BOA 05-20-2013B®ARI) ®F AIIJi7ST1VIENT I~IINUTES
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.
I3®ARI) ®F ADJUSTMENT
Frank McElroy, Chairman
Richard Dziewit, Vice Chairman
Earl Hat~tzog
David Reynolds
Christopher Montgomery
B®ARD 1VIEMBERS ABSENT
Reginna Agee, Alternate
Mark Tew, Alternate
i. CALL T® (IRIIER/R®LL CALL
CI'T'Y STAFF
Brian James, Executive Director Development
Michelle Sanchez, Director Development Services
Lesa Wood, Planner I
Patti White, Admin. Asst. Development Services
OTIJERS PRESENT
Armando Niebla, Bury+Partners,
Mr. McElroy called the regular meeting to order at 6:03 P.M. and recognized members present.
2. SEAT ALTERNATE TO ACT IF REQUIRED
No one was seated.
3. HEARIl~dG ®F RESIDENTS
No one spoke.
4.
5e
IVIINUTES:
A. Minutes for February 25, 2013.
Mt°. Hartzog moved to approve the minutes. Mr. Dziewit seconded the motion. Vote was 4-1-0 with
Mr. McElroy abstaining. Motion carried.
PLTI3LIC HEARING:
A. BOA 2013-003 6038 FM 3009
Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a variance to Article 10 Parking Standards, Section
21.10.3.A -Size of Space 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
pz•oposing to construct a 4,586 square foot restaurant on the 0.929- acre tract of land located off FM
3009 approximately 250 foot north of the FM 3009 and Four Oal<s Lane intersection.
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
Ma}r 20, 2013
Nage 1 of 3
The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Cotaanaercial Recorder°" and in the "Her^ald"
and there were seven {7} notices mailed to surrounding property owners on May b, 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 currant detention requirements. Currently, detention is required for
all projects with an increased impervious area of greater than 0.1 acres. Since the site was platted
when there was no mandatory detention requirement, it has placed an undue hardship on the
development of the site and as a z•esult the applicant is requesting a variance to the parking space size
to ensure that the site can accommodate for the on-site detention, The applicant will provide the
required number of parking spaces for the site; the reduction is only in the size of the space. The prior
UDC did not require wheel stops within the parking spaces; therefore, the parking area within the
space will equal 1 SO square feet as required by the 1996 UDC.
If the variance is granted, the result would be a follows:
® The parking space size will be ten feet {IO') by eighteen feet {l 8'} and the site would provide
for the detention and drainage requirements according to the current UDC.
According to UDC, Article 3, Sections 21.3.4.C, in order to make a finding of hardship and grant a
variance fz•ozn 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;
The UDC is intended to prated parblic health, safety, and general nee fare of'the citizens of
the City which anclardes ensm°ing adequate drainage jacilities. The variance woes nvt violate
the intent of'the UDC because the sarbject proper°ty will provide adequate drainage facilities,
graeen space, and the required narnaber° of pal°king spaces on the site to ensure a safe, orderly
and efficient development.
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 subject property is a small lot platted within a four lot subdivision. When the sarhdivasion
wcrs platted there l~~ere no aaaandatory detentian regtria°enaents. The errfor^ceraaent of the curr^ent
detention requare>7~ents cr°eates a condition on this sate not applicable to the other parcels
~vithan this subdivision because they ar°e ah•eady developed Ga°antang the variance rs~ill not
advea°sely aaaapcrct the adjacent properties.
The hardship is in no way the result of the applicant's own actions; or
The detention requirements presented by the cur^rent code results in an undzre harcr'ship on
the sarbject property hecairse the site was platted before there tivea^e mandatory detention
regarareraaents. The strict enforcement of the detention r°egarareraaents creates ara inapcrct on the
site becaarse the on~.site detentr.'on will encompass a lar^ge area of the subject proper^ty. The
reduction in the parking space laze will allow,for° increased detention storage capacity on the
pa^operty and reduce aaaapervaoars coverage. Any developrraent proposed on the subject
pr^operty will have the same challenges due to the nn-site detention r°egarir°enaent.
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
May 20, 20 [ 3
Page 2 of 3
i
- _-F~ :.v _.. -1._.. _ _._.
' - -
~,
;~ c Y, , _
. r
n
_ _ _ ._ _ r v
,. _
__~
~. ~ _ '
y . = .....~ ..
~..• A ,:
~^ _.,, do . ' ~, ` ~ , ,_,: _
__ ~
h
~ ilk .
r,