Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Sorry. I always have fun doing that. I need one at home. It's even more fun. Alright. Well, welcome to the regular City of New Braunfels Board of Adjustment meeting. We're a five member board appointed by the city council and pursuant to state law the board hears requests from property owners for variances and special exemptions from locally adopted ordinances. This board may hear appeals of decisions made by city staff in administering these ordinances. Excuse me. The general procedure for each case is the board will hear first from the city staff who will provide a summary of each applicant's request, then the applicant or agent will be asked to come forward and advocate for their request.

Next, the board will request public comment for anyone who wants to speak in favor or in opposition of the request. Those speaking in opposition or in favor will be limited to five minutes, however, chair does reserve the right to adjust these times. The board will keep all discussions to the issue at hand and cannot deviate into unrelated topics or areas that do not contribute to the merits of this request. After the close of the public hearing, the pending case will need to have a motion and a second to the motion from the board members in order to proceed to a vote. In order for a request to be approved, state law requires that four out of five of the members of the board vote to approve the variance request.

The request fails if no motion or second is made for approval. If denied the same or similar request cannot reappeared before the board for at least six months unless new substantial evidence not available at the initial hearing is produced by the applicant. Any aggrieved party may appeal a decision made by this board and appeals are made to the district court or county court at law and if you have any questions you can ask city staff members after the meeting. We are currently a four member board. We are waiting on one member that will be here.

As there are only four members present this evening, the board offers the following options to all applicants knowing that you would need a unanimous decision in order to approve your request this evening. You may voluntarily postpone your request to the next meeting at no charge to you. If anyone would like to exercise this option, it can be done formally now at the podium. But as I say, we are missing one person and they are on their way. So we'll start with four and be able to go from there. Would anyone like to exercise that option right now? Okay thank you. If we could have a roll call please.

Member Avery?

Here.

Member Rand? Here. Member Vice Chair Jake

Lee? Here.

Chair Mundt?

Here. Thank you. First item of business is the approval of minutes from our last time we met in December, 12/18/2025.

I make a motion to approve minutes as written. Second.

We do have a motion and

a second. All in favor. Today? Nothing on here? Nope. Would anybody like to speak with the open with the open meetings act? We have to ask that now. Before we start, anybody like to come up to the podium and sing and and talk to us? Wonderful. Then we are gonna move on to the items for individual consideration.

Item A, public hearing and consideration of a request by New Braunfels Independent School District for an alternate sign plan to allow one freestanding electronic message poll sign to deviate from the established sign standards for property within the C1B General Business District currently addressed at 4150 Klein Meadows.

Good evening board members. Colton Barker with Neighborhood and Community Planning. Before you this evening is a proposed alternative sign plan. This request is not a sign variance and it is the appropriate process for considering signage that may not fully comply with the city's sign code. Because of this, a hardship is not required and an approval may be granted with a simple majority of the board.

Alternative sign plan process is intended to provide flexibility for applicants to design signage that complements the development's unique characteristics, allow increases in sign area or height in place of multiple otherwise permitted signs, and accommodate additional signage when there are unusual site constraints. The subject property this evening is over a 100 acres and has been developed as Long Creek High School. It is located along West Cline Road just south of the intersection of Cline Meadows and Legend Pass. The property lies within the C 1 B General Business District and is located between the developing Zip Sports Park and the residential Legend Pond Plan development. There's a few photos of the property, specifically where the sign is proposed to go, as seen from Climb Meadows.

We've got plenty of pictures, so we can always come back to alternative sign plan proposes to install one freestanding electronic message poll sign that deviates from the standards for properties within the C 1 B General Business District. The sign would be located along Klein Meadows, set back more than 100 feet from the property line and over 150 feet from nearby residential properties. The applicant has provided an exhibit here showing what the proposed sign would look like at the requested location. The city sign ordinance allows sign types and sizes based on a property zoning district and specific street frontage. The property C 1 B zoning allows for alternatives to the requested signage listed in this comparison chart that was included in the report.

Staff recognizes the applicant's efforts to establish effective signage to represent the high school and recommends approval of the request with the conditions listed in the staff report. This concludes staff's introduction. The applicant now has the opportunity to speak on the item and I can answer any other questions you may have.

Thank you, sir. Do we have any questions for Colton as he's up here?

I looked at the specifications on what you listed on the agenda package. And so can you reiterate what is the can you run over really quick? What is the normal sign that is allowed? And this thing looks like to me like it's part, you're characterizing this whole thing as electronic sign, but part of it is really not. That's correct. So the part of the electronic sign appears to be four and a half by eight and a half?

Yes, sir.

Okay. So but because of the way the code is written, we have to look at it like the whole thing. It's really not.

That's correct.

I understand. So let's pretend it's really not. Sure. So what's the difference between what the code says and what this one particularly is without the the the topic piece.

Sure. And actually here, I will go over to this exhibit here. This is probably the easiest way to see it all in one place. You can see their proposal here on the right highlighted in red far as everything on the left. It's our what signage is allowed in that C 1 B General Business District.

You can see that electronic message monument signs and electronic message poll signs are allowed here just at smaller square footages for the sign area. And I guess they max out at 10 feet for the maximum height. As far as the differences between them, the proposal is actually as far as sign area goes, it exceeds that 20 square feet by 43.66 square feet, a total of 63.66 square feet. So some of these are here in the middle. As far as sign height, looks to be taller than what's allowed by 5.58 ish feet.

Some of the other issues where it's conflicting with our code, there's a specification that electronic message signs are not allowed on collectors, sub collectors, streets. Klein Meggos happens to be a collector street. So, there's an issue there and then another provision for electronic message signs is that there it be the only freestanding sign allowed on the Currently there is another existing monument sign on the property. It's kind of tucked way inward of the property kind of near the entrance of the school.

I still have some more questions. Sure, absolutely. These things since they're electronically controlled, they're not, we're not looking at this thing having to go 20 fourseven, are we? Far as the possibility, can we, I mean, because what's the distance between residential area that might be affected by the brightness. This is one of the reasons they wrote this thing. Sure. So what's the distance there? I mean, what's the and do we get any feedback from those people?

Yes. So the distance is the code requires any electronic message sign to be located at least a 150 feet away from any residentially zoned or used property. This exhibit you can see it's going to be proposed that that blue line stretches across Klein Meadows to the adjacent Legend Pond residential neighborhood and it shows about a 160 feet there. So this sign would meet that requirement. We don't have any light shed exhibits to share showing that it won't be shining or reflecting into these residences. But from my understanding of these signs is that especially for school, they're not going be active all night primarily during school hours, but I can let the applicant confirm those. Okay.

Thank you. You're welcome.

My question is regarding LDO. How does this variance play an effect with what we presume will be presented in LDO?

Sure. And actually with our LDO, we're in our new signed draft that we're working on still. We're proposing for schools to have their own section. Now with that section, we were saying, hey, for school signage, we want them to come in as these alternative plans because a lot of times these schools are in unique areas or in schools have a lot of different advertising needs as opposed to your typical commercial business. So what they've proposed here actually would align a little bit more with our LDO as opposed to our current electronic message standards that were written more so for back in the day when they've got those little scrolling kind of temperature time, those kinda signs.

But this LDO has updated lighting standards that actually don't use foot candles. I think that's an outdated unit of measurement for brightness. It's got things like knits, I believe. And then I actually have a let's see. I've got some supplemental slides here. Here is a the the electronic message portion of that LDO draft if you'd like to take a look for more. Some of the conditions we've proposed for this is that this new sign aligns with all of our display specific standards proposed in the LDO. That'll be these ones here that provide those updated units of measurement.

If LDO standards were currently in place would this still require a variance?

I believe yes and I believe that's only because we have for school specific that they come through as an alternative sign plan at this current draft. I'm not sure if they'll make it to the final one but at this stage that's where we're headed.

Did they have to send out notifications to the surrounding homes for the sign?

So these alternative sign plan requests actually don't require notification to within that 200 feet. The city takes a careful stance of keeping folks aware versus inviting opposition to where it may not be required to notify the folks. So no public notices were sent out for this request.

So no one knows we could put a to erect a sign for the size of a Whataburger behind them. Is that what we're saying?

It's on the website but mailed notices were not sent out.

You said it. All right any other questions for staff? Welcome. Thanks for coming.

Actually I do have one. The static sign is that lit?

I believe it's gonna be backlit or internally illuminated we would call it but I believe the applicant could speak a little bit better

to that.

Because if it's like one of the Broncos High School it's always going, right now it's yellow and says something weird on it but. Yeah it does

say something.

Okay, no more questions for staff. Alright, thank you. At this time if the applicant would come up and state your name for the record.

Good evening board. My name is Joe Alexander. I'm with the district director of construction and planning. So we're the applicant and we have Spectrum sign here as well if you have any sign specific questions, but I'd be happy to answer.

All right, you want to tell us about your case?

Yeah, so the signage like the city was saying is it requires us to do a various request for the sign ordinance. What most schools are going to is this electronic sign messaging that helps us get information out to parents, neighborhoods, if we have weather days and stuff, so it helps us kind of advertise for that kind of stuff where it just keeps us involved in the community, the neighborhood to kind of keep things updated. So that's a big push for why we would really like to keep using these electronic signs. Your concern, obviously, for the night, agree. That's usually why these electronic signs get a lot of pushback because they could be blazing all night.

That I believe we have programming where that would be shut off at night. There's no need in doing that at night. So it would be primarily for the day during the school. But I can't say that during the weekends, the principals may not want to use it to inform for the following week. So what ends up happening typically once they install these signs, they do the training with the principals and then they kind of manage the day to day operations of signs.

All right. Would you like to add anything?

They are programmable and like you said, they are dimmable too, so they can dim them down as well. So if somebody's worried about them being bright they can be dimmed down.

I don't go over to that side of town very often but I know my son did go to ninth grade center there for one year and from what I remember there's homes like directly across from I mean directly from that. That's my concern with you putting a sign that's gonna be larger than what's allowed, higher than what's allowed. I guess unless you're giving them remote control that would be my only question. So there's no way to minimize the usage of that for nighttime. Right?

Excuse me? Totally totally programmable. Could

you please state your name and address for the record?

I'm sorry. My name is David Sino. With Spectrum by Watchfire. They are totally programmable. So you set the message for 6AM to 6PM and it turns off. So you give it a start and stop time.

My question is when I read this thing and I saw there's like four or five sections there listed on on the agenda that describe this. But one of the things was the timing. It's can or will they? That's the question I've got. I mean, can turn them off, right?

That's correct.

Will they turn them off? And does this need to be a condition of the variance?

So the the school will if they're gonna put up Thanksgiving holiday and they're gonna set a time and a date for exact time for it to go off. So you so if they

put on at 07:00 in the

morning and then go off at six in the evening and the following day come on at 07:00, go off at 05:00 in the evening, that's when it's gonna go off and it'll be blank. It can be totally blank or it can be something on it.

Can you go back, whoever has control, there you go, Colton. Can you go back to where we have the current and then what they're requesting, current sizes. What sheet was that? Not that far back. Chart, there you go, that's a good word.

I should use that, there we go. Alright, allowed in that vicinity is a 10 foot sign. We're asking for a 15.58 sign. Because there's a neighborhood right there, it's not like it's a freeway. Why is the district needing that additional 5.58 feet from what is currently allowed?

So we're trying to be consistent with what we have at New Braunfels. So being the location of the New Braunfels High School, it didn't require variance. So we're just trying to make sure we have the balance in the high schools they have some consistency across

mean Broncos is on the loop. Mean there's larger traffic area versus a residence less than 100 yards from that sign, multiple residences. I'm just thinking, that's like putting a Whataburger sign behind a home.

Right. Other than that, I mean the consistency is the reason why we would stick to that. They're

requesting So we denied that they would still be able to do this with the 10 foot maximum?

We'd probably have to redesign it and I'm not sure code wise but it may still require a various request because of the electronic messaging.

That's correct.

Right, but we'd had to redesign that to fit within that 10 foot realm. But speaking of how you were talking about the square footage, don't know if that was if it's just the overall height of the electronic or are we just talking about the pylon sign itself too?

Sure, it's the overall height of the whole sign structure. Having the electronic elements, it classifies it as that sign which I guess is limit of 10 feet in height. But to your point it would still need a variance

So to go

the variance is kind of I guess because it's electronic in the neighborhood. This is district that it's considered in. Correct, yeah there's

a few points that are requiring the variance and or but this is technically not a variance, it's that alternative plan but we can address all those issues that deviate from our current code with alternative plan.

Okay, so if I'm sorry, I'm just going to ask Colton one question. So if we did not approve this or we could do this in two separate parts where we would allow the electronic element of this but still the maximum of 10 foot that's allowed. That's correct. And that would be fine with this variance. We would just have to submit it as a request because that way it would keep the 20 square foot area versus 63 square foot area.

Correct, you can make a motion to add additional conditions to this if you'd like.

That's what we need to know. Right, any Sorry. Other questions for the

If I may interrupt and offer something, considering this is board's consideration of whether you think lowering this sign to 10 foot would allow vandalism to occur more easily than perhaps a 15 foot, that's just a random suggestion for the board's consideration. There's no guidance from staff on that but that idea popped into my mind just based on experience. Experience evangelism.

That's a

whole another topic here, our legal Before

I was an attorney.

Attorney for the city.

And on another point as Colton alluded to, you all are free to impose time restrictions as is proposed under the LDO. Think the current LDO LDO says, I mean mentions time but doesn't give a specific time. So if you wanted to have a provision that it would be either dimmed or no longer project specific messages after a certain time, that's within your purview also.

Lots to consider. All right, any other questions we have for the applicant?

I have one more. What's the orientation of the sign? Is it as shown that it's going to be facing, just making sure that it's facing the street?

No ma'am. I guess it would be perpendicular to the street. As you drive

So the sign face though would be as I'm driving up I can see Correct.

So it wouldn't would not be facing the houses per se. So directly like shining their yard. That was the intent in that as well.

All right, thank you gentlemen. At this time we would like to open the public forum for anyone who would like to speak in favor or in opposition? Seeing that there is none, we will close the public forum. All right, we are open for discussion and or a motion.

I'll bite. I agree with the restricted time limits. I don't think we need to advertise what's going on on any school campus into the wee hours of the evening. That's when light pollution would be the most impactful. Aside from potential vandalism, which I think should be addressed a totally different meeting, I'm not sure I can compare Long Creek to New Braunfels High School based on traffic with the need of height.

Three thirty seven is not the same beast as this, and I'm not sure that setting that standard across the board is appropriate as we continue to have to change high schools. I I think there's differences at Canyon than there is at New Braunfels High, and and that's just the flexibility of where high school campuses are located. As far as square footage of what's lit, I have no issues with that. I I like a digital sign. I like the ability, you know, for example, weather delays, quick changes, that sort of piece for them to be changed.

I understand the need of a digital sign, but I'm not sure that the height variance qualifies here in this particular case. I agree, but I don't know.

I guess is it up to the applicant then to decide what the height is or can we set

that or?

We cannot approve the variance of height, but we could approve the variance of electronics with a a notification Conditions, there you go, another good word. It says that x hour to x hour because typically I'm in bed by 08:30 so I don't know that's late to me but others have called out till midnight. So what would those hours be?

So what's the enforceability of the hours? So say we say eight to eight and the neighbors say hey this sign is on at 10:00. Does that can it be enforced to where the variance goes away at that point to where then? If it's

a condition of approval by you guys as the board and it is found to be out of compliance with that condition, we can enact on some enforcement on that and work with them to either get into compliance which is usually our department's stance. And then if that doesn't work we go from there.

Okay.

I believe we do have some penalties section baked in to the sign code.

Is there a buffer? So mister Mund over here goes to bed in ninety minutes. Some of us don't do that. Is there a is there a recommendation as as far far as as curfew curfew of of light of light pollution? Pollution?

Let's see. This is what we've got proposed in the LDO. They've got a display number four under section C has some display times, but it doesn't have any particulars listed out as far as what general time it should shut off. But if you guys determine that there should be one and agree on one, that could be a condition that you put on

this. On

your brightest display item number C deals with a time period thirty minutes after sunset, thirty minutes before sunrise, they won't have the white background.

I disagree with that though because in the winter thirty minutes after sunset is 07:00.

No, that's the dimming, the dim it.

But isn't the entire point was it to be lit up at night so that it's legible at night to appropriate hour?

I mean I would say we just what is the appropriate hour?

Yeah, this is what I asked sir. For you it's very soon. Some of us it's not quite. I mean if I think about a high school football game, those can go

11:00.

Band and folks come back on a bus at 09:00, 10:00 at night, later sometimes. What is the appropriate hour? But also if I'm the neighbor across the street, those there's really there's a few houses across the street that I would say the current ordinance is protecting from light pollution and that is where I stand. Yep. It's for those folks.

I agree.

When does does those folks go to sleep? I don't know how we decide that.

Frank any suggestions on time wise that we should consider?

I mean it's up to the board as time wise or a suggestion would be perhaps that this motion or this matter be tabled until the next or continued until the next hearing date and then have the school board come back with you with their proposals and then instead of you making the decision without their input at this point and maybe these individuals would need to go back and talk with the principals or something, maybe they could come back to y'all and say this is what we propose and this is what we're comfortable with and then we could have a further discussion of those conditions.

Should we make a motion on the size as well as the height and approving the electronics so they can start creating that. If we're only going to be tabling the time, I'm sure it's going to take the signed company some time to create this or order it from China or whatever. So should we go ahead and approve that portion and then table the time that

it is allowed on until the next meeting? You can make a decision on those alternative provisions now and then have them come back with what you request for time and dimmable hours.

Would that be fine?

Devil's advocate. If we're going to ask for audience approval and we're going to ask for if we're gonna seek feedback from those that are impacted by this, similar to how we would normally do for a a zoning variance, they ask the neighbors, is there not also an opportunity where we can ask neighbors, hey. Do you this want to be a 10 foot sign or a 15 foot sign? Maybe they're all parents with kids and they want a 15 foot sign because they want to know from their backyard. If we're going to table the discussion, would it not behoove us to also get both pieces of opinion from those that are going to be impacted?

Or what was the answer on were the notifications sent out or

did they No, they were not.

So even just We

can certainly send notice if you'd like us to.

I mean I think that as a minimum would do what you're saying give the opportunity for them to raise a concern.

I feel like our job is to make sure that light pollution and excessive sign pollution is not apparent in areas. But at this, for a high school, I don't consider this excessive pollution. We're trying not to impact our neighbors. So I think it's the neighbors decision or we should at least have that weighed in.

We're not thinking

any precautions.

Would be my opinion.

It also appears from this picture here, the photograph that this there is not completely built out either. So the people that directly across the sign on both sides will be Yeah,

six houses right here that this directly impacts. And if this was a zoning variance request, there's probably 12 property owners there that would have a say so. And perhaps none of them answer and then we're in the same spot next month, but perhaps some of them answer and they provide us what feedback I feel like we're speaking on behalf of them without their information.

Yeah, I mean I feel like my biggest issue is the light not necessarily the height. I mean with it being set back as far as it is, I think the height has a little less impact than just the light.

I'm also with you. I'm not opposed to that. And I'm not opposed to the size. What I am opposed to is the ability to turn the thing down so that it doesn't affect people who are trying to sleep. Grandma and granddad live in one of those houses over there and they don't be bothered, their kids are already somewhere else. Or they don't have kids in school, they don't want to see it, they just bought the house over there because that's what they could afford or wanted to. We have

to call you back. We're not

in open discussion right now.

Thank you. I would like, what Frank said, I'd like to see us go ahead and if you want to approve thing or table the whole thing until we get some input from the people and from the principals. Are you willing to turn this thing down? Are you willing to take a look at when it needs to go down? When do you have it on? When do have it off? I mean, we've got have a lot of science. How

detailed are we allowed when we ask for feedback? Obviously our zoning feedback is pretty much one question. Are we allowed to include questions when we request responses back from neighbors? Can we can we say, do you have an issue with height? Do you have an issue with light pollution? Do you have an issue with curfew?

Well, we we would typically send, you know, our our typical process with with a variance, this is an alternative plan, but with a variance would be send to send notice so that they would be aware of what's being requested and it would include what the variance is for. Is it a building taller than what's allowed, something like that. And that would give them the opportunity to come and either present their concerns or ask questions at the hearing. So that would be, I think, the best way to handle this too is to send property owners notice and then they would have the ability to either come to the meeting or inquire with staff as to what's being requested.

My contact information will be on those notices as well, phone number and email and they can always come visit So I'm happy to answer folks' questions.

Understanding that once a motion is made, there can be additional discussion. So I don't want you to feel like you're iced out over there. But with that understood, I would like to make a motion that this particular agenda item is tabled with the follow-up option that we send notice to whatever our same variance radius is property owners for feedback or notification of the alternative sign plan that's being requested.

Can you go ahead and be specific? Would you like to have it at the next scheduled ZBA?

Yes, yes, table for one month to the next board of adjustment meeting. Yes

and maybe that will give the district some time also to do a little bit more research on that light and the effects as well so they have more answers whenever they come back as well.

Count your candlesticks. I'm sorry.

All right. We have a motion. We have

a motion.

Do we have a second?

Can you repeat the motion? Sorry. I'd like to make a motion to table the current agenda item to the next next follow-up board of adjustment meeting with the condition that the city will contact those in Radius, give notification of the adjustment plan that's being requested.

Can I add an amendment to that also that the district provide us? You would have to make a new motion. Can't amend So ask

her to amend it.

Can you amend it? So ask for district feedback on that adjustment time.

Oh, okay, yes. Okay, so then I would make a motion that we table this item, agenda item as written, to the next board meeting with the condition that the city has reached out for notification to property owners of the adjustment requested and that we also receive additional feedback from the district based on time needed for message board use.

Okay, I second that.

All right, do we have a second?

I will second that.

All right, we have a first and second, can we get a roll call please?

Member Refft? Aye. Member Avery?

Yes.

Chairman?

Yes.

Vice Chair Jake Lee? Aye. Member Schneider?

Aye.

All right. With that being said, we have postponed you to next month. Questions, city city will be able to answer those questions after that. Alright. Moving on to number two.

We are, let's see, 26482 hold a public hearing in consideration of a request for two variances. Number one, a variance from section one four four dash three dot eight dash four b three to allow an accessory structure structure to encroach eight feet, eight inches into the required 25 foot corner side setback, to and two, a variance from section one four four dash three dot eight b 10 to allow a an 1,000 square foot one story accessory structure comprised of 500 square feet garage and 500 square foot guest house within the SND 1 special neighborhood District 1 currently addressed at two five zero Magazine Avenue.

Good evening board and chair Mary Lovell, senior planner with neighborhood and community planning. The property is located at 250 Magazine Avenue and is zoned SND 1. That is our special neighborhood district. And is developed with a single family home which was constructed in 1950. It also has a detached garage with that the applicant plans to demolish for this proposed accessory structure.

This is an aerial map showing the property and the surrounding area. And these photos show the property along Lee Street. Specifically, can see on the right hand side of the picture the detached garage and an open space towards the rear of the yard where is currently the property does not have any buildings. This is a site plan that shows the area being proposed for the new structure. So the property owner is requesting to allow a variance to allow the building of this 1,000 square foot structure and it does is comprised of a garage and an accessory dwelling together in one story.

The reason for the first variance or one of the variances is because in the SND one it allows an accessory restructure but the language in that section specifically talks about having a garage on the lower level and an accessory structure above it. And it doesn't really speak to maybe having a one story structure So in that case, the applicant has to come before you for a variance. In addition, because of the configuration of the lot and it being a corner lot, it does have 25 foot setback along Lee Street, which is shown in the yellow, the first yellow markation on the map there. There were public hearing notices sent to 25 owners of property within two hundred feet and to date as of 4PM or actually later we just received one. To date staff has received a total of four responses in favor and one response in opposition from those properties that were sent notices.

At this time my presentation is concluded but the applicant is here to speak and to further present and advocate for their request and they will be able to answer any specific questions regarding their proposal.

I got a question. Typically we get the response so we can get this review them and see anything in writing. Do we have anything on this objection? I know it's directly behind the house.

There were no it was dropped off this morning. I mean this evening right before 05:00 and there were no comments on it. It just said opposed, the check box.

Okay. Any other questions for staff?

I have a question. Can you go back to the site plan please? Yes. The bottom of the site plan there, there's nothing marked off, but is that the other property line there at the bottom where the proposed structures, like how far off the property line is that?

So it would be six feet exactly which is the would meet the current rear yard setback, Can six

you tell me so it's saying that it's a 1,000 square foot accessory structure and I know you mentioned the second level. What is currently allowed size wise for an accessory structure in that zoning?

So when it talks about an accessory dwelling in this S and D, it does state that it should be no more than 500 square feet, which in this case the applicant has designed it to be 500 square feet. It's just in that section, it's very unclear but it only specifically talks about an accessory dwelling unit above a garage and the part that is really deviating from that is that it's attached. And generally, we don't really have limits on the size of accessory structures across the city.

So the garage by itself wouldn't be an issue it's because it's the dwelling that is

Yes because it's attached in a different configuration which than what is stated in code.

Thank you.

And the

code is just for the SND one? Is that why?

Yes. Okay. One more fun question. Yes. How is SND impacted with LDO?

So it isn't to this, to my knowledge, there is no update. I think it's being carried over exactly the way that it is here. But we do recognize that there is, there could be that doesn't mean because it's we haven't worked on it yet that we wouldn't have some kind of an opportunity to amend that section to be more clear. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. Thank

you. All right. Thank you so much.

Okay. Thank you. I'll go ahead and invite the applicant and the owner to come up.

The applicant would like to come up to the podium, state your name.

Hi, good evening. My name is Anna Watson. I work with the design company, and I am representing the owners of the property here today. So as you can see in the site plan, we actually have a detached garage that is closer to the Lee Street, and we are proposing to actually move it back to be away from the Lee Street. So the actual garage right now, it's about 25 feet away from the Lee Street, and we are proposing to be about close to 27 feet away from the Lee Street.

So we are trying to push this structure back. And as you can see, the reason why we cannot go all the way to the setback is such a narrow setback that we can deal with. It is actually about 18 foot nine inches in between that is not even enough to accommodate a car inside a garage. So that's why we have to step out of it as well. Just as a dwelling, instead of having an accessory, guess how that is a long, more like a shotgun house, we're trying to make it appropriate in accordance with the neighborhood and the garage that we're proposing to move back.

Can you tell me what the square footage is currently of the garage?

Yes. It is a 536 square foot right now.

Okay. And the so you're saying the new garage is gonna be 36 square foot smaller. It's only gonna be 500 square feet?

Yes. To complete that.

Not large enough to park a car?

No. No. The the the in between the two set lines setback lines, the yellow ones, right in between it, it is only 18 feet nine inches. So that's why we have to step out of the setback because it doesn't allow for a car to go in that amount of space.

Is the current structure just a garage or does it have an alternative dwelling?

It's a just garage at this point.

Do we have any other questions for the applicant?

The question I've got is just, I mean, so they won't, why did they choose to make one story instead of two story? I mean, two story they wouldn't need a variance, would

they? Okay.

Please state your name for the record.

My name is Steve Cantor and I'm the owner of the property in question. The main reason is our current structure, we we love it. It's it's a one story house. We I saw it in the pictures. And we don't really like the idea of building a two car garage with a big tall apartment on top. And so our idea was just because we have the long property to put the garage out there and then put a small auxiliary space next to it. So instead of putting the apartment on top, just put it next to it.

Steve, what is the, do you know what the eve height is on your current structure? The main house?

I don't have the

answer. If you put this on top of it, it would be taller than the main house. Well, that would also require a variance.

But

I drove by, I looked, I was just curious. Well,

and then just to add a little bit of color to it, we're calling the existing structure a garage that's there now. It's really a carport with a little storage area in the front. And it's not even tall enough for my truck to fit under right now. And so it's unusable as it is. And so we're like, okay, well, let's tear it down.

Well, if we tear it down rebuild according to this guideline, I've only got a small little sliver that I can even build anything. And so we're trying to tuck it as far back as we can because we also like the idea of still having kind of a backyard side yard in between our two structures. So that's kind of the theory of how we kind of landed there. And then we have a beautiful pecan tree we're trying to save that's kind of shown as a big black circle there. That's kind of the idea behind it.

All

right, any other questions for the applicant or the homeowner? I think you're about to ask a question, you got all serious there for a second.

I really wanted to tell you I didn't have any questions.

No, I'm good.

All right, thank you both. At this time we will open up the public hearing for anyone who would like to speak in opposition or in approval of this. All right, we will now close the public hearing. See how fast that is? Okay and we will open it up to discussion

for the board. I want another sign. No, I don't. I don't personally see anything wrong with this. You go up and down magazine and you see people doing good things and improving properties.

Two of the people that said what they said, one of the people, they're not here I guess, but they were highly in favor of this thing, they live across the street. It's, just, could have, I'd say you could have built it on top of the other one and not ask for variance for this, but then you, the main structure has got to be taller than the other structure. And you'd have to ask for variance for that. And you'd have to come down the stairs or get up the outside stairs or inside stairs to get to the thing. I understand what you're saying. I'm just saying that I'm not unhappy with this thing.

Yeah. I mean, agree with you breaking it down into the two variance is the one is the setback issue and it would be tough for me to have an issue with that just looking at this and I agree like if you try to build everything in that yellow square, it's next to impossible. And then the square footage.

Think the square footage is where I'm hung up on a little bit.

As far as, like,

the current structure is five thirty six and we're doubling it. And that I don't that part, I I don't think I completely understand. I'm with you. I don't have a problem with the setback line. They're narrow. A shotgun style lot line that was originally plotted for not modern day living. Think my only concern is like do we set the precedence that you could knock down a 536. I live in a house that was built in the eighties. She's not that old. My truck don't fit in the garage in the garage. My my question is do we set the precedence that we knocked down a 536 square foot garage to build a thousand square foot garage on a shop in lot?

So I'd normally have an issue with square footage as well. And the one thing that I'm thinking about was when the question for staff is in theory, the garage is fine either way if they just wanted to go build other than the setback issue that it's approved within that zoning. And then also by itself it sounds like unless I'm wrong the 500 square foot dwelling is would be approved in the current zoning other than the setback issue. Is that correct if it was by itself? So separately they still fit in the zoning. I think the 1,000 square feet just becomes them being a garage.

Is that correct Mary? If there was

a 500 square foot guest house put in between these two, it would not need a variance?

It would not need a variance. Just for the side yard, But the corner side that was what I was going to mention is that if they detached them, there would not be the second variance. But putting them together makes more sense as far as the utilities and the disruption to the lot and possibly to other neighbors if you move that accessory dwelling closer to another property line or further into the lot.

I stand in the court.

That's where it's kind of weird for me because normally I I agree with

don't We're not putting up a huge sign.

So we're all

good. We're not putting up a

two story building. Not. Just like totally off the record.

Thank you for All right. Do we have a

motion? Do we have a motion?

I move that we accept the that we approve both variances and allow them to continue the bill.

All right, we do have a motion.

Do we have a second to that motion? I'll second it.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Can we have a roll call please?

Member Rand? Aye. Member Avery?

Yes.

Chairman?

Aye.

Vice Chair Jake Lee? Aye. Member Schneider?

Aye. All

right, we have passed your motion. Congratulations. Moving on to our next this evening. 26Dash486, a public hearing in consideration of a request for two variances to include one, a variance from section one four four dash five dot one e to allow the use of a stabilized crushed granite surface for parking areas and maneuvering areas as an alternate to concrete construction with paved surfaces being limited to the driveway approach compliant access to the structure. And number two, a variance from section 144 dash five dot one F to allow an existing driveway with a 13 foot and where 24 foot is required in the C 3 Commercial District currently addressed at 330 Kessler Avenue.

Thank you. This is an aerial map showing the property and the surrounding area. The property is located at 330 Kessler Kessler Street actually in a zone C3. As you can see on the zoning map it is surrounded by other commercially zoned properties. As time goes on some of these commercially properties, although they have residential uses, they are being converted doing conversions to commercial uses.

In this case, the applicant is proposing an ultrasound clinic, I believe. They can probably elaborate on that. And in doing so, to convert this to a commercial property, they are requesting the two variances. The first one is to allow an alternative material to be used rather than the concrete or asphalt for the driveway and the parking areas except for that ADA compliance space. In the rear yard, they do have a wheelchair ramp into the into the unit.

The second variance would be regarding the width of the driveway. Driveway. Currently there's about 13 feet where 24 feet for a commercial driveway entrance would be required. Public hearing note and this is a site plan that shows a little more detail of the the gray area would be the area that shows the ramp and the ADA parking space that they're proposing and there are there's some shading where where the proposed crushed gravel driveway would be located. And I believe the applicant has a presentation that will show how cars would come in and out.

Public hearing notices were sent to property owners within 200 feet. There were nineteen and three responses have been returned in favor. And this concludes my presentation and the applicant is here to further advocate for their request. Any questions?

Wonderful. I have a question. Yes. Is there a reason I I one of the variances being to use crushed granite instead of concrete. Is there a reason the city would like a concrete surface over a crushed granite surface?

So I do know that in the proposed LDO there is a section that and even in one of the pre development meetings today where the development side of the city has mentioned that they are considering alternative gravel type of driveways and commercial parking lots. So that is going to be something that we are looking to allow in the future. I don't know if that answers your question. But as far as whether it would be more beneficial or not, it's just we've gotten a lot of requests from the development community to allow that type of thing because it is very expensive and in some cases it can allow for more drainage to instead of having impervious cover.

Okay. Mary, we recently within the last few months we had another request for crushed granite And this was because of an aeration deal for the roots of a tree that was there. But I mean, that was their reasoning. But we also got the same answer. Is this, you say this thing's being considered, do you know when they're actually gonna put this thing into play where we don't have to

The LD

They make a list of optional things besides concrete?

So the LDO, it looks like we're in the process of having community meetings and we are now reviewing department wide and various departments within the city. So, it is progressing. So, I really don't have a date that I could give you but it is in the works and do you have any dates that target? Yeah, we would we're we're we don't want want to over promise, but it is being looked at. And let's see, there was one other thing.

There's quite a few benefits to allowing pervious cover instead of concrete especially with the heat. What is it called again Matthew? The heat island effect. Yes. So but at this time I'll go ahead and invite the applicant if there's no other questions. Mr. Chairman,

Chairman, if I may add something with regard to the crushed granite issue. I too had this issue and visited with the engineering department and their concern with using crushed granite is that they don't want it migrating. They want it staying in one place and so their one or two requirements are they would like to have a required edge barrier. I see that there's some on the driveway there's an edge in several places, but they would like to have the edge in place as well as to make sure that there is adequate drainage where the new modifications do not cause a drainage issue on the neighboring properties.

Agree. Mark, is there a specification on that edging?

They said a hard edging or steel but I think if you have a brick would be adequate for that issue as well. But there was not a, you have to have an edge of so many heights, no.

Did they have a size requirement on the crushed granite?

Excuse me?

Do they have a size requirement on the crushed granite?

No, they said that if they used gravel, if it was going to be converted to a gravel they would have a size requirement. But I don't know that size requirement for the gravel if you are going to ask that question.

Deacon post granite is usually just the one

size. Yes, quarter.

Because it's got a variance of like what it ends up being. My question was along the actually adequate drainage. Is there additional guidance to that would qualify as adequate drainage? Does that just mean standing water doesn't occur after a significant rainfall or?

It seems like it should still be designed as if it was concrete and drained as concrete just with gravel so it's sloped properly I assume.

I will say that this would have to go through the building permit process and it will get a full review from the engineering division for drainage and also the materials and inspections and so on.

With that being in the back next to the ramp that they have for ADA, is the gravel ADA compliant for a wheelchair because I mean could a wheelchair sink in that or?

No it's noted that the ADA component is the exemption here that would But be

I'm saying when they get out I mean yes when you of course get over there but they can't concrete a full walkway I guess would they would they I guess I have to ask the applicant that what is actually gonna be concreted because just thinking you know someone trying to get out of a wheelchair in a car you'd have to have a pretty decent sized pad to be able to get a wheelchair down move around not just a walkway.

That's a good question. Okay.

I'll ask that in a second If

I can make one additional clarification that I don't believe was we covered in the staff report is the variance that or variances that the board will consider don't include any portion that's in the right of way. In other words, there's the exhibit and that essentially is everything within the red line boundary. So the portion where they're proposing some improvements to the apron that's in the right of way, that would all be reviewed again with permitting of the property. So you wouldn't be making a decision on that portion of it. It would only be the portion that's within the red line the private property.

Okay,

that sounds good. Any other questions for staff? No, thank you ma'am. At this time if we can ask the applicant or applicants to stand up and discuss your property with us. Please state your name for the record when you're up here.

Hi, thank you all for your consideration. I'm Nicole Lundberg, the owner of three thirty Kessler, and also the business that I proposed to place there, which is an ultrasound facility that's intended to operate low appointments, one at a time, no more than one to two employees at a time. So the site seemed to have the great layout suited for this medical and professional use, limited parking. Dealing with the ADA compliance. There's plenty of room for that.

It has a very large back lot, which was very appealing to me because the character of the house, which you see is early 1920s. I'd like not put parking out front. And I think my neighbors are really happy about that. I want to tuck it safely in the back with plenty of room for a safe turnaround. So overall, my goal is to maintain a low impact use that respects the property, the neighborhood, and the existing layout based on where the structure sits.

And I've hired Dilo Development to help me build a safe site plan that also addresses some of the questions you were talking about, ADA pad and access there as well. So I'm gonna turn it over to Adrian.

Hi. My name is Adrian Ayala. I'm here on behalf of Nikki Lindberg, the owner. We are the land surveyors and civil engineers on the project. Thank you, Mary, for that summary. I really appreciate that. Thank you very much. As Mary already addressed, I'll just kind of reiterate what she said. We're applying for two variances today. One for the material of the driveway and two for the width of the driveway.

So as we all know, the current code requires 24 feet width. So that would encroach on the existing building and require some demolition, which we're trying to avoid. And the material of the proposed driveway is crushed granite. We're proposing that just due to it allows for improved permeability, reduces runoff and is more environmentally sensitive than traditional concrete or asphalt. So I'll just read off this summary real quick.

The existing driveway reflects a long standing condition that predates current standards and functions as a narrow access point rather than a full drive aisle. Due to the presence of existing improvements and site limitations, compliance would require substantial alteration and is not feasible creating a hardship on the property owner. The requested variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare and remain in harmony with the intent of the ordinance by maintaining reasonable access to a low intensity use while minimizing site disturbance and impervious cover. There was a predevelopment predevelopment development meeting, for this property, and we met with the fire marshal, and he said he had no problems with this site. So the existing drive proposed the proposed drive with crushed granite won't be servicing any large vehicles like a fire truck.

Dumpster trucks will be collecting trash along the curbside, so pretty low intensity use. So I'll go ahead and go to the next slide here. So just kind of a top down view of existing versus proposed. We'll kinda get into this as I scroll through these slides. So this is showing a portion of the driveway to be widened to match the existing max width of about 13 feet.

As you can see the driveway kind of widens towards the midsection. So we are planning to match that max width that we have available to us. And to I believe Frank you brought this up, the edging. There is an existing curb there, a concrete curb there to the left, so that could act as an edging and then to prevent any sort of spreading of gravel. So go next year.

This will be addressed as they mentioned once we get this in pending approval by city engineering services. But we are planning to widen the apron to to match that max width so we can maximize the existing width. This kind of shows I think we saw this picture already. This shows the existing fence the existing existing backyard as it is today. This chain link fence has been since removed to allow more space.

So I've run this vehicle path tracking. The size of this vehicle is comparable to a full size SUV. So I'm to show ingress here. As you can see, there is a buffer on both sides of this vehicle creating a safe entrance to that ADA spot. And Mr.

Mund, to answer your question, the wheelchair will be unloading into the stripe zone that will be paved concrete and then wheeling through this ADA compliant path to compliant ramp, all paved in concrete per ADA standards. And then we're going show an egress here of a vehicle backing out, same size dimensions and safely continuing on to Kessler Street. And this is a little more of a zoomed in version to see and with some dimensions to show those buffers on either side of the vehicle. And these are just some citations from the code. Any questions?

So when there's obviously a plethora of these particular types of businesses here in town to look at. I mean, the mayor lives in one. I mean, he operates out of one. My attorneys operate on them. They're all where you go back to the back with a very small area to go into.

So my question is, I don't go back in those areas. I usually park in front and go to where I send you to see the people. But going back in there, how do you how are you planning on addressing the egress and ingress of people like you have a patient back here that's unloading and you've got another person. Is there enough room to turn around in there with two cars coming in? I mean, and is that going to be you've got a shed back there and some other things. I mean, we going to is that going to be do you an area back there that you're planning on other car that may be more than one car at a time?

So there's room right now for one car to enter and exit at a time. The back has been cleared. There's some existing bamboo back there that has been in the process of being hacked down just to see exactly how much space is back there. The fence, existing fence has been removed to allow for extra space back there. There is one parking spot back there, so we're showing the existing layout to accommodate one vehicle. So that's that that is what we're proposing.

And I will, part of this requirement for parking for this smaller structure only requires maybe two parking spaces and they are proposing a bike rack and if you have the bike parking and that can meet one of the parking spaces and then the ADA compliant space will count as the other and in our LDO I believe we're going to be allow off-site parking or on street parking for to count as some of the required parking I believe.

The 24 feet is obviously for one car to go one way and another car to go another way. So with 13 feet we can't do that. So that's why I was asking that.

All right, any other questions for the applicant or for the representative?

I do have a question. How many staff members and patients maximum do you see being at the facility at the same time?

One employee at a time.

We'll need you to step up to the microphone so we can get you.

Yes, maximum one to two employees at a time. We book by appointment only, it's not like a walk in clinic. We book every thirty, forty five minutes maximum with fifteen to twenty minutes of padding in between appointments. So there's generally one client at a

time. Okay. So like employees you see parking on the street and then this one space in the back is for clients?

Yes.

One thing I want to add as well, there was a previously approved variance to the rear of us for off street parking and they had a similar driveway width and also used crushed granite and they're operating as commercial in the C3 zone.

All right, any other questions for the applicant or representative? No, see Thank you. We will open up the hearing for the public. Y'all can take your seat. Thank you.

Thank you guys.

Do we have anyone here to speak in opposition or approval of this? Seeing none, we will close a public hearing. All right, board, do we have any discussions, any motions or questions? All right, no questions, no discussions. Do we have any motions for this?

Can we still discuss? We can still discuss. Okay. The one parking spot is odd to me that's not on this variance. So apparently it meets code I guess with the bikes being the second car. So I'm not necessarily in love with adding people parking on the street, but I guess it's not the point. The crushed granite, I don't necessarily have an issue with because I'd rather it be crushed granite than concrete it. And then the with issue again, I guess, doesn't become a thing if there's only one car that can be back there. I think what you were saying is what if two people are trying to drive at

the same time, but if there's only one parking space? Head down Comal Avenue and take a look all the way downtown and you'll see this has been done repeatedly. The same, we get into this small with the structure with the small driveway going past and that's the way they built them back then. So yeah, I'm with you. There to be nothing we can do about it unless they wanna use this as some other of building and it's kind of hard to do that.

Considering the building is already in a commercial area, I agree with your examples of like that other people. I have no problem with crushed granite whatsoever. I frankly support it all day. If we were to entertain a motion, mine would be with the two conditions that the required edge barrier be taken edge to edge. Currently, it's in you know, it kinda drops off.

It looks like it doesn't go all the way two feet to the driveway, and it doesn't extend. So that. I think to back question.

Be get able to 19. First first half the Lowe's and get the metal edging hit it with a hammer, are you saying you want a concrete edging that's similar to the one that's currently there on the other side to keep that crushed granite in because of course it has to be compacted. I think that the concrete edging Curve. Yep. Curve would be much easier to keep the crushed granite in if it does start to rain because there is a slight incline right there and I see that all going to Kessler and to the neighbors if we're not careful.

That would extend my question then to the city as far as when building code looks at the barriers, are there recommendations or excuse me, requirements is the word I'm looking for as far as what a substantial curb or crushed granite barrier is there recommendations or requirements on that? Or is that my fun little lollipop play? Play?

I think we want to be flexible because usually the city allows several different is open to different materials whether that be concrete or what you can find in your typical hardware store or home improvement store?

Yeah, think ultimately it'll be up to the city engineer's office that will be reviewing those that permit to what they would accept as appropriate treatment for setting up parking area so that nothing drains off. But I know of any specifications on what materials would

be used.

Is it possible for me to address the

applicant? Can Mr. Open O'Connor, the

the attorney Scott, yes sir.

Can we do that?

Didn't hear your question.

Can I ask the applicant a question at this stage? We've

got to finish discussion first. Finish our discussion though

we can.

That's up to the chair. That's his prerogative or you can put it up to a board vote if you wanna open it back up.

Prior to opening up back discussion, I know you had a comment made prior to in the midst of conversation.

What would be

your comment?

My comment would be use the term sufficient edge, edge to edge as approved by the city engineer.

See, that's why we have attorneys that

listen to this.

No I got it. I'm locked in. I'm making motions,

less and less. I don't have to ask Adrian what's he gonna put down there do I?

There you go. Well I would

like to also for us to consider from a previous case that we had. I assume we would only approve this width because we're saying that they're going to keep the existing structure and if they were going to demo the structure we wouldn't necessarily want to allow the narrower width. So before we make a motion, I'd like us to also consider adding that as a condition possibly to the existing structure footprint and square footage remaining. Ms.

Jake Lee, your motion is getting extremely large Now

I am taking notes. Y'all done made me write things down.

But I wouldn't want us to approve this and then the building be demolished and something else built in a different spot.

We've seen that before.

Okay. Right.

Any other conversations that need to take place? Do we need to open it back up for your questions or did that suffice? I

think Ms. Jakeley, she can enunciate a clear motion for the variances and somebody seconded. I think we've got the ability to talk then, don't you?

Yes. I think she's gonna do a great job. Let's see how this happens. Miss Jake Lee.

I would like to make a motion to approve item four c as written with the following conditions in place. That the barrier be edge to edge and be consistent with materials based on what the code compliance building committee recommend correct me, Mary.

City engineer.

City engineer says should be the building materials, and that the approved width variance is also approved, but under condition that the existing structure maintains its footprint and is not altered.

That sounds amazing.

Crushed it.

Maybe not expanded or increased. If footprint isn't increased.

I would say that the existing structure is not, the footprint of the existing structure is not altered.

Guess I'm gonna

Don't dabble

on the inside, don't dabble on the outside.

I think I'll have to second that motion.

Do we have a motion? Second Can we get a vote call please?

Member Revde? Aye. Member Avery?

Aye.

Chair Mund?

Aye.

Vice Chair Jake Lee?

Resounding aye.

Member Schneider.

Aye. Thank you.

Congratulations, your motion has passed.

Thank you for testing my skills and memory.

That said, do we have staff report we need this evening? No. We do not. Okay. And we're not going to executive session. So I'm going to lightly hit my gavel this evening and adjourn our meeting. Thank you for coming out and streaming live.