09-23-13 BOA Agenda and associated documentsheight to a minimum distance of two (2 ") inches from the cave of the roofline at 6000 Enterprise Business
Paris Unit 15.
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
1, Lesa Wood, 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 20th day of September, 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.
Leso Wood
Lesa Wood, Senior Planner
I certify that the attached notice and agenda of items to be considered by the Schertz Planning L& Zoning Commission was
removed from the official bulletin board on day of _ , 2013.
This facility is accessible in accordance with the Americans rrith Disabililies Act. flandicapped parking spaces are available, If yoar
require special assistance or have a request fa° sign interpretative services or other services please call fi 19 -1030 at least 24 hours in
advance of meeling.
Board of.ldiustmeat Page 2 of 2
Septcrnber 23, 2013
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
June 24, 2013
The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened on June 24, 2013 at the Municipal Complex, Council
Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CITY STAFF
Frank McElroy, Chairman
Brian James, Executive Director Development
Richard Dziewit, Vice Chairman
Michelle Sanchez, Director Development Services
Earl Hartzog
Lesa Wood, Senior Planner
David Reynolds
Patti White, Executive Asst. of Development
Christopher Montgomery
Reginna Agee, Alternate
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
OTHERS PRESENT
Marls Tew, Alternate
Larry Gottsman, Aetna Sign Group
Bert Denson, Brundage Management
Lydell Toye, U.S. Signs
Patrick Lynch, Leasing Agent
1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Mr. McElroy called the regular meeting
to ordei at 6:04 P.M. and recognized members present.
2. SEAT ALTERNATE TO ACT IF REQUIRED
Mr. McElroy seated.Ms. Agee as avoting member `
3. HEARING OF RESIDENTS
No one spoke.
4. Minutes for May 20, 2013 meeting
Mr. Hartzog moved to approve.. the minutes.
Mr. Dziewit seconded the motion. Vote was 5 -0.
Motion carried
Mr. Montgomery arrived 6 :07 P.M. Mr.
McElroy removed Ms. Agee as a voting member.
5. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. BOA 2013004
Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a variance to Article 11, Section 21.1 1.1.0 Freestanding
Ground Sign, to allow a forty foot (40') variance from the twenty foot (20') maximum sign height
requirement, in order to permit a sixty foot (60') tall freestanding ground sign at 17497 Triton Drive.
Ms. Wood presented the item by stating that the applicant is requesting a variance to Article 11,
Section 21.11.10 Freestanding Ground Sign., to allow a forty foot (40') variance from the twenty foot
(20') maximum sign height requirement, in order to permit a sixty foot (60') tall freestanding ground
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
June 24, 2013
Page 1 of 5
sign.
The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Corninaercial Recorcler" on June 7, 2013 and in
the "Herald" on June 13, 2013. There were twelve (12) notices mailed to surrounding property
owners on .Tune 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 or neutral to the request.
The approximate 3.35 acre property is currently developed as a mini storage warehouse facility and
has an existing fifty feet (50') tall freestanding sign on the site. The existing sign was installed on the
property prior to the current regulation and the property owner is requesting to raise the height of the
existing sign by ten feet (10'). The new freestanding sign is proposed at sixty feet (60') in height.
The subject property is located at 17497 Triton Drive and according to the submitted application, the
request of the variance is to allow a sign height that will be visible from IH 35 and provide adequate
viewing. The property is located approximately 150 feet west of FM 3009 on Triton Drive.
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;
2. Special conditions of restricted area, topography or physical features exists that are peculiar
to the subject parcel of land and are riot applicable to other parcels of land in the same zoning
district;
3. The hards.kaip is in no way the resultof 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.
Staff recommends disapproval of BOA 2013 -004. The request for a variance does not comply with
the approval criteria for granting a variance as presented above.
Mr. Gottsmai, the authorized agent for the applicant, discussed proportionality, aesthetics and
appropriateness for signage and stated that the signs at this intersection are about the same height.
The applicant's sign is a landmark display for the business and state that they are willing to give up
their right to the rotating sign if the appeal is granted.
Mr. McElroy opened the public hearing at 6:17 P.M.
® Robert Brockman, 1000 Elbe] Road, spoke on the property owner responses that were received.
Mr. McElroy closed the public hearing at 6:20 P.M.
Mr. Hartzog asked about the photo of the signs that shows the Best Western. Ms. Sanchez answered
that the cabinet was replaced on the existing sign for the former Atrium Inn. Mr Dziewit stated that it
seems like it would be more advertising. Mr. Gottsman responded that their on- premise sign is the
number one source of advertising and then next is the internet. Mr. Hartzog asked about the number
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
June 24, 2013
Page 2 of 5
of vacancies at the moment. Mr. Denson answered that the last week there were 9 vacancies, but they
don't consider- their business an impulse buy, more that when you need storage, people remember the
sign. Ms. Agee asked about the average occupancy over the last 12 months. Mr. Benson responded
that they are at 80 -90% occupancy.
Discussion followed between the Board, Staff and the Applicant.
Mr. Dziewit moved to disapprove the item. Mr. Hartzog seconded the motion. Vote was 5 -0. Motion
carried.
Be BOA 2013 -005
Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a variance to Art icle 11, Section 21.11.10 Freestanding
Ground Sign, to allow a twelve foot (12') variance from theeighteen foot (18') maximum sign height
requirement, in order to permit a thirty foot (30') tall multi-tenant freestanding ground sign at 17361
Bell North.
Ms. Wood presented the item by stating that the property owner is requesting a variance to Article 11,
Section 21.11.10 Freestanding Ground Sign, to allow a twelve foot (12') variance from the eighteen
foot (18') maximum sign height requirement, in order to permit a thirty foot.(30') tall freestanding
ground sign; and to allow the proposed sign to be designed as a multi - tenant freestanding ground sign
at 17361 Bell North.
The public hearing notice was published in "The:.Daily Commercial Recorder" on June 7, 2013 and in
the "Herald" on June 13, 2013. There were eight {8).notices mailed to surrounding property owners on
June 13, 2013. At the time of this staff one (1) response was received in favor of the request; no
responses were received opposed. to or neutral to the request.
The property owner is proposing to remove and replace an existing multi- tenant sign with a thirty foot
(30') tall multi- tenant freestanding ground sign at 17361 Bell North la -iown as Bell North Park 1. The
maximum height allowed fora multi - tenant or freestanding ground sign at this location is eighteen
foot (1$') based on the.;location of.the sign adjacent to FM 3009. The request results in the need for a
twelve.-foot (12') variance per Article 11, Section 21.11.10. The request is to also allow the proposed
sign to be designed as a multi- tenant freestanding sign. Staff's discussion with the authorized agent
included that .:Section 21.11 J0. states that. multi- tenant signage shall be constructed as a monument
sign per Sectioyi. 21.11.12. What the applicant is requesting is the installation of a multi- tenant
freestanding ground sign. The subject property is located at the intersection of Bell North and FM
3009.
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;
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;
3. The hardship is in no way the result of the applicant's own actions; or
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
June 24, 2013
Page 3 of 5
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 disapproval of BOA 2013005. The request for a variance does not comply with
the approval criteria for granting a variance as presented above.
Mr. Toye, the authorized agent for the applicant, discussed reducing the cabinet size by 80 square feet
for the 3 tenants, and based on the grade difference of FM 3009. Mr. Lynch stated that this address
use to be a retail center fronting FM 3009 with 2 businesses who have gone out of business and there
is no longer a. frontage road in front of the center. He further stated that the anchor for this address is
Gym Kids and they have doubled their space.
Mr. McElroy opened the public hearing at 6:40 P.M.
Robert Brockman, 1000 Elbel Road, spoke on Staff's recommendation.
Mr. McElroy closed the public hearing at 6:42 P.M.
Mr. Dziewit asked if this sign was in place prior to raising the road. Mr. Toye stated that yes the sign
was in place and was not a problem before the road was raised over FM 3009. Mr. McElroy asked if
the Applicant has entertained other alternative methods for location. Mr. Toye answered if the sign is
moved to the Bell North address, it will not be seen.
Discussion followed betweenthe Board, Staff and the. Applicant.
Mr. Hartzog moved to disapprove based on there being no hardship. Mr. Reynolds seconded the
motion. Vote was 3 -2. Motion carried.
® Ms. Sanchez reminded the Board that the Jubilee would be from ,July 3rd to July 6t" in Pickrell
Park.
® Ms. Sanchez also mentioned that city offices would be closed on July 4`" and July 5d'
® Ms. Sanchez also stated that City Council meeting scheduled for July 2nd has been cancelled.
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
June 24, 2013
Page 4 of 5
The meeting adjourned at 7:07 P.M.
Chairman, Board of Adjustment
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
June 24, 2013
Page 5 of 5
Recording Secretary, City of Schertz
9 HIM
ITEM SUMMARY: The property owner is proposing to construct and 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') 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 shrubs are prohibited within the
waterline easement. GVEC has indicated that planting trees are prohibited within their easement but the
planting of shrubs are permitted within their easement. These existing easements and restrictions limit the
property owner's ability to comply with the Unified Development Code (UDC) landscaping requirements.
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 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 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.
Existing Zoning Existing Use
General Business Undeveloped
Existing Zoning Existing Use
North Right -of -Way Elbel Road
South Apartment/Multi- f=amily Residential District Multi- Family Residential
East Right -of -way Drainage Channel
West Right -of -way FM 3009
CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: According to UDC, Article 3, Sections 21.3.4.0, 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 properly 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 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 to the community and satisfy the needs for growth
and development in the area.
. 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 2013 -006. The request for a variance complies with the approval criteria
for granting a variance as presented above.
Planning Department Recommendation
X App rove as submitted
Approve with conditions*
Denial
vuFme imp aoaiu can impose condmons; conaiaons snouta only De imposea to meet requirements of the UDC.
Attachments:
Aerial location map
Public hearing notice map
Correspondence
eZe -s mu �Mw33AtON3 fdi3tao3i svin
emrm�- .nnn.xau
x ams -uc 6o 3ro
9itat fti bNN� !lv �s baf 311iS bH eom � ma
W loappoaw PLM
u aH- Re1uua UM
C
0
L N
LU
L.L.
►I
//< 0
0 0
U
2�
B
C)
0
SVX i `ZillIHOS :10 J.lIO 996Z9££9
ls3nnEi� CIVMA 1391 ®N`d 600£ 'W'� oN lo3romd
33NViiAH/1 l3� VI/q 600E Zi83HOS £1azRva /eo a�ewnw 133N6
y❑
'4'''.EE.
LLJ
0
rmi
w
U
LLI
Z
K
<
LL
B
CD
C7
0
LL
p W
vi M ao
co m
a
Q
o
Z_
N
Z
LU
a¢
Z)
2�
o +tea
Z
°
0
<
z
z
P
ro
N
Q C.
�
O
d
®
U
fn
W
uj
W
ELi
Uf
p
Lu
S
l
U
d
U
w
U
CJ
C7
r Q
N
ol)
O
O O A
LL
O
I
a
m
44
17
■
1
IN
W
I _ low,
� W- Z. I
able environment. The applicant is requesting to install 26% window and doors on the all exterior building
facades instead of the front facade 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. 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 facade,
SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERAL LOCATION ZONING AND LAND USE.
The property is located on the southeast corner of FM 3009 and Elbel Road,
Existing Zoning Existing Use
General Business Undeveloped
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 -way 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:
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 a 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;
Many retail shopping centers depend on a large quantify 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
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.
2
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 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 2013.007. 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
vvnire mu t5oaru can impose conamons; conai[ions snouia only be imposed to meet requirements of the UDC.
Attachments:
Public hearing notice map
Correspondence
Exhibits
16�
K143-
I AAA
i�l id
ZAN
�f
��f
arV
i
oLr
A
JA m
I
1 4.
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 facade, 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
pow_
�i ry
_.�"'g I �'
":r
y
ai;.; ,a an s'� e M771 -�., :9Ttr
TO: Board of Adjustment
THROUGH: Lesa Wood, Senior Planner
PREPARED BY: Bryce Cox, Planner I
CASE: BOA 2013 -008 - 6000 Schertz Parkway
SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a variance to Article 9, Section 7.4 Wall
Sign of Ordinance #06 -S -29 Unified Development Code as amended and adopted by
the Verde Enterprise Business Park PUD;(1) 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 eave of the roofline from no closer
vertically than the predominant letter height to a minimum distance of two (2 ") inches
from the eave of the roofline at 6000 Schertz Parkway.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Owner /Applicant: USAA Real Estate Company
Authorized Agent: Conlan, Mike Schroder, Superintendent
REQUEST: 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;
A variance to allow an increase in maximum letter /logo height from forty two inches (42 ") to one
hundred and ten inches (110 ").
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 (250) square feet.
A variance to allow a reduction in the minimum distance a wall sign can be mounted from the eave of
the roofline from no closer vertically than the predominant letter height to a minimum distance of two
inches (2 ") from the eave of the roofline at 6000 Schertz Parkway.
PUBLIC NOTICE: The public hearing notice was published in "The Dail Commercial Recorder"on September
5, 2013 and in the "Hera /d "on September 12, 2013. There were fourteen (14) notices mailed to surrounding
property owners on September 10, 2013. At the time of this staff report two (2) responses were received in
favor of the request; one (1) response was received opposed to the request; and no responses were received
neutral to the request.
ITEM SUMMARY: 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, which ever 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 eave 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 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.
r rr 1
C ...... .........
Existing Zoning
........ ........,
Planned Development
South
Requested
Allowed Under Verde PDD
Allowed Under Current Code
Maximum wall sign area
250 sq. ft.
80 sq. ft.
250 sq. ft.
Maximum logo/letter height
110"
42"
Not Regulated
Minimum distance from the eave of the
2„
Height of predominant letter
Height of predominant letter
roofline
(40 ")
(40 ")
SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERAL LOCATION, ZONING AND LAND USE:
The subject property is located at the intersection of Schertz Parkway and Verde Parkway.
Existing Zoning I Existing Use
Planned Development (PDD) Industrial
;URROUNDING ZONING /LAND USE:
Existing Use
(PDD) Undeveloped
(PDD) Industrial
ht (M -1) Office Warehouse
Schertz Parkwav /Selma Citv Limits
2
Existing Zoning
North
Planned Development
South
Planned Development
East
Manufacturing District -Lig
West
Schertz Citv Limit
Existing Use
(PDD) Undeveloped
(PDD) Industrial
ht (M -1) Office Warehouse
Schertz Parkwav /Selma Citv Limits
2
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;
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 further the objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Land Plan. 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 feet to have signs as large as 250 square feet, in manufacturing zoning
districts and PDD districts with manufacturing base zoning.
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 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 would 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 fifty (250) sq. ft. signs
since the adoption of the wall signs amendment to the UDC.
STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of BOA 2013 -008. 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
:�i °.n�' a av: i�:, a�.- e :P- i"`.ia'�`jz= '4 a. o a _ e,
!
n&w% M�z
.�
-
°�
-
<
m
Ne",
: .
'3
Ww Aid" a Ift
_ -
CN
CN
C`%4
CN
00
0
cn
T
C
W
U
T
c
1
3 U
o �
L
L` O
Q/ T
L
O
T s
L
CN
� U
Y
K
a
a
V)
V)
z
m
w^
Nt:
a�
H
z
w
0
w
i
LL.
J
D
LL.
Z
O
N
Q
Q
54 `"
N
LL
LLJ
U
C/I
6
Nom
oNoQow
WL
LL.
J
D
LL.
Z
O
N
Q
Q
54 `"
N
LL
LLJ
U
C/I
6
AMP
m
a
C
a
a
a
a
F-
.e
LL