Loading...
05-28-1996 . . . e e PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in regular session on Tuesday, May 28, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Complex Conference Room, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas. Those present were as follows: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CITY STAFF PIA JARMAN, CHAIRWOMAN DAVID RICHMOND, VICE-CHAIRMAN MERWIN WILLMAN, SECRETARY TONY MORENO KEITH VAN DINE ERNIE EVANS KEN GREENWALD, COUNCILMAN STEVE SIMONSON, ASST. CITY MANAGER DENISE GRANGER, PLANNING SECRETARY MEMBERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT GARY WALLACE (Out of Town) Greg San Marco, McCrary & Assoc. Carl Bain, Bain, Medina, Bain Blayde Seiler, Victoria Bank ATM Kip Cofield, Victoria Bank ATM Dee McGee, Mgr. Greenshire Assoc. Mike Lancaster, Lancaster Develop. Ester Sherman, Sparkle Car Wash 11 CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Pia Jarman called the May 28, 1996 regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 12 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Due to computer Minutes of the Regular Session of the Impact available. problems, followed by the printer Public Hearing of May 14, 1996 and were not ready at this time. However, Fee Advisory Board Board April 29, down time, subsequent the Minutes 1996 were Tony Moreno moved to approve the April 29, 1996 Impact Fee Advisory Board minutes. David Richmond seconded the motion which carried as follows: . . . . e AYES: Pia Jarman, Ernie Evans, Merwin Willman, Keith Van Dine, Tony Moreno. NAYS: None. ABSTENTIONS: David Richmond. (Absent from Arpil 29, 1996 meeting). 13 STATUS OF FINAL PLATS: Chairwoman Pia Jarman stated the final plats signed for May: Bradfute Subdivision and Windy Meadow Phase II. 14 CITIZENS' INPUT OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: There were none. 15 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from Mike Lancaster to Rezone approximately 10.2 acres between Woodland Oaks Drive and Dimrock from NS (Neighborhood Services) to R-6 (Single Family Dwelling District). (ZC #133-96) Steve Simonson stated the last time this was requested was for a R-5B. As our ordinance states you can not request the same rezoning for twelve (12) months so at this time the request is for R-6 gated community. There will be a 50' ROW, and the lots will be 55' wide with a break away gate. Merwin Willman quoted paragraph 3.3 Article XXIII in the ordinance on time limitations. "If a petition for rezoning is denied by either the Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council, another petition for reclassification of the same property or any portion thereof shall not be filed within twelve months from the date of denial". The key part to this "is the reclassification of the same property or any portion there of". Pia Jarman reiterated this ordinance states "reclassification of the same property". Merwin Willman agreed with Pia. Tony Moreno stated at the last meeting we talked about not having the R-5B. It seemed to Tony that the consensus was that if the developer came back, the Commission would reconsider the request even though we were not aware of the wording in the ordinance. The Commission did not bring this up at the last meeting and it was left open that Mr. Lancaster could come back before the Commission. Pia Jarman stated the law is the law. If the Commission was clear on the ordinance it was our mistake on not advising Lancaster of this. The ordinance that Merwin Willman has just means we cannot go against that, now that we know. not Mr. read Steve Simonson stated the word "reclassification" can be interpreted in several different ways. In trying to reclassify the same piece of land and do the same thing is one reclassification, coming in for a whole different zoning is a different -2- e e . reclassification with the interpretation going either way. If the Commission feels the ordinance is stating this is the same type of "reclassification" then Steve accepted the application in error and made a mistake. Mike Lancaster stated his understanding was that he was not allowed to come back and request the R-5B again for twelve months, but could come back for a different rezoning. David Richmond asked Merwin Willman to please reread the ordinance again. Merwin reread the ordinance. David stateded it sounds pretty clear to him that this is a reclassification. Ernie Evans stated on the check list which is supposed to be built around the request on item #4 location of land proposed for "reclassification", this is the same word. Keith Van Dine stated he is in agreement with Steve on how you interpret the word "reclassification". At the last meeting Keith stated he did make a statement that anything that was brought in by Mr. Lancaster, that we would reconsider but there was no guarantees. Now, however, with Merwin bringing up this ordinance to our attention this creates a different opinion. The Commission needs to stand by what is written in the ordinance and we need to stay consistent. On the other hand you could look at this being a whole new presentation. . Merwin Willman read from the book on language on zoning, in the glossary on words and phrases "reclassification": a form of rezoning in which zoned designation of an area or particular property is changed by changing the zoning map. Pia Jarman asked Steve Simonson what his interpretation is what would he consider a reclassification? . Steve Simonson stated at the last meeting there was no reclassification Mr. Lancaster was denied his request for R-5B so the zoning of the property is identical to what it was five years ago. Steve stated his interpretation was when Mr. Lancaster was turned down for R-5B, no R-5B could be resubmitted for that piece of property again for twelve (12) months. If someone were to come in for a different reclassification of the land, which has not been reclassified within the past twelve (12) months, in other words it has not changed the zoning, it would be O.K. to come in again as long as it was not the same zoning and no zoning had been changed or reclassified for the past twelve (12) months. Otherwise every time someone came for a zoning change and it is turned down you have effectively killed that property for twelve (12) months. "Reclassification" means that you have to actively change the map, if a map has not been changed then nothing has been done. At this point what you have done is gone in and stated R-5B is not compatible in that zoning in the front of Woodland Oaks. This was the gist of the Commission's final discussion. -3- e e . Merwin Willman stated his interpretation of that was not so much zoning as it was the gated community in front of Woodland Oaks. The zoning R-5B was minor to the classification for a gated community. Also that the Commission might possibly consider or think about the area if it was not a gated community. Pia Jarman stated she agreed with Merwin Willman, this was also her impression. She said at that meeting the gated community on the other side, Berry Creek, was brought up and the Commissioners felt Beery Creek went into the street and not sitting right in front of an existing subdivision. Merwin Willman mentioned the other gated communities have nothing to do with this one this one sits on its own. Keith Van Dine asked Steve Simonson if this property was to change hands does this mean this property is dead for twelve (12) months. Steve Simonson stated under what Merwin Willman has read, this is his understanding, if we were to go by this today. If someone were to sell this property, but it does not say if the same person can do it. It just states a petition for "reclassification" can not be resubmitted for twelve (12) months. If this is in error Mr. Lancaster will be refunded his money. . Ernie Evans commented that the piece of paper submitted is a petition. Pia Jarman stated anyone one that petition. This being a petition. on the petition from it says "zoning/rezoning" so submits this form, this would be considered a is what Ernie Evans stated "the paper submitted" Ernie Evans stated this is how the current law reads. Ernie stated he does understand Steve's statement also. But with the opinion on what Merwin has brought forward Ernie has a difficult time with it in terms of interpreting the law or rule. Ernie finds that "reclassification" here, however, in what Steve is saying, makes a certain amount of sense. Because, for example there is a vast piece of property that could be looked at that could be classified something today, that needs to be looked at, and the intent of the law was not to stop all action on everything once something has been denied forever. At this time we need to consider tabling this request until the Commission can have a definition of this ordinance looked at by the City Attorney with some type of assessment made as to what is or is not in regard to this law. . David Richmond stated he is in agreement with Ernie in getting the assessment from the City Attorney. Trying to think if in the last couple of years we might have either established a precedent or if we ruled contrary to the ordinance with would have us be inconsistent with a prior ruling, David mentioned he cannot recall when the Commission has disapproved a request for rezoning and turned right around and considered a subsequent one. While we may not have had the request within a twelve month period, we also -4- . . . e e haven't acted on one unknowingly. The key here is, as Keith pointed out, to be consistent in our interpretation. It would probably be in the best interest of the City and the potential developer for us to seek recommendation from the City Attorney as to the interpretation of that particular paragraph. The interpretation could be that, in fact, we do just as it suggests literally which is that we freeze the piece of property for twelve (12) months if we turn down a rezoning petition. Pia Jarman asked the Commissioners if they wish to table this action until there is legal counsel. Ernie Evans stated there needs to be interpretation beyond our own interpretation. To act in accordance with what it says or table until we can ascertain that there is an option and what is the interpretation of the law is. Keith Van Dine moved to table the request submitted by Mike Lancaster to rezone approximately 10.2 acres between Woodland Oaks Drive and Dimrock from NS (Neighborhood Services) to R-6 (Single Family Dwelling District) until legal interpretation from the City Attorney is received. Ernie Evans seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. Mike Lancaster asked the Commission if the residents of Woodland Oaks want a gated community in front of them would the Commission have a problem going along with the gated community? Pia Jarman advised if at the public hearing there is no objection, there will be reconsideration on issue of gating. Mike Lancaster stated in hearing how the Commission feels, it seems to him he is going to have to go out to the homeowners to get their support and prove to the Commission they want this in their neighborhood. Pia Jarman stated the motion was made that there will need to clear legal interpretation for the word "reclassification" as have a division on how the word should be interpreted. This be have to be done first. a we will Mike Lancaster asked how long this would be Steve advised him he would try to have some answer by Thursday. David Richmond stated that the literal interpretation of the ordinance to him is that the Commission cannot act upon a repeat petition that we cannot act on a repeat request for rezoning within a twelve (12) month period on the same piece of property. This has significant ramifications for this Commission for the future, given the rapid development of the City. We are very sorry to inconvenience Mr. Lancaster and we probably did leave him with some inappropriate guidance at the last meeting. But given the paragraph that Merwin has brought to our attention it is in the best interest of the City to seek that guidance and David -5- . . . e e interprets this issue is different from most legal consideration that this Commission had had to deal with before, in the significance of something of this magnitude. The twelve (12) month limitation has a lot of effect on this. Councilman Ken Greenwald stated the intent of this when it written was they didn't want someone coming in every 30 days the same petition. This was the only interpretation. Commission is correct in going back to the Attorney clarification, at the same time to review the UDC. A lot of items were taken verbatim. was with The for the 16 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from Bain Medina Bain, Inc. for Site Plan Approval for Victoria Bank and Trust ATM Site. (PC #256-96) Steve Simonson stated this is an ATM site next to the existing drainage channel on FM 3009 where FM 3009 was widened. This is south of Circle Oak. It will be a single ATM machine drive-through similar in construction with the one on FM 78 in Cibolo. The light poles that are proposed to be outside are indicated. There isn't a lot of shrubbery around it because of security reasons. It does meet the 50' building set back as required in our ordinance on the overlay district for FM 3009. The signs are only going to be on the buildings. There is a 45' wide approach which had to be approved by the highway department. This area is zoned as Office/Professional. Pia Jarman asked if the exact location had to be placed on the location map as it isn't currently. Steve advised that, yes, it had to be. Steve Simonson stated the legend is showing the lighting around the building but there is not indication on the signage with lighting. Merwin Willman Steve Simonson property. asked if the property will have to be subdivided. stated that they are going to be leasing this Merwin Willman Simonson stated state. asked if the 45' curb cut was that the authority for this sufficient. Steve comes through the David Richmond moved to approve the request submitted from Bain, Medina, Bain, Inc, for site plan for Victoria Bank and Trust ATM site on FM 3009 with the proviso that the exact location of the ATM be indicated on location map, and site picture showing the proper lighting for the building and signage be included. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. 17 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from Don McCrary, McCrary & Associates for Final Plat Approval for Dove Meadows Unit 4. (PC #256-96). -6- . . . e e Steve Simonson stated they have added a change to the existing drainage easement on property they do not own, coming from FM 3009. The property is owned by Mr. Jessie Hellems. It used to be the drainage before we switched the drainage to the straight 280' drainage ROWand this was a switch between Mr. Hellems and the City of Schertz. This will have to be corrected and to be accepted by the City. Mr. Hellems would have to be a signatory on the plat because his property is being affected by the change. This is a minor change. The drainage is already there and they are proposing to put a water line that will then carryover to Dove Meadows Unit 4, part of the looping system that is required for a watering system. This will be a water main. This is actually a change off the existing property. The other drainage utility easement coming into our existing 180' ROW is not a problem as this belongs to the City. The other minor item right below FM 3009, the name needs to be changed to Roy Richard Drive. Merwin Willman asked if the drainage was not on the preliminary why did they put it on the final? Steve Simonson stated with the water system we were not sure of the looping at that time. The water line will be run from FM 3009 to the drainage channel to the back. This is actually looping the water system from Units 2, 3, and 4. Merwin between showing why was Willman asked on Sandy Ridge Circle there is a difference this and the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat is Sandy Ridge Circle coming down farther than the cut off, this changed? Greg San Marco stated in the preliminary plat Dove Meadows Unit 3 was a very small portion of the development with Dove Meadows Unit 2. Everything that you see was in Dove Meadows Unit 2. In Dove Meadows Unit 3 there was some minor street improvements and the construction of the street was picked up in Dove Meadows Unit 3 already. So in Dove Meadows Unit 4 the preliminary plat showed the construction because the other portion was picked up in Unit 3. Ernie Evans mentioned that the flood plain statement date is incorrect. Ernie Evans moved to disapprove the final plat request submitted from Don McCrary, McCrary & Associates for Dove Meadows Unit 4 for the following reasons: correction is needed on the flood plain statement date, Roy Richard Drive, and addition of signatory block for the utility easement. Merwin Willman seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. 18 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from Don McCrary, McCrary & Associates for Preliminary Plat Approval for Ashley Place Unit 4. (PC #273-96) Steve Simonson stated the engineers have included the match line -7- e e . showing that this goes out to FM 3009. There will be 42' wide streets. This will be coming out by Autumn Winds by their right hand existing driveway. This does conform with the master plan and will finish up the subdivision. Merwin Willman property have shown. asked if the property owners on both sides of to be shown. Steve Simonson stated they should the be Merwin Willman stated with this subdivision being a little different than others, should the l' non access easement be put on the south side of Ashley Oaks Drive, lots 39 - 44? Steve Simonson agreed with Merwin. On the north side there will be driveways coming into that. All the lots south should have the l' non access easement. Ernie Evans asked if we should not request lot 35 out to FM 3009 to have the l' non access easement. Steve Simonson stated he would advise not to do that as Autumn Winds is going to want access to the road also and the adjacent property owners would as well. There should only be one or two cutouts into that road. Ernie Evans stated the l' non access easement should be in block 12, lots 45, 56, 57, 67, 68, 76, block 9 lots 8 and 30, on the north side of Ashley Oaks Drive. . Tony Moreno moved to approve the preliminary plat for Ashley Place Unit 4 submitted by Don McCrary, McCrary & Associates with the proviso for the following shwon: the l' non access easement in block 12, lots 45, 56, 57, 67, 68, 76; block 8 lot 30; block 9 lot 8, on the north side of Ashley Oaks Drive, and that the surrounding property owners be identified. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion which carried with with a unanimous vote. 19 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from Carleton Sherman, Sparkle Car Wash, 310 FM 78 for a variance to the Sign Ordinance. (PC #274-96) Steve Simonson stated there is no new information since his notes. This is just a temporary sign until the ROW is known and then Mr. Sherman will work with putting up a permanent sign. With no one knowing where the ROW is, there's no way of knowing the boundaries. Ernie Evans asked how far outside of the ordinance are we stepping for this request? Steve stated all the way due to the circumstances. . Steve Simonson stated the ordinance has been relatively enforced all of this time. There is also a moratorium in the affected area. Mr. Sherman has come and talked with him and Steve had advised him he would need to make the request to the P & Z Commission. In his letter Mr. Sherman is stating exactly what he wants for the Commission's consideration. -8- e e . Merwin Willman asked if we know how long it is going to be before the City is given a ROW map? Steve stated no, not at this time. Merwin Willman stated this business has been there a good many years without a sign out front. Steve Simonson business. Mrs. reiterated that the Shermans have just bought the Sherman agreed they had just bought the business. Merwin Willman stated there is not a sign on the building, other than the name of the business, what will the sign be used for. Mrs. Sherman stated the sign is only going to be used for the name of the business so people would know that it was there. Merwin Willman asked why couldn't the name be put on the building? Mrs. Sherman stated she is not sure. She would have to ask her husband. Merwin Willman stated the business has been there a number of years and there seems to be plenty of business without a portable sign. Merwin Willman stated he could not visualize any hardship being created by not having the portable sign as according to the ordinance. David Richmond asked if the business was 24 hours a day, 7 day a week operation. Mrs. Sherman said "yes". David Richmond stated then the hours of operation will not have to be posted on the portable sign. This is a self use business. . Pia Jarman mentioned there is another car wash on Main Street and they do not have a sign either. Merwin Willman commented that there also is one on FM 1518 that does not have a sign. They all seem to be well known and they seem to all be well used. In going back to the request form, there are four items to consider. As far as Merwin can determine from the sign request in the letter, it is more of a convenience for the owner to put a portable sign out to advertise the name. David Richmond stated there also was a sign request months ago from Randy Burch who put a sign on his building, but opted to concur with us in deferring his request for a big sign until after the ROW, visibility with change in elevation etc., all of this was established. Similar consistency to this request in that Mr. Sherman does mention in his letter after the determination of the ROW, that a fixed sign to comply with City Code, would be displayed. We could request that Mr. Sherman consider putting a sign on his building before determination of the ROW if this is important to him. Otherwise he should wait until the ROW is established and he has a better idea on what type of permanent sign he would like to display. . Pia Jarman asked if in fact while ago, did we not disapprove a sign on FM 78 for Ashley Place? Steve Simonson stated that was true for a temporary sign for Ashley Place. This is a different situation as this sign will be on Mr. Sherman's property, but because of the moratorium Mr. Sherman was advised to make a request to the -9- e e . Commission. Councilman Ken Greenwald stated part of the problem is, if anyone was to drive FM 78 going east you do not know that the business is there until you are right upon it as it is blocked by Sonic, and Church's. Coming west you have a little better view. Merwin Willman moved to recommend disapproval of the request submitted from Carleton Sherman, Sparkle Car Wash 310 FM 78 for a variance to the sign ordinance. Granting an approval would only serve as a convenience to the petitioner and it would not alleviate a hardship by the presence of the sign. Ernie Evans seconded the motion which carried as follows: AYES: David Richmond, Merwin Willman, Ernie Evans, Tony Moreno. NAYS: Pia Jarman, Keith Van Dine. ABSTENTIONS: None. 110 GENERAL DISCUSSION: Tony Moreno: Tony Moreno stated he had no comments. Keith Van Dine: . Keith Van Dine stated he had no comments. Ernie Evans: Ernie Evans asked when Steve gets to his comments to up date Commission on the UDC and are there any plans yet on Comprehensive Plan. Also what the clearing is on Live Oak since they have started tearing out all of the undergrove. the the Road Steve Simonson stated the property on Live Oak Road is owned by one individual who is on the School Board Mr. Ollie Burkett. He has bought all 14 acres. He would like some day to develop it but at this time he is only clearing it to see what the property is and fill in some large eroded areas. He has been informed that before he can do anything, he has to come before the Commission unless he wants to make an R-2 lot in a 14 acre area. Ernie Evans asked Steve if he ever heard back from Paragon Cable on the boxes in Savannah Square that were put in the middle of the sidewalk. Steve Simonson stated Paragon Cable had not responded. Steve Simonson advised he did go to the Public Works who are in charge of this and they advised they did not see a problem. . Merwin Willman: Merwin Willman stated it appears there is an increase in requests for gated communities in our area. It appears that for the -\0- . . . · e. builders and deve~pers, this is the prime terrltory for gated communities. Merwin would like to suggest slowing them down a little bit by having some restrictions, other than what we have right now on the Homeowners Association. A suggestion that we restrict a gated community to a minimum of 200 acres (which could be negotiable). It must be zoned as R-6, must have two entrances/exits, must have masonry wall surrounding the complete subdivision, and of course, comply with our UDC in reference to the Homeowners Association. This was also done with mobile homes years ago through the ordinance. They were limited to having certain number of acres to establish a mobile home park subdivision. This has worked very well as we don't have an over abundance of them. It seems if they can find 10 acres at a reasonable price they are going to make a gated community out of it. If the Commission agrees to something like this, we will need to go full flank with this have an emergency declared and have our current ordinance changed as an emergency measure to prevent any more gated communities developing. Keith Van Dine stated he has no problem with a gated community this is just the "in thing" which developers have caught on to and they are playing on peoples fears that they will be more protected inside a gate. In going along with Merwin on a certain amount of acres and if they are going to have to put a wall all the way around 200 acres they are going to think twice! Merwin Willman stated this was just a suggestion. The Commission needs to come up with something to recommend to City Council. The City Council has been talking about a few ideas of their own such as R-2, R-3, R-6 as gated etc. Councilman Ken Greenwald asked if this is a sale option what is the rationale to turning them down? This is a status symbol. A majority of them 10 years from now will probably be gone and they will be public streets. The Commission has the control with the Homeowners Association restrictions. The streets will be mandated on when they need to be upgraded by the City. Keith Van Dine stated gated communities depend on crime rate. Thinking back gated communities became real popular some time back when drive-bys became frequent. They let people know the crime rate was up. People feel more protected behind the gate, whether they are or not, is another question. The people that build know how to play on this to sell the product. Ernie Evans stated Merwin's suggestion bears fruit in that we need to consider on what is happening. The gated subdivisions need to be planned and planned properly and planned well. Berry Creek maybe small but it was planned properly and situated correctly. The one on Schertz Parkway was planned well, even though Ernie feels it is very large for a gated community. David Richmond: David Richmond suggestion, we act on it. If corner again. stated he agrees. Piggybacking on Merwin's need to do more than think about this. We need to we don't act on it we will find ourselves back in a The one thing our development has opened is to the -11- . . . e e gated community which lends itself to a filler property in a small area. This is what Mr. Lancaster is proposing on the 10 acres. As long as we have small pieces of property out there today as buffers of large subdivisions, they seem to lend themselves very well as a gated community property. David also agrees with Merwin this is not appropriate and we need to take action quickly to get something to the City Council for them to support and to cause us to amended the ordinance. Pia Jarman asked if the Commission would like this to be on the agenda for the next meeting. David stated he felt it should be acted upon immediately. David Richmond commended the Inspection staff for taking care of the used car properties on Woodland Oaks Drive and FM 3009. He commended them on their efforts and requested they please keep it up. David asked about the sign for Woody's is there any hope or is this likely to be a permanent structure? Steve Simonson stated the owner of the property have been notified as Woody does not own the sign. A letter has been sent to the owner to please paint over the sign until there is another user for it. There has been no response to the letter. If the Commission so wishes, Steve stated he would follow up on the sign. The owner was also notified that the sign needs to be in compliance as it is too big. David Richmond stated it would be appropriate to follow up on it as it stands right now this is free advertising for a business that is not in the City limits. David Richmond asked who is responsible for grass cutting now between FM 3009 and the wall by Silver Tree. Steve Simonson stated that is the Highway Department's responsibility. It gets cut on a recurring basis maybe twice a year. Councilman Ken Greenwald stated they usually contract this type of work out. David mentioned that we need to somehow let them know this needs to be taken care of. Steve stated this would have to be handled by the City Council. Councilman Ken Greenwald stated he would mention it at the workshop tomorrow night. David Richmond asked about the dirt that is being brought into Deer Creek. Steve Simonson stated this is fill dirt for Deer Creek to expand in the back. They have to keep improving the drainage ditch as they go further back. There is nothing projected at this time. David Richmond mentioned boxes there are at least two Paragon boxes if not more, along Woodland Oaks Drive in Greenshire that have caused the sidewalk to stop as there is no room between the road and the wall that the developer is building. If Paragon keeps their boxes there the developers have elected to stop the sidewalk. It needs to be suggested to Paragon to relocate their boxes elsewhere. The sidewalks should not have to be eliminated. -12- . . . e e David Richmond stated he didn't have time to go back through his minutes on the new developers that are platting Greenshire. He wondered how much we have done on the Units going from current Plantation development to Vaugh's property Royal Oaks. There are roads being cut through there and have we done anything there in that section? Steve Simonson stated this was platted about a year ago as a final as Unit 6 and Unit 4. There is still one more unit that will back up to Royal Oaks. There still are questions with the school and the property also the ROW. This will be Unit 5. David Richmond introduced Dee McGee as the manager of the Greenshire Homeowners Association to the Commission. Dee has had dealings elsewhere in Schertz as a manager of Homeowners Associations as that is her professional business. Those in Greenshire were happy to have her come. She has taken upon her shoulder the writing of the Homeowners Association and get the association running. They have had their first annual meeting under her guidance and leadership and look forward to a good relationship in hoping to On behalf of the Commission David welcomed Dee McGee. Dee McGee stated she also manages Dove Meadows, and was interested in Unit 4, and also Thistle Creek. The City of Cibolo has gotten the approval to do Dietz Road to be resurfaced. As the manager also of Woodland Oaks, they have just had a meeting with the back section trying to get into the pool but the current organization is trying to work with the other management company in that area to work things out. Dee McGee stated she was really impressed with the attitude and work of this Commission on gated communities as she has done a consulting project with the City of San Antonio on gated communities. Many of the issues that were brought up here were brought up in San Antonio, as gated communities are being developed very quickly. The City of San Antonio has not taken enough time to examine what the results of them are. The City of Schertz is at least trying to do some reasonable structuring ahead. In fact, as the Commission, "you have the control for the future owners who end up with these properties". This is how a governmental agency has control. Pia Jarman: Chairwoman Pia Jarman commented on the bandit signs as they are all out in the City again and whose business is it to enforce compliance. Steve Simonson stated it is our business as we authorized them. The state sent them all a letter and they ignored the state's letter. Merwin asked if the City should send a letter to the developers. Steve Simonson stated in our ordinance it states that we authorize them so we will need to amend our ordinance. In the news there were citizens arguing about the signs and the "Schertz's Ordinance" quoted almost verbatim. There are some cities that are -13- e e . looking at our ordinance as the developers swear that 80% of their business comes from bandit signs. It is up to the Commission on what we should do. Merwin Willman asked without going through we would have to get subdivision ordinance. if we could suspend part of the ordinance the whole procedure. Steve Simonson stated City Council action as this is part of the Steve Simonson stated the UDC has been reconstructed and bandit signs have been eliminated. Councilman Ken Greenwald: Councilman Ken Greenwald commented on some of the items from tonight, like the "Jack Hays" having to be "Roy Richard". In all reality, it will always be FM 3009. Once the Commission takes an action to approve or disapprove before the people leave, someone needs to let them know what will happen with a follow up letter etc. A lot of times the people are not sure what happens next where as a developer knows once the Commission has made a decision. It would be nice to address the citizen and explain procedures. Steve Simonson: . Steve Simonson stated the reason the Commission does not have a corrected UDC is that our printer has been down for a week. As soon as the printer is working the Commission will have a completed, updated UDC. The main areas of change will be brought to the Commission's attention. Steve Simonson commented on the Comprehensive Plan due to the scheduling of everyone, he will try to come up with some dates for everyone to see if we can all meet. Steve Simonson stated there is a major chemical company out of California, looking at coming to the City. They deal with some nasty chemicals but this will be a closed plant, just like Coronado Paint. They need to be near the railroad and a major highway. They will meet all TNRCC (Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission) regulations and be in accordance with our subdivision ordinance code. This area is zoned M-1. This company also will have to have the OK from our water system and CCMA. If it meets all of the controls and regulations then it can come before the Commission with the request. . Steve Simonson mentioned some time ago various groups tried to get areas within our City limits that are now in Converse Post Office and Cibolo's Post Office all incorporated into our City Post Office. The manager of the post office operations of the Alamo area wrote back and said, not at this time due to the Schertz Post Office not being able at this time to handle any more traffic. When Schertz has a bigger post office, the request will be reconsidered. -14- . . . . e Steve Simonson stated on Saturday June 8, there will be a trip to tour the City with lunch included. The key is the last item future needs. This will deal with where the City will go in the future not only for annexation but for EMS, Fire Department, Police, etc. Ernie Evans asked now with the elections over what is the status on the annexation? Steve Simonson stated he understands it will be discussed at the next workshop for the City Council with the maps and recommendation from the Commission. 111 ADJOURNMENT: Ernie Evans moved to adjourn the meeting. David Richmond seconded the motion, which carried with a unanimous vote. Chairwoman Pia Jarman adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting is June 11, 1996. and Zoning Commission ATTEST: ,.i /h.--L-< . Planning Se retary City of Schertz, Texas .--' -15-