Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 03/03/1999 v r1 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 3, 1999 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bert Quintanilla,Chairman Ron Guzman,Vice Chairman William J.Kelly Danny Noyola Sylvia Perez•• Elizabeth Chu Ritcher* Richard Sena Brooke Sween-McGloin David Underbrink STAFF PRESENT: Michael N.Gunning,AICP,Acting Director of Planning Lorraine Del Alto,Recording Secretary Robert E. Payne,AICP,Senior Planner Harry J.Power,City Planner Jay Reining,Assistant City Attorney CALL TO ORDER Chairman Quintanilla called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. NON PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS PRESENTATIONS—Gardendale Special District Discussion Mr. Bob Payne presented the Gardendale Special District revised draft for`B-IA" Limited Neighborhood Business District. He further explained the district is intended for use in the Gardendale Neighborhood area,but has been designed and written so it may be applied along any arterial or collector street. The purpose of this district is to create a neighborhood compatible scale of commercial uses,preserve community aesthetics along city streets,and to preserve traffic flow on city streets. The following are some highlights from the attached draft district and general observations concerning the district. • This district limits the floor area of a new construction based on the adjacent street designation. Property adjacent to a arterial street may build a building with square footage up to 50% of the lot area (FAR). Properties adjacent to a collector street are limited to 30%of the lot area. • A height limitation of 2 stories exist where a property is adjacent to a residential district. • The draft "B-I A" District allows a wide range of commercial uses, including restaurants providing cooking facilities, and serving areas. Dumpsters are not allowed within 50' of the rear property line if abutting a residential district. • Excludes auto repair,auto sales lots,bars,clubs and outdoor storage. • Requires a fence and a landscaped buffer yard at the rear property line between business and residential properties. The landscape buffer yard would consist of 2"caliper live oak trees on 30' centers. The intent is to provide a tree line or tree canopy at the rear property line. `A1• • Commissioner Richter arrived at5'32p.m. SCANNED •• Commissioner Perez left the meeting at 7:30 p m r. •r Planning Commission Minutes March 3. 1999 Page 3 • Minimize the number of driveways along Williams Drive for the purpose of enhancing the flow of traffic and minimizing the number of left turn conflict points along the street. This is accomplished by requiring 100' of street frontage for each driveway. A related feature in the ordinance provides a bonus provision for encouraging shared driveway access in return for increased FAR and signage. Driveways for single and two family dwellings are not constrained by this requirement. • A limitation on the hours of operation for a commercial business to reduce the impact on the resdiential neighborhood. • A change of use from residential to commercial use will cause the City's landscaping provisions to come into effect. In many cases the City's landscape ordinances does not require landscaping if the street yard does not change. The street yard is the area between a building and the street. Conversion of a residential use to a commercial use does not usually change the street yard. There was some question regarding Commissioners Perez and Guzman discussing the "B-IA" District in general due to their ownership interest in properties located within the study area. Legal Staff concluded that they could discuss the proposed district as it applies to property anywhere in the City, but not in terms of the affect on their or their family's property on Gardendale area. Mr. Payne commented that most properties located on the south side of Williams Drive are 66' in width and 60' on the north side and would not meet the minimum width of 100' required for a commercial driveway. Current uses that do not meet this limitation would be grandfathered. If this area were to be rezoned single-family uses would still be allowed. If a property owner decided to rezone to business,they would have to acquire more lot area. He pointed out that this driveway bonus requirement would help reduce driveways but it would be a controversial part of the proposed district. Mr. Gunning commented that one objective of the study was to reduce the build up on traffic on Williams Drive by minimizing the number of driveways requiring a 100' spacing. This issue is for discussion purposes and may be changed as necessary. Mr. Payne indicated that this proposal would help protect traffic flow and was indicated by Staff and not the Gardendale committee. Chairman Quintanilla expressed his concern regarding this 100' minimum frontage requirement and that the residents should not be surprised by this topic. Commissioner Richter commented that she felt this issue was brought forth by her previous expressed concern of shared parking spaces and driveways and added that there could be less of a requirement if the number of parking spaces required were shared by two businesses. There was some discussion on the future development in this area and the type of restrictions that may be required regarding the shared driveways or parking spaces. A Commissioner expressed concerns relating to the shared driveway concept and commented that some owners may not agree to the 100' of street frontage and should not be forced to acquire additional property. This item should be looked at closely before a final draft is submitted to the public. In response to a Commission question regarding what type of incentive programs could be presented, Mr. Payne responded that as an example, if an owner shared a driveway with another property,then perhaps the parking requirement could be reduced by 10%and/or the allowed floor area requirement could be increased. Commissioner Underbrink's expressed his concern regarding the floor area space relating to the residential streets and if there is not a limit for commercial sites that front residential streets? Mr. Payne responded that item would be reviewed further. In response to Commissioner Underbrink's question regarding what is meant by the term residential district, Mr. Payne responded that it was intended to mean"R-I B"District or similar single-family district. El. Plannine Commission Minutes March 3.1999 Page 4 There was some discussion on the interpretation of the current driveway ordinance and how it would relate to this draft ordinance for the Gardendale Study. Also discussed was the height limitation for sign regulations and the setback location provided in the ordinance. Mr. Gunning commented that there are some ordinances in place concerning the above stated issues and that Staff will review and incorporate the requirements of these ordinances if needed. In response to Commissioner Underbrink's question regarding hours of operation stated in the height and area regulations section, Mr. Payne responded that this section concerning the hours of operation is unclear and will be reviewed further. Mr. Gunning commented that in relation to the hours of operation the 12 p.m. hour stated in the ordinance should be changed to 12 midnight to prevent confusion. Commissioner Sween-McGloin thanked the Staff for including comments she previously presented. She expressed her suggestion that the name of the"B-1A" Limited Neighborhood District be changed to a more positive name like"Special"Neighborhood District. She suggested that MRI trailers be excluded from the"Use Regulations — Offices" section. She added that dumpster and outside machinery should also be screened from view and preferably not located in the front of businesses. Offsite parking lots are not clearly stated and Commissioner Sween-McGloin suggested Staff review the intent of that section regarding allowance of automobile sales. There was some discussion on the allowable height of monumental signs located within this zoning district. There was additional discussion on the shared driveways proposed and what the advantages of this issue is pertaining to this zoning district. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's comment regarding the section concerning hurricane/chain link fences used for screening purposes, this section should be placed under the Landscape Regulations, Mr. Gunning responded that the screening requirements are contained in the "Supplementary Height and Area Regulations"of the Zoning Ordinance. In response to Commissioner Kelly's question regarding the reason to allow public infrastructure, utilities and accessories,not including electrical transfer stations or solid waste transfer station,Mr. Payne indicated that this is basically standard language from current ordinances. Commissioner Kelly stated his concern regarding the language presented under the "Supplementary Landscaping Regulations"and if the sections are inconsistent. Mr. Payne responded that a proposed tree planting is proposed 10' back from the rear property line to avoid root problems over utility easements. Mr. Reining added that there are other city ordinances that prohibit planting any tree,bush or shrub in the utility easement or right-of-way. In response to a question regarding what is the Floor Area Ratio as stated in the Height, Area and Bulk Requirements Table, Mr. Payne responded that it controls the size of building that can be constructed. There was some discussion regarding the square footage and minimum lot sizes allowed within certain zoning district. Chairman Quintanilla asked Staff to revise the ordinance regarding this Gardendale Study and present it to the Commission before the final draft is set for a public hearing date. Mr. Payne briefly outline the steps to continue this ordinance and draft proposals before it is brought forward for public comment and approval. Mr. Gunning commented that Staff will review the definitions of uses as applied to the Gardendale Study and how it is also contained in the zoning ordinance. *1. .i Planning Commission Minutes March 3. 1999 Page 5 COMMITTEE REPORTS Platting Ordinance Review Committee Commissioner Sween-McGloin stated that the Committee met with the Park and Recreation Department and Staff. She continued that the Parks Board agreed that a Master Plan is needed and how the Platting Ordinance assigns land. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday,March II, 1999. Mr. Gunning commented that Mr. Cisneros, Director of Park & Recreation, was going to recon£mm the joint meeting date and time with the Parks Advisory Committee,but that has not done. The committee decided to proceed to meet on March 11 at 4:00 p.m. in the Planning Department Conference Room. Zoning Ordinance Review Committee Commissioner Guzman stated that the committee has not met recently. He thanked the Commissioners for their comments and input regarding the cell tower ordinance draft. He reminded the Commission that some of the issues brought forward this evening have already been discussed at length. Sometimes public comment does open other forms of conversation and brings up other ideas. He asked Staff if it is possible to send a letter to Billy McDaniel thanking him for his efforts on the cell tower ordinance. Commissioner Sween-McGloin corrected the minutes of the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee of November 2, 1998. She stated that Brent Chesney and Brooke Sween-McGloin were in attendance, but were not listed on the minutes. EXCUSED ABSENCES Chairman Quintanilla asked for an excused absence for the meeting of February 17, 1999. He was out of town on official state business. Mr. Reining commented that the By-Laws were amended on April 29, 1998. He read a section of the By- Laws referring to excused absences,which included any required attendance of any official meeting of a governmental entity. Motion by Noyola,seconded by Guzman that Chairman Quintanilla absence of February 17, 1998 be excused. FUTURE SCHEDULED MEETINGS Commissioner Underbrink added the Platting Ordinance Review Committee meeting on March 11, 1999 at 4:00 p.m.to the Future Meetings calendar. Mr. Gunning commented that he received notice of the tentative notice for the hearing schedules for the Captial Improvement Program (CIP) and Capital Budget process in conjunction with preparation with the City's budget. The CIP is tentatively scheduled on April 28, 1999 for the Commission. 4► Planning Commission Minutes March 3,1999 Page 6 OTHER MATTERS City Council Action—None 2. Zoning Cases Scheduled for Future City Council Action 299-1 Gardner L.Grant,Trustee 299-2 Richland Enterprises,Ltd. 299-3 ONAC Developer's Inc. 299-4 C.W. S.Communities Trust—Applicant is requesting a continuance until the March 30 meeting. 3. Other Matters Commissioner Underbrink suggested on having a presentation every other meeting from Staff concerining the CIP issues. Commissioner Sween-McGloin commented that she does not feel the plat time extensions are necessary after the first time extension approval. Mr.Gunning commented that the plat extensions were intended to be automatic. There is no damage to the City by approving a plat time extension since the responsibility of the City Engineer is to determine that reasonable progress is being made on a plat after being approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sween-McGloin commented that Staff spends a lot of time having to continue these time extensions. She stated that it may be something that should be discussed during the review of the Platting Ordinance. She asked if there was benefit to the City by having a plat denied and the applicant reapplying. Mr. Gunning stated that the first extension should be automatic and that subsequent requests should be given more scrutiny. +aaaaaaaa Commissioner Kelly commented that he liked how the packet was presented to the Commission. He suggested that page numbers listed would be helpful for easier access. Mr.Gunning responded that page numbering would be difficult because of the various printing times of the different reports. He added that Staff will try to place tab sections or dividers between each section for easier access. In response to Commissioner Underbrink's question regarding any regulations for the six-month time frame for approved plats and if that can be changed,Mr.Reining responded that there is not any regulations and the ordinance may changed if desired by Planning Commission. Commissioner Underbrink expressed his concern on changing the time limit from six months to nine months or a year. He added that he would not like any time wasted by Staff or the applicant with continued plats or time extensions. Mr.Gunning commented that Staff provides monthly courtesy reminders of plats due to expire within thirty days. Previously,there were a high number of plats expired. He added that the ordinance may be changed as necessary. .. .i Planning Commission Minutes )larch 3. 1999 Page 7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 3, 1999 and February 17, 1999 Commissioner Richter stated that a correction be made on Page 4, stating her concern regarding cutting down from eight access points to one access point, and Staff should consider providing more access points within that location. Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Ron Guzman that the minutes of February 3, 1999 be approved with the amended corrections and the minutes of February 17, 1999 be tabled to the next regular meeting of March 17, 1999. Motion passed unanimously with Perez being absent. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS PLATS Continued Plats a. 069878-P36 Siracusa Subdivision,Block 1,Lot 2(Final—5.06 acres) Located west of Airline Road and north of the extended projection of County Road 26A. Mr. Power stated that the applicant's attorney have requested this plat be withdrawn. The applicant will resubmit at a later date. b. 1098122-P59 Nueces Gardens No.2,Lots 38A,38B&38C(Final Replat—5.975 acres) Located between Starlite Lane and Leonard Drive,north of Shady Lane. Mr. Power stated that Staff recommended it be continued for two weeks. Chairman Quintanilla opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or in opposition and the public hearing was closed. In response to Vice Chairman Guzman's question regarding the number of times this plat has been tabled, Mr. Power replied that the plat has been tabled at least four times. He added that it is being continued in order for Staff to have an additional review of changes made to the plat. Staff recommends approval. Motion by Perez, seconded by Serna, to continue the plat to the next regular meeting of March 17, 1999. Motion passed unanimously. i► V Planning Commission Minutes March 3.1999 Page 8 C. 1298163-NP85 Padre Island No. 1,Block 15, Lot 21 (Final Replat—0.661 acre) Located west of South Padre Island Drive(P.R.22)and south of Merida Drive. Mr.Power stated that this plat is ready for approval as submitted. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Quintanilla opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Motion by Perez, seconded by Quintanilla that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed unanimously with Sween-McGloin abstaining. Power stated that the two following plats (d) and (e) are ready for approval as submitted. Staff recommends approval. d. 029905-NP3 Bohemian Colony Lands,Block 14,Lots 47&48(Preliminary—23.132 acres) Located south of Saratoga Boulevard(S.H.357)and east of Greenwood Drive. e. 029906-NP4 Bohemian Colony Lands, Block 14, Lot 48(Final—9.2303 acres) Located south of Saratoga Boulevard(S.H. 357)and east of Greenwood Drive. Chairman Quintanilla opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or in opposition and the public hearing was closed. In response to Commissioner Underbrink's question regarding the requirement for a 60' mad for future use of the extension of Saratoga Boulevard, Mr. Power responded that the requirement is correct per the adopted Transportation Plan. Motion by Perez, seconded by Sema that the two above plats be approved as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Power stated that the two following plats (f) and(g) was tabled at the last meeting of February 17, in order to have the applicant and/or surveyor present to answer further questions regarding this plat. Staff recommends approval as submitted. f. 1298169483,01 West's Laguna Madre Place. Block A,Lots 4&5(Preliminary—5.480 acres) Located south of Glenoak Drive and west of Debra Lane. 1298169-P83 West's Laguna Madre Place.Block A,Lot 5(Final—0.578 acre) Located east of Debra Lane,south of Glenoak Drive. Chairman Quintanilla opened the public hearing. Mr. Reining commented that the description of the amount of acreage shown in the final plat does not add up to the required 5 acres. He asked the surveyor to provide proof of the correct information. Planning Commission Minutes March 3.1999 Page 9 Mr. Ron Voss,Jr, 3002 Cedar Springs Road, Surveyor, appeared before the stating that the plat is making direct reference to the description of Flour Bluff and Encinal Farm and Garden Tracts provided in the preliminary plat. Mr. Reining asked who is the owner of the surrounding property and what is the correct legal description. He also asked how the surveyor determined the numbers for the acreage of 5.480 for the preliminary plat. Mr. Gunning commented that it would be beneficial for the plat to be continued for two weeks in order to obtain the correct information on the stated plats. There was further discussion on the amount of acreage described in the preliminary and final plats. Chairman Quintanilla asked the surveyor if they would prefer a two week continuance to clear this item. Mr. Voss responded that his clients are present and he apologized for not having his work file concerning this plat handy,but would prefer this plat to be continued. Chairman Quintanilla asked Staff and Mr. Voss to step into another room to discuss in detail the concerns relating to this plat. After a brief discussion between the Legal Staff and the Surveyor, it was suggested that the plat be continued for two weeks to correct any legal description and acreage information required on the preliminary and final plats. Mr. Jack Epstein, appeared before the Commission stating that they would like to build a house on the proposed lot and a continuance of this plat would be harmful to the limited time frame available. He asked the Commission to consider approving this plat or providing a temporary building permit. Chairman commented to Mr. Epstein that the plat is not approvable as it is presented at this time. He had a choice of having the plat denied or continued for two weeks. Mr. Voss asked if a temporary building permit could be issued while the details of the plat is worked out between Staff and the Surveyor. Chairman Quintanilla commented that issuing a permit does not have anything to do with the Planning Commission. What the Planning Commission can do is either table,deny or approve the plat at this time. There was a brief discussion concerning the acreage on the preliminary and final plats and the 32-foot strip required on the final plat and if the applicant was required to show unplatted property or contiguous property surrounding the subject property. In response to Commissioner Gunman's question regarding the number of times the plat has been tabled, Mr.Power responded by stating it has been tabled twice before. After a brief discussion, Mr. Epstein agreed and asked that the plat be continued for two weeks in order to complete the detailed information required on the plats. No one else appeared before in favor or in opposition and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Perez, seconded by Sween-McGloin that this plat be continued to the next regular meeting of March 17, 1999. Motion passed unanimously. it Planning Commission Minutes March 3.1999 Page 10 h. 029907-P3 Gardendale No.2,Block 8.Lot 17A(Final Replat—0.419 acre) Located south of Curtis Clark Drive and west of Nelson Lane. Mr. Power stated that this plat is ready for approval as submitted. This plat was previously tabled in order to ask some questions regarding the boundary line and the surveyor was not available at that time. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Quintanilla opened the public hearing. Mr. Victor Medina appeared before the Commission ready to answer any questions regarding this plat. No one appeared in favor or in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Motion by Guzman, seconded by Sema that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. New Plats a. 029912-P4 Creekwav Subdivision.Block 1,Lots IA-4A(Final Replat-2.131 acres) Located north of Delwood Street and east of Everhart Road. Mr.Power stated that this plat is ready for approval as submitted. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Quintanilla opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Guzman that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. b. 029914-P5 Flour Heights.Block I-Lots 18& 19(Final—3.298 acres) Located east of Flour Bluff Drive and south of Division Road. Mr. Power stated that this plat is ready for approval as submitted. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Quintanilla opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Motion by Perez, seconded by Richter that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. c. 039918-NP12 Five Points ShoppingCenter,Block I,Lots 4C&4D(Final Replat—5.34 acres) Located east of Wildcat Drive and north of FM 624. Mr. Power stated that this plat is ready for approval as submitted. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Quintanilla opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes V ' March 3. 1999 Page I I Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Kelly that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. d. 039919-NPI3 Island Business Center Unit I, Block A, Lots 7&8(Final Replat— 14.40 acres) Located east of Waldron Road and north of Knickerbocker Street. Mr. Power stated that this plat is ready for approval as submitted. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Quintanilla opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or in opposition and the public hearing was closed. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's comment regarding the major highway not being marked on the location map,Mr. Power explained the highway information in detail presented on the location map. Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Guzman that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. Time Extensions a. 039831-NP21 Kaler Addition,Block 3B,Lot 2(Final Replat-2.09 acres) Located north of LH.37 between Navigation Boulevard and Savage Lane. Mr. Power stated that the owner is requesting a time extension.Staff recommends approval. Chairman Quintanilla opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or in opposition and the public hearing was declared closed. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's question regarding the reason for the six-month time extension request, Mr.Gunning responded that a sales contract is pending that has not been closed. Motion by Underbrink, seconded by Perez that the six-month time extension be approved. Motion passed unanimously. b. 089776-NP27 Industrial Heights Annex, Block 3,Lot 2(Final—0.77 acres) Located between Hopkins road and the Texas Railway yard,west of N.Padre Island Drive(S.H.357). Mr. Power stated that the owner is requesting a six-month time extension. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Quintanilla opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or in opposition and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Kelly, seconded by Perez that the six-month time extension be approved. Motion passed unanimously. V Planning Commission Minutes March 3. 1999 Page 12 c. 0998104-NP55 Surfside Addition,Lots 4A& 5A(Amendinv)(Final Replat— 1.73 acres) Located between Laguna Shores Road and the Laguna Madre,north of Caribbean Drive. Mr.Power stated that the owner is requesting a six-month time extension. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Quintanilla opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or in opposition and the public hearing was declared closed. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's question regarding receiving a copy of an approved letter from the General Land Office pertaining to this plat or any other plat in the future,Mr. Gunning responded that one of the requirements for this plat is that an approval be received from the GLO. He added that a copy can be requested. Motion by Sween-McGloin,seconded by Guzman that the six-month time extension be approved. Motion passed unanimously. ZONING CASES None ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to wireless telecommunication facilities by amending Article 3,Definitions,and creating a new Article 27C. Mr. Gunning stated to the Commission that the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee have been working • with Staff in drafting some Cell Tower Regulations. Staff has prepared some information based on a model ordinance prepared by the North Central Council of Governments. The model ordinance involved a year and a half of study and negotiations between metro-plex cities and the wireless communications industry. One of the objectives in concluding the draft regulation ordinance was to work closely with the industry. A public hearing was hosted by the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee on November 2, 1998 at which cell tower providers were invited to attend and provide their comments on the proposed regulations. The committee considered many of the comments and directed Staff to make additional revisions and presented to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will be making a recommendation of the draft regulations to City Council, which the earliest date will be March 30, for the first reading. Staff will be within the time frame of acquiring approval of the draft regulations before the termination of the moratorium on April 20, 1999. Mr. Bob Payne presented the overview of the draft regulations and changes made. There has been a large increase in telecommunications, which was exhibited by the number of permits received within the last three years and has gradually increased yearly. The draft regulations are proposed to amend the City's Zoning Ordinance by amending Article 3. Definitions and crating a new article called Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. Some of the featured changes include: (a) Stated purposes for the regulations include the objectives of minimizing the number of cellular towers, to protect public safety, and to minimize adverse visual or aesthetic impacts on the community;(b)Cellular towers only allowed by Special Use Exception in residential zoning districts by authority of the Zoning Board of Adjustments; (c) A cellular tower application process. The applications will include: a site plan; landscaping plan; a report indicating the need for a tower, tower service area (technical performance); a statement of intent to allow co-location;and identification of alternative sites where co-location was not feasible;(d) Special Use Exceptions to be required by the Zoning Board of Adjustments depending on tower type and height;(e) A master antenna plan is required; (f) Setbacks include the requirement that towers are setback from major street and residential dwellings at a ratio of 1.5 feet for ever I foot of height; (g) Mounting standards, and procedures for abandonment and removal; (h) Landscaping; and(I)Alternative mounting structures such as public light standards, buildings,etc,and requirements for stealth towers. for .� Planning Commission Minutes March 3. 1999 Page 13 Chairman Quintanilla thanked Staff and the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee for the hard work presented. Chairman Quintanilla opened the public hearing. Mr. David Buskirk. Cimarron Land Services, P. O. Box 2284, Edmond, Oklahoma, addressed the Commission on behalf of Southwestern Bell. He thanked the City for the opportunity on allowing them the opportunity to provide input regarding this issue. He also commended Staff for presenting a job well done. Some concerns regarding the proposed ordinance relate to tower height, applications for special use exceptions, technical assistance and co-locations. In response to Mr. Buskirk's question regarding the standard height limitation for towers, Mr. Gunning stated in non-residential areas the allowable height is 0 to 85 feet with a Special Use Exception for a monopole as a matter of right. Mr. Buskirk continued to state his concern and stated the opposition of "Applications for Special Use Exception"Section(4). He does not feel that providing a map would be a problem,but was concerned on providing information that could be used against his company in the future and he asked if the Commission would consider removing this section. He asked Staff if"All Application" Section(9) is a necessary statement. He also stated the concern for the maximum amount allowed for a Technical Expert being$5,000 would be somewhat high. He added that under"Co-Location"the last portion being "...on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis."be removed. He also stated that there be some consistency in the ordinance regarding multiple-family dwelling or residential structure,with multiple-family dwelling being preferred. Mr. Jay Reining stated that no comments were previously received from the industry on the concern of height limitations. lie added if a standard monopole produced by a manufacturer is 75 feet so that the total height ends up being 79 feet, he does not feel they would have any objection to juggling the number to meet industry standards. Mr. Reining also responded to Mr. Buskirk's question regarding Section(9)and stated that it depended on whether the company will be using any public right-of-way or publicly obtained easements. If so,the City has a right to franchise fees. Commissioner Sween-McGloin stated to Mr. Buskirk that the language used relating to the 85 foot limitation was obtained from a conference previously attended in which other providers stated that was a perfect height limitation for a co-location with two providers. She asked Mr. Buskirk if he would provide some type of language or proof stating that the height limitation of 85 feet would not work with standard pole heights, and then the Commission would reconsider a different height limitation. Mr. Gunning commented to Mr. Buskirk that Staff would appreciate a follow-up of written comments regarding his concerns. Ms. Gloria Krause, Meadows Neighborhood Association, appeared before the Commission thanking the Staff for the opportunity to speak and give any concerns relating to the cell tower and antenna issues. She asked if neighborhood associations would be informed ahead of time when a possible tower or antenna will be installed within a certain neighborhood. She also stated that the type of antenna that would appropriate for a neighborhood would be the stealth antenna. She added that the association would like to be notified concerning this matter, Mr.Gunning responded that currently there are some towers allowed within a residential area as a matter of right, as long as the tower does not exceed the height limits that have been recommended. If a tower exceeds the height limit that is exceptional, then approval would have to be obtained through the Zoning Board of Adjustment with a public hearing. 11110 Planning Commission Minutes March3, 1999 Page 14 Mr. Leon Loeb, Landlord Resources, P. O. Box 6950, appeared before the Commission thanking Staff for providing a copy of the draft ordinance relating to the cell tower issue. He commented that he has had some clients concerned about the availability of service within this area. There are a number of telecommunication providers that do not have service in this area,and as a person who is interested in the growth of business in the community,he is concerned about anything that would restrict access to communications technology. He feels that this ordinance unreasonably restricts access to this area. He does not object to an ordinance that would provide for certain type of facilities could only exist in certain zoning areas and would have to meet building codes and structural requirements. He does not feel that a company would have to justify the existence of each particular installation wanting to be provided. He stated that he is concerned about the ordinance targeting a lot of people other than cell tower providers.. He added that the intent of the ordinance is good, but feels that Staff needs to closely review the ordinance. Commissioner Sween-McGloin informed Mr. Loeb that several Commissioners and Staff attended a conference regarding this issue to made sure during the draft process that they did not uncessarily restrict providers. The conference was very enlightening and in addition, the ordinance is based on a review on a number of state ordinances. Comments were also taken from local providers. She stated that they are not trying to restrict,but also help provider,but the quality of life issues are also a major concern. Mr. Loeb understands that Staff and the Commission is doing everything necessary to provide this ordinance. He feels that the provision of technical information that Staff by their own admission are not prepared to evaluate or the provision for a$5,000 fee for a consultant would not be provided. He stated that he is concerned about the application of this type of business regulation logic. He is basically concerned about the City adopting the type of power over what businesses are located in the City and where. Commissioner Guzman stated that the Staff and Commission appreciate and share the same concerns Mr. Loeb has stated and this has been a very inclusive and long process. He added that the general response from various providers was that there were very supportive of this ordinance. Mr. Larry Crow,Joe Adame&Associates, S00 N. Shoreline,appeared before the Commission stating that he has done business with Sprint and Infiniti Towers and is aware of some of their needs concerning cell towers. He is concerned on their behalf on the Master Antenna Plan. He feels it would put a burden on these businesses to project into the future. He is also concerned about the limit of one tower per one mile radius and the limitation that the City and Planning Commission is considering for these providers, which could restrict their ability to do business. Commissioner Guzman stated that they appreciate the input and share a lot of the same concerns. He does believe that Sprint has attended one of the public hearing meetings concerning this matter. They have incorporated any concerns from several of the providers and have incorporated those concerns in the ordinance. He was not aware of Infiniti being present at any of the meetings. Commissioner Kelly asked Mr. Crow what he would recommend to balance the competing interest of the aesthetics of the City and not impeding the business interest of his clients. Mr. Crow responded by stating that he would recommend loosening the restriction on limiting one tower per one mile radius. He would recommend probably as close as three-quarters of a mile. He also stated the concern of the Master Plan. Mr. Reining stated that the restriction is applied only to towers that are over 180 feet. He also responded to the concern for the Master Plan. The provider does not have to present future plans,but it cannot be used if it is not presented to the City. Mr. Gunning commented that some companies have already laid out grids for the Corpus Christi area. Now whether or not a company wants to release their Master Plan information is up to them. Mr. Gunning asked Mr. Crow for the address of Infiniti in order to provide a draft ordinance for their review. Planning Commission Minutes 10 March 3. 1999 Page 15 Mr.Tim Brauley,374 Meldo Park Drive,appeared before the Commission stating that he was formerly the General Manager for Nextel Communications, as of January, he purchased the south Texas market on the analog side from Nextel Communications. He is concerned about the small mega-hertz broadcast antenna which is usually mounted to the roof eve of a structure or building. Mr. Reining commented that private mobile radio systems is excluded from the ordinance. He added there is still a height limitation pertaining to the zoning district the business is located within. Mr. Gary Jewel, 9601 North Dobbs, Harrell, Oklahoma, STPCS, appeared before the Commission stating that he is concerned about the 85 foot limitation on the cell tower and co-location. He commented that different providers may not want to have certain height limitations and it could make providers extend to more pole locations. If there are more than one user on a pole,there is a chance for fewer poles,especially if a pole is higher than 85 feet. Mr. Gunning commented that poles are not being limited to 85 feet, it is a height that can be allowed as a matter of right. There are other provisions in the ordinance to allow a tower to exceed this height. No one else appeared before the Commission and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Underbrink commented that he does not want to hamper the business ability of these providers, but would like to make sure the location of the towers are planned and minimized with the ability to continue doing business effectively. In response to Commissioner Underbrink's questions regarding requirement of designs of poles for co- locations from the providers and removal of a portion of a sentence regarding co-locations and what affect it will have,Mr. Reining responded that there is only a requirement for co-locations if the pole is higher than 75 feet. If it is less than 75 feet, there is no need for the requirement. He continued by stating that the provider would have to design a pole for co-location,but is not required to let any other provider install antennas on them. He added that if a provider is not truly allowing co-location,than the tower should be under 75 feet. Mr. Reining recommended that the portion of the sentence regarding co-location be left in the ordinance. In response to Commissioner Underbrink's questions regarding what height tower pertained to the one-mile radius and the abandonment time limit for towers being discontinued, Mr. Reining responded that the tower higher than 180 feet is required a one-mile radius, unless it is located in an`9-3" District. He added that the abandonment time limit pertained actual filing notice with the FCC for discontinuation. In response to Commissioner Quintanilla's question regarding a minimum amount provided for a technical assistant, Mr. Gunning responded that there is no minimum charge, only a maximum of$5,000. The ordinance is structured so that the amount cannot exceed the presented amount. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's questions regarding visual blinders or aesthetics and would it suffice under the section regarding"Denial shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence.", and if the word "aggregate finish" under "Fencing and Support Structures" could be deleted or replaced, Mr. Reining responded that it would depend on how it would be worded, then it might be enough. Basically, when items are denied. it would have to be articulated to create a record, which could be reviewed by Courts. He added that the word"aggregate finish"seems to be the predominate construction method and it could be discussed. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's question regarding the section of "Setback" and the wording "Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance," if it could be deleted, Mr.Gunning responded that it may inform someone that there may be an exception elsewhere in the ordinance relating to the subject. Mr.Gunning commented that the references could be added to the other paragraphs being referred. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's question regarding the interpretation of the chart and the zoning districts "AB" and "B-1" being referred to in both sections of non-residential and residential areas, Mr. Reining responded that a single lot can be a district. 4110Planning Commission Minutes March 3. 1999 Page 16 In response to Commissioner Richter's question regarding to the number of calls being dropped with the and if this provision apply only to special use exceptions; and how is the number of drop calls and failed hand-offs determined to constitute a need. Mr. Reining responded that section does apply only to Special Use Exceptions. He added that it is used when a provider is trying to perforin something out of the ordinary. If a provider is not requesting a Special Use Exception,then they do not have to supply information. He added that the number of drop- calls and failed hand-offs are determined by the Technical Assistants. Mr. Gunning commented that it is not necessary in all cases to provide drop call information in order to demonstrate a need for a cell tower. He added that most applications fall within Staff's ability to understand and make recommendation. He added that the provisions for the consultants are provided in ordinances elsewhere in other states and cities. Commissioner Richter addressed her concerns regarding an analysis provided by a technical assistant and felt that this section is written with the requirement of an analysis by either Staff or an expert. She added this section should be clarified before the ordinance is finalized. Mr. Reining commented that the Building Official will initially will interpret and apply this issue. If further assistance is needed than it would go to the Zoning Board of Adjustments. In response to Commissioner Richter's question regarding the requirement of the Master Plan to only indicate the existing towers and not the future towers,Mr.Reining responded by stating that a provider has an option on future towers and if they provide the information,they can use the tower to justify a future location. If the plans are not provided,then they may not be approved for future tower locations. There was a lengthy discussion concerning the need for the Master Antenna Plan from the providers and if it is necessary to provide these plans for future locations of cell towers. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's question regarding an arranged joint meeting with the Zoning Board of Adjustment to discuss this draft ordinance and any concerns that have been presented,Mr.Gunning responded that he has kept the ZBA and the Building Division up-to-date on all the draft ordinances and changes. He added with the time frame presented, it would be difficult to arrange the joint meeting, but he will ask to see when it is possible to arrange a meeting. Commissioner Guzman commented that Sue Corey, representing the ZBA has been involved and participated in some of the meetings and feels that Ms. Corey has been very diligent in communicating to the ZBA information provided. Commissioner Kelly commented that this ordinance is some type of legislative intent so that there is some record of where this Board is going when decisions were made to help to further interpret the ordinance. Mr. Reining responded that Staff always encourages Planning Commission to put detailed findings on record. Chairman Quintanilla thanked Staff and the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee for their countless time trying to reach this point and is reflected on this ordinance. He feels that this document is nearly complete and asked Staff to finalize this ordinance and present to the City Council. Mr. Reining commented that there are some italics presented in the ordinance which have been added. He would like to know if the Commission has any comments concerning any of the wording presented. Mr. Gunning commented that he would like to continue to public hearing to the March 17 meeting. This ordinance is tentatively scheduled for City Council Agenda as a first reading on March 30, 1999. He added that the goal is to have an ordinance in place before the expiration in April. If scheduled, the second reading could be presented to City Council on April 13,which would require 2/3 vote to approve the ordinance as it is presented. Commissioner Guzman suggested that the few comments received be implemented into the ordinance and if revised draft could be mailed to the Commission-and have a phone vote if applicable. He added if a special meeting could be set up in order to review the final draft and approve. Planning Commission Minutes StSe" 341, March 3, 1999 Page 17 Mr. Reining responded that under State Law, to have a teleconference there has to be a quorum, and it has to be in one location. There was a discussion on having the draft cell tower ordinance presented to the Commission at the Special Meeting of March 10. Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Guzman that the public hearing be continued and Staff present the draft cell tower ordinance with revisions at the Special Meeting of March 10, 1999. Commissioner Underbrink suggested that the section of"Master Antenna Plan" be renamed to "Existing Facilities Map". Commissioner Sween-McGloin commented that this name is listed in other communities' plan. We also need to try to encourage co-location, and in order to do this, we need to have a good handle on where those towers are located. Commissioner Underbrink commented that there should be some wording referring to a Master Plan if it is going to remain as"Master Antenna Plan". The Commission decided, by show of hands, to change this section from "Master Antenna Plan" to "Master Antenna Map". There was additional discussion concerning the Master Antenna Plan that is provided by businesses and if it is required in order to approve existing and future tower locations. In response to Commissioner Underbrink's question regarding the section referring to "Applications for Special Use Exceptions"and if it is listed why someone would need this type of application, Mr.Reining responded that it is listed in the table as SUE"Special Use Exceptions". The Commission asked Staff to place the table first or place a sentence referencing to the table, ADJOURNMENT Motion by Guzman, seconded by Sween-McGloin that the meeting be adjourned. Motion passed unanimously with Perez being absent. Meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. laoutiffisiThk Wt.) Michael N.Gunning,AICP Lo me Del Alto Acting Director of Planning Recording Secretary H\PLN-DIR\SHARED\WORD\PCMINS\03399.DOC