Loading...
11-25-13 BOA Agenda with associated documents�..,. SCHERTZ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MUNICIPAL COMPLEX COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1400 SCHERTZ PARKWAY BUILDING #4 SCHERTZ, TEXAS 78154 1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 2. SEAT ALTERNATE TO ACT IF REQUIRED 3. HEARING OF RESIDENTS This time is set aside for any person who wishes to address the Board ofAdjustment. Each person should fill out the Speaker's register prior to the meeting. Presentations should be limited to no more than three (3) minutes. Discussion by the Board of any item not on the agenda shall be limited to statements of specific factual information given in response to any inquiry, a recitation of existing policy in response to an inquiry, and /or a proposal to place the item on a future agenda. The presiding officer, during the Hearing of Residents portion of the agenda, will call on those persons who have signed up to speak in the order they have registered. 4. MINUTES: A. Minutes for September 23, 2013. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing related to variance requests within this agenda. The public hearing will be opened to receive a report from staff, the applicant, and the adjoining property owners affected by the applicants request, and any other interested persons. Upon completion, the public hearing will be closed. The Board will discuss and consider the application, and may request additional information from staff or the applicant, if required. After deliberation, the Board will act on the applicant's request. A. BOA 201.3 -009 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to Article 9, Section 21.9.5(C), Multifamily and Nonresidential Exterior Material Requirements, to allow a variance from the required fifteen percent (15 %) windows and doors of the front facade on the ground level floor, in order to permit coverage of windows and doors distributed around the entire building facade, equal to thirty percent (30 %) of the front facade on the ground level floor at Lot 2, Block 1 of Enterprise Industrial Park Subdivision generally located at Lookout Road and Enterprise Parkway. B. BOA 2013 -010 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to Article 11, Section 21.11.9, Wall Signs, (a) to allow a sign variance to exceed the allowed number of primary wall signs of one (1) sign per building, in order to permit two (2) primary wall signs; (b) to allow a ninety four (94) square foot variance to exceed the two hundred and fifty (250) square foot maximum sign area for a primary wall sign in an area with limited access in order to permit two (2), three hundred and forty four (344) square foot primary wall signs; (c) to allow a variance to exceed the one (1) sign per wall with a maximum of three (3) wall signs allowed, in order to permit nine (9) signs on the primary wall with a maximum of eleven (11) wall signs at 17460 IH -35 North. Board of Adjustment November 25, 2013 Page 1 of 2 C. BOA 201.3 -01.1 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to Article 11, Section 21.11.10, Freestanding Ground Signs, (a) to allow an eight foot (8') variance to exceed the maximum height for a freestanding ground sign in an area with limited access on IH -35 North of fifty feet (50') in order to permit a fifty -eight foot (58') tall freestanding ground sign; (b) to allow a three hundred and twenty one (321) square foot variance to exceed the maximum sign area for a freestanding ground sign in an area with limited access on IH -35 North of two hundred and fifty (250) square feet in order to permit a five hundred and seventy one (571) square foot freestanding ground sign; (c) to allow a twelve foot (12') variance to exceed the maximum height for a freestanding ground sign on FM 3009 of eighteen feet (18') in order to permit a thirty foot (30') tall freestanding ground sign; (d) to allow a one hundred and seventy (170) square foot variance to exceed the maximum sign area for a freestanding ground sign on FM 3009 of ninety (90) square feet in order to permit a two hundred and sixty (260) square foot freestanding ground sign at 17460 IH -35 North. rl�.7 0111 x.Yl RK13611 010410161110 A. Requests by Members to place items on a future Board of Adjustment Agenda. B. Announcements by Members • City and community events attended and to be attended • Continuing education events attended and to be attended C. Announcements by City Staff • City and community events attended and to be attended • Continuing education events attended and to be attended 7. ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR MEETING CERTIFICATION I, Bryce, 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 22nd day of November, 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. 7Rwuce Cox Bryce Cox, 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 with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Handicapped parking spaces are available. If'you require special assistance or have a request for sign interpretative services or other services please call 619 -1030 at least 24 hours in advance of meeting. Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 2 November 25, 2013 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES September 23, 2013 The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened on September 23, 2013 at the Municipal Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Prank McElroy, Chairman Richard Dziewit, Vice Chairman Earl Hartzog Reginna Agee, Alternate BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT David Reynolds Mark few, Alternate 1 CITY STAFF Brian James, Executive Director Development Lesa Wood, Senior Planner Bryce Cox, Planner I Patti White, Executive Asst. of Development Chelsy Houy, P.E.;_Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Standley, LTD. Mr. McElroy called the regular meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. and recognized members present. 2. SEAT ALTERNATE TO ACT IF REQUIRED Mr. McElroy seated Ms. Agee, as a voting member. 3. HEARING OF RESIDENTS 9 Jeffrey Train, 5501 Mid Cities Parkway, :spoke on the variance on tonight's agenda on BOA2013 -008. 4. Minutes for June 24, 2013 meeting. Mr. Dziewit moved to approve the minutes as stated. Mr. Hartzog seconded the motion. Vote was 4 -0. Motion carried. 5. PUBLIC A. BOA 2013 -006 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to Article 9, Section 21.9.7 — Landscaping from the requirement that a twenty foot (20') landscape buffer with trees and shrubs 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') at 711 FM 3009, Ms. Wood presented this item by stating that the 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 is adjacent to a residential use. 1. A variance to Sec. 21.9.7.G with regard to required number of trees and shrubs planted Minutes Board of Adjustment September 23, 2013 Page 1 of 8 within the twenty foot (20') landscape buffer for the entire length of the south property line. A variance to Sec. 21.9.7.H.l.c with regard to the number of trees required to be planted in the planter islands with in the parking lot. A variance to Sec. 21.9.7.112 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 Commercial Recorder" on September 5, 2013 and in the "Herald" on September 12, 2013. There were eleven (11) notices mailed to surrounding property owners on September 12, 2013. At the time of this staff report one response has been received for the proposed request and would like to look at the plan further. The Board of Adjustment previously considered and approved this request by unanimous decision on April 22, 2013. However, in accordance with the UDC a variance is effective for a period of 180 days after the date of approval. During the 180 day period the owner was unable to file for a building permit and the variance will expire on October 22, 2013. The property owner is proposing to construct f feet on the 6.36+ acre tract of land located at tl property is located adjacent to a multi- family seventy -nine feet (79') easements; within these Government Corporation (SSLGC) waterline es which overlap each other by approximately IC and shrubs are prohibited within the within their easement is _prohibited, I These existing easements and restri Unified Development Code (UDC) lar development that is' approximately 41,000 square rner of Ethel and FM 3009. The south side of the it and is encumbered by approximately a thirty foot (30') Schertz Seguin Local ixty foot (60') GVEC Electric easement has indicated that the planting of trees WEC has indicated that planting trees is are permitted within their easement. y owner's ability to comply with the 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 conummity'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 met several times with the property owner and project engineer to discuss the site layout and compliance with the UDC regulations. A site 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 as 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. Minutes Board of Adjustment September 23, 2013 Page 2 of 8 The property is located on the southeast corner of FM 3009 and Elbel Road. 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; 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 than 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 irregular 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,frmn 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 GVF,C, 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 recommends 2013 -006. Mr. McElroy opened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M. Robert Brockman, 1000 Elbe] Road, spoke on a super majority needed to pass items. Ms. Wood stated that all Board of Adjustment cases require 75% of the members to approve or deny and in this case, all four members would need to vote the same. Mr. McElroy closed the public hearing at 6:16 P.M. Mr. Hartzog moved to approve the item. Ms. Agee seconded the motion. Vote was 4 -0. Motion carried. Minutes Board of Adjustment September 23, 2013 Page 3 of 8 B. BOA 2013 -007 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to Article 9, Section 21.9.5(C), Multifamily and Nonresidential Exterior Material Requirements, to allow a variance from the required thirty percent (30 %) windows and doors of the front fagade on the ground level floor, in order to permit a twenty six percent (26 %) coverage of windows and doors on the entire fagade on the ground level floor at 711 FM 3009. Ms. Wood presented this item by stating that the property owner is requesting a variance to the Unified Development Code (UDC), Section 21.9.5 (C) (1) .Exterior Construction and Design Standards with regard to the percentage of windows and doors required to install on the front fagade of the building which requires at least thirty percent (30 %) of the front fagade, on the ground floor level, to consist of windows and doors that allow for visibility into the commercial building or store. The requested variance, if granted will allow for a total of twenty six percent (26 %) of windows and doors ( "glazing "). The requested variance, if approved, will allow for the glazing requirement to be extended to all four sides of the building instead of front fagade only. The public hearing notice was published in "I and in the "Herald" on September 12, 2013. property owners on September 1 received for the proposed request. The property owner is proposing to coi the 6.36+ acre tract of land located at Development Code (U design criteria is to ( pleasing appearance. 7 windows and doors to and doors on a front f install 26% window and rdoors or this case, the requirement for the of the functionality of the buildii located on the perimeter walls, a sunlight and visibility into the stc I At the corner ial Recorder" on September 5, 2013 i (11) notices mailed to surrounding staff report no responses have been 41,000 square foot grocery store on FM 3009. Pursuant to the Unified tion 21.9.5 Exterior Construction and Design Standards the or new construction in order to provide an aesthetically n 21.9.5 (C) (1) requires that 30% of the front fagade shall provide visibility into th'e building. In theory the installation of windows ng storefront) is to provide an inviting aesthetic appearance which clay in a walk- able environment. The applicant is requesting to he all exterior building facades instead of the front fagade only. In /indow and door installation on the front fagade has a direct impact ;. The grocery store has a pharmacy and refrigerated units that are well as, perishable foods such as produce that are impacted by the City staff met with the property owner, engineer, and architect to discuss the building layout and t1DC regulations. As a result of our discussion and review the building plans it was determined that the installation of the windows and doors over the entire building fagade instead of the front fagade does not violate the spirit and intent of the UDC because it does provide for visibility into the building as well as an aesthetic appeal to the entire building instead of the front fagade only. If the variance is granted the result would be the construction of an approximately 41,000 square foot building with 26% windows and doors installed over the entire building fagade. The property is located on the southeast corner of FM 3009 and Elbel Road. According to UDC, Article 3, Sections 21.3.4.C, In order to make a finding of hardship and grant a Minutes Board of Adjustment September 23, 2013 Page 4 of 8 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; The UDC, Section 21.9.5 states that the intent of the design criteria is to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance. The exterior construction of the building will provide 26% of windows and door dispersed on all four sides of the building and provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance in keeping with the spirit and intent of the UDC. 2. Special conditions of restricted area, topography or physical features exits that are irregular to the subject parcel of land and are not applicable to other parcels of land in the same zoning district; Many retail shopping centers depend on a large quantity of windows and doors on the font facade (building storefront) to provide natural light and create an inviting appearance,for a consumer to enter their establishment. In this ctrse, the proposed grocery store is a stand alone building located in commercial zoning district which accommodates various retail uses and due to the nature of the grocery business sunlight andlor, visibility will have a negative impact on their perishable products. Granting this variance does not negatively impact adjacent properties in fact the windows on all side of the building will provide an increased aesthetic value from the solid masonry side walls initially proposed on the site. 3. The hardship is in no of the applicant's own actions; 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 strict enforcement of the exterior construction' and design standards creates an impact on the fimctionality of the building because of the effect on the perishable food products such as produce and cold storage. This impact would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by two other grocery stores located within the same zoning district. 201 Mr. McElroy opened the public hearing at 6:16 P.M. ® Ken Brown, representing the applicant, spoke on the new design and working with Staff on this variance. Mr. McElroy closed the public hearing at 6:22 P.M. Mr. Dziewit asked if this market is a smaller version of a Walmart. Mr. Brown answered that it is known as a neighborhood market, a smaller version and only for groceries and there are 2 under construction in San Antonio. Mr. McElroy asked what is the name or concept of the market. Mr. Brown answered that it is a Walmart Neighborhood Market. Discussion followed between the Board, Staff and the Applicant. Mr. Hartzog moved to approve the item as presented. Mr. Dziewit seconded the motion. Vote was 4- 0. Motion carried. Minutes Board of Adjustment September 23, 2013 Page 5 of 8 C. BOA2013 -008 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a variance to Article 9, Section 7.4 Wall Sign of Ordinance #06 -5 -29 Unified Development Code as amended and adopted by the Verde Enterprise Business Park PUD;(l) to allow an increase in maximum letter /logo height from forty two (42 ") inches to one hundred and ten (110 ") inches; (2) to allow for an increase in the maximum area of a wall sign from eighty (80) square feet to two hundred and fifty (250) square feet, (3) to allow a reduction in the minimum distance a wall sign can be mounted from the cave of the roofline from no closer vertically than the predominant letter height to a minimum distance of two (2 ") inches from the cave of the roofline at 6000 Schertz Parkway. Mr. Cox presented this item by stating that the property owner is requesting three (3) variances to Article IX, Section 7.4 Wall Sign of Ordinance #06 -S -29 Unified Development Code as amended and adopted by the Enterprise Business Park PUD; 1. A variance to allow an increase in maximum letter /logo height from forty two inches (42 ") to one hundred and ten inches (110 "). 2. A variance to allow for an increase in the maximum area of a wall sign from eighty (80) square feet to two hundred and fifty (259) square feet. 3. A variance to allow a reduction in the mi the cave of the roofline from no closer minimum distance of two inches (2") from The public hearing notice was published in "The I and in the "Herald" on September 12,2013. Thei property owners on September 10, 2013. At the received in favor of the request; one (1) reppo responses were received neutral to the request. istance a wall sign can be mounted from than the predominant letter height to a of the roofline at 6000 Schertz Parkway. rnerclal Recorder" on September 5, 2013 arteen;(14) notices mailed to surrounding this staff report two (2) responses were ,ceived opposed to the request; and no The property owner is proposing to install a 250 square foot wall sign mounted two inches from the top of the front building wall at 6000 Schertz Parkway. The 1.3 million square foot warehouse is located on approximately 96 acres and in the Verde Enterprise Business Park. This site is located within a Planned Unit Development,(PUD) zoning district which is regulated by design standards specific to the subdivision as well at the 1996 Unified Development Code (Ordinance 96- S -28). The maximum area allowed for a wall sign is fifteen (15) percent of the wall space or eighty (80) square feet, whichever is less according to the 1996 UDC and Ordinance 06 -S -29. The variance request results in a 170 square foot variance. The current UDC allows for a wall sign to be installed with a maximum area up to 250 sq. ft. in PDD districts with a base zoning of M -1 or M -2. Under the current UDC a sign this size would be permitted. The proposed sign will have a logo height of one hundred and ten inches (110 "). The 1996 UDC allows for a maximum logo or letter height of forty two inches (42 ") for signs located at least three hundred and one feet (301') away from the right -of -way. The request results in the need for a sixty eight (68) inch variance. The current UDC does not contain any previsions about maximum or minimum logo or letter heights for wall signs. Under the current UDC a one hundred and ten (110 ") logo or letter would be permitted. The proposed the sign will be mounted two inches (2 ") from the top of the wall. The 1996 UDC states that wall signs should be no closer to the cave of the roofline than the predominant letter height, forty inches (40 ") in this case. The request results in a need for a thirty eight (38) inch variance per Article Minutes Board of Adjustment September 23, 2013 Page 6 of 8 IX, Section 7A.D. The current UDC has the same vertical placement restrictions for wall signs as the 06 -S -29 UDC. The applicant is requesting the installation of a wall sign that is scaled appropriately for the size of the building. According to UDC, Article 3, Sections 21.3.4.C, In order to make a finding of hardship and grant 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; Article LX of the 1996 UDC 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 Plain. The variance does not violate the intent of the UDC because the subject sign is scaled appropriately for the size of the building that it is being attached to. The requested sign area is approximately .03% of the wall space. Additionally the larger logo and sign placement are necessary to maintain the scale of the sign. The current UDC was amended on August 27, 2013 in order to accommodate larger signs for large scale buildings. The amendment now allows buildings with elevations of at least 300 linear feel to have signs as large as 250 square feet, in manufacturing zoning districts and PDD districts with manufacturing base zoning. 2. Special conditions of restricted area, topography or physical features exists that are irregular to the subject parcel of land and are not applicable to other parcels of land in the same zoning district; The subject property was recently developed with a building that's size and scale requires a sign larger than eighty (80) sq. ft. to maintain an appropriate aesthetic quality. No other parcels of land in this zoning district are currently capable of supporting a building this large, and therefore Mould not need as large of a sign.., 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. Due to the size and scale of the building on the subject property, enforcing a strict 80 square foot ,sign on a building this large would reduce the aesthetics of the building. Other properties, such as 6800 Doerr Lane, with the same base M -1 zoning have constructed two hundred and frfty (250),;sq. ft. signs since the adoption of the wall signs amendment to the UDC. Staff recommends aonroval of BOA 2013 -008. Mr. Stanley, representing the applicant, stated that with the height of the sign, the goal is to balance it between the elevation and the windows features; and the scale of the sign works with the length of the building; and they are requesting one building mounted sign, and are sensitive to their neighbor's concerns. Mr. McElroy opened the public hearing at 6:24 P.M. Robert Brockman, 1000 Elbel Road, spoke on the number of notices sent out and thanked the applicant for asking for the sign variance in advance. Minutes Board of Adjustment September 23, 2013 Page 7 of 8 6. 7. a Jeffrey Train, 5501 Mid Cities Parkway, spoke on being not opposed, but requesting fairness. Mr. McElroy closed the public hearing at 6:37 P.M. Mr. Dziewit asked if it is possible for Mr. Train to meet with Staff. Mr. James answered yes. Mr. McElroy asked if the ordinance had been changed to allow some of the variances before the Board. Ms. Wood answered that the ordinance has been amended for M -1, M -2 and PDD's as development comes in, but since they were vested to an older PDD, the Board would be granting a variance to the PDD. Mr. Hartzog asked if they are allowed additional signs on the building. Ms. Wood answered that one sign is allowed on the front (primary) and 2 additional signs, but this PDD spells out specifically only 1 wall sign. Discussion followed between the Board and Staff. Mr. Hartzog moved to accept this item with all 3 variances as presented. Mr. Dziewit seconded the motion. Vote was 4-0. Motion carried. REQUESTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Requests by Member to place items on a future Board of Adjustment Agenda. ® None B. Announcements by Members ® Mr. Dziewit C. Announcements`by,City ® N The meeting adjourned at Chairman, Board of Minutes Board of Adjustment September 23, 2013 Page 8 of 8 P.M. Recording Secretary, City of Schertz TO: Board of Adjustment THROUGH: Michelle Sanchez, Director of Development Services PREPARED BY: Bryce Cox, Planner I CASE: BOA 2013 -009 Enterprise Industrial Park Lot 2, Block 1 — Glazing REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a variance to the Unified Development Code (UDC), Section 21.9.5 (C) (1) Exterior Construction and Design Standards with regard to the percentage of windows and doors required to install on the front fagade of the building which requires at least fifteen percent (15 %) of the front fagade, on the ground floor level, to consist of windows and doors that allow for visibility into the commercial building or store. The requested variance, if granted will allow for coverage of windows and doors, equal to thirty percent (30 %) of the front fagade, distributed around the entire building fagade on the ground level floor. PUBLIC NOTICE: The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" on November 7, 2013 and in the "Herald" on November 14, 2013. There were three (3) notices mailed to surrounding property owners on November 13, 2013. At the time of this staff report no responses have been received for the proposed request. ITEM SUMMARY: The property owner is proposing to construct an approximately 315,000 square foot office/ warehouse on the 15.3± acre tract of land located north of the intersection of Schertz Parkway and Lookout Road. Pursuant to the Unified Development Code (UDC) Article, 9, Section 21.9.5 Exterior Construction and Design Standards the design criteria is to provide guidelines for new construction in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance. UDC, Section 21.9.5 (C) (1) requires that 15% of the front fagade shall provide windows and doors to provide for visibility into the building. In theory the installation of windows and doors on a front fagade (building storefront) is to provide an inviting aesthetic appearance which allows for innovative window display in a walk- able environment. The applicant is requesting to install windows and doors, equal to thirty percent (30 %) of the front fagade, distributed on all exterior building facades instead of the front fagade only. In this case, the requirement for the window and door installation on the front fagade has a direct impact of the functionality of the building. Glass located on ground level presents a security risk for warehouse type buildings. Additionally high windows that are too large cause uneven day lighting of the building. City staff met with the property owner, engineer, and architect to discuss the building layout and application of the UDC regulations. As a result of our discussion and review the building plans it was determined that the installation of the windows and doors over the entire building fagade instead of the front fagade does not violate the spirit and intent of the UDC because it does provide for visibility into the building as well as an aesthetic appeal to the entire building instead of the front fagade only. If the variance is granted the result would be the construction of an approximately 315,000 square foot building with windows and doors totaling thirty percent (30 %) of the front fagade, installed over the entire building fagade. SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERAL LOCATION ZONING AND LAND USE: The property is located on the southeast corner of FM 3009 and IH -35 Frontage. Existing Zoning Existing Use Liaht Manufacturing Undeveloped 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; The UDC, Section 21.9.5 states that the intent of the design criteria is to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance. The exterior construction of the building will provide windows and doors in the amount of 30% of the front fagade, dispersed on all four sides of the building to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance in keeping with the spirit and intent of the UDC. 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; 2 Existing Zoning Existing Use North Light Manufacturing Undeveloped South Public Right -of- Way Lookout Road East Light Manufacturing Industrial West Liaht Manufacturina Undevelooed 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; The UDC, Section 21.9.5 states that the intent of the design criteria is to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance. The exterior construction of the building will provide windows and doors in the amount of 30% of the front fagade, dispersed on all four sides of the building to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance in keeping with the spirit and intent of the UDC. 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; 2 There are no special conditions that exist that are known. Granting this variance does not negatively impact adjacent properties in fact the windows on all side of the building will provide an increased aesthetic value from the solid masonry side walls initially proposed on the site. 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 strict enforcement of the exterior construction and design standards creates an impact on the functionality of the building because of the affect on the building's security and natural lighting. This impact would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other office warehouse buildings located within the same zoning district. STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of BOA 2013 -009. The request for a variance complies with the approval criteria for granting a variance as presented above. Department Recommendation -Planning X Approve as submitted Approve with conditions* Denial * While the Board can impose conditions; conditions should only be imposed to meet requirements of the UDC. Attachments: Arial map Public hearing notice map Application Exhibits SC /\IR\Z COMMUNITY- SERVICE .OPPORTUNITY ƒ� % ± <0% �. % /. A % � @ 1 e» P 0. � y: � �y+ ot 9' , },u,'le 0 Parcel Boundaries e 0 M� - 119 1-11 LOCATION MAP PROPERTY LINE N60 008' 18 "E 795.25' 11 /\ SITE PLAN / FLOOR PLAN T R U E P L A N NORTH NORTH 0 20' 40' 80' PRELIMINARY DRAWING Terry Palmer #16751 10.1 .13 PROJECT 1 � 1 %dusirmial �ark 1 LOCATION Schertz Texas CLIENT PROJECT NUMBER 1322 DRAWN BY REVIEWED BY DATE 10.15.13 SHEET NUMBER BEATY PALMER ARCHITECTS VICINITY MAP CITY PUBLIC SERVICE NOTES: ,5 m t -SINE ( BEARING ". .e,= a RdHNe= .. =r m." AR S,, , — 1- 15, w, n.. "°.- m..,=. 1. MATCHLINE SEE, 2 OF FACAP LOOKOUT ROAD 5 60' ROWI OF 15, PC 227 It R C i IN r LOT 1 20' WATER x a I'd 1.5—IN Y1111 -ssl� BILK. 1 SEWER EASEMENT ,,. " I 109.072 ACRES � iL� \ �'• If E ISO, aI , e. n =,nc c N6,. ,n 11h DETAIL #3 THIS h o Y i.f?ST ry '„ .r� - m om GC OI' b=vn NI "1 ­ I'S (1 - It LINE TABLE _UNE LENGM BEARING -SINE LENGM BEARING ". .e,= a RdHNe= .. =r m." AR S,, , — 1- 15, w, n.. "°.- m..,=. MATCHLINE SEE, 2 OF FACAP LOOKOUT ROAD 5 60' ROWI OF 15, PC 227 It R n elccI IN HOLDS, LOT 1 20' WATER x a - BILK. 1 SEWER EASEMENT ,,. " I 109.072 ACRES I. SEE EASEMENT . ". a . DETAIL #3 THIS h o Y ry '„ SHEET. 1 NI "1 125 2fad UP g .. N80'O8'i8 "E 7 05.25 L„ i^ I "'F— MY .11 111CLACA LOS CLON. IN � INGRESS - EGRESS EASEMENT ,) A I /ARIAHLE 1VIDTH INCCBS- EGRESS EASEFIEPIT A. US I�I 11 ' VIAIE, °II A 1IUA`N CA-1 IEASEMENT III °I DO I ME IT i — - vnewocE wlmry as� I4�s �I °. LASESS-Erreer; EASEMENIT �- I FAlm _ III 2O' WATER t WER EASENEUT t DLO q Z— W BILK. 1 15.328 ACRES .I 111 11 Ad AAIAMLE IDTR � _ w WNGRESS- Z 1 PI I„ DUBAI S "I LS,IN y '`II m _1�i 20 D'—SURSO RULE Dh 00 ] g. I) �rES" AN w- MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 3 OF 5 I�. D a10EEII e ENT »FTT,TLT],TB/ 1IA. III IIND, LANE O RHAPSODIC CHAD FIRE NIl.aAL°N PLAT CONFORMS IN A' REULIBIT,FHEENTS THE `SUSHO� ECVUn°xs IF THE BUY US SENERTZ Az TO AFTER INS APPROVAL RESTRFD. IRS PLAT OF ENTERPRISE THI OF Ill. O=RILCPUENT EACNP A DP➢ARn1ENT All `G°uEamT °A NAOVina" AIR DATED III DAY OF NAM AT DDECIANY PLEE M PURPOS`OF z E AMENDMENT IS TO ACCOUNT THE LOP L NE CAPACITY LOT , VARIABLE WIDTH UTUTY EASEMENT ccll_� f. ..+ o`. yln Rt50NCy�� ULUT( AN. .BASE EASEMENT f . I I I .e,= a RdHNe= .. =r m." AR S,, , — 1- 15, w, n.. "°.- m..,=. MATCHLINE SEE, 2 OF FACAP LOOKOUT ROAD 5 60' ROWI OF 15, PC 227 It R n elccI LOT 1 20' WATER x a - BILK. 1 SEWER EASEMENT ,,. " I 109.072 ACRES I. SEE EASEMENT . ". a . DETAIL #3 THIS h o Y ry '„ SHEET. 1 N60'OB't B "E- I G .. N80'O8'i8 "E 7 05.25 L„ i^ I "'F— 20' / /A7,R If SEAR EASEMENT I Las`1, usanDTaE T_ o, no -1 L - -t�—r II 1 �e — VAAIFBLE CLEW INGRESS - EGRESS EASEMENT ,) A I /ARIAHLE 1VIDTH INCCBS- EGRESS EASEFIEPIT A. I�I 11 ' VIAIE, °II ;p I g II IEASEMENT III °I DO I ME IT i — - vnewocE wlmry as� I4�s �I °. LASESS-Erreer; EASEMENIT i � I FAlm _ III 2O' WATER t WER EASENEUT t DLO q is jL W BILK. 1 15.328 ACRES .I W I IRI AAIAMLE IDTR � _ w WNGRESS- Z 1 PI I„ I EGRESS LASEMENT S "I LS,IN y '`II m 1 IN I Dh g. I) �rES" I "� 1 e SEE EASEMENT I 35'I e a,h ` DETAIL #4 THIS SHEET. IIII,," /ARTICLE I AIIDTI I I1G RE_s 0A_ [MENT n LIENT I III UI IILA niI I III OF INYCIAAA� DRIVE V VEHICULAR UA R9. ]. Pace. NON- ACCESS - -5 eVB t9`W 795. JrEA— SEMENT _ —_ ^SOL ITT 8 ssonA'v w -- vFRIARIe wloiH 6 �' NGRS� EGRESS EAILINTA li ssona']rw --H" E A'g1 LI,ID 14 � -- N60'OS' }i nE - I l k 1111 TTY � To RAI {ACC dJ - L- -L - - - -�— 57734'---- 25'RVIL- SETBACK - - -_` EAS[�neNi 7,1 - - -- - -- Tos n3' -- L L1 KOlR6�' ®�I� I / at. TN! 897.69 Access - -60 - A ACCESS CCC -POINT -- POINT #'2 N1 �1 � S6q:"AjD�D. 7.34'` DEDICATION K' PICK FAIND //, I a RmAa FOUND r R Ed 1 MTL _ T - dTw H . A RAUN (1.t9 ACRES)- S P¢ R SANITARY REAREA EAEUMwT 11:1, STI s. ci° MF,aHM'A.FM T .P saner 9 ICEMAN -' B, JaUL'pRRS N pE 'C T A SCARCER OAP FAIR MW A. Ntt eu9 Es FICATI5 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 3 OF 5 I�. D a10EEII e ENT »FTT,TLT],TB/ 1IA. III IIND, LANE O RHAPSODIC CHAD FIRE NIl.aAL°N PLAT CONFORMS IN A' REULIBIT,FHEENTS THE `SUSHO� ECVUn°xs IF THE BUY US SENERTZ Az TO AFTER INS APPROVAL RESTRFD. IRS PLAT OF ENTERPRISE THI OF Ill. O=RILCPUENT EACNP A DP➢ARn1ENT All `G°uEamT °A NAOVina" AIR DATED III DAY OF NAM AT DDECIANY PLEE M PURPOS`OF z E AMENDMENT IS TO ACCOUNT THE LOP L NE CAPACITY LOT , VARIABLE WIDTH UTUTY EASEMENT ccll_� f. ..+ o`. yln Rt50NCy�� ULUT( AN. .BASE EASEMENT f . I I I MAN I --- FACAP LOOKOUT ROAD 60' ROWI OF 15, PC 227 It R n elccI 11L 1. INI 111 Mi STATE OF TANAR CWNtt fF BIXAR I PRINTI CE9nrY THAT TIRE A3°VE PLAT CWmgCS N Ill rA IARDS NET FMM 9r . rE%AS ooUSA OF sL�A ` '"Dxo o mEFR ACTUAL UP TRAGABO : OTIFF C cDN ca RIEO5ES RORS3s nu INN ANAVEYDR ND. ,95] A' OF IIXA, COUNTS OF eIXAR 1. THE UNDM q TE A ROTESCAUDAL PLANNER CLATE CCOONSIDEEVRAnnI DAN BEELLLIPPER TRIP ILACY NC s=R F. uxry a PADFFSoxAl. wANExA No. E]B]D 0 1 9 35'1 LEGEND T CAN RAILROAD CRACK CEI CNIL ENGINEERING CON6ULTANI9 DON BURDEN, INC. 11650 9AN NA wwl, BWIB GIW Bn B TBxeB TG2G0 T.k OBI. Sp.61IBBBi Fee zaeataaa0 Ertalf wedreelMaBBIBZmmm PREPARED 07 -09 -13 GRAPHIC SCALE (AN HET) 1 BUSH - 300 It EASEMENT DETAIL CITY, PC HAPPLATILD I (v£) — °NDR5 m, 6x owNE MS, DF ME FAST sxOVM oN THIS Pur All DECIIATET PEAR; AS m°TEFE.RNPSE NDUSTRAL PARR ICBgNAON ro nE an CF Is suOWRµAm HERS µII °EDG1E FOR ME °CE.1.1 INATTN FPODRCAPUCSrs LAYS . cWREES. PIA FR n USA &AP.L TMwEON INDUAT FDR THE PROPOSE ANN ,'A, PLA a -Ott COMPANY ED DISK PCONSCAPT MANAUSIONECATT, ,L. ZA 11 SU IE ST. A-SUCAUSBUIC IBM 87120 nn£ PRINT MOSEA NAME: ANN l ARO a uucFA AS N °i GUAA.ILN RWE�E TPE UNTEASC+.ET ATTx°Rn CH xow`STDAY uIXSwuuY wE TO CA THE PEASOx PLANE NICE s S YPERN°m r0 m0 FG¢EOauO rsTHU T rcxbMf➢OE IN ME CHAT THEY THE s L FDIC TxE vVRVOSES nxo co.9Twlnwrs PLANE' DER UYHAND NDII.FUPMINORFLUID MAY DA GENERAL NOTES: THE TRANSIT I All. n,E UP EAR ML. LAN PU ME EEP A ROW INSURANCE RATE MAP ABDIIIIIII ME CLASSIC CAP P F TIE AN Y AT CUABEEN REARED TO REFLECT LAIR EvFERIVE Al 1A, ADD sE`UND A FINNISH AT THIS ADDIS IF SCOPE All CITRUS s A NotALCI w UTY, AAA s aEPLVU AN ANO sw.RCT iD TINED AND Inmx°r➢xc OF NRTAUIm NC AEG MLL BE ALLDNID TO CONSTRUCT TR vM'AY ENTRANCES AT ACCESS PANT /1 AND ACCESS FRONT AL ACROSS MANAGE AND TRULY EASEMENT. 4 ALL SOMALI AREAS. LEES LUR SPACE, ixo o6uxAD. E EASEIws ARE TIE reESeoNEB HIP" o, FRE oEMBDPm S nSSCxm I RDDDPU x PANT x111 HE REw RED DESIRE ANY CTNna°Cnox DAN BEAR. cLCBFOEPSEuPf°e' T ISUET w»xx UPS Io-YEAR CLANNISH BERAnT PAIIAHNY Iwa 7, YUBLAMBLE LOTS 2 SURVEY NOTES, 1 oxTUwrnn°N As sxanT. ioElmES A AC ASEAN ANN A rcP PLASnc LAP FOONB. kisw°TAN A R' PERAS PoM'CIA' PusnO TAP EST u( REP ) '. m°MILLACHAN aF ID FIDELITY ME R PC. V�L..ANN 11 TRI a. 3 ALI' ITC TRACT A' 'ADD DESPISED IN I UP DID B. I CROP LEAMILD, RURAL COUNTY, ISLAS -IiL of ISSUE anvnwPE counTV Owns E. PRO` TEfr CONRAD GIAOAWPE N'TICCOTEAAS ra'N AMENDED PLAT ESTABLISHING ENTERPRISE INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBD IMSION m mPe INE Ro m I v, m, IA e1 Nam. coma cWA,v T� eB S'B of o00n�eis] B,a , r A a a..=.IRm'., Viu "e CAB II= nB a n, a ae o1 m A IU M:_"Ia a "I Maume ]sR aqe ns ma Ill-. ]]I, w m m. o..e a.=wm. C„ma'SLIF,. CCAIM Mme eu, A, u,. MKrn,. ul:n.q alr w, 00 o a anNO,n o cnn nr a mtaI INC, 1nm< CON n 9=1I =°e11 wnd coons` Tai HANT Mada, CRYPTIC. b. z0, eCRN Oe nC LA T n ns r If me s — survey IS s AW m= ETW2 OF TF%A, C Y OF CAUL uLAPP of sA oox UP wTmv Dmnw PLAT m s Pur E F m°a0 Ix r T>PEr of TPE s.a OW 1Y P IN TESTIMONY AN ME_ M AND DEAL a< DFECE FUN THE DAY F A - 1] SHEET 5 OF CASE NUMBER­ . ......... Board of Adjustment may trait variances or modifications aiions of height, yard, art s, coverage, parking regulations., accessory building and non- confonraing use subject to making a frading of hardship that the variance meets all four of the following criteria. State how your request meets these conditions, Drequest: * . r seeking' a variance from the provisions 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 o F land in the sairie coning districts? 0 Yes E No 1 ^.11dicw There are rho- .c al conditions ,%a .ern that .:; are known. 1 Is the hardship the result of the applicant's own actions car intended for financial interest? 11 Yes IM No therefore requesting approval for an _alternative facade design treatment. 4, Woudd granting this variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the value of property ill the Vicinity? Yes EO Na I? jilaitrt:_'S' 1,1't , , an , r r.meffect on the tab1ic tLg1 a are or j2pe -rt' Printed Name: 7�eKry LLW Palmer Date prepared . � 0"-"1-'5--2'01"3"- 16 Variance ihcsklis8 Page 2 (312 City of Schertz Variance Checklist Attachment: Description of Variance Request Re: Lot 2, Block 1, Enterprise Industrial Park Subdivision: Request for a Variance from the provisions of City of Schertz Uniform Development Code, Section 21.9.5.0 - Multifamily and Non Residential Exterior Material. On behalf of our Client, WR Lookout Road LLC, we are respectfully requesting a minor variance from the requirements of Section 21.9.5.0 - Multifamily and Non Residential Exterior Material Requirements that stipulates that industrial buildings located within the M- 1 and M -2 zoning districts have fifteen percent (15 %) of the front facade as windows and doors that allow for visibility into the building. In order to satisfy section 21.9.5.0 for 15% windows and storefronts, the approximately 19,085 SF front facade of the proposed industrial office - warehouse distribution building is required to have approximately 2,862 SF of windows and storefronts. For this variance, we are requesting approval for an alternative facade design that redistributes the required front facade window area around the building on all four elevations in lieu of limiting the windows to the front facade. For the variance, we are requesting approval to provide approximately 5,796 SF of windows and storefronts distributed around each side of the proposed building, or approximately 30% coverage as a percentage of the front facade. 6 ft. x 6 ft. windows are proposed to be placed high to allow natural light into the building and concentrations of aluminum and glass storefronts and entrances will be provided at each building corner and at mid points on each dock side of the building where people will enter the building. In our view, this alternative variance scheme is arguably more compatible with the functional use of this project and allows for better day - lighting of the entire building interior without compromising the exterior facade appearance. The amount of vision glass for the applicant's preferred variance request scheme exceeds that of the base -line code compliant scheme with fifteen percent glass coverage on the front facade by over four hundred square feet. Thank you for considering our request! TO: Board of Adjustment THROUGH: Michelle Sanchez, Director of Development Services PREPARED BY: Bryce Cox, Planner I CASE: BOA 2013 -010 - H.E.B. — Wall Signs SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to Article 11, Section 21.11.9, Wall Signs, (a) to allow a sign variance to exceed the allowed number of primary wall signs of one (1) sign per building, in order to permit two (2) primary wall signs; (b) to allow a ninety four (94) square foot variance to exceed the two hundred and fifty (250) square foot maximum sign area for a primary wall sign in an area with limited access in order to permit two (2) three hundred and forty four (344) square foot primary wall signs; and (c) to allow a variance to exceed the one (1) sign per wall with a maximum of three (3) wall signs allowed, in order to permit nine (9) signs on the primary wall with a maximum of eleven (11) wall signs at 17460 IH -35 North. Owner: H.E. Butt Grocery Co. Applicant: Comet Signs, LLC Engineer: Bury-San, Inc. Authorized Agent: HEB Grocery Co., Kurt Vandewalle REQUEST: HEB Grocery Co. is requesting three (3) variances to Article 11, Section 21.11.9, Wall Signs, of the current Unified Development Code; 1. A variance to allow an increase in the number of primary wall signs to exceed the allowed one (1) sign per building, in order to permit the addition of a second primary wall sign. 2. A variance to allow a ninety four (94) square foot increase in the maximum sign area for a primary wall sign in an area with limited access of two hundred and fifty (250) square feet, in order to permit the construction of two (2), three hundred and forty four (344) square foot primary wall signs. 3. A variance to allow eight (8) additional wall signs to exceed the one (1) sign per wall with a maximum of three (3) wall signs allowed, in order to permit nine (9) signs per wall with a maximum of eleven (11) wall signs. PUBLIC NOTICE: The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" on November 7, 2013 and in the "Herald" on November 14, 2013. There were fifty two (52) notices mailed to surrounding property owners on November 13, 2013. At the time of this staff report one (1) response was received in favor of the request; no responses were received opposed to the request; and no responses were received neutral to the request. ITEM SUMMARY: The property owner is proposing to expand the existing grocery store at 17460 IH -35 North by constructing an addition that is approximately 52,850 square feet, creating a 137,680 square foot building. With the expansion of the building the property owner is proposing new signage which consists of eleven (11) wall signs totaling approximately 1,304 square feet. In the proposed sign package, two signs exceed the maximum area for a wall sign. The sign package proposed contains the following signs: • Two "H.E.B. Plus" primary wall signs at 343.4 square feet each; proposed front fagade. • One "Pharmacy" secondary wall sign at 59.57 square feet; proposed front fagade. • One "Fresh Foods" secondary wall sign at 58.72 square feet; proposed front fagade. • Two "Cafe Mueller H.E.B." secondary wall signs at 50.83 square feet each; proposed front fagade. • Two "Texas Backyard" secondary wall signs at 41.97 square feet and 31.66 square feet; proposed front fagade. • One "IBC Bank" secondary wall sign at 45 square feet; proposed front fagade. • One "H.E.B. Plus" secondary wall sign at 182.84 square feet; proposed west fagade. • One "HEB drive -thru Pharmacy" secondary wall sign at 95.45 square feet; proposed west fagade. Currently the Unified Development Code allows for one primary wall sign, which can have an area no greater than 250 sgft, and two secondary wall signs which can be no larger than 75% of the primary wall sign. Additionally the code permits only one wall sign per wall. The first variance request if approved would allow for the addition of the second "H.E.B. Plus" primary wall sign. The second variance request if approved would allow both of the "H.E.B. Plus" primary wall signs to exceed the current maximum wall sign area and allow the proposed 344 sgft signs. Section 21.11.9.13 of the UDC provides that the maximum sign area for a wall sign in an area with limited access is 15% of the fagade area or 250 sgft, which ever is less. The proposed building length with the expansion is 504 feet with a front fagade area of approximately 13,430 sqft. Each of the two proposed "H.E.B. Plus" primary wall signs are equal to 2.6% of the front fagade area. The third variance request if approved would allow the addition of eight wall signs, 1 primary and 7 secondary, to the front fagade and the addition of a secondary sign to the west fagade. This would amount to nine total signs being placed on the front fagade and two signs being placed on the west or side fagade. Section 21.11.9.13 of the UDC provides that the maximum number of signs permitted for a single occupancy building is one (1) sign per wall with a maximum of three (3) signs. The total area for the proposed front fagade signage is approximently1,026 sgft, which is about 7.6% of the front fagade area. The total area for the proposed west fagade signage is approximately 279sgft, which is about 6% of the west facing fagade area. The building currently has six (6) signs located on the front and west fagade. SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERAL LOCATION. ZONING AND LAND USE: The subject property is located at the intersection of FM 3009 and IH -35 Frontage. Existing Zoning Existing Use General Business (GB) Retail 2 Existing Use Retail Single Family Residential FM 3009 Retail 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; Section 21.11.9 of the current UDC 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 does not violate the intent of the UDC because the wall signage is scaled appropriately for the size of the building that it is being attached to. The request for larger and an additional primary wall sign assist with designating a second entrance/ exit of the building and maintains the fagade symmetry. The additional signs requested provide direction and information to customers to assist them in where various items are located. The requested sign area represents approximately 7.6% of the front fagade wall and approximately 6% of the west wall. 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 subject property has proposed an expansion to the building that's size and scale requires larger signage in order to maintain an appropriate aesthetic quality. The proposed expansion creates a wall area which requires larger and a greater number of signs to convey the business name and products and services available. 3. The hardship is in no way the result of the applicant's own actions; or The request for more and larger signs comes from the need to expand to service the community's needs. 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. Due to the size and scale of the building on the subject property, enforcing the current UDC requirements on a building this large would greatly reduce the aesthetics of the building. Smaller buildings are allowed signs that can be equal to 15% of the front fagade. STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of BOA 2013 -010. The request for a variance complies with the approval criteria for granting a variance as presented above. Existing Zoning North General Business (GB South Single Family Residential I East Public Right -of -Way West General Business (GB Existing Use Retail Single Family Residential FM 3009 Retail 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; Section 21.11.9 of the current UDC 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 does not violate the intent of the UDC because the wall signage is scaled appropriately for the size of the building that it is being attached to. The request for larger and an additional primary wall sign assist with designating a second entrance/ exit of the building and maintains the fagade symmetry. The additional signs requested provide direction and information to customers to assist them in where various items are located. The requested sign area represents approximately 7.6% of the front fagade wall and approximately 6% of the west wall. 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 subject property has proposed an expansion to the building that's size and scale requires larger signage in order to maintain an appropriate aesthetic quality. The proposed expansion creates a wall area which requires larger and a greater number of signs to convey the business name and products and services available. 3. The hardship is in no way the result of the applicant's own actions; or The request for more and larger signs comes from the need to expand to service the community's needs. 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. Due to the size and scale of the building on the subject property, enforcing the current UDC requirements on a building this large would greatly reduce the aesthetics of the building. Smaller buildings are allowed signs that can be equal to 15% of the front fagade. STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of BOA 2013 -010. The request for a variance complies with the approval criteria for granting a variance as presented above. Department Recommendation -Planning X Approve as submitted Approve with conditions* Denial * While the Board can impose conditions; conditions should only be imposed to meet requirements of the UDC. Attachments: Aerial & Public hearing notice map Public Hearing responses Correspondence Exhibits p�� N's A, F�3 2 Aso °L° sa'o°`'� 5001 con (41 00) L Opp RD a 30 lQ3g 3008 (121722) 5000 BAPTIST ra a 2 ° ms's sa+ Fpm HEALTH DR s 3�g1 0 y �t� p�� N's A, F�3 Aso (134186) 17460 N IH 35 y �t� 23380 An 345h62 Da 34.409 r d) N r I r tlJ m 56-5,318" 351-01/6', MIUMM FACES: 2662 KED. TPIMS: PEP. PETUPNS: MATCH FACES. ELECTRICAL VKAVe CAW[ on .... y f .063" ALUMINUM 14 SCREWS TO RETURN PLY FOOD BACKER CSR TOGGLE ALUMINUM f RETAINER RED L.E.D. LIGHTING —� .063" ALUMINUM— BACK x- 3116" ACRYLIC FACE LED POWER SUPPLY SWITCH CH SWITCH DRAIN HOLE- FASTENERS BUILDING FASCIA AS REQUIRED H-E-B Face Channel Letter Section Not To Scale FACES: 2662 KED. TPIMS: PEP. PETUPNS: MATCH FACES. ELECTRICAL VKAVe CAW[ on .... y f I i i� Ca 1.2 I A V l 4 j I 26' -2112" 25,,0" ED �131usn 2648 PLEX 7326 PLEX Scale: 3/8" = 14' 9" .063" ALUMINUM RETURN DISCONNECT SWITCH ALUMINUM RETAINER L.E.D. LIGHTING ,Ui P L. E. D. POWER SUPPLY .063" ALUMINUM BACK 3/16" ACRYLIC FACE APPROVED - -- ELECTRICAL DRAIN HOLE - -- PRIMARY BOX LEAD BUILDING FASCIA :FASTENERS AS REQUIRED 2 ®f 10 a� e sitterre' nv vv volts - amps- Em 5&72" E > FACES: 7328 WHITE. TRIMS: TDD, PETURNC%TI3.D. LED: WHITE. 4n� 0 1/1, CTRICAL DRAK 3,5 AMPS, - CIFCUIT DKCAKFKL (1)2f -AMP s VOLTS,, 120, -4 - Nil PHA MACY: 2648 OLLIE PLEX RX AND DRIVE -THRU: 2662 RED PLEX H-E-13 OVAL: 7328 WHITE PLEX WITH VINYLAPPLIED GRAPHIC5. f 3-1 .040" ALUMINUM . El ECTRICAL VrAW,,12..oAMV5, e rfkCUtT 0KEAKFF,, (1) 20-AMP - VOLT5; '120, No[] 2662 PLEX 2648 FLEX 7328 FLEX DISCONNECT SWITCH JUMP L.E.D. POWER SUPPLY PPROVED ELECTRICAL PRIMARY BOX LEAD -FASTENERS AS REQUIRED =GKM = amps 20 mmp .1r.ult. PACES: 7328 WHITE. TRIMS: T.D.D. PETUPN5:T.I3.P. 2662 FLEX LED: WHITE.. Em 5&72" E > FACES: 7328 WHITE. TRIMS: TDD, PETURNC%TI3.D. LED: WHITE. 4n� 0 1/1, CTRICAL DRAK 3,5 AMPS, - CIFCUIT DKCAKFKL (1)2f -AMP s VOLTS,, 120, -4 - Nil PHA MACY: 2648 OLLIE PLEX RX AND DRIVE -THRU: 2662 RED PLEX H-E-13 OVAL: 7328 WHITE PLEX WITH VINYLAPPLIED GRAPHIC5. f 3-1 .040" ALUMINUM . El ECTRICAL VrAW,,12..oAMV5, e rfkCUtT 0KEAKFF,, (1) 20-AMP - VOLT5; '120, No[] 2662 PLEX 2648 FLEX 7328 FLEX DISCONNECT SWITCH JUMP L.E.D. POWER SUPPLY PPROVED ELECTRICAL PRIMARY BOX LEAD -FASTENERS AS REQUIRED =GKM = amps 20 mmp .1r.ult. MFG. & INSTALL: TWO (2) SETS OF INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED FRONT LIT CHANNEL LETTERS w/ FLEX FACES wl VINYL OVERLAY COPY TO READ: " CAFE MUELLER HEB" ALL LETTERS TO BE L.E.D. w/ 3" DEPTH,w TRIMCAPS, RETURNS TO BE PAINTED THE COLOR OF THE FACES. SCALE: 314"= V-0" PMS 172M Ell 25% BLACK 11 20% BLACK 11111 n0mril N r > r m r c� �Y Gill m a r r 8'°3 3/4!' I 2- !I VVI Z, 1014 An 11� Proymn, ECTRICAL CrkAiM:.0AMP5. ClMAT ORFAKM (1 ) 20-A M€ VOLM 120. volts ELECTRICAL VKAMTAD, • CIRCUITEIREMER: (1) 20 -AMF * VOLTS:'3'e.0, E 3„ . .640' ALUMINUM RETURN T- JEWELITE TRIM m c— DISCONNECT SWITCH JUMP L.E.D. POWER: SUPPLY w ON NEW 5TOKE FRONT' Kw 4M SM FT. FIELD SURVEY REQUI EP R EXACT PI E ION EXISTING PRILDINO ARE& $4,837 Sid. Ft PROPOSED BUILDING ARM 138,921 961, FT, ", SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS STORE (SALES FlAOR): 132,717 SF LEASE SPACE: 1.010 SF MEZZANINE 5,134 SF TOT' STORE: 139,421 SF Scale: 3/128 1' -0" t)' 12' 24' 3b' / � M l... #..: .: Ara 563.40 On *3:40 90e Ft Cu 102.84 OM ft On 59.57 99. FT En 6b.72 S& FT. Do 95,45 Off. Ft On 50.83 G& ft No M83 SQ, FT, In 41.97" SM FC,.. J" 31:06 on. Fa Km 45 . FT. Scale: 3/128 1' -0" t)' 12' 24' 3b' / � M l... #..: .: A rlyl ' 11 Am 54&40 SGT, FT. On 345,40 90. FT, Cm 182A4 96L FT. � 59.57 SM FT. Em 68.72 Sa, FT. Fa 95.45 Sid, Ft on 00.03 SQ. Ft mg Mob S& Ft In 41,97 SM Fr. . Ja 51.60 91% Ft Ka 45.00 SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS STORE (SOLES FLOOR): 132,717 SF LEASE 5 -ACE: 1,010 5F 61 EZZANNEI 5:134 SF TOTN_ STORE: 138,921 SF 11 ♦+ vww j SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS STORE (SALES: ROOR): 132:]1. SF LEASE SPACE: 1:010 SF MEZZANINE 5.134 SF TOTAL STORE: 13 5,921 SF CMD amps s . An 545A0 SM tat Be 543A0 90, FT. `m IM84 SQ. FT. on 59.57 SM Ft Em 58.72 SM FT. . Fe 95.48 SQ. °T. On 50hS S& Ft No UM83 SQ, In 41W SQ. IFT. Ju 31,60 SQ. FT, Kw 45.00 OM FT. SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS STORE (SALES: ROOR): 132:]1. SF LEASE SPACE: 1:010 SF MEZZANINE 5.134 SF TOTAL STORE: 13 5,921 SF CMD amps s . SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS STORE (SALES FLOOR): 132,717 SF LEASE SPACE: 11010 SF MEZZANINE: 5,134 SF TOTAL STORE: 138,921 SF I; 1 r' t CASE NUMBER )3 0'j} a O 1 3" O I D 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. Des 1. Does the requested variance violate the intent of the Unified Development Code or deprive the applicant of tight commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district that comply with the same provisions? ❑ Yes F.No 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? JZ Yes ❑ No 3. Is the hardship the result of the applicant's own actions or intended for financial interest? ❑ Yes 0,No 4. Would granting this variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the value of property in the vicinity? ❑ Yes P-No Preparces Signature: � �`2 � Printed Name: ' ✓�!�/z %� U G/ �� /��C.' �� Date prepared: l f <;:? 'J 16 -Variance Checklist updx lam Page 2 of 2 Schertz, Texas Variance for HEB wall mount signage: Chapter 11 sec. 21.11.9 allows 15% of the facade or 250 sq. ft. Whichever is less. Sign A: 94 Sq. ft. Sign B: 343.40 Sq. ft. Sign C: 182.84 Sq. ft. Sign D: 59.57 Sq. ft. Sign E: 58.72 Sq. ft. Sign F: 95.45 Sq. ft. Sign G: 50.83 Sq. ft. Sign H: 50.83 Sq. ft. Sign I: 41.97 Sq. ft. Sign 1: 31.66 Sq. ft. Sign K: 45.00 Sq. ft. Total :1054.27 Comet Signs, LLC MANUFACTURE , INSTALL , REPAIR 235 W. TURBO <SAN ANTONIO, TX 78216 -a (210) 341 -7244 y FAX (210) 341 -7279 Pv Y1 ui, L 01 n e i, i q R S. c9 dti TO: Board of Adjustment THROUGH: Michelle Sanchez, Director of Development Services PREPARED BY: Bryce Cox, Planner I CASE: BOA 2013 -011 - H.E.B. — Pole Signs SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to Article 11, Section 21.11.10, Freestanding Ground Signs, (a) to allow an eight foot (8') variance to exceed the maximum height for a freestanding ground sign in an area with limited access on IH -35 North of fifty feet (50') in order to permit a fifty eight foot (58') tall freestanding ground sign; (b) to allow a three hundred and twenty one (321) square foot variance to exceed the maximum sign area for a freestanding ground sign in an area with limited access on IH -35 North of two hundred and fifty (250) square feet in order to permit a five hundred and seventy one (571) square foot freestanding ground sign; (c) to allow a twelve foot (12') variance to exceed the maximum height for a freestanding ground sign on FM 3009 of eighteen feet (18') in order to permit a thirty foot (30') tall freestanding ground sign; and (d) to allow a one hundred and seventy (170) square foot variance to exceed the maximum sign area for a freestanding ground sign on FM 3009 of ninety (90) square feet in order to permit a two hundred and sixty (260) square foot freestanding ground sign at 17460 IH -35 North. GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: HEB Grocery Co. is requesting four (4) variances to Article 11, Section 21.11.10, Freestanding Ground Signs, of the current Unified Development Code; 1. To allow an eight foot (8') variance to exceed the maximum height for a freestanding ground sign in an area with limited access on IH -35 North of fifty feet (50') in order to permit a fifty eight foot (58') tall freestanding ground sign; 2. To allow a three hundred and twenty one (321) square foot variance to exceed the maximum sign area for a freestanding ground sign in an area with limited access on IH -35 North of two hundred and fifty (250) square feet in order to permit a five hundred and seventy one (571) square foot freestanding ground sign; 3. To allow a twelve foot (12) variance to exceed the maximum height for a freestanding ground sign on FM 3009 of eighteen feet (18') in order to permit a thirty foot (30) tall freestanding ground sign; and 4. To allow a one hundred and seventy (170) square foot variance to exceed the maximum sign area for a freestanding ground sign on FM 3009 of ninety (90) square feet in order to permit a two hundred and sixty (260) square foot freestanding ground sign. PUBLIC NOTICE: The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" on November 7, 2013 and in the "Herald" on November 14, 2013. There were fifty two (52) notices mailed to surrounding property owners on November 13, 2013. At the time of this staff report one (1) response was received in favor of the request; no responses were received opposed to the request; and no responses were received neutral to the request. ITEM SUMMARY: The property owner is proposing to expand the existing grocery store at 17460 IH -35 North by constructing an addition that is approximately 52,850 square feet, creating a 137,680 square foot building. With the expansion of the building the property owner is proposing an addition to the current freestanding signs. With the rebranding of the store to an "HEB Plus" the applicant is requesting an increase of 14.61 square feet to the existing freestanding ground sign on FM 3009 and an increase of 40.43 square feet to the existing freestanding ground sign on IH -35 frontage. The existing signs are not in compliance with the current UDC and a variance will need to be granted in order to allow for the requested sign increases. The existing free standing ground sign on IH -35 frontage is fifty eight feet (58') tall and has a sign area of approximately five hundred and eighty two (582) square feet. The current UDC allows for a maximum height of fifty feet (50) and a maximum area of two hundred and fifty (250) square feet for freestanding ground signs in areas with limited access. The applicants request involves removing a blank sign cabinet with an area of fifty two (52) square feet from the pole and enlarging the top HEB cabinet by 40.43 square feet to include the word "plus ". The granting of a variance will result in an approximate reduction of 11.5 square feet to the existing freestanding ground sign on IH -35 Frontage. The existing free standing ground sign on FM 3009 is thirty feet (30') tall and has a sign area of approximately two hundred and forty five (245) square feet. The current UDC allows for a maximum height of eighteen feet (18') and a maximum area of ninety (90) square feet for freestanding ground signs on FM 3009. The applicant is requesting to add the word "plus" to the top HEB cabinet which will increase the sign's total area by 14.61 square feet. The granting of this variance will result in a 14.61 square foot addition to the freestanding ground sign on FM 3009. SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERAL LOCATION, ZONING AND LAND USE: The subject property is located at the intersection of FM 3009 and IH -35 Frontage. Existing Zoning ( Existing Use General Business (GB) Retail SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: 2 Existing Use Retail Single Family Residential FM 3009 Retail 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; Section 21.11 .9 of the current UDC 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 does not violate the intent of the UDC. The signs are already in existence and there is a total net increase in sign area of approximately three (3) square feet. 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; No special conditions exist. 3. The hardship is in no way the result of the applicant's own actions; or The request for larger signs comes from the need to expand to service the community's needs. 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. Due to the size and scale of the current freestanding ground signs on the subject property, enforcing the current UDC requirements on these free standing ground signs would greatly reduce the aesthetics of the sign by making the logo disproportionate. Other properties in the area within the same zoning district have freestanding ground signs that have a height greater than what is allowed by the current UDC. STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of BOA 2013 -011. The request for a variance complies with the approval criteria for granting a variance as presented above. Department Recommendation Existing Zoning North General Business (GB South Single Family Residential l East Public Right -of -Way West General Business (GB Existing Use Retail Single Family Residential FM 3009 Retail 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; Section 21.11 .9 of the current UDC 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 does not violate the intent of the UDC. The signs are already in existence and there is a total net increase in sign area of approximately three (3) square feet. 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; No special conditions exist. 3. The hardship is in no way the result of the applicant's own actions; or The request for larger signs comes from the need to expand to service the community's needs. 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. Due to the size and scale of the current freestanding ground signs on the subject property, enforcing the current UDC requirements on these free standing ground signs would greatly reduce the aesthetics of the sign by making the logo disproportionate. Other properties in the area within the same zoning district have freestanding ground signs that have a height greater than what is allowed by the current UDC. STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of BOA 2013 -011. The request for a variance complies with the approval criteria for granting a variance as presented above. Department Recommendation -Planning X Approve as submitted Approve with conditions* Denial * While the Board can impose conditions; conditions should only be imposed to meet requirements of the UDC. Attachments: Aerial & Public hearing notice map Public Hearing responses Correspondence Exhibits p�� N's A, F�3 2 Aso °L° sa'o°`'� 5001 con (41 00) L Opp RD a 30 lQ3g 3008 (121722) 5000 BAPTIST ra a 2 ° ms's sa+ Fpm HEALTH DR s 3�g1 0 y �t� p�� N's A, F�3 Aso (134186) 17460 N IH 35 y �t� 23380 14 4 If] LA • kqAlmw&u 0 w www.cometsigns.com T/�G 0 �u scHr =RTZ, Tx _ 4 }rt Page: 2 of 2 EXISTING SF i CXPAN .52,64-3 S F p T ±1,37,5ao sF —� k 3 (i salesperson CY Pete $ittetle r FE 83,2.20 t F M ........ _. °..! date 09 -1T -13 scale noted ", I ( E O'snl ntln0lf:eaM #ii- q tF6o-jl 0 Y _ 5 r r E W _ 3 � n 'Ell - - --------- rr �� ......... 4 t ........ — �--_ e ..... .. { .—. .. CASE NUMBER 13 oA ao�3 - 022 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 fording of hardship that the variance meets all four of the following criteria. State how your request meets these conditions. Des 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 O No 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? ❑ Yes 5LNo Explain: Nn spe'6 (-Ow t'oNS e-'6 't NU 3. Is the hardship the result of the applicant's own actions or intended for financial interest? ❑ Yes ZNo 4. Would granting this variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the value of property in the vicinity? ❑ Yes q No Preparer's Signature: Printed Name: cll��l� CTU� �%��-:;t- Date prepared: C C 3 1 i 16- Variance Checklist upmm 10-z Page 2 of 2