Loading...
03-25-1997 . . . e e PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in regular session on Tuesday, March 25, 1997 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 DAVID RICHMOND, VICE-CHAIRMAN MERWIN WILLMAN, SECRETARY PIA JARMAN GARY WALLACE KEITH VAN DINE TONY MORENO KEN GREENWALD, COUNCILMAN STEVE SIMONSON, ASST. CITY MANAGER DENISE GRANGER, PLANNING SECRETARY MEMBERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Greg San Marco, McCrary & Associates Ed Laskowski, Sprint Spectrum Wade Hutson, Sprint Spectrum Brian Huddleston, Continental Homes Jack Rowan, Friesenhahn Centre James Russell, Landata James Burrus, Sprint Spectrum Henry Pasadas, Friensenhahn Centre #1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Ernie Evans called the March 25, 1997 regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. #2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Public Hearing and Regular Session March 11, 1997. Pia Jarman moved to approve the Public Hearing and Regular Session minutes of March 11, 1997. Gary Wallace seconded the motion which carried as follows: AYES: Ernie Evans, Merwin Willman, Pia Jarman, Gary Wallace, Keith Van Dine, and Tony Moreno. ABSTAINED: David Richmond (Due to absence at said meeting). #3 STATUS OF FINAL PLATS: . . . e e Chairman Ernie Evans stated the mylars signed for the month of March were: Northcliffe and Bluebonnet Silvas Subdivision. #4 CITIZENS' INPUT OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: There were none. #s Request from Sprint Exception to the Zoning Regulation from 120' to at Southwest Precast CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Spectrum for Special Ordinance for Height 190' for a Cell Tower Property. (BOA #87-97) Steve Simonson stated this is a very straight forward request. The lease agreement is also provided from the owners of Southwest Precast. Pia Jarman asked if the BOA would not require some type of back-up on this; that the height is allowable according to the FAA. stated in the recommendation to the either we have received or have in the request. The letter from the end of the month. board our FAA we would hands data should be Ernie Evans indicate that that supports received by the Ernie Evans stated on the example of the last documents that were given to us at the last meeting, it shows on top of the tower it has tower lighting and in parens it states "if required". Why would this state "if required" and why would it not be required with this height and this location? James Burrus stated the FAA dictates the lighting. If the lighting were to be different the FAA has to approve. If we were to do this differently than what the FAA regulations are, we would have to notify the FAA and record the lighting with them. The rule of thumb is unless it is over 200' the FAA does not require it, unless it is in proximity of an airport that would be affected. Gary Wallace asked if this tower was not lighted? James Burrus stated this tower is not lighted and it is not required by the FAA to be lighted. James Burrus stated the FAA looks at lighting very because of the navigation issues with the planes. guidelines that have to be followed on lighting. seriously There are Ernie Evans stated not putting a light on this tower due to its height with this being so close to other things i.e. Randolph approach area and the other two things in the surrounding area, does not seem realistic. Pia Jarman asked if the AT & T site has a light? stated not to his knowledge. Ernie Evans -2- e e . Gary Wallace stated he is concerned with the ultra lites that are in the area. James Burrus stated he is not opposed to the light. It would be an additional expense but he would not be opposed to putting in lights if this is a request that is important to the City of Schertz. David Richmond stated not having been at the last meeting he did read the minutes. Gary discussed limiting the number of towers. David is also in agreement with this. In the motion that was made a letter of offer to AT & T was requested, is this coming? Ernie stated this will be discussed later. Gary Wallace moved to forward to BOA with recommendation for approval the request submitted by Sprint Spectrum for Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for Height Regulation from 120' to 190' for a Cell Tower at Southwest Precast property, contingent upon the receipt of a document from FAA that indicates the acceptability of the tower. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion which carried as follows: AYES: Merwin Willman, Pia Jarman, Gary Wallace, Keith Van Dine, and Tony Moreno. OPPOSED: Ernie Evans and David Richmond. . #6 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Spectrum, for Site Plan Cell Tower. (PC #309-97) Request from Sprint Approval for Sprint (Postponed 3-11-97) Steve Simonson stated he informed Sprint that he would recommend to Planning & Zoning not to act on this request at this meeting until the BOA action has been taken and also the letter from the FAA has been received. All the other documentation has been received as far as the letter of offer for AT & T and a letter to Southwest Precast offering use of the tower. Ernie Evans stated unless there is any other discussion that needs to take place this request should be tabled. Gary Wallace moved to table the request submitted by Sprint Spectrum, for Site Plan Approval for Sprint Cell Tower unit pending receipt of all necessary documents. Tony Moreno seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. #7 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from Field Services, for Preliminary Plat For Friesenhahn Centre. (PC 312-97) Landata Approval . Steve Simonson stated this plat is for the corner of Live Oak and FM 3009, the old Alamo Waste area. This is a partial plat of a 13+ acre tract. There are several items that need to be corrected: the 100 year flood plain statement, there is a statement that San Antonio requires for CPS, this is in fact in the GVEC service area; the location map does not pinpoint the location; the building -3- e e . setbacks of 50' on FM 3009; 25' building setback on Live Oak Road, Roy Richards Drive should be Roy Richard Drive, Block 1 Lot 1; the signature at the bottom of the right hand side shows a date of 1996, it needs to be checked for the right date; the county tax records shows no school property taxes, this needs to be changed as it has been on the record a very long time and there should be a volume and page. Ernie Evans asked if the ROW on Live Oak Road is correct. Steve Simonson stated at this time he is checking on this with the Public Works Department. Pia Jarman moved to approve the preliminary plat of Friesenhahn Centre submitted by Landata Field Services contingent upon the following: include the 100 year flood plain statement; location map to be pin pointed, correction to GVEC Service; inclusion of building setbacks on FM 3009 and Live Oak Road and the block and lot number; correction of Roy Richard Drive, school property information updated, the ROW on Live Oak Road verified; and the date of 1996 corrected. Gary Wallace seconded the motion which carried as follows: AYES: Ernie Evans, David Richmond, Merwin Willman, Pia Jarman, Gary Wallace, and Tony Moreno. OPPOSED: Keith Van Dine. . #8 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request McCrary, McCrary & Associates for Replat Dove Meadows Unit 4 (PC #308-97) (Disapproved 3-11-97) from Don Vacate and Cul-de-sacs. Steve Simonson stated all of the items requested for the lots is outlined, the items are listed under item #6, lots, drainage, and easements have been added to a couple of areas with all of these listed under the requirements, and the building setback of 20' and rear yard setback of 15' as discussed at the last meeting. Ernie Evans stated he has verified the lots under item #6 of the notes, under the replat reestablished as discussed at the previous meeting and they match what was discussed. Each of the easements were not discussed individually at the meeting as we did with the lots. This is a replat and will be final if approved. Gary Wallace asked what was missing, as on the check list it states "incomplete"? Steve Simonson stated the owner's signature is but because this is a replat the owner's signature is on the original. . Keith Van Dine moved to approve the request submitted by Don McCrary, McCrary & Associates for Vacate and Replat Dove Meadows Unit 4 Cul-de-sacs. Gary Wallace seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. -4- e e . #9 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request Continental Homes, for Bandit Signs Carolina Crossing. (PC #311-97) from for Steve Simonson stated this builder did not have authorization to put up bandit signs and was putting signs. They were stopped. This request is for Bandit Schertz Parkway. an approved up bandit Signs on Merwin Willman stated he recommends disapproval of this request because they are asking for bandit signs "within the City limits of Schertz". Brian Huddleston asked how should it read? Steve Simonson stated for "Schertz Parkway" only. There are only two places bandit signs are authorized that is FM 3009 and Schertz Parkway. David Richmond mentioned the next time we get a letter it should be signed. Keith Van Dine asked why the signs where being put up without approval? Brian Huddleston stated he had called the City of Schertz for the protocol on signage. Brian was given the size requirement and the total number of signs but no one told Brian he had to have approval for a permit. When this was learned signage was discontinued. Brian apologized for the confusion. . Merwin Willman moved to disapprove the request submitted by Continental Homes for Bandit Signs for Carolina Crossing based upon the request to place bandit signs in the City limits of Schertz. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. #10 CONSIDER AND DISCUSS: Bandit/Development Signs. Ernie Evans stated this is a continuing discussion from at least the last two or three meetings. Steve Simonson stated it might be appropriate to bring up that Scott Felder was still putting out signs two weeks ago and again last week end. There also were signs on FM 78 put out by Buffington. Buffington has been given a warning. RAYCO had a sign out on IH 35. This is still happening even after the letter sent out by Steve. The developers are still in violation. Ernie Evans stated Pia and Ernie had talked about this after the previous meeting, that we had, in our "previous lifetimes" discussed this issue at this table at a formal setting. Neither one of them could remember when, where or how but Pia has done some homework and has something that perhaps some of us should and could be interested in. . Pia Jarman stated in going back to a letter of April 25, 1996 from TXDOT telling all those who had bandit signs out, that they were in -5- . . . e e violation of state regulations as far as placing bandit signs in state ROW's are concerned. There after we had a discussions on it. There was a discussion at the Planning and Zoning meeting on 5-14-96 which read "Consider and discuss bandit signs on FM 3009." This was relative to the UDC which we were discussing editing etc. at the time. Steve Simonson had asked if the Commission wanted this in the ordinance and the UDC. "There has always been a state ordinance on bandit signs and it has always been in our ordinance also. In our ordinance it states unless you are authorized bandit signs in the ROW you can not have any signs. The new sign ordinance has been worked on and written and rewritten several times. The way it will be in the UDC is that no signs will be allowed in the ROW unless they belong there for specific reasons i.e. safety, traffic control, etc. all other signs are banned. This is after the political signs in the UDC but will also affect bandit signs. This will also affect Schertz Parkway, the overlay district will have to be amended." The Commission was in agreement for Steve Simonson to delete the bandit sign portions as necessary in the ordinance. There were other discussions but at this time Pia doesn't have that information. Ernie Evans stated last year during the review of the UDC this situation was discussed after the letter from TXDOT was received by the City and also by the developers. This was also about the same time the balloon issue was discussed. These were things that were discussed to change or recommended to change out of the UDC. It appears to Ernie with the problems that we are having today, the cost to the City to police this problem, we would be much better off not having this problem and go back to state law and relinquish on the state law all of our authority and not have to deal with it. Ernie stated these are his thoughts as Mr. Truitt has made his statement to us with his presentations and Mr. Truitt recommended that if the developers needed this level of advertisement or wanted it, then perhaps there is a way for them to pool and to get together with a joint sign. In accordance with our sign ordinance such signs could be placed in certain places on our major thoroughfares; and this would be a way for this to be dealt with. This would be a way for the inspection department to have some control. As stated tonight by Steve even though he has sent letters to the developers it is obvious that unless we want to press the case and fight them, they are not willing to work with us and cooperate with us on the use of bandit signs. Merwin Willman stated technically the state could slap our hands for having this in our ordinance. With the problems we are having the best bet would be to eliminate them completely. When we do decide to do this we need to make a recommendation to let City Council know what we would like and have their input on how they feel about this also. Evans asked if this notice should be sent to City Council to taking any action. Merwin stated it should be done before them if they will concur with our action in this particular Ernie prior asking case. -6- e e . Pia Jarman stated at our last meeting on this issue there was builder that mentioned how the City is being very generous letting them put up bandit signs, as they are illegal in State's view. a on the David Richmond stated he is not sure if this is going to solve the problem because if you recall, way back when in our "former lifetimes" before we had taken any action in the ordinance. The reliance was on TXDOT saying the state forbid it, signs were out there anyway. The state cannot police the signs as we cannot even get them to cut the grass. If we are going to have to fall back on the state law we will have a much worse situation on FM 3009 and Schertz Parkway than we have had to contend with. As we have said and seen, developers are going to do what they jolly well want to. . Steve Simonson stated if the ordinance is changed however, then Leonard can go out and say the City of Schertz forbids bandit signs. no matter what the state law says, the state law backs us up on the state roads. If bandit signs are completely taken out of the ordinance which was talked about but at the last review. It was left in but Steve doesn't remember why. Every builder has signs on the highway. We have given extra authority for bandit signs. The bandit signs are costing the City man hours as Mr. Truitt has stated. It they are banned for any signs that are found, the developer will be citated. In talking with many of the builders, if they are all put on the same playing field, then it will be equal. There is still going to be a fight with at least two of the builders on this but we will deal with them. Brian Huddleston stated he is on the San Antoino's builder council for the Northside and Northwest Homeowners Associations for the bandit sign issue. They came upon a gentlemen's agreement about 45 days ago, with Howard Peek, on behalf of the City Council to allow developers, with certain provisions for limited bandit signage. A letter has been sent to the state through the legislature for a proposal to rewrite the law on bandit signs. All the developers present were in agreement with the gentlemen's agreement except one of the builders, who stated they are not going to play and will do what they want to do. The gentlemen's agreement with San Antonio is for one bandit sign for every 200' and it cannot be within 5' of one another. They are allowed in the City ROW to keep homeowners from slashing them. This is some more information for consideration and it looks like the state is favorable in rewriting its portion as it relates to bandit signs. . Steve Simonson stated what part of what Howard Peek picked up on was what Schertz' Ordinance had with the limited amount and days for bandit signs going back to the 1980's. Based upon the concentrated area that we have, in such a small area, basically from IH 35 to Dietz Road with all of the building going on at this time there is such a cluttered look. In looking at the advertisements in any of the papers it shows the location of these developments with maps. -7- e e . Ernie Evans stated that we have limited the number as stated in the UDC but it see grounds thought the signs in the doesn't work. After about a year of fighting this we for removing the gentlemen's agreement, because we gentlemen's agreement was there when we left bandit UDC a year ago. Keith Van Dine at this time stated there violation most asked how many developers we have working in and are all of them in violation? Merwin are twelve. Steve stated not all of them of them are doing very well in complying. Schertz Willman are in Keith Van Dine stated the ones that are trying to cooperate and doing well are going to have to pay the price for the ones that are not following the rules. Should we punish the developers that are really trying to work with us because of the ones that aren't? The ones that aren't following the rules should be the ones that we go after. Is there a limit on the citations and the fines? Steve Simonson stated he did not think there was a limit to the number of citations but the fine cannot be more than $200.00. At this time no one has been fined, just threatened. Councilman Ken Greenwald stated as far as a citation goes, sure it is a fine, but the builder doesn't care. He will just pass the cost on to the price of the house. . Steve Simonson stated if this is the consensus of the Commission, then the City will enforce it. Merwin Willman stated he would like to know how much the fine is and how high it can go. Steve stated he thought it was $200.00 per offense. Steve Simonson stated while the Commission is "thinking about what you want in the ordinance and send something to City Council to get their thoughts, Leonard is going to be given the authority to write citations for signs where they are unauthorized." We will do our job on the current ordinance. Keith Van Dine stated he would like Steve for the next couple of weekends to keep track of how many citations are written by the inspection department. Steve Simonson stated he will come back to the Commission at the next meeting with how many citations have been written in the last two weeks, tabulated by builder. Merwin Willman stated he would like to go a step further and find out how much we can charge for the fines on the signs. . Steve Simonson stated he would check on this. Ernie Evans asked if the Commission would like a letter sent to City Council on why the bandit signs are being eliminated and their -8- . . . e e comments to this. The Commission was in agreement to such a letter going to City Council requesting their input on bandit signs. Merwin Willman moved to send a letter to City Council to them of the intent of the P & z to delete bandit signs from with an explanation and requesting their input. Pia seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. inform the UDC Jarman #11 CONSIDER AND DISCUSS: Telecommunications Siting. Antenna/Tower Ernie Evans stated this item has been discussed with Steve bringing to the Commission information a couple of meetings ago. This was discussed in length at the last meeting. At this time we have a draft of an article for the UDC as we have discussed. Pia Jarman commended the Chairman for coming up with this document. Pia feels it is a much tougher one than the model we had from the City of Arlington. This is excellent and Pia has a few things to add. Steve Simonson stated it is almost going to be impossible to meet this ordinance. The key to this ordinance is the falling distance. Gary Wallace stated this ordinance may force other companies to use the existing towers. Also if they need any modifications they can come for a variance. Mewin Willman stated that there should be some type of headings on the sections. Also some of the terminology not commonly used needs to be defined as needed in the section. After some discussion between the Commissioners it was decided that information on any restrictions in the Southern Building Code for fencing, and size of lot will be investigated, and more information will be brought back for consideration for this ordinance. Merwin Willman stated he would like to make a recommendation in the UDC that the check lists be an appendix so we may add articles to the UDC. Steve Simonson stated he would have the traffic analysis impact study for the next meeting for the Commission to review. It will be included in the next packets for review for discussion for April 22, 1997 meeting. Ernie Evans stated he would like for all the changes that the Commission would like to the UDC go before the City Council as one recommendation. #12 GENERAL DISCUSSION: Tony Moreno: -9- e e . Tony Moreno stated he had no comments. Keith Van Dine: . . Keith Van Dine stated he has a problem with one of the items that was voted on this evening. When a plat comes in with so many mistakes and it is up to the Commission to correct their mistakes. Keith feels before it comes to the Commission it should be sent back to the engineer to have the changes made. The comments were made by Steve that the engineers are given a check list to follow and they need to follow the check list. Keith Van Dine stated on the tower that has already been built without any approvals, if the Commission were to deny the requests would the City have to make them dismantle the tower. Steve Simonson stated that "yes" they would have to dismantle the tower. Gary Wallace: Gary Wallace stated he had no comments. Pia Jarman: Pia Jarman requested that "all of you gentleman remember" Pia is a little old lady. Next to Merwin, Pia is the second oldest member of this Commission and she is confused. She thought the Commission was in agreement that the final plat would be letter perfect that everything that is required would be on the final plat. The preliminary plat could be approved with contingencies. Last meeting the Commission approved the final plat for Carolina Crossing Unit 2. Going back to the January meeting, we had a preliminary plat. Right after Steve made his comments Ernie "this being part of a gated community the gate details will need to be shown on the plat also". After discussion, Merwin Willman "moved to approve the preliminary plat Carolina Crossing Unit 2 submitted by Continental Homes contingent upon the submission of the gate details, street names, etc." The gate detail was not on the plat. Pia thought that the Commissioners had agreed that unless the final plat had all the items requested it would not be approved. Are we still sticking by the rule that unless everything is right on the final plat it will be disapproved? Keith Van Dine stated he would disagree on preliminary having so many contingencies because it is like we are spoon feeding the developers. Ernie Evans stated it was agreed upon that each one of the subdivisions would show the details on the gate on the plats. was a requirement that we set up because we have not amended section of the UDC. gated This this Steve Simonson stated what the Commission originally wanted to see on the plats was the islands, with the dimensions of the islands, the distance for a car to turn around. To try and put a picture on -10- e e . a plat that has nothing to do with the plat was something that was brought up. If the Commission wants details of the gate which must be provided to our police and fire according to the UDC ordinances, it can be asked. To show a picture of a gate detail on the plat will be hard to do. Ernie Evans stated what was discussed was an aerial detail to show the gate depth, width and dimensions, of how the gate structure, island, and entry way is laid out. Looking at it at a horizontal way it does not show all of the detail. Steve Simonson stated this was on the Carolina plat. Pia Jarman stated this goes back to her question on what was agreed upon. Merwin Willman read from Section VI Paragraph 6 subparagraph 6.3.4 the master plan of a development. This is on the master plan and not the plat as stated in the UDC under this section. Gary Wallace stated this information is needed from a safety stand point the turn around the depth etc. Gary is not sure where the best place would be to show this information. Steve Simonson stated on the plat it should show the islands, width of the road the depth to the gate area and from this you should be able to determine if you have the turn around or not. If more detail is need on the islands or street width they can be provided. . Ernie Evans stated that this information needs to be on the plat either in the notes or a description showing the width, depth, and description of the gate detail. Either on the plat or master plan with an aerial view of the gate, with the measurements to be seen by looking at the depiction which will be provided. Merwin Willman stated this is not in the ordinance. Until this is done we cannot make the builder provide this. Ernie stated that it is not yet in the UDC but we have made it very clear that we want this included and we have asked for it. Pia Jarman stated her question still has not been answered. The consensus was that if we place certain contingencies on the preliminary plat and a motion is passed to that effect, unless it comes back with the contingencies then we don't approve it. do we or do we not want to do that? . Ernie Evans stated if you review your minutes we had this discussion in November that we would not approve a final plat unless the final plat was correct. This was a consensus of this room. In the last month or two we have reiterated the importance of the site plan and master plan, and that we should never approve them if they are not correct. They should not be approved with contingencies or corrections to be made at a later date. They should be correct or be disapproved, as this document is the overall guiding document and in some cases may outweigh somethings that we may do later on in plats which we may have forgotten. -11- e e . Ernie's answer to Pia's question and everyone else at the table needs to answer her question is, as far as Ernie is concerned as an individual of this Commission, Ernie is not for approving master plans, site plans, or final plats that are not correct for whatever reason. Pia Jarman stated whatever we agree upon, we need to stick to it. . Ernie Evans stated the other question on the table is what Keith mentioned: preliminary plats with excessive corrections. The Commissioners when making a recommendation with contingencies either have to feel it is the expert or have to lean on the City staff and say they are the expert and if one is missed it was City staff. Or perhaps when we say "with contingencies" we need to reword that and say "as required by the UDC". The UDC is a guidance for the builders to follow along with the documents provided by either the inspection department, or the planning department. If they cannot follow the document by using this phraseology we have prevented ourselves from being the ultimate authority on what mayor may not be wrong with the document. We need consistency. We need to present the same view point to the developer because if City staff is going to listen to this Commission and it's is going to reiterate to the developers what this Commission expects, we are going to make City staff out in a very funny position, if we don't act on what staff has told the developers. If they have told the developers that the Commission is very strict on final plats and unless you get everything corrected the Commission will not approve it. If the developer comes in with it being right or wrong and we approve it, we didn't make the City staff look very good. We put City staff in an awkward postion defending the UDC and the actions the Commission takes. Keith Van Dine stated if the City staff reviews the plats and it doesn't look right then it should not come before the Commission. Why bring a developer in here if the plat is going to be turned down. There are going to be times that things will get by as no one is perfect. Keith asked Steve if the staff could handle this? . Ernie Evans asked if he could answer this question before Steve. Steve stated "yes". Ernie stated having had the opportunity over the last couple of months to hang around City Hall a lot, Ernie's answer he would like to give is twofold. City staff is part of an organization that has a side of it's business that is politics. They have, in some cases, to appease or work both sides of the fence. In defending the requirements of this city and the ordinances, yet at the same time not over kill or discourage the development activities that we so desperately want and desire in our City. It would be Ernie's opinion in what he has seen, not fact, there are going to be times where it is not going to be expedient for City Staff to keep pushing the developers and therefore it is up to this Commission to do their part. The answer to the question from Ernie is: absolutely true 100%, we never should see it if there is anything wrong with it. The other side -12- e e . of the coin having seen politics, Ernie doesn't see if this is a feasible expectation of this Commission. Ernie at this time apologized to Steve for giving his answer to the question first. Steve Simonson stated Ernie's answer was stated very well. You have to remember when developers come to Steve it is his job to try and assist them and point them into the right direction. Every developer has been informed and so reiterated, to the Commission's position within the last six months with this "drop dead no plat" deal. Some of these plats, particularly on the one this evening, if there are only perfect plats brought to the Commission, then the Commission isn't going to learn anything and forget what to look at. There maybe times that Steve may miss something, just like anyone else may miss something. This is why Steve makes his comments to the Commission in his notes. Any time there is a new developer, your flags should go up because they don't know. Even some of the old developers need to be watched from time to time. It is not impossible for Steve to stop these things. But Steve doesn't want to set Schertz up like it was in the 70's and early 80's. Basically we had a worse reputation than Austin. We are not doing that at this time obviously, and this Commission has a good reputation of working with people. If the Commission wants preliminary plats cleaned up more, not come in as messy as this one, this is not a problem. . Keith Van Dine stated he would put up with a preliminary plat having a few items and the Commission putting contingencies but if the Commission is going to do that, then when the final plat comes in, like Pia has said, then it had better be correct. Gary Wallace stated this is where we are at. Steve Simonson stated what he looks at when there are some weird plats is, if there is enough information on the plat so that at least the Commission knows where the property is with some idea on what is going on it. Merwin Willman stated there has been a lot of discussion on approval of preliminary and final plats in the UDC Section 8 Article XI Specifications Acceptance and Termination of Preliminary Plats if everyone could please read this section on conditional approval. After everyone has read this section maybe at the next meeting we can discuss this and decide if it is needed or not. Merwin Willman: Merwin Willman stated on the pending list there is an item that he would like to have removed. The 500' setback on Schertz Parkway versus 150'. If you could remove this item, as lack of interest by the Commission. Merwin stated he has mentioned this the last couple of meetings and no one has taken an interest or commented. There has been no discussion on this item so it should be deleted. . Ernie Evans stated the last couple of meetings, since this has been -13- . . . e e added to the list, we have had some extreme long meetings and have not had a chance to discuss this item. Merwin Willman stated we have had time to talk about Schertz Parkway being a three or four lane road. Also there is a meeting scheduled with the TIF. This item also should be discussed with them but the only concern has been the widening of Schertz Parkway. This concern is only in Merwin's mind and no one else's apparently. David Richmond: David Richmond stated now that the HEB sign is up visible approaching it from both directions on IH 35. David hopes that neither HEB or McDonald's comes in and says the one can't be seen because of the other. In David's mind they both can be seen just fine even though one is shorter or taller than the other. Steve Simonson stated he has asked the engineers when it was put up and he was told that no they were not looking at the southbound traffic they are looking at the northbound traffic and have no problem with it. Councilman Ken Greenwald: Councilman Ken Greenwald stated this is the week that everything is filed with the legislature. In the TML update there is a bill being filed for every water utility being charged a $1.00 per meter with the money going to TRNCC to provide alternative water sources. Steve Simonson: Steve Simonson stated he has been asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on May 13th could be moved to the library for the Schertz Miss Sweetheart Committee to utilize the Bob Andrews Conference Room. The Commission had a discussion but with there being no equipment for taping at the library for the meeting, the Commission decided not to change the meeting of May 13th to the library. Ernie Evans: Ernie Evans stated on April 1st, there is a Comp Plan meeting at 7:00 p.m., April 8th will be the Planning and Zoning Commission and joint meeting with the TIF. This will be a short P & Z meeting with four items so we may dispense with them quickly and then continue with the joint meeting with TIF. This meeting was scheduled originally for Monday, the 24th but the proper legal documentation was not taken. Ernie Evans stated Denise has typed the intial document on Schertz Parkway that Pia had written with some additional information added by Ernie. Steve has acquired the maps to use in the discussion for the TIF meeting. -14- . . . e e Ernie Evans stated there will be a Town meeting on April 15th and he would like for all of us to be there. This is at our request that this be accomplished because of the comp plan. Denise has input data from 407 documents that have been received from the surveys for calculations. Denise is now typing all of the comments that were written by the citizens on the back page or written throughout the survey. Ernie Evans went through the pending list there are a few items that need to be looked at as soon as possible. Steve Simonson stated the question on 413 Mitchell for an auto repair shop has been checked into. There seems to be no auto shop at this time. The water question on Pfeil Road was a water leak. Steve Simonson stated the New Urban News that was requested for review has been received. If the Commission does decide to take this, it will wipe out all of our money for this year for subscriptions in the budget. The Commission at this time decided to review the New Urban News and if there is a consensus then it will be subscribed for next year's budget. Gary Wallace stated he is concerned with Merwin requesting that item on Schertz Parkway being deleted from the pending list. this something that needs to be discussed with the TIF or is something that we can act on our own? the Is it Steve Simonson stated he cannot speak for Merwin but one of the concerns that TIF has is that they came into existence that Schertz Parkway would be a commercial road. Without saying anything to the TIF we rezoned large sections of Schertz Parkway to residential. The question that has come up is, are we going to consult with the TIF. Steve Simonson stated the issue about the 500' versus the 150' for Schertz Parkway is a separate issue and should be addressed at a separate meeting and the Commission could mention to the TIF that this Schertz Parkway issue is being addressed by the P & Z and we would like to discuss this at a later time. #13 ADJOURNMENT: Keith Van Dine moved to adjourn the meeting. David Richmond seconded the motion, which carried with a unanimous vote. Chairman Ernie Evans adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting is April 8, 1997. . . . . e , = ( . L \ ",-0 1 ( ('(/-?1-- i" /, Chairman, Planning and zoning Commission ./ ATTEST: lJ - }~il fI ' ,'\ /"' '.' ,,' . c ,J ','-J ,u Y\^v,LL: ~ J, \ (',v'(Vi/l,-", / Planning Secretary & City of Schertz, Texas -16-