04-25-2000
..
.
PLANNING & ZONING MINUTES
April 25, 2000
The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in a regular session on
Tuesday April 25, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Complex Bob Andrews
Conference Room, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas. Those present were
as follows:
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CITY STAFF
David Richmond, Vice Chairman
Tony Moreno
Keith Van Dine
Gary Wallace
William Sommers
Ken Greenwald, Ex-officio
Steve Simonson,
Asst. City Manager/
Planning Coordinator
Mary Ybarra, Recording
Secretary
.
Commissioners Absent
Others Present
Joyce Briscoe (work related)
Ernie Evans (work related
Robert A. Copeland,
MBC Engineers
Cliff Johnson,
Country Village Est.
Mark A. Penshorn,
Catherine Peshorn,
Penshorn Dental Clinic
Susan Dlandreth,
Schertz Industrial Park
Larry Aiken,
Don McCrary,
Jonas Wood Subdivision
#1 Call to Order:
In the absence of Chairman Evans, Vice-Chairman David Richmond called the
. meeting of April 25, 2000 to order.
1
.
#2 Approval of Minutes:
April 11, 2000.
Public hearing session and regular session of
Vice-Chairman Richmond stated that the first order of business was the approval
of the public hearing session and regular session minutes of April 11, 2000. At
this time, are there any corrections or additions to said minutes?
David Richmond stated that on page 10 - David Richmond comments; line six the
word "in acting" change to read "enacting" and the word "its" to read "it's". On
page 11- first paragraph, delete the word "have' and the word "banded" should
read "banned".
With no further corrections or additions, Tony Moreno moved to approve the
minutes of April 11, 2000, as amended, which Keith Van Dine seconded. With a
vote being called, the motion was approved.
.
#3 Status of Final Plats:
There were none to report.
#4 BOA Actions:
There was no report.
#5 Citizen's Input Other Than Agenda Items:
At this time, Mr. Simonson commented that Larry Aiken and Don McCrary would
like to address the Commission; reference" Jonas Wood Development" in hopes
of obtaining some feedback from the Commission in certain issues.
Mr. Aiken stated that they have been arm wrestling with the master plan layout
since the last meeting. Mr. Aiken mentioned that approval on the master plan
. has been given. However, Mr. Aiken stated that a decision was reached to take
2
.
.
.
the development into standard lot sizes, not the concept of larger lots. With larger
lots the builder would be working with a 50 x 50 pad for the primary structure
enabling the builder the ability to move around and avoid trees. Mr. Aiken stated
that after wrestling with this concept, the decision was reached to go with
standard size lots (70 x 120), allowing tree groves making the treed area a legal
lot, this treed lot would then be dedicated to the homeowners association. This
concept would not allow a builder or an individual owner to destroy excess trees
after the fact. Mr. Aiken stated that in view of the change in concept, we would
like to come back at the next scheduled meeting and formally introduce the
revised master plan, requesting approval.
Mr. Aiken pointed out that out of 87 acres approximately 1/8 of the entire area
would be greenbelt. With this in mind we would also like to request the possibility
of relief on the public parkland fees on the lots. Allowing an abatement of
approximately 50% of park fees if possible.
Mr. Aiken mentioned that precedent was established in regard to parkland fees
with Greenshire Subdivision when the development dedicated 32 acres for use
as greenbelt. At this time Mr. Simonson reminded the Commission that
precedent is part of the city ordinance; when a development puts in a private
park as part of the development it's allowable to receive 50% percent credit.
Mr. Aiken commented that approximately 250 thousand dollars have been set
aside for amenities; cabana, pool, pavilion etc., and 250 thousand dollars for
entry monumentation, perimeter fencing, etc., which means the development
would be spending approximately half a million on upgrades. In conclusion, Mr.
Aiken believes that the development "is going to be pretty slick".
At this time, Mr. Aiken stated that he would like to address the Commission on
another issue.
3
.
Mr. Aiken advised the Commission that with the help of the Schlather family the
tract adjacent to the Janet Day (Besch) property on Green Valley Road has been
placed under contract and with this in mind would like to bring this issue forward
for discussion. It is his understanding that there are several issues that need to
be addressed such as drainage, traffic, zoning, etc. Mr. Aiken stated he would
like to discuss this issue in hopes of reaching a consensus, what would work on
the tract, economically, etc. for the community.
David Richmond acknowledged that it was a good approach and liked the idea of
greenbelts, and added he is looking forward to the next meeting.
At this time, Mr. Aiken thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak and
is looking forward to the next scheduled meeting.
#6 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: Request from Don
. McCrary & Associates for preliminary plat approval of Oak Trails Subdivision Unit
2A.
Steve Simonson stated that the subdivision is a platted area and for various
reasons the developer wants to split the units. It's assumed for economic
reasons. The lot layout has not changed, however for selling purposes and
economics the unit will be split. The submittal is for preliminary/final plat
approval unless something has been overlooked. At this time unit 2A, is entirely
built and recordation of this portion is desired.
Gary Wallace asked where is the dry wash area in association to the plat, and
was advised that it was at the end of this unit, and would be submitted in Unit 3.
At this time, Mr. Simonson pointed out that due to a mistake on the agenda, Unit
2A was identified as preliminary only and would have to be treated as preliminary
.
4
.
at this time. Thus, the plat would have to come back as final at the next
scheduled meeting.
With no further discussion, Tony Moreno moved to approve the request from Don
McCrary & Associates for preliminary plat approval of Oak Trails Subdivision Unit
2A, which was seconded by Gary Wallace. With a vote being called, the motion
was approved.
#7 Consider and Make Recommendation: Request from MBC &
Associates for site plan approval of Penshorn Dental Clinic, FM3009.
Steve Simonson stated that the multi-facet site plan has quite a bit of information,
which consists of three sheets. Some of the information was written in, such as
information on the tree mitigation. There was some confusion on this issue, thus
the information was written on each site plan. Steve reported that the plan
. indicates 64 inches of trees are to be removed, 34 inches mitigated by planting
new trees, and will pay a mitigation fee on the remaining 32 inches.
Steve added that platting was not necessary for this site, lot 45 is part of
Woodland Oaks Subdivision Unit 10. In addition, Steve advised that the second
sheet indicate the size and dimensions of the buildings, driveways, hand i-cap
parking, and dumpster information. The third sheet shows building elevations,
drainage, and clearly discloses the wall that is required for this site. In
conclusion, Steve stated that signage would be a monument structure, and that
lighting would be on the building.
Gary Wallace questioned the need for two (2) entrance/exits onto FM 3009?
Also, made mention of non-access along FM 3009?
Steve Simonson stated that there is no mention of non-access along FM3009
. and that FM3009 is state controlled and not city owned; thus the city has no say
5
.
so in this matter. Steve Simonson also explained that the lot is smaller
compared to similar development of this type along FM3009, where cars have
enough room to turn around and exit off the site using only one entrance/exit.
The development site is asking to be allowed two entrance/exits (FM3009 and
Dimrock), and keep in mine the site is also located on a corner lot.
David Richmond voiced some concern on allowing access onto FM3009. With
traffic on FM3009 already a problem, is it necessary to have access onto
FM3009?
Mr. Penshorn replied that it would be difficult to get traffic in and out due to the lot
size and only allowing one entrance/exit.
With no further discussion, a motion was made by Gary Wallace and seconded
by Keith Van Dine to approve the request from MBC & Associates for site plan
. approval of Penshorn Dental Clinic, FM3009. With a vote being called, the
motion was approved.
#8 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: Request from Clifford
Johnson for preliminary plat approval of Country Village Estate Subdivision
(Mobile Home Sites).
Steve Simonson stated that Mr. Johnson submitted an extensive set of
documentation, which meets all requirements. The site plan before the
Commission is very well thought out.
Steve Simonson pointed out two issues that would have to be considered;
variance request to the city ordinance, allowing a single entrance into the
subdivision; another item, which would have to be considered by City Council, is
abrogating the sidewalk issue. Steve added that he would get together with Mr.
. Johnson and Mr. Moran (engineer of project) and help initiate a formal request.
6
.
Steve added that other items not placed on the plat are block and lot numbers,
and no reference to the 100-year flood plain is indicated.
Gary Wallace asked was the Commission to assume that the variance request to
allow a single entrance is part of the document, if not, when would the request be
submitted to the Commission?
Steve Simonson replied that the request is assumed; however if the Commission
would like a formal request, it could be provided at the next scheduled meeting,
at this time the plat is only preliminary.
David Richmond stated that he would like to see a formal request at the time of
final submittal.
Steve Simonson explained that identifying block and lot numbers, and the
. requirement of flood plain information, which indicate date, panel, and community
numbers are a requirement for platting and are to be part of the submitted plat.
In conclusion, a correction to the signature block is needed, addition of "zoning"
in the statement "Planning and Zoning Commission".
With no further discussion, a motion was made by Tony Moreno and seconded
by Keith Van Dine to approve the request from Clifford Johnson for preliminary
plat approval of Country Village Estate Subdivision (Mobile Home Sites) with
corrections as indicated. With a vote being called, the motion was approved.
#9 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: Request from M.W. Cude
Engineers for preliminary plat approval of Schertz Industrial Park, FM3009.
Steve Simonson stated that the plat has minor corrections with one item that
requires attention; sewer lines between Block 1 and Block 2. As sheet two
. indicates the topography at this point slopes towards Doerr Lane, clearly the area
7
.
is large enough to accommodate sewer lines, however, 2/3 of the area will be
used with sewer lines and the remaining 1/3 will not. This is due to the
topography of the land. Steve added that the plat is indicating that GVEC is
servicing the area, however CPS services this area and will have to be changed.
At this time, it is not known who will occupy the developed area. Steve added
that another item to correct is the flood plain information. As stated previously,
these are minor corrections that will be corrected before final submittal.
With no further discussion, Keith Van Dine made a motion and seconded by Gary
Wallace to approve the request from M.W. Cude Engineers for preliminary plat
approval of Schertz Industrial Park, FM3009, with corrections as indicated. With
a vote being called, the motion was approved.
#10 Consider and Take Appropriate Action:
Comprehensive Land Plan.
On request for- Proposal
.
Steve Simonson stated that at the previous meeting, he requested a review and
welcomed corrections, additions and deletions to Comprehensive Plan submittal.
Any and all suggestions will be discussed so we may go forward with this
document. If the Commission believes the document covers all areas of concern
the next step is to forward to the City Council for approval. If this document were
approved by City Council, the next step is, going out for bids. Steve added that
this bid has a line item of $50,000, and the city needs to move forward quickly.
William Sommers asked if the city had a route for hazardous material transport,
and if it doesn't shouldn't the Comprehensive Plan consultant be aware so
proposals could be acquired and proposal made to the city?
Steve Simonson stated that the city has such a route. The City fire department
and the city of San Antonio and surrounding cities worked out a route; IH35, 410
.
8
.
and IH10 are routes to be used. Nothing through the city is in a haz-mat system,
unless there is a delivery in a particular part of the city.
In brief discussion, the Commission was in agreement that the Comprehensive
Plan (RFP) document is very thorough and that it should go forward for Council's
approval.
With no further discussion, a motion was made by Gary Wallace and seconded
by Tony Moreno to forward the RFP on the Comprehensive Plan to the City
Manager recommending action by City Council. With a vote being called, the
motion was approved.
#11 Consider and Make Recommendation: Request from Planning &
Zoning Department for proposed change to the Unified Development Code
(UDC) of the following:
. 1. Article XVI - Administration Procedures, Section 6, Public Hearing-
Planning and Zoning Commission - Section XVI -6.3, and Section 7 -
Pubic Hearing - City Council- Section XVI 7.2 - Notice of Public Hearing
Before the City Council.
2. Article IX - Sign Standards, Section 7.5 Billboards.
Steve Simonson stated that the first two items of Article XVI are housekeeping
items. These are things that are being done at this time that need to be
corrected to conform to what the city is doing at this time:
1. Section XVI 6.3, Planning and Zoning doesn't hold public hearing on
Specific Use Permit, City Council holds the public hearing. Planning and Zoning
will be removed.
.
9
.
Section XVI 7.2 Planning and Zoning and City Council would schedule meetings
of public hearings at the same time Planning and Zoning would set their Public
Hearing. Since then, City Council has decided to set their own public hearing
date and time on their agenda.
Steve Simonson stated these two items are being done now and the only
difference being that these items would be changed formally in the Unified
Development Code.
David Richmond suggested that the Commission act on each item individually.
With no further discussion, a motion was made by Gary Wallace and seconded
by Keith Van Dine to forward the proposed changes to XVI to City Council
recommending approval. With a vote being called, the motion was approved.
.
3.
Article IX - Sign Standards, Section 7.5 Billboards
David Richmond commented that suggests have been provided on these items
by Mr. Simonson however, after reviewing the "Scenic Texas" publication the city
would benefit on focusing on "Off Premise Signs" rather then "Billboards".
At this time, David Richmond provided suggestions on the proposed changes
and stated that the document was open to suggestions. The suggestions include
making changes to the section 3 - 3.1 - "Definitions", section 5 - adding 5.14-
"Off -premise signs including billboards", section 8 - 8.13 - "Non-Conforming
Signs ", and deleting Section 7- "Off-Premise Signs" entirely.
David Richmond suggests the Commission should make a recommendation to
the city attorney and believes the city attorney should have some play in making
suggestions or rulings on what is the appropriate amortization time for removing
. billboards. He personally doesn't have an idea of the cost involved. David
10
.
added, that the time period that is contained in the model ordinance, and all the
other different ordinances in the "Scenic Texas" publication range anywhere from
six months to three years. If City Council would approve the change, and then
from the date of implementation, all signs (off -premise) become non-
conforming. Currently, the city ordinance states that six months is the allowed
time to correct the non-conformance. Which would mean, in the case of a non-
forming sign, it would have to be removed. David Richmond stated that six
months is a little too much time to ask given the nature of the billboards along
IH35.
Ken Greenwald recalls that the state courts authorized an amortization schedule
some time ago, however, he is not quite sure of the time frame, he believes it
was around five years.
David Richmond stated that there was no mention throughout the publication of a
. specific time frame, however, a three-year time frame was suggested.
In brief discussion, the Commission agreed that the city's legal team should
review the document, in order to give some input on the proper notification (time
limit, amortization, etc.) when the city notifies the owner of the billboard. Also,
another point of discussion was that the owners of these billboards be notified of
any public hearings giving them an opportunity for their input.
David Richmond recommended the use of a three-year time frame for the
removal of these billboards. Obviously, the legal department will steer the city in
the right direction. If the city decides to go forward, the city obviously would need
to enforce it, and do it for the reason of enhancing the appearance of the city.
With no further discussion, William Sommers moved to forward the request from
Planning and Zoning for the proposed change to the Unified Development Code
. (UDC) to Article IX Sign Standards, Sections 3,5 and & 7 and inserting "3" years
11
.
for non-conforming signs with a recommendation of approval to City Council to
set public hearing subject to receiving information from legal counsel. Tony
Moreno seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was
approved.
#12 Discuss and Review: Article VIII, Section 4
Preservation/Removal of the Unified Development Code (UDC)
4.1- Tree
Steve Simonson stated that he would like to modify Article VIII, Tree
Preservation! Removal document that is part of the Unified Development Code. It
is hard to justify some of what the ordinance states in reference to the count of
inches in regard to scrub cedar and mesquite. Some lots are covered with this
type of scrub and might just have one good tree on the premises. Another item is
to review the wording in the ordinance section that references the mitigation of
heritage and protected trees, and how they're mitigated. The ordinance implies to
. some point, or it is left out in the open, but in reality the ordinance doesn't specify
using anything lower, however it is being done, on how to mitigate. Steve
Simonson suggested that mitigation should be on good trees and not the
garbage trees. Steve suggested that the Commission make a suggestion that all
Oak, Elm, Pecan and Pistache of 2" DBH should be mitigated and anything of 4"
DBH and above must be counted. This would eliminate all garbage of 2" DBH
such as cedar, mesquite or hackberry trees. Steve also suggested that the
developer is told that all trees 8" or less would be mitigated 1 to 1 as it is
described in the document. Steve also mentioned that the notes that are part of
the document should be labeled, Note A. and B.
Steve Simonson stated that if the Commission is in agreement, city staff will
make the necessary changes and forward all three changes of the Unified
Development Code discussed this evening to public hearings, after receiving
information on the sign ordinance from legal counsel.
.
12
.
In brief discussion, the Commission was in agreement to go forward with the
suggestion provided by Mr. Simonson.
Keith Van Dine asked that Mr. Simonson research the correct classification of a
mesquite tree? Is the mesquite classified as a tree or what is the classification?
If mesquite were classified as a tree then it would be included in the list of trees
that can be used to mitigate and there would be no question.
With no further discussion, a motion was made by Gary Wallace and seconded
by Keith Van Dine to approve the request from City Staff to a proposed change to
the Unified Development Code Article VIII- Section 4 - 4.1- Tree Preservation/
Removal to recommend to City Council to set a Public Hearing. With a vote being
called, the motion was approved.
#13 General Discussion:
.
Tonv Moreno:
Tony had no comments.
Keith Van Dine:
Keith had no comments.
Gary Wallace:
Gary questioned if there was anyway to restrict access onto FM3009. Steve
Simonson advised that a recommendation could be made to restrict access onto
FM3009, an example would be, "no driveways closer than so many feet", or
driveways have to be a certain distance from a corner".
.
13
.
William Sommers:
William had no comments.
Ken Greenwald:
Ken reported that bids were released at last Thursday's meeting of the
Seguin/Schertz Local Government Corporation authorizing for the building of the
first water well, at the Ashley Tract. The well process has started. Ken
commented that there is some difficulty with the water district property owners.
The property owners hadn't realized how fast the water project was going to
move, and the influence this project was going to have. The project has enough
land (32 to 33 hundred acres) to supply the existing cities. The project is working
on the access right-of-way permits at this time, and is moving along quite nicely.
. David Richmond:
David voiced concern with the proposed development along Green Valley Road.
Green Valley Road has issues that developers have steered away from however,
it is an issue that will have to be addressed at the time this proposed
development is introduced. Steve mentioned that the developer has been
advised that if any development is done in that area there must be some upgrade
done to Green Valley Road. Such problems as drainage, traffic impact on Green
Valley Road to mention a few.
Steve Simonson:
Steve reported that the entire acreage of 77 acres (Besch Property) was sent to
City Council with the understanding the Council had rezoned the acreage to R-1
however, that is not the case. The property was split, 11 acres out of the 77
. acres was left in R-4 zoning, with the remainder in R-1 zoning. Steve
14
.
.
.
~
commented that he wanted the Commission aware that there are two different
zonings on the 77 acres.
#13 Adjournment:
Keith Van Dine moved to adjourn the meeting. Gary Wallace seconded the
motion. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
~~JJ}~L
Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission
ATTEST:
....A /l " t
1)1.. //!; /
,: II .1' t"/13 v 1.. 1i7? l/' [../
.' I, . ,~j . r f.",-' '", \...,
! /i
Planning Secretary, City of Schertz
15