BOA 04-22-2013BOARD OF AII.TUSTIVIENT MINUTES
April 22, 2013
The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened on April 22, 2013 at the Municipal Complex, Council
Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas-
B®ARD OF Al)JUSTI~/IEl®1T
Richard Dziewit, Vice Chairman
Earl Hartzog
David Reynolds
Christopher Montgomery
Reginna Agee, Alternate
BOARD IV1EM13ERS ABSENT
Frank McElroy, Chairman
Mark Tew, Alternate
1.
2
3.
CALL TO ®RDER/ROLL CALL
CITY STAFF
Brian James, Executive Director Development
Michelle Sanchez, Director Development Services
Lesa Wood, Planner
Patti White, Admin. Asst. Development Services
OT~IERS PRESENT
Paul Blackburn, Schertz 3009, LTD.
Chelsey Houy,_Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Amanda Bahrig, Kimley-Horn and Associates, inc.
James Griftin, Brown ~c Ortiz, PC.
Mr. Dziewit called the regular meeting to order at G:09 P.M. and recognized members present.
SEAT ALTERI`TATE TO ACT IF RE~UIREI)
Ms. Agee was seated as a voting member.
IIEARII`IG OF R>CSIDEI®TTS
No one spoke.
4. IVIIIlTUTES:
A. Minutes for February 25, 2013.
Mr. Hartzog moved to approve the minutes. Ms. Agee seconded the motion. Vote was 5-0. Motion
carried.
5. PUBLIC >EIEARING:
A. BOA 2013-002 Schertz 3009 Market -Landscaping
Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a variance from Article 9, Section 21.9.7 Landscaping
from the requirement that a twenty foot (20'} landscape buffer with required landscaping be provided
adjacent to a residential use or residentially zoned property; and adjacent to all perimeter parking lots
and vehicular use areas for a depth of at least ten (10'). The approximately G.365+ acre tract of land is
situated in the Genobera Malpaz Survey, Section G7, Abstract No. 221, City of Schertz, Texas and
generally located on the southwest corner of Elbel and FM 3009.
Mr. Dziewit opened the public heating at 6:10 P.M. Ms. Wood presented the item 6y stating that the
Minutes
Board offldjustment
April 22, 20 t 3
t'age I of 4
property owner is requesting three (3) variances to the Unified Development Code (UDC), Article 9,
Landscaping. All~requests are specifically related to the south side of the property, which include:
1. A variance to Sec. 21.9.7.6 with regard to required number of trees and shrubs planted
within the twenty foot (20') landscape buffer for the entire length of the south property line.
2. A variance to Sec. 21.9.7.H.1.c&d with regard to the nwnber of trees required to be planted
in the planter islands within the parking lot.
3. A variance to Sec. 21.9.7.H.2 with regard to the number of trees required to be planted on the
entire length perimeter area of the south property line and for the shrubs required to be
planted where off=street parking abuts a residential property line for approximately 170'.
The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily G'o»a~~ercial Recordei°"and in the "Herald".
There were eleven (11) notices mailed to surrounding property owners on April 12, 2013. At the time
of this staff report no responses have been received for the proposed request.
The property owner is proposing to construct a retail development located at the corner of Elbel and
FM 3009. The south side of the property is located adjacent to amulti-family dwelling district and is
encumbered by approximately seventy-nine feet (79') easements; included in that easement is a thirty
foot (30') Schez-tz 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.
Accoz•ding 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 { l0) shrubs planted 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 tunes 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.
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 tl~e edge of the parking areas except for approximately 170'
of parking that directly abuts the waterline easement.
Ms. Woad further stated that 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;
Minutes
Soard oFlldjusfinent
April 22, 2fl13
Fnge 2 of 4
The variance does not violate the intent of the UDC or its ar~aendrr7ents because the pr°operty ota~ner°
wr.'ll pr°nvide lanc~'scaping on the site to enhance the beautification of the City as well as mitigate the
noise crud lighting impact on the ac jacent property by providing air additional setback and shr°ubs to
provide a visaral screen. The saarth side of the property is encumber^ed by an exceptionally large
amount of easements and no str°arc•tarres are allowed to be constr°arcted within thaw easements
essentially providing a minirrauna setback of seventy-nine feet (79'),fr^orn the property line; which is
fifty four feet (54) raaor°e than the standard cnmmercial set back which will help naitigcrte the light and
noise nn the adjacent pr°operty. A wooden privacy fence is cur°rently located on the property line
between the two properties that serves as a visaral screen,
2. Special conditions of restricted area, topography or physical features exist that are
peculiar to the subject parcel of land and are not applicable to other parcels of land in the
same zoning district;
The parr pose of this variance is to acknowledge the special cis^carnastcrnces par°ticular to the subject
property. The easement encumbrance of seventy-nine feet (79) on the sarbject proper°ty prohibits the
property owner° fi°orrt planting the regarir°ed trees adjacent to the r°esidential use, The large easement
limits development of the site acrd is not common to most conunercial properties. Most commercial
developments have approximately ten (10) to twenty (20) feet of easements dedicated an the pr°operty.
3. The hardship is in no way the result of the applicant's own actions; or
The easements on the subject pr^operty, established by SSLGC and GVEC, create an undue hardship
because the arse of the easements is restricted trod ar^e in no way the result of the applicant's own
actions. The easeraa~ents were established to benefit to the cor~anzunity crud satisfy the needs for growth
and development In the crr^ea.
4. The interpretation of the provisions in this UDC or any amendments thereto would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed 6y other properties in the same zoning
district that comply with the same provisions.
Staff recommends approval of the request for a variance.
Mr. Dziewit recognized James Griffin, who stated that there is an extreme hardship not caused by the
property owner and no matter who develops this property, and a variance will be required because
code states that the buffer must be adjacent to the property line and the easements prevent the
applicant from doing so.
Mr. Dziewit asked if there was any citizens who wished to speak. There were none, Discussion
followed between the Board, Staff and the Applicant.
The public hearing closed at 6:25 P.M.
Mr. Hartzog moved to approve the variance requests based on there being a hardship. Mr.
Montgome~•y seconded the motion. Vote was 5-0. Motion carried.
6. ~tEQUESTS AI®TI) AI®iN®UNCEIVIE~TTS
A. Requests by Member to place items on a future Board of Adjustment.
® None
Minutes
Board ofAd_jusTment
April 22, 2fl13
Page 3 of 4
i. •I r ~j
-- ,i ' r