Loading...
06-25-1996 . . . PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in regular session on Tuesday, June 25, 1996 at 7:00 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 KEITH VAN DINE ERNIE EVANS GARY WALLACE KEN GREENWALD, COUNCILMAN STEVE SIMONSON, ASST. CITY MANAGER DENISE GRANGER, PLANNING SECRETARY MEMBERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT . John & Sheri, 272 Green Valley Loop Robert King, 2700 Kline Circle Edward Workman, 2728 Poplar Grove Jerry Bethke, 2901 Bent Tree Doyle & Chung Woodman 2107 Persimmon Drive Robert & Linda Pope 104 Mesquite Circle W.P. Van, 2142 Persimmon J.P. Pond Jaskowiak, 104 Plum Cr. Turek, 2613 Hidden Grove John & Elizabeth Mesenburg, 2164 Persimmon Sam Bledsoe, MBC Eng. Barry Sanditen, 3009 Partners, Ltd. Greg San Marco, Don McCrary & Assoc. Mike Lancaster, Lancaster Development Herb Rehmann, S.C.U.C.I.S.D. Brad Galo, Greenshire Pat Lackey, River City Engineers Ron Schrandt, Windy Meadow . e - . 11 CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Pia Jarman called the June 25, 1996 regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 12 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Session June 11, 1996. Merwin Willman moved to approve the regular session minutes of June 11, 1996. Gary Wallace seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. 13 STATUS OF FINAL PLATS: Chairwoman Pia Jarman stated at this time no plats have been signed. 14 CITIZENS' INPUT OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: There were none. 15 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: The Zoning Extension for 8.61 Acres on Elbel Road and Schertz Parkway. (Original Request from Joe Veytia) . Pia Jarman stated this zoning request has been renewed six (6) months, at a time this being the third time for an extension. Mr. Veytia was not present at the meeting. Pia Jarman advised it is up to the Commission to decided whether this request will be renewed for another six (6) months or to deny the request. What is the feeling of the Commission? David Richmond stated with Mr. Veytia's lack of interest by being here tonight, his recommendation would be not extend renewal. If Mr. Veytia is still interested he can come before the Commission and make another presentation. not the back Pia Jarman stated if we do not extend it, the property will have to revert back to the original zoning of NS (Neighborhood Services). Steve Simonson stated this is correct. Ernie Evans stated he is in agreement with David. In the last letter from Mr. Veytia he was at step four. This is the last step per the letter, there being no change. Gary Wallace asked if there was any percedent or any reason why we should not extend? . Steve Simonson stated "yes" there is a precedent. There was a property of 14 acres on Live Oak Road which had the same type of time period put on it. When the people did not get the money together and could not build within the specified time, the land reverted back to the pre-existing zoning. This happened only about -2- e e . a couple of years ago. steve Simonson mentioned he thought part of the original motion was a sixth month zoning. Councilman Ken Greenwald agreed if Mr. Veytia did not request extension within the six month time frame, it would revert back to the original zoning. Gary Wallace asked Steve from the City's stand point is there reasons to go one way or another? Steve Simonson stated there were a lot of stipulations to the rezoning approval. Westchester Boulevard would have been extended to Elbel Road, there would have been a turn lane on Schertz Parkway onto Elbel Road to augmentate the traffic in the area. With this staying R-4 it would not be a good idea, because if it is sold to someone else, the conditions would not be addressed to the new owner. Keith Van Dine asked if anyone knows why he is asking for extension. Steve Simonson stated we don't know if Mr. wants another extension or not. A letter was sent back forwarding address. another Veytia with no . Merwin Willman moved that on the request on the extension for Joe Veytia's property on Elbel Road and Schertz Parkway for 8.61 acres that it be reverted back to the original states of NS (Neighborhood Services). Keith Van Dine seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. David Richmond asked if the motion could be amended to reflect that Mr. Veytia failed to respond to the Planning and Zoning Commission upon the expiration of his most recent sixth month extension, rather than make it sound like the P & Z's arbitrary decision and not Mr. Veytia's failure to respond to the City's request for his sixth month extension which resulted in this action. Pia Jarman amended the motion to, "At Mr. Veytia's failure to respond to the notification by Planning and Zoning of the expiration of his last extension of six months, this Commission recommends that the zoning for the 8.61 acres on Elbel Road and Schertz Parkway revert back to its original zoning of NS". Merwin Willman agreed to amend the motion as stated. Another vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously. 16 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from S.G & A for the Revised Site Plan for Remax Subdivision. (PC# 252-96C) . Steve Simonson stated there were several notes on the revised plan. The site plan had to come back as it is 100% different than the first site plan. This will be a single story building. They also -3- e e . gave a copy of what the building will look like from floor level on the inside. The only two caveats are the wooden fence still across the back of the building from Irolia Drive to Cabana Drive, the signage also will be in the approximately exact location of the approved original sign for the two story building. It is not shown but a note was made for the Commission. There also is a copy of what the old plat looked like. Pia Jarman asked on the note for the 8' fence that is hand written if in the past we have not had the responsible person sign and date the change or additon on one copy. Steve Simonson stated "yes" the reason it was done this way is the request was handled over the phone, in talking with S.G. & A personnel before the site plan was seen by the Commission. This is why it is the way it is today. Pia Jarman requested the representative for this request, if he could come forward and sign and date the addition on the copy of the site plan for the record. Mr. Abe Gonzales came forward to initial and date the 8' fence addition on the site plan. Gary Wallace asked if there is a reason for the change? Abe Gonzales stated they overbudgeted. Gary Wallace commented that is too bad as the other building was so nice. . Steve Simonson commented that this will have the Spanish tile roof and will complement the La pasadita which is next to it. David Richmond asked with this going from a two story building to a one story, do they still feel they need a 32' sign? Will there also be the same number of tenants in the building? Steve Simonson stated the sign is in accordance with the ordinance. Abe Gonzales stated they would like to keep the sign the same which was approved at an earlier meeting; as far as the tenants, it is not known how many there will be. Merwin Willman stated there are three (3) entrances to the building which are either for public or employee use. They are only showing handicap parking in the front so if someone is to get to the back of the building they are going to have to walk around or go through the whole building. There should be some handicap parking in the back for patrons. Ernie Evans asked Steve what the code calls for on handicap parking. Steve Simonson said normally for office space the number of spaces they have is two (2) spaces. If the Commission feels with the type of public building this is, that there needs to be more than the two (2) handicap spaces then they will have to recalculate the spaces and allow for more handicap spaces. . Abe Gonzales stated the entrances would be public as it is a public -4- e e . building, if the Commission so wishes, they will provide for two additional handicap parking spaces for the rear of the building. David Richmond stated he is in agreement with Merwin, particularly looking at the size of the layout of the building. With the future lease area, the only way to get to that third of the building, is the entrance from the back left, unless you come into the front entrance and there should be at least one handicap space in the back left corner. Pia Jarman one space parking? spaces one asked Abe Gonzales if it would be possible to give up on each side in the back of the building for handicap Abe Gonzales stated if the Commission would like two on each side in the back this will not be a problem. Pia Jarman asked Mr. Gonzales to sign and date the site plan indicating the two additional handicap parking spaces. Merwin Willman moved to approve the revised site plan submitted by S.G. & A for the Remax Subdivision with the amendments of two (2) more handicap parking spaces, as well as the 8' wooden fence at the rear of.. the property line. Tony Moreno seconded the motion, with carried with a unanimous vote. '7 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from Don McCrary, McCrary & Associates for Final Plat Dove Meadows Unit 4. (PC #256-96) . Steve Simonson stated this is the corrected plat with all the owners signing off, the name on FM 3009 has been corrected to Roy Richard. There is now a water easement shown. Tony Moreno moved to approve the final plat submitted by Don McCrary, McCrary & Associates for Dove Meadows Unit 4. Gary Wallace seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. f8 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Request from MBC Engineers, for a Specific Use Permit for an Intermediate School in Greenshire Subdivision. (SUP #7-96) . Steve Simonson stated the application fees for the Specific Use Permit have been paid. Representatives for the school were present to answer any questions. Before the meeting a letter was presented from a concerned citizen in opposition to the school. This will need to be part of the record. This is for a SUP permit which would make it a recommendation from the Commission to City Council with a Public Hearing being held by the City Council. Everyone within 200' of said property either in Schertz City limits or Cibolo will be notified. A SUP is put together different than zoning to ensure what is said is going to be built there will be built there. Whereas with zoning on residential and commercial, many different types of uses could be put in. With the SUP this is the only thing that can be built in the specified area. -5- . . . e e Sam Bledsoe stated the school will be located between Green Valley Road, Woodland Oaks, Royal Oaks Subdivision, Greenshire, and FM 3009. This is a 12-acre site and which represents about a year's worth of work by people in Schertz, Cibolo, School District and the developers from Greenshire, Woodland Oaks, and a number of other people to get this site for the School District. The portion of Greenshire will connect with a 60 ROW down to Deer Creek Subdivision, connected up to Green Valley Road. This will have the traffic going down these roads instead of FM 3009. The object is to get a parallel thoroughfare through the subdivisions where school buses and people taking children to school can travel up and down. Herb Rehmann stated he represents the School District and about 5,000 youngsters of the district. This has taken about 18 months of intensive researching, calling people, looking for land about 25 to 30 different pieces of property. This has been narrowed down to about 13, in all those pieces of land this particular site was the most superior. The land should have been bought about 2 1/2 years ago. Instead what happened at that particular time is there was a street that connected Greenshire and Deer Creek and somewhere down the.. line there was a misunderstanding between the two cities and the street was eliminated, which made it impossible to get the children to the site that was selected. In talking back and forth with the two cities, finally in November they agreed to meet with the developers and they liked the idea of the street connecting with Woodland Oaks. This plam grew into someone getting excited stating there would be an overpass being put in at IH 35 with the rest of information arising. The primary concern of the School District is to get the children to the school site without having to subject anyone having to go to FM 3009 with the high traffic volume of a super duper highway. To put the intermediate school into an area that would allow most of the children to be able to walk to school and also an area that has a better setting, culture as some of the children have never seen how some people live, is a big improvement. In talking with the transportation supervisor there will only be about seven buses, if the road does not go through. This would be using Woodland Oaks Drive and back out. The school will be used for fifth and sixth graders. Ernie Evans asked what type of arrangements have been made in terms of the road connecting Woodland Oaks and Green Valley? Herb Rehmann advised there have been no arrangements. Sam Bledsoe stated what is going to happen is the owner of the property is going to dedicate a 60' ROW all the way through from Green Valley Road to the end of Greenshire subdivision, which is about 3.3 acres which will be there for when the road is going to be built. We don't know when this will take place. Ernie Evans asked what the plans are for Woodland Oaks Drive on down? Sam Bledsoe stated the same situation: the ROW will be dedicated but the road will not be built. The subdivision in -6- . . . e e Greenshire will be isolated from the road. The road will just be a connector from Woodland Oaks down to Deer Creek. Ernie Evans questioned on which side of the road the greenbelt will be located on the proposed 60' ROW? Sam Bledsoe showed that the greenbelt is in the City limits of Schertz. The 60' ROW goes right along the property line by the trees. The road has been pulled over a little on to the school property which leaves the school absorbing 30' of the road, which will leave a 30' buffer being the Royal Oaks property. This will really make it a 90' ROW with the separation of the school and Royal Oaks property. Jerry Bethke asked Mr. Rehmann if the proposed elementary school is part of the bond issue that was passed about a year ago. Herb Rehmann stated this is one of the two intermediates. Jerry Bethke asked why was this particular site selected for the intermediate school? Herb Rehmann stated primarily it would have good police protection, good supply of water, and being able to tie on with CCMA sewer lines. This is a good location with no drainage problems, it is in the center with unlimited possibility of expansion, all of the research has indicated it will head out to the North Cliff along IH 35 and be centrally located. Jerry Bethke stated when this was pitched to the community and the voters voted for it, the things that Mr. Rehmann has indicated were never part of the bond issue as far as rational for the schools. There were about four things the school board was interested in: the neighborhood school concept, to promote family convenience, enhance safety, and to reduce transportation costs. The proposed location here, the demographic statistics do not support this. Mr. Rehmann stated this area is growing and it will be beneficial for the community. Jerry Bethke stated in the original Greenshire, there are only two families that have children that would be able to use the facilities. "What you are doing is putting in a school where it is going to generate a requirement of increase in bus transportation which basically violates the school boards desire for a neighborhood concept, so children will not have to be bussed to school". This does not make sense, if there is a reason Mr. Bethke will support it. Herb Rehmann said that this does make sense. This will connect with Deer Creek. Jerry Bethke asked how many children are there per household. Herb Rehmann stated he does not have that information right now. Jerry Bethke stated if you are going to be putting a school there then you should have this information. Herb Rehmann stated at the public hearing this information will be available. The statistics clearly state if you are to take Dove Meadows, Deer Creek, and Thistle Creek which are being built at -7- e e . this time and put them together there will be the children to attend the school. There is going to be between 1800 and 1900 homes going in. Jerry Bethke stated it seems then that the school should be put in the Thistle Creek or Deer Creek area where most of the young ones are going to be. If you look at the Greenshire area most of the homes are $175,000 to $200,000. A young family cannot afford a home like this. By putting a school in the wrong area it is going to generate a transportation cost. Doyle Woodman stated being from the Royal Oaks area he would like the Commission to table this item until the citizens get the opportunity to go before the school board to voice their concerns. The school community has stated it has taken them a year and a half to make a decision so if the Commission will table this for two weeks so the citizens may address the school board first. The school board would be meeting after the public hearing by the City Council as programmed now. Another citizen asked if the Commission could table this item until the citizens have gone before the school board with their concerns. . Pia Jarman stated in hearing the concerns of the citizens present, it is only fair that the citizens have some time to put their proposal together and as a group make a presentation to the school board. The job here by the Commission is to make a recommendation to City Council to set a public hearing. However, there is no reason why the Commission cannot table this issue. Brad Galo stated he had worked for a long time with the school. Being personally against the school, at first for monetary reasons, as he and his partners would not make any money and of course they bought the land to build houses to make money. In having several other subdivisions in Texas, every time they have put in a middle school, it has been an enhancement to the area. If this was a junior high or high school he would think differently especially in the situation where it is going to be located. There is going to be no after school activities at an intermediate school. There will be traffic at 8:00 am and 4:00 pm. All of their builders are for this and they have a lot of lots to sell in the future. They would not be putting in something that would be detrimental to their subdivision. There will be houses completely around the school and they are 100% for this school site. There is not much traffic that is going to be generated. Pia Jarman stated what we are addressing is for the citizens to be able to put together their side of the story. It has been suggested that this issue be tabled until our next meeting. . Steve Simonson stated the reason this petition for a SUP was presented is the school buying this land is contingent upon getting the SUP. -8- . . . e e David Richmond stated this is a significant decision that the Commission and the City Council are being asked to consider. Viewing this as a business from the business point this is going to have significant present and future impact not only on the growth of the City. Decisions like this can render changes in the growth of the City. Projection growth can be changed by improper decisions based on inadequate projections of growth. The suggestions being made by the residents make good sense. As Mr. Woodman mentioned the school board and the developer have had a lot of time to consider this and a number of site proposals to settle on. This would be appropriate for the school board to do. Also it would be appropriate for this Commission to hear that in a formal presentation, rather than a four hour meeting entertaining a lot of question which would cover the same type of issues and be fairly disjointed. Obviously the school board has a presentation that they would like to make and it would be appropriate for us to hear the presentation from the citizens as well as their having the opportunity to present it to the school board. So that this becomes another matter of record for the City Council to review once the Commission makes the recommendation to City Council to either approve or deny the request for SUP. Merwin Willman stated this is the Commission's duty to determine if this meets the requirement for the SUP. It is then up to the Council. A citizen advised the Commission that until a month ago no one knew anything about the school. It was found out because of the workers clearing the field. Gary Wallace stated he has attended some school board meetings and this has been a very volatile issue among the school board members. It has been argued by the school board members and they have considered several sites and arrived at this one primarily as FM 3009 is the divider, as about 50% of the children who will attend this school live on the north side and 50% live on the south side. This may not seem right but if you consider the size of the district in itself, it means a lot of bussing and transportation regardless of where the school goes. Elizabeth Mesenburg asked with the school being situated with a fence around it, and houses all around, how are the children in the back going to get to the school? Brad Galo stated they would walk on the sidewalks to the school. Ernie Evans stated he is in agreement with David Richmond. David Richmond moved in view of the concerns registered tonight regarding the request submitted by MBC Engineers for a SUP for an intermediate school in Greenshire Subdivision, that in the best interest of all parties and the City, that we table the request until the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of July 23, 1996 to allow for further duscussion at the School Board meeting. Ernie Evans seconded the motion which carried as follows: -9- - e . AYES: Pia Jarman, David Richmond, Merwin Willman, Ernie Evans, Gary Wallace, Keith Van Dine. ABSTENTION: Tony Moreno. 19 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION:Request from Mike Lancaster to rezone approximately 10.37 acres between Woodland Oaks Drive and Dimrock from NS (Neighborhood Services) to R-6 (Single Family Dwelling District Gated) (Tabled 5-28-96) (ZC #133-96) Pia Jarman stated this request had been tabled "until legal interpretation from the City Attorney is received." She said that in the updated copies of the UDC the Commissioners had received, as of the meeting of June 11th, nothing had been changed to clarify the issue of time limitations. However, in the latest master copy of the UDC, returned to Steve Simonson by Michael Spain, City Attorney, clarified the item in question as follows: "If a petition for rezoning is denied by the City or the Planning and Zoning Commission another petition for reclassification of the same property or any portion thereof in the same zoning classification shall.. not be filed within six months from the date of denial". What we have asked for is for clarification of the wording "reclassification". We now take this off the table, and address this particular issue. . Merwin Willman asked why the attorneys changed it from six instead of twelve. Steve Simonson stated in discussion with they thought it was more equitable, but the lawyers said if Commission feels it would like to leave it at twelve months could be done. month them the it Pia Jarman stated "reclassification". the point is what was meant by the wording This was why the legal reading was requested. Ernie Evans stated we read from the current ordinance, does this affect the UDC. Pia Jarman stated the wording in the UDC is the same. This request coming back in is not in the same zoning classification. This request is not to approve or disapprove the request, we are going to forward it to City Council requesting public hearings be set. The decision of the Commission will then be on whether to forward the request to City Councilor not. Steve Simonson stated there is a letter from the Woodland Oaks Homeowners Association concerning Mr. Lancaster's meeting with them on June 7th concerning his proposal. The metes and bounds are enclosed. There is a better drawing stating lot sizes, the depth of the lots which has been changed and there has been a reduction in the number of the lots, and additional material provided by Mr. Lancaster. . Pia Jarman stated on the HOA letter it mentions there is "no -10- e e . objection to the development plan presented, please reference attached copy dated June 7, 1996". Is this an exact copy of one that we have? Mike Lancaster stated the one attached is exact copy. the the an Ernie Evans requested clarification on the summary of the Woodland Oaks letter the second paragraph last line, the statement additional easement will be provided for masonry monument sign to help improve the main entry appearance on Woodland Oaks Subdivision on Woodland Oaks Drive". Mike Lancaster stated when meeting with the HOA, it was brought up with two existing signs on islands. It is in a discussion stage to add monument signs in the wall to match. This subdivision is about six or seven feet above the roadway so a sign could be put in an embankment and would provide nice signage for both Dimrock and Woodland Oaks Drive. Ernie Evans asked Mike Lancaster to explain the 40' buffer and the drainage to the existing fences and the fence being put up. Mike .Lancaster stated the fence will be going against the NS (Neighborhood Services) with a 6' privacy fence now at the back of these homes. Instead of asphalt next to the fence there will be a 10' greenbelt area, 20' emergency easement that will be paved, another 10' then the 6' masonry wall with the breakaway gates, and screening from the road. . Gary Wallace asked if the emergency vehicles could make the cul-de-sac at 90 degrees at the 20' bend easement. Steve plans Simonson stated this will be looked at in the construction with the engineers making their recommendation. Ernie Evans questioned if the variance in a zoning action should not be removed and made as a separate action. Merwin Willman stated in this particular case it is part of the zoning just like in the past. If the variance is after the zoning it would be handled by the BOA. Ernie Evans asked about the calculations in terms to support streets, lights etc. in the gated communities. the Steve Simonson stated we do not have an engineering report on of that nature. Before the public hearing this information have to be available and confirmed with our engineering firm. have only provided us with an estimate. Mr. Lancaster has provided with a copy of the UDC stating what is needed. costs will They been . Mike Lancaster stated if he could make it to a public hearing he would like to get with the City Engineers and work with them on an amount that they feel comfortable with and if a multiplier needs to be put on this it is not a problem. He would like the Commission -11- . . . . . and the City to be comfortable with a financially solvent and buyable subdivision. There are some concerns because this is a small subdivision and that it might fail, he would like to go above and beyond the call of duty to ensure this is going to work. Merwin Willman asked what the price range on the homes would be? Mike Lancaster stated about the high 90's to about $115,000. Since the lots have grown with the plan and the cul-de-sac he has had to increase the lot price. Ernie Evans asked what does Mr. Lancaster perceive the construction for the homes will be that will be backing FM 3009? Mike Lancaster stated the majority will be one story homes, due to the size of the lots, and also to stay below the sight line of the roadway. The majority of the trees are in the right places for a change. Robert King spoke as a resident of Woodland Oaks on a personal view point on this development. This developer has been the only one to take the time to come to the homeowners first. He has talked with the homeowners, gone before the HOA with a formal presentation. He asked for their input and has talked with the neighbors behind the subdivision asking for their input on this development after the second modifications have come around. Mr. Lancaster has been in very close contact with them to keep the residents updated. The individual homeowners are very comfortable with this as the developers are going to be saving trees between the residences and FM 3009. The skyline will be saved and not just turned down if it is commercial. If this property remains commercial who knows what will be there. With this plan it is all laid out on what is going to be going into this area. There is no problem with a privacy or masonry fence. It will be a lot better than dumpsters behind the existing privacy fences. Mr. King personally commended Mr. Lancaster for doing what he is doing. As an individual and as a board member on this special project, he said they are all for this development. Edward Workman is president of the HOA at the present time, having been the vice-president when Mr. King was the president. "We appreciate Mr. Lancaster's approach. We have no problems at all with the last plan that was submitted". Most people that he has talked with, besides the board members of the Woodland Oaks Subdivision, feel that this is a good direction. He hoped the Commission will support Mr. Lancaster's efforts and put in a quality residential single family dwelling in this area. They have further been assured that the plans for the commercial development if and when it happens will be the kind of things that will be profitable and serviceable to the greater community. Pia Jarman, on behalf of the Commission, thanked Mr. King and Mr. Workman for attending the meeting and for presenting their views. Mike Lancaster stated within the next 30 days, before the public -12- . . . . . hearing for this request, he will be getting with the City Engineer to make everyone comfortable with a small gated community. Tony Moreno moved to forward to City Council the request from Mike Lancaster to rezone approximately 10.37 acres between Woodland Oaks Drive and Dimrock from NS (Neighborhood Services) to R-6 (Single Family Dwelling District Gated) and request that public hearings be scheduled. Gary Wallace seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. 110 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from Ron Schrandt, for Final Plat Windy Meadow Unit 3. (PC #266-96) Steve Simonson stated when this plat was originally designed it was one unit, but being the size it is, they have split it into two units 3 and 4. Word has been received back from our Engeneering firm on the drainage study submitted by Mr. Lackey and his firm. Mr. Ford specifically wanted Mr. Lackey to be publicly commended on the excellent job that he did. Not only on the 100 year, 25 year but the 2 year study on the storm surges, on how it is laid out and. how the channel is going to work. Merwin Willman asked under the notes, #1, the last sentence "the 6' building setback will be observed all side divisions." What is meant by side divisions? Steve Simonson stated this is referring to the sideyard set backs. Ernie Evans asked for clarification on the statement that starts with "the State of Texas County of Guadalupe. It basically says not all interior streets shall be private. Then in note #3 it states all streets, drives, and lanes are hereby dedicated to public utility easements. Steve Simonson stated what they are showing you on #3 is all private streets with all of these being private easements. Public utilities are the things that the City retains i.e. the water and the sewer. They don't own these. They own the streets. Ernie Evans asked about the ROW on Maske Road if the additional ROW has been dedicated with the width and depth. Steve Simonson stated on the other plats it is indicated as 10' but it will need to also be on this one. Merwin Willman moved to approve the request submitted by Ron Schrandt for final plat Windy Meadow Unit 3. Tony Moreno seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. 111 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from Ron Schrandt, for Final Plat Windy Meadow Unit 4. (PC #275-96) -13- . . . e e Steve Simonson stated Jasmine Lane has been changed to Marigold Lane due to the post office turning down the original name. The approval from the Commission and the Fire Department on the length of the cul-de-sac, (the original length of the cul-de-sac) was 592' and it is now 620' this makes it 28' longer. In going back to the Fire Department, they have no problem with this, as long as the proper number of fire hydrants are put in. This item will be checked during construction. The note for the owner to provide access to the existing recreational park was what was required by this Commission at the first meeting when the master plan was approved. Merwin Willman stated weren't they going to show where the access was going to be? Ron Schrandt stated it will be through the drainage channel in Unit 3. Pat Lackey stated the owner owns all of the property so this was going to be handled as a construction detail. ~ony.Moreno moved to approve the request submitted by Ron Schrandt, for final plat Windy Meadow Unit 4. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. 112 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Request from MBC Engineers for 3009 Partners, Ltd. to rezone approximately 121 acres (Barshop) on FM 3009 from PUD (Planned Unit Development), GB (General Business), and M-l (Manufacture District Light), to R-6 (Single Family Dwelling District Gated). (ZC #135-96) Steve Simonson stated the metes and bounds are included, along with the names of the property owners within 200'. This is the rest of the Barshop property. Mr. Willman has provided the Commission with research on the original zoning of the property. It has always been labeled on our zoning maps since before 1985 GB/Ml but it is actually a PUD. Sam Bledsoe stated this is a 121 acre tract that is right behind the HEB site on IH 35. This is proposed to be a single family development R-6 with a variance of 55 to 65'wide lots in some areas and 55 to 60' in other areas. This is a development that backs up to a lot of commercial property. One area is particularly covered with trees so there are going to be two different types of homes in this area. This will be similar to Greenshire with the larger homes in the trees away from the commercial area and the smaller lots with smaller homes abutting the commercial area. With this concept this master plan was devised routing the main street through to run along the tree line saving a lot of the trees to serve as a dividing line for the larger homes and smaller homes. There is an entry at FM 3009 with a 90' wide ROW coming in over a culvert. This also includes a very large park area that spans out -14- . . . e e and narrows with hiking trails. This park will be accessible to the whole area. There is an area on the other side of the park shown as open space at this time, but it is proposed to be single family residential also. This will be a gated community with only one ingress/egress from FM 3009. Wiederstein Road has also been considered as an entry point. In the past there has been some concern with the percentage of the lots. Looking at the other gated developments in looking at this area, a better use of the property would be to put the larger lots in one area and the smaller lots in another. Even though we are calling them smaller lots the lots are 55 to 60' wide by 120 deep with the average size being about 6800 square feet, with none of them being less than the 6000 square feet. The treed area would be 65 to 70' with about 8700 square feet. Steve Simonson asked what the provlslons are for the original zoning approval for the buffer along Deer Haven and Mr. Froboese's property. Sam Bledsoe stated the original zoning called for a 75' buffer zone at the time when Barshop was looking at zoning this property multi-use commercial. There was concern expressed on behalf of the citizens that they would have to back up to this. The concession was there would be a 75' buffer provided. Now that this property is going to be zoned residential development it is not known if the 75' buffer still applies. Merwin Willman stated he has one concern. For a long time for many years it has been projected that Wiederstein Road would go straight through to FM 3009 and eventually to FM 1103. There is no provisions shown for Wiederstein Road to go through toFM 3009. Wiederstein Road should be a public street. Sam Bledsoe stated they may at some time have a connection to Wiederstein Road. This is a fairly large development and another access would be helpful. Wiederstein Road has a 60' ROW. The overall concept with this as a gated community, it changes the concept with Wiederstein Road as a major thoroughfare. Merwin Willman stated this has been in the City thoroughfare for years, why can't Wiederstein Road run straight through subdivision as a local road with gates on both sides of it. would be like Carolina Crossing is doing with Savannah Drive. plan the This Sam Bledsoe stated if both sides were gated most of the traffic would be from the gated subdivision. Barry Sanditen, as part owner of the proposed tract of land, stated as a little bit of background in looking at the character of land in looking at where the trees are, and the detriments a third of the land is burdened with a fairly large utility easement. The western part will be backed up to commercial. Instead of coming in and trying as a straight shot to get as many lots as they could they tried to add a little bit of character by added curvatures and -15- . e e putting the larger lots in the green area, and the smaller lots being where there aren't a lot of trees. "We are trying to give two different product mixes, not both of which would be contained in anyone unit as this would not work very well from a marketing stand point. This would give everyone access to the street system and sidewalks which would lead down to three parks with entry way points". They would like to increase the buffer and they hope that LCRA approves a hiking and biking trail that is being proposed to be built the entire length of the utility easement both on the land owned by them and LCRA. They have recognized that Wiederstein Road does dead end but there also is a major thoroughfare 1200' west of this. They are fleixible with any options that the Commission would like to entertain if they still can have gated access. They have been deed restricted for residential applications only. They also cannot purchase the commercial frontage due to the price. Realizing they want to get everyone access to the parks area they would hate to break it up with a huge infrastructure right through the middle. Merwin Willman stated it looks like some thought was put in the plan but not what the City has been trying to plan for years. Barry Sandi ten stated he is willing to take any concideration the Commission is willing to suggest. The road system referred to was mentioned a few months ago by Mr. Simonson. . Merwin Willman stated when the thoroughfare was designed, roads weren't to go straight from point a to point b, they can meander around as long as it gets to the points. . Gary Wallace asked in the lower left which is future development why not bring Wiederstein down and across in this area. With the utility lines in this area it may be more feasible. Sam Bledsoe stated LCRA may be bringing in more utility lines in this area. Merwin Willman stated as a stipulation to the rezoning state unless Wiederstein Road is a thoroughfare to FM rezoning will not go through. we could 3009 the Barry Sandi ten stated if Wiederstein Road can be put in on the east side of the high line angled down to FM 3009, he is in agreement. Tony Moreno moved to forward to City Council to schedule for public hearings the request submitted by MBC Engineers for 3009 Partners, Ltd. to rezone approximately 121 acres (Barshop) on FM 3009 from PUD (Planned Unite Development), GB (General Business), and M-l (Manufacture District Light) to R-6 (Single Family Dwelling District Gated), contingent upon the submission of a new site plan to include the development of Wiederstein Road. Gary Wallace seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. -16- . . . e . 113 GENERAL DISCUSSION: Tony Moreno: Tony Moreno stated he had no comments. Keith Van Dine: Keith Van Dine stated he had no comments. Gary Wallace: Gary Wallace stated he had no comments. Ernie Evans: Ernie Evans stated the surveyors were out yesterday laying out for the HEB complex. Steve Simonson stated that they will be submitting a new site plan and plat with a new design. Merwin Willman: Merwin Willman stated the City Council authorized a moratorium for 90 days on all requests for gated communities and did not consider a recommendation for an ordinance change for some reason. Since then he has talked with Steve and has made a little change on it and put this in the UDC. Steve feels the UDC should be available by the 90 days. The one change is if the property is rezoned to R-6 a suffix of "G" would be added to the zoning classification meaning "gated". David Richmond: David Richmond stated he had no comments. Pia Jarman: Pia Jarman stated she had no comments. Councilman Ken Greenwald: Councilman Ken Greenwald stated the City Council did pass the moratorium last night with a discussion tomorrow night. Because of the information from the City Manager that the UDC was real close to being final and with not having to have an extra public hearing with the cost and all, it was decided not to go through an ordinance change. Steve Simonson: Steve Windy Simonson stated the drainage document that was received Meadow is one of best documents we have received. It -17- on was . . . . - extremely well done. It not only includes the 100 year and 25 year study, but the 2 year study as well. 114 ADJOURNMENT: Gary Wallace moved to adjourn the meeting. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion, which carried with a unanimous vote. Chairwoman Pia Jarman adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting is July 9, 1996. AT:rEST: {\_~/!///\./~~/'~~~~_/ :-,. / /(/---~l,_>/--///.~/ ' Planning Secretary City of Schertz, Texas an, Planning and Zoning Commission -18-