mr. James stated that the Commission could require a site visibility study as part of the SUP for site plan approval. Mr. Dahle asked about the height of the screening. Ms. Wood stated that it could go up to 20 feet high. Mr. Sanders stated that they don't want to do the chip seal, but they have a commitment for funds if the City tells them that they have to do it. Mr. Richmond stated that there are several issues in this item to consider in forwarding a recommendation to City Council, such as drainage, the barrier along FM 78, access easement on FM 3009 and FM 78 if it exists and if on which property, and attach those conditions to move forward. Mr. Brand suggested that we would have to craft some wording for the conditions. Mr. James stated that the Commission could table the item and move on in the agenda while Staff works with the applicant to write language or wording for the conditions. Mr. Greenwald motioned to table SUP2013 -002 until the end of the meeting. Mr. Crawford seconded the motion. Vote was 7 -0. Motion carried. At 8:26PM, Mr. Greenwald motioned to take SUP2013 -002 off the table. Mr. Crawford seconded the motion. Vote was 7 -0. Motion carried. Mr. James stated that the word /language for the conditions could be: 1. The Specific Use Permit is approved for a period of 5 years after which time the use will become a non - conforming use; if at that time the applicant submits for a new specific use permit the need for screening along FM 78 will be considered. No additional screening along FM 78 is required at this time. 2. Additionally as part of any future Specific Use Permit, City Council will consider the amount of development that occurred on the property within the entire subdivision plat. 3. Require base, chip seal, concrete or asphalt as an approved surface. And the Commission could tack on a statement that additionally Staff will work with the Applicant and Mr. Gutierrez prior to City Council consideration to resolve any access issues. Mr. Crawford motioned to approve SUP2013 -002 with the conditions noted above by Mr. ,tames and that Staff will review Mr. Gutierrez's issues on his property prior to going to City Council. Mr. Greenwald seconded the motion. Vote was 5 -2 with Mr. Evans and Mr. Dahle voting nay. Motion carried. C. ZC2O13 -013 Hold a public hearing and consider and make a recommendation on a request by Petroleum Wholesale to rezone approximately 3.99 acres of land from Predevelopment District (PRE) to General Business —2 (GB -2). The property is more specifically described as Lot 11, Block 200 of the M & W Travel Subdivision; Bexar County, Texas and located at 14425 IH 10 East. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission Octobcr 9, 2013 Page 6 of 10 Ms. Wood presented this item by stating that this site is located off 1 -10 and Trainer Hale Road. The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 3.99 acres land from Predevelopment District (PRE) to General Business — 2 (GB -2). The property is located at 14425 IH 10 East and more specifically described as Lot 11, Block 200 of the M & W Travel Subdivision. The site has an existing 5,600 square foot convenience store with gas pumps and a 4,700 storage building, which is an existing automotive repair facility. This property was annexed on July 20, 2010 by Ordinance 10 -A -20. The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" and the "Herald" for the October 22, 2013 City Council Meeting. There were 6 notices mailed to surrounding property owners on September 27, 2013. As of this meeting, there was one response in favor and it's the property owner at Trainer Hale Road and 1 -10. The subject property is currently platted. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from the current PRE zoning, which is intended as a temporary designation for newly annexed property, to General Business — 2 to allow for an expansion of their existing 5,600 square foot building. General Business District — 2 (GB -2) is intended to provide suitable areas for non - residential and light industrial development that offer a wide variety of retail and service establishments. The existing use of Convenience Store with gas pumps at this location appears to be an appropriate use for this tract of land due to its location on IH 10. However, after reviewing the potential uses allowed in GB -2 district Staff has concerns with the uses of general manufacturing, industrial uses and truck sales /heavy equipment that are permitted uses in the GB -2 district. Staff had concerns with this request, and after talking to legal counsel and the applicant, Staff is recommending that General Business (GB) replace General Business -2 in the applicant's request. Ms. Wood received an email from Todd Blitzer, the Applicant, who has agreed to the change of requesting General Business. Changing the zoning request to a more restrictive zoning of General Business (GB) allows for the uses being requested by the applicant with a Specific Use Permit. Dan Miller, Petroleum Wholesale, did confirm that they are agreeable to changing this request to General Business. Mr. Richmond opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. There being no one to speak, Mr. Richmond closed the Public Hearing at 7:56 P.M. Mr. Rumfelt asked if in the next item the Applicant is requesting an expansion of 3,000 sq. ft. in the existing convenience store. Ms. Wood answered yes, that she would discuss it in the next item, which is a Specific Use Permit. Mr. Braud asked if the next item is for a Specific Use Permit. Ms. Wood answered yes it is for the convenience store and the gas pumps, because it is a nonconforming use. Mr. Richmond stated that he appreciated the Applicant's willingness to understand Staffs position on General Business. Mr. Greenwald asked if they world be issued a Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Wood answered yes, when they start working on their expansion, they would be issued a Certificate of Occupancy. Discussion followed between Staff and the Commission. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission October 9, 2013 Page 7 of 10 Mr. Greenwald moved to approve the agenda item as submitted. Mr. Glombik seconded the motion. Vote was 7 -0. Motion carried. D. SUP2013 -003 Hold a public hearing and consider and make a recommendation on a request by Petroleum Wholesale for a Specific Use Permit to allow a convenience store with gas pumps on approximately 3.99 acres of land. The property is more specifically described as Lot 11, Block 200 of the M & W Travel Subdivision; Bexar County, Texas and located at 14425 IH 10 East. Ms. Wood presented this item by stating that the applicant is requesting a Specific Use Permit to allow a Convenience Store with gas pumps on approximately 3.99 acres land located at 14425 1H 10 East and more specifically described as Lot 11, Block 200 of the M & W Travel Subdivision. The site has an existing 5,600 square foot convenience store with gas pumps and a 4,700 storage building. This property was annexed on July 20, 2010 by Ordinance 10 -A -20 the convenience store with gas pumps was in existence at the time of annexation. The applicant is proposing to expand their existing building by approximately 3,000 square feet. Additionally, the Comprehensive Land Plan identifies this site as agricultural residential, which allows for ancillary uses to residential, which includes a convenience store. Staff recommends approval of the Specific Use Permit to allow a Convenience Store with gas pumps based on its conformance with the comprehensive land plan. The Applicant did not have any comments. Mr. Richmond opened the Public Hearing at 8:04 P.M. There being no one to speak, Mr. Richmond closed the Public Hearing at 8:05 P.M. Ms. Suarez asked if the expansion is for the convenience store. Ms. Wood answered yes. Dan Miller, Petroleum Wholesale, stated that they will be expanding the fountain and coffee area with additional shelving space for more merchandise. Mr. Dahle moved to approve the agenda item as submitted. Mr. Glombik seconded the motion. Vote was 7 -0. Motion carried. S. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION A. PC2013 -033 Consider and act upon a request for approval of a preliminary plat of the Rhine Valley Subdivision Unit 1 consisting of 60.98+ acres, located generally 2,200 + feet east of the intersection of RM 1518 and Lower Seguin Road. Mr. Cox presented this item by stating that the applicant is proposing to preliminary plat 60.98+ acres of land establishing 138 single family residential lots of three (3) different minimum sizes: 5,400 square feet, 6,000 square feet, and 7,200 square feet as dictated by the Rhine Valley PDD. The preliminary plat shows 52 lots that are 7,200 square feet or greater, 41 lots that are between Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission October 9, 2013 Page 8 of 10 6,000 and 7,200 square feet, and 45 lots that are between 5,400 and 6,000 square feet. The proposed preliminary plat has a unit density of 2.29 dwellings per acre. The site is zoned Planned Development District (PDD). This preliminary plat was reviewed using the Rhine Valley PDD and the City of Schertz Unified Development Code as amended (Ordinance 11- S -15). The subject property is currently undeveloped and located generally 2,200 + feet east of the intersection of FM 1518 and Lower Seguin Road. This development is designed to have two (2) points of access via Lower Seguin Road and Ray Corbett Drive. The applicant will be responsible for complying with Unified Development Code (UDC), Section 21.9.9 Tree Preservation and Mitigation. The applicant has submitted a Tree affidavit for review by City Staff which indicates that protected or heritage trees will be removed from the site. A 5 acre public park is being dedicated for this subdivision. This parkland dedication and the proposed improvements have been recommended for acceptance by the Director of Community Services and the Parks Advisory Board. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended acceptance of this park with the approval of the Rhine Valley PDD and Master Plan. Sidewalks will be constructed along both sides of the street throughout the subdivision and along Ray Corbett Drive and Lower Seguin Road. All sheets will be developed to City of Schertz specifications. Unit 1 is located adjacent to Ray Corbett Drive. The Applicant will be extending Ray Corbett Drive (60' ROW) approximately 443 linear feet to provide an access point to the subdivision. Improvements to Lower Seguin Road will be constructed in accordance with City standards, along the length of the proposed plat. The preliminary plat is consistent with applicable requirements for the property, ordinances and regulations. It has been reviewed with no objections by the City Engineer, Public Works, Parks, Inspections, and Fire. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Dahle asked about the bond improvements in 2010 and how does this play a role. Ms. Wood stated that the discussions were about working in coordination with the City Engineer. Mr. Rumfelt asked if this is Unit 1, and he thought this was larger. Mr. Cox stated that there are 447 lots total in 5 Units. Mr. Richmond asked if the City is planning on requiring construction of the road between Ray Corbett and Lower Seguin to allow for access. Ms. Wood answered yes with the first unit. Discussion followed between Staff and the Commission. Mr. Greenwald moved to approve the agenda item as presented. Mr. Crawford seconded the motion. Vote was 7 -0. Motion carried. 6. REQUESTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Requests by Commissioners to place items on a future Planning and Zoning Agenda. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission October 9, 2013 Page 9 of 10 Mr. Brand stated that at the APA Texas Conference it was noted that the conference briefings and presentations would be available online. He would like to see Staff plan a workshop to show the presentations of the APA Conference for the benefit of other members who could not attend, and other departments. This would allow ideas to be discussed about what is worth pursuing or not. Ms. Sanchez asked about further clarification if each member could discuss what they attended. Mr. Dahle suggested that we come back with a list at the next meeting and we could discuss. Mr. Greenwald stated that they would like a copy of Brian's presentation also. Mr. Greenwald stated that there was discussion at the conference and that he thinks we need a code of ethics for this Commission which was recommended for any Commission. Mr. Richmond stated that there was talk earlier about the Commission and City Council getting together to discuss some items that might be considered. B. Requests by Commissioners to Staff for information. Mr. Brand asked if Staff could email or give a hard copy of the Land Use Map of other adjacent municipalities. Mr. Crawford asked if the City is involved in the issues at FM 3009 and I -35 construction. Mr. James stated that TxDOT is keenly aware of the problems and there is a TxDOT meeting at the Civic Center later in this month. Mr. Richmond asked about the status of The Legacy at Forest Ridge. Ms. Sanchez answered that Staff has approved the site plan, and Ms. Wood stated that the Applicant is working on moving/shifting the location of the building and they will need to resubmit the changed plans for further review. C. Announcements by Commissioners. • Mr. Richmond stated that the Commission benefited greatly from attending the Texas APA Conference. • Mr. Crawford asked that Staff pass along to management a thank you for allowing them to attend. • Mr. Dahle stated that there was a meeting in South Schertz attended by residents, City Manager, and the Mayor discussing growth. D. Announcements by City Staff. • Ms. Sanchez stated Staff has received 3 site plans, which were for 152 Windy Meadows, the City Skate Park, and the HEB expansion. ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR MEETING The meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M. Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission October 9, 2013 Page 10 of 10 Recording Secretary, City of Schertz