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 development-related requests. Please note, to make comments during the allotted time for citizens' communication or for an item posted on the agenda, all individuals are asked to sign in at the front desk coming in the lobby. If you've not done so, please do so now. This time, I'd like to request people turn off all your phones and electronic devices unless you're an emergency on-call personnel. Victoria, could we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Taylor?

Here.

Commissioner Nolte? Here. Commissioner Mathis? Here. Commissioner Allen? Here. Commissioner Henry?

Here.

Commissioner Brazier? Here. Commissioner Sonnier?

Here. Thank you. We have a quorum. We'll move on. Do I have a motion for the approval of the minutes of our last meeting?

Make a motion to approve the minutes as written. Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries, the amendments are approved. Citizens' communication, this is time to address the Planning Commission on any issue or items not on the agenda. It is a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act for the Commission to address, discuss, or take action on any items not on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes and must state their name and whether they are resident or non-resident For the record, anyone who wishes to speak on issues or items that are not on the agenda, please come forward now. Seeing none, we will go on to our meeting. Individual items for consideration. The general procedure for each case the commission will hear is as follows. I will announce a request. Staff presents a summary of the case and will answer any questions asked by the commissioners. The applicant or agent will be asked to come forward and advocate for their request. The chair will open the public meeting or request public comment. Each speaker will be limited to three minutes. Total time for the item is 30 minutes. We reserve the right to change those items times. And if we have to, we will move that. We will ask people who are in favor of the item to come forward first. And secondly, after they have all speaking, we would ask people that oppose the item. I will then close the public hearing and discuss in a discussion of a motion or a potential vote. It's important that you all know that regardless of the outcome, each zoning case will go to city council, the final decision makers, with the commissioner's recommendation. We'll go to the items on our agenda.

Chair, before we do this, could we start with the election of officers?

Oh, you're correct. It's right here in front of me. We need to elect a new chair and elect a vice chair. Any motions?

I'd like to nominate Jerry Saulnier as chair and Randall Alsup as vice chair.

And actually, if I could just step in, can we do the chair first and then the vice chair, if you guys are all okay with that? And we actually don't need seconds. So if you guys just want to nominate, that's great. Thanks.

All right. So the chair has been nominated by Chad Nelty. Any other nominations?

Yes, I would like to nominate Chase Taylor as chair.

Okay. That is accepted. Any other nominations? We will vote and we'll do that with a roll call. Vote for either person. Can't vote for both.

Commissioner Sonia.

I will vote for myself.

Commissioner Taylor.

I'll vote for myself.

Commissioner Nolte.

Jerry Sonnier.

Commissioner Mathis.

Jerry Sonnier.

Commissioner Allen. Taylor. Commissioner Henry.

Jerry Sonnier.

Commissioner Brazier. Taylor. That is four for Sonnier, three for Chase.

Motion carries, and we have a new chair. That would be Jerry Saunier. Do I hear any nominations for Vice Chair?

RANDALL HALL IS UP.

Any other nominations for Vice Chair?

I'd like to nominate Commissioner Rudy. She's not here. Can I say something about my nomination? Thank you. So I think Commissioner Rudy has presented herself as a very intelligent, she researches the items, and importantly, she seems very unentangled with development interests in the city. And she's proven to be a very, so far in her role, a very good commissioner, operates with a lot of integrity. And I think it's important that we have someone that doesn't have to recuse themselves frequently as Commissioner Alsup seems to do. So that's my statement on that. Thank you.

Okay, we will have a vote. If you could take a roll call, Victoria.

Commissioner Sonnier.

I will vote for Randall Alsup.

Commissioner Taylor.

Commissioner Rudy.

Commissioner Nolte.

Randall Alsup.

Commissioner Mathis.

Randall Alsup.

Commissioner Allen? I will vote for Vicki Rudy. Commissioner Henry?

Commissioner Allsup?

Commissioner Brazier?

Commissioner Rudy.

That is four for Allsup, four for Rudy, or three for Rudy.

It's three for Rudy and four for Allsup? Correct. Allsup is the new chair. Thank you, commissioners. Vice chair. Vice chair, I'm sorry. Individual items for consideration. SUP 26-173, public hearing and recommendation to city council requested by Elevate Permit Group on behalf of Jeremy Colburn to rezone approximately 0.3 of an acre out of city block 5092 southwest part of lot 29 from R2 single family and two family district to MU-A SUP low density mixed use district with a special use permit to allow short term rental of a residence currently addressed at 256 Austin Street.

Thank you, Chair. Amanda Mashinsky with the City of New Braunfels Planning and Neighborhood Services Department. The property is approximately one third of an acre on the southeast side of Austin Street and is approximately one half block northeast of Chrysostom Santa Rosa Hospital. It's bordered by R2 and C1 zoning. Adjacent land uses consist of residences as well as commercial properties. The 1900s residence is roughly 1,050 square feet with three bedrooms and two bathrooms. Per the zoning ordinance, the minimum required off-street parking is three spaces. And as you can see in the photograph, there is sufficient room for that requirement to be met. The single family and two family duplex district, which is R2, is intended to preserve low density residential neighborhoods. Short term rentals are not allowed by right or by special use permit overlay within residential zoning districts such as R2. The applicant is proposing to rezone from R2 to MUA, which is our low intensity mixed use district, and concurrently apply for the special use permit to allow the short term rental use. The MUA zoning was selected because it is a mixed use zoning district that allows both the use of the residents as well as the use of short term rental. MUA also allows other types of land uses such as multi-family offices and additional low intensity non-residential uses. The immediate surrounding area is primarily developed with single family homes as you can see on the zoning exhibit here. Rezoning the property to a mixed use district would introduce a broader range of potential uses than what currently exists in the neighborhood. The proposed rezoning would introduce opportunities for non-residential uses mid-block within the established residential area of the neighborhood without contributing to a broader mixed use or redevelopment objective. The request would result in a mix of uses and development intensity that could have potential negative impacts to abutting properties and the neighborhood's residential fabric. Staff recommends denial. Public hearing notices were sent to 20 properties within 200 feet of the request. As of right now, opposition stands at about 14%. Thus concludes my presentation. Is there any questions for staff?

Any questions for staff?

Is the denial based on the surrounding zoning?

The surrounding zoning but also the fact that it is mid-block. If it were to be a corner block or if it were to be a corner lot, we could maybe potentially consider it. Or if they had chosen CO as another option, potentially that could be looked at. But given the residential character of this neighborhood, that's why we're recommending denial. Okay, thanks.

Didn't we see a comment from the neighbor that they were against it? Yes. That's what I thought.

Haven't we had a couple of requests this year that were mid-block in a residential area that were requesting the same zoning so that they could go?

Not MUA. We've had a couple request CO, and this one's a little bit different because they are right next to a commercial district. However, given the residential character of the neighborhood, being that the next two properties overlook like residences, you can kind of deduce as to why we are recommending denial.

As I recall, all of those were denied.

Staff recommended denial as well as denied at city council for a few of them, yes.

Any other questions for staff? The applicant is here and would like to speak. Please come forward.

Thank you guys very much. I appreciate your time. Just to go through and walk you through this.

Would you please announce yourself for the record?

Excuse me?

Would you please announce yourself at the record?

My name is Jeremy Coburn. I'm the owner of the property. I'm asking for the proposed rezoning. I believe the proposed rezoning will allow the property to serve an important community need by providing short-term accommodations, as close as we are to the hospital there, for patients, for physicians, traveling nurses. This use supports the local healthcare system, reduces travel burdens for individuals, receiving medical care and offers a comfortable home-like alternative to traditional lodging. Additionally, visitors staying at the property will contribute to local economy by supporting nearby businesses. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding neighborhood while providing meaningful public benefits that align with the community's healthcare and economic development goals. Now, I will say, you guys did see that map up there. This property, the backside of my property is a parking lot. The left side of my property is a commercial building. The property just to the left of me that I own as well at 242 East Austin is already zoned commercial. So claiming that it's in the center of a neighborhood, it's not actually a middle residential lot in the center of a neighborhood. I'm already positioned next to commercial buildings and there's commercial use across the street from me as well. So I'm not asking for anything that's not currently happening right there already around me. If this was streets over or neighborhoods over, I could completely understand the requested denial, but being that it's where it is in line with everything else that's around it, I don't see a reason why we would not wanna have what I would consider an asset to the community like this. It's a completely renovated property for public use, walking distance to the hospital. We limit the property to no more than six guests, that's four adults and two children. The floor plan, it's a king bed in the master, it's a queen in one of the bedrooms and bunk beds in the other. The driveway has ample space for any parking that would need to be there, which means we wouldn't be street parking or taking up any street right away by any means. You can see in any research done on the property, everything I did to the property, I completely renovated it. I pulled my permits and did everything compliant with the city and with the request of the city. All of it was done the proper way. I'm local to the Hill Country. I've been in the Hill Country since 96. I went to school in San Marcos. I'm looking for the betterment of the community as a whole. I wasn't aware that this was actually the process, but I'm glad that it is because I get to kind of speak my case, so I appreciate your time and even hearing me out. We have the utmost respect, my wife and I, for the city of New Braunfels, the public service figures, and all of the authoritative organizations. We want to comply and be an asset for the city, not a nuisance. There are other similar properties on the street, respectfully, just not as nice or as new as this one. There's no options for anybody coming for all of the medical facilities right around there. This is a family-owned property. and operated by myself and my wife. We plan to hire local cleaning crews, local yard maintenance operations. Our ultimate goal is to raise the value of the neighborhood. We have very strict rules and are available personally to handle any issues or complaints that arise. The neighbors and neighboring properties are important to us, very important to us. Benefits. It supports local economic growth, visitors staying in the area, again, contribute to nearby restaurants, grocery stores, pharmacies, gas stations, and provides a more affordable home-like environment for families facing extended hospital stays and medical treatments. And the reason I say that is that's my focus. My focus and my target audience is right there all around the hospital. And as I pursued the property and did some due diligence, and if you guys look into any due diligence right around there, there are no options outside of some very outdated properties that would need heavy repair, in my opinion. The short-term rental will increase local tax revenues through lodging, taxes, and property improvements, providing funds that can support public services and community infrastructure. In conclusion, I will show you guys just so that you see the pictures of the property. This is not a dilapidated property that we're just trying to put out there. This is put hard work into this, a lot of time, effort, financial means as well to help better the street, the neighborhood, and the options that are available. Members of the Planning Commission and City Council, I respectfully request your consideration of this rezoning application because it represents an opportunity to meet a demonstrated community need while providing a tangible economic benefit to the City of New Braunfels. The purpose promotes responsible party stewardship. Our property will be maintained to a high standard, monitored for compliance with all applicable ordinances, and operated with clear occupancy policies that respect the neighboring properties. Rather than diminishing the character of the neighborhood, this use will preserve and enhance property value while providing a valuable service for the community. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your approval of this rezoning request. I appreciate your time. I thank you for your time, consideration, and commitment to making decisions to strengthen our community.

Thank you. Can I answer any questions? You have questions for the applicant.

I got a couple.

Yes, sir.

Sir, can y'all bring that map back up, please?

I have a map here for you, sir, if I can.

So are you telling me you live next door?

I own the property at 242, which is the property, if you're looking at the map directly to my left of it.

Do you live there?

No, sir, I don't live there.

You don't live there long term?

No, sir, I just own that property.

So there was a gentleman that was against this, our family, did you speak to that person?

I didn't know that anybody was against it. I did speak to several of the commercial people around me, fully supporting.

I'm sure a commercial person would have supported it. I'm more concerned about the resident. Do you know what the resident that said they were against this, do you know which lots there is? Because I saw it was indicated on the map. There's three. I think there's three lots.

It's all the same location.

Yeah, so on the map, it's properties number 11 as well as 12. It looks like the property owner for number 11 owns two properties.

So, okay, I'm confused then because you said you had the property right next door to this.

Yes, sir.

He owns number seven.

Oh, number seven. Yes, sir.

Okay, well, you're going back towards the eye doctor, which is commercial, so that wouldn't, so basically I get, well, they wouldn't be objected to it. Okay, thank you.

No problem.

That's all I have.

Thank you. Appreciate your time, thank you.

How did you pick MUA instead of a C zoning?

I was advised by the council that that was my only option to go through. I wasn't very familiar with the process. Getting into it, honestly, I didn't, I didn't know there was even a process without a homeowners association being involved. And then when I found out the city was involved, I contacted them. They said, this is what I would need to do. This is the process that I had to go through to do it.

And so followed everything they asked to the T. For clarification, staff advised either CO or MUA.

Gotcha. And sir, if I can say three or one person that owns three properties, I get it. But out of all the others, Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

This is a public hearing. If anyone else would like to come and speak for this item, please step forward.

Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Josefa Sevillo, Jody Sevillo, and I am a resident of New Braunfels. I live at 590 Cross River Street, and I have overnight rentals on both sides of my property. So I know what it is to have overnight rental, and believe me, they do not bother me at all. I have a whole condo of residents and that live next door to me, and I don't have a problem with that. And I feel that this house should be made into an overnight rental, especially since the hospital is nearby and people who are someone in the hospital long term, it would be ideal for them. But also, I've lived here in New Brunswick over 40 years, And I know what it is to have the summer and people coming in and out. And I've never really seen any kind of problem having to do with people that are renting here and just coming to visit. They're just coming to have a good time. They're not coming to destroy New Braunfels. But anyway, I approve this and I think it's a good idea, especially since it's right there by the hospital. And like I said, I have overnight rentals all around me. I live right there five blocks from Schlitterbahn. and there is no problem. And I live on the Guadalupe River, so I have people canoeing and tubing and all of that right in my very backyard, and that has not been a problem, thank God. So I do approve this overnight rental. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak for this item?

Which property was she at on the map?

It's several blocks away. It's on the other side of town.

Oh, okay. 590 Cross River Street. My name is Carlos Cedillo, and I live at 590 Cross River Street also with my mother here, and I speak in favor of this rezoning. I question why the city can take a position against... this, why am I not impartial? I really question that. Where's the impartiality in this? So we need to look at this fresh as one property. This gentleman has put a lot of work into this property to make it very nice and efficient and And there's no problem with somebody living there short term as long as they need to, whether they're dealing with a hospital or not, whether they just want to stay by there. It's very close to Schlitterbahn as well. So there shouldn't be any reason. I understand that there's a lot of this hotel taxes and that the hotels probably don't want their business taken away. I don't see how this could possibly be taking away business from the bigger hotels. This has nothing to do with the weekend rental or a week. that's gonna add to the city and the city budget rather than be something negative. There's no negative here for the city. And I question why she came up and said that the city is against this. Why is this not impartial? It's like we're already fighting a wall that's been put up here between us because of that. Why can't they be impartial and just decide house by house, case per case? Understood that... A lot of the neighborhood, of course, they don't want it full of all short-term rentals. But on a case-by-case basis, this is definitely a positive situation here. And we have property on the river. We're surrounded by these already, these short-term rentals, and someday we will try again to have our property at 590 Cross River Street made into a short-term rental. If you look on a case-by-case basis, you would say, of course, this is a perfect property. Our house on 590 Cross River also is a perfect case to have an overnight rental. Nobody, none of our neighbors, is going to be bothered by it at all. Our neighbor across the street was our great friend and she passed away and her house is empty and the other houses will not be affected at all. And if we're just surrounded by commercial properties, he's got commercially owning the property next to it, he could probably just merge the two properties together and it all be commercial like that.

Thank you for your comment. Your time is up.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else that would like to come forward and speak for this item? Anyone that would like to speak against this item, please come forward. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments, questions?

I have a question. What's the closest short-term rental to this property, approximately?

The closest short-term rental is actually more than two blocks over, and it is already zoned C1. It's off of Union Street.

So it's not an STR?

It is commercial. It's an SUP for an STR, but the zoning was already C1.

Okay.

In this case, the zoning is currently R2, and they're asking for MUA with the SUP.

So two blocks, that's... More than two blocks. More than two blocks is the closest. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Chair Sonnier?

If I might add, it was mentioned about the commercial office district that the applicant wasn't aware, and that may have been either misunderstanding or miscommunication, but as a part of this request, as before you tonight, if the Planning Commission was more inclined or interested in considering CO, that could be considered as a change to the request this evening because it's within the range of zoning that from what was requested and what's currently So the Planning Commission could, if they were in favor of that, recommend a change to CO instead of MUA with the short-term rental. Just wanted to make that clarification.

Okay, as I understand it, then we could recommend to City Council we would recommend a CO. Yes.

Now typically we ask the applicant if they would be in favor of that, but it's up to the commission and they could make that consideration and recommendation.

To the applicant, would you be in favor of us changing that or recommending CO?

I'm not sure exactly what that is.

CO is a commercial office district. It is a, I term it a transitional district, but that's just a term of art that I use. But it allows for both commercial office development and a lower intensity of non-residential use, but also includes residential use. It allows for single-family duplexes and multi-family, as well as short-term rentals within that district. So that's why it's one of the districts that can also be requested when requesting a zone change for short-term rental.

Good to know. Yes, I'd be open. It gives you the same capability. Yes, sir. All right, thank you. Commissioners?

One more question for staff. Can y'all clarify that if this application had been made for CO with the SUP, you kind of alluded to earlier that that would potentially be seen more favorably by the city. Can you tell us definitively, like, is that something that you would endorse or not?

I would be hesitant to say completely yes city would. And when we say the city, we're talking about the planning staff that is reviewing the request and making a recommendation. It's simply that. It's not the city as a whole saying yes, yes you can, or yes the city, the elected officials, and all of the staff want it to go one way or another. It's just the... the planning staff that's reviewing the application and making a recommendation based upon the codes and the adopted ordinances and the adopted plans that are with the city. That being said, CO, Commercial Office, is a less intense district than MUA. Therefore, the planning staff just on its surface would consider that to be more favorable of a district for the base zoning to be rezoned to allow the applicant to move forward with a short-term rental request.

Especially given that right next door we have C1. So it'd be a little bit more of a favorable transition district, as Matthew said. In addition... In addition, as Matthew said, it would allow for more of the office use. So let's say that the applicant were to get the CO zoning and sell tomorrow, and a lawyer's office wants to move in. They typically do the whole residential to commercial conversion, and that typically has a lot less traffic. CO is more so of the smaller office use that we see here around town.

So yeah. But just to clarify, the applicant isn't wanting commercial. The applicant is wanting to use this primarily as an STR, right?

Correct. But again, the property could be sold.

Understood. Just to understand the underlying reason for the denial of the current application and zoning. And again, I know you can't speak of the CC1 application. but is it because it is a broader scope, or does the STR have any part of that?

It's not really the STR that has any part of it, because if this property were already zoned commercial, then I could see us bringing it forward, of course, with a proper review, and potentially recommending approval. If he were to apply for the property that he owns that's right next door, I can see that happening. But for this property in general, we're thinking of the more long term of the zoning. So we're looking at the MUA as a whole or the CO as a whole. But right now we're talking about the MUA. Again, if the property were to be sold tomorrow, once he got the zoning, Right.

There's no telling what that could be. So what is the main reason for not wanting the MUA?

If you look at the list of uses that are in the district comparison table, they are a lot more intense uses that we would see within this neighborhood. So we're trying to maintain the character, especially since it's already an established neighborhood. In addition, For MUA, you're more likely to see restaurants and bars, potentially even convenience stores. So we have to think about those long-term uses. Because again, they can sell it tomorrow, the next buyer could come in, completely tear down the house, if they so choose. and go with any of those allowed by right. Thank you. Thank you for protecting that.

Another good way to just give an illustration of that is CO district. It does have a shorter list of uses. One of those that is not included is retail sales. So whereas MUA allows retail sales. So MUA, you could have a, you know, any kind of retail sales store that could open up on that property, whereas CO would not allow it. So it's sort of a less intense district.

But just to note, the applicant was not unaware of, at least that was his statement, unaware that he could, because we're here now. And so maybe note his comments that he didn't know.

It was clearly stated to the applicant that they could choose either CO or MUA. We can't really steer which one they have to choose, because it is ultimately up to the applicant to decide which zoning they want to choose. We can only list which ones will allow for both the residential as well as the short-term rental.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion.

Please.

I would like to motion to recommend approval with a base zoning of CO with all other staff recommendations.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Could you do a roll call, please?

Just to clarify, that was Henry that seconded? Is that correct?

Correct. Okay.

Chair Saunier?

Yes.

Commissioner Taylor?

Aye.

Commissioner Nolte?

Aye.

Commissioner Mathis?

No.

Commissioner Allen? Aye. Commissioner Henry?

Aye.

Commissioner Brazier? Aye. Motion carries.

Motion carries. Thank you. That will move on to City Council. PZ26-0214, public hearing and recommendation to city council requested by Will Baker of AWE RB Limited of approximately 0.3 tenths of an acre out of the Starlight Terrace Subdivision, Unit 1, Block 2, Block 9 from M1 Light Industrial District to R2, R-2A Single Family and Two Family District, currently addressed at 101038 and 1042 Seidel Street.

Thank you, Chair. Amanda Miszynski with the Planning and Neighborhood Services Department. The subject property is approximately one third of an acre located on the northwest side of Seidel Street within the Starlight Terrace subdivision. This property was plotted in, or the subdivision itself was plotted in 1972. Many of the lots on Seidel Street are developed with single family and two family duplex residences and they are bordered by M1 as well as R2A zoning with adjacent land uses consisting of both stick built and manufactured homes. The M1 light industrial district formerly allowed residential uses. However, the ordinance was amended in 2019 to remove residential uses from the industrial district to preserve M1 for industrial development and as well to protect residential areas from the potential negative impacts associated with industrial activity. As a result, existing residential uses within M1 zoning districts became legal non-conforming uses. In spring of 2023, a subsequent ordinance amendment clarified that existing homes in M-1 would be allowed to develop, replace, rebuild, repair, and otherwise improve their properties without standard nonconforming limitations. The proposed rezoning would remove the existing industrial zoning designation and formally align the property with the residential use and development pattern already established within the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed rezoning aligns with our comprehensive plan, strategic plan, as well as our fiscal impact land use analysis. Staff recommends approval of the proposal. Staff sent out notices in accordance with state law to, I believe it was eight owners of property within 200 feet of the request. Thus far, we have only received one response in favor. Thus concludes my presentation. Do we have any questions?

Have we had several people on this street apply for the same zoning because there was a issue with the home insurance?

Yeah, so that was actually about four years ago. That was one of my first cases. So yes, exactly right. This was- Where it was zoned MU or- M1, yeah.

M1, they couldn't get homeowners insurance.

Exactly, and that's what prompted the whole amendment in 2023 to basically allow these properties to basically fix up their homes if they so choose without having to be hindered by the M1A or the M1 zoning.

Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for staff?

So that's probably the driver behind this because there's already a house there that, yeah, and so it's right now, what's it called, a legal?

Legal nonconforming.

Legal nonconforming. So there's probably something like that going on. Okay. Yeah. Thanks.

Thank you, Amanda. Is the applicant here and would like to come up and speak? Please do so.

Yes sir, I'm William Baker with AWBE and that's exactly why we're doing the rezoning is insurance issues. We're changing the insurance and the insurance company would like us to get the proper zoning for the property.

It's good to have house insurance.

Huh?

It's good to have house insurance.

Yes it is, yes sir.

Thank you, any questions for the applicant? Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to come and speak in favor of this? Item, anyone would like to speak against it? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, any discussion, motions? Motion to approve.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Could you please take a roll call?

Chair Sonnier?

Yes.

Commissioner Taylor.

Aye.

Commissioner Nolte.

Aye.

Commissioner Mathis. Yes. Commissioner Allen. Yes. Commissioner Henry.

Aye.

Commissioner Brazier. Aye. Motion carries.

Motion carries. It is approved. We'll go on to city council. SUP 26-206, public hearing and recommendation to city council requested by Miles Payne on behalf of Samantha Richards, executor of the estate of John William Turner. to rezone approximately two acres out of the city block 3022 from M1 Light Industrial District to M1 SUP Light Industrial District with special use permit for one residence with an allowance for short-term rental. It is currently addressed at 474 North Gunther Avenue. Mary?

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Mary Lovell with Neighborhood and Community Planning. The applicant is requesting to add a special use permit overlay to the existing M1 light industrial zoning district to allow one single family residence with an allowance for a short-term rental on approximately two acres. The property is currently improved with an approximately 800 square foot equipment shed and it's a little bit dilapidated so I anticipate that that would be removed in the future. It also contains, the property contains a substantial amount of mature trees. The property is located along the east side of North Gunther Avenue, approximately 150 feet east of the intersection of Gunther and the railroad. The property is surrounded primarily by industrial zoning to the east and west, and the Town Creek planned development district is to the north, and of course the railroad is to the south. There's also the R2 zoning to the south as well. Surrounding land uses also include a parking lot that's associated with the New Braunfels Smokehouse. There's also undeveloped property to the west and east, and also you have the Dry Camel Creek at the northern end of the property. This survey provides a little more detail of the property boundaries and some of the easements that are located on the property. One important consideration for this request is that there is a significant portion of the property that is within the 100 year floodplain, while the remainder of the property is within the 500 year floodplain. We do have that floodplain listed on the aerial map that I showed earlier. Because of this floodplain constraint, the applicant is indicating that he would like to place that one single family residence with an allowance for a short-term rental. He sees this as like a low intensity use that would give the property some ability to come into development without impacting the site as an industrial use would. The property also has an access easement along the railroad and most likely he will need to obtain permission from the railroad company to pave over that easement at building permitting time and or create a curb cut there. As I said before, rather than developing the property with a more intensive industrial use, the applicant is requesting just that permission for the one residence only. In the future, the applicant is interested in developing an art gallery. which would be allowed under the current M1 zoning district. However, development of an art gallery or any other use that is allowed in M1 would require many more additional access requirements and commercial development standards. And rather than leave that property vacant, the applicant's request is just to allow this low intensity use. If approved, the short-term rental would be required to meet all of the city's regulations to include the annual registration, fire inspections, insurance requirements, as well as pay hotel occupancy taxes. Staff recommends approval of the request with the conditions noted in the staff report. And the request meets several goals of envisioning new Braunfels, which include encouraging fiscally responsible land use pattern, providing flexible lodging opportunities, promoting healthy job to housing balance, and supporting a variety of housing options, as well as preserving the native vegetation where it's possible. Staff mailed out notices to 19 property owners within 200 feet of the request. And at the time the agenda was posted, staff had received two responses in favor and one response in opposition. After the agenda was posted, staff received additional responses in the mail and opposition is now at 22%. Therefore, a super majority vote of the city council would be required to approve the request unless that opposition changes between now and the city council meeting. This ends my presentation and if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them at this time.

Mary, I have a question on the access easement. Is that property owned by the railroad or the other property owner? Or the easement actually is?

I believe that property, we can go to the survey quickly. It appears that that access easement is outside the property boundaries of this property. So it would be owned by the railroad.

Okay. Okay.

So when you say access easement, are you talking about what's actually labeled here as a utility easement?

It's actually an access easement. There is in the deed, I don't have that text, but there's an access easement. There it is. There it is, it says right-of-way easement 15 foot wide. There it is. Thank you.

Can you hear me now? Okay, sure. So my question is about the easement. There's a little bit of a dip going down with the drainage easement there too. Is there enough room for it?

There would need to be some work and some studies done, drainage studies as well, and like I mentioned, probably working with the railroad as well to, you know, there might be a- Has the owner reached out to the railroad? I'm not aware at this time, but he's here to present as well.

Any other questions for Steph?

If the railroad denies allowing him to pave it, does that change the city's response of being in favor to being against?

So the city has requirements that any driveway would need to be paved, but there is a pathway through a variance that could potentially be a solution if, for instance, the railroad did not approve paving that.

All right.

So that would be the next step for the applicant is to go through a variance process.

And going back to the in favor opposition map, can you go back to that map and tell us the ones that came in recently? Which numbers of those?

So I believe it was... nine, 11, and seven recently were turned in.

So this is an updated map?

Yes.

Okay, okay. And again, the city, y'all are recommending this?

We're recommending approval due to meeting the strategic and envisioning New Braunfels goals. And also we feel like it's a good pathway for interim development because in the future there may not be the possibility to have all of the access requirements that would be needed for any kind of other development in the future.

And as it's currently zoned right now, the M1 SUP, does that allow short-term rentals as it stands right now or no?

No, the short-term rental portion is also a request. So the SUP is for an overlay for an additional use over and above what M1 allows and the short-term rental as well.

Okay, and what is the closest short-term rental to the property?

There are some to the southwest, but I don't have the map for those.

Super. And would you think it's one block, two blocks? You have no idea?

I didn't take a distance. I apologize.

So y'all approved it, recommended it, but you didn't. We don't know if there's any STRs near it.

You know, it's really, let me pull up the short terminal map. Bear with me.

If I could chime in there for a moment just to help with Commissioner, you had said that we didn't know exactly where another short-term rental was and yet there was a recommendation for approval. Recommendations of approval are not based upon the proximity of other short-term rentals. At least that wouldn't be the only thing that we would take into consideration. So we can certainly gather that information because we have on record where the legal short-term rentals are and provide that information. But it shouldn't impact by itself whether a recommendation is approval or not.

Sure, understood. Just in my four years, it seems to be a pattern. When we have a short-term rental application, generally staff will tell us that in particular.

I don't know if we can get the camera for the down there.

We're getting the short-term rental pulled up for you, the short-term rental map. Okay.

Right there. Okay. Got it. I'm just trying to be courteous to the Town Creek people as well as long and the residential. Okay.

Thank you.

Does city know or have any concerns with the easement being so close to the railroad and the quiet ordinance that the railroad currently has in place? There would be no arm blocking that side of the railroad or the entrances and in the past I've known that that's been a very difficult proposition for the railroad.

That wasn't within my purview to investigate that.

Mary, I can add to that a little bit. Thank you for your question. That's a great point. So this property, actually, we have been working with. There is an access easement through the railroad right-of-way. But because of some of our quiet zone construction that was necessary, there's a curb there now. So we're actually currently working with them. It is very complicated.

All right.

Any other questions? Thank you, Mary. Thanks. At this time, I'd like to call up the applicant, Mr. Miles Payne.

I'm Miles Payne. I'm a resident here of New Braunfels. And just to give you a little background before I talk about some of the specifics y'all brought up, we found this property, me and my wife did several months ago for a small business we wanted to start. We thought this would be a great location. So we looked into it and pretty quickly from talking to the city, we realized that it's going to be really difficult to get emergency vehicle access for a small business or any kind of commercial development back there. So we started to just walk away from it, but we really like the property. It's really, I don't know if any of y'all are familiar with it from driving by, but it's very woodsy, very wooded, and it's very close to downtown. So we decided, you know what, if we can get permission to use this as a residential use, then this could really work for us. So talking to the planning department, We decided to keep it M1 but have an SUP for a single family home. And the purpose of that was to give reassurance to the immediate neighbors we're not trying to build a duplex or a fourplex or condominiums or anything like that. It would just be one home. And in addition to that, this is a really good location for a short-term rental, we thought, because there's no neighboring lots that are residential around it. The lots, if you're looking at that survey map that's pulled up right now, the properties to the right are in the floodplain entirely. Beneath this is the railroad. To the left is all the smokehouse, New Braunfels smokehouse, the parking lot. And then just above the property is Dry Comal Creek. And any kind of building that we would put on the property would be on the southern corner, really close to the railroad track there, because that's the part of the land that's outside of the floodplain. It's probably a little bit less than a half acre. But plenty of space to put a building. So it's very wooded and beautiful back there. It's very quiet. You feel like you're 10 miles out in the country when you're sitting on the lot. but you're five blocks away from downtown. So we thought it'd be a really nice fit as a unique place to stay for visitors that come here. So that's what brings us to why we're here tonight. And just to go back to the questions y'all had about the easement, so on that survey you see the kind of the long skinny easement along the railroad track and that's 15 feet wide and it was granted in 1947 by the railroad company to that property specifically so that they could access their property. 15 feet wide is plenty wide enough for a residential driveway. It's not wide enough by itself for any kind of commercial access. So I talked to a real estate lawyer, title company, and I actually reached out to Union Pacific and found someone that looked at this with me who does a lot of easement work for Union Pacific in this area. And he agreed it was a valid easement. And he said that as the easement states, it's there for building and maintaining a driveway. I didn't bring the email with me, but he has an email saying that I can build a driveway out of concrete, asphalt, or gravel. and I can share that with y'all. So I think access is taken care of, and there is the issue about where the easement abuts Guntha Road, that being a quiet crossing, and we've been talking to the city with that, and I think working through that. So anyway, I just wanted to address that specific question. I know that the majority on a on an area basis, on a percentage basis, the majority of the opposition comes from MB Smokehouse and the little card that I saw said that the opposition was because they did not want people accessing my property through their parking lot. And I can completely understand that and I think they've gotten frustrated over the years because my neighbors in that area have been forced to go through their driveway, their parking lot to access their lots because currently there's a curb over our easement. But working to get that curb removed, we have an easement clearly that's not on their property or anybody else's. It's over the railroad right away. And I'll stop for any questions.

I have a question. I know you've got some floodplain issues and this and that, but do you have any idea how big You want to build this house for a short-term rental? Like we're talking three-bedroom, four-bedroom, five, or have you even gotten that far?

I mean, we haven't even gotten that far. It's a little less than a half acre that's outside of the floodplain to build on. You need parking. We need the driveway to turn into that area, so just whatever it holds.

All right. Any other questions?

Here's the 15-foot wide tub house. It's wide enough for residential, but you're building a house back there and it's off the main road. How hard would it be to get emergency vehicles back there if there's a fire or EMF?

Well, I talked with Captain Pitzer about it, and he said that the access requirements for residential is a different requirement than commercial. So he said that with this easement in mind, he said I could build one up to four residential homes and the fire access is not a problem. If I went over four homes, it would, I guess, be considered commercial and then it would be a problem. Thank you. Thank you.

Real quick, who do you have an email from about this access?

I can pull it up on my cell phone here in a minute. It's a fellow that works for Union Pacific. He's based out of, I think, Omaha is the main offices. But this is his area. Okay. Yep. Thanks. Yep.

Thank you. Thank you. This is a public hearing. If anyone else would like to come and speak in favor of this item, please do so.

Hello, I'm Tom Talcott, and thank you all for your service. We own the three lots downstream from this lot, so we are in favor of this. because it creates access. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Tom. Anyone else would like to speak?

My name is Carlos Cedillo from 590 Cross River Street. And I think this is another great example that the property in question should be for short-term rental. The location to downtown, it's kind of still isolated. There's not a lot of the residential around this, so I don't see how anybody could really be bothered. I think the train would be a bother for the people staying there, but that's all right. So I would like to see this also approved because also, like I said, our property will be up here for the same kind of recommendations or same kind of...

trial, I guess.

So I thank you and look forward to seeing this approved.

Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak in favor or opposed to this item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners?

Chair Sonnier, if I might add one clarification. Mary mentioned when she presented the report that it was subject to the supermajority rule, which is typically known as the 20% rule. That actually is not the case with this property because of the recent state law that was adopted. It would just require a straight majority of council.

Thank you. Commissioners, any questions, comments, discussion, motions?

I mean, it's a tough, it's obviously a tough piece of property. And, you know, anytime something's landlocked, it's never ideal. And then you have the floodplain on top of that. And then the access is at the mercy of the railroad. A lot of things going against it. I have concerns about the access overall. I don't have any, I know that what the law states this can be developed as right now is, what is it, light industrial. Realistically, I don't think this property ever gets developed light industrial because of access and floodplain and everything else. So it is unfortunate that this property is what it is. I don't think it's a good idea to have people, visitors, tourists, you know, trying to navigate and get in here next to a railroad, going possibly through people's property via easement. So that's my thoughts on that.

Anyone else?

Comments or motions? Walking in, I was kind of thinking the same thing, Chase, just to kind of piggyback off what you said and kind of agree. But after hearing the applicant and really credit to you for doing your due diligence and talking to all the appropriate people, there's a lot of people who come in here and think they'll figure out as they go, but you've done a lot of front end due diligence in the questions I had. And it seems like a lot of those things are getting worked on and would be solutions. And ultimately, you are at the behest of Union Pacific. If they come in and decide they want to turn foot and tell you that you can't do it, you're kind of stuck. So I understand that as well. I think you're asking the right questions and you're talking to the right people already. So I think that you're kind of a step ahead there and you know what you're going to have to, what hurdles you're going to have to jump through to do this. It's not going to be easy for you. So, you know, I would applaud you on that, but I would think that's my thought on it, hearing the questions being answered. Any motion? Motion to approve.

Or a second?

Were there any staff recommendations on this? I thought there was.

Yeah, my motion would be with staff recommendations. Apologies. Okay. Thank you for reminding me.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Victoria, would you do a roll call, please?

Chair Sonnier?

Yes.

Commissioner Taylor?

No.

Commissioner Nolte? No. Commissioner Mathis?

Yes.

Commissioner Allen? No. Commissioner Henry? Aye. Commissioner Brazier? Aye. Motion carries.

Motion carries. Move forward to City Council. Thank you. That's all the items on our agenda. If someone has anything. We are adjourned.