08-09-2005
PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
August 9, 2005
The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened on August 9, 2005 at 6:30 p.rn. at the Municipal
Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
David Richmond, Chairman
Keith Van Dine, Secretary
Clovis Haddock
William Sommers
Roberta Tutschke
Gary Wallace
Michael Carpenter, City Council Liaison
CITY STAFF
Nancy McBeth, Director of Planning
Misty Nichols, Planning Technician
Jonette Ellis, Planning Technician
Leonard Truitt, Building Official
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Ernie Evans, Vice Chairman
OTHERS PRESENT
Robert Brockman, 1000 Elbel Road
Trey Marsh, Centex Homes
1. Call to Order/Roll Call
Mr. Richmond called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M.
2. Citizen Comments
There was no one present to speak.
3. Consent Agenda
There are no actions at this time.
4. Public Hearing
A. ZC2005-019
Hold a public hearing and consider and act upon a request to rezone 76.588 :t acres
from Residential-2 District (R-2) to an Alternative Development District (ADD) for
residential development. The subject property is situated in the Toribio Herrera
Survey Number 68, Abstract 153. The property is located 1,978 feet west of Schertz
Parkway on Savannah Drive. (Applicant: Centex Homes, a Nevada General
Partnership)
Staff Comments:
BACKGROUND:
The 76::1:: acre tract is located in an area of the City that is currently undeveloped. The construction
of this proposed subdivision will open a section of our community for increased vehicular
interconnectivity and allow for development in adjacent areas. This property is encumbered by several
factors that make it difficult to develop:
1. A wide 100-year flood plain that prohibits access from the east and requires the construction of a
675-foot bridge.
2. A portion of the property lies in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) that limits
residential development regarding density, height restrictions, and noise mitigation.
The adjacent 90:t acre tract to the west, which is in the City of Selma, is a part of the developer's
project, which has been viewed by Staff, but is not a part of this application.
Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 9, 2005
Page 1 of8
DISCUSSION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council recently reviewed and are in the process
of adopting an Alternative Development District (ADD) providing guidelines for a more diverse
community. This application has incorporated the ADD into their overall project by complying the with
following goals:
1. Provides an orderly and creative arrangement of land uses that are harmonious and beneficial to
the community and the natural environment.
2. Provides a variety of housing types.
3. Provides area-sensitive site planning and design by preserving native trees and topographic
features of the land as well as preserving the 100-year floodplain in its natural state for passive
recreational purposes and to abut the floodwaters.
4. Exceeds the open space requirement for the use and benefit of the residents.
5. Provides development that is not premature or inappropriate that would result in incompatible uses
or would create traffic and public service demands that exceed the capacity of existing or planned
facilities, including storm drainage where peak rate storm water run-off will not result in an
mcrease.
6. Provides a development that is compatible with the City's goals and objectives and contributes to
the health, safety and general welfare of the community.
7. Provides standards for property located in the AICUZ acceptable to Randolph Air Force Base
(RAFB).
Synopsis of the plan:
The 76::1:: acre tract will be developed for residential uses only. Currently, the zoning is R-2, which
is a 70' by 120' (8,400 sq. ft.) lot. Approximately 17 acres ofthis property is located in the AICUZ or APZ
II, which limits development to 1 or 2 dwelling units per acre, but can be increased up to 4 units per acre
or 10,800 square foot lots with a planned unit development or in this case an ADD, with the support of
RAFB.
Randolph's criteria would allow the following:
Density not to exceed 4 lots per acre or 10,800 square feet.
Maximum building height of 35-feet.
Maximum lot coverage shall not exceed 20% of the lot.
Provides noise mitigation where the noise level does not exceed 65 dBA.
The applicant has provided an overall density of 2.67 units per acre with a maximum of 207
residential lots. This density is far lower than would be allowed on the 62:t acres outside the AICUZ,
which could result in approximately 321 residential lots.
The residential development minimum standards are acceptable for an overall aesthetically
pleasing community, where architectural designs and features provide visual "drive-up" appeal. Porches,
gables, pillars and posts will be incorporated into the overall design of the community. Landscaping,
screening and street islands will enhance the beautification of the community. An off-street trail system
will be placed within the development to provide access to adjoining subdivisions, parks and schools and
increases the amount of open space for the development. The homeowners association will maintain all
private open space.
The 19::1:: acre tract that is flood plain will be kept in its natural state. Trees will be preserved,
except for those that are diseased or need to be removed for the extension of Savannah Drive and the
bridge. Pathways will be cleared and maintained to provide open space for walking, jogging, bike trails
and other outdoor activities. The open space provided exceeds the 20% requirement as outlined in the
ADD.
Maximum building or maximum impervious coverage of 45% (land not in APZ II) and 20% (land
located in APZ II), will provide private open space on each lot, which is currently not a requirement in our
Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 9, 2005
Page 2 of8
Unified Development Code (UDC). Today, a property owner could cover their property with impervious
surface (including: foundations, driveways, sidewalks, patios, decks, pools, etc.). The purpose of
providing a maximum lot coverage, allows not only for a livable yard for the property owner, but controls
drainage and allows the storm water to be absorbed on the property in lieu of it flowing down the street.
This also provides proportionality of lot area to building footprint.
The construction of Savannah Drive from Schertz Parkway to FM 1518 is provided according to
the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. The 60-foot thoroughfare will meander through the development
and provide access to pocket subdivisions. No lot will front Savannah Drive and curb cuts will be limited,
but will allow for two points of access to each subdivision section. Access/stub-outs to adjacent
undeveloped properties will be provided for interconnectivity and emergency access. The applicant upon
submittal of a Master Development Plan will provide a level one Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
Findings:
The ADD requires the following findings be made to determine if the development is in the
public's best interest:
1. In what respect is the proposed development consistent with the stated purpose, intent, goals
and/or objectives of the ADD.
The proposal is consistent with the goals of the ADD, the Unified Development Code and the
Comprehensive Land Plan by: a) Providing land uses that are harmonious and beneficial to the
community; b) offering a variety of housing types; c) protecting native vegetation; d) preserving natural
flood plains; and e) providing open space.
2. Extent to which the proposed plan meets the standards of the ADD and applicable regulations of
the Unified Development Code.
The proposal meets the following standards of the ADD:
Exceeds the minimum site area of 20 acres.
Provides conditions of development that do not compromise the intent of the Unified Development Code.
Even though it is not required, the lot sizes are consistent with the R-2 zoning relative to overall square
footage, such that the average of all lots is approximately 8,000 square feet, similar to the R-2 zoning.
3. Extent to which the proposed development departs from the ADD and any applicable regulations
with the Unified Development Code.
The proposal complies with the intent and goals of the ADD, the UDC and the AICUZ Study.
4. Method by which the proposed plan makes adequate provisions for public services and facilities
provides adequate control over vehicular traffic, provides for and protects designated common open space,
and furthers the protection of environmental site features.
The proposal exceeds the open space requirement and protects the natural flood plain.
Walking/biking trails are provided to promote interconnectivity between developments and to the nearby
school. The extension of Savannah Drive will be provided in accordance with the City's Master
Thoroughfare Plan, will improve the traffic circulatiofl; provide access to FM 1518 that is only available
today on Maske Road and Aero Street to the south.
5. Relationship and compatibility of the proposed development to adjacent development.
This property abuts the Savannah Bluff Subdivision, which is currently under construction, and
two other residential developments (The Ridge at Carolina Crossing and Ashley Place) that are completely
built. The proposed density of 207 residential lots is compatible existing development. Undeveloped
adjoining property is zoned R-2 and this density would not affect any future development. The property to
the west of the proposal is outside city limits, and is residentially zoned. Randolph Air Force Base has
reviewed the proposal and has no objections to the development.
6. Desirability of the development relative to physical development and provisions of utilities and
infrastructure, tax base, and the economic well-being of the City.
The proposal is providing utilities and infrastructure to support the development and enhance the
overall area including a 675-foot bridge over Dietz Creek, and a 60-foot thoroughfare as indicated on the
City Master Thoroughfare Plan from the Savannah Bluff Subdivision (near Schertz Parkway) to FM 1518
Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 9, 2005
Page 3 of 8
in Selma. The development will improve the economic welfare of our community and will not be a
burden on City services as they are readily available at this location today. No major utility extensions are
needed.
Public Hearing Requirements:
The public hearing notice was published in the City's official newspaper on July 28, 2005 and
notices were mailed to surrounding property owners on July 26, 2005. Ten letters of notification were
mailed and staff received one reply in favor of the request.
Staff Recommendation:
Regardless of the outcome of the ADD Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission is obligated to
hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council.
This application was filed without any written regulations for a planned unit development. The
applicant has agreed to follow the ADD criteria. However, the Planning and Zoning Commission still
must render a recommendation to City Council, because State Law requires such action on a valid
application.
Even if there were no pending ADD Code, the application would have to be reviewed without the
benefit of written regulations. The PUD is a legal district despite the lack of regulations in the Unified
Development Code.
Staff has worked with the applicant so their project would follow the ADD guidelines and they
h h ld h' . . d D II hi h d I
ave e up t elr pro] ect III or er to o owt s sc e u e:
Week ADD Code Date Zone Change to PUD converted to ADD Date
Meetinp/ Action Kensinl!ton Ranch
1 P&Z: 26 July
Public Hearing & Council
Recommendation
2 Council: 02 Aug
Public Hearing & 1 sl Reading of Ordinance
APPROVED
3 Council: 10 Aug P&Z: 09 Aug
Work Session to further Review Ordinance Public Hearing & Council Recommendation
Issues
4 Council: 16 Aug Council: 16 Aug
2nd Reading of Ordinance, Adoption, & Public Hearing & 1 sl Reading of Ordinance
Effective Date This will be on the agenda after Adoption of
the Code
5 Council: 31 Aug
Work Session to further Review Ordinance
Issues
6 Council: 06 Sept
2nd Reading of Ordinance, Adoption, &
Effective Date
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward this item to City Council with a
recommendation of approval as follows:
The City Attorney suggests the following language options with approval be forwarded to
City Council:
1. Approve ZC2005-019 as an Alternative Development District if adopted by the City
Council; or,
Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 9,2005
Page 4 of8
2. Approve ZC2005-19 as a Planned Unit Development District if the Alternative
Development District is not adopted by the City Council.
Ms Ellis stated that she has provided the Commission a letter from Randolph Air Force Base stating that
they have no issues with this development.
Mr. Marsh stated that all of the 60' x 120' lots are outside of the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone
(AICUZ), keeping with the density requirement for Randolph.
There being no one to speak for or against the request, Mr. Richmond closed the Public Hearing at 6:50
p.m.
Ms. McBeth explained that the Alternative Development District (ADD), (now known as a Planned Unit
Development, (PUD), has been approved as an interim document by City Council with First reading.
Mr. Carpenter stated that at the August 2, 2005 City Council meeting, Council approved the first reading
of the ADD ordinance. He also stated that Councilmember Douglas mentioned there is a need to deal
with issues at hand, which will be reviewed by the Commission for updates. This is a living document.
Mr. Richmond stated that there was a good discussion at the last City Council meeting although he was
disappointed that Mr. Spain was not able to attend. He stated that he would have liked to hear Mr. Spain's
comments.
Mr. Haddock stated that according to the memo, Mr. Spain's recommendation is to approve.
Mr. Marsh stated that 12 lots have reduced the density considerably and this packet was submitted to
Randolph for their review.
Ms. McBeth explained that the ADD would have final reading two weeks prior to the action of this
zoning request.
Mr. Haddock moved to recommend approval of the request as submitted. Mr. Wallace seconded the
motion. Voting Aye: Mr. Haddock, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Richmond. Voting Nay: Ms. Tutschke, Mr.
Sommers and Mr. Van Dine.
5. Items for Individual Consideration:
A ZC2005-020
Consider and act upon an amendment to the Unified Development Code (Ordinance 96-S-28)
as follows:
1. Amendment to Article VII (Special Districts), Section 4.1, Paragraph 1.
Staff Comments:
BACKGROUND:
Article VII, Section 4.1. (Paragraph 1) states that any development of land within the Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) will be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration
of a Specific Use Permit in accordance with Article V, Specific Uses. The City of Schertz adopted the
Randolph AFB AICUZ study, and staff closely follows the guidelines when reviewing development. The
requirement for a Specific Use Permit puts needless hardship on the property owner to go through the
public hearing process and on Planning Staff to notify surrounding property owners. Staff informs the
Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 9, 2005
Page 5 of 8
applicant of the objectives of the AICUZ and ensures they comply with the regulations.
The Section currently reads:
VII 4.1 Purpose Any development of land within the AICUZ will be referred to the Planning and
Zoning Commission for consideration of a Specific Use Permit in accordance with
Article V, Specific Uses.
DISCUSSION:
The City adopted the December 2000 Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Study for
Randolph Air Force Base as a part of the Unified Development Code. Article VII, Section 4 actually
adopts the Randolph AICUZ Study. Additionally, Section 4 of the UDC provides Land Use Restrictions to
be combined with the Randolph Study, states the uses are restricted to "a low intensity of population" and
requires certification and documentation of AICUZ zone lots by the Building Official. In addition, we
require the applicant provide notice of approval from Randolph relative to the application. In fact, the
AICUZ study appoints the Deputy Support Group Commander as liaison with local planning matters (p.
33, Participation in Planning Process). The Base Liaison is required to take a number of steps to assist the
community with these types of applications or issues.
Specific Use Permits Analysis: Currently Section 4.1, paragraph 1, 'Purpose' requires any
property within the AICUZ Overlay to apply for a Specific Use Permit. The purpose of Specific Use
Permits is to deter and control negative impacts that are harmful or heavily regulated, such as Sexually
Oriented Businesses, Power or Asphalt Plants, Rendering Plants, Polluting Industries, such as refineries,
chemical, and heavy manufacturing activities, and even bars as a few pertinent examples. A Specific Use
Permit is an additional step required for these activities, giving the City the ability to further limit the
activity, such as hours of operation, meeting all Environmental Regulations, limiting where the activity can
take place, landscaping, open space, additional improvements, and so on (see Article V, Specific Uses
attachment) .
The Specific Use Permit, unlike the zoning, applies to ownership and to the structure. So, each
time a property owner sells the property, the new property owner loses those Specific Use rights upon
ownership transfer (or even lease of the property) due to Art. V, Section 4 which states the termination of
activities can be caused by a) disconnection of or discontinuance of water and/or electrical services to the
Specific Use Permit zoned structure, lease space, lot or tract of land; and, abandonment of the zoned
structure, lease space, lot, or tract of land. Should the new owner wish to continue the Specific Use
activity, that owner must apply for a new Specific Use Permit, which requires the full public hearing
process, just like a zone change.
AICUZ Analysis: Primarily, the AICUZ within the City contains single-family residential uses.
The single-family homeowner must also conform to this burdensome process which staff believes is
unnecessary and overly onerous. The Randolph Study in combination with Section VII, Section 4 takes
care of any considerations necessary without this additional requirement. One of the biggest points of the
Randolph study and the UDC is to restrict group and dangerous activities as well as the intensity of homes
in these overlay districts. The UDC and the AICUZ study handily take care of restricting both these
activities. The group activities prohibited would include places where large groups gather, or those related
to noxious/dangerous uses or activities, such as:
.:. Cultural activities, including churches
.:. Public assembly
.:. Auditoriums
.:. Outdoor music shell, amphitheatres
.:. Outdoor sports arena, spectator sports
.:. Resorts and group camps
.:. Chemical and allied products
.:. Apparel manufacturing
Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 9,2005
Page 6 of8
.:. Rubber/plastic manufacturing
.:. Professional, scientific or control manufacturing
.:. Retail-trade eating and drinking establishments
.:. Hospitals, nursing homes, and other medical facilities
.:. Educational facilities/services
.:. As well, semi-detached, attached, duplex, flats, condos, apartments, group quarters, residential
hotels, mobile homes are prohibited.
Further, the study refers to the Schertz UDC, stating: "... Schertz implemented zoning regulations
within the Randolph AICUZ noise and accident potential zones. The City's [UDC) restricts development
within the overlay district of [the Randolph Study]. [The UDC requires the overlay district] comply with
the land use categories identified in Table 4.2 ofthe AICUZ study."
UP-DATE:
At your July 26, 2005 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing and
voted to deny staffs request by a split vote of 4-2 with the chair not voting.
The Commission suggested the Council form a committee to review the Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Study and how it relates to the Unified Development Code.
Staff provided City Council a modification of staff s recommendation that the Planning and
Zoning Commission did not consider. City Council instructed the Planning and Zoning Commission to
review staff s recommendation, and make a new recommendation to City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staffs opinion is that the combination of the UDC and the Randolph AICUZ Study requirements
as currently adopted into the UDC, cover all potential issues, and provide a high level of safety and
consideration for Randolph and Schertz citizens without the Specific Use Permit. The Specific Use Permit
is duplicative of the study and UDC as well as being burdensome. The elimination of the language
requiring another approval process, that of the Specific Use Permit, is one option that resolves this issue.
However, an alternative to eliminating the requirement of the Specific Use Permit in the AICUZ,
is to amend Article VII, Section 4, Paragraph 1, rather than delete the language as previously
recommended by staff:
VII 4.1 Purpose
Any development of land within the AICUZ will be referred to the Planning and
Zoning Commission for consideration of a Specific Use Permit in accordance with
Article V, Specific Uses, except for single-family residential uses.
Option Language:
OPTION 1: Approve an Amendment to the Unified Development Code (ORDINANCE 96-S-28)
amending ARTICLE VII (SPECIAL DISTRICTS), by deleting SECTION 4.1.
(or)
OPTION 2: Approve an Amendment to the Unified Development Code (ORDINANCE 96-S-28)
amending ARTICLE VII (SPECIAL DISTRICTS), SECTION 4.1, as follows:
VII 4.1 Purpose Any development of land within the AICUZ will be referred to the Planning and
Zoning Commission for consideration of a Specific Use Permit in accordance with
Article V, Specific Uses, except for single-family residential uses.
Mr. Wallace asked what uses are there other than single-family residential. Ms. Ellis stated that
commercial developments have to apply for a Certificate of Occupancy, which requires a description of the
type of use.
Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 9, 2005
Page 7 of8
Following review and discussion Mr. Wallace moved to recommend approval of option number two, to
approve an amendment to the Unified Development Code (Ordinance 96-S-28) amending Article VII
(Special Districts), Section 4.1 as follows:
VII 4.1 Purpose Any development of land within the AICUZ will be referred to the Planning and
Zoning Commission for consideration of a Specific Use Permit in accordance with
Article V, Specific Uses, except for single-family residential uses.
Mr. Haddock seconded the motion. Vote Aye: Mr. Haddock, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Van Dine, and Ms.
Tutschke. Vote Nay: Mr. Sommers.
6. Items for Discussion
A Planning and Zoning Comments
Mr. Richmond: Asked about the banner at the Medical Office Building. Mr. Truitt stated that the
banner has been permitted.
Ms. Tutschke: Asked about the trees on Schertz Parkway at the Donut Palace. Ms. Ellis stated that there
is a large water easement in front of the lots on Schertz Parkway; therefore, the trees were planted on
each side ofthe lot.
Ms. Tutschke then asked about the zoning along IH 35. She asked for a future agenda item to consider
necessary rezomng.
Mr. Sommers: Asked if employment opportunities are permitted on banners. Mr. Truitt stated that yes
they are.
B City Council's Report
Mr. Caruenter: Stated that Mr. Wilenchik will be back next meeting. Applications for City Council seat
#2 will be accepted until August 27, 2005. He also stated that City Council is establishing a Charter
Review Committee. He mentioned that he has reviewed the current Charter, and that the Planning and
Zoning Chairman shall vote on each item.
He then asked where does tree mitigation fall in the budget. Ms. McBeth stated that it goes into the
general fund.
C Director's Report
Ms. McBeth: Stated that City Council will be acting on the second reading of Section 4.1 and the Sigma
zoning at the next City Council meeting. She gave the Commission an idea of what is to be expected on
the next agenda.
7. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:27 P.M.
rr~JLJl
Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 9, 2005
Page 8 of8