Loading...
05-25-2004 PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES MAY 25, 2004 . The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened on May 25, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. at the Municipal Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION David Richmond, Chainnan Keith VanDine, Secretary Joyce Briscoe William Sommers Ken Greenwald, ex-officio CITY STAFF Amy Madison, Community Development Director Misty Nichols, Planning Technician Jonette Ellis, Planning Technician COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Ernie Evans, Vice Chainnan Clovis Haddock Gary Wallace OTHERS PRESENT Robert Brockman, 4505 Grand Forest Susan Schaez1er, 19349 Old Wiederstein Road John M. Arrington, 19387 Old Wiederstein Road Peggy Tracy, 1211 0 Ware Seguin Road Jim Wolverton, 205 W. Court Pam Hunt, 12107 Ware Seguin Road Kenton G1eitz, 15306 Toepperwein Road Pat Bryson, 19146 Kristen Way Kate Coderre, Old Wiederstein Road Tony Wood, 12903 Vidorra Vista Mark Roberts, Auto Collision Raul Rodriguez, 1105 Twin Lane . 1. Call to Order/Roll Call Chairman Richmond called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ZC2004-004 Public Hearing to rezone 693.53-r. acres from Residential/Agricultural (RA) to 20.91-r. acres General Business (GB) and 672.62-r. acres Manufacturing District-Light (M-l). The property is located along the IH 10 corridor between the western city limits and Gray town Road. Applicant: City of Schertz Ms. Madison reviewed staff comments and stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission called for a Public Hearing at their May 11, 2004 meeting. Twenty-two letters of notification were mailed. The Planning Department received zero responses from the notice. Ms. Tracy voiced concerns that zoning the area to M-l could attract massage parlors and does not want that type of business near her family. She requested the Commission consider keeping the area zoned residential. . Ms. Hunt also voiced her concerns for sexually oriented businesses being allowed in the M-l district. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission May 25, 2004 Page I of 11 . Mr. G1eitz voiced concerns about losing his agricultural exemption if the property was zoned or if his taxes would increase. Mr. Richmond explained to Mr. G1eitz and the audience that they would not lose their exemptions unless the property's use changed. Ms. Madison confirmed that the property taxes would not increase unless the use changed. Ms. Bryson stated that she had spoken to the Bexar County tax appraiser and that zoning will affect the taxable value, if not now then later with rollback taxes. She also inquired if this property were to be zoned, when would there be city services, such as adequate police/fire protection and better water pressure. There was also discussion between Ms. Bryson and Ms. Ellis regarding staff s error in notification that postponed the public hearing. Mr. Richmond explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council has the foresight to look-ahead regarding development. The purpose of the request is to have an industrial park, much like the very successful Tri-County Industrial Park, along IH 10. Mr. Richmond also stated that the City's sexually oriented business ordinance has severe restrictions regarding setback and locations. Mr. Van Dine reminded the audience that development would not occur if they don't sell their land. 3. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There being no one else to speak for or against the request, Chairman Richmond closed the public hearing. Reconvene into Regular Session _. Chairman Richmond convened the meeting into Regular Session at 7:20 p.m. 5. Citizen Input Mr. Brockman addressed the Commission and stated that 51 % of income for sexually oriented businesses comes from items other than sex. Ms. Coderre stated that on January 15, 2004 the mayor had stated that water and animals are precious commodities for our community. With the development on Old Wiederstein Road, she told the Commission that she just wants to hold onto the land - it's precious. 6. Board of Adjustment Actions The next meeting for the Board of Adjustment is scheduled for July 14, 2004 for the Raul Rodriguez request to encroach 10- feet into the 20- foot rear yard setback for a patio cover at 1105 Twin Lane. 7. ZC2004-004 Discuss and take appropriate action to rezone 693.53-r. acres from Residential/Agricultural (RA) to 20.91-r. acres General Business (GB) and 672.62-r. acres Manufacturing District-Light (M-l). The property is located along the IH 10 corridor between the western city limits and Gray town Road. . Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission May 25, 2004 Page 2 of 11 Applicant: City of Schertz . Ms. Briscoe confirmed with the audience that they had received a public hearing notice and Mr. Richmond read each name notified. Ms. Madison stated that the names and addresses for the property owners were taken from the 2004 tax rolls. Ms. Madison also confirmed that she had spoken to the Bexar County Tax Appraiser and that the property taxes would not change based on zoning, that any change would be calculated on type of use. Ms. Briscoe stated that she appreciated that Staff had called, but asked for verification in writing from the appraisal district because she doesn't trust government entities. Ms. Tracy voiced her concerns again about sexually oriented businesses allowed in the M-l district. Mr. Sommers stated that GB zoning was adjacent to IH 35 and suggested that GB zoning might be appropriate adjacent to Graytown Road and be used as a buffer against any possible sexually oriented businesses. Mr. Richmond reviewed the allowable uses in each district. Following review and discussion, Mr. Sommers moved to forward this item to City Council with a recommendation of approval to zone the property as noted on the exhibit with the change of zoning the property along Graytown Road at a depth of 500-feet to General Business (GB). Mr. Van Dine seconded the motion. Voting Aye: Mr. Richmond, Mr. Van Dine and Mr. Sommers. Voting Nay: Ms. Briscoe. Motion carried. 8. PC574A-03 Discuss and take appropriate action for final plat approval of the Mesa Oaks Subdivision. The 14.51-r. acre tract contains 52 single family lots situated on the north side of Live Oak Road, approximately 1,400-feet east of Schertz Parkway. The property is zoned Residential-6 (R-6). Applicant: Don McCrary & Associates . Ms. Madison reviewed staff comments and stated that the zoning on the property was approved by City Council at their August 19, 2003 meeting to rezone the property from R-2 to R-6. Planning and Zoning approved the preliminary plat at their March 23, 2004 meeting. The plat shows 52 single-family lots. There is an oversized entrance into the subdivision and four access stub outs for future development. Ms. Briscoe inquired about changing the street name Oak Pebble to another name. Mr. Aiken agreed to change the street name prior to the plat being filed in the County. Following review and discussion, Mr. Sommers moved to approve the request subject to the street name of Oak Pebble being changed to a more suitable name. Mr. Van Dine seconded the motion. Motion carried. Vote unanimous. 9. PC2004-018 Discuss and take appropriate action on a request for a final plat of Belmont Park Subdivision, Unit 1. The 41.97-r. acre tract contains 113 single family lots and 4 lots for park space. The tract is located on Old Wiederstein Road approximately 5,000-feet east of Cibolo Valley Drive (a.k.a. Wieder stein Road). The property is zoned R-5. Applicant: Vickrey & Associates Ms. Madison reviewed staff comments and stated the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the preliminary plat at their February 23, 2004 meeting where the Commission asked for language to be placed on the plat to ensure a second point of access would be constructed along with Unit 2. The plans . show 113 single-family lots with 4 lots for parks. Lot sizes vary between the R-5 and R-6 lot sizes. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission May 25, 2004 Page 3 of II . Currently, there is only one point of access for this development on Belmont Parkway. The oversized intersection will provide adequate access. The applicant has agreed to provide a one (1) inch overlay along Old Wiederstein from the beginning of the development to the intersection of Old Wiederstein and Cibo10 Valley Drive. All road improvements to Old Wiederstein Road adjacent to the subdivision are subject to County and City development requirements. Please note that portions of these minutes are verbatim at the request of the Community Development Director. Susan Schaez1er: Voiced concerns of the trees in the right-of-way not being mitigated. The 30-feet that is being given for right-of-way is full of trees and won't require mitigation. Reminded the Commission of the remainder of trees in the area. Voiced concerns of development of old Wiederstein Road and stated that seven residents live in the area and are not willing to give up the 30-feet of right-of-way needed. John Arrington: Stated that he is building a house along Old Wiederstein Road and stated that currently the ROW is 26- feet. He voiced concerns about the amount of traffic currently on the road. He also voiced concerns that the only access to the development is on Old Wiederstein Road. He stated there are several contradictions on the plat language regarding side yard easements. He also stated that the Commission can't require deed restrictions and should be removed from the plat. He also voiced concerns about the language for the detention pond and stated that it would be permissible to remove the vegetation and trees. Don Schaez1er: Voiced concerns about the technical detail of the plat. Page 3 on the north extension of the property shows the water line extending along Old Wiederstein Road. It appears to show the property line in the road. He also stated he'd like to see the engineering plans for the detention pond and asked if the County had reviewed the engineering plans for Old Wiederstein Road. . Jim Wolverton: I don't know if you received our fax from our attorney. He was supposed to send you a letter two weeks ago and it was faxed today. We are concerned with the right-of-way on either side of the development; it's only 26 -feet. With Phase 1, 130 homes and maybe 260 vehicles on 26-foot of ROW is not adequate. Or safety out that way. I have one constable who has other areas to travel, we have school buses. This road was not designed for a major subdivision to come off it. There is adequate room on the north side off the access road to take care of all of this. I know your master plan calls for an 85- foot ROW, but that needs to be put in first for the safety and well-being. The City is impacting the County and is expecting the County to take care of maintenance and safety on this. It would be just as easy to go north to the access road, give them whatever access they want at that point and after the City of Schertz takes the road and widens to 86-feet then you can put on as much vehicles that you want. At build-out you're talking about 576 homes, well over a thousand vehicles on something that only has 26-feet ROW. I know that everyone says that this was our plan; well it was our plan on Dietz Road also. I still have 44-foot of ROW. School districts everywhere and people complaining about people speeding up and down, no side walks, no sufficient ROW. We have the same thing going on here ladies and gentlemen. We don't have sufficient ROW from one end or the other. We have two cities allowing developers to dump onto a county road without asking our input. And I do realize that the interloca1 agreement says subdivision within the ETJ. This subdivision does not lie within the ETJ; it lies totally within the city limits of Schertz. This cut is into a county road and our county road administrator feels that our road is not adequate for this number of homes to be built, so I respectfully request that you not final Old Wiederstein . Road and go north to the access road. Thank you. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission May 25, 2004 Page 4 of 11 Tony Wood: Stated that he is with Team Engineering and is on the Texas Autobahn Society. He said that this development will effect the adjacent property. People have moved out to this area to get out of the city-like living. Preservation of habitat, this area is used by over 300 species of birds as a resting point as they are migrating. Habitat destruction is the leading cause of species endangerment. . Kate Coderre: Voiced concerns that their house is built so close to the road and it faces Dean Road. Their home will be effected by any widening of the road. She encouraged the development provide access off ofIH 35. Robert Brockman: Asked if a haul road would be constructed for construction vehicles and the Commission stated yes. Mr. McNealy: Stated that trees in the 30-foot right-of-way will be removed as a part of the widening. Prepared a TIA for Old Wiederstein Road, which was submitted to TxDOT and City Engineering. There is adequate capacity on Old Wiederstein Road for level B capacity, based on our engineering analysis using standing engineering practices. Access to IH 35 will come in Unit 2 and we are in the process of submitting a preliminary plat for unit 2. That will connect to IH 35. That would be paved road from Old Wiederstein Road to IH 35. Mr. Richmond: That then paves the road all the way, too. . Mr. McNealy: Yes, that would be a paved from Old Wiederstein Road all the way to IH 35. We have already submitted applications for driveway permits to TxDOT for both access point for the collectors. We want to get the driveways built so that we tie our roads into them. As far as Old Wiederstein Road, the road does jog, but our property does not jog according the boundary survey we performed. The road does jog to the end, so the pavement does go through our property and our 30-feet is based off our property line, which is the agreement we have with the City of Schertz to provide 30-feet of additional right-of-way. I don't know what the right-of-way does on the adjoining properties towards FM 1103. The right-of-way sections that are shown are a little bit wider, we are finding extra 5-feet on our collectors than what is required by City Code. Our intent is that we want to landscape it. So we want a little more buffer rather than just having the minimum requirements, so you don't have the wall factor going down. Give an opportunity for landscaping to be provided. Same thing with the 60- foot. The detention basin design was also submitted as a part of our engineering documents to the City Engineer, who has reviewed all of our plans and made comments and we responded to all his comments. He didn't have any problem with our design. Those are all the issues; are there any questions? Mr. Sommers: Has a registered professional engineer sealed a report or a set of drawings that says that Old Wiederstein Road as is planned to be changed is going to adequately meet the traffic needs? Mr. McNealy: Old Wiederstein Road, in its current configuration, adequately meets the needs. Mr. Sommers: That's not my question. My question is has a registered professional engineer put his seal and his signature on a document that says exactly that? Mr. McNealy: Yes, I signed the traffic impact analysis that was submitted to the City. . Mr. Richmond: We did review that earlier. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission May 25, 2004 Page 5 of II Mr. McNealy: In addition, because of the concerns from the city, I had it reviewed by another P.E., just to make sure I hadn't lost my mind. . Mr. Van Dine: We had the County saying that it is not. And I assume that Mr. Wolverton talked to an engmeer. Mr. McNealy: I can't respond to another engineer's report. Commissioner Wolverton: The County has not been privy to any of his engineering designs. And he didn't come ask for (inaudible). It's a County road 26-foot of right-of-way and no one has contacted us about the overlay. I've been informed about it. We don't do hot mix overlay on county roads. We do double chip roads. We don't have any equipment to maintain them. Weare well aware of all these designs, and all the agreements are being made between the developer and the City of Schertz, but the fact of the matter is, it's a county road and the County does not feel it is adequate for the subdivision until the road is widened. 26-feet is not wide enough for 260 cars in the very beginning with the school buses and everything else. There are not shoulders, what you see is barbwire fence to barbwire fence. It is not adequate for this. It would be just as easy to save the money on the overlay and build the road out to the north to the access road and then you'll be dealing with TxDOT. Mr. Sommers: With all due respect Mr. Commissioner, has an engineer sealed a report or a drawing or something and has put his signature on it? Commissioner Wolverton: No. We have been given a design plan. . Mr. Sommers: I appreciate that. There has been no engineer at the county that has reviewed the plans. Commissioner Wolverton: We haven't even been sent a copy of the plans. I haven't asked for it either. The county is not impacting the City, the City is impacting the County and we feel that we should have been given a set of drawings. We've been here several times and we have expressed our concern about this and we've said no. It also shows sewer and water going down the middle of the road and we've said no. We have to maintain that road and we have to do the safety on it; we should be able to say what happens. Now if the City of Schertz wants to take that in, then the County is out of it. But at the present time the City is impacting the County and we're saying no. Mr. McNealy: Not to dispute that, but we contacted the County last fall and asked them about placing the utilities in the road and they gave us the criteria for what, how we had to rebuild it if they were going to be in the pavement. Commissioner Wolverton: No sir. I was at that meeting and we said nothing down the road, unless you take the road. Mr. McNealy: No this was the meeting we had before; in the very beginning of the zoning I had a meeting. Commissioner Wolverton: There could have been only two people at the meeting, Mr. Timmerman and myself and I have been in every meeting. . Mr. McNealy: I can check our records. Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission May 25, 2004 Page 6 ofll . Ms. Madison: Actually the City of Schertz required them when they first came in to meet with the county, to meet with them first on requirements for the road. And the City of Schertz also offered to send the TIA over to Mr. Timmerman earlier this year so that the County Engineer could review it and had requested any information that he might have regarding his concerns on traffic impacting that road. Did not receive anything other than the fact that the county was not going to allow it. I think that the last meeting we looked at the interloca1 agreement as having, as giving us the authority to act on the development at that point and on access to Old Wiederstein Road. I don't know who you spoke with, but that's what the City has done on our response. Mr. Sommers: I want to ask what the Commissioner's Court is going to do. Commissioner Wolverton: Weare going to deny all access to it, sir. And if we don't get this thing resolved then we will take whatever action necessary. Mr. McNealy: You're going to deny all access to Old Wiederstein Road? Commissioner Wolverton: Yes sir, until - It cannot handle the extra road. Mr. McNealy: Does that include all existing residents? Mr. Sommers: What are you going to do about the City of Cibo10? . Commissioner Wolverton: Weare fighting them also, sir, because they never came to us either on that one they called Wiederstein Ten. Mr. McNealy: My next question is, are you going to deny access to all the residents who currently have access to Old Wiederstein Road? Commissioner Wolverton: No, sir. If they are currently there, they are grandfathered. This gentleman right here asked for a driveway that he's going to be putting on for his son-in-1aw's property and we said no. He also asked for a utility pole in the ROWand we said no. We don't feel that 260 cars and that's the minimum for 130 homes. Mr. McNealy: We currently have access to this property. Is your intent to deny access to our property that currently has access? Commissioner Wolverton: I have to get with Commissioner's Court. I cannot, by myself, it takes three votes. I will do everything I can to eliminate the amount of cars coming onto that road because it is unsafe and you have additional ways to get cars off that road to the interstate. This road, you're going to have people walking on, jogging, biking. Next thing y'all want is for us to get someone out there to slow these cars down. Mr. McNealy: We are planning to have access off of IH 35, which we are planning to provide with the second unit. Commissioner Wolverton: Sometime. . Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission May 25, 2004 Page 7 of 11 Mr. McNealy: No. . Ms. Madison: No, it's actually, part ofthe agreement with this developer; it will be provided in Unit 2. Commissioner Wolverton: All intentions are well being, but there are a lot of failed subdivisions when the market goes out and they can no longer afford to continue on with it. I understand that, and I'm not here to argue, all I'm saying is... Ms. Madison: Yet the offer requiring a haul road for all construction off IH 35, so it will not be coming down Old Wiederstein Road. Contrary to what's happening here is in Cibo10. There is already a lot of truck traffic on that road because of development that is currently there. So, we have required this developer to bring their construction in through the IH 35 access. Commissioner Wolverton: Wouldn't it be just as easy to make that the main boulevard? Mr. McNealy: It's a cost number; we're already having to build a large lift station, off-site sewer main, off-site gravity main. We've had to purchase property for the sewer. We are having to extend water to the property. The widening along Old Wiederstein Road. Commissioner Wolverton: Do you have the County's permission to overlay that road? Mr. Van Dine: Could it be possible to start the development from IH-35? Mr. McNealy: We will construct the collector road from IH 35. . Following review and discussion, Mr. Sommers moved to approve the request. Ms. Briscoe seconded the motion. Voting Aye: Mr. Richmond, Ms. Briscoe and Mr. Sommers. Voting Nay: Mr. Van Dine. Motion carried. The Commission recessed for a break at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened at 9:22 p.m. 10. SUP2004-013 Discuss and take appropriate action to call for a Public Hearing for a specific use permit for Block 1, Lot 2, of the Pecan Street Center Addition to allow for an office/warehouse facility to be located in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ). The property is located at northwest corner of Pecan Street and Oak Street. Applicant: Ernest Gonzales Ms. Madison reviewed staff comments and stated that the site is located in the AICUZ and requires a specific use permit. The applicant is planning a 5,000 square foot facility for an office and warehouse to operate a light bulb maintenance company. Staff recommends the Commission call a public hearing to be conducted on June 8, 2004. Following review and discussion, Mr. Sommers moved to call for a public hearing on June 8, 2004. Ms. Briscoe seconded the motion. Motion carried. Vote unanimous. .1. SV2004-005 Discuss and take appropriate action for a variance to Unified Development Code, Article IX Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission May 25, 2004 Page 8 of 11 (Signs) for Auto Collision Works, 1205 Borgfeld Road. The request is a variance for two additional Wall Signs. Applicant: Mark Roberts . Ms. Madison reviewed staff comments and stated that the applicant is requesting two additional wall signs for the front of the building for a total of 72 square feet. The current wall sign is located on the west side of the building and is approximately 80 square feet and it will remain. The Unified Development Code states that one wall sign is permitted with 100 square feet maximum allowed. Mr. Roberts stated that he is starting a second business and would like the additional signage. Following review and discussion, Mr. Sommers moved to approve the request. Mr. Van Dine seconded the motion. Motion carried. Vote unanimous. 12. SV2004-006 Discuss and take appropriate action for a variance to Unified Development Code, Article IX (Signs) for Auto Collision Works, 1205 Borgfeld Road. The request is a variance for an electronic LED message sign. Applicant: Mark Roberts Ms. Madison reviewed staff comments and stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the site plan and sign at their November 28, 2000 meeting prior to adoption of the current sign ordinance. The applicant is requesting an additional 14-r. square foot LED message sign, which would increase the total signage to 98 square feet. The applicant has been informed that electronic signs are prohibited, but would like to use the sign as a community, neighborhood and business message board. . Mr. Roberts stated that the community board would be replaced with a LED sign and would only announce community messages. Mr. Sommers inquired if this sign would be similar to the Walgreen's sign and Mr. Roberts stated that it would not. He said that it would be like the car wash sign. Mr. Richmond voiced concerns that if approved it would open the door for additional requests. Ms. Briscoe stated that a one-line message would be harder to read and could be a driving hazard. Following review and discussion, Mr. Sommers moved to disapprove the request. Mr. Van Dine seconded the motion. Motion carried. Vote unanimous. 13. BOA2004-004 Discuss and take appropriate action on a request for a variance to encroach 10-feet into the 20- foot rear yard setback for a patio cover. The property is located at 1105 Twin Lane. Applicant: Raul Rodriguez Ms. Madison reviewed staff comments and stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to encroach 10 feet into the 20- foot rear yard setback to install a 10' by 20' wood patio cover. The applicant has received approval from his HOA. The Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the Board of Adjustment for their next meeting. Following review, Mr. Sommers moved to forward this request to the Board of Adjustment with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Van Dine seconded the motion. Motion carried. Vote unanimous. . Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission May 25, 2004 Page 9 of 11 14. PC2004-019 Discuss and take appropriate action on a request for a site plan of Schertz Industrial Park, Block 2, Lot 9, 17332 Bell North Drive. The 1.61-r. acre tract shows a 15,750 square foot professional office/storage warehouse Applicant: J.M. Properties . Ms. Madison reviewed staff comments and stated that the site plan meets all Unified Development Code requirements. Signage will be installed after occupancy and will meet all codes. Staff recommends approval. Following review, Mr. Van Dine moved to approve the request. Ms. Briscoe seconded the motion. Motion carried. Vote unanimous. 15. PC2004-020 Discuss and take appropriate action on a request for a site plan of Schertz Industrial Park, Block 2, Lot 10, 17336 Bell North Drive. The 1.41-r. acre tract shows a 11,600 square foot professional office/storage warehouse Applicant: J.M. Properties Ms. Madison reviewed staff comments and stated that the site plan meets all Unified Development Code requirements. Signage will be installed after occupancy and will meet all codes. Staff recommends approval. Following review, Mr. Sommers moved to approve the request. Mr. Van Dine seconded the motion. Motion carried. Vote unanimous. . 16. PC2004-021 Discuss and take appropriate action on a request for a site plan of Schertz Industrial Park, Block 2, Lot 1, 17300 Bell North Drive. The 1.20-r. acre tract shows a 10,000 square foot professional office/storage warehouse Applicant: J.M. Properties Ms. Madison reviewed staff comments and stated that the site plan meets all Unified Development Code requirements. Signage will be installed after occupancy and will meet all codes. Staff recommends approval. Following review, Mr. Sommers moved to approve the request. Ms. Briscoe seconded the motion. Motion carried. Vote unanimous. 17. ZC2004-006 Discuss and take appropriate action to call for a Public Hearing to rezone portions of property in the Northcliffe and Scenic Hills area. Applicant: City of Schertz Ms. Madison reviewed staff comments and stated that when the property was annexed into the City it was . placed in the zoning classification of Pre-Development (PD). The previous City Planner had changed the Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission May 25, 2004 Page 10 of 11 map to reflect existing development. Staff recommends zoning the property to be consistent with the zoning map and development. . Following discussion, Ms. Briscoe moved to call a public hearing to rezone portions of the Northcliffe and Scenic Hills area. Mr. Van Dine seconded the motion. Motion carried. Vote unanimous. 18. Discussion regarding zoning recently annexed property located along IH 35 between Scenic Hills and Eckhardt Road. Ms. Madison asked the Commission to consider zoning the recently annexed 655 acres. The Commission agreed that Residential-Agriculture would be the best zoning. Discussion only, no action taken. 19. Items by Commissioners and City Staff Ms. Madison: Stated that she would be presenting the 2003 Development Report to City Council and would provide the Commission with a copy. She stated that the report covers the Community Development Department, which includes the Planning Department, Economic Development and Building Inspections. Mr. Sommers: Asked to review the "financing by" signage at the Oaks at Green Valley. He stated that there are too many developer signs on the site. . Mr. Greenwald: Stated that the bids for the fire substation came in too high, and that the Council was considering building only the structure that would house the equipment and placing a temporary mobile home for the offices and living quarters. Mr. Richmond: Voiced concerns about the Riedel signs and the signs along FM 3009 at the railroad. Ms. Madison stated that the Building Inspections Department is reviewing the signs. Mr. Richmond also asked for the number of acres in each industria1lbusiness park. He voiced concerns about the Barshop- 01es "Town Center" development on FM 3009 and stated that he would not like the City to over-build retail centers. Ms. Madison stated that their intent is to build a profession a medical office building. 20. Adjournment There being no further business, Ms. Briscoe moved to adjourn the meeting at 10: 15 p.m. Mr. Sommers seconded the motion. Motion carried. Vote unanimous. rt~ J~.!-- Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission . Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission May 25, 2004 Page 11 of 11