BOA 09-23-2013BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
September 23, 2013
The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened on September 23, 2013 at the Municipal Complex, Council
Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Frank McElroy, Chairman
Richard Dziewit, Vice Chairman
Earl Hartzog
Reginna Agee, Alternate
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
David Reynolds
Mark Tew, Alternate
CITY STAFF
Brian James, Executive Director Development
Lesa Wood, Senior Planner
Bryce Cox, Planner I
Patti White, Executive Asst. of Development
OTHERS PRESENT
Chelsy Houy, P.E., Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
Ken Brown, Brown & Ortiz
Paul Blackburn, Schertz 3009, LTD.
Chris Standley, Seefried Properties
Mr. McElroy called the regular meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. and recognized members present.
Mr. McElroy seated Ms. Agee as a voting member.
3. HEARING OF RESIDENTS
a Jeffrey Train, 5501 Mid Cities Parkway, spoke on the variance on tonight's agenda on
BOA2013 -008.
4. Minutes for June 24, 2013 meeting.
Mr. Dziewit moved to approve the minutes as stated. Mr. Hartzog seconded the motion. Vote was
4 -0. Motion carried.
A. BOA 2013 -006
Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to Article 9, Section 21.9.7 —
Landscaping from the requirement that a twenty foot (20') landscape buffer with trees and shrubs be
provided adjacent to a residential use or residentially zoned property; and adjacent to all perimeter
parking lots and vehicular use areas for a depth of at least ten (10') at 711 FM 3009.
Ms. Wood presented this item by stating that the property owner is requesting three (3) variances to
the Unified Development Code (UDC), Article 9, Landscaping. All requests are specifically related to
the south side of the property which is adjacent to a residential use.
1. A variance to Sec. 21.9.7.G with regard to required number of trees and shrubs planted
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
September 23, 2013
Page 1 of 8
within the twenty foot (20') landscape buffer for the entire length of the south property line.
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'.
The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" on September 5, 2013
and in the "Herald" on September 12, 2013. There were eleven (11) notices mailed to surrounding
property owners on September 12, 2013. At the time of this staff report one response has been
received for the proposed request and would like to look at the plan further.
The Board of Adjustment previously considered and approved this request by unanimous decision on
April 22, 2013. However, in accordance with the UDC a variance is effective for a period of 180 days
after the date of approval. During the 180 day period the owner was unable to file for a building
permit and the variance will expire on October 22, 2013.
The property owner is proposing to construct retail development that is approximately 41,000 square
feet on the 6.36± acre tract of land located at the corner of Elbel and PM 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 these easements are a thirty foot (30') Schertz Seguin Local
Government Corporation (SS1,GC) 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
within their easement is prohibited, 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 as follows:
• No trees would be planted on the south property line or in the planter islands located within
the easements.
• Shrubs will be provided at the edge of the parking areas except for approximately 170' of
parking that directly abuts the waterline easement.
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
September 23, 2013
Page 2 of 8
The property is located on the southeast corner of FM 3009 and Elbel Road.
According to UDC, Article 3, Sections 21.3.4.C, In order to make a finding of hardship and grant a
variance from the zoning regulations of the UDC, the Board must determine the following:
1. The requested variance does not violate the intent of this UDC or its amendments;
The variance does not violate the intent of the UDC or its amendments because the property
owner will provide landscaping on the site to enhance the beautification of the City as well
as mitigate the noise and lighting impact on the adjacent property by providing an additional
setback and shrubs to provide a visual screen. The south side of the property is encumbered
by an exceptionally large amount of easements and no structures are allowed to be
constructed within those easements essentially providing a minimum setback seventy -nine
,feet (79) from the property line; which is frftyfour feet (54) more than the standard
commercial set back which will help mitigate the light and noise on the adjacent property. A
wooden privacy fence is currently located on the property line between the tivo properties
that serves as a visual screen.
2. Special conditions of restricted area, topography or physical features exits that are
irregular to the subject parcel of land and are not applicable to other parcels of land in
the same zoning district;
The purpose of this variance is to acknowledge the special circumstances particular to the
subject property. The easement encumbrance of seventy-nine feet (79) on the subject
property prohibits the property owner 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.
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 approval of BOA 2013 -006.
Mr. McElroy opened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M.
® Robert Brockman, 1000 Elbel Road, spoke on a super majority needed to pass items. Ms. Wood
stated that all Board of Adjustment cases require 75% of the members to approve or deny and in
this case, all four members would need to vote the same.
Mr. McElroy closed the public hearing at 6:16 P.M.
Mr. Hartzog moved to approve the item. Ms. Agee seconded the motion. Vote was 4 -0. Motion
carried.
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
September 23, 2013
Page 3 of 8
B. BOA 2013 -007
Mold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to Article 9, Section 21.9.5(C),
Multifamily and Nonresidential Exterior Material Requirements, to allow a variance from the required
thirty percent (30 %) windows and doors of the front fagade on the ground level floor, in order to
permit a twenty six percent (26 %) coverage of windows and doors on the entire fagade on the ground
level floor at 711 FM 3009.
Ms. Wood presented this item by stating that the property owner is requesting a variance to the
Unified Development Code (UDC), Section 21.9.5 (C) (1) Exterior Construction and Design
Standards with regard to the percentage of windows and doors required to install on the front fagade of
the building which requires at least thirty percent (30 %) of the front fagade, on the ground floor level,
to consist of windows and doors that allow for visibility into the commercial building or store. The
requested variance, if granted will allow for a total of twenty six percent (26 %) of windows and doors
( "glazing "). The requested variance, if approved, will allow for the glazing requirement to be
extended to all four sides of the building instead of front f igade only.
The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" on September 5, 2013
and in the "Herald" on September 12, 2013. There were eleven (11) notices mailed to surrounding
property owners on September 12, 2013. At the time of this staff report no responses have been
received for the proposed request.
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 provide an aesthetically
pleasing appearance. UDC, Section 21.9.5 (C) (1) requires that 30% of the front fagade shall provide
windows and doors to provide for visibility into the building. In theory the installation of windows
and doors on a front fagade (building storefront) is to provide an inviting aesthetic appearance which
allows for innovative window display in a walk- able environment. The applicant is requesting to
install 26% window and doors on the all exterior building facades instead of the front fagade only. In
this case, the requirement for the window and door installation on the front fagade has a direct impact
of the functionality of the building. 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.
The property is located on the southeast corner of FM 3009 and Ethel Road.
According to UDC, Article 3, Sections 21.3.4.C, In order to make a finding of hardship and grant a
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
September 23, 2013
Page 4 of 8
variance from the zoning regulations of the UDC, the Board must determine the following:
The requested variance does not violate the intent of this UDC or its amendments;
The UDC, Section 21.9.5 states that the intent of the design criteria is to provide an
aesthetically pleasing appearance. The exterior construction of the building will provide
26% of windows and door dispersed on all four sides of the building and provide an
aesthetically pleasing appearance in keeping with the spirit and intent of the UDC.
2. Special conditions of restricted area, topography or physical features exits that are
irregular to the subject parcel of land and are not applicable to other parcels of land in
the same zoning district;
Many retail shopping centers depend on a large quantity of windows and doors on the fi°om
fagade (building storefi -ont) 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. 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 effect on the perishable food products such
as produce and cold storage. This impact would deprive the applicant of rights commonly
enjoyed by two other grocery stores located within the same zoning district.
Staff recommends approval of BOA 2013 -007.
Mr. McElroy opened the public hearing at 6:16 P.M.
® Ken Brown, representing the applicant, spoke on the new design and working with Staff on this
variance.
Mr. McElroy closed the public hearing at 6:22 P.M.
Mr. Dziewit asked if this market is a smaller version of a Walmart. Mr. Brown answered that it is
known as a neighborhood market, a smaller version and only for groceries and there are 2 under
construction in San Antonio. Mr. McElroy asked what is the name or concept of the market. Mr.
Brown answered that it is a Walmart Neighborhood Market. Discussion followed between the Board,
Staff and the Applicant.
Mr. Hartzog moved to approve the item as presented. Mr. Dziewit seconded the motion. Vote was 4-
0. Motion carried.
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
September 23, 2013
Page 5 of 8
C. BOA2013 -008
Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a variance to Article 9, Section 7.4 Wall Sign of
Ordinance #06 -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 cave of the roofline from no
closer vertically than the predominant letter height to a minimum distance of two (2 ") inches from the
cave of the roofline at 6000 Schertz Parkway.
Mr. Cox presented this item by stating that the property owner is requesting three (3) variances to
Article IX, Section 7.4 Wall Sign of Ordinance #06 -S -29 Unified Development Code as amended and
adopted by the Enterprise Business Park PUD;
1. A variance to allow an increase in maximum letter /logo height from forty two inches (42 ") to
one hundred and ten inches (110" ).
2. A variance to allow for an increase in the maximum area of a wall sign from eighty (80)
square feet to two hundred and fifty (250) square feet.
3. A variance to allow a reduction in the minimum distance a wall sign can be mounted from
the cave of the roofline from no closer vertically than the predominant letter height to a
minimum distance of two inches (2 ") from the cave of the roofline at 6000 Schertz Parkway.
The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" on September 5, 2013
and in the "Herald" on September 12, 2013. There were 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.
The property owner is proposing to install a 250 square foot wall sign mounted two inches from the
top of the front building wall at 6000 Schertz Parkway. The 1.3 million square foot warehouse is
located on approximately 96 acres and in the Verde Enterprise Business Park. This site is located
within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district which is regulated by design standards
specific to the subdivision as well at the 1996 Unified Development Code (Ordinance 96- S -28). The
maximum area allowed for a wall sign is fifteen (15) percent of the wall space or eighty (80) square
feet, whichever is less according to the 1996 UDC and Ordinance 06 -S -29. The variance request
results in a 170 square foot variance. The current UDC allows for a wall sign to be installed with a
maximum area up to 250 sq. ft. in PDD districts with a base zoning of M -I 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 (30U) away from the right -of -way. The request results in the need for a sixty
eight (68) inch variance. The current UDC does not contain any previsions about maximum or
minimum logo or letter heights for wall signs. Under the current UDC a one hundred and ten (110 ")
logo or letter would be permitted.
The proposed the sign will be mounted two inches (2 ") from the top of the wall. The 1996 UDC states
that wall signs should be no closer to the cave of the roofline than the predominant letter height, forty
inches (40 ") in this case. The request results in a need for a thirty eight (38) inch variance per Article
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
September 23, 2013
Page 6 of 8
IX, Section 7.4.1). The current UDC has the same vertical placement restrictions for wall signs as the
06 -S -29 UDC. The applicant is requesting the installation of a wall sign that is scaled appropriately for
the size of the building.
According to UDC, Article 3, Sections 21.3.4.C, In order to make a finding of hardship and grant 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 TY 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.
2. Special conditions of restricted area, topography or physical features exists that are
irregular to the subject parcel of land and are not applicable to other parcels of land in
the same zoning district;
The subject property was recently developed with a building that's size and scale requires a
sign larger than eighty (80) sq. ft. to maintain an appropriate aesthetic quality. No other
parcels of land in this zoning district are currently capable of supporting a building this
large, and therefore 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 recommends approval of BOA 2013 -008.
Mr. Stanley, representing the applicant, stated that with the height of the sign, the goal is to balance it
between the elevation and the windows features; and the scale of the sign works with the length of the
building; and they are requesting one building mounted sign, and are sensitive to their neighbor's
concerns.
Mr. McElroy opened the public hearing at 6:24 P.M.
o Robert Brockman, 1000 Ethel Road, spoke on the number of notices sent out and thanked the
applicant for asking for the sign variance in advance.
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
September 23, 2013
Page 7 of 8
• Jeffrey Train, 5501 Mid Cities Parkway, spoke on being not opposed, but requesting fairness.
Mr. McElroy closed the public hearing at 6:37 P.M.
Mr. Dziewit asked if it is possible for Mr. Train to meet with Staff. Mr. James answered yes. Mr.
McElroy asked if the ordinance had been changed to allow some of the variances before the Board.
Ms. Wood answered that the ordinance has been amended for M -1, M -2 and PDD's as development
comes in, but since they were vested to an older PDD, the Board would be granting a variance to the
PDD. Mr. Hartzog asked if they are allowed additional signs on the building. Ms. Wood answered
that one sign is allowed on the front (primary) and 2 additional signs, but this PDD spells out
specifically only 1 wall sign.
Discussion followed between the Board and Staff.
Mr. Hartzog moved to accept this item with all 3 variances as presented. Mr. Dziewit seconded the
motion. Vote was 4 -0. Motion carried.
6. REQUESTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. Requests by Member to place items on a future Board of Adjustment Agenda.
• None
B. Announcements by Members
• Mr. Dziewit thanked those who attended Schertzfest.
C. Announcements by City Staff
None
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meegSieg- $djourned at 6:45 P.M.
of
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
September 23, 2013
Page 8 of 8
O� ayP�
Recording Secretary, City of Schertz