Loading...
12-13-1994 - ~ ,r.... 1P~ .l Yew, PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in regular session on Tuesday, December 13, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Complex conference room, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas. Those present were as follows: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OTHERS PRESENT PIA JARMAN, CHAIRMAN BUSS MILLER DAVID RICHMOND VICE-CHAIRMAN RON WOOD, RON WOOD HOMES MERWIN WILLMAN, SECRETARY EARL ANDERS BOB ANDREWS DIANA FARRIS LAREDO KEITH VAN DINE GREENSHIRE, LTD. TONY MORENO BOB ASSELIN ERNEST EVANS HAYGOOD WILSON KEN GREENWALD, COUNCILMAN BILL MILLER STEPHEN KRAMER CITY STAFF STEVE SIMONSON, ASST. CITY MANAGER NORMA ALTHOUSE, PLANNING SECRETARY DENISE GRANGER, RECORDING SECRETARY #1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jarman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. #2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Session November 22, 1994 Chairman Jarman requested that the approval of the minutes for the. Regular Session November 22, 1994 be postponed until the next regular session due to the length of the agenda. #3 CITIZENS: INPUT OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS There were none. #4 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Site Plan Approval Bill Miller Bar-B-Q #55 (PC #218-A/B) Steve Simonson explained that Bill Miller is requesting a variance to the sign height and the square footage for the face of the sign on IH 35 which is 5 feet higher than what is authorized and 47 square feet larger on the face side. Also the sign on FM 3009 meets the square foot face authorization, however the sign height is 3 feet 3 inches higher than allowed for the overlay on FM 3009. Steve Simonson mentioned for their information that the sign across the street at Diamond Shamrock is 25 feet high on FM 3009. All of the other information is in order. As far as the parking area there is some question on the handicap parking being to the side of the building so far from the entrance. Steve Simonson stated that the only request at this time from Bill Miller was the variance for the sign height and the square footage. Chairman Pia Jarman questioned the Diamond Shamrock sign on FM 3009. Steve Simonson stated that the sign at the Diamond Shamrock is 3 feet higher on the FM 3009 side. Bob Andrews commented he is very concerned with the handicap parking being at the back of the building and none at the entrance. Stephen Kramer stated that the way the state requirements read it is easier to comply with their requirements to enter the building along the length of the sidewalk. The state requirements are limited to the crossing of a traffic isle without a path as indicated in the plans. Instead of having the crossing being in front of another parking area, they prefer to have the access be available along a walkway. Mr. Kramer commented that most of the decision made on the handicap parking is through the state requirements. Bob Andrews stated that he does not understand exactly what Mr. Kramer has stated. Bob Andrews commented that the commission has a member who has a handicap who drives and he also has relatives that are handicaped whom he drives around frequently. Having to park so far in the back due to the placement of the handicap parking would cause problems being it is so far from the entrance. Why do they not have the parking by the entrance? Stephen Kramer advised that the state requires that there be a clear flat space in front of the door. If a ramp was put in front of the entrance there would not be enough clearance for a flat approach which is required by the state. At this time they have the handicap isle not directly in front of the building but in front of the sidewalk that follows along the face of the building which has a covered canopy until the entrance. Merwin Willman stated having the handicap parking so far from the entrance does not seem to be accessible to the building. Mr. Willman was under the understanding that the handicap parking was to be accessible to the entrance. -2- Stephen Kramer stated that they had tried the handicap parking spaces the other way on previous buildings, but they were asked to move it away due to the fact that there must be a flat unobstructed area by the front door. Mr. Kramer informed everyone that the walk area is covered along the side with access to the building, in order to satisfy the state requirements without having a ramp abutting the doorway. Chairman Pia Jarman asked Mr. Kramer about the traffic pattern, and about the extra parking spaces. Bob Andrews questioned Mr. Kramer is it not the location of the handicap parking, but the location of the wheel chair ramp that dictates the location of the handicap parking or that the ramp must be located adjacent to the parking spaces. Stephen Kramer confirmed that there is a problem if the ramp is located in the entrance with not enough clearance; as stated by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation the parking spaces can not be located at that location. The TDLR requires that the plans be submitted to them for approval for proper location of the handicap parking. At this time the plans have been submitted to TDLR for approval. Merwin Willman commented that if the handicap parking is at the back of the building, he doesn't feel that there is any access to the building. David Richmond stated that the parking spaces are on the side of the building not away from the building. Stephen Kramer confirmed that TDLR requires that the parking spaces have to be distributed within the parking lot. There is a doorway on the side for entering with two parking spaces located at that point. Steve Simonson along with other members of the commission questioned Mr. Kramer about a door on the side of the building which has no symbol on the plans. Mr. Kramer stated that there is a door at the side of the building with access to the two handicap spaces with a covered walkway. Steve Simonson advised Mr. Kramer that a new set of plans showing the side door would need to be resubmitted. Mr. Kramer advised that Leonard Truitt with the Inspection Department does have a set of the construction plans that does have the side door location. Mr. Kramer stated they will resubmit another plan showing the side door location. -3- Bob Andrews asked for clarification, what the problem was with putting the ramp closer to the front of the entrance door. Stephen Kramer stated there is a requirement that there must be a flat landing of 5 foot square in front of the door. In the original plans it was in front of the door all squared up, but due to the fact of not enough clearance with the width of the walk it had to be changed. Bob Andrews stated that the purpose of the 5 foot square landing in front of the door is for wheel chair users to be able to open the door with enough room. Regardless if the ramp is there or not, you are still required to have that 5 foot square landing in front of the door for the wheel chair to have access to open the door. The ramp has nothing to do with the 5 foot square landing, the 5 foot square landing is required by law to be in front of the door. The ramp can still lead up to the 5 foot square landing which needs to be at the end of the ramp. Mr. Kramer confirmed to Mr. Andrews that is the requirement by TDLR for the landing to be in front of the door and to have the plans approved. There is no specific requirement for the ramp. Haygood Wilson advised that the problem that they are having with TDLR is the ramp can not go into the access isle. If there is a 6 foot curb, there has to be a 6 foot isle with a 6 foot ramp. Mr. Wilson stated that they felt they had some good ideas with the parking due to all of the requirements that have to be met. Chairman Pia Jarman stated that with all of the questions and concerns with the parking and ramp we still need to discuss the sign variance request which is also part of the site plan. Bob Andrews thanked Bill Miller for their sign variance request. They presented some very well prepared research as to how far the sign could be seen, without requesting a sign just to out do the other businesses in the area. David Richmond questioned Mr. Wilson if it would be in their capabilities to meet the face requirement if they were allowed the 55 foot height. Haygood Wilson advised that they would prefer to have the requested variance but if the commission feels differently then they will accommodate. Mr. Wilson stated that they did have an extensive research to determine the height and the readability of the letters that will be on the sign at that size. They felt that they would lose some readability at the required height. Mr. Wilson advised that the elevation on that corner starts to go downhill and the sign will be visible at the requested variance below all the other signs that are on the south side of the intersection. The readability in that type of vision was what determined their request for the sign variance. -4- Bob Andrews confirmed that they would need to take off 1 foot on the height and 2 feet on the width to bring it down to size on the face side. David Richmond commented that he is very concerned about the size of the sign conforming with the ordinance due to what it looks like south of Schertz with all the signs going into San Antonio and Universal City. Haygood Wilson stated he appreciates the concern with the sign, but that is a high speed thoroughfare and would like consideration with this sign request. A sign on Pat Booker Road would be different than a sign on IH 35. With a sign to attract customers it would help to generate the sales tax for Schertz. Tony Moreno stated the sign that has been presented is a little over the ordinance, however 1 foot height and 2 feet width over limit, however considering the research that had been taken to set up the scale, it certainly makes sense and it does not seem to be a frivolous request. Tony Moreno moved to approve the site plan as submitted including the sign variance on IH 35 for height of 55 feet, and an extra 47 square feet on the face side of the sign, and the second sign on FM 3009 to be 2 feet 5 inches higher. To also include a better site plan showing the doors on the side of the building. Mervin Willman seconded the motion, which carried with the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Pia Jarman, Bob Andrews, Mervin Willman, Tony Moreno, and Keith Van Dine. NAYS: Commissioners David Richmond and Ernest Evans. ABSTENTIONS: None. #5 CONSIDER AND TARE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from Tri County Veterinarian Clinic: PC (#222-94) A. Site Plan Approval B. Preliminary Plat Approval A. Site Plan Approval: Steve Simonson stated that there are two sheets of plans and that they are one of the best he has seen since site plans have been received. A couple of items to bring to everyone's attention is the layout of the lot. The reason for this type of layout is due to the drainage on FM 3009. The piece of property is broken down into 2 different sections. The large portion of the property that looks like a triangle will partially be site planned as the clinic property. The clinic will basically be a drive through clinic where you drive up tell them the animal problems and they will either take care of you at the drive through or you will need to -5- enter the building to have the animal checked. The only question that has been brought up at this time is having the entrance on the curb, with a one way entrance in and an exit out. There will be an island with a sign for the business; this will prevent two cars from merging so this does not seem to be a traffic problem. The property is located directly across from American Freightways. Mr. Simonson explained the handicap space location in the parking area. The building is self contained with an area for the trash pad. Merwin Willman questioned why the two signs. Steve Simonson confirmed that because of two different roads leading to the business they are allowed two signs. The one from FM 3009 will be 2' X 6' in size, blue with white lettering with the name of the business. The one from Tri-County Parkway near the entry will be 18" X 36" a simple sign with the name of the business. David Richmond stated he liked the landscape plan that they submitted but would like to suggest to them instead of the signs being on poles the signs can not be on berms. Mr. Richmond also questioned that there didn't seem to be a door to enter the building on the site plan. Steve Simonson advised due to the drainage ditch there could be a problem with the berms eroding out but it could be suggested to them. Merwin Willman questioned the name of the business as stated on the site plan and plat with two different names. Steve Simonson advised that the name of the business will be Custom Veterinary Clinic. Tony Moreno moved to approve the site plan as submitted with the contingent upon showing the location of a door. Bob Andrews seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. B. Preliminarv Plat Approval: Steve Simonson stated that both of the sheets, the landscape plan and site drawing that was enclosed constituted the site plan. The other sheet is the preliminary plat. Steve Simonson stated the reason the lot is laid out the way it is, is due to the fact of the CPS easement and the drainage easements that are in the rear of the lot. The statement for the 100 year flood plan, site location, and right of ways are listed. The one thing missing is the land owner's names surrounding the land in the Tri-County Business Park. Mr. Simonson advised he will confirm on what the real name of the business is for the final plat. -6- Bob Andrews moved to approve the preliminary plat as submitted. Merwin Willman seconded the motion, which carried with a unanimous vote. #6 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Request from J. Robert Asselin Jr. for Specific Use Permit to Use the upper floor of Large Red Building for on site Security. Chairman Pia Jarman stated the request was for a recommendation to go to the Board of Adjustment for the Specific Use Permit. Steve Simonson advised that Mr. Asselin Jr. had been in to talk with him about living in the upstairs of the existing building with the separate apartment. He is wanting to make some changes and is needing a request from the commission for a recommendation to the Board Of Adjustment. Chairman Pia Jarman questioned Mr. J. Robert Asselin Jr. about the building which already exists, what type of a change was planned. Mr. J. Robert Asselin Jr. stated that the building does have an apartment already, he is wanting to install a rest room with a shower in the residence which is all sectioned off. Keith Van Dine asked if Mr. Asselin Jr. is requesting a security site or to install a shower to the existing building. Steve Simonson advised that Mr. Asselin Jr. is requesting to live on the property for security reasons. It is stated that you have to have a specific use permit to have a residence to live in a general business area. Mr. Asselin Jr. stated the property used to be Garden Ridge Flea Market but was closed. It is now called Dragon's Den. He is planning to live there on the property in the 2 bedroom apartment, with a living room, master bedroom, bathroom, and den. If approved, he will be installing a shower to complete the rest room. There are stairs from the store at the bottom that leads to the upstairs apartment. Bob Andrews asked what the on site security was to be used for. Mr. Asselin Jr. stated that there is a flea market called the County Line Flea Market on this property. The vendors leave their wares on the site so it is felt security is needed. Tony Moreno moved to make a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment to approve the request by Mr. Asselin Jr. for a specific use permit. Ketih Van Dine seconded the motion, which carried with a unanimous vote. Keith Van Dine moved to amend the preceding motion to read for the recommendation to be made to the City Council instead of to the Board of Adjustments for Mr. Asselin Jr.'s request. Ernest Evans seconded the motion, which carried with a unanimous vote. #7 CONSIDER AND TARE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from Kimberly Murphy and Ron Wood Requesting a Continuation for a Side Yard Variance for Greenshire Subdivision PC (#209-94) Steve Simonson confirmed that all of the information in the packets is what was available in the files, concerning the past Greenshire Subdivision variances. The variance was authorized for the Greenshire Oaks Subdivision. Mr. Ron Wood has sold the first two lots, when he started preparing to build he had a problem with the side yard set back and requested a variance. Mr. Simonson stated due to the construction of the Greenshire Unit 3 and the on going construction being done in the area, that the entire subdivision should be dealt with at this time. Mr. Ron Wood is only considering two lots at this time, but the whole area is being considered for the variance of the side yard set back. David Richmond questioned if Mr. Ron Wood was only interested in just those two lots #13 and 14 for the side yard variance even though the letter states the subdivision. Steve Simonson stated that Mr. Wood has the contract for the two lots, #13 and 14,and is needing the variance of the 5 foot set back to be able to get the houses on the lots. The other request for the entire subdivision is being requested by Kimberly Murphy. Merwin Willman asked if the request could be handled as two separate items to keep from causing any confusion. Steve Simonson confirmed that it could be handled as two separate requests with two separate motions. Ron Wood stated he did have the two house plans with him if anyone was interested in viewing them. Due to the fact that the 5 foot set back was not shown specifically on the plat there was some confusion. The lot had already been sold before it was noticed. This is causing the two lots to have only 11 feet between the two houses with only about 20 foot space for the two garages. Due to the fact that the two lots have already been sold he is requesting the variance. David Richmond asked to review the floor plans. Mr. Richmond commented Mr. Mark Vaughn as the previous builder at Greenshire Oaks at some time had to have received a variance or the 5 yard set back was interpreted in such a way to allow him to construct houses in Greenshire Oaks similar to Mr. Wood's interpretation. There -g- are several houses that are between 10 and 15 feet apart already. Mr. Richmond stated given what we know now, we need to be aware of the impact beyond these two lots and the unit as a whole. He agreed with Mr. Willman that we need to separate the two requests but deal with them now. Mr. Richmond stated that his concern is the two lots but it is in the best interest that the remainder of the development adhere like in other areas to the 15 feet between houses. The 5 yard set back allows the developers the flexibility to move and adjust houses on the lot, but maintaining the 15 foot separation between houses. Tony Moreno confirmed it would be just like what was given to Ashley Place. Bob Andrews commented that there had been some lengthy discussions on this matter back in 1986. This is one of the reasons Mr. Andrews asked for previous minutes to confirm what has happened in the past. The final motion that was granted in 1986 was to give the 5 foot variance to Mr. Vaughn on the work that was being done. This was to help with saving trees, and in moving the homes from side to side. It was the intent that it would be granted as shown. It also stated that no homes would be more than 15 feet closer to each other. Bob Andrews stated he has done a lot of research on the matter, he has the original declaration and covenants for Greenshire. It stated the restrictions and minimal set backs. Mr. Andrews commented that we do work with the developers and do not set precedence for others but need to follow what has been set. Merwin Willman moved to approve a 5 foot variance between lots #13 and 14 only in Unit 2, block 1, for Ron Wood Homes. Tony Moreno seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. Chairman Pia Jarman stated that the whole issue of the Greenshire Subdivision will be discussed at this time. Steve Simonson stated in talking with the builders, it is determined that they will maintain the 15 foot side yard separation, with the 5 foot side yard variance. One of the key reasons was to be able to save some of the trees, but also being able to adjust the house for the size of the lot. Bob Andrews confirmed that the discussion was for the 5 foot variance for the entire Greenshire Subdivision, provided that there is 15 feet between each house. Mr. Andrews stated what if the contractor came in with the plans and had said all 14 of the lots had contracts on them. Would we have granted them a variance on all 14 lots just due to the fact that they had the plans but at the time have not built any of them? Because we were not confronted with that type of situation no one could tell. Bob Andrews stated that back in 1986, 1987, 1992, and 1993 this same issue was discussed and the problem seems to still arise on this issue of the side yard set backs. There needs to be a way to stop this. -9- Steve Simonson advised that is the reason the commission will decide, so in the future there will be no questions as to what each builder will need to comply to be able to build. Diana Farris explained that the reason this happened is that they are used to building in San Antonio and they are allowed the 5 foot yard set back. In the ordinance it also states that the building set backs should be on the plat, but on their plat it is shown as an easement which states a 5 foot set back. Diana Farris felt due to the fact that it was a new builder, new developer and a new set of lots it was an oversight by their engineers in the wording that should have said "set back" instead of" easement". They thought they were going by the restrictions. The City Inspector was the one that noticed the infraction and informed them of it. Diana Farris informed that she now has the ordinance and has acquainted herself with them for future reference. Steve Simonson stated that there is not one single plat in the City of Schertz that has the side yard set backs on the plat. They have only front yard and back yard set backs on the plats. Steve Simonson stated because this was a new subdivision it is being looked at now for the future. Once the commission makes a decision the inspector is notified. The ordinance will not be questioned again. Bob Andrews stated that we now know that any new plat that comes in for approval must have the side yard and any other set backs on the plat. Bob Andrews moved to approve the variance to Greenshire for the 5 foot side yard set back, provided that there is 15 feet between houses. Tony Moreno seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. #8 CONSIDER AND DISCUSS: Recommendation to Cancel the Regular Session on December 27, 1994 Bob Andrews moved to approve the cancelation of the regular session on December 27, 1994. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. #9 CONSIDER AND DISCUSS: Schedule a Time to Review The UDC Chairman Pia Jarman suggested that a schedule be set up to review the UDC by sections due to the fact that it is quite lengthy. It is approximately 187 pages of text and about 38 listings, tables, graphs etc. Chairman Pia Jarman asked if on the January 10, 1995 the UDC discussion be on the first six articles which consist of 21 1/2 pages. -10- David Richmond suggested that maybe meeting by meeting we try to discuss as much of the UDC book as possible. Keith Van Dine asked to have an outline in the packets on which to follow. Chairman Pia Jarman advised she would set a schedule to follow for the UDC to be reviewed for each meeting. Chairman Jarman confirmed that the first six articles would be reviewed at the next regular meeting on January 10, 1995. #10 CONSIDER AND DISCUSS: The Sign in Sheet to be Used By Guests Chairman Pia Jarman stated she had revised the sign in sheet to be used for the Planning and Zoning Commission. With the changes it will be available at the next meeting for review. #11 GENERAI~ DISCUSSION: Tonv Moreno Tony Moreno stated he has no comments. Keith Van Dine Keith Van Dine asked about the weight limit signs being put up on Pfeil Road. He felt this needed to be looked into because of all the gravel trucks traveling on that road. No other comments. Steve Simonson stated the City Council has already agreed on the signs but he would check into the situation. Bob Andrews Bob Andrews asked about the red survey stakes on Aero. No other comments . Steve Simonson advised he didn't know what was going on either on Aero or behind the church where there are red survey stakes. Ernie Evans Ernie Evans commented on whoever put the UDC book together did a very good job along with the typist. No other comments. Merwin Willman Merwin Willman asked what the status was on the recommendation to the City Council on the Park and Recreation Board. -11- Councilman Ken Greenwald advised it will be discussed at the next workshop. Merwin Willman questioned item #11 on the check list for the site .plan about landscaping. It seems to be on some plats and on others it is not available. This needs to be clarified as to it being on the check list or not. Steve Simonson stated that Mr. Willman has brought this question to him earlier. Mr. Simonson feels with national businesses bringing in plats with a landscape area he knows that they will maintain the area. It is on the check list and he would like to leave it on, due to some certain areas he is concerned about. Bob Andrews felt it was a problem also due to the fact that sometimes they have no idea who will be leasing the property. If it is on the check list then it would have to be maintained properly. Tony Moreno stated it would be up to Mr. Simonson's judgement. Those national businesses or franchises would benefit whomever leases the property. But it would be a requirement so they would have to maintain the landscaping. Tony Moreno advised that the landscaping should be left on the check list and to use discretion. Merwin Willman commented that we need to specify if we want it or not, due to the fact that we do not want to require it from one company and not another, it needs to be clarified. Steve Simonson stated that businesses or multi- family areas do have to maintain landscaping around their business. It could be stated that landscaping is required, with specific plans stating so to the effect to accompany the plans. Bob Andrews stated that in the UDC book this is an item and it is something to be looked into at that time. Merwin Willman stated that this evening there was a request for a specific use permit to have a residence along with the business. It maybe something that needs to be looked into for the future. Mr. Willman had no other comments. David Richmond David Richmond suggested asking the Veterinarian Clinic about the sizes of the signs and what type of work they will be putting into the landscaping. Mr. Richmond also was concerned about the graffiti on the wall on FM 3009. Steve Simonson stated that the graffiti was not there on Saturday afternoon so it had to have been done Saturday night. It also is on the back of the Woodland Oaks entrance sign. The highway -12- department treats walls with a sealant that allows them to remove this, but due to the fact the wall is not finished they have not yet had the opportunity to treat this wall. The wall does belong to the highway department and they have to maintain it. Bob Andrews commented about other cities having an ordinance to fine the parents of the children who are doing malicious acts. Steve Simonson stated there have been some cities getting started on this but as to date nothing has come about. David Richmond asked if there is any other information on business building in the city as of now. Steve Simonson advised that there is a bank that is looking at property on FM 3009. It is much further along with plans with the name of the business being Seguin State Bank. David Richmond had no other comments. Councilman Greenwald: Councilman Greenwald apologized for missing the last meeting but there was a conflict with the meeting for the Mayor's Forum being held at the same time. The meeting went very well with quite a few people in attendance. Councilman Greenwald commented on the 1/2 cent sales tax and if there are any questions please feel free to attend any of the meetings that will be held. There is one at 7:00 p.m. January 5, 1995 in the Council Chambers. The next Mayor's Forum will be held on February 28, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Councilman Greenwald commented on the state having to approve the plat before it can be submitted. They need to get some rules established and follow them. Mr. Greenwald would like to know who gave TDLR the authority to approve the plats and for what reason. Councilman Greenwald had no other comments. Steve Simonson Steve Simonson stated the CVADAC could use some more members. They meet once a month and they do help the surrounding area. No other comments. Chairman Pia Jarman at this time asked Bob Andrews and Norma Althouse to come forward. At this time Norma Althouse was presented with a token of the commissions appreciation for every- thing she has done as Recording Secretary for the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to her promotion as the City Secretary. Norma Althouse thanked everyone and stated it has been a real pleasure. -13- #12 ADJOURNMENT: Keith Van Dine moved to adjourn the meeting. Bob Andrews seconded the motion, which carried with a unanimous vote. Chairman Pia Jarman adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting is January 10, 1995. Chair , Planning and oning Commission City of Schertz, Texas ATTEST: C Y ~1 P anning Secretary City of Schertz, Texas -14-