Zoning Board of Adjustment & Appeals
	Agenda Request
Agenda Of:	11/09/06	Agenda Request No:		III A
Initiated By:	travis tanner, planner II	Responsible Department:		planning
Presented By:	travis tanner, planner ii	Assistant Planning Director:		douglas p. schomburg, aicp
		Additional Department. Head (s):		n/a
Subject / Proceeding:	variance to the business office (b-o) district front and rear yard setback requirements for property located at 15035 southwest freeway public hearing, consideration and action
Exhibits:	staff report, vicinity map, conceptual site plan, elevations, plat excerpt, site photos, aerial setback exhibit, application, public hearing notice
Clearances			Approval
Legal:	n/a		Director of Planning:	sabine somers-kuenzel, aicp
Recommended Action
The Planning Department does not give a formal recommendation for variance cases to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, but will present information and analysis of the request. Potential conditions for the variance are also included.
Executive Summary
This case was originally presented before the Zoning Board of Adjustment on February 22, 2006 for variances to the front and rear yard setback requirements in the Business Office (B-O) District at 15035 Southwest Freeway. At that meeting opposition was expressed by several property owners in the area. The Board decided to table the request due to a desire for additional information, including elevation drawings for the proposed building and parking calculations. The calculations were requested as to help the Board determine whether the request was for a larger building than the minimum variance needed to achieve code compliance for parking. Since that time, the applicant has reduced the footprint of the garage, removed one story, and provided an elevation that could potentially be tied to the granting of the variance as a condition. According to the applicant, this is the minimum variance that will accomplish their purpose of complying with the zoning regulations. It appears that the proposed garage is of the minimum bulk and height to provide the 120 spaces required for office uses. The property at 15035 Southwest Freeway was developed as a furniture showroom in 1985, prior to the City’s current development regulations. The setbacks at that time were a 25’ front yard and 5’ rear yard as indicated on the recorded plat. The City subsequently adopted new development regulations in 1997 and the property was zoned B-O, which permits office uses and setbacks of 40’ and 10’. The property’s land use and building became legally nonconforming – the furniture store was therefore permitted to continue. The owner removed the use about a year ago. The applicant wishes to upgrade the site for permitted offices uses. However, the site currently has only 37 parking spaces. To comply with the parking requirements for office uses, the applicant would need to provide approximately 120 spaces. This cannot be achieved without structured parking. The applicant has asserted that structured parking is also not feasible within the 40’ and 10’ setbacks due to the site being extremely narrow. Thus, the applicant intends to build a garage to the original 25’ and 5’ setbacks, requiring a variance. The existing building is built to the 25’ and 5’ setbacks. Following the required Public Hearing, the Board is charged with rendering a decision based on the facts of the case and relation to the four variance criteria. Unlike Special Exception cases, staff does not provide a recommendation for variances. However, should the Board grant the variance request, staff is providing a set of proposed conditions that could mitigate impacts to the surrounding area. Additional information is included in the attached report. Due to the amount of time that has elapsed since the Board tabled the request, and in consideration of the public interest expressed in February, we have rescheduled the item for a new public hearing prior to action. CC: Kristin Jones, kjones@noelfurniture.com File No. 6789
Exhibits

Staff Report

background information:

As discussed in the Executive Summary, the site was originally developed and used as a furniture showroom, with 25’ and 5’ setbacks by plat in 1985. Original zoning was O-1 (former Office District). The property was later zoned Business Office (B-O) in 1997 under the Development Code, and 40’ and 10’ setbacks were applied. The applicant wishes to bring the site into compliance with the current zoning regulations, which require office uses and, thus, significantly more parking. It appears that structured parking will be required to provide enough spaces for the use to comply with the zoning regulations. Below is a timeline detailing the history of the site.

1985: Property developed as furniture showroom with 25’ and 5’ setbacks. Building is approximately 38,000 square feet and has 37 parking spaces.

1997: Current Development Code adopted, zoning the property B-O and requiring 40’ and 10’ setbacks. Furniture showroom is not allowed in the B-O district but can continue to operate as a grandfathered use.

2005: Applicant approaches staff regarding upgrading the site for office uses, in accordance with the zoning regulations. Staff informs applicant that this would comply with the zoning but that significantly more parking would be required (one space for every 250 square feet).

Jan. 2006: Applicant submits variance application, indicating that less restrictive setbacks will be required for a garage to bring the site into compliance with the parking regulations. Applicant specifies setbacks requested of 20’ front yard, and 5’ rear yard for construction of a new parking garage, but does not provide an elevation of the proposed garage.

Feb. 2006: Case heard by Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA). Following Public Hearing, where public opposition was expressed, Board tables variance case. Board requests additional information from applicant including:

· Building elevation of the garage from the applicant

· Demonstrate that the request is the minimum variance that will accomplish the purposes. Questions also posed as to whether applicant could comply with the original 25’ front setback rather than a 20’ front setback

Sept. 2006: Applicant submits new conceptual site plan and elevation to staff. Bulk of the proposed garage has been reduced to the original 25’ and 5’ setbacks. In addition, one story removed from garage. This appears to be the minimum height (app. 60’) for providing 120 spaces. Variances of 15’ from the front setback of 40’ and 5’ from the rear setback of 10’ are required to approve this request.

pUBLIC HEARING:

Sec. 2-44. Public Hearing.

After receiving a proper application, the Director will schedule a public hearing on the variance before the Board. At least ten days prior to the hearing, written notice of the time and place of the hearing must be given to the person filing the appeal and to the owners of adjoining properties within 200 feet in the same manner in which adjoining properties are given notice of a hearing before the Commission for a change in zoning classification.

A Public Hearing was scheduled for this variance request. Written notice of the time and place of the hearing was given to the applicant and to the owners of property within 200 feet of the site at least ten days prior to the hearing. Notice of the time and place of the hearing was also published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. In addition, a courtesy notification sign was placed at the site two weeks in advance of the hearing. Staff also notified the Sugar Creek Homeowner’s Association and speakers from the previous Public Hearing in February who own property just beyond the 200’ line.

There have been ten inquiries regarding this case from the public received by staff (at the time of this report). Seven expressed concerns and opposition to the proposed variance, while three were general informational inquiries. Public concerns have focused on aesthetic issues with the construction of a parking garage in close proximity to their neighborhood as well as the fear of increased traffic as a result of the proposed garage. Concerns have also been expressed for possible loss of greenspace and existing trees at the southwest corner of the property.

The following information is provided with regard to some of the key public comments:

· Traffic Generation for Site vs. Parking Garage- Variance request to use original setbacks does not increase traffic at the property. Traffic would be created by the reuse of the site in compliance with existing zoning, not be created by a parking garage. In addition, without adequate parking at the site, traffic generated by the office building could result in on-street parking that could negatively impact the surrounding sites and neighborhood.

· Building Setbacks vs. Approvable Construction- The variance request is specifically related to building setbacks and not whether construction can take place at the site. Although the applicant is proposing to use the original setbacks of 25’ front yard and 5’ rear yard for the garage, construction is allowed without a variance at the 40’ front yard and 10’ rear yard to a maximum height of approximately 112’.

· Conversion of Existing Building to add Parking- Suggestions have been received by members of the public that the applicant should convert the ground floor of the existing three-story building into parking for the remainder of the building. Based on the age of the structure and current building codes, it is unclear whether that would be a viable option

· Setbacks Variance Relationship to Exterior Finish Requirements- Exterior walls of any construction within the Business Office (B-O) District are required to comply with Article X, Chapter Two of the Development Code regarding exterior building finishes. The B-O District contains the most restrictive building finish requirements under the Code - 85% primary finish per wall (glass, brick, stone, or concrete panel with patterns/relief) The building elevations submitted by the applicant do not specify the exterior finishes, but all construction must comply with the B-O District requirements. A condition could be placed on the variance to include the building elevation drawings that show a substantially enclosed structure.

· Setbacks Variance Relationship to Height Requirements- Height for new construction in the Business Office (B-O) District must comply with all requirements in Art. II, Chapter Two (Zoning). Since the property is within 500’ of a Residential Single Family (R-1) District, the Bulk Plane height requirement applies (property is approx. 199’ from R-1 Dist. at closest point). Building construction at the proposed 5’ rear setback is allowed at a maximum height of 110’. Building construction at the required 10’ rear setback is allowed a maximum height of 112.5’. The applicant proposal includes a site plan layout and elevations that indicate a 60’ maximum height. Should the Board decide to grant the variance to the setbacks, a height maximum could be placed as a condition of approval.

· Existing Landscape Area and Trees Relationship to Variance- The existing trees at the southwest corner of the property appear to be mature protected trees as defined by Chapter Three of the Development Code. The Code allows replacement of a protected tree with two new trees. However, those would not be required to be mature growth at time of planting. Currently, the property has approximately 25’ of greenspace along David Searles Boulevard, while the Code requirements specify a minimum of 15’. The trees and additional greenspace along David Searles Boulevard provide an important buffer between uses in the area. Conditions could be placed on variance approval to preserve the existing greenspace and trees.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

Sec. 2-45. Board Decision.

After the public hearing, the Board may, by the affirmative vote of 75% of its members, grant a variance to the terms of these zoning regulations if the Board finds:

(a) That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or building for which the variance is sought, which circumstances or conditions are peculiar to the land or building and do not apply generally to land or buildings in the same zoning district or neighborhood, and that the circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of these regulations would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of such land or building;

In addition to the site originally being developed as a furniture showroom with 25’ front and 5’ rear setbacks and subsequently being zoned Business Office (B-O), requiring office uses and 40’ and 10’ setbacks, there are some notable physical constraints associated with the property. The site is unusually narrow and the 40’ front and 10’ rear setbacks provide for only a 30-40’ strip of land to be developed. The building contains approximately 38,000 square feet, with approximately 8,000 square feet of areas that qualify for exemptions from the parking regulations per Article V, Chapter Two of the Development Code. With 30,000 square feet of the building subject to parking regulations and zoned for office uses, requiring one space for every 250 square feet, approximately 120 parking spaces are required. The property currently has 37 surface parking spaces and, due to limited acreage, cannot accommodate another 83 parking spaces without structured parking.

(b) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the district or neighborhood in which the property is located; and

Staff has not identified any public safety issues that could result from approval of this request. At the time of this report, ten members of the public have contacted City staff in opposition to the requested variance. Concerns expressed by residents include aesthetic issues with the construction of a garage near their neighborhood as well as questions about the potential traffic impact of a parking garage. The applicant has provided an elevation to address the aesthetic concerns of the neighborhood, which illustrates an enclosed parking garage facility. The Board will determine if the design will suffice to meet this criterion (i.e. not detrimental to the public welfare, etc.). The City’s Traffic Engineer has confirmed that traffic is generated based on the use and square footage of a building, in contrast to the number of parking spaces provided for that use. According to the Traffic Engineer, the impact of a change in use from retail showroom to office will not be significant as to traffic. One other option that exists at the property is for a variance to be requested from the parking regulations. However, staff has determined that a variance from the parking regulations could result in a safety issue to the surrounding areas due to potential traffic and parking spill-over, including on-street parking concerns.

(c) That the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land or Building and is the minimum variance that will accomplish this purpose; and

The property is zoned for office uses. Additional parking is required for these types of uses. It appears that structured parking is the only way to achieve the necessary parking ratio as a result of the relatively small size of the site. The applicant is proposing a parking garage with the minimum number of spaces, in terms of the footprint and number of stories, that will achieve the required parking spaces for office uses. Due to the zoning and parking requirements, any other use allowed at the property would require significantly more parking than 37 spaces.

(d) That literal enforcement and strict application of the provisions of these zoning regulations will result in an unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general provisions and intent of these zoning regulations and that, in granting the variance, the spirit of these zoning regulations will be preserved and substantial justice done.

In not granting the variance, the existing improvements on-site are anticipated to continue to be out of compliance with parking and setback requirements of Chapter Two (Zoning) of the Development Code. The intent of the Business Office (B-O) district is to allow development of office uses and certain limited service and retail uses which are compatible with offices per Section 2-123 of the Development Code. In granting the variance, the existing site could comply with the use and parking regulations, and new construction would meet the setbacks used when the existing building was constructed in 1985. Conditions to mitigate impacts resulting from reduced yard setbacks are appropriate should the Zoning Board of Adjustment grant the variances and are further outlined in the next section.

VARIANCE CONDITIONS FOR MITIGATING ADVERSE IMPACTS:

Should the Zoning Board of Adjustment determine that the setback variances meet all four criteria, the Planning Department is recommending specific conditions to be tied to the approval. Based on an examination of the request and public concerns, the following conditions could aid in mitigating impacts that reduced setbacks could have to the surrounding area:

· Compliance with site layout plan which limits the building footprint, levels, and spaces

· Compliance with building elevations which require a substantially enclosed structure

· Requirement for any wall ventilation (required for enclosed parking garages) to be screened with architectural treatment compatible with the building architecture

· Limitation on height for new construction to a maximum of 60’ at roof level

· Preservation of 25’ landscape area and existing trees adjacent to David Searles Boulevard at the street side setback

· Addition of a minimum of six shade trees (min. of 10’ ht.) along southeast property line adjacent to proposed construction for additional buffering

File No. P0006789Vicinity Map:

Conceptual Site Plan:

Conceptual Garage Site Plan with Cut-away View:

Elevations:

View Looking Southeast at Intersection of Southwest Freeway and David Searles Drive

Elevations:

View Looking North at Intersection of David Searles Drive and South Parkway Blvd.

Plat Excerpt:

Brittain at Sugar Creek, Slide No. 795, 1985

Site Photos:

View from David Searles:	Courtesy Notification Sign:
View from Southwest Freeway:	View from Adjacent Property:

Aerial Setback Exhibit:

Application:

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE

PROPOSED VARIANCE TO THE FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15035 SOUTHWEST FREEWAY, IN THE BUSINESS OFFICE (B-O) DISTRICT

FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 0.9286 ACRES IN THE BROWN AND BELKNAP LEAGUE, ABSTRACT 15, BRITTAIN AT SUGAR CREEK, COMMERCIAL RESERVE “A”, SLIDE NO. 795, FORT BEND COUNTY PLAT RECORDS, FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS

PURPOSE: One (1) public hearing shall be held at which all persons interested in the proposed variance request shall be given an opportunity to be heard.

WHERE: CITY OF SUGAR LAND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER

CITY HALL

2700 TOWN CENTER BOULEVARD NORTH

SUGAR LAND, TEXAS

WHEN: CITY OF SUGAR LAND

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

5:00 P.M., NOVEMBER 9, 2006

DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE PLANNING OFFICE, CITY OF SUGAR LAND, 2700 TOWN CENTER BOULEVARD NORTH, SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY FROM 8:00 O’CLOCK A.M. TO 5:00 O’CLOCK P.M. OR YOU MAY CALL (281) 275-2218 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.