01-28-1997
.
.
.
e
e
PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in regular
session on Tuesday, January 28, 1997 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
MERWIN WILLMAN, SECRETARY
PIA JARMAN
TONY MORENO
KEN GREENWALD, COUNCILMAN
STEVE SIMONSON,
ASST. CITY MANAGER
DENISE GRANGER,
PLANNING SECRETARY
MEMBERS ABSENT
OTHERS PRESENT
GARY WALLACE (OUT OF TOWN)
KEITH VAN DINE (WORK RELATED)
Sam Bledsoe,
MBC Engineers
Kyle Smith,
Byrn Associates
Jeffrey Kester,
Kester Associates
Paul Denham,
W.F. Castella Eng.
# 1 CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Ernie Evans called the January 28, 1997 regular meeting to
order at 7:00 p.m.
#2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Regular Session January 14, 1997.
Merwin Willman moved to approve the Regular Session minutes of
January 14, 1997. Pia Jarman seconded the motion which carried
with a unanimous vote.
#3 STATUS OF FINAL PLATS:
Chairman Ernie Evans stated there were none.
#4 CITIZENS' INPUT OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS:
There were none.
#5
CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from MBC
Engineers for the Preliminary Plat Approval for
Greenshire Unit 7. (PC #296-97)
Steve Simonson stated the three major items that were to be
e
e
.
changed: the one foot non-access easement on lots 1, 13, 14, 25,
26 and 30 is shown, the approximate location of the islands in the
cul-de-sac or street are shown; there is a statement that lots
42-48 will not be constructed until it is recognized that they are
out of the 100 year flood plain, and all the signatures are shown
as required on the check list. Also there is a statement for block
9 lots 33-36 that the rear property line shall be fenced. The
parkland fees have been paid.
Steve Simonson stated for David's information, they have hired a
new construction company for Unit 7. It will not be the same
company that has done Unit 4 and Unit 6 of Greenshire.
Merwin Willman moved to approve the Final Plat for Greenshire Unit
7 submitted by MBC Engineers. Tony Moreno seconded the motion
which carried with a unanimous vote.
Merwin Willman suggested that our inspectors be made aware of the
possibility of a drainage problem in the cul-de-sac of Valencia
Lane, so that we do not have the problem that we had in Woodland
Oaks at Dimrock and Cotton King with the water problem. There may
not be much water there but we need to make sure that there is no
water ending up in lots 36 and 37.
#6
CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from Jeffrey
Kester, Associate for Approval of the Site Plan
for the Guadalupe County Substation.
(PC #298-97)
.
Steve Simonson stated there are three items for consideration with
the letter requesting a variance on the fencing at the rear of the
property. The lighting will be pole lights. There is no landscape
plan attached but item #7 does show where the landscaping will be
going. Item #26 shows that there will be a berm entry sign, but
there are no dimensions or how it will look. These are the three
specific items that are not shown that are required.
Ernie Evans asked between #9 and #10 the total acreage states 50
acres. Is this 50 or 5.0 acres as on the plat it says 5.0 acres?
Steve Simonson stated it should be 5.0 acres.
Ernie Evans stated in the key notes on signs, it appears that there
are five additional signs outside the building in the area between
the walkway and the building. These signs are not identified on
what they are or how they are going to look. There are five signs
noted on the perimeter of the building: three to the west side and
two to the east side of the building.
Steve Simonon stated these are small identification signs for which
departments are to go where in the building.
.
Merwin Willman mentioned on the east side of the building there is
no parking, just a driveway around the building. There also is no
-2-
e
e
. walkway for entrances on the east side of the building.
Ernie Evans stated the request for the variance is to separate the
north and east side of the building from the adjoining property.
The place for the dumpster is at the lower section of the building.
This is shown as a three sided enclosure. Steve Simonson stated
the dumpster has to be screened only from the street side.
.
.
Tony Moreno mentioned on recent site plans that have been done, the
dumpsters have had gates so it is completely enclosed.
David Richmond stated on item #31 directional arrows shown on the
asphalt, there are two to the east side of the building clearly
showing the right hand turn after coming in from Elbel Road, but it
seems there should be one on the other side on the northwest corner
to preclude someone from coming in and turning left.
Jeff Kester stated the flow of traffic is going to be reversed from
that shown because of this concern. The one way traffic is going
to start and come down towards Elbel Road. The arrows are going to
be shown on the pavement and also there is going to be some signage
stating "One way. Do not enter".
Ernie Evans asked the dimensions of the berm sign?
stated the berm sign has not been detailed as of yet.
15' in length and 4' off the ground.
Jeff Kester
It will be
Ernie Evans asked what the proposed landscape would be? Jeff
Kester stated originally the sign was different but the building
was going to be in the flood plain line. Now the building has been
redesigned on the lot to be out of the flood plain to the east of
the property line. Prior to this change the landscape plan was 90%
complete but was put on hold because of the change in the location
of the building. There is going to be ground cover, shrubbery.
There will be some landscaping around the berm sign and around the
dumpster with the rest of the area being grass.
Merwin Willman asked if there were going to be any other entries to
the building other than the one? Jeff Kester stated there are
several entrances to the building. Each of the departments has its
own entrance on the outside of the building with three departments
on the east side and two on the west side of the building. There
will be a public entrance at the front of the building and a public
lobby on the west side by the court room. There will also be an
entrance at the rear of the building for juvenile probation use.
Merwin Willman asked if the entrances on the east side are public
entrances or entrances for employees? Jeff Kester stated the one
on the west side is the tax assessor collector entrance, the middle
is the adult probation entrance, at the upper left is the juvenile
probation. There is a covered walkway at the front for public use
or drivers can drop people off and then park. At the rear of the
building there is a public entrance. There will be no parking
signs for the public to see there is no parking. Because the
-3-
e
e
.
building had to be moved out of the flood plain the parking had to
be sacrificed. With the parking at the rear this was to help
compensate for the no parking on the east side of the building.
Ernie Evans asked why the lights are 30.5' in height? Jeff Kester
stated the electrical engineer designed it so all the area would be
well lighted to prevent any problems. There are state regulations
on lighting.
Councilman Ken Greenwald stated any county, or state building is
required to have a certain amount of lighting, walkways, and
entrances by law.
Ernie Evans asked what the rationale is for the letter requesting a
variance for the screening issue.
.
Jeff Kester stated essentially the building is on a site that was
split in two. The County bought the west end leaving the other
side as a grassy field. "We are not screening this side as it is
an open space. Unless there is a true necessity we would not like
to put a fence in this area". It would be costly to the County if
there was a green area. This would be unsightly. The building is
going to be a very attractive building and they don't want to cover
it up. There is no parking on this side of the building so there
will be no head lights shining on the property at night if it is
developed later. Even though this is a requirement in the UDC, "we
were hoping for a waiver on this requirement. If this was an area
developed with houses, apartments, etc. we would put up a fence".
Merwin
which
before
business
not mean
zoning on
Willman mentioned that the adjoining property is zoned R-1
is residential. This particular property was also zoned R-1
it was rezoned. The requirement is that any type of
abutting a residential area will be screened. This does
the residential area has to be built already but the
the property is residential.
Merwin Willman asked if the fencing on the northern part of
property is the existing fence from Greenfield Village?
Kester stated "yes" this is the existing fencing from
development.
the
Jeff
that
Ernie Evans stated it shows that there is 250' from the back of the
property to the existing fence. There wouldn't be a problem in
this area. The area that there is a problem is the east side as
this is zoned R-l and the request is to not have screening on that
side.
.
Merwin Willman stated when he first looked at this plat he was
under the impression that there was only going to be traffic to get
around the building and there was not going to be any stop and go.
In hearing tonight on how this is going to work there is going to
be a lot of stop and go traffic on that side of the building, even
if there is no parking, there is going to be traffic. There also
is a loading area on this side of the building and two entrances.
-4-
.
.
.
e
e
Jeff Kester stated there is a foot and half buffer between the curb
and the property line along this roadway. Could a living buffer
with shrubbery be planted or small trees to help screen the area?
This would still make it close enough to the irrigation line that
the screening would get water and not die. To take it from
property corner to property corner with a living buffer would be
very costly. If the Commission would approve this it would help.
Merwin Willman stated this would have to be a variance. Steve
Simonson stated this is why there is a letter requesting some type
of variance as they are well aware of the screening requirements.
Pia Jarman stated this is what we did with the Credit Union. We
waived the solid fencing and then specified that they could put in
a "living" buffer.
Pia Jarman asked how many signs would there be? Jeff Kester stated
there would be one berm sign at the entrance and small plaque signs
indicating each department about five feet high, with the base of
the signs landscaped.
Merwin Willman stated on #11 it should indicate the number of signs
and their size.
Ernie Evans asked about the directional sign at the south of the
building toward Elbel, pointing traffic left or right. If cars are
parked in this area, will there be some indication on the pavement
on how the traffic should flow? Jeff Kester stated the sign would
have to be the same size and height as the departmental signs so it
would be seen over the vehicles parked.
Pia Jarman asked if the Commissioners are agreed on the variance
for the fencing or is this still an item of discussion.
Merwin Willman stated this will be discussed after the site plan as
a separate item. Pia asked should this request on the fencing not
be part of the site plan? Ernie Evans stated it should be. As we
have discussed before, the site plan is the master plan, the thing
that kicks everything off. If it is not required on the site plan,
where would it be? All of the issues discussed as far as the
fencing, the signs, the direction of traffic are all part of the
site plan.
Steve Simonson stated from a staff and planning records point of
view with the amount of changes that have been mentioned on this
site plan, that they resubmit the site plan with all of the
changes. This would include showing what all the signs would look
like, the redirection of the traffic flow with the arrows, the
landscaping, and the living buffer.
Ernie Evans stated this would be his recommendation based on what
Steve has mentioned. Ernie Evans stated the changes that need to
be made are: the correct acreage, the traffic flow, description
and sizes of the departmental signs, directional sign, landscape
-5-
e
e
.
and fencing on the east side, 1 1/2' area between the road
property line, and the size width and height of the entry sign
Elbel Road.
and
on
Councilman Ken Greenwald asked how far the living fence would have
to be?
Jeff Kester stated the length of the building towards Elbel working
up to ground cover.
Ernie Evans stated his opinion to Mr. Greenwald's question is that
the living fence should extend up to the back square parking area
down to the end of the parking lot, to the corner curb and the
front of Elbel Road.
Pia Jarman moved to disapprove the Site Plan for the Guadalupe
County Substation submitted by Jeffrey Kester & Associates
requesting a new site plan be submitted containing the following:
correction on the acreage; change of the directional arrows; show
examples and dimensions of all signs; the buffer fencing on the
east side be shown as a green living fence; and the landscape
plan. David Richmond seconded the motion which carried with a
unamious vote.
.
Ernie Evans stated for the record being that the site plan
submitted was disapproved, the variance does not need to be
formally addressed at this time because it accompanied the site
plan. It can be resubmitted with the corrected site plan as a
separate item.
#7
CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from
Associates, for the Final Plat Approval
Guadalupe County Substation. (PC #298-97)
Byrn
for
Steve Simonson stated the block number and the width of Elbel ROW
are all shown. A sewer line that runs diagonally across this has
been located and will need to be added to the final mylars. It
runs on an angle from one man hole to the other man hole and this
is where the 16' easement will be put in. This will not be near
the building or affect anything. In looking at the site plan and
the plat, the building is very far away from where the man hole is
from the street. It is to the east. A small portion of the
driveway may impact this but will have no bearing on this easement.
Pia Jarman asked if the property north of the plat is that of the
residents in Greenfield Village? Steve Simonson stated "yes" this
is the Greenfield Village Subdivision.
Ernie Evans asked
of the proposed
create a problem?
problem.
if the 10' utility easement around the east side
street (as it comes around the building) will
Steve Simonson stated "no" this would not be a
.
Merwin Willman moved to approve the final plat for the Guadalupe
-6-
e
e
.
County Substation submitted by Byrn Associates. Pia Jarman
seconded the motion which carried with a unamious vote.
#8
CONSIDER AND
TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request
Continental Homes, for Approval of
Preliminary Plat for Carolina Crossing Unit
(PC #299-97)
from
the
2.
Steve
notes,
backing
shown.
common
Simonson stated the item of attention, as mentioned in his
is on the second sheet. The beginning of the greenbelt
up to Deer Heaven which was part of the master plan is
There is the note that this is not in the flood plain. The
areas will be owned by the HOA.
Ernie Evans stated this being part of a gated community, the gate
details will need to be shown on the plat also.
Ernie Evans asked if there would need to be non-access easements in
block 4? Steve Simonson stated this is a gated community and the
streets are private streets.
Ernie Evans asked if the separation between homes of 15' should be
noted? Steve Simonson stated it can be put on very easily but it
was approved at the time of the master plan.
.
Ernie Evans stated on sheet two the drainage easement coming off
the back street into the open space protecting Deer Haven: where
is this drainage going?
Paul Denham stated in the master plan this area was being left open
for any drainage that would have come off of Antler Drive and
"allow it to come through to our property." Once the engineers went
back out to the site there was such a small amount of drainage that
the drainage easement will not be needed, as it will all drain back
out towards Schertz Parkway. This will be a recommendation at the
final plat stage no remove this easement.
Merwin Willman stated there are no street names.
Merwin Willman moved to approve the preliminary plat for Carolina
Crossing Unit 2 submitted by Continental Homes contingent upon the
submission of the gate detail, street names, and the notation of
15' between homes. Tony Moreno seconded the motion which carried
with a unanimous vote.
#9 GENERAL DISCUSSION:
Tony Moreno:
Tony Moreno stated he had no comments.
. Pia Jarman:
Pia Jarman stated she had no comments.
-7-
e
e
. Merwin Willman:
Merwin Willman asked Steve if the letter to the developers that is
sent on final approval on a plat is a form letter? Steve Simonson
stated the letters are each typed up individually. Merwin stated
the reason he asked is there is one item that should be added in
reference to Article XI Section XI regarding final plats: that
when construction is not started within one year, the plat will be
terminated. This would be a good warning to the developers. They
are allowed one sixth month extension. There are a few plats that
are almost a year old and nothing has been done with the
properties.
David Richmond:
David Richmond asked if we have ever heard from anyone from ReMax
about their grand office building? Steve Simonson stated "no" and
they have moved into a building in Live Oak. There was another
gentleman that came in and was going to make a few changes to the
plat but to date nothing has happened.
Councilman Ken Greenwald:
.
Councilman Ken Greenwald commented on the presentation that was
done by John Bierschwale. The citizens and owners of the GUADCO
MUD #2 somehow have lost control so they have contacted Schertz to
do the maintenance in the billing for at least six months until we
find out what the real numbers are. If this proves out then we
will take it over which will help.
Councilman Ken Greenwald stated there are plans for water on
several different options. The only concern is for the City to be
in control. CRWA is doubling their plant size to handle from two
million gallons a day to about eight million gallons a day.
Everything they are making now they are selling. There were times
this past summer CRWA was operating on more than the two million a
day. There were some odor and taste problems because of the over
capacity of pumping.
Councilman Ken Greenwald stated we have a letter of agreement with
GBRA to by 1,000 acre feet of water. Ideally it would have been to
contract with New Braunfels. Let them process add about one mile
stretch of their line and tie it into our 12" line and we would
have water. This would not be cheap. Unfortunately their lines
and the plant would have to be paid for upgrading. We are still
looking at doing our own treatment. At this time there are a lot
of things going on with the water issue. The City has agreed to
pay $5,000.00 to the Edwards Aquifer to pay the farmers not to
irrigate. Edwards had a greater response than they had
anticipated.
.
David Richmond
Councilman Ken
at 6:00 p.m.
asked when the FM 78 public hearing would be held.
Greenwald stated it would be held on February 13th
at the Municipal Complex. Steve Simonson stated
-8-
e
e
. everyone will be notified before the meeting.
Steve Simonson:
Steve Simonson stated in the FYI section of the packets there is a
pretty good description of the Tele Communications Act of 1996 with
some of the items that the City will be facing and the Commission
will be facing with planning hats and zoning hats.
Steve Simonson handed out information he had received from the MPO
meeting he had attended on ozone levels. The changes the EPA is
trying to make with the ozone levels. There is no true scientific
data on ozone levels. The proposal coming out of Washington
completely negates any consideration on economic damage in
considering this new change to ozone levels. The cost to each
individual and business is considerable. The changes that would
have to take place if we have to go to this level of change would
be non attainment, changes in our federal dollars, changes in how
business do business. Changes that are being made are very drastic
changes.
Steve Simonson handed out TXDOT's sheet on environmental flow plan
showing how long it takes for plans to be processed.
.
Steve Simonson referred to his notes to the Commission on the
resurgence of North Cliffe. They have an approved plat. This is
in error because back in 1993 there was an amendment to the
subdivision ordinance stating that a plat for which construction
has not begun within two years, the final plat is null and void.
Steve will be contacting the people involved and advising them that
they will have to come back to us and start the process over.
Merwin Willman stated at the last meeting Steve gave the Commission
a draft of the TIF meeting. One of the items is the rezoning of
the general business along Schertz Parkway. This should not wait
to be done. This needs to be done just as soon as possible. If a
request for residential should come before us what are we going to
tell them. They have to stay back the 500'? This should be looked
at now and decided what is going to be done and make a
recommendation to City Council and hold a public hearing by next
month.
Steve Simonson stated the Commission was going to give him some
direction and Steve would go back to Mark Marquez and decide on a
joint meeting for discussion.
Merwin
Parkway
ideas.
Willman stated the Commission needs to discuss Schertz
future development so that Steve can go back to Mark with
.
Ernie Evans stated he agrees with Merwin but a public hearing can
not be held as it is not on our agenda. Ernie asked for the
request to be put on the agenda for the Commission's next meeting.
-9-
e
e
.
Pia Jarman agreed with Merwin whether we resolve anything or not we
should think about this and discuss it among ourselves. The joint
meeting would not be the place for the Commissioners to argue among
themselves. We should put it on the agenda but we should not hold
a public hearing until we have had a joint meeting with TIF.
Ernie Evans asked Steve when would be the next opportunity to have
a meeting with the TIF? Steve stated he would have to find out as
they only meet once a month. Steve stated that the Commission
should put this item on the February 11th meeting as a discussion
item.
Ernie Evans:
Ernie Evans reminded the Commission that in the month of February
there is a meeting being held every Tuesday night with either a P &
Z meeting or Comp Plan meeting.
Ernie Evans stated he has noticed a couple of portable signs on
Schertz Parkway on registration on youth activities and also the
mention of speed limit changes and stop signs.
.
Ernie Evans mentioned in the documentation given on the Tele
Communications towers, is the information given significant enough
that it should be incorporated into the UDC. Steve Simonson stated
"yes" and he would be bringing into the Commission a sample of an
application and material to consider for inclusion to our UDC
concerning the towers.
Ernie Evans stated he would like a thank you at the Council meeting
to all of John's people for getting the surveys out as it helped
cut a lot of costs on sending out the surveys. The way that they
were sent out should increase the number of returns.
Ernie Evans asked the current status of Forest Ridge? Steve
Simonson stated the roads are under construction and utilities are
being put in.
Ernie Evans
small portion
Parkway?
asked what Carolina Crossing is going to do with the
of property that is general business on Schertz
Steve Simonson stated it would be fenced in with wooden privacy
fencing and the business that would go in there would have to put
up the masonry fence. At this time there is no business and it is
not up to the homeowner to install masonry fencing.
Merwin Willman stated that Carolina Crossing does not
property. Steve Simonson stated "yes" this is true
Crossing does not own that property.
own that
Carolina
.
Steve Simonson stated in the ordinance, a business is the one that
puts the masonry fence in to block off the business from the
residential area. In looking at the area the business is located
-10-
e
e
. at the end of a cul-de-sac.
#10 ADJOURNMENT:
Merwin Willman moved to adjourn the meeting. David Richmond
seconded the motion, which carried with a unanimous vote.
Chairman Ernie Evans adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
The next regularly scheduled meeting is February 11.
1997.
.
f"-;C
/~ ,
',__/L,Vv'-,
~..
-71/, >. /", 1'-
I /c... L--~ ~"""""'!
Commission
Chairman, Planning and
ATTEST:
.
.1\\ c ,'/
'\ f ., - L i ' ,
( " ,l, 1" .r,',. \.' 1.....1/, ,/' I
\ ',.",;./11\ /\../\!~./ / \.I! (' J/~/I
~.':.:l-"" \,'"-' ~"?" ,,'I' '~". _/
Planning secre'~ary~' ~ ,
City of Schertz, Texas
-11-