Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the regular New Braunfels Planning Commission meeting. We are a nine-member commission appointed by City Council to make recommendations on a variety of zoning, land use, and related requests. Please note, to provide comments during the allotted time for citizen communications or for an item posted on this agenda, All individuals are asked to sign in. If you've not done so, please do so now at the table in the entrance hall. I'd like to request that all phones be turned off or silenced except for emergency on-call personnel. Could we get a roll call, please? Commissioner Allen.

Here. Commissioner Henry.

Here. Commissioner Nolte. Here. Commissioner Rudy. Commissioner Schaffer.

Here.

Vice Chair Taylor. Here. And Chair Sonnier. We have a quorum this evening.

Thank you. Do I have a motion approving the minutes of the last meeting, please?

I make a motion to approve the minutes.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Minutes are approved. This time is for persons to address a planning commission on any issues or items not on the agenda. It is a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act for the items not on the agenda, I'm sorry, for the commission to address items and discuss or take action on any items not on the agenda. Each speaker will be limited to three minutes and must state their name, whether they are resident or non-resident for the record. Anyone who would like to speak at this time in Citizens Communications, please come forward. With that, we will go to the individual items. DCP 26-147, public hearing and recommendation to city council to rezone approximately four acres out of the John Thompson survey, number 21, abstract 608, and 1.14 acres out of the Cocoa subdivision. Lot 1, at the request of Levi Wentz on behalf of Keeler Road Limited and Cocoa Lane Limited from R2 Single Family and Two Family District to the Keeler Court Plan Development District, KCPD, currently addressed at 1842 Keeler Avenue.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Mary Lovell with Neighborhood and Community Planning Department. The subject property is approximately 5.1 acres comprised of two parcels as shown on the aerial map. and it's located near the corner of Keeler Avenue and Cocoa Lane, approximately 1 tenth of a mile from Camp Comal and about half a mile from the intersection of South Seguin Avenue and IH 35. The subject property is bordered by residences to the northeast and west with 13 acres of undeveloped land to the south. All of the surrounding zoning is R2. The applicant has requested a rezoning to a planned development district. The planned development district allows flexibility that creates opportunities for high quality design and compatibility with surrounding development. As part of the request, in accordance with the adopted plan development procedures, the applicant has submitted a concept plan and the accompanying development standards that will establish the proposed framework for future development of the property. If approved, the applicant will be required to submit for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a detail plan. So the detail plan will have all the actual dimensions of all the lots, the roadways, the ingress and egress, and that will be available to come to Planning Commission to be reviewed by this board prior to the applicant applying for building permits. The property must also be platted prior to development. The proposed plan development It proposes 42 single family residential units on small platted lots. It includes alternative development standards for smaller setbacks, shared open space, clustered parking areas, and permeable paving materials. The current R2 zoning as seen on the slide here, it allows up to 26 duplexes which is equal effectively to 52 dwelling units. And when you add any potential for accessory dwelling units for those lots, it can add an additional 26 units for a total maximum yield of 78 dwelling units. Other allowed uses in the current are to zoning our community home, family home, adult and childcare, public or private school, and water pump station. This is a copy of the concept plan and it shows the plan layout of the drives, the open space, the parking, and the building areas. It also includes the total number of units that would be allowed and the different types of dwelling unit buildings. There's cottage homes, single family attached, and small cottages. The applicant is here to describe those in more detail. This is a copy of the development standards that were submitted by the applicant. Staff has reviewed both the concept plan and the development standards. and has recommended approval of the Keeler court plan development due to its consistency with the goals of envisioning the Braunfels, the strategic plan, and the land use fiscal analysis, which encourages infill development and a variety of housing types. If approved, staff recommends that the applicant specify the base zoning district to R1A, 6.6 single family district and included in the development standards to comply with the section in chapter 144 that states that there must be an underlying base zoning district that will apply unless specifically modified by the plan development standards. Public notices were sent to owners of 34 properties within 200 feet. As of today, four responses in favor were returned and 14 responses in opposition have been returned. This ends staff's presentation and at this time I can answer any questions that you might have and the applicant is here to present.

Commissioners, any questions for staff?

Yeah, hi. So what is the opposition percentage once it's all factored in?

So we're not calculating the opposition percentages at Planning Commission. Those are due to, if you want to, Chris, kind of explain the percentages.

Oh yeah, we can run a quick calculation if you're curious. Percentages become applicable whenever zoning requests get to city council because it's city council where it's applicable for determining the vote counts. But we can always run a quick calculation if a planning commissioner is curious.

Haven't y'all always done that prior? Is this a new thing?

We have historically, but we learned that with the changes of the state legislature, where rezoning cases, actually such as this, where residential units would be increased as a result of the rezoning then ultimately the percentage of opposition doesn't change the vote of city council but also because for planning commission it doesn't change the vote of planning commission either way that's only a city council rule but again we can calculate that if a planning commissioner is curious because perhaps it might impact how you would like to vote based on the percentage opposition but at least you have the numbers of opposition you can kind of see that as of today, there's a considerable percentage.

I just calculated it's 41%.

It's 41%. 41%. Or Commissioner Henry can run a calculation for us. That's awesome. Thank you. You're welcome.

How did you calculate that?

14 in opposition, 34 total mail.

It goes off, doesn't it go off of land, like mass size?

Oh yeah, it needs to be a calculation of the land area.

Yeah. No, it's land area size is how it's calculated. I am curious, so how long would that take for us to get that?

We might have it in the file. I can look once I go back to, after the applicant speaks, I'll look that up for you. Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions?

The lot minimum size, did I see that right? The lot size is 1,000 square feet is the minimum?

So that's the minimum, but it's not a maximum. So the applicant, when the detail plan comes back and when they've hired an engineer, they will pin down those lot sizes, but they are requesting a minimum of 1,000 square foot lots. So potentially, if this was approved, then there could be 1,000 square foot lots.

Thank you.

And Mary, is this the most up-to-date map right here with all the cards that came in today? So 21 hasn't rendered a vote as of yet? Lot number 21.

So that's the City of New Braunfels and we don't send in cards. It's owned by the City of New Braunfels, 21.

Oh.

Yeah.

But that is calculated in the total, right? Right.

It is part of the 20% or the 100% of the 20, the 200 feet buffer. Yes, it is included, but there won't be a vote sent in because we traditionally don't send in any votes, voting cards for the city of New Braunfels.

Yeah, governmental entities don't respond. So like TxDOT, for example.

Right, understood, and I discovered that. But just for clarity, with 21 being owned by the city of New Braunfels, is that calculated in the, in the total percentage that you have, let's say 100%. No one will be able to vote on that, so that will be calculated. That does.

That's correct, that's correct. But again, because this is one of those rezoning cases that falls into that category of the new state statute that says that.

Right, HB 24.

Yeah, that it's not gonna change the vote of city council. It won't require a super majority, even if 100% of the owners of property within 200 feet were in opposition.

So if it got 60%, it still would not trigger a super majority because HB 24. That's correct.

Of city council, again, doesn't apply to planning commission. For the public's understanding and transparency as well, that only applies to city council. Thanks.

Last question for me, and it may be for the applicant, but what are some examples of permeable paving materials?

Yes, we have received lots of variance requests for permeable materials that ranges from gravel and papers. They're kind of like pre-made concrete. They have holes in them so that drainage can go under the ground. Those are the types that I've seen.

They've even invented a permeable concrete. I know that Hardburger Park in San Antonio has permeable concrete for their sidewalks. So that's been invented over the last 10 or 15 years as well. So there's a variety of options.

Yeah, I think my thought on it is there's, you know, pavers are, I think, one thing, and then gravel is another thing. Maybe a question for the applicant.

and my favorite is the pavers that allow grass to grow through and you just mow over it but you can also drive over it without creating any mud it's beautiful yeah any other questions and just to clarify 21 is it's owned by the city but did you say it was a buffer like what is the use of 21 right now what are y'all doing with that it's completely undeveloped

Yeah, I think that's an old landfill, perhaps. I don't know if it was privately owned or if it was city, but it's like from the 1940s or something.

Okay, any intentions on what y'all are gonna do with that?

I'm unaware of that. We'd have to visit with our real estate folks, but I wouldn't think that anyone would build anything on it.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mary.

Thank you.

If the applicant is here and would like to come forward and speak, please do so.

Good evening. Hi, I'm Graham Weston. I'm the owner of the property. My entity is owner of the property. Bought in 2015 and I'm actually building a house down Kayla Road just about half a mile beyond this property. So I care a lot about what is built here. I bought the property because I heard that there was going to be a whole bunch of duplexes built on it, and I really didn't want that to happen. I've entered my property down Kayla Road for the last 20 years, during the time I lived there at least. And so I've cared about what was going to be built on this property, and I didn't want the duplexes. You can see that, according to the last information it has shown, the current zoning would allow 78 units, including the whole parcel of... of duplexes. I can't remember the number, but it's, you know, this property is already zoned for the duplexes. And if you go look at, there are a bunch of these sort of duplex communities. They're, you know, around town. And, you know, I just didn't really want that built there. And so that's why I bought it. And so I've been waiting for since 2015 for some idea of what I would do with it. I have had no rush in doing anything with it. I don't have any rush now, but I feel like I've figured out what I think I can build on a property and I'm excited about the project. It's about five acres now that we've owned, now that we bought the access easement, so it's about five acres. I would like to introduce my partner, Levi Wentz. Levi is a famous podcaster. He has a podcast called Town Builders, And every month, you can see or hear another podcast, an exciting podcast from the people who are building the most innovative and coolest neighborhoods around the world. And I really invite you to go to his podcast. It's awesome. I mean, also don't let his 29 years of age fool you, because he's one of the leading thinkers and developers. He has a development company in Idaho, and I wrangled him down here to try to use his ideas here in New Braunfels. So he's going to talk about the, you know, as Nacho Libre would say, the nitty gritty of the project. But I think that the, I would say that I think that, I think it's a good looking project. And I think it's going to be one that, I believe that we have, We've been building sprawl all the way to Seguin, all the way to San Marcos, all the way to the airport, every direction for 20, 30 years. And I think we're starting to see it turn in how far are we willing to do low density housing. And I feel like there's a much greater interest in infill properties. Uh then there was 20 years ago and and I I think that that we were trying to use a bunch of new ideas really a few if you were going to use a bunch of new ideas about how to use a piece of property better than 78. Duplex units uh that is duplex units plus 80 use that's what is permitted and we're proposing 42. And I think that you have to judge for yourself, of course, but I think it's going to be vastly superior to essentially 78 permitted under the current zoning. And again, I think I'll ask Levi to talk about some of the new ideas we're applying for. But we very much want to build something that I'm going to drive by it every day. And so I really do care about what's built there. And again, everyone can judge. The citizens in opposition can certainly judge whether they like or dislike it. And I totally respect their feedback. I think at the end of the day, we don't know exactly the price point for the homes, but it's It's in the neighborhood of 4,000 to 500,000, so these are not low-end homes in any respect. And these are going to be built of substantially higher quality than I would say the average home being built today. And I think it's going to be really beautiful. And we were talking about the permeable concrete because we are trying to – if we can have more surface, more permeable area, we don't have to drain as much water. So that's just one of the many things that we're going to, one of the many innovations that can be done by any developer, but we're gonna be doing those things here because we think ultimately leads to a better development. This is not the plan to maximize my profit, it's not. This is, I certainly hope it's profitable. I really do hope it's profitable, very profitable. This is not the profit maximizing plan for this property though. And so I think that we're going to build everything to a much higher standard than ordinarily, and also it's going to have a bunch of new ideas that cost money to build. And I think also it's going to be really, really walkable, which I'm very interested in. There's going to be a sense of community. One of the things that I think I'll ask my partner to talk about is the sense of community that his existing neighborhoods have. By having it smaller scale and by having it walkable, you really end up with really a cool sense of community. And not just for... for all ages. And he can talk about the development that he's building right now that has people who are retired and people who are young and people with kids, people middle age. So it's really designed to be a bunch of different property types to accommodate different stages of life. And these are, you know, I would say that the standard suburban development in New Braunfels is largely, you know, it is a home that is within a tight band of size and quality, but also all the same. This is very different than that. You're going to have different unit sizes, dramatically different unit sizes, different price points, designed for different purposes. a diversity of different uses. I actually think that's the future. If you think about so many of us, if you're retired and you have a house that's too big, where are the great options for you to move to something that's smaller and you're also very proud of? I think that this project is designed to, I hope it works, We're trying a bunch of new things that I would say are largely unproven in terms of they haven't been tried in your Braunfels. But I think if you look at what they are, I think they're going to make sense. Again, they make sense to try. But there's no question that building a standard, the way I think most developers would be developing this would be, what did they say? 46 uh duplex units they would all be identical with adus on the back so you're talking with 78 units i think that those would likely be with almost every any other proposal that you'd have coming before you it'd be the identical unit all across the whole thing that's just sort of the money maximizing way to do it it's not going to be that and so i i invite you to to challenge Levi with all your questions. And I certainly respect all of the citizens in support and opposition. We appreciate them coming and participating in the process. So thank you for hearing us. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Graham, and my name is Levi Wentz, and thank you, Commission, for hearing us tonight. So, yes, as Graham was saying, you know, New Braunfels right now is, it's one of the fastest growing cities in the U.S., and as a result, housing is the forefront of everyone's minds. It's the topic of tonight, the topic of, you know, the election right now. And the city really has two options in front of it. Just like any organism, if a city stops growing, it means it's dying. And so no growth is usually not an option for a city. It's how we're going to grow. And so the two growth options are continued sprawl, low density sprawl on the fringe stretching city infrastructure, usually adding to traffic as well. Or thoughtful infill development using infrastructure that already exists. And so our proposition is the latter, something that's going to be community minded and blend with the local character and add actually something to the city of New Braunfels. And so this is our proposal for the 5.14 acres on Kaler Avenue. And I'll get to the site plan here because though we put this out, and I'm sure people have looked at it, these are always hard to wrap your brain around. So I don't know if I can use the... There is, but it doesn't show up. Okay, so at the top here we have Kaler Avenue, which is going to be the main access. On the left-hand side is, or the right-hand side is Coco Lane. That's the other access point, and that sort of triangular bit down at the bottom was actually something that we purchased over the last year. Initially when we looked at developing this property there wasn't any secondary emergency access and so we spent a year purchasing that from the city of New Braunfels actually so that we could suffice some of the emergency access requirements as well as being able to loop the water and utilities through. So as far as streets, we have, these are gonna be private streets, so we're not proposing any more public infrastructure. This is going to be all privately maintained. through the HOA with permeable pavers. So we'll be solving stormwater detention within the street base. So essentially, you can look at the streets. There will be gravel underneath the permeable pavers, enough so to suffice stormwater requirements. We have two-way private streets and a one-way private alley at the top there. Lots of the streets will be parked and then you can also see in a few different areas we have dispersed parking areas. We'll have covered parking because we know how hot it gets here in the summertime. But we've done detached parking out a lot of our projects. And it hasn't been a barrier to entry for many people because we're giving them other things. We always can't have it all. And so those are one of the areas that we found that there's a buyer type for what we're proposing here. But enough parking units, so there's at least about two parking units per dwelling unit there. Right now I have 80 to 100 on there and 42 dwelling units. That's the range based on once we bring it to engineering, how much we can actually fit in. I think it's as low as 80, I think it's as high as 100 units. And then the different product types here. So you can see the beige is sort of the common areas. We have different common areas that can have amenities. We have a commons building planned in that central area. And when we've done these common buildings in the past, because we're doing smaller units, This often gets used as a gathering spot when people are having parties or something of that sort, people using it for book groups or birthday parties, whatever it may be. And it's been a good galvanizing amenity to the neighborhood where people will meet there for holidays and whatnot. We have our cottage homes, which are slightly larger homes. That's the majority of the product that's proposed here. We have a few single family attached units. And then in the dark blue here, we have small cottages. So for these small cottages, I know this is something that's gonna come up, but there's a proposal for 10 short-term rental units. and so the 10 unit short-term rental allowance was deliberately and conservatively set up below 25 percent of the proposed unit count these units are confined to three internal pods that you can see there of smaller cottages intentionally positioned away from neighboring properties so all these are on the interior of the neighborhood so as to not be a noise or nuisance to neighbors. And it was also intentionally planned to be some of our smallest units as we didn't want large group bookings coming in and blowing out for the weekend. And one of the more critical parts here is the short-term rental management will be governed by the HOA through binding codes, covenants, and restrictions. And so the HOA will create an enforceable accountability structure that standard neighborhood Airbnb options lack entirely. So the intent of this is not to be a hotel but also actually to add to the product type, the product diversity that's here. Short-term rentals have become an issue in our neighborhoods, and so there's been a large ban across the country. There's been wide-scale bans of Airbnbs, but I think that it does actually serve a purpose for a certain buyer who may not be living there year round or they may want additional income off their property. And so this provides that loophole for those buyers who are looking for a product type that can serve them in that way. And so I think that we've done it intentionally and at a scale that works for our neighborhood that will not disturb the community feeling of the neighborhood. So here are just a few different conceptual renderings, of course, of our early concepts here with the architecture. We really wanted to get in a vernacular that draws so that Germanic feel, as well as the Texas ranch house, farmhouse feel. As Graham mentioned, I think the design and intention behind that is really purposeful for this project, and I hope you can see that in what some of these renderings are showing. So we've been talking about pocket neighborhoods. I just want to give a brief history here. So I grew up in California where bungalow courts like this and projects like this were a lot more popular. It used to be a popular way of building more like workforce housing, creating small clusters of homes that were often cheaper as it would maximize land use and sacrifice, private lawn space for shared community space. But over the last 100 years, modern zoning has all but outlawed this type of development. And in the late 1990s, a Washington architect named Ross Chapin rewrote a zoning code for his local town to once again allow this form of development, what he coined the term as pocket neighborhoods, clusters of six to 10 cottages or homes around a common area. And these homes were designed for community interaction They were dense and scaled down and typically smaller home forms. The zoning ordinance was passed in Third Street Cottages in Langley, Washington, became an overnight success that was featured in Sunset Magazine and Seattle Times, and he started getting calls of, how did you do this? And so over the last 20, 30 years, Ross has become a popular name in the space. popularizing the term pocket neighborhoods and now hundreds and thousands of local governing authorities have rewrote their zoning codes to allow it. And this is a graphic that some people may be familiar with, but Optikos also popularized it through calling it, including in their missing middle housing. So what we see is there's not a lot of diversity in product types that are being offered to the market. And so that's what this project is supposed to be. We wanna be offering something different to the market that serves a different buyer than just the single family detached homes or mid-rise town homes or apartment buildings. And City of New Braunfels is actually on this boat also. So the City of New Braunfels is actively drafting a new zoning ordinance for enclave developments that will allow for cottage courts or pocket neighborhoods. The ordinance has been drafted and is set to be finalized and proposed this fall. And so what we hope this project is is something that arrives ahead of that ordinance as a real world proof of concept. And we hope that this becomes a new model for good development practices within New Braunfels. Just as an example here, I wanted to show some of the projects that we've built over the last couple of years. So over the past five years, I've built four different pocket neighborhoods. And so here are a couple of examples of those that we've built. They've been successful from a development perspective and the market has really responded. We pre-sold a majority of the product. And I think that this leads well into one of the most important questions, but who are our buyers? A recent study from the National Association of Realtors said that 77% of net new household growth from 2025 through 2040 will come from adults 65 plus. The majority preference of this buyer group is to downsize while maintaining quality and live in a neighborhood where they can know their neighbor and have community. And so the first two buyer groups are largely that, mature singles and empty nesters, couples with no children at home, which are the two largest buyer groups in the market. And whether they're retired or they're working, the preference is the same, getting into a quality house, and having community. And then the next two buyer groups there, young families and young professionals. I can speak personally to the young family standpoint of this. I have two children and I live in one of these developments right now and it's really nice to have a safe place where my kid can walk out the front door and they're walking out the front door onto a lawn and they're rather protected from the street. And so we've had several young families actually move into these developments and they get to know their neighbors who sort of become uncles and aunts, you know, to the kids. And so it's been a really wonderful place to live in. And then young professionals who are really the same psychographic as, you know, the empty nester, mature single, but they don't need a big place. They're just looking for, they want a quality home with low maintenance so they're not tied down to home and they can go where they please. So That's the buyer group. And then from the city's perspective, I think that this is a very fiscally responsible move for the city. Infill development uses infrastructure that's already built. Kaler Avenue is already built out and the story that happens across the country right now is that roads are being built and the property taxes on those roads aren't paying for the maintenance that's needed. And so I think this is a great example of an underutilized area of the city where there's already infrastructure being built, but the property taxes likely aren't paying for the maintenance that's needed on that road. And so this is where a solution comes in. The fix of that is retrofitting some of these areas and adding in projects that can increase the tax base. Water may be an issue that comes up, but water rates have already been allocated to this district for the density that we're asking for. And then lastly, one of the original proposals that we saw on this too was for a condo development, but we feel that it's very important for this to be a fee simple ownership structure which produces higher property values and a stronger tax base than rental or condo development. And then alignment with the strategic and comprehensive plan. So housing was all over the strategic and comprehensive plan when I was looking at it. And there was a mention of missing middle product types, diverse product types, diverse price points, ownership over rental, of course. Environmental concerns, I think from a development perspective, I don't think that we could be presenting a more environmentally sensitive plan. With permeable pavers, a lot of native xeriscaping, landscaping will be a big component of this, but we're not going to have a bunch of lots with 25 foot step backs and grass lawns in front. Large amount of tree canopy and just overall trying to reduce the impervious cover. The walkability of this, of course walkability comes up in urbanism a lot, and you're sort of limited as far as the walkability that you can achieve in a five-acre parcel. Kaler itself is not the most walkable road because there's no sidewalks along it. And so when I talk about walkability, it's striving for that internal walkability. connectivity of the neighborhood, making sure that there's walkways and trails, dispersed parking, and that those areas are protected from cars. Cars are corralled in one sense, where we're trying to create tight streets and slow cars down so it's a more pedestrian friendly neighborhood, and actually people within that neighborhood might actually have a place to walk now. And then last part, just character. Adding to the local vernacular architecture, I think we have a really neighborhood scale design. Although it may feel dense, I think this is scaled appropriately. And we have a lot of community buildings and shared spaces that we're proposing. So this is what we're asking for. We're asking for a rezoning from R2 to a planned development district. We have done our homework and we have been very intentional with the design standards that we're asking for. And I hope that you're able to see that intentionality and thought that went into this, because we really hope that this is a benefit to the city. We believe we're gonna hit unserved buyer types that are currently within New Braunfels. We believe this is a fiscally responsible plan from the city's perspective. And we believe it aligns well with the city's goals as outlined within the strategic and comprehensive plan. So this is certainly not the easiest plan or route that we could have come up with. And the use of a plan development district to rezone is not intended to be a workaround, but rather a tool to hopefully build something better than what the base zoning would have already allowed. So thank you.

Commissioners, any questions for the applicant?

I have quite a bit of questions. Do you mind? Yeah, thanks.

Sorry, I thought we were doing questions later.

Okay, the first thing is the price ranges.

Yes.

Have you all settled on that to know what the starting price would be for all the different projects you all have from short-term rentals to cottages? What are the price ranges?

No, we haven't done all of our homework. Of course we've looked at that. I am actually also a home builder as well as a developer, so we're doing all of our own construction on our other projects. And so I understand how important construction and, of course, price points, our intention is to is to sell these. But what we're bringing in front of you guys is of course a concept plan. So we haven't involved all aspects of the team. We know the end goal that we're shooting for and we're working through this funnel right now. So I think that likely this isn't going to be a hyper luxury product but it's certainly going to be a step up product with really nice elements involved. So our intention is not luxury but certainly higher end than a normal market.

And you'll have no idea about the price range. Are we talking 400, 600?

I think about 400 to 500,000. Of course there's going to be a range there. So if we get down to 1,000 square foot home, of course that's probably going to be more in the 300s. Okay.

So with missing the middle, I guess that's been a topic that we've discussed. I don't know that this would classify for...

So it classifies, from my point of view, because I know I talk about missing fiddle a lot, for the elderly who don't want to mow a massive lawn, but they still might want two or three bedrooms. I know my parents would really like that, as they spend a lot of money on people mowing their lawn. When I don't have time. And then it's also younger people with kids who want to play not in the street. Like kids on my street, they play basketball all the time. And we're just honk, honk, like please move. So it's like it's fixed. Yeah. Okay.

If I may chime in there, one helpful thing with the missing middle because it comes up with the affordability thing. And yes, we're not offering the most affordable option. We want to build something that hopefully gets better over time and increases in value. But the missing middle, what we have right now as far as product types is just a few rungs on a ladder. And the missing middle helps fill in some of those rungs in between so it's easier for people to find options options that work for them. And so what we've found is that one area that doesn't exist is this opportunity for mainly seniors to downsize into something, but still maintain quality. Because oftentimes builders are, when they do build smaller square footage homes, it's an affordability play and they're cutting every corner that they can.

Okay, thank you. And then as far as the current height, do y'all have an estimation? I didn't see anything in anything.

As far as? The proposed development standards had 35 feet, which is just the R2.

I saw that.

So we just took the R2.

Okay, so y'all are staying at the same height.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

I would be surprised if we got up that high.

Okay, and just to clarify the width of the lots, one of them would be 20 feet across, one of them would be 26 feet across, and the other would be 34 across. Is that right?

Correct, correct.

Okay, and then.

And the 20 foot, sorry, the 20 foot is the attached one, so here. Okay. Yeah.

And then as far as green space, how much green space will y'all have? Like, is there a percentage that y'all are estimating? And it's 5.14 acres?

5.14 acres. Green space is, let me see if I can come back here to the site plan. So you can see there the common area had estimated at .7 acres. I guess that could be the closest thing considered green space. I think it'll be a lot of hardscape, permeable hardscape and that sort of thing, xeriscape gardening, common area building, of course, courtyards, so shared spaces for neighbors to get together.

And again, do we have a, do you have a percentage of that, of the 5.14?

Well, so 0.7, this was my closest estimation off of using Google Earth, as we don't have an engineer involved in the project yet, but so 0.7 divided by five.

Okay, got it, okay. And then this might be a city staff question, but how close is this to the floodplain, the flood zone area, do y'all know? What's the closest floodplain?

Yeah, those maps are online, so we can pull them up to see.

Thank you.

Yeah. I have a couple, and some of these were sent in by some of the citizens, but I thought they were well thought out, so as Mr. Weston invited me to, I'll try to run you through your paces here. A pocket community is traditionally defined as a small, intimate grouping of homes gathered around shared open space. designed to foster deep neighborly connections, reduce vehicular reliance. The proposal at 1842 Kohler Avenue weaponizes this terminology to bypass density caps. The transience contradiction, a true pocket community relies on permanent residents to build social cohesion. Dedicating 25% of the units to STRs guarantees a constant influx of transient weekend vacationers, destroying the localized community aspect. What's your response to that?

Yes, thank you. So with the short-term rentals, I have an open, sorry, I'm trying to think where to start here. I have an open line of communication with Ross Chapin, who's the architect behind this, and I run these plans by him. And so, of course, we wanna create a community feel to everything that we do. A lot of developments across the country, though, that are developing in this style are allowing a certain number of rental units, but they're capping it intentionally so that it doesn't become a majority field. They're keeping it within a range that's reasonable. And so we certainly want to have community created here. We also want to create a diversity of product, and that's the intention there. So it's not trying to use a term, coin a term, and pull it a different direction.

Can I real quick just to piggyback off of that one really quick? So you're saying that like the HOA is going to have restrictions. So if any fee simple person, I come and I buy a cottage home, I live in it for two years and I say, you know what? I want to move now and I want to go and apply to be a short term rental. are y'all gonna HOA restrict that and say I can't do that? Like you're only gonna have a certain amount? Or could I as an owner come in and go through the process of trying to turn it into a short-term rental?

So there's only 10 units that are being proposed as allowed for those 10 units.

I know, but I'm saying if I buy a home, And it's not a short-term rental. I want to join in the community. I want to live in it and say, life takes me somewhere else. I got to leave. I sell it. Or I don't want to sell it. I want to turn it into short-term rental and recoup the value. I have a fine of $500,000 home. Am I gonna be allowed to do that, or is the HOA gonna restrict that?

Yes, the HOA is going to allow that. One of the reasons that the HOA is managing it, though, is that if there's violations or if it becomes an issue, the HOA actually has the ability to restrict a permit if you're not holding up your end as a homeowner.

Gotcha, but if everybody, says and follows the rules and does it right. There's nothing restricting from every single 42 home turning into short-term rentals.

No, there's only 10 units that are proposed.

I know, but I'm saying once you go and start selling homes and you have a homeowner if he goes and decides he wants to go and turn it into a short-term rental, are you gonna restrict him from going and applying for a short-term rental?

Oh, I see. That's what I'm saying. No, that won't be allowed. Okay. Yeah, yeah. We're only going to keep it at the 10 and that's going to be within the. Got it, that's what I was asking. Yes.

We have a stipulation of no more than 10 at any point in time, short-term rentals.

Who owns the 10? They're very specific units.

They're very specific, there's 10 units, the dark blue units here are the specified units.

Okay, and who owns those?

that will, the ability to run a short-term rental will be sold with that lot, essentially.

So a person can buy it and go into a short-term rental without living in it.

So it'll be a deed on that lot.

Gotcha. Yeah, yeah. So if I wanted to come in, I could either come in and as an investor, just buy a short-term rental home that's already ready to be a short-term rental.

Yes.

Yeah. And I have 10 of those. So you have capped it at 10.

Yes.

But there's no guarantee that 10 of those will be any type of single family person who lives in it a couple months out of the year and then travels. It could just be an investor who comes in and buys it and just turns them constantly.

Yes.

Okay. Why? Why would you even mess with the short-term rentals? Because it doesn't benefit the developer because they don't own it. So any profit in the short-term rental goes with the house and the owner of that house. And we already have a prescribed zoning for short-term rentals and deal with them every single month. So why a special case for 10 short-term rentals in such a dense area?

Well, I think that the, let me just speak to the question about, you know, does short-term rentals, is it all a detriment? And if anybody here been to Seaside? I have. Seaside, Florida? It is buzzing, it's exciting, it's active. My uncle built a development identical to it that doesn't allow rentals. It's dead. And so one of the problems I think we have with second homes, we have so many second homes in New Braunfels, is that if they're all full of Houston people, it's going to be dead. This is sort of against the idea of a community. So I think that the rentals kind of cut both ways, which is it creates activity, it actually results in, if you own a house, if you're a Houston person, you want to rent out your house, I mean, it is possible for any of these to be bought by developers.

So it's geared toward... Second homeowners, people who are second home.

I think that when you look at what is being sold in New Braunfels at this sort of price point, a lot of them are second homeowners. I mean, if you look at Town Creek over here, a very large percentage are second homeowners. So I think that it just allows that flexibility to rent. If you're a homeowner and you want to rent it, you can. I mean, I think in a perfect, I don't know that we would, we wouldn't be targeting investors, but I would say it's certainly legal for that to happen. Yeah.

Yeah, and I think that with this, it's simply understanding that that is a buyer in the New Braunfels market is that buyer. In one of my communities, of course, the orientation isn't the same, but we don't allow investors to buy just because we're controlling the sales process there also. So I can't speak for Graham on that behalf of what we would do in those situations.

Are you specifically planning to build any single story homes? Because you're talking about this biggest market being people like me. And we need single story homes. And they don't look like they're gonna be single story.

We're working on a few of the homes being single story floor plans. More important than the, well, I don't wanna speak for you, but one of the things that I've found in developing is of course master on main is such a big consideration, especially when you're selling to the market type that we're trying to hit. And so I know at least half of the floor plans are designed right now with a master on main. And I would like to see it more than that.

Well, just a note, I'd consider that most do not want stairs at all. So I don't know if you're hitting that market. I'm not a market researcher, but I can tell you how hard it is to find that.

Yeah, and so what we found is that some buyers, of course, prefer everything being on one level. Oftentimes, we're throwing a guest bedroom or two bedrooms upstairs or something like that. So there's main floor living with bedrooms upstairs in case there's overflow. But single-story homes are more expensive. They take up more land. You don't get the benefits of the roof costs and the concrete costs. And so single-family homes are more expensive or single story homes are more expensive to build.

Right, but I think you, well.

I can tell you when I'm showing in that age group, two stories are out of the question generally. So just some feedback.

Do you have a development nearby or in Texas anywhere? One of these developments that you've developed?

One of the pocket neighborhood developments? No, not in Texas, yeah. There are other examples of pocket neighborhoods in Texas, not one that I've been involved in.

I've seen them in Dallas and Houston.

Technically we do have one here in Town Creek. It's only one little section.

Two things real quick. Parking, so is there going to be parking allowed on those private streets? Have you talked about that or thought about that yet or no?

Yes, yeah, so lots of the parking, you can actually see along the streets there. Most of the streets are at least parking one side, and then we have some straight-in parking in a few of the areas, and then we have those three different dedicated parking areas.

Those are not garages.

Those are not garages.

Is that, so someone had asked, by minimizing parking spaces to just one per unit, the development forces overflow vehicles onto the street. I'm assuming they're talking about Kohler. Consequently, 42 new households will be forced to walk in the active roadway, navigating around parked cars directly in the path of heavy industrial transport. So that parking that's alongside the street, the private streets there, is that part of the calculation? I think it was one parking space per unit plus half a parking space unassigned. Is that part of that calculation there?

Yeah, one of the product types had, I believe, two parking spots per unit, one assigned, one unassigned, so that there could be some disbursement. And then others have just one assigned and half unassigned. So I think that brings you to a total of 80 parking spots. So I came up there. I think that, in likelihood, we're going to end up with more like 90, which comes out to that 2.2 per unit. also i think that with the number of mature singles in here i think that that average is maybe skewed a little bit so i i would anticipate you know that we do have a number of singles in the in the development with just one car and we want to make sure that we have enough guest parking as well so as a developer and builder you know we need to sell these and parking is of course uh at most concern and then just one thing and this might be for mr looney uh just to kind of finish out uh

what the commissioner down here was saying. So can someone buy a unit in one of the cottage home sections, right, not that earmarked for STR, and then file for an SUP to then use that as a short-term rental per our city ordinances the way they are now? Would that be a possibility?

We would probably want to recommend that as part of their conditions of the PD, because a PD, like an SEP, it can place conditions, very strictly stipulate that as well so that nobody could apply for any other. So yeah, so that might be something that if it isn't already, we'd have to examine the details of that. It could be written in a way to condition it.

Yes. Is that a regular thing that can happen across any zoning type?

No, just SUPs and PDs. Conditions can only be placed on those two types of overlays, not on base zoning districts, but they could be placed just like the conditions that are the standards that you've listed already. It could be added as well. What you already have may cover that, may be adequate, but we could examine it to see.

Just for... our information, would that be something that you would be willing to look at as placing that restriction on there?

Oh, certainly, yeah. Because I think part of it is it cuts both ways, as Graham was saying. Oftentimes, rental communities, rental areas, especially short-term rentals, they can be bustling and it can be this nice, fun thing, or it might be too bustling. You also don't want it to be dead. So again, I think that we're trying to hit that sweet spot so that it could cut both ways and not change the overall effect of the neighborhood. That's all I have to say.

And if I could just add one thing, because, yeah, we would, if that were the intent of the development, and that's what the intent of the PD is, and then in seven or eight or ten years, some property owner, like you were saying, Commissioner Henry, wanted to rezone their separate one to allow short-term rental, and they went through the process, and that was approved. Later, they find out from the HOA, oh, I can't do that. And the HOA would keep them, and they would have spent all that money going through the city process to get the SEP. Yeah.

Thank you.

And Mary, are you able to pull up the FEMA flood map?

Yes, I'm gonna take the clicker or go back to our aerial map. It's one of the very beginning slides of the staff presentation. It has the floodway. So on this map here, the aerial, you'll see where the flood, it's basically in the river. And the property's across Keeler. So it doesn't touch this property at all?

Understood, understood. But what I'm looking at is the FEMA flood map, which isn't what y'all have up there.

We have the most up to date as far as I'm understanding from our GIS.

Understood, but it's just a little more visual by using the fema.gov. And you actually have floodways. It's more than just a river. It's a floodway that is where the blue is on Rio Drive right there. All of that is a floodway map. and it goes down, but then also there's some floodplains. So I just wanna note that this project is actually, it's in the middle of floodway. There's floodway surrounding this project.

I can't confirm that without checking with our.

Is that something that y'all? Is that something that y'all take into consideration when you're approving or not approving is, because I know we've talked about it before as Planning Commission, if a project is near a floodplain or floodway, and this one happens to be like in the center, where as a floodway is all around it.

The only thing we have is for short-term rentals, you cannot have a short-term rental in a floodway.

Correct, correct. And then development services, They evaluate that as part of people's building permits. And so people cannot get building permits in the floodway. They can in the floodplain if they meet certain requirements. And then of course, you're aware of the insurance requirement for people that have homes in the floodplain. But according to what's adopted by the city, which adopts the FEMA, that property is in between two different floodways and floodplains, but not within the floodway. But if you have... a recently federally created FEMA map? Right, it's on the website. Okay, then that, yeah, that's something that we would have to pull up.

So it's just, just curious how it would, you know, affect everything around it, you know? I mean, obviously this is vacant land right now, and so you're gonna put high density right here when you have a floodway surrounding it. I think it would be, it would be important to take all that into consideration as well.

I believe that's done during the building permitting stage and the materials that they're proposing are most likely going to mitigate any flooding or drainage issues. I wanted to follow up, if I may, for the opposition percentage is 32% and I think that was it. Were there any other questions of staff?

That was it.

All right. I have one last probably dumb question, because I'm sure you already answered it, yeah. The units, they don't have garages, they don't have any parking at the unit?

No, so it's all detached disperse parking.

It's all detached disperse parking, okay. But you did say there are assigned per units, at least one per unit?

Yes.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Yeah, our intention is to have some covered parking areas.

I'm sorry I'm going back to the empty nester thing because I feel represented. But what age group are you anticipating empty nesters to fall in? Are you talking about you're not expecting actual senior citizens in there? I mean, because the parking, away from your unit with your groceries. I'm just saying this because I know your actual plan should this get approved will come back to us. I'm just gonna say I don't understand how you're considering the actual eventual client for this and homeowner because parking away from your unit with groceries and uploading for that group which you think is your top, you listed it as your top group. Doesn't seem like that's workable.

So just a point. May I share an anecdote for that? So this was, when we first started developing these, we thought they were really cool and sort of took a leap of faith. And your question was Graham's first question when I told him what I was doing also. He's like, that will never work. But people are building these and what we found is we're living up in northern Idaho and we developed this with detached parking. It didn't come up once during the buyer process. In fact, we pre-sold our first 20 that we built all with detached parking. Certainly there's an inconvenience there, but I think there's certainly pros that the buyer are seeing that outweigh that. And so we saw a really diverse buyer group of a single mom with kids moving in, empty nesters from 35 to 65, 75. And the president of the local university actually moved out of his mansion and bought $299,000 square foot because it was cool and different and comfortable. And so we got this really diverse buyer group that was in there, and that wasn't a problem for them. So while I think that if we were trying to do this en masse, maybe it would be different, but I think that there's buyers in the market that are looking for this.

Just not everyone.

Yeah, maybe past that 70 age.

Yeah, it's not everyone. It's not everyone.

And maybe it is a cool project in Idaho, but the question is, does it fit here?

I think a lot of people are looking for that social aspect, too, because when you're walking from your car to something, that's when you meet your neighbors and you actually get to talk to them. So I think some people are looking for knowing their neighbors, too.

Sure, a lot of people are, and that's not an issue for certain demographic groups, but it is for others.

I think you have identified a big risk of the project. Absolutely. Will it work here? I don't know. I mean, the trouble is that you gotta try some things if the world's gonna change in any way, and it's a big, big risk. I mean, it is a big risk, and I think that it bugs me that we have parking away from the units, but it's one of the ways that we're able to use the land better. And so I think that if everybody, if even building a 1,000-square-foot unit, I will challenge you, your realtor, have you sold any 1,000-foot houses No, see, they don't exist. So we're trying to build a house that's 1,000 square feet that is affordable. And so there are things you have to do differently to get it into affordable. And so this is just one of the compromises. I think that in order to make it more walkable, you have to have a smaller scale. and also allowing you to have way more infrastructure per house. And the two-story is really designed for a master down with a guest bedroom up. I think that that's, to me, the... Again, we're not... I don't think... If you look at a Lennar duplex community, that doesn't fit every buyer, but it basically is kind of... It's kind of a uniform buyer, right? It's a rental buyer. It's someone who's looking for that product. I don't think anything... This has way more diversity. I would say way broader. I would bet you that... a number of you would consider this that would be much broader than the average community being built today. And so I actually think that while it may not be a perfect fit for, again, a senior who has a long way to walk with their groceries, I mean, it's ultimately we hope to create an appeal that makes you wanna be there because it's a smaller scale, a better community. Everybody's gonna be driving slowly because the streets are narrower. That is, it's going to be a more pedestrian-friendly place than almost every place that you'll approve this year. And there are compromises in all these things. And I think that if you look, to me, when you think about the way, you know, we drive electric cars today. We didn't have them 20 years ago. That's a compromise. I mean, I drive one and it doesn't go 1,000 miles. I mean, there are compromises owning an electric car. I think this is one of the compromises. I'm worried about not having a garage because my garage is full of stuff. Not of cars, but of stuff. So look, not having a garage means people can't have it full of stuff. And that will not appeal to everybody either. So we are trying to try a bunch of new things. And the idea is that I hope that there will be some learnings. Like if they don't sell, by the way, they'll never be sold, never be able to get new raffles. So I think that's really the biggest risk of the project is will this fit our demand? At this price point, right? This is this ain't cheap. I mean, also let me let me just I just want to clarify that are sort of 400,000 to 500,000 price is where we expect the average to end up. There will be units that are 1000 square feet. There will be less than 340,000. So I mean, I think that. You know these are so I expect the average to be in that range. I think that any questions of me.

Well, thank you.

Okay.

I'd like to open the public hearing. Many of you are here. I would first ask if there is anyone that would like to come up and speak in favor of this project. Please do so now. Anyone that would like to speak? Tommy, are you coming up to speak in favor? Come on up.

Tom Hofestad, I live at 1847 and 1841 Keeler, which is directly in the middle of where the project is. I've lived there 34 years. Also, my daughter lives, she's within a 200-foot circle. She's not here, but I think they're number 30 and 24 on your list. The Baba Link, they own their duplex. After living there 34 years and looking across the street at green space, you know, we all like green space, but I don't pay the taxes on it, and I respect property rights, and I would much rather have almost anything except 20 duplexes, which would be 40 housing units, which in the long term, five or 10 years from now, could be a... not a desirable eyesight when I look out my front door.

All of the houses, well, pretty much,

All the houses across the street, if you go down three or four houses to the left and to the right, they're all two-story houses. Most of them have been there. My house, part of my house was built in the 40s. Some of them are that old and some of them are newer. The one right next to me on my right-hand side was built three or four years ago. But I think the biggest concern for most people, Graham held a meeting with all of the owners back in March and I guess 20 or 30 people showed up. And I think the biggest concern, and it's rightly so, is traffic. But in my opinion, the biggest traffic that I see, and it's been going on since I've lived there, are the baseball players. I'm not picking on sports activities, but that goes on all year round. I mean, it's spring, summer, fall, and it's like, it isn't too bad when they go down there, but usually you'll have a 20, 30 minute rush, because with the three or four baseball fields that are down there, you may have 100 cars or more down there. And then when they leave, that's the part when they're leaving is when you have to be careful because they've usually had a few adult beverages and everybody drives past the speed limit. That, in my opinion, is something that's been there and I don't see that going away. If you put in whatever 35 or 40 single family houses, those people aren't gonna be coming and going at the same time. Yeah, it's gonna be more traffic off on Cocoa I don't think it's going to be noticeable in the long term. Some people have commented, well, like I'm the one that more likely anybody else and my neighbors on either side of me is if cars pull out onto Keeler, would there be headlights? But really our houses are lower. Almost every house within the, the four or five houses directly in front of this project, were actually lower than street level, so I don't see headlights creating a nuisance. I'm all for it. I think private ownership is the way to go. I think the concepts are very fantastic. There's some books that were, there's a book that was available, I forget the name of it, but it has to do with pocket parks and I think most of the neighbors had received a book, at least had the opportunity to get the book. And if you read through the book, it's about, I don't know, 200 pages, and it's got a lot of colored pictures in it of examples of these types of projects all over the country. I'd never even heard of one of these until this project was proposed. So yes, no one wants green space to go away, but if you believe in property rights, it's not just that. I think it's gonna be a first class project. If you look at what Graham's done and others, particularly in San Antonio, if you look at the quality of the projects he's built, it's all five star stuff. So anyhow, I'm all for it, and I hope that some of the other neighbors reconsider some of their thoughts on this. Thank you, Tom. Thank you.

I'd like to repeat the rules that this is limited to three minutes per person. We'll let you all speak, and the murmurings in the background need to go away. Respect the person that's up speaking. I hear comments going on the whole meeting, and we can't have that. We need to understand what the people are saying. And I'd like to also point out if someone has gotten and talked about various aspects of this, let's not all repeat the same thing. If you agree with what they say when they're through speaking, raise your hands. Let's be civil. There's some murmuring. I can't tell where it's coming from, but... Everyone will be allowed to speak. Sir, if you would like to come up and start the process. Yes. We need to turn that on, I believe. Hang on one second. Could you state your name and whether you're a resident of New Braunfels, please?

Hello, my name is Jericho McKenna, and I am a resident of New Braunfels. I live on Cocoa Lane, and I'm here to speak in opposition of the planned development, or as I understood, it would be a special use permit for this property. My concern is that the proposed plan reduces acquired setbacks, allowing homes to be built much closer together than current zoning standards permit. This type of overdevelopment places additional strain on existing infrastructure and can negatively impact the character and sustainability of the surrounding neighborhood. I understand that Mr. Weston has the right to develop his property within the limits of the current zoning requirements. However, I do not believe it is necessary or beneficial to grant additional allowances that would increase the density beyond what is currently permitted. The existing zoning standards were established for a reason, and I believe they should be maintained to protect both the neighborhood and the community's infrastructure. Is this on? Furthermore, it appears there may be a procedural issue that should be addressed before this matter proceeds. In preparing for tonight's meeting, I found information indicating that the terms of three board members expired May 31st. If that information is correct, I respectfully request that those members abstain from voting on this matter or that consideration of this application be postponed until the issue has been resolved, has been reviewed and resolved. Sir, we can address that.

The state laws allow this to happen.

If we could get the attorney. Are we going to discuss that right now? Or are we going to let him talk? Are we going to finish that? I mean, because if we open that up for discussion, I got a lot to say too. But I mean, yeah.

But state law allows that under the circumstances.

We can talk about it now or he can finish.

If we could get an opinion from the attorney and not have a whole long discussion on this.

I'd let him finish and we can address the issue later.

Thank you. Ensuring that all actions taken by this board are procedurally sound is important for maintaining public confidence in this process and protecting the integrity of any decision made tonight. Also, finally, a portion of this property was purchased by Mr. Weston from the city within the past year. It does not seem common to me for the city to sell property. My question, if y'all can answer this, is why did the city... did the city decide to sell this property? Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you. Anyone else that would like to come and speak?

I am the 15th in opposition. I didn't get my postcard mailed so I would like to be known that I'm in opposition. My name is Michelle Urban and I live at 1469 Cardinal Drive with my husband. We are within the feet of being notified about this and our property, the rezoning property is right behind our house. and Cocoa Lane runs behind our house. There's a couple of reasons that I'm in opposition. Well, there's a lot of reasons I'm in opposition, but I'll just name a couple. The proposed development does not reflect the established character of our neighborhood. The density design and layout are inconsistent with its surrounding properties, which raises concern about maintaining the aesthetic and community Sorry, I had cataract surgery today and I can't read very well. Preserving the visual and functional integrity of the existing neighborhood is critical to long-term property values among our residents. The weekly rental concerns. If rezoning permits encourages weekly rental operations, It may cause a transient population and increase parking shortages, noise, and overall disturbances. These effects would compromise our neighborhood and the ability and reduce overall quality of life for permanent residents. The parcel's proximity to a former landfill raises environmental and health concerns. Rezoning could increase development close to the site and would just like to know if any studies have been done to see what will happen with the landfill, which does border the property. Traffic control along Cocoa is another issue. With the number of homes that they plan to put in there, you're looking at probably about 100 additional cars running through our neighborhood. With what they said about the Keeler ball fields, Cocoa is not a two-lane road. It is more like an alleyway. So that raises concern right there. and then of course we have the water issues with the city of new brownfields being in a drought and you're adding another subdivision we're already stretched to the limits i know it's zoned right now for duplexes and if you look along keeler and bobolink there's duplexes all over there and that fits in our neighborhood i don't want short-term rentals i don't want weekly rentals The two-story houses are a problem. Most of the two-story houses are along the river. This property is not on the river. $400,000 and $500,000 houses will increase our property values substantially. And so I am voicing my opposition. Can I still turn this in?

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Robbie Will. I live at 324 Cardinal Drive. I'm in the neighborhood that will be affected by traffic. I'm concerned about the private roads, if they are considered wide enough. The road that dumps out on Cocoa is where I walk. But I've got several questions. Is there a drainage plan for the watershed? When you look at the aerial flood map, the city maintains the tributary that heads toward the river and the treatment plant from Coco going toward 725, but it doesn't maintain it from Coco toward the water treatment plant. And the waterway gets bogged down with trash. and limbs and such in that area. It's a former dump site. Has there been an environmental impact study done? And how is that going to affect the area? What is the drainage plan for this area? I know you're talking about impermeable surface, but that doesn't take care of an inch an hour rain or greater. Is there anything in the plans for retention or detention ponds to slow down the water? What is the traffic plan? Has there been a traffic study for this plan development coming out into our neighborhood? What you find is people that want to enter on 725 come through Cardinal and Paisano, Bobble Link to exit, Swan to exit from the ball fields quite often. They don't slow down. I'd like to see if this goes in for the city to put posted speed limits that reduce less than 30 miles an hour. We've got a lot of young kids that want to play, and this is going to dump traffic through the neighborhood because to get out on 7025, you can't go south from Keeler onto 725 with the new concrete barriers that TxDOT has put up on 725. I think there are a lot of questions that haven't been answered in this process, and I'd like to see more information disclosed. Thank you.

A lot of those questions will be answered when they, this is a concept plan, when they bring forth a building plan. Is that not correct, Mr. Looney? Most of the questions she had will be answered at that time.

Yes, sir, that's correct. Any development has to address drainage pursuant to the adopted ordinances, traffic impact analyses as well. They do all of that at the building permit stage. This isn't building permit. This is just the zoning. If someone re-zones their property and then later they can't meet all of those requirements, then they'll never get a building permit for it.

Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Shawna Brace.

I am a resident of New Braunfels. I live at 321 Paisano. My husband has owned that property since the 80s. And until just recently, I was also the owner of 310 Paisano, which my family has owned since the 1980s. When my family and my husband's family moved to New Braunfels, this was a small subdivision And we were able to enter and exit at will. Kids could play out in the street. People could walk through the streets. And it's just a great subdivision. At this time, I still see 80- and 90-year-olds walking down our street. I see two- and three-year-olds playing out in the street without having to worry about traffic. And who's going to drive in too fast? Who's going to run into somebody? However, I will tell you that from my house on Paisano, I cannot make a left-hand turn to go southbound on 725 And now you're talking about putting another 80 people into this area where you can't leave the area and we don't have sidewalks, but we have a safe community. What you're talking about is bringing the risk of traffic accidents of children and older people not being able to carry on their lifestyle in the subdivision that we live in. I know for a fact that there have been numerous times since the 1980s that it has been requested that traffic lights be put out so that we can exit our subdivision safely. Those have all been denied, denied, denied. A left-hand turn, I will tell you that my father was hit by a car trying to make a left-hand turn from Swan on to South Seguin. Right now, it's not an ideal situation, and you're talking about multiplying and multiplying that. And I have to oppose this project because there is no infrastructure to support it. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Good evening. My name is Marla Samosky, and I am a resident of New Braunfels, and I live on Cardinal. This property, and I actually talked to them, it will come out on Coco, and where it comes out is directly behind my home. So our homes aren't down, they're right there. So if somebody comes out that street, I'm gonna now have headlights into my living room. If they build two-story homes, people are gonna be looking into my backyard. It's not like that now. The gentleman that spoke earlier, he does live behind me, but we don't have anybody looking into my backyard right now i don't have headlights shining into my backyard the other thing that i know that you didn't want us to repeat but the traffic is going to be hideous i don't know if any of y'all have gone to this neighborhood i i encourage you to come over if you'd like to come to my home you can do that too um but just getting out on 725 now is it's horrendous they put a median there we can't turn into our neighborhood unless we go down to swan and so With 100 cars, we'll say, because that's 100 parking spots, are they all going to leave at the same time? No, but maybe. If they all work, they're all going to be leaving around the same time. They're all going to be coming home around the same time. So that's going to be congestion. Like she said, we have kids in our neighborhoods. That's why I love my neighborhood. We know our neighbors. I know the majority of these people here. We know each other. We watch out for each other. We watch out for each other's children. We have little kids playing. I have a little two-year-old that lives two doors down from me. She's always out. in our little circle area, you know, waving and stuff. She's not going to be able to do that with more traffic coming through because that exit, they're going to figure out if they come down and they go down Pisano or they come around Cardinal that they're going to be able to get on 725 instead of going to Keeler. So that is going to increase the traffic in our neighborhood, which is not why we wanted to live there, right? The other thing is they said that there's nothing like this comparable there is in Mayfair. I don't know if y'all are familiar with that. I used to work for a builder there. They do have these areas. It was one of our concerns when I worked for a builder because we weren't told that at the beginning. But they built town homes right in front of us that are built just like this where they have a common area. They have their own HOA. And so they are built like this. I think they are probably about the same. So y'all might wanna come go look out at that too. But they also have rental properties. They have small homes. They have all of that stuff that's being made available in Mayfair. So, I mean, to say this is the only place like this, that's not really gonna happen either. My other question is,

They said time has expired.

OK, thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commission, and thanks for your service. Thanks for the opportunity to talk about this project. My name is Terry McCoy. I live at 1817 Keeler Avenue with my wife. I am a registered professional engineer with the state of Texas, have been for over 34 years. Let me just state for the record that I strongly oppose any proposal that includes any short-term rentals. It's completely contradictory to the whole concept of building community. It doesn't make any sense to me. It is a change, a substantial change in the overlay. There's no provision for that as it exists today. Some other concerns I have are with the parking. I know Levi talked about this, but I think 80 parking spaces is insufficient. Particularly with the proposal of short-term rentals, what we've seen is that short-term rentals generate disproportionate amount of cars and a number of other problems. But if you're getting up into the 90 or 100 range, then I think you start to accommodate the demand for parking. Other thing with short-term rentals and other folks, anybody that's pulling a boat, there's no accommodation for large vehicles or trailers or any of that sort. So if they have those, those are gonna wind up being parked on the street. something that we oppose as well. So with a couple of other things, with a five-foot setback, there's a discussion of a six-foot wooden fence being sufficient. There's nothing else needed, and to me that's completely disingenuous because you're with a two-story house, you're going to be looking straight into the neighbors that have homes there. I'm also surprised not to see a sidewalk along the frontage of this property. Don't know if that's proposed or not, but it doesn't show up on the concept plan. Also the concept plan has a strange looking little flag connection from one of the front properties to Keeler that I also do not understand what that is. Fully agree with the walkability concepts, multimodalism, those are all virtuous qualities of life that are absolutely worth pursuing. However, Keeler Avenue and Cocoa Lane have significant safety issues that urgently warrant the attention and commitments from NBU, the city's parks and rec, and public works departments. For these and other issues here tonight, I encourage you to reject the plan as it stands and encourage the developer to work with the neighborhood to develop a more compatible plan that could be supported by the neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Rebecca McCoy, I'm his wife. I live at 1817 Keeler, one of the properties within that 200 feet zone. We voted no. I'm here tonight because the proposal to add 10 short-term rentals in the heart of our neighborhood is not just a zoning decision, it's a decision about the future of our neighborhood's safety, stability, and identity. Starting with safety and security concerns, short-term rentals bring a constant turnover of guests, people we don't know with no long-term investment in our community. Law enforcement data from cities across the country show increased calls for noise complaints, parking violations, and even criminal activity in the areas with high concentrations of short-term rentals. Even here in New Braunfels in June 2024, the city of New Braunfels increased code enforcement activity in residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Comal and Guadalupe rivers to address short-term rental related noise, parking, and litter complaints. Impact on quality of life. Residential neighborhoods are designed for families, not for transient tourists. Noise, late night parties, and insufficient parking areas force mass parking along residential streets and impact the quality of life for neighbors. The peace and predictability we value will be replaced by a revolving door of strangers. Housing affordability and community stability is also affected. Studies have shown that short-term rentals reduce the supply of long-term housing, driving up rents and home prices. Neighborhoods thrive when people put down roots, when they know the kids next door, the elderly couple across the street, the family that always decorates for every holiday. That's a community. You're also setting a precedent and long-term consequences. Approving 10 units now sets a precedent for clusters of short-term rentals and residential neighborhoods in the future. Do you want 10 units across from where you live? I bet the answer is no. We must ask ourselves, do we want to be a community of neighbors or a cluster of mini hotels? Tourists can stay in designated lodging areas without disrupting residential life. I urge the Planning Commission to protect the integrity of our neighborhood. Visitors should stay in areas designed for tourism, not in the middle of our homes. Please follow the current New Braunfels rules that prohibit short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods and vote no for this zoning request. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else that would like to come and speak? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, I suggest we take a five-minute break and come back in five minutes. Thank you. When we come back, we'll discuss it and see if there's a motion and see if there's anything that comes up in the discussion. Thank you. Could you back to order, please? Commissioners, any discussion on this matter?

Yeah, I'd like to discuss.

Public hearing is closed, so you have the floor.

Thank you. So I'd like to discuss this matter moving forward and just the integrity of our vote that we will be making on whatever motion is made and seconded. As some of you know, as one of the citizens mentioned, there is an issue up here that should be addressed and y'all should be aware of. If you're not, three of the commissioners up here's term legally expired on Sunday the 31st. So there's three commissioners, Mr. Sonnier, Mr. Nolte, Ms. Schaffer, that as of our ordinance are not legal commissioners at this time. Now the city has found, or outside council I should say, in my opinion, a stretch of a interpretation of case law and constitution that says that they believe they can do this, which to me is questionable. But what's not questionable is whether we should do this. We shouldn't. We should postpone this item for a month, let this play out, the city drop the ball on the reappointments, let that get figured out, let legitimate, it may be you three, you three may get appointed. But as of right now, The applicant, through no fault of their own, has found themselves in a precarious situation from a legal perspective. This moving forward from this body to council is questionable, and obviously there's opposition here, and someone could very easily use the questionable seating of these members to challenge this. Mr. Weston said himself there is no rush at this point. I believe a 30-day postponement is prudent and responsible.

Well, if the three commissioners weren't here, we would not have a quorum in this.

Correct. That goes to my point. If the three commissioners, that term's expired, weren't here, we wouldn't even have a quorum, so we wouldn't even be having this meeting right now.

I've worked with cities for almost 20 years, and this is standard operating procedure that until the position is filled, that they can continue to operate in that position. That standard is not something the city's made of. I've seen it happen time and time again. So in terms of being legal, I believe it perfectly legal.

It didn't happen because of a runoff. It happened because the city forgot to put reappointments on the agenda at the time that they do every year. They forgot to do it. So they've hired outside counsel to try to justify that. Y'all have a right to know that too.

And I wanted to ask the applicant, do you have a preference if it continues here or would you like for us to meet again next month? Okay. Yeah, so this issue was brought to my attention. I was not aware of it, didn't take part in why the appointments didn't occur. And so our office have been a little bit short-staffed lately, so I did reach out to outside counsel. and actually two separate outside councils because paths got crossed. They both did mention there's a holdover provision in the Texas Constitution which allows commissioners to continue. There's case law and attorney general's opinions that say that that provision would apply to commissioners. commissioners now that would give those commissioners the legal right to to participate in this meeting but it doesn't give them it doesn't obligate them to so they can abstain as well Now, whichever way, if a vote continues today, whichever way that turns out, this is an advisory body, so it would go to council, city council for the actual final decision. And so it would go if it's, you know, unanimous in favor, unanimous against, or any combination thereof. So...

If I could add also to that, there isn't a requirement for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation either, so sometimes cases go forward to City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission, and that's perfectly legal as well.

But yes, and as Nathan said, that constitutional provision is applicable statewide.

Every city I worked in, in the 33 commissions and boards that we have here in New Braunfels, the 88 we had with the city of San Antonio when I worked there, it was always the same until someone is appointed, the people serving continue to serve in those seats until reappointed or new appointments are made.

And of course, you guys always do have the opportunity to postpone on your own initiative.

Well, I would suggest we move on and continue. I would ask commissioners if they have any comments about the item.

Is it possible to lay out the process for approving this type of project? I don't think that all the commissioners do or all the audience does understand where we are in the process for a PD.

So in New Braunfels, the plan development process is different than other cities. So if you're familiar with other cities, a little bit different. And the difference is that The applicant has submitted a concept plan for something that they would like to develop on this property with conditions that they're proposing. Planning Commission can make a recommendation with additional conditions of the removal of some of those conditions, approval, denial, it's pretty open to what Planning Commission can recommend. Then the next step is city council with whatever that recommendation is, if there is one. City council here in New Braunfels, we kind of have an older style approach. Two readings actually have to go to city council. There's a first reading and then a second reading. And in order to approve, they would have to approve both of them. Then here's the unique thing about New Braunfels PD. There's a second step. It's called a detail plan. So the applicant has to prepare a more detailed plan and present that and bring that forward for another public hearing. But that one only comes to the planning commission and planning commission makes a final decision on that detail plan. Then at some point in the future, if that's approved, at some point in the future, whenever the property owner is ready to proceed with actual development, they would submit the application for the building permit. And that's when it gets into those details we talked about earlier with drainage requirements, traffic impact requirements. Then it gets into areas that are kind of outside of our expertise here as planners because it gets into kind of that development services building permitting arena. But that process can take some time depending upon the complexities of a site, the complexities of what's being proposed. Obviously a big commercial development is more complex than a residential development. So it really just kind of depends on the site and the proposal. So that's real high level there on the building permit side of things, but as much as I know.

I guess what I don't understand is what are we approving? I mean, we're approving a blanket PD. I mean, we're approving a PD in essence, but we don't have all the details. Meaning if we approve it tonight, they still have to come back to us with the details of that PD. But what happens if we don't like, you know, we, I don't have the right language, but let's just say we don't approve. that the details of that PD, what are we approving tonight? Because I didn't know.

We're being asked to approve a zoning change.

To a PD. To a PD. But that's a plan development.

And I understand what you're saying. But again, we're an advisory body and city council votes on these things, whether we recommend it or whether we approve it. we pass it on to city council for them to approve it. So, but what we're here to do is, as it says, it's a public hearing to city council to rezone approximately 4.7 acres.

That's, that's. Yes, Jerry, I've been here for four years, I get all that. What I'm asking, but no, I don't need you to, I know we're a recommendation body, I got that clear. What I'm asking is if we're approving a PD, what are we approving within that PD? If we were approving an R1 to an R2, we know what we're approving.

If you would let me make a suggestion. That is, listening to the opposition, the biggest opposing comes from the overnight rentals. And we can... discuss, talk about removing that from this, our recommendation to remove it and pass that on to city council. To me, that was the thing I heard, the thing I've seen in writing that you're opposed mostly to overnight rental.

Understood. So I understand we could recommend to remove that, but what are we approving within the PD?

That's what I'm getting at. Are we? So like setbacks, lot sizes? Yeah, that's what she was saying. That's what we're approving tonight.

I just need clarification on what are we approving. We're just clarifying what you're asking. What are we approving tonight?

There's an exhibit in the case file that is the development standards. It has a table and then it also has some language below it and then also the corresponding concept plan that shows.

So we're approving the 1,000 square foot lots tonight? is that what we're approving yes ma'am okay so we're okay i understand i appreciate that clarification because to my understanding a pd you've got it all detailed out you bring it but that's not necessarily the case but so we need to understand what we are i think it it's important for every one of us to understand what we are proving tonight so thank you i appreciate that okay

Okay, I would like to talk about what our other option is of what it currently is of R2. So there are a lot of nice R2s on there in the neighborhood already. They're on the river or they're built further back or for custom home like my family and that my kids also have their unit sort of thing. But I recently lived in a modern R2 And that thing was, that was a rough neighborhood. No one could see in front of their homes because there's no windows out there. So whenever we would hear like screaming or gunshots, we didn't really know what was going on. So that's when you kind of like look over the fence and you just hope you don't really get hit. And that was on Pallmeyer. So that's New Braunfels. And I tried subleasing that thing and people, the most common thing was, hey, can I fit three people per room and how many rooms are there? And there's three rooms and they're asking for like three people per room. I think the legal limit was two and they were all adults and they all had cars and they were all trying to go to San Antonio. every morning and every afternoon. So that's currently what it is zoned for and what it could fit. So let's say 56 units, and that's without the additional dwelling units in the back. Three rooms, that's 168 rooms. If you multiply that by two, that's 336 people. You could legally fit in there that all have cars. So yeah, and that's what my neighbors were doing. Even illegally, they're fitting more people in there. Yeah.

Commissioners, any other comments? And we can have a no vote also. We can have a vote where we do not make a motion to approve or disapprove. Those are part of our options.

Yeah, I think honestly the big point for me right now is the setbacks on this. I think the parking lots are too low, or the parking spots are too low. I think you're looking at 110 spots needed plus. And then the concentration of the daily rentals, we don't really have that anywhere except for hotels. So if we approve this, we are now setting a standard, maybe not a standard, but a precedent, and that concerns me. So I would at least remove the daily rentals. before I even consider this. And that's just my thoughts on that.

So we could suggest to move forward but maybe decrease by two units and remove the SUP to add more parking. Like would that help?

I think removing the daily rental for sure. I don't know if you're gonna have to decrease the units per se but definitely adjust the setbacks on those.

Does the applicant have any comments on us removing the daily rentals. What are your thoughts on that? Do you want us to go forward with that?

Yes, and do I have an opportunity to respond to some of the public comments that were made as well? Is this a good time to do that?

It really isn't.

Okay, all right, sorry, I was told. Public hearings are closed, I can reopen. Sorry, I was told I was gonna get a chance to respond. So just specifically to the daily rentals question, if that's something that the commission feels would keep you from approving the motion, then I think that that would be, certainly we'd rather have your approval with that condition removed than your denial of the project.

If I can make a recommendation, I think we should give them the opportunity to respond.

I can open a public hearing for that. Absolutely.

Well, are we going to let him respond and the public respond as well, or are we just going to let him rebuttal everything the public said?

Well, we'd have to do both if we open it up.

So you were talking about setbacks. Can we bring up the specific setback numbers?

Or I can just, I can answer specific questions that you guys have. I was just told I was gonna get the opportunity, but I'd rather just, I wanna make sure I answer your guys' questions, so. Yeah. Yeah. Yes? Yeah. Okay. So as far as setbacks, are you talking about the building setbacks?

Yeah, the building setbacks.

Yeah, so-

I'm not saying go to R2 setbacks per se, but get it closer to R2 at least before we even, at least before I would consider it.

Well, one of the things with R2 is that it's getting to, you know, there's a 25-foot setback on the front because there's the guesstimation that there's going to be a garage on the front of the house, so there's a 25-foot setback from the public There's no public streets in here. And so that's the one I would say oddity on this is the zero foot setback from the front. This is because lots of the sidewalks that they're going to be opening onto, not in every case, but on some of the units, is going to be stepping directly onto a common area. So that's why there's the zero foot setback. It's so that you can shift it around. On the sides, we certainly don't want to be putting firewall on every side of every building here. That's the only oddity. Besides that, we're having at least 10 foot separation between buildings, five foot setback on each side of the lot line. In that way, we're keeping within normal IRC standards. We're not gonna have to be putting firewalls on every side of every building.

Any other questions, comments, motions?

I'll make a motion to postpone this item till the July 7th Planning Commission meeting.

So you want them to come back and do the same thing and all the citizens to come back and do the same thing on July 7th?

Sure.

We have a motion. Do we have a second?

I'll second it.

We have a motion and a second. If we could have a roll call, please, Colton. Vice Chair Taylor.

Aye.

Commissioner Allen.

Aye.

Commissioner Henry.

Nay.

Commissioner Nolte.

Abstain.

Commissioner Rudy.

No.

Commissioner Schaffer.

No.

And Chair Sonnier. No. We have four nos, one abstain, and two yeses for that motion. So that motion does not carry forward.

Thank you.

In that case, well, never mind. I'll hold off.

Well, if we do not have a motion, we will. I'll make a motion to, go ahead. I'll let y'all do it.

I make a motion to approve with the removal of short-term rentals.

We have a motion. Do I hear a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. If we could have a roll call, please. Commissioner Schaffer.

Aye.

Commissioner Henry. Aye. Commissioner Allen.

No.

Commissioner Nolte.

Aye.

Commissioner Rudy. Aye. Vice Chair Taylor. No. And Chair Sonnier.

Yes.

The ayes have it and the motion does carry forward.

The motion carries. And we are sending this on to City Council. I would recommend all of our citizens come and speak at City Council as you did tonight to let your voices be heard. Thank you for your time. Meeting is adjourned.