Loading...
09-14-1999 n/s . . . e e PLANNING & ZONING MINUTES The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in Regular Session on Tuesday September 14, 1999, 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 Tony Moreno Gary Wallace Keith Van Dine Joyce Briscoe Ken Greenwald, ex-officio Steve Simonson, Asst. City Manager! Planning Coordinator Mary Ybarra, Planning & Recording Secretary Commissioners Absent Others Present George Maxfield (work related) Robbie LaPorte, Forum Construction Don McCrary, DMC, Inc. Mike Lackey, Walgreen Debbie Perrone, 1236 Dove Meadows #1 Call to Order: Chairman Evans called the September 14,1999 meeting to order. #2 Approval of Minutes: Regular session of August 24, 1999. Chairman Evans asked if there are any correction or additions to the minutes of August 24, 1999? 1 e e . Chairman Evans stated that there are several minor corrections too many to mention which have been turned over to Mary Ybarra, recording secretary. The corrections are basically minor such as typos, etc. not changing the content. Joyce Briscoe mentioned that on page 10, "general discussion" in her comments, second line of the statement, to correct the words "would" to "will". With no further discussion, a motion was made by Tony Moreno and seconded by Gary Wallace to approval the minutes of August 24, 1999, as corrected. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. #3 Status of Final Plats: There were none. #4 BOA Actions: . Steve Simonson reported that the Board of Adjustment met on August 30, 1999 and approved two special exception requests from Mr. & Mrs. Blackman, 308 Winburn and Joan Stevens, 1517 Red Cedar Cove. #5 Citizen's Input Other Than Agenda Items: There were none. #6 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: Request from Charles Plunkett, A-AAA Mini Storage, Tri-County Business Park for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance to allow managers residence/living quarters in a (GB) General Business area. (BOA #128-99) Steve Simonson explained that in a General Business (GB) area a residence is not allowed on the property unless there is a special exception or a specific permit issued. In this case, this is joint use of the property, which would require a special exception of . a Board of Adjustment action. The Planning & Zoning Commission has approved the 2 e e . site plan and plat in the area. However, the formal request for the special exception has to go through the proper channels to comply with the city's requirements. Ernie Evans stated that in discussions on this issue it was decided that the formal request on the special exception before the Commission is the proper way to handle it in accordance to the Unified Development Code (UDC). With no further discussion, a motion was made by Gary Wallace and seconded by Keith Van Dine to forward to the Board of Adjustment recommending approval on the request from Charles Plunkett, A-AAA Mini Storage, Tri-County Business Park for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance to allow managers residence/living quarters in a (GB) General Business area. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. #7 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: Request from Forum Construction for site plan approval of New OfficelWarehouse, Lot 14, Schertz Business . Park, Commercial Place. (PC #425-99) Steve Simonson explained that the office/warehouse is considered a spec building, as there is no tenant at this time. This being the case, it is not known what kind of sign, or if there will be need for a dumpster or not. The layout of both the building and property are shown. The handi-cap parking, size of the building and the area of the lot are shown on the first sheet. The second sheet indicates the landscape information such as the planting schedule, which meets the landscape ordinance. If the site plan were approved, the tenant would comply with the zoning ordinance, which is "general business" (GB). The sign would meet the requirements for a "general business" area, and the dumpster if utilized would have to be screened. David Richmond asked if there is a tenant prospect? Mr. LaPorte, representing Forum Construction stated that at this time there are a few possible tenants interested however these tenants are waiting to see what the building will look like. David voiced concern in . 3 e e . terms of the building being of spec nature. Mr. Simonson stated that all the requirements have been met and it is not the first of its kind in the area. Joyce Briscoe asked for clarification on a pre-engineered building? It was explained that the building is designed off site and parts are brought in and erected on site. The building will be metal with the front being masonry. With no further discussion, a motion was made by Keith Van Dine and seconded by Tony Moreno to approve the request from Forum Construction for site plan approval of New OfficelWarehouse, Lot 14, Schertz Business Park, Commercial Place. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. #8 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: Request from Don McCrary & Associates for Preliminary plat approval of Walgreens Subdivision, Savannah Drive/FM 3009. (PC #426-99). . Steve Simonson explained that the area that is being platted is Block 1, with two different lots, lots one and two. The difference will be evident when the site plan is presented. Several items will need to be corrected such as the City engineer signature block, property owner to the south of the property is not labeled and topographical information is not shown. Ernie Evans asked for clarification on the site plan, would the site plan cover lots one and two? Steve Simonson replied, yes. Gary Wallace stated that by the documentation presented the tree affidavit deals with only lot 1. Is this issue relevant to the plat or the site plan? Obviously, it's relevant to one or the other. Ernie Evans stated that as far as he is concerned it is relevant to both. Ernie Evans explained that clarification is needed, it's certainly an issue that needs to be addressed. Does the Commission want to take action now or wait until the site plan . is discussed? Gary Wallace stated that he doesn't understand the relevance to the 4 e e . preliminary plat, however he understands the relevance to the site plan. The Commission was in agreement that the plat is a separate issue and action should be taken only on the plat, the site plan is another issue. With no further discussion, a motion was made by Gary Wallace and seconded by Keith Van Dine to approve the request Don McCrary & Associates for Preliminary plat approval of Walgreens Subdivision, Savannah Drive/FM 3009. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. #9 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: Request from Don McCrary & Associates for Site Plan approval of Walgreens, Savannah Drive/FM 3009. (PC #427- 99). Steve Simonson stated that clarification on the tree affidavit is necessary before any further discussion is attempted. Since the site plan shows trees on both parts of lots one . and two, has the mitigation included both lots. Mr. McCrary stated that construction would take place on lot 1, however the tree survey and mitigation was done on the entire property, lots one and two. The mitigation amount covers the entire site. Two phases of construction: lot one the Walgreen facility, and at this time there are no plans for lot two. Ernie Evans stated that item #2 of the tree affidavit was checked off and that statement is an incorrect statement. Trees both heritage and protected of 24" DBH or larger are to be destroyed by the construction. Steve Simonson stated that the affidavit would be meaningless if a tree preservation/removal application is done. Steve explained that the affidavit is completed when no trees are involved or there are very few minor trees. In this case that isn't the issue and there is no way the affidavit can be signed off. Chairman Evans stated that if that is the case an item 3 should be added. David . Richmond commented that he was in agreement, because he would like to see an 5 e e . affidavit submitted from everyone. Steve Simonson asked if the Commission would like for City Staff to work up an item 3, which would cover most circumstances or all. It was agreed that City Staff do so. . Steve Simonson continued to explain that the first sheet is a layout of both buildings. Dotted lines are indicating the deviation between the two lots. The freestanding sign (pylon) is shown. The drives are shown along with the lighting information. The second sheet is a very thorough well-laid out tree plan; showing which trees are not counted inside the building footprint and trees out side the building footprint which have to be counted. The last sheets show the Walgreen logos and how the signs would be set up on the building and elevations are shown. The fourth item, is a request for a variance to the 8' masonry fence abutting the residential area and a request for the height of the sign, from 18.7' to 25'. Lastly, the tree inventory has been done explaining the trees saved, trees removed in total inches, inches owed, based on the calculations of trees saved the 25% minimum has been met. The amount is calculated on what is owned to the City on mitigation fees" David Richmond suggested that the Commission should discuss each item in the order each item was briefed. At this time, David Richmond asked if construction is planned for lot one, and is the Commission to assume that lot two would be left untouched. Mike Lackey, representative for Walgreen explained that the parking lot area and base pad would be prepared for phase two (lot 2) at the same time as the construction of lot one. Site work would be done at the same time; clearing the pad, cutting it to sub-grade and preparing it to rough grade, building would commence shortly afterward. It is assumed that construction of building would be in the next six to twelve months. Joyce Briscoe commented that the City doesn't have assurance that a building would be built in that period of time. The City could be sitting with a cleared piece of land. Is there any way that the lot could be left alone until a building can be started? No one ever . knows what well happen in the future. 6 e e . Mr. Lackey stated that part of the lot would be used for truck traffic and at least some of the lot would need to be paved. The future building would not be part of Walgreen; it most likely would be a retail office of some type owned by Walgreen. The building will be built for Walgreen to lease. Joyce Briscoe stated that currently there is a Savannah Square Subdivision sign erected. What happens to the sign? Mr. Lackey stated that he has met with the Homeowners Association and there are plans to work with them to protect the sign. If the sign were in the way, the plan is to move it. Ernie Evans voiced concern to grading the lot and leaving it. With winter coming it might present drainage issues to some of the area. Mr. Lackey stated he understood the concerns and asked if the issue could be addressed at the time that construction plans were submitted outlining the limits of construction? This way it would require a separate building permit for the site. . Steve Simonson stated that the site plan could be approved with the agreement that the area would not be cleared and approval is given to the site plan layout. This would be similar to what was approved for H E B; their site plan involved two places and did not build the second section right away. Ernie Evans stated that if the Commission choose this option, this would allow the City some control. The inspection department would control the building permit. This is certainly an option that could be considered. The Commission could request that site two be taken off the site plan. Obviously, a lot of work has gone into getting all of the information as a unit and if the tree survey covers both lots the Commission should try to treat this site plan as a unit. The approval of the site plan would allow a building permit only to lot one up to the construction line, and nothing could be done to the remainder of lot two until building plans were submitted for lot two. This would pre- approve the site plan for the area and would not hold up development. . 7 e e . Steve Simonson stated that with two separate constructions plans submitted this would insure the city control and alleviate problems. This would insure plans are part of our files; the general constructions plan, conformed to the agreement reached. At this time, Chairman Evans asked that the two-variance requests in a form of a letter that are part of the packet, be discussed at this time. The first issue; sign height along FM 3009; second issue, fence along the back of the property. David Richmond stated concern with both issues. The City has established a maximum height 18.7' and everyone has complied, the importance is to up hold the City's Unified Development Code (UDC). On the fence issue, the UDC tries to insure that residential backyards are protected, higher masonry fence affords a better sound barrier. The existing privacy fence of 6' could possible be replaced with the higher masonry fence and serve as one fence. . Tony Moreno stated that he would like to hear from the developer as to the corporate requirements in reference to the height variance and agrees with David Richmond on the masonry fence issue. Mike Lackey stated that the sign follows the corporate standards for Walgreen. Tony Moreno asked if the sign were scaled down, is there a problem with visibility? Mr. Lackey stated that the area planned for the sign has a low spot in the area, it's the lowest point of the area. Discussion among the Commissioners established that visibility is not a factor with the 18.7' sign, particularly given that there are considerably fewer trees to block the sign. Joyce Briscoe stated that she is opposed to any deviation in the height. The City has established these requirements in order to maintain the integrity of FM 3009 and not have FM 3009 resemble Walzem Road. . 8 . . e e In view of the Commissions concerns, Mr. Lackey felt he could speak for Walgreen and withdraw the request for the 25' sign and will comply with the sign at the required height of 18.7', however they would like to keep the same sign profile. Steve Simonson pointed out that the sign profile is 90' square feet and 7", with a reader board underneath. The City has allowed reader boards as long as the sign stays at 90 square feet, with corporate logos etc. that shouldn't be a problem if the height is adhered to 18.7'. Mr. Lackey pointed out that the upper cabinet sign is actually 88.9 square feet and is under the requirement of 90 square feet. Mr. Lackey pointed out that in the case of the masonry fence, if an 8' fence were erected, light would be blocked off from shining unto the residents' yard right behind Walgreen. Ernie Evans suggested talking to the Homeowners; they would be surprised to know that mention of a masonry fence opposed to the existing wooden fence would be acceptable to the homeowners. A masonry fence being more attractive than the wooden fence, that with time would need repairs. As a result, he believes the residents would probably go as far as to help take down the wooden fence and help put up a masonry fence. Ken Greenwald asked if the future tenant would be utilizing the same dumpster site and was advised in all probability the same would be used. If not another dumpster site would be placed for the future tenant. Ernie Evans asked for clarification on what looked like an island dividing the traffic flow onto Savannah and onto FM3009? Don McCrary stated that this issue has not been worked out with TXDOT and at this time no final decision has been made. Does the Commission have any comments on this issue? Mr. McCrary stated that there are advantages both ways. Ernie Evans commented that his only issue of concern would be to put turn lanes on FM 3009. Mr. McCrary stated that they are short as far as distance from the corner, which . would present a problem. Ernie suggested that putting a turn lane of whatever distance 9 . . . e e and width, without destroying anything would be an advantage. In regard to the proposed light at the intersection of Savannah Drive, is it a factually statement that its still a working issue? Steve Simonson stated that it was his understanding that Walgreen would like the City's support in a form of a formal letter. Mr. Lackey stated that it was his understanding that traffic counts are to be conducted on the 15th and 22nd of September. The traffic counts are to be taken between the hours of 11 and 1 p.m. and 3 and 7 p.m. Mr. Lackey stated that a letter supporting this request has been obtained from the City, however he would like support from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Simonson stated that would not be a problem, the Planning and Zoning does and would forward a memo supporting the proposed light at Savannah Drive. Ernie Evans asked if the 30" oak trees behind the building would be saved and was advised the trees would not due to the roof canopy. They would be unable to save these trees. David Richmond asked that if it was necessary to have the Walgreen logo at the back of the building facing the residential area. Is it really a need for the logo at the back of the building and was advised it was not necessary. Ernie Evans summarized the items discussed and advised the Commission that the motion should include these items as outlined in our discussion. Ernie suggested that the variance request and site plan be dealt with as two separate issues. The Commission was in agreement however pointed out that the variance request should be added to the agenda in order to take action on this issue. David Richmond suggested adding the variance request to the agenda and not hold up the process. Adding the variance request as item #9A to the agenda would allow the Commission to take action. 10 e e . In discussion among the Commission it was decided that if variance request was submitted as part of a site plan, that it be on the agenda stating that there is a variance request. At this time, David Richmond made a motion to add #9A to the agenda; to consider and take appropriate action on a request from Don McCrary & Associates for a variance to the sign ordinance to allow Walgreen a pylon sign to be 25' in height and the Unified Development Code (UDC) requirement of a 8' masonry fence. Gary Wallace seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. At this time, David Richmond made a motion to approve item #9; the request from Don McCrary & Associates for Site Plan approval of Walgreens, Savannah Drive/FM 3009 contingent upon the issuing of building plans submitted for lot one and that lot 2 is not prepared for construction until a building permit issued and that sign logo be removed from the south elevation (back of building) of the building and that the pylon sign height . be reduced to comply to the UDC of 18.7'. Gary Wallace seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. #9A Consider and Take Appropriate Action: Request from Don McCrary & Associates for a variance request for Walgreen, Savannah Drive/FM 3009 to the sign height and masonry fence. At this time, a motion was made by Tony Moreno and seconded by Joyce Briscoe to disapprove agenda item #9A. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. #10 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: City of Schertz. Bandit Sign Permits within the Steve Simonson stated that this issue is an ongoing concern both with the Planning Department and Inspection Dept. The Inspection dept has researched this issue with . other cities and what their policies are. I would like for the Commission to look over what 11 . e e San Antonio is doing and put this issue as an agenda item at the next meeting. This would allow the Commission to do nothing with the information or possibly work it up as a revision to the Unified Development Code (UDC). The City needs to get a handle on bandit signs. There are developers that follow the procedures and developers that push the time limits very badly. Basically, the bandit sign issue was started here however it is time as the development of FM 3009 and Schertz Parkway has come about that a hand to given to Planning & Zoning and City Council who has maintained the integrity of these roadways. It is important to note that when driving down these roadways you still see the tree canopy. It's important that these roadways be cleared of large signage and big cleared areas. Steve Simonson suggested that the Commission take the time to look over the information and that this issue be an agenda item at the next meeting as an action item. Joyce Briscoe mentioned that Leonard Truitt the Inspection Official is asking for help . and believes the City should help. Steve Simonson stated that he agrees, however, would like the Commission to review the information because in reading the information it is stating that the inspection department issue the permits. At this time the UDC authorizes the Planning & Zoning Department to issue permits. There are a few items of concern and suggest that the Commission look over these issues; does the Planning & Zoning Dept. still want the authority of issuing permits, etc. Overall, it's a very good policy however the City of Schertz in some areas works a bit different. . The Commission was in agreement to place the bandit sign issue as an agenda item at the next scheduled meeting. #11 General Discussion: Tonv Moreno: Tony had no comments. 12 e e . Keith Van Dine: Keith had no comments. Gary Wallace: Gary had no comments. Jovce Briscoe: Joyce mentioned that when Eckerd requested a variance on a masonry fence it was given. Steve Simonson commented that if the Commission recalls, it was based upon an existing masonry fence in place. The residents did not want another masonry fence. Ken Greenwald: Ken commented that Mr. Simonson needs to check the Vernon Texas Civil Status, any agenda item need to be posted 72 hours. The Commission needs to be careful adding . agenda items. Ken reported that September 22 the Schertz/Seguin Local Government Corporation and both City Councils in the City of Seguin council chambers. Presentation on the water plan and approximate cost will be discussed, if anyone is interested in attending, he believes the meeting is at 6:30 p.m. Ken reported that a water sampling notice has been mailed out. This sampling is another non-funded mandate costing approximately $3,600. David Richmond: David asked what was the status as to when Pulte will be moving their trailer. Steve Simonson commented he would check with the inspection department. David mentioned that Pulte was authorized to have the trailer, until the opening of a model and . a model has been opened for sometime. 13 . . . e e David asked Steve to check the west left turn lane on the access road opposite the Diamond Shamrock as you exit off of IH35. Construction is complete however, this area continues to have barricades. He believes someone has forgotten to remove the barricades. Steve Simonson: Steve reported that the contract with "Capital" has been signed with TXDOT, however, there is no start date for the FM 78 project. The railroad ROW in Universal City has not been obtained. TXDOT will not start any construction until all ROW is purchased. The FM 78 project is on hold. The assistant engineer in the Seguin office, Terry McCoy is actively working on this at this time. #12 Adjournment: David Richmond moved to adjourn the meeting. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission ATTEST: Planning Secretary, City of Schertz 14