The URL can be used to link to this page

08-25-14 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. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Minutes for March 31, 2014 Regular Meeting 4. 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 -006 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, on approximately 19 acres located in the Enterprise Industrial Park Subdivision generally located at Lookout Road and Schertz Parkway. B. BOA 2014 -007 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 (1.0') at 711 FM 3009. C. BOA 2014 -008 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to Article 9, Section 21.9.5(C), Multifamily and Nonresidential Exterior Material Requirements, to allow a variance from the required thirty percent (30 %) windows and doors of the front fagade on the ground level Board of Adjustment August 25, 2014 . Page 1 of 2 floor, in order to permit a twenty six percent (26 %) coverage of windows and doors on the entire fagade on the ground ]eve] floor at 711 FM 3009. 01011 OILY Ih� A. Announcements by Members • City and community events attended and to be attended • Continuing education events attended and to be attended B. Announcements by City Staff • City and community events attended and to be attended • Continuing education events attended and to be attended 6. ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR MEETING CERTIFICATION I, Bryce Cox, Planner of the City of Schertz, Texas, do hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the official bulletin boards on this the 22nd day of August, 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. F>r 6e C0X 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. The Board of Adjustment for the City of Schertz reserves the right to adjourn into executive session at any time during the course of this meeting to discuss any of the matters listed above, as authorized by the Texas Open Meetings Act. Executive Sessions Authorized: This agenda has been reviewed and approved by the City's legal counsel and presence of any subject in any Executive Session portion of the agenda constitutes a written interpretation of Texas Government Code Chapter 551 by legal counsel for the governmental body and constitutes an opinion by the attorney that the items discussed therein may be legally discussed in the closed portion of the meeting considering available opinions of a court of record and opinions of the Texas Attorney General known to the attorney. This provision has been added to this agenda with the intent to meet all elements necessary to satisfy Texas Government Code Chapter 551.144(c) and the meeting is conducted by all participants in reliance on this opinion. Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 2 August 25, 2014 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES March 31, 2014 The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened on March 31, 2014 at the Municipal Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Frank McElroy, Chairman Richard Dziewit, Vice Chairman David Reynolds Earl Hartzog Reginna Agee Mark Tew, Alternate i�Il\9IIIICoZ$7. -37aI7AtC1309K4 E \1111 CITY STAFF Brian James, Executive Director, Development Michelle Sanchez, Director Development Services Lesa Wood, Senior Planner Patti White, Executive Asst. of Development Hamilton, Chick -Fil -A Mr. McElroy called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. and recognized members present. 2. SEAT ALTERNATE TO ACT IF REOUIRED None was required. Mr. Tew left 3. MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 24, 2014 REGULAR MEETING AND MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 13,2014 SPECIAL AGENDA — JOINT MEETING. 4. Mr. McElroy moved to Items 4A and 4B. A. BOA 2014 -004 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request by NWC 3009 /Four Oaks, Ltd. for a variance to Article 11, Signs and Advertising Devices, Section 21.11.9 Wall Signs to exceed the maximum number of wall signs permitted at 6038 F.M. 3009. Mr. McElroy opened the Public Hearing both items 4A and 4B at 6:02 P.M. because it is the same address. Ms. Wood presented this item by stating that the property owner is requesting a variance to Article 11, Signs and Advertising Devices to allow a variance to Article 11, Signs and Advertising Devices, Section 21.11.9 Wall Signs to exceed the maximum number of wall signs permitted at 6038 F.M. 3009 in order to permit a total of five (5) wall signs. The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" on March 10, 2014 and in the `Herald" on March 12, 2014. There were seven (7) notices mailed to surrounding property owners on March 7, 2014. At the time of this staff report two (2) responses have been received opposed to the proposed request. Public Hearing notice comments are as follows: Response from 6050 FM 3009 — Opposed — "I am opposed unless the same variance be granted to 6050 FM 3009." Response from 6026 FM 3009 — Opposed - No comment. Minutes Board of Adjustment March 31, 2014 Page 1 of 4 The subject property is an approximately 0.929 acre tract of land and is currently under construction with an approximately 4,500 square foot Chick -fil -a restaurant. The applicant is proposing to install five (5) wall signs on the exterior of the building. The proposed sign package exceeds the maximum number of signs by two (2). In accordance with the Unified Development Code, Article 11, Section 21.11.9 (C) the maximum number of signs permitted for a single occupancy building shall be limited to one (1) per wall with a maximum of three (3) signs. Each sign in excess of the primary wall sign shall be a maximum seventy -five percent (75 %) of the area of the primary wall sign. The applicant worked with the Director of Development Services to determine compliance on all signs in the sign package. As a result of their discussions it was determined that the following signs did not meet the provisions of the UDC; One (1) additional secondary wall sign' One (1) additional secondary wall sign band wrapped elevation sign to be locat( The following three (3) wall signs have been been issued for the following three (3) signs. • A primary wall sign "Chick- fil -A" 1, Two (2) secondary wall the building. The property is located intersection. The propert need of the variance regt applicant has been author all commercial nroDerty c Staff criter Hampton, road so that customers can original chicken sandwich'' with some lamination. She Mr. Reynolds asked a sign. Mr. Hartzog ask( permitted for the front "Chick -fil- no special c . The variar. three (3) wa in the City )A 2014 -00 as presented -A" located on the rear of the building; and iginal Chicken Sandwich" is proposed as a front elevation of the building. in accordance with the UDC and permits have the front: elevation of the building; and :)cated on the main and drive thru elevation of north of the FM 3009 and Four Oaks Lane ees or unique conditions that would result in the t conflicts with the provisions of the UDC. The accordance with the UDC which is the right of for a variance does not comply with all the 'it, stated that they would like to increase the visibility from the side r the road before you pass the store, and that the sign "home of the ;ed nationwide on this type of building, which is brushed aluminum stated that other restaurants in the general vicinity have 5 to 7 signs. proposed sign and if it is two signs. Ms. Wood stated that it is one the front elevation. Ms. Wood stated that there have been three signs s, the main elevation and the drive up window. Discussion followed between Staff, the Applicant and the Board. Mr. Hartzog moved to approve the request for a variance. Motion died due to lack of a second. Ms. Agee moved to deny the request for a sign variance. Mr. Dziewit seconded the motion. Vote was 4 -1 with Mr. Hartzog voting nay. Motion carried. B. BOA 2014 -005 Minutes Board of Adjustment March 31, 2014 Page 2 of 4 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request by NWC 3009 /Four Oaks, Ltd. for a variance to Article 11, Signs and Advertising Devices, Section 21.11.5 (F) to allow the height of a flag pole to exceed the maximum height at 6038 F.M. 3009. Ms. Wood presented this item by stating that the property owner is requesting a variance to Article 11, Signs and Advertising Devices to allow a 50' flag pole to be erected on the front of the lot on the subject property. The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" on March 10, 2014 and in the "Herald" on March 12, 2014. There were seven (7) notices mailed to surrounding property owners on March 7, 2014. At the time of this staff report two (2) total responses have been received; one (1) in favor of the request with conditions (see below) and one (1) opposed to the proposed request. Public Hearing notice comments are as follows: Response from 6050 FM 3009 — Opposed — "I am opposed unless the same variance be granted to 6050 FM 3009." Response from 6026 FM 3009 - In favor "only if used for Official United States Flag and /or official State Texas Flag. *Vote will change to oppose if used for advertising or any other flag or banner." The subject property is an approximately 0.929 a with an approximately 4,500 square foot Chick -fi fifty (50) feet in height flag pole in front of the rc fifteen feet (15'). Pursuant to the Unified Develo flag poles shall not exceed thirty five (35) feet in foot north of the FM 3009 and Four Oaks Lane in The property has no special circi variance requested. The variance the ability to install a flag pole to Schertz. Staff recommends denial of BOA 201 what is allowed Der Code and does not 1 is There being no one to speak on either i 4B at 6:15 P.M. Discussion be a .re tract of land and is currently under construction -a restaurant. The applicant is proposing to install a staurant which will exceed the maximum height by xment Code (UDC) Article 11, Section 21.11.5 (F), height. The property is located approximately 250 onditions that would result in the need of the the provisions of the UDC. The applicant has the right of all property owners in the City of applicant desires to erect a taller flag pole than cient justification for granting a variance. id research and that research shows that Schertz 1 and they wanted to do for Chick -fil -A and the Mr. McElroy closed the public hearing for both 4A and the Applicant and the Board. Mr. Reynolds moved to deny the variance for the flag pole. Ms. Agee seconded the motion. Vote was 4 -1 with Mr. Hartzog voting nay. Motion carried. The Board continued onto Item 3 — Minutes. 3. MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 24, 2014 REGULAR MEETING AND MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 13, 2014 SPECIAL AGENDA — JOINT MEETING Mr. Dziewit moved to approve the minutes of February 24, 2014. Ms. Agee seconded the motion. Vote was 5 -0. Motion carried. Minutes Board of Adjustment March 31, 2014 Page 3 of 4 5. 6. Mr. McElroy stated that he would abstain from voting on the minutes of March 13, 2014 because he did not attend the meeting. Mr. Hartzog stated that the note on the agenda stated March 13, 2013 . Mr. Hartzog moved to approve the minutes of March 13 2014. Mr. Dziewit seconded the motion. Vote was 4 -1 with Mr. McElroy abstaining. Motion carried. REQUESTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Announcements by Members • Mr. Hartzog and Mr. McElroy asked if Staff would check with the City Attorney if the minutes would need to be reposted correctly on another agenda or they could stand as voted on tonight. • Also, Mr. Hartzog asked about the Hearing of Residents item not being on the agenda. Ms. Wood stated that the City Attorney has determined that this is a decision making Board and there is no item that the Board would need to hear from residents and that all cases for the Board are public hearings and the public can speak at that time on each case. • Mr. Hartzog attended the design meeting also attended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and they discussed that the variances being heard need to have a hardship. • Mr. Dziewit would like to see more design standard meetini2s. B. Announcements by City Staff Minutes Board of Adjustment March 31, 2014 Page 4 of 4 Recording Secretary, City of Schertz PP RTU ] R L oC TO: Board of Adjustment CASE: BOA 2014 -006 Enterprise Industrial Park Lot 3, Block 1 — 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, on approximately 19 acres located in the Enterprise Industrial Park Subdivision generally located at Lookout Road and Schertz Parkway. GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: WR Lookout Road LLC, Martin McFarland Engineer: Civil Engineering Consultants, Jesse Cantu, P.E. Project Architect: Beaty Palmer Architects, Terry Palmer, AIA REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a variance to the Unified Development Code (UDC), Section 21 .9.5 (C) (1) Exterior Construction and Design Standards with regard to the percentage of windows and doors required to install on the front facade of the building which requires at least fifteen percent (15 %) of the front fagade, on the ground floor level, to consist of windows and doors that allow for visibility into the commercial building or store. The requested variance, if granted will allow for coverage of windows and doors, equal to twenty eight percent (28 %) of the front fagade, distributed around the entire building fagade on the ground level floor. PUBLIC NOTICE: The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" on August 8, 2014 and in the "Herald" on August 13, 2014. There were three (3) notices mailed to surrounding property owners on August 14, 2014. At the time of this staff report no responses have been received for the proposed request. ITEM SUMMARY: The property owner is proposing to construct an approximately 325,000 square foot office/ warehouse on the 18.6+ acre tract of land located north of the intersection of Schertz Parkway and Lookout Road. Pursuant to the Unified Development Code (UDC) Article 9, Section 21.9.5 Exterior Construction and Design Standards the design criteria is to provide guidelines for new construction in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance. UDC, Section 21.9.5 (C) (1) requires that 15% of the front fagade shall provide windows and doors to provide for visibility into the building. In theory the installation of windows and doors on a front fagade (building storefront) is to provide an inviting aesthetic appearance which allows for innovative window display in a walkable environment. The applicant is requesting to install windows and doors, equal to twenty eight percent (28 %) of the front fagade, distributed on all exterior building facades instead of the front fagade only. In this case, the requirement for the window and door installation on the front fagade has a direct impact of the functionality of the building. Glass located on ground level presents a security risk for warehouse type buildings. Additionally high windows that are too large cause uneven day lighting of the building. Through discussions with the applicant and architect 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 325,000 square foot building with windows and doors totaling twenty eight percent (28 %) of the front fagade, installed over the entire building fagade. SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERAL LOCATION, ZONING AND LAND USE: The property is generally located on the north side of the intersection of Lookout Road and Schertz Parkway, L Existing Zoning Existing Use Light Manufacturing Undeveloped Existing Zoning North Light Manufacturing South Light Manufacturing East_ Light Manufacturing West Light Manufacturing Existing Use Office/ Warehouse Industrial CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: According to UDC, Article 3, Sections 21.3.4.C, In order to make a finding of hardship and grant a variance from the zoning regulations of the UDC, the Board must determine the following: 1. The requested variance does not violate the intent of this UDC or its amendments; The UDC, Section 21.9.5 states that the intent of the design criteria is to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance. The exterior construction of the building will provide windows and doors in the amount of 28% of the front fagade, dispersed on all four sides of the building to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance in keeping with the spirit and intent of the UDC. 2. Special conditions of restricted area, topography or physical features exits that are peculiar to the subject parcel of land and are not applicable to other parcels of land in the same zoning district; There are no special conditions that exist that are known. Granting this variance does not negatively impact adjacent properties in fact the windows on all side of the building will provide an increased aesthetic value from the solid masonry side walls initially proposed on the site. a E M r i t 4. The interpretation of the provisions in this UDC or any amendments thereto would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district that comply with the same provisions. The strict enforcement of the exterior construction and design standards creates an impact on the functionality of the building because of the affect on the building's security and natural lighting. This impact would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other office warehouse buildings located within the same zoning district. STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of BOA 2014006. 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 map Public hearing notice map Application Exhibits glflj:� §Cif ,'e41kc HHH" HM ^'1 l ni_- 5 r �1 's92 m O ryy 1 W Z 016 Y V! Z C m 1: r pwj Z my ° m 0 m N y m V D Z 0 W v V O ® m ® p}o�g6\ N = Z Z —lh r �� m °\ �O� °® \ �ppL °O 0 me 0 S 9 CD LO^ 5p % \6L4y0 ' L� a �,(Na o � pPP i Ooo 1�pgLN a d O d N i N O o N O O � i rl C=i Ni I I E O CASE NUMBER Board of Adjustment may grant variances or modifications of height, yard, area, coverage, parking rcgulations, accessory building and non - conforming use subject to making a finding of hardship that the variance meets all four of the following criteria. State how your request meets these conditions. Description of variance request Property Owner is seeking a variance from the provisions found in Section 21.9.5.0 - Multifamily and Nonresidential Exterior Material Requirements - See proposed buildin elevations Tor distribution of glazing around the entire bll11d1ng in lieu of the tront I Please see attached letter addressed to Brian James for additional information. 1. Does the requcsted variance violate the intent of the Unified Development Code or deprive the applicant of right commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district that comply with the same provisions? ❑ Yes ® No The proposed alternative facade treatments for the entire building is in with the intent of this UDC Sect 2. Do special conditions or restricted area, shape, topography, or physical features exist that are irregular to the subject parcel of land and not applicable to other parcels of land in the same zoning districts? ❑ Yes El No There are no special conditions that exist, that are known. 3. Is the hardship the result of the applicant's own actions or intended for financial interest? ❑ Yes The applicant views that the provisions of the UDC Section that windows and doors to allow visibili El No res 15% ible with this type of facility (distribution warehouse)and is therefore requesting approval for an alternative facade design treatment. 4. Would granting this variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the value of property in the vicinity? ❑ Yes ® No Explain: There will be no adverse or detrimental impact or effect on the public welfare Preparcr's Signature: Printed Name: Cory W. Hawkins Date prepared: 07 . l6 . 14 16- Variance Checklist ,p ,I'd I1 211119 Page 2 0l 2 BEUY I ER 07.16.14 Mr. Brian James, Executive Director The City of Schertz 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, Texas 78154 Re: Lot 3, Block 1, Enterprise Industrial Park Subdivision: Request for a Variance from the provisions of City of Schertz Uniform Development Code, Section 21.9.5.0 - Multifamily and Non Residential Exterior Material. MR.JAMES, on behalf of our Client, WR Lookout Road LLC, we are respectfully requesting a minor variance from the requirements of Section 21.9.5.0 - Multifamily and Non Residential Exterior Material. Specifically, the requirement that stipulates that industrial buildings located within the M -1 and M -2 zoning districts have fifteen percent (15 %) of the front facade as windows and doors that allow for visibility into the building. Under strict adherence of this section, we share the concern with our client that there would be security and, perhaps safety concerns with concentrated glass windows near the ground floor of the warehouse area that allows visibility into the warehouse. For this Variance, we are requesting an alternative facade design that allows for distributing this window area around the building on all four elevations per the attached sketch. In our view, this alternative variance scheme is arguably more compatible with the functional use of this project and allows for better day - lighting of the entire building interior without compromising the exterior facade appearance. The amount of vision glass for the applicant's preferred variance scheme exceeds that of the base -line code compliant scheme with fifteen percent glass coverage on the front facade by over four hundred square feet. Sincerely, Cory W Hawkins AiA senior associate attachments. • Facade sketch of two options (variance option & base -line option) with areas calculations • Facade sketch of UDC Compliant Option 1 • Facade sketch of Variance Option 2 • Site Plan /Floor Plan ofproposed building with Vicinity Map xc: Martin McFarland, Weeks Robinson Properties Beaty ralaaat WtChRecis INC. 11® 1110adwaC, Saito 600 sacs AHIGN€8, Texas 782015 C4 &CC 2X212.8022 ti of N Z a a d O w 0 a 0 0 w u a z O F w F Z O s LL_ z Q W J �N W K ° Co z 0 Q W 3 �b o- Z 0_ J W W o z Q W O �o ;s z Q J a O U U I > , I S. pV amvi z 0 0 cn LU D Cj LU 0� ui U Z a b; fla��a elk{ 5 N QNQ W z 0 Q �o F W G w W b ^_ as Ma W W r d Q V E 0 � M 5 z a d a o W g x O 0 O w 3 0 m z z u a 0 u a z 0 z 0 Q J W 0 N W D 0 w W V z Q Q 7_ D > r J �p L L 0 Z z M 3 z a a W w MODE x O 0 0 w 0 m z z u a 0 u a LL 0 z 0 Q W � I 0 Ca z Q J CL 0 U U 0 Z) S C ] ]R L 3 COMMUNITY Y TO: Board of Adjustment PREPARED BY: Bryce Cox, Planner CASE: BOA 2014 -007 Schertz 3009 Market — Landscaping SUBJECT: 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. 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 Protect 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. 21.9.7.1-11c 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 August 8, 2014 and in the "Herald" on August 13, 2014. There were eleven (11) notices mailed to surrounding property owners on August 11, 2014. At the time of this staff report one (1) response was received in favor of the request. BACKGROUND: The Board of Adjustment previously considered and approved this request by unanimous decision on April 22, 2013, September 26, 2013, and February 24, 2014. 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 August 23, 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 Elbe[ 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. East Existing Zoning Existing Use General Business Undeveloped Existing Zoning Existing Use Right -of- Way Elbe] Road Apartment /Multi - Family Residential District Multi -Fad Residential 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: 2 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 -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 * 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 rr ar (129999) 501 FM 3009. SSCCC11HUZ City of Schertz w k E come15n1Twaeewoe «OPPORTUNITY SCHERTZ 3009 L�.�s 200' Buffer Parcel Boundaries %` tact U,. Feer, e.. sole MARKET a a 100 2H 4oa soo eao Feet `36ry1 gpOg ..... `. FM gpp (26211) r"`dar r 51 1101 ELBEL RD r r ` &J3 rrr �i ire® ,0o, (16632), 1190 BORGFELD RD dr. oo9g g (108524) 10 0 ELBEL RD,. `0jG3Q z0 PP 91 l3� &M30p0 g00 EM 4� (110527) 'r 05 i p4g0� p9 g0 0 ELBEL 40.1 9 g,`NRRGFEL�Ro O g a (151482) 771 FM 3009 ® 4 1 4 � i® f f `g10A30p0 0.a (39550) i 0 ELBEL RD g § 0.g d" gg rid rrr p r r rr ar (129999) 501 FM 3009. SSCCC11HUZ City of Schertz w k E come15n1Twaeewoe «OPPORTUNITY SCHERTZ 3009 L�.�s 200' Buffer Parcel Boundaries %` tact U,. Feer, e.. sole MARKET a a 100 2H 4oa soo eao Feet CASE. Board of Adjustment may grant variances or modifications of height, yard, arena, coverage, parking regulations, accessory building and non- conforming use subject to making a finding of hardship that the variance meets all four of the following criteria. State how your request meets these conditions. Description of variance request: The applicant is requesting a variance to Section 21.9.7 (G) requiring a 20 -ft landscape buffer adjacent to residential property with shade tree for every 30 linear feet and 10 shrubs for every 50 linear feet, and Section 21.9.7 (H)(2) requiring a 10 -ft landscape buffer adjacent to parking lot areas adjacent to residential with 1 shade tree for every 50 linear feet. The required buffer area can be provided on the southeast side of the site adjacent to the mulfi- family residential use, however, the owners of existing utility easements along this property line prohibit planting in the provided buffer area. 1. Does the requested vanance violate the intent of the Unified Development Code or deprive the applicant of right commonly enjoyed by other properties in the swine zoning district that comply with the same provisions? ❑ Yes X 1\0 Explain: The requested variance does not violate the intent of the UDC as there are already several Gees and an existing wood fence in place on the multi - family side of the property line within close proximity of the subject property. Any trees or shrubs planted within the required landscape buffer would be blocked from view by the multi- family users by the existing fence screening the property. 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? X Yes CI No Explain: This particular site is restricted by two existing utility lines with associated easements (30 -foot waterline easement and 50 -foot overhead electric easement) totaling 79 -feet from the property line into the site on the southeast side. The owners of these easements have expressed in writing (attached) that they will not permit plantings within the easements due to potential conflicts with their uses. Therefore, the required landscape space (20 -feet from the property line) is provided, but the user is not permitted to plant the UDC required plantings as noted above. 3. Is the hardship the result of the applicant's own actions or intended for financial interest? ❑ Yes X No Explain: This hardship is a result of an existing waterline and easement established on the property in 1979 and existing overhead electric tines and easements established in 2002 by previous property owners. These utilities benefit the surrounding community and cannot feasibly be relocated due to their size and the density of existing development surrounding the site. 4. Would granting this variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the value of property in the vicinity? ❑ Yes X No Explain: Granting this variance will only affect the subject property and the adjacent multi- family property. However, as stated above and shown in the attached exhibits, an existing screening fence is already in place and acts as a visual buffer between the two uses. The required landscape area will still be provided. It is only the required plantings within this area that cannot be provided. Preparer's Signature: Printed Name: Amanda K. Bahrij, P.E., LEAP Date prepared: 7/29/14 16- Variance Checklist U,� o 14x41 Page 2 oft KENNETH W. BROWN, AICP DANIEL ORTIZ JAMES B. GRIFFIN JAMES MCKNIGHT NINA PRADO 112 E. PECAN STREET SUITE 1360 SAN ANTONIO. TEXAS 78205 TELEPHONE: 210.299.3704 FAX: 210.299.4731 July 28, 2014 Ms. Lesa Wood Senior Planner City of Schertz 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, Texas 78154 Phone: 210 - 619 -1785 Fax: 210 - 619 -1789 PAUL M. JUAREZ OF COUNSEL Re: Two (2) Variance Applications for Property Located at F.M. 3009 and Elbel Road, in the City of Schertz, Texas. Dear Ms. Wood: Variance applications for landscaping and glazing requirements have previously been submitted and approved by the Board of Adjustment for the property located at F.M. 3009 and Elbel Road. The latest approval occurred on February 24, 2014 (approval letters are included herein). Building permits for the proposed use will not be submitted within 180 days from this latest approval date and therefore we are requesting approval of the same variances to allow for additional time to submit building permits. Included herein are two variance application packages with corresponding application fee checks. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or need additional information regarding this request. Enclosures: As stated Sincerely, BROWN & ORTIZ, P.C. From: Jeff Ratliff <jratliff @gvec.org> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:09 PM To: Schaefer, Jordan Cc: Houy, Chelsy Subject: RE: Elbel Rd. /FM 3009 Development - Overhead Electric Easement Jordan, I just wanted to clarify that you can plant shrubbery or grasses in the easement but you cannot plant trees within the easement. Will this suffice or do you need me to send you something else? Jeff Ratliff Project Manager Direct: 1.830.401.8345 jratliff @gvec.org rax�a. Guadalupe Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. 6400 IH -10 west I Seguin, TX 78156 1.800.223.GVEC (4832) mmmsvec.0r® P Subject: Elbel Rd. /FM 3009 Development - Overhead Electric Easement Jeff, We had spoken a couple weeks ago regarding a commercial site at the SW corner of Elbel Rd. and FM 3009 located in Schertz. I had asked you if we could plant within an existing electric easement to meet city landscape requirements, but you informed me that planting underthe overhead electric lines is not allowed and our site would not be allowed to plant within the easement. Since our conversation, we have spoken with the city and I am needing an email from you that I can provide to the city stating that we will not be allowed to plant within the easement. This will allow us to obtain a variance from the city for the planting requirement and avoid planting in the electric easement altogether. Would you mind providing me with an email stating your decision on allowing planting within the easement? Thanks in advance for your help and let me know if you need anything from our end. Jordan Schaefer, E.I.T.' Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. nx xwe2el 1 601 NW Loop 410, Suite 350, San Antonio, TM 78216 I 210.321.3423 direct 1210.541.9166 office 1210341.8699 fax I iordenscheefer rftimlet+.horn.com I www.kimtey- horn.com From: Alan Cockerell <aockerell @seguintexas.gov> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 11:36 AM To: Schaefer, Jordan Cc: Houy, Chelsy Subject: Re: Elbel Rd. / FM 3009 Development - Water Easement mr,74EM SSLGC does not want any vegetation other than grass planted on our pipeline right -of -way. We need to have access at all times and any trees or shrubs will prohibit that access. Thanks, R. Alan Cockerell General Manager Schertz- Seguin Local Government Corporation PO Box 833 Seguin, TX 78156 Office: 830 -401 -2403 Cell: 830 -433 -0551 acockerell(&_segui ntexas.gov ATTENTION ELECTED OFFICIALS: A "Reply to All" on this e-mail could lead to violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act. Please reply only to the sender. CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this e-mail may be confidential and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or individuals named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby noted that any review, dissemination or copying of this e-mail or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you received this e- mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. From: "Jordan Schaefer" <Jordan.SchaeferCc?kimley- hom.com> To: acockerell seguintexas.gov Cc: "chelsy houy" <cheiU.houV@kimley- horn.com> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 10:32:33 AM Subject: RE: Elbel Rd. / FM 3009 Development - Water Easement We had spoken a couple weeks ago regarding a commercial site at the SW corner of Elbel Rd. and FM 3009 located in Schertz. t had asked you if we could plant within the easement to meet city landscape requirements, but you informed me that since there is a large waterline (36 ") within the easement and since it is not typically allowed our site would not be allowed to plant within the easement. Since our conversation, we have spoken with the city and I am needing an email from you that I can provide to the city stating that we will not be allowed to plant within the easement. This will allow us to obtain a variance from the city for the planting requirement and avoid planting in the water easement. Would you mind providing me with an email stating your decision on allowing planting within the easement? Thanks in advance for your help and let me know if you need anything from our end. Jordan Schaefer, E.I.T. I Klmley -Horn and Associates, Inc. px No.92s) 1 601 NW Loop 410, Suite 350, San Antonio, TX 78216 1 210.321.3423 direct 1210.541.9166 office 1 210.541.8699 fax I iordanschaeferQkirnlep- horn.mm (www.kimiey- horn .com From: Schaefer, Jordan Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:34 PM To:'acockerell @seguintexas.gov' Cc: Houy, Chelsy Subject: Elbel Rd. / FM 3009 Development - Water Easement Alan, I am currently working on a development located at the southwest corner of Elbel Rd. and I'M 3009 located in Schertz, TX and have a couple of questions for you regarding a water line and easement located on our site. There is a 30' water easement along our southern property line that runs parallel with the city required 20' landscape buffer. The city requires that we plant "shade" trees (we have a variety of different species that we can use) and shrubs within the buffer along our property and I wanted to verify what will be required /allowed with regards to the water utilities. Specifically, would we be allowed to plant in the easement and if so, what would we be allowed to plant? In addition, are there any root barrier systems that we could implement if we are not allowed to plant within the easement to allow planting? I have attached an exhibit for your use so that you can get an idea of the site and what I am looking for. If you could please give me a call back at your earliest convenience it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for all your help. Jordan Schaefer, E.I.F. I Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. (rx N ®.szs) 1 601 NW Loop 410, Suite 350, San Antonio, TX 782161 210.321.3423 direct 1210.541.9166 office 1210.541.8699 fax I iordanschaefertakimleu- horn.com I www klmlev -hom mm i IN 9 II 1. ne is ism C3 9 -9f mm 0 M U) 2 !c C6 - --- --- == m 0 F . —N3 Gq tRPY R-19HA RD DRAE) ! > Im Mill I III lop o 000 m 0 (n in CA 0 c c 0 z z > C) m m Vl6 NUMBER I ' DAM I 1 01/21/20141 SCHERTZ 3009 MARKET VARIANCE E:Enan"cl' A6'QH 0 m,, Is s, I r r- - F.M. 3009 AND ELBEL ROAD REQUEST .=,.. ma". MOT 'o Iz� F73�362266 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS I am: in favor of { opposed to ❑ I am: in favor of opposed to ❑ Comments: Name: _U� ( ( (A/ [� (Please Print Y //ur Name) Street Address: �� lv Y 7 c Reply Form neutral to ❑ the request for 9 0A 2094 -007 neutral to ❑ the request for BOA 2014 -008 Signature Date Phone No.: 4>5iY�i>� 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, Texas 78154 210,619.1000 tr,l COMMUNITY N(C]HOERTZ I OPPORTUNITY TO: Board of Adjustment PREPARED Y: Bryce Cox, Planner CASE: BOA 2014 -008 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 August 8, 2014 and in the "Herald" on August 13, 2014. There were eleven (11) notices mailed to surrounding property owners on August 11, 2014. At the time of this staff report one (1) response was received in favor of the request. BACKGROUND: The Board of Adjustment previously considered and approved this request by unanimous decision on April 22, 2013, September 26, 2013, and February 24, 2014. 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 August 23, 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 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% 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 fagade 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 of 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. Existing Zoning Existing Use General Business Undeveloped Existing Zoning Existing Use North Right -of- Way Elbel Road South Apartment/Multi- Family Residential District Multi -Fad 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: 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. 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. s - 1, 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 2014.008. 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 13p�1 gOp9 .. . (129999) 501 FM 3009 SCCCHE R TZ city of Schertz P� GOMMVNITY ^BEFVICE +4PPOflTVNITY +°"-, ran uacU W- S9e,2G SCHERTZ 3009 i„�„„.� 200' Buffer 0 Parcel Boundaries V MARKET s o too 200 400 soo aoo Feet (26211) 0 9 1101 ELBEL RD p g x (16632)0. 1190 BORGFELD RD (908524) 0 ELBEL RD,.+ p �''i� p04F�30 01 ELBEL 53'j1�jp0g °c of &�3pp9 $� ,:'fr�'y�cJ 1g0 @ Y" �1AphC5��p RO F O �'a 53�2grk (151482) 771 FM 3009 '�- 0'y 0.21 10��3pOg ewYR � $ 6 s'r (39550) a 0 ELBEL RD ,.;s ✓° ,,.°'�' (129999) 501 FM 3009 SCCCHE R TZ city of Schertz P� GOMMVNITY ^BEFVICE +4PPOflTVNITY +°"-, ran uacU W- S9e,2G SCHERTZ 3009 i„�„„.� 200' Buffer 0 Parcel Boundaries V MARKET s o too 200 400 soo aoo Feet 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 fa4ade, 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 facade), 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: James B. Griffin <: Date Prepared: July 28, 2014 KENNETH W. BROWN, AICP DANIEL ORTIZ JAMES B. GRIFFIN JAMES MCKNICHT NINA PRADO 112 E. PECAN STREET SUITE 1360 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 TELEPHONE: 210.299.3704 FAX: 210.299.4731 July 28, 2014 Ms. Lesa Wood Senior Planner City of Schertz 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, Texas 78154 Phone: 210 - 619 -1785 Fax: 210 - 619 -1789 PAUL M. JUAREZ OF COUNSEL Re: Two (2) Variance Applications for Property Located at F.M. 3009 and Elbel Road, in the City of Schertz, Texas. Dear Ms. Wood: Variance applications for landscaping and glazing requirements have previously been submitted and approved by the Board of Adjustment for the property located at F.M. 3009 and Elbel Road. The latest approval occurred on February 24, 2014 (approval letters are included herein). Building permits for the proposed use will not be submitted within 180 days from this latest approval date and therefore we are requesting approval of the same variances to allow for additional time to submit building permits. Included herein are two variance application packages with corresponding application fee checks. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or need additional information regarding this request. Sincerely, BROWN & ORTIZ, P.C. BY: awes B. Griffin Enclosures: As stated / 70,1 °I _I 9 m m LE0 - 4a �t �t �t� n� 5 .fro 4 C n� �o n Y o� 0 n � y yx so r .fro 4 C n� �o n Y o� 0 n � y Reply Form I am: in favor of -R, opposed to ❑ neutral to ❑ the request for gOA 2014 ®007 I am: in favor of P= opposed to ❑ neutral to ❑ the request for 90A 2014 -008 Comments: �) ` (Please Pnnt Y ur Name) Si nature 9 Street Address: Date , 6 I € Phone Na.: 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, Texas 78154 210.619.1000 ,