Loading...
06-26-2001 PLANNING & ZONING MINUTES June 26, 2001 The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in Regular Session on Tuesday June 26, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Complex Bob Andrews Conference Room, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas. Those present were. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CITY STAFF David Richmond, Chairman Ron Youngblood Ernie Evans, Vice-Chair City Planner Tony Moreno Mary Ybarra, William Sommers Recording Secretary Ken Greenwald, ex-officio COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Joyce Briscoe (out of town) Sam Bledsoe, Gary Wallace (out of town) MBC Engineers Keith Van Dine Ray Brown David & Cindy Broschat, 4604 Flagstone Leon Jones, 1301 Chestnut Jimmy Powers, RVK Engineers Bear Goolsry, RVK Engineers Ken Harris Verizon Wireless Steven Burg, 2609 Kingsland Circle Larry Fortner, 2405 Witten Arnold Martinez, Jr. RVK Engineers #1 Call to Order: Chairman Richmond called the meeting of June 26, 2001 to order at 7:00 pm. 1 #2 Approval of Minutes: Minutes of June 12, 2001. Chairman Richmond advised the Commission that minutes of June 12, 2001 were not available. #3 Status Of Final Plats: There was none to report. #4 BOA Actions: There was no meeting to report. #5 Citizens' Input Other Than Agenda Items: There was none. #6 Consider and Make Recommendation: Request from Steve Burg, 2609 Kingsland Circle-Woodland Oaks, Unit 2B-lot 58, Block 12, for a special exception to the zoning ordinance to encroach into the 20' rear building setback from 20' to 14' for construction of a patio cover. Ron Youngblood stated that the request from Mr. Burg would not encroach into any utility easements and he has obtained approval from the HOA architectural committee of Woodland Oaks. Tony Moreno questioned the HOA approval format. Ron Youngblood stated that the approval seal is affixed at the upper right hand of the document and apologized if his copy was not legible. Ron Youngblood indicated that it was unclear whether the patio cover was to be painted or left natural. Mr. Burg explained that the fascia board would be painted to match the exterior of the house. 2 Without further discussion Tony Moreno moved to forward the request from Steve Burg 2609 Kingsland Circle-Woodland Oaks, Unit 2B-lot 58, Block 12, for a special exception to the zoning ordinance to encroach into the 20' rear building setback from 20' to 14' for construction of a patio cover to the Board of Adjustment with a recommendation of approval. William Sommers seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. #7 Consider and Make Recommendation: Request from Larry G. Fortner, 2405 Witten-Woodland Oaks, Unit 2A-lot 7, Block 10, for a special exception to the zoning ordinance to encroach into the 20' rear building setback from 20' to 10' and into the 12' utility easement from 12' to 10' to construct a concrete patio with cover. Ron Youngblood stated that the request has received approval from the Woodland Oaks HOA and explained that it is his understanding that the request would not encroach into any utility easement, due to the fact that utilities are not present at this time. However, the construction does cross the 12' utility easement. At this time, Mr. Fortner presented a constructed model of siding with gutter showing that the construction would match the color of the house. David Richmond questioned whether the existing concrete slab extends into the utility easement? Mr. Fortner explained that the existing slab does cross the 12' utility easement by 4". David asked if approval was obtained for the encroachment and was advised by Mr. Fortner, that the slab has been in place for fifteen years or better. Mr. Fortner explained that the reason for the additional encroachment of approximately 2' is due to city requirement of placing a beam around the slab. The beam alone extends approximately 8 to 10". Actually the encroachment is more like 1' 6". Ernie Evans asked if information has been obtained from Paragon (cable) etc. or anyone with utilities in the easement in question. Mr. Fortner explained that the utilities, Paragon, Southwestern Bell are approximately 40-60 feet from the patio cover. The 3 utility in the area is electrical lines that are running parallel to the fence, which is at the property line. Ernie Evans asked if GVEC has been asked to concur in overlapping onto the utility easement? Mr. Fortner stated he wasn't aware it was required. Mr. Fortner stated that he understands that if repairs are necessary and GVEC must take down the fence and corner of the slab, he is aware of the consequences and would be fully liable. Ernie Evans quoted out of the building code Chapter 5, Section 5.5 Permits- (f) Public right-of--way, Alleys and Easements- "A permit shall not be given by the building official for the construction of any building or structure, or alteration of any building or structure that will encroach upon any right-of-way, alley or utility or drainage easement." Ernie believes this issue presents a conflict of interest that probably would need to be addressed separately. Ernie Evans stated that he believes it is necessary to have Mr. Fortner obtain a letter from GVEC before the request is forwarded to the Board of Adjustment. On the other matter, Chapter 5 of the building code, it will be necessary to take the issue under discussion with city staff and Commissioners. David Richmond asked that Mr. Fortner obtain a letter from GVEC giving approval before the Commission forwards the request to the Board of Adjustment. David believes it is in Mr. Fortner's best interest to obtain the letter and have it part of his file for future reference. In brief discussion, it was determined that most likely the meeting with the Board of Adjustment would be scheduled July 23, 2001, and the next scheduled meeting for Planning and Zoning is July 10, 2001 There wouldn't be much delay, giving time to obtain a letter from GVEC and being on the agenda for the next meeting of July 10, 2001. Without further discussion, Tony Moreno moved to disapprove the request from Larry G. Fortner, 2405 Witten-Woodland Oaks, Unit 2A-lot 7, Block 10, for a special exception to 4 the zoning ordinance to encroach into the 20' rear building setback from 20' to 10' and into the 12' utility easement from 12' to 10' to construct a concrete patio cover until such time that a letter is received from GVEC giving approval. William Sommers seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. #8 Consider and Make Recommendation: Request from David and Cindy Broschat, 4604 Flagstone Drive, Forest Ridge Subdivision Unit 1, block 3, lot 2 for a special exception to the zoning ordinance to encroach into the 15' utility easement for construction of storage building. Ron Youngblood explained that the request before the Commission is similar to the previous requests; however, the shed in question would be placed on skids and could be moved if it were necessary. Mr. Broschat pointed out that the CPS has agreed to allow the construction of the storage building and passed out the agreement for the Commission's review. William Sommers asked if Mr. Broschat had read the CPS Indemnity agreement? Mr. Sommers wanted to go on record that he wouldn't sign it. Without further discussion, Tony Moreno moved to forward to the Board of Adjustment recommending approval the request from David and Cindy Broschat, 4604 Flagstone Drive, Forest Ridge Subdivision Unit 1, block 3, lot 2 for a special exception to the zoning ordinance to encroach into the 15' utility easement for construction of storage building. William Sommers seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. #9 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: Request from 3009 Partners, Ltd to approve update on revised master plan of Forest Ridge Subdivision. 5 Ron Youngblood explained that at the Commission's request the updated master plan is before the Commission. The Commission was concerned that there were deviations from the original submitted several months ago. In our meeting with Forest Ridge representatives it was relayed to the city that the master plan was pretty much the same. Ernie Evans voiced concern with parkland dedication versus common area which was not on the original master plan, no width indicated on the Wiederstein Road ROW, no documentation for drainage easement rights leading into lot 3, Live Oak Hills from Forest Ridge Unit 5B, lot 22, and twelve curb cuts onto Wiederstein Road. The curb cuts are placed at lots at the southwest corner that have 100' widths. Ernie Evans does not believe that these curb cuts are needed on what would become a heavily traveled road. He believes it is excessive and asking for problems if the Commission grants approval. Tony Moreno stated that he tends to agree with Ernie Evans considering the traffic problems at the FM 3009/IH 35 intersection. The City is looking at Wiederstein Road as a secondary thoroughfare and would not like to see another problem intersection. Ernie Evans questioned what is the total of useable parkland property versus property that is taken up by easement that is not usable? He believes that if the total acreage were available it would reduce down the amount of acreage labeled usable parkland considerably. David Richmond suggests working on the Master Plan to come up with alternatives that wouldn't reduce the number of lots, but would help the city on reducing the number of curb cuts along Wiederstein Road. Tony Moreno stated that this development would be a step forward to the City's vision of having a secondary thoroughfare, which would alleviate traffic on IH35. 6 At this time, Sam Bledsoe addressed some of the Commission's concerns. The Wiederstein Road ROW would be 60' with 40' pavement. Plans are in the works as we speak, and added that Ford Engineering is working on a plan for the remainder that crosses the Barshop tract. There should be a complete set of plans for Wiederstein Road very shortly. Sam explained that due to the LCRA easement, the last unit, which is unit 6, would not be gated causing the unit to become a public subdivision. Keeping this in mind Sam addressed the question of greenspace versus common area. Sam stated that the parkland dedication outside the PUD is identified as greenspace. The parkland dedication inside the PUD is identified as common area and would be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. Sam explained that there are 15 acres of parkland dedication, which is more than enough for the development of this size. Unfortunately, most of the parkland is in the LCRA easement, which has limited use; building could not occur, however it may be used for hike and bike trails. Sam stated that some hike and bike trails have been built as part of Forest Ridge Unit 1 that would connect into the area in question. Sam believes there are plans to extend the hike and bike trails into the area that is called greenspace. The greenspace area may be used recreationally for the residents of Forest Ridge as well as the residents outside of Forest Ridge in Unit 6, which would not be gated due to the LCRA easement. Ernie Evans stated that at one time the area identified as parkland and now what is being referred, as greenspace was all one area mated together. Atone time there were discussions of fencing (i.e. wrought iron) that would allow greenspace and/or parkland to be utilized, which is part of the internals of the private subdivision. However, this is not the case now. Sam Bledsoe stated that now the areas are two separate; however, still connected as part of the subdivision. However, one area is inside the PUD and one area outside. The trails are going to be utilized from the common area into the parkland; how are we going to keep people out? 7 Ernie Evans stated that common areas are fenced not opened; how are the trails going to be utilized? Sam Bledsoe stated that the lots are fenced along the rear and are opened at the back of the property. Ernie Evans questioned that if the common areas are not fenced from property to property how is it proposed as a gated community? Barry Sanditen stated that he would like to address the concerns in discussion. He believes he hasn't strayed from the original plan of 1996. The commitment was to build Wiederstein Road, which has been done. It was agreed that the development would contribute a large amount of acreage for improvements to the greenbelt. There were numerous discussions that the development would only sidewalk one side of Wiederstein Road and build-out the hike and bike trial on the western side of Wiederstein Road. A major section of the trail has been build-out, which would tie-into the common area. Most of the subdivision is gated; however, we will have to come up with pedestrian gated access points at the parkland area, which are being planned. As shown on the master plan from the first unit to the proposed unit 5 & 6 the area (100') that is right up to the easement is not platted. This area has always been noted as parkland or greenspace, however it is distinguished now. Ernie Evans stated that he would like to clarify the distinction between the two (greenspace and parkland); parkland dedication is public land that becomes the responsibility of the City, greenspace becomes a different issue. Ernie suggested that it might be a good idea to discuss these two issues with City staff to work out the distinction between the two. Ron explained that the areas maintained by the Homeowners Association would be called "common areas" and the other areas "greenspaces". Barry Sanditen stated that the areas abutting the subdivision were not noted as "common area"; if they had, the area would have to be fenced and it wasn't planned to do so. The intent was never to fence the hike/bike trails built along the subdivision because it was my understanding that the City was to extend the trails both ways. Mr. Sanditen stated that the trails are built along the area between the edge of 8 the right of way and the now platted units, and he isn't sure how to distinguish between the two. Is the area greenspace or parkland? These are issues that diffidently need to be discussed. Ernie Evans asked if the internal common areas of the gated community that abut either (greenspace or parkland) are to be fenced? Ernie stated that he recalls it was mentioned in original discusses that wrought iron fencing would possibly would be utilized to fence the common areas which abut the greenspace. Mr. Sanditen stated that is correct; however, is it not currently being fenced at this time. It was always contemplated that there would come a time to fence in wrought iron with pedestrian access points enabling access into the common areas. Ernie Evans asked that the area at the southwest corner (lots abutting Wiederstein Road) be addressed at this time. Mr. Sanditen stated he would try to address any concerns the Commission might have. Mr. Sanditen stated that the original master plan had these lots abutting the current LCRA right of way. The negotiation has pushed the easement further down, which encumbered the entire area where the road (Wiederstein) was planned. The road as it stands now, the economics of trying to get a dual loaded road becomes difficult at the south end of the property. Ernie Evans suggested that possible negotiations with city staff would help in providing alternatives that would benefit the city as well as the development. A service road or alley is a possible solution for servicing these lots (12), which would eliminate some of curb cuts along this stretch of Weiderstein Road. Mr. Sanditen stated that the development would definitely look at incorporating a feasible solution. David Richmond reiterated the critical issues: curb cuts along Wiederstein Road and resolution of greenspace versus parkland or common area. Mr. Sanditen asked that in regard to greenspace, parkland or common area what was desirable and what was not 9 desirable? It was suggested that Mr. Sanditen contact Mr. Youngblood to discuss this matter and come up with a solution. At this time, Ken Greenwald mentioned that the city has had to change some of their plans because of financial situations and obviously the development has, too. However, the city will continue to work with the development to come up with a solution that would benefit both. Without further discussion, William Sommers moved to disapprove the request from 3009 Partners, Ltd. to approve update on revised master plan of Forest Ridge Subdivision. Tony Moreno seconded the motion. With a vote being called the motion was approved. #10 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: Request from 3009 Partners, Ltd for preliminary plat approval of Forest Ridge Subdivision Unit 5A. Ron Youngblood stated that the only concern voiced at the previous meeting was the situation of parkland, common area versus greenspace, which has been resolved. Sam Bledsoe stated that he believes that greenspace is identified as greenspace because it is not part of the plat. This area hasn't been dedicated and has been labeled as future greenspace. Ernie Evans stated that as mentioned in discussion with the master plan in regard to this matter, the city has to come to a decision on what these areas would be named. Ernie Evans stated that the note section does not mention the common area block 2, lot 3. Ernie believes this common area should be the homeowner's association responsibility and should be designated as such. Sam Bledsoe stated that there wasn't a problem adding the note. 10 Ernie Evans stated that considering the issues of the greenspace wording and the designation of block 2, lot 3, Unit 5A doesn't appear to have anything else of concern. David Richmond stated that there isn't any reason why the Commission could not take action on the preliminary plat and call attention to the items discussed. William Sommers voiced concern in regard to approving preliminary plat Unit 5A due to the fact that the master plan received disapproval. Would this allow the developer to go ahead with the entire development? What kind of problems would the city be creating if approval were given for the units before approval of the master plan was granted? Ernie Evans stated that the Commission could approve a preliminary plat, but could not approve a final without an approved master plan. Without further comments, Tony Moreno moved to approve the request from 3009 Partners, Ltd. for preliminary plat approval of Forest Ridge Subdivision Unit 5A to include a meeting with staff to finalize the issue of parkland versus greenspace and resolve other issues as noted. William Sommers seconded the motion. With vote being called, the motion was approved. #11 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: Request from 3009 Partners, Ltd for preliminary plat approval of Forest Ridge Subdivision Unit 5B. Ron Youngblood stated that one item of concern was the drainage easement at Urban Lane, lot 122, Live Oak Hills. Ernie Evans pointed out that in note 3, unit 5A must be changed to unit 5B, and again the issue of greenspace/common area must be negotiated with city staff. 11 Ernie Evans asked is the Commission to assume that the documentation provided as part of the preliminary plat addresses the drainage easement onto lot 3 of Live Oak Hills Subdivision? Sam Bledsoe stated that there are two issues; the off site drainage easement and the off site sanitary sewer easement. The sanitary sewer easement document is attached to the plat. The sanitary sewer is located down the old Wiederstein Road, turns onto Oak Hills Subdivision (Real Lane), goes across city drainage right of way, and ties into Carolina Crossing sanitary sewer easement. A small portion of this easement must be acquired. Sam added that the drainage easement into Urban Lane has been acquired. Mr. Sanditen has purchased the lot. At this time, Mr. Sanditen explained how the drainage easement would flow and how it was designed. He explained that with the drainage design it required the purchase of the downhill lot 3 (at Urban Lane). This would provide access to the public access road and explained that at this point the drainage flow would be turned upward doing a horseshoe affect. Mr. Sanditen stated that at this point he isn't sure this is good planning; however, he believes that by purchasing lot 3, it would provide some insurance to work the drainage and not receive flack down the road. Ernie Evans stated that the Commission would like to see proof of ownership of lot 3, in order for the Commission to accept the plat. David Richmond questioned item "L" of the Unit 5B checklist; the item is checked off, indicating receipt of the LCRA approval documents. Ernie Evans stated that he believes the approval document is need more so for the master plan than for the subdivision plats. At this time, Mr. Sanditen was asked if an approval agreement with LCRA has been reached? Mr. Sanditen stated that an agreement has been reached in the form of a settlement agreement allowing Weiderstein Road through the easement. Mr. Sanditen stated that he would provide the city with a copy of the agreement if the Commission 12 desires. At this time, the Commission asked Mr. Sanditen to provide a copy of the agreement making sure that the rights have been secured. William Sommers asked if Lot 3 was going to be given to the City and was advised by Mr. Sanditen that it would be. Ernie Evans stated that if this lot is going to be given to the city, it must be included as part of the plat of Unit 5B, and added that it is necessary to designate it as something. Sam Bledsoe stated that the lot would be designated as drainage right of way. Ernie Evans stated that he believes that lot 3, Live Oak Hills must be re-platted as part of the Forest Ridge Subdivision. However, isn't certain but suggests researching the matter with city staff. In brief discussion it was determined that Unit 5B could not be treated as the previous plat of Unit 5A. The 5B plat has certain issues that must be addressed before action can be taken. Without further discussion, William Sommers moved to disapprove the request from 3009 Partners, Ltd for preliminary plat approval of Forest Ridge Subdivision Unit 5B.Ernie Evans seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. #12 Consider and Take Appropriate Action: Request from Resurrection Baptist Church for site plan approval of Resurrection Baptist Church, Live Oak Road. Ron Youngblood stated that the development has planned to construct a sidewalk 1' inside the property line and believes this would be an asset to Live Oak Road. Ernie Evans pointed out that the landscape plan does not meet the requirement as established by city ordinance. The requirement is 40" of DBH across the frontage and the site plan indicates 27" of DBH. Ernie added that the site plan indicates the proposed 13 planting of "Palms to take up the remaining portion of the 40" of requirement. However, "palm" trees" are not in the city landscape ordinance. Ernie Evans also pointed out that the site plan indicates a count of "4-Desert Willow" and 3 are shown; also indicates "6-Live Oaks" and actually "7-Live Oaks" are shown. Ernie Evans stated that he believes action could not be taken without considering a variance request. William Sommers questioned the total planned of a 136 parking spaces with an occupancy projection of 2,676 people per use of the facility. This count would equate to a 19 people per vehicle and parking space Mr. Arnold Martinez, representing the church, stated that at no one time would there be 2,000 plus on site. There either would be Sunday school, or church worship. Sunday school and worship would not be held simultaneously. Mr. Martinez mentioned that in talks with city staff it was determined that parking spaces could decrease from the original count to 136 knowing that there is off pavement parking at the rear of the lot available for the overflow. Mr. Martinez stated that construction documents are complete at this time for additional parking in future phases as necessary and when money becomes available. William Sommers asked if this was a situation of allowing the parking as submitted on the site plan and allowing a year to complete initial parking spaces? Ernie Evans stated that he would like for city staff to take another look at the parking situation and offer a recommendation. It obviously doesn't meet the code and would require a variance. Ernie pointed out that now there are at least three variances to consider given the landscape requirement of 40" DBH (trees) and plants not meeting the code. It was recommended that the developer get with City staff to work out these issues. City staff has a good indication of what the Commission would like to see in regard to landscaping. 14 William Sommers pointed out the sign issue; the site plan is indicating one sign (outside of building entryway). There is no indication of any signage at street access or street entrance. Mr. Sommers stated that if this site plan is approved it calls for only one sign and the church would have to come back to the Commission requesting a variance for an additional sign. Following discussion about lighting, it was determined that d the lighting information is indicated on the site plan. David Richmond stated that he would like the development to consider incorporating into the landscape plan a berm type sign at the church street entrance. He believes this development is the first attempt to upgrade Live Oak Road, and stated that that the developer is doing a super job. At this time, David Richmond commented that he believes the off pavement parking is an issue that requires discussion with city staff. What the development is looking to do is park as many cars off pavement as parking on pavement. David believes that would initially invite potential problems for the church and possibly the city. Without further discussion, Tony Moreno moved to disapprove the request from Resurrection Baptist Church for site plan approval of Resurrection Baptist Church, Live Oak Road, and recommends that the developer meet with city staff to resolve items discussed. William Sommers seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. #13 Consider and Make Recommendation: Request from Planning and Zoning Commission to make changes to the Unified Development Code-Article IX-Sign Standards, Sections 1,2,3 & 4. Ron Youngblood suggested that the Commission consider tabling the issue due to the time factor. David Richmond stated that time isn't as important as is the fact that 15 Leonard Truitt had to leave. David stated that because Mr. Truitt is the primary City enforcement officer, it is imperative for him to be present for this discussion. At this time, David recommended tabling the issue until such time that Mr. Truitt could be present Without further discussion, William Sommers moved to table the request from Planning and Zoning Commission to make changes to the Unified Development Code-Article IX- Sign Standards, Sections 1,2,3 & 4. Tony Moreno seconded the motion. With a vote being called, the motion was approved. #14 Request for Agenda Items for future scheduled meetings. Ken Greenwald stated that he would like to update the Commission on the Seguin/Schertz Local Government Corporation at the next scheduled meeting, and asked that it be placed on the agenda. At this time, Ken introduced Raymond Cook, Vice-president, Seguin/Schertz Local Government Corporation, citizen of Schertz and a R.P.E. #15 Items by Commissioners and City Planner. Ron Youngblood: 1. Update and discussion on Census 2001 Demographic information for the City of Schertz and surrounding areas. At this time, Ron Youngblood briefed the Commission on the demographic changes that affect the City of Schertz. Ron explained in detail the different categories such as, percentage of sex and age, income, etc. 2. Discussion on possible future extension of FM3009 to IH10. Ron stated that he has been in discussion with a certain property owner in the City of Schertz who is building a coalition of property owners/neighbors trying to find right of way (ROW) that can be donated to the possible extension of FM3009 to IH10. 16 Ron also mentioned that Michael Spain, City attorney informed him, that he would be available for the scheduled meeting of July 24, 2001 to address correspondence on the signage issues. William Sommers asked that city staff looks into the legal issue of attorney/client privileged information. Would the information offered by the attorney require an "executive session"? William Sommers stated that there is a portable sign at Oak Forest Subdivision facing FM3009. Ron stated that he would into this. Ernie Evans stated that the Fellowship Church holding worship at the Laura Ingalls Wilder Elementary school is leaving signs out. As of last night the signs are still out. Ernie Evans stated that he recalls the church was given permission for a year to place signs out, however only on weekends. Over the past two weekends the church has not upheld its end of the bargain. Ernie also mentioned that he believes the Commission has a conflict of interest with the Unified Development Code and the City Code. David Richmond commented on the signage at Forest Ridge Subdivision and asked city staff to check into the issue. William Sommers suggested that the Commission be given a synopsis of issues coming up for discussion in regard to the sign ordinance. This would give the Commission some time to review before the next scheduled meeting. 17 #16 Adjournment: William Sommers moved to adjourn. Tony Moreno seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission ATTEST: Planning Secretary, City of Schertz 18