02-24-14 BOA Agenda with Associated DocumentsSCHERTZ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
HAL BALDWIN MUNICIPAL COMPLEX COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1400 SCHERTZ PARKWAY BUILDING #4
SCHERTZ, TEXAS 78154
City of Schertz Core Values
Do the right thing
Do the best you can
Treat others the way you would want to be treated
Work together cooperatively as a team
1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
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 for November 25, 2013 meeting.
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 2014 -001.
Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to Article 9, Section 21.9.5(D)(1),
Exterior Construction and Design Standards — Horizontal Articulation to allow a variance from the required
Horizontal Articulation on the South Elevation building wall at Doerr Lane Subdivision, generally located
at 9929 & 9943 Doerr Lane.
B. BOA 2014 -002
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.
Board of Adjustment February 24, 2014 Page 1 of 2
C. BOA 2014 -003
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 on 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 facade on the ground level floor at
711 FM 3009.
6. REQUESTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:
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
CERTIFICATION
I, Bryce Cox, 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 21st day of February, 2014 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.
P,r
Bryce Cox, Planner
I certify that the attached notice and agenda of items to be considered by the Schertz Board of Adjustment was removed from
the official bulletin board on day of , 2014.
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
February 24, 2014
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
November 25, 2013
The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened on November 25, 2013 at the Municipal Complex, Council
Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Frank McElroy, Chairman
Richard Dziewit, Vice Chairman
Earl Hartzog
David Reynolds
Reginna Agee
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Mark Tew, Alternate
1.
2.
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Mr. McElroy called the regular
SEAT ALTERNATE TO ACT IF
No one was sea
City Council sir
3. HEARING OF
No one spoke.+
4. Minutes for Sep
Mr. Dziewit me
5 -0. Motion'cai
Mr. McElroy pulled
present at that time.
• =
the
CITY STAFF
Brian James, Executive Director Development
Michelle Sanchez, Director Development Services
Bryce Cox, Planner I
Patti White, Executive Asst. of Development
Michele Haussmann Landuse Solutions
Ferry Palmer, Beaty Palmer Architects
Martin McFarland, Weeks Robinson Properties
order at 6:00 P.M. and recognized members present.
who was named as a voting member by
as stated. Mr. Hartzog seconded the motion. Vote was
BOA 2013 -009 to be presented later, because the Applicants were not
B. BOA 2013 -010 - H.E.B. —Wall Signs
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 pen-nit 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 pen-nit 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
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
November 25, 2013
Page 1 of 7
wall with a maximum of eleven (11) wall signs at 17460 IH -35 North.
Mr. Cox presented this item by stating that HEB Grocery Co. is requesting three (3) variances to
Article 11, Section 21.1.1.9, 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.
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.
The property owner is
constructing an additio
building. With the "exp
consists of eleven (11)
package, two signs exc
the following. signs:
• One "Fresh Fc
• Two "Cafe M
• Two `
proposing to expand the existing grocery store at 17460 IH -35 North by
. that is approximately 52,850 square feet; creating a 137,680 square foot
nsion of the building the property owner is proposing new signage which
wall signs totaling approximately 1,304 square feet. In the proposed sign .
ed the maximum area for a wall sign. The sign package proposed contains
" primary wall signs at 34`3.4 square feet each; proposed front facade.
econdary wall sign at 59.57 square feet; proposed front facade.
"secondary wall sign at 58.72 square feet; proposed front facade.
er H.E.B." secondary wall signs at 50.83 square feet each; proposed front
secondary wall signs at 41.97 square feet and 31.66 square feet;
proposed front facade.
• One "IBC Bank" secondary wall sign at 45 square feet; proposed front facade.
• One "H.E.B. Plus" secondary wall sign at 182.84 square feet; proposed west facade.
• One "HEB drive -thru Pharmacy" secondary wall sign at 95.45 square feet; proposed west
facade.
Currently the Unified Development Code allows for one primary wall sign, which can have an area
no greater than 250 square feet, 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.
Each of the two proposed "H.E.B. Plus" primary wall signs are equal to 2.6% of the front facade
area.
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
November 25, 2013
Page 2 of 7
The total area for the proposed front facade signage is approximately 1,026 square feet, which is
about 7.6% of the front facade area. The total area for the proposed west facade signage is
approximately 279 square feet, which is about 6% of the west facing facade area. The building
currently has six (6) signs located on the front and west facade. 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 facade.
Staff recommends approval of BOA 2013 -010.
Mr. McElroy asked that both items B and C be
items, but voted on separately.
Mr. Cox continued onto Item C to present to the
C. BOA 2013 -011 - H.E.B. — Pole Signs
Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a i
Freestanding Ground Signs, (a) to allow an ei
for a freestanding ground sign in an area with
order to permit a fifty eight foot (58') tall fre(
twenty one (321) square foot variance to exc
sign in an area with limited access on IH -35 N
to permit a five hundred and seventy one (57
twelve foot (12') variance to exceed the maxis
of eighteen feet (18') in order to permit a th
allow a one hundred and seventy (170) squar
freestanding ground sign on FM !3009 of nines
sixty (260) square foot freestanding ground si;
1, Section 21.11..10,
1. To allow an eight ft
sign in an area with
eight foot (58') tall
there would be discussion on both
-st for a variance to Article 11, Section 21.11.10,
)ot (8') variance to exceed the maximum height
ted access on IH -35 North of fifty feet (50') in
ng ground sign; (b) to allow a three hundred and
ed the maximum sign area for a freestanding ground
,rth of two hundred and fifty (250) square feet in order
) square foot freestanding ground sign; (c) to allow a
um height for a freestanding ground sign on FM 3009
,y font (30') tall freestanding ground sign; and (d) to
foot variance to exceed the maximum sign area for a
(90) square feet in order to permit a two hundred and
i at ;17460 IH -35 North.
Grocery Co. is requesting four (4) variances to
Signs, of the current Unified Development Code;
3') variance to exceed the maximum height for a freestanding ground
ted access on IH -35 North of fifty feet (50') in order to permit a fifty
Landing ground sign;
2. To allow a three hundred and twenty one (32 1) 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 (1.70) 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.
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
November 25, 2013
Page 3 of 7
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 AFDC 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. 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.
Staff recommends a
Mr. Sitterle, with C
from III -35 that HI
trying to keep in the
Mr. McElroy opener
There being no one
-011.
Signs representing the Applicant, stated that the building is set back so far
;1s the larger lettering is important to be visible from IH -35 and they are
the public hearinLy for both items at 6:17 P.M.
items, Mr. McElroy closed the public hearing at 6:17 P.M.
B. BOA 2013 -010 - H.E.B. —Wall Signs
Mr, McElroy asked about the time frame of this project. Mr. James stated that they are looking to
start construction in the next few months. Mr. Hartzog asked about the east wall, which he thought
was along FM 3009. Ms. Sanchez stated that according to the drawings it appears that the FM 3009
is showing as a partial west elevation. Mr. Sitterle stated that it might be labeled incorrectly and is
along FM 3009. Mr. Hartzog stated that he has a problem with the extra signs and the height because
he drove to the HEB Plus on Blanco Road and there is only one sign and he thinks that this is a little
overboard and he can't vote for it. Mr. McElroy stated that he doesn't really like variances, but he
sees sub - businesses going in this store, and if they were separate businesses we wouldn't be
considering it. Mr. Dzewit stated that the general look is representing the individual units in addition
to identifying the pharmacy so that wouldn't change, but it is a little hard to visual it.
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
November 25, 2013
Page 4 of 7
Discussion continued between the Board, Staff and the Applicant.
Mr. Dziewit moved to approve the item as presented. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Vote was
4 -1 with Mr. Hartzog voting nay. Motion carried.
The Board continued onto Item #C — BOA 2013 -011.
C. BOA 2013 -011 - H.E.B. — Pole Signs
Mr. Dziewit asked if approval of this item will increase the size. Mr. Cox stated that they are losing
some square footage. Mr. Hartzog if we are doing back paperwork on this. Mr. Cox stated that there
was never a variance request on the height exceeding the old standards and Staff determined that the
whole sign needed to be variance. Ms. Sanchez stated that after research there were permits found,
but no variance was issued to the overall height.
Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the item. Mr. Dziewit seconded the motion. Vote was 5 -0. Motion
carried.
Mr. McElroy recognized that the Applicant
A. BOA 2013 -009
Hold a public hearing, consider and i
Multifamily and Nonresidential E
required fifteen percent (15 %) wind
order to permit coverage of windows
thirty percent (30 %) of the front faS
Industrial Park Subdivision generally
Mr. McElroy opened up the Public Hearing
Development Code (UDC)
regard to the percentage of
which requires at least fiftc
of windows and doors that
variance, if granted will a1�
the front facade, distributes
next item had arrived.
uest for a variance to Article 9, Section 21.9.5(C),
al Reaurements. to allow a variance from the
doors of the front facade on the ground level floor, in
rs distributed around the entire building facade, equal to
the ground level floor at Lot 2, Block 1 of Enterprise
at Lookout Road and Enterprise Parkway.
:40 P.M. and asked Mr. Cox to proceed with his
owner is requesting a variance to the Unified
)n 21.9.5 (C) (1) Exterior Construction and Design Standards with
ws and doors required to install on the front facade of the building
;ent (15 %) of the front facade, on the ground floor level, to consist
for visibility into the commercial building or store. The requested
coverage of windows and doors, equal to thirty percent (30 %) of
I the entire building facade on the ground level floor.
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 facade shall provide windows and doors to provide for visibility into the building.
In theory the installation of windows and doors on a front facade (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 facade, distributed on all exterior building facades instead of the front facade only.
In this case, the requirement for the window and door installation on the front facade has a direct
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
November 25, 2013
Page 5 of 7
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 facade 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.
Staff recommends approval of BOA 2013 -009.
Ms. Haussmann representing the Applicant stated
which states:
1. The UDC, Section 21.9.5 states th
aesthetically pleasing appearance. T
windows and doors in the amount of
the building to provide an aesthetica
intent of the UDC.
2. There are no special conditions th
negatively impact adjacent propert
provide an increased aesthetic value
the site.
3. The hardship is in no wav the result
the criteria that Staff noted in the Staff Report
intent of the design criteria is to provide an
;rior construction of the building will provide
f the front fagade, dispersed on all four sides of
ising appearance in keeping with the spirit and
that are known. Granting this variance does not
ict the windows on all side of the building will
he solid masonry side walls initially proposed on
Applicant's own actions.
4. 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.
Mr. McFarland,, authorized agent for the Applicant, stated that his company is a small investment
firm out of Atlanta and they were attracted to the San Antonio area to build and picked Schertz to
build a spec building to attract tenants to support oil and gas and other logistics.
Mr. Palmer, architect for the project, stated that the building will have 315,000 square feet, and will
consist of concrete and a tilt wall construction.
Mr. McElroy closed the public hearing at 6:55 P.M.
Mr. McElroy asked if the purpose of the 15% on the front fagade, is not a requirement on the sides or
the back. Mr. James stated that Staff is looking at our requirements and when viewing a building
from multiple directions and Mr. Cox will be taking the lead on looking at the buildings that we like
and will help write an ordinance that is more workable for developers. Mr. Hartzog asked the
Applicant if he has had other issues where there is this amount of glass in a warehouse and if this is a
problem. Mr. Palmer stated that he has not had that experience where the amount of glass is
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
November 25, 2013
Page 6 of 7
6.
specified by ordinance. Mr. Hartzog asked if it will create a problem with storage. Mr. McFarland
stated that this is indicative of what they build every place else and are seeing this request from other
jurisdictions.
Discussion continued between the Board, Staff and the Applicant.
Mr. Hartzog moved to approve the item. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Vote was 5 -0. Motion.
carried.
REQUESTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. Requests by Member to place items on a future Board of Adjustment Agenda.
Mr. Hartzog stated that he would like a presen
next agenda by explaining what and why we
stated that he would like to have information or
James stated that Staff would like to work w
Development Board and the Board of Adjusti
meeting.
Mr. Hartzog stated that he had talked to two PI,
discussing window issues and asked if the
requirement. Mr. James stated that Staff has 17
hours, security and visibility requirements, but
types of tenants.
B. Announcements
• Mr. Hartzog stated that three Board r
and found it interesting and a very nice
• Mr. McElroy seconded that statement
C. Announcements by City Staff
• Ms. Sanchez stated that Staff v
your service.
7. ADJOURNMENT!
The meeting adjourned at 7.05 P.M.
Chairman, Board of Adjustment
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
November 25, 2013
Page 7 of 7
ion or discussion on windows by Staff on the
looking for this requirement. Mr. McElroy
to proper channels for these requirements. Mr.
Planning and Zoning Commission, Economic
nt on this subject and may do this in a joint
td Zoning Commissioners and they were
,partment was requesting this type of
ies with convenience stores such as late
heard of any other issues with different
the Steve Simonson Award dinner
that this dinner had a much better turnout than
the Board a Happy Thanksgiving and appreciates you for
Recording Secretary, City of Schertz
TO: Board of Adjustment
THROUGH: Michelle Sanchez, Director of Development Services
PREPARED BY: Bryce Cox, Planner
CASE: BOA 2014 -001 Doerr Lane Subdivision — Fagade Articulation
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Owner: ISC Reality LLC, Roger Wittenberg
Applicant: MW Builders, Inc., Jason Oldham
Engineer: Clark & Fuller PLLC, Justin Fuller, P.E.
REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a variance to the Unified Development Code (UDC), Section
21.9.5(D)(1), Exterior Construction and Design Standards with regard to horizontal facade articulations which
requires that no building wall extend for a distance greater than twice the wall's height without having an offset,
the depth of which shall be equal to fifteen percent (15 %) of the wall's height. The new plane created by the
offset must extend for a length greater than or equal to twenty five percent (25 %) of the length of the first plane.
The requested variance, if granted, will allow an articulated plane on the south elevation of fifty six (56) feet
which is equal to 7.4% of the walls length. Additionally the remaining 17.6 %, or one hundred and thirty four
(134) feet, of the required articulation on the south elevation will be redistributed and added to the remaining
three facades of the building.
PUBLIC NOTICE: The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder"on February 7,
2014 and in the "Herald" on February 12, 2014. There were eleven (11) notices mailed to surrounding property
owners on February 11, 2014. At the time of this staff report no responses have been received.
ITEM SUMMARY: The property owner is proposing to construct an approximately 202,000 square foot
distribution center on the 26± acre tract of land known as the Doerr Lane Subdivision, located southeast of the
intersection of Doerr Lane and Bell North Drive. 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(D)(1) requires that
no building wall extend for a distance greater than twice the wall's height without having an offset, the depth of
which shall be equal to fifteen percent (15 %) of the wall's height. The new plane created by the offset must
extend for a length greater than or equal to twenty five percent (25 %) of the length of the first plane. In theory
the addition of horizontal articulations to a building's fagade is to provide interruptions and relief on long walls,
improving the aesthetic appearance. The applicant is requesting to install fifty six (56) linear feet of horizontal
articulation wall length on the south facing facade which is equal to 7.4% of that fagade. The distribution center
utilizes a complex conveyor system that requires a straight line on the dock side, south elevation, of the
building. The offsetting the dock doors causes a loss of productivity and efficiency on daily operations.
Additionally, the applicant is proposing to add a total of one hundred and thirty three (133) feet of horizontal
articulation, which is equal to the requested reduction on the south elevation, spread out among the remaining
facades which provides a total of five hundred and twenty two (522) feet of articulation equal to twenty five
percent (25 %) of the perimeter fagade of the building.
City staff met with the applicant and developer to discuss the building layout and UDC regulations. As a result
of our discussion and review of the building plans it was determined that reducing the length of horizontal
articulation along the south fagade does not violate the spirit and intent of the UDC because the fagade will still
provide appropriate interruptions and relief on the south elevation improving the aesthetics of the building and
property.
If the variance is granted the result would be the construction of an approximately 202,000 square foot building
with fifty six feet (56 ft.) of horizontal articulation on the south facing building fagade and five hundred and
twenty two (522) total linear feet of horizontal articulation around the entire building fagade.
SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERAL LOCATION ZONING AND LAND USE:
The property is located on the east side of Doerr Lane approximately 750 feet southeast of the intersection of
Doerr Lane and Bell North Drive.
Existing Zoning Existing Use
Manufacturinq Light Undeveloped
C►e Z I III ► RIFOR I I ► -lR
I.
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 522 feet of horizontal
articulation which is equal to 25% of the overall building fagade perimeter, and will provide articulations
on all four fagades, creating an aesthetically pleasing appearance in keeping with the spirit of the UDC.
iN
Existing Zoning
Existing Use
North
Manufacturing Light
Industrial and Undev
South
Manufacturing Light
Industrial
East
Manufacturing Light
Undeveloped
West
Right- of -wav
Doerr Lane
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 522 feet of horizontal
articulation which is equal to 25% of the overall building fagade perimeter, and will provide articulations
on all four fagades, creating an aesthetically pleasing appearance in keeping with the spirit of the UDC.
iN
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;
There are no special conditions that exist that are known. Granting this variance does not negatively
impact adjacent properties.
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 and causes a loss of efficiency and productivity on daily operations. This
impact would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other industrial buildings located
within the same zoning district. The majority of the buildings in the area were constructed before the
articulation provisions were adopted.
STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
A typo in the public notice was discovered, the property was listed as "generally located at 9299 & 9943 Doerr
Lane ". The correct general location should be "9929 & 9943 Doerr Lane ". This typo does not affect any of the
mandatory noticing requirements that are stated in UDC Section 21.4.3 and Local Government Code Section
212.
Staff recommends approval of BOA 2014 -001. The request for a variance complies with the approval criteria
for granting a variance as presented above.
Planning Department Recommendation
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 location map
Public hearing notice map
Exhibits
(74465)
0 DOERR LN
(45148)
t DOERR LN
(108845)
9943 DOERR LN
(6870)
0 FM 3009
9929 DOERR LN (1 FM 3
00 7451 FM 3009
�2
� (74497)
9892 DOERR
(102746)
2 DOERR
r;
00�-I
.0- (32638)
9901 DOERR LN
wi
0
z M
6 ran
X
OMZ,
0
HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION REQUIREMENT
758.33' X 25% = 189.58* OR 189'-7"
---------------------
ll
Nxi
-- - - ---- -------------
---- ---- -- Lj,
----- - - - - - - -
----------- - --- ---- -- ---
189.58'
236.33'
31.16%
WEST ELEVATION
67.83'
142.33'
52.45%
EAST ELEVATION
2
0
I1 -
32.22%
SOUTH ELEVATION
189.58'
56.17'
7,41%
TOTAL ARTICULATION
514.82'
------------
25.36%
IRt
r --
L_
i)
k4
M
t
j
-
----------
L-Jkr
- - - -
lil
II
---------------------
ll
Nxi
-- - - ---- -------------
---- ---- -- Lj,
----- - - - - - - -
----------- - --- ---- -- ---
wI
521 15/16"
HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION REQUIREMENT
758.33' X 25% = 189.58' OR 189'-7"
189.58'
236.33'
31.16%
WEST ELEVATION
67.83'
142.33'
52.45%
EAST ELEVATION
67.83'
I1 -
32.22%
SOUTH ELEVATION
189.58'
56.17'
7,41%
TOTAL ARTICULATION
514.82'
------------
25.36%
IRt
r --
L_
i)
k4
t
j
-
----------
L-Jkr
- - - -
lil
II
AI
to
- ---------
ii
L --------
i iJ
-----------
00
J1
L
L
1
I i
..............
Y
l i
J) j
L--------
L
L
--------
--------
j,) j
L
vl
L. i
L
----------
--------
--------- --------
t
J ..............
jJ J
"j)
j
wI
521 15/16"
HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION REQUIREMENT
758.33' X 25% = 189.58' OR 189'-7"
10,-0"
ii
0
-------- -- -------------------------- ---------------- --- -------- -- -- ------- -- — ---------
21�
_J i-1-
'X
F, -I
4
L -u�
13 13 4 li
r --------- �7-) -- -------
r
L -------- i) -j
L -----
i IA
� --- :J
Ir 3
j -J)
r- -J;
---------- --------- ----------
L 3.
13 it
- ------------
L- - - - - - - -
r. j)
4 1 3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L
J j
- - - - - - - - -- L - - - - - - - - - - -
If
Prelim Floor Plan
HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION CALCULATION CHART
1 SCALE: 1 30'-0"
RFN Jji PP()Vlr)Fr) %, PP()Vlr)Fn
NORTH ELEVATION
189.58'
236.33'
31.16%
WEST ELEVATION
67.83'
142.33'
52.45%
EAST ELEVATION
67.83'
I1 -
32.22%
SOUTH ELEVATION
189.58'
56.17'
7,41%
TOTAL ARTICULATION
514.82'
------------
25.36%
IRt
r --
L_
i)
tii
r "J')
j
-
----------
31 L
- - - -
lil
AI
- ---------
ii
L --------
i iJ
10,-0"
ii
0
-------- -- -------------------------- ---------------- --- -------- -- -- ------- -- — ---------
21�
_J i-1-
'X
F, -I
4
L -u�
13 13 4 li
r --------- �7-) -- -------
r
L -------- i) -j
L -----
i IA
� --- :J
Ir 3
j -J)
r- -J;
---------- --------- ----------
L 3.
13 it
- ------------
L- - - - - - - -
r. j)
4 1 3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L
J j
- - - - - - - - -- L - - - - - - - - - - -
If
Prelim Floor Plan
HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION CALCULATION CHART
1 SCALE: 1 30'-0"
RFN Jji PP()Vlr)Fr) %, PP()Vlr)Fn
NORTH ELEVATION
189.58'
236.33'
31.16%
WEST ELEVATION
67.83'
142.33'
52.45%
EAST ELEVATION
67.83'
87.42'
32.22%
SOUTH ELEVATION
189.58'
56.17'
7,41%
TOTAL ARTICULATION
514.82'
522.25'
25.36%
NORTH
PROJECI
O'�C
'
ii
O
67*-4"
5--0-
2
0
1-
z
wrn
0
Z -,
0,
QN
X
z .
0 in
N in
0
H
Z
w.
w I
O
w K
Kp
O -,
H l
UII
F
Q �
J N
H X
OM
N M
K,
On
2 N
75Al -d°
HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION REQUIREMENT
758.33' X 25% = 189.58' OR 789' -7"
PROJECT
1 Prelim Floor Plan N °RTH
HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION CALCULATION CHART SCALE: 1" = 30' -0"
NORTH ELEVATION
189.58'
236.33'
31.16%
WEST ELEVATION
67.83'
142.33'
52.45%
EAST ELEVATION
67.83'
87.42'
32.22%
SOUTH ELEVATION
TOTAL ARTICULATION
189.58'
514.82'
1 56.17'
522.25'
7.41%
25.367
H
Z
w:
w�
p
w�
� O
O M
H �
5�
U p
F
a�
J N
X
O i+�
N M
K r
Or
2 N
VERTICAL ARTICULATION REQUIREMENT
32.583' X 15% - 4.87' OR 4' -10"
T T T T T T T
VERTICAL ARTICULATION REQUIREMENT
35.583' X 15% = 5.34' OR 5' -4"
EAST ELEVATION
SUNSHADES ABOVE
OFFICE WINDOWS,
TYPICAL ...---- ......_...._.
I I q,
WEST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
VERTICAL ARTICULATION REQUIREMENT
36.583' X 15% = 5 49' OR 5' -6"
San Antonio, Texas
Feburary 6, 2014
la_' 0__AFF�_
SCREEN
WALL
10,000 SF 15% = 1,500
VERTICAL ARTICULATION REQUIREMENT
CONCRETE DOCK
SF GLAZING REQUIRED
36.083' X 15% = 5.41' OR 5' -5"
SCREEN WALL
1,768 OF GLAZING PROVIDED
8' -0° AFF
WEST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
VERTICAL ARTICULATION REQUIREMENT
36.583' X 15% = 5 49' OR 5' -6"
San Antonio, Texas
Feburary 6, 2014
z .
�f
CASE NUMBER t ' 'T, , 1 j 11",
Board of Adjusnnent may grant variances or modifications of height, yard, area, coverage, parlung regulations, accessory
building and non- conforming use subject to making a finding of hardship that the variance meets all four of the follow ng
criteria. State how your request meets these conditions.
Description of varimce request:
Variance approval is requested specific: to the horizontal articulation requirement set faith in Section 21.9.5.D.1 of the UDC, which provides that no (non-
residential) building wall shall extend for a distance equal to Z times the wall's height without having an offset of 15% of the wall's height and that new plane
shall extend for a distance equal to at least 25% of the maximum leneth of the first plane. Applicant seeks relief from this horizontal articulation
requirement on the south elevation of the proposed warehouse /distribution building.
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 die same zoning district that comply with the same provisions?
13 Yes El No
Adjacent Indunflai pon eclas were developed prior to the incorpare lon of the current hi.d.atal anantation standard and do not meet fhis nordard nvr other exarior conn'rualvn and
Explain: design standards of the UOC for non- residervtial6uiidings. Undersundingthelmentufthsdesu „rlterionis oprova, guidellues for new coroordlon to provide an aesaeticolypleasing
a,pea.a,a and to ensure sound, pualiry conriruam¢ the applicant's proposed building elevations demonstrote an eamest effort to meet all other .,,liable dazign standards set forth in
section dL9s but for iMehoriavntal articulation standard. Tkough npp4kancis unable to meeohe horizontal ar icniation standard onthe sduth elevation of the proposed building, it pmpea,s
to t a toil area of hor on awerationrequire fort epvera ul ing. m ”"
1 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 0 No
Explam-nolApialLrable
3. Is the hardship the result of the applicant's own actions or intended for financial interest? 0 Yes 0 No
building is designed around the
which dictates all site and building
..:..1 ... /......bA. ..d.... ....s:.0 ... .-d si__ 1_..:1...1!.
fausals ha d(zction fnr the_elacLuser.
4. !Would granting this variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the value of property in the vicinity?
11 Yes O No
No, the adjacent properties consist of developed industrial properties that do not meet the current Exterior Construction and Design Standards
prove to be detrimental to
Standards of the UDC:
Preparer's
Printed Name:
Date prepared: January 24, 2914
16- Variance, Checklist
Upmr d Mson,
Page 2 of 2
Construction
not pose harm nor
TO: Board of Adjustment
THROUGH: Michelle Sanchez, Director of Development Services
PREPARED BY: Bryce Cox, Planner
CASE: BOA 2014 -002 Schertz 3009 Market — Landscaping
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Owner /Applicant: Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust, Michael A Allen
Engineer: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., Amanda Bahrij, P.E., LEED AP
Proiect Architect: Harrison French & Associates, LTD., Greg Stellmon
REQUEST: 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 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 with regard to the number of trees required to be planted in the planter
islands with in 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'.
PUBLIC NOTICE: The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" on February 7,
2014 and in the "Herald" on February 12, 2014. There were eleven (11) notices mailed to surrounding property
owners on February 11, 2014. At the time of this staff report no responses have been received.
BACKGROUND: The Board of Adjustment previously considered and approved this request by unanimous
decision on April 22, 2013 and then again on September 26, 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
has not filed for a building permit as required by UDC Section 21.4.12(C)(3)(c) and the variance will expire on
March 22, 2014.
ITEM SUMMARY: The property owner is proposing to construct an approximately 41,000 square foot retail
development on the 6.36± acre tract of land located at the corner of Elbel and FM 3009. The south side of the
property is located adjacent to a multi - family dwelling district and is encumbered by approximately seventy -nine
feet (79') of easements; within that easement is a thirty foot (30) Schertz 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 shrubbery is prohibited
within the waterline easement. GVEC has indicated that planting trees is prohibited within their easement but
the planting of shrubbery is 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.
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 community'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 residentially zoned property with a
minimum of one (1) shade tree planted every thirty linear foot (30) and a minimum of ten (10) 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 trees and shrubs; and landscaping designed to screen off -
street parking from adjacent residential properties with shrubs is also required.
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 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 the edge of the parking areas except for approximately 170' of parking that
directly abuts the waterline easement.
SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERAL LOCATION ZONING AND LAND USE:
The property is located on the southeast corner of FM 3009 and Elbel Road.
iN
Existing Zoning
Existing Use
General Business Undeveloped
SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE:
Existing Zoning
Existing Use
North Right -of -Way
Elbel Road
South Apartment/Multi- Family Residential District
Multi- Family Residential
East Right -of -way
Drainage Channel
West Right-of-wav
FM 3009
iN
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 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 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 that 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 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 easement encumbrance of seventy -nine feet (79) on the subject property prohibits the
property owner from 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 GVEC, 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 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 ANALYSIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of BOA 2014 -002. The request for a variance complies with the approval criteria
for granting a variance as presented above.
Planning Department Recommendation
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 location map
Public hearing notice map
Exhibits
a
SOO
Oro
(26211)
1101 ELBEL RD
appg��
�j
(16632)
1190 BORGFELD RD
o A'
(108524)"
0 ELBEL RD
,�\
161FOS
1a163Q3ppg
app M
9y 3
(110527)
p µ
V\�M3 Og
0 ELBEL
�g0
(151482)
6�6� ppg
771
FM 3009
�FM3
16i6 3 pg
p FM
(39550)
0 ELBEL RD
1
m
.00000
(129999) _
501 FM 3009
C�iMMUNITY- SERV6CE *OPPORTUNITY
,.p
OR
� `-�.!
R
iii''
PAW
k�
s
m
mm
mm
am
mn
I
•I
I
I
.
I
®
6�o
vx�
.I
I
cz
i
I
U2FF
TI
9
I
.
`
I
al
�I
•�
�I
I'
O C p F hf. 1i}{d (2- -t fits DRIVE)
�F0��C13
m m p
�� p �ZV
0 ca P4
p
p � y D
Q
m `C ca m
O co m
�1 p 0
vCi N m ��'.� '
z O g z
0> n>
n
SHEET NUMBER DATE SCHERTZ 3009 MARKET
01/21/2014
PROJECT N0. F.M. 3009 AND ELBEL ROAD
63362266 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS
I
�I
®
6�o
vx�
o
�o I
nN
� ?o
i
I
U2FF
O C p F hf. 1i}{d (2- -t fits DRIVE)
�F0��C13
m m p
�� p �ZV
0 ca P4
p
p � y D
Q
m `C ca m
O co m
�1 p 0
vCi N m ��'.� '
z O g z
0> n>
n
SHEET NUMBER DATE SCHERTZ 3009 MARKET
01/21/2014
PROJECT N0. F.M. 3009 AND ELBEL ROAD
63362266 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS
I
�I
F
,
I
U2FF
,CAS,F NUMBF:�R
Ax -Fir-sAiiij of jjgljj ji,rd, arcl, covera parldne- ons acceSS06
1-y-1
wp�ajak Lilt: VkumikkuC
nquMng alip. non-conformirig use 5UU)CC:t LU UAAWlig a "wULLIg or narUNEL,
critellia. State how your request meets these conditions.
2- Do special conditions or restricted area, shape, topography. or physical features exist that are irregular to the sult
parcel of land and, not applicable to other parcels of land in die. same coning districts? X Yes 13 No
Explain: Thisparficular site is restricted hy two existing utility fines with associated easements 130-foot waterline easement and 604not
overhead electric easement) totaling 79-feet from the property line into the site an the southeast side, The owners of these easements
jwvp ggpipsoodi in writing pittached) that they wig not permit plamirW within the easerrients due to potential conflicts ydth their uses,
Therefore, the required landscape specia (2946et from the property hne) is provided, but the user is nat peffnitted to plant " UDC
required plantings as noted above.
3. Is the hardship the result of the applicant's own actions or intended for financial intexest? 0 Yes X No
Explain: This hardship is a result of an existing watedine and easement established on the property in 1979 and exis" overhead
e4eidpc knes and easernerits established in 2002 by previous property owners. These utriflies benefit the surrounding community and
cannot feasibly be relocated due to their see and the density of e)dsft development surrounding the sile,
4. Would granting dl ras variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the value of property in the vicinity?
'0 Yes X No
Ex _y
plaim Granting this variance will My aftet the susfect pmperl
shown in the attached exhibits, an existing screening fence is already in place and adis as a visual &jfliar between the two uses The
foquirptl jenb�u;ape area wif sW1 be provided. It is only the required plantings wthin this area that cannot be provided.
Preparqes 95%pature.
Primed Name: A m-anda K Bpahrii Q . E. L� AP
Date prepared: 1124114
TO: Board of Adjustment
THROUGH: Michelle Sanchez, Director of Development Services
PREPARED BY: Bryce Cox, Planner
CASE: BOA 2014 -003 Schertz 3009 Market — Glazing
SUBJECT: 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 on 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.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Owner /Applicant: Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust, Michael A Allen
Engineer: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., Amanda Bahrij, P.E., LEED AP
Project Architect: Harrison French & Associates, LTD., Greg Stellmon
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 on the front fagade of the building which states that at least thirty percent (30 %) of the front fagade, on
the ground floor level, must 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.
PUBLIC NOTICE: The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" on February 7,
2014 and in the "Herald" on February 12, 2014. There were eleven (11) notices mailed to surrounding property
owners on February 11, 2014. At the time of this staff report no responses have been received.
BACKGROUND: The Board of Adjustment previously considered and approved this request by unanimous
decision on April 22, 2013 and then again on September 26, 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
has not filed for a building permit as required by UDC Section 21.4.12(C)(3)(c) and the variance will expire on
March 22, 2014.
ITEM SUMMARY: The property owner is proposing to construct an approximately 41,000 square foot grocery
store on the 6.36+ acre tract of land located at the corner of Elbel and FM 3009. 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 promote an aesthetically pleasing appearance.
UDC, Section 21 .9.5 (C) (1) requires that 30% of the front facade 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 26% windows and doors distributed around the exterior
building facades instead of the front fagade only. In this case, the requirement for the window and door
installation on the front facade has a direct impact on the functionality of the building. The grocery store has a
pharmacy and refrigerated units that are located on the perimeter walls, as well as perishable foods such as
produce that are impacted by the sunlight and visibility into the store.
City staff met with the property owner, engineer, and architect to discuss the building layout and 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 41,000 square foot building
with 26% windows and doors 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 Elbel Road.
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:
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 doors
dispersed on all four sides of the building to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance in keeping
with the spirit and intent of the UDC.
iN
Existing Zoning
Existing Use
General Business Undeveloped
SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE:
Existing Zoning
Existing Use
North Right -of -Way
Elbel Road
South Apartment /Multi- Family Residential District
Multi- Family Residential
East Right -of -way
Drainage Channel
West Riaht- of -wav
FM 3009
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:
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 doors
dispersed on all four sides of the building to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance in keeping
with the spirit and intent of the UDC.
iN
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;
Many retail shopping centers depend on a large quantity of windows and doors on the front fagade
(building storefront) to provide natural light and create an inviting appearance for a consumer to enter
their establishment. In this case, the proposed grocery store is a stand alone building located in a
commercial zoning district which accommodates various retail uses and due to the nature of the
grocery business sunlight and /or 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 sides
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 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.
STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of BOA 2014 -003. The request for a variance complies with the approval criteria
for granting a variance as presented above.
Planning Department Recommendation
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 location map
Public hearing notice map
Exhibits
a
SOO
Oro
(26211)
1101 ELBEL RD
appg��
�j
(16632)
1190 BORGFELD RD
o A'
(108524)"
0 ELBEL RD
,�\
161FOS
1a163Q3ppg
app M
9y 3
(110527)
p µ
V\�M3 Og
0 ELBEL
�g0
(151482)
6�6� ppg
771
FM 3009
�FM3
16i6 3 pg
p FM
(39550)
0 ELBEL RD
1
m
.00000
(129999) _
501 FM 3009
C�iMMUNITY- SERV6CE *OPPORTUNITY
,.p
OR
� `-�.!
R
iii''
PAW
k�
s
m
mm
mm
am
mn
I
ea
It
IA
Mi!
I
ea
A
I
I
m1 9
I
i
I
I
are
sa
cs
CS cl,
A7 m
iTi
mpr
014
2
>
Description of the variance request:
The applicant is requesting a variance to Section 21.9.5(C)(1) of the City Code, 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
approved, will allow for a total of twenty six percent (26 %) of transparent doors and windows
( "glazing "). The requested variance, if approved, will also allow for the glazing requirement to be
extended to all four sides of the building instead of just the front fagade.
1. Does the requested variance violate the intent of the UDC or deprive the applicant of a right
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district that comply with the same
provision?
The requested variance does not violate the intent of the UDC and the failure to approve the
variance would deprive the applicant of a right commonly enjoyed by other properties. The
variance is requested to allow for the development of a grocery store on a corner lot. A grocery
store cannot operate with such a high percentage of glazing being required (as well as applying
such percentage to only the front fagade), due to the impact that the sunlight and /or visibility into
the store has on the products and facilities inside the store. Sunlight would affect the perishable
food products inside the store tremendously, as would the ability to see inside the store in most
locations. The bathrooms, offices, pharmacy, and cold storage areas — all of which must be
located on the perimeter of the building — cannot have windows that allow visibility into such
areas.
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?
Special conditions certainly exist for the subject parcel. The grocery store use, as described above,
is unique in that it cannot operate with a high level of glazing that would allow for sunlight and
visibility into most portions of the business. The property itself is unique in that it is a corner lot
at a major intersection. A structure on this corner lot should have glazing spread out to as many
walls as possible, as there are essentially two "front facades" due to the two street frontages. The
unique business and unique lot shape and location for this property, which do not exist on most
other parcels in the same zoning district, support this variance request.
3. Is the hardship the result of the applicant's own actions or intended for financial interest?
The hardship is not the result of the applicant's own actions or intended for financial interest. The
hardship is a result of the unique business proposed for the site, the unique components of the
business and the effect sunlight and visibility have on the products and facilities inside the
business, and the unique lot layout of the property (being a corner lot fronting on two major
roads).
4. Would granting this variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the value of
property in the vicinity?
Granting the variance will actually be beneficial to the public welfare and to property values in
the vicinity. Granting the variance will allow for the undeveloped parcel to be developed for a
grocery store, which will serve the community and increase property values. The building will be
aesthetically - pleasing and the glazing provided will meet the spirit and intent of the code.
Preparer's Signature:
Printed Name: games B. G r if FlIn""'
Date Prepared: January 27, 2014