Loading...
03-27-2017 BOA Agenda w attachmentsSCHERTZ 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 the January 25, 2016, May 2, 2016, June 27, 2016, July 25, 2016 and October 24, 2016 Regular Meetings. 3. 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 applicant's 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. BOA2017 -001 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to UDC Article 11, Section 21.11.13.H Electronic Signs Location Restrictions, in order to permit an electronic sign closer than 150 feet from a residentially zoned property at 17148 IH -35, City of Schertz, Guadalupe County, Texas. B. BOA2017 -002 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to UDC Article 5, Section 21.5.7.13 Dimensional Requirements, Non - Residential Zoning Districts, in order to permit structures that exceed 35 feet in height in the Public Use zoning district, located at 1001 Elbel Road, City of Schertz, Guadalupe County, Texas. 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS: A. Announcements by Members • City and community events attended and to be attended • Continuing education events attended and to be attended Board of Adjustment Match 27, 2017 Page 1 of 2 B. Announcements by City Staff • City and community events attended and to be attended • Continuing education events attended and to be attended • Committee of Committees Advisory Board Meeting Summaries for the November 1.6, 2016, January 18, 2017, and February 15, 2017 meetings. CERTIFICATION I, Emily Grobe, Planner of the City of Schertz, Texas, do hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the official bulletin boards on this the 24th day of March, 2017 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. Ewt UU firobe Emily Grobe, 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 , 2016. 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 March 27, 2017 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES January 25, 2016 The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened on January 25, 2016 at 6:04 P.M. at the Municipal Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Richard Dziewit, Chairman David Reynolds, Vice Chairman Earl Hartzog Reginna Agee Dani Salas, Alternate BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Frank McElroy 1. 2. C�1_\ 9 W ICoZ$7.� 7 g NA ZO 1 KKR a IQ Mr. Dziewit called the regular meeting to SEAT ALTERNATE TO ACT 3. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Minutes for October Mr. Hartzog moved to motion. The vote was 4. PUBLIC HEARING: A. BOA2 Hold a pu 21.9.8.B.2 35N. Mr. Dziewit 5 -010 c hearing, Prohibited CITY STAFF Lesa Wood, Director Planning & Community Devel. Bryce Cox, Planner I Mr iael Pate, Pruski, Be 19 Guard Dog a C.M.I. Ltd. present. October 26, 2015, Mr. Reynolds seconded the upon a request for a variance to UDC Article 9, Section er to permit an electric fence to be installed at 181.15 IH- Mr. Cox gave a presentation on BOA2015 -010 stating that the Applicant is requesting a variance to UDC Article 9, Section 21.9.8.B.2.b to allow an electric fence along the perimeter of a storage yard on the subject property. A public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorded" on January 8, 2016 and in the "Herald" on January 13, 2016. Five (5) notices were mailed to surrounding property owners on January 1.4, 2016. At the time of the report, no responses had been received. The subject property is approximately 3 acres, containing two buildings totaling approximately 32,000 square feet of floor space and is occupied by a heavy equipment sales and rental facility. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an electric fence around the storage yard which is not permitted by the Unified Development Code. Mr. Cox mentioned that pursuant to Article 9, Section 21.9.8.B.2.b, above - ground electrical fencing is prohibited except for parcels or Minutes Board of Adjustment January 25, 2016 Page 1 of 5 lots one acre or greater in size in conjunction with the containment of livestock or farm animals. The applicant installed a ten (10) foot electric fence around the storage yard without a permit and then lowered the height to eight feet and has de- energized the fence for the duration of the variance process. Mr. Cox mentioned the intent of Article 9 of the UDC and that the variance does not meet the intent of the UDC because the requested electric fence is not being used for the containment of livestock and is expressly prohibited in the UDC. The project also has no special conditions that are unique to the subject site. Staff recommended denial of BOA2016 -010. Mr. Cox introduced the applicant. Mr. Michael Pate, with Electric Guard Dog, mentioned that the fence is alarming and is not an electric fence. There is no way anyone could be shocked by the fencing. All required documents have been submitted to the City. The fence is an alarmed fence. Mr. Dziewit asked for anyone else who would like Mr. Eric White, 17969 I.H -35 N, spoke in around his property and it does shock. Mr. Dziewit closed the public hearing. Mr. Dziewit recognized Board of Adjustment Mr. Reynolds asked about whether Mr. Cox responder an electric charge therefore it is an el Ms. Wood added t reizardina the fenc ndicating that he ,hich is potentia. ric :fence. the agenda pack€ Mr. Pate, stated that the fen an alarmed fence. Mr. Dziewit asked; Mr. Cox Mr. Cox responded that th( have been reviewed. the proposed variance. He has electric fence Salas who was seated as a voting member on the Board or ity's Chief Building Official, the fence carries into the body of the person who touches it, submitted by the applicant is not an electric fence and that it cannot shock anybody. The fence is physically checked to see exactly what this is. has not been installed and touched but that the submitted plans Ms. Wood mentioned that a build permit application was submitted for this fence and it was denied because the Building Inspections Division classified it as an electric fence. Mr. Pate mentioned that the application he submitted was for an alarmed fence, not for an electric fence. Ms. Agee indicated that if there is an electric current running through a fence for the alarm, it implies it is an electric fence. Minutes Board of Adjustment January 25, 2016 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Hartzog mentioned that the application does not specify that it is an electric fence, but the supporting documentation discusses electric fencing. Mr. Hartzog mentioned that the Board previously denied an electric fence and the agenda item is for an electric fence. Mr. Hartzog made the motion to deny the request because it is an electric fence on the agenda. Mr. Dziewit cited documentation that was included in the application that implies the fence is electric. Mr. Dziewit asked staff if the application was requesting an alarmed fence instead of an electric fence, if it would be supported by staff. Mr. Cox mentioned that the City's Chief Building fence permit that was filed would be considered an Mr. Pate insisted that his submittal was for an from the Police Department to operate it. He would not shock anyone. Ms. Salas mentioned the University of WisconG that it conflicts with Mr. Pate's statement that his Mr. Dziewit requested more an electric fence or if it is an not clear. WIEWAVITers Mr. Dziewit Mr. Hart motion to that at this time to table BOA2015 the determination that the alarmed .hat said that be received an alarm permit that it is not an electric fence and that it garding electric security fences and for an electric ;fence. eking a determination regarding whether it is truly a 12V battery. Based on what the Board has, it is information for the Chief Building Official. -e tabling the request in order to gather more next official meeting. Ms. Salas seconded the oned that the agenda ; is to allow an electric fence and that he already made a request for an electric fence. Mr. Dziewit called for a vote on the motion to table BOA2015 -010 for the next official meeting. The vote was 1 -4 with Ms. Salas, Mr. Hartzog, Ms. Agee, and Mr. Dziewit voting nay. Mr. Hartzog made a motion to deny the request for an electric fence. Ms. Agee seconded the motion. Chairman Dziewit asked Mr. Cox if an application for an alarmed fence is submitted, if the Board would review it. Mr. Cox responded indicating that an alarmed system would not be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment since alarmed systems are not a prohibited fence type. Ms. Agee commented that if staff investigates and determines that the request is not an electric fence, then an alarmed fence could be permitted. Mr. Dziewit called for a vote on the motion to deny the request for an electric fence. Minutes Board of Adjustment January 25, 2016 Page 3 of 5 The motion carried with a unanimous vote to deny the request for an electric fence. B. BOA2016 -001 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to UDC Article 5, Section 21.5.7 Dimensional and Development Standards, in order to permit an encroachment into the front building setback at 5504 Devonwood Street. Mr. Dziewit opened the public hearing. Mr. Cox gave a presentation on BOA2016 -001 stating that the request is for a variance to UDC Article 5, Section 21.5.7 Dimensional and Development Standards in order to permit an encroachment of 2 '/2 feet into the front building setback at 5504 Devonwood Street, also known as Cypress Point Subdivision Unit 2, Lot 1.5, Block 5. Public Hearing notices were published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" on January 8, 2016 and in the "Herald" on January 13, 2016. Additionally there were 23 notices mailed to surrounding property owners on January 14, 2016. Two responses have been received — one in favor of the request and one neutral. The subdivision is zoned R7, the eight foot wide front porch of the home encroaches 2 I/2 feet into the front building setback. The encroachment was discovered by the applicant after having a final survey of the lot performed as a pre- requisite for receiving a certificate of occupancy. The R7 zoning district requires a minimum front building setback of 25 feet. Investigation of how the encroachment occurred determined that the encroachment was due to an error made by the surveyor on the original site survey. There was a conflict between the front building setback line and specific called measurements in the survey. The City's Plan Reviewer missed the discrepancy and the original site survey was approved as part of the building permit. Mr. Cox indicated that the encroachment into the front setback violates Section 21.5.7 but that it does not violate the intent of the UDC. Staff recommended approval of BOA2016- 001. Mr. Tim Pruski, Bella Vista C.M.I. Ltd,.,, mentioned that it was an administrative error and the error was not discovered until the final survey was conducted. He also mentioned that the packet that was submitted includes approval from Cypress Point HOA's Architectural Review Committee. Mr. Dziewit closed the public hearing and requested a motion. Mr. Hartzog; moved to approve the variance request to allow for a 2 1/2 foot encroachment into the front yard setback. Mr. Reynolds seconded motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote to approve the request. 5. ANNOUNCEMENT A. Announcements by Members • No announcements. B. Announcements by City Staff • Mr. Cox announced that Ms. Wood accepted a job promotion and is now the Director of Planning & Community Development. Minutes Board of Adjustment January 25, 2016 Page 4 of 5 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:49 P.M. Chairman, Board of Adjustment Recording Secretary, City of Schertz Minutes Board of Adjustment January 25, 2016 Page 5 of 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES May 2, 2016 The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened on May 2, 2016 at 6:00 P.M. at the Municipal Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Richard Dziewit, Chairman David Reynolds, Vice Chairman Earl Hartzog Reginna Agee l ::1 U 1010 1 1 : 41=11 "lawiffil Dani Salas, Alternate Frank McElroy Mr. Dziewit called the regular 2. SEAT ALTERNATE TO ACT Not required. K�UI1:J11[ CITY STAFF Lesa Wood, Director Planning & Community Devel. Tiffany Danhof, Executive Administrative Assistant Bryce Cox, Senior Planner Channary Gould, Planner I Emily Grobe, Planner I — Horn and Associates to order at 6:02 P.M. and recognized members present. A. BOA2016 -002 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 fool (20') landscape buffer with trees and shrubs be provided adjacent to a residential use or residentially zoned property at Lot 1, Block 1, Schertz 3009 Market Subdivision, generally located at the southwest corner of the intersection of FM 3009 and Elbel Road, Schertz, TX. Mr. Cox gave a presentation that covered: • Variance to Article 9, Section 21.9.7 G — Landscaping Buffering Requirement, specifically that trees and shrubs be in a 20ft landscape buffer adjacent to a residential use or residentially zoned property along the south side of Lot 1, Block 1. • The applicant is requesting the variance specifically in regards to planting trees within the buffer. The applicant is proposing to plant landscaping elsewhere. • On April 12, 2016 a public hearing notice was published in The Daily Commercial Recorder. On April 20, 2016 a public hearing notice was published in the Herald. A total of ten notices were mailed out on April 21, and at time of Staff Report one response was received in favor. • This variance was previously considered and approved by the Board of Adjustment on six different occasions with the last approval expiring on December 19, 2015. • The applicant has submitted a revised site plan to include a 2,000 sq. ft. retail development. Due to various easement and restrictions on tree planting within easements the applicant is Minutes Board of Adjustment June 27, 2016 Page 1 of 4 4. requesting the variance. • The result would be that no trees would be planted along the south property line within the easements. However, they would be planted outside of the easements. Shrubs will be provided along edge of drive isle. • The property owner will provide the landscaping / trees just not within the easement. The 20 ft. buffer will now be approximately 79 ft. with shrubbery inside and trees planted just outside. • There are special conditions including the 79 ft. easement encumbrance that prohibits the property owner from planting the required trees adjacent to the residential use. • The hardship is in no way the result of the applicants own actions. The use of the easements is strictly restricted and in no way the fault of the applicant. • Staff recommended approval of the variance as presented. Richard Underwood — Kimley -Horn / Applicant Representative provided an update that permits have been submitted to the City and that Kimley- Horn appreciated the Board and the City's time. Mr. Hartzog questioned that the item says lot 1, E exact lines of the subdivision are unclear. Mr. C provided clarification on what is shown in the ex at the back of lot 1 along the south side of the pr is proposed and a site plan would have to be su this time the property owner is trying to keep the planned developments for the site are the kiosl additional prospects. Mr the whole south side of th' the site. Mr. Cox indieat( required as a buffer. Mr. Hartzog moved to apy The motion carried with a El 15 lock 1, of 3009 Market Subdivision, but where the )x explained where lot 2 and lot 1 are shown and obit. Mr. Hartzog inquired to what will take place )perty, Mr. Cox explained that at the time nothing )mitted. Mr. Underwood explained further that at ,r options open. Mr. Dziewit asked if the only two and the service station and the rest is open for hat was correct. Mr. Hartzog asked if lot 1 covers if there will be shrubs on the drive way going into rubs through the area and along the edge that is seconded the motion. A. Presentation and discussion on City of Schertz 2016 Strategic Plan. Mr. James gave a presentation on the City of Schertz 2016 Strategic Plan which included: • Staff has been going through exercises that emphasize what we do well, what we can improve on, things that could create problems going forward. • The goal is to put all items into one document that we can easily share with the citizens to show what the plan is going forward. • Helps to align the multiple Boards and Commissions so all know what the plan is going forward. Trying to increase the communication between staff, boards and commissions, and the citizens. • Discusses the City of Schertz vision, mission, policy values, operational values, and the core values and how these items correspond and are used to help determine if the strategic plan is working effectively. • An additional goal is to make sure all of the plans and strategies that are in the works, are all efficiently working together. Minutes Board of Adjustment June 27, 2016 Page 2 of 4 0 The Strategic Plan is designed to help give the City of Schertz the feeling of community, these are the items that are of top importance to the City staff and how the City will accomplish the goals going forward. Additionally, having a workforce that is constantly trying to be innovative and proactive to help the City achieve new goals. The concept is really to try to achieve as much as possible as efficiently as possible as a whole community. Mr. Dziewit commented the plan is trying to get the other committees interact with each other. He expressed his opinion that BOA is often on the reactive side. The BOA should consider being more involved with the other boards. Additionally Mr. Dziewit commented that it might be great to go and see how the other Commissions handle their meetings. Mr. Reynolds commented that seeing how the EDC works and how we can contribute might be helpful. Mr. Dziewit mentioned that at the start of each BOA meeting the Board member that attended different meetings could give a understanding. Mr. James clarified that the Committee of Con communication between each and every board Ms. Agee asked how the BOA would have Mr. James explained that the BOA realty t surrounding the same item then staff takes EDC and P &Z that there may need to be a Mr. Hartzog discus Mr. James ,explained that member has had a time to happened so the other members could have an is really, focused on having better emission is doing. input on what other committees are doing. of if the BOA has multiple cases all look at why those cases are being heard and discuss with g 3009 and how the change that was made, could have been too the balance on signage is being reviewed. g there can be a follow up discussion after each Board document. Mr. Dziewit expressed that each Board member needs to have a good understanding of the Strategic Plan so when citizens ask then we can fully explain how it will impact the City. He also mentioned that he will be bringing information from the Committee of Committees to each meeting. Mr. James explained again that we will allow the Board a month and at the next meeting the Strategic Plan will be discussed again. A. Announcements by Members Mr. Hartzog mentioned that at the Volunteer Fair, the BOA shared a table with the Planning & Zoning Commission and learned a lot from them and also from EDC. It appeared that more people were interested in the P &Z and that most people don't know what a variance is. Minutes Board of Adjustment June 27, 2016 Page 3 of 4 B. Announcements by City Staff Mrs. Wood introduced the new members of the Planning and Community Development Department and provided a quick biography of each. • Tiffany Danhof — Executive Administrative Assistant • Channary Gould — Planner I • Emily Grobe- Planner I The meeting adjourned at 6:48 P.M. Chairman, Board of Adjustment Recording Secretary, City of Schertz Minutes Board of Adjustment June 27, 2016 Page 4 of 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES June 27, 2016 The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened on June 27, 2016 . at 6:00 P.M. at the Municipal Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Richard Dziewit, Chairman David Reynolds, Vice Chairman Frank McElroy Earl Hartzog BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Dani Salas Reginna Agee Mr. Dziewit called the regular 2. SEAT ALTERNATE TO ACT Not required. [cam UI1:J11 A. BOA2016 -003 Hold a public hearing 21.5.7.B — Dimensiom width in the Public +Us( Survey No. 67, Abstra at the intersection of A CITY STAFF Lesa Wood, Director Planning & Community Devel. Bryce Cox, Senior Planner Channary Gould, Planner I Emily Grobe, Planner I Tiffany Danhof, Executive Asst. Manager for Cibolo Creek to order at 6:02 P M. and recognized members present. ict upon a request for a variance to UDC Article 5, Section from the required 100 -foot lot width to permit a 60 -foot lot on an approximately 28 acre tract of land out of the G. Malpez of Schertz, Bexar County, Texas, and being generally located Ld Schaefer Road. Mrs. Gould presented a request_ by Cibolo Creek Municipal Authority for a variance to UDC Article 5, Section 21.5.7.B — Dimensional Requirements from the required 100 -foot lot width the proposed Lot 1, Block 1 of the OJR RWRP Subdivision. The request is for a proposed lot that would be 60 feet wide due to existing site constraints. The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" on June 9, 2016 and in the `Herald" on June 15, 2016. There were fourteen (14) notices mailed to surrounding property owners on June 9, 2016. At the time of the staff report one (1) response was received indicating opposition to the requested variance. The existing wastewater treatment facility is on approximately 30 acres that is accessed from Schaefer Road onto Authority Lane. CCMA submitted a preliminary plat application to establish a legal lot of record so they could expand and make new improvements to the wastewater treatment facility. The portion of the lot that narrows to approximately 60 feet is constrained by existing lots on both sides of the subject site that are owned by private parties and beyond the control of CCMA. Staff recommended Approval of BOA 2016 -003. The request for a variance complies with the approval criteria for granting a variance. Minutes Board of Adjustment June 27, 2016 Page 1 of 4 Mr. Madsen, the Applicant, Business Manager for Cibolo Creek Municipal Authority, noted that he is available for any questions or to address any concerns. Mr. Dziewit opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Richard Moore, 11425 Moonlight Meadow, asked if the agenda item would affect his property and if someone was taking his property. Mr. Steve Layton, 12231 Lost Meadows, had questions and concerns on the clarity of the mailed notice. Ms. Clare Layton, 12231 Lost Meadows, commented that the notice provided was not clear and that she is in favor of the variance. She also commented that there was no information provided about this item on the City's website. Mr. Darrell Drouillard, 11721 Moonlight Meadows, asked why the plat was not taking access on Lisa Meadows as that would not require a variance for access. Mr. Jose Farias, 11731 Moonli he provided support or oppositi Mr. Dziewit closed the Public Mr. Cox explained that the variance request was Schaffer Road. He further explained that this n was limited only to the land owned by CCMA. Mr. 1 facili answers to the questions asked before limited amount of frontage on ly affect other properties and planned expansion of the wastewater treatment Mr. Hartzog asked what the state law was for minimum lot frontage. Mr. Cox responded that lot frontage is determined based on the zoning codes which are established by the City Council. Mrs. Wood commented that state law does require that all lots have access. Mr. Dziewit asked why there was not more information provided to the surrounding home owners. Mr. Cox responded that staff recommendations for cases are not published until the agenda and staff reports are published. There was additional discussion relating to City noticing requirements and what property was affected by this request. Mr. Hartzog moved to approve this item. Mr. McElroy Seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Motion carried. B. BOA2016 -004 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to UDC Article 9, Section 21.9.8.B.2.b. - Prohibited Materials, in order to permit barbed wire on an approximately 1 acre tract of land out of the G. Malpez Survey, Abstract No. 221, City of Schertz, Guadalupe County, Texas, and being generally located on FM 78 approximately 1650 feet east of the intersection of FM 3009 and FM 78. Minutes Board of Adjustment June 27, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Mrs. Gould presented a request for a variance to UDC Article 9, Section 21.9.8.B.2.b Prohibited Materials in order to permit barbed wire atop of chain link fence around an existing wastewater lift station facility. The request is to construct a new 6 -foot chain link fence with three - strand barb wire on top around the relocated lift station. Public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" on June 9, 2016 and in the "Herald" on June 15, 2016. . There were three (3) notices mailed to surrounding property owners on June 9, 2016. At the time of the staff report no responses had been received. The Dietz Creek Lift Station currently is surrounded by an existing 6- foot high chain link fence with three - strand barb wire on top of the fence. Due to the unique circumstances of the site being located in the floodplain and the TECQ requirement for intruder proof fencing, staff recommended approval of BOA 2016 -004. The request for a variance complies with the criteria for granting a variance. Mr. Madsen, the Applicant, Business Manager for Ci was available to address any questions or concerns. Mr. Dziewit opened the Public Hearing. No requested to speak. Mr. Dziewit closed the Public Mr. Hartzog asked if CCMA will be with City Staff to plat the lift station existing fencing. Mr. Madsen respor Mr. Reynolds mov, unanimous. Motion 4. PRESENTATION: A. Follow -up discus Mr. Cox gave a brief presentatior questions or comments regarding Discussion followed between the plan, SWOT analysis, and provid 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Announcements by Members this of Municipal Authority, noted that he Cox responded that CCMA is working he proposed fencing was similar to the same. the motion. The vote was gic Plan. 2016 Strategic Plan and asked if there were any follow up 6 Strategic Plan. Board, and staff, related to what went into creating the strategic .ng updates to the Committee of Committee Advisory Board. • There were no announcements by the Board Members. B. Announcements by City Staff • There were no announcements by City Staff. 6. ADJOURNMENT Minutes Board of Adjustment June 27, 2016 Page 3 of 4 The meeting adjourned at 6:45 P.M. Chairman, Board of Adjustment Recording Secretary, City of Sehertz Minutes Board of Adjustment June 27, 2016 Page 4 of 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES July 25, 2016 The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened on July 25, 2016 at 6:00 P.M. at the Municipal Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY STAFF Richard Dziewit, Chairman Lesa Wood, Director Planning & Community Devel. David Reynolds, Vice Chairman Bryce Cox, Senior Planner Earl Hartzog Reginna Agee BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Dani Salas Frank McElroy 1. 2. 3. 4. Mr. Dziewit called the regular meeting to SEAT ALTERNATE TO ACT Not required. PUBLIC HEM A. BOA201.6 Hold a public 21.9.5.C.3 Gle of a building c of the Beneve: Mrs. Wood in is no request t( present. request for a variance to UDC Article 9, Section amount of windows and glass doors on the facades m , more specifically described as Lot 12, Block 1 la Coma Dr. that the applicant withdrew their application and there dr. Reynolds provided an update for the Committee of Committees Advisory Board, regarding the design updates for FM 1518 and FM 1103, the bridge at I -35 and FM1103 and Public Works budget for roadways. • Mr. Reynolds commented on budget retreat and Mrs. Wood clarified the staff and City Council budget retreat will be on July 28th and 29th, and the Community Budget Meetings would be August 11th , 17th, and 18th. • Mr. Dziewit requested that board members attend some of the budget meetings, to be more involved and proactive. Minutes Board of Adjustment June 27, 2016 Page 1 of 2 Mr. Dziewit inquired about the status of outstanding meeting minutes and Mrs. Wood responded that staff is working on getting caught up on the minutes. B. Announcements by City Staff • None 5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:08 P.M. Chairman, Board of Adjustment Minutes Board of Adjustment June 27, 2016 Page 2 of 2 ecretary, City of Schertz BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES October 24, 2016 The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened on October 24, 2016 at 6:00 P.M. at the Municipal Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Richard Dziewit, Chairman David Reynolds, Vice Chairman Earl Hartzog Dani Salas, Alternate BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Reginna Agee Frank McElroy 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL Mr. Dziewit called the regular meeting to 2. SEAT ALTERNATE TO ACT IF REQ Ms. Dani Salas was seated as a Board Me 3. PUBLIC HEARING: A. BOA2016 -006 Hold a public hearing, 21.5.7.13 — Dimensiona lot width in the Gener-, out of the G.M. Dolson being generally located Mr. Dziewit called CITY STAFF Lesa Wood, Director Planning & Community Devel. Bryce Cox, Senior Planner Tiffany Danhof, Executive Assistant Emily Grobe, Planner I Channary Gould, Planner I David Pencsak, Flagpole Partners, L.P. Brian Mendez, M &S Engineering, L.L.C. Nick Sherman, Cibolo Creek Municipal Authority Brandon Bradley, Cibolo Creek Municipal Authority Robert Adam, Alan Plummer & Associates, Inc. der at 6:13 P.M. and recognized members present. and act upon a request for a variance to UDC Article 5, Section ments, Nun - Residential Zoning Districts, in order to permit a 60 foot ;s 2 (GB -2) zoning district on an approximately 7 acre tract of land 1o., 96, Abstract No. 120, City of Schertz, Comal County, Texas and south of the intersection of Bell North Drive and FM 3009. g to order at 6:16 P.M. Ms. Grobe presented a request by Flagpole Partners, L.p. for a variance to UDC Article 5, Section 21.5.7.13 — Dimensional Requirements, Non - Residential Zoning Districts, in order to permit a 60 foot lot width in the General Business 2 (GB -2) zoning district. At time of presentation the lot exists as a flag shape that has frontage on FM 3009 in the width of 60 feet. The 60 feet lot width continues for approximately 1174 feet, utilized as the drive way for the developable portion. The lot then widens to approximately 405 feet, which would be utilized as the developable portion. This lot has existed in this configuration since the development of the adjacent Schertz Industrial Park. The applicant requested the variance to the required minimum 100 -foot lot width due to the lot configuration as created and purchased. Ms. Grobe indicated that a public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Minutes Board of Adjustment October 24, 2016 Page 1 of 3 Commercial Recorder" on October 7, 2016 and in the "Herald" on October 12, 2016. There were sixteen (16) notices mailed to surrounding property owners on October 6, 2016. At the time of the staff presentation no responses had been received. Staff recommended approval of BOA 2016 -006. Ms. Grobe indicated that the applicant was present for any questions. Mr. Brian Mendez, M &S Engineering, commented that he was present to answer any questions the Board had. There were no additional comments from the public. Mr. Dziewit closed the public hearing at 6:19 P.M. Mr. Hartzog moved to approve this item. Mr unanimous. Motion carried. B. BOA2016 -007 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon 21.9.5.E.2.a. Exterior Building Materials, in c material in the Public Use zoning district on Malpez Survey No. 67, Abstract No. 464, City 12423 Authority Lane. Mr. Dziewit called public hearing to econded the motion. The vote was request for a variance to UDC Article 9, Section r to permit metal as the primary exterior building approximately 70 acre tract of land out of the G. Schertz, Bexar County, Texas, and being located at .M. Mrs. Gould presented a request by Cibolo Creek Municipal Authority for a variance to UDC Article 9, Section 21.9.5.E.2.a. Exterior Building Materials, in order to permit metal as the primary exterior building material in the Public Use zoning district on an approximately 70 acre tract of land for two new buildings that were being proposed. The proposed expansion area is immediately south of the existing treatment facility and will include aeration basins, clarifiers, dewatering facilities, and other necessary features that are required for wastewater, treatment. Mrs. Gould indicated that a public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" on October 7, 2016 and in the "Herald" on October 12, 2016. There were six (6) notices mailed to surrounding property owners on October 6, 2016. At the time of this staff presentation no responses had been received. Staff recommended approval of the variance. Mr. Nick Sherman, Cibolo Creek Municipal Authority, explained in more detail the need for the expansion, the construction of the building and material being used, and explained that a metal fagade is needed in order to keep it clean and sanitary. There were no additional comments from the public. Mr. Dziewit closed the public hearing at 6:27 P.M. Ms. Salas asked if the other building on the property are metal buildings. Mr. Sherman responded that some of the existing buildings on site are metal and commented that this material is easier to clean. Mr. Hartzog asked a question regarding the orientation of the exhibit map. Mr. Sherman explained the site in detail and where the expansion is proposed. Minutes Board of Adjustment October 24, 2016 Page 2 of 3 Mr. Reynolds moved to approve this item. Mr. Hartzog Seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Motion carried. 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS: A. Announcements by Members • Mr. Dziewit asked about the past Board of Adjustment minutes when they will be posted. Mrs. Wood responded that we have been short staffed for the last several months and city staff are working on the minutes and hope to be current at the next meeting. • Mr. Hartzog commented that Mr. Greenwald received the volunteer of the year award. He also, mentioned the CCAB is great way for other board members to be aware of what is going on in the community and with other boards and would like to know if there is any way for the information to be posted for Schertz residents to see, maybe in the Schertz magazine. • Mr. Reynolds commented and agreed with Mr. Hartzog regarding the CCAB. • Mr. Dziewit thanked Mrs. Wood for her .presentation to the CCAB. ,. B. Announcements by City Staff Mrs. Wood announced that Mr. Cox commented on the The meeting adj Minutes Board of Adjustment October 24, 2016 Page 3 of 3 October 29th at Pickrell. Park. Recording Secretary, City of Schertz TO: Board of Adjustment W-W a%'�W1q1iWeM#4TMV= CASE: BOA 2017-001 Simmonds Real Estate Electronic Sign SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to UDC Article 11, Section 21.11.13,H Electronic Signs Location Restrictions, in order to permit an electronic sign closer than 150 feet from a residentially zoned property at 17148 IH- 35, City of Schertz, Guadalupe County, Texas. GENERAL INFORMATION: Owner/Applicant: Royce Simmonds / Simmonds Real Estate Inc. Engineer: Stantec Engineering / Tom Cunanan REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a variance to UDC Article 11, Section 21.11.13.1-1 Electronic Signs Location Restrictions, in order to permit an electronic sign no less than 117 feet from the nearest residentially used or zoned property at 17148 IH 35. The public hearing notice was published in "San Antonio Express" on March 8, 2017. There were twenty-one (21) notices mailed to surrounding property owners on March 9, 2017. At the time of this staff report staff has received two (2) responses in favor and one (1) response opposed to the request. ITEM SUMMARY: The subject property was originally platted in 2008 as Lot 1, Block 1 of the Silver Oaks Subdivision. This lot was approximately 146 feet in depth and 100 feet wide. In 2015 the applicant provided a public utility easement that ran parallel to IH 35 and was approximately 20 feet deep for the entire frontage of the property. This easement was provided by the applicant to try to alleviate some of the drainage concerns that were happening in front of this property and other properties within the neighboring subdivision. The applicant has submitted and received approval of a site plan to construct a two story 3,550 sq. ft. office building. Upon approval of the site plan, the applicant inquired about the ability to place an electronic sign to advertise the proposed real estate office. The applicant is requesting a variance to the required minimum 150-feet of separation between an electronic sign and the nearby residential. Due to the 146 feet length of the subject property, the minimum 150 feet is not obtainable. SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERAL LOCATION, ZONING AND LAND USE: The property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of IH 35 Frontage Road and Irola Drive specifically 17148 IH 35. Existing Zoning Existing Use Neighborhood Services (NS) Undeveloped CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: According to UDC, Article 3, Sections 21.3.4.0, in order to make a finding of hardship and grant a variance from the zoning regulations of the UDC, the Board must determine the following: 1. The requested variance does not violate the intent of this UDC or its amendments; The variance does not violate the intent of the UDC or its amendments because the property owner's request for a reduced distance between the proposed electronic sign and the residential property is due to existing lot constraints which limit the owner's ability to meet the minimum separation distance. Additionally, as part of the approved site plan the proposed two story building has a height of 26'6". The maximum height for an electronic sign per the UDC is 18 feet. With the proposed placement of the sign adjacent to 1H 35, the two story building will offer the screening from the adjacent residential to mitigate the potential negative impacts. 2. Special conditions of restricted area, topography or physical features exist 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 subject property when originally platted in 2008, was created as a small lot, approximately 100' wide by 146' in length. Other properties in the same zoning district would be able to meet the separation requirements however with the layout of the property and the surrounding properties being privately owned, there is no location on the property that an electronic sign could be placed to meet the minimum requirements. 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 applicant is unable to place the electronic sign on any portion of their property in order to meet the minimum distance requirement from residential due to the lot dimensions recorded. Other commercial Existing Zoning Existing Use North Right-of-Way IH 35 Frontage Road South Manufactured Home Subdivision (MHS Single Family Residential East Right of Way Irola Drive West Neighborhood Services Undeveloped CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: According to UDC, Article 3, Sections 21.3.4.0, in order to make a finding of hardship and grant a variance from the zoning regulations of the UDC, the Board must determine the following: 1. The requested variance does not violate the intent of this UDC or its amendments; The variance does not violate the intent of the UDC or its amendments because the property owner's request for a reduced distance between the proposed electronic sign and the residential property is due to existing lot constraints which limit the owner's ability to meet the minimum separation distance. Additionally, as part of the approved site plan the proposed two story building has a height of 26'6". The maximum height for an electronic sign per the UDC is 18 feet. With the proposed placement of the sign adjacent to 1H 35, the two story building will offer the screening from the adjacent residential to mitigate the potential negative impacts. 2. Special conditions of restricted area, topography or physical features exist 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 subject property when originally platted in 2008, was created as a small lot, approximately 100' wide by 146' in length. Other properties in the same zoning district would be able to meet the separation requirements however with the layout of the property and the surrounding properties being privately owned, there is no location on the property that an electronic sign could be placed to meet the minimum requirements. 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 applicant is unable to place the electronic sign on any portion of their property in order to meet the minimum distance requirement from residential due to the lot dimensions recorded. Other commercial properties along IH 35 and zoned Neighborhood Services are allowed to construct electronic signs on their site. However, due to the platted size of this lot the applicant is unable to place the sign on any portion of their property in order to conform with the minimum separation distance to residential, STAFF ANALYSIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of BOA 2017-001. 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 UUC;. MTTt -Ml Public hearing notice map Public hearing responses Exhibits 0� Ull-) K P-1 C-D 9: to O Z Z b C) Cq 0 A) O 61rol ct • 9 FAM -1 CIN Ck 0� Ull-) K P-1 C-D 9: to O Z Z b C) Cq 0 A) O 61rol ct • 9 FAM -1 COMMUNITY SERVICE E RT Z OPPORTUNITY 01 FIRTLIORT FRIFNIOWWWW' DEVELOPMENT qll�!,. UWMM 21 March 9, 2017 Dear Property Owner: The Schertz City Board of Adjustment will conduct a Public Hearing on Monday, March 27, 2017 at 6;0012.m, at the Municipal Complex Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Building #4, Schertz, Texas to consider and act upon the following item: BOA 2017-001 — A request for a variance to UDC Article 11, Section 21,11,13.1-1 Electronic Signs Location Restrictions, in order to permit an electronic sign closer than 150 feet from a residentially zoned property at 17148 IH-35, City of Schertz, Guadalupe County, Texas. Because you own property within 200 feet of the subject property the Board would like to hear how you feel about th'is request and invites you to attend the public hearing. If you are unable to attend but would like to express how you feel, please complete the bottom portion of this letter and return before the public hearing date to City of Schertz Planning and Zoning Department, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas, 78154 or fax (210) 619-1789, or e-mail: eqrobe scherit,cork If you have any questions please feel free to call Emily Grobe, Planner directly at 210-619-1784. Sincerely, Planner I I am: in favor of A opposed to El Comments: Name: ("oat,::: (Please Print Your Name) Reply Form neutral to ❑ the request for BOA 2047-001 Street Address: 7X1, 25� Date 3- IV-17 1900 Schertz Parkway _k Schertz, Texas 78164 210.619.1000 -k schartz.00111 COMMUNITY SERVICE CHIE TZ . OPPORTUNITY 12 W.1001 1QQ0F=KW_kTftrJt1J2" March 9, 2017 Dear Property Owner: The Schertz City Board of Adjustment will conduct a Public Hearing on Monday, March 27, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. at the Municipal Complex Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Building #4, Schertz, Texas to consider and act upon the following item: BOA 2017-001 — A request for a variance to UDC Article 11, Section 21,11,13,H Electronic Signs Location Restrictions, in order to permit an electronic sign closer than 150 feet from a residentially zoned property at 17148 IH-35, City of Schertz, Guadalupe County, Texas. Because you own property Within 200 feet of the subject property the Board would like to hear how you feel about this request and invites you to attend the public hearing. If you are unable to attend but would like to, express how you feel, please complete the bottom portion of this letter and return before the public hearing date to City of Schertz Planning and Zoning Department, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas, 78154 or fax (210) 619-1789, or e-mail: �g�e �scher�tt.corn If you have any questions please feel free to call Emily Grobe, Planner directly at 210-619-1784. Sincerely, Emir Gro Planner I I am: in favor of I$ opposed to ❑ 11 Name: (Please Print Your Name) Reply Form neutral to ❑ the request for BOA 2017-001 Signature Street Address: 6-_30y er " -ZZ Date 3 — / V— / 7 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, Texas 78154 210.619.1000 schermcom Reply Form '-- ' ---- —^-- Cnn�n�ent�-T�-��/ - /^~'� -LJ ^ . `0'.°~-L. —� —^~^.,/ 0��/'_ A !_�� »J^._ --~—'-- Name (Please Priint Your Name) Street Address: Date 3- 112 j 140maohertzParkway + ochartz. Texas ra154 � 210u191000 � sm1611Z."mn / 7777 SIMMONDIS REAL ESTATE, INC. 1733111135 NORTH, STE 103 SCHERTZ, TX 78154 Phone (210) 651-9300 Fax (210) 651-9334 ii City of Schertz To Who It May Concern: 4111-11-01- IT I IITIL-s -12 00 T"n"R IM than the 150 feet requirement from the nearest residentially zoned property. Make note, the electronic sign will be completely hidden from view of this residence as our two story building will be between the sign and the residence and the height of the building exceeds the height of the signage. Also, the distance exceeds what we had planned as our company provided a 20 foot standing water problem at the corner of Irola Drive and IH-35 access road. Please consider this the request for the sign variance JAW the UCC stated above. Any questions, feel free to call me (210) 651-9300 Office at any time. Royce Simmonds b!'/ Ve.?l EILILVIIIIJI.Lca CASE NUMBER Board of Adjustment may grant variances or modifications of height, yard, area, 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 request is for a Variance to the Unified Development Code Section 21.11.13 Para H. that requires any electronic sign to be a minimum of 150 feet from the nearest residentially zoned property. 1. Does the requested 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? Dyes No Explain: I do not believe it does. The fact is that our two story building will completely block out the proposed electronic sign as the building height greatly exceeds the height of the sign. Also the sign will be facing North/South parallel to IH-35 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? JRYes ❑No Explain: Yes, out commercial lot available footage was diminished in 2015 by a voluntary easement we provided provided the City of Schertz at no cost to eliminate the multi-year problem with drainage of water standing at the corner of Irola Drive and IH-35 access road after any appreciable rain. 3. Is the hardship the result of the applicant's own actions or intended for financial interest? Dyes No Explain: 4. Would granting this variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the value of property in the Vicinity? Dyes o Explain: No, again, out two story building will completely block the nearest mobile home from seeing any part of the electronic sign Preparer's Signature: Printed Name: Royce S Simmonds Date prepared: 9 Mar 2017 tag ro Ftl hIgh k Xm 12 4 0 Ei Z a 5 2AVE 5a E 6' c, w rAIVA-1 ffil 12 13 , - �gm lo II O O x 6. Ca Cjj o dma 2AVE 5a E 6' c, w rAIVA-1 ffil 12 13 , - �gm lo II O gtos a pm ® V @^n I Q C a=+ ua x W r d 3 N O dr O z IL 47 0 O 0 Q a O. e a O U) O O t �� !l N T W N #C E l n{ I E l NI q1 VI F Ef 4� u, ui 3-0 lI u.. ink n gtos a pm ® V @^n I Q C a=+ ua x W r d 3 N O dr O z IL 47 0 O 0 Q a O. e a O U) O O t " '11, hh g. s lidn ! Milli 11 " j2 Hil 4 3H On w Zo TS U-j CD I Eml M" I lLL TO: Board of Adjustment PREPARED BY: Channary Gould, Planner CASE: BOA 2017 -002 Samuel Clemens High School Height Variance SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to UDC Article 5, Section 21.5.7.6 Dimensional Requirements, Non - Residential Zoning Districts, in order to permit structures that exceed 35 feet in height in the Public Use zoning district, located at 1001 Elbel Road, City of Schertz, Guadalupe County, Texas. GENERAL INFORMATION: Owner: Schertz Cibolo Universal City Independent School District, Wayne Pruski, Executive Director of Operations Applicant: Marmon Mok Architecture, James C. Moore, AIA, Project Architect REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a variance to UDC Article 5, Section 21.5.7.6 Dimensional Requirements, Non - Residential Zoning Districts, in order to permit structures with a maximum height of 56 feet at the Samuel Clemens High School, located at 1001 Elbel Road, which exceeds the current height allowance of 35 feet in the Public Use zoning district. The request is for a portion of a new auditorium /theater building that is proposed to be approximately 56 -feet in height and a new fine arts /gym building that is proposed to be approximately 43 feet in height. PUBLIC NOTICE: The public hearing notice was published in the "San Antonio Express" on March 8, 2017. There were twenty - three (23) notices mailed to surrounding property owners on March 9, 2017. At the time of this staff report, staff received one response in favor from the applicant. ITEM SUMMARY: The subject property is the existing Samuel Clemens High School, which is on an approximate 50 -acre site. The applicant currently has plans submitted to the City for proposed renovations that include adding new parking areas, improvements to the existing buildings, and constructing new structures, including a new auditorium /theater building and a new fine arts /gym building that are both proposed to exceed the 35 -foot height limit that is allowed in the Public Use zoning district. SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERAL LOCATION. ZONING AND LAND USE: The property is located at 1001 Elbel Road, on the northeast corner of Schertz Parkway and Elbel Road. Below are tables summarizing the zoning and use of the site and surrounding properties. Existing Zoning Existing Use Public Use District (PUB) Public High School SURROUNDING ZONINGILAND USE: 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 variance does not violate the intent of the UDC or its amendments. Due to the inherent need for public services in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, the maximum height for the Public Use District matches the maximum height of all of the residential zoning districts to prevent structures from shadowing or towering over residential development. Samuel Clemens High School is located near several municipal buildings and an existing multi - family apartment complex south of Elbel Road. There are no existing single family residential development immediately abutting the site, thus the proposed heights of the auditorium and fine arts building would not create adverse impacts to residents. Additionally the two buildings that are proposed to exceed the height limit are located toward the center of the school campus with buildings closer to Elbel Road having lower heights. The progression of building heights further away from Elbel Road has limited visual impact to adjacent properties. The property owner's request for a building height increase is due to maximizing use of the existing property owned by SCUCISD. The renovations are proposed to provide improved facilities for the public and to address the need to increase capacity. 2. Special conditions of restricted area, topography or physical features exist that are peculiar to the subject parcel of land and are not applicable to other parcels of land in the same zoning district; The site has special conditions that affect the proposed renovations because a significant amount of the property is within the flood zone designation, which limits the ability to develop on the eastern and northern sides of the site. The need to accommodate increased capacity and incorporating certain programmatic requirements is limited to the existing site area due to surrounding established development. 3. The hardship is in no way the result of the applicant's own actions; or The School District is experiencing an increase in student enrollment due to additional students being generated from new residential development. The hardship is the result of needing to increase the W Existing Zoning Existing Use North Public Use District (PUB) City of Schertz municipal buildings & ball fields South Right of Way Elbel Road East Public Use District (PUB) and Drainage Channel US Postal Service and Dietz Creek West Right of Way Schertz Parkway 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 variance does not violate the intent of the UDC or its amendments. Due to the inherent need for public services in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, the maximum height for the Public Use District matches the maximum height of all of the residential zoning districts to prevent structures from shadowing or towering over residential development. Samuel Clemens High School is located near several municipal buildings and an existing multi - family apartment complex south of Elbel Road. There are no existing single family residential development immediately abutting the site, thus the proposed heights of the auditorium and fine arts building would not create adverse impacts to residents. Additionally the two buildings that are proposed to exceed the height limit are located toward the center of the school campus with buildings closer to Elbel Road having lower heights. The progression of building heights further away from Elbel Road has limited visual impact to adjacent properties. The property owner's request for a building height increase is due to maximizing use of the existing property owned by SCUCISD. The renovations are proposed to provide improved facilities for the public and to address the need to increase capacity. 2. Special conditions of restricted area, topography or physical features exist that are peculiar to the subject parcel of land and are not applicable to other parcels of land in the same zoning district; The site has special conditions that affect the proposed renovations because a significant amount of the property is within the flood zone designation, which limits the ability to develop on the eastern and northern sides of the site. The need to accommodate increased capacity and incorporating certain programmatic requirements is limited to the existing site area due to surrounding established development. 3. The hardship is in no way the result of the applicant's own actions; or The School District is experiencing an increase in student enrollment due to additional students being generated from new residential development. The hardship is the result of needing to increase the W school's capacity as the community grows to continue serving the public, and not the result of the applicant's own actions. 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 2017 -002. 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 -e ollt4 vlb � FZ p 1400 SCHERTZ PKWY (148758) c �ti oyc DR y4' »o SCHERTZ PKWY (67745) Sc r�q /FRTI 1060 ELBEL RD sG #(7A, 09 1 (43298) ON 798 F km, ��w 1088 ELBEL RD (39551) sµ: mn� -e ollt4 vlb � FZ p 1400 SCHERTZ PKWY (148758) c �ti oyc DR y4' »o SCHERTZ PKWY (67745) Sc r�q /FRTI 1060 ELBEL RD sG #(7A, 09 1 (43298) ON 798 F km, ��w 1088 ELBEL RD (39551) CASE NUMBER Board of Adjustment may grant variances or modifications of height, yard, area, 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: We request relief of the maximum height restriction as stipulated in the City of Schertz Unified Development Code, Table 21.5.7.8 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS NON - RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (d). According to the current available zoning map the zoning overlay for the Samuel Clemens High School site is designated as "(PUB) Public Use" and defined by the Code as: "Public Use District (PUB). Intended to identify and provide a zoning classification for land that is owned or may be owned by the City, County, State, or Federal Government or the School District; land that has been dedicated to the City for public use such as parks and recreation, and land designated and dedicated to the City as a greenbelt. ". Table 21.5.7.B indicates that the height limitation for this zoning district is 35'. Building Height is defined by the Code as: "Building Height: The vertical distance between the average natural grade of the ground under the footprint of a building and the highest point of the coping of a flat roof, or to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the mean height level between the eaves and ridge for a gable, hip or gambrel roof. A chimney, cupola or dormer (four feet or less in height), flagpole or residential television antenna shall be exempt from the above requirements." The total height of the Event Center (Building P) is currently shown on building elevation drawing B3 & Cl /A3.1 as 41' -1 1/8 ". The total height of the Auditorium /Theater Fly Loft (Building Q) is currently shown on building elevation drawing C4/A3.1 as 53' -7 W. Although these particular heights exceed the stipulated limit for this zoning district, the rest of the design and existing school building elements are within the Code limitations. We believe that there are mitigating circumstances that support allowing a variance to the height limitation which are discussed in the following responses. Does the requested 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? Dyes ■No Explain: The variance request does not violate the intent of the Unified Development Code. The overall design of improvements seek a thoughtful balance between competing priorities of this Code and other codes. The overall plan and design for Clemens High School Additions and Renovations reinforces the stated "purpose and intent" of the Unified Development Code in the following ways: s . + - • • • • • -r • a • • r r r i' r ', � i r � � .rte � r� r r� r � .. • r r ♦ �. -r • •a .r r •r -• 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 ❑No Explain: Several special conditions support consideration of this request for variance. Among them are topography and flood zone designations, the nature of development of the existing site and its proposed improvements, as well as program requirements for proposed capital improvements. The special conditions include: • Restricted site area to the extent that there are no reasonable opportunities to add to the available area of the site due to surrounding established development. • The topographical and physical features of the site affect planning and development by virtue of the established flood plain which encroaches significantly onto the existing site. • Competitive requirements of this Code and other building codes adopted by the City of Schertz. • Certain programmatic requirements for the proposed work resulting in heights of structures that exceed the code limitations, particularly affecting the height of the proscenium tower associated with new theater. • Orientation and inherent site buffers against other adjacent development 3. Is the hardship the result of the applicant's own actions or intended for financial interest? ❑Yes ■No Explain: The boundaries of the established flood plain limits vertical development on the eastern and northern sides of the site. The design also seeks to preserve existing open space to the greatest extent possible, as well as addressing other requirements of the code; including adequate parking and traffic control, impervious cover restrictions, and landscaping requirements which all affect the possible location, extent, and height of vertical improvements. This, in turn, imposes a need to concentrate those improvements to the greatest extent possible resulting in multistory structures. Other aspects of adopted building codes include the encouragement to bring natural light into the buildings whenever possible. The design seeks to satisfy this goal in area J of the plan, which is situated between two "high bay" buildings. Those are the Theater /Auditorium and the existing Beard Gym. Additional height is necessary to elevate clerestory windows which afford the natural light into the deeper areas of the building. The new auditorium /theater design is intended to supersede the obsolete configuration and restrictive height as well as structural issues present in the existing auditorium. The new design seeks to provide improved fine arts performance environment, addressing a greater education benefit, and satisfying a major goal of the 2016 Bond. In order to achieve the intended education goals for the new auditorium /theater, additional height at the proscenium is necessary to provide for improved technical capability suitable for a modern state -of- the -art 6A high school campus in Texas. The proposed configuration also enhances the potential for community access to a state -of- the -art performance venue. It is our opinion that strict enforcement of the letter of the UDC would obviate all of the greater education and community benefits by compromising the ability of the design to help achieve the overall intent of the code and education goals. With respect to the Elbel Road frontage, the progressive heights of the new buildings are arranged in a progressively receding fashion so as to render the additional heights nearly imperceptible at the street (see attached perspective images). Where they are directly perceptible, they are significantly removed from the street frontage, while addressing the existing higher scale elements of the adjacent stadium. The taller elements become complimentary and appropriate in nature by virtue of their location on the site. The tallest element being the Theater proscenium tower is located near the center of the site, well away from lower scale structures on surrounding sites and constituting a very limited visual impact against other surrounding development. The taller buildings are located, between the existing main building and the football stadium, significantly concealed from the Elbel Road elevation. The adjacent property owners should not be directly affected. The property directly adjacent due north of this project is City Property, dedicated to sports used including baseball & Softball. They provide an additional green space buffer to the school property from other buildings located farther beyond. The Property due east is the post office further separated by a drainage easement, which provides an additional green space and buffer to the school property. The property is bordered on the south by Elbel Road and on the west by Schertz parkway. The existing Beard Gym will disguise the height of the proposed building P & Q from the Elbel road right - of -way. The overall site organization provides for expansive open space buffers on all sides of the property against existing adjacent developments. In combination with building setbacks along the Elbel Road right -of -way, wide yards parking areas, and play fields around the rest of the perimeter of the site, we believe that any potential conflicts between the height and scale of the existing and new high school buildings with adjacent developments is successfully mitigated. 4. Would granting this variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the value of property in the vicinity? ❑Yes ■No Explain: We believe the height variance is not detrimental to the public welfare or injurious of the value of property in the vicinity. Quite the contrary, we believe the variance will support a design that enhances the overall public welfare and value of property in the vicinity in a well- considered and thoughtful fashion. The design will elevate the education experience of students and faculty who live in the City of Schertz, as well as raise the overall quality of the built environment of the vicinity. The stated intent of SCUCISD is to create a more collegiate sensibility to the campus and we believe the design achieves that. Furthermore, we believe that the overall design of the proposed improvements is consistent with the stated "purpose and intent" of the Unified Development Code and seeks to effectively manage competitive elements into a cohesive and harmonious whole. Thank you for your consideration of this application for variance. Preparer's Signature: �Caw Printed Name: jam C. Moore, AIA, Project Architect Date prepared: 03/06/17 I �ETURAL �SITE P�LA T NORTH �\ \ {{ §\ \ /\ \����\ -6 0 m0 / V" 0 U-) 0;; E (D (D o D 2< ARCHITECTUM me. w A1.0 L = /' r =11, EXTERIOR ELEVATION - PRIMARY BUILDING SOUTH H ME& Mzlm��� OW I- EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SECONDARY BUILDING EAST Mal �RIOR ELEVATION - SECONDARY BUILDING NORTHEAST � EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SECONDARY BUILDING WEST �_ 1-2-- MATERIAL LEGEND 0 '--"-w--; Se N lu 5 O U) 0 r— �6 w> LT 0 oT U) C: ry E06 U) U .0 (D E m EXTERIOR C/) ELEVATIONS MR Committee of Committee Advisory Board Meeting Summary November 16, 2016 Overview of EMS and Fire Departments Jason Mabbitt provided an overview of EMS operations. He identified the areas for which EMS provides service — 8 cities, 3 counties and 1 emergency service district. He indicated EMS responded to nearly 9,800 calls in 2015. He explained the department's organizational structure and provided an overview of the budget. He also covered some other things the department does —flu shots, blood donations, and other community health initiatives. Chief Covington explained the history of the Schertz Fire Department including early volunteer efforts. The department currently has two stations and third that is about to be constructed. He outlined the organizational structure of the department and noted some the issues created by new construction techniques and equipment used to fight fires, training provided, and teams to deal with these issues such as the recue team. Finally he outlined the coverage area of the Schertz Fire Department and how they work with surrounding communities. Board, Committee, Commission Report /Updates CCAB members present took time to review the information on the report for their individual board, committee or commission. City Manager reports /update City Manager, John Kessel, provided a brief overview on a planned City Council Orientation, materials to be provided, topics to be covered and draft schedule. He also spoke about the upcoming council retreats 2016 City of Schertz Strategic Plan Minor Adjustments City Manager John Kessel identified some minor wording changes proposed for the Strategic Plan. In light of how recently the Strategic Plan was developed and the number of new Councilmembers, he is not recommending significant changes at this time. Regional Emergency Alert Network Discussion Dudley Wait discussed the Regional Emergency Alert Network (REAN). The system allows people to register via a website to receive public alerts and warnings such as weather and amber alerts. The Board discussed ways to promote this system to encourage residents and business owners to sign up. Festival of Angels Brian James talked about how the Parks Department and Parks Board was going to participate in the Festival of Angels to promote Parks programs. He also discussed the need to get the larger community involved in the various festivals and events. January 18, 2017 CCAB reports from boards and commissions Last CCAB meeting October 19, 2016 BOA — November 28 and December 19, 2016 The Board of Adjustment did not meet in either November or December. Planning and Zoning Commission — December 14, 2016 and January 11, 2017 The Commission considered a number of items including zoning amendments for Hallie's Cove, Homestead, and The Crossvine. The plat for the new Rose Garden elementary school was approved as well as the plat for the next phase of Cypress Point. In January the Commission recommended approval of a rezoning for the CCMA property for the South Schertz Treatment Plant and for a property on Main Street to the Main Street Mixed Use District. Additionally the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) met to consider semiannual reports. TSAC — January 5, 2017 TSAC considered a number of items it has discussed in the past including truck parking issues on Mid Cities Parkway and speeding issues on Fairlawn. Staff from the SEDC is going to lead an effort to build consensus among tenants and property owners on solutions to the parking issues around Mid Cities Parkway. Historic Preservation — December 14, 2016 The Committee held a special meeting to recommend approval of a Main Street Grant for 603 Main Street. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board — November 28, 2016 The Board received a presentation by SCUCISD on their facility use policies and discussed ways to partner to allow the public access to school facilities for recreation purposes. They received an update from the Marshal's office on basketball goals in the street. They considered the name of the City park in The Crossvine and discussed possible parks and recreation programs geared towards teenagers. Library Board — December 5, 2016 and January 9, 2017 The board held its annual December potluck social gathering on December 5. The Board discussed partnering with SCUCISD on author visits at the January meeting. Economic Development Corporation - October 27, 2016 The SEDC has not met since the last CCAB meeting. Committee of Committees Advisory Board Meeting Summary January 18, 2017 City Manager Reports /Updates John Kessel reminded CCAB that staff has been conducting a council orientation to better familiarize new City Council members with department operations, major projects, and issues impacting the Community. These were begun on November 21, the first meeting of the new Council, and are anticipated to continue through February. Some of the topics covered include: The City Charter, Emergency Operations, Randolph issues, the Pavement Condition Index, South Schertz Sewer, the budget model, the Economic Development Department, and Public Safety. This orientation seems to be well received and staff is planning to do this with each new Council. GIS Department Overview Tony McFalls the Manager of the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Department provided an overview of his department's role. He noted that it is a small department, just himself and one other employee, but that their work touches a lot of different departments. He noted that most people think of his department as the group that makes maps, but they do a lot of things people do not see. These involve transforming paper into digital data sets that can be used by departments on reporting systems that are location based such as utility billing, police and fire, etc. He touched on some of the areas of the City experiencing the most growth. His department's work allows other departments to better understand and interpret visual information more easily than if it were simply in a chart or spreadsheet. Hot Funds Overview Brian James provided and overview of the Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) and the fund generated by this tax. He provided an overview of the State law that allows the City to collect the fund and stipulates how it may be used- generally to boost tourism in communities. Some primary uses are to fund convention centers that bring in outside visitors or to put on festivals. It can also be used to promote historic preservation that is the basis of bring in tourists. Brian noted that a few years ago the City reviewed how these funds were being spent to ensure consistency with the requirements. He noted that the City collects approximately $600,000 annually from this fund. The City spends about $70,000 on visitor center operations, $35,000 on advertising, $35,000 on historical grants, $10,000 on sports tournaments and $115,000 on events and festivals. Staff conducted a work session with Council on January 10 and discussed developing a policy and program on the use of these funds in the near future. Main Street Program Overview Brian James presented and overview of the Main Street program that was similar to the presentation he made before City Council on January 10. He noted that the City has done a number of things to implement the plan for Main Street outlined in the Schertz Sector Plan. These included participating in the Cibolo Creek drainage area study being conducted by the San Antonio River Authority (SARA). This is important as much of the area of Main Street is in the floodplain. The City has also created a new zoning district, the Main Street Mixed Used District that allows for residential and commercial uses so that property owners can more easily adaptively reuse existing structures. An ordinance waiving permit fees in the area was approved to encourage investment in older properties. The City has also approved the use of HOT funds as a matching grant program up to $20,000 for improvements and repairs of buildings. Lastly, the City is about to kick off the effort to use the Main Street bond funds for improvements along Main Street to include decorative paving, crosswalks, decorative poles lighting, bike racks, trash receptacles, benches sidewalk improvements, etc. COMMITTEE OF COMMITTEES ADVISORY BOARD WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 AT 3:00 P.M. City Manager report /updates. Mr. Kessel, City Manager, presented the 2016 Community Survey Report which is now available online. The group discussed some of the major findings of the report including that 84% of Schertz residents are overall satisfied with the City and only two percent are dissatisfied. The major challenges that were identified throughout the report were issues that had previously been discussed by the CCAB and Bond Committee including traffic, road repair /maintenance /expansion, planning for rapid growth and parks and recreation programs. The group highlighted that this survey will be used as a baseline as the city continues to receive more input from Schertz residents and measures itself against other cities. Overview of the Information Technology (IT) Department. Mr. Clauser, IT Director, provided an overview on the IT department mission, services, and safeguards. He explained how the IT department provides technical analyses to all city departments as they grow and develop. Mr. Clauser also highlighted the department's efforts in insuring that all the City's technology assets are carefully maintained and protected by continuously assessing the potential of security risks. He talked about the IT department's efforts to keep providing connectivity to various organizations that partnered services with the City. He showed a map of the Master Communication Plan (MCP Phase 2) depicting several connection points with different city owned properties throughout the City including the new Fire Station 3 to be built in Lower Seguin Road. He briefed the group on how the department is meeting compliance on information technology regulations with several organizations like Homeland Security, Multi -State Information Sharing & Analysis Center (MS- ISAC), Criminal Justice Information Systems (CJIS), Texas Department of Public Safety and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (hIIST) to name a few. The group recognized the vital role of IT in providing services for all city functions. Overview of the Schertz Comprehensive and Thoroughfare Plans. (B. James) Mr. James, Executive Director, provided a summary and overview on the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan which are both undergoing update revisions. Staff delayed the completion of the plans to allow for the changes on City Council to ensure that the new council had the opportunity to provide input, The Master Thoroughfare Plan changes will include updates to proposed roadway alignments, update cross - sections of roadways and corridors, and improve the functionality of intersections. Additionally, the new plan includes the addition of a roadway impact fee to help create resources to pay for future expansion. Mr. James also provided an overview of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan updates that are needed in north and south Schertz. The plans will outline future land uses use. The group discussed the positive and negative implications associated with plan updates and acknowledged the importance of planning for the best interest of the community. Feb 15, 2017 CCAB reports from boards and commissions Last CCAB meeting January 18, 2017 BOA— January 23, 2017 (scheduled) The Board of Adjustment meets on the 4th Monday of the month, but only if they have a variance request to hear. They did not have a meeting in January. Planning and Zoning Commission — January 25 and February 8, 2017 At the January 25th meeting, the Commission approved a plat associated with the next phase of The Crossvine and items associated with Bindseil Farms, the residential subdivision under construction on Schertz Parkway across from Live Oak Road. At the February 8th meeting, the Commission approved items associated with the proposed Hallies Cove residential development on FM 1518, approximately 1,375 feet south of Trainer Hale Road. They also discussed the proposed Thoroughfare Plan amendment and the Comprehensive Plan update south of Join Base San Antonio Randolph. TSAC — February 2, 2017 TSAC discussed the need to review and evaluate school zone times relative to when children were having to walk to bus stops near schools. Staff reviewed the list of pending items including replacing traffic signage in Belmont and making improvements to a crosswalk. They also discussed actions to calm traffic on Fairlawn. Historic Preservation — January 26, 2017 The Committee met for its regularly scheduled quarterly meeting in January. The meeting included a presentation to the owner of the 603 Main Street of the Landmark Property Plaque. The Committee reviewed the Summer Newsletter and Remembrance Special Edition article. They also discussed the Committees Annual Report. Finally, they discussed potential future Landmark Property designations. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board — January 23, 2017 Staff provided the Board with an update regarding the ongoing effort to develop a standardized list of parks amenity equipment. The goal of this standardization effort is to improve efficiency, particularly with regard to improving the timeliness of repairs. Staff also briefed the Board on the Alamo Area MPO transportation funding request for sidewalks, hike and bike trails and bike lane improvements. Library Board — February 6, 2017 The library Board reviewed the Treasurers', Librarian's, Bookstore and CCAB reports for the past month. As part of the Librarians' report, the Library Director provided copies of the Citizen Survey and the Board discussed the results. Economic Development Corporation —XXX XX, 2017