BOA 11-26-2012BOARDD OF AIIJUSTlo/IENT N1iNUTES
November 26, 2012
The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened on November 2b, 2012 at 6:07 P.M. at the Municipal Complex,
Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas.
BOAR OF ADJUSTMENT
Richard Dziewit, Vice Chairman
Earl Hartzog
David Reynolds
Christopher Montgomery
CITY STAFF
Brian James, Executive Director Development
Michelle Sanchez, Director Development Services
Lesa Wood, Planner 1
Patti White, Admin. Asst. Development Services
BOARD MEMBERS ABSEN'T'
Frank McElroy, Chairman
Reginna Agee, Alternate
1. CALL TO ORDERIROLL CALL
OTHERS PRESENT
Mark Roberts, Roberts Properties, Inc.
Mr. Dziewit called the regular meeting to order at 6:07 P.M, and recognized members present.
2. SEAT ALTERl®IATE MEMBER TO ACT IF REQUIRED.
None.
3. HEARING OF RESII~ENTS
No citizen com-nents.
4. MINUTES:
A. Minutes for Apri123, 2012.
Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the minutes. M-•. Montgomery seconded the motion. Vote was 4-0.
Motion ca-•t•ied.
5. PUBLIC HEADING:
A. BOA 2012-005 1000 FM 3009
Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a variance to Article 9, Section 21.9.8 -Screening and
Fencing at 1000 FM 3009 to allow a six foot (b') wrought iron fence with landscaping to be placed at
the rear property line in lien of the required eight foot (8') masonry fence.
Public hearing opened at 6:10 P.M. Ms. Wood presented the item by stating that the applicant is requesting a
variance at 1000 FM 3009 to install a six foot {6") wrought iron fence with landscaping in lieu of the required
eight foot (8"} masotny fence. The public hearing notice was published in the "The Daily Co»~~zercial
Recorder°" on November 9, 2012 and in the "Herald" on Nove-nber 15, 2012. There were 24 notices -nailed
to surrounding property owners on November 14, 2012. At the time of the meeting, there were two responses
i-~ opposition with one being included in the board's packet and the othe-- one being just received with a
response opposed to the fencing, The property is currently vacant and applicant is proposing to construct a
b,400 square foot minor auto repair facility at this location. The UDC does require a masonry screening wall
to create a buffer between co-nme--cial and residential. The Board of Adjustment previously considered and
Minutes
Board of Adjustment
November 26, 20l 2
Page 1 of3
approved this request by unanimous decision on December 19, 201 l . 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 rle for a building permit because of the time period necessary to negotiate an encroachment
agreement with Enterprise Texas Pipeline, LLC. The variance expired on June 19, 2012 and is null and void
based on the 180 day effective provision. Staff does reco-nme-td approval based on two findings: 1) the
Board of Adjustment previously considered and approved this variance request by unanimous decision on
December 19, 2011, a-ad 2} the purpose of a variance is to restore equity when, due to special circumstances
or conditions, the Ordinance restricts one (1) property more severely than other properties in the same zoning
district. I.n this case the applicant was unable to apply for a building per-nit by the initial effective period of
1.80 days because of negotiations by the applicant with Enterprise Texas Pipeline, LLC, which has since been
executed.
Mr. Dziewit recognized the following to speak:
Mark Robe-•ts, the applicant, stated that it took longer to approve the agreement with tine gas company.
Donna Kilgore, 1000 Silvert-°ee Blvd., spoke on the fence being a barrier for the noise.
Dixie Bane, 816 Robert Derrick, spoke on why she received a letter regarding the hearing.
Ms. Wood respo--ded that state law requires notice be sent to any grope--ty within 200 feet of tlae requested
variance.
There being no one else to speak, tlae public hearing closed at 6:24 P,M.
Discussion followed between the Board, Staff and the Applicant.
Mr. 11a-•tzog moved to approve the va--iance request. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Vote was 4-0.
Motion carried.
B. 1~OA 201E 2 - 006 1000 F1V~ 3009
Hold a. public hearing, consider and act upon a variance to Article 11, Section 21.11,9 Wall Signs to
allow a second wall sign on the primary wall which exceeds the maximum number of wall signs
permitted per wall at 1000 p'M 3009.
Public hearing opened at 6:28 P.M. Ms. Wood presented the item by stating that the applicant is requesting a
variance at 1000 FM 3009 to allow a second wall sign on the front facade (primary wall) which exceeds the
-aaaximum number of wall signs pe-•-nitted. Tlae public hearing notice was published in "The Daily
Coy~zmer^cral Recorder°" on November 9, 2012 and in the "Herald' on November 1 S, 2012. There were 24
notices mailed to surrounding property owners on November 14, 2012. Staff received one (1) response of
opposition for tlae proposed request and one (1) response of -aeutral received at the meeting.
The applicant is requesting to install anon-lit second wall sign on the primary wall. 'The UDC states that the
maxi-num number of signs pe---nitted for single occupancy or single tenant building shall be limited to one (1 }
per wall with a maximum of three (3) signs. Each sign in excess of the primary wall shall be a maximum
seventy-five percent {75%) of the area of the primary wall sign with the maximum area being 125 square feet
along FM 3009. Tlae applicant is requesting to install two wall signs to the fi•ont facade of the building. The
primary wall sign is approxi-nately 83 square feet and displays the name of the business "Schertz Auto
Se-•vice". The proposed second sign is approximately eighteen (1 S) square feet and will display "Cube
Center". The total square footage of the two signs (p-•ima-y and seconds-y) is approximately 101 square feet.
Minutes
Board of lidjustment
3~lovember 26, 2012
Pd~e 2 of 3
~~, ~~.
.~
pGSp~q
4
L-
i r'
~' _
L, ..
~~
r.
~ --
1 _-
~~