Loading...
BOA 02-25-2013BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Febr~a~-y 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 ADJIUSTIO~IENT Frank McElroy, Chairman Richard Dziewit, Vice Chairman Earl Hartzog David Reynolds Reginna Agee, Alternate Mark Tew, Alternate BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Christopher Montgomery I. CALL TO ORDEI2/ROLL CALL z. 3. 4. 5. CITE' STAFF Brian James, Executive Director Development Michelle Sanchez, Director Development Services Lesa Wood, Planner I Patti White, Admin. Asst. Development Services OTHERS PRESENT Alan King, The I.,and Design Group, Inc. Tony Eugenio, Presidio Group Mr. McElroy called the regular meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. and recognized members present. RECOGNITION/OATF OF APPOINTED COMMISSIONERS City Secretary Brenda Dennis administered the Oath of Office to Richard Dziewit, Earl Hartzog, David Reynolds, Reginna Agee and Mark Tew. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN Election of Chai~rnan: 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. SEAT ALTERNATE T® ACT IF REQUIRED Ms. Agee was seated as a voting member. FEARING OF RESIDENTS No one spoke. 6. MIl®IUTES: 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 2S, 2{113 Page 1 0]'4 7. PUBLIC >EIEARIl®IG: A. B®A 2013 - 001 Legacy at Forest Midge -Assisted Living Facility Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for variance by Presidia 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 SOOT Schertz Parkway, which results in a reduced fees. Public hearing opened at b: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 hee mitigation which results in reduced fees. The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorct'er" on February 7, 2013 and in the "Herald" an 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 apposition 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 rho 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 {$") 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 DBl-1 inch ratio for every tree removed. The applicant may request to provide afee-in-Nett 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 subrrritted by tl~e 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 afee-in-lieu of payment for the balance of trees being removed. According to the current City fee schedule and the applicant's documentation afee-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, Sec. 21.9.9 -Tree Minutes Board of Adjustment February 2S, 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 thet°e 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. AinPont 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 Schetrtz 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 aself-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, streetscape 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 tl~e 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 hee mitigation fees is granted. Mr. McElroy recognized Tony Eugenia, 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 Yage 3 of 4 ` ~. a~ ~~ ~- M~ .,._ It ~ ~T~; ~ r fy. ..* ,. ., _ I _ _ _ . _ .. " gE ~ . ~ _ ~. - _ ~.r e' - ~, - _ _ _ ~. ,~ ~. ~ w. _ _ ~ ~_ .. - _ ~ - ': _ ~: _ ,.:~. _ -- _ .. sr ~ _ •- - -s _. '~` --- ~ ~ S-w