Loading...
07-26-2005 PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES July 26, 2005 The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened on July 26,2005 at 6:30 p.m. at the Municipal Complex, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas in Council Chambers. PLANNING& ZONING COMMISSION David Richmond, Chairman Ernie Evans, Vice Chairman Keith Van Dine, Secretary Clovis Haddock William Sommers Roberta Tutschke Gary Wallace Michael Carpenter, City Council Liaison CITY STAFF Nancy McBeth, Director of Planning Misty Nichols, Planning Technician Jonette Ellis, Planning Technician Don Taylor, City Manager COMMISSIONERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT Mr. Robert Brockman, 1000 Elbel Road Mr. Dean Chinni, 5450 FM 1103 Mr. David Dye, 4047 Stahl Rd. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richmond called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. CITIZEN COMMENTS: There was no one present to speak. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: There were no consent items for this agenda. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Mr. Richmond moved Public Hearing Agenda Item 4A to be heard after item # 5C B. ZC2005-021 Hold a public hearing and consider and act upon a request to rezone 2.440:t acres from Residential! Agriculture District (R-A) to Manufacturing District-Light (M-l). The subject property is situated in the Rafael Garza Survey, Abstract No. 93 in Guadalupe County, Texas. The property is located at the northwest corner ofFM 1103 and Old Wiederstein Road (5450 FM 1103). Applicant: Dean Chinni, Sigma Industrial Automation, Inc Ms. Ellis reviewed the following comments: BACKGROUND: The property owner has been working with City Staff for over six month to determine the procedure to expand his current facility. The activity of this business is computers and equipment assembly for providing the labeling and scanning of packaged fresh foods on a production line. This line of equipment also tracks the product from the time of packaging to the time of selling the product. The Texas Scales and Sigma Industrial are both family owned and operated. In fact, the majority of the family lives on a portion of the adjacent tracts. The property currently has three (3) buildings at the location. The 4,335 square foot building houses the Texas Scales facility which was constructed in 1984. The facility houses the calibration lab and service office. A portion Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission July 26, 2005 Page I of9 of this facility is used as warehousing and administrative offices. The 2,209 square foot facility was constructed in 1994 and is being used to assemble computers and software systems for the Sigma products. The third building on the exhibit is currently a residence being used by a family member. Future plans are to incorporate the facility for an office. CURRENT SITUATION: The current use of the property is a legal non-conforming use. The property owner may continue to operate his business, but he would not be allowed to expand the facility or make any improvement without bringing the property into conformance. The property owner desires to expand his facility with a new 9,000 square foot building. The applicant was advised to zone, plat and site plan the property. Upon stafr s review of the current operations, we have found that the only zoning that would allow light assembly would be the M-l District. Therefore, with the cooperation of the property owner, staff has selected the permitted uses that would be allowed on this property under the M -1 zoning district; the list follows: Accessory Buildings, Residential Amusement, Commercial or Outdoor/ Indoor Animal Clinic, or Pet Hospital (No Outside Pens) Antique Shop Art Supply Store Bakery/Confectionery Shop (Retail Sales) Bank or Savings and Loan Office Barber and Beauty Shop Book and Stationery Store Cafeteria/Restaurant Camera Shop Civic Center Cleaning/Laundry Pick-Up Station Cleaning/Laundry Self-Service Shop Clinic, Medical or Dental Country Club Department Store/Discount House DrugstorelPharmacy Florist Shop Furniture Appliance Store Garden Shop and Plant Sales Grocery Store Handicraft and Art Object Sales Hardware Store Hobby Shop Key Shop Laboratory, Manufacturing Laboratory, Medical or Dental LetterlMimeograph Print Shop Library/Art GallerylMuseum LithographlPrint Shop Maintenance and Repair Services Manufacturing Industrial Storage or Assembling Process Medical Appliances, Fittings/Sales Mortuary Optical Shop Package Store Paint Shop (Retail) Personal Custom Services, Tailor/Milliner Related Pet Shop - Small Animals, Birds, Fish Plumbing Shop (Retail) Professional Office Public Recreation Center Radio, Television or Microwave Towers Repair of Appliances, TV's, Radios and Similar Equipment Retail Shops, AppareV Accessories/Gifts and Similar Consumer Items Seat Cover or Muffler Installation Shop Shoe Repair Storage Warehouse Studio, Decorator and Display of Art Objects Studio, HealthlReducing or Similar Service Studio, Photographer/ Artist/Music/ Drama/Dance Telephone Business Office Trade Commercial Schools Travel Bureau or Consultant Variety Store Welding Machine shop New and Unlisted Uses as Provided by Article IV, Section 4 (SUP Required) Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission July 26, 2005 Page 2 of9 Staff mailed six (6) letters of notification to surrounding property owners and we received one (1) response in favor of the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission forward this item to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Brockman asked for clarification on the reason that a business would be allowed in the Residential Agriculture District (RIA). Ms. McBeth explained that this was a use prior to zoning the property; therefore, the business is considered a non-conforming use. There being no one to speak for or against the request, Mr. Richmond closed the Public Hearing at 6:38 p.m. and reconvened into regular session. Mr. Sommers stated that at the July 12, 2005 meeting there was concern that sexually oriented businesses may be allowed if the property is zoned Light -Manufacturing (M -1) District. Ms. McBeth stated that this is why there is a list of allowed uses included as a stipulation to this zoning, and Mr. Chinni ( owner) is aware of the restriction. Ms. McBeth also explained that if the property ever changed owners, and the new owner wanted to allow additional uses, they would have to go through the zoning process again. Ms. Ellis stated that the allowed uses would be a part of the adopted ordinance when the zoning is adopted for this property. Mr. Evans voiced concerns that the surrounding properties are all residential and asked if this is considered spot zoning. Ms. McBeth stated she also dislikes spot zoning, and explained that this is a current use on the property and the owner is planning to expand the facility. The owner also intends to develop the property surrounding the business with residences for him and other family members. Mr. Evans asked that the allowed uses be placed on the plat. Ms. Ellis and Ms. McBeth stated that the allowed uses would be noted in the ordinance and can be recorded separately. Following review and discussion, Mr. Sommers moved to recommend approval to City Council subject to the findings from the City Attorney this is a valid zoning and the uses allowed will be recorded in some form. Mr. Van Dine seconded the motion. Motion carried. Vote unanimous. 5. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION A. PC2005-038 Consider and act upon a request for a preliminary plat/master plan of the Sigma Subdivision. The 9.994:t acre tract contains 5 lots and is located at the northwest corner of FM 1103 and Old Wiederstein Road (5450 FM 1103). Applicant: Dean Chinni, Sigma Industrial Automation, Inc. Ms. Ellis reviewed the following comments: BACKGROUND: The preliminary plat/master plan shows five (5) lots on the 9.994::1:: acre tract. The property is being platted in accordance with the phasing of the property. The property owner intends to final plat only Lot 1 at this time to expand the current facility. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission July 26, 2005 Page 3 of9 Lots 2, 3 and 4 are being divided to provide for a residential development for the property owners. Lot 4 currently has a home on the land, which is being occupied by the owner. It is the property owner's intent to provide two additional homes for family members. A 25-foot ingress/egress easement has been provided to access the properties off of Old Wiederstein Road, and to provide a second emergency access to Lot 1. The property owner has indicated that Lot 5 will be held for future commercial development. Right-of-way has been provided for FM 1103 in accordance with TxDOT requirements, and future right-of-way will be provided for Old Wiederstein Road at the time the alignment has been determined by TxDOT and the City of Schertz. Staff has reviewed all items and found them to be in compliance with the Unified Development Code; therefore, there are no outstanding issues. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval Mr. Evans asked why the zoning exhibit states the it is 2.44 acres and the plat indicates 2.145 acres on the plat. Ms. Ellis explained that the lot in the zoning exhibit has additional acreage for future expansion, but the applicant is not platting the entire acreage at this time. Mr. Evans questioned why a number oflots show on the preliminary plat and only one-lot shows on the final plat. Ms. McBeth stated that the remaining lots would be presented as a final plat at a later date. Mr. Sommers moved to approve the preliminary plat contingent upon the zoning of the property. Mr. Van Dine seconded the motion. Motion carried. Vote unanimous. B. PC2005-039 Consider and act upon a request for a final plat of the Sigma Subdivision, Block 1, Lot 1. The 2.145:t acre tract contains one lot and is located at the northwest corner of FM 1103 and Old Wiederstein Road (5450 FM 1103). Applicant: Dean Chinni, Sigma Industrial Automation, Inc. Ms. Ellis reviewed the following comments: BACKGROUND: The 2.145::1:: acre tract will be phase 1 of the development. Staff has reviewed all items and found them to be in compliance with the Unified Development Code; therefore, there are no outstanding issues. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval Mr. Evans stated that the notes regarding the uses permitted need to be added to the notes on the plat. He also asked about the right-of-way dedication on FMll 03 and Wiederstein Road. Ms. Ellis clarified the areas being dedicated on the plat. Mr. Sommers moved to approve the preliminary plat contingent upon the zoning of the property. Mr. Van Dine seconded the motion. Motion carried. Vote unanimous. C. PC2005-040 Consider and act upon a request for a site plan of the Sigma Subdivision, Block 1, Lot 1. The 2.145:t acre tract shows two existing buildings and an additional 9,000 square foot building. The request also includes a variance to Article VIII, Section 9.3 (A), requiring an eight (8) foot solid fence. The property is located at the northwest corner ofFM 1103 and Old Wiederstein Road (5450 FM 1103). Applicant: Dean Chinni, Sigma Industrial Automation, Inc. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission July 26, 2005 Page 4 of9 Ms. Ellis reviewed the following comments: BACKGROUND: The applicant is expanding their facility with a 9,420 square foot facility, which will be the operation facility for the Texas Scales and Sigma Industrial business. This facility will also include a showroom for prospective buyers of their product. The scope of this site plan is for the addition to the property, which includes a new building, drive aisles and parking spaces. The existing structures and parking spaces are a part of this site plan for illustration purposes only and not for review. The applicant is also asking for a variance to the 8-foot solid fence requirement. The proposed boundary of the development would place the site adjacent to residentially zoned property, which is owned by the property owner. For security purposes, he is proposing a landscape buffer between the two zoning districts to allow him to view the property at nights and on weekends. An off-site ingress/egress easement is being provided for a second point of access and access to the future residential lots. A security gate will be provided at this location. CURRENT STATUS: This site plan still needs to address a few items, which have been addressed with the applicant and revised plans will be provided at the meeting. They are as follows: 1. Number of parking spaces provided in the site data summary table is incorrect. It should read 37 proposed spaces. 2. The applicant needs to provide a landscape plan noting size, placement and type of trees and landscaping. Also note that landscaping will be irrigated. 3. Provide a tree survey and mitigation plan, which will be required prior to a building permit being issued. 4. Add to note 5: "but will be mitigated." 5. Please note the security gate at the private ingress/egress easement. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval subject to the above conditions being addressed. Mr. Sommers stated that at the last Planning and Zoning meeting it was found that the Commission has no authority to grant variances. Ms. McBeth stated that this variance relates to the site plan; she explained that the Commission would still be seeing variances from time to time. There are different cases that will need to be heard by the Commission. This is an all-in-one case. The Commission may hear items at pre-development. Mr. Sommers stated that the Commission has no authority to grant variances. Ms. McBeth stated that zoning is the only thing that allows the Commission to act on variances. Mr. Sommers stated that this is a site plan issue not zoning. Ms. McBeth stated that there is a legal distinction, and she would not have placed this on the agenda if it were illegal. Mr. Evans questioned the distinction that allows the Commission to grant a variance for screening on the site plan. Ms. McBeth stated that this is part of the site plan. When granting this variance it is for the property, not the owner. Mr. Evans stated he is not inclined to approve this variance when the, development is adjacent to residential development. Mr. Chinni stated that the purpose for the variance is for security reasons. He mentioned that he conducts business 24 hours a day. He currently watches his building from his home with binoculars; ifhe places a fence as a buffer he would not be able to watch over his business. He stated that he would be receptive to placing a landscape buffer (living wall) in lieu of the masonry fence requirement. Staff noted that if any of the plants die, that the applicant would be required to replace them. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission July 26, 2005 Page 5 of9 Mr. Van Dine asked how long this company has been in business as a 24-hour operation. Mr. Chinni that they have been conducting this business for more than twenty years. The Commissioners continued discussion relating to the variance, and who should be the appropriate body to grant variances. Ms. McBeth assured the Commission that this variance would not have been placed on the agenda if the action would be illegal for the Commissioners to act upon. Mr. Sommers moved to approve the site plan contingent upon the zoning of the property. Mr. Van Dine seconded the motion. Vote Aye: Mr. Richmond, Mr. Haddock, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Van Dine, Mr. Sommers, and Ms. Tutschke. Vote Nay: Mr. Evans. Motion carried. Mr. Richmond Returned to Item Number 4A: A. ZC2005-020 Hold a public hearing and consider and act upon an amendment to the Unified Development Code (Ordinance 96-S-28) as follows: 1. Delete Article XVI (Administrative), Section 3.4 and 5.4. 2. Delete Article VII (Special Districts), Section 4.1, Paragraph 1 3. Amend Article VII (Special Districts) adding Section 7, Alternative Development District. Applicant: City of Schertz (1) Delete Article XVI (Administrative), Section 3.4 and 5.4. Ms. Ellis reviewed the following comments: BACKGROUND: Article XVI, Section 3.4 of the Unified Development Code requires that all requests for amendments and/or changes to the Unified Development Code be filed with the Planning Department seven (7) days prior to the next regular Planning and Zoning meeting. Any amendment to the UDC needs to be reviewed and researched by staff to determine findings for the request. Following review, the Planning Director will process the request based on the adopted Planning and Zoning meeting calendar. Article XVI, Section 5.4 of the Unified Development Code requires all petitions for zoning be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission to set a date for a public hearing. City Council has also been following this procedure and staff has found it to be unnecessary due to the petition being discussed with the applicant prior to proper notification requirements outlined by State Law to conduct a public hearing. The Planning and Zoning Commission adopted an annual calendar that properly notifies any applicant of submittal deadlines and meeting dates. Ms. McBeth stated that removing this section from the Unified Development Code is intended to comply with State Law. Mr. Sommers stated that he could see no reason not to approve the request. Mr. Sommers moved to recommend approval to City Council, the request to delete Sections 3.4 and 5.4 of Article XVI. Mr. Van Dine seconded the motion. Motion carried. Vote unanimous. Mr. Richmond asked to take a short break at 7:50 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 8:22 p.m. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission July 26, 2005 Page 6 of9 2) Delete Article VII (Special District), Section 4.1, Paragraph 1 BACKGROUND: Article VII, Section 4.1. Paragraph 1 states that any development of land within the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) will be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration of a Specific Use Permit in accordance with Article V, Specific Uses. The City of Schertz adopted the Randolph AFB AICUZ study and staff closely follows the guidelines when reviewing development. The requirement for a Specific Use Permit puts needless hardship on the property owner to go through the public hearing process, and on the Planning Staff to notify surrounding property owners. Staff informs the applicant of the objectives of the AICUZ and ensures they comply with the regulations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission forward these amendments to City Council with a recommendation of approval to: 1. Remove Section 3.4 and Section 5.4 of Article XVI of the Unified Development Code. 2. Remove Paragraph 1 of Section 4.1 Article VII, of the Unified Development Code. Mr. Evans stated that he has not had the opportunity to read the Randolph Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Study, and would like to review the study prior to acting on this item. If the Randolph Study were less restrictive then it would behoove the Commission to be more restrictive. Ms. McBeth explained that the UDC adopts the rules of the Randolph Study; therefore, the Unified Development Code (UDC) is not more restrictive today. She stated that after reviewing the document, it indeed covers any and all needs. She explained that the reason for the request is to eliminate the necessary hardship on the property owner. Concerns of the restrictive aspects of the Randolph Study verses the UDC continued to be discussed among the Commissioners. Ms. McBeth once again explained that the UDC refers to the rules of the Randolph Study; this determines how restrictive the City has to be when developing in the AICUZ, and Randolph has to approve in writing prior to any approval by the City. She explained that this is not the proper use or intent for an SUP, and the owner becomes a victim of this requirement. If the SUP were to cover an entire use, this would be a different story. Mr. Wallace moved to recommend approval to City Council. Mr. Haddock seconded the motion. Vote Aye: Mr. Wallace and Mr. Haddock. Vote Nay: Mr. Evans, Mr. Van Dine, Mr. Sommers, and Ms. Tutschke. Motion failed. Further discussion by Mr. Evans stated that he would like to see more information on the Randolph Study, and their needs to be a committee formed to study alternatives. Mr. Sommers moved to recommend disapproval to City Council. Mr. Van Dine seconded the motion. Vote Aye: Mr. Evans, Mr. Van Dine, Mr. Sommers, and Ms. Tutschke. Vote Nay: Mr. Haddock and Mr. Wallace. Motion carried. 3) Amend Article VII (Special Districts) adding Section 7, Alternative Development District (ADD). (Later known as Planned Unit Development (PUD)) Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission July 26, 2005 Page 7 of9 Ms. McBeth handed out an example of an ADD type of development. She stated that this is a separate district within the Special District section of the Unified Development Code (UDC) that provides flexibility with a higher standard of development. She also explained that this type of development requires a lot of forward planning. She stated an application for a PUD will be presented to City Council with a document spelling out the entire development after approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The Master Development Plan will show acreage of the use, and overall density of the development will be presented at the time the property is zoned. After further discussion, the Commission decided that it would be best if they hold a couple of work sessions reviewing the PUD. Mr. Richmond called for a second break at 10:00 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 10:27 p.m. Mr. Richmond stated that a notice has already been published for a public hearing regarding the PUD zoning; therefore, this must be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Following review and discussion, Mr. Sommers moved to forward recommendation of approval to City Council, with the following: Create an Alternative Development District, which encompasses land for development: 1. part of which resides within the AICUZ and that complies with the Randolph AICUZ Study and Article VII (Special Districts) Section 4 (AICUZ) of the Unified Development Code, but which is not required to specify an underlying zoning district category, lot size dimensions, or lot area relative to the Unified Development Code Article III (Zoning Districts) or Article VI (Density and Dimensions); and, 2. where the portion of the property lies outside the AICUZ, it complies with an underlying zoning district of the Unified Development Code, specifically Article III (Zoning Districts) or Article VI Density and Dimensions. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. Motion carried. Vote unanimous. 6. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A. Planning Commissioner Comments: Ms. Tutschke: Asked if there could be a workshop and separate action meeting for the (PUD). She also asked to discuss the idea of zoning in the city. Mr. Evans: Asked that something be done about the tractor-trailers parking in the right-of-way on FM 78. Mr. Taylor stated that the Police Department has been informed and are taking care of it. B. City Council Report Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission July 26, 2005 Page 8 of9 Mr. Caruenter: The City Council has received resignation letter from Mr. Simonson. Council is continuing discussion on a Charter Committee that will review documents within a 90-day period. C. Director's Report Don Tavlor: Stated that he appreciated the hard work of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. McBeth: Stated the AP A Conference forms need to be filled out and turned in by Friday. Sharing rooms are appreciated. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mr. Sommers moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Mr. Van Dine seconded the motion. Motion carried. Vote unanimous. r(JJLA~oL Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission L. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission July 26, 2005 Page 9 of9