Loading...
09-26-2000 . . . PLANNING & ZONING MINUTES September 26, 2000 The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in Regular Session on Tuesday September 26, 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 Ernie Evans, Chairman David Richmond, Vice Chairman Keith Van Dine, Secretary Gary Wallace Tony Moreno Joyce Briscoe William Sommers Ken Greenwald, ex-officio Steve Simonson, Interim City Manager! Planning Coordinator Mary Ybarra, Planning & Recording Secretary COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Jack Belew, AT& T Wireless Servo Robert Copeland, Jr. MBC Engineers Rodney Fontana, David Bomerbach, 745 E. Mulberry #601 Brian Crowell, 6800 Park Ten #1 Call to Order: Chairman Evans called the meeting of September 26, 2000 to order. 1 . #2 Approval of Minutes: Minutes of the regular session of August 22, 2000. The minutes of September 12, 2000 were not published. Ernie Evans stated that the minutes of September 12, 2000 were not published, however, if there are any corrections or additions to the minutes of August 22, 2000 please do so at this time. At this time Tony Moreno moved to approve the minutes of August 22,2000 as written. William Sommers seconded the motion. With a vote being called the vote was as follows: Ayes: Ernie Evans, William Sommers, Joyce Briscoe, Tony Moreno and Gary Wallace. Abstention: David Richmond and Keith Van Dine. Motion was approved. . #3 Status of Final Plats: There were none to report. #4 BOA Actions: Ernie Evans informed the Commission that there is no report the Board has not met, however, there is meeting for October 2,2000. #5 Citizen's Input Other Than Agenda Items: There were none. #6 Consider and Make Recommendation: On a request from Continental Homes of Texas, Inc. for final plat approval of Carolina Crossing Subdivision, Unit 8. Mr. Simonson stated that the final plat of Carolina Crossing Subdivision Unit 8 is the last unit for the subdivision. The plat has all signatures affixed and there were no corrections needed on this plat. All requirements have been met, including the 10' building setback . along Schertz Parkway. Mr. Simonson added that one item that he would like to 2 . . . mention is the common area (lot 38, Blk. 16) that is underneath the large transmission tower is platted and is inside their property. Ernie Evans questioned whether the drainage area was identified as being part of the plat? Mr. Simonson pointed out that it specifically states and identifies the drainage area. With no further discussion, Gary Wallace moved to approve the request from Continental Homes of Texas, Inc. for final plat approval of Carolina Crossing Subdivision, Unit 8. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion. With a vote being called the motion was approved. #7 Consider and Make Recommendation: On a request from MBC Engineers to rezone approximately 46.014 acres located on FM 3009 at Elbel and FM78 from; Tract I, 4.596 acres (R-1, Single Family Residential-80x120's lots) Tract II, 15.33 acres & Tract III, 26. 385 acres (R-2, Single Family Residential 70x120's to Tract I, 4.596 acres (NS-Neighborhood Services), Tract II, 15.33 acres (GB-General Business) and Tract III, 26.385 acres (R-4, Multi-Family Apt.) Ernie Evans advised the Commission that this issue was tabled at the meet of September 12, 2000 and would have to be untabled before discuss. At this time David Richmond moved to untable agenda item #7. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approve. Steve Simonson stated that at the last meeting there were two questions brought up. 1. General Business adjacent to the residential area, suggestion was made to change it to NS-Neighborhood Services. The Commission suggested changing both Tracts, particular the section adjacent to the homes, which is Tract I. The developer was made the change to the tract adjacent the residential area to NS. 3 . . . 2. It was suggested that the R-4 zoning adjacent the railroad ROW be changed to NS, however they have elected to keep the R-4, they feel it's viable property. Steve Simonson added that if the zoning were to stay R-4, the city would have to insist that the area have greenbelting and berm areas to minimize spills and noise. Steve Simonson stated that of the items suggested, at least one item has been done. Steve Simonson concluded in stating that the only thing the Commission would be doing this evening would be scheduling a public hearing. David Richmond stated that he is appreciative that the one tract has been changed to NS, however, believes that all of the tracts should be zoned NS, particularly Tract II. He strongly believes that FM3009 has become a residential neighborhood services road. The GB zoning in his opinion is too broad and opens the area to future development. The NS zoning is a lot more restrictive and believes the NS zoning is best suited for the area. David added that he still believes that the zoning for Tract III is not suited for the area, given the proximity to the railroad tracks, activity on the rail lines, etc., "nothing is going to abate the noise", adjacent those apartment. David believes that there are other area's within the city that lend themselves more to multi-family (R-4) zoning, rather than this particular area, and strongly recommends that NS zoning is best suited for the area. Joyce Briscoe stated she agrees that GB zoning is not suited for the area. The city adopted a zoning plan and believes the city should hold to it. Joyce stated she has no doubt the GB zoning would cause more congestion with cars, etc., and is opposed to it. Ernie Evans stated that the NS zoning adjacent the residential area obviously limits the type of business' going into the area. Ernie Evans also reminded everyone that recently a public hearing was held on the property directly behind this parcel of land (to the west). The public hearing covered an issue for the school (SCUC ISD) to use the property as a sport complex. 4 . . . Joyce Briscoe stated that she wanted to mention that the Commission had worked very hard to change the zoning on the other end of FM 3009 from GB, and believes the Commission should follow this procedure all along FM3009. Joyce added that when the City established the overlay district on FM3009 the attempt was to maintain a quality of life along FM3009 along with esthetics. William Sommers asked if there was anyone present on behalf of the zoning issue. Robert Copeland stated he is present on behalf of the client, and was under the impression that the meeting this evening forwarded the zoning issue to a public hearing. However, he will be happy to answer any questions on behalf of the client. It was his understanding that the Commission had asked that the zoning on Tract I be changed to NS, which has been done. Mr. Copeland asked for clarification, on what would be the Commissions recommendation regarding the zoning issue. Ernie Evans explained that if there were a recommendation to go forward with a public hearing this evening the public hearing would be based on the actual request. Ernie explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) would hold the first public hearing. P&Z after holding their public hearing would forward their recommendation to City Council for their consideration and action. Ernie Evans explained that the decision this evening is whether the Commission recommends holding a public hearing or not. The public hearing is based on the issue before the Commission this evening. If the decision or recommendation is not to hold a public hearing, the request could not come back to the P&Z Commission for six months. If changes were considered it would be best that the issue was tabled allowing revisions or changes made and submitted at the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Copeland stated that in view of the discussions this evening, he would like to table the zoning issue until such time that his client is notified of the Commissions suggestions. However, it was his understanding that the change requested by the 5 . . . Commission had been done, with the submitted of the zoning issue in discussion this evening, is this not correct? Ernie Evans stated that the Commission has voiced several concerns in regard to the zoning issue this evening, however, the Commission has expressed that they would like to see Tract II follow the zoning of Tract I, which is NS. Also, the Commission expressed concern to the zoning of R-4. Ernie stated that he believes the Commission has tried to express their concerns and suggestions, which he believes will be passed on to client for his consideration. Gary Wallace asked if it was known what the client's intentions were for the property? Mr. Copeland stated that he did not know, however, he believes that studies have been made of the area, which has given his client some direction to take. Gary Wallace stated that he was in favor of changing all of the General Business (GB) zoning to Neighborhood Services (NS), and didn't have a problem with the zoning of R- 4. Joyce Briscoe stated that she would like the existing zoning adjacent to Greenfield Village to stay R-1, she doesn't like the idea of business zoning adjacent residential property, and the remainder of GB zoning she would like changed to NS. David Richmond stated that his concern is in regard to the R-4 zoning, he believes that a city should get the best product possible to attract the best clientele. In his opinion an apartment complex adjacent railroad right-of-way is less then a positive opportunity to attract the clientele wanted versus having a complex located in a more desirable location. David stated that he believes that Tract II lends itself to NS and isn't convinced that R-4 is suitable for the area adjacent the railroad, as well as the existing zoning of R- 2. In his opinion, the area does not lend its self to residential period. 6 . . . Ernie Evans stated that he would like the Commission to take into consideration that these tracts are sizable tracts. In view of this, there are several items of concern to consider such as additional curb cuts onto FM3009, traffic issues, and a heavily trafficked corner in terms of FM78 and FM3009. Ernie stated that in his opinion he believes that Tract II should be zoned NS, however Tract III is a tough call. Tract III consists of 26 acres and what type of NS would make up 26 acres of land? David Richmond stated that in this opinion the area would lend itself to a grocery store or super market, rather then an apartment complex. Robert Copeland stated that he believes his client has discussed the prospect of a super market, however there is no way of knowing whether the concept would go through or not. Tony Moreno stated that he doesn't have a problem with Tract II as NS. However, his concern in regard to Tract III is what kind of density is the city looking at in the development of apartments? Mr. Copeland replied, that most of the time the developer would be looking at hitting the highest possible density to make it work from a financial stand point. Mr. Copeland further explained that 11 acres of the tract would encompass a drainage channel, which would the area out of the 100-year flood plain. The drainage channel is a huge expense. Mr. Copeland believes that before future development is possible drainage improvements would become necessary. For this reason, Mr. Copeland explained that single family housing would not cover the expense, whereas the development of business or multi-family would. Tony Moreno asked that if things were to go positive in terms of scheduling a public hearing, would the berm issues, etc. be discussed at this time or at the time of platting and site plan approval? Mr. Simonson explained that this would be one of the major issues discussed at the time of site plan submittal, because there is a drainage issue to consider along the railroad right-of-way. 7 . . . Tony Moreno stated that he would concede to change Tract II to NS and as for Tract III he believes it should go forward to a public hearing, and added that economically R-4 zoning for this area is most viable. William Sommers asked that in making a recommendation to schedule a public hearing is it necessary to consider all or none. Ernie Evans replied its necessary to act on the issues as presented the Commission can not pick and choose. Gary Wallace suggested that the zoning issue could be tabled giving the developer the opportunity to consider the Commissions suggestions and concerns. At this time, Mr. Copeland stated that he would like the Commission to table the zoning issue, however would like to some indication on the type of zoning preferred by the Commission. After much discussion the consensus among the Commission was that Tract I, Tract II was best suited for NS, however, as discussion this evening the Commission did voice concern in regard to the proposed zoning of Tract III to R-4. At this time, Keith Van Dine asked what type of apartment complex would it be? Would the complex attract lower income people or medium class people? Mr. Copeland stated that apartment complexes are classified A, B and C., this complex proposed would be classified as Type B, which is considered your medium class. Gary Wallace stated that in he believes the developer has asked for the only type of zoning that the land would support, however, there are certain issues to consider. At this time, Ernie Evans summarized the suggestions or concerns voiced by the Commission. 1. Suggest that Tract II change to NS. 2. There are still issues concerning Tract III, supporting multi-family housing. 8 . . . With no further discussion, William Sommers moved to table the request from MBC Engineers to rezone approximately 46.014 acres located on FM 3009 at Elbel and FM78 from; Tract 1,4.596 acres (R-1, Single Family Residential-80x120's lots) Tract II, 15.33 acres & Tract III, 26. 385 acres (R-2, Single Family Residential 70x120's to Tract I, 4.596 acres (NS-Neighborhood Services), Tract II, 15.33 acres (GB-General Business) and Tract III, 26.385 acres (R-4, Multi-Family Apt.) to allow the owner to come back with suggestions for different uses for Tract II and Tract III. Gary Wallace seconded the motion. With a vote being called the vote was as follows: Ayes: Ernie Evans, David Richmond, Joyce Briscoe, William Sommers and Gary Wallace. Opposed: Tony Moreno and Keith Van Dine Motion tabled. There was some discussion among the Commissions in regard to the motion and at this time, William Sommers stated that he would like to clarify the motion. Mr. Sommers stated that what he tried to convey in his motion was that he is in favor of NS for Tract II, and at this time he doesn't have a strong objection to apartments on the portion closest to Elbel Road of Tract III. He does have an objection to the portion of Tract III closest to the drainage ditch and the railroad tracks. David Richmond again reiterated his concerns regarding R-4 zoning, and suggested that Neighborhood Services (NS) is a good use. With the city growing as fast as it is, and looking at 50,000 plus population in the near future, he believes there would be a need for office space along the whole stretch of property. It wouldn't necessarily have to be a sales operation. David stated that if Mr. Copeland were looking suggestions this is would be one suggestion that he can take back to his client. At this time, Chairman Evans advised the Commission that the issue has been tabled, and Mr. Copeland has been given general information as to how the Commission would like the request to be resubmitted. Chairman Evans stated that it would be up to Mr. 9 . . . Copeland to resubmit their zoning request, and an issue that the Commission would have to deal with at that time. Mr. Copeland has been given suggestions, opinions, etc., and it will have to be up to him to come back with a new concept. #8 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: On a request from AT&T Wireless Services for placement of a telecommunication antenna/tower, Friesenhahn Road. Steve Simonson stated that this issue was denied by the Commission due to the tower height of 120' being to close to Friesenhahn Road, and should that tower ever topple to the east it would cross Friesenhahn Road. Because of this denial the site has been moved back, and the tower if it toppled would get no where near Friesenhahn Road. Steve added that there are no homes in this area and the tower would not hit any structure. Another issues of concern were collocation, and were there another towers close by that this tower could collocate? Steve Simonson informed the Commission that collocation was possible from this tower, however, there are no towers close by that this particular tower could utilize for collocation. Steve Simonson commented that the telecommunication checklist along with the city ordinance requires that a tower must fall within its own property. This tower would obviously fall outside its property, however a concession has been requested. Steve added that the area is farmland with no structures around it, and the tower would not cross the road. Gary Wallace asked if the area was in the city's ET J and was advised that the issue before the Commission is not a zoning issue. AT&T is leasing the land and the request is strictly a site plan approval. William Sommers asked if the lessor owns of the entire tract if the tower would fall? 10 . Jack Belew representing AT&T stated that the Friesenhahn Estate owns the property, which is approximately 55 acres. AT& T leases only the portion inside the square, not the property in the circle as indicated on the diagram. Keith Van Dine commented that we are to assume that if the tower fell it would fall onto the landowner's property. Jack Belew stated that the way these towers are designed, "they don't fall over, they fall and turn into a banana". If the tower would fall it would fall within 80' of the base tower. Mr. Belew explained that the tower is designed to provide collocation, such as Southwestern Bell, Horizon Wireless, Le., these companies would contact us and we would consider allowing the collocation. Mr. Belew informed the Commission that the tower is designed for three providers, AT&T and two others. . Ernie Evans explained that if the Commission were to approve the request, it would also have to approve a variance, because the City regulation states that a tower must fall within the boundaries of the lessee property. Ernie Evans also mentioned that the tower in all probability would be at this location for a number of years, which means there would be issues to be faced if and when the surrounding area would start to develop. Tony Moreno asked if the landowner ever decided to develop, would he be allowed to develop up the lessee's fence? Mr. Simonson stated that if and when the landowner develops the property, the landowner must plat the area and during the platting stage this issue would be brought up. At this stage the city would assure that no residential, business tract would be built within the 120' radius. Mr. Belew stated that the landowner is aware that this situation if it were to develop. With no further discussion, Gary Wallace moved to approve the request from AT&T Wireless Services for placement of a telecommunication antenna/tower, Friesenhahn Road to include a variance to owning property under which the tower could fall. Keith . Van Dine seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. 11 . . . #9 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: On a request from Trinity Asset Management for site plan approval of EmbreyfTri-County Business Center Unit 1, Tri- County Business & Industrial Park. Steve Simonson stated that the request is a fairly straightforward site plan. The site plan indicates two different buildings on FM3009 along Corridor Parkway. The site plan indicates how the signs would be on the buildings, and what size monument sign would be used. Steve Simonson stated that the site plan also clearly lays out the major landscaping plan. Ernie Evans commented that two monuments are shown one at the front of the building and one at the rear, plus the sign on the building. The ordinance states that only one monument is allowed. Steve Simonson stated that each building is authorized one sign. Ernie Evans voiced some concern on the entryway that sets off of Corridor Parkway and was advised there would be no truck traffic only vehicular car traffic, which was done so not to create a dead in condition. Mr. Crowell stated that there is a sufficient setback at this area, because of a future-widening plan for FM3009. Ernie Evans reminded the Commission that if the decision were to approve the site plan, the Commission would also be approving a variance to the sign ordinance. One monument sign indicated at the front and one at the back of the property. Gary Wallace commented that Mr. Simonson had stated that one sign per building. Steve Simonson explained that the Embrey complex would consist of one building owner, however, would have two different users. Mr. Simonson stated that technically on corners two signs are allowed, and added that these are two separate buildings. Steve added that in his opinion technically a variance would not be needed. The two buildings are separated by a sweeping corner and would also have different users. 12 . . . At this time, David Richmond stated that in his opinion it was a very good landscaping plan. With no further discussion, Keith Van Dine moved to approve the request from Trinity Asset Management for site plan approval of EmbreylTri-County Business Center Unit 1, Tri-County Business & Industrial Park. Tony Moreno seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. #10 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: Distributing Company Ltd. for site plan approval Business & Industrial Park. On a request from Block of Block Distributing, Tri-County Steve Simonson explained that the site plan was a three-page layout, with the first page indicating the building layout, parking, signs, etc. Mr. Simonson pointed out a unique item; a triangular monument sign at the corner of Associate Dr. and Tri-County would be used. The chain link fence is shown and the size of building is also indicated. Mr. Simonson stated that this development is a "biggie", the site plan also shows where future development would be. Steve added that the Block Distributing Company sign would be 6' tall. Steve stated that building would be 370,000 thousand square feet. Steve also mentioned the detailed landscape plan indicates what would be used, placement, etc. and lastly the last page shows the type of lighting (candlepower) that would be used. Steve Simonson stated that the site plan has provided all the requirements and again a very good job has been done. With no further discussion, Keith Van Dine moved to approve the request from Block Distributing Company Ltd. for site plan approval of Block Distributing, Tri-County Business & Industrial Park. Joyce Briscoe seconded the motion. 13 . . . Before a vote was called, David Richmond asked for clarification on the 6' aluminum security picket fence and was it advised it is similar to a wrought fencing, but because of cost the development chose to do aluminum. At this time, with a motion on the floor a vote was called, and the motion was approved. #11 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: On a request from MBC Engineers for preliminary plat approval of Nell Deane Street Extension, off of FM 1518. Steve Simonson stated that the area is off of FM1518 and if you have driven the area you would notice that the underbrush has been cleared. Steve Simonson stated that this extension would complete a master plan of part of the Nell Deane Street master plan that has been in place approximately 30 years. The street will be designed to meet the city's 60' ROW requirement, (42' wide curb to curb). There is also a sanitary sewer that runs along the side of the street. Steve mentioned that the Randolph Christian Church built the extension that is existing, back in the late 70's or early 80's. With no further discussion, Gary Wallace moved to approve the request from MBC Engineers for preliminary plat approval of Nell Deane Street Extension, off of FM 1518. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. #12 General Discussion: Tonv Moreno: Tony had no comments. Keith Van Dine: Keith had no comments. 14 . . . Gary Wallace: Gary had no comments. Jovce Briscoe: Joyce had no comments. William Sommers: William had no comments. Ken Greenwald: Ken reported that the Seguin/Schertz Local Government (water committee) met last Thursday, which was attended by Mr. Simonson, who is getting quite familiar with the program. Ken reported that only one right of entry is left, meaning a right of survey. Ken commented that there are still a few people contending and arguing about the surveying, which means that the Sheriff has to be dispatched out with the surveying crews. Ken commented that a few of these people have had bad experiences with others such as: gas companies and water line companies, who have come in and damaged fence lines. Now these people won't let anyone on their property. Nevertheless, about 70% of the right of survey are complete, plans for the bid specifications are 40% complete, GEO Tech services, (soil sample, etc) 85% complete, the archeologists report is 100% complete and the environmental assessment is report is 95% complete. Ken reported that the city of Schertz and Seguin would have water in approximately 18 months or shortly thereafter. Ken also reported on attending the Carolina Crossing HOA meeting last Thursday and gave an annual briefing on the water situation. They were surprised to hear that after 15 . . . many years (1955) of just talk, " of what were they going to do with the Edwards Aquifer" this is the first time someone has stepped up and taken action. David Richmond: David commented on a local news channel reporting on Bexar Metros increases, and also that "SAWS" is thinking of going out looking additional water source. David reported that at the corner of FM3009 and Live Oak there are two cars with for sale signs and this evening as he was driving by there were about a half a dozen people wandering around viewing these cars. David asked if the City could do anything about it? Steve Simonson stated that there is nothing that can be done if these cars are on private property, however, once there are multiple cars out there (anything over two cars), we can send someone out to talk to them. Steve Simonson: Steve asked if anyone had seen the graffiti out on FM3009 this weekend. Steve reported that a Schertz personnel was out taking care of the bandit signs and the graffiti. Steve reported that all plats from now on would have a GVEC signature block, allowing GVEC to sign off on all plats. Steve Simonson informed the Commission that the owner of the recorded plat Walgreen's Subdivision has requested to have the subdivision named changed to Atlantic/Savannah Oaks Subdivision. Steve asked if the Commission wanted the request to be brought forward for action by the Commission or could he provided the Commission with a set of the changed Mylar's for their signatures? 16 . . . Steve Simonson advised the Commission that if the subdivision change was not for the entire property, plat re-submittal was necessary. The Commission was in agreement that the subdivision change should done by city staff. Steve passed out a report that is being passed out at MPO meeting on Air quality issues. Ernie Evans: Ernie reported that the next meeting is scheduled for October 10,2000. #12 Adjournment: David Richmond moved to adjourn the meeting. William Sommers secoted the motion. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. / &;~71C ~.~ r Chairman, Planning & Zonflg Commission A TT~T: '7l' i~ i I , .,' /(' ,:"1 / /1/)" i C/ [17/ /' '\ t'--_ .. 1,(., If I,') ,,(_'.; I. II (, Planning secretaJtY, City of Schertz 17