Loading...
03-08-1994 - PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES - The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in regular -session on Tuesday,... March 8, 1994 ~.at 7::D0 p.m. ~in.... the ~ . Municipal Complex Council Chambers (because of .the number of citizens present, the meeting was.moved~from the Conference Room- to tYie Council Chambers.), 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas. Those present were as follows: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, OTHERS PRESENT BOB ANDREWS, CHAIRMAN BRAD SATO GEORGE VICK, VICE-CHAIRMAN KIMBERLY T. MURPHY MERWIN WILLMAN, SECRETARY IRWIN D. ZUNKER KEITH VAN DINE ROGER BOSE DAVID RICHMOND JERRY BETHKE TONY MORENO JOE ROBERTS PIA JARMAN JODY ROBERTS KEN GREENWALD, COUNCILMAN ED PIERSON SAM BLEDSOE CITY STAFF JIM GIBLER JIM BECK STEVE SIMONSON, SANDIE RUHMAN ASST. CITY MANAGER BRYANT RUHMAN NORMA ALTHOUSE, DON MCCRARY RECORDING SECRETARY #1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Andrews called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. #2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Session February 22, 1994 Merwin Willman made a motion to approve the .minutes, as written, for the Regular Session February 22, 1994. Pia Jarman - seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Motion carried. #3 CITIZENS' INPUT OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS There was none. #4 CONSIDER AND TARE.APPROPRIATE ACTION: Final~Plat Approval Dove Meadows Subdivision, Unit 2 (PC #204-93) Don McCrary was at the meeting to represent this request. Chairman Andrews asked for Staff input-. Steve Simonson informed the Commission they have put. together the corrected items that were noted .and they .have paid their platting fees. Chairman Andrews then asked for questions -from the Commission. Mervin Willman remarked that on the Master Plan they show paths along the drainage ditch and a bridge across the drainage ditch, .but there is nothing on this plat showing pathways or a~ . bridge. Steve Simonson pointed out the common areas (which are the paths) are shown, but not the bridge. Mr. Simonson then commented he thinks the intention of having the second page of the plat is so they can begin work on the Community Center and Don McCrary admitted that's correct. Mervin Willman asked Don McCrary where the bridge is and was told it hasn't been. decided. yet. ~ Chairman Andrews recalled the bridge to be shown somewhere near 'the Linden Grove area. Mervin Willman insisted it needs to be clarified. If the bridge is going from Unit 2 to Unit 1, it should be on this plat. Steve Simonson implied it will not be shown on the plat because it is across a City right-of-way. However, we should have an agreement with the developer and that notation should be on the plat. Chairman Andrews reminded the Commission there should be something on the plat about the bridge being maintained by the homeowners association. Steve Simonson mentioned that before the plat is filed, we should be furnished a copy of an agreement between .the. developer and .the City regarding the location of the bridge and -the maintenance thereof by the homeowners _ association. Chairman Andrews agreed to that. Mervin Willman stated they can go ahead and build anyway, but was reminded by Steve Simonson they couldn't sell a single lot until the plat is recorded. The second. item brought up by Mervin Willman was the need for the. required one (1') foot non-access easement along Emerald Gate and Millcross Lane and also along Turncreek Lane on Lots 7 and 8 of block 2 and Lot-s 9 and 10 of Blocks 3, 4, and 5. Chairman Andrews asked if Block l has only one lot and. Steve Simonson replied yes it does and it should say Block 1, Lot 1. - Mervin Willman. then mentioned the street names and said there are several with more than fourteen characters. -2- Don McCrary maintained the Post Office had approved the street names. George Vick then asked if they went to the Post Office first instead of .~o~-the Commission~and.Steve Simonson replied no;.~-we~- had:. a. list. Mr. Vick then noted that if the Post .office is approying something different than fourteen characters, maybe we need to change our ordinance. Steve Simonson remarked our ordinances specifies a maximum of fourteen characters and indicated he would check with the Post Office . Merwin Willman made a motion to conditionally approve the final plat for Dove Meadows, Unit 2 pending the furnishing of an agreement between the developer and the City regarding location of the bridge and its maintenance by the homeowners association, and pending the placement of a one (1') foot non- access easement along Emerald Gate and Millcross Lane and along Turncreek Lane on Lots 7 and 8 of Block 2 and on Lots 9 and 10 of Blocks 3, 4 and 5. Tony Moreno seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Motion carried. #5 CONSIDER AND TARE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Final Approval of the Vacate and Replat of a Portion of Northcliffe Estates Model Home Park and the Subdivision Plat of the Fairways at Scenic Hills, Unit 1 (PC #205-94-A/B) Steve Simonson advised the Commission he had received a phone call from Alan Lindskog earlier today asking that. final approval of this be tabled. The sale on one of the lots that -was to be reconfigured fell through, so they don't have an agreement and need to wait to. see what has to be done. Chairman Andrews suggested it be tabled until the next meeting. Merwin Willman made a motion to table Item #5, Final Approval of the Vacate and Replat of a Portion of Northcliffe Estates Model Home .Park and the Subdivision Plat of the Fairways at Scenic Hills, Unit 1. Keith Uan Dine seconded the motion and the vote_was unanimous in favor--. Motion carried. #6 CONSIDER AND TARE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Review and . Discussion of the Original Greenshire Master Plan -3- _ Chairman Andrews explained this item is on the agenda at the, - request of the Commission because of the interest of several . developers.in the Greenshire area. The majority of the :citizens. attending the meeting were here for discussion of .this item because they live in Greenshire Oaks . Sam Bledsoe, Roger Bose, Kimberly Murphy and Brad Sato were at the meeting to represent their interest in the possible development of Greenshire. Steve Simonson displayed a copy of the original Greenshire_ Master plan for everyone to see. It called for a mix of single-family homes, apartments and commercial property. It is a tract of approximately 200 acres-and there were no designated lot sizes or zoning on the Master Plan. It was a PUD zoning. The, firstproperty to develop in Greenshire was Greenshire Oaks, large custom homes built by Vaughan Homes, and they asked for two variations - R-1 lots, which are large lots, and a street design with islands in the road. The only other property to develop in Greenshire is Greenshire Estates which is an exclusive section of 9 lots (1/3 acre each or larger) owned by Roy Richard. Mr. Simonson further stated that from the point of view of the City Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission, anyone expressing an interest in developing Greenshire has always been told that from the treed area forward, the Commission would like to see large lots, the commercial section to the front off FM 3009 can be cancelled and have larger lots similar to Greenshire Oaks, and the non-treed area is possibly negotiable as far as the size of the lots. -David Richmond, asking to be corrected if he's wring, mentioned that the~Commission never talked about potential changes in the zoning of the commercial area between FM 3009 and the greenbelt. Steve Simonson replied that's correct, but from discussion there was a feeling if the developer wanted to save the trees and go with larger lots, that the Commission would take a good .look at it. However, nothing was promised. Chairman Andrews reported the Commission had looked at a - proposed plat of Greenshire with smaller lots and had told the developer no. We need to make sure that in the areas where we _ have nice trees, those-trees stay there. In the past we have _imposed setbacks platting fees and greenbelts to try and accomplish that .very thing. -4- Mr. Andrews further stated that in talking with Steve Simonson and with Mervin Willman; they came up-with some suggestions and ideas for the Greenshire area. They feel that in the treed area the lots should be large, for example; 80 x 120 or 90 x 120.. In the area where there are no trees the lots could be smaller-,. say 7.0 .x T20. They would like to .continue- on with .the brick fencing as opposed to-wood, and some of the property may be.a good location'for'rear entrance garden homes. Steve Simonson added that from Greenshire Drive to the front are the largest lots. Mark Vaughan has told several people that his wishes for that area are la-rge garden homes. Nobody wants wooden fence, so the front along FM 3009 should be brick fence and there should also be some brick fence along Woodland Oaks Drive separating what's already there. You can transition with a buffer to smaller lots in the back by means of some type of upscale fence. Steve Simonson commented Mark~Vaughan is building some homes behind Greenshire, in Cibolo, that are an extension of the same types of homes that are in the Green Valley Loop. Sam Bledsoe of MBC Engineers spoke at this time. Mr. Bledsoe related they had spoken with Steve Simonson and his staff about 15 months ago regarding a Master Plan for Greenshire. Their idea was to do away with the commercial in the front (maybe reserve a small area for commercial) and do away with the apartments. They proposed larger lots surrounding Unit 1 and 60' lots in back and in the front area with trees. Fencing would be brick, similar to what's in the development now. Kenneth Thompson of 3017 Bent Tree Drive asked how 60' lots would be reasonable if they're trying to save trees. Sam Bledsoe replied that obviously they can't save all the _ trees, but they would try to save as many as possible. They ..hope to do something with the streets similar to what was done in Unit 1. David Richmond, referring to Sam Bledsoe's statement about talking with Steve Simonson approximately 15 months ago, wanted it known that this is the first he was aware of that. Mr. Richmond went on to say he purchased a home in Greenshire Oaks because it was an area that had upscale custom homes with large lots and. the .area had been carefully paid attention to by ,the Planning and Zoning Commission.. Mr. Richmond continued on -saying the original plan had been retention of a long entrance into the subdivision,-and to -put - _ residential right out to FM 3009, regardless of aesthetics, will eliminate a lot of trees. -5- David Richmond then pointed out the demand is out there to _ support' large homes and- mentioned areas of northwest San Antonio,and Deerfield as examples. Mr. Richmond strongly emphasized he doesn't th-ink surrounding Greenshire Oaks with small homes in what the Planning and,.Zoning Commission desires. There .is a demand. for large custom homes in this area. . James Gibler of 15.28 Mt. Laurel Circle informed Sam Bledsoe that 60 x 120 lots in Greenshire is not only a disservice. to the residents in Greenshire Oaks, it is a travesty. Chairman Andrews admitted he knows that 60 x 120 lots will sell, but stressed that 80 x 150 lots will also sell. Brad Sato mentioned they would like to have all 80 x 150 lots, but a study showed they could only sell 10 larger homes per year. Chairman Andrews asked what if~we show them other 200 acre tracts of land in Schertz they could buy where it would be appropriate to build on 60 x 120 lots. Harry McMillan, saying he is the newest buyer in Greenshire .s~_ Oaks, commented he is sure the developer would like to use that beautiful area as a magnet to attract people to buy there, but he will be very upset if the aesthetics change. Kenneth Thompson of 3017 Bent Tree Drive remarked that 60'lots are typical developer greed. He is not ready to concede that in Schertz you can only sell 10 large houses per year, or if that's true, so be it. Mr. Thompson added he will feel sold - out if the Planning and Zoning Commission approves 60' lots for the Greenshire area.' Chairman. Andrews brought up again the fact there are many areas in Schertz where 60' lots would be appropriate. Mr. Andrews -went on to say there are currently 54 homes in Greenshire Oaks which have been built over the last six years and those six years were during some of the worst times developers have seen. Real estate almost hit rock bottom two years ago. James Gibler of 1528 Mt. Laurel Circle spoke up again saying one of the most redeeming features about Greenshire Oaks is the friendliness of its. residents, everyone is a good neighbor and welcomes. newcomers with-open arms. If these smaller lots are force .fed upon them,~Mr. Gibler emphasized he will not be a ..good neighbor - he will be an enemy. David Richmond referred to Forest Waters in Garden Ridge and how rapidly it is grow.zng. It is all large custom homes. As a matter. of fact, Mark Vaughan would confirm that~the reason so many homes are going up there is because there were no more - lots available in Greenshire Oaks. -6- Mr. Richmond further stated that everything in Schertz except Greenshire -Oaks and Oak Forest are the types of areas this developer wants. Schertz has to have something to offer on the upside. Mr. Richmond expressed the opinion he thinks they .ought to-. consider saving the trees- and the whole 200 acres - . - ~ should - lbe considered an~ exclusive area-. - . Roger Bose. of MBC Engineers explained they had. worked with the current Master Plan for Greenshire and he was pleased to see the apartments and commercial turned into residential. In reference to Chairman Andrews' remarks on development and real estate, said they have been-busy for the last two years. Between Inwood and Deerfield, they have platted 400 lots. Chairman Andrews asked Mr. Bose about the smaller area backing up to FM 3009 and asked if they couldn't wind roads around .there rather than just going in a straight line. This would make it possible to .have larger lots. Roger Bose replied that, personally, he doesn't think there's a market for large lots backing up to FM 3009. Kimberly Murphy of Hallmark Properties asked those present to - keep in mind the economics end of the development. They had to pay about five time as much for this land, so large lots are going to be expensive. Chairman Andrews interrupted Ms. Murphy to say there seems to be a contradiction here. If they paid five times as much for the land, why are they going for the smaller lots? David Richmond added that if they're looking at building 500 homes in Greenshire, they're looking at the wrong place. Steve Simonson stated he would like to clear something up about- ; the Master Plan. He and some representatives from MBC -Engineers did talk about 15 months ago when it was Hallmark-Ghormley that was interested in purchasing Greenshire. At that time there were no promises made. The only Master Plan for Greenshire that has been approved is the original one. The other plan is only a talking paper. Kimberly Murphy spoke again-saying they always try to save trees and there is a lot of cost in this land. Ms. Murphy then referred to Inwood saying it has some very nice homes- on 60' lots. The size of the lot doesn't necessarily determine the value of the house. Ms. Murphy further stated that larger - lots would have to sell for anywhere from $40;000 to $45,OOQ and up. The homeowners in Greenshire Oaks still held the position-they don't want 60' lots in Greenshire and also told Ms. Murphy they had paid a price comparable to what she mentioned for their lots and that was fine with them, so they don't mind. that -7- the-prices for lots would be $40,000 to $45,000 and up. James Gibler of 1528 Mt. Laurel Circle acknowledged that they all anticipate development in Greenshire,~but they want that development to be a~~cont~i:nuation.of.Greenshire Oaks. They want. to .make it the Garden.Ridge of Schertz. . Chairman Andrews suggested to the developers that they try to produce a more upscale plan. Mr. Andrews thanked everyone for their input and asked if the Commission had any questions or comments. Mervin Willman noted the developer now has an idea of what we want and can come back with a new plan. Steve Simonson observed that there has been no Master Plan. from this developer~~on the agenda. What we were reviewing~~ this evening was the original Master Plan. Mr. Simonson went ,on to say that from a Staff point of view, he recommends revocation of the current Master Plan as it no longer meets the desires of the residents of the area. Mr. Simonson also recommended a ;~s~. new developer bring in a new Master Plan. Mervin Willman made a motion to approve Steve Simonson's reccomendations of revocation of the current Master Plan for Greenshire as it no longer meets the desires of the residents of the area and also the recommendation that the new developer bring in a new Master Plan. Keith Van Dine seconded that motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: B. Andrews, G. Vick, M. Willman, K. Van Dine, T. Moreno, P. Jarman NAYS: D. Richmond ABSTENTIONS: None Motion carried. Chairman requested that revocation of the original Greenshire Master Plan be placed on the agenda of .the next regularly scheduled meeting. #7' CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE. ACTION: Discussion of Possibly~Subscribing to the Planning Advisory _ Services Offered by the APA - Chairman Andrews= reminded the Commission that at the last meeting they asked-Steve Simonson to provide the-budget figures for them as far as subscriptions and publications-. Those figures were included in-the packages this time. .The total budget is $565 and a subscription to the advisory services would be $395. By discontinuing the subscription to the Zoning Bulletin and. to the Zoning News (which they have already -8- - decided to do), there is enough money to subscribe to the advisory services. Pia Jarman asked if the services part of this could be taken out of another budget item, for example professional services. ~3teve Simonson. was out of.the room at this .time, so. ..Chairman. Andrews .indicated he would ask him that question when he returns. George Vick inquired how much advisory service we have paid for in the past and Merwin Willman answered none because you have to belong to be able to receive services. Mr. Vick then asked how many experts we have paid in the past and Mr. Willman replied none. Mr. Vick explained what he's trying to get at is why we need this service. Chairman Andrews questioned Merwin Willman on how many times he has written to other experts asking for information and Mr. Willman answered lots of times. George Vick wanted to know the cost of writing for information and Merwin Willman said the only cost was the postage. Mr. Vick then wanted to know why we should pay $395 for this service when you can write for information for only 29 cents. Merwin Willman advised that the information he writes for doesn't always cover all the subject matter he needs for his research. Also, he has bought quite a few publications on his own to help him research certain topics. Tony Moreno pointed out the service would be available for -everyone to use. Pia Jarman reiterated that the service will be made available to all of the Commissioners and if we're going to get advice, .surely there are more things that we haven't thought about. Just because we haven't used professional services in .the past -doesn't mean we won't use them i.n the future. George Vick questioned what kind of professional service we're go:in-g to receive. .Will someone come and speak to us? To this Merwin Willman replied no, because they are located in Chicago. Keith Van Dine, referring to the Comprehensive Plan, asked if we' had belonged to this advisory service at the time, could we have asked them for advice on writing that document.. Merwin Willman answered yes we could have. - -9- Steve Simonson remarked that one benefit of this service is we will have only this document (some of the publications we receive are repetitive) and it offers expanded reports in areas of their expertise. Chairman Andrews told Steve.S~imons~n that :one thing Pia Jarman asked was whether or not part of the expense could be charged to any other budget line item, for example the advisory part. Steve Simonson declared that what you're buying here is a publication, so it's okay to keep it in this budget line item. Pia Jarman made a motion that the Planning Department subscribe to the Planning Advisory Services offered by the APA, beginning in the fiscal year 1994/95. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Motion carried. ~8 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Petition to Rename a Portion ~'of FM ~ 78 ~ to John E: Peterson Parkway. Chairman Andrews asked who started this petition and was told by Steve Simonson some friends of Johnny Peterson and the petition supposedly contains names all the way from Kirby to Seguin. Chairman Andrews then asked if this request is coming to the Commission from City Council and was told it is. Councilman Greenwald told Chairman Andrews the Council was presented with the petition several weeks ago and so now they're .asking that the Commission follow through with the normal procedures for a road name change.. Pia Jarman stated that, in her opinion, the addition of the name, such as the addition of the name Roy Richard Dr. to FM - 3009, is very possible and feasible. . Chairman Andrews asked what particular area we're talking about and was informed by Steve Simonson from Cibolo Creek to Dietz Creek. Merwin Willman made a motion to recommend to City Council that this request for the renaming of a portion of FM 78 to John E. Peterson Parkway be scheduled for a public hearing as soon as the normal procedures for a road name change have. been accomplished by the Commission. David Richmond seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Motion carried. -lo- - #9 GENERAL DISCUSSION David Richmond: Asked what we're left with when the original Master Plan for - ~ Greenshire is~ revoked. Chairman Andrews replied we're left with raw land. Mervin Willman told Mr. Richmond the area is zoned PUD and tried to explained that to him. There was a brief discussion on why and when the frontage was down-zoned to Neighborhood Services. Steve Simonson explained he recommended revocation of the original Master Plan so no one can sue us and also because it wipes out the multi-family and commercial percentages. The zoning won't change. Mr. Richmond said he had voted against Steve Simonson's recommendation for revocation because he didn't understand what it would do and then thanked the Commission for explaining it to him. Keith Van Dine• Indicated his pleasure at seeing surveyors on Pfeil Road. Mervin Willman: Went into a more detailed explanation of exactly what a PUD is. Councilman Greenwald: (a) Reported that City Council approved the Specific Use Permit allowing Earl Mayfield to build a house on his property at the Kitty Hawk Flying Field. (b) Related the City is trying to get a CDBG (grant) so Mobile Villa can have decent streets and water/sewer lines. Along that same line, Rittiman Addition is trying to obtain a grant for sewer. (c) Noted that according to the TML Newsletter, 11.4 of the C,ity's budget is used for federal mandates- and 12.3$ of the County's .budget is used for the same purpose. The Council of Mayors is preparing a letter to send the government telling them that after this when they set up a federal mandate, there had better be a check-included, otherwise forget it. -11- w:;~ (d) Informed everyone the City is going to a full-time paid Fire Department, so we should be seeing a reduction in the Key fire rate. George .Vick asked Council.Greenwald the status of the possible annexation of Northeliffe~. I~Ir. ~ Greenwald replied City Council had discussed it at length and .has asked the City's financial advisor to dig into all the facts and come up with a recommendation. Chairman Andrews: Asked if the Knights of Columbus are going to be allowed to sell alcohol next to-the church. Steve Simonson replied yes because you have to measure from the front door to the nearest right-of-way. After this, Merwin Willman had a couple of questions. First, what is the status- of removing the Platting Fee Ordinance on Schertz Parkway. Councilman Greenwald replied there was one objection. 'a'~; Steve Simonson mentioned that some of the City's representatives and lawyers had spoken with the individual who objected and they feel he may have a possible change of mind. Second, Mr. Willman asked the status of the amendment on private streets and was told by Councilman Greenwald it's on their agenda either tomorrow night or the next workshop. Steve Simonson: ~ ~ Wanted to go on record as saying he had met with two gentleman approximately. 15 months ago who were thinking of developing Greenshire, but no document was shown at that time. Also he -did not approve any document presented to him by NfBC Engineers. He told them it would have .to go through the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Simonson stressed that every developer who has expressed an interest in Greenshire has been told they have to save the trees, they have to protect the existing residents, and the City would rather see more residential than commercial. The first document presented by MBC Engineers was the one shown.to the Commission at an informal discussion after the last meeting. # 10 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Andrews adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. - The next regularly scheduled meeting is March 22, 1994. -12-