Loading...
PZ 01-08-2014January 8, 2014 The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened on January 8, 2014 at the Municipal Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION David Richmond, Chairman Ernie Evans, Vice - Chairman Ken Greenwald Bert Crawford, Jr. Richard Brand Christian Glombik Michael Dahle William Rumfelt, Alternate Yolanda Suarez, Alternate 1. 0 91 Fj 0 CITY STAFF Brian James, Executive Director Development Michelle Sanchez, Director Development Services Lesa Wood, Senior Planner Bryce Cox, Planner I Patti White, Executive Asst. Development OTHERS PRESENT Dixie Watkins, Dixie Watkins III and Associates Dan Kossl, Denton Communities Chris Price, Schertz 1518 Ltd. Brad Pittenger, Schertz 1518 Ltd, Mr. Richmond called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M and wished everyone a Happy New Year. • I 1 y No alternate was required. HEARING OF RESIDENTS No one spoke. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes for December 18, 2013 Regular Meeting. Mr. Dahle moved to approve the consent agenda as presented. Mr. Crawford seconded the motion. Vote was 6 -0 -1 with Mr. Evans abstaining. Motion carried. WORKSHOP / DISCUSSION A. Public hearing, presentation and discussion on Residential Lot Size. Mr. James stated that after the last P &Z meeting, a few more points for discussion were being brought forth so that the Commission could see what we are hying to achieve regarding density vs. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission .January 8, 2014 Page I of 8 lot size. Mr. Watkins, who presented at the last P &Z meeting on Nortex Farms, presented more information on Nortex Farms noting the following points: • Proposed streetscape • Roundabouts • Landscape design features • Recreational & open space system • Revised Master Plan with revisions for adjustments for school boundaries and city boundaries • Single Family Lot sizes including: o Townhomes or 55' x 120' with 6,600 square footage 0 55' x 120' with 6,600 square footage 0 60' x 120' with 7,200 square footage 0 65' x 120' with 7,800 square footage 0 75' x 120' with 9,000 square footage Mr. Richmond opened the Public Hearing at 6:18 P.M. There being no one to speak, Mr. Richmond closed the Public Hearing at 6:19 P.M. Mr. Dahle asked about the townhomes and how did they arrive at the demand. Mr. Watkins stated that they are based on a perceived need and will be worked into the small areas on the plan possibly for empty nesters or single persons who want a townhome. Mr. Rumfelt asked about the multi- family and if that is apartment complexes. Mr. Watkins stated that the potential to accommodate for multi - family is very real, but could go either way on the final plans. Mr. Crawford asked if for an aging society, wouldn't the demographics support townhomes. Mr. Watkins stated that yes it would and like other projects such as in Alamo Heights the demand was very high. Mr. Crawford stated that there are members over 60 on the Commission who have an interest in townhomes. Mr. Watkins stated that there are those who do not want a yard or want xeroscape. Mr. Richmond stated that for years the City has been concerned about density, but the Nortex proposal as well as Crossvine in South Schertz meets City objectives for residential growth on a variety of lot sizes. Mr. Watkins stated that it's the quality vs. the quantity in a neighborhood that's important, and varying densities can be positioned against acres of open space. Mr. Greenwald asked whether a HOA is mandatory. Mr. Watkins answered yes and Mr. Kossl stated that they are not that far into the project to discuss the HOA requirement at this time. Discussion followed between Mr. Watkins, Staff and the Commission. B. Public hearing, presentation and discussion on The Crossvine Garden Home Concept. Mr. James stated that after the last P &Z meeting, a few more points for discussion were being brought back regarding the garden home concept. Mr. Price stated that the first phase of this project, which is under construction, is single family. It will be followed by Phase 2A which is commercial and also will have a garden home product. From their feedback, Mr. Price believes that there is a need for this type of home for empty nesters. The market is telling them that this product is in a $200,000 to $300,000 range which requires less maintenance with smaller yards tied into the trail system and pocket parks. Mr. Pittenger stated that there is a particular road profile in addressing some of the parking issues in a denser product. In working with Staff, which includes Planning, Fire and Public Works, the road profiles have gone through these departments. In Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission January 8, 2014 Page 2 of 8 garden home streetscape, there is a 44 -foot roadway with designated parallel parking and a 24- foot drive aisle. In the multi- dwelling court area with four houses, there will be a couple more parking areas designated at the end varied according to the size of the houses in the court. This is a lifestyle choice, which could be for older active adults, young families and younger professionals. The four acres designated commercial area at the corner of Lower Seguin and FM 1518 will have changes that the developer has made for the GB (General Business) category. Some of the permitted uses in GB have been removed from this category and will not be allowed such as an airport, assisted living, body shops, major car repairs, and gas pumps. Part of the commercial area will back up to the residential area and the intent is to have a more open pedestrian area. The UDC states that there should be an 8 -foot fence around the area and they have worked with Staff on the requirements to lower the fence. Part of the determining factor is 40% glazing (windows) at the back of a building and this would lower the screening wall to approximately 3 feet, which would be allowed with landscaping to encourage a pedestrian friendly environment. Mr. Richmond opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M. ® Robert Brockman, 1000 Elbel Road, spoke on the screening walls and parking. Mr. Richmond closed the Public Hearing at 7:11 P.M. Mr. Richmond asked if they had thought about beginning with NS (Neighborhood Services) zoning, and noted that since they began with GB, one permitted use is for Trailer and Manufactured Home sales which he believes is not appropriate. Mr. Pittenger stated that they decided to start with GB and exclude those uses that were not going to be in the project. Mr. Rumfelt asked if there is a comment about no gas stations. Mr. Pittenger stated that on this corner of the project, gas pumps are not appropriate, but on the north side area of the project, gas pumps may be appropriate. Mr. Dahle stated that the imagery that was provided on parking in courts and at townhomes clarified his questions, and asked if there is a courtside entrance near the commercial development, and how accommodations will be made for delivery services. Mr. Price stated that this would be a design issue to keep the pedestrians safe. Mr. Braud stated that these types of discussions will help make this project different and special. Mr. Richmond asked if there is a number of cars per residence they are trying to accommodate in the garden home area. Mr. Pittenger stated that yes, there are 2 parking spaces in the garage, plus .5 parking spaces provided per residence for visitor parking, and they hope to exceed this number. Mr. Richmond stated that he would like to see a lengthening of the driveway in single family residences because many people are not using the garage for its intended use. He suggests looking at design opportunities even if it means changing the elevation of the front, pushing the garage to the back, and gaining more feet in the driveway. Discussion followed between Mr. Price, Mr. Pittenger, Staff and the Commission. Ms. Wood stated that the parking space in the garden home with the garage has the required 2 parking spaces which are no less than 9 feet x 18 feet and the .5 off street parking is 8 feet x 22 feet. Ms. Wood also stated that the screening of walls is based on building use, and the number of windows determines how high the wall is. C. Public hearing, presentation and discussion on revisions to UDC Articles 1 and 3. Ms. Wood stated that this presentation is to discuss changes and updates to Article 1 and 3 of the UDC with the following points: Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission January 8, 2014 Page 3 of 8 • Background on Amendments • Article 1: • Section 21.1.4 Jurisdiction • Updated language for clarity • Updated language to provide a table of applicable UDC articles to properties located in the ETJ • Section 21.1.5 Consistency with Comprehensive Land Plan and Master Thoroughfare Plan Removed unnecessary language that is defined in the adopted City of Schertz Comprehensive Land Plan • Section 21.1.6 Vested Rights "Issuance of Local Permits" ® Added definitions Provided a procedure to claim vested rights, obtain a determination and appeal the decision Provided a procedure to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to extend the expiration date for a period not to exceed a year • Section 21.1.7 Apportionment of Municipal Infrastructure Costs (Rough Proportionality) Updated language for clarity • Section 21.1.9 Validity 8 Updated language for clarity • Deleted — Minimum Requirements, Effective Date, Severability • Added — Development Manual, Public Work Specification Manual ® Article 3 • Updated language in Article 3 to provide consistency and clarity throughout the Article • Article 21.3.1 General Provision ® Deleted Implied Authority Relocated Authority Granted from each applicable section and placed in the General Provision • Article 21.3.3 Planning and Zoning Commission • Deleted Structure and Operations Procedures • Article 21.3.4 Board of Adjustment Deleted items that are covered in the BOA by -laws and covered in State Law (LGC) • Article 21.3.5 Administrative Authority ® Updated to authorize staff to make the determination of whether a property must be platted and provide a certificate of determination (letter) to the property owner (LGC 212.0115) • Article 21.3.6 Other Boards, Commissions and Committees ® Updated to be consistent with City Charter and Board by -laws Ms. Wood stated that the next steps are: • To finalize Articles I and 3 • To insert any recommended changes • To update Article 16 Definitions • To gain legal review of the changes • To have P &Z Public Hearing and Action on January 22, 2014 • To send P &Z recommendation to City Council for adoption Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission January 8, 2014 Page 4 of 8 Mr. Richmond opened the Public Hearing at 7:40 P.M. There being no one to speak, Mr. Richmond closed the Public Hearing at 7:41 P.M Ms. Suarez asked if under 21.1.6 under the definition of permit should it be contract vs. contact. Ms. Wood stated that she will change it. Mr. Dahle asked about rough proportionality and realizes that it will be rewritten in Article 12, but will it state how to handle. Mr. James stated that once we adopt a roadway impact fee to charge an amount on a rough proportionality issue, it will allow us to assess the developer so they pay their fair share. Mr. James stated that Staff uses the San Antonio formula now and Mr. Busch is working on the RFQ now. Mr. Braud asked about 21.1.7, E which was dropped out of the draft, and talks about a developer who prevails in an appeal will be reimbursed for certain costs. Is there a legal requirement for that and why was it dropped. Mr. James stated that the issue with rough proportionality is up to the City to determine. If someone appeals to City Council, hires an engineer, and is correct, the costs are reimbursable. This item was added to B, shifting it from E. Mr. Richmond asked about making reference to the Comprehensive Land Plan and the Master Thoroughfare Plan; are we saying that the Master Thoroughfare Plan is a stand -alone plan. Ms. Wood stated that we do sometimes update the Master Thoroughfare Plan without updating the Comprehensive Land Plan. Mr. Crawford asked about 21.1.4 B which extends property to the ETJ vs. is included in the ETJ. Ms. Wood stated that our lawyer reviewed it, but Staff can look at it. Mr. James stated that if there is a question on how this reads, we want to make it clearer which is the point of this effort. Mr. Braud asked if the Development Manual could be added to state in accordance with the UDC as it needs to comply with the UDC. Ms. Wood stated yes, she will add it. Ms. Wood stated Staff will finalize comments and add to the definitions, make changes and hold a Public Hearing at the January 22 "d P &Z meeting. The Commission then will make their recommendation to City Council. Discussion followed between Staff and the Commission D. Public hearing, presentation and discussion on Septic Systems. Mr. James stated that this presentation is to kick off a discussion on what do we like, what do we not like and gets us on the same page going forward with a series of work sessions. Mr. James made the following points: • Reach agreement on why providing a connection to a public wastewater system is important. • Under what circumstances is P &Z willing to grant a waiver to allow on -site sewage facilities (septic). • What regulations do we want for septic systems. • How do we fund our public wastewater system. Challenges: • Options for sewer systems — septic • Sewer has to flow downhill — generally, or we have to pay more to lift it up • It's expensive to deal with • CCN — Certificates of Convenience and Necessity Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission January 8, 2014 Page 5 of 8 • Rough Proportionality Mr. James stated that Staff will come back and discuss specific areas. Mr. Richmond opened the Public Hearing at 8:20 P.M. ® Robert Brockman, 1000 Elbel Road, spoke on a mobile home subdivision at FM 1103 and IH 35 and failed septic. Mr. Greenwald stated that if a sewer line is there within so many feet, you can be forced to hook up and it's almost impossible or cost effective to repair a septic system. Mr. James stated that it is a joint effort among various departments to make the determination if it failed. Mr. Richmond closed the Public Hearing at 8:22 P.M. Mr. Dahle stated that, using the Hausmann project as an example, the treated wastewater is a valuable commodity, and asked why aren't we requiring more sewer. Mr. Evans stated that he is concerned about the density of systems, and we need to change the acreage where septic is allowed. Mr. Dahle stated that the City is very reluctant to offer waivers on'' /z acre tracts based on previous discussions. Mr. Evans stated that a few years ago the City changed the sewer requirement from I acre to Yz acre which has proved a poor decision. Mr. Richmond asked how to deal with developers in South Schertz where there is no prospect for sewer in the near future. Mr. Greenwald stated that the probability of getting sewer in parts of South Schertz in the next two years is very high. Discussion followed between Staff and the Commission. Mr. James stated that with this discussion, Staff has a better understanding of their concerns and at the January 22nd meeting, Staff will bring CCN maps, lot sizes that might be problematic, and requirements for permitting in the County. The Commission will be seeing a series of discussions at every meeting. P. Public hearing, presentation and discussion on Parking. Mr. James stated that the goal of this presentation is to discuss: • The parameters of the problem • Concerns voiced about too many cars parked on the street in residential neighborhoods • The impact on public safety access, quality of life and general safety and convenience. This is of particular concern with regard to parking in cul -de -sacs and around landscape median islands. ® As part of the discussion it might help to: • Review our current standards impacting the problem • Understand lot width, right -of -way width, pavement, width, on -site parking requirements, etc. • Understand our existing conditions • Review right -of -way widths and pavement widths of existing subdivisions • Review issues brought before TSAC (Transportation Safety Advisory Committee) • Understand TSAC's decisions • Review current parking regulations • Understand where people can and cannot park Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission January 8, 2014 Page 6 of 8 o Review Public Safety needs Review of our Current Standards: • Residential curb cuts — 10' to 24' • Parking Requirement 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit and must have an enclosed garage • Local Street Residential 50' ROW, 30' of pavement, 5' sidewalks both sides • Collector Street 60' ROW, 42' pavement, 5' sidewalks both sides • Cul -de -sacs in residential areas must have 150' diameter of ROW (no minimum pavement diameter listed but equals 130' of pavement) • Median islands require 24' of pavement on both sides and must be approved by TSAC R -2 lot width minimum is 70' • Remember from Mr. James' last presentation, lot width is measured at the setback line — which is 25' for R -2. • Cul -de -sac lots have to be 50' wide (at the setback line) Mr. James asked the Commissioners to take some photos when they see parking issues and to email them to Mr. Cox and these photos will be brought back for the next discussion. TSAC Issues — 2012 and 2013: • No Parking: 0 2 for business areas— Corridor Loop and Main Street 0 1 parking around islands — Hickory Lane 0 1 on Westchester • Speeding o 7 cases of speeding in residential neighborhoods • Wider is generally faster Some Laws: • You cannot park: • On a sidewalk • Within 15' of a fire hydrant • In front of a driveway • Within 30' of a stop or yield sign at an intersection • Current City Code - Sec. 86 -150. Parked vehicles to leave at least ten feet of roadway available for traffic. No person shall park any vehicle upon a street in such a manner or under such conditions as to leave available less than ten feet of the width of the roadway for the free movement of vehicular traffic. Mr. Richmond opened the Public Hearing at 9:10 P.M. • Robert Brockman, 1000 Ethel Road, spoke on TSAC. Mr. Richmond closed the Public Hearing at 9:11 P.M. Mr. Glombik asked about enforcement issues. Mr. ,lames stated that the discussion was to get everyone to think of the problems, where the problems are, the cost factors, and the unpopularity of enforcing regulations. Mr. Braud stated that you can't legislate courtesy or intelligence on Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission January 8, 2014 Page 7 of 8 6. 7. parking issues. Mr. Richmond stated that street parking in residential neighborhoods is a problem that should addressed from the City's standpoint. Lot size requirements on cul -de -sacs should be reviewed to ensure there is adequate driveway and street space for vehicles. Mr. Glombik stated if it's a clear cut case then our Schertz values of health and safety are at risk. HOAs have a role in resolving neighborhood disputes and determining necessary enforcement issues. Discussion followed between Staff and the Commission. Mr. James asked the Commission to take photos of parking issues and Staff will come back at the next meeting with some solutions with lot widths and setbacks. REQUESTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Requests by Commissioners to place items on a future Planning and Zoning Agenda. • None B. Requests by Commissioners to Staff for information. • None C. Announcements by Commissioners. • None D. Announcements by City Staff. • None ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR MEETING The meeting adjourned at 9:36 P.M. Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission January 8, 2014 Page 8 of 8 Recording Secretary, City of Schertz