05-08-1990 PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in a regular
session on Tuesday, May 8, 1990 at 7:00 P.M. in the Municipal
Complex Conference Room, 1400 Schertz Parkway. Those present
were as follows:
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY STAFF
TY BRISGILL, CHAIRMAN STEVE SIMONSON,
JOE POTEMPA, VICE-CHAIRMAN ASST. CITY MANAGER
KEITH VAN DINE, SECRETARY NORMA ALTHOUSE,
_ MERWIN WILLMAN RECORDING SECRETARY
BOB ANDREWS
GEORGE VICK
JIM SHRIVER
COUNCILPERSON KEN GREENWALD
#1 CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Brisgill called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
#2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Session April 24, 1990
Merwin Willman made a motion to approve the minutes for the
regular session April 24, 1990. George Vick seconded the motion
and the vote was as follows:
AYES: T. Brisgill, J. Potempa, M. Willman, G. Vick, J. Shriver
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: B. Andrews
Motion carried.
- #3 CITIZENS' INPIIT OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS
There was none.
~N
#4 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Proposed Changes to the
Subdivision Ordinance Regarding the One-Foot
Non-Access Easement Along Major Streets
Chairman Brisgill reminded the Commission Merwin Willman had
written up an in-depth explanation of how he came about writing
his proposals for an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance
regarding a non-access easement. (Copy attached)
Bob Andrews. remarked he doesn`t recall when or how the statement
on the one-foot non-access easement came to be included in the
ordinance.
Steve Simonson noted that the Commission had written and
recommended the amendment which added "(For residential
subdivision plats only.)".
Bob Andrews related that the first time he heard the term was in
regard to the Parker property.
Merwin Willman commented he seemed to remember something coming
up about it, from ,lames Harden, when Schertz Parkway was built
because technically it's for residential, not business.
Bob Andrews questioned the difference between a non-access and a
no-access easement. Merwin Willman replied a no-access is for an
area that abuts a development which may be considered to-have a
deprecating and/or potentially dangerous effect to the property
- because it .back ups to a railroad R.O.W., gas line, etc.
George Vick inquired about what this does to already existing
developments that have access easements that cross gas lines, and
Steve Simonson said it does nothing. Chairman Brisgill pointed
out this is for new development.
Merwin Willman stated that in Article III, Section 23.2e there is
a paragraph pertaining to a residential lot backing up to a
particularly dangerous area. Mr. Willman continued on saying
what he is trying to do is come up with a definition.
Chairman Brisgill, remarking that curb cuts are regulated by the
City Manager, asked if this proposed amendment is really needed.
Merwin Willman pointed out that one-foot non-access easements
have been required, in the ordinance, on major streets for safety
purposes, and if they're not required, the City Manager may have
no recourse but to grant a second curb cut.
Chairman Brisgill asked for Staff input.
Steve Simonson referred to the definition given by Merwin Willman
of a one-foot non-access easement which reads "The limitation of
public access rights to and from properties abutting a highway or
designed street by restricting curb-cuts and access to rear of
property when the property has another dedicated access to a
public right-of-way". Mr. Simonson commented he would like to
see that definition stop after "restricting curb-cuts" because
most of those being requested are at the side of the property.
Merwin Willman contended it has nothing to do with curb-cuts.
Steve Simonson said he is trying to look ahead - people will read
that definition and see it says restricting access to rear of
property, so they will ask how about access to the side of their
property.
-2-
Chairman Brisgill added that in Woodland Oaks on Woodland Oaks
Drive and Dimrock there is a one-foot non-access- easement, which
means that people living there can't get access to the rear of
their property, only the side.
Bob Andrews suggested that .after. "access to rear" the words "or
side" be added.
There was then discussion about utility companies being allowed
to drive over non-access easements, about putting -gates in
privacy fences for. purposes of access and about permitting the
. use of ramps to drive over the curb with vehicles such as motor
homes.
Steve Simonson mentioned, that from a Staff point of view, it
- would work well to include both the one-foot non-access easement
and the one-foot partial access easement in the ordinance.
Mr. Simonson also indicated he would like to see the three non-
, access definitions (one-foot non-access, one-foot partial access,
and no-access) included in the ordinance to give the City an
option.
The Commission agreed to Merwin Willman's second proposal for
Article II, Section 15.50. and to his definitions, with the
inclusion of the words "or side" after "access to rear" in the
definition of a one-foot non-access easement.
Bob Andrews suggested, that- for administrative purposes, a
repealing clause be added.
Bob Andrews made a motion to recommend approval to City Council
of Merwin Willman's second proposed change to Article II, Section
15.50 of the Subdivision Ordinance, and also approval of the
addition of the definitions suggested by Merwin Willman (with the
- inclusion of "or side" after "access to rear") to Section "C" of
the Subdivision Ordinance.
Jim Shriveryseconded t_he motion and vote was unanimous in favor.
Motion carried.
#5 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Conceptual Annexation and
ETJ Areas
The Commissioners had received in their packages a letter of
proposed recommendation of ETJ and Annexation areas and a map
showing proposed ETJ boundaries. The letter and map are the
result of suggestions by the sub-committee (Joe Potempa, Jim
Shriver, and George Vick working together with Steve Simonson) as
to what areas they think should be considered for ETJ agreements
and/or annexation by the City.
Steve Simonson informed the Commission all areas are in the
City's ETJ and. CIP except a small area that`s already been
-3-
annexed by Garden Ridge and the area south of Lower Seguin Road
and east of FM 1518 which technically falls in the ETJ of San
Antonio. Mr. Simonson said, if the Commission agrees, he would
like to recommend to City Council that the City negotiate with
San Antonio to acquire this area south of Lower Seguin Road- and
east of FM-1518.
Steve Simonson explained that north of IH-35 the City may
potent-ially give up some of the area above the Missouri-Pacif is
Railroad.
Mr. Simonson said the area below FM 78 is pretty much locked in
(t.he City has gentlemen's type agreements), but around IH-35 it
is more fluid - there are no ETJ agreements.-
Councilperson Ken Greenwald stressed that the City definitely
needs some kind of agreement with New Braunfels, San Antonio,
Cibolo and possibly Garden Ridge. Mr. Greenwald further stated
the Rittiman Addition has been in the plan for a long time, but
the City won`t take it in until Bexar County does what it's
supposed to do.
Merwin Willman wondered, since they're considering squaring off
the ETJ north of IH-35, shouldn't it be indicated in the letter.
Steve Simonson mentioned the possibility of squaring off the
City limits by coming down Eckhardt Road to Green Valley Road and
across to Northcliffe.
Mr. Simonson also said there's probably more realistic potential
between the Missouri Pacific Railroad and IH-35 than there is
north of the Missouri Pacific.
Chairman Brisgill commented, as long as they're talking squaring
off the City limits, it would be best to look at the land with
the most potential for the City of Schertz.
George Vick indicated he would like to see the area of FM 1518
between Schertz and Selma, which is in Universal City's ETJ,
included in this plan.
Merwin Willman, noting that probably nothing will come from it,
said there's no reason that area of FM 1518 can't be included in
the recommendations.
Chairman Brisgill asked that they stop and review what's been
established so far:
ETJ's
(1) Establishing a mutually agreeable boundary between Schertz
and New Braunfels;
-4-
(2) Establishing the Missouri Pacific Railroad as the
northernmost boundary;
{3) Coming down Eckhardt Road to Green Valley Road and straight
across to Northcliffe;
" {4) In the southern portion of the City, establishing the western
ETJ boundary as FM 1518, the eastern ETJ boundary as Cibolo
Creek and the southern ETJ boundary as I-10; "
(Steve Simonson commented it would be good if Schertz and
Cibolo could agree not to cross Cibolo Creek.)
(5) Negotiating for Universal City's ETJ along FM 1518.
Steve Simonson acknowledged that definable boundaries are. really
helpful and told the Commission he thinks they're looking at the
possibility of another 5,000 acres coming into the City.
Annexation
(1) Beck Concrete area
(Joe Potempa had asked about annexing this area and Steve
Simonson said there is no reason not to.)
Keith Van Dine arrived at the meeting at 7:57 P.M.
Merwin Willman asked about f filling in the three areas north of
IH-35.
Steve Simonson reported that one of the areas includes Gifford-
Hill and until litigation is finished, there`s no reason to stir
anything up.
Mr. Willman then asked about the other two areas and Steve
Simonson replied there is a lot of negative outcry out there even
if some of it is from renters rather than property owners.
Bob Andrews recommended waiting to annex the three areas north of
IH-35. ,
Chairman Brisgill commented, since we're not getting any
development anyway, he would like to see Schertz work in a spirit
of cooperation rather than confrontation with the surrounding
cities, and if it would help to delay this annexation, he is in
favor of that.
To that Councilman Ken Greenwald replied he can't see it hurting
or helping either ,way because the City is not going to annex
something that someone else thinks is theirs.
Chairman Brisgill asked that the sub-committee get together one
more time and write up the items discussed tonight. Mr. Brisgill
-5-
requested these items be placed on the next agenda for the
Commission's review.
~6 GENERAL DISCIISSION
Bob Andrews•
(a) Has the plat for Oak Manor Estates been recorded yet? It has
- not been published in the. Seguin newspaper. (Steve Simonson said
it has been recorded and Tommy Zipp picked up the mylar.)
(b) Regarding Ordinance 90-A-5 on the annexation of the five
tracts of land,-the acreage adds up but the field notes are hard
to follow. (Steve Simonson said he-would check into it.)
(c) Mentioned the newspaper article about the National Kidney
Foundation towing junked cars away free of charge and giving the
donor an income tax deduction form. Mr. Andrews said he believes
the Lions Club will do the same thing and thinks it would be a
good idea to mention this in the Newsletter.
Keith Van Dine•
(a) Emphasized there are some serious holes in Pfeil Road.
(Steve Simonson indicated it needs rebuilding.)
(b) As a point of interest, at a small meeting of the
Shirmerville property owners last week, he had mentioned the
areas of annexation being discussed to the two candidates and
they didn`t know anything about them. (Joe Potempa informed Mr.
Van Dine the recommendations haven't been sent forward to City
Council yet.)
George Vick•
(a) Contacted Charles Aherns of the Edwards Underground Aquifer
District who said he doesn't have a lot of information, but will
send more as he gets it in. Mr. Vicl~ said he did, however,
receive a package from him just today and hadn't had a chance to
read anything over yet, but he should be able to provide a
synopsis at the next meeting.
(b) Checked with the Guadalupe County Tax office here in
Schertz and found out that no inspection sticker is required if a
car has an antique license. Also, the charge is $10.00 per year
for an antique license.
Merwin Willman:
(a) Anything new on the proposed mobile home subdivision at Pecan
Grove ? (Steve Simonson said there's nothing new.)
(b) Tri-County Industrial Park has the possibility of being
designated as a free foreign trade zone.
-6-
(c) Reminded the Commission of the public hearing scheduled for
the meeting o.n May 22nd.
(d) Have we gotten any applicants for the vacancy on the
Commission? (Steve Simonson said no.)
(e) What's the status of the road name change in Schirmerville?
(Chairman; Brisgill said he had just signed the recommendation..
today which will be forwarded to City Council.)
(f) Have the inspectors- done anything about all the signs at 706-
. Main Street? (Steve Simonson said he will check on it.)
Joe Potempa:
(a) In Mobile Villa, the last residence on Cabana, they're
putting up a building about 1 and 1/2 feet from the fence. Did
they get a variance? (Steve Simonson said he would check into
it.)
(b) Also in Mobile Villa, there is a resident pouring concrete
along the fence line. Mr. Potempa said he had spoken with the
Inspection Department about it and had been informed someone
would get back with him - he has now been waiting 12 days.
(Steve Simonson said he would check out the situation.)
(c) Turned in his letter of resignation (he has been elected to a
place on City Council). Mr. Potempa said he had enjoyed the time
~ he spent serving on the Commission.
Chairman Brisgill:
(a) Congratulated Joe Potempa on his election to City Council.
(b) Commented since no new applications have been received, that
those who had filled them out in the past be either called or
sent a letter so the Commission knows who's still interested in
serving.
~y
(c) Requested that the election of a Vice-Chairman be placed on
the next agenda;
Steve Simonson:
(a) Informed the Commission that on the request sent forward to
City Council regarding Antique Car Storage, Mr. Sweatt had asked
that the statement "Following a hearing before the Planning and
Zoning Commission on Abatement of Nuisance, Section 10-58(a)" be
added before "After confirmation that the vehicle is question
satisfies the requirements of an antique vehicle...".
-7-
#7 ADJOIIRNMENT
Chairman Brisgill adjourned, the meeting at 8:.31 P.M.
The next scheduled meeting is a public hearing on May 22, 199Q.
iN
~I '
. 8 . -