Loading...
08-22-2000 '. . . . PLANNING & ZONING MINUTES August 22,2000 The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in Regular Session on Tuesday August 22, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Complex Bob Andrews Conference Room, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas. Those present were as follows: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CITY STAFF Ernie Evans, Chairman Gary Wallace Joyce Briscoe Tony Moreno William Sommers Ken Greenwald, ex-officio Steve Simonson, Interim City Manager/ Planning Coordinator Mary Ybarra, Planning & Recording Secretary COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT David Richmond (vacation) Keith Van Dine (work related) Stuart Baugh, Highland Homes Tim Fetter, Cardinal Point Subd. Larry Gill, AT & T Wireless Danny Simmons, Clarence Dugie, Riedel's Furniture Cathy & Mark Penshorn, Penshorn Dental Clinic Larry L. Aiken, Besch Property #1 Call to Order: Chairman Evans called the meeting of August 22, 2000 to order. 1 . . . #2 Approval of Minutes: Public hearing session of July 11, 2000 and the regular session of July 25,2000. The minutes of the regular session of August 8, 2000 were not published. Ernie Evans asked for any correction or additions to the minutes of the public hearing of July 11, 2000? Joyce Briscoe stated that she had corrections to the minutes of July 11, 2000. On page nine, fifth paragraph delete the "s" from word "repetitions" and add an "s" to the word "believe" in the same paragraph. In the sixth paragraph, last sentence the word should read "j ntent". With no further corrections or additions Tony Moreno moved to approve the minutes of July 11, 2000 as corrected. William Sommers seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. Ernie Evans asked for corrections or additions to the minutes of July 25, 2000 at this time? Tony Moreno stated that some typo's have been turned over to the recording secretary, Mary Ybarra. These corrections were in the form of typo's not changing the context. With no further corrections or additions, Gary Wallace moved to approve the minutes of July 25, 2000 as corrected. Tony Moreno seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the vote was as follows: Ayes: Tony Moreno, William Sommers, and Gary Wallace. Abstention: Joyce Briscoe and Ernie Evans. Motion approved. #3 Status of Final Plats: 2 . . . Chairman Evans reported that final plat approvals were as follows: . Good Shepherd Catholic Church Subdivision, . FM3009 Laser Wash Subdivision, . Block DistributinglTri-County Business Park. #4 BOA Actions: There was no report. #5 Citizen's Input Other Than Agenda Items: There were none. #6 Consider and Make Recommendation: On a request from Highland Homes for a special exception to the zoning ordinance for the following: A. 494 Cedar Bridge, front yard setback from 25' to 19', and B. 491 Covered Bridge, front yard setback from 25' to 18'. Ernie Evans stated that the agenda item was tabled at the meeting of August 8, 2000, and would have to be taken off the table for discussion. At this time, Gary Wallace moved to remove agenda item #6 off the table for considered. Tony Moreno seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. Steve Simonson stated that these are requests to move the houses forward on these lots. In one case move the house forward to save a 2-trees at the rear of the home, 494 Cedar Bridge; at 491 Covered Bridge it's the size of the house that doesn't fit to meet the front or the rear building setbacks. Steve Simonson stated that these are cul-de-sac issues that have to be faced with Highland Homes and Woodbridge Subdivision. Ernie Evans stated that each issue would be dealt with one at a time. The first issue: (a) 494 Cedar Bridge, front yard setback from 25' to 19'. 3 . . . Gary Wallace stated that the one thing that needs clarification is "are the homes sold homes or spec homes? Stuart Baughn representative for Highland Homes stated that the homes are spec homes. The reasons for the variance for both issues are to save trees and maximize the back yard for the benefit of the homebuyer. Mr. Baughn stated that both homes have a small encroachment at the front. Smaller foundations have been selected for these cul- de-sacs; none of the one-story foundation would fit. The lot in question has one of the smaller two-story plans. The smallest foundation possible was selected in order to save the trees and provide backyard to the potential buyer. Mr. Baughn informed the Commission that garages were placed toward the deep end of the lot causing less of an encroachment. At this time, Ernie Evans stated that if there were no further discussion the Chair would entertain a motion. Gary Wallace moved to forward to the Board of Adjustment recommending approval the request from Highland Homes for a special exception to the zoning ordinance at 494 Cedar Bridge, front yard setback from 25' to 19' . Tony Moreno seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. Ernie Evans stated that at this time the Commission would take action on item (b) 491 Covered Bridge, front yard setback from 25' to 18'. Tony Moreno asked if the lot is the only one that is too small for any of the spec homes? Mr. Baughn stated that there are two other cul-de-sacs next to each other and at both ends of these cul-de-sacs are curvature problems. The curvature pushes the house back about 35' versus 25' from the property line. The bigger cul-de-sacs are not a problem, however the smaller cul-de-sacs are, and there are four all in a row, where it would be difficult to place homes. 4 . Tony Moreno asked if it is assumed that your product does not fit these lots in the smaller cul-de-sacs? Mr. Baughn replied that was a correct statement. Gary Wallace stated that the only reason for the variance was to maximize the back yard. Is this correct? Mr. Baughn stated that this particular home does not fit on the lot. Ernie Evans stated that if the Commission recalls when a developer submits platting for subdivisions that they are cautioned in the building of cul-de-sacs, "not to slice and dice these little pies", into such small lots. Ernie Evans stated that the problem seems to be a trend, and suggests that the developer will have work and plan with lots that are going to work, or they have an issue that is workable or not workable based on their platting. A developer can't plat to get around a rule, then come back later with a dozen exceptions to the rule. . With no further discussion, William Sommers moved to forward to the Board of Adjustment recommending disapproval on the request from Highland Homes for a special exception to the ordinance at 491 Covered Bridge for front yard setback from 25' to 18'. Tony Moreno seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. #7 Consider and Make Recommendation: On a request from Mark A. Penshorn, Penshorn Dental Clinic, FM3009 for a special exception to the zoning ordinance for relief of masonry wall between commercial and residential property. Steve Simonson stated that as he stated in his notes to the Commission, Mr. & Mrs. Penshorn have stated that they did not understand the requirement of the masonry fence-separating commercial from residential. The requirement was part of the checklist, however can not honestly state, that the issue was discussed. As stated in my notes, when the site plan was reviewed, the retaining wall that was part of the site plan was taken to mean the masonry wall. Thus, the fence item was checked off on the . checklist. 5 . In view of this misunderstanding, it was suggested to the Penshorn's that they could request relief or some type of a time frame, etc. However the Penshorn's have requested full relief for placement of the masonry fence. At this time, Mr. Penshorn presented a diagram of the proposed project indicating the retaining wall, which was believed to have been the masonry fence. The fence is actually a privacy fence, built by the homeowner. Mr. Penshorn stated that he was unaware of a masonry fence requirement, until the city's inspection department brought it up. Gary Wallace stated that the purpose for the decision to use masonry material or other type of material similar to masonry was that wood fences deteriorate and tend to fall apart. The privacy fence, which is in place now looks in good condition, however given a few years, it won't. Gary commented that this is way the requirement exists, and . probably the reason why the requirement should be upheld. Steve Simonson stated that the error was probably made when the retaining wall was taken to mean fence and by no means is the retaining wall placed where the masonry fence should be. Joyce Briscoe stated that she believes the Commission should abide with the requirement in the interest of the homeowners who reside in this area. Steve Simonson stated that he had suggested that in the event the Commission did not give relief, the Penshorn's could request a time period to put in the fence. Obviously, the added expense was not in their budget. Steve Simonson stated that one of three things could be done; the Commission could insist that the fence is built now, time period to build the fence given or relief. . 6 . . . Gary Wallace asked what do city inspectors allow as far as a time frame? Steve stated that the inspection department usually works with the developer, however the completion of the fence is usually done before the certificate of occupancy is awarded. Joyce Briscoe stated that she sympathizes with the issue before the Commission, however she believes it allows for an establishment of a precedent. She believes it would be very difficult for a body (Le. city administration) to track something of this nature when extra time is given to anyone developer. Ernie Evans stated that in the past the Commission has upon occasion allowed the extension beyond what would have been the normally acceptable time lines, however the requirement was not waived completely. Ernie Evans added that if the Commission would allow this time limit to occur, it would need to be part of the motion, which would set the requirement, allowing the additional time between the time a certificate of occupancy is issued, and when placement of fence would occur. Mr. Mark Penshorn stated that he isn't trying to "buck the system" however this issue was an unplanned expensive, and would like to obtain some relief. Ernie Evans asked Mr. Penshorn if he could live with an extended time period? Mr. Penshorn replied he could. In brief discussion, a decision was reached to grant Mr. Penshorn an extension of 6 months after the certificate of occupancy is issued. With no further discussion, Tony Moreno moved to deny the request from Mark A. Penshorn, Penshorn Dental Clinic, FM3009 for a special exception to the zoning ordinance for relief of masonry wall between commercial and residential property with a proviso that the construction of the masonry fence does not need to built until 6 months -, . after issuance of the occupancy permit. Gary Wallace seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. #8 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: On a request from Riedel's Furniture for a variance to the sign ordinance to allow placement of signs along FM78 and FM3009. Steve Simonson stated that the word "signs" is to mean "bandit signs" along FM78 and FM3009. Steve Simonson stated that this issue was brought to our attention when Riedel's started the liquidation or remodeling close out for their store. The store had these bandit signs made to announce the liquidation and then placed them throughout the city on a weekend approximately two weeks ago. The inspection department picked up the signs because they were in violation of the city ordinance. Because of this, the city inspector visited with Riedel's personnel and discussed the situation and advised that the inspection department could not authorize the placement of signs, the . authorization had to come from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Steve stated that it his understanding that the request is for a time period only, not an open ended request. Steve added that the area the bandit signs would be placed would be along FM 78 and FM 3009 in the Schertz area. A representative from the Riedel's store is present to provide any additional information if needed, stated Steve. At this time, Mr. Danny Simmons, manager at Riedel's Furniture stated that the request for the bandit signs is correct and added that Mr. Leonard Truitt, city inspector had visited with them on Monday morning after the sign placement on Friday evening. Mr. Simmons added that he had observed homebuilder (development) bandit signs out on weekends and did not know that the stores signs would be in violation. Mr. Simmons stated that the store sale would probably continue for another 10 to 12 weeks, and would like to be allowed to place 10 to 15 signs along FM78 (front of store), . 8 . FM3009 and Schertz Parkway beginning on Friday afternoon and picked up before 8am on Monday morning. Mr. Danny Simmons explained that the placement of signs would be along residential areas along FM 3009, Schertz Parkway, and in front of the store on FM78. Gary Wallace stated that he would be reluctant to approve the request due to specifics that have been discussed, however nothing has been documented (written down on paper). Gary added that proliferation of signs is diametrically opposed to what the Commission has tried to do as a Commission in curtailing the use of signs. Gary believes the regulations established by this Commission are a step in the right direction and this request in no way would be complying with what the developers have to comply with. Joyce Briscoe stated that the Commission knows her position when it comes to bandit . signs, she dislikes them. Mr. Danny Simmons asked the Commission what is the difference between homebuilder signs and what Riedel's Furniture is trying to do? How does the Commission differentiate? Gary Wallace explained that there are specific guidelines: where signs are placed, distance between signs, and homebuilders have to buy the right to put the signs out. Mr. Danny Simmons stated that Riedel's would certainly want the opportunity to be allowed to do this also. Ernie Evans informed the Commission that Mr. Simonson has stepped out of the room momentarily, and would like to take a five-minute rest period is there a motion? At this time, Tony Moreno moved to adjourn for five minutes. Joyce Briscoe seconded the . 9 . motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Ernie Evans called the meeting back to order at 7:55 p.m. #9 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: On a request from Tim & Sheila Fetter, 2508 Kline Circle for final plat approval of Cardinal Point Subdivision, Ashley Oak Drive. At this time, Chairman Evans for staff input. Steve Simonson stated that the City Council has approved the rezoning of the Cardinal Point property, and explained that a final plat could not be finalized until the zoning issues are complete. Steve informed the Commission that the plat has all the required information and the Commission has a very good-looking final plat. Steve also added . that the parkland fee's have been paid. With no further discussion, Gary Wallace moved to approve the request from Tim & Sheila Fetter, 2508 Kline Circle for final plat approval of Cardinal Point Subdivision, Ashley Oak Drive. William Sommers seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. #10 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: On a request from AT & T Wireless Services for placement of a telecommunication antenna/tower, Friesenhahn Road. Steve Simonson stated that the main area of contention that does not conform to the ordinance is that any antenna that is erected has to be contented on site if it were to fall. This antenna is a 320-foot monopole, and obviously would not stay within the perimeters. The pole would partially be on site and partially out, and obviously at 320 . feet it could impact Friesenhahn Road. Steve added that the city has never had a pole 10 . fail, however it is a requirement in the city ordinance, and if approved the request would require a variance. Larry Gill representative for At&T stated that if the pole failed it won't fall across Friesenhahn Road, due to the degree of angle. Mr. Gill also stated that there are no houses within 500 to 600 hundred feet, and added that there is one power line across from Friesenhahn. Mr. Gill stated that if the pole were to fall to toward the north it would hit the power line. Gary Wallace asked what is the distance from the frontage road of IH35 and was advised that it is approximately 900 feet from the centerline of the highway, which place it outside the city limits. The city limit ends at 750 feet, which places the tower outside the city limits. . Gary Wallace asked what other antenna towers were out in the immediate area and was advised that across the street on the East Side of IH35 is a Southwestern Bell tower. Gary asked if this location was unsuitable for AT&T? Mr. Gill explained that the location is unsuitable based on the direction of cell coverage. Mr. Gill added that he didn't believe the tower was a collocation tower. William Sommers stated that basically what AT & T is asking that the Commission waive the ordinance requirement, is this correct? Mr. Gill stated the ordinance is somewhat misleading in the fact that the site is not in the city limit, but in its ET J. The site is not going to require building permit, because the site is in the city's ET J. Steve Simonson stated that the city has site plan and subdivision approval for any area that falls under the ET J and this antenna system falls under a site plan approval. Ernie Evans stated that the only problem he has, is that checklist item (1 b) has been filled out incorrectly as it applies to the ordinance. Our question was, would the tower . fall, not in what direction would it fall, so we are to consider that it is a 360-degree issue. 11 . . . Ernie added that if tower were to cross Friesenhahn Road that it should be documented as such, and believes it should be dually noted as part of the checklist. Joyce Briscoe asked if it was more expensive to join with another tower (Southwestern Bell) and put up an updated tower rather then going to a new site. Mr. Gill stated it would be more expensive and there are other issues that would need to be addressed. Gary Wallace stated that the Commissions intent was to limit proliferation and he agrees with Chairman Evans that the checklist was hastily throw together without effort. Steve Simonson stated that basically the request does not conform to the intent of the telecommunication/antenna tower ordinance. The intent being to try to collocate, if collocation was impossible, then it was to provide space on the site that if the tower were ever compromised that it would not effect a residential or other property. With no further discussion, Gary Wallace moved to deny the request from AT & T Wireless Services for placement of a telecommunication antenna/tower, Friesenhahn Road due to an incomplete application and or lack of justification. Joyce Briscoe seconded. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. #11 Consider and Make Recommendation: On a request from Larry Aiken, to rezone approximately 85.86 acres, located north of Green Valley Road across from Greenshire Subdivision, from R-1 (74.161 acres) and R-4 (11.7 acres) to R-5 (71.8 acres) and R-2 (14.78 acres). Steve Simonson stated that the request is to rezone a combination of the Besch property and what was Oak Trail property. Combining both properties as a proposal as previously discussed by Mr. Aiken. The issue before the Commission is a zoning request and Mr. Aiken is asking that this issue be placed for a public hearing only. 12 . . . Steve Simonson stated that the request is to change the existing Besch property (R-1 & R-4). Change the zoning of 71.08 acres to R-5 and the other 14.78 acres to R-2. The R- 2 area is the large treed area that is adjacent to Greenshire Drive on Green Valley Road. Metes and bounds are part of the packet and also part of the packet is a request that the R-5 property would change from 50 x100 feet lots to 55 x 110 feet lots. Steve added that this request would be part of the legal document. Gary Wallace stated that he recalls the treed area was to be R-1 zoning, not R-2. Gary stated that Arroyo Verde was not given any concession on changing the zoning and insisted that the property adjacent to Oak Forest and the Estate lots was to be R-1, and he doesn't see how the Commission could grant or allow an exception. Larry Aiken stated that the development would amend the request to R-1 zoning. Gary Wallace asked if the Commission is going to discuss Green Valley Road? Ernie Evans stated that before the Commission could approve a plat or master plan the issue of Green Valley Road would have to be settled. Steve Simonson stated that the Green Valley Road issue would have to be approved both by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Both entities would have to buy off on the Green Valley issue. Steve added that the only thing that the Commission is doing this evening is scheduling for a public hearing. Mr. Aiken stated that he needs to get a resolution on Green Valley Road or the development doesn't have a builder. The homebuilder needs to have an adequate marketing window. Mr. Aiken stated that it is his intention, subject to staff recommendation to go before Council between now and the time the Planning & Zoning public hearing and zoning occur, hopefully to present a proposal that the development would assume the total responsibility to the previously suggested upgrade to Green Valley Road (450,000 dollar budget). Mr. Aiken stated that he must receive a resolution 13 . from Council before he can continue with the development, if he does not he must get out from this contract. Ernie Evans stated that the only problem he has is that before the issue goes into public hearing that the map be revised to reflect the R-1 zoning. Mr. Aiken stated that won't be problem. With no further discussion, Tony Moreno moved to set a public hearing on the request from Larry Aiken, to rezone approximately 85.86 acres, located north of Green Valley Road across from Greenshire Subdivision, from R-1 (74.161 acres) and R-4 (11.7 acres) to R-5 (71.8 acres) and R-1 (14.78 acres). Gary Wallace seconded the motion. With a vote being taken, the motion was approved. . #12 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: On a request from Larry Aiken, for Master Plan approval of Besch Property, located north of Green Valley Road, across from Greenshire Subdivision. Steve Simonson stated that on May 23,2000 a request for master plan approval on the Besch property was tabled. Inadvertently, the master plan before Commission was not carried over using the same "PC #, the request was given a new "PC#". Steve added that the request covers the same property and does not see a problem, however suggests that the tabled issue can be placed on the agenda at next meeting and denied. The "PC #" for the tabled issue would go away and the new "PC#" would be operating number. Steve added that it won't be a problem to discuss the new "PC#" this evening. Steve Simonson stated that the development wants to assure the Commission that if the Cibolo development does take place that the Besch property would have tie-ins to the Cibolo development, which would take up some of the traffic pressure for the Besch . development. 14 . . . Gary Wallace asked what is the distance from the City limits of Schertz to Wiederstein Road in Cibolo, and was advised the distance to be approximately a little more than % mile. Steve Simonson also mentioned that there would be two drainage areas, 1) down at Oak Trails 2) Cibolo area. There are three roads that are shown stubbing out to Green Valley Road, two at the R-5 area and one at the R-1 area directly opposition the Greenshire Drive. Larry Aiken stated that the shaded areas shown are the outside boundaries that we believe are flood issues, where modification would be done around the tree line to reclaim the area along the backend of the lots indicated. Don McCrary engineers for the project stated that what would be done is basically a clean out and fill with approximately of foot of fill. These areas aren't steep and wouldn't require additional structures, basically it would be left natural. Gary Wallace asked would the greenbelt be deeded to the homeowners? Mr. Aiken replied yes. Ernie Evans asked for clarification to street ROW. The plan is indicating 50' to 60' ROW's, and it is difficult to understand where 50' ROW ends and starts. The same is true for the 60" ROW commented, Ernie Evans. Mr. Aiken briefly explained the street ROW issue and clarified some of the qUe$on~ addressed. Steve Simonson stated that if the Commission wanted to approve the issue, the only way it could be done would be to receive a new copy with all the corrected changes. 15 . . . Show a clear delineation of 60' to 50' ROW, and correct R-1 lot size showing the correct lot size of 80x120. Steve Simonson stated that the Commission could do one of several options, either table the issue, deny, or approve it pending receiving a new master plan with corrections and dated. With no further discussion, Tony Moreno moved to approve the request from Larry Aiken, for Master Plan approval of Besch Property, located north of Green Valley Road, across from Greenshire Subdivision contingent upon receiving a corrected, dated master plan document. Gary Wallace seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. #13 General Discussion: Tony Moreno: Tony had no comments. Gary Wallace: Gary asked how could we do away with bandit signs all together? Mr. Simonson stated it could be done as a proposal in the City ordinance. The proposal would need to go to City Council and go through the proper procedure. Gary believes it is something the Commission should consider. Joyce Briscoe and William Sommers concurred. Joyce Briscoe: Joyce made mention to the several comments she has received in regard to the Walgreens electronic sign. This dislike is basically to the electronic wording on the sign, citizens dislike it. 16 . . . Ernie Evans stated that if there are concerns of this nature, that maybe the Commission needs to take a look at modification of the ordinance. William Sommers: William had no comments. Ken Greenwald: Ken reported that the city is in Stage two of water conservation, if the aquifer decreases another two feet, we will be in stage three. Ken reported that the city would be meeting with property owners (HOA) in Dove Meadows and Caroline Crossing to address speed limit signs, traffic problems, speed bumps, etc. Ken also reported on the ribbon cutting for Cal- Tex in Tri-County Business & Industrial Park on Saturday. The facility is 1st class. Ken reported that the Schertz/ Seguin Local Government met last Thursday, it was the first meeting Mr. Simonson attended. Ken commented that their within three weeks of acquire over 6 thousand acres for the water rights. In probably six months time we will be ready to acquire contracts to start the water treatment plant. The water treatment plant will be in Leesville on Hwy. 80. Ken mentioned that the cost of the first water well was $450,000 dollars, and there are plans for six more wells. Steve Simonson : 17 . . . Steve reported that a certain gated community in the city has realized the total reality of the true meaning of a gated community. Such items as, streetlights, police patrol and maintenance. The community is asking how do we do away with a gated community. Steve reported that before the end of the year the city plans to have the ROW agreement from RAFB for the Lower Seguin Road project. Steve reported that if you haven't driven by H.P. Printing on FM78, do so. The remodeling has given the business a face-lift. #14 Adjournment: Gary Wallace moved to adjourn the meeting. Tony Moreno seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 9: 15 p.m. 62 ~i~ ,I CL... J _ / /IJ Chairman, Planning & zontAg Commission ATTEST: Y!~ .. .// / '~~/, ~:~- I /1,./, i /t/; .. /:,,: ("-- / '. / If ... _" v._ ii" ".. j /' /, Planning SecVetary, City of Schertz 18