Loading...
BOA 09-28-2015BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES September 28, 2015 The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened on September 28, 2015 at the Municipal Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Richard Dziewit, Chairman David Reynolds, Vice Chairman Earl Hartzog Reginna Agee Dani Salas BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Frank McElroy 1. 2 3 4. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL CITY STAFF Lesa Wood, Senior Planner Bryce Cox, Planner I Patti White, Executive Asst. of Development OTHERS PRESENT Terry Tschirhart, Executive Signs Steve Braha, Verde South Partners Benjamin Deszer, Verde South Partners Mr. Dziewit called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. and recognized members present SEAT ALTERNATE TO ACT IF REQUIRED Mr. Dziewit seated Ms. Salas as a voting member. CONSENT AGENDA A. MINUTES FOR JULY 27, 2015 REGULAR MEETING Mr. Hartzog moved to approve the minutes as presented. Ms. Agee seconded the motion. Vote was 5 -0. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: Mr. Dziewit stated that the items under the Public Hearings listed on the agenda are all related and he would like to take all three and have them presented at one time, and then the Board will vote individually on each request if okay with the Board. There being no one to object to this, Mr. Dziewit opened the Public Hearing at 6:04 P.M. A. BOA 2015 -006 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to the Enterprise Business Park PUD Standards in order to allow a secondary wall sign with a sign area to exceed 25% of the primary wall sign, and with letter /logo height to exceed twelve inches (12 ") at 17115 III -35N. B. BOA 2015 -007 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to the Enterprise Business Park PUD Standards in order to allow a variance from the requirement that all tenant signs within a free standing multi- tenant sign contain the same number of square feet at 17115 IH -35N. Minutes Board of Adjustment September 28, 2015 Page 1 of 6 C. BOA 2015 -007 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to the Enterprise Business Park PUD Standards in order to allow a variance from the requirement that all tenant signs within a free standing multi- tenant sign contain the same number of square feet at 17115 IH -35N. Mr. Cox gave the first presentation on BOA2015 -006 by stating that the Applicant is requesting a variance to Section VI.B Number of Signs (General Provisions) and Article IX, Section 7.4 Wall Sign of Ordinance #96 -S -28 Unified Development Code as amended and adopted by the Enterprise Business Park PUD, in order to permit one 60 square foot secondary wall sign with logo /letters not to exceed 24" on the east elevation of "Building B" and one 60 square foot secondary wall sign with logo /letters not to exceed 24" to be placed on the east elevation of "Building A" at 17115 IH -35N. The subject property is an approximately three (3) acre tract of land and is currently under construction with an approximately 24,277 square foot retail building. The applicant is proposing to install a secondary wall sign for each of the businesses that will occupy the two corner suites. The proposed sign package includes one 60 square foot secondary wall sign with logo /letters not to exceed 24" on the east elevation of "Building B" and one 60 square foot secondary wall sign with logo /letters not to exceed 24" to be placed on the east elevation of "Building A ". The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" on September 11, 2015 and in the "Herald" on September 16, 2015. There were seven (7) notices mailed to surrounding property owners on September 11, 2015. At the time of this meeting no responses have been received. 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 as amended (Ordinance 96- S -28). The 1996 UDC states that a secondary wall sign is limited to 25% of the primary wall sign permitted on multi- tenant buildings when a public entrance is provided on another side other than the primary wall sign side. Additionally the 1996 UDC allows for a maximum logo or letter height of twelve inches (12 ") for signs located less than 100 feet (100') away from the right -of -way. The current UDC (11 -S -15 as amended) allows for a secondary wall sign not to exceed 75% of the area of the primary wall sign on multi- tenant spaces which are located at the ends of the building. Additionally, the current UDC (11 -S -15 as amended) does not contain any provisions about maximum or minimum logo or letter heights for wall signs. Under the current UDC (I I -S -15 as amended) the two proposed secondary wall signs would be permitted. 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; Article IX of the 1996 UDC is intended to enhance properth 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 proposed secondary wall signs are scaled appropriately for the size of the building that they are being attached to and are permitted under the current 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; The retail building sits at a lower grade than the fi°ontage road of IH -35. There is also a monument sign for Verde Business Park on Mid Cities Parkway that blocks the visibility of part of the building signage for southbound travelers on IH -35. The addition of the secondau)) wall signs will help to mitigate the visibilio) obstructions caused by the monument Minutes Board of Adjustment September 28, 2015 Page 2 of 6 sign and lower grade elevation and provide for clearer more visible identification of the businesses in the retail center. 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. Per the Enterprise Business Park PUD, this area is identified as having a base zoning district of General Business District (GB). Other properties along IH -35, with the same base GB zoning have permitted secondary wall signs many of which are larger than what is being requested. Additionally, tinder the current UDC the two proposed secondary wall signs would be permitted. Staff recommends approval of BOA 2015 -006. Mr. Cox gave the second presentation on BOA2015 -007 by stating that the Applicant is requesting a variance to Article IX, Section 7.6.E Number of Signs of Ordinance #96 -5 -28 Unified Development Code as amended and adopted by the Enterprise Business Park PUD, in order to permit the individual tenant panels to be different sizes on the free standing multi- tenant at 17115 IH -35N. The subject property is an approximately three (3) acre tract of land and is currently under construction with an approximately 24,277 square foot retail building. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the individual tenant panels on the free standing multi- tenant sign to be different sizes. 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 as amended (Ordinance 96- 5 -28). The 1996 UDC requires that the individual tenant panels on a free standing multi- tenant sign all contain the same number of square feet. The current UDC (11 -5 -15 as amended) allows for the developer to determine the size of each tenant panel on the free standing multi - tenant sign. Under the current UDC (11 -S -15 as amended) the developer would be allowed to choose how much space on the free standing multi- tenant sign each business could use. 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; Article IX of the 1996 UDC is intended to enhance property values, maintain aesthetic attractiveness, and promote commercial opportunity in the Cite, 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 proposed variance does not increase the advertising area on the fi°ee standing multi- tenant sign, and this request would be allowed under the current 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; No special conditions of restricted area, topography or physical features exist on this parcel which affect this request. 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. Per the Enterprise Business Park PUD, this area is identified as having a base zoning district of General Business District (GB). Other multi- tenant building properties along IH- Minutes Board of Adjustment September 28, 2015 Page 3 of 6 35, with the same base GB zoning are permitted to allocate f°ee standing multi- tenant sign panel space as they see fit and are not required to provide the exact same amount of sign space to each tenant. Additionally, under the current UDC this variance would not be needed as the current UDC does not regulate individual tenant space sign area. Staff recommends approval of BOA 2015 -007. Mr. Cox gave the third presentation on BOA2015 -008 by stating that the Applicant is requesting a variance to Article IX, Section 7.6.D. Maximum Area of Ordinance #96 -5 -28 Unified Development Code as amended and adopted by the Enterprise Business Park PUD, in order to permit a free standing multi- tenant sign with maximum sign area to 267 square feet to accommodate a 33 square foot address identifier on top of the sign at 17115 IH -35N. The subject property is an approximately three (3) acre tract of land and is currently under construction with an approximately 24,277 square foot retail building. The applicant is proposing to install a free standing multi- tenant sign with a maximum area of 267 square feet. The sign is comprised of 234 square feet of tenant panels and 33 square feet for an address identifier. This request is to allow the free standing multi- tenant sign to be 17 square feet larger than the maximum allowed by the 1996 UDC. 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 as amended (Ordinance 96- 5 -28). The 1996 UDC states that the maximum area for a free standing multi- tenant sign at this location is 250 square feet. Additionally, based on the definition of "sign area" in the UDC the property address identifier is calculated as part of the maximum sign area. 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; Article IX of the 1996 UDC is intended to enhance property values, maintain aesthetic attractiveness, and promote commercial opportunity in the City, and to support and fitf °then the objectives of the City's Comprehensive Land Plan. The variance does not violate the intent of the UDC because the proposed increase to the maximum area of the fi°ee standing multi- tenant sign is to allow for the address to be placed on top of the sign not additional advertising for the tenants. The area used for tenant panels and advertising totals 234 square feet which is less than the maximum allowed area of 250 square feet. 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 retail building sits at a lower grade than the fi°ontage road of IH -35. There is also a monument sign for Verde Business Park on Mid Cities Parkway that blocks the visibility of part of the building signage for southbound travelers on IH -35. The increase in the maximum area of the sign allows for the addition of a clearly visible address identifier to the top of the sign to aid motorists in finding the retail center. Placing the address identifier at the top of the sign will help to mitigate the visibility obstructions caused by the monument sign and lower grade elevation and provide for clearer more visible address identification of the retail center. 3. The hardship is in no way the result of the applicant's own actions; or Placing the address identifier at the top of the sign will help to mitigate the visibility obstructions caused by the monument sign and lower grade elevation and provide for clearer more visible address identification of the retail center. Other properties in the Enterprise Business Park PUD are not affected by the visibility obstruction of the existing monument Minutes Board of Adjustment September 28, 2015 Page 4 of 6 sign at Mid- Cities Parkway and IH -35. 4. The interpretation of the provisions in this UDC o deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed zoning district that comply with the same provisions. Staff recommends approval of BOA 2015 -008. r any amendments thereto would by other properties in the same Ms. Wood clarified that the address of the sign is not always part of the sign face. Mr. Tschirhart, the Applicant, stated that he wanted to clarify this property is very unique and there is no egress and ingress off IH35 and the egress and ingress is off Mid Cities Parkway coming off the deceleration lane, so the intent is to bring the address above so that anyone can see the address clearly. Ms. Salas asked if the signage will be illuminated to include the address. Mr. Tschirhart stated yes, but the background will not be illuminated. Mr. Braha, the Applicant, stated he had nothing more to add. Mr. Dziewit closed the Public Hearing at 6:29 P.M. Mr. Hartzog asked if what they are requesting is allowed in our current UDC. Mr. Cox stated yes, that is correct. Discussion continued between Staff, the Applicant, and the Board. A. BOA 2015 -006 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to the Enterprise Business Park PUD Standards in order to allow a secondary wall sign with a sign area to exceed 25% of the primary wall sign, and with letter /logo height to exceed twelve inches (12 ") at 17115 IH -35N. Mr. Hartzog moved to approve the request for a variance. Ms. Agee seconded the motion. Vote was 5 -0. Motion carried. B. BOA 2015 -007 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to the Enterprise Business Park PUD Standards in order to allow a variance from the requirement that all tenant signs within a free standing multi- tenant sign contain the same number of square feet at 17115 IH -35N. Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the request for a variance. Ms. Agee seconded the motion. Vote was 5 -0. Motion carried. C. BOA 2015 -008 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a request for a variance to the Enterprise Business Park PUD Standards in order to allow a free standing multi- tenant sign with a maximum area greater than 250 square feet at 17115 IH -35N. Mr. Hartzog asked if we need to put down the exact square footage. Ms. Wood stated that it needs to be what they are requesting which is 267 square feet. Mr. Hartzog moved to approve the request for a variance with a maximum of 267 square feet. Ms. Agee seconded the motion. Vote was 5 -0. Motion carried. Minutes Board of Adjustment September 28, 2015 Page 5 of 6 11 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Announcements by Members • Mr. Dziewit would like to thank the Staff in presenting all this information. B. Announcements by City Staff • None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:40 P.M. Chaim an, Board of Adju ment Minutes Board of Adjustment September 28, 2015 Page 6 of 6 Recording Secretary, City of Schertz