Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation Etj topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council briefed on ETJ properties, possible annexations and a proposed cell tower
Summary
Staff previewed upcoming decisions on expiring non‑annexation agreements in Universal City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), including a large Meritage residential proposal and a private request to place a communications tower on a parcel that overlaps flight/airbase safety zones.
City staff gave a precursor briefing on Universal City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) east of State Highway 1518 and asked council to consider whether to seek annexation of remaining ETJ parcels when existing non‑annexation agreements expire in January.
City planner and staff explained the ETJ boundary and said about 142 acres remain within the city’s ETJ, comprising roughly 12 properties; several parcels are in the floodplain. Staff described two pending developments: a Meritage concept plan that would use most of one major property and a private property owner’s inquiry about installing a communications (cell) tower near Maske Road.
Staff reminded council that annexation has advantages—city utility access, higher level of emergency services, building-code jurisdiction and potential property‑value increases—but also drawbacks, including increased demand for city services. Staff said existing utility investments (about $1.17 million for a water main extension and roughly $2 million in creek-crossing work) factor into the analysis.
For the proposed communications tower, staff noted the applicant would need Federal Communications Commission and Federal Aviation Administration approvals and signoff from Joint Base San Antonio because a portion of the site falls within a clear‑zone or airfield protection area (ACU zone). Under city code, an annexation, rezoning and a specific-use permit would be required before the tower could be built; the item will proceed through Planning & Zoning public hearings and then to council.
Staff framed the discussion as a precursor: notices and public hearings will be required before council takes formal action, and staff will return with fuller materials. Council did not vote on annexation during the meeting; staff asked whether council would be generally open to annexing the properties and noted some applicants may request decisions before year end.
