Loading...
06-12-2001 PLANNING & ZONING MINUTES June 12, 2001 The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in Regular Session on Tuesday June 12, 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 Keith Van Dine, Secretary Mary Ybarra, Gary Wallace Recording Secretary 7oyce Briscoe Tony Moreno William Sommers, late arrival (7:30pm) Ken Greenwald, ex-officio COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT #1 Call to Order: Chairman Richmond called the meeting of June 12, 2001 to order at 7:00 pm. #2 Approval of Minutes: Minutes of May 22, 2001. Chairman Richmond asked for corrections or additions to minutes of May 22, 2001. At this time, Ernie Evans stated that he has turned over several minor corrections to the recording secretary and asked if the Commission would like to go over the corrections? 1 David Richmond asked if there were any additional corrections? Joyce Briscoe stated that on page eleven -third paragraph -second line -add apostrophe to the word "commissions" and add an "s" to the word "aesthetic" in the same paragraph. Without further discussion, a motion was made by Joyce Briscoe and seconded by Gary Wallace to approve the minutes of May 8, 2001 as corrected. With a vote being called, the vote was as follows: Ayes: Ernie Evans, Joyce Briscoe, Gary Wallace and Tony Moreno. Abstention: David Richmond and Keith Van Dine. Motion approved. #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 Take Appropriate Action: Change agenda item "General Discussion" to read "Items by Commissioner and City Planner:" David Richmond reported that the agenda item had been discussed at the last meeting by the Commission and asked if there was further discussion on the matter? Without further discussion, a motion was made by Tony Moreno and seconded by Gary Wallace to approve the change of agenda item "General Discussion" to "Items by Commissioner and City Planner". With a vote being called, the vote was unanimous. Motion approved. 2 #7 Requests for agenda Items for future scheduled meeting: Ken Greenwald asked that Ron Youngblood provide demographic data on the City of Schertz taken from the 2001 Census report. He believes some of the information is very sufficient. #8 General Discussion: Ron Youngblood: 1. Update and discussion on research of signage on FM3009, Schertz Parkway and FM 78. Ron reported that the draft package as part of the Commission's packet would been sent to City Attorney, Michael Spain with a list of various signs throughout the city that are in non-compliance, especially in the overlay district. Ron stated that the city is seeking guidance in regard to legality from the City Attorney concerning these issues and asked that the Commission look over these sign issues to see if anything has been left out. Ron mentioned that in the gathering information such as previous correspondence and excerpts from minutes dealing with these sign issues, he found no record or mention on the Dietz sign on FM3009. For this reason, the Dietz sign issue was left out of the draft package. It his understanding that the Dietz sign was given authorization before the area was annexed as part of the city. A question was asked as to when annexation had taken place for the area. It was determined that the area was annexed around the early 1960's (possibly 1963). Gary Wallace stated that he couldn't see how the Dietz sign can be left out, and contemplate the amortization of the billboards on IH35. He believes this sign issue should be included in the package to the city attorney. Joyce Briscoe made mention that the K&B advertisement is a new sign, the sign that was authorized for the Dietz property was a sign for the apartments (Persimmons Apartments). 3 David Richmond stated that he couldn't see the Dietz sign in another position from other signs that have been addressed in the package to the city attorney. Such signs in the rail road right of way as example. David Richmond stated that he believes the city attorney should be provided with an entire package with nothing left out and suggested that City Planner, Ron Youngblood get together with City Manager, Dewey Cashwell to find out whether the city attomey has been contacted concerning these issues. If he has or hasn't had the opportunity, this package could be added or made part of issues that are within the same scope of my past meeting and discussion with the city manager. David added that the Commission is awaiting guidance from the city attorney and would appreciate getting a response as soon as possible. Questions such as: is it reasonable to pursue and if it is what is a reasonable amortization period. At this time, Joyce Briscoe thanked David for taking the time to visit with the City Manager concerning these issues. Joyce added that in her opinion time is critical, because the longer signs are left in non-compliance, custom and tradition take over. Ron mentioned that the Forest Ridge sign issue would be left out of the package due to a conversation with Barry Sanditen developer, where Mr. Sanditen assured that the signs in question would be taken down. He stated that he wasn't aware that these signs were in non-compliance and would take care of the issue. Joyce Briscoe stated that she appreciated property owners that want to comply with city ordinances and asked Ron to convey her appreciation. David Richmond noted that Ron has done a very good job in gathering and researching material that has been turned over to the City Attorney covering the signage issues. Job well done. 4 2. Update and discussion on proposed Verizon Wireless relocating Central Switching Facility to Tri-County Industrial Park behind Keebler. Ron reported on meeting with Ken Harris and Attorney in regard to Verizon relocating to the City of Schertz. The purpose of the meeting was to visit with the assistant City Manager in order to get a feel of how the city felt with the proposed relocating. In discussion at the previous meeting (Planning & Zoning) there was mention of a possible variance, however no variance is required and any approval would have to come from this body (Planning & Zoning). As a result of this meeting, re-submittal of site plan is forthcoming in the next 30 to 45 days. Gary Wallace commented that he didn't understand why a variance wasn't necessary. Ron explained that the tower is authorized in the industrial park and if data (engineering) can be provided that the tower would fold and fall onto the property, no variance would be required. Ernie Evans stated that there are pro and cons. There are some city benefits from the city's standpoint, especially no tax abatement, jobs, monies added to tax roll, and eventually add money to the economic. However, there are drawbacks, taking landscape that is primarily two story type industrial facilities and placing a 200' tower in the middle of these facilities. In addition if the city wants to be safety conscious and concerned, the city has to consider that today there is development in the surrounding area, however one day there will be. Ernie also mentioned that there were several other issues that were mentioned that in his opinion don't fit, location, elevation, etc. and personally these issues are of concern. Once the tower goes up, it's not coming down. Joyce Briscoe stated that as of today the industrial park has plenty of vacant land. If any business was interested in developing in the industrial area and were to find this huge ugly tower, the business might consider going down the road. If this were case, the city 5 might find itself with a lot of vacant land or a substandard industrial park. The city's industrial park looks so nice, let's not mess it up. In a brief discussion, a consensus was reached by the Commission to relate the negative (Industrial Park is not the appropriate place for a tower and suggest speaking to surrounding property owners) that was reached by the Commission. Of course, this would not permit them from re-submitting the request if they so desire. At this time, item #4 was discussed before #3. 4. Discuss and Take Action: Amending the UDC -Tree Ordinance e.g. proposed tree types. Ron Youngblood stated that in research and talking with tree experts he found that not only the certain type of trees specified in the ordinance should be considered. He believes different variety of trees would be in the best interest of the City, for instance if Oak welts disease comes through a community, that it would wipe the Oak population completely. At this time, Ron passed out information on different type of trees for consideration and discussion. In brief discussion, it was agreed that the tree ordinance stay as is. The tree ordinance specifically states "all added trees will be of the oak, native elm pistach variety....". The Commission believes the ordinance covers a variety and should stand as is. 3. Discuss and Take Action: Amending the UDC -Sign Ordinance. At this time, Ron thanked Leonard Truitt, building official for the City of Schertz for his presence. Ron pointed out that about 30% of phone calls into the inspection and planning are for some clarification to the UDC in regard to the sign ordinance. Ron believes the UDC is not as user friendly as the city hoped it would be. There are several 6 definitions that need some clarification as well as enforcement and administrative issues needing some work. William Sommers stated that if he understates correctly, the concern of tracking signs needing re-permitting would be a problem with the city. Ron replied yes, there would be an administrative cost associated with it. William suggested flipping the cost back to user of the sign, making the user responsible for re-permitting. If it is found that re- permitting was not done, impose a fine sufficient to cover administrative costs and possibly require removal of the sign. At this time, Leonard Truitt explained that there are a couple of items that he will use as example that need clarification, in the code 6.4 "Temporary signs" for example, the use of "temporary" does not explain how long is "temporary"? Another example in section 6.6 "Developer Signs" this particular section is under non-permitted signs, however this type of sign is permitted in order to keep track. The permit is a minimal fee of $15.00 dollars Leonard recommends possibly putting it under a temporary base. He stated that he finds no problem with the 75% rule or 5 years but suggests possibly reviewing and also taking a look at the 300 square feet. If a contractor is allowed to place a 300 square foot sign in front of a subdivision, he believes that's a pretty big sign. Another issue Leonard mentioned was definition of unlimited and limited access in Section - 7 "Off Premise Signs" in section 7.5. At this time, Leonard suggested tabling the sign issue until such time that everyone has had an opportunity to review such items as, identify definition concerns, time limitation and enforcement problems that the inspection department is faced with. Ernie Evans pointed out that not only does the Unified Development Code contain the section "sign ordinance", there is also sign information buried in the overlay district section of Schertz Parkway and FM3009. Ernie suggested a possible referencing or referral from one section to the other. 7 William Sommers suggested getting other departments of the city such as fire, police, etc., involved in providing their thoughts and review. David Richmond suggested that the sign ordinance be taken in sections. The first four sections that include all definitions at the next scheduled meeting and have the building official make input, comments, and suggestions. The rest of the sections to follow at scheduled meetings thereafter. David Richmond: 1. Update and discussion on Land Use Plan meeting of June 4, 2001 and scheduled meeting of June 11, 2001. At this time, David briefed the Commission on a review by the Steering Committee and the firm Wilbur Smith & Associates on chapters "Land Use" and "Parks and Recreation". David mentioned that the committee was in agreement that the consulting firm is doing an outstanding job. There was some concern on the part of Wilbur Smith, basically because of the wide variety of plans done by the firm. Their concern was that, was Wilbur Smith providing too much or too little material, etc.? David stated that general consensus among the steering committee was that the firm was "right on", and added that the committee liked the thoroughness of the different sections provided. David added that the committee also conveyed that initially it was looking at getting two products; a comprehensive land use plan (large complex binder containing prudent information) that would be available to developers, citizens, etc. An executive summary (easy to use foldout) that will be used as a reference sheet that could be provided to new developers for a quick reference on what the City of Schertz expects to do in the next twenty years. David pointed that several goals in chapter "Parks and Recreation" were prioritized and briefed the Commission on the changes. 8 David stated that the next scheduled meeting is July 9, 2001, reviewing sections "Transportation" and the "Thoroughfare Plan". Ken Greenwald stated that in talking with the City Manager, Dewey Cashwell he has been advised the Michael Spain City Attorney is doing some research (on letter from David Richmond) and would forward a letter making it official. Mr. Cashwell stated that so far city records have not been found but will continue to look. Mr. Spain is also doing in-house research and state records. William Sommers: William apologized for his tardiness. Joyce Briscoe: Joyce stated that the Dutch Boy Cleaners is still not in compliance with the approved landscape plan. Ron stated that Mr. Gardner has assured the City the landscape will be followed to the Commission's standards. Joyce stated that she would be gone for the next two scheduled meetings. Ernie Evans stated that because the Commission will have two members absent, it will be very important that the remaining Commissioners attend if possible. Ken Greenwald: Ken mentioned that two new building have gone up on FM1518. Leonard Truitt stated that the two new buildings have 180 days temporary permits. At this time, they are pending San Antonio permits for another location. As far as the Rally building, he believes is still under litigation. #10 Adjournment: Keith Van Dine moved to adjourn. Tony Moreno seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 8:35p.m. 9 Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission ATTEST: Planning Secretary, City of Schertz 10