07-13-1999 n/s
.
.
.
e
e
PLANNING & ZONING MINUTES
The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in Regular Session on
Tuesday July 13, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Complex Council Chambers, 1400
Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas. Those present were as follows:
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CITY STAFF
Ernie Evans, Chairman
David Richmond, Vice-Chairman
Keith Van Dine, Secretary
Tony Moreno
Gary Wallace
George Maxfield
Ken Greenwald, ex-officio
Steve Simonson,
Asst. City Manager I
Planning Coordinator
Mary Ybarra, Planning &
Recording Secretary
Commissioners Absent
Others Present
Joyce Briscoe
Don McCrary,
Mike Bufler,
Don McCrary & Associates
#1 Call to Order:
Chairman Evans called the July 13, 1999, meeting to order.
#2
Public Hearing and Regular session of June 22, 1999.
Approval of Minutes:
Chairman Evans asked if there are any correction or additions to the minutes?
1
.
.
.
e
e
With no further discussion, a motion was made by David Richmond and seconded by
Keith Van Dine to approve the minutes of June 22, 1999 as written. Upon a vote being
called, the vote was as follows:
Ayes: Ernie Evans, David Richmond, Keith Van Dine, Tony Moreno and Gary Wallace.
Abstention: George Maxfield (absent at said meeting).
#3 Status of Final Plats:
There were none.
#4 BOA Actions:
Steve Simonson reported the approval by the Board of Adjustment on the request for a
Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance from Andy Mendez, 1104 Morning Rose, at
the meeting of July 12, 1999.
#5 Citizen's Input Other Than Agenda Items:
There were none.
#6 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: Request from Don McCrary &
Associates for Preliminary Plat Approval of Oak Trail Subdivision Unit 2.
Steve Simonson reported that unit 2 is the continuation of the Master Plan for Oak
Trail's. The plat is in two sheet form; the second sheet indicates the flood plain
information, curve data, etc. One question that will need to be addressed is the cul-de-
sacs of Chestnut Oak, Circle Oak and Bear Oak where the building setbacks start at 25'
and drop to 20'. Not having a variance request from Mr. McCrary on these issues it
must be addressed by the Commission whether to allow the distance of 20' or is it an
error on the plat.
2
e
e
.
Mr. McCrary stated that a request for a variance is desired. This would allow flexibility
for the houses on the cul-de-sacs and would allow for a better layout of homes, which
has worked well in other instances.
Ernie Evans asked for clarification on minor differences between the plat and the master
plan? Don McCrary stated that the layout has changed in order to allow the subdivision
to be more attractive, it will also help in utility layouts and drainage. Mr. McCrary added
that there are few less lots than what was originally planned.
Ernie Evans stated an additional problem with lots 40,39, 10 and 11 showing 25' front
yard setback and a 25' side yard setbacks. On an 80' lot that would leave only a 50'
space. Is this an error? Don McCrary stated that in fact it is an error and that it should
be 10' side yard setback on those particular lots. Steve Simonson stated that Block 5,
lot 1, has the same problem. Mr. McCrary stated that this particular lot would front on
Canyon Oak and would like to leave the 10' side yard if the Commission allowed it.
. Ernie Evans asked if there would be any non-access easements on any of these lots.
Don McCrary stated that could be considered, would it be specifically on lot 1 on Circle
Oak? Ernie stated that basically to any of the lots that has a driveway such as Lot 10
and 11 on Bench Trail and Canyon Oak. Don McCrary stated that was not the intent.
Mike Buffler commented that from a builders viewpoint on lot 10 and 11 if side entry
garages are used it would make for a much nicer effect. If the 10' side yard setback was
allowed it would make for a much larger lot. He was hopeful that the Commission would
consider allowing the side yard setback
Don McCrary asked would the Commission consider Block 5, lot 1 to have the 10' side
yard setback and Mr. Buffler's request to leave the lot with no non-access easement on
10 and 11, block 4 and Lot 9 block 5. Ernie Evans stated that he rather not comment on
the non-access issue and suggested discussing it with Mr. Simonson.
.
3
.
e
e
Steve Simonson suggested that because Circle Oak is to take traffic just by the very
nature that it is a straight shot. So if non-access to lots 49, 1 because of the future
bridge, and non-access easement on Lot 1, and the 10' building setback on the lot on
the Circle Oak side. What that has done is to eliminate in two areas major problems.
One being on Circle Oak and the short distance on Turkish Oak would not be a problem
one way or the other. However, if the non-access easement were done on Lot 1 and Lot
49, than the non-access would be good and allow for the 10' side yard on the Circle
Oak lot. Don McCrary stated he did not see a problem with the suggestion.
Steve Simonson stated that a decision needs to be made if the 20' front yard setback in
the cul-de-sac lots of 41-43, 45 & 46, block 2 and lots 7 & 8 block 1, is to be allowed.
Tony Moreno commented that he did not see a problem with allowing the 20' front yard
setback. David Richmond stated he disagreed because he feels the perception around
cal-de-sacs gives the illusion of being crowded and allowing the distance to be less
. would enhance the visual effect. Mr. Buffler stated that the lots were configured to be
larger at cal-de-sac lots to allow for the 80' of building space at the setback line that
would allow for the 20' front yard setback. It is the intention to place approximately 90%
of the homes on cul-de-sacs at a 20' front yard setback
.
Steve Simonson stated that the 25' front yard setback is standard to allow sufficient
driveway area and room for utilities. On street parking is a not recommended in cul-de-
sac lot. The driveway distances are shorten to some degree and vehicles parking would
extend over onto the sidewalk area. After some discussion, the Commission was in
agreement in allowing the 20' front yard setback in the cul-de-sac areas discussed.
With no further discussion, a motion was made by Gary Wallace and seconded by Tony
Moreno to approve the request from Don McCrary & Associates for preliminary plat
approval of Oak Trails Subdivision Unit 2.
#7
Discuss:
The Planning & Zoning Budget.
4
e
-
.
the cost of hiring a consultant. This year the planning budget is requesting $50,000.
Based upon the information received this amount ($50,000) would be sufficient to cover
the cost of a consultant for the Comprehensive Plan. If the Commission is in
agreement, Mr. Simonson suggested that the Commission forward a letter to the City
Council requesting the budget amount of $50,000 is money necessary to continue the
work on the comprehensive plan and to approve the budget amount.
Ernie Evans stated that if the Commission is in agreement he would work on drafting a
letter to the City Council on behalf of the Planning & Zoning Commission requesting the
budget amount of $50,000 be considered and that the Commission is in favor of the
amount. The Commissioners agreed with Chairman Evans suggestion and gave the go
ahead.
Steve Simonson mentioned that an amount has been set-aside for a complete aerial
topographical survey. The older part of Schertz from Aviation Blvd, below FM 78 to the
. Buffalo subdivision, the area behind Wuest, and all of Main Street are areas of the City
that topographical data is not available. Plats did not begin to put topographical
information until the late 70's or late 80's. The plats that were platted in the 1920's to the
late 60's do not have the information. The money is in the budget and city staff will
research to get the best information possible because the area is prone to flooding.
Steve Simonson added that being the flood plain manager for the City and having this
information (topographical) available he would be able to change the flood plain map
because he would know the flood areas. Yes, the city will get flooded again and having
this information available, the flood plain manager would be able to change the flood
plain map.
With no further discussion, a motion was made by David Richmond seconded by Tony
Moreno to forward a letter to City Council recommending approval by the Commission
on the budget amount of $50,000. With a vote being called, the motion was approved.
.
5
.
.
.
e
e
Ernie Evans stated that before the Commission continues with "General Discussion", a
letter to Commissioner Wolverton is part of the packet. If there are any corrections or
additions to the letter please do so at this time. David Richmond mentioned two- (2)
typo's and suggested that an addition to paragraph four be added; that the Commission
be notified of such a hearing on this issue by the County Commissioners in order to
have the Planning & Zoning Commission represented at this hearing. The
Commissioners were in agreement and so directed the addition is added, corrections
made and forward letter to Commissioner Wolverton.
#8 General Discussion:
Tonv Moreno:
Tony had no comments.
Keith Van Dine:
Keith had no comments.
Gary Wallace:
Gary had comments.
GeorQe Maxfield:
George had no comments.
Ken Greenwald:
6
e
e
.
Ken mentioned the Hillert building has been torn down and will become a parking lot
due to the expansion of FM78. Ken added that annexation is not a dead issue. At the
moment we are waiting to hear on the latest information on annexation from Austin.
There will be all sort of requirements plus a three-year service plan, it will get tricky
however it isn't as bad as we had thought. There are a lot more restrictions then what
we thought but it is doable.
David Richmond:
David asked if a definitive date has been set for starting construction on the FM 78
project and was advised it would be late August or early September. Contacts have
been let out. Out of the 20 parcels of right-of-way, nineteen of those properties are
under contract or documents have been signed. The remaining parcel is the Burch
property, which is in condemnation proceeding set for tomorrow in Seguin.
. Steve Simonson:
Steve reported that Mr. Joe Veytia was informed of the Commissions decision to have
Westchester Road brought through and built as a City road. Mr. Veytia has written back
in response and has asked if he could do what he had planned to do the last time; to put
an emergency gate, beef up the grassy area in order to allow emergency vehicles
access if needed. Steve Simonson stated that he advised Mr. Veytia that it was not
possible. Mr. Veytia asked that the Commission be informed of his request. Steve
Simonson asked the Commission for an answer on Mr. Veytia's request. The
Commission was in agreement that the road (Westchester) is brought through and built
as a city road.
#9 Adjournment:
David Richmond moved to adjourn the meeting. George Maxfield seconded the motion.
. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
7
.
.
.
e
ATTEST:
,Jr~ .
Planning S'eoretafy, City of Schertz
e
Chairman, Planning & Zoning CommiS$ion
.e