Loading...
10-14-1986 PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES The City of Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in a regular session on Tuesday, October 14, 1986 at 7:00 P.M, in the Municipal Complex Conference Room. Those present .were as follows: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OTHERS PRESENT THOMAS YARLING, CHAIR~1AN WILLIAM ANDREWS - NEW CREATION CHRISTIAN BOB ANDREWS, VICE-CHAIRMAN FELLOWSHIP JAMES HARDEN, SECRETARY DAVID COPELAND -NEW CREATION CHRISTIAN MERWIN WILLMAN FELLOWSHIP TY BRISGILL ALFRED CONYUS - NEW CREATION CHRISTIAN DAVID ALLEN FELLOWSHIP DONALD WILSON NEIL FISHER - FISHER~ENGINEERING, INC. KEN GREENWALD, COUNCILMAN MARK VAUGHAN _ VAUGHAN HOP-1ES DR. KERMIT HARBORTH CITY STAFF STEVE SIMONSON, PLANNING COORDINATOR NORMA ALTHOUSE, RECORDING SECRETARY #1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Yarling called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. #2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Session September 23, 1986 David Allen made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular session, Sep- tember 23, 1986. Merwin Willman seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Motion carried. #3 CITIZENS' INPUT OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS There was none. #4 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.: Preliminary Plat (5-27-86) (Job No. 8668) (Vacate and Replat) and Final Plat (5-27-86) Lone Oak Plaza Dr. Kermit Harborth was at the meeting to represent Lone Oak Plaza. Chairman Yarling reminded-the Commission they have diagrams of these in their packet and asked for any Staff input. .Steve Simonson informed the Commission the property is located on the corner of FM 78 and Cloverleaf. Mr. Simonson said what Dr. Harborth is asking for is approval to vacate the plat area where the dentist office is located and replat the entire area (Dr. Harborth's, the dentist office area and the proposed strip center). Steve Simonson also said the Staff has no problems with this. Mr. Simonson said we are requesting some minor plat changes such as where he shows a .five (5') foot setback we are asking fora ten (10') foot setback, but there are no real problems. There was some discussion on the vacate and replat and David Allen asked if there .was a preliminary and final plat before. Dr. Harborth replied that his piece of property was never platted, Bob Andrews questioned if the dentist office area was ever platted and Steve Simonson replied yes it was in 1976. a After further discussion on the exact location of the lot to be vacated, Steve - Simonson informed the Commission Dr. Harborth is asking. approval to vacate Lot 2, Block 1, Lone Oak Subdivision Unit III and re plat Lot 1, Block 1, Lone Oak Plaza Subdivision. Donald Wilson made a motion to approve the request to vacate Lot 2, Block 1, .Lone Oak Subdivision, Unit III and based on the current pending plot plan, to approve the request to replat Lot 1, Block 1, Lone Oak Plaza Subdivision located o.ff FM 78 and Cloverleaf Drive. David Allen seconded the motion and vote was unanimous: in favor. Motion carried. After the vote, Mervin Willman questioned the zoning of the area asking if it is zoned General Business all the way back to the residential area. .Steve Simonson. said he had checked on it and found that .the original plat shows the original area commercial zoning all the way back to the residential area. #5 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Request for Special Use Permit - New Creation Christian Fellowship William Andrews, David Copeland and Alfred Conyus were at the meeting to represent New Creation Christian Fellowship. William Andrews gave a presentation .to the Commission on the proposed plans for the site which is a 43.128-acre tract of land located in Oak Forest. Mr. Andrews briefed the Commission on the history of the New Creation Christian Fellowship and stated that their plans in Oak Forest are contingent upon approval of a Special Use Permit by the City of Schertz. William Andrews said they would be buying their property from Coy Simmons and Mr. Simmons will be retaining approximately 5.7 acres on which he has a trailer and a storage building. William Andrews showed a diagram of a proposed three-story, .eight-sided building which he said. would be the first to be built with an estimate of August, 1988 for the completion date.- Bob Andrews asked what size the building would be and William Andrews replied 28,000 square feet. Steve Simonson, referring to the ordinance allowing a maximum height of thirty- five (35') feet in residential areas, asked how high the building would be. William Andrews replied they would conform to the regu}ations set forth in the ordinance. William Andrews explained that what is anticipated for the. remainder of the forty- .three acres is a Christian Complex including possibly a school and a fine arts building. Ty Brisgill asked what type of school and William Andrews replied probably an elementary school. William Andrews emphasized, however, that plans for the other buildings. would not be in process for approximately five years. {2) and future plans when coming to the .public hearing. They informed him they felt the public hearing. would be well attended by the residents of 0ak Forest and he should be prepared for all their questions. David Allen made a motion to recommend the request from New Creation Christian Fellowship for a Special Use Permit be referred to City Council for the scheduling of a public hearing. Bob Andrews seconded the motion and the vote - was unanimous in favor. Motion carried. #6 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Preliminary Plat (10-10-86) (Job No. 86044) Greenshire Oaks Subdivision Neil Fisher and Mark Vaughan were at the meeting to represent Greenshire Oaks. Chairman Yarling asked for any Staff input. Steve Simonson pointed out several facts: (1) This is the first housing to go into Greenshire and the builder is Vaughan Homes. (2) Unless it`s a rare exception, every lot will be R-1 size. (3) They have a voluntary thirty-five (35') foot setback along Greenshire Drive. (4) They have voluntary twenty-five (25') foot setbacks and R-1 lot size. (6) The only real variance they are requesting is a five (5') foot minimum side yard setback. Mr. Simonson also reported it is out of the 100 year floodplain and their cul- de-sacs are within our requirements. Mr. Simonson said the Staff sees no problems. Bob Andrews commented on the one (1') foot non-access easement on Green Valley Road and Woodland Oaks Drive. David Allen asked why the one (1') foot non-access easement and Steve Simonson replied so there will be no driveways out of back yards. To this David Allen remarked you have eliminated access to the backyard. Mark Vaughan informed the Commission the fences will probably be of ..masonry construction. There was a brief discussion on the purposes of a non-access easement. Bob Andrews, addressing his comments to Mark Vaughan, said he wholeheartedly agrees with what they're doing in saving the trees, but ask if they would agree to a stipulation something along the line of no home closer than fifteen (15') feet and no closer than five (5') feet to save a tree. Mr. Andrews is concerned about setting a precedent for future developers. There was a brief discussion on the stipulation and the setting of a precedent. David Allen asked about the location of the utilities and Mark Vaughan replied they would like to have them all in front, if possible. Merwin Willman asked the width of the streets in the subdivision and Neil Fisher replied they have a fifty (50') foot right-of-way, thirty (30') foot pavement. (4) Bob Andrews, stating it would be advi able if they .had a five-year and possibly. a ten-year .plan, told William Andrews we-don't want to hamper your plans nor do we want to give carte blanche. William Andrews had pointed out that the entrance to the proposed building would be off of Crest -0ak and this single factor gave the most degree of concern to the Commission. William Andrews was questioned on whether or not he was aware of the drainage problems. in that area and also about the amount of increased traffic that would be generated, as a result of his proposed plans, through a residential section. The Commission informed him Crest Oak is too narrow to accommodate heavy traffic.. Steve Simonson remarked that as part of the Barshop project, the State has to put in a box culvert under. FM 3009. Mr. Simonson also stated that the City has to improve Crest Oak. Ken Greenwald noted .the Council is trying to get Mr. Gilmore to use the same. contractor that does the drainage to do the improvements on Crest Oak rather than. going out again for separate bids. Chairman Yarling asked William Andrews when he would anticipate construction starting and Mr. Andrews replied in one year. Merwin Willman said he could not go with approval of a Specific Use Permit because of the traffic. Chairman Yarling asked if he could approve it if they acquired an easement through to IH 35 and Mr. Willman replied yes. David-Allen asked how large the current congregation is and was informed it is approximately 300-400 people at the present time. William Andrews asked if it would be more favorable for the Fellowship to widen Crest Oak to help with the traffic problem. James Harden commented he thought they should check.on acquiring an easement. before going ahead with their plans. There was some discussion on the right-of-way off of Crest Oak with Steve Simonson looking up a street inventory and determining the right-of-way is forty (40') feet. William Andrews was told he would need to.get an additional ten (10`) feet from the property owners. The alternative of access through Wiederstein Road was also mentioned. Both Bob Andrews and David Allen informed William Andrews he needs to have a plan. Steve Simonson asked which we are talking about -widening Crest Oak, acquiring an easement through to IH 35 or access off Wiederstein-Road? Ken Greenwald replied it`is up to the Church.. William Andrews was informed this request would have to go to a public hearing and there was some discussion on the time frame for scheduling one. Several members of the Commission emphasized to William Andrews the need to be prepared with as much information as possible, drawings, several alternative plans (3) There was a lengthy discussion on how a stipulation should be worded - one ..example being the following: five (5') foot easement, no two structures closer than fifteen (I5') feet unless necessary to save a tree (as determined by the developer) and then no closer than five (5') feet and this variance-does not set a precedent for other developers. Ty Brisgill thought there should be continuity between the City and the developer_ on the size of the trees to be saved and definite regulations should be written down. Neil Fisher was not in favor of the City having to come out and inspect every tree. There was a brief discussion on this with Merwin Willman asking why someone doesn't compose and put a1T of this in a motion so we have an idea of what we're going to grant. David Allen made a motion to approve the preliminary plat, dated October 10, 1986, Job No. 86044 for Greenshire Oaks Subdivision granting a side yard variance of a five (5') foot setback from interior lot lines when determined by the developer as necessary for the preservation of the trees. Steve Simonson interrupted to ask if we are granting a variance which he felt is not necessary in a PUD. Bob Andrews said it is not a variance per se, we either , accept or reject five (5') foot setbacks in his PUD. After some discussion, David Allen withdrew his motion. David Allen then made a motion to approve the preliminary plat, dated October 10, 1986, Job No. 86044 for Greenshire Oaks Subdivision as presented. Bob Andrews said he would second the motion with one additional stipulation: "due to heavily wooded area and to preserve the major trees in that location". As a point of order, Chairman Yarling asked for the motion to be read back without the stipulation and asked for a vote. After it was read back, James Harden asked who seconded it, and it was determined Bob Andrews did not second it, so Chairman Yarling ruled the motion died for lack of a second. Bob Andrews made a motion to approve the preliminary plat, dated October 10, 1986, Job No. 86044 for Greenshire Oaks Subdivision as presented due to the preservation of the major trees as the home site survey indicates. James Harden seconded the motion. Chairman Yarling asked fora vote and Merwin Willman asked to have the motion read back. After it was read back, there was discussion and disagreement among the members. and when Chairman Yarling called fora vote, only two members - Bob Andrews and James Harden voted Aye. No one else voted - the. motion died. Donald Wilson made a motion to approve the preliminary plat as offered to us for Greenshire Oaks Subdivision by Fisher Engineering, Inc. entailing the letter of October 10, 1986 wherein they have requested a minimum of a five (5') foot side yard setback from interior lot lines as stated in Job No. 8668 (corrected to Job No. 86944 as pointed out by James Harden) on the preliminary plat. The restriction of a minimum five (5') foot side yard setback from interior lot lines would allow the builder an adjustment to the residences within the lot thereby protecting major tree locations of Live Oaks-a.nd similar trees of a-minimum of three (3") inches in diameter. Before a second of the .motion, Donald Wilson was asked to reread the motion which he did. Ty Brisgill seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ayes: Thomas Yarling, Bob Andrews, James Harden, Merwin Willman, Ty Brisgill Donald Wilson Nays: None Abstentions: David Allen Motion carried. (5) #7 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Suggested Addition of Article II, Section 5.3 to Zoning Ordinance. Regarding Accessibility for the Physically Disabled and/or Handicapped Steve Simonson informed the Commission that he had found that the building codes do have some information and he thought it.would be easier to include the attach- ment containing that information. - Donald Wilson asked what type of buildings and Steve Simonson. replied general public buildings. David Allen thought there might be a problem with small businesses having con- siderably less than twenty-five parking spaces having to provide at least one for the handicapped. After a brief discussion, however, Merwin Willman commented that using a little common sense in these situations should prevent problems. Donald Wilson made a motion to recommend approval to City Council of the addition: to the proposed Zoning Ordinance of Article II, Section 5.3 as follows: "All. buildings built for use and access by the general public shall be subject to the provisions of .Appendix M, 1985 and all subsequent revisions of the Southern Building Code and standards set by ANSI.All7.1." Merwin Willman seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Motion carried. #8 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Suggested Changes to the Mobile Home Ordinance Chairman Yarling asked for any Staff input. Steve Simonson informed the Commission that City Council has discussed the Mobile Home Ordinance and he would like to make a request the Commission table this item until Staff can get together with the City Manager and find out what City Council has been talking about so we can come up with something more comprehensive., Merwin Willman made`~a motion to table Item #8 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Suggested Changes to the Mobile Home Ordinance until the Staff has had time to meet with the City Manager and come up with something more comprehensive.. David Allen seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor.. Motion carried. #9 GENERAL DISCUSSION At this time (8:47 P.M.), Chairman Yarling turned the meeting .over to Vice-Chairman Andrews. Chairman Yarling said he had to leave for business reasons and also informed the Commission he would be unable to attend the meeting on October 28, 1986. David Allen questioned the Commiss-ion`s motion on the plat for Greenshire stating that a PUD is a platted entity and is either totally accepted or not accepted. Mr. Allen said, to his understanding, the motion passed was a variance and he felt the Commission did something not quite right. Steve Simonson replied to that by saying you have zoned areas in a PUD in the sense. that they came in and requested so many acres residential, so many acres multi- . family and so many acres commercial and that's what this PUD was. They didn't say what type of residential. David Allen said a PUD is, in fact, a property in which the developer says he's (6) going to provide a mixture of zoning. Steve Simonson remarked that a PUD is a zone, not a plat. David Allen still maintained they had granted a variance fora setback. Donald Wilson said they did not grant a variance, it was a definition as to what would take place in .regard to major trees. There was. further discussion with Merwin Willman asking what are the setback requirements for a PUD. David Allen then asked if there are setback requirements for a PUD. Vice-Chairman Andrews replied they would have to meet the particular requirements for the type of building they are putting in that area. David A11en asked where it says that and Vice-Chairman Andrews replied in the Zoning Ordinance. More discussion followed on which type of residential requirements applied. Ty Brisgill-asked when does it switch from PIiD and Steve Simonson said it doesn't. There was still debate about using criteria from a different zoning. David Allen ended the discussion by saying he didn't want to start an argument, but feels it needs to be better defined :and asked the Commission to think about it. Ty Brisgill asked if any Dobie Heights signs had been picked up off the IH 35 access road of FM 3009 and Steve Simonson said he hadn't seen them. James Harden asked who painted FM 3009 and Steve Simonson replied it is very hard to find out. from the Highway Department exactly who did what. Merwin Willman reminded the members they had received a copy of the new Sign Ordinance and asked them to put them in their books. Ken Greenwald reported that four people had attended the TML in Houston and they had several-good. seminars. Mr. Greenwald also reported they had looked at some paint striping equipment which would be cheaper for the City to buy rather than contracting someone else for the work. Vice-Chairman Andrews commented he had noticed the traffic counters out and asked if there was any .feedback. Steve Simonson replied they were not our traffic counters. Ty Brisgill asked if there was any update on the Schertz Parkway. Steve Simonson replied the bids had gone out and he had a meeting scheduled the next day he thought was in regard to Schertz Parkway. The next regularly scheduled meeting is October 28, 1986. #10 ADJOURNMENT Vice-Chairman Andrews adjourned the meeting at 9:02 P.M.