11-15-1999BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
November 15,1999
The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened in regular session on Monday, November 15,
1999, at 6:30 p.m, in the Municipal Complex Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway,
Schertz, Texas. Those present were as follows:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Earl Hartzog, Chairman
Ted Duigon, Vice-Chairman
Kathy Hill
Jitn Harris
Norman Slocum
CITY STAFF
Steve Simonson,
Asst. City Manager
Mary Ybarra,
Planning & Recording Secretary
MEMBERS ABSENT
George Maxfield (work related}
Peggy Brown (work related)
#1 CALL TO ORDER
OTHERS PRESENT
William Sommers,
1016 Antler Drive
Chairman Hartzog called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Chairman Hartzog welcomed alternate member, Norman Slocum to the meeting and
explained that due to Peggy Brown not being able to attend because of a school
commitment, Norman would be sitting in.
#2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular session of September 27, 1999 and
October 18, 1999.
Chairman Hartzog asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes of
September 27, 1999 and October 18, 1999?
Ted Duigon stated that on the minutes of September 27, 1999 on the first page, the
second to the last paragraph is to be deleted, it's repetition. Ted added that on the minutes
1
of October 18, 1999, on page four in item #7, third paragraph; third sentence to correct
the word wandering with wandering.
At this time, a motion was made by Kathy Hill and seconded by Norman Slocum to
approve the minutes of September 27, 1999 and October 18, 1999 as correction. With a
vote being called, the motion was approved.
#3 PUBLIC HEARING: To receive citizen input on a request from William
W. Sommers, 1016 Antler Drive far a special exception to the zoning ordinance for a side
yard setback variance from 7.5' to 5' for construction of a garage. (BOA #131-99).
Chairman Hartzog stated that the purpose of the public hearing is to receive comments
from interested citizens. The Board of Adjustment will take all comments into
consideration in its decision. After the public hearing is closed there will be no other
comments taken.
At this time Chairman Hartzog asked for staff input.
Steve Simonson stated that in accordance with the city ordinance 12 letters were sent out
to property owners within 200' radius of said property. Of the letters sent (2) two letters
was received in favor and none were received opposed. Steve added that, as part of the
packet there is a letter from the P & Z Commission recommending their approval. Also,
there is a letter from Mr. Sommers outlining the reasons for the construction.
Mr. Sommers stated that the construction is an attempt to repair and correct a drainage
problem. Currently, water runoff is crossing across the neighbor's yard going through my
yard into the garage or if the water is not to heavy will go into the back yard and fills the
swimming pool. The access waters from the pool flows back onto the house and floods
the downstairs area of the house. The problem has worsened since the flood of 1998. On
three separate occasions since the flood, water has penetrated into the house. Mr.
Sommers stated that for this reason he has engaged an architectural firm, structural
engineers, civil engineers and landscape architect with the hopes of having the
construction done properly and adequately. The plan is to fully address the drainage issue
for his lot as well as making provisions not to affect the other lots with water runoff.
Mr. Sommers stated that the drainage plan requires the removal of the existing concrete,
do the side work necessary to bring it to a level surface, place a discharge drain into the
apron leading into the garage. Construct a new garage; add a retaining wall (2 to 3 feet)
across the front of the property down the side yard to the back, diverting the water from
going into the house. Mr. Sonuners stated that Mr. Mansfield his next door neighbor for
twenty years is aware and has seen the plans and does not see a problem with the
construction. In regard to the retaining wall it will be constructed to preserve the fence
that is common between both the yards (Mansfield and Sommers).
Mr. Sommers further explained that the reason far the retaining wall is to divert water
that if it doesn't drain fast enough will sip into the house. There are (two) trees in that
same area that the root structure has actually starting breaking the concrete up; the apron
around the pool and the porch it self. The porch has actually been tilted back toward the
house about a 1 %2 causing no positive drainage away from the house.
Earl Hartzog asked Mr. Sommers to explain the part of the addition that would actually
encroach into the side yard. Mr. Sommers explained that the roofline of the garage,
corner of the patio and the back of the garage are the three points of encroaclunent from
the 7.5' to 5'.
Earl Hartzog asked what is the distance from the Sommers house to the Mayfields
property? Mr. Sommers responded that the distance is approxunately SO to 70 feet from
the property line.
Norman Slocum asked where would the water go that is diverted to the retaining wall?
Mr. Sommer's stated that the water would travel down the wall, curve and flow into the
existing drainage easement. Mr. Slocum stated that the area is outside the architectural
work done, is this Mr. Sommer's opinion or is fact? Mr. Sommer's stated that he is an
attorney by profession and is familiar with the rules and Laws that govern property owners
from changing the topography to cause someone else injury. Quite frankly he would like
not to be involved as far as litigation or a lawsuit. Mr. Sommer's added that the
instructions given to the civil engineer and landscape architect were to provide protection
for his property and provide protection for the uphill land owners, and also take into
consider the downhill land owners.
Norman Slocum stated that the board has Mr. Sommers statement for the record however
the Board needs to be aware that any future problem is outside what Mr. Sommer has
described to the Board this evening and the board needs to be conscious of this fact. Mr.
Slocum stated that the drawings provided by Mr. Sommer's are excellent, the drawings
indicate the major entrance point; water egress through the underground piping system,
which terminates within the yard, however it does not show the flow direction of the
surplus water. Mr. Sommer's stated that the water will terminate at the side yard, the
yard at this point slopes in the direction the water will flow which is into the drainage
easement. Mr. Slocum asked if the engineers and architects have given any indication in
writing, etc. that that this will solve the drainage problem. Mr. Sommer's responded that
he has not been given any guarantee or warranty however, it was indicated that in their
professional judgement this would alleviate the problem. So if the Board approves the
request there is no written assurance that the problem has been solved stated Mr. Slocum.
Mr. Sommer's stated that is a true statement but added that he is not looking for the city
to solve the problem, he is willing to solve the problem on his own.
Chairman Hartzog stated that the Board is not dealing with the retaining wall or the plans,
the request before the board is the variance. If Board approaches the variance as a
solution to solving the problem, the Board needs to state for the record, that it is not
known that in fact this will solve the problem, stated Norman Slocum.
Ted Duigon stated that he has some concern for the northwest corner of the retaining
wall, the concern being erosion along the wall. The water will be much more focused at
this point. Secondly, what happens to the water that stays outside the retaining wall that
parallels Antler? The water at this point will be more forced because of the retaining wall,
so what happens to the water. Mr. Sommer's explained that the some of the water for the
moment is coming across his front yard and the neighbors (Saunders) driveway which
has approximately a 5 to 8 foot curve running down the downhill side of the driveway.
The water hits and goes into the carport and toward the back yard and drains. Mr.
Sommer's stated that he is not married to the retaining wall at the front, or across the
section of concrete where it the concrete curves. With the cost of material, it would save
money if part of the retaining wall would not be necessary, and wouldn't mine if water
crossed at the remaining portion of the driveway.
IVlr. Simonson stated that the building inspector would take a look at the topography
when the plans are submitted for the front part of the retaining wall. The side wall is self-
explanatory. The question will lie with the front portion of the wall and the slope of the
land, whether the water would be focused at that point or not.
With no further comments voiced, Chairman Hartzog closed the public hearing.
#4 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: On the above Special
Exception request from William W. Sommers, 1016 Antler Drive. (BOA #131-99).
Chairman Hartzog stated that what is before the Board is the request for the variance for
the encroachment. The drainage issue is up to the engineers, city staff and the building
inspectors to see that everything is done within the requirements.
With no further discussion, a motion was made by James Harris and seconded by
Norman Slocum to approve the request from William W. Sommers, 1016 Antler Drive
for a special exception to the zoning ordinance for a side yard setback variance from 7.5'
to 5' for construction of a garage. With a vote being called, the motion was approved.
#~ GENERAL DISCUSSION:
Kathy Hill•
Kathy had no comments.
Ted Duigon:
Ted had no comments.
Jim Harris:
Jim had r3o comments.
Norman Slocum•
Norman had no comments.
Steve Simonson:
Steve commented that ground has been broken for the Border Town Taco Bell, Pizza Hut
and KFC. Steve also commented on information from the Census Bureau web site, as of
July 1st 1998 the population of the following cities: City of Schertz 16, 521; Universal
City 15,324; Converse 11,415; Live Oak 10,807 and Cibolo 2,811. The estimated
population of the City of Schertz for the year 2000 was predicted to be 17,500. The
estunate might be a bit low, however the Census Bureau doesn't count in the same
manner as the City.
Steve answered the question on the expansion of FM 78 to connect to Universal City.
Will the expansion go pass the intersection of FM 1518 or up to the intersection? The
expansion will go pass the intersection of FM 1518 pass the Shamrock gas station.
Steve reported that Peggy Brown called to notify city staff that she would be very busy
and will be out of pocket for sometime. For this reason she has offered to resign. Steve
stated that he wanted to bring this issue to the boards attention and also mentioned that
staff has received only one applicant since Anita Clark's vacancy. Steve mentioned that
Norman Slocum alternate could become a permanent member if the board so chooses.
Norman Slocum stated that he has enjoyed being a member of the board and up to
recently his job had created a conflict with the Monday night meetings. He no longer has
the 1Vlonday night restrain however, 6 p.m. would work better than 6:30 p.m because of
comments locally. Norman commented that he is receptive to going back and forward if
the board wants it. Norman would suggest Peggy Brown not to resign and maybe
consider becoming an alternate.
Steve mentioned that the time was changed to 6: 30 pm due to a work conflict. Peggy
Brown had to drive in from San Antonio and at times it was difficult to get to the
meeting. The Board was in agreement that 6:00 pm was not a problem and Norman
Slocum commented that if the Board could accommodate 6 pm he did not have a problem
being a permanent member.
Chairman Hartzog stated that a letter of resignation was needed from Peggy Brown
before the Board could proceed. An alternate still would be needed, even if Peggy would
consider becoming an alternate. If Peggy weren't interested then a total of two alternates
would be needed.
Steve commented that due to the number of board members, he suggests the board
consider the one applicant (James Harden). Steve stated that city staff could contact the
one applicant and make it part of the agenda at the next meeting if the Board was in
agreement.
#6 ADJOURNMENT:
Chairman Hartzog adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
~~ ~~ _.
Board of Adjustment Chairm r City o chertz, Texas
ATTEST:
Planning Secretary, City of Schertz