As stated in the Unified Development Code (UDC), City Council from time to time, on its own motion, or at the recommendation of City Staff make amendments, change or modify text to any portion of the UDC to establish and maintain sound stable and desirable development. It is generally considered good practice to periodically review and update the development regulations due to changing conditions, community goals and State and Federal regulations. Based on the update to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and changes in development it has becomes necessary to update the UDC.
Several of the proposed amendments are a result of this year's Texas Legislative, session that approved several House Bills, that go into effect September 1, 2019. The proposed amendments would bring the City of Schertz into compliance with these new regulations. Additionally, two of the amendments are items that have been requested to have modifications be completed for some time. Each proposed UDC amendment is described in the following section of this staff report.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
UDC Amendment: Article 9, Section 21.9.5: Exterior Construction and design standards:
Due to House Bill (HB) 2439, effective September 1, 2019 a governmental entity, including a city, may not adopt or enforce a rule, charter provision, ordinance, order, building code, or other regulation that (1)prohibits or limits, directly or indirectly, the use or installation of a building product or material in the construction, renovation, maintenance, or other alteration of a residential or commercial building if the building product or material is approved for use by a national model code published within the last three code cycles that applies to the construction, renovation, maintenance, or other alteration of the building;or (2) establishes a standard for a building product, material, or aesthetic method in construction, renovation, maintenance, or other alteration of a residential or commercial building if the standard is more stringent than a standard for the product, material, or aesthetic method under a national model code published within the last three code cycles that applies to the construction, renovation, maintenance, or other alteration of the building.
HB 2439 directly impacts the current requirements outlined in Unified Development Code Section 21.9.5Exterior Construction and Design Standards. The City currently requires a certain percentage of masonry and glazing be incorporated in the design of any building for aesthetic purposes; however, due to the approval of HB 2439 the City can no longer require a standard for building materials that is more stringent than the standards allowed under a national model code (such as the International Building Code). Additionally, HB 2439 eliminates the ability for the City to enforce exterior construction material regulations previously established through zoning applications, such as a Planned Development Districts. This means that although a property is zoned PDD and has specific building material regulations adopted by City Council, the City can no longer enforce those regulations.
The proposed UDC amendment to Article 9, Section 21.9.5 would bring the City of Schertz into compliance with the regulations established via HB 2439, by removing the current requirements for masonry percentages and glazing percentages. The proposal is to eliminate the current requirements that reference masonry and glazing percentages and replace them with the requirement that the building /glazing must comply with the regulations established via the national model code. This change would be applied to all buildings moving forward including industrial, commercial, public/office, multifamily, and single-family residential.
HB 2439 does not eliminate the City’s ability to regulate articulations; therefore, the current UDC amendment proposal does not alter the current requirements for building articulations.
Code of Ordinances Amendment: Section 18-61. Amendments and Section 18-141. Amendments:
HB 2439 also affects the current regulation within the building code amendments that prohibits the use of Cellular Core Pipe in all underground uses, which can no longer be enforced. The current proposal is to no longer prohibit the use of cellular core pipe, but rather require a minimum of four (4) inches of granular material to encapsulate the pipe if used underground. This brings the section into compliance with the HB but still provides for added stability due to the soil conditions within the City.
UDC Amendment: Article 9 Section 21.9.8.A.2 Screening and Fencing in Residential Areas, and Section 21.9.8.B.2 Screening and Fencing in Nonresidential and Multifamily Areas:
Due to HB 3371, effective September 1, 2019, a City may not (1) adopt or enforce an ordinance, order, or regulation that requires a permit for the installation or use of certain battery-charged fences; (2) impose installation or operational requirements for battery-charged fences that are inconsistent with the standards in the bill or those set by the International Electro technical Commission; or (3) prohibit the installation or use of battery charged fences.
The current UDC regulations prohibit the use of above-ground electrical fencing within residential, nonresidential, and multifamily areas, which is in direct conflict with HB 3371. Staff is proposing to amend the regulation to allow the installation of an above ground electrical fence in accordance with the regulations established via the building code. In addition to the proposed amendment to allow for electrical fencing, Staff is proposing an amendment to remove “wire mesh” as a prohibited material when the current regulations also allow for a fence made of “similar woven wire mesh” by right. This does not alter the fencing ability but provides more clarity on the types of fencing that are prohibited.
UDC Amendment: Article 8 Section 21.8.2 Accessory Buildings, Uses and Structures:
One UDC modification that has been suggested in previous discussions with City Council members is the current regulation for Automatic Teller Machines, or ATMs. The current regulation only allows an ATM if the associated bank occupies a space on the same property; however, in current banking practices ATMs are not frequently located on the same property, with more companies moving away from traditional banking methods. In order to provide more convenience for residents and to allow for increased flexibility, the current proposal is to amend the regulations to allow ATMs with or without the associated bank occupying the same property.
UDC Amendment: Article 8 Section 21.8.3 Carports, Porte-Chocheres, subsection C. Single Family and Duplex Districts:
The proposed UDC amendment for carports within residential districts is to allow for increased flexibility for homeowners desiring to install a carport at their home. The current regulations restrict the location of the carport based on building setback lines established via zoning and require it to be constructed of the same material as the primary structure. Based on HB 2439 the City can no longer require the carport to be of the same material as the home. In order to follow HB 2439, Staff is proposing to eliminate that requirement. In addition, Staff is proposing to amend the setback requirement. Rather than complying with the setbacks outlined via zoning, Staff is proposing to require all carports be a minimum of five (5) feet from any property line. This is more closely aligned with the recent accessory structure setback regulations (i.e. sheds) within residential districts. The current requirement of complying with the zoning setbacks makes it very difficult for most property owners to install a carport; most homes are built right at the building setback line, which does not leave adequate room to install a carport over their driveway and still be in compliance with the setback regulation. The proposed regulation to allow carports that are setback five (5) feet from the property line will allow more homeowners the option of installing a carport on their property. The proposed amendments bring the regulations into compliance with HB 2439 and allow homeowners more flexibility when installing a carport.
UDC Amendments: Section 21.3.3, Section 21.3.5, Section 21.4.2, Section 21.12.5, Section 21.12.6,Section 21.12.8, Section 21.12.10, Section 21.12.11, Section 21.12.12, Section 21.12.13, Section21.12.14, Section 21.9.12 (Master Development Plan, Platting and Site Plan Processing Change):
HB 3167 was approved in this year’s Texas Legislative session, which will invalidate how we process certain applications when it goes into effect on September 1, 2019. Specifically, we must revise the way that we process master development plans, plats and site plans. A few of the major items are listed below:
Plat Timelines and Waiver of Rights- Prior to the approval of HB 3167 the City had 30-days after a complete application was filed to take action on a plat. Most development applications are not submitted complete and are missing several different items, so it was our practice, in order to improve customer service, to accept mostly complete applications with a voluntary waiver of rights to 30-day action. This way we were able to work with the applicant and accept the application and begin review, but would not take the plat forward for approval until all items were complete and the exhibits met all applicable codes and laws. However, with the changes in HB 3167 we are not able to keep this practice as the bill adds a time limit to the voluntary waiver with a maximum length of 30 additional days (for 60 total days) and only allows for a one-time waiver.
Plat Processing- Prior to the approval of HB 3167 the platting process generally entailed the applicant submitting an application, which staff would then review and issue technical review comments on. The applicant would make corrections and changes then resubmit for review. This review cycle would continue until there were no additional comments, at which point the plat would be placed on a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting agenda for action. With the changes from HB 3167, there is not adequate time for staff to review the application, issue comments and review a revised submittal within the 30 -day window, especially as the bill prevents the City from setting a time requirement for revisions to be resubmitted by the applicant. The law states that if the plat is not approved, approved with conditions or denied within the time limits, then the plat will be deemed approved.
Plat Approval with Conditions and Denial- Prior to the approval of HB 3167, staff would work with applicants to ensure all regulations, ordinances and laws were met for all plats, so denials and conditional approvals of plats by the Planning and Zoning Commission were very rare. If a plat was denied by the Commission, then a new application would need to be submitted. With the changes from HB 3167 plat denial or conditional approval, staff must issue a letter stating the reasons for conditional approval or denial (with code/law citations), and provide an unlimited amount of opportunities for the applicant to revise and resubmit their plat for reconsideration. It also places a 15-day required action timeline on the revised submittal. This could ultimately lead to automatically approved plats due to inadequate time for staff to thoroughly review the revisions or schedule a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, as well as decreased customer service due to the potential for an applicant to be stuck in a seemingly unending denial to revision cycle.
Master Development Plans and Site Plans — Prior to the approval of HB 3167, master development plans and site plans did not have a state mandated approval timeframe, so staff would diligently work with the applicant through submittal and review cycles to ensure the proposed plans complied with all applicable requirements. With the changes from HB 3167, language was added which institutes the same plat processing requirements and timeframes to site plans and master development plans.
The general outline of this new application process was created by our City Attorney in an effort to help standardize the application process under the new regulations outlined in HB 3167 for their clients, and staff has amended this process to best fit Schertz. Due to the City’s inability to control how long an applicant can take to resubmit an application, as well as inadequate staffing resources to guarantee that reviews can be completed within the new timeframes, staff is proposing the following changes to the master development plan, plat and site plan processes:
Addition of Letters of Department Certification – As a prerequisite to submitting a master development plan, plat or site plan application, an applicant will need to acquire letters of certification from the appropriate departments, such as Planning & Community Development, Engineering, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works. It is during the letter of certification step that staff will be preforming the bulk of the technical review, which can include reviews of plans, plats, traffic impact analyses, storm water management plans, and other technical documents. We have also included a guaranteed review timeline for the applicant. While the initial timeframe for review of 90-days seems long, we are typically able to get 1st round comments to the applicant in a much shorter timeframe. The 90-days has been selected to ensure staff has adequate time and is able to complete complicated reviews before the deadline expires and the certification is automatically issued, particularly if it is a large complicated project or submitted during apeak workload time for staff. A 30-day timeline has been selected for review of resubmittals, as this review typically takes less time than the initial review.
Addition of Action Deadlines to Master Development Plans and Site Plans- A major change due to HB3167 is the addition of action deadlines to master development plans and site plans. Due to these new deadlines, staff is proposing to process master development plans and site plans in the same manner as plats, requiring letters of certification from development departments prior to application submittal.
Overall Master Development Plan, Plat, and Site Plan Process – With the proposed process changes, the first step in a master development plan, plat or site plan project will be submitting for letters of certification from the appropriate departments. A list of all necessary certifying departments and specific certification submittal requirements are identified in the City’s Development Manual. The Development Manual is a collection of all development applications and checklists and is amended or modified at staff’s discretion. Once a request for certification is submitted, staff will review the application for completeness and if deemed complete will begin review, and if deemed incomplete, correspondence will be sent to the applicant informing them of the application’s deficiencies. The 90-day initial review period starts once the application is complete. The department will review the certification request for compliance with all applicable regulations, ordinances and laws. The department will then notify the applicant of any non-conforming aspects to revise. The applicant will then make changes and resubmit for review. The department will review the resubmittal within 30-days and either issue a certification or additional comments for non-conforming items.
Once all necessary certifications required for the master development plan, plat or site plan applications Once all necessary certifications required for the master development plan, plat or site plan applications have been acquired, the applicant may then submit a complete application for review and approval. At this point there should be very little review for staff as the lion’s share of the technical review was completed with the letter of certification process prior to application submittal. Staff will first preform a completeness review of the application and if deemed complete will begin review, and if deemed incomplete, correspondence will be sent to the applicant informing them of the application’s deficiencies. Once an application is deemed complete it is considered filed and the City now has 30 days to approve, conditionally approve or deny the application. At this point staff will review the application and letters of certification to make sure there are no discrepancies in the submitted exhibits, and collect recommendations for approval from all certifying departments. Next the application will be placed on a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting agenda for approval, unless it only requires an administrative approval, which applies to applications such as site plans, minor plats and amending plats. The application is then approved and the applicant can move to the next step in the development process.
Approved with Conditions and Denial Cycle- New to the process is a response cycle that is identified in HB3167. As mentioned earlier in this report, when an application is conditionally approved or denied, a letter stating the specific conditions or reasons for denial along with citations to the law must be provided. The applicant can then resubmit at their convenience, addressing the conditions or reasons stated in the letter. The City will have 15-days to review and take action on any resubmittal. A provision that staff may only approve applications and must refer applications for denial or conditional approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission has been included.
Appeals to Planning and Zoning Commission Decisions — Staff has amended the appeal process to make the Planning and Zoning Commission the final authority on master development plan, plat and site plan approval decisions. These changes were made to simplify the process, and because City Council has expressed that the Planning & Zoning Commission is the subject matter experts for City development. Aggrieved parties wanting to appeal a decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission would do so by filing in district court. However, keep in mind that if an application is denied by the Commission the applicant may always resubmit revisions and have the item reconsidered.
Other Process Changes – In addition to the application process changes, staff is looking to roll out some customer service improvements for development applications. The first is the addition of online certification and application submittals through our existing WebQA portal, similar to how this was done for building permits earlier this year. We are hoping to have this functionality up and running by mid-October. Additionally, staff has started using BlueBeam Revu for digital plan review, which is a huge help for the applicant as they will be receiving marked up plans with comments as opposed to only written text comments. Lastly, staff has started using Microsoft Sharepoint and Microsoft Planner to organize project files and track reviews. These additions are stopgap measures which will allow staff to accept and manage digital submittals and will be replaced when the implementation of the CityView software is complete. |