Loading...
03-26-1991 &1...~ ~ PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened 1n a regular session on Tuesday, March 26, 1991 at 7:00 P.M. in the Municipal Complex Conference Room, 1400 Schertz Parkway. Those present were as follows: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OTHERS PRESENT BOB ANDREWS, CHAIRMAN JIM SHRIVER, VICE-CHAIRMAN KEITH VAN DINE, SECRETARY MERWIN WILLHAN GEORGE VICK HARRY BAUMAN GARY BRICKEN COUNCILPERSON KEN GREENWALD C.P. VAUGHAN, VAUGHAN HOMES LEON DAVIS, 1017 GETTYSBURG BOBBIE VONADA, 121 HENRY FORD CITY STAFF STEVE SIMONSON, ASST. CITY MGR. NORMA ALTHOUSE, RECORDING SECIy. #1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Andrews called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. #2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Session March 12, 1991 Jim Shriver pointed out that on page 4, paragraph 5 it states: "George maintained his argument that the State law is misquoted." It should read: "George Mower maintained his argument that the State law is misquoted." Merwin Willman made a motion to approve the minutes, as amende~, for the regular session March 12, 1991. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion and the vote- was unanimous in favor. Motion carried. #3 CITIZENS' INPUT OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS Leon Davis asked if he might be provided a copy of the minutes just approved by the Commission. Bobbie Vonada made the same request. Copies were provided to both. #4 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Final Plat Approval - The Gardens Subdivision (PC #164-90) The following addendum to the agenda replaced ITEM #4: #4b. CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Approval The Gardens #164-90) Preliminary Plat Subdivision (PC (ITEM #4 was incorrectly listed as final plat approval and should, instead, have been listed as preliminary plat approval.) C.P. Vaughan was at the meeting to represent this request. Chairman Andrews reviewed the history so far of The Gardens Subdivision. The preliminary plat was brought before the Commission for approval on March 27, 1990 at which time it was discovered a zoning change would be needed. Action on the preliminary plat was tabled until after a public hearing was held on the rezoning request. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 22 at which time they recommended to City Council approval of the request for a zoning change for a 2.286 acre tract fromGB to R-5A. City Council conducted a public hearing on June 5, 1990 on the rezoning request and the request was approved. There has been no further action on the plat until now. Chairman Andrews asked for Staff input. steve Simonson informed the Commission the ingress/egress radius meets the requirements of the Fire Dept., the. Police Dept. and SAFES, and the flood study required by Ford Engineering has been completed and the results accepted by Ford. A question came up about Lot 12 which is in the Drainage Flood study R.O.W. and C.P. Vaughan told Steve Simenson that Lot 12 was taken out, it must have been an oversight leaving it on the plat. Steve Simonson drew a diagram for the Commission showing the area where the City pump station is (on Schertz Parkway) and also the sewer line which runs from Samuel Clemens High School under Schertz Parkway back out to the pump station and to a manhole, going back toward the drainage facility, on the other side of the drainage facility. Mr. Simonson said he understands a sewer line. was put in there during urban renewal, but the City cannot find anything showing the easement. Mr. Simonson said they are researching it and as a result something may have to be added to the plat. George Vick asked if the current drainage is going to be changed. steve Simonson repl ied by saying the drainage channel will be realigned and straightened a little bit and the bottom will be taken out to give it the proper flow. Mr. Simonson indicated it will probably require some work, on the part of the City, to the other side of the drainage ditch. Jim Shriver asked C.P. Vaughan if, on the Pecan Drive side, they hadnlt previously talked about providing a means of access for property owners to be able to pull motor homes into their backyards. Mr. Vaughan replied they had discussed a 1 I non- vehicular access, and continued on to say he wants a means for all of these homeowners to be able to get in behind the fence. -2- Merwin Willman mentioned that the conversation about that access had prompted the Commission to propose the following changes (w'hich were approved by City Council) to Section 15.5, Specifications, Paragraph 0, of the Subdivision Ordinance: "A non-access easement will be shown when the rear or side of the property abuts a highway or street. (1) A one-foot non-access easement along a street when lots have another dedicated access to a public right-of-way. (For residential subdivision plats only.) (2) One-foot partial access easement along a street when have another access to public-right-of-way, only by use portable ramps. (For residential subdivision plats only.)" lots of Chairman Andrews commented there can be no curb cuts, but there can be a l' partial access easement only by use of portable ramps. Merwin Willman stressed that the 11 partial access easement needs to be shown on the plat along Pecan Drive. Gary Bricken then asked if you can drive over the curb. Merwin Willman replied you're not supposed to because. eventually the curb will break down. There was a brief discussion on this subject. Jim Shriver asked whatls happening to the former Lot 12 - is it a greenbelt area? C.P. Vaughan replied, that at the present time, it will probably just remain open land with a commercial zoning. Chairman Andrews questioned if Lot 12 disappears, what will that make the corner. Steve Simonson responded by saying that's something he needs to research. You could do two things. One option is to do away with Lot 12 and the other option is to take it and put it in that other open area showing the drainage R.O.W. as just a drainage R.O.W. and Lot 12 as Lot 12. Mr. Simonson said he needs to see how Mr. Vaughan wants to handle it. Chairman Andrews remarked that if nothing 1S done, it will eventually have to be vacated and replatted. C.P. Vaughan noted there is still some question about whether or not Lot 12 should be on the plat. Steve Simonson indicated the City is researching the situation. Merwin Willman pointed out that the zon1ng for Lot 12 changed, and therefore, Lot 12 should not be on the plat. a commercial zoning. wa s not It has -3- steve Simonson answered by saying itls okay for it to be on the plat unless the Commission doesnlt want it on. Merwin Willman noted that according to the Subdivision Ordinance, utilities lines should be shown on the preliminary plat. Chairman Andrews told Mr. Willman the utilities lines are on this plat dnd showed him the locations. Mr. Willman then mentioned that according to the Zoning Ordinance, the setback requirements should be shown on the preliminary plat - the setback line on the street side should be shown. Discussion then followed about the two lots on Schertz Parkway and also about the' 10 I side yard setback requirement from the R.O.W. The Commissioners talked about what it will visually look like from Schertz Parkway the right-of-way a.rea, the curb, the sidewalk, the grassy area, and the fence which C.P. Vaughan said would be shadowbox fence similar to that in Greenshire Oaks. It was also pointed out that part of the fence along Schertz Parkway. will be the brick wall of the houses on the two lots on Schertz Parkway (Lots 1 and 11). Referring to the requirement for a 10' side yard setback from the Schertz Parkway right-of-way, C.P. Vaughan asked if therels any way to get a variance. Mr. Vaughan indicated he thought he could live with 51. Merwin Willman commented a variance may be a possibility, but expressed his concern about safety. Harry Bauman asked how close the houses will be to Schertz Parkway and Chairman Andrews replied they will be 101 from it. There was discussion about whether or not a public hearing would be required for the variance and it was decided, since it is a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, a public hearing would be necessary. Merwin Willman also brought up the .039 acre road where Pecan comes into Schertz Parkway and asked jf it had ever been dedicated. Both C. P. Vaughan and Councilperson Ken Greenwald were sure it had been dedicated, but suggested Steve Simonson check into it for sure. Merwin Willman mentioned also that the ordinance requlres a floodplain statement be on the plat. C.P. Vaughan advised the Commission that Steve Simonson had told him to remove the floodplain statement (which had been on the plat when it was discussed a year ago) because the floodplain study took the place of the statement. -4- Steve Simonson related that the floodplain study information, according to Ford Engineering, makes the information concerning Lots 8, 9, 10 and 11 no longer valid, but there does need to be a floodplain statement on the plat and he will work one out with I'-1r. Vaughan. Gary Bricken, referring back to when they were reading through the ordinance regarding the 10' setback requirement, said he also noticed the minimum depth of the lot in an area zoned R-5A is required to be 100', and the minimum area of the lot is required to be 5,000 square feet. Pointing out that Lot 11 only has a depth of 92' and an area of 4,872 square feet, Mr. Bricken asked if C.P. Vaughan needs a variance for this also and was informed by Chairman Andrews he does. Mr. Bricken indicated he would like to clear everything up in the beginning so this situation doesnlt drag out any longer than possible. Discussion on this brought up another matter about the zero lot line. C.P. Vaughan asked if he is required to build every house on the lot line. Chairman Andrews read an excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance,. Article XI, Section 3.1 as follows: "Zero lot line homes will be uniformly located on the same side of the lot within a street block. Zero lot I ine homes shall have no windows on the side of the house which abuts the property line. No area shall be designated R-5A that contains less than five adjoining lots on each street." Steve Simonson noted that all 11 lots are considered one block, so the way he reads ~t, all the homes do not have to be built on the lot line. Harry Bauman pointed out that if all the homes were built on the lot line, the conf igurations wouldn't work out and Keith Van Dine said that's correct if they were all built on the lot line, one of the homes would look like a tunnel. The consensus of the Commission was that 'all the homes do not have to be built on the lot line, especially since at a certain point within the block, the direction of the homes chang~s. Jim Shriver observed they need a motion and two variances. Chairman Andrews commented there canlt be a varlance until therels a final plat and then wondered if thatls true. Steve Simonson advised there can't be a final plat approval until the variances are approved. -5- Steve Simonson told C.P. Vaughan that the way things look right now, taking into consideration newspaper publication of the notices, scheduled meeting of City Council, etc., the earliest possible date he sees for a public hearing is in May. Saying he thought everything had been discussed, Chairman Andrews asked for a Dotion. Merwin Willman made a motion to table action on the preliminary plat for The Gardens subdivision until the follo\\"ing items are included on the plat: (1) The l' partial access easement should be shown on the plat. (2) The 10' side yard setback from Schertz Pkwy. R.O.W. should be shown on the plat. (3) The .039 road dedication at Pecan Dr. and Schertz Pkwy. should be eliminated from the plat. (4) The sewer easement/Lot 12 situation should be resolved. (5) A floodplain statement should be on the plat. At this point Chairman Andrews asked Merwin Willman if he wanted to table action on the preliminary plat or approve it contingent on these items being on the final plat. Mr. Andrews commented they usually approve it with the contingency the items be on the final plat, this speeds the process up a little. Mr. Willman changed his motion to say he approved the preliminary plat contingent upon the items listed being included on the final plat. There was a brief discussion about the variance needed by Mr. Vaughan regarding the size and depth of Lot 11 and the variance needed on the 10' side yard setback. Gary Bricken mentioned the possibility ~f going ahead with the building of 9 other houses and getting the variance on the lot size, say three years down the road. Mr. Willman commented the variances have to be requested by Mr. Vaughan and they have to be approved before the final plat is approved. Nothing can be started until final plat approval is accomplished. Merwin Wi llman then continued on with the motion recommending City Council schedule a public hearing for an 8' variance on the minimum required lot size of Lot 11 and a 51 variance, for Lots 1 and 11, on the minimum side yard setback requirement from the Schertz Parkway R.O.W. Gary Bricken seconded the motion and the vote was unan1mous 1n favor. Motion carried. -6- C.P. Vaughan asked he could present a final plat to the Commission contingent on the granting of the variances. Steve Simonson informed Mr. Vaughan he could not do that. C.P. Vaughan thanked the Commission and Chairman Andrews thanked Mr. Vaughan for his patience. #5 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Discussion on Conflict Bet\veen Ordinance 87-S-9, Ordinance Creating Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Rules of Procedure Chairman Andrews asked Jim Shriver if he had the differences marked so the Commission could go back and forth between the two documents. Mr. Shriver replied he had notes on his copy. Merwin Willman explained that the Rules of Procedure must agree with the Ordinance. Mr. Willman also stressed that, in his opinion, only the Ordinance should be changed until we see whether or not City Council approves the proposed changes. If they do, then .change the Rules of Procedure to agree with the. Ordinance. The first question asked was by Gary Bricken, referring to Ordinance 87-S-9, Section 2, Paragraph (2) where it reads: "The members of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be registered voters of the corporate limits of the City of Schertz, Texas ....." Mr. Bricken wanted to know if thatls legal. Can you deny a person a Commission spot because they do not wish to register to vote? Merwin Willman replied yes, you can. Discussion on this subject continued. The Ordinance Creating the Planning and Zoning Commission requires the person to be a registered voter of the corporate limits of the City of Schertz; the Planning and Zoning Rules of Procedure require the person to be a qualified voter of the City; and, the City Charter requires the person to be a qualified registered voter. The consensus of the Commission on this issue was that the Ordinance and the Rules of Procedure should be changed to agree with the City Charter (requires the person to be a qualified registered voter). Chairman Andrews made a suggested change to the Ordinance for Section 3, Terms of Office and Removal from Office. The Ordinance currently reads: "The City Council may remove members of the Planning and Zoning Commission from off ice for malfeasance, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or three (3) consecutive unexcused absences from regular meetings of the Commission." -7- After discussion on the definitions of malfeasance and moral turpitude, Mr. Andrews stated his main concern is the attendance, or lack of attendance on the part of Commissioners. Mr. Andrews1 suggested change reads: "The City Council may remove members of the Planning and Zoning Commission from office for malfeasance, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or failure to attend two-thirds of the regular meetings of the Commission." There was a brief discussion on the exact interpretation of two- thirds of the regular meetings, with the Commission subsequently agreeing to go with Chairman Andrews' suggested change. The next change, brought to the Commission I s attention by Jim Shriver and followed up by a suggestion from Keith Van Dine, was that everywhere in the Rules of Procedure where it refers to "Secretary", it be changed to read "Secretary and designated Recording Secretary." The only exception to this would be in the paragraph referring to the appointment/selection of officers for the Commission. . Another matter, pointed out by Chairman Andrews, was that in the Rules of Procedures it states: "The Chairperson is a voting. member and will vote on each motion presented." Mr. Andrews commented this statement is not in the Ordinance. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that the statement should be included in the Ordinance as Paragraph (4) of Section 7, Commission Actions. In the Ordinance under Section 7, Commission Actions, Paragraph (2) and in the Rules of Procedure under 503., Motions, Paragraph B., there is a statement which reads: "When fewer than all members are present for the voting and when all motions to recommend on a given application fail to carry by two votes, consideration of the application shall be continued to the next regular meeting upon motion carried by a majority of those present." The consensus of the Commission was that this statement should be changed in both documents to read as follows: "When fewer than all members are present for the voting and when all motions to recommend on a given application fail to secure four (4) concurring votes, consideration of the application shall be continued to the next regular meeting upon motion carried by a majority of those present." In the Ordinance, under Section 4, Organization, where it says: "No member currently serving as Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall be nominated to succeed himself as Chairman or Vice-Chairman if he has served a full two-year term in either of such capacities", the Commission recommended the phrase "except by unanimous vote of the Commission" be added at the end of the sentence. -8- Also in the Ordinance, Under Section 4, Organization, therels a sentence that reads: ".........from Staff representatives assigned by the Chief Executive of the City t.o work with the Commission. II The Commission suggested Chief Executive be changed to City ~1anager. The Rules of Procedure under IV, Application Procedures, Paragraph 402, Schedules and Instructions, mentions schedules and instructions adopted as Appendixes to the Rules of Procedure. Jim Shriver asked where the Appendixes are. Merwin Willman suggested things such as the procedures for changing a street or road name in the City of Schertz be included in the Appendixes. Mr. Willman related he has a list of things that could be compiled as the Appendixes and he thinks they should be kept in a folder, not attached. The consensus of the Commission was to include a sentence at the end of Paragraph 402 which reads: "See attached list." Another suggested change to the Rules of Procedure is under V, Meetings, Paragraph 501, Order of Business. The last sentence. reads "The Secretary shall publicly advise ,the Commission of any communications received pertaining to any matter before the C.ommission." The Commission felt since this is normally done by the Planning Coordinator and not the Secretary, the word "Secretary" should be changed to "Staff representative." A final change t,o the Rules of Procedure was suggested for VI, Certification and Amendments~ Paragraph 603, Amendment. It currently reads "......~. such amendment is proposed at a preceding meeting and spread on the minutes..." and the Commission felt it would clarify it better to read: "........ such amendment is proposed at a preceding meeting and recorded in the minutes..." Gary Bricken made a motion that all changes discussed be incorporated into the appropriate document (either the Ordinance Creating the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Rules of Procedure, or both) and sent forward to City Council. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Motion carried. 16 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Updating of Comprehensive Plan Chairman Andrews polled the Commissioners to see how each was coming with their assigned project. George Vick, Keith Van Dine and Merwin Willman reported, having had several false starts. Gary Bricken suggested they come back to the subject at the next meeting, if it's convenient, and extend the deadline. Harry Bauman said the goals and objectives were as far as he got. Jim Shriver indicated he is working on it and Chairman Andrews reported he had done a lot of reading on the subject, but hadnlt progressed too far yet. -9- Harry Bauman asked how the Commission is going to compile the information they gather and Jim Shriver commented on the need for a standard format. Chairman Andrews requested that further discussion on the updating of the Comprehensive Plan be placed on the agenda of the Special Session which will follow the joint public hearing on April 2, 1991. #7 GENERAL DISCUSSION George Vick: (a) Reported that George Mower, on the corner of Brooks and Lindbergh, has hung rags on his vehicles over the license plates. It was asked if Mr. Mower appealed his case and Steve Simonson said yes he did. Mr. Simonson related that the City Manager received a letter from him and he will provide the Commissioners with a copy of the letter at the next meeting. Merwin Willman: (a) Advised the Commission it is the til\\e of year when they should be thinking about the budget, and sp~cifically whether or not they need a consultant to help with the updating of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Willman also mentioned that as far as the budget, to keep in mind the City pays for their trip to the APA conference every year. Steve Simonson noted there are two areas they should look at carefully subscriptions and consul tants. Subscriptions have gone up in recent years and consultants are expensive. Chairman Andrews asked steve Simonson if he could provide a copy for the Commission, by the next meeting, of the expenditures for last year. Mr. Simonson indicated he saw no problem with that. George Vick remarked that at all the APA conferences he had attended, the other representatives he had spoken with from various cities indicated they had consultants help them with their comprehensive plans. Harry Bauman mentioned that you can get assistance universities. from Keith Van Dine asked if the City couldn I t set up an intern program whereby the student gets credit for helping the City. Chairman Andrews asked if anyone knows where to check about these things. -10- . . Harry Bauman, Keith Van Dine and Merwin Willman all said they had contacts they \\'oldd check with about this. ( b ) I n d J cat e ,1 h (:~ h 0 U 1 d '\,v (> r k 0 n d. 1 i s t 0 f <) u ide 1 i n est hat s b 0 U 1 d be included in the Appendixes of the Rules of Procedures. (c) Rer.larked that contrary to Steve Simonson 1 s notes to the Commission, the portable sign at Kountry Kitchen had not yet been removed. Steve Simonson apologized for the mistake. (d) The business on Main St. with too many slgn on FM 78 still has too I:lany signs. steve Simonson reported the inspectors had given the business a 30 day notice. (e) Asked Norma Althouse if she had been able to get a copy of the agreement between the City and the Resurrection Baptist Church. Mrs. Althouse reported she had asked the City Secretary about it and had been informed the lawyers are sti II in the process of working on the final document. Jim Shriver: (a) Told the Commissioners they have before them (it was in their packages) the final copy of the memorandum containing information for newly appointed members. (b) Asked that discussion .of the Information Sheet for Citizens Applying For the City of Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission, which Mr. Shriver had compiled and a copy of which had been in their packages, be placed on the agenda of the next regularly scheduled meeting. (c) Said he had received a letter from APA, Division and asked if we pay dues to them. replied we do not. the Sa n Merwin Antonio Willman Chairman Andrews: (a) Reminded everyone there is a joint public hearing scheduled for April 2, 1991 on a change to the Zoning Ordinance regarding political slgns. (b) Noted the package on site plans has been signed and forwarded to City Council. (c) Asked Councilperson Ken Greenwald if, when Tom Weaver briefed City Council, did he say the City could grow as far as having room for Dore waste. Mr. Greenwald responded by saying because of where CCMA discharges, the level of waste 1S very, very sl ight. If an industry came into Schertz that was dirty (had a lot of waste), it would be required to build a pre-treatment plant. -11- Mr. Greenwald further stated, however, that if the business were to locate along IH-35. the'y could possibly tie into the Ne\\: B rau.nf e 1 s s ~-s tem whe re the di scha rge 1"a te is a lot highe r. Steve Sinonson: (a) Informed the Commission the plans for a McDonald's Restaurant on IH-35 are moving along. Nr. Simonson warned t.he Commission they may be asking for a tall s1gn. Chairman Andre\-vs mentioned a June 10th conference in Atlanta, Georgia on the AICUZ and said the only problem is money - it's $450 per person. Merwin Willman, referring to the notices the Commission has been getting about meetings of the San Antonio APA Chapter, asked if it's something they should pursue. Theylre supposed to cover 21 counties. steve Simonson observed that if they start attending, maybe they could ask for specific agenda items pertaining to Schertz. #8 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Andrews adjourned the meting at 10:10 P.M. A Joint Public Hearing is scheduled for April 2, 1991. The next regularly scheduled meeting is April 9, 1991. -12-