Loading...
08-27-1996 . . . e e PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in session on Tuesday, August 27, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in Andrews Municipal Complex Conference Room, 1400 Schertz Schertz, Texas. Those present were as follows: regular the Bob Parkway, 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 Tom Bolin, Don McCrary & Associates Herb Rehmann, S.C.U.C.I.S.D. Brad Galo, Greenshire Doyle Woodman, 2107 Persimmon Drive Byron Steele, S.C.U.C.I.S.D. Byron Nichols, School Board Member Ben Coward, Flagship Home Morty Prewit, PCS PRIMECO Amelia Lopez-Phelps, PCS PRIMECO #1 CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Pia Jarman called the August 27, 1996 regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairwoman Pia Jarman commended the Commission, and in particular, the Vice-Chairman David Richmond on an excellent meeting during her absence. She listened to the tapes of the entire meeting and, felt all the Commissioners had made such relevant contributions. She especially appreciated Gary Wallace's humorous and pertinent comments. #2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Public Hearing and Regular Session August 13, 1996. . . . e e Denise Granger requested that the following corrections be made: on page three, fourth paragraph, from the bottom the word "of" should be "from"; on page four, top paragraph, last sentence, the word "fence" should be "shed"; page five last paragraph, the second sentence, should read "be 20 by 20". Merwin Willman moved to approve the public hearing and regular session minutes of August 13, 1996 as corrected. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion which carried as follows: AYES: David Richmond, Merwin Willman, Ernie Evans, Gary Wallace, Keith Van Dine, Tony Moreno. ABSTENTION: Pia Jarman. (Due to absence at said meeting). #3 STATUS OF FINAL PLATS: Chairwoman Pia Jarman stated final plats signed for August were as follows: Carolina Crossing Unit 1, Ashley Place Unit 3, Berry Creek Unit 1, Windy Meadow Unit 3, and Windy Meadow Unit 4. #4 CITIZENS' INPUT OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: There were none. #5 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from Don McCrary, McCrary & Associates for Final Plat Approval for Ashley Place Unit 4. (PC #273-96) Steve Simonson stated the plat had all the necessary signatures required for a final plat. Ashley Oak Drive is shown going through to FM 3009, providing a secondary access into the property. This will be just north, parallel to the current access of Autumn Winds providing this subdivision with probably the best access of any subdivision in that area. Merwin Willman mentioned this will provide another thoroughfare from FM 3009 to Schertz Parkway. Merwin asked about the extension from FM 3009 which states the ROW varies. Isn't this strictly a 60' ROW? Tom Bolin stated there was a problem with the adjourning tracts. It is not a perfectly parellel property line, there being as much as a 1.82' differential from the 60' at a point in the ROW. However the ROW is at no point less than 60'. Tony Moreno moved to approve the final plat submitted from Don McCrary, McCrary & Associates for Ashley Place Unit 4. Gary Wallace seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. #6 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Request from S.C.U.C.I.S.D. for a Specific Use Permit for an Intermediate School in Greenshire. (SUP #9-96) -2- . . . e e Steve Simonson stated this is a new site plan for this Intermediate School which includes the ROW from Green Valley to Woodland Oaks Drive. There is a buffer for the houses in Royal Oaks. There will be a sidewalk included. The agreement with Brad Galo was that the road had to go from Greenshire to Woodland Oaks Drive, provide a traffic turn around and bus turn around so everything would not come up Woodland Oaks Drive and turn around and go back to Woodland Oaks Drive. The traffic generated from the school would cause Woodland Oaks to suffer. There has been talk with the school board formally twice lately, and in the past year and half repeatedly. If the school is going to be authorized, there must be a connection from Dietz Road for Dove Meadows, Thistle Creek, and Deer Creek that will connect with Woodland Oaks Subdivision. This plan had been agreed to verbally but there is nothing in writing from the developers for Deer Creek. There is, however, a letter from ABG Investments (Brad Galo) stating if he could get any relief on the rest of the park fees, that he is committed to building the new 60' ROWand building a 24' road with a sidewalk from Woodland Oaks Drive to the end of his property line when he develops Unit 5. Pia Jarman asked Steve Simonson to show everyone present what is being discussed about on the map that was provided by the school. Steve Simonson showed the location of the Intermediate School, and Woodland Oaks Drive. At the top is Green Valley Road, Royal Oaks Subdivision, Woodland Oaks Drive, Greenshire Subdivision and the end of the City limits of Schertz. This would provide on the east side of FM 3009 a Junior High School, Elementary, and Intermediate School. All of the previous agreements that we have had in talking a year ago, and the reason we changed our road master plan was to accommodate the scenario for a road which would eventually connect with the overpass of Wiederstein Road. Something to take all of the pressure off not only FM 3009, but also off the subdivisions. If the road does not go through to Green Valley we will have everyone going out to FM 3009 this being the only outlet. What the school plan shows right now is a road from Green Valley Road to Woodland Oaks Drive. It shows their property only goes so high but not to the end to meet with Green Valley Road. Steve Simonson stated there is a letter from Brad Galo stating if the Commission makes a recommendation for and if City Council approves the school site, Mr. Galo would like relief from the remaining park fees for the Greenshire Subdivision. This amounts to about $37,000.00 and Mr. Galo will provide the 60' ROW, 24' road curb and gutter with a 4' sidewalk adjacent to the road. This would be from Woodland Oaks Drive to his property line just below the school site. Pia Jarman asked about the part of the road on the map where there has been absolutely no comment north of the school site to connect to Green Valley Road. As of now, we do not know who will pay for this portion? Steve Simonson stated "yes" this is correct. Ernie Evans asked if the previous park land fees had been paid for -3- e e . units 7, 5, 6, and 4 with this being a balance of about $37,OOO.00? Steve Simonson stated "no" the park land fees for unit 4 have not been paid. Fees for units 3 and 6 have been paid. Units 5 and 7 have not been platted but they are part of the letter with a balance of about $37,000.00. Mr. Galo was granted relief for half of the fees for the parkland because he donated 32 acres of greenbelt to the Greenshire Subdivision. David Richmond asked what 24' of paved road would give us, given that this is not the full width of the road that we desire? Steve Simonson stated this would provide two twelve foot standard lanes. One going one way, one going the other way with a sidewalk on the side of it. This would provide two twelve foot good lanes and access for walking and biking. Pia the this that Jarman asked the school representatives about the section of road shown above the school property. Who will be building section of the road? Dr. Steele stated he had no answer to question. David Richmond stated the whole This road will about 2,200'. mentioned this is Greenshire property. Brad Galo 60' ROW is being dedicated to the City of Schertz. be from Green Valley to Deer Creek. This will be . Steve Simonson stated the letter from Mr. Galo refers to the property in Greenshire but only from Woodland Oaks south. The property above the school site is the one in question on who is going to build it. Mr. Galo owns this property above the school site to Green Valley. He has dedicated the 60' ROW but is not going to build that portion of the road. Dr. Steele stated if this is approved by the Commission and City Council "are you saying the school district is expected to build this section shown on school property of the road in the ROW?" Pia Jarman stated "yes". Dr. Steele stated he would make this known to the board of trustees if this request is approved. He said generally, the school district does not build roads. Usually when you buy a tract of land for 7, 8, or $9,000 an acre that is coming out of a several hundred acre tract, you have to really cut your way into it to get there. In this case this being an existing subdivision he didn't think of the school district as a developer as such, in buying a lot. If this should be approved under these conditions it will be carried back to the board. . Pia Jarman stated this certainly would be so and felt this had all been discussed previously. Ernie Evans confirmed Pia's statement. Pia Jarman stated when this request was first brought before the Commission and then another request was brought forward, both were disapproved. The deal was that this time the school district would come back and agree to build that portion of the road. This is why the Commission is questioning the portion of the road outside the school's property. -4- . . . e e David Richmond stated the following for those who were not at the previous meeting, now that we are being asked again to approve this request. When we reconsidered this request several meetings ago in the presence of a school representative, the concern that this Commission had was that the school representative's comments on the road was that maybe in about ten years the school will consider paving that portion of the road. The consensus all along on the part of the Commission is that the school should not be built in the Greenshire Subdivision, without concurrent development of the road, taking pressure off Woodland Oaks and FM 3009. This has been the intent of this Commission, and which Mr. Simonson has understood for well over a year and a half with the on-going discussions with the school board over this piece of property. It is difficult for David to understand why we are continually asked to consider a request which does not include the road building as part of the entire construction process. This has basically been the concern of the Commission for as long as we have formally or informally been aware of this proposal, and we felt we had properly conveyed it through the school representative at the meeting when the request was tabled initially. Merwin Willman stated there is still another piece of road that we have no answer to. If the school is going to build up to the end of their property line who is responsible from the school property to Green Valley Road. Until this is worked out Merwin doesn't feel this request should go any further. The whole road business needs to be settled on who is going to do what. Ernie Evans stated the other question is if the School Board has addressed the interconnect from the corner of Greenshire down to Deer Creek's existing ROW. Dr. Steele stated that there is an understanding that the Deer Creek developers have agreed to do that. Ernie Evans stated he has nothing in writing that he could take back to the developers six months from now to remind them of this. Pia Jarman stated it would be to the best interest of the school to have such a document otherwise there is no point in the road just ending without servicing the people who are going to be living in the Deer Creek and other Subdivisions David Richmond stated this also would be a concern for the City of Schertz and Mr. Galo. If Mr. Galo is willing to contribute $37,000.00 to building his portion of the road and the City is willing to give up $37,000.00 of parkland fees and we have a road that goes nowhere, we haven't accomplished a thing. This will still cause people to use Woodland Oaks Drive and FM 3009. Doyle Woodman asked if in the intent of the City is to build the road in this location to come back to the overpass that is going to be going in at Wiederstein. If so, the school really has no effect on this road other than the fact that there should be a connection. Does the City want to build this road to take the pressure off FM -5- e e . 3009 to connect with the overpass that will eventually go in? . . Merwin Willman stated at one time there was going higher up but this may not happen. Woodland discussed as going through to FM 1103, but with Royal Oaks, this could not happen. to be an overpass Oaks Drive was the dead end in David Richmond stated in the current master plan for Greenshire, without the school shown, a road is not shown there. The only thing that has prompted the Commission to consider the road has been the school and the creation of a neighborhood school concept (idea submitted by the school district) that would need such a road. Keith Van Dine asked Steve Simonson to show on the map if the road did not go through how the school plans on getting the children to school. Steve Simonson stated the traffic would come down Woodland Oaks Drive to the school drop them off and turn around and go back down Woodland Oaks Drive. If all the other homes are built in the area, there is literally a dead end. There is no other school built in our City or any other City around that Steve knows of with what amounts to a dead end traffic pattern. Woodland Oaks Drive has the capabilities of handling the traffic and there are no houses that face Woodland Oaks, but on the other side we know that there are going to be more houses built in Cibolo in the Cibolo ETJ area. Now if someone is late having missed the bus and the parents need to get the child to school and there is no road to get to the school coming down Green Valley road, what is going to be the faster way to get there. They will drive down Green Vally loop through Royal Oaks. This will compound that problem in this area. None of the subdivisions in Cibolo's ETJ have been thought out with a master road plan of any kind. There are no good roads on the east side. In planning you have to think long range. These schools are going to be built and they are going to be there for a long time. Either we provide transportation network or the congestion will just build and build. Steve Simonson stated this was his viewpoint over a year and half ago in the original meeting about the schools. Ernie Evans stated this was the consensus of the Commission at the meeting with the school representative being present. The concerns about the traffic were explained and the problems that Steve has addressed and also the concerns of the Commission that there was no plan for the future on how to deal with these issues. Merwin Willman stated the biggest problem is we need clearer answers on the road from Green Valley Road to Dietz Road. Until there is written confirmation for the construction of this road he recommended this request be tabled. Ernie Evans stated modifications will have to be made in the letter from ABG Investors stating the road has been dedicated etc. Keith Van Dine stated he understands the whole project to be a good -6- e e . project. The only thing holding this up is a strip of road. Merwin Willman stated that is so because of the traffic problem it will create in the future. If we do not have the road to take the pressure off of FM 3009 there is going to be a mad house with the traffic. . . Doyle Woodman stated Mr. Simonson is right in regards to the road between Woodland Oaks and Green Valley. Royal Oaks residents are not crazy about the whole project, which has been made clear, obviously. They have chosen to accept the project but if the road is not built in some manner, then Royal Oaks is going to be a cut through and so will Greenshire. Neither of the streets were designed for this type of traffic. Byron Nichols, school board member,stated that on several issues there were several people working on a school site. There was an analysis done on different sites that were available and this site consistently came out as the number one choice. It was the board's choice as a school site with or without the road system. The board can visualize what is going to happen somewhere between FM 3009 and North Cliff and IH 35 coming down. The school board cannot decide where roads are going to be built. It cannot work with this developer and tell him to build the road in the lower section. This is not the board's job. In this meeting there has been reference to the school board and its members having been here. "You need to be conscious that the school board is seven members and not all are present at the meetings." Mr. Nichols stated he has had no communication on anything the Commission has decided relative to the site. He requested if something specific is decided that the school board members be given a letter and that copies are available to all seven members. "This school site is viable to us with or without the roads. We do recognize that it will be more meaningful and viable if the roads exist. Maybe we were presumptious in assuming that with a combination of suggestions and good planning, someone would make these things happen." David Richmond stated that the minutes and attendance list of who has been at previous meetings will be included with the information passed onto the school board members. Gary Wallace stated the City does not build roads as part of the development of land. It is up to the developers to build the streets. If the school district is thinking the City should build roads this is just not going to happen. A good example of this is: there was a proposed subdivision behind where the HEB is going to be. It was turned down as it did not provide a throughway for traffic. The developer went back to his plan and provided a throughway. Ernie Evans stated the Commission is not asking the school board to build a road from the Woodland Oaks down to the Deer. Creek property. "We are asking you to get this commitment and bring a -7- e e . written confirmation on who is building what. property or south of the property is part of request coming to the Commission. These addressed just like it was addressed here". What is north of the the school board's things need to be Tom Bolin stated he works with the developers from the Deer Creek Subdivision. The developer is very anxious to put in this road. Whether it is on the the map shown or not, this road is going to be built. If this is needed in a letter just let him know what type of format and it will be presented. The road is on record in Cibolo on their master plan. Will this be sufficient for the Commission? Steve Simonson stated "yes" a copy of such a record for the Commission would be accepted. Brad Galo stated if he is going to dedicate the ROW to the City of Schertz he has asked Deer Creek developer to also dedicate his portion, so the dedication would all be there. Ernie Evans stated, if all the letters are in hand as just discussed, the portion of the road north of the school site is the last issue. Even though the property, is being dedicated, the road is not being completed from the schools property line to Green Valley Road. Steve Simonson stated this is about 400' remaining. . Merwin and Ernie both agreed that they would like a commitment in writing before approving the request. Pia Jarman stated this request could be tabled, stipulating, for example until 1, 2, or 3, conditions are met which could take anytime... six months ... a year. There would be no time limit. Byron Nichols asked if the Commission could approve it contingent upon the conditions. Pia Jarman stated if the motion is made in that way and it passes. Byron Nichols stated they are going to open the Intermediate School next year on the other side of FM 3009. In dealing with this, every day that of delay sets the building back six months. This really needs to be built soon. Ernie Evans stated if the request was approved contingencies and the information was not brought back plans he would not vote for it. with with the the Byron Nichols stated the school board would not come back before the Commission until all the conditions have been met. . Steve Simonson stated this is a Specific Use Permit (SUP). If the Commission were to vote with contingencies, that information would have to go to City Council. Because of the budget work load the public hearing for this request would not be until October 1, 1996. This would give the school about a 30 day window to provide all the -8- e e . information needed. David Richmond reminded the Commission that it is unfortunate that the heat is being put on us, when the very same school representative here at the last meeting stated that they recognized that they are very far behind the power curve and they should have been bringing this to us probably two years ago. But because of their inability to do so, they are now asking the Commission for special considerations to do this and for us to hurry up. "I don't think it is in the best interest of the City of Schertz to be placed into this position for whatever reason. There may be some valid reasons why the school board has not been able to make this presentation to us according to their earlier time table. The Commission has every legitimate reason to expect to have the situation of the road building concurrent with the building of the school resolved, before we approve the request and pass it on to City Council. If this means tabling until another meeting to get all of the information together in writing as indicated at this meeting, I would strongly recommend to the Commissioners that we advocate that and recommend we table". Merwin Willman stated he agrees with David but wishes to add in the motion, that the request would be approved providing a written confirmation is received by the public hearing date of October I, 1996. If this information is not received the request would have to be disapproved as the public hearing would have already been scheduled. . David Richmond stated he does not feel this issue should be taken out of our hands and passed onto the Council when we have endeavored to do our part for the City to make it very plain what the concerns were. We may not have sent a letter to the school board but we have had school representation here, who have had an understanding on what the sense of the Commission has been. They were requested to take this back to the board for consideration during a special session which was indicated to us would occur, or a regular session. However many weeks have lapsed is not our concern. The fact is we are back together again and we still are confronted with the exact same situation that we faced the last time. This is inexcusable. David Richmond stated he would be reluctant to pass this out of our hands. We have every right to be able to consider this request fully documented, with the road supported by various developers. This will give the City a matter of record to support this SUP request that the road, concurrent with the school, will be constructed from Green Valley Road all the way down. Pia Jarman stated we would be negligent if we were to send this to City Council asking them to look out for these stipulations. This is the Planning and Zoning Commission's job, not the City Council's. . David Richmond asked if the Commission were to table this request -9- e e . would there be time for the school to resubmit before the October 1, 1996 public hearing? Steve Simonson stated if the request is tabled now and if everything that is requested is resubmitted by our next meeting on September 10, 1996 and it is approved, there will be sufficient time to be able to have the public hearing for October 1, 1996. Merwin Willman moved that this request submitted by S.C.U.r,.I.S.D. for a Specific Use Permit for an Intermediate School in Greenshire be tabled until the Commission receives written confirmation on who will provide construction of the road from Green Valley Road to Dietz Road. Tony Moreno seconded the motion which carried as follows: AYES: Pia Jarman, David Richmond, Merwin Willman, Ernie Evans, Gary Wallace, Tony Moreno. NAYS: Keith Van Dine. Keith Van Dine stated the reason he is opposed is because the Commission has approved requests with conditions before, and it has not been a problem. He felt we could handle the business at this time as in the past. #7 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Request from PCS PRIMECO Personal Communications, Inc. for a Specific Use Permit for a Cellular Tower. (SUP #8-96) . Steve Simonson stated this request is in an area that is zoned PD (Pre-Development) as such, so this request has to be for a SUP. This is all along FM 1103. The only place that this type of tower is authorized without SUP is M-1 areas. There is a letter from the Pastor of the Cibolo Valley Church stating when they met and how they voted on this request. The church stated us that everyone was in favor and felt it would be beneficial to the church. The fees have been paid. The location will be on the back of the church property. Also PRIMECO is not part of AT & T or Southwestern Bell. They are a new company moving into the area. They are primarily moving along the IH 35 corridor. Based upon the City's time schedule they are requesting the City Council have a public hearing before October 1, 1996. Gary Wallace City. Steve overpass, the West Pre Cast. asked where the other two towers are located in Simonson stated there is one almost at the FM other tower is located on FM 3009 in front of the 2252 South . Steve Simonson stated there has been legislation in the Federal Government that appears it may be taking control over these towers. These are the first in a series of towers with the next communications towers being a lot more mini towers. We can control these by our site plan and zoning ordinance. The communications industry is trying to modify this type of control. -10- e e . Merwin Willman stated ordinance correctly, without a variance. asking for a SUP. the tower is about 180', if he is reading the 40' is the maximum height for an antenna Steve Simonson stated this is why they are Amelia Lopez-Phelps stated this is the first time she is working with the City, and she did not know there needed to be a variance request included. Monty Prewit who is with PCS PRIMECO Communications was present and qualified to answer any questions or comments as Ms. Lopez-Phelps stated. Steve Simonson stated in the Ordinance under specific land use, there is a tower listed, which would fit into this description, but if the Commissioners want a variance it can be put in. It is not needed, this is why we have the SUP and site plan. The 40' height addresses antennas in residential districts. Gary Wallace moved to recommend for approval to City Council the request from PCS PRIMECO Personal Communications, Inc. for a Specific Use Permit for a Cellular Tower. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion which carried as follows: AYES: Pia Jarman, David Richmond, Ernie Evans, Gary Wallace, Keith Van Dine, Tony Moreno. . NAYS: Merwin Willman. He stated the reason is, the company should be required to request a variance for the height of the tower. #8 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE PRIMECO Personal Plan Approval (PC #280-96) ACTION: Request from Communications, Inc. for for a Cellular Tower. PCS Site Steve Simonson stated this site plan is different than most but it does have the pertinent information that is required. They show on the site location the 18' ingress and egress non exclusive utility easement where the tower will be, in relation to the entire block of the property. There is a vicinity map project description on the second page. It shows the actual description of the tower. Ernie Evans stated on the first page the scale map shows 1" = 50' if that is true this puts the tower, if it falls, in the middle of the power lines. Monty Prewit stated the self supporting tower is a three legged tower with each leg having a pier down about 20 to 25' with concrete and rebar. If this tower were to fall, and he can't forsee this happening even with high winds the church would be gone first. When we build these towers we build them stronger than our needs are. This tower will not have any guy wires. The legs will be 18' wide each on a square area. . Merwin Willman questioned is the Commission going to approve the site plan before the SUP approval? Steve Simonson advised it would -11- e e . be contingent on the SUP being approved by the City Council. Keith Van Dine moved to approve site plan request submitted by PCS PRIMECO Personal Communications, Inc. contingent upon the SUP approval by the City Council. Gary Wallace seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. #9 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: Request from Flagship Home, for Approval to place Bandit Signs on FM 3009 for Berry Creek Subdivision. (PC #281-96) Steve Simonson stated this is a request for bandit signs on FM 3009. Flagship has received a copy of the zoning ordinance and the new UDC on the restrictions on the signs for FM 3009. Merwin Willman commented that he sees no problem as long as they conform with the ordinance for bandit signs. Pia Jarman asked if the phone number on the letter is the contact number. Ben Coward stated the address and phone number are correct. Ernie Evans asked about a previous side discussion that involved a request to send a letter to the state, not being able to locate this information, Ernie was not sure what the consensus was of the Commission on this. . Pia Jarman stated the state sent a letter that the signs be removed off FM 3009 as this is a state highway. There was a discussion but she also did not remember the outcome. Steve piece signs leave Simonson stated there was a discussion and also there was in the paper about San Antonio adopting our ordinance and trying to get the state to approve it. We decided it at that. a for to Tony Moreno moved to approve the request submitted by Flagship Home, to place Bandit Signs on FM 3009 for Berry Creek Subdivision in accordance with our ordinance. Keith Van Dine seconded the motion which carried with a unanimous vote. #10 GENERAL DISCUSSION: Tonv Moreno: Tony Moreno stated he had no comments. Keith Van Dine: . Keith Van Dine stated this has been a confusing meeting. If Flagship Home was sent all of the information why did they still have to come before the Commission? Steve Simonson stated this is how the ordinance is written that -12- e e . only Planning and Zoning can authorize the bandit signs. Keith Van Dine asked about the water rates going up. With the continuing of a lot of rain, if the water should get replenished, will the water rates go down? Councilman Ken Greenwald stated "yes" they would go down. The block rate is based on the stage that the City is in. Gary Wallace: Gary Wallace stated he had no comments. Ernie Evans: Ernie Evans reminded those involved in the Comprehensive Plan that there is a meeting on Thursday night August 29, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. Merwin Willman: Merwin Willman stated with all the talk about the road from Woodland Oaks Drive to Dietz Road there is going to be an awful lot of traffic once the road is put in. He would like to make a recommendation that the Commission recommend to City Council that with the increase of traffic with the school, and the road from Dietz Creek completed, that Woodland Oaks become a dead end street at the City limits to reduce a lot of the traffic on Woodland Oaks. . Pia Jarman asked Merwin to draft a letter to City Council on behalf of the Commission. Merwin stated he would draft such a letter. Merwin Willman wondered if the City should go to the state and ask for their permission for the placement of the bandit signs. Steve Simonson stated the state has not contacted the City about the signs. It has only contacted the developers as they were out on a City holidy which was not a state holiday. David Richmond: David Richmond stated relative to our school discussion tonight, if we are going to send a letter he would request that we make it plain and attach the minutes of the meeting in which we requested Mr. Rehmann to provide the information to the school board. . Da~id Richmond stated the one thing that was not addressed this evening is Brad Galo's request in his letter to waive the remaining park fees in favor of him developing his portion of the road. If the process for the payment of the park fees is such that when we finally approve a plat then the developer should pay the park fees for that particular plat. If there are plats that have been approved and he has not paid the fees, he is delinquent. David is not sure we ought to consider those park fees as part of those that Brad Galo now asks the City not to have to pay. -13- . . . e e Steve Simonson stated based upon Mr. Galo's best guess at $112.50 per lot on how many lots Mr. Galo expects to build with the school site, is where the calculations come from. This will include the amount owed on Unit 4. If the Commission wants the parkland fees paid at the time of the final plats this will be no problem. What has happened in the past is if the fees have not been paid then the plat does not get recorded. The only outstanding plats not recorded are Units 6 and 4. The park fees have been paid for Unit 6 but not for Unit 4 which is about $8775.00. Units 5 and 7 have not been platted as yet. Mr. Galo is including in his price Units 4, 5, 7 and the rest of the property not yet developed. Mr. Galo has promised if he is granted the waiver he will build the 24' road with the curb and sidewalks. Steve Simonson stated he will contact Brad Galo and ask him to make it clear on what exactly he will be building for the road and also stating he is dedicating the part of the road north of the school. Ernie Evans stated "forgiving" the parkland fees to be collected on future plats is one thing. To say that we want to go back on something that was done six months ago as with the ones already platted, like David, he feels this is a different issue. Ernie believes the money is already owed to the City. It is a condition of the plats that were approved. In giving this money "away", we are rejecting approval of the plats. Steve Simonson stated he informed Brad Galo that he could request a waiver but Steve did not know if it would be granted for the plats already platted and under construction. Whatever the Commission wants, Steve will go back to Mr. Galo and explain in detail what his letter has to say. He will also inform Mr. Galo the fees for Unit 4 are delinquent. David Richmond stated he considers the fees to be delinquent regardless of the recording issue. It was always David's feeling the fees were due when the final plat was approved. Ernie Evans stated in the letter to the school board it needs to be made very clear if the school board does not address the road above their property to Green Valley Road, there won't be a complete answer. This was conveyed to them before. Pia Jarman: Pia Jarman stated she had no comments. Councilman Ken Greenwald: Councilman Ken Greenwald stated the City Council does want to have a sit down meeting with the Commission but it is going to have to be after budget time. The Council is now scheduling extra meetings for the budget to be able to meet the time tables. The City Manger has been sick for the last week. The meeting may not be until October or November. -14- . . . e e Councilman Ken Greenwald stated the UDC is half way there. It was passed on the first reading with a few minor changes. It should pass next Tuesday. Councilman Ken Greenwald mentioned that the 121 acre development that was turned down is being reconsidered and discussed at tomorrow night's workshop. This request will probably come before the City Council again within the next couple of weeks. Steve Simonson: Steve Simonson mentioned questionnaire filled out, them. if any of Commissioners has the please pass them in and we will APA mail Steve Simonson asked if everyone is going to the conference. The Commissioners that are going all stated that they will not be attending any other workshops. Steve mentioned that a room has been rented for Thursday night's gettogether or if anyone wants to "rest". Steve's suggestion is that we can go to the conference site either in two cars as he is capable of taking five people. Steve Simonson stated he attended the MPO meeting. One of the items presented to the MPO was a major investment study that they have been having for some time. Basically what is going to happen and what are the best things to go for the IH 35 corridor from downtown to 1604. After public hearings, the suggestions have been to put in some express lanes and to widen it. The one issue looked at the most, was for safety and operation improvements which are the interchanges and express lanes. There was a lot of discontent with the MPO on this suggestion, that they limited their scope and weren't really looking at a 20 year window of the changes possible of lifestyle and needs in the area. Basically all they are saying is "business as usual" and "we will get you through the City". There was also no consideration of changes in lifestyle concering technology changes. There is a growing movement now on both the west and east coasts. There has been literature in the planning magazines concerning electronic communication. There was no communication of educating the public. The MPO was not real happy with the proposal and there will be more information and suggestions with other considerations and modes of transportation. Steve Simonson stated as of yesterday development of Green Valley Road to Woodland Oaks Drive was promised by the school to him. All the information that the Commission passed on to them verbally Steve passed on in a letter and Steve has talked intensively with the principals involved with whom he is dealing with, i.e. district employees. Steve has made two briefings concerning this before the board on our feelings on the need for this road. #11 ADJOURNMENT: David Richmond moved to adjourn the meeting. Gary Wallace seconded the motion, which carried with a unanimous vote. -15- e e . Chairwoman Pia Jarman adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting is September 10, 1996. ". ). \.. "- Chairwoman, Planning and Zoning Commission . ATTEST: '" -W' '.. (' "- i.. . ( \' i -,11, L<lL- ;-:J1 1:{/f1 ~K/ Planning Secretary if--" City of Schertz, Texas . -16-