Loading...
03-18-1997 . . . . - Continentia I Homes Alfred Silvas James Burry, Sprint Cell Tower Elene Aisle, Dove Meadows #1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Ernie Evans called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Evans explained the procedures to be followed at the public hearing. The City Council public hearing on this item will be held March 18, 1997. #2 PUBLIC HEARING: To Receive Citizen Input on a Request from City of Schertz to rezone 30 Acres on FM 1518 from MHS (Mobile Home Subdivision) to RA (Residential/ Agriculture). (ZC #139-97) Chairman Evans asked for Staff input. advised that nine (9) letters to the surrounding were sent. There were six (6) letters returned. back undeliverable and there were five (5) in Steve Simonson property owners One was received favor. With no comments, discussion on the Hearing. or questions from the rezoning, Chairman Evans Commissioners, or closed the Public #3 ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING: Chairman Ernie Evans adjourned the Public Hearing at 7:03 p.m. The Schertz Planning and zoning Commission convened in a session, after the public hearing, in the Municipal Conference Room, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas. regular Complex #4 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ernie Evans called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. #S APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Session for February 25, 1997. Merwin Willman moved to approve the February 25, 1997 Regular Session Minutes as written. Pia Jarman seconded the motion, which carried with a unanimous vote. #6 STATUS OF FINAL PLATS: There was one mylar signed for the month of February: The -2- e e . Guadalupe County Substation. #7 CITIZENS: INPUT OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS There were none. #8 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Request Schertz to Rezone 30 Acres on (Mobile Home Subdivision) to Agriculture). (ZC #139-97) from City of FM 1518 from MHS RA (Residential/ Chairman Evans asked for any other staff input. Steve Simonson stated he had no other additional input. Pia Jarman moved to recommend to City Council the approval of the Commission to Rezone 30 Acres on FM 1518 from MHS (Mobile Home Subdivision) to RA (Residential/Agriculture). Gary Wallace seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. #9 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Request from Veytia Partners, Ltd. for Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for Side Yard Setback from 7.5' to 5.0' for Parkway Garden Subdivision. (BOA #83-97) . Steve Simonson stated this subdivision has already been approved as seen now with the normal setbacks of 15' between homes. The new owner that wishes to build homes on these lots now is requesting a 5' side yard setback to facilitate the use of the lots with the homes they wish to build here. This a bonafide group that wishes to build on this property. They have already paid the parkland fees that were owed originally for this subdivision. The request is a straight forward request for a side yard variance. There are no other changes to this subdivision. Pia Jarman stated when we have granted this type of variance in the past we have specified that there still be 15' between buildings. Would this not apply to this subdivision? Steve Simonson stated in talking with the personnel who are with us tonight they understand that if they are granted the 5' they still must maintain the 15' between homes. This is up to the Commission if they would like to make any allowances for the 5'. If a home comes in that meets the encroachment of 5' the next home must meet the 10' separation. Gary zero Wallace stated on the request they are asking for a 10' to lot line. a . Steve Simonson stated the request was filled out by Mr. Veytia he is present to answer any questions. -3- e e . Joe Veytia stated the intent is not to maintain the 15' between homes. The request is for a 10' separation between homes. The reason for this is that Mr. Farias who is from Austin would like to build the homes on the eight lots with plans that are requiring a width of about 35' to 40'. Most of the lots are over 50' but the request was to maintain a 10' separation between homes with a zero lot line arrangement or through a five foot setback on both lot lines. In talking with the fire department they stated they had no problem with this type of request of 10' between homes. Carlos Farias stated the lots are relatively narrow and he generally builds on wider lots than this. Being that they are only 50' it limits the size of the home. with a limit of 15' between, it limits the building to a 35' wide home and most of the homes are between 35' to 40'. We would like to build affordable homes of not less than 1200 square feet. In the subdivision there is an alley from Mitchell headed west behind, wrapping around to Schertz Parkway. To get from Schertz Parkway to the back with only a 10' setback there would be a problem with the back yards due to the alley. Some of the homes that will be built will be only 35' wide but there are other plans that he would like to do. He would like some flexibility. . Joe Veytia stated some type of consideration could be taken for masonry walls on the side walls of the houses. If the Commission is willing to commit to some portion of the side walls to be masonry, they would deed restrict the lots to whatever the requirement would be. Gary Wallace asked if there was (7) lots instead of the eight? was a consideration but it affordable homes. The money either seven or eight lots. any consideration to going to seven Joe Veytia advised that "yes" this defeats the purpose of offering will still need to be gotten with Carlos Farias stated the subdivision would have to be re-engineered for this to happen. Ernie Evans stated there are two different issues being addressed to the board. One is the request that the houses be 10' apart and the issue of zero lot line. This is two totally separate and distinct issues and do not go with each other. Are you asking for a 10' separation or zero lot line? Carlos Farias stated he is working with Mr. Veytia on this there would be no problem if we could have 10' between homes. Joe Veytia stated in answer to the question when the request was made by Mr. Veytia the developer did not know at the time if they needed zero lot line with 10 separation or five and five. At this point please disregard the request for zero lot line and consider it a request as a change from a 7.5' to a 5' side yard setback. . -4- . . . e e Leonard Truitt stated under the building code requirement even at a 5' setback there are limitations on the amount of openings that we can do along the side of the property line. It does reduce the amount of windows that are allowed. With the 5' there are going to be stiffer stipulations. Joe Veytia stated if the five foot setback is not granted, would the Commission consider something in between the request, so Mr. Farias could consider some additional options than the one plan. Ernie Evans stated since there are eight lots how many of the lots are going to need the setback request? Carlos Farias stated meeting the Commission half way, maybe three or four of the lots could be considered. Merwin Willman stated the platting for this subdivision was done back in April 1995. At that time there must have been some thought on what type of home was going to go on these lots to have been platted the way they are. If there is a need for bigger lots, then the subdivision needs to be resubdivided. Carlos Farias stated he is not partners with Mr. Veytia. About a month and a half ago Mr. Farias looked at the property and came to terms on buying the property and developing it. Merwin Willman stated he understands that, but Mr. Veytia was involved with the platting of the property and must have had something in mind for the way the property was platted. Merwin stated he is very reluctant to change the side yard setback because what we have of 15' between houses is close enough, anything closer is too much. Steve Simonson stated the one thing to remind everyone is: the one stipulation made at the time of the plat approval was alley was in for rear entrance driveways. There will be no cuts onto Schertz Parkway. that the curb Ernie Evans stated he carries the same concern as Merwin does. Pia Jarman stated her recommendation if the Commission grants the 5' side yard variance, would only be with the proviso that they maintain the 15' between homes. This is what was discussed during the platting of this property. Ernie Evans stated the question he asked earlier of Mr. Veytia for clarification is the separation between homes. What Mr. Veytia is asking very clearly is to waiver totally the 15' separation between homes. Joe Veytia stated if the Commission could consider something between the 7.5' side yard setback and the 5' it would keep the subdivision from not having to have the same type of houses. This property does face Schertz Parkway and will be well seen. -5- e e . Ernie Evans stated the Commission is not unwilling to work with Mr. Farias. At a meeting of this type is not the place to come to a conclusion on if the developer needs the separation or not, but this could be better done outside of this meeting, with Mr. Simonson. The request however, needs to clarify the number of lots that are being requested for the side yard setback variance. Merwin Willman stated they are taking plans that were developed two years ago and now trying to put something different on what was planned then. If they want to put different types of homes on the lots then they need to come back and redesign the platting. Merwin Willman moved to recommended to the BOA the disapproval submitted by Veytia Partners, Ltd. for Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for side yard setback from 7.5' to 5' for Parkway Garden Subdivision. Gary Wallace seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. Merwin Willman stated when sending the request to the BOA that a copy of the May 17, 1995 letter sent to Mr. Veytia on the requirements that were set out on this subdivision be included. Pia Jarman also suggested that in Ernie's letter to the BOA of the recommendation for the denial that it also state the proviso about the 15' between buildings. Had the developer agreed with this proviso it would have been an approval. This will let the BOA know why and not keep the BOA guessing on why we disapproved. . #10 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Homes, for Special Ordinance for Rear 14.5' for 2928 Berry Request from Flagship Exception to the Zoning Yard Setback from 20' to Patch. (BOA #84-97) Steve Simonson stated this is a house that has not been built yet. They want to put a very large house on this lot. Gary Wallace asked if there was an easement on the back of the property? Steve Simonson stated "no" there is no easement. Pia Jarman questioned whose lot does lot 14 back up to? Simonson stated it will back up to Ashley Place Unit 4. Steve Merwin Willman stated it appears this will be the beginning for a lot of requests for variances. The other lots in the area are all the same size. If one gets the variance, there are going to be more. They should not sell houses that will not fit on the lots. Ben Coward stated this was an oversight and that there is a letter from the buyers, who are retired military. They would like the house on the lot as it gives them a view of Randolph AFB from their back yard. This will be an exception. . Pia Jarman stated she has to agree with Merwin. All the lots are quite large and as far as the view of Randolph what is 5.5' more -6- e e 4It of house going to do. Merwin Willman mentioned when Ashley Place gets built up their view is going to be all gone anyway. Gary Wallace noted that this is a single story family house most of the houses will most likely be two story units, that not press the setback limits. and will Ben Coward stated they do not intend to have this happen again. This was an oversight on their part of the 20' rear setback. Gary Wallace moved to recommend to the BOA approval of the request from Flagship Homes for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for rear yard setback from 20' to 14.5' for 2928 Berry Patch. Tony Moreno seconded the motion which carried as follows. AYES: Merwin Willman, Tony Moreno, Gary Wallace. OPPOSED: Keith Van Dine, Pia Jarman, Ernie Evans. Motion was lost with a tie vote of three to three. #11 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Homes, for Special Ordinance for Side for 1652 Ebony Lane. Request from Plantation Exception to the Zoning Yard Setback from 5' to 0' (BOA #85-97) . Steve Simonson stated this is a request to widen the driveway extending over an existing electrical easement. There is a letter from GVEC that Steve passed out at this time to the Commission. At this time Steve read the letter from Gearld Moltz, Guadalupe Member Services Manager GVEC. "As we discussed, it is my understanding that you plan to extend the driveway to within approximately 6" of the property line over our existing 5' easement and that it will not cover the area from the property line to the electric meter. This will be acceptable with the following conditions and understandings. 1. The 5' side lot line easement on Lot 16 still exists as recorded. 2. There are energized underground electric lines in the 5' easement. 3. The adjacent 5' easement on Lot 17 shall remain and be available to use for underground service to Lot 16 if it is ever necessary to maintain or replace the underground conductor." Steve Simonson stated this is basically saying there are live power lines under the area that they wish to expand the driveway into. . Merwin Willman judgement made use the same Steve stated stated this is a case in which there was bad on the floor plan of the house. If they continue to floor plan we are going to have the same problem. they are expanding the driveway not the size of the -7- e e . house. Merwin stated the house plan shows the driveway coming the street, having to make a sharp right hand turn to go into garage. There seems to be a problem backing out of the garage if the same floor plan is used somewhere else there will be same problem. off the but the Ernie Evans stated for clarification that the letter from GVEC so states that in "approximately 6" over the property line over our existing 5' easement. "It will not cover the area from the property line to the easement." Are we talking about the cages on the street or on the home? Steve stated "the cages on the street." Pia Jarman stated that a similar request was brought before the BOA previously. The BOA wondered why the developer had not taken certain things into consideration before choosing a particular home plan etc. Pia was hard put to answer this question as they questioned why P & Z approved such a plan. Gary Wallace stated in regards to the letter from GVEC that it seems in the past if someone was to infringe into an easement it was their responsibility. What GVEC is saying is as long as lot 17 stays open. We have no way of assuring. Ernie Evans stated we not only have no way of assuring that, but it also states in the letter that their easement under this concrete is still an easement, so if GVEC needs to go into this easement they have the right to do so, concrete or no concrete. . Keith Van Dine stated if this is approved and GVEC needs to go in this is a problem with the homeowner and GVEC this will not involve the City. Steve stated "it will not involve the City." Keith Van Dine stated also it states that lot 17 will be left open. Does this mean there will not be anything built on this as there is an easement? Steve stated if you remember the plats they show a typical 5' easement on both sides of the property line for an area for the electrical units to be brought in. Jeff Engelke stated he would like to clarify Mr. Willman's concerns on if this house were built again whether the builders would have problems or not. "We have built this house before with no problems." This particular homeowner requested to have double garage doors installed instead of the one single garage door. If we had gone with the single door as planned we would not be faced with this problem. But because it is a double garage door with a post in between the two garage doors, they are unable to make the radius on the 25' distance from the garage door to the back of the driveway. As far as GVEC is concerned, they are concerned about lot 17's easement being covered up. If this was ever to occur again per se the builders could not put anything like a concrete pad on that easement. . Merwin Willman stated the original plans for the house calls for a one car garage. Jeff Engelke stated "no it is a double car garage -8- e e . with a single 16' garage door." Pia Jarman moved to recommend to BOA the request from Plantation Homes, for Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for side yard setback from 5' to 0' for 1652 Ebony Lane be disapproved. Gary Wallace seconded the motion. Before vote was taken, Merwin Willman asked for clarification on why disapproval? Pia Jarman stated the recommendation for disapproval is based on the fact that the original house design, which accommodated two cars with one door is not being followed. It is not as if the homeowners cannot have a double car garage. Merwin mentioned the problem is this house is already built with the garage being inaccessible. Ernie Evans stated there is a motion on the floor, that has been seconded. The motion is to forward the request to the BOA with a recommendation of disapproval. There has been a discussion in terms of "what" the recommendation was based on with the added information of the house not being under construction but completed with a double garage with double doors. Ernie Evans at this time called for a vote which was as follows: . AYES: Tony Moreno, Pia Jarman. OPPOSED: Merwin Willman, Gary Wallace, Ernie Evans, Keith Van Dine. The motion to disapprove was lost. #12 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Request from Dover Homes, for Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for Rear Yard Setback from 20' to 14' for 1133 Lauran Park Drive. (BOA #86-97) Steve Simonson stated the foundation is complete, the frame is up with the house being about 3/4 done. This was an inadvertent mistake partially by the City and the builder. It was a misunderstanding on the depth of the lot because of the easement that runs to the back of the property for electric utility for which Dover originally gave 10 foot for the electrical easement and Dietz Road. When this lot came in as a visual understanding there was a misunderstanding. When the error was caught it was brought to the builder's attention and they were advised to come in for a variance. This is also why to preclude this from happening again, there is a request from Dover Homes Unit 4 to have the cul-de-sac designs changed. This is in reference to what Pia mentioned earlier. We do not design the lots, the builder does, and now we are being asked to make adjustments. . Gary Wallace moved to recommend for approval to the BOA the request from Dover Homes, for Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for rear yard setback from 20' to 14' for 1133 Lauran Park Drive. -9- e e . Keith Van Dine seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. #13 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Request from Resurrection Baptist Church for a Specific Use Permit on 12.6 Acres on Live Oak Road to Construct a Church. (SUP #12-97) Steve Simonson stated this is a Specific Use Permit as required by our zoning ordinance. This also will require a public hearing with the City Council to authorize the Church to be built in this area. There was a map handed out to everyone indicating the location of the property. Going up Live Oak Road, it is at the top of the hill by the existing fence that is the Butler property. At the south side of Live Oak Road, it is separated by Greenfield Village directly across the street from the open property. This is an area that is vacant land at this time. The current zoning is R-1. This is approximately 12.6 acres. Discussion by the Commissioners followed on exactly what a Specific Use Permit implies. Gary Wallace moved to forward to City Council to schedule a Public Hearing with our approval, the request from Resurrection Baptist Church for a Specific Use Permit on 12.6 acres on Live Oak Road to construct a Church. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. . #14 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from Alfredo Silvas, for Final Plat Approval Bluebonnet Silvas Subdivision. (PC #300-97) Steve Simonson stated renumbered as requested the signatures are all owners. they have the block number lot 6; flood plain statement is in place as well as the adjacent and have correct, property Pia Jarman moved to approve the request from Alfred Silvas, for Final Plat for Bluebonnet Silvas Subdivision. Tony Moreno seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. #15 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request Castella & Associates, Inc. for Approval Carolina Crossing Unit II. (PC #299-97) from Final W.F. Plat Steve Simonson stated all the corrections along with the signatures are on the plat. The only thing missing is the gate detail. The islands are shown but not the detail. Pia Jarman asked if the parkland fees have been paid? Simonson stated "yes" they have paid the parkland fees. Steve . Ernie Evans stated the gate detail has been requested to be shown on all final plats. -10- e e . Gary Wallace moved to approve the request from W.F. Castella & Associates, Inc. for Final Plat for Carolina Crossing Unit II. Tony Moreno seconded the motion which carried as follows: AYES: Merwin Willman, Gary Wallace, Keith Van Dine, Tony Moreno. OPPOSED: Ernie Evans, Pia Jarman. #16 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Sorrell, for Site Plan Inc. (PC #307-97) Request Approval from for Randy Ransor, Steve Simonson stated this is in the Vestal Subdivision. This will be the last lot on the left hand side in the cul-de-sac on Pipestone. This is a multi purpose site plan. The sign will be on the building, with the lighting being on the front of the building. All of the necessary information for a site plan has been identified. Pia Jarman asked, for her personal curiosity, what type of business is this? Mr. Sorrell stated it is a tower erection company. Merwin Willman moved to approve the request from Randy Sorrell, for site plan for Ransor, Inc. Gary Wallace seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. . #17 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Spectrum, for Site Plan Cell Tower. (PC #309-97) Request from Sprint Approval for Sprint Steve Simonson reiterated as stated in his notes, why this has been brought forward to the Commission. This tower has already been erected but the company did not know, they were in the City of Schertz. They have provided a site plan with detail. The only thing they are waiting for is electricity. The building permits have not been issued to put this up because that is pending P & Z approval. The options are approval or disapproval. Leonard Truitt stated currently the inspection department has served Sprint and the contractor each a citation in violation which currently still stands. The tower exceeds the height limitations in the area of M-1. The tower is 190' the ceiling height is 120' in this area by Unified Development Code. Steve Simonson stated this is what we use as a benchmark for towers. There also is no documentation from the FAA that states this is approved by them for this height. . Gary Thompson stated there was information given from the surveyor that was incorrect on the location of the tower. We assumed that the tower was in the county based on the survey and not in the City of Schertz. There were 52 permits obtained from the City of San Antonio for towers to be constructed. "We are accustomed to getting permits before construction. The problem arose when we tried to obtain an address." -11- e e . Leonard Truitt stated he has a little problem with this statement of not knowing they were in the City of Schertz. Considering all their addressing information on their documentations, has a Schertz address. James Burry stated this is "a very embarrassing situation for our company" and he would like to add a few comments. There are actually three different companies involved in the contracting. A lot of the documentation is through the complication situation. Sprint has admitted they are wrong and "it is not our intention to build anything without a permit. We are here to offer a service to the citizens of this county as well as other counties in the south Texas area. Not being able to speak for the other companies involved, Sprint is here to work with the City of Schertz." Ernie Evans stated it is not that the Commission is not willing to work with you but "personally, from the last several folks who have come before us for cell tower issues, you obviously haven't given the Commission a chance to review the cell tower situation." There are issues we need to have answered e.g. the height of the tower, FAA approval, where it will fall all of which are issues that are open. . Gary Wallace asked if any of the sprint towers are towers? James Burry stated "yes" Sprint has taken as all the way from the corporate level, that it build the more than one user. Gary asked if the AT & T tower is a tower? James Burry stated "no". multi-user directive, tower for multi-user Gary Wallace asked if Sprint could discuss with AT & T sharing a tower and get AT & T to transfer over to the tower? James Burrey stated he could not speak for AT & Sprint could approach them about this. about Sprint T, but Leonard Truitt asked why the tower was built at 190'? James Burry stated it was an engineering driven height based on terrain, topography, desirable locatability for other vendors. There has to be a separation between the two towers. As far as the FAA, "we do have a letter of approval from the FAA for the tower being in compliance." Pia Jarman asked what the options for Sprint are, if this is disapproved? Steve Simonson stated this could be appealed to the City Council. If City Council were to disapprove the tower, it would have to be torn down. Gary Wallace stated if this were tabled it would allow Sprint time to negotiate with AT & T as Gary feels there should only be one tower. . Leonard Truitt stated he is only looking at it as they are in violation, due to the height, and they did not obtain building permits. There is lack of inspection and no history. In viewing the plans, in the documentation, there is no other violations other -12- e e . than it exceeds the normal height limitations. If it is approved, it will be for two items; one that it stays, the other that it is in height violation without a variance. James Burry stated the 120' mark is for buildings but is it a guideline for towers in itself. This is something they encounter many times. "We are hoping to get some consideration on the tower. We have made every effort in the past to work with AT & T." We cannot influence them but offer them use of the tower together. We do not want to mislead you in any way or fathom on how AT & Twill feel about this. Steve Simonson asked if the second generation PCS is in the old analog and can they work together on the same tower? James Burry stated "yes" they can. Merwin Willman stated for clarification on the statement about the maximum height of 120' being for buildings. This is not true. It is for towers. This will need to have a variance from the maximum height limit, also a letter from the FAA for approval for the tower to be 190'. Ernie Evans stated the height of 190' needs to come to the Commission as a variance request. The FAA approval will have to be submitted as has been for the last couple of towers that have come before the Commission. A letter of offer for AT & T to share the tower will need to be submitted also. . Ernie Evans asked how many feet is needed between antennas? James Burry stated 20' is needed between antennas as a separation divider. Steve Simonson stated this is a site plan approval after the fact, not a zoning request as towers are authorized in the M-1 area. Tony Moreno asked what are the Commission's options? Ernie Evans stated there are three options: either to approve, disapprove, or based on the fact that we have asked for information that they apparently have parts of or can provide parts of, we can table our decision until the 25th of March at which time they can come back with all of the necessary documentation that has been mentioned tonight. Pia Jarman stated if we are going to do it right procedurally, that would be "to postpone" unil a specific date. Merwin Willman stated he would like to recommend that this item be tabled until the items that are normally required have been submitted: i.e. the request for variance for the height from 120' to 190', a letter from the FAA stating that 190' is not a problem, and the letter of offer to AT & T to share towers by our next meeting. . Gary Wallace stated it is the consensus among us that we want to -13- . . . e e limit the number of towers in Schertz, and Gary feels their discussions with AT & T should be more than an offer. They should sincerely try to negotiate with AT & T on sharing the tower. Ernie Evans stated this was a consensus among us in going over the UDC on cell towers. It is requested that Sprint extend the offer to AT & T and a letter submitted to us to that effect. Pia Jarman moved to postpone the discussion on the request from Sprint Spectrum for site plan approval for the Sprint Cell Tower until the following meeting (March 25th), by which time they must submit a request for height variance from 120' to 190', giving reason for such request; a letter of approval from the FAA; and a letter of offer to AT & T that they share a tower to indicate Sprint's cooperation and willingness to comply. Gary Wallace seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. #18 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from Don McCrary, McCrary & Associates for Vacate and Replat Dove Meadows Unit 4 Cul-de-sacs. (PC #308-97) Steve Simonson stated this has been discussed with Leonard Truitt to some extent. It was determined that if you move the setback on the cul-de-sac to 15' then there is going to be side yard problems. This is why there is the 25' all the way around. If the Commission were so disposed, a 20' set back would not change the street scape and would be giving a little more back ground to use in a cul-de-sac. However, staff would recommend strongly against the 15' front building setback as it would recreate a tremendous amount of confusion. To be very honest the variance to 20' will create some confusion for the inspection department. This would only involve the cul-de-sacs. This is a previously platted and recorded plat. Greg San Marco showed a drawing on where the areas are that will be affected by this requested change. As Mr. Simonson stated on the street scape, although it does provide a more difficult situation in regard to the setbacks, the street scape itself should not be affected because you do have just the nature of the cul-de-sacs pushing the pad sites back into the property. There are no easements affected by this change and there are about 30 lots involved. Merwin Willman stated the preliminary plat was approved in January, the final plat was approved in June of 1996, now all of a sudden they come up with all these changes. Why did it take so long to figure out there was a problem? Greg San Marco stated the product going out there is the size the slab, and the homes have grown since the initial planning. is not uncommon to plan a 15' as an initial 15' with preliminary plan. The size of the pad sites have increased so cost of the homes have increased to provide an increase in -14- of It the the the e e . value of the neighborhood. Steve Simonson stated from the original proposed homes, the homes desired are getting bigger. The cul-de-sac lots are not conducive to the size homes that the buyers want to put on the lots. As a reminder: all of the lots along the creek have been held out on construction, all along Dove 2 - Dove 4 because of the flood plain problem. We now have the flood plain study that Don McCrary's firm has done for Dove Meadows. It is now in our office getting final consideration. Once this is submitted to FEMA, if FEMA comes back and approves it, all of this area will come out of the flood plain. This will make for the building of the lots that have nothing in them at this time. Leonard Truitt stated the inspection department did a review on the lots they have now, that are pie shaped. If we went to the request that they have submitted they would be violating the side yard setbacks. The inspection department made the recommendation of the 20' front and 15' rear yard setback. This only affects mainly the pie shaped lots in the cul-de-sacs but to keep it uniform across the board would cause less confusion for the inspection department. This will still provide a 10' variance easement for the lots by reducing the requirement for the front and rear setbacks by 5' each. . Merwin Willman stated there was a comment made earlier about larger homes. How do you know what kind of homes are going to go on these lots if the lots are not sold yet? Elene Aiste stated in Dove Meadows Unit 4, other than the FEMA area, all of the cul-de-sacs are sold up to Quiet Creek. On the cul-de-sacs lots, this is where all of the trees are and it is the builders desire to save as many trees as possible. Merwin Willman stated this is the last unit of the subdivision and all of a sudden we have all these problems. Elene Aiste stated that up to this stage, all of the cul-de-sacs were in the FEMA and were not allowed to be built on in Unit 2 and 3. The homes have also gotten bigger than when we first started. Pia Jarman asked how would making the homes bigger save more trees? Elene Aiste stated there are several issues. It makes sense to be able to move the houses closer to the front of the lots, to save the trees in the back. . Leonard Truitt stated in Units 2 and 3 is part of the reason we are having problems with the cul-de-sacs. Because this is the back strip that goes back into Dietz, there is a 10' electrical easement, with this being in the backyards. In Unit 4 the easement is outside the back yards. Somewhere along the line in Unit 3 it makes a flipover. This is part of the problem for the setbacks. -15- e e . Steve Simonson stated this is the power line easement, not the easement for the utilities for inside of these homes. Leonard Truitt stated Dover is making the request on behalf of the inspection department, as it has to be solved now as an overall issue and not to be addressed as individual lots. Gary Wallace asked if the request from the inspection department was for the 15' or 20'. Leonard Truitt stated the request is based on what is seen on the current plan that has already been issued in the cul-de-sac areas. The inspection department is recommending a 20' front yard and 15' rear yard setback still allowing the variance of 10' basically in the pie shaped lots. The straight lots should not be a problem. Steve Simonson stated Units 1, 2, and 3 have 20' front yard setbacks. Gary Wallace moved to disapprove the request from Don McCrary, McCrary and Associates for Vacate and Replat Dove Meadows Unit 4 Cul-de-sacs as submitted for the 15' front yard setback. Pia Jarman seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. #19 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from George Muery Services, Inc. for Preliminary Plat Approval Schertz Bank & Trust. (PC #279-97A) . Steve Simonson stated this is a preliminary plat for Schertz Bank & Trust. There are a few items that need to be corrected. The location map shows Live Oak Boulevard which needs to be changed to Wiederstein Road, the flood plain statement is required, there are two different variable widths for ROW, there needs to be a block number, and the county needs to be corrected for the owner's signature. Pia Jarman moved to approve the Preliminary Plat request submitted by George Muery Services, Inc. for Schertz Bank and Trust with the following provisos: location map correction of street name from Live Oak Boulevard to Weiderstein Road, correction of variable width ROW, inclusion of the flood plain statement, block number and correction of county for the owner's signature. Gary Wallace seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. #20 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from City of Schertz Inspection Department to Reconsider the Bandit Signs on FM 3009 for Scott Felder. (Tabled 2-25-97) (PC #220-97A) Ernie Evans stated this was tabled on 2/25/97 so it will need to be removed from the table before discussion. . Keith Van Dine moved to take from the table the request from City of Schertz Inspection Department to Reconsider the Bandit Signs on FM 3009 for Scott Felder. Tony Moreno seconded the motion which -16- e e 4It carried with a unanimous vote. Before ensuing discussion, Julia Wilkie stated she is a new citizen of Schertz and is with the Texas Transportation Institute Civil Engineer with Traffic Engineering she has offered her professional services in any way needed for the survey that was sent to the citizens. Ms. Wilkie explained her request for speaking up at this point because prior to her departure she wished to commend the Commission on its diligence and professional handling of issues. Returning to the agenda, Steve Simonson stated this is a repeated problem with Scott Felder overusing bandit signs. There is a request from Scott Felder to table the request from the last meeting before the Commission so someone could be present to represent Scott Felder Homes. There is a problem with Scott Felder not placing the signs in the appropriate place and time. Ernie Evans stated at the last meeting it was presented by the inspection department that they have been over to the Scott Felder's office on several occasions and that they have discussed with them about the bandit signs. Leonard Truitt stated this is not only for bandit signs on Dietz Road but also Borgfeld Road. . Kelly Leach stated the gentleman that the letter was addressed to "does work for us but works in a different department and so the letter was put in a file for him and not brought forward to the appropriate person." There is no correspondence from the city since Mr. Leach has taken over about 1 1/2 months ago. So there is not a lot of background for Mr. Leach to follow. Tony Moreno asked if Mr. Leach is in charge of hiring the person who places the bandit signs? Kelly Leach stated "yes" he has been in charge of this for about six weeks. Ernie Evans asked back in 1994 when a letter was submitted by Scott Felder for bandit signs, there is no documentation on this in their file? Mr. Leach stated he could not locate any information in the files. Leonard Truitt stated the original request for bandit signs was from the Scott Felder Company not any individual. Regardless of who is managing it now, this has been a problem throughout the time the approval was made. Leonard stated his recommendation stands not to approve the request for bandit signs because of the violations that continue to happen. Kelly Leach stated he has not seen any information on violations. Leonard stated he has gone to the construction site and verbally informed them of the violations. . Merwin Willman stated it sounds as if we don't know who to contact when there is a problem with bandit signs. -17- . . . e It Steve Simonson stated a letter was sent to all developers because of the proliferation on Schertz Parkway and FM 3009 stating that from the staff point of view "we would come back before the Commission if this did not decease immediately, to request a discontinuation of all bandit signs." Merwin Willman moved to withdraw Scott Felder's request to place bandit signs in the City of Schertz until such time as when they provide the Commission with a point of contact on who is responsible for bandit signs. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. #21 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Homes, for Bandit Signs. Request from Japhet (PC #303-97) Steve Simonson stated items 21, 22, 23, and 24 are those developers that were putting up bandit signs without authorization. In the mad rush of the growth we have had, these were overlooked and we went back to the people to let them know they have to request permission to place bandit signs. Pia Jarman everywhere. stated if all developers know they cannot put signs Steve stated he states in his letter the specifics. Steve Simonson stated we are the first City to limit bandit signs. Recently San Antonio requested our ordinance whether they adopted it or not. This has worked up to now with no problem, but with the proliferation of builders, it has gotten out of hand and the City is looking like junk haven. If this Commission desires to let this continue, the developers will either comply or we will be coming back to you all at every meeting to withdraw applications for bandit signs. Gary Wallace builders do bandit signs. stated as a consensus of the Commission if not comply then there will be complete withdrawal the of The Commission expressed confusion on Flair and Japhet. Leonard Truitt stated Flair and Japhet Homes are one and the same company. Gary Wallace moved to approve the request submitted by Japhet Homes for Bandit Signs. Merwin Willman seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. #22 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Homes, for Bandit Signs. Request from Flair (PC #304-97) Steve Simonson stated this is the same request from the same company but it is for Flair Homes to put bandit signs on FM 3009. Merwin Willman moved to approve the request submitted by Homes, for Bandit Signs. Gary Wallace seconded the motion carried with a unanimous vote. Flair which -18- e e . #23 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Homes, for Bandit Signs. Request from (PC #305-97) Pulte Steve Simonson stated this is a request from Pulte Homes to place bandit signs on FM 3009 in accordinance with our ordinance. Lois Sarantakis stated she is not able to speak for any of the other builders but she will speak for Pulte Homes. At Pulte Homes the marketing manager is in charge of all the signs, whether it be billboard, bandit signs or marketing signs. Bandit signs are illegal and it is very generous of the City of Schertz that it has an ordinance to regulate them. That the City is not against the bandit signs but is willing to work with the builders. There is a company that is hired on the outside that works with Pulte to put up the bandit signs. If this company is not doing a good job, not complying with regulations, they will be fired and another company will be hired. If we keep having problems then we will seek help from the City. There is a contact person but if this person should leave the company for some reason, a letter can be sent to the president of the company. If anyone else is contacted the information will not get carried to the head office. Keith Van Dine moved to approve the request from Pulte Homes for Bandit Signs. Gary Wallace seconded the motion which carried with an unanimous vote. . #24 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Homes, for Bandit Signs. Request from Acclaim (PC #306-97) Steve Simonson stated this is the same request from a different home builder for bandit signs on FM 3009. Wes Nelson stated he is the sales manager and contact person for bandit signs. Tony Moreno moved to approve the request from Acclaim Homes, for Bandit Signs. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion which carried with an unanimous vote. #25 CONSIDER AND DISCUSS: Bandit/Development Signs. Steve Simonson stated the last time a point was brought up about having a sign at each end of on going developments i.e. FM 3009, FM 78, and Schertz Parkway. Thus, to do away with bandit signs with a single sign at each end "Welcome City of Schertz" with the following builders listed. There is a drawing presented by Leonard Truitt as an example of what the sign might look like. There is obviously other ramifications to this who would put up the sign and maintain it, what piece of property it would be on who would pay the property owner to have the sign etc. . This is worth considering in light of all the having with bandit signs and the growing number are getting from our citizens about the -19- problems we are of complaints we cluttered look. e e . Realistically even if every single developer complies with the letter of our ordinance you still have a multitude of signs strung out all along FM 3009. Schertz Parkway is not having a problem right now. As RAYCO will be having an opening on FM 3009 from Unit 4, they may want to put signs on FM 3009 with a legitatmate request. Merwin Willman stated it was mentioned about the land such a would be on and who would pay for it, the maintenance and up and who would change the signs. These are also questions Merwin had, he would hate to have to say it, but it would be City's responsibility. sign keep, that the Steve Simonson stated if the Commission decided this is something they would like to have in place of the bandit signs, this would be something the Commission would have to invite the existing home builders together for and have a special meeting to discuss the situation. To propose something of this nature and to get their input to come to a happy medium would be for the Commission to consider. Obviously, the City is not going to put up a sign advertising builders. There also have been some developers that Mr. Truitt has talked with that know what is going on and how we feel and are willing to look at alternatives. . Gary Wallace stated this is just one more sign. If you are to look in the newspaper all the developers have advertisements with a map showing the location for all the developments. We have no problem with developers putting up signs at the entrance to the development. That particular sign should be stipulated or limited to accommodated all the builders in the area and do away with bandit signs altogether, with a sign at the entrance to the development. Steve Simonson stated this would be the best option with every subdivision standing on its own. Obviously every developer would like to have a million signs. The truth is if all of them play by the same rules, then no one would be getting an unfair advantage. Merwin Willman stated to give everyone an idea he has just counted up all of the builders we have that could put signs on FM 3009 and there are twelve of them. Can you imagine how many signs that will be? . Leonard Truitt stated in speaking with the different builders about signs the primary use of a bandit sign is a directional pointer. It basically points them to the subdivision and is a marker for people to see. This is what the general sign was suggested in lieu of the bandit signs. The signs could be at the end of Schertz Parkway and FM 3009 as a pointer to the subdivisions. Also at the entrance to the subdivisions you would still have the subdivision name with the builder that is in the subdivision. The recommendation would be to charge a fee for a permit, with the builder suppling a plaque to City specifications and then the inspection department would place the plaque on the large joint -20- . . . e e signs for display. This is not a problem with maintaining this as it would be cheaper than having to go out every Monday and pick up all the bandit signs that have been left out or are not where they should be. This would be a cost for the builder. Steve Simonson stated the other issue is, do we need any signs as there is advertising in the Sunday papers and other publications. The question is what do we want to do in the future as far as signs are concerned. Ernie Evans stated if everyone would take the information that has been given in the packet and the information that has been given by Steve and Leonard and consider and firm up suggestions on where to go and how to deal with the bandit signs and be prepared to discuss this at our next meeting. #26 CONSIDER AND DISCUSS: Future Development Schertz Parkway. Ernie Evans stated Pia has taken the time to write a brief summary on the consensus we would like to present to TIF. Pia Jarman stated except for the specifics for which everyone could put in their own comments. She tried to summarize all the opinions into a position statement. Ernie Evans stated that Pia has stated she left out the specifics that we would like to recommend to TIF as specific actions or specific considerations that we would like given to Schertz Parkway, rather than its current position or current option on what should or needs to happen on Schertz Parkway. The P & Z and TIF will now meet on March 24th at 7:00 p.m. We have no more meetings to discuss this before meeting with the TIF. We need to decide relatively quickly tonight what the specifics are that we want to discuss with the TIF group. We all need to know what we are presenting and are we really at a consensus of what we want to recommend for Schertz Parkway. Pia Jarman stated this is just a position paper. What we want to recommend is either a three lane or four lane with a landscaped median. Gary Wallace stated in having thought more about the median which was addressed at being potentially too expensive, in Gary's mind, it still would be the best thing to do with Schertz Parkway: two lanes with a median in the middle with the bike or jogging trails down the median. Merwin and Pia both stated this would be too dangerous. Gary Wallace stated he only mentioned the median because he had visited an area last year where a city had this and it was beautiful. Steve Simonson stated he would like to share an idea. The staff is -21- e e . very strongly opposed to a three lane road but would consider a four lane road. The three lane would not be able to do the job when Schertz Parkway is all built out according to the Police Department and Public Works. A four lane would leave room to do the things that have been discussed, like hiking, biking and jogging trails on one side of the Parkway with pavement on the other side. Between Savannah Drive and Ashley Place there are not going to be any more cuts in the road obviously, unless commercial goes on the other side. This would make for a very long median with quite a few of these along this road. Most of the places with medians limit the commercial business. Merwin Willman stated he doesn't think the median will affect business that bad. Ernie Evans stated if everyone is in agreement for the four lane with a median this is how we will present our feelings for Schertz Parkway to the TIF. Steve Simonson stated he could have a map drawn and done engineers to this effect before the meeting with a 6' shown. by our sidewalk #27 GENERAL DISCUSSION: . Tony Moreno: Tony Moreno stated he had no comments. Keith Van Dine: Keith Van Dine stated if you turn by Shady Acres, there is a trailer on Pfeil Road with water running down the road which looks to be like raw sewage leaking down Pfeil Road. Gary Wallace: Gary Wallace stated he had no comments. Pia Jarman: Pia Jarman stated she had no comments. Merwin Willman: Merwin Willman stated he would like the minutes from the BOA to be able to keep track of their decision on what P & Z has recommended to them. Denise stated she has made up a listing of all the BOA actions and will provide this as the BOA does not meet as often as P & Z so their minutes are not approved on a monthly basis. 4It Councilman Ken Greenwald: Councilman Ken Greenwald stated he had no comments. -22- e e . Steve Simonson: Steve Simonson stated he had no other comments. Ernie Evans: Ernie Evans stated the next Comp Plan meeting will be March the joint meeting with TIF and P & Z will by March 24th, P meeting March 25th, Comp Plan April 1st, Town Meeting April and Town Meeting May 14th if everyone could please attend meetings. 18th, & Z 15th these Ernie Evans stated there is an outstanding list of pending included in the packets. items #28 ADJOURNMENT: Pia Jarman moved to adjourn the meeting. Gary Wallace seconded the motion, which carried with a unanimous vote. Chairman Ernie Evans adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting is March 25, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. . I ,h' I LA" [:'-'1-5 {; Chairman, Planning and Zo ing Commission City of Schertz, Texas . AT~EST: ,- Li ! ,~Gu 9\:. (~rl.Q--I2,,1 -- ~i ' Planning Secretary City of Schertz, Texas -23-