Loading...
05-14-1996 . . . . e , PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a special meeting on Tuesday, May 14, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the Municipal Complex Conference Room, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas. Those present were as follows: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CITY STAFF PIA JARMAN, CHAIRWOMAN DAVID RICHMOND, VICE-CHAIRMAN MERWIN WILLMAN, SECRETARY TONY MORENO ERNIE EVANS KEITH VAN DINE GARY WALLACE KEN GREENWALD, COUNCILMAN STEVE SIMONSON, ASST. CITY MANAGER DENISE GRANGER, PLANNING SECRETARY MEMBERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Larry Rubenstein, Fulbright & Jaworski t 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Pia Jarman called the special meeting, Tuesday May 14, 1996 to order at 6:00 p.m. Report by Legal Council About Recent Legislation Concerning Zoning Issues. Larry Rubenstein is with the law firm Fulbright and Jaworski. A new statute has just recently passed in the legislature. Larry Rubenstein stated this new statute is something the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council need to be aware of. A couple of years ago there was a tremendous movement in the state of Texas regarding private property rights. At the same time the Fish and Wildlife Service scared everyone about the potential habitat designation for the Golden-cheeked Warbler which affected 32 counties. There are a number of concerns on the Federal level and several concerns on the State level as well. As a result the legislature reads the election returns very carefully. They attempted to responed by adding a new provision. Traditionally if there was going to be a "taking" it was done by condemnation. A City or other governmental body that had the power of eminent domain would decide if there was a public need for real property and would formally act to say this is needed for public purpose. . . . ., e .. The actual Texas Constitution also has a similar provlslon that if land is needed for a roadway or a drainage easement a public need for it, the body could condemn the land, pay the property owner for it and go on down the road. Some case law was also developed with input called inverse condemnation. This is not a formal condemnation but where a property owner states that the land next to his property is condemned which gives the effect of condemning his property. In case law it is going to be required that all property owners set aside easements with restrictions such as overlays. The Supreme Court advised that this "taking" could not be done without paying the property owner. There are also regulatory takings in which other people would have to have access to your property on any ROW's. We now have to deal with our own special statute which says that an action by State Government, any political subdivision, whether ruled ordinance or otherwise, that calls the statute in play, creates a taking. What are the actions? In the case of a municipality it is a very narrow area. In the case of a city they were very kind but not as kind to state action or that of a polictical subdivision. This statue applies to an action that is taken in the ETJ and it has to affect a specific property owner and not necessarily another property owner. It has to impact at least one. The statute goes on to advise that there are now two kinds of takings in the State of Texas. There is the taking as discussed in the U.S. Constitution and the State Constitution or an action which you take that produces a drop in the affected property owners' property value of 25% or more. This constitutes a taking. The statute requires the Attorney General to develop guidelines. There will be copies available through Steve Simonson of the guidelines. The difficulty that you run into is that the statute is less than clear. As to what type of analysis to use to determine the 25% there is a body of case law in the Federal Govenment area that says you look at the reasonable investment expectations of the person when they bought the property. What was the history of the property? What was the history of the development around it. What could they have reasonably expected to have accured? And if the regulatory actions virtually destroys the ability to use the property for that purpose, then there is a taking. This statute goes further and says it does not have to totally destroy it, but it does have to reduce the value by at least 25%. This seems to be where the Attorney General is going. The Commission will have under the statute to develop its own guidelines for planning purposes as to when and how you make the determination as to whether you believe, as an entity, when a taking has occured. This will probalby be handled through the staff. Another important element is that if you follow the statute there are a number of exceptions. You can have certain police power actions, there can be regulations on septic tanks, public health and safety welfare activites on properties as long as you stay within some type of guidelines. It states you can only take such actions as necessary; have some reasonable basis for accomplishing the goal. If you go beyond this basis to accomplish -2- . . . .. , e the goal to a degree that is excessive, it maybe called to question. The good news for Cities (Schertz) is you are pretty well limited only to the ETJ in planning and not zoning and you are only looking at those actions which would negatively impact only one property owner more than another. That having been said, this being the good news, the bad news is, it is not entirely clear whether certain required dedications with staff looking at a certain proposed plat, which the Commission,as a whole, views. The Commission may feel the plat is not a good idea. "We think there should be more of a collector street etc." The amount of traffic count you are looking for in this type of density such as apartments, town homes, or zero lot line subdivision under the new UDC which is being reviewed at this time, what is the impact going to be? The Commission may look at this and in good judgement believe they have not adequately addressed drainage. Ford Engineering may view the plat and may feel something does not look quite right also. It is not clear if the statute will apply or not. It is also not clear yet as this came into effect in September 1, 1995 and the Attorney General's office is not trying to come close to answering any of these questions yet. Dan Morales' office did the very smallest amount that they could to comply with their statutory obligation and no more. They did do a good job on what they did but they did not go very far. Impact fees: it is not clear if you were to look at someone's property and advise them that they are going to have to pay an amount of the impact fee. You then look at property next door and because of the density, there may be a rational basis to treat this differently. The property owners may advise you that their reasonable expectations was that they were not going to have to put in that much infrastructure and the net equity value in the property is reduced. Larry Rubenstein is not sure how this situation will be handled in the court system. If a property owner believes that he ls affected by it and it is not clear if he is directly affected or becuase he is just next door to the property that is being directly affected. An inverse condemnation case states if you are going to master plan this part of town for industrial use and someone has residental property next door, you have hurt the property owner and have you affected the property owner by this action? The statute seems to imply and the Attorney General seems to believe that it is going to be directly affected. Larry Rubenstein stated he is not as convinced because of the exisiting case law on inverse condemnations that some court might not take the position of the owner immediatly adjacent to the area that is affected. If they feel that they are affected they can file suit in the court in the county in which the property is located. For the City of Schertz this could be in three counties. In that law suit they can sue to require that the action that the entity has taken be rescinded. Unlike the normal case where the question is on a taking, it is really up to the judge. Under the new statute the question of the taking is a matter of fact. This -3- . . . .. e , means if there is a jury the jury can decide, not just the judge. The other element to this is the jury is supposed to find as part of this determination the dollar amount of any "damages of the value of the property". If the court and the jury find there has been a taking and they find an amount for the damages, the municipality then has a choice to make: they can either rescind the action as it affects this person's particular property and run the risk of other property owners saying this is not fair you rescinded it for them why not for me. Or the Municipality can say this is important enough, we will pay as if this were a condemnation the dollar amount found as damages. If the municipality wants to appeal the judgement it is blocked from enforcing the question of action against that property owner until there is a final appeal of the case. If the property owner wins he is also entitled for refund of court costs and attorney fees. If you are about to take an action to pass an ordinance to modify a master plan it may be required that the Commission prepare a takings impact assessment. This is California style law being applied in Texas. This means you have to look at whether or not the governmental body thinks there is going to be a taking. Whether this is the type of action that impacts real property interests. If this does, does it impact them negatively? If it does then the question is what is the purpose that is being served. What alternatives might there be and will the alternatives require there be a taking. It does not seem to require that you have professional appraisers to make this determination although the decision of the staff will have to be able to stand, if you fail to do an impact assessment when you are required to. Of course, the first question will be, in case of a municipality, does the proposed action even come under the statute? If it does and you do not prepare an impact fee assessment, any person or property owner who would be affected by the action would have the right to sue to stop the action taking place or to demand the action be rescinded after it has taken place on the basis that an impact fee assessment was not prepared. Again such person/property owner will be able to recover attorney and court fees if sucessful. Now you may start seeing a cottage industry around Dallas and Ft. Worth. There is a lot of micro-management with sign ordinances and other planning issues. The City of Schertz sign ordinance is no where near as micro-managed as a lot of other cities. The City of Schertz is a lot more generous and a lot more friendly to people that are trying to run a mom and pop business. But there is going to be some trouble. This statute also was pointed at the high speed rail. A lot of the neighbors out in the county between here and Seguin did not want to see a high speed rail line. They voiced their concerns that their cows would be affected, and they would lose the value of their farm which was only part of the concerns. If it was to condemn land for a freeway it would be different. With annexation, would this be an action by a municipality that would impact negatively someone's property? These are a few of the things that the Commission will have to look forward to under the new statute. -4- . . . .. e , Ernie taking limits. Evans asked if there is a distinct difference between a if it is being applied to the ETJ or in the corporate city Larry Rubenstein stated that municipalities are off the hook within the city limits which has been clarified by the Attorney General. This is in section A 3 in the statute that the city does not have to worry inside the city limits. Steve Simonson mentioned the point is not so much in the zoning but in the planning area on where we are going from here. If you start doing a master plan (Comprehensive Plan) that includes broad areas in the ETJ that you are changing what is proposed, there, someone could come back later stating that this was done without their consent. This could come back later in annexations and hurt us. Larry Rubenstein stated with major through fare plans which is a good example. A property owner with commercial property across from a major throughfare area, will ultimately see a big bonanza. Whereas the person on the curve from either right or left will have been negatively impacted in that person's property value by 25% over their investment expectations, having thought the road would go their way instead of the other way. This statute was to have the intent to offset the overly heavy hand of the government. But this has hit against problems that really don't exsist. The City of Schertz tries to keep the interest of the people you are working for at heart. This intent will keep you out of trouble. Ernie Evans asked in the Attorney Generals document, is there a formula to calculate the 25% drop in property value or real value? Larry Rubenstein stated it cites back to the same investment case law. The Attorney General does not indicate that you ought to have an appraiser. The Attorney General's office dud the bare minimum. You would need a real estate agent to determine what the highest invested use was of the proposed property. What the value would have been without the government's action, and what it is with the government action. Merwin Willman asked if the City were to do some annexation and it would go all the way through, approved with an ordinace etc., could a property owner then come back and say we are taking the property for any reason? Also is there a limitation on when action can be taken. Larry Rubenstein stated that, yes, they could at least challenge it, whether they win or not. The City has TML insurance coverage and takings is covered under this. Such action would have to fall under the general statute of limitiations which is two years. Ernie Evans questioned if this would be from the time offical action or the public notice of intended action. Rubenstein stated the official action. of the Larry -5- . . . .. e I Gary Wallace commented the logic was if it affected that property owner more than the others. Larry Rubenstein stated within the ETJ, with a number of property owners making that claim. The real question is, there are people that will move to the exterior of the City deliberatly to have all the benefits of being close to the City but not having to pay the taxes. Those people will tell you that their property is worth more by being outside of the City because their taxes are lower. They would have a hard time proving this but if you can demonstrate that the services i.e. Fire, EMS, Police, are provided which means your annexation or service plan for the area to be annexed then those people will have the services for the tax dollars they will be paying for. The one thing to remember is to not check in your common sense at the door. Put yourself in the shoes of the person out in the country. All of a sudden the big city is knocking on your door and how would you react? There will be some people that you will not be able to satisfy. If in doubt, go ahead and do the takings and impact assessement. Of course the lawyers don't want the city to get sued. This is some of the common sense things that have to be looked at and kept in the back of your minds. Larry Rubenstein stated that the reason for this meeting is, there is a gentleman that is not very happy with the proposed action on a rezoning request. Like everyone else he keeps up on legal matters and thinks he has a license to practice and believes this statute applies on matters inside the corporate limits. The question was does it and in checking with the Attorney General's guidelines, this question may raise up more often. Larry Rubenstein is going to talk to Mike Spain concering the UDC whether or not that is an action that would be covered by the statute. Steve Simonson asked on the California type law, if there is more of this type coming into Texas. Larry Rubenstein stated to some extent yes. The cities and school districts have not. One of the reasons micro electronics has not been seen so much in central Texas is, in 1981 when they wanted to expand their plant and considered a proposed property. They were told that before they could get a building permit, because of the impact it would be imposing on the community, that they would be required to build a new bridge, they would have to fund the construction of a new school to be able to take care of the population of new employees that would be coming in etc. This is why they expanded their Austin facility and built a facility in San Antonio. This is the only reason we have micro electronics in Texas. The cities in Texas have not been as greedy in their development of industry. Councilman Ken Greenwald asked if there have been any court challenges to this statute. Larry Rubenstein stated not at this time but he would check into it. -6- . . . .. e I #2 ADJOURNMENT OF SPECIAL MEETING: There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Pia Jarman adjourned the special meeting at 6:42 p.m. The Schertz Planning and Zoning commission convened in a Public Hearing, after the Special Session, in the Municipal Complex Conference Room, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CITY STAFF PIA JARMAN, CHAIRWOMAN DAVID RICHMOND, VICE-CHAIRMAN MERWIN WILLMAN, SECRETARY TONY MORENO ERNIE EVANS KEITH VAN DINE GARY WALLACE KEN GREENWALD, COUNCILMAN STEVE SIMONSON, ASST. CITY MANAGER DENISE GRANGER, PLANNING SECRETARY MEMBERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Wanda Koch, 200 Green Tree Mike Lancaster, Lancaster Developers D.A. Bradfute, Bradfute Subdivision Susan Rose, 1323 Circle Oak Ron Wood, Ron Wood Homes Arthur Terril 6208 Bannocks Don Kossl, M.W. Cude Engineers Carol Jone, 201 Church T J Cantwell, M.W. Cude Engineers L.B. Griffin, 122 Sharen Hill OV Anderson 7510 Fair Oaks Debby Smith, 201 Church Michelle Smith, 201 Church Mrs. George Kearney, 239 Montfort M.W. Cude,Cude Engineers Terry Young, 118 Bacelona Dr. Robert Pish, 7222 Horsewhip -7- . . . .. e I 13 CALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman Pia Jarman called the Public Hearing to order at 7:00 p.m.. Pia Jarman explained the procedures to be followed at the public hearing and thanked everyone for their concerned interest. The City Council public hearings will be held May 21, 1996. 14 To Receive Citizen Input on a Request from Ron Wood, to rezone approximately 4.5 acres Live Oak Hills, Ltd. from GB (General Business) to R-2 (Single Family Dwelling District) Block 39, lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 13; block 40, lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12; block 41, lots 7, and 6, block 42, lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 9. (ZC *130-96) PUBLIC HEARING: Steve Simonson stated that in accordance with the ordinance for a public hearing on a request for a zoning change all property owners within the 200 foot radius were notified. There were fifty-eight (58) letters sent; two (2) returned for unknown addresses; four (4) were returned with two (2) in favor and two (2) opposed. The Chairwowoman reitered that out of fifty-eight (58) letters only four (4) letters where returned. Steve Simonson stated that was correct. Steve Simonson stated this is a straight forward zoning request to change the zoning of the lots affected from the present zoning of GB (General Business) to a residential zoning for the purpose of building homes in the area. Steve Simonson stated in case of any confusion there are two (2) public hearings this evening on the same request for the same area. The first public hearing will be on the request from Ron Wood and following his request will be the request from the Planning and Zoning Commission to consolidate the area in a typical grid lock zoning instead of spot zoning. B. J. Berum advised she is representing Mrs. Kearney who owns lot 12 in block 41. On the legal notice there are two (2) different propoals and if she signs this, is she saying yes to both of the requests? Steve Simonson stated she is signing if she is in favor or opposed to the request of the zoning change from GB to R-2. Steve Simonson stated that Mrs. Kearney's lot is on the request from the Planning and Zoning Commission for the lots on Schertz Parkway. L.B. Griffin asked what GB (General Business) means as he thought all the lots were for "homes" only in this subdivision, with only the lots on the Parkway being GB. Steve which City When Simonson stated orignally all the lots were for residential, Continental Homes first developed in the county. When the of Schertz annexed the area it was zoned for residential. Schertz Parkway was put in and built in cooperation with the -8- . . . .. e , developers that bought and built the road, they requested GB (General Business) zoning for the lenghth of the property along Schertz Parkway to help recoup their money. Since the Planning and Zoning at that time did not want spot zoning which is a strip of GB then homes and then a strip of GB they went ahead and rezoned all of that property the same from IH 35 down to Live Oak Road. This is how the zoning changed just along those strips and it was a continuity zoning at that time. This did not mean you could not build a home in the area but you would have had to come in with a request for a special use permit to build a residence in a GB area. The request from Ron Wood is to change all the lots not on Schertz Parkway back to residential, like it was originally. General Business encompasses all types of businesses that you would normally see i.e. on IH 35 excluding industrial use. L. B. Griffin asked with the request from Ron Wood what would the restrictions on building be in comparison to that of Live Oak Hills being 1400 square feet, permanent rock or brick type of building. Steve Simonson stated he is not sure about the restrictions as the homeowner association documents were not available. The City does not enforce the restrictions on a homeowners covenants. Pia Jarman stated that the public hearing is on the request to rezone, not the size of the building. The Commission can only designate the size of the lot which is R-2. Ron Wood stated the original deed restrictions called for 1250 square feet minimum. As stated before in Greenshire they have deed restrictions of 1000 square feet. L.B. Griffin asked if water is available from Schertz Parkway to the residential area and sewer? Steve Simonson stated water is available on Schertz Parkway and sewer is also. Bob Pish, 7222 Horsewhip asked what the designation NS (Neighborhood Services) implies as opposed to GB (General Business). Steve Simonson stated basically the biggest difference in GB is you are allowed to have a used car lot and outside businesses. NS is more conducive to neighborhoods, e.g. convenience stores. It would not allow paint and body shop or used car sales but almost any other business. Bob Pish, stated if the lots along Schertz Parkway are going to be designated as GB those lots aren't deep enough to put in a McDonald's, for example is it practical to desginate a strip of land that is too narrow to put any significant business on as GB? Should the Zoning Commission not consider that the size of the lots will limit significantly what can be done with them, with them ending up being neither fish nor fowl. The Commission neeeds to look at a practical business depth off the road. At this time with there being no other comments or questions, Pia Jarman, Chairwoman closed the public hearing on the requet from Ron -9- . e , . Wood at 7:15 p.m. . . 15 To Receive Citizen Input on a Request from the City of Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission to rezone the remaining lots in blocks 39, 40, 41, and 42, excluding lots 9 - 16 in block 41 and lots 10 - 18 in block 42 from GB (General Business) to R-2 (Single Family Dwelling District). Lots 9 - 16 in block 41 and lots 10 - 18 in block 42 from GB (General Business) to NS (Neighborhood Services). (ZC *131-96) PUBLIC HEARING: Steve Simonson stated that in accordance with the ordinance for a public hearing on a request for a zoning change all property owners within 200 foot radius were notified. There were thirty (30) letters sent; three (3) were unknown addrresses; one (1) was returned opposed and none were returned in favor. Terry Young, stated since the Commission has received so few responses back, is the Commission going to make a recommendation to the City Council. With only four requests returned will it be the Zoning Commissions request to rezone the property? Chairwoman Pia Jarman stated the Commission will look at the issue itself to see what is the best use for the land and then make a recommendation. All of the replies that were never returned may also have an impact. stated on the query from Mr. Pish, in whose area in question that we are suggesting be rezoned was not sufficent in depth to accommodate any type of we know that to be a fact. Do we know the depth of David Richmond opionion the from GB to NS business, do the property? Steve Simonson stated this would have to be researched but Steve's understanding is that on Schertz Parkway there was ten (10) feet taken on both sides of the road, with the lots being 115'originally. There was 60' orginally of ROW. It was called Palm Lane. This would leave the lots approximately 100' deep. Steve's understanding is all the lots left on Schertz Parkway have at least 100' or more in depth. Steve reminded everyone that was not present during the original rezoning of this property from residential to GB, that at the time Schertz Parkway was made, Mr. Sam Parnes, Morton Southwest representive, stated emphatically that Morton Southwest owned most of the land along Nacogdoches Road. It developed land sold on Nacogdoches Road with residential behind and GB in front like what Live Oak Hills was going to be at that time. Morton Southwest left everything 200' deep with businesses advising they do not want 200' deep but they need 100 X 100. In some cases it worked and some cases it didn't, if the company had to do it again it wouldn't do it this way. If you were to take our standard zoning for GB it is 100' X 100'. No lot existing out there in Live Oak Hills could be developed by itself as a GB lot or NS lot, all -10- , . . . e , of them have to be a minumum of 100' X 100' with 100' front face, so there will have to be a combination of lots. 16 ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING: There being no new information, Chairwoman Pia Jarman adjourned the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m. The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in a regular session, after the public hearing. 17 CALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman Pia Jarman called the May 14, 1996 regular meeting to order at 7:25 p.m. 18 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Public Hearing and Regular Session April 23, 1996 Merwin Willman commented in looking at the minutes it seems that the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission is secondary to the Public Hearing. Merwin Willman feels this should be the other way around. Pia Jarman stated this is the way it was handed to her and this is the way Denise got it when they both joined the Commission. Pia Jarman stated that the suggestion will be taken into consideration at another time. Merwin Willman moved to approve the April 23, 1996 Public Hearing and Regular Session minutes. Ernie Evans seconded the motion which carried as follows: AYES: Pia Jarman, David Richmond, Merwin Willman, Ernie Evans, Tony Moreno. NAYS: None. ABSTENTIONS: Gary Wallace, Keith Van Dine (Absence from said meeting). 19 STATUS OF FINAL PLATS: Pia Jarman stated there were none at this time. 110 CITIZENS: INPUT OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS There were none. 111 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Request from Ron Wood on the above ZC #130-96. Steve this that Simonson stated for those who weren't around in those days land was always zoned R-2 until Schertz Parkway was built and is when GB was put in at the request of the builders. Live -11- , . . e e Oak Hills property is included in this for continuity of the zoning. This was not a request by any of the Live Oak Hills property owners at that time and there also were not any objections to the rezoning at that time. David Richmond stated he feels very strongly that looking at development that has come along FM 3009 and has begun to go along Schertz Parkway, and with the GB that has been approved out on IH 35, that quite possibly it makes sense to rezone this area along Schertz Parkway from GB to NS just to restrict the possibilty as Steve said in the public hearing of some less than desirable type businesses going in there, if we are going to see it, contrary to the earlier thoughts of development of Schertz Parkway being developed as it is today with Ashley Place becoming the forerunner of a more residential type street. The area between the residential and the NS will serve as a buffer and will be more desirable. Merwin Willman stated he agrees with David that it makes more sense to rezone this area as requested. Gary Wallace moved to forward to City Council for public hearings the request submitted by Ron Wood to rezone approximatley 4.5 acres Live Oak Hills, Ltd. from GB (General Business) to R-2 (Single Family Dwelling District) Block 39, lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 13; block 40, lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12; block 41, lots 7, and 6, block 42, lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, with the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Tony Moreno seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. 112 Request from City of Zoning Commission on the CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Schertz Planning and above ZC #131-96. Gary Wallace asked about the one letter that was received back opposed was there any rationale. Steve Simonson stated the rationale was what was heard earlier this evening. This is why the Commission held the special session with the lawyer. The person quoted the statute out of context. The lot in question is owned by the City of Schertz because of the 100' easement. Tony Moreno moved to forward to City Council the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to rezone the remaining lots in blocks 39, 40, 41, and 42, excluding lots 9 - 16 in block 41 and lots 10 - 18 in block 42 from GB (General Business) to R-2 (Single Family Dwelling District). Lots 9 - 16 in block 41 and lots 10 18 in block 42 from GB (General Business) to NS (Neighborhood Services). Ernie Evans seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. 113 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Request from Debby Smith, -12- , . . e e 201 Church Street for a Specific Use Permit. (SUP 96-6) Steve Simonson stated the request is to use this as a school and to maintain the church as a church with church functions such as weddings etc. Debby Smith has clearly spelled out the uses that she wishes to have, with most of the uses being what the church already has had. To remind everyone a special use permit is specified that no matter what happens to the property it has to stay as a SUP or be rezoned. If the property were sold the new owners would have to utlilize the property in the manner in which the SUP was issued for. This is not like a rezoning where you have a broad range of uses. The SUP is just what it means, specific use permit. Merwin Willman asked if the daycare will be following the state requirements. Debby Smith said yes, they would be following the state requirements for a daycare. Gary Wallace asked who actually owns the property? stated she owns the property. Debby Smith Merwin Willman asked what they would be doing with the empty marked #77, across the street as she has not asked for SUP this. It appears that it will be some time before this lot is for anything so it should be excluded from the request at time. If Ms. Smith decides to use the lot then she could back and ask for a SPU for this lot. lot for used this come Debby Smith parking lot sides and they could court. stated they would like to use this lot as an overflow and also they would like to fence it in on three (3) use it for activies for the children at the school so be protected by a fence with a removable basketball hoop Pia Jarman said "so you do have a use for this lot right away". Debby Smith stated that is correct. Gary Wallace moved to forward to City Council for Specific Use Permit to schedule a public hearing, the request submitted by Debby Smith, 201 Church Street with this Commission's recommendation for approval. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. 114 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from Lancaster Development to Rezone approximately 10.198 acres between Woodland Oaks Drive and Dimrock from NS (Neighborhood Services) to R-5B Gated Community. (PC #132-96) Steve Simonson stated with the R-5B zoning, this allows for single family residence without zero lot line. They still have to maintain the 5' sideyard set back, 20' building set back. Also notice there is a proposal for a 24' building setback with a 26' -13- , . . e e wide street. With R-5B zoning it is required that there be rear entrances with rear garages. This being a variance that Mr. Lancaster is requesting. The other items would be the front yard set back from 20' to 24' this being more because of the street being 26'. With the size lots he is requesting, R-5B is the only thing available in the current ordiance to accomadte this. Merwin Willman stated this development would be in front of Woodland Oaks. If this were just a normal built community of homes Merwin would not be so concerned but because this is a gated community surrounded by a fence, Merwin does not feel this is compatible with what is in Woodland Oaks. This set up with only one entrance and exit onto Dimrock, would increase the flow of traffic onto Dimrock and with what is going on over there now this is going to increase even more. Merwin Willman stated he does not think this is the appropriate place for a gated community. Merwin Willman stated he could not agree with a 26' street either. David Richmond stated he also agrees with Merwin and these were his concerns also specifically. On a more general nature, David's concern is with the development on FM 3009 as we are asked to approve more and more. Given this, we seem to be so concerned with filling up this area on both sides with roof tops, we are going to lose the nature of that corridor which today provides a rural setting for the neighborhoods which have intentionally developed a step back off the highway to retain the heavily treed ambience along the area. A suggestion like this to forcibly create a small area with small streets appears to be incompatible with Woodland Oaks development behind it. This gives the appearance of a filler and takes up all of the property that now provides a substantial greenbelt buffer for the entire Woodland Oaks community on the front. From an over all perspective, the Commission needs to be concerned about this not only on FM 3009 but also on Schertz Parkway as we are increasingly asked to consider requests from developers to look at more and more subdivisions to develop in the City. We are right now at a time of significant growth and David feels we might want to slow this down a little bit from a residential stand point. In a very short period of time from the City's historical point of view we have approved residential communites adding a considerable number of residential homes. Pia Jarman asked Steve Simonson how many houses are going up at the moment in various stages of completion. Steve Simonson stated there are 176 homes on the ground right now being constructed. We have platted since 1993, 1328 new lots, from 1990 to 1993, 368 new homes were built in the City in the existing subdivisions where streets and lots were empty. So you have 1328 currently platted. This does not include the potential in the subdivisons that are already building and not fully platted out. As a reminder, if the Commission is either, in favor of or against Mr. Lancaster's request, this area is zoned GB currently and could develop as such. -14- , . . e e Ernie Evans stated with the homes across Dimrock and leaving that side of the street open for that particular purpose because it continued to be open for business. When Pulte put in its model homes the company was advised to do the extra work to put in a cul-de-sac. With the housing scheme with the lot width and distance between homes in Woodland Oaks is 15'. Steve Simonson stated 15' or more. Ernie stated we are going to be putting something in front of these homes and take it down to 5' between homes. Merwin Willman stated it would have to be 10' between homes 5' on each side. Ernie stated if this was a public hearing he feels some of the home owners would be here to object to this. Gary Wallace stated he has a problem with granting a variance on the rear entry garages which will dump the traffic flow into the streets and typically on these smaller homes the garages ultimaltly become storage areas with the streets becoming garages even though they are required to provide two (2) off street parking spaces. Gary feels we will end up with 26' wide streets jammed with cars. If you had the rear entry then the cars would be on that side of the house. Keith Van Dine stated he has a problem with one way in and one way out being the same. This could create a real problem. Pia Jarman stated Steve had mentioned some time ago with the current building going on, the inspectors are inspecting a large number of houses a day and/or week. Steve Simonson stated the inspection department is doing between 60 and 70 inspections a day. With this being handled by one inspector most of the time, at the current time with the number of homes being built. Pia Jarman stated she doesn't have a problem so much with the gated community itself, as she does with the fact that the area, though not heavily wooded, does have nice trees and with this request of homes she doesn't see how they are going to be able to save the trees and Green Field as with a gated community they are required to put a wall on the outside. Basically, all the green space will be gone. On the plan there is a very small section on the corner of Dimrock and FM 3009 left as green space. One of the reasons people have bought into Ashley Place and other developments is due to the green space which provides a country atmosphere. Ernie Evans stated on the check list, #3 deals with whether what is proposed is compatible with the rest of the development in the area, this also being Merwin Willman's point. Mike Lancaster stated it sounds like he needed to put his salesman's hat on. There were a lot of comments on the lot size allowing for 10' between houses instead of 15' with this taking a lot of trees down. Playing the devil's advocate, what if a shopping center came in? All the trees would have to be removed. Also the people that bought the land behind this, did they realize -15- , . . e e what might go in this area some day? Would these people rather have a neighbor behind the fence or a dumpster or commerical business? Also there is a 50' building set back line to save trees. Everyone wants to save trees as this helps to sell a house. This would leave a 50' strip behind the house on the property line treed. If this was a shopping center every tree would be knocked out so the business can be seen from the street. In keeping with the country ambience and small town feeling Mr. Lancaster believes a residential use for this property would stay in line much better than a commerical use with a pile on sign, advertising peoples' businesses that could be seen from the Woodland Oak residents' back yards. On the subject of the streets the reason why in smaller developments like this, the developers like to see a narrower street is, it allows for cars to be parked on both sides of the road and still allows for emergecny traffic to get through. But at the same time it is narrowed down enough to make people driving cars to slow down, a safety factor for the parents. "If this is a big problem we can go to 30' streets". On the gated community issue he said they are a popular thing at this time and there is a lot of concerns. This has been looked over and there doesn't seem to be anything incorporated that the other gated communities haven't already addressed. The gates and streets would be maintained by the homeowners' association. Having the gate there with the houses backing up to FM 3009 with a secured area, this would provide for a secured buffer. With the rear entries, there is a 10' set back. Instead of going with the rear garage and forcing the houses to go out into the street more, Mr. Lancaster is requesting a typical street with a garage on the front, with the 20' front yard setback being a 24' front yard setback to save trees and provide more green space between the street and the houses. This would increase the overall width 8' on both sides of the street with 10 to 12% of a street scape width. There will be a masonry fence along FM 3009. On the landscaping, the portion on the corner improving the entry to Woodland Oaks and matching what is there now. The area along Dimrock will be irrigated from FM 3009 to the entry. On the additonal traffic that this would generate, if the entry was off FM 3009 not very many people would go out on FM 3009 to Dimrock where if the exit stays where it is, the entrance would not be taking a right and going south. Pia Jarman mentioned she is concerend with the saving of trees and with a wall it won't have the same kind of look that there is now with the open green area. Mike Lancaster advised with the subdivision ordinance requirements you have to have a masonry fence six (6) feet tall. Trees are much higher than this. What if there were a shopping center in this area they would take out all of the trees. Pia Jarman commented with this area not being GB there would not be a big shopping center going in. David Richmond stated we are paying attention to our buisness -16- , . . e e requests in the residential areas and if you look at what is along FM 3009 with it being zoned NS the only things that are along there at the present time to include the area in Cibolo is a couple of churches, a couple of small but well kept gas stations and we recently approved the bank at FM 3009 and IH 35. We as a Commission will look very hard at requests for commercial ventures to go into the NS areas. In the same type of way we are looking at Mike Lancaster's request. Being in front of a neighborhood like Woodland Oaks or Savanagh Square or any other area around there, we are concerned, as Pia mentioned, what the buffer will look like coming off FM 3009 and of how it looks to convey the ambience of the street. The potenital is not in this area for a shopping center or maybe not even a strip mall. The Commission will have to watch with all of the development going on. Over the last few years we haven't had any such requests. Even though that area with signficiant development of neighborhoods lends itself to addtional things like churches and these would be easily approvable additions in the NS area. David is concerned about the fact that we are begining to see the pressures of putting development upon development in areas of the city that are already heavily developed. We have toured the City ourselves, we don't have to be reminded that we have one of the largest square miled cities adjacent to San Antonio with a lot of area that is undeveloped and a lot of area that lends itself to future development. The present areas planned to be developed are in the areas that are heavily developed areas. This is the way this Commission needs to look at sharing the wealth a little bit and ensuring that the City is going to grow over the entire scope of the City and the entire area available to us, rather than in the most heavily and already densely populated areas. Ernie Evans asked what the rationale is of leaving the remainder of the property NS. Mike Lancaster stated this area was left out because he felt as the area continues to develop there is going to be some need for retail type use. Since the commerical is across the street on Woodland Oaks the other corner was held out. What is left is 175' wide. Ernie Evans referred to Article 3 and that everyone needs to think about this. The other thing is in our recent history on how we have worked with the various communites as we worked to help put them together. We have required a dual entery/exit and this has been set up with almost every subdivison or gated community that has gone in. We have worked very diligently to keep this intact, with breakaway gates. And we also have created things for the emergency services that will be provided. Ernie Evans asked Steve Simonson if the fire department has looked at this subdivision and what their comments are. Steve Simonson stated with this being a zoning request the department has not reviewed it. Steve mentioned that the department does not like narrow streets. Steve mentioned City's requirement for a cul-de-sac is a 50' radius which is a circle. fire fire the 100' -17- , . . e e Mike Lancaster stated that the cul-de-sac's are typical size and the streets will be 30'. David Richmond stated he knows we are not here to consider the land use necessarily but as portrayed here, which is probably not drawn to scale, David has a hard time understanding if the arrow is correct in the cul-de-sac portraying an 80' radius, when in fact the line drawn indicates the diameter. You compare that width with the 26' street coming in, the 80' diameter is more in keeping with the 26' street than the 80' radius would be. Mike Lancaster stated that is an error. It should be "diameter" not a "radius" which in fact would be a 40' street with a 50' out to the utility easement which is the same as a ROW line. This would be the same size as the ones in the City now. Merwin Willman stated the land use should be one of the items we should take into consideration for rezoning and incompatiblilty to any of the surrounding areas. Also one of the requirements is does this keep in line with the comprenhensive plan. There is no doubt about gated communities not being in the comprehensive plan. Merwin Willman mentioned he cannot see a gated community in front of Woodland Oaks. This does not seem to be compatible with what is in the area now. Merwin Willman moved to recommend to City Council disapproval on the request submitted by Lancaster Development to rezone approximately 10.198 acres between Woodland Oaks Drive and Dimrock from NS (Neighborhood Services) to R-5B Gated Community. The disapproval is due to its not in keeping with the comprehensive plan and also it is not compatible with the surrounding areas being a gated community. Ernie Evans seconded the motion which carried as follows: AYES: Pia Jarman, David Richmond, Merwin Willman, Ernie Evans, Gary Wallace, Keith Van Dine. NAYES: Tony Moreno. ABSTENTIONS: None. Mike Lancaster asked if this was not a gated community, would it make a difference. Merwin Willman stated in keeping with the comprehensive plan, residential with NS is compatible with the area behind it. Merwin Willman commented he does not see a gated community in front of Woodland Oaks. If it was a standard residential subdivision, similar to what is in Woodland Oaks it could be considered. A gated community in front of Woodland Oaks is not appropriate. Councilman Ken Greenwald stated as a little background info on FM 3009 and the overlay, originally when this was developmed 10 to 12 years ago, it was called a corner clip concept. At the intersections there would be gas stations, dry cleaners, photo shops, convenience stores etc. for the neighborhood type services. -18- , . . e e This is the concept behind NS with residence development. behind for Mike Lancaster stated if the Commission will reconsider this request he is willing "to pull the gates and make 30' wide streets". Mike Lancaster stated he would really like to do the project and "when you come in and ask for everything you can and then you get turned down, it is rough". Mike Lancaster mentioned he would like to be a really good neighbor and he understands there is a philosophical difference on gated communities. "This is not a catastrophic selling point to the builder to have the gate there. It is just a luxury". Mr. Lancaster believes the residential development there will be welcomed by the Woodland Oaks homeowners. Gary Wallace stated he doesn't have a problem with the gated community because Berry Creek is going in just a half a block away and it is a gated community beside Woodland Oaks. Pia Jarman commented Berry Creek is not on top of another community. Pia Jarman asked the Commission how they would feel about Mike Lancaster coming in with a different type of zoning request. Keith Van Dine stated if a request is submitted with the gates taken away and 30' streets with emergency exit and present it, the Commission will consider such a request. Merwin Willman stated he would like to see an entrance and an exit on both Dimrock and Woodland Oaks Drive. Ernie Evans commented that this same problem was addressed in Greenshire about the number of entries/exits to an area. If this is opened back up we owe it to ourselves and to the way we try to deal with the land use, to be consistent, which could create a problem if there is only a single entry and also there is a safety problem involved. Steve Simonson stated with this being a zoning request in accordance with our ordinance, if at this time the Commission is to turn this down it cannot come in for the same request for twelve (12) months. This is the way the ordinance is written at this time. If this request were brought to us again as a different type of zoning i.e. R-2, R-6 or something of that nature, then it could be brought back before the Commission. Currently the way it has been voted on as an agenda item, according to our ordinance it cannot come back before the Commission for twelve (12) months. Unless the Commission can agree that there is some kind of overwhelming reason why it should be relooked at. Steve Simonson advised that he will get with Mike Lancaster and try to work out a different type of zoning and if this is to happen, will the Commission be willing to look at it. Keith Van Dine stated he would speak for himself and "consider" anything the gentleman brings in, which necessarily mean approval. he would does not -19- , . . e e The Commission was present something reconsidered. in agreement that if Mike Lancaster that is compatible with the area, it was will to be 115 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from M. W. Cude, Engineers, for Preliminary Plat Approval Woodland Oaks Unit 5-B. (PC #270-96) Steve Simonson stated there are three (3) items on the plat that need to be corrected. The sewer lines need to be removed. This is a construction plan item, the building setbacks need to be labeled, and as a reminder on a final plat the signature blocks need to be included in accordance with the subdivision ordinance. This looks very much like the Master Plan. Merwin Willman asked about the retention pond being part of this unit or is it separate? Steve Simonson stated the drainage into it will drain into this unit. M.W. Cude stated the pond will drain into both units embankment being off to the side. This will be natural into Ashley Place also. with the drainage Ernie Evans questioned the site map indicating that the Unit 5-B area goes all the way to Maske Road. M.W. Cude stated this will need to be corrected as it stops before Maske Road. Merwin Willman moved to approve the request submitted by M. W. Cude, Engineers for preliminary plat Woodland Oaks Unit 5-B with the following corrections: removal of the sewer lines, building setback lines need to be labled, signature blocks need to be included, and correction to the location map. Tony Moreno seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. 116 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from M. W. Cude, Engineers, for Preliminary Plat Approval Woodland Oaks Unit 6-B. (PC #271-96) Steve Simonson stated the same three comments that were made previously apply. The site map is correct and follows the master plan. Tony Morneo moved to approve the request submitted by M. W. Cude, Engineers for preliminary plat of Woodland Oaks Unit 6-B with the following provisos: removal of the sewer lines, building setback lines need to be labled, signature blocks need to be included on the final plat. Keith Van Dine seconed the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. 117 from Final D.A. Plat CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request Bradfute, Bradfute Subdivision for Approval. (PC #267-96) -20- , . . e e Steve Simonson stated he has no comment on this final plat. looks good. It D.A. Bradfute stated that GVEC has been granted a 10' easement along Borgfeld Road to go under ground to remove the overhead power lines and to also go across FM 3009 and underground with power lines. Bob O'Neal stated this will be very advantageous because they can draw electricity from both directions and also be able to put in a switch box next to the Animal Shelter to be able to furnish electricity across the street to the Xeriscape Park. Merwin Willman moved to approve the request for final plat submitted by S.A. Bradfute, Bradfute Subdivision. Gary Wallace seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. 118 Consider and Discuss Bandit Signs CONSIDER AND DISCUSS: FM 3009. Steve Simonson asked if the Commission wanted this in the ordinance and in 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 a sign in the ROW you cannot have any. The new sign ordinance has been worked and written 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 coming after the political signs but will also affect bandit signs; this also will affect Schertz Parkway. The overlay district will have to be amended. The Commission was in agreement for Steve Simonson to delete the bandit signs portions as necessary in the ordinance. 119 CONSIDER AND DISCUSS: Comprehensive Plan Pia Jarman stated this could be handled by a committee. If everyone is in agreement with such a committee, please volunteer. Pia, Steve, Merwin, Tony, Ernie, Gary, and Keith were all in agreement to form a committee which would bring back a proposal to the Commission on how to bring the comprehensive plan up to date. The Commissioners all agreed to comprehensive plan as an outline. then to go through the 120 GENERAL DISCUSSION: Tonv Moreno: Tony Moreno stated he had no comments. Keith Van Dine: Keith Van Dine stated he liked the new note books being used for the Commission information. -21- e e , Gary Wallace: Gary Wallace stated he had no comments. Gary mentioned he didn't like the new note book. Ernie Evans: . Ernie Evans announced he also likes the new note books. Ernie Evans stated in reference to the request that was disapproved tonight Ernie does not like the single entrance. This could still be a gated community but he does not agree with a single entry. The proposal for 26' streets is not acceptable either. If they were so intent on building houses in front, why did they seperate one piece of this as commercial piece of property and not build the street through. We have forced both of the gated communities to have at least a break away gate of some kind as a seperate entry to the facility. "Personally if I lived in Woodland Oaks, I wouldn't want you to come in and cram in a row of homes in front of me legitimate or not. You would be devaluating my property because what is up front is a very narrow, very packed together entity". If they are very interested coming back in, at a very minimum they should be forced to go back to some kind of standard of R-2 which is a larger lot size, structured differently without a single entry. Steve Simonson stated he agrees with Ernie. Steve talked with Mike Lancaster repeatedly to persuade him quite a long time. Mr. Lancaster did receive a copy of the ordinance and brought the request in and it had to be handled accordingly. It does not fit with number 3 on the check list. Steve also advised him of what to expect from the Commission from past experiences. Steve stated he also advised Mike Lancaster to either bring pictures or a video if he thought so highly of his development. Mike Lancaster brought neither of the suggested items. Ernie Evans stated the cul-de-sac issue is a real big, touchy issue as Ernie has driven around and there is no way he would live in the cul-de-sac and try to get a fire truck in there if the best you can do is get a car in. If there is only going to be a single entry into this subdivison Ernie dosen't feel we are using the land right or being fair to the citizens or the staff that is going to have to support this. . Steve Simonson stated the other point is that the zoning is only for a 200' deep commerical strip up front. The rest of the land is PUD back to the drainage ditch. Mike Lancaster could come in and request PUD but what the Commission has spoken tonight is that the only way Mike Lancaster will be able to get anything in there is to have an entrance out onto Woodland Oaks and back to Dimrock and sufficient lot sizes to match the lots in Woodland Oaks now. The lots in Woodland Oaks now run from the middle 60's wide to 120' to 130 deep there are some wider, Mr. Lancaster would have to match that zoning. There isn't a R-2 zoning in Woodland Oaks as such now. It is a PUD with a mix of lots but nothing smaller than 60 X 120. Most of all the lots are bigger. Also Steve will advise Mike -22- , . . e e Lancaster that the Commission would be more willing to look at the whole piece instead of cutting out a commercial piece. Steve Simonson stated if you look at the Lone Star convenience store, the road behind this backing to the homes is all commerical. This is why the road was brought in behind the Lone Star. The other item will be that the green space will need to be relooked at. They will still have to meet the 50' building set back on FM 3009. This will put the buildings at least 60' from the road and Mike was told this originally. This is why he was told he needed to have a land plan not just a rezoning request. David 3009. road. Richmond stated that there will need to be a buffer on FM They do not need to be packing houses into a 6' wall on the Even if the lot numbers are cut in half. Merwin Willman: Merwin Willman stated he did not like the new note book. Merwin Willman stated the Council passed an ordinance which states in order to provide low water requirement turf, all new landscaping turf installed or planted in conjunction with building permits issued after June 1, 1996 shall be either Buffalo Grass, Blue Grama, Zoysia, or Bermuda. Merwin asked Mr. Sweatt if this would be in conflict with our UDC. Mr. Sweatt advised that once the UDC gets completed this will be included in the UDC and revoked. Councilman measure to development. Ken Greenwald stated this was done as an emergency try and cut our water usage because of all the new The current ordinance encourages xeriscaping. David Richmond: David Richmond indicated he also likes the new note books a lot. David Richmond asked in re the new ordinance with the continuing attempt to finish the landscaping at the front of his subdivision with grass other than the now specified, will this prevent the Greenshire Homeowners from finshing their entrance. David stated he has talked with the manager they have hired for the homeowners association and she was not sure. Is there any way they don't have to comply because they are not done with what they restarted? Councilman Ken Greenwald stated the ordinance would not go into effect until June 1, but with the landscaping being half done there shouldn't be a problem. David Richmond asked how the removal of the sign for Woody's was coming along. Steve Simonson stated he has sent a letter to the owner with no response at this time. The sign cannot be removed as it belongs to the owner and not Woody. The owner was advised to bring the sign into compliance with. the sign ordinance. The sign is too large and it will need to be repainted. David Richmond mentioned with no new information on FM 78 are we -23- - . . e e going to miss our window for construction? The City may miss a golden opportunity to do anything. Without the widening of that road we can not expect to do anything to revitalize the downtown area and businesses from the beautification stand point. Steve Simonson stated they are still out in the area surveying. The ROW map has been done twice and has been to Austin also. The funding has been changed from 1997 to 1998 but it should still be started in 1997. Their funding starts in July of that year 1997 and is still fully funded. Councilman Ken Greenwald stated if and when the ROW map gets done it is going to cost the City some money to buy the ROW. The City has bought the shoe shop but also the house by Sonic is involved. Pia Jarman: Pia Jarman stated she loves the new note books and had no other comments. Councilman Ken Greenwald: Councilman Ken Greenwald stated there is going to be a tour of the City on June 8th and he hoped everyone can join it. It will start at City Hall with the City Council, Planning and Zoning, Econonmic Development. Lunch will be served after the tour and a discussion will follow. Councilman Ken Greenwald advised the rezoning for Mr. Dicus was turned down by Council. Mr. Dicus didn't give a lot of the information to the Planning & Zoning: like the lot was going to be divided into two. The building was going to be a metal building. He also said that sometimes when Council overturns the Commission's recommendations, it is because new information surfaces at the Council Public Hearing. Steve Simonson: Steve Simonson stated he had no other comments. 121 ADJOURNMENT: David Richmond moved to adjourn the meeting. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion, which carried with a unanimous vote. Chairwoman Pia Jarman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting is May 28, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. -24- ,. . . . ATTEST: 1\ '-' f L~/l~?;;~:~llf,~n?:~ -t'e, Planning S~cretary ~{ city of Schertz, Texas . ~' .~~ Chairw man, Planning and zoning Commission City6f Schertz, Texas -25-