06-24-2013 BOA Agenda and associated documents® Continuing education events attended and to be attended
7. ADJOURNMENT OF TIME REGULAR MEETING
CERTIFICATION
1, 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 21 st day of June, 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, Senior Planner
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 facilh)� is accessible in accordance i-vith the Americans with Disabilities Act. Handicapped parking spaces are available. Ifyou
require special assistance or have a request for sign interpretative services or other- services please call 619 -1030 at least 24 hours in
advance afnreeting,
Board of Adjustaicat Page 2 42
June 24, 2013
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINU'T'ES
May 20, 2013
The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened on May 20, 2013 at the Municipal Complex, Council
Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas.
BOAR OF ADJUSTMENT
Frank McElroy, Chairman
Richard Dziewit, Vice Chairman
Earl Hartzog
David Reynolds
Christopher Montgomery
5. PUBLIC
CITY STAFF
Brian James, Executive Director Development
Michelle Sanchez, Directop Development Services
Lesa Wood, Planner 1
Patti Whitc, Admin.;; st. Development Services
ing to order at 6:03 P.' and recognized members present.
Mr. Dziewit seconded the motion. Vote was 4 -1 -0 with
A. BOA 2013-G03.'.'-'6031&-FM 3009
Hold a public headng," 'consider and act upon a variance to Article 10 Parking Standards, Section
21.10.3.A - Size of:pace to allow a reduction from the required standard off - street parking space size
of 10' by 20' and allow a parking space size 10' by 18' throughout the subject property located at
6038 F.M. 3009,
Ms. Wood presented the item by stating that the property owner is requesting a variance for a
reduction of the required standard off-street parking space size of 10' by 20' to a parking space size of
10' by 18' throughout the subject property located at 6038 F.M. 3009. The property owner is
proposing to construct a 4,586 square foot restaurant on the 0929+ acre tract of land located off FM
3009 approximately 250 foot north of the FM 3009 and Four Oaks Lane intersection.
Minutes
Board ofAd,justment
May 20, 2013
Page 1 of 3
The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" and in the "Herald"
and there were seven (7) notices mailed to surrounding property owners on May 6, 2013. At the time
of this report no responses have been received for the proposed request.
The subject property was originally platted in May 2006 and was amended in June 2007 which was
prior to the adoption of mandatory detention requirements. Prior to February 2009 the City did not
have mandatory detention requirements and each development was reviewed on a case by case basis
for drainage needs. In February 24, 2009 mandatory detention requirements were included in the UDC
and the site is required to meet the current detention requirements. Currently, detention is required for
all projects with an increased impervious area of greater than 0.1 acre §. _'Since the site was platted
when there was no mandatory detention requirement, it has pla ed an undue hardship on the
development of the site and as a result the applicant is requestrng'a variance to the parking space size
to ensure that the site can accommodate for the on -sited ebtion. "Tht-applicant will provide the
required number of parking spaces for the site; the
UDC did not require wheel stops within the parl
space will equal 180 square feet as required by the
If the variance is granted, the result would be a Fol
UDC.
The parking space size will be ten feet (10') by e
for the detention and drainago``kquirements acco.
According to UDC, Article 3, Sections
variance from the zoning regulations of
I. The requested vat ini�x does not V
The UDC i rritended ta;protect p
the City which includes ensuring i
the inte "nt of & UDC because the
green space and i`he i eguirerl,,nzrr
Special coldittcns of
the subject parcel_af
district; %
to ma
I must
y to t66 Size of the space. The prior
refore, the larking area within the
feet (18') and the site would provide
the current UDC.
g of hardship and grant a
the following:
)tate"The intent ofthis UDC or its amendments;
tblichealth, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of
dequte drainage facilities. The variance does not violate
subject roperty will provide adequate drainage facilities,
ber of "parking spaces on the site to ensure a safe, orderly
a, topography or physical features exits that are peculiar to
not applicable to other parcels of land in the same zoning
1 he,subject proper Y is a small lot platted within a four lot subdivision. When the subdivision
was platted there were no mandatory detention requirements. The enforcement of'the current
deteri 'txan require' 'ents creates a condition on this site not applicable to the other parcels
within this subdivision because they are already developed. Granting the variance will not
adversely `react the adjacent properties.
The hardship is in no way the result of the applicant's own actions; or
The detention requirements presented by the current code results in an undue hardship on
the subject property because the site was platted before there were mandatory detention
requirements. The strict enforcement of the detention requirements creates an impact on the
site because the on -site detention will encompass a large area of the subject property. The
reduction in the parking space size will allow,for increases' detention storage capacity on the
property and reduce impervious coverage. Any development proposed on the subject
property will have the same challenges due to the on -site detention requirement.
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
May 20, 2013
Page 2 of 3
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 recommends approval of BOA 2013 -003. The request for a variance complies with the approval
criteria for granting a variance as presented above.
Mr. McElroy opened the public hearing at 6:06 P.M. Mr. McElroy asked if there were any citizens
who wished to speak. There were none. The public hearing closed at 6;12 P.M,
Mr. Hartzog asked if it is possible to slant the parking spaces .ag,the engineer, Armando Neibla,
answered no, that it would reduce the parking. Discussion folio +ed l tween the Board, Staff and the
Applicant,
Mr. Hartzog moved to approve the variance request based on there being a hardship with the detention
requirement and the size of the slots. Mr. Montgomery seconded the motion. Vote was 5 -0. Motion
carried.
6. REQUESTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. Requests by Member to place rtern on a future Board of Adjustment.
None
B. Announcements by Members
Doggie Das "l';;'s this
to same day.
The meetinu:..adiourned at 6.2:9 P.M.
Chairman, Board of'djustment
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
May 20, 2013
Page 3 of 3
, May 25, 2013 as well as the EMS
be closed for Memorial Day on Monday, May 27,
Recording Secretary, City of Schertz
Existing Zoning
General Business -2 (GB -2)
Existing Zoning
North Schertz City Limits Line
South General Business -2 (GB -2)
........ .
East General Business -2 (GB -2)
West General Business -2 (GB -2)
Existing Use
Retail Center
Existing Use
Railroad Right -of -Way
OfficelWarehouse
FM 3009
.........
Office /Warehouse
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;
1. The requested variance does not violate the intent of this UDC or its amendments;
UDC Article 91 is intended to enhance property values, maintain aesthetic attractiveness, and promote
commercial opportunity in the City, and to support and further the objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Land Plan. The variance violates the intent of the UDC because the subject sign
exceeds the maximum height allowed per Article 11 for limited access streets.
2. Special conditions of restricted area, topography or physical features exists that are peculiar to
the subject parcel of land and are not applicable to other parcels of land in the same zoning
district;
Although the subject property elevation is below grade to the newly constructed FM 3009 overpass, the
property is not influenced by oppressive conditions that are unique to only this lot or that prevent the
business from being properly advertised. All property located in the Industrial Park is subject to the
same physical conditions; and granting of the variance will provide the applicant with special privileges
not enjoyed by other properties within the Park. No unique features exist that result in the need of the
variance requested, or that would result in a cessation of the commercial use if the variance is denied.
3. The hardship is in no way the result of the applicant's own actions; or
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.
The conditions that exist in the Industrial Park are not unique to only this lot within the Park; and
granting the variance will create a substantial adverse impact on neighboring property by setting a
precedent for a sign faller than what the UDC allows.
STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends disapproval of BOA 2013 -005. The request for a variance does not comply with the
approval criteria for granting a variance as presented above.
2
Planning department Recommendation
Approve as submitted
Approve with conditions*
X Denial
while the hoard can impose conditions; conditions snouia only be imposed to meet requirements of the UDC.
Attachmonts-
Public hearing notice map
Correspondence
Exhibits
f
�
�
°
~
°
°
"
"
�m
�
. «
°
°
�
°
°
°
°
^
"
"
=
n
�
"
°
=
°
°
^
°
�
"
,
�
,
°
It": -I,
f7
77�
V7
Existing Zoning Existing Use
General Business Mini storage /Public warehouse
CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: According to UDC, Article 3, Sections 21.3.4.C, In order to mare a finding of
hardship and grant a variance from the zoning regulations of the UDC, the Board must determine the following:
1. The requested variance does not violate the intent of this UDC or its amendments;
UDC Article 19 is intended to enhance property values, maintain aesthetic attractiveness, and promote
commercial opportunity in the City, and to support and further the objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Land Plan. The variance violates the intent of the UDC because the subject sign
exceeds the maximum height allowed per Article 19 for all other access streets. Granting the variance
will have an impact on neighboring property by setting a precedent for a sign taller than what the UDC
allows.
2. Special conditions of restricted area, topography or physical features exists 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 subject property is not influenced by oppressive conditions that are unique to the land or
that prevent the business from being properly advertised. All property located in the Business Park is
subject to the same physical conditions; and granting of the variance will provide the applicant with
special privileges not enjoyed by other properties within the Park. No unique features exist that result in
the need of the variance requested, or that would result in a cessation of the commercial use if the
variance is denied
3. The hardship is in no way the result of the applicant's own actions; or
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.
The conditions that existing are not unique to only this lot within the Park; and granting the variance will
provide the applicant with special privileges not enjoyed by other property within the vicinity.
STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends disapproval of BOA 2013 -004. The request for a variance does not comply with the
approval criteria for granting a variance as presented above,
2
Existing Zoning
Existing Use
North
Right -of -Way
Triton Drive
South
General Business
.. ...............................
Retail Sales and Service
East
General Business
Resturant
West
General Business
Officelwarehouse
CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: According to UDC, Article 3, Sections 21.3.4.C, In order to mare a finding of
hardship and grant a variance from the zoning regulations of the UDC, the Board must determine the following:
1. The requested variance does not violate the intent of this UDC or its amendments;
UDC Article 19 is intended to enhance property values, maintain aesthetic attractiveness, and promote
commercial opportunity in the City, and to support and further the objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Land Plan. The variance violates the intent of the UDC because the subject sign
exceeds the maximum height allowed per Article 19 for all other access streets. Granting the variance
will have an impact on neighboring property by setting a precedent for a sign taller than what the UDC
allows.
2. Special conditions of restricted area, topography or physical features exists 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 subject property is not influenced by oppressive conditions that are unique to the land or
that prevent the business from being properly advertised. All property located in the Business Park is
subject to the same physical conditions; and granting of the variance will provide the applicant with
special privileges not enjoyed by other properties within the Park. No unique features exist that result in
the need of the variance requested, or that would result in a cessation of the commercial use if the
variance is denied
3. The hardship is in no way the result of the applicant's own actions; or
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.
The conditions that existing are not unique to only this lot within the Park; and granting the variance will
provide the applicant with special privileges not enjoyed by other property within the vicinity.
STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends disapproval of BOA 2013 -004. The request for a variance does not comply with the
approval criteria for granting a variance as presented above,
2
Planning Department Recommendation
X
Approve as submitted
Approve with conditions*
Denial
vvniie the tjoaro can impose conditions; conditions should only be imposed to meet requirements of the UDC.
Attachments:
Public hearing notice map
Correspondence
.1 ''�
ICI
- - — - - -P -- - — - _ - -- - - - -• - -
.. �.
- _ _
i
I � ��
{ _ ,'
yz• � i I
n '
V
x
'�'
.-
_i - _. '
r,
1 1 � I
' I 1
V
.Y �, 1
A I
' 4. �
��
i�
Y` n _
� S
A.
i
_ _
y - y\�
+ ' 1µ
n� � � �
s .i
�., - - I
t• � :1■ � L 5 I i
�l
1E � ,
''�
"�
'.
�� - I
''�. �'�
5 \ '
•`
ZI
M1 ` i
I 'Y _ �
11 �� _ I
�' �� �� ,.
� - �y
�, �
} '. � �� -�
w.
i�fi w
1 +� �
' � , - I�
a
■ ti G �
.�
_ k � r � 4�
�. ■ • � ��
ti L �_ ■ 'N k
� � � .y �
11 ■ ' _ �
.�
� �° �_- �.
'� - _•
1
■ yt
i
i � I gggg
� l I
' 31
o
ac
Ld
n
o
Ei, t I
I sx
6 I -
O
� I LO u,
--
� s
- g
- 4
8MmP 7.
I
�a
o- f
- - O
r $
_ _
- —
I
Ulm ild
3
II
4 11
jo
0
-ir