Loading...
P Z 5-9-18 MinutesPLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES May 9, 2018 The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened on May 9, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. at the Municipal Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Michael Dahle, Chairman Ernie Evans, Vice Chairman Richard Brand Glen Outlaw Ken Greenwald LaDonna Bacon Gordon Rae rNIN10-RAT" Lesa Wood, Director of Planning & Community Dev. Tiffany Danhof, Executive Assistant Channary Gould, Planner Emily Grobe, Planner Kathy Woodlee, Engineer Director Daniel Santee, City Attorney OTHERS PRESENT Darrel Keller, Kellum Real Estate Gabe Farias, Kellum Real Estate Mr. Dahle called the meeting to order at 6:16 P.M. Jon Sullivan- 513 Triple Crown- Mr. Sullivan indicated that it is National Cycling Month and wanted to bring awareness of the lack of bicycle racks at local businesses in the area. Mr. Sullivan requested that staff look into adding to the Unified Development Code a requirement for bicycle rack parking for future businesses coming into our community. Mr. Sullivan indicated that it would provide added safety and security for the bike owners. Mr. Sullivan described some of the benefits for adding to the UDC bicycle racks as a requirement. A. Minutes for the March 28, 2018 and Apri125, 2018 regular meeting Mr. Outlaw motioned to approve Consent Agenda. Mr. Greenwald seconded the motion. The vote was 7-0, motion carried. A. PC2016-067 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for approval of a replat of the Lot 1, Blk I of the Cal Stone Subdivision, and the adjacent unplatted property. The property consists of approximately 5 acres of land and is located at 3581 FM 3009 and 3701 FM 3009, City of Schertz, Guadalupe County, Texas. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2018 Page 1 of 7 Ms. Grobe gave a presentation on a request for approval of a replat of the Lot 1, Blk 1 of the Cal Stone Subdivision, and the adjacent unplatted property. Ms. Grobe described the general location of the project site. Ms. Grobe indicated that there were two public hearing notices mailed to property owners, no responses were received prior to the public hearing. Ms. Grobe mentioned that TXDOT indicated a maximum of one access point being allowed for both lots. Ms. Grobe indicated the proposed replat is consistent with the applicable requirements, ordinances and regulations, and that staff recommended approval of the replat. Mr. Dahle Opened the Public Hearing at 6:23 p.m. There were no residents who spoke. Mr. Dahle closed the Public Hearing at 6:24 p.m. Staff and commissioners had a discussion regarding if Green Valley Road will be continuing through, staff explained and provided more clarification regarding features of the plat that was presented including identifying the location of the one egress access allowed from TXDOT for both lots. Ms. Grobe confirmed that the present zoning for lot 2 is remaining unchanged, and described site design requirements that involve a masonry wall along the property line of existing lot 2 due to being residentially used. Mr. Outlaw motioned to approve PC2016-067. Mr. Braud seconded the motion. The vote was 6-1 with Commissioner Evans voting nay, motion carried. B. ZC2018-002 Hold a public hearing, consider and make a recommendation to City Council on an amendment of Part 111, Schertz Code of Ordinances, Unified Development Code (UDC), to subsections in Articles 9 and 16 to amend certain site design standards for public water and wastewater facilities. Mrs. Gould gave a presentation on a request to consider and make a recommendation to City Council on an amendment of Part 111, Schertz Code of Ordinances, Unified Development Code (UDC), to subsections in Articles 9 and 16 to amend certain site design standards for public water and wastewater facilities. Mrs. Gould indicated that during the last meeting, the commissioners tabled the public hearing ZC2018-002 so that staff could review UDC Section 21.15.4, Utilities, to determine whether an additional amendment to Section 21.15.4 to allow for wooden utility poles without the current requirement of a waiver being granted by the City Manager. Mrs. Gould indicated that staff has reviewed and evaluated Section 21.15.4 and felt that because of the way the code section is written, any proposed amendment would essentially be amendments that should be evaluated holistically rather than looking at it strictly for public water and wastewater facilities. Mrs. Gould indicated that staff is proposing to proceed with the proposed amendments that were presented during the last Commission meeting without incorporating and bring forward to the commissioners at a later time any proposed amendments to UDC Section 21.15.4 to address utility poles separately. Mr. Greenwald motioned to un-table public hearing item ZC2018-002 and open it for consideration. Mr. Outlaw seconded the motion. The vote was 7-0, motion carried. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2018 Page 2 of 7 Mrs. Gould presented to the commissioners exhibits of existing public water and wastewater facilities and explained how the current UDC requirements versus the proposed amendments would affect the site design for each of these facilities, particularly landscaping and fencing requirements when such facilities are adjacent to residential use or residentially zone property. Mrs. Gould explained to the Commission how steel utility poles are a requirement that was added into the UDC in 2009 and that the waiver provision to UDC Section 21.15.4 was incorporated in 2011 to allow for wooden poles if the City Manager grants a waiver. Mrs. Gould suggested that additional research and evaluation of how to amend UDC Section 21.15.14 would involve outreach to the electricity service providers for input, and looking at the pros and cons of steel poles versus wooden poles. Staff recommended approval to the following Unified Development Code (UDC) Sections: Article 9, Sections; 21.9.5 Exterior Construction and Design Standards, 21.9.7 Landscaping, 21.9.8 Screening and Fencing, and 21.9.9 Tree Preservation and Mitigation; and Article 16 Definitions. Mr. Dahle Opened the Public Hearing at 6:47 p.m. Jon Sullivan- 513 Triple Crown- Indicated the difference between pump stations and the big facilities are unsightly. Mr. Dahle closed the Public Hearing at 6:48 p.m. Mr. Dahle opened the discussion with city staff and commissioners. Mr. Outlaw indicated that he wanted to thank city staff for the proactive positive approach. Mr. Outlaw indicated that most of his comments from the last meeting still stand. Mr. Outlaw indicated that he had comments on a few photographs that were presented, and Mr. Outlaw started with the elevated water tank located off Live Oak Road. Mr. Outlaw indicated that this distribution station has been in service for a long time, and that he wasn't sure that this exhibit was a good example. Mr. Outlaw explained from his recollection the reasoning for the layout at that time. Mr. Outlaw indicated concern that the city is asking to do things that the city would not allow a private developer to do. Mr. Outlaw indicated that the development for public water and wastewater facilities should be considered on a case-by-case decision. Mr. Outlaw noted that his primary objection to what the city is proposing is a blanket exemption for every pubic water and wastewater facility, and Mr. outlaw indicated that city staff should be looking the facilities on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Outlaw commented on the other photographs that depicted the lift station off Covers Cove and IH-35 Frontage Road and the storage tank off Country Club Boulevard. He mentioned that for new proposed facilities, the city would not just look at the building, but the entire lot. For the photographs of existing facilities that was shown to the Commission in staff's presentation, Mr. Outlaw commented on the requirement for opaque fencing around these facilities to screen from public view. Mr. Outlaw noted he has concerns on the proposed exemption to tree mitigation requirements for public water and wastewater facilities. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2018 Page 3 of 7 Mrs. Gould indicated that regarding fencing per UDC Section 2\.9.8J3, for non- residential uses, opaque fencing is not currently permitted iu the front yard and staff o proposed amendment would allow for opaque screening in the front yard for public water and wastewater facilities. Mr. Outlaw had a question regarding the existing fencing between the public safety facilities and across the back of the fizc station under the current UDC requirements. Mc ()oUavv referenced the existing chain link fencing with slats. Mm. Gould replied that the current UDC requirements for fencing prohibits slats iu chain link fencing. Mrs. Bacon indicated her agreement for the most part with Mc Outlaw comments, noted that there are some concerns regarding perception that the city io setting a precedent of discretionary exclusion from the codes, and the city demonstrating commitment to compliance with our codes and municipal in(ruatroctore.Mrn.IlaoonvmmUhankfbl[ortbepbotocxhihitouudiudivatudthal tbcnco helped her understand the ouczeo{ facilities. Mrs. Bacon indicated that the city mbon|d integrate our public facilities into our surroundings. Mr. Bacon indicated that public water and wastewater facilities should be looked at with case-by-case criteria and should not change the codes for public water and wastewater facilities. Mr. [}oble suggested that apotcmdo| option to address uonnmzcuto about our current Code requirement for landscaping involving planting shrubs on the inside of the opaque wall when adjacent 10 residential use, could bc to instead landscape ou the outside of the required zoumoory wall. Mr. Dahle indicated this would make the public facilities more visually appealing and still maintain security of the facilities. Mr. Dah|c noted to focus on shrubs more than trees for k" acoun� purposes. Mr. Greenwald mentioned that the selection of locations for existing facilities is based outhe need to place water tanks lo higher elevated locations. Mr. Greenwald commented aboutLhe cost difference between wooden and metal poles. Mrs. Bacon indicated that her concern is not what is planted on the inside of the public facility, but what is planted on the outside portion of the fence and how we can integrate these sites into the surrounding community. Mrs. Gould c|mrificdthat the current UDC requirement io for the landscape buffer bohoprovided no the interior side of the masonry wall and that city staff improposing an amendment npthat public water and wastewater facilities do not have to provide the landscaping within the mandatory 2O-foot buffer area that ix required whenoon-reoidontialcevelopmentioadjacont to residential use orresidentially zoned property. Mrs, Bacon asked if this will affect the next proposed water and wastewater facility on FMI 518. Mrs. Gould clarified that staff currently has applications for two different facilities but they are not immediately off FM 1518. She mentioned the Corbett Booster S1o1oo that is located off Ray Corbett Drive and the south Schertz treatment plant that CCMA proposes off Trainer Hale Road. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission May 9,2018 Page 4of7 Mr. Dahle asked if the Unified Development Code currently allow for waivers on a case-by- case basis. Mrs. Gould indicated that the Unified Development Code Currently does not have waivers in place and staff is in the process of evaluating how to incorporate a waiver process into the UDC. Staff and the commission had a discussion regarding a waiver process and the responsibility of the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Outlaw indicated that he agrees that the landscape buffer should be revised to the outside of the fence. Mr. Rae had no additional comments for the discussion. Mr. Braud asked about the handout for proposed UDC amendment some of the pages are missing. Mrs. Gould clarified that some of the pages are missing and that it should have been a two-side handout. Mr. Brand mentioned that for public utility facilities, a majority of the time the city does not get to select the location. He mentioned that these facilities are determined mostly by geography and cost could fluctuate depending on the materials needed to develop the infrastructure. Mr. Braud mentioned that barbed wire fences are to ensure security as a priority. Mrs. Gould gave clarification on the sections that are missing from the packet which is the landscaping portion regarding landscape buffer requirements for non-residential uses and she indicated this was presented at the last meeting and that the proposed amendments have not changed since the last meeting. Mrs, Gould explained this proposal is to exempt public water and waste water facilities from the planting requirement within the 20-foot landscape buffer when an eight-foot masonry fence is provided at or near the project boundary. Mrs. Gould indicated the proposed amendments also include exempting public water and wastewater facilities from the parking area landscaping requirements since water and wastewater facilities typically do not generate the need for many parking spaces. Mrs. Gould explained that for public water and wastewater facilities, staff proposes to allow for opaque fencing within the front yard. Mrs. Gould also mentioned that barbed wire fencing is allowed for propel ties when associated with the keeping of livestock. Staff is proposing to modify the requirement to allow for barbed wire fencing at water and wastewater facilities so long as the fencing is not visible from public rights-of-way. Mr. Dahle asked about the existing facility along Morning Dr. and whether the back portion if that could have barbed wire fence under the proposed UDC amendments. Mrs. Gould indicated no, because if you continue on Morning Dr. barbed wire fencing along the back portion of the facility would still be visible. Mr. Rae indicated that there should be a better way to keep it more aesthetically pleasing regarding the security concern instead of having barbed wire at these facilities. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2018 Page 5 of 7 The commissioners had some questions on the two or three strand barbed wire fence in-lieu of chain-link fence, strand barbed wire ootop of chain-link fence and constantinewire. Mr. Braud indicated that that staff and commissioners need to address to allow chain-link fence with security wire for these facilities. Mrs. Gould noted that staff o current proposed amendment is10 allow for barbed wire fencing at public p/o1nr and p/uxbewutcr facilities on long as it iu not visible from o public right of way. She mentioned that in the past staff had to present these to the Board of Adjustment uuavariance. Mrs. Bacon asked the quootbzu` by the security concern so great that staff has to make ublanket statement iothe Unified Development Code to allow barbed wire fencing on all ousom. Mrs. Gould indicated that this iauICB(] requirement aodnothcourruu1ondcimiu000Dictn/itbtbut requirement, She described that the amendment is to enable the barbed wire fencing on top of chain link fencing. There was discussion with commissioners and staff regarding if commissioners should mml<'ea recommendation h city council u[ disapproval and what the repercussions are. Mr. Evans indicated that the commission should consider creating a subcommittee tw discuss iu further detail the right recommendation for the Commission to make. Mrs. Wood indicated that she was not o1 the last discussion and listening 10 this discussion she really has not heard a real consensus from the Planning and Zoning Commission. She indicated that staff needs a little more direction from the commissioners and that we should talk tlu-ough the issues 10 provide clearer direction Lostaff. Mr. Outlaw indicated he agreed with Mrs. Wood with 75 to 80 percent of what is being proposed for recommendation to City Council. Mr. Outlaw discussed that the landscape buffer on the inside does not make sense, still will debate with interior landscaping of parking areas, and his primary objection to the amendment im the blanket exemption to the tree mitigation section. Mr. Outlaw motioned for a recommendation to City Council of disapproval on the public hearing item ZC20l8-0D2. Mrs. Bacon seconded the motion. The vote was 0-7 nay, motion did not omzy° city staff and commissioners opened for further discussion. Mb. 0uhlc suggested discussing landscaping issues to come to some oouuoomom and give staff the ability tu come upwith some new language. Mr. Evans indicated that three of the Vonlmioxioouxo u6on|d consider creating subcommittee to meet with city staff to discuss iu further detail additional modifications to the proposed UDC amendments. Mr. I}ob|c indicated that would be oypropcbKu and commissioners do have the ability to form subcommittees just as long as a quorum im not formed. The commissioners agreed to fbon o onboozonotUee and Ms. l]uoou, Mr. (]rcoop/a/d, and Mr. Outlaw volunteered 1obonu the subcommittee. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission May 9,2018 Page 6 of 7 Mr. Outlaw motioned to table public hearing item ZC2018-002 until staff can meet with the subcommittee and bring the language back at the next public hearing meeting. Mr. Greenwald seconded the motion. The vote was 7-0, motion carried. A. Requests by Commissioners to place items on a future Planning and Zoning Agenda. No commissioners spoke. B. Announcements by Commissioners. City and community events attended and to be attended Continuing education events attended and to be attended No commissioners spoke. C. Announcements by City Staff. • City and community events attended and to be attended. • Written update on Woman Hollering Creek Wastewater Project • NEW SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS: The following site plan was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department between April 19, 2018 and May 4, 2018. 1. Wiederstein Ranch Lott, Block 1 (18658 IH 35N) Site Plan- 17.44 acre commercial retail building Ms. Grobe made a brief presentation describing the new submitted site plan to the commissioners. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 P.M. Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2018 Page 7 of 7 Recor" ecretary, Cit)t et tz