AGENDA TOWN OF SUNNYVALE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2018 TOWN HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 127 N. COLLINS RD. 7:00 P.M.

Transcription

1 P&Z 11/19/2018 AGENDA TOWN OF SUNNYVALE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2018 TOWN HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 127 N. COLLINS RD. 7:00 P.M. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson calls the meeting to order, state the date and time. State Commissioners present and declare a quorum present. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE 10/15/2018 REGULAR MEETING 2. ELECT CHAIRPERSON AND CO-CHAIRPERSON DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS Consider testimony and other information provided, and take necessary action with respect to the following: 3. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST BY CHRIS HAGAN TO APPROVE A REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN AT OR ABOUT 510 CLAY ROAD PUBLIC HEARING Open or continue public hearing, consider testimony and other information provided, close public hearing, and take necessary action with respect to the following: 4. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST BY RICHARD SHELDON TO APPROVE A REPLAT FOR THE SUNNYVALE CENTRE ADDITION PHASE 1 AT OR ABOUT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF US HWY 80 AND SOUTH COLLINS ROAD (HWY 352). 5. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST BY THE TOWN OF SUNNYVALE TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ORD ) DULY PASSED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL ON MARCH 26, 2018; AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME; SO AS TO REVIEW AND AMEND SECTION 3.06 ZONING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY SECTION FENCE STANDARDS; AS WELL AS ANY OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS 6. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST BY THE TOWN OF SUNNYVALE TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ORD ) DULY PASSED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL ON MARCH 26, 2018; AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME; SO AS TO REVIEW AND AMEND SECTION 3.06 ZONING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY SECTION SIGN REGULATIONS; AS WELL AS OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS ADJOURN

2 P&Z 11/19/2018 ALL LOCATIONS IDENTIFIED ARE IN THE TOWN OF SUNNYVALE UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. FOR A DETAILED PROPERTY DESCRIPTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AT TOWN HALL. ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA ARE FOR POSSIBLE DISCUSSION AND ACTION. PLEASE TURN OFF ALL TELEPHONES AND HANDHELD COMMUNICATION DEVICES WHILE IN ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE REQUESTED TO LIMIT THEIR COMMENTS, WHETHER AT THE PUBLIC FORUM OR DURING A PUBLIC HEARING, TO NO MORE THAN FIVE (5) MINUTES. THE SUNNYVALE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF THIS MEETING TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE MATTERS LISTED ABOVE, AS AUTHORIZED BY TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION (CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY), (DELIBERATION ABOUT REAL PROPERTY), (DELIBERATIONS ABOUT GIFTS AND DONATIONS), (PERSONNEL MATTERS), (DELIBERATIONS ABOUT SECURITY DEVICES), AND (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT). THE TOWN OF SUNNYVALE IS COMMITTED TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA). REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS AND EQUAL ACCESS TO COMMUNICATIONS WILL BE PROVIDED TO THOSE WHO PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES AT AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. THE FOREGOING NOTICE WAS POSTED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: SUNNYVALE ISD 417 E. TRIPP ROAD SUNNYVALE LIBRARY AT 402 TOWER PLACE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING NOTICE WAS POSTED ON NOVEMBER 16, 2018 IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS AND REMAINED SO POSTED CONTINUOUSLY FOR AT LEAST 72 HOURS PRECEDING THE SCHEDULED TIME OF SAID MEETING: TOWN HALL AT 127 N. COLLINS ROAD RACHEL RAMSEY, TOWN SECRETARY

3 MP&Z 10/15/2018 MINUTES TOWN OF SUNNYVALE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2018 TOWN HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 127 N. COLLINS RD. 7:00 P.M. CHAIRMAN CO-CHAIR COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER KEN DEMKO JOHN PEASE ANTHONY OKAFOR ABSENT DON KLINE JOSH SANDLER SARAH MITCHELL KING MOSS ABSENT SHINEY DANIEL LISA BURTON CALL MEETING TO ORDER Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Demko called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR 9/17/2018 REGULAR MEETING Commissioner Daniels made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sandler, to approve the minutes as amended of the September 17, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting. Chairman Demko called for a vote, and with all members voting affirmative, the motion passed 5 / 0. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS Consider testimony and other information provided, and take necessary action with respect to the following: 2. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST BY RIGOBERTO HERNANDEZ TO APPROVE A MINOR PLAT FOR THE HERNANDEZ ADDITION AT OR ABOUT 479 POLLYROAD Town Planner, Erick del Angel, introduced the request. Staff Recommendation Town Staff recommends approval of the minor plat. Background The applicant is the owner of an unimproved and residentially zoned property located at 479 Polly Road. The tract of land is approximately 0.98 acres. He is requesting approval of a minor plat in order to create a lot to build a single-family home upon. The property resides within a Single-Family-2 residential zoning district and meets nearly all the dimensional requirements of the district with the exception of 0.02 acres in lot size required for

4 MP&Z 10/15/2018 the zoning district as well as an on-site septic system. However, Planning and Engineering Staff have determined that a variance is not required to approve the plat since it is an extremely small amount of land that the lot is lacking and the fact that the area is not served by Town sewer lines. Setbacks: The setbacks for the property (as stated on plat): Front 70 Sides 30 Rear 80 Mr. del Angel stated that the applicant had met the only requirement that would have accompanied Staff s recommendation for approval (copy of deed to small piece of land) and that Staff now recommends full approval. Commissioner Daniels made a motion to approve the minor plat, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Chairman Demko called for a vote, the motion passed 5 / 0. PUBLIC HEARING Open or continue public hearing, consider testimony and other information provided, close public hearing, and take necessary action with respect to the following: 3. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST BY MICHAEL GOLLA (R&M MOTLEY LLC) TO APPROVE A SPECIAL USE DESIGNATION AND SITE PLAN FOR A CONTRACTOR SHOP USE AT OR ABOUT U.S. HWY 80 Town Planner, Erick del Angel introduced the request. Staff Recommendation Town staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Designation contingent to final review of any additional proposed variations. The applicant has requested a variation to the exterior masonry requirement and a rear buffer/screening requirement. At the time the memo was written the applicant had been working on a proposed list of additional site plan variation requests which have now been provided to each member of the Commission. Background The applicant has submitted an application requesting a Specific Use Designation (SUD) to allow for a Contractor s Shop use. The request will be for an insulation contractor business which qualifies as a Contractor s Shop. The subject property is zoned Highway Commercial. Specific Uses are those uses which are generally compatible with the permitted land uses in a given zoning district, but which require individual review of their location, design and configuration and the imposition of conditions in order to ensure the appropriateness of the use at a particular location within a given zoning district. The applicant has stated that the site will house very few employees throughout the day and will seldom, if ever, be open to the public. The majority of the square footage of the structures will be for business equipment and will be in the main structure; the warehouse. The other structure to be utilized by the tenant will be the shed/barn adjacent to the warehouse which will serve as offices for less than half a dozen employees.

5 MP&Z 10/15/2018 The barn structure and land in the rear of lot (north of the warehouse) will not be utilized by the tenants as restricted by their lease agreement. This type of SUD does not include outdoor storage of usable materials normally associated with the business. Commissioner Pease stated that he had received an and asked if Staff had also received the in regards to this application to which Staff responded that they had not. Commissioners Mitchell and Demko said that they had also not received the . Mr. del Angel asked Commissioner Pease what the was specifically in regards to. Commissioner Pease said that he could not recall and had it all on his phone but did not have his phone with him. Chairman Demko asked if the Town had received a variance request on the property before for a Contractor s Shop and if it had not been approved. Mr. del Angel responded that if so it was from a different applicant and also stated that he knows there has been applications for the abutting lots under the same ownership. Commissioner Demko further stated that it was for a SUD for a proposed furniture warehouse to which Mr. Jackson responded that under the previous zoning ordinance that a Contractor s Shop use did not require an SUD and it was only required when the new Unified Development Code was adopted. He added that it could have just been a site plan that was presented but that that use was allowed under the previous ordinance. Mr. Jackson stated that the property has lied dormant for at least a year and due to that it must now adhere to the current code requirements. He added that there may be a problem with that because the layout and design of the property. It was considered legally non-conforming and the owner and Town Staff were working together on approving a tenant to occupy but the possible tenant chose another location. Chairman Demko agreed that that was his recollection of the situation. Commissioner Sandler stated that he received an from a citizen concerning the application and would like to make sure that it is part of the record. Chairman Demko replied that he had not received anything to which Sandler replied that he forwarded it to all the Commissioners and that it should be in their inboxes. Chairman Demko asked when it was sent and Commissioner Sandler said sometime today. Commissioner Sandler then said that he had actually not sent it but that he had sent it just then and was only asking that it be part of the minutes. Chairman Demko asked if there were any other questions for the Staff to which no one responded. Public Hearing Open Mike Hood, 322 Parkview Drive, Sunnyvale, Texas spoke. Mr. Hood pointed out which house was his on the aerial map. He said he never received a letter and was told about the meeting a few days before by a neighbor. He stated his concerns about the buffer between his property and the proposal. He noted that the wood fence mentioned is actually his and that he would like to see a buffer with trees between his property and the subject property similar to what the neighboring property, Adell, has in place. He also stated that there has been traffic through the utility easement abutting his property lately and that in the event of a major accident on Hwy 80 he thinks cars would be encouraged to use the easement next to the subject property to cut through to the street his house is on (Parkview Drive).

6 MP&Z 10/15/2018 Chairman Demko asked Mr. Hood if there was a fence around the main structure to which he responded that there was not. Mr. del Angel commented that the applicant has shown that there is an existing fence. Mr. Hood retracted his previous statement and added that he believes that there might be something made of barbed wire. Chairman Demko stated that there would be no way that anyone could come around the back and access the building without putting up additional gates and that the property is fenced all the way around the area that would be used. Mr. del Angel commented that the tenant s lease contract with the owner prohibits the tenant from accessing the rear portion of the property. Commissioner Mitchell further clarified for Mr. Hood that the structure that would be housing the equipment and would be fully fenced in. Mr. Hood proceeded to ask the Commission if the tenant would be able to access the back of the property to which Commissioner Demko replied that he would not be able to access the old barn or anything behind it. Mr. Hood then asked if the current tenant were to leave and the owner leased it out to a new business or sold the property if the new occupant with a similar business would able to use the entire property as they wished. Commissioner Demko responded that they would not be able to and would have to get another SUD. Mr. Hood stated that he just wants to make sure that one day there isn t going to be an occupant parking a large number of cars behind his property to which Chairman Demko replied that it wouldn t happen unless they got a zone change or SUD for which it would have to come back before the Commission. Mr. Hood then asked that the Commission at least entertain the idea of requiring the applicant to install some sort of barrier to where cars cannot come through. Commissioner Daniels stated that Mr. Hood said that there is a gate there without a lock and asked him to whom the gate and property belong to which he responded that he did not know. He added that he assumed that they were for a utility but stated that the trucks he saw were not for a utility. He said that he wasn t sure if they were for a contractor since they were pretty large trucks. Mr. Jackson commented that if it is a utility owned property that it has to remain open at all times for access and added that the trucks may have been surveyors working with the utility company. Mr. Hood stated that that is his biggest concern and gave a scenario where cars stuck on the highway after an accident see the easement as an opportunity to bypass the accident since they witness utility trucks driving on it at times. Chairman Demko described the dimensions of the subject property in relation to the fence and once against assured him that the tenant would not be able to access the rear of the property. Mr. Jackson clarified that the SUD is for the whole property but that only the owner can access the rear. Mr. Hood then proceeded to asked if the reason why the main building would not be renovated with 90% masonry is because the building is not in good enough condition. Mr. del Angel stated that according to the applicant s engineer the building cannot support the weight of masonry cladding. Mr. Hood then asked if that is the type of building that Staff wants to present off of Hwy 80 in Sunnyvale to which Mr. del Angel stated that the applicant can request alternative compliance for other materials. Chairman. Demko asked if the applicant s representative would like to speak. Robert Crouch, representative of the Motley Family, spoke and pointed out where the chain link fence ran on the property. He also said that they had accessed the rear of the property through the gate at the back but that since then they have constructed two TXDOT-approved access drives at the front of the property and that the gate in question at the rear would be removed. He explained that they cannot do anything about other work trucks accessing the utility company s property as it is their right. He went on to explain the limits of the tenants lease space and the

7 MP&Z 10/15/2018 sort of operations that would be conducted at the site. He also described the type of landscaping that would be done as well as other items on the site. Commissioner Pease asked if Mr. Crouch could address the trees and wood fence bordering Mr. Hood s property and the subject property. Mr. Crouch said that he doesn t know exactly what happened but that there uses to be a row of trees at the back of the property and extended into the abutting lots but all of the sudden one day they went missing. He proceeded to ensure the Commission and the neighbor that nothing will happen at the back of the property and encourage anyone to call the owner if they ever see anyone there. Chairman Demko asked if there were any further questions for the applicant s representative. Commissioner Daniels asked Staff if it was their opinion that it would be onerous to require the applicant to adhere to the 90% masonry requirement or that the building wouldn t be able to sustain the weight. Mr. Jackson replied that Staff hasn t tasked a structural engineer with determining that but did explain that typically buildings like the one in question would have to be installed with a properly designed ledge to support the weight but that the building was constructed long ago. He said that there probably is a means to clad the front but that it could be costly. He added that the neighboring commercial properties are cladded with brick to which Commissioner Demko said only on the front and two sides. Mr. Jackson went on to state that he wasn t sure if they were done with a brick ledge or if it was done after the fact. He also said that it was up to the Commission as to whether to require them to clad completely with masonry or just a portion. Robert Crouch spoke once again stating that he built all the buildings on the Motley properties and that they did the best they could to at least put some brick on the building. Chairman Demko said that he didn t see the point in making them add any more brick to the building for various reasons such as location and surrounding structures. Mr. Hood spoke once again asking if the Commission could at least consider requiring the applicant to install some sort of buffer for not just him but all the abutting neighbors to which Chairman Demko stated that there is already a fairly large buffer in place. Mr. Hood said that there are really not many trees in place. Commissioner Pease commented that it would take several years for trees to grow and that the existing fence Mr. Hood has is probably better than any fence Staff would require them to install unless an 8 foot masonry wall would be better. Mr. Crouch stated that he doesn t see any point in putting in a brick wall that far back. Commissioner Pease also stated that he doesn t see any reason in putting an 8 foot masonry wall all the way in the back where no one would see. Mr. Hood then suggested that trees at least be installed. Mr. Crouch spoke once again stating that the word contractor that was being used incorrectly described what the property would be used for. He stated that no work will actually be done on the property and that workers would come and go but that the site would really only be used to store equipment. Commissioner Pease then commented that Mr. Hood is just asking for some trees to be placed in the back. Mr. Hood agreed with that stating that in 10 years if another business uses the property further to the rear it will help buffer. Commissioner Kline spoke stating that the property is already zoned highway commercial and that if the owners want to lease to a tenant that ll be driving big trucks in the rear then he ll have to get a special use for that.

8 MP&Z 10/15/2018 Mr. Crouch spoke again stating that it they want he ll install some trees at the back fence line but added that it s hard to run a water line to back of the property to maintain them but that he has no problem doing that. Chairman Demko added that they required a property owned a few lots away to install a berm in the rear. He also added that he believes that the gate at the rear of the property spoken of earlier in the meeting actually is on the utility company s property. Mr. Hood stated that all he knows is that the gate is at the end of the property to which Commission Demko pointed out on the map that the gate is not actually on the subject property. Commissioner Pease spoke once again describing how the ordinance addressing vegetative buffer reads to which Mr. Jackson concurred. Commissioner Pease stated that he would be in favor of requiring them install one shade tree per 40 linear feet. A discussion was had about how many trees the applicant should have to install on the property and where. Mr. Crouch suggested installing the trees at the fence line that the tenant will be limited to rather than all the way at the rear that way the watering line would be easier to run. Public Hearing Closed Commissioner Sandler made a motion to approve the applicant s SUD request with the requirement that he install 6 shade trees along the rear fence line that the tenant will be limited to, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell, motion carried 5 / 0. ADJOURN Chairman Demko adjourned the meeting at 7:36 p.m. The undersigned presiding officer certifies that this is a true and correct record of the proceedings. Ken Demko, Chairman ATTEST: Rachel Ramsey, Town Secretary

9 Town of Sunnyvale Town Secretary Fiscal Year November 19, 2018 Prepared By: Erick del Angel Town Planner DISCUSSION ITEM CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST BY CHRIS HAGAN TO APPROVE A REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN AT OR ABOUT 510 CLAY ROAD Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the revised landscape plan and request for alternative compliance to Section Landscape Requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance. Background With the recent passage of Ordinance amending Section Landscape Requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance, property owners now have the ability to request alternative compliance to landscape requirements. The applicant is the owner of an industrial property (Vince Hagan Corporation) which recently received site plan approval for the addition of an office building located off of Clay Road. He is asking for alternative compliance to the landscape requirements for his industrial property in order to reduce the amount of landscaping. Below are images of the landscaping originally approved for the site this past summer followed by images of the alternative landscaping plan for which approval is being requested. Originally approved landscape plan: 1

10 Accompanying planting schedule: Revised landscape plan: 2

11 Accompanying planting schedule: The applicant has made an effort to keep the majority of required tree plantings and has also preserved much of the lawn area. Staff feels that the reduction in landscaping is reasonable and maintains consistency with the abutting property directly to the south. Lastly, Staff would like to note that the presence of the sign at the entrance of the site does not constitute as approval of the sign itself. The owner must still apply and submit supporting documentation to the Development Services Department for review and approval. Attachments Location Map Originally approved landscape plan Revised landscape plan 3

12 TOWN OF SUNNYVALE 470 Vince Hagan - Revised Landscape Plan CLAY RD SCYENE RD Feet 280 F

13 CURRENT APPROVED PLAN

14 PROPOSED AMENDMENT

15 Town of Sunnyvale Town Secretary Fiscal Year November 19, 2018 Prepared By: Rashad Jackson, AICP Director of Development Services PUBLIC HEARING ITEM HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST BY RICHARD SHELDON TO APPROVE A REPLAT FOR THE SUNNYVALE CENTRE ADDITION PHASE 1 AT OR ABOUT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF US HWY 80 AND SOUTH COLLINS ROAD (HWY 352). Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval contingent to addressing any staff comments. Town staff has found that the request meets all other requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance and Sunnyvale Centre MPD- 01. Background The subject property is located within the Sunnyvale Centre master planned development. The property was originally platted as part of the Sunnyvale Centre Phase 1 addition. The applicant has submitted a replat for the subject property to prepare for future development and long-term maintenance of the property. The key changes for the plat are noted below. The existing ring road (mutual access public road) will now be an individual lot which will be maintained by the property owner association for Sunnyvale Centre. The deed restrictions note the road as community property for the entire development. Per ordinance requirements, a 10 landscape buffer has been added along the interior portions of the ring road. Additional revisions will likely be required as future development happens within the site. Public Notice Public notice was provided to the Town s Official Newspaper for publication by October 31, Letters were also sent to abutting property owners. A total of five (5) letters were mailed. As of the release of the staff memo, the following responses had been received. In Favor 0 In Opposition 0 Attachments Location Map Proposed Replat 1

16 TOWN OF SUNNYVALE Sunnyvale Centre Phase I - Replat 80 ST Hw y3 52 COWELL O PT LU TC RA NC HE RO DR TC LUPTON B LVD RIVERSTONE N BL VD ST ON E CA NY ON MU DR ST A O N B LD 205 ET 410 DOUBL REE D R Feet ARN LN CL Legend Subject Property Property owners within 1000' AY RD G DR F

17

18

19 Town of Sunnyvale Town Secretary Fiscal Year November 19, 2018 Prepared By: Erick del Angel Town Planner PUBLIC HEARING ITEM AMEND NONRESEDENTIAL FENCE REGULATIONS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ORD ) DULY PASSED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL ON MARCH 26, 2018; AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME; SO AS TO REVIEW AND AMEND SECTION 3.06 ZONING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY SECTION FENCE STANDARDS; AS WELL AS OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the maximum height for front and rear yard fences be 8 feet for nonresidential properties. Staff feels that although other cities allow greater heights there are currently no fences in the Town taller than 8 feet nor has there been any desire or request from residents or business owners for allowances taller than that. Only a few existing fences will become legal nonconforming with the passage of this ordinance and said fences have been in existence for some time. BACKGROUND Since the adoption of the Unified Development Code (UDO) in April Staff and Town Council have been amending and customizing various sections of the UDO to be in harmony with the rural yet refined style of Sunnyvale. Staff has now chosen to address noncommercial fencing regulations due to increasing inquiry by residents and local business owners. Below is a map of existing nonresidential fences in the south side of the Town. 1

20 The current UDO regulations are more descriptive for residential fencing and only briefly address nonresidential. Below are images of a few of the various nonresidential fences in throughout Town. Regulations from other cities Staff conducted research on fencing regulations using several Texas cities within and outside the North Texas region. An analysis of the data showed that there is a wide range of allowances for heights and materials throughout the cities but no common standard used. Codes range from being very restrictive on fence height to allowing relatively tall fences. Several cities even require fence requests to go through site plan approval. Properties that are currently or will become legal nonconforming The nonresidential properties listed below will be grandfathered and will not be required to remove or alter their existing fences. However, any additional fencing will require permits and must adhere to new UDO standards. Existing properties within the industrially-zoned part of Town having fencing of materials other than wrought iron in the front yard Existing properties within the Highway Commercial zoning that have fencing materials other than wrought iron in the front yard Properties with solid-screen fencing (i.e. beige fence slats at Marazzi Tile) 2

21 This proposed amendment to nonresidential fencing is only mean to address front yard fencing. Wrought iron will be the required material of choice for nonresidential developments that request approval of front yard fencing and the maximum permitted height will be 8 feet. Current regulations addressing fencing 3

22 Suggested regulations addressing fencing 4

23 Public Notice Public notice was provided to the Town s Official Newspaper for publication on October 31, Given that this is a text amendment initiated by the Town, which does not specifically affect one property, written letters were not provided to specific property owners. Attachments Images of current nonresidential fencing Locations of fences Ordinance 18-xx 5

24

25

26

27

28

29 TOWN OF SUNNYVALE, TEXAS ORDINANCE 18-XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ORD ) DULY PASSED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL ON MARCH 26, 2018; AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME; SO AS TO REVIEW AND AMEND SECTION 3.06 ZONING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY SECTION FENCE STANDARDS; AS WELL AS ANY OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES; AND PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. WHEREAS, notice of the public hearings was published according to state law; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has received and considered the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Town Council hereby finds that it is in the best interest of the Town of Sunnyvale, taking into consideration the public health, safety, and welfare, to adopt amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance as set forth herein; NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Sunnyvale, Texas: SECTION 1. That the foregoing recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION 2. That the text of the Unified Development Ordinance, Ordinance No , of the Town of Sunnyvale, Texas is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit 1, which is attached to this Ordinance, and which is incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth. The proposed zoning amendments, as set forth in Exhibit 1 attached hereto, are hereby adopted and the Town of Sunnyvale Zoning Ordinance Text is revised accordingly. SECTION 3. That it is the intent of the Town Council that each paragraph, sentence, subdivision, clause, phrase, or section of the ordinance be deemed severable and should any such paragraph, sentence, subdivision, clause, phrase or section be declared invalid or unconstitutional for any reason, such declaration of invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not be construed to affect the validity of those provisions of this ordinance left standing with the validity of any code or ordinance as a whole. SECTION 4. All ordinance and provisions of the Town of Sunnyvale, Texas, that are in conflict with this Ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed to the extent in conflict, and all ordinances and provisions or ordinances of said Town not so expressly repealed are hereby retained in full force and effect.

30 SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall take effect upon adoption by Town Council. PASSED AND APPROVED by the Town Council, the Town of Sunnyvale, on the 10th day of December ATTEST: Mayor Saji George Rachel Ramsey, Town Secretary

31 EXHIBIT 1

32 Town of Sunnyvale Town Secretary Fiscal Year November 19, 2018 Prepared By: Erick del Angel Town Planner PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ADD A DIRECTIONAL SIGN (RESIDENTIAL) TYPE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ORD ) DULY PASSED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL ON MARCH 26, 2018; AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME; SO AS TO REVIEW AND AMEND SECTION 3.06 ZONING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY SECTION SIGN REGULATIONS; AS WELL AS OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is seeking approval. BACKGROUND Due to a recent increase in unregulated signage in residential subdivisions, Staff recommends creating new regulations for residential development signage. This decision is coupled with the fact that the existing UDO does not address signage for large subdivisions with amenities scattered throughout its boundaries. The UDO currently only addresses directional signs in nonresidential terms (e.g. bank drivethru, fast food drive-thru, etc.) With the uptick in development within Stoney Creek, Staff has noted new directional signage being installed for amenities within the development. Although Stoney Creek is the only subdivision with directional signs, Staff feels that it would be in the Town s best interest to implement regulations for all current and future subdivisions. Below are the current regulations for nonresidential directional signage as well as the proposed new regulations for residential directional signage. Current regulations addressing Nonresidential Directional signs: Suggested regulations addressing Residential Directional signs: 1

33 The dimensions will be based off of existing Stoney Creek signage since they are the only existing residential directional signs (besides Homestead model home directionals of which there are only a few) and they are the biggest. Below are the existing signs as well as their dimensions: Staff feels that the existing signs are acceptable in their current locations with the exception of the signs shown below. 2

34 Staff feels that these signs should be removed due to the following reasons: 1. The signs are actually advertisements for neighborhood amenities rather directional signs 2. The signs are excessive and cluttered in one area. Should the neighborhood choose to repurpose the signs, they can add directional arrows and locate them strategically to guide residents from different parts of the neighborhood to its various amenities. Public Notice Public notice was provided to the Town s Official Newspaper for publication on October 31, Given that this is a text amendment initiated by the Town, which does not specifically affect one property, written letters were not provided to specific property owners. Attachments Images of current unregulated signage Types of signs Locations of signs Ordinance 18-xx 3

35 Current unregulated signage:

36 (6) (1) (4) (5)

37

38 TOWN OF SUNNYVALE, TEXAS ORDINANCE 18-XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (ORD ) DULY PASSED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL ON MARCH 26, 2018; AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME; SO AS TO REVIEW AND AMEND SECTION 3.06 ZONING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY SECTION SIGN REGULATIONS; AS WELL AS OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS WHEREAS, notice of the public hearings was published according to state law; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has received and considered the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Town Council hereby finds that it is in the best interest of the Town of Sunnyvale, taking into consideration the public health, safety, and welfare, to adopt amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance as set forth herein; NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Sunnyvale, Texas: SECTION 1. That the foregoing recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION 2. That the text of the Unified Development Ordinance, Ordinance No , of the Town of Sunnyvale, Texas is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit 1, which is attached to this Ordinance, and which is incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth. The proposed zoning amendments, as set forth in Exhibit 1 attached hereto, are hereby adopted and the Town of Sunnyvale Zoning Ordinance Text is revised accordingly. SECTION 3. That it is the intent of the Town Council that each paragraph, sentence, subdivision, clause, phrase, or section of the ordinance be deemed severable and should any such paragraph, sentence, subdivision, clause, phrase or section be declared invalid or unconstitutional for any reason, such declaration of invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not be construed to affect the validity of those provisions of this ordinance left standing with the validity of any code or ordinance as a whole. SECTION 4. All ordinance and provisions of the Town of Sunnyvale, Texas, that are in conflict with this Ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed to the extent in conflict, and all ordinances and provisions or ordinances of said Town not so expressly repealed are hereby retained in full force and effect. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall take effect upon adoption by Town Council.

39 PASSED AND APPROVED by the Town Council, the Town of Sunnyvale, on the 10th day of December ATTEST: Mayor Saji George Rachel Ramsey, Town Secretary

40 EXHIBIT 1