Loading...
PZ 01-22-2014PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES January 22, 2014 The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened on January 22, 2014 at the Municipal Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION David Richmond, Chairman Ken Greenwald Bert Crawford, Jr. Richard Brand Michael Dahle William Rumfelt, Alternate Yolanda Suarez, Alternate COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Ernie Evans, Vice - Chairman Christian Glombik 1] PA a 9 CITY STAFF Brian James, Executive Director Development Michelle Sanchez, Director Development Services Lesa Wood, Senior Planner Bryce Cox, Planner I Jim Hooks, Assistant PW Director Larry Busch, Jr., Engineer in Training Patti White, Executive Asst. Development Mr. Richmond called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M. SEAT ALTERNATE TO ACT IF REQUIRED Mr. Richmond seated Mr. Rumfelt for Mr. Evans and Ms. Suarez for Mr. Glombik. BEARING OF RESIDENTS Mr. Richmond proceeded to Item 4.A. p A. Bold a Public Hearing, consider and make a recommendation on an amendment of Part III, Schertz Codes of Ordinances, Unified Development Code (UDC), Article I General Provisions. Ms. Wood presented this item by stating that there are changes and updates to Article 1 of the UDC with the following points: • Background on Amendments • Article 1: • Section 21.1.4 Jurisdiction o Updated language for clarity o 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 o Removed unnecessary language that is defined in the adopted City of Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission January 22, 2014 Page I of 11 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) o Updated language for clarity • Section 21.1.9 Validity o Updated language for clarity • Deleted — Minimum Requirements, Effective Date, Severability • Added — Development Manual, Public Work Specification Manual As stated in the UDC, City Council from time to time, on its own motion, or at the recommendation of City Staff, may amend, change or modify text to any portion of the UDC to establish and maintain sound stable and desirable development. It is generally considered good practice to periodically review and update the development regulations due to changing conditions, community goals and State and Federal regulations. Based on the update to the Comprehensive Land Plan and changes in development it has becomes necessary to update the UDC. This amendment was drafted by Planning Staff and reviewed by the City Attorney (Katherine Tapley, Norton Rose Fulbright). A public hearing was conducted at the January 8, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting where Staff discussed the proposed amendments with the Commission to gain their input and receive public comment on the proposed amendments: • Minor text amendments have been made to a reference to the Master Thoroughfare Plan and to refine language to be consistent with the Texas Local Government Code (LGC). This includes the elimination of the Sections related to Minimum Requirements; Effective Date; and Severability. • Sec. 21.1.4 Jurisdiction was modified in order to provide consistency with LGC as well as a list of Articles that will assist both the public and staff to understand what portions of the UDC apply to properties located in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). • Sec. 21.1.5 Consistency with the Comprehensive Land Plan (CLP) was modified to remove text that exists in the CLP to eliminate any conflict with the UDC. • Sec. 21.1.6 Vested Rights "Issuance of Local Permits" was modified to include definitions, a procedure to claim vested rights, obtain a determination and appeal of the decision as well as a procedure that allows the Planning and Zoning Commission to extend the vested rights expiration date. Over the last two years City Staff has had several cases where developers have requested vested rights on a project, and State Law provides landowners or developers an opportunity to vest (grandfather) regulations that apply to their project. The UDC has an existing section regarding vested rights, but the modification to include procedures and expiration dates will assist in processing an increased number of requests. Ms. Wood stated that the word "contact" has been changed to "contract" per Ms. Suarez's comment at the last P &Z meeting, and the requirement for an email address also has been removed. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission January 22, 2014 Page 2 of 1 1 Ms. Wood stated 2 sections have been added at the end with an explanation on the Development Manual and the Public Works Specifications Manual where Staff can make changes to a checklist from time to time on technical requirements rather than amending the UDC. Staff recommends approving the amendment to the Unified Development Code (UDC), Article 1 — General Provisions as presented. Mr. Richmond opened the Public Hearing at 6:09 P.M. There being no one to speak, Mr. Richmond closed the Public Hearing at 6:10 P.M. Mr. Crawford thanked Ms. Wood for making sure that statements were consistent with the Local Government Code. Mr. Brand stated that he is very comfortable with the changes that he recommended to Staff. Mr. Greenwald moved to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval on an amendment of Part II, Schertz Codes of Ordinances, UDC, Article 1 General Provisions. Mr. Crawford seconded the motion. Vote was 7 -0. Motion carried. B. Hold a Public Hearing, consider and make a recommendation on an amendment of Part III, Schertz Codes of Ordinances, Unified Development Code (UDC), Article 3 Boards, Commissions and Committees. Ms. Wood presented this item by stating that there are changes and updates to Article 3 of the UDC with the following points: ® 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 o Deleted Structure and Operations Procedures • Article 21.3.4 Board of Adjustment o Deleted items that are covered in the BOA by -laws and covered in State Law (LGC) • Article 21.3.5 Administrative Authority o 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 o Updated to be consistent with City Charter and Board by -laws As stated in the UDC, City Council from time to time may amend, change or modify text to any portion of the UDC to establish and maintain sound stable and desirable development. It is generally considered good practice to periodically review and update the development regulations due to changing conditions, community goals and State and Federal regulations. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission January 22, 2014 Page 3 of 1 I This amendment was drafted by Planning Staff and reviewed by the City Attorney ([Catherine Tapley, Norton Rose Fulbright). A public hearing was conducted at the January 8, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting where Staff discussed the proposed amendments with the Commission to gain their input and receive public comment on the proposed amendments: • Text amendments were made to Article 3 in order to provide consistency with the City Charter and with each Board, Committee and Commission by -laws. • Minor text amendments have been made to correct the title of Transportation Safety Advisory Commission (TSAC). Staff recommends approving the amendment to the Unified Development Code (UDC), Article 3 — Boards, Commissions and Committees as presented. Mr. Richmond opened the Public Hearing at 6:12 P.M. There being no one to speak, Mr. Richmond closed the Public Hearing at 6:13 P.M. Mr. Greenwald stated that Article 21.3.3.B.1 contains the same wording for the Planning and Zoning Commission duties as Article 21.3.5.C.1 has for the City Manager duties. Ms. Wood stated the P &Z offers recommendation as well as Staff and then takes the item to City Council, and the order was changed by the way Staff processes the application. Mr. Richmond asked if 21.3.5.0 should state to whom the City Manager is making a recommendation. Mr. James stated that a recommendation is made to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to City Council. Ms. Wood asked if we might need to make a recommendation to another board. Mr. James suggested that we leave it open ended to make a recommendation to any appropriate body. Mr. Rumfelt stated that it appears that Staff can make decisions without coming to the P &Z Commission. Ms. Wood stated yes, that State Law grants Staff the ability to make certain decisions for administrative approval. Mr. Richmond asked if in fact P &Z has final authority on minor plats, yet doesn't see them. Ms. Wood stated that Staff has the ability to bring plats to P &Z and give them final authority. Mr. Richmond asked if P &Z has the final approval authority, then who decides what comes to P &Z. Mr. James stated that Staff has the authority to approve a minor plat, but not deny it or grant a waiver, so there are certain items that must be submitted to P &Z. Mr. Crawford asked if a waiver would then have to go to the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Wood stated that if Staff and P &Z deny a minor plat, then the applicant would appeal to City Council. Ms. Suarez asked how many lots are in a minor plat. Ms. Wood replied that State law limits a minor plat to no more than four lots. Mr. Richmond stated that this section is not clear. Mr. James stated that we need to be sure the UDC is clear, and suggests that the Commission postpone action, have Staff go back and make it clear where P &Z has authority. Mr. Braud stated that in the current UDC in Article 21.3.5.0.1 the City Manager recommends to himself and this should be changed. Ms. Wood asked which sections need more research. Mr. Richmond stated that Article 21.3.5.A -L duties and approval authority, and Article 21.3.3.B.2 P &Z Commission final authority on certain items both need to be clarified. Discussion followed between Staff and the Commission. Mr. Greenwald moved to postpone taking action on this item to a date certain. Mr. Dahle seconded the motion. Vote was 7 -0. Motion carried. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission January 22, 2014 Page 4 of 11 1 Mr. Richmond apologized for skipping this item and asked if there was anyone to speak. No one spoke. A. Public hearing, presentation and discussion on F7oodplain Management. Mr. Hooks presented this item by stating the following points: ® NFIP • The National Flood Insurance Program was created by Congress in 1968. • The purpose of the NFIP is to: • Protect people and property • Ensure that federal flood insurance disaster assistance is available • Save tax dollars • Reduce flood losses o Reduce liability Membership Requirements o Being a member of the NFIP is based on a mutual agreement between the Federal Government and communities. Communities that participate agree to regulate floodplain development according to certain criteria and standards. The partnership involves: • Flood Insurance Maps. FEMA prepares maps that are used by the communities, insurance agents and others. • Flood Insurance. Property owners in participating communities are eligible to purchase federal flood insurance for buildings and contents. • Regulations. Communities must agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations so that development, including buildings, is undertaken in ways that reduce exposure to flooding. Schertz' Participation in NFIP • Became a regular member on September 15, 1977. • Initial Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) was dated March 3, 1974. • Initial Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) dated September 15, 1977. • Currently we have 3 effective FIRMS • Guadalupe County, effective November 2, 2007 • Comal County, effective September 2, 2009 • Bexar County, effective September 29, 2010 Currently • Schertz has 630 flood policies in force with the insurance value being $103,777,100.00 • Since Schertz has been in the NFIP the City has had 50 paid losses and the total amount paid out in losses is $1,035,494.35 • There have been 12 substantial damage claims in the City since 1978. Definitions • 100 -year floodplain (or base flood). Means the flood having a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. • Floodway. This is the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission January 22, 2014 Page 5 of I I land areas that must be reserved in order to pass the base flood discharge without increasing flood depths o Base Flood Elevation (or BEE). This is the water surface elevation in feet above datum during a base flood event. • Riverine Flood Zones • Shaded Zone X. A low risk area with a 0.2% annual chance flood or a 500 - year flood • Un- shaded Zone X. An area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance flood • Zone A. A base flood or 1% annual chance flood without water surface elevations or BFEs (unstudied) • Zone AE. The base flood or 1% annual chance flood with water surface elevations or BFEs (studied) • Responsibilities of Community o To enforce the City's Floodplain Ordinance. In this Ordinance the communities have to regulate development in and around the floodplain. One of the tools we use to track what development is happening is to require a Flood Development Permit. • Activities Requiring a Permit • Constructing new buildings (including temporary or agricultural) • Additions to existing buildings • Substantial improvement to existing buildings (including interior renovations) • Repair of substantial damaged buildings • Placement of manufactured (mobile) homes • Subdivision of land • Parking or storing recreation vehicles • Storing materials, including gas /liquid tanks • Construction of roads, bridges and culverts • Placement of fill, grading, excavation, mining and dredging • Alterations of stream channels • Oil and gas drilling • Responsibilities of the Property Owners • A Property Owner that has a structure within the regulated floodplain may be required to have flood insurance if they have a federally backed mortgage on the structure. • A Property Owner shall obtain a floodplain permit for any improvements on their property. • Ways to Determine if your Property is in the Floodplain • Obtain an elevation certificate from a licensed surveyor or engineer. • View floodplain maps online at www.fema.gov • Contact your local Floodplain Administrator for your community. • Elevation Certificate o Elevation Certificates are used to determine what level the structure is in the Base Flood or if at all. This can be used to lower the cost of flood insurance rates in some circumstances. The City requests a copy of all Elevation Certificates to be kept on file for future property owners and to potentially lower the cost of flood insurance community -wide when we enter the Community Rating System (CRS). Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission January 22, 2014 Page 6 of 1 I ® Higher Standards • Freeboard. Require a 1' freeboard on all new development and substantial improvements within regulated floodplain (this means the finished floor must be built 1' above the BFE) and requiring an elevation certificate to verify. • No Rise. Current minimum FEMA standards allow for a 1' rise in the water surface elevation in the floodplain. Our new higher standard requires no rise unless it can be contained within the property being developed. • Waiver. The new Ordinance also gives the Floodplain Administrator the ability to waive certain submittal requirements in the densely- developed downtown areas to prevent slum and blight. • Elevation Certificate. Additionally, the new ordinance requires all property with new development within 100' of an unstudied Zone A provide an elevation certificate or study the floodplain to ensure it is built above the water surface area for a base flood. Mr. Dahle asked about the waiver program. Mr. Busch stated there are requirements for waiver requests, and a flood shadow which studies the impact of the shed. Mr. James stated that the wording was changed to allow for concerns to impact their property or someone else's property. Mr. Greenwald stated that property in the floodplain which is being sold must be identified. Mr. James stated that discussion at City Council last night suggested that the legislature cut funding, and the subsidy that residents received has gone down. Residents are asking about it, and the Mayor is taking the lead to go out to elected officials. SARA has funded a study on the Cibolo Creek, and Bulverde is asking for state funding and to be included as a stakeholder for a regional solution. Mr. Richmond opened the Public Hearing at 6:46 P.M. The following spoke: e Steve Layton, 12231 Lost Meadows Drive, spoke on AO and AH zones. Mr. Richmond closed the Public Hearing at 6:50 P.M. Mr. Crawford asked if we are involved in the CRS program. Mr. Hooks stated that we are not as of this time due to staffing. Mr. Dahle asked about the timing of completion on the SARA study. Mr. James stated that Staff will ask, let the Commission know at the next meeting, and advise about participation at public meetings. Mr. Brand asked if SARA is going to do the study on Cibolo Creek since there is no Cibolo Creek authority. Mr. Hooks stated SARA's authority extends only on the Bexar County side of the creek; GBRA has authority on the other side. Discussion followed between Staff and the Commission. B. Public hearing, presentation and discussion on Septic / Sewer. Mr. Cox stated that this presentation is part 2 of the septic discussion series and made the following points: ® County Requirements • Site and soil evaluation by a qualified evaluator • Submit design and plans for review • Receive plan approval Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission January 22, 2014 Page 7 of 17 o Additional permits may be required if the property or structure is in the floodplain • Licensed installer builds system • The County inspects the system at different phases during the construction • Receive a license or permit to operate the system • Bexar County • All systems must be designed by a Professional Engineer or Registered Sanitarian. • Minimum Lot sizes are: o .5 acre of useable land outside of easements and ROW dedications if parcel utilizes central water supply. 0 1.5 acres of useable land outside of easements and ROW dedications if parcel utilizes private water well. • Comal County o A Professional Engineer or Registered Sanitarian is required to design the system if: • Lots are smaller than 1 acre and serviced by a water well • Lot is less than .5 acre and served by a public water system • Lot platted after January 1, 1988 • All systems in the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone • Systems serving manufactured housing communities, RV parks or multi- unit residential developments • Guadalupe County c A Professional Engineer or Registered Sanitarian is required to design the system if: • System requires a pump tank • Site is in the floodplain • Site has type 1 a or IV soil • As required in TCEQ rules Ch. 285 o 1 acre minimum is required for a septic permit ® Minimum Lot Size for Septic in County: Bexar County .5 acre of useable land outside of easements and ROW dedications if parcel utilizes central water supply 1.5 acres of useable land outside of easements and ROW dedications if parcel utilizes private water well Comal County .5 acre or less on public water (PE required) 1 acre or less on well water (PE required) Guadalupe 1 acre County Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission January 22, 2014 Page 8 of 1 I • Minimum Lot Size for Septic in City Minimum Lot Size New Braunfels .5 acre Cibolo 1 acre Live Oak .5 acre Seguin .5 acre Kyle .5 acre Converse 1 acre Universal City .5 acre on public water 1.5 acre on private well State Required Maintenance • An initial two -year service policy is required for all new OSSF o Maintenance providers must be licensed by TCEQ • At the end of the initial two -year service contract the home owner may shall either maintain their OSSF or obtain a new maintenance contract. • Mandatory testing and reporting is required for aerobic systems maintained by service provider • http: / /www. bg ra.org /septic.swf Mr. Richmond opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M. • Maggie Titterington, 10217 Ivy Horn, spoke on septic system and new homeowner information. • Steve Layton, 12231 Lost Meadows Drive, spoke on homeowner maintained septic system. Mr. Richmond closed the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M. Mr. Greenwald stated if you ever sell, a homeowner needs to provide the septic system permit to the new owner. Mr. Dahle asked if only aerobic systems may be installed today and not anaerobic. Mr. Cox stated that both are allowed. Mr. Dahle asked what the Commission needs to do to move up the acreage lot size on how we are handling the septic. Mr. James stated that the next step is to fully understand the implications of changing the lot sizes and what it means, and what it leads to. Mr. Braud said thank you for the presentation and information, and thanked Ms. Titterington and Mr. Layton for speaking which confirms his concerns on building these large developments with septic systems. Mr. James stated that Staff will call the county and check if there was a test for every lot in Ms. Titterington's subdivision. Mr. Dahle asked if at an upcoming meeting Staff can show current maps of CCMA and SARA. Mr. James stated that at the next P &Z meeting, Staff will bring maps, contracts, information from other cities on septic systems and information on implications of changing lot sizes. Discussion followed between Staff and the Commission. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission January 22, 2014 Page 9 of I I C. Presentation and discussion on 2013 TX APA Conference Presentations. Mr. Cox stated that Mr. Brand and Mr. Crawford had requested and submitted APA presentations that they would like to discuss: the Food Truck Phenomena, and You've Adopted a Form Based Code, Congratulations! Now what? Mr. Brand stated that there are only so many on the web site and he found another presentation this morning, and he would to combine those presentations and present at the next meeting. It was agreed that this presentation would take place later. Mr. James stated that Staff would like to place on a future agenda. 6. 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. Mr. Crawford asked if Mr. James would like to clarify on administrative approval. Mr. James stated that Staff has given the Commission a report showing what is administratively approved, but Staff will add information to the report so that it is clear where the project is and the scale of the project. Mr. Brand noticed that there is a traffic meeting for Oak Valley on February 12 "' and since that is a P &Z meeting day, he asked who would attend. Mr. Rumfelt stated that he will attend the meeting as an interested citizen, not formally as a Commissioner. Mr. Brand stated that he is interested in the outcome of the meeting. Mr. Brand asked about the gas pipe lying along Schertz Parkway and what is for. Mr. James stated that Staff will find out. C. Announcements by Commissioners. • Mr. Dahle stated that the joint study with Randolph is also scheduled on February 12`I' and he would like to get feedback. Mr. Richmond stated that there is a benefit to the Commission and the City of attending meetings held on the same date, and bringing back information to Commissioners. If you learn of a conflict, please call Staff or Mr. Richmond and request attendance at another meeting. • Mr. Brand thanked Staff for the removal of the fence in the detention area at Oak Valley; it is a great improvement. • Mr. Dahle stated he attended the community advisory meeting with the school district a few weeks ago and one of the things discussed will be the spending of a couple million dollars on the press box at the football stadium. This money is not from the 2013 bond issue, but is coming out of the M &O fund. D. Announcements by City Staff. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission January 22, 2014 Page 10 of 1 I Mr. James stated that there will be a semi - annual meeting of City Board and Commission Chairpersons on February 10th to provide brief presentations /discussion of outstanding issues which later will be presented to City Council. Ms. Sanchez stated that the next meeting will be on February 12th. 7. ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR MEETING The meeting adjourned at 8:09 P.M. & �Jwt' V'JJj, Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission January 22, . 2014 Page I 1 of I 1 O & Wq, Recording Secretary, City of Schertz