Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the regular City of New Braunfels Board of Adjustment meeting. We are a five-member board appointed by the City Council. And pursuant to state law, this board hears requests from property owners for variances and special exemptions from locally adopted ordinances. This board may also hear appeals of decisions made by the city staff in administering these ordinances. The general procedure for this, each case, is the board will first hear from city staff who will provide a summary of each applicant's request Then the applicant or agent will be asked to come forward and advocate for this request. Next, the board will request public comment from anyone who would like to speak in favor or in opposition to this request. Those who are speaking in favor or in opposition will be limited to five minutes. However, the chair does reserve the right to adjust these times. The board will keep all discussions to the issue at hand and cannot deviate into unrelated topics or areas that do not contribute to the merits of this request. After the close of the public hearing, the pending case will need to have a motion and a second to the motion from the board members in order to proceed to a vote. In order for a request to be approved, state law requires that four out of the five members of the board vote to approve the variance requests. The request fails if no motion or second is made for approval. If denied, the same or similar request cannot reappear before the board for at least six months unless new substantial evidence that was not available at the time has been produced by the applicant. Any aggrieved party may appeal a decision made by this board, and appeals are made to the district court or county court at law. If you have any questions, you may ask a city staff member after the meeting. All right. Can we get a roll call, please?

Member Ramth? Here. Member Quidley?

Here.

Member Mund? Here. Member Jakely? Here. Member Raikano?

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you. First up is the approval of minutes that you received. Those were for the May 28th, 2026 minutes. Do I have a motion for approval? Anybody? I motion to approve. There we go, we have a motion. Can I have a second?

I'll second.

There we go. Let's get one more roll call just to make sure we're good on that.

Member Ram? Yes. Member Quidley?

Yes.

Member Mund?

Yes.

Member Jakely? Aye. Member Raikkonen?

Yes. Thank you. With that being said, we're going to move over to the election of officers for this coming year. First up is the election of chair. Do we have any motions for election of chair?

I have a motion. Steve Quidley to motion. Brandon Munn as chair.

Second. Second.

Thank you, we have a first and a second. Can we get a roll call, please?

Member Ram? Aye. Member Quiddley?

Aye.

Member Mund?

Aye.

Member Jakely? Aye. Member Rigono?

Aye. Thank you. Motion passes. That will stick for this next year. Now the election of the vice chair. Can I have a motion for election of vice chair? I'd like to make a motion that Jenny Jakely continues to be vice chair this coming year. So, I could have a second?

I have a second. Steve Quidley, second.

Okay, we have a first and a second. Can we get a roll call on that, please?

Member Ram? Aye. Member Quidley?

Aye.

Member Mundt?

Aye.

Member Jakely?

Aye.

Member Ricono?

Aye. All right. Roughest election ever. Okay. Did you like my yard signs? They were great. Everywhere. They were everywhere. Oh, my God. Oh. All right, citizens communication. This is the time that citizens to address the board of adjustment on any issues or items on the agenda. It is a violation of the Texas Open Meeting Act for the commission to respond to ask questions or discuss any items that are not on the agenda. Do we have anyone that would like to speak up on the citizens communication? Seeing none, we're gonna move forward. All right, items for individual consideration. This is to hold a public hearing. in consideration of a request for two variances. This is 26-729, a variance from section 144-3.3-2B1III to allow an accessory structure to encroach 25 feet into the required 25 foot corner side setback and two, a variance from section 144-3.3-2B1IV to allow a garage to encroach 20 feet into the 20 foot required garage setback from the right of way within the R2 single family and two family district currently addressed at 307 North Ginther Avenue.

Good evening, board members. Mary Lovell, senior planner with neighborhood and community planning department. On this first slide, you can see an aerial view of the subject property and the surrounding neighborhood. The property is zoned R2, single family and two family district. That allows one family home, one residence and duplexes as well. It is surrounded on all sides by similarly zoned properties that are also developed with residential uses and their accessory units. The lot itself is 8,056 square feet and the property currently features about a 1,900 square foot two-story home. This home was originally constructed in 1920 according to the tax assessor records well before our current setback rules were adopted. Moving on to the proposed site plan, on the left side I have the full site plan and on the right side I have more of a zoomed in version to show just that proposed garage. The applicant is looking to construct a detached garage for the home, which will be approximately 350 square feet in area. And this would be to accommodate two cars on this lot. And For that, they are requesting the two variances, which were announced at the beginning of the meeting, but I'll summarize those. 25 feet into the 25-corner side setback, which would allow the structure to sit on the side property line, and there is no curb on this side of the street, and it is about, well, actually there is a curb, and it's about four feet, according to this site plan. So that property line does fall four feet inwards into the property. And while this rule normally protects adjacent homes to the rear, the home behind this property is already built closer to the 25 feet front yard property requirement under today's code. The second variance is to allow the garage to encroach 20 feet into the required 20 foot garage setback. And that setback is so that if you were to park a car in the driveway, it would not stick out into the roadway. So basically that variance would result in a zero foot setback as well. So the applicant notes that a strict application of the current setback regulations on this 1920s corner lot deprives them of a reasonable buildable envelope to place an accessory detached garage. The applicant also states that the unique lot configuration with two street frontages, West Bridge is at 30 feet wide and North Gunther Avenue is at 60 feet wide. That combined with the original placement of the house, it creates an undue hardship of the land. These are property photos to give you a ground level perspective and show you what is already built along East Bridge Street. As the applicant had pointed out in their application, if the variances are approved, it would allow them to park their vehicles inside of a garage rather than on the street. So moving those parked cars out of the street would just provide more safety for the area and ultimately be more in harmony with the residential character of the neighborhood that doesn't have a lot of cars along the roadways. Furthermore, there's a precedence for this type of variance in this immediate area, and in the staff report, we called those out. Specifically, therefore, detached garages and additions in various types of setbacks, rear setbacks, side setbacks, and even the corner side setbacks. That would be 351 North Gunther, 10 Harry Court, and 254 North Santa Clara Avenue. Public hearing notices were mailed to owners of 20 properties within 200 feet of the subject property. And to date, staff has received two responses two responses in favor and one in opposition. On the map, property owner number 11 has two properties, so that's why it looks like there's three properties, but their card accounts for those two properties. And so 13% in favor, 5% in opposition, and that pretty much concludes my presentation. If you have any questions at this time, I'm happy to answer and the applicant is here to present. Yeah.

Do we have any questions for staff?

Actually, I did. So you had mentioned the three variances that were approved previously. So the first one, what was it? So the rear and the side setback, what was it reduced to? Is it similar to this one or?

It was reduced to encroach. A rear setback for a detached is three feet. So I believe on this one, it was to build it right on the property line down to zero. And let's see. The variance, the second one, a detached garage in the side setback. That was a reduction of, I believe, eight feet and to allow the height to exceed the main dwelling unit. And a variance to allow a home addition in the corner side setback. I don't recall the exact encroachment on that one.

For the last one?

Yeah, for the last one.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Yes. I've got a couple. So I was looking at the city zoning map. It looks like there's a current variance on this property. Is there?

I did not, does the owner, yeah, okay. You know, maybe that didn't show up on my maps, but at the time, does it relate to this?

It doesn't have the details and I didn't have enough time to request it.

Well, we can look it up real quick. I think we have a zoning map and we can reference that and we'll get that to you at the end of the applicant's presentation.

Okay, yeah, and so you mentioned, I read it in one of the reasons for the variance to keep your cars outside of the right-of-way. Isn't there an existing driveway already on the property?

Yes, that would provide additional from my understanding from the applicant our conversations that would also provide additional parking to also allow cars not to be parked along Gunther or West Bridge Street. However, the one of the normal allowances for a single family residential property is to have a garage and storage of your normal lawn mower and things like that. And at this time, there's not such a place on the property. So it seems like a customary type of use to have on a property. So I believe that's the reason why they want the garage.

Okay, and then the property right behind this subject property, it's on Bridge Street. Do we know how close that building is to the right-of-way, like what they're set back from?

I didn't go measure, but just looking at the map, and we do have a measurement tool. I didn't bring my laptop to have all those tools available. I believe when I calculated, it seemed to be 16 feet from their property.

Okay. Victoria, can you pull up that picture and maybe that will give us a better idea?

Are you talking about this one?

The front of the home?

Oh, sure.

One more?

This one? Yeah, it doesn't really show, but I could have, I believe I measured some measurements and I came up with 16 feet for the home behind this one from the right-of-way. Does that sound about right?

It's probably about eight.

It's only eight feet.

Yeah, I'm not 100% sure.

But we do have on our zoning map, there are some measurement tools, but I don't, we don't have the ability to project that onto the screen to do a live.

visual member right now i do have that uh variance that was approved on the property if you don't mind me reading that approval letter um back in december 18 of 2020 uh this letter reads on december 17th of 2020 the zoning board approved a request to allow a proposed addition to a single family home to number one encroach up to 2.3 feet into the required five foot side setback And number two, encroach up to 13 feet into the required 20-foot rear setback. So that seems to be for an addition. Thank you.

Colton, is there a way you can use the measurement tool if you were to be on our zoning map and see? There's a home that is behind this. I'll give you the address.

Is it 329 North Gunther?

Is it 329 North Gunther would be the one behind? Probably. It's directly behind 307 North Gunther.

Oh, the one on Bridge Street?

It's actually on West Bridge Street.

Okay. Now, what are we measuring here?

There's a little house, and I'll come over and show you.

Well, I think on that 2020 agenda, I know I was here. I think I was the only board member on there. I wonder if we're still doing it from the house because we used to in 2020, we would still have these every month. We do them via Zoom. Oh, I remember that. I was like, I remember they'd send us everything and all of a sudden, that's when they would still bring out packets. The day of or the day before?

So we measured the home in the rear of this property and it's eight feet from the property line. Any other questions?

Any other questions for staff? Yeah, I got one right quick. You said it was on the property line, right, for the garage, is that what you said?

Okay, so they are proposing it to be on the property line, so zero setback, but the curb is four feet, will still be four feet away.

The property line is four foot off the curb? Yes. Correct, okay, thank you.

One more question, but you may not know the answer to this. There are no existing easements along that line, along the street, do you know?

no there's no easements this is city blocks and old city blocks and they any utilities are in the in the roadways okay all right all right thank you yeah you're welcome and i'll go ahead and call the applicant up and i'm not sure if you want to use any of these pictures to speak about

All right, if you wouldn't mind speaking your name for the record.

Jeff Hillier.

Okay, are you the homeowner?

No, I'm not. I'm the builder, and I have a restoration company here in New Braunfels, Days of Old Restorations. So I've been working with the Williams for quite some time, doing the addition that they did on this house, and will be working on the garage if approved for this. A couple things I wanted to point out. This street, And I don't know what view that was in. Right here. If you look at Bridge Street, it dead ends into Santa Clara that's there on the left and Gunther. So it's almost like it's an alley. All of the homes on the right side of Bridge, front Mill Street. So they're using the app for like an alley to get back into their garages and they're There's a garage on the second house that's very close to the street. And down the street, she took a picture of one, that yellow one right there in the bottom left corner. It's right there on the street. And so we kind of feel like what we're trying to do here fits into what else is going on on the street. And the street was built, I guess, in 1920. These homes were put down where they are all encroaching on the city, setbacks, just by nature of the age of the homes when they were built.

OK.

And we understand about the parking and that's why on the front of the house, we were gonna leave the parking pad out front. So if they have additional cars come in, there are a couple, just two that will be living there, but they have a big family in the neighborhood and they also will have six grandkids. So they spent a lot of time here and they wanted to have an outside area in the back for a pool and living area for their family. I design and build old homes, old style looking homes and to match it. So the plan with the garage is to build it in a manner that it matches the same materials for the house. So it looks like it's been sitting there since 1920.

That's all I have. Anything else? That's it. Do we have any questions for the builder?

I do. I've got a couple. Sure. So first and foremost, on here there's also a proposed pool location. Yes. I assume that's not been installed yet. Correct. Pools are great. Love a good pool. If the pool was not in place, would this garage not be able to be placed further inside to at least avoid the need of one setback?

Probably not, because it would go so far in. They would eat up all their backyard.

So in place of a pool, a garage could not sit?

I mean, technically it could, but for them to enjoy their living space outdoors, they would lose it. It would be very small.

Okay, and you're asking for two setbacks, one that is 20 foot, and one that is 25 foot.

Right.

And the 20 foot is, of course you're trying to bring 20 foot, so bring closer to the street.

Correct.

The 25 is from the rear setback, right, to the fence. So if we were to.

No, I'm sorry. It's actually, it's for the driveway.

So I just wanna point out that those two variances, they would be almost in the same location. They'd be coming off of West Bridge. They wouldn't be to the rear at all. It's because all along West Bridge, they would, according to our current code, they would have to be 25 feet in all along that side. So these are just two variances. requirements in our code, they're kind of like overlapping. Concurrent, okay. Concurrent, and so they're more like in the same place.

Sorry, I misread that.

No, that's okay.

Okay.

All right, do we have any other questions for the builder?

So I'm a little bit concerned about the current width of Bridge Street, like it's real narrow. Like you said, it's like an alley. Have y'all looked into matching the existing homes on Bridge Street, like that setback? You said that house behind your house is eight feet setback. Have y'all looked into matching that potentially?

We did, and again, it came to how much space we lose in the yard to build the pool and the living area in the backyard. And with seeing the yellow one that I showed you that was right on that property, kind of felt like this would fit into that street. Now, I mentioned that the street is a short street there, because it doesn't have a lot of traffic. It's pretty much people that are just living on that street that are going in and out of there, because both ends are, there's Mill Street that runs across, that is all the heavy traffic, and Gunther runs into Town Creek, so there's not a lot of traffic on there.

I think there's three homes that enter on that. Yeah. If I counted it right.

Yeah, and everything else faces mill.

Is the intention to be the primary residence or is this more of a visit residence?

Oh, primary residence, long term.

Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions?

So I guess maybe this is for Mary, but maybe you can answer. So we do not require a rear setback at all?

They're meeting the rear setback of three feet.

Three feet, okay.

Three feet is the rear for a detached structure.

For the detached structure, okay.

I was trying to see it too.

Yeah, I was like.

Yeah, that's my eyes. All right, seeing no other, if the owner would like to come up and speak. Anything you'd like to add?

I would just add, I think... Would you please introduce yourself before you begin?

You go ahead and just mention your name for the record, please.

Oh, I'm sorry. Greg Williams. I'm the owner and my wife, Roxanne. So... I would just sort of reiterate the fact that we're creating a situation where we can put our cars in a garage and they're not parked out on the street. And then secondly, again, it's really the only living space that we have. The front of the property is pretty narrow. We've already built that last part of the structure as a pool house. We've got a pool house in place. I mean, that's our doing, of course, but I feel like it would be, you know, provide our family with a good sort of outdoor living space.

Okay. Any questions for the owner?

I do have two questions back for the city. when we can reopen that. Thank you, Mr. Williams.

Thank you. I guess, can we just keep going and close that part and open the city portion again?

Okay, thank you. Apologies, that struck a few questions for me. So if this was not a enclosed garage, if this was a parked pad, would this require a variance?

If it was just a parked pad, any kind of flat work would not require a variance. It's because it is a structure.

And now the other question has left my brain.

Okay. Seeing none, I guess we will open up the public.

I had one more first have to, sorry. The opposition, do you have that opposition card?

I sure do.

Okay.

I have that opposition card and let me get, I have out all the cards actually and I'll come up to the podium.

Thank you. Thank you.

And does anybody have any questions of the cards?

Yeah, can we read the opposition one?

Sorry. Yeah.

Any questions related to this card? I'll try to speak on it.

Any questions regarding the card? I don't think so. No? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let's see if there's anyone in the room who would like to speak in favor or in opposition of this. Seeing none, we'll close that portion and we will get to our discussion. What type of discussions do we have on this this evening?

Okay, well let's close that before we get to that.

Let's open this back up for the homeowner if you would like to come up and state your name for the audience.

I'm Roxanne Williams. We have lived in this home for 20 plus years. This is our forever home. we will be using that driveway primarily for our cars and this will be primarily storage if we have guests we just wanted some backup so it won't be like a daily in and out exit from this structure

So you're not going to use it because you all said you're going to use it only for cars?

No, it will be used for cars from time to time, but the homeowner that is having this concern about us in and out, in and out on that street, I just want to say that we will be also using it for storage, and we will continue to use our front driveway. It is a very sleepy street, very sleepy. And most of the time, cars are parked on that street from the homeowners that live on that street. So, anyway, that's all.

Any questions for her? All right. Close it again. I'm going to use my gavel. Okay. Do we have any comments? Do we have any motions that need to be made? Or otherwise?

Yeah, I have some concerns. My big concerns is the right-of-way width. It's currently 30 feet wide. You know, like the homeowner across the street, I think they're pretty spot-on. I think the building should be eight feet back from the right-of-way, just like the other existing homes on the street. Really like what y'all have done with the property. I think it looks awesome. I think the house looks really good. But that's a really narrow right-of-way, and I don't know. I just think it'd be challenging to get cars in and out, like right on the right away, four feet from the back at curb. So that's my concerns.

My concern is the actual hardship. It feels like the hardship isn't of the land, but rather of the pool. It feels like It's not a living necessity, but rather a luxury. And us as a board holding, making variances, we have to hold true and be able to stand by those variances for future choices. And I struggle with that a little bit.

Same for both, for the students. you know, being zero lot line. I mean, that's like right on the property line. I'm not crazy about that either. And then also because it's not a true hardship, I just have a lot of concerns about that and opening that door for future.

All right. Okay. Do we have any emotions that would like to be made on this? All right, seeing no motions, I'm sorry, we're unable to pass your variance for this evening. Questions, you can definitely see city staff and they can assist you.

Thank you.

All right, with that being said, we will move down to CS26-0176, hold a public hearing in consideration of a request by NB Signs and Design on behalf of WBC Industrial LLC for an alternative sign plan to allow seven freestanding multi-tenant monument signs to deviate from the established sign standards for property within the C3 commercial district currently addressed at 827, 839, 851, and 863 IH 35.

Good evening, board members. Colton Barker with City of New Braunfels Neighborhood and Community Planning. One day I'll remember the department name. Before you this evening is an alternative sign plan. This is not a sign variance. Rather, it is the appropriate process for considering signage that may not fully comply with the city sign code. Because of this, a hardship is not required and an approval may be granted by a simple majority of the boards, which is three votes for. The alternative sign plan process is intended to provide flexibility for applicants to design signage that complements a development's unique character, allow increases in sign area or height and place of multiple otherwise permitted signs, and accommodate additional signage when there are unusual site constraints. The subject property is the Walnut Business Park, a nearly three acre multi-tenant commercial development located along IH 35, just east of the intersection of Walnut Avenue and IH 35. The property lies within the C3 commercial district, fronting the I35 frontage road and Lindy Avenue. There are other commercial properties to the east and west and a residential mobile home park to the south there in the orange. Here are a few photos of the property from across the I-35 frontage road facing the flow of traffic, well, with the direction of traffic rather. And then we can obviously come back to these as we need. And here are a few from across Lindy Avenue of the property. The alternative sign plan proposes seven freestanding multi-tenant monument signs designed to improve site aesthetics, enhance wayfinding and safety, and reduce visual clutter to better serve the business within the development. The signs are located along I-35, set back more than 40 feet from the roadway, and at least 15 feet from the property line, which you can see in this site plan here. A monument sign is proposed at each entrance to identify the businesses within the corresponding section of the development. Each sign will be single-sided, externally illuminated, and include up to six tenant panels. I'm proud of this one. Staff made this little rendering just because sometimes I need to be more visual with it, so I put little stars kind of where they're all gonna go, and then little versions of the sign there as well. THIS IS THE OVERALL LAYOUT OF THE PROPERTY. AS SHOWN, THERE ARE TWO SIGNS AT EACH ENTRANCE. FROM THE I-35 SIDE, THERE'S NONE COMING FROM LINDY. THERE ARE TWO ENTRANCES HERE, BUT NO SIGNAGES PROPOSED AT THOSE JUST ALONG I-35 HERE. THE SIGN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHES ALLOWABLE SIGN TYPES AND SIZES BASED ON A PROPERTY'S ZONING DESIGNATION AND STREET FRONTAGE. GIVEN THE SITE C3 ZONING AND FRONTAGE ALONG I-35, SEVERAL ALTERNATIVE SIGN OPTIONS ARE PERMITTED UNDER THE ORDINANCE AND CAN BE SEEN IN THIS COMPARISON CHART. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ALTERNATIVE SIGN PLAN WITH CONDITIONS. WHILE THE PROPOSAL EXCEEDS THE NUMBER OF MONUMENT SIGNS ALLOWED BY CODE, THE PROPOSED SIGNS ARE INTENDED PRIMARILY FOR WAYFINDING AND TENANT IDENTIFICATION RATHER THAN LARGE-SCALE ADVERTISING. Staff finds the proposal addresses unique site constraints, improves visibility and navigation within the development, minimizes the potential for future non-conforming signage, and provides a reasonable alternative to larger pole signs that would otherwise be allowed on I-35. This concludes staff's presentation. More than happy to answer any questions you may have, and I believe the applicant is here as well.

Wonderful.

Any questions for staff?

I've got a question. So there's existing signs out there currently, right? That is correct. Could you go back to that by chance?

I've got a better one for you. I've got supplementals here. Oh, there we go. This is the existing sign there. As you can see, it's a little large, but there's not much going on with it. It's kind of just advertising the development as a whole.

Is that going to be coming down if we put the new ones up?

It has not been proposed to come down. It has been proposed to just stay as is. It won't be utilized for any additional advertising. It would stay as is currently.

Is that a dirt roadway there off the I-35?

A dirt roadway? It appears someone's been driving there.

And that may be, you know... That may be the purpose of the wayfinding?

Well, and the property line is about this far back, so that could be some... Well, let me ask you this. Yes, sir.

They are unable to create electronic signs. That would have to be a separate variance, correct? Because I just was not sure if we approved this, if six months down the road it's going to be flashing electronic signs.

Sure, sure. Whatever's approved tonight as part of the proposal, it'll be held to that. So whatever you're approving here, it won't. it doesn't have the opportunity to become an electronic sign until an amendment to this approval is made. So it would have to come back to the board in order to change anything that was approved. These are the comparison charts here. The bigger one is allowed by the zoning district. Those do allow electronic message signs, but you'll see one of the conditions is one in lieu of any other freestanding signage.

All right, any other questions for staff?

Actually, there was another existing sign next to that big one. When I drove it, it's like, actually, I think it's where that third star is.

If I covered it up, I apologize. Let's see. Because I have some more of the property.

I think, go back one. No.

As you can see, yeah, we mentioned in the staff report that this property has kind of a history of, Due to the layout of the property, it's tough for folks to, if they miss their entrance, you're going one way on the frontage road. You're hitting the U-turn, coming back. Hopefully you can get it. You're trying to look in, see if it's there. So over the years, some of the tenants in this development have erected their own signage. Staff has addressed that with one of the proposed conditions that no additional temporary signage such as the flags and the banners and things be allowed as a part of this approval. But it's a condition, you guys can take that and run with it or come up with your own or what have you.

Great, any other questions for staff? No, seeing none, if the applicant would like to come up and speak on behalf of your application.

Hey, I'm Sandy Kennedy. Do I need this?

If you wanna. I didn't think I'd be speaking. I own MB Signs. It's a sign nightmare over there, and I think we could probably all agree on that. So we wanted to come up with something that would give the owner, actually.

Yeah, I'm Fred Heimer, I'm the owner.

The ability to draw a full house as far as tenants, because right now I don't think you're full. I think one of the issues that the tenants have is being seen. So like Colton mentioned, they just tend to add and add and add. we feel would create continuity, clarity. Wayfinding is important, especially when you're coming off the highway and you're not going 30 miles an hour. And if you pass these, you're making that loop. And a lot of the tenants, and understandably so, these businesses want to be able to have folks find them. And that was a complaint for sure that I've heard over the years. We were trying to find a solution that would then eliminate all of the visual clutter and put it into some concise and uniform monument signs. To your question earlier, Mr. Mendez, these can't be illuminated the way they're fabricated. They're not made to be lit. And again, like Colton said, that would be an entirely different process and permitting and a new sign. And you probably don't want to do a whole bunch of new signs that soon. What else can I tell you about this? We just wanna clean it up and have it look, it'll raise the caliber of the entire property.

Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead, sir.

Yeah, I was gonna say, I like it. I think it would clean it up a bunch. But what about the current two signs? Thank you. Like Andrea pointed that out. Are y'all gonna keep those two signs or are they coming down?

The one that you pointed out, I think it's just, it's an existing kind of, it's two wooden posts with four by eight on it. So none of that signage would be...

The rock sign, the one that says what it, and I've lived here my whole life, so I've seen that thing, and I'm awesome. I think it's great, but... I wanna make sure that we're going to stick by what you're proposing. So if you receive the permission to do these signs, are we going to enforce, make sure this is being enforced where all these other little signs that are out there are removed, as well as the large business park sign that's currently there, are we going to remove that in lieu of these being replaced?

Yeah, I think the plan is to keep the big one that you're mentioning that identifies the center, Walnut Business Center, and it'll just have basically that. There won't be any other tenant signage on there. This complex has 46 tenants, and if you go back to one of those pictures, you can see where people were driving in front of the buildings, and what would happen is they would they would pass um keep going you had you had a pretty good picture that showed even that's a current picture um but what was happening even that the grass has grown but we put curbs up on the driveways because people were would pass the building and then they would drive along the front of the building it was a real dangerous situation so you know we've owned this for about two years and we've been slowly kind of cleaning it up but that one the one sign that's in the middle of that building. Does this work? Yeah.

Oh, hey, hey, there you go.

Yeah, well, that sign over there. All that trash signage, we're going to get rid of. Everything that's, the only thing we want there are the monument signs, and then we want to keep the one taller sign that's the height of the building that establishes what the complex is, which is Walnut Business Center.

And that staying, we had discussed potentially, you know, giving it a makeover so that it matches the other monument signs just to look like color or we might give it some fresh paint and make sure the lettering is the same as the lettering on the monument signs, which those are only, they look big in the photo. How tall is this one? Five nine, they are five feet tall.

It's the size, but how tall is that building? 15 foot? Oh, the building's that tall?

I think they're about 15, 16.

So that other sign is 15 or 16 foot then?

Yeah, yeah. And these will not, these look taller in the picture than they will be. They'll be right at five feet. There you go. Yeah.

and you're only gonna put six, right? And it's one-sided or is it on the back as well?

They're single-side. Single-side.

Yes, it's actually seven new signs that would be a part of this proposal.

And the seventh sign is the only one we needed. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, so.

Six business signs. Six panels per sign. Correct. It's worth pointing out here that Sandy just reminded me of. Our code does allow, and actually, Sandy, if I could see the clicker here. I have a extra slide towards the end. Our code allows, in addition to any of the other signage, it's a fun provision for multi-tenants. In the brackets on the lower end of the right piece, this is a section for multi-tenant signs. Our code allows one of these five foot high, 32 square foot monument signs at each entrance. We're essentially proposing two per entrance. So there's five entrances total. correct yeah so we could be putting them off lindy as well um by our by right um so we're the applicants are not pursuing that option rather they're they're opting for the two per entrance along 35. okay i have a question for colton sorry while this is thinking my brain is not firing on all cylinders right now um see it left

One of the reasons for signage at each entrance, which really we're only asking for one more, otherwise we're not using Lindy, is because they don't connect. And so down each driveway are different tenants.

And I'm sure Mr. Hymer is going to make it look gorgeous with all kinds of pretty plants that aren't going to take a lot of water.

Yeah. No, we're really trying to clean it up. I don't know if you saw this three or four years ago. It was the Wild West. I mean, people putting signs everywhere, people tacking signs. So that one, the one permanent monument sign that we're, you know, that we would like to keep. somebody attached a digital sign to it. I mean, it was just, anything went. And tenants just were, like even that sign over on, like that right there, we'll get rid of. I mean, it's just, they just do whatever they want. And so we're really trying to just kind of establish a sign standard.

Great. Did you think of your question? No. Okay. Okay.

I got one for Colton. How does this 32 square foot times seven, how does that equal out to one monument sign? Don't make me do math. For the square feet. The big pole signs. Is it under or over?

I can do that quick math for you, but I do know that the taller pole signs can go up to 400 square feet. Okay. So let's see. We're doing 32 times seven. I thought you could do that in your head. You would think. That's 224 square feet total.

So it's under?

And that's not inclusive of the existing monument. Those are just the new ones, but that goes under the 400. Thank you.

I remembered a question.

There we go.

Just for clarification's sake, can you tell us what the city's recommended variances or addendums are to the approval?

Oh yes, and I apologize if I don't have a slide for it back in Regan T. We have two proposed staff conditions. The first one being no additional freestanding signage be allowed on the property, so no new permanent signs. That doesn't include wall signage done through permitting and all the, you know, Number two, the following temporary sign types will not be allowed on the property. And we've kind of addressed that, that we're gonna take a lot of the quote trash signs down. So those would include inflatable signs and tethered balloons, pennants, streamers, flags, moving signs, those little tall teardrop guys, beacons, lights going around, and banners attached to the wall. So any kind of those typical temporary signage.

Cool, thank you.

Yes, ma'am. I like it all. Thank you, thank you both. I appreciate it. Before we have our discussion, I'm gonna open up the public quorum. Anyone else like to speak in favor or in opposition? All okay? All right, so we're gonna close that portion and get to our personal discussions over here. I like the way it's gonna look.

I think it has cleaned it up quite a bit.

Yeah, I like the way that looks. I know exactly about people pulling in and pulling out. That resonates with me. So I like that there's additional wayfinding. I like all the things.

I do. My only concern is that one large sign they want to leave up there. And just because something looks so gorgeous, all these new signs, why do we need an additional 15-foot sign on there? That would be my only concern.

I tend to agree with that because it has the Walnut Business Park on the bottom of each of these monuments.

Was there a consideration to use that one at all? Sorry, I guess they sat down. Because it looks big enough to actually put one of the signs within that monument.

And I can tell you, at least from my personal experience, pardon me Fred. Sorry. And then we can open it back up for you. All right, sorry.

I've gotta keep it in order here.

Sandy and I have been working for close to a year or so on this property, figuring out different things that could be allowed by code, potential wall signage variations, utilizing the big existing monument sign. But for what they're intending to accomplish with this, with the clearly identifying where businesses are so that they don't miss that turnaround, we're generally agreeable to that. So the sign is pointless, really, is what you're telling us?

I'm just making sure, because if we make a motion, I wanna make sure that we're in agreeance.

And y'all have the ability to add or remove conditions as well, as you see fit, or propose them and have that discussion with the property owner.

So why not take a down?

That'll deflect a friend.

Let's open the public forum back up so the owner can come up and discuss why he would not like to remove it.

Thank you. We feel it's necessary to identify the project. So if you do drive by, you'll be able to see that this is Walnut Business Center. We're not gonna put any tenant signage on there. It's just a tall monument that says walnut business. The walnut business that's on the small monument signs is at the very base. And so you could drive right by the project and not potentially see that. And again, these are not very tall. So I do think it's important to, and again, we want uniformity. We're going to clean this place up, continue to clean it up over time, and I just think that's an important component to identify the project. I really do. Because you can drive by it and you may have to circle around, but at least you'll know that, oh, that's Walnut Business Center. Then you can go back and look for your individual tenants.

And if I can add just quickly, can you kind of click? Sorry. I just want to be sure. It is deceiving because I'm sitting here looking at these renderings. Those look so much bigger than they are. There was an aerial of... Pardon me. So you can kind of see it there. It's so far, it doesn't seem it with the renderings of the new monuments, but that big sign is so far back. That was part of why when Colton and I were trying to every which way but loose find a way to do this without asking for an alternate sign plan. It just, the visibility is so poor with how far back it is. It doesn't seem it here, but if you've driven by it, next time you drive by there, you'll notice it because it'll be in your brain. But, because this is really small. That's, I think, a six foot four person, six foot five person that we put in here. They're not as big as they appear in the rendering. And so that big sign in the back, I can't find a good one. It's way further back than these small ones. It looks more visible than it actually is. Yeah. All right.

Do we have any other questions? So I'm gonna close the public hearing. I'm gonna close the city part. Our discussion, do we have discussion that needs to take place? Do we have a motion that needs to take place?

Paired with a motion, should I not tamp out any more discussion?

Any more discussion down there? You're good?

I wrote this down since my brain has not been firing. Oh, goodness.

All right, can you please read your motion out?

I would like to make a motion to approve with the following conditions. That there is no new signage added to the existing brick sign. All current temporary signage is removed and temporary signage is not permitted moving forward. and that there is no tenant signage attached to the existing business walnut sign. It stays as it looks.

Okay, so you're saying that the existing sign stays the same, no cleaning up or anything?

No tenant sign is added to the current. I'll start again. I'd like to make a motion that the request is approved with the following conditions, that no temporary signage is allowed no new tenant signage is allowed to the existing business, walnut business sign, the brick sign that sits, and that any temporary signage that's up currently comes down.

Wonderful. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Steve Quidley, second. Mm-hmm. She cut that one out. That was understand how it was read, correct? Do we need to clarify that or was that understood?

Yes, and Colton, were there any other recommendations from the city side that were not accounted for in that motion?

No, ma'am, all our conditions were accounted for. Wonderful.

Plus the addition of that there's no tenant signage added to the existing brick Walnut Business Center sign.

Wonderful. Can I ask for that to be read back to us by city so we can verify it's the exact way that Ms. Jake Lee said it?

We will try. My chicken scratch. So your motion was to approve the request with our staff conditions that were no new freestanding permanent signage and no additional temporary signage. And you also added the condition of no additional tenant signage be added to the existing monument sign and no new, and all that the current, I'm sorry, and all current temporary signage on the property be removed. Did that capture?

Yeah, not on the property, but in this area. I can't tell them not to take banners off their garages, but yes, I believe that is correct.

With that being said. Hang on, one more thing.

When you made your staff recommendations, you said all these other things, though, too. You had, like, the little flying things and the electronic. That falls under temporary signage. Okay, all right. I just want to make sure. That's inclusive.

No bubble guys, no.

That's a good question, though. Can we put that in the motion that Andrea said no? Just so we have that in writing, please. We're going to allude to it.

That guy.

Can we please get a roll call?

Member Quidley? Oh, I'm sorry, I don't believe we had a second.

Yes, he seconded. I seconded, yes.

Oh, sorry, thank you. Member Quidley?

Yes.

Member Ramf? Aye. Member Rykenow?

Aye.

Member Jakely? Aye. Member Mund?

Aye. Congratulations, this is passed. With that being said.

Excuse me. Okay, and one moment. So because there was no motion either to approve or deny on the first item, it was as if it were tabled. So it could be brought up at a future meeting for further discussion. Was that the intent of?

So they can go back and revisit how they're gonna present it.

Good deal, thank you so much. In six months, like,

Well, they could come back in two months and represent this with a different option.

With a new different option, yes.

We didn't cancel it.

New information.

Yes. So the six months provision that was read at the beginning was not triggered because there was no motion.

No, they don't have to wait six months because we did not deny it. There was not a motion.

Understood.

So they could come back next month and say they'd like to do it differently and do this. They would still have to pay the fee again for the city, but they would not have to... wait six months, or go see.

I appreciate that clarification.

Yeah, so just clarification, there was no motion or second. Yes. Is it denied at that point? No. Okay.

It is as if it's just tabled indefinitely.

So we didn't do a dirty thing for them. They can come back and give us a different viewpoint on this, and that way we can still discuss it with them.

Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you.

All right, with that being said,

We are done for the night.