Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 02/06/2008 0 3lazuzj MINUTES r REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING .-' -FEB POS$ NN` Council Chambers-City Hall Cli}• v Wednesday February 6,2008 - til G F L 5:30 P.M. C co 0r COMMISSIONERS: STAFF: lssb �E R.Bryan Stone,Chairman Bob Nix,AICP Assistant City Manager o Rudy Garza,Vice-Chairman Development Services Atilano 1.Buena Johnny Perales,PE,Deputy Director of James Skrobarczyk Development Services/Special Services John C.Tamez Faryce Goode-Macon,Interim Assistant Johnny It Martinez Director of Development Services/Planning Evon J.Kelly Miguel S.Saldafla,AICP,Senior City Planner Govind Nadkarni Mic Raasch,AICP,City Planner David Loeb Shannon Murphy,AICP,City Planner Wes Vendome'',City Planner ABSENCES: Gary Smith,Assistant City Attorney Yvette Aguilar,Attorney I None Beverly Lang-Priestley,Recording Secretary Si usted quiere dirigirse ala comision y su ingles es limitado,habrd un interprete de espa0ol a ingles en la junta pare ayudarle I. CALL TO ORDER A quorum was declared and the meeting was called to order at 5:36 p.m.by Chairman Stone. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the January 23,2008,minutes was made by Vice Chairman Garza and seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Motioned passed unanimously. III. PLATS 1. Continued Plats Mr.Saldada read continued plat agenda item"a"(shown below)into the record and stated this item has been submitted for a continuance to the March 5,2008,Planning Commission hearing. a. 1006191-NP113 Rose Acres,Lots 17A-18B& 19-22(Final-4.79 Acres) Located north of FM 665 and east of FM 763. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk,Mr.Saldafla stated that continuing the plat does not affect the Commission's ability to have a certain number of hearings. As a courtesy,Chairman Stone asked if anyone present would like to come forward in favor or opposition. Nobody came forward. Motion to approve the continuance to March 5,2008,was made by Commissioner Nadkarni and was seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously. SCANNED 11150 '/1111110 Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2008 Page 2 Mr.Saldafa read continued plat agenda item"b"(shown below)into the record and stated this item has been submitted for approval. Staff recommends approval. b. 1107153-NP013 Island Business Center Unit 1,Block C,Lots IA-1E(Final- 23.421 Acres) Located south of Knickerbocker Street and east of Waldron Road. Public hearing was opened. Nobody came forward in support or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion for approval was made by Commissioner Skrobarczyk and seconded by Commissioner Nadkami. Motioned passed unanimously. 2. New Plats Mr.Saldaea read new plat agenda item"a"(shown below)into the record and stated this item has been submitted for a continuance to the next Planning Commission hearing of February 20,2008. a. 0208014-NP009 Saratoga Weber Plaza.Block 7,Lot 14(Final-0.574 Acre) Located south of Saratoga Boulevard(SH 357)and east of Jefferson Road. As a courtesy,Chairman Stone asked if anyone present would like to come forward in favor or opposition. Nobody came forward. Motion to approve the continuance to February 20,2008,was made by Vice-Chairman Game and seconded by Commissioner Tamez. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Time Extensions Mr.Saldafa read time extension agenda items"a through c"(shown below) into the record and stated items"a"and"b"have requested a twelve month time extension and item"c"has requested a six-month time extension. Staff recommends approval. a. 0805124-NP068 Legends of Diamante Subdivision(Preliminary-22.388 Acres) Located north of Slough Road(CR 26A)and east of Rodd Field Road. b. 0106023-NP010 River Bend Ranch Subdivision(Preliminary-215.32 Acres) Located south of Yorktown Boulevard and east of Rodd Field Ir Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2008 Page 3 Road. c. 0207028-P007 Summit Cove Subdivision(Final-2.79 Acres) Located east of Laguna Shores Road and north of Rex Lane. Public hearing was opened. Nobody came forward in support or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Vice-Chairman Garza for approval of the time extensions as requested. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Martinez and passed unanimously. 4. Water&Wastewater Acreage Fee Exemption Mr. Saldafla read the following item into the record,stating this item is a request for a water and wastewater acreage fee exemption. Mr. Saldafla stated the developers are requesting the City waive the water and sanitary sewer acreage fees for South Prairie Estates Unit 2. a. 0806146-NP077 South Prairie Estates Unit 2(Final-54.48 Acres) Located east of CR 47 between CR 22 and FM 2444. Mr. Saldalia stated the platting ordinance allows the City Council to exempt certain areas from these fees subject to Planning Commission recommendation. This property is located approximately two miles outside the city limits,located east of County Road 47 and south of County Road 22,which is approximately one and one-half miles south of FM 43, which is an extension of Weber Road,and one mile west of State Highway 286,which is Chapman Ranch Road. Mr. Saldafla stated there is no adopted Master Plan for this area,and the request could be made that they pay the required acreage fees. However,if there is no wastewater or water available within the next 15-20 years,the owners would be eligible to get a ---- refund of their monies plus 5 H%interest. Staff is of the opinion that there willbeno wastewater services extended to this area within 15-20 years. Therefore,staff recommends approval of the waiver subject to a water and sanitary sewer connection agreement that would state that if water and wastewater become available to this subdivision within the next 15 years they will be subject to water and wastewater acreage fees. In response to Commissioner Loeb,Mr.Saidafia stated that if the city extends water and wastewater to the site after 15 years,the owner will be required to hook up within 12 months of the services becoming available and will be required to pay pro rata and tap fees. Mr.Johnny Perales,Deputy Director of Development Services,stated the only difference is that after 15 years,they would not be required to pay the acreage fees. They would still need to pay the taps fees and surcharge fees and pro rata fees. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk,Mr. Saldafla stated the responsible party at the end of the 15 years will be the individual lot owners, because these lots will be sold and will no longer belong to the developer. Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2009 Page 4 In response to Commissioner Tamez,Mr.Perales stated water wells will not be allowed in the ETI according to language that has been included in draft platting ordinance amendments. Mr.Pereles stated that when the item was taken to City Council,that part of the amendment was excluded from action,and will be worked on for some time. Mr.Perales stated the only portion of the platting ordinance amendment that was passed was for the dead end water lines only. Public hearing was opened. Nobody came forward in support or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion to approve the waiver was made by Commissioner Nadkarni and seconded by Commissioner Martinez. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk,Mr.Saldeea stated the London School District is required to pay the appropriate acreage fees and are required to play by the same rules as everyone else. In response to Commissioner Tamez,Mr.Perales stated a rough estimate for running water to the subdivision is about$400,000 per mile. In response to Commissioner Loeb,Mr.Perales stated that deed restrictions associated with the property transfer ensures that future buyers/owners are aware of the fees associated with the property. Mr.Saldaia stated that the agreement is also recorded with the County. Motion passed unanimously. IV. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 1. New Item a. Case No.0208-01 Brown,P.C.(Wal-Mart Staples at Timbergate Streets)-A change of zoning from a"R-1B"One-family Dwelling District to an "AB"Professional Office District/PUD on 23.194 acres and a "B-1"Neighborhood Business District on 8.847 acres resulting in a change of land use designation from single family residential to professional office. 33.6 acres out of Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20,Section 11,Flour Bluff and Encinal Farm and Garden Tracts,located on the southeast intersection of South Staples Street and Timbergate Drive. Ms.Shannon Murphy,City Planner,presented the above case via Power Point,stating the applicant is Brown,P.C.,and the subject property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of South. Staples and Timbergate Drive. Ms.Murphy stated the request is to rezone from a'R-IB"One-family Dwelling District to an"AB"Professional Office District with a Planned Unit Development Overlay for Tract 4 a"B-I"Neighborhood Business District for Tracts 1,2 and 3. V Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2008 Page 5 Ms.Murphy presented aerial photos indicating that Tracts I,2 and 3 are along Staples Street and Tract 4 is at the rear of the property,which is where the proposed Wal-Mart project will be located. Ms.Shannon stated the current land use is vacant with residential,church and mini-storage to the west,residential to the south and east;to the north is a new commercial development at the intersection,and on the northwest corner is Gold's Gym. Ms. Murphy stated that staff first met with Wal-Mart representative,Jeff Hamilton on November 28,2006, for an Early Assistance Meeting for a proposed commercial project. On February 16, 2007, the applicant submitted a change request from "R-IB" One-Family Dwelling District to"B-4"General Business District. On March 7,2007,the case was heard by the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval of the "B-4" General Business District. April 11,2007,the applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Study to staff for review. June 8, 2007, applicant submitted a revised section to the 115 with an alternative residential scenario on the Wal-Mart property. On June, 17, 2007, Wal-Mart withdrew their request prior to the City Council public hearing on June 19, 2007. Applicant came back on December 21, 2007, with a new zoning application. Ms. Murphy stated the information provided in the Commissioner's packet is based on the initial information in that application. Ms.Murphy stated that one week prior to the meeting, the applicant submitted a revised development plan, which staff has not yet analyzed. Ms.Murphy stated that the adopted Future Land Use map shows the site with medium density residential along Staples and low density residential to the rear with an existing commercial strip center development along this segment of Staples which continues to negatively impact traffic movement on Staples Street. Ms.Murphy stated that Section 28-4E of the Zoning Ordinance states,"It will be further necessary for the applicant to affirmatively show that any PUD proposed will not adversely and materially effect the public heath,safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the City and property, public or private,along its perimeter and within at least 200 feet of the enclosing property lines thereof, including the existing or planned streets, alleys, other existing improvements and vacant land,shall be thus considered as to the impact on surrounding private properties, public areas and facilities and the inhabitants and users thereof." Ms. Murphy stated staff reviews all zoning change requests for consistency with the adopted policies in the city's Comprehensive Plan. The PUD is a tool that ensures mitigating measures will be included in the development plan in order for the project to be consistent with the policies set out in the Comprehensive Plan. The project's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan cannot be determined at this time because of the lack of information provided with the original application in the Development Plan and the incomplete Traffic Study. Ms. Murphy stated several issues still need to be addressed by the applicant, including buffering of incompatible land uses, landscaping, signage, driveway access, drainage, traffic, noise,litter,security and safety,lighting and parking of overnight vehicles. Ms. Murphy stated that, as required by law, public notices were sent to all property owners within 200 feet of the property boundary. Additional notices were sent, as a courtesy, to property owners within 14 mile of the property boundary. Forty notices within the 200 foot area were mailed with two being returned in favor by the property owner; of the 1,3325 • 1.r+ Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2008 Page 6 courtesy notices mailed, 24 were returned in favor and 25 were returned in opposition. Two notices were returned in favor from outside the notification and courtesy areas. Ms. Murphy stated staff recommendation is for denial of the application based on incomplete development plans and insufficient traffic information provided; or,to continue the application, giving staff and applicant an opportunity to address the issues of traffic, noise, litter, security/safety, lighting and the parking of overnight vehicles and obtain the necessary information to make a properly informed recommendation. Ms. Murphy stated staff is in receipt of a revised development plan received last week which has not been reviewed by staff. In response to Commissioner Huerta,Ms. Murphy stated the development plan provided in the Commissioner's packet is not the updated one. In response to Commissioner Nadkami,Ms. Murphy stated that in a cursory review of the new development plan,it appears the applicant has addressed most of the issues raised by staff, except noise and traffic. Mr. Bob Nix, Assistant City Manager, Development Services, stated that staff is interested in how much noise is generated at the site and what the noise impact at the residences is above the resisting ambient nighttime noise levels. Mr. Nix stated a suggested two mile impact radius area should be evaluated for traffic impacts,and any major intersections that are near that radius but outside it should also be evaluated. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk, Mr. Nix stated that staff would not be in support of passing the zoning portion of this item with an agreement to work out the remaining issues. Mr. Nix stated that the Commissioners do not have the correct site plan or a staff analysis of the impacts of the project and mitigating factors. Mr. Nix stated that if the Commission chooses to continue the item to another date, staff will need enough time to properly review the new development plan and get the information in time for the Planning Commission packet. Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated it is his concern that if the Planning Commission has only two chances to table an item before it is immediately forwarded to City Council as if the Planning Commission did not make a recommendation, as recently done. Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated he does not want to forfeit the Planning Commission's opportunity to send their recommendation to City Council. Mr.Nix responded that this particular case has not been continued in the past;and,it is clear to staff that there is not enough information to successfully and completely evaluate the project. In response to Commissioner Nadkarni, Mr. Nix stated four to six weeks would be an appropriate amount of time to review the information, compile it and present it to the Commission. In response to Commissioner Nadkarni,Mr.Nix stated that the Institute of Transportation Engineers has published a report that states their trip generation rates for super stores reported in the manual published by ITE may be up to 50%too low. Mr. Gary Smith, Legal Counsel, stated that the Platting Ordinance under the PUD provision, states, "The Commission shall finally act on such plan and application within 21 days after submission in close or adjournment of public hearing thereon,where opponent shall be promptly transmitted to the City Council has the recommendation of the Commission." Mr. ONO V Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2008 Page 7 Smith translated this to mean that if the public hearing is closed tonight, then the Planning Commission has 21 days to take final action on the application and plan. In response to Mr. Nix, Mr. Smith stated that if the public hearing is not closed tonight, but continued to a later date,then,arguably,the 21 days does not start. In response to Commissioner Loeb, Mr. Nix stated the reason the current proposed site plan is different than the one provided to the Commission and public is because the applicant is attempting to provide requested information, but it was received too late to be ready for this meeting date. Commissioner Loeb stated that considering the fact that the Planning Commission and the public do not have the correct information to review the project,then the public hearing should not be opened. In defense of staffs timeline and actions, Mr. Nix stated that page 168 of the Zoning Ordinance states that, "....no more than 45 days after submission of the plan of development, the Director of Planning shall submit the plan with his or her recommendation along with the comments received from other City department and agencies,to the Planning Commission for consideration." Mr. Nix stated therefore, 45 days after Development Services receives it, the Planning Commission must see it. Then,if the public hearing is closed,we have 21 days to get it to City Council for action,all according to Code. In response to Chairman Stone, Mr. Smith stated that the platting issue turns under state law that gives 30 days to act on a plat once it has been submitted. If no action is taken with 30 days, the plat is automatically approved. Once the details of the PUD are worked out, if the plat does not work,then it could be replatted. Chairman Stone stated that before opening the public hearing, due to the size of the audience, some timing guidelines need to be set. Chairman Stone stated that the Wal-Mart representative would present his case, following by opposing statements by Mr. Dowling. As the public begins speaking,Chairman Stone stated the three-minute rule will be implemented. Motion was made by Commissioner Loeb to open the public hearing and was seconded _-- _- by Commissioner Kelly. Motion passed with Commissioners Skrobarcyk and Martin opposed. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Ken Brown, legal representative for Wal-Mart, came forward stating that Wal-Mart builds stores in cycles and usually begins construction in August, which is why they requested the waiver to the 12-month period. Mr.Brown stated the new development plan was submitted in response to staffs comments on the original plan. Mr. Brown stated Wal-Mart has done public outreach,particularly an open forum two hour meeting last week,with a large number of people in attendance. Mr. Brown stated the meeting was very civil and productive, producing results incorporated into the new development plan. Mr. Brown stated an additional meeting was held this morning with staff which was very productive, and stated that when staff does have an opportunity to review the new plan,they will see that all issues have been addressed, excluding the expanded TIA. Mr. Brown stated he believes all concerns can be worked out; however,they are concerned with the timeline. Mr. Jeff Hamilton, Civil Engineer for Wal-Mart, came forward stating that one of the issues staff wanted clarification on concerned the noise on the site. Mr. Hamilton stated staff Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2008 Page 8 had asked them to do an acoustical analysis of the site, including background noises currently present and then take into consideration the noise that would be generated by the site, determining from this information how high the sound wall would need to be to mitigate noise from the site. Mr. Hamilton stated that the new plan states that with the installation of a specific sound wall system,noise levels will be in conformity with the existing noise ordinance. Mr.Hamilton stated staff has requested a more specific noise level determination. Mr.Hamilton stated staff also requested specifics on the type of noise wall that is proposed;Mr.Hamilton stated they are proposing an LSE Sound Fighter System wall and provided to staff information on options available for this wall. Mr.Hamilton stated the next issue was landscaping,which staff had requested more detail on the plan,including a list of plants and quantity and size thereof. Staff also requested a landscape buffer at the rear of the site which was not included in the first landscape plan. Mr. Hamilton stated that Robert Gignac of Corpus Christi is the landscape architect,prepared the landscape plan and includes the quantities of plants,the types of plants,the height of plants and other information. Mr.Hamilton stated that staff had requested a 30 foot landscape buffer and they are providing a buffer of about 56 feet by moving the sound wall closer to the store. Mr.Hamilton stated the next issue is lighting,stating that this lighting plan is similar to the original lighting plan,the only difference being they include the detail of their light pole and a few requirements placed on height by staff In addition,staff wanted more info on the type of lighting and light shielding. Mr.Hamilton stated they have provided more information as to the height of the poles as well as information on a couple of staff requirements concerning height and shielding light from residential neighbors. A light schedule has also been provided, which includes the types of lights,wattage and brand names. Mr.Hamilton stated at staff's request,they limited the height of the light poles in front of the store to not exceed the height of the building and,in the back of the store,not to exceed the height of the sound wall. Mr. Hamilton stated he believes they have fully complied with staff's requests in terms of lighting. Mr.Hamilton stated the next requirement was to attach renderings of the buildings to the PUD so staff would know what a"coastal style"Wal-Mart Supercenter looks like. Staff requested parapet walls on the rear and sides of the building to screen any rooftop equipment and screens around dumpsters. Mr.Hamilton stated all of these requirements have been met. Mr.Hamilton stated that staff had requested information on the signs planned for the site. Staff requested monument signs;however,the applicant has requested to use a pylon sign on Staples,which would be in keeping with the"B-1"Neighborhood Business District along Staples,and a monument sign along Timbergate. Mr.Hamilton stated the signs have the same architectural design as the building. Mr.Hamilton stated their original plan included the staff requirement of restricting access to the out lots along Staples. Mr.Hamilton stated the original platting process where individual drives out onto Staples were not allowed. Mr.Hamilton stated their outdoor display areas are limited to adjacent to the front of the building and there is no intent to use the parking lot for outside sales. Also at the request of staff,bicycle parking has been provided,as well as a pedestrian access route to the store from Timbergate to the front of the store. V Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2008 Page 9 Mr.Hamilton stated this sums up the changes that were submitted in the new development plan provided to staff this week. In response to Chairman Stone,Mr.Hamilton stated the site plan the Commissioners are viewing on their screens is the new site plan submitted this week which staff has not had a chance to review. Commissioner Huerta stated that concerns previously expressed by staff in regard to additional landscaping in interior parking areas does not appear to be addressed in the new proposal. Commissioner Huerta also stated that his request for information on off-season storage containers has not been addressed and stated that if off-season storage containers are used,they must be screened. Commissioner Huerta stated there might be an issue with the proposed signage in that only one pylon sign is allowed per lot,which could result in other stores not getting a sign. Commissioner Huerta stated that access to Staples is an issue and he suggests a barrier instead ofjust a stripe on the pavement in enforcing no left-turns onto Staples from the development,which is a traffic engineering issue. Commissioner Huerta stated there are many large cities with proper traffic control that protects citizens and we could learn from them. Mr.Hamilton stated the left-turn issue is addressed in Note 11 and Note 12 of the plat. Note 13 calls for a traffic coning device approved by TxDot to be installed. Mr.Hamilton requested an interpretation for additional parking lot landscaping for them to work with. Commissioner Huerta responded that cones will not be enough; it needs to be an island, a barrier that people can readily see and avoid. Commissioner Huerta stated that not only is traffic count going to be an issue,but circulation as well. In response to Commissioner Nadkarni,Mr.Hamilton stated they performed and completed a noise abatement study which establishes that the wall needs to be 16 feet above our dry surface at the rear of the store and establishes that needs to be within 35 feet of the curb line of the drive behind the store. Mr.Hamilton stated this information was given to staff today. In response to Commissioner Nadkarni,Mr.Hamilton stated they agreed to do a traffic study and their traffic engineer is present and will speak to that. Commissioner Nadkarni stated he would hold his questions concerning traffic patterns until staff has reviewed the plan. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk,Mr.Hamilton stated that maintenance of the 56 foot buffer behind the store has been built into the design,being maintained on the same time schedule that the rest of the site is maintained. Mr. Steve Haffner,Traffic Engineering Consultants,Oklahoma City,traffic engineer for Wal-Mart stated his firm did the original traffic impact analysis that has been submitted. Mr.Hoffner stated they have met with staff and will be submitting an additional impact analysis study with the additional information. Mr.Hoffner stated the analysis primarily covers the area surrounding the site and street network system around the site and the arterial extending from Saratoga down to Yorktown, with traffic counts at most of the major intersections along there and analyzed those. Mr. Hoffner explained the concept and procedure for doing a traffic impact analysis. Mr.Hoffner stated there are several recommendations provided in the report with sketches. It includes substantial improvement to the Timbergate intersection and also the extension of Timbergate to the east in a form that would accommodate the traffic projected from the site. t,/ Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2008 Page 10 Mr.Hoffner stated that TxDot has undertaken a plan and was in the process of that plan which would control access along this corridor,which has been delayed from a budget standpoint. Mr.Hoffner stated the consultant for TxDot has provided a document that shows where they plan on access points and Wall-Mart agrees to comply with that. Mr.Hoffner stated that ultimately there will be a median along the entire section of roadway and they plan on working with TxDot in developing what an intermediate type median might look like,a physical bather controlling the left-hand turns into or out of the site,and there will not be any additional driveways to the arterial streets from the site. Mr.Hoffner stated staff has requested the study be extended to a two-mile radius of the area and the applicant has agreed to work with the traffic engineer for the city to determine which intersections need to be analyzed. Mr.Hoffner stated the recent neighborhood meetings have brought up some excellent points and staff has asked them what the impacts of this site are if,for example,Timbergate is exteneded to the east. Looking at some of the master plan issues with some of the interconnectivity with the streets to the east and also with the streets to the west,in particular Hunt,which has a potential for a cut through type of configuration. Mr.Hoffner stated he looked at the current traffic counts at Hunt and Timbergate and today there is not any cut through traffic. Mr.Hoffner explained the way he knows that is by how many right turns for example in an east bound direction. If there were a lot of cut through traffic trying to avoid the arterial intersection,Mr.Hoffner stated one would see a high rate of right turns and currently there is not. Mr.Haffner stated this would site would be looked at to determine if any calming techniques need to be implemented. In response to Chairman Stone,Mr.Hoffner slated that by extending the study to a two-mile radius will determine if other intersections in the area will be impacted by this development. In response to Chairman Stone,Mr.Hoffner stated the cost of doing an analysis on an estimated five intersections could be between$5,000 and$10,000. Mr.Brown stated that the applicant has provided a notebook to each Commissioner and staff which is a memoralization of the outreach efforts the applicant has made in satisfying staff requests. Mr.Brown stated that if the Planning Commission continues the public hearing,he would appreciate a definite date of continuance and that they could have the required information within 21 days. In response to Commissioner Nadkarni,Mr.Nix stated that the time frame it might take staff to review the new development plans is based on how many issues are raised by what is submitted. Mr.Nix stated that typically what is found in a traffic study such is this is more impacts and more mitigation beyond the$1,000,000 that is being talked about today. Mr.Nix stated that some point that becomes important enough that at least substantial negotiations between the staff and applicant to determine how to resolve these issues to the public's benefit with a minimal impact on the applicant. This could take a substantial amount of time. Mr.Nix stated after receipt of the information from the applicant,staff needs adequate time to do a professional acceptable analysis and review and present to the Planning Commission the results of that. Mr.Nix stated six weeks is a reasonable time frame,which would set the case for March 19,2008. Mr.Nix stated it is possible for the applicant go forward with certain items to reduce their time frame,working parallel with this issue, The applicant can submit a plat at their own risk,knowing it may need to be revised;they can submit the application for a building permit with associated risk and expense,which would modest compared to the risk they are taking if they wait. Mr.Nix stated these are options and things can be done,but that Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2008 Page 11 doesn't mean the permit will be issued until all the preceding actions have been taken. But instead,they are asking the Commission to put a burden on the staff to come back with what may be an inadequate and incomplete staff report and negotiation to mitigate the impacts. Mr.Nix stated that the applicant has stated that there are not substantial differences between this application and the one the Commissioners have. Mr.Nix stated that the additional information needed for the sound wall was received by staff today. Previously,all staff knew about the proposed sound wall was a line drawn on a piece of paper labeled"sound wall"with no details. Also missing before and received today were the details on the signage proposal,lighting height standards,arterial landscaping issues and a number of other issues. Mr.Nix stated there are nine new paragraphs and several revised paragraphs in the new proposal and staff needs to review and evaluate these items. Commissioner Loch stated that if the public hearing is continued,he will not be comfortable voting until whatever public documents are provided to the Commission,to staff and to the public match. Commissioner Skrobarczyk questioned as to whether part of the delay is hying to work out the building issues during the rezoning phase. Mr.Nix stated that in approving the PUD Overlay District the creation of a whole new set of land development regulations,i.e.,laws,to govern the development of this project. If this is not done and we get into the issuing a building permit or approving plat,we have the other laws to deal with and nothing from this. Therefore,it is very important to get these issues resolved at this level. Mr.Smith stated that what is done in a PUD is that all the rules normally followed regarding signage,lighting,setbacks,etc.,are rewritten especially for this development, therefore,the details must be worked out up front so that when it is time to get the permit we know what the answers are. In response to Chairman Stone,Mr.Nix stated that staff does not create a new litany of problems for the applicant,but has provided a list that the applicant must provide information on,and if the information received generates new questions and problems,those will have to be addressed. Mr. George Bird,6646 Bent Trail,came forward in opposition,stating that he purchased his home in November 2007,and before purchasing he researched the area and determined that since the vacant land in the area is zoned residential he was satisfied that this is where he would like to raise his family,only to find out now that the land may be rezoned to commercial. Mr.Bird stated that brings up issue#2,which is traffic. Mr.Bird stated that all the nice things and requirements of signage and lighting can be worked out,but the traffic is there now and will continue to be there and this development will impact traffic two miles away. Mr.Bird stated the area has a Master Plan and the purpose of a Master Plan is to plan growth so that growth and expansion is not done haphazardly,but according to the plan which was laid out. Mr.Bird stated this development will personally affect every life that owns a house within a two mile radius because when they purchased they believed it would stay residential. Mr.Bird requested that the Commissioners uphold its Master Plan;uphold what the Commission told the citizens,through that Master Plan,when they purchased their homes in that area. V Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2008 Page 12 Mr.Tim Dowling, 8017 Villefrauche,came forward stating there appear to be alternate visions for the area, 1)a reasonable development with the footprint of development as is already located in area,the Market at Timbergate;2)or an"SPID"-like big box store four times a deep as anything there now,eventually looking just like SPID. Mr.Dowling stated he understands the Commission's jurisdiction is according to Article V,Section 3.4 of the City Charter,"...to make recommendations to the Council regarding zoning changes in a manner to ensure the consistency of such zoning or rezoning changes consistent with the comprehensive plan." Mr.Dowling stated that basically means,"Here are the facts,here is the proposal for Wal-Mart;does it or does it not match the Comprehensive Plan? Mr.Dowling stated staff has documented nine instances where it does not match the comprehensive plan. Mr.Dowling stated one of the requirements not met is,"Expansion of commercial uses into or within residential areas may be permitted only if such expansion maintains or improves the residential desirability of the impacted neighborhoods." Mr.Dowling pointed out this does not include all of District 5,not all the south side,just the impacted area. It goes on to say,"....The commercial development in residential areas may be allowed in situations where proponents of such change,i.e.,Wal-Mart,can demonstrate how rezoning changes will benefit the impacted neighborhood and the community." Mr.Dowling stated that giving citizens a choice as to whereto shop can still be accomplished at a better location. Mr.Dowling pointed out that at a previous City Council meeting when Mr.Brown was asked some very specific questions,he admitted that if Wal-Mart did not get the location at Timbergate and Staples,they would find another south side location,proving that if this location is not granted,it will not result in Wal-Mart not locating on the south side. Mr.Dowling stated that in a TV news interview,Mr.Nix admitted that allowing Wal- Mart at this location will result in traffic gridlock. Mr.Dowling stated that the traffic analysis provided by Wal-Mart is very deficient. Their own study states the roadway is nearly at capacity and the study did not include holiday shopping days. Mr.Dowling stated that TxDot's data indicates the traffic will go from 33,000 trips currently to nearly 49,000,with 72%of the increase due to Wal-Mart. Another figure from Wall-Mart's report states that if one is traveling west on Saratoga from Everhart to Staples,the estimate is that 27%of the people will take that route. That's 13,600 cars going from Everhart to Staples on Saratoga. Mr.Dowling stated their Wal-Mart's engineer last week at the public house said traffic is like water,it will take the path of least resistance. Therefore,the cut throughs begin. One thing the engineer was not aware of was that the cut through on Hunt travels past a big elementary school with only about four feet of sidewalk between the traffic and the school grounds. Doing the math,if 25%of the aforementioned 13,600 cars figure out the cut through at Hunt,there will be about 3,400 more cars passing by this elementary. If you do only half of that,it is 1,700 mom cars passing by. Mr.Dowling stated that Wal-Mart's"traffic neutral"theory is established in part because of expanding the turning lanes at Saratoga and Staples,which is a TxDot decision and Mr.Dowling stated it is his understanding that that is not going to happen. Therefore,the "traffic neutral"conclusion of Wal-Mart is flawed. Mr.Dowling stated that in conversation, Wal-Mart's representative stated that if their study is flawed and the result is not"traffic neutral"Wal-Mart would not pay what it takes to really make it traffic neutral at that time. Mr.Dowling stated staff reports indicate two basic problems, I)not enough mitigating information;2)lack of adequate capacity to absorb the traffic generated by the project. Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2008 Page 13 Mr.Dowling stated that Wal-Mart was informed form the beginning,in 2006,that this project violates policy in that it is not at a major intersection. Wal-Mart decided to go ahead anyway without disclosing this information in any of their polls or outreach. Mr.Dowling stated another problem cited by staff is,"The proposed development will encourage through traffic in residential areas to get to the Wal-Mart site." Mr.Dowling stated that Club Estates Elementary is not the only school to be impacted. To the east is Faye Webb Elementary and Raffle Middle School,totaling three school areas to be impacted,representing a lot of children. As an indication of Wal-Mart's thoroughness and detail,Mr.Dowling stated that in Wal-Mart's report they had the number of pad sites wrong,and in the three reports prepared the name of our town was misspelled. As for responsiveness,when asked if Wal-Mart would change their hours from being open 24-hours per day,they refused,and when asked to restrict the hours of delivery by 18-wheelers to daytime hours,they refused. Mr.Dowling produced a crime report associated with Wal-Mart;and also stated that Wal-Mart will not address the decrease in home values in the area as a result of their development. Mr.Dowling stressed that he and his group are not against Wal-Mart;they are just against Wal-Mart locating at this location. Mr.Dowling stated that eleven months the Planning Commission approved this project with a 5-3 vote with less information than is currently provided. Now,there is a staff report providing nine instances where this project violates city policies. Mr.Dowling stated that it would be a very poor reflection on the Planning Commission to basically ignore the staff's report. Mr.Dowling stated he believes the Planning Commission should deny this request and send it on to City Council. Chairman Stone,at this point,implemented the three-minute rule. Mr.Fred Dotts,4018 Sante Fe,Moorehead,Dotts&Associates,a marketing and public relations firm,came forward stating that City Council Larry Elizondo hired the firm in June of 2007 to conduct a professional poll to survey the opinions of registered voters in District 5 on this issue and Mr.Doffs stated he is here today to relate the results of that poll. Mr.Dotts stated the poll was conducted June 13 and 14,2008,and 16.6%of the total registered voters in District 5 responded. Mr.Dolts stated the question posed was,"Do you favor or oppose the construction of a Super Wal-Mart at Timbergate and South Staples?" Mr.Dotts stated the results were thus: in favor 1,215(63.7%);opposed 362(19%);and,undecided 331 (17.3%). The following individuals came forward and spoke in opposition of the proposal, primarily stating that the Master Plan does not support the development and that their quality of life and their neighborhood will be impacted in a severe and negative manner due to the noise, traffic and crime that is associated with such large developments: Mr.Jim Robertson,6650 Mountain Wood;Mr. Larry Frank,6661 Bent Trail;Ms. Cynthia Duanes,5317 Javelina Drive;Sara Graham,Realtor for 40 years and former Planning Commissioner;Mike Ramirez,4022 Waldron;Ms.Betty Brandeslcy,4017 Cork;Ms.JoAnn Robertson,6650 Mountain Wood;Ms.Carol Robertson,7005 Spanish Wood;Mr.Terry Barta,6006 Baltic Court;Mr.Jack Graham;Carla Frank, 6661 Bent Trail;Sean Robertson,7005 Spanish Wood;Ms. Wallie Coley,5122 Golden Eye;Mr.James Fritts,6001 Baltic Court;Ms.Ruth Samoch Is Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2008 Page 14 The following individuals came forward in favor of the proposal,primarily stating that people need more choices in where to shop and that the city needs the extra tax dollars that would be generated: Mr.Abel Alonzo,1701 Thames;Mr.John Falcon,7534 Annemasse;Ms.Molly Harrington,817-B Texan Trail;Mr.Hamilton Rogers,4118 Nicklaus,David Berlanga, former Planning Commissioner,4521 Oso Parkway;Mr.Andrew Sanders,6005 Shelbum;Ms.Debra Carballeira,4201-B Acushnet;Ms.Linda Gamer,3802 Caravelle; Glenn Ellen Dreggors,4649 Mildred Dr.;Mr.Ralph Cobb,5906 Vandemere;Mr. Richard Cruise, 16 years military;Ms.Fay Cobb, 5906 Vandemere;Mr.Ronald Pickett,8037 Etiennne Drive;Mr.Wayne Lundquist,700 Everhart Road A complete tape recording of the proceedings is available through Development Services. Motion was made by Commissioner Skorbarcyk to continue the public hearing and was seconded by Vice-Chairman Garza. In response to Chairman Stone,Mr.Smith stated they had 30 days to take action on the plat,and that 30 days will probably pass before the public hearing is reconvened.Mr.Smith stated it is possible that the current plat might not be consistent with the PUD that is eventually approved. If that is the case,it will need to be replatted. In response to Commissioner Skorbarcyk,Mr.Brown stated he would prefer the public hearing be continued to a date specific time and that Mr.Brown felt 30 days would be appropriate. Commissioner Skorbarcyk amended his motion to reflect the public hearing be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 19,2008. Amended motion was seconded by Commissioner Loeb. In response to Commissioner Skorbarcyk,Mr.Nix stated the reason staff recommendation included the option of denial is because them is currently not enough information or sufficient enough development order or agreement to deal with all of the issues staff believes may be present. Motion passed unanimously and the public hearing was continued until March 19, 2008. Mr. Saldana read the following plat into the record,stating the plat has been submitted for approval and it meets all requirements of the Platting Ordinance. Staff recommends approval. b. 0108007-NP004 Timbergate Center(Preliminary-33.584 Acres) Located east of South Staples Street and south of Timbergate Drive. In response to Commissioner Nadkami,Mr. Saldana stated that if the plat is not consistent with the conditions of the planned unit development,then the plat will have to be modified and re-approved by the Planning Commission. If the changes on the PUD do not affect the planned unit development,then no further action would be needed on the plat. V Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2008 Page 15 Mr.Smith stated that Section 28-5.b,the plan of development must be approved prior to or simultaneously with the approval of the plat. In the event that the property has been platted to the preparation to a plan of development,replatting may be required to ensure the compatibility of he plat with the plan. Mr.Hamilton came forward and requested that the plat be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 19,2008. Motion to approve the continuance was made by Commissioner Nadkarni and seconded by Vice-Chairman Garza. Motion passed unanimously. V. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM-PLATTING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS(ITEM TABLED AT JANUARY 23,2008 MEETING)- REQUEST ITEM TO BE TABLED TO FEBRUARY 20,2008 MEETING 1. Amendment to Section XIII;and add new Sections V.A,XIII.A and XIII.B to provide for development exactions determination,an appeals process;and provide a repealer clause. 2. Amendment to Section V.B to require connection to approved treated water supply,to require looped water lines,and to modify the provisions for reimbursement and developer share of water arterial,grid main and water distribution line construction costs;to provide a repealer clause;provide a penalty clause;provide for publication;and provide an effective date. Mr.Johnny Perales,Deputy Director of Development Services,came forward and stated that the two parts of the Platting Ordinance were taken forward to City Council and the items were discussed at length. Mr.Pemles stated that staff was given direction to take forward to second reading only those parts of the amendments pertaining to dead end water lines. The other Platting Ordinance Amendments were tabled by City Council and staff was directed to bring those back to Planning Commission for reconsideration at the February 20, 2008,meeting. Mr.Perales stated staff has been working on resolving issues identified by the development community and City Council that pertain to looking at these items on a more global scale. Mr.Perales requested the items be tabled to the February 20,2008,meeting. In response to Commissioner Tame;Mr.Perales stated that under the amendments as originally presented,two conditions would,hypothetically,apply to the subdivision waiver heard earlier. 1)yes,they would have to extend approved water supply to the development; and 2)the prohibition of the use of ground wells for water supply,and that the subdivision could not occur as it has under the proposed Platting Ordinance Amendments. Mr.Perales stated a cursory analysis was done and the existing Platting Ordinance was designed to promote development on a relatively compact scale. For example,if one considers a checker board and how it is laid out in squares,the intent of the existing Platting Ordinance was for the City to grow one square at a time. The acreage revenues coming in from the next square and the two segments of water line that would have to be extended to that square,then one gets paid back. The revenues from the acreage fees are enough to cover the cost of The water line extensions. But if that growth skips a square,which the existing Platting Ordinance does allow,then it does not. Under the proposed amendments the developer is responsible for the cost and would only get reimbursed by other developers eventually tying in to that gap in development. IIVO Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2008 Page 16 Motion to table the item to the February 20,2008,Planning Commission meeting was made by Vice-Chairman Garza and seconded by Commissioner Tamez. Motion passed unanimously. VI. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM-LONDON CLUB ESTATES DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The purpose of the agreement is to delineate responsibilities of the City and the developer as they pertain to the 16-inch arterial transmission water main. Mr.Chip Baish presented the above case stated that London Club Estates is a residential subdivision that is located to the west of State Highway 286 on FM 43. The Development Agreement covers the 16-inch water line the developer proposes to install that runs from London School to the subdivision and they are tying on to the 16-inch that runs along FM 3 that London School previously installed. Mr.Baish stated the subdivision is a 136 acre presidential subdivision with approximately 1 I 1 one-acre lots,outside the city limits but within the ETJ. The plat was extended for six months by the Planning Commission on November 28,2007. Mr.Baish stated water line construction is a required as a condition of platting. On September 18, 2007,the developer took a reimbursement agreement to City Council to receive funding for construction of the 16-inch water main and Council denied the reimbursement agreement. The construction cost of the$378,287.85 less the acreage fee of$83,018.88. The developer will take a credit for that. The developer decided to construct the 16-inch water line at his own expense without reimbursement from the trust fund. The purpose of the Development Agreement is to delineate the responsibilities of the City and the Developer related to the 16-inch water line. Mr.Baish stated areas covered in the agreement include construction with the City's responsibility being to allow the developer to design and build the water line as would be done for any public works project;the developer's responsibility is that he will build and pay for the water line and provide a final cost estimate for the 16-inch water line and a cost estimate for a 10-inch water line. Mr.Baish stated the developer's engineer has determined that a 10-inch water line is all that is needed to support the area,but they have decided to install the 16-inch line. As for funding,the City has no obligation to fund any of the infrastructure costs for the London Club Estates. The developer will be able to recoup the cost above what is required for the subdivision,i.e.,the difference between the 10-inch water line and the l6-inch. The City will collect the money for the developer and pay it to them within 60 days. The City agrees to cooperate with the developer for any permits required for this development. The City will accept ownership of the 16-inch water line once it has been inspected and accepted by the city engineer as with any public works project. The City has requested the developer provide a financial guarantee that will serve as a warranty of workmanship and function of the 16-inch main in the amount of ten percent of the total cost of the water line. Park requirements will be waived by the City;and the developer agrees to comply with all applicable codes,ordinances,rules and regulations currently in effect. The developer is required to comply with all fire safety requirements and provide fire flow to each fire hydrant that meets City fire protection standards. V V Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2008 Page 17 The subdivision will he developed with onsite wastewater treatment and,therefore,will not be connected to city waste water. The City has agreed to waive the lot acreage fees for water and waste water and also the street light fees. The developer will pay water and gas taps fees,and water surcharge fees. The lot owner will pay waste water pro rata fees,tap fees and surcharge fees at time of connect to city sewer,provided the developer/owner properly condition conveyance of the lot. The waived fees shall not include any development fees paid by the developer,such as plat recording fees,tap fees,building or construction fees,and also there is a half street deferment of County Road 26 that the developer will be responsible for. Request Planning Commission approve the Development Agreement between the City and the Billy and Robbie Sanders,Developers of London Club Estates. In response to Commissioner Huerta,Mr.Baish stated the developer will install a loop system through the subdivision,averting any dead end lines. Commissioner Skorbarcyk expressed his concern that the area is developing in such a way as to possibly prevent a greenbelt along Oso Creek,and suggested we might need an easement for a parkway to back into this subdivision in lieu of the parks dedication land. Commissioner Tamez agreed that the park fees are being waived because the city does not want to take over a park that it cannot maintain,but he stated that developers could pay a fee. Commissioner Tamez stated he expects rapid growth in that area and to not have a park for the area would not be a good idea for the future. Mr. McGinn stated he is aware of a large tract of land south of the creek that is being looked at for a park by either the city or county. Commissioner Huerta stated the Master Plan for the Oso Creek does show a regional park on the end of Oso Creek behind the London School District,but land acquisition still needs to be made. Commissioner Muerte stated the land would be about 280 acres. In response to Commissioner Loeb,Mr.Smith stated the limitations on park trust funds is that the park must be located within one and one half miles from the subdivision and we have four years to spend the money or it is subject to be given back,and the city does have authority to maintain a park in the ETI. Commissioner Skrobarczyk reiterated his desire to see the Parks Department do a visionary plan for a memorial parkway,similar to one in Houston,along the Oso. Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated his fear is that the city is going to"hodge-podge"the area out of any future potential for doing that. In response to Commissioner Loeb's concern that four years to spend the money or give it back is too short of a period of time,Mr.Smith stated the requirement of the four year period before having to give back the park fee came about through meetings and studies by City Council. Commissioner Muerte stated that the Master Plan for the Oso area was created by staff in coordination with Texas Parks and Wildlife and in conjunction with the stakeholders,and a pattern book is being developed,which will be guidelines for development along the Oso for V Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2008 Page 18 developers. Commissioner Huerta stated that whether this pattern book is adopted into official guidelines will be up to the City Council. Vice-Chairman Garza expressed concern that on one hand the City is discouraging building in the outlying areas due to the City's inability to support those areas,and on the other hand a development plan for the outlying area is being generated,sending mixed signals. Motion was made by Commissioner Skrobarczyk for approval of the development agreement,and was seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously. VII. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr.Perales reviewed the following items with the Commissioners: A. FUTURE SCHEDULED MEETINGS February 20,2008 March 5,2008 March 19,2008 B. CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN ON REZONING CASES January 29,2008—No rezoning cases C. ZONING CASES SCHEDULED FOR CITY COUNCIL February 19,2008 Case No.0108-02,Ronald A.Von: A change of zoning from a"F-R Farm-Rural District to an "1-2" Light Industrial District resulting in a change of land use designation from agricultural to light industrial on 14.899 acres(Tract 1)and 2.000 acres(Tract 2)both out of Bohemian Colony Lands, Lot 7, Section 14, located on Greenwood Drive approximately 1275 feet south of Saratoga Boulevard. Case No. 1207-01,Scott Electric Co.,Inc.: A change of zoning from a "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District to an "1-2" Light Industrial District resulting in a change of land use designation from residential to light industrial Shoreline Park Addition,Lots 9 through 11,Block 8, located on Dempsey Street, approximately 100 feet west of N. Port Ave. D. OTHER MATTERS—Excused Absences Motion to excuse the absence of Commissioner Nadkarni from the Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 2008, was made by Commissioner Skrobarczyk and seconded by Commissioner Huerta. Motion passed unanimously. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made and seconded. Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. S Planning Commission Minutes February 6,2008 Page 19 y1 22dakkter,--- n Pries A'B.1 O41,_Faryce Goo Macon Beverly hang-Pries y Interim Assistant Director of Recording Secretary ll Development Services/Planning H:PLN-DIRtSHAREDWORD\PLANNING COMMISSIOMMINUTES1200812-06-08MINIITESFAIALDOC