07-10-2001PLANNING & ZONING MINUTES
July 10, 2001
The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in a Public Hearing Session on
Tuesday, July 10, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Complex Bob Andrews Conference
Room, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas. Those present were.
PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION
David Richmond, Chairman
Ernie Evans, Vice Chairman
Keith Van Dine
Gary Wallace
Tony Moreno
William Sommers
Ken Greenwald, ex-officio
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Joyce Briscoe (out of town)
#1 CaIF to Order:
CITY STAFF
Ron Youngblood, City Planner
Mary Ybarra, Recording Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT
Bebb Francis, San Antonio, Texas
Ken Harris, Verizon Wireless
Don McCrary, Don McCrary & Associates
Ted Halderman, Westlake, Texas
Klaus Wieswurm, 5925 Corridor Parkway
Larry G. Fortner, 2405 Witten
John Sheridan, 6025 Corridor Parkway
Louis Tskarias
Chairman Richmond called the meeting of July 10, 2001 to order at 7:00 pm.
Public Hearing: Consider the land use assumptions that develop capital improvements
program (capital recovery) fees imposed for new or expanded water and/or wastewater
service extensions or connections to the municipal utilities system.
On behalf of the Planning and Zoning Commission, David Richmond thanked everyone for
their concerned interest and asked for their cooperation with the public hearing procedures.
The Planning and Zoning Commission will take all comments into consideration in making a
recommendation to the Schertz City Council. In order to hear as many different comments
as possible, we request that you do not repeat the same comments made by a previous
1
citizen. After the public hearing is closed on this issue, no more comments will be received
from the citizens. A Public Hearing on this issue will be scheduled by the City Council at a
later date.
David Richmond asked for staff input.
Ron Youngblood stated that there is no staff input. Ron mentioned that the Commission has
been briefed on several occasions and added that Johnny Bierschwale, Director of Public
Works, is on hand to give a review.
Johnny Bierschwale stated that rates are going to increase. Johnny explained that a
connect fee is paid at the time of new connections onto the water or wastewater system.
The impact fees paid go toward improvements to the systems (water and/or wastewater).
At this time, Johnny explained the rate increase. Currently the rates are as follows:
Water $750.00, increasing to $1,255.60
Wastewater $1,300.00 (of which $985 is CCMA impact fee-Schertz collects $315),
increasing to $1,794.34
Less CCMA $985.00
Total Collected by Schertz $809.34
Grand Total of WaterM/astewater collection: $2,064.94 (without CCMA portion).
Johnny stated that the fee increase is for the expansion of the system and allows the City of
Schertz to keep up with its growth. Johnny added that he believes these fee increases are
very reasonable.
At this time, David Richmond asked if anyone in attendance would like to speak on the
issue before the Commission. With none voiced, David closed the public hearing.
#3 Adjournment of Public Hearing:
Public Hearing adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
2
The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in a regular session, after
the Public Hearing. The agenda is follows:
#4 Call to Order:
David Richmond called the regular session of July 10, 2001 to order at 7:10 p.m.
#5 Approval of Minutes:
Chairman Richmond asked if there were any corrections to the regular session minutes of
June 12, 2001.
Without further comment, Gary Wallace moved to approve the minutes of June 12, 2001 as
written. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was
approved.
#6 Status Of Final Plats:
There was none to report.
#7 BOA Actions:
David Richmond reported that the Board has scheduled a meeting for July 16, 2001.
#8 Citizens' Input Other Than Agenda Items:
There was none.
#9 Consider and Make Recommendation: On land use assumptions that develop
capital improvements program (capital recovery) fees imposed for new or expanded water
and or/ wastewater service extensions or connections to the municipal utilities system.
David Richmond stated that everyone has been briefed and asked if there were any
comments at this time? David commented that without doubt the increase is necessary to
make improvements to the city's water/wastewater systems as stated by Johnny
Bierschwale.
3
Without further delay, Gary Wallace moved to forward to City Council recommending
approval the land use assumptions that .develop capital improvement program (capital
recovery) fees as proposed by Schertz Public Works Department and to schedule a public
hearing. Tony Moreno seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was
approved. Note: A second public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission is
necessary before the issue may be forwarded to City Council for scheduling of a public
hearing. Tentatively, a public hearing has been scheduled for August 14, 2001.
#10 Consider and Make Recommendation: Request from Larry G. Fortner,
2405 Witten-Woodland Oaks, Unit 2A-lot 7, Block 10, for a special exception to the zoning
ordinance to encroach into the 20' rear building setback from 20' to 12' to construct a
concrete patio with cover.
Ron Youngblood reported that the request before the Commission has been heard at a
previous meeting in which Mr. Fortner had requested a variance to encroach into the utility
easement. At this time, Mr. Fortner was asked to provide a letter from the utility company
(GVEC) stating that there was no problem with the encroachment. Mr. Fortner has since
decided to shorten the length of the patio and not encroach into the utility easement.
However, Mr. Fortner is still requesting the encroachment into the 20' rear building setback.
At this time, Mr. Fortner reiterated statements made by Ron Youngblood and added that the
existing pad is well into the rear building setback (14' into the building setback) and will
actually move it back approximately 3' (12' into the building setback). The construction will
actually cut 3' of concrete off the existing patio.
Without further delay, Tony Moreno moved to forward to the Board of Adjustment with a
recommendation of approval the request from Larry G. Fortner, 2405 Witten-Woodland
Oaks, Unit 2A-lot 7, Block 10, for a special exception to the zoning ordinance to encroach
into the 20' rear building setback from 20' to 12' to construct a concrete patio with cover.
Keith Van Dine seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved.
#11 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: Request from Resurrection Baptist
Church for site plan approval of Resurrection Baptist Church, Live Oak Road.
4
David Richmond stated that the above agenda item has been withdrawn for consideration
this evening.
#12 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: Request from Don McCrary & Associates
for preliminary vacate and re-plat approval of Benevest Subdivision, Lot 17, Tri-County
Business & Industrial Park.
Ron Youngblood stated that the request before the Commission is pretty straightforward
and recommends approval.
Ernie Evans questioned the indication of Doerr Lane on the portion labeled vacate and of
Tri-County Parkway on the re-plat. Don McCrary explained that the indication of Doerr Lane
(Old Street) is part of the Tri-County original plat, and that he believes the city vacated the
street at the start of the Tri-County development approximately 20 years ago.
Tony Moreno pointed out that property owners are not indicated on the preliminary plat and
added that this item is required as per the subdivision application checklist. This could be
corrected when the final plat submittal.
Without further delay, Keith Van Dine moved to approve the request from Don McCrary &
Associates for preliminary vacate and re-plat approval of Benevest Subdivision, Lot 17, Tri-
County Business & Industrial Park. Gary Wallace seconded the motion. With a vote being
called, the motion was approved.
#13 Consider and Make Recommendation: Request from Verizon Wireless for site
plan approval of telecommunication tower "200' self-supported structure" for connection to
Verizon towers and local cell site.
Ron Youngblood informed the Commission that Verizon Wireless representative Ken Harris
has been working with city staff on several clarifications of concern that were raised by the
Commission. Mr. Harris and city staff has tried to address these issues at length. However,
to help the Commission better understand the concept Mr. Harris was asked to bring an
actual site plan of the proposed development, engineering facts explaining fall zone area
5
and also some degree of certainty that the tower would fold on itself and fall within its own
property line. Ron stated that Mr. Harris is present to answer any questions.
At this time, Ben Francis, representing Verizon Wireless, stated that he would like to thank
Ron Youngblood for all his effort and time in working through the application process with
Verizon.
Mr. Francis stated that the site in Schertz is only one of a couple that Verizon is looking to
locate its facility. Mr. Francis explained that it wouldn't be your typical facility; the facility
would house 30 million dollars of telecommunication switching equipment, personal
property that would immediately go onto the city and school district tax base. The facility is a
significant commitment by the company (Verizon) to the site and also in property
improvements that would add approximately 5 to 6 million dollars of quality for this type of
facility. Mr. Francis added that the facility is looking at hiring 30- 50 employees who would
pump dollars into the city's economy by utilizing the amenities of the city. Mr. Francis
explained that Verizon is not looking at any incentives such as tax abatements etc. and
respectfully requests favorable consideration. Mr. Francis thanked the Commission for the
opportunity to speak on behalf of Verizon Wireless.
At this time, Ken Harris addressed the Commission in regard to the primary concern, "the
tower". As relayed previously, generally the towers are not works of art or things of beauty.
However, with concern of aesthetics being a significant concern the company set out to
investigate the alternatives. As indicated in the package, an example is a 120' cell tower in
Fort Worth. The proposed tower at the Schertz location would be 200' tall and microwave.
The tower won't be exactly as shown on the example; however, Verizon is committing to do
everything possible to erect a tower that won't look like a communication tower, but a tower
similar as shown on the illustration. Such a tower would cost approximately three times as
much, and Verizon is willing to spend the money to try to make the tower as aesthetically
acceptable as possible. To address the safety concern, Verizon is willing to ensure the
tower's safety by designing at its weakest point (half way) the likelihood that the tower
would fold over on itself in the event of failure. Ken explained that the site plan is laid out to
minimize the hazard in every way possible to other habitable structures with the exception
of the street right of way.
6
Mr. Harris stated that Verizon is making every effort possible to accommodate the concerns
expressed by the City of Schertz, and added that Verizon wants to be a viable part of the
community, and believes this facility would be.
Ron Youngblood questioned the number of antenna (6) previously discussed and asked if
this was still the proposed number?
Mr. Harris explained that the structure would be serving Verizon needs for up to 40 years.
The structure must have a great deal of flexibility; when he talked in terms of 6 antenna that
was a personal estimate. Initially there would only be two, but easily it could be more. Mr.
Harris added that the structure would be designed so that whatever is placed on the tower
will be covered. Anyone driving down the road won't be able to tell how many antennas are
on the tower. Mr. Harris explained that Verizon doesn't want to make the number of
antennas part of the issue because, at this point, the number is not known. Verizon wants a
tremendous amount of flexibility because the facility would be the central location serving a
large area in South Texas for a long period of time.
Gary Wallace asked what are the reasons Verizon selected Schertz for their location versus
the alternate site which would not require a 200-foot tower?
Mr. Harris explained that the first alternate site is Green Mountain Business Park where a
200' tower would be necessary. The other site is in the City of San Antonio and the tower
would not be an issue. Verizon would be able to meet all the administrative requirements.
Mr. Harris stated that the attractiveness of Schertz is that the lot is platted in an established
development, all utilities are present as are dual routes for fiber, good support services
(convenience stores, grocery stores, etc) are present, and access is easy to IH 35.
David Richmond asked for clarification to the statement "not to exceed 200 feet"? Mr. Harris
explained that the company wants the city to be prepared for 200'; however, after final
engineering is done it may be decided that 190' or 185' works. Verizon does not want to be
restricted to a certain height, but the tower would not exceed 200'. David asked what color
is planned for the tower? Mr. Harris stated that color is up to the City of Schertz, Verizon
would make the tower any color the city approves. Mr. Harris explained that at this time the
7
final plans for the tower aren't available and that Verizon isn't expecting final approval,
however would like to receive conceptual approval at this time. Verizon would be willing to
go to considerable expense to create a structure that doesn't look like a communication
tower.
At this time, Ernie Evans brought up the question of the shrouds, are the shrouds solid or
graded. Mr. Harris stated that he wasn't sure which shroud would be used. Ernie Evans
questioned the air going through the panels. Mr. Harris stated that he could assure that a
qualified engineer would stake his license on what Verizon would build.
William Sommers asked if Verizon would give an unqualified indemnity agreement to
surrounding property owners and the City of Schertz? Mr. Harris stated no.
David Richmond asked what wind velocity is designed for the 200' tower. Mr. Harris said
that the Fort Worth tower has been designed to withstand 70 mph sustained winds.
However, no specific design has been done for the proposed 200' tower, but documentation
in each Commissioner's packet makes reference to the wind velocity question. The tower
could be designed to withstand 100-mph winds, which would actually make the tower twice
as strong. Mr. Harris added that he assures the Commission that the tower would be
designed so that safety would exceed the standards.
Ernie Evans stated that his concern was that the specifications or agreements are not part
of site plan submitted and these are issues that would have to be addressed at this time,
not six months down the road.
Mr. Harris's understanding was that the submittal was to be treated as a preliminary
concept approval only.
Ernie Evans stated that the Commission could table the issue until such time that both
parties reach a consensus.
Ernie Evans asked if an agreement has been reached with Randolph Air Force Base in
regard to air space. Has RAFB seen details of the proposed tower and have they agreed
8
that this facility would not create problems? Mr. Harris stated that RAFB has not been
contacted, but would be if the Commission makes this a condition. Verizon does not have a
problem contacting RAFB for approval. Ernie Evans suggested it wouldn't be a bad idea to
coordinate with RAFB and suggests that Verizon do so. Also, he would recommend lighting
the tower. Mr. Harris advised it would not be a problem.
At this time, Mr. Francis stated that he believes many of the concerns and questions
brought up this evening could easily be addressed at the time building plans, etc. were
submitted. He emphasized that the FCC would not allow Verizon to operate without
approval from both the City and FCC. Verizon would have to meet all requirements
At this time, David Richmond stated that the Commission could not approve the site plan
submitted this evening because our UDC requires it to be complete (all pertinent information
is required) in order for the Commission to take action. The site plan before the Commission
this evening does not meet UDC requirements.
Mr. Harris stated that it was his understanding that the Commission could possibly approve
conceptually, conditioned upon final information. Mr. Harris pointed out that Verizon would
like to know if the City of Schertz wants the facility as part of the community. Does the City
of Schertz approve or is it in favor of the plan conditioned upon final support data. If so,
Verizon would then spend the dollars and time to create the data. However, if the
Commission feels that in spite of all the efforts made the community does not want this type
of facility, Verizon wants to know that. Verizon would like this to be a "win-win" situation. We
want the City of Schertz to want us here.
Gary Wallace inquired if there is surrounding property that could be purchased to ensure
that if Verizon's tower failed it would fall within its own boundaries. Mr. Harris said there was
not.
Gary Wallace pointed out that the Commission would still have to grant a variance because
of the established ordinance that precludes towers being situated such that they fall on
structures or in thoroughfares. Gary believes if the Commission allows the request, the
Commission negates the City's established ordinance.
9
Ron Youngblood explained that legal council has advised that a variance does not apply if
engineering documentation proves that if the structure were to collapse it would fall within
its own property boundaries. If satisfactory documentation is not provided it would then
require a Board of Adjustment action.
William Sommers asked if Michael Spain, city attorney, would provide an opinion letter
certifying that the request does not require Board of Adjustment action. Ron Youngblood
said that he believed a letter could be obtained.
Gary Wallace inquired on the color of the building. The rendering shown indicates the
building color as red. Mr. Harris stated that Verizon would accede to the Commission's
request.
Ernie Evans stated that there is need for certain clarifications pertaining to lighting, signage,
color, etc, which are essential items to be labeled as part of a site plan submittal. Ernie
believes the site plan before the Commission is incomplete. Mr. Harris advised that these
items would be corrected in time for the next meeting.
Keith Van Dine asked if Verizon owns the property for the proposed facility and tower? Mr.
Harris stated that Verizon is in the process of finalizing a contract of purchase.
William Sommers pointed out that he wants it understood for the record that if engineering
data finds that the tower would collapse within its own property lines, no Board of
Adjustment action is necessary. Ron Youngblood stated that is how he interprets the UDC
and also the advice from legal council. With this in mind, Mr. Sommers believes that it's
imperative that the Commission receives an opinion letter from the city attorney stating this
fact.
Mr. Cashwell, City Manager, commented that in lieu of Mr. Sommers' statement he
suggests that the Commission could grant approval contingent upon the receipt of such a
letter.
10
Mr. Francis reiterated that engineering back-up support would become available at the
permit process and noted that engineers would be available for questions.
At this time, Dewey Cashwell, City Manager, offered a brief comment on behalf of staff and
noted that his comments are in no way meant to either support or oppose such a tower. Mr.
Cashwell stated that it has been his experience over the last several years to deal on a
number of occasions with such towers and their locations. On numerous occasions,
concerns like safety as voiced this evening have been issues. From my experience the
engineering is quite well done and very sound (in terms of experimental data). Whether or
not this particular tower is suitable in the Schertz location isn't a factor that is known.
However, engineering data from my studies and experience has been found very sound.
At this time, David Richmond asked for comments from interested citizens wanting to speak
on the matter before the Commission.
Klaus Wieswurm, business owner in the Tri-County Business Park, stated that his business
has been established in the Business Park for the last five years. He added that he would
welcome another technical company in the neighborhood. However, he voiced concern
related to variances, where to start and where to stop? He believes that the rules, deeds
and covenants of the park aren't being enforced and he foresees a future slum area. He has
other concerns such as higher insurance rates and most importantly the nature of his
business, which deals with the design of custom equipment involving microwave
technology. Will the tower affect the product being built? Will the transmission signals in
any way have an effect on his product? What guarantees does the business have that the
facility is within power requirements and that it would not interfere with his business? Mr.
Wieswurm asked if tower sharing was an option available to Verizon? At this time, Mr.
Harris stated that because the facility is a major connection (mobile telephone switching
facility) sharing is not an option. Mr. Harris added that Verizon would do everything
reasonably possible not to interfere with Mr. Wieswurm's operation.
John Sheridan, business owner in the Tri-County Business Park area, stated that he is
opposed and believes that the Verizon facility would be a "black eye" for the Tri-County
Business Park area. He asked if Verizon has approached other property owners in the park
11
for their opinion? Mr. Harris replied no. Mr. Sheridan commented that he had, and found no
one in favor. He believes that aesthetics and safety are two of the major concerns of the
surrounding property owners. Mr. Harris reiterated that if the tower were to collapse it would
fall within its own property boundaries, and the only property affected would be city property
(street right of way).
David Richmond stated that there is no one else wanting to speak on this matter, thanked
everyone for comments, and thanked Verizon for the presentation. David stated that
obviously there are concerns and his initial concern was height. David believes that the city,
as fast as it is developing, cannot take the approach of "not in my back yard". The city must
welcome new technologies to its business base. David believes that the burden falls on the
Commission and city staff to work with Verizon if the consensus is to go forward.
At this time, Ernie Evans summarized all issues discussed:
1. RAFB coordinating letter,
2. Higher strength standards,
3. Opinion letter from City Attorney,
4. Signage and lighting,
5. Proof that tower would collapse on itself,
6. Address panel construction,
7. A rendering, as close to what would be approved, not as much as what it would be
as of today, but more so of the future.
Ernie commented that he believes the Commission could make a decision with the above
documentation presented.
David Richmond stated that he believes Verizon will not make the effort unless the
Commission this evening gives a favorable opinion on information necessary to consider
Verizon's request.
In conclusion, David relayed to Verizon that it is the Commission's consensus that it would
likely consider the request if all issues discussed in Mr. Evans' summary are resolved in a
site plan containing a rendering of Verizon's 40-year future configuration.
12
At this time, Gary Wallace stated that he didn't have a problem with the issues discussed;
however, his concern is a variance requirement. He would not approve such a request if it
required a variance.
David Richmond stated that the Commission is not telling Verizon that the facility is not
wanted in the City of Schertz, just that there are issues to be addressed. He thanked
Verizon for all their work in presenting a well thought out plan; however, the Commission
requires additional information.
Mr. Harris stated that he believes Verizon will not continue with the facility unless a
receptive feeling from the Commission or the community is anticipated.
At this time, Ernie Evans explained that the way the agenda reads this evening the
Commission would be remiss if it doesn't disapprove the request entirely, and added that
the Commission could not vote on anything that isn't an agenda item.
Without further discussion, William Sommers moved to table the request from Verizon
Wireless. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was
approved.
#14 Discussion: Of FM 3009 Rezoning from Greenfield Village to Elbel and
Elbel to FM78 Right of Way referred back to Planning and Zoning Commission by City
Council.
David Richmond pointed out that the request before the Commission has been discussed
and considered on previous occasions, and was passed on to City Council for consideration
and action. Recently, after discussion with City Council, it was decided by the Council to
return the item for further discussion and consideration. It was the Council's opinion that the
P&Z recommendation for rezoning of the property doesn't coincide with Schertz's future
plans. David explained that the Commissioner's packet contains documentation such as,
traffic impact analysis (TIA), City Council correspondence, excerpts of P&Z meetings, public
hearings and Council meetings.
13
Buck Benson, representing the developer, passed out an illustration map of what is being
proposed, and pointed out that the item is for discussion only. For discussion purposes the
developer would like the Commission to consider the 58-acre tract only at this time. Mr.
Benson commented that the developer would like to hear the Commission's concerns in
relation to traffic, and also what the developer could do to make this venture work for both
parties.
Mr. Benson explained that the document before the Commission is by no means a final
plan, rather it's a general plan presented to the Commission in an effort to help identify
many of the concerns brought up City Council. Hopefully, changes or recommendations
could be made this evening which would help this development come up with a plan that the
city could live with.
Ernie Evans noted that the traffic study was taken directly out of the ITA with the use of
bland numbers. In comparison with the traffic study done by the city's public works
department, there was a huge difference in numbers. Ernie pointed out that the city's traffic
study did not take into consideration the school or bus traffic that is generated by the high
school on Elbel Road. So in reality the city's traffic study is likely under counting. The traffic
study does indicate that the city has current problems on FM3009. Adding the proposed five
curb cuts along FM3009 between FM78 and Elbel Road would create significant traffic
problems similar to those existing at the intersection of 135 and FM3009.
Ernie Evans commented that it was a good thing that the developer agreed to the concept
of "neighborhood services" zoning versus "general business" and agrees that most of the
Commission can work with the concept. However, there was concern in respect to the
proposed R-4 zoning. Ernie suggested the Commission could work with R-4 if the developer
could prove that the development would not be hazardous from car and railroad traffic
access in the area.
Louis Tskaries, project developer, restated the Commission's concerns, discussed at
previous meetings, about the proximity of the railroad and quality construction of the
apartment complex, and added that he believes these issues are part of the site plan
process. If, at the time of site plan submittal, the Commission isn't comfortable with certain
14
issues, the Commission has the option not to approve his request. Mr. Tskaries explained
that there is much work in terms of engineering, utilities, etc., that must be completed before
the site plan approval process. However, he certainly understands the concerns voiced by
the Commission having to do with the proximity of the railroad and what the Commission
would like to see built. He assures the Commission that his complex construction would be
better than what is existing in the city today.
Mr. Benson explained that undoubtedly a berm or some type of greenbelt would be planned
which would buffer the railroad right-of-way area.
Mr. William Sommers again reiterated that traffic was a major concern and added that the
Commission doesn't want to create a problem similar to the intersection of IH35 and
FM3009. In response, Mr. Benson explained that part of the process this evening is to
address as many concerns as possible. At this time, he showed a conceptual drawing
indicating curb cuts further from the intersection, eliminating some, and decreasing
congestion.
William Sommers inquired on the possibility of feeder roads or turning roads, which would
eliminate feeding traffic directly onto FM3009. Would this be an option that could be
incorporated into the site plan? In response, Mr. Tskaries stated that because the complex
is two separate projects split by the drainage ditch, he believes that realistically they have to
plan for one curb cut each placed as far from the intersections as possible.
Gary Wallace inquired if a stoplight has been considered as an alternative? Mr. Tskaries
stated he believes this issue is a TXDOT decision. Gary Wallace commented that TXDOT
would possibly consider it if the development would pay for the light. Mr. Tskaries stated
that if it were possible he would gladly pay for a stoplight.
Ernie Evans inquired on the number of curb cuts at the front of the retail outlet. Is three
necessary? He suggested the possibility of a large, nicely decorated entry facilitating one
curb cut onto FM3009. If these issues are looked at, this would eliminate part of the hazards
and safety concerns the development tends to create. William Sommers suggested that the
development could look into the possibility of acceleration or deceleration lanes.
15
After a brief discussion, the Commission was advised that the first apartment complex
would consist of 180 units. A second complex to come at a later date will be constructed in
the middle portion of the larger tract. The Commission believes the city is looking at
significant traffic congestion due to the development if alternative measures aren't taken.
Leonard Truitt, building official, asked if it were possible to see an interior access between
the two apartment complexes? Mr. Tskaries replied that there is a ditch between the first
and second phases. Leonard stated he is aware of this, but is it possible to bridge the
complexes together? Mr. Tskaries replied he would prefer not to.
Ken Greenwald stated that the developer might want to pursue back loading traffic. Ken
added that the school district owns property from FM78 to Elbel Road and that the school
might be interested in cost sharing some sort of access street that would back load all three
tracts. Mr. Tskaries stated that he would approach the school district because he believes it
is a good idea.
David Richmond stated that he still believes that the apartment site is not in the right
location for this city. He has voiced these concerns at previous meetings and will continue
to do so. He believes that surrounding cities with this type of development along heavily
trafficked railroad ROW have seen these developments deteriorate rapidly into low-income
housing. David believes that such apartment complexes become slums in two to three
years because people give up on them. People really don't know what to expect when
moving in, and all-day railroad traffic will encourage them to move out quickly. David
believes the whole area lends itself to commercial or office professional and not residential.
Mr. Cashwell, City Manager, suggested he is in no position to either endorse or criticize the
merits of this project, but having come from an area with a much greater population, he has
seen quite a few very fine developments in close proximity to railroad tracks. Mr. Cashwell
felt the railroad tracks would only be a minor annoyance if certain things were done to
create a residential environment instead of a bunch of buildings next to a railroad track.
Buffers and berms could be placed there to insulate the living space from the tracks. He
noted there would still be people who would choose not to live there because of the railroad,
FM 78, and the air force base, but quite a few people would not be concerned about it. Mr.
16
Cashwell suggested that Planning and Zoning at least give this development the benefit of
the doubt. He feels it could enhance the historical meaning of the railroad and possibly
bring more value to the apartments.
Ernie Evans made mention that the traffic problem needs to be solved first. They need to
figure out the differences between the traffic study the developer had done and the traffic
study the City had done. Ernie felt the traffic issue is the biggest concern of the
Commission, but there are other concerns as well. He stated there are options for Mr.
Tskarias to consider so there won't be problems created for the City of Schertz. There are
compromises to be made and Ernie does not feel those have been addressed.
David Richmond reminded the Commission this is a discussion item and would not be voted
on tonight.
Ernie noted there is buffering that is required on one end and an apartment complex cannot
be placed against a commercial facility. He reiterated the need to look at all of the issues
and find some alternatives before the Commission could make a decision.
There was some question regarding traffic lights being placed. Mr. Tskarias stated his
understanding was it is the State's responsibility to put traffic lights in. David Richmond
informed him that it is the State's decision, but there could be a request put in for them. He
also noted it would. take quite a few years. The City has been trying to have traffic lights put
in near HEB for the last six years and still don't have the lights.
David also expressed concern about having additional curb cuts on FM 3009. There have
been enough accidents with what is there now and additional curb cuts will increase
accident chances.
Mr. Tskarias stated he understood the Commission's concerns, but he has some concerns
of his own. At one point he was told that there could not be any additional curb cuts on FM
3009, all would have to be on Elbel Road. He felt that is not in the best interest of the
community either. He also feels the need to work with the staff on this development, but not
at unreasonable lengths.
17
Gary Wallace noted Planning and Zoning forwarded this request to City Council with a
recommendation of approval to change the zoning. The reason for that was not because it
is ideal, but because it is probably the best use as far as revenue.
Mr. Cashwell noted that the corner property between the County building and Greenfield
Village is looking very promising for a new Postal Building.
#15 Consider and Make Recommendations: Request from Planning and Zoning
Commission to make changes to the Unified Development Code (UDC)-Article IX-Sign
Standards, Sections, 1,2,3 & 4.
David Richmond stated he had hoped to address this at a meeting with a shorter agenda.
Ron Youngblood reported the Commission was asked to look over sections one through
four and provide their comments.
David Richmond suggested delaying this item until the next meeting when Mr. Spain would
be present to address some of the sign issues.
Without further discussion, Keith Van Dine moved to table the request form Planning and
Zoning to make changes to the Unified Development Code (UDC) Article IX-Sign
Standards, Sections 1-4. William Sommers seconded the motion. With a vote being taken,
the motion was approved.
#16 Request for Agenda Items for future scheduled meetings.
Tony Moreno would like the Planning and Zoning Commission to be proactive on issues
that the Commission has dealt with before, such as annexation.
#17 Items by Commissioners and City Planner.
Ernie Evans:
• Fellowship church signs are still there
• Thanked the person who got an abandoned vehicle moved.
18
Ron Youngblood said that Leonard Truitt, Building Official, has removed a sign from FM 78,
which is appreciated.
David Richmond:
• Announced that he attended the Comprehensive Land Plan/Steering Committee
meeting last night and they considered a master thoroughfare plan. He stated it is not a
final plan at this point, just discussion. They also looked at Public Facilities (City Hall,
Police, Fire, EMS, etc.) and how they would be managed for the next twenty years.
Ken Greenwald:
• Gave an update on the status of the Water project, which met on June 21St
• Gave GVEC $492,000.00 for their electric service. Dual fee service for pumps, well
sites, and water treatment plants.
• Went with larger lines coming from the well field to the pickup point in Seguin.
• 33-36 inch lines from Seguin.
• 30 inch lines from FM 467 into the City of Seguin
Ken noted that the small difference in line size increases the service capacity by 30-35%.
The initial rate was 19,600 gallons per minute and going to the smaller lines it will go up to
26,000 gallons per minute. He reported the price increase for what they are getting is
minimal. Ken asked for a discussion item for the next agenda to talk about the possibility of
water sales. He informed the Commission the official ground breaking will be August 23`d at
the well sight. The next meeting is scheduled for August 19th in the Police Training Room at
1:30pm.
#18 Adjournment:
William Sommers moved to adjourn. Tony Moreno seconded the motion. The meeting
adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
19
Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission
ATTEST:
Planning Secretary, City of Schertz
20