PZ 08-14-2013PT.ANNING ANI~ ~®NI1NG ll/1;!NjJTES
August 14, 2013
The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened on August 14, 2013 at the Municipal
Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway .Building #~, Schertz, Texas.
Pi,ANN1NG ~: Z~lilIli~G C'®1VINCIISSI®N
David Richmond, Chairman
Ernie Evans, Vice-Chairman
Ken Greenwald
Bert Crawford, .ir.
Richard Braud
Michael Dahle
Christian Glombilc
William Rumfelt, Alternate
Yolanda Suarez, Alternate
C®I~IVIISSI®NEIaS ABSENT"
1.
2.
3e
4.
CAI,I_, T~ ®12DEIZCIT®LI. CALL
CITY ST'AFP'
Brian James, Executive Director Development
Michelle Sanchez, Director Deve]opment Services
Lesa Wood, Senior Planner
Larry Busch, Jr., Engineer in Training
Patti White, Executive Asst. Development
®TITEI2S P1aE~~NT'
David Rittenhouse, Denton Communities
George Weron, KFW Engineers
Mr. Richmond called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M.
SEAT` AI,`I'EI~NAT'E 'I'® AC'I` I` I2E~~1IItEI~
No alternate was required.
1TEAI~ING ®~ >iZES;II,EN"S
No one spoke.
C®NSEN'I' AGENDA
A. IViirtutes for June 2b, 2013 Regular l~/Ieetirag
Mr. Dahle stated. that he has a question on Item 4.B and would like to consider it separately,
Mr. Greenwald moved to approve item 4.A as written on the consent agenda. Mr. Cra~,vford
seconded the motion. Vote was 7-0. lVlotion carried.
B. I'C2013-02$
Consider and act upon a request for approval of a final plat of The Reserve at Schertz, Unit 3, a
17.620 + acre tract of land out of 93.452 acre tract and situated in the Stacy B. Lewis Survey No.
317 and the Antonio Zamora Survey No. 36, City of Schertz, Bexar County, Texas and located on
N. Graytown Road approximately 1100 + feet north of the 1H 10.
~ti nutes
Planniaig and Coning Commission
August 1 ~4, ? 013
Page l of l 1
Mr. Dahle asked about the notes section of the map, if the wording under number 5 that states
minimum finish floor elevation for residential lots, shall be elevated at least 1 foot higher than the
computed watee surface elevation for the 100 year ultimate development flood is standard practice.
Ms. Wood answered that this is err the checklist, is standard practice, and generally is only pelt on
the map when it is within the floodplain. Mr..Dahle asked if we are doing this for health and safety
reasons. Ms. Wood answered correct. Mr. Dahle asked tivhy are not we requiting this for septic
tanks to be noted if in the floodplain. Mr. James answered that this is not a City requirement;
however, Bexar County requires this and the deve]oper has to comply with it. Mso Woods pointed
out the plat on the map.
Mr. Crawford moved to approve item 4.B on the consent agenda.. Me° Glomhilc seconded the
motion. Vote was 7-0. Motion carried.
S. PUI3i,IC >FJEA12I1~1~:
A. ZC2011-OJ~4
Hold a public hearing, consider and mace a recommendation to City Council foe a request to
rezone approximately 194.56 acres of land from Predevelopment (PRI/) 186.98 acres and
General Business (GB) 7.58 acres to Planned Development District (PDD) with associated master
development plan. The property is more specifically described as a portion of the John Noyes
Survey Number 259, Abstract Number 253, City of Schertz; Guadalupe County, Texas generally
located 2,800 feet sou#h of the intersection of the IH 35 frontage Road and Eckhardt Road.
Ms. Wood presented this item by clarifying that this item is ZC2011-014. She also stated that.
eighteen (18) public heat°ing notices werrr mailed to surrounding property owners on August 2y
2013 with a public hearing notice to be published in "T1re Dcrily Conz»~ercial 1Zec~nr°dei°" and the
"Her-alcl" prior to the City Council public hearing. Staff received one (1) response in favor and
three (3) responses in opposition to the proposed request.
The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately I95 acres of land genera]ly located 2,800 feet
south of the intersection of the IH 35 frontage Road and Eckhardt Road. Currently, the property is
zoned Predevelopment (PRB) and General Business (GB}.
The proposed density is consistent with the Cotrrprehensive Land Plan designation use of Single
Family Residential which provides for traditional neighborhood. development. The proposed
zoning allows for three (3) different minimum lot sizes; 6,000 square feet, 7,200 square feet, and
8,400 square feet as shown on the master general development plan. The master general
development plan also provides for a potential Comal 1SD school site and a public park. The
proposed PDD also provides some specific development standards.
The following summary highlights some of the significant modifications to the requirements of the
Unified Development Cade (UDC).
1. Density of the subject property shall be a maximum of 2.60 dwel]ing units per acre ot° 505
single far-nily residential lots.
2. Table one -dimensional requirements-Residential of the PD requires a minimum front
yard setback of 25'. The minimum rear yard setback is 20' and minimum side yard sctbac[c
is ] 0' or with a residential sprinkler system installed a. minimum 5' side yard setback will
be permitted. Additionally, no encroachments shall be permitted in the 5' side yard
tifinufes
Planning and zoning Commission
August 1=1, 2013
Page ? of 11
setbacks.
3. The subdivision will provide a 60' collector that bisects the property #o service the
residential, school and Public Park and provide landscape buffer to create a boulevard feel
along the collector.
4. The development of the subject property steal] generally conform to the attached Master
Development Plan exhibit.
The proposed zoning should have a minimal impact on the existing and planned water and
wastewater systems. An agreement is executed between the developers of Parkland Subdivision
acid Cypress Point Subdivision for the capacity of the lift station located at the entrance of Cypress
Point.
The MPD shows Five (S) acres ofpar]cland land that will be developed and dedicated to the City of
Schertz as a public park. In accordance with UDC, Sec. 21.9.10 Park and Open Space Dedication
r°ecluirements the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board met on lone 24, 2013 to discL~ss and make
a recommendation on the dedication and development of the parlclande The Parlcs and Recreation
Advisory Board offered a recommendation to accept the five (5} acres of parkland in The
Parklands Subdivision.
Staff has been r~vorlcing with the developer over the last several months to create a development
that provides a pedestrian friendly environment that includes a neighborhood public park and
school site. The design provides for a curvilinear street patte~.n that is intended to create more
interesting view corridors and discourage speeding. The proposed layout provides connections to
adjacent tracts as well as two points of access to the existing Eckhardt Road.
StatT recommends approval of the zoning request based on compliance with the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan.
The applicant, David. Rittenhouse, Denton Communities, and George Weron, KFW Engineers gave
a Powerpoint presentation with the following points:
® Manager/Developer for the Project -Denton Communities
~ I-listory of Parklands
® Location of The Parklands
~ Land Plans & Details
® Parlc Plan & Details
Greenbelt & Premium Lots
® Development lVlission Statement
® Additional Information: Densities & 1=louse Price Ranges
Additional Inforn~ation: PDD Document
Typical Questions & Concerns: Drainage
~ Typical Questions & Concerns: Traffic
® Typical Questions & Concerns; HOA
Mr. Richmond opened the public hearing at 6:40 P.M. The following spoke:
® Raymond Hernandez, 380 Froboese Lane, spoke on zoning and services.
® Gerrard Brown, 702 Sweet Brush, spoke on agriculttu•al land and ho~v this project would
Minutes
Planning and 7_oning Cainmissioc~
August 14, 20 ] 3
Page 3 of 11
affect his non_development agreement with the City.
® Roland Ortiz, 591 Froboese Lane, spolcc on the agricultural exemption on his property,
~ Ronald Schott, 1300 Engel Road, spoke on engineer plans on drainage.
® Arnttlfo Canales, 390 Froboese Lane, spolcc on his property and how this will affect his
small trucking company.
Steve Layton, 12231 Lost Meadows, spolcc on the previous night`s City Council meeting
and the isst€e of roads and traffic.
~ Nancy Pinder, 1370 Engel Road, spoke on an area that is a. gravel road and would not be
access foe anyonee
® Reymundo Ramos, 580 Froboese Lane, spolcc on a dead end road and the flood zone.
Mr. Richmond closed the public hearing at 7:02 P.M.
Mr. James stated that if you are not in the Ci#y limits or covered by a development agreement, this
doesn't change the status of your property. And this does not affect your property regarding your
agricultural exemption and anything tha# you are doing and is allowed, yeti can continue doing
unaffected. The applicant is only zoning the property that they own. Cornal ISD has not
purchased the property, but the applicant is planning for that, even if Corral ISD does not decide to
purchase the property, The applicant mentioned that there wet€Id be 2 points of access at all times.
The challenge is the oddly shaped property and the need for applicant access from the existing
roadsa Mr. James continued stating that water and sewer is being allowed for by the applicant,
vvhich will bring water and sewer closer to you, Also, regarding drainage with a PDD, the
applicant has submitted a preliminary drainage report, brit when they come in to develop with a
final plat, they must submit a final drainage report and still have to meet the drainage requirements.
Mr. James stated that Staff will schedule a meeting with the City Floodplain Manager and
Engineering along with residents and the Engineer and Developer to review drainage plans. He
stated that there is no plan to build roads across Froth atayone's frontage and where there are
existing easements, there will still be access easements.
Mr. Richmond stated that the action before the Commission tonight is to rezone the property, and
the lcey requirement is that the applicant cannot [cave the drainage any different than when he
acquired the property.
Mr. Weron stated that with regard to traffic and circulation they have met with Mrs. Pinder and
buffered her easement. He also stated that utilities will be brought to 1,000 ft. from 1-35 to this
property. Mr. Weron also stated that #hey have identified 2 areas of drainage and will utilize
earthen improvements and a detention pond.
Mr. Greenwald asked if this will be a mandatory HOA? Mr. Rittenhouse ar€swered yes. Mr.
Greenwald also asked about the detention basins being deeded to the HOA. Nlr. Jaynes stated that
it is not responsible to expect an HOA to manage the drainage and Staff will loo[c at this.
Discussion followed between Staff and the Commission.
IV[r. Dahle moved to recommend approval of the agenda item to the City Council. Mr. Glomhik
seconded the motion.
Nlr. Brand stated that it was encouraging to see the involvement of the citizens on this itetn. Vote
was 6-0_I with Mr. Evans abstaining. Motion carried.
1~linuces
Planning and Zoning Coinn~ission
llugust 1 ~, 2013
Page d of l l
B. zc2013-001
Hold a public hearing, considee and make a recommendation to City Council for a request to
rezone approximately 137.S1~ acres of land from Predevelopment (PRE) 4.34 acres, Residential
Agriculture (RA) 9.89 acres and Planned Development District (PDD) 123.28 acres to Planned
Development District {PDD) with associated master development plan. The properrty is more
specifically described as a portion of the Nliles S. Bennett Survey No. 75, Abstract No. 61, County
block 5059, and the William Bracken Survey No. 74, Abstract 43, County Block 5056; Bexar
County, Texas generally located 2.500 feet east of the intersection of FM 1518 and Lower Seguin
Road.
Ms. Wood presented the item by stating that the applicant is proposing to rezone approximately
140 acres of land generally located east of the intersection at FM 1 S 18 and Lower Seguin Road.
Currently, 4,34 acres is zoned Predevelopment (PRE}, 9.89 acres is zoned Residential Agriculture
(RA) and 123.28 acres is zoned Planned Development District. The PDD was approved by City
Council on October I8, 2011 and allovvs for up to 547 single family homes with a rminimum lot
size of 5,400 square feet. The subject property is currently undeveloped.
Fifteen (1 S) public hearing notices weee mailed to surrounding property owners on August 2, 2013
with a pub[ie hearing notice to be published in "The Daily Cor1~~~se~°eial Recol°de~~" and the
"Herald" prior to the City Council public hearing. Staff received ono (1) response in favor and
one (1) response in opposition to tlae proposed request.
The proposed density is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Plan designation use of mixed
use neighborhood. Mixed Use neighborhood provides areas for residential use and open space.
The proposed zoning allows areas for lots of three (3) different minimum sizes: 5,400 square feet,
6,000 square feet, and 7,200 square feet as shown on the master genera[ development plan. The
proposed PDD also provides for some specific development standards.
The following summary highlights some of the significant modifications to the requirements of the
Unified Development Code (UDC}.
1. Density of the subject property shall be a maximum of 3.25 dwelling units per acre or
447 single family residential lots.
2. Table One -Dimensional Requirements-Residential of the PDD requires a minimum
front yard setback of 25' for lots That are 45' in width and a 20' front yard setback for
lots 50' and 60' in width. The minimum rear yard setback is 20' and the minimum side
yard setback is 5' except that the minimum side yard setbacks for corner lots steal[ be
15'. Additionally, no encroachments shall be permitted in the 5' side yard setbacks.
3. The applicant is providing a six (6) foot tall masonry fence with landscape buffer along
Ray Corbett Drive (60' ROW) and Lower Seguin Road (60' ROW) to enhance the
overall aesthetic appearance of the area. The UDC does not require a masonry fence
adjacent to a 60' ROW. UDC, Sec. 21.9.8 requires screening of roadways for principal
{120' ROW} or secondary (86' ROW} arterials roadways only.
4. The developmern of the subject property shall generally conform to the attached Master
Development Plan exhibit.
The subject property is currently surrounded by undeveloped land, residentiallagriculture and a
public school. Staff believes that the rezoning regrtest will be compatible with the surround
Minutes
Planning and Coning Commission
August I d, 2013
Page~ofli
prope-rtfes.
The MPD shows five (5} acres of parkland land that wi[1 be developed and dedicated to tl~e City of
Schertz as a public park. In accordance with UDC, Sec, 21.9.10 Pa.rlc and Open Space Dedication
requirements the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board met on June 24, 2013 to discuss and make
a recommendation on the dedication and development of the parkland. The Parl<s and Recreation
Advisory Board offered a recommendation to accept the five (5) acres of parl]and in the Rhine
Valley Subdivision.
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan with the Schertz Sector Plan amendment identifies this area as
lVlixed Use Neighborhood which provides for wa[Icable neighborhoods in the vicinity of the
intersection of I"M 151 S and Lowee Seguin Road. The rezoning request. appears to have a minimal
impact on the public infrastructure, facilities or services and the plan has incorporated in curve
linear streets. view corridors and parks and open space to include hike and bike trails.
Most of the site is zoned under the Pride Rack Ranch PDD which provides a maximum density of
4.48 units per acre and 547 single family homes. The subject property, which includes an
additional 14 acres, allows for a density of 3.25 dwelling units per acre and up to 447 residential
homes, 100 less than the current zoning. Staff has been r~vorlcing the new developer over the last
several ir~onths to improve the layout and design of the development and believe that that reduction
of density, the addition of landscaping and screening, and the increase in parkland and open space
and view corridors has enhanced the development.
Staff recommends approval of the zoning request based on compliance with the Comprehei-~sive
Land Use Plan and the improved design and layout of the subdivision.
The applicant, Davicl Rittenhouse, Denton Communities, and George Weron, I~FW Engineers gave
a Powerpoint presentation with the following points:
® Manager/Deve[opet° for the Project -Denton Communities
History of Rhine Valley
Location of Rhine Valley
Land Plans & Details
+ Park Plan & Details
Greenbelt & Premirim Lots
o Development Mission Statement
® Additional Information: Old Plan vs. New Plan
Additional Information: Densities & House Price Ranges
Additional Information: PDD Document
® Typical Questions & Concerns: Drainage
~ Typical Questions & Concerns: Traffic
® Typical Questions & Concerns: HOA
Mr. Richmond opened the public hearing at 8:27 P.IVI. The following spoke:
Mike Asher, 12600 Lower Seguin Road, spoke on the road, enteances and sound barrier
wall.
® Steve Layton, 12231 Last Meadows, spoke on possible improvements to traffic
thoroughfare in this area and the lift station.
ylinules
Plani~in~ aid 7_oning Corrtrnission
August 14.2013
Pz~ge C of 1 l
Kathy Menk, 221 Linda Court, spoke on the curve in the eoad, harriers to othet° properties
and drainage/detention pond.
Mr. Richmond closed the public hearing at 8:35 P.ivi.
Mr.:lames stated that the school district constructed the lift station vvith certain agreements, and a
certain capacity which may need to be increased. Mr. Brlsch discussed the reconstruction project
on Lower Seguin Road which is part of the new roads bond passed in 2006 and 2008. The project
includes widening the road and re-cutting the ditches to carry the flow; the contractor will start this
soon with the City coming behind to finish the toad way. Ms. Wood stated that the City requested
the masonry walls which will be designed to carry the drainage through them. Ms. Wood also
stated that along the cotr€mon property line there will be fencing, aild there is additional dedication
for site visibility improvement on the road. Mt. James stated that all retaining walls over 4 feet tall
must be engineered. Mr. Weron stated that there should be no retaining walls at this time, and the
streets are running toward the topography. He also stated that the drainage flows north to south
and west to east, and they have allowed for detention in the common area.
Mr. Dahle asked why, if we arc using 5 foot setbacks with sprinklers in the peevious PDD just
approved, are we not requiring sprinklers in this PDD. NIs. Wood answered that this PDD is
vested that allows 5 foot setbacks without sprinkers. Nh•. Dahle asked about the property bordering
the Friesenhahn property and fencing. Mr. Weron stated that there would he fencing and landscape
bct-tns; the developer tnay select either wrought iron or cedar fencing.
Discussion followed between Staff and the Commission.
Mr. Glombilc moved to recommend approval of the agenda item to the City Council. Mr.
Greenwald seconded the motion. Vote was 6-1 with Mt. Evans voting no. Ivlotion carried.
C. Hold a public heat°ing, consider and tnalce a recommendation to City Council on an a.n~tendtnent
to Part III, Schertz Code of Ordinances, Unified Development Code (L1DC}, Article 1 l Signs
Advertising Devices.
Ms. Sanchez presented this itetrt by stating that currently the UDC restricts the size of wall signs
based on the category of street on which the building fronts. The categories are identified in Table
21.11.9 as As°ecrs with Li~aaited Access, Arecrs yvith Unlil~~ited Access and All Other St7°eets. The
UDC defines Li»~itedAccess Streets as being 1H 35 and 1H 10; Unli~raited Access Streets being all
farm-ta-Vlarlcet Roads and Schertz Parklvay; and All Other Streets being local streets.
FpCUS group meetings with business members of the Schertz Chamber, industry sign contractors
and manufacturers to discuss all of Article 11 were held. over the last several months. Comments
were received from attendees of those focus group meetings and their requests and suggestions
were considered by Staff. A draft of the proposed changes was then presented to the Planning and
Zoning Commission at their regular meeting of ,July 12 and their comments and suggestions were
noted. Although Staff intends on holding another meeting with the business members to give thetas
another opportunity for additional comment, this agenda item is to consider an amendment to the
size of tivall signs for only industrial size buildings.
Staff has become aware that the current restrictions posed a problem when applied to large scale
Nlinntes
Planning ~~nd "/..,oning Commission
Au~~ust i~4, 2013
Pa<~e 7 of I I
industrial buildings like those that have more recently been constructed in the City. When the
current standards for wall signs vas written and adopted, these large industrial buildings were
generally not present in the City. Additionally, the provision has created confusion for Staff`,
business owners and sign contractors.
While a large industrial building on 1H 35 is allowed a sign that is up to t 5% of the facade area or
250 square fee, whichever is less, a large industrial building within an industrial area. that fronts on
an interne[ street within an industrial area is restricted to a sign that is only 10% of the facade area
or 80 square feet, whichever is less, even though the building is visible ft•otn IH 35.
Staff is proposing an amendment to Article 11, Signs and Advertising Devices, Section 21.11.9
Wall Signs to add an allowance for large industrial businesses in industrial districts to have a sign
that is up to 15% of the facade area or 250 square feet, whichever is less, regardless of which
category of street an tivhich the building is located. The provisions would apply to ~~t~all sig~7s
located on proper ties zoned ~Vlcr~~zrfactar~°ing Distr°iet-Lig1~t (IVI l),- ~Ylanarfactcrr°ing Distr°ict -Heavy
(1yI-2J; and PDD (Planted Developtrre~7f District) with a base zoning of M I car NI-2 and with cr
nainit~~~um.fcr~ade elevatiaa of 300 linear feet ot° greater may have the p7°ir~aa~ y wall sign calculated
crt 1~% of tlae facade ar^ea or° 250 sc~tra~.e feet, ti~hichever is less'.
Ct•r•e~at UDC regralatian:
Section 21.11.9 -Nall Signs
B. Nlaxit~auFn A~°ea
P~-apased LTI)C Arnendtne~tt:
Add the 1'allo~vzn~g Hate belarv the table:
1. YYall signs located o~~ proper°ties zoned lY~`ar~~z factzr~t°ing District-Light (NI I);
Nlan~i facttr~ri~ag Distl°ict -Heavy (111-2); cr~~d PDD (Pla~~~~ed Development Dish°ict) wilh cr base
zoning af'1V1-1 or ICI-Z and with a rnirri~na~~aa facade elevation of 300 li~~ea~° feet or greater »~ay have
the pri~a~ary wall sign calculated at I ~% of~tl~e fcr~crde cn°ea ar 2~ 0 sgzrcrre, feet, u~hicheves° is less.
Catetpillara Salof (now owned by General .Electric), Sysco, and Amazon.com are all located on
local streets which fall into the All Other StT°eets category and despite the large building size would
be limited to a primary wall sign that is no tnore than 80 square feet. Note that this restriction does
not actually apply to Amazon.com as it is located within a PDD with different sign t•egulations.
Ntimites
Planning and 7_,oning Comrr~issian
lluaust ]~t, 2013
Page S of l l
The current Sysco and Salof signs exceed the current size allowed due to confusion with
permitting, but would comply with the 250 square foot restriction being proposed. Those signs
see~~ in scale given the size of the buildings.
Staff recommends that Article 11, Signs and Advertising Devices, Section 21.11.9.B. MaX11T1Llln
Area be amended as follows to add:
® YTlall signs localed on pr°ope~°ties zoned Mcm~trf~rctitring Drstt°rct-Light (NI-1),-
1YlanarfactarF~in~g Drst~°ret -Heavy (11~I 2); crr7c~ PDD (Plc~t~ned Developnae~t Drstt°ict) lvith a
base zoning of NI-1 ar IVI 2 a12d with a l~~~inir~~u~n fa~•ade elevatio~~ of 300 lineal feet ol°
gf~ecrter raaa~> have the ~~irna~y r>>all sign calcz~lated at IS% of the fa~crde ar°ea or 2~0
sc7uat°e feet, tit~hichevet° is less.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to Section 21, l 1.9, Wall Signs, B.
Maximum Area.
Mr. Richmond opened the public hearing at 9:15 P.M. The following spoke:
Maggie Titterinb~ton, 1730 Schertz Parkway, spoke For chamber members present who
support the change to wall signs.
Kyle Griffiths, 1150 Schwab Road, representing General Electric, forrrterly the Salof
business, spoke on their support of this change.
® Russell Nunter, 1637 Circle Oalc Drive, spoke on Caterpillar and signage for the building.
Mr. Richmond closed the public hearing at 9:22 P.M.
Mr. Evans aslccd about the information on facade evaluation and 300 linear feet. Nls. Sanchez
stated that linear feet is the length of linear feet of the facade evaluation for the primary sign per
wall.
Discussion followed between Staff and the Coir~mission.
Mr. Greenwald moved to recotninend approval of the agenda item to the City Cowlcil, Mr. Dahle
seconded the motion. Vote was 7-0. Motion carried.
D. Hold a public hearing, consider and make a recommendation to the City Council on an
amendment to the Schertz Code of Ordinances, Part III, Unified Development Code, Article 13
Land Disturbing Activities and Drainage.
Mr. Busch presented the item by stating that on April 19, 2013 City Council approved amendments
to Article 13 of the Unified Development Code, Land Disturbing Activities and Drainage
{Ordinance 13-iV1-12). These atrrendments went into effect on Augrlst 1, 2013. Since that time
Staff has identified a few modifications to Article 13. Some are more cleanup/clarification while
others are more subs#an#ive. The following is a list of the changes:
Sec. 21..13.3 B ~efinitioe~s
Unless specifically defined below or in Article 16 of this Ordinance, words or phrases used in this
Section shall be interpreted to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this
Minutes
Pl~~ning and Zoning {:ommission
August t4, 2013
Pa2c 9 01~ 11
Ordinance the most reasonable application. (page 13-12).
Sec. 21.13.3 D. 2. I
Clarifying that the provision applies to Zones A, AO and AH in addition to Zones Al-30 and AE
(Page 13-21).
Sec. 21.13.3 I~. 2. ,7
Clarifying that the provision applies to Zones A and AO in addition to Zones A 1-305 AE and Afl
(page 13-21}.
Sec. 21.13.3 E. 2. A.
Clarifying that one foot of freeboard is required (page 13-26).
See. 21.13.3 E. 2. B.
Clarifying that one foot of freeboard is required {page 13-26).
See. 21.13.3 2.
Required manufacttu~ed horses be elevated one foot above freeboard (page 13-27).
Sec. 21.13.3.3
Clarifying that this provision applies to Subdivision proposals, including Master Plans; and
requiring:
Base flood elevation data shall be generated for subdivision proposals, Master Plans and other
proposed development including the placement of manufactured horse parks and subdivisions less
than S acres, SO lots, or where Zane A exists within 100 feet of the property line, base flood
elevation data and/or elevation certificates t-r~ay be required by the Floodplain Administrator to
ensure any new development is reasonably safe from hooding.
Per the current version only developments that are greatee than 50 acres or 5 lots must generate this
data if a Zone A exists on the developable property.
{page 13-28).
Sec. 21.13.3.
Clarifying that one foot of freeboard is required for new construction and substantial improvements
to structures within areas of shallow flooding (AOIAH Zones}. (pages 1329).
Sec. 21.13.6 F. 2.
Correcting the reference to Section 2I.13.6.L (page 13-61).
Stalt•requests the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend approval to City Council of the
proposed atnendtnents to Article I3 of the Unified Development Code as presented.
Mr. Richmond opened the public hearing at 9:39 P,M. The following spoke;
Steve Layton, 12231 Lost Meadows, spoke on how this item is much improved from a year
ago.
Nlr. Richmond closed the public hearing at 9:12 P.M.
Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commission
August l~F, 20I3
Page I D of 1 1
~w _ .7. `.
-__
,. ~..
---. ~~~. ~.,' ',, - r
_~ ~.
.~..~v f V
~; ~ ~
_ ~~ ; ~ _~
i`. ~ ~ . ~
_.~ ' ~ ~(