Loading...
PZ 4-27-2016VLANNING AND ZONING April 27, 2016 A Regular Meeting was held by the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 27, 2016 at the Municipal Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas. PLANNING & ZONING COMIMIISSION David Richmond, Chairman Ernie Evans, Vice - Chairman Ken Greenwald Bert Crawford, Jr. Richard Braud Michael Dahle Christian Glombik COMMISSIONERS ABSENT 1. CALL TO ORDER CITY STAFF, Brian James, Executive Director Development Lesa Wood, Director Planning and Community Development Bryce Cox, Senior Planner Channary Gould, Planner Emily Grobe, Planner Larry Busch, Storm Water Manager Daniel Santee, City Attorney OTHERS PRESENT Maggie Tittenington / 1730 Schertz Pkwy / Agenda Item 5A Tyler Haile / 6308 FM 3009 / Agenda Item SA Mr. Richmond called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. 2. HEARING OF RESIDENTS ® No citizens comments. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Greenwald requests to hear, the consent agenda item for a discussion. A. PC2016 -021 Consider and act upon a request for approval of a final plat and vacation of a 16' sanitary sewer easement for the Misty Woods Subdivision consisting of 12.14 acres, located on Schertz Parkway approximately 770 feet north of Live Oak Road. Channary Gould, Planner, presented the final plat request. She explained the history of the preliminary plat and that this same final plat was approved previously on September 12, 2012 and that the plat was revised and administratively approved on May 1, 2013 and had expired on May 1, 2015. She also noted that the plat document presented tonight is identical to the plat that was previously administratively approved. The commissioners had a discussion regarding the sewer / drainage easements, how they are identified / titled, the exact location of the easements, and how it is identified on the plat exhibit City staff responded to the questions and concerns from the Commission. Mr. Cox identifies where the easements are located and confirms that all easements have been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and are identical to the revised, approved final plat Minutes P &Z Meeting April 27, 2016 Page 1 of 6 that was approved and expired. Mr. Cox describes that the way the exhibit is presented including how the vacate easement is shown is typical practice. Mr. Cox clarifies that all items have been constructed and have been previously approved. Mr. Dahle moved to approve this item. Mr. Crawford seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Motion carried. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: A. ZC2016 -004 Hold a public hearing, consider and make a recommendation on a request to zone approximately 4.138 acres of land to Public Use District (PUB). The property is more specifically described as a portion of the William Bracken Survey No. 74, Abstract No. 43, Bexar County No. 5056, and the W.S. Bennett Survey No. 75, Abstract No. 61, Bexar County No. 5057, located all in Bexar County; located approximately 3,000 feet east of the intersection of FM 1518 and Ray Corbett Drive. Lesa Wood, Director, presented the proposed rezoning request. She explained that the City currently owns the property and that it is located in the ETJ, currently in the process of annexation, the proposed zoning change is to make the property zoned Public Use, which can be used by the City, State, Federal use. Six (6) Public Hearing Notices were mailed to surrounding property owners. At the time of the meeting no responses had been received. The public hearing notice for City Council has also been published, the zoning request will run concurrently with the annexation ordinance that will be heard at the May 3, 2016 City Council meeting. The Zone Change has been reviewed with the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map, which shows this area as being zoned mixed use neighborhood district. The property is currently designated for an elevated storage tank, which would add additional capacity for the development in the area. Randolph Air Force Base has reviewed the proposed elevated storage tank and has no objections to the location proposed. Staff recommends approval of the rezone request. Mr. Richmond opens the public hearing at 6:20 pm. James Herrera- 12020 Schafer Road Mr. Herrera, adjacent property owner, asked about the 200 ft buffer and it entails. Mr. Evans clarifies that the 200 ft buffer is just a legal obligation that the City notifies that all property owners located within 200 ft of the subject property that an item is being discussed. Ernest Marshal: 12198 Schafer Road Mr. Marshal questions the 200 ft buffer and the impact it will have on his property.Mr. Marshal also questions how large the proposed water storage tank will be. Mr. Evans clarifies that the 200ft buffer is just to mail out notices, that there is a potential rezone for an adjacent property. Mr. Evans clarifies that the buffer does not make an impact on anyone else's Mr. Richmond closes the public hearing at 6 :24pm. Ms. Wood, addressing resident questions, clarifies that by state law we are required to notify all property owners within a 200ft notice of the zoning case. Ms. Wood also indicated that she confirmed Minutes P &Z Meeting April 27, 2016 Page 2 of 6 with the Engineering Department that the proposed tank is to hold 1.5 million gallons and is an elevated storage tank. The commissioners had a discussion regarding the elevation of the tank, the capacity of the tank in relation to existing City storage tanks, the logistics of how a ground storage tank is placed on the ground, and if the property will be platted in the future. Ms. Wood requests for Larry Busch of the Engineering department to come forward and answers some of the more specific questions on the tank, as she is not as familiar since this is just for the zoning of the property. Mr. Busch clarifies that they do not know the exact elevation as it is very preliminary. However, they are trying to match the elevation of the Live Oak storage tank. However, this proposed storage tank might be a little taller. There will also be a 3 million gallon ground storage tank with a pump station in the future. Mr. Busch clarifies that the ground storage tank at Live Oak is a 7.5 Million Gallon and the elevated storage tank at Live Oak is 1.5 Million Gallon Tank. Mr. Busch clarifies that the ground storage tanks typically do not go beneath the ground. It sits on top of the ground and will be roughly as tall as the ones on East Live Oak Road. Ms. Wood clarifies that the property will be platted in the future. Mr. Greenwald moved to make a recommendation to City Council for ZC2016 -004. Mr. Crawford seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous, motion carried WORKSHOP / DISCUSSION: A. Discussion and public hearing related to Unified Development Code, Article 11, Signs. Brian James, Executive Director gave a presentation on Unified Development Code, Article 11, Signs. Mr. James provided the following discussion points: • If you have to read the sign to categorize it, that is a problem going forward. Current code can get confusing at -times on what the code says you can and cannot do • Wall Signs are problematic, and how much signage is truly what the City would like to see. We generally categorize our signs into what type of street the property is on. The faster the traffic, the larger the sign that is allowed. • Current code allows one sign per wall, which makes some developers try to connect more signs together which we view as only one sign. Proposing to change to not just one sign per wall but really how much signage or how many square feet of signs are we going to allow per side. • Currently, properties can have one sign per wall with a max of three signs for the whole building / only three sides are allowed to have signs. Considering a change that would build in more flexibility. Would not necessarily limit the number of signs or the number of walls but rather limit the maximum amount of sign on the building overall and the maximum amount of signage on any one side. • Looking to increasing the amount of signage but provide more flexibility to the property owner on how to use it. ® The 1511 setback from the property line, has continually been an issue. Staff is looking at the site distance and might decrease to l Oft from the property line. Minutes P &Z Meeting April 27, 2016 Page 3 of 6 • Subdivision entrance signs, the height generally works, however the one sign for the entrance can be problematic when developers want to mirror signs on the end of the buffer rather than in the middle of the entrance. • Currently do not allow bandit signs, this is not something that is going to change. However, for larger subdivisions/ master PDDs they face a challenge of the different builders in the various phases and to find the second or third phase starts. They would like to be able to include some signs to help direct to the later phases to allow signs that show where and who the builders are, however only in the subdivision itself. Want to come up with attractive and effective signage for both the developers and the residents. ® Real Estate signs and development signs are also a concern in regards to the time limits that are listed on when they can be displayed. This is hard for City staff to regulate. Also the dimensions between the real estate signs and development signs are different and this is typically problematic. This goes back to, if you have to read the sign to know it is a real estate sign, then this needs to be addressed. Another item that will be addressed is the temporary sign and how long the current code allows them to be left out. Current code allows for an extended period of time, staff thinks that this could be shorter and still get the same appeal. Mr. Richmond opens the public hearing at 6:57pm Tyler Haile — 6308 FM 3009 — Owner of the Chick -fil -A on 3009 ® Chick -fil -A has five signs and they recently did a study of where customers were coming from. Specifically, with his location he finds it difficult to explain where his restaurant is at, and he feels that more signs would definitely be beneficial. As a Schertz resident he does not want tons of signs everywhere but more flexibility for the property owner would really make a huge difference. Maggie Titteninjton —1730 Schertz Parkway ® Agrees with what Brian explained in his presentation and also understands Chick- fil -A's concerns. Fully supports Brian's proposal and thinks that the proposed changes would really benefit the whole look of the community: Mr. Richmond closed the Public Hearing at 7:03pm The commissioners had a discussion and asked questions in regards to the following: digitized signs and the standards around them, 180 day limit on temporary signs, development signs in subdivisions, max square foot per business, window signs. Additionally, the Commission requests that with the next presentation to have the track changes to review the proposed with the existing and to provide some visual examples of what the current ordinance allows. Mr. James provided additional information to the commissioners to clarify the questions presented. Listing that there is no proposed chance to the digitized signs. He nkn exnln;nc the c1P+P,- m;,,a +;,,r -- if a sign is actually temporary. Mr. James also identifies that development signs are designed so that once the development is complete that these would be removed. Mt. James describes the use of window signs. Mr. James also explains that the current code is very black and white and at the time it was written it made sense. However, the expectation going forward is that the expectations will go up and the new codes will build in flexibility so staff can make more discretion Minutes P &Z Meeting April 27, 2016 Page 4 of 6 B. Discussion and public hearing related to tree mitigation and preservation. Brian James, Executive Director, gave a presentation on tree mitigation and tree preservation. Mr. James provided the following discussion points: ® The ordinance currently reads as you have to mitigate based on the trees that are being removed. This usually works well except for the tracts of land that have not been farmed in many years that are currently covered with trees. s City Council has an idea that a certain point there is an excessive amount of mitigation fees for some of the properties. Recently the Parks Department is using the fees to help the growth of existing park trees and in the right of way. Staff would recommend that there be a cap of how much the property owner would have to pay for some of the more wooded sites. Staff is requesting for P &Zs opinion on the instances where there is a more wooded site, should there be a cap on the fees. Mr. Richmond opened the public hearing at 7:40 pm. Robert Brockman: 1000 Elbel Road Believes that there has not been a good representation of tree mitigation in action. References the trees at the Walgreens that died and were never replaced and also mentions that originally the tree mitigation funds were to be used for planting more trees, however the Parks Board uses the funds for other items than just planting trees. Mr. Richmond closed the public hearing at 7:41 pm The commissioners had a discussion that included the following questions and concerns: how are current tree mitigation fees being used, the original concept and reasoning behind tree mitigation, loss of business due to high tree mitigation due, surrounding cities and their tree mitigation, pros and cons of changing the ordinance both for the developer and the City. Mr. James provided additional information to the commissioners to clarify the questions presented. Mr. James provided the following answer items, provided clarification on how the tree mitigation fees are and can be used to benefit the City in accordance with what the ordinance allows. The mitigation fee sometimes makes the developer more thoughtful, but in more cases it just causes agreements between the developer and the seller. Mr. Cox's noted that staff is constantly trying to work through with the developers on how can the trees be saved. Mr. James's also provides that there is a need for an ordinance that helps keep the canopy in the City, that if they cannot help with keeping the canopy then they should have to help pay for it, need an ordinance that makes people conscious of their placement. In his mind, if we have a way to spend it or not, that is beside the point, it is more of are the fees too high. We have to be more selective to ensure that 20 or 40 years from now they properties that we have planted trees will be able to be up Ms. Woods provides that the City has lost out on any developments because of tree mitigation= the southeast corner of Savannah and Schertz Pkwy was platted many years ago. There have been many pre development meetings on this lot but due to the high density of trees they have all decided Minutes P &Z Meeting April 27, 2016 Page 5 of 6 to develop elsewhere due to the size of the building would have to be so small it would not be economic. Mr. James's provides that all cities are different in the ordinance layout. Some cities say it is what it is and if the sites don't develop then they don't develop. There is a need for the tree mitigation ordinance, the main focus of this discussion is really the heavily wooded areas and the developer that asks, "What could we have done better" and we can't give them an answer yet they still have to pay the very large fees. 6. REQUESTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Requests by Commissioners to place items on a future Planning and Zoning Agenda. ® None. B. Announcements by Commissioners. • Mr. Dahle meeting update, will be bringing a presentation on the newly adopted Strategic Plan. • Mr. Greenwald inquiring about how the Volunteer Fair went. Ms. Wood mentions that there was a considerable amount of people there. Mr. Richmond clarified that there were a few young men that stopped by the table that were interested in the Commission. Mr. Richmond also mentioned that the presentation was very good and so was the turn out. ® Mr. Crawford asking if staff can relook at the alternates for the Commission. Mr. James said we can put together a work station to determine what the benefit of having the alternate would be. C. Announcements by City Staff. 1. None. 8. ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR MEETING The meeting adjourned at /8):33 P.M. Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes P &Z Meeting April 27, 2016 Page 6 of 6 ,/ K" Record b ecretary, Ci S ertz