Loading...
04-22-2013 BOA Agenda and associated documents® Continuing education events attended and to be attended CERTIFICATION I, Lesa Wood, Planner I of the City of Schertz, Texas, do hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the official bulletin boards on this the 19th day of April, 2013 at 5:00 p.m.., which is a place readily accessible to the public at all times and that said notice was posted in accordance with chapter 551, Texas Government Code, Lesa Wood Lesa Wood, Planner I I certify that the attached notice and agenda of items to be considered by the Schertz Planning & Zoning Commission was removed from the official bulletin board on day of , 2013. title: This facility is accessible in accordance ivith the drraericars u4th Disabilities Act. Handicapped parking spaces are available. lfyou require special assistance or have a request for• sigh interpretative services or other services please call 619 -1030 at least 24 hours in advance of meeting. Board of Adjustment Page 2 0£2 April 22, 2013 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES February 25, 2013 The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened on February 25, 2013 at the Municipal Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Frank McElroy, Chairman Richard Dziewit, Vice Chairman Earl Hartzog David Reynolds Reginna Agee, Alternate Mark Tew, Alternate BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Christopher Montgomery 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL CITY STAFF Brian .lames, Executive Director Development Michelle Sanchez, Director Development Services Lesa Wood, Planner I Patti White, Admin. Asst. Development Services OTHERS PRESENT Alan King, The Land Design Group, Inc. Tony Eugenio, Presidio Group Mr. McElroy called the regular meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. and recognized members present. 2. RECOGNITION /OATH OF APPOINTED COMMISSIONERS City Secretary Brenda Dennis administered the Oath of Office to Richard Dziewit, Earl Hartzog, David Reynolds, Reginna Agee and Mark Tew. 3. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN Election of Chairman: Mr. Dziewit nominated Frank McElroy as Chairman. Mr. Hartzog seconded the nomination. Vote was 6 -0. Motion carried. Election of Vice Chairman: Mr. McElroy nominated Richard Dziewit as Vice Chairman, Mr. Reynolds seconded the nomination. Vote was 5 -0 with Mr. Dziewit not voting. Motion carried. 4. SEAT ALTERNATE TO ACT IF REQUIRED Ms. Agee was scated as a voting member. ��IIWAN UOK1124,11alyI17ORL Ky No one spoke. 6. MINUTES: A. Minutes for November 26, 2012 Mr. Hartzog moved to approve the minutes. Mr. Dziewit seconded the motion. Vote was 5 -0. Motion carried. Minutes Board of Adjustment February 25, 2013 Page 1 of 4 7. PUBLIC HEARING: A. BOA 2013 — 001 Legacy at Forest Ridge — Assisted Living Facility Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for variance by Presidio Group and Pinpoint Commercial to Article 9, Section 21.9.9 — Tree Preservation and Mitigation to request an alternate calculation method for tree mitigation at 5001 Schertz Parkway, which results in a reduced fees. Public hearing opened at 6:08 P.M. Ms. Wood presented the item by stating the applicant is requesting a variance to Article 9, Tree Preservation and Mitigation to propose an alternate method of calculation for tree mitigation which results in reduced fees. The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" on February 7, 2013 and in the "Herald" on February 14, 2013. Notices were mailed to surrounding property owners on February 14, 2013. Staff has received zero (0) responses of opposition and one (1) response in favor for the proposed request. No other comments or phone calls in support of or opposition to this request have been received. The approximately 9.99 acre property is currently undeveloped. The applicant is proposing to construct a 64,538 square foot Assisted Living Facility (Legacy at Forest Ridge) on the site. The property has a considerable amount of protected and heritage trees on the site and the developer has expressed concern with the method that the City uses to calculate tree mitigation fees. Consequently, the property owner has submitted a variance application to request an alternate method of calculating the tree mitigation fees. Pursuant to the Unified Development Code (UDC) Code Article 9, Section 21.9.9 Tree Preservation and Mitigation the preservation of existing trees is required for all development in the City because it contributes to the overall quality and environment of the City with the intent to encourage the preservation of all trees within the City limits. According to the UDC the development of any site must preserve at least 25% of all trees on the site and removal of trees identified as protected or heritage trees must be mitigated. The UDC defines Trees having a DBH (diameter at breast height measured four feet (4') above existing ground level) between eight inches (8 ") and less than twenty - four inches (24 ") as Protected Trees and shall be mitigated on a one -to -one DBH inch ratio for every tree removed. Trees having a DBH greater than or equal to twenty -four inches (24 ") as Heritage Trees and shall be mitigated at a three -to -one DBH inch ratio for every tree removed. The applicant may request to provide a fee -in -lieu of payment, plant trees throughout the City at approved public facilities, donate trees or plant trees on the site to obtain tree preservation credits. The layout of a property with respect to the placement of buildings, parking areas and design of the lot is at the discretion of the developer. According to the documentation submitted, the layout of the lot and design of the building has been revised from the initial site plan submitted October 2012 to preserve additional trees on the site. It is unclear to what extent if at all that the lot layout was developed with consideration of the trees. The tree mitigation table submitted by the applicant identifies they will be preserving 52% and removing 48% of the trees total DBH on the site. The applicant has indicated that they plan to obtain tree preservation credits and provide a fee-in -lieu of payment for the balance of trees being removed. According to the current City fee schedule and the applicant's documentation a fee -in -lieu of payment in the amount of $208,750 would be due at the time of building permit for this site. The applicant is requesting the Board to consider the variance to UDC, Article 9, See. 21.9.9 — Tree Minutes Board of Adjustment February 25, 2013 Page 2 of 4 preservation and mitigation. The request is for an alternate calculation method for tree mitigation. Staff recommends disapproval of BOA 2013 -001. based on the following findings: 1. The purpose of a variance is not to grant a special privilege to any property owner, but to assure that rights commonly enjoyed by all properties comply with the same provisions. The subject property does not have special circumstances uncommon to other commercial properties being developed in the City. Since 2006 there have been various commercial development that have made fee -in -lieu payment for removal of protected and heritage trees. Page 4 of the applicant's presentation shows a table of Tree Mitigation fees for commercial developments within the City. This proposed development ranks 5 out of 11 developments in the inches per acre category; which indicates that granting this variance would grant a privilege to this property owner not enjoyed by other commercial properties in the City. 2, PinPont Commercial has indicated that the approximate value of completed construction for this site is approximately $12 million. Based on the $12 million value of completed construction and the proposed fee -in -lieu of payment of approximately $208,750 for the mitigation on this project, the fee -in -lieu of payment is not out of the ordinary, relative to other projects the mitigation fees do not seem excessive. 3. The General Business zoning district allows a range of land uses, of which one is an assisted living facility. The applicant has chosen a property which is heavily treed and due to the buildings large footprint the trees being removed is substantial. Other allowed uses or designs are provided for in the zoning district which may reduce the amount of trees being removed such as a series of office professional buildings similar to the Schertz Professional Plaza; which is located directly across Schertz Parkway from this site. 4. It is important to consider that a variance shall not be granted to relieve a self-created or personal hardship, nor shall it be based solely on economic gain or loss, nor shall it permit any person a privilege in developing a parcel of land not permitted by this UDC to other parcels of land in the district. Mr. McElroy recognized Alan King, Landscape Architect. representing PinPoint Commercial, the developer. Mr. King stated that this property will be 72 units for elderly individuals who will be on the property 90 -95% of the time including visitors and this property contributes to the quality of their life. Mr. King also stated that the 2 parcels in the front are going undeveloped at this point in an effort to give a greater screen to this development. The applicant states that the code promotes poor horticultural practices as the code is written and gives an example that they would be required to plant 522 trees on this property. He clarified that they are developing half of it and the number of trees seems excessive. Mr. King noted that of the 10 commercial properties that Staff sent to the developer, only one is similar in size and is the Emerus Emergency Hospital, which is 9 acres. However, the predevelopment photo shows that it is gently sloping and has little tree cover. Mr. King noted in the last meeting with Staff that there was discussion about city code and they understood that they could suggest an alternative; and their proposal tonight is an alternative to the tree mitigation calculation. Mr. King stated they have calculated and proposed a $51,800.00 fee in addition to the $50,000.00 cost of planting the 79 trees required for landscape, strectscape and residential screening buffers around the site. He stated that they have limited the future expansion options in an effort to be more sensitive to the land and natural beauty of the site. Also Mr. King stated that on the flip side, this limitation has reduced the future addition to the property tax base for the city and they ask that their request for an adjustment to the tree mitigation fees is granted. Mr. McElroy recognized Tony Eugenio, Presidio Group, the owner of the property. Mr. Eugenio stated that he is going to the legislature to propose some changes on the frontage of the property and Minutes Board of Adjustment February 25, 2013 Page 3 of 4 there are deed restrictions that zoning cannot change. He also stated that Staff likes the assisted living project and it's a good match for the city. Mr. McElroy recognized the following to speak: ® Robert Brockman, 1000 Elbel Road, spoke on the trees in the footprint, and that if the Staff recommends disapproval, he agrees with that. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing closed at 6:36 P.M. Discussion followed between the Board, Staff and the Applicant. Mr. Hartzog moved to disapprove the variance request based on that fact that City Council had passed the Ordinance to protect the trees. Ms. Agee seconded the motion. Vote was 5 -0. Motion carried. 8. REQUESTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Requests by Member to place items on a future Board of Adjustment. Mr. Hartzog stated that an exception to Merritt Lakeside Apartments parking had been granted by the Board of Adjustment and that the parking needs to be looked at, as the parking lot is full all the time and the variance stated that there were certain times it would not be. Ms. Wood stated that a development agreement had been issued. B. Announcements by Members • Mr. Dziewit noted that the Wilchenik Walk is on March 2 "d. • Mr. Hartzog noted that the Taste of the Town is on March 21St • Mr. Dziewit thanked staff for a very detailed presentation. • Mr. McElroy stated that anyone who has not already done so, can take the Open Meetings Course on the Attorney General's web site. C. Announcements by City Staff None. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 P.M. Chairman, Board of Adjustment Minutes Board or Adjustment February 25, 2013 Page 4 of 4 Recording Secretary, City of Schertz easements; included in that easement is a thirty foot (30') Schertz Seguin Local Government Corporation (SSLGC) waterline easement and a sixty foot (60') GVEC Electric easement which overlap each other by approximately 10 feet, SSLGC has indicated that the planting of trees and shrubs are prohibited within the waterline easement. GVEC has indicated that planting trees are prohibited within their easement but the planting of shrubs are permitted within their easement. These existing easements and restrictions limit the property owner's ability to comply with the Unified Development Code (UDC) landscaping requirements. Pursuant to the Unified Development Code (UDC) Article 9, Section 21.9.7 Landscaping is required for all development in the City to enhance the community's environmental and beautification efforts and reduce the negative effects of the glare, noise, erosion and sedimentation caused by large areas of impervious and un- vegetated surfaces. According to the UDC any nonresidential use is required to provide a twenty foot (20') landscape buffer adjacent to the property line of a residential use or zoned property with a minimum of one (1) shade tree planted every thirty linear foot (30) and a minimum of ten (10) shrubs planed for each fifty linear feet (50'); perimeter landscaping that contains one (1) shade tree for each fifty linear feet (50'); planter islands that contain a combination of tree and shrubs; and landscaping designed to screen off - street parking from adjacent residential properties with shrubs. City Staff has met several times with the property owner and project Engineer to discuss the site layout and compliance with the UDC regulations. A preliminary layout for the property with respect to the placement of the building, parking areas and location of easement has been submitted as well as correspondence from the utility companies describing their landscaping restrictions. Staff has discussed to possibility of additional landscaping in other area of the site and requested a preliminary landscape plan; however, at the time of the staff report the project Engineer indicated that the landscaping plan had not been finalized. If the variances are granted the result would be a follows; • No trees would be planted on the south property line or in the planter islands located within the easements. • Shrubs will be provided at the edge of the parking areas except for approximately 170' of parking that directly abuts the waterline easement. SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERAL LOCATION ZONING AND LAND USE: The property is located on the southeast corner of FM 3009 and Elbel Road, Existing Zoning _- Existing Use General Business ....... Undeveloped SURROUNDING ZONINGILAND USE: Existing Zoning Existing Use North Right -of *ay - Elbel Road South A.partment/Multi- Family Residential District -- Multi Family Residential East Right -of way -- - -- Drainage Channel - West Right-of-way ------------- FM 3009 2 CRITERIA FOR REVIEW. According to UDC, Article 3, Sections 21.3.4.C, In order to make a finding of hardship and grant a variance from the zoning regulations of the UDC, the Board must determine the following: The requested variance does not violate the intent of this UDC or its amendments; The variance does not violate the intent of the UDC or its amendments because the property owner will provide landscaping on the site to enhance the beautification of the City as well as mitigate the noise and lighting impact on the adjacent property by providing an additional setback and shrubs to provide a visual screen. The south side of the property is encumbered by an exceptionally large amount of easements and no structures are allowed to be constructed within those easements essentially providing a minimum setback seventy -nine feet (79) from the property line; which is fifty -four feet (54) more that the standard commercial set back which will help mitigate the light and noise on the adjacent property. A wooden privacy fence is currently located on the property line between the two properties that serves as a visual screen, 2. Special conditions of restricted area, topography or physical features exits that are peculiar to the subject parcel of land and are not applicable to other parcels of land in the same zoning district; The purpose of this variance is to acknowledge the special circumstances particular to the subject property. The easement encumbrance of seventy -nine feet (79) on the subject property prohibits the property owner from planting the required trees adjacent to the residential use. The large easement limits development of the site and is not common to most commercial properties. Most commercial developments have approximately ten (10) to twenty (20) feet of easements dedicated on the property. 3. The hardship is in no way the result of the applicant's own actions; or The easements on the subject property, established by SSLGC and GVEC, create an undue hardship because the use of the easements is restricted and are in no way the result of the applicant's own actions. The easements were established to benefit to the community and satisfy the needs for growth and development in the area. 4. The interpretation of the provisions in this UDC or any amendments thereto would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district that comply with the same provisions. STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of BOA 2013 -002. The request for a variance complies with the approval criteria for granting a variance as presented above. Planning Department Recommendation X Approve as submitted A prove with conditions* Denial " While the board can impose conditions; conditions should only be imposed to meet requirements of the UDC. Attachments: Aerial location map Public hearing notice map Correspondence CASE NUMBER Board of Adjustment may grant variances or modifications of height, yard, area, coverage, parking regulations, accessory building and non - conforming use subject to making a finding of hardship that the variance meets all four of the following criteria. State how your request meets these conditions. Description of variance request: The applicant is requesting a variance to Section 21.9.7 (G) requiring a 20 -ft landscape buffer adjacent to residential property with 1 shade tree for every 30 linear feet and 10 shrubs for every 50 linear feet, and Section 21.9.7 (H)(2) requiring a 10 -ft landscape buffer adjacent to parking lot areas adjacent to residential with 1 shade tree for every 50 linear feet. The required buffer area can be provided on the southeast side of the site adjacent to the multi - family residential use, however, the owners of existing utility easements along this property line prohibit planting in the provided buffer area. 1. Does the requested variance violate the intent of the Unified Development Code or deprive the applicant of right commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district that comply with the same provisions? ❑ Yes X No Explain: The requested variance does not violate the intent of the UDC as there are already several trees and an existing wood fence in place on the multi - family side of the property line within close proximity of the subject property. Any trees or shrubs planted within the required landscape buffer would be blocked from view by the multi- family users by the existing fence screening the property. 2. Do special conditions or restricted area, shape, topography, or physical features exist that are irregular to the subject parcel of land and not applicable to other parcels of land in the same zoning districts? X Yes ❑ No Explain: This particular site is restricted by two existing utility lines with associated easements (30 -foot waterline easement and 60 -foot overhead electric easement) totaling 79 -feet from the property line into the site on the southeast side. The owners of these easements have expressed in writing (attached) that they will not permit plantings within the easements due to potential conflicts with their uses. Therefore, the required landscape space (20 -feet from the property line) is provided, but the user is not permitted to plant the UDC required plantings as noted above. 3. Is the hardship the result of the applicant's own actions or intended for financial interest? ❑ Yes X No Explain: This hardship is a result of an existing waterline and easement established on the property in 1979 and existing overhead electric lines and easements established in 2002 by previous property owners. These utilities benefit the surrounding community and cannot feasibly be relocated due to their size and the density of existing development surrounding the site. 4. Would granting this variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the value of property in the vicinity? ❑ Yes X No Explain: Granting this variance will only affect the subject property and the adjacent multi- family property. However, as stated above and shown in the attached exhibits, an existing screening fence is already in place and acts as a visual buffer between the two uses. The required landscape area will still be provided. It is only the required plantings within this area that cannot be provided. Preparer's Sign Printed Name: Date prepared: 16-Variance Checklist Updated 10 -2007 Page 2 of 2 exa -d xxEe o smai - noeima; -in °'�iw i °1" 89ZZ9£F9 6698-149-a1Z MVJ 89E6 -EY6�¢ 3lOxd I nO3�! J V /�Ji L14.J.i3 1aJJ Jtl /�11V oEav3 x3'ainnurr rns •os� emirs •alo dooi.x EOa J ovo� _�81 a N'd 600 . W. °" 1�����d T .w,,wwl3odPUB 3DN'dl ib'/1 7 n sEna /st /ro U1OH -ANLUN iNAAdO -lA \3(I ❑ASOdO� 3i.an anvm 133HS r c:! � XX z tJ U U U U Q Q Q Q Q Q a o ui 2 � w ° ® Z H W LLI o � m z 2 w J CL o o h z � � B Q ® vZ } 4 co Q Z Of O� ;U z a Cl) = o U 0) F m U dam ' LL U d cs U w Q U O O F- t- < O O p 0 0 0 0 ® O h O Q 0 Z �o off» W � 600E o LL 0 - J y_ j3 .� ory�o0 1 �jjjjna 3db �SQNb 7 � mm , LU �o J ``I 0. u, - ( W. r m - Lj OEO Q I W cn CL M Qua' � E 1 _ , MI z MI I I i IMC6 a,1 0 Wz Z j`� "'I L!J C7 I 9 Lo z�... - -- .....I wf —� z� -- o� w —w O Iu °z g� -- t �tio f 1I ! � O O �EL I O ! ti co cn IzI . a (0 I IIII� w III o 0 Cd �, C, o QI J� Ll I IL I �� =E it _ I EL.-A VIa , Ai � -- _ 1YV53 SS32103 /SS3doNl 9� E� i 3 �b' 09'9a 9 3u0010zo0cs I YV5 �f3N13S NS , 91 � JL t ti ■i r! 0 1;