Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the regular City of New Braunfels Board of Adjustment meeting. We are a five-member board that is appointed by city council. 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 city staff in administering these ordinances. The general procedure for each case is the board will hear first 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 their request. Next, the board will request public comment from anyone who would like to speak in favor or in opposition to the request. Those 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 issues at hand and cannot deviate into unrelated topics or areas that do not contribute to the merits of this request. After the close of the public hearing, the pending case will need to have a motion and a second to the motion from the board members in order to proceed to a vote. In order for a request to be approved, state law requires that four out of five of the board members vote to approve the variance request. The request fails if no motion or second is made for approval. If denied, the same or similar request cannot reappear before the board for at least six months unless new substantial evidence not available at the initial hearing is produced by the applicant. Any aggrieved party may appeal a decision made by this board and appeals are made to the district court or county court at law. And if you have any questions, you may ask a city staff member after the meeting. All right, can I have a roll call please?

Member Quidley?

Here.

Member Ranth. Here. Member Raikkonen.

Here.

Alternate Member Schneider.

Here.

Chair Mund.

Here. Thank you so much. First rule on the agenda is the approval of the June 25th, 2026 regular meeting minutes.

I'll make a motion to approve.

I second that motion quickly. Great.

Can we have a roll call on that, please?

Member Quidley?

Yes.

Member Ranth? Yes. Member Raikano?

Yes.

Member Schreidner?

Yes.

Chair Mund?

Yes, thank you. All right, moving down, we have citizens communication and then we're gonna move to our public hearing. Items for individual consideration, let's move down there. First item this evening, CS26-0262, a public hearing and consideration of a request by 24 Design on behalf of owner Kent Black, New Braunfels Holdings, LLC, for an alternate sign plan to allow a proposed American flag to exceed the maximum allowable size for flags for property within the C1B General Business District and with frontage along Loop 337 currently addressed at 936 Loop 337. Mr. Barker, hello, sir. Hello, Mr.

Chair, and good evening, board members. Colton Barker with Neighborhood and Community Planning. For your consideration this evening is a proposed alternative sign plan. This request is not a signed variance. Rather, it's the appropriate process for considering proposals that may not fully comply with the city's sign code. Because of this, a hardship is not required, and approval may be granted by a simple majority of the board. The subject property is a nearly two acre commercial lot home to the original Black's Barbecue and located at the intersection of Loop 337 and Common Street. And it has frontage along both of those roadways. The property is located within the C1B General Business District and sits near the center of an active commercial corridor. Residential zonings can be seen on the periphery of the area here. Here's a few photos of the property as seen from across the loop and along Common Street, showing the property's frontage along both of the roadways. Staff notes that the site contains an existing non-conforming pole sign advertising the restaurant, as well as an abandoned pole sign structure that historically served previous restaurant uses. A few more photos here, and we can always come back to these. Standards for flags and flagpoles are established under the city's sign ordinance. A comparison of the proposed alternative plan to the city's existing standards can be seen here in this chart. Flag sizes are limited to a maximum of 40 square feet across all zoning districts, and flagpoles are set to a maximum height of 25 feet in most zoning districts. Flagpoles located within the C1B district are permitted to exceed the typical 25 foot height limit up to the maximum building height permitted in the district, which in this case is 75 feet. The proposed alternative plan requests that an American flag be allowed to exceed the maximum flag size established under the city sign ordinance. The applicant notes that the proposed increase in flag size to 96 square feet is intended to be appropriately scaled to the new 60-foot flagpole planned for the site and would ensure proper visibility and a proportional appearance relative to the taller pole. They emphasize that the flag is intended to serve as a prominent patriotic feature for the restaurant, particularly given the property's frontage along heavily trafficked roadways. The provided site plan shows that the flagpole is set back more than 50 feet from the property lines along both of those roadways. Staff is recommending approval of the request with the following conditions consistent with the intent of the alternative sign plan process. Condition number one would be that only an official United States flag may exceed the maximum flag size up to 96 square feet. And condition number two, that the abandoned formerly utilized sign pole be removed from the property. While the proposed flag size exceeds the standard allowance, it is proportionate to the taller 60-foot flagpole allowed in the property zoning. Staff finds the proposal would enhance site visibility and the recommended conditions would help reduce existing nonconformities on the site. Since posting the agenda for this meeting, staff has had additional discussions with the applicant regarding condition number two. They've indicated that there are future plans to utilize the abandoned sign pole and intends to submit a separate alternative sign plan request for its use. This will conclude our introduction. The applicant, I believe Mr. Black is here this evening. I am happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Thank you, sir.

Do we have any questions for Colton this evening?

Colton, do you know the heights of the signs out there that are out there already existing?

I don't have an exact height on those. Since I've been doing this a little bit, I'd give them at least the 40 feet just by eyeballing them.

Right. But the original blacks looks even taller than 40?

It might be. And as we've seen in the past, a lot of these signs existing in town were established before the city had a sign code around 2009 or so is when we adopted that. So a lot of these are still in existence. They're grandfathered in, but they're just considered nonconforming.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. Colin, for the existing abandoned sign. Yes, sir. Has it been submitted and is it gonna conform to the sign standard?

It would also, I believe, fall into one of those non-conforming categories. It's shorter than the existing black sign, but staff has met with Mr. Black and some of his folks in the past to discuss potential options for re-utilizing that signage and it's kind of a tough, cookie to crack here. The current sign codes wouldn't allow for a poll sign at that size at this location or within the property zoning district, but the applicants made clear that they intend to potentially reutilize that if possible.

Intended but not submitted yet. Correct. Yes, sir.

Anything else on the other end of the table? So the height that they're looking to do is currently would be conforming at the 60 foot because 75 feet is currently allowed? Yes, sir. So it's just basically the size of the flag itself?

Yes, sir. That's what this alternative sign plan is proposing, just an exceeding of the... And the setback is 50 foot versus... Yeah, I believe typically it would be just five feet for flagpoles off the property line, but given the location of where we're proposing it. Yeah, at least 50 feet.

Let me ask you one question. How far back is the current sign? When I read the packet, I understood they were going to put it where that current sign was, so I might have misread that.

And you wouldn't be, I wouldn't shame you for that, because I thought the same thing. I thought, oh, it's going to go right where that old pole is. That's what I thought. Looking back at the property, it's actually a street pole, kind of a parking lot light, right where the flag poles look into. Okay, so that's just going to replace that parking lot. That's our understanding at this time, but perhaps Mr. Black might be able to speak to that. Okay, no, that's fine. Thank you for clarifying. Yes, sir.

All right, no other questions, thank you. You're welcome. At this point, we would like to ask the applicant to come up and please state your name for the address, name for the record.

Hello, I'm Mark Stewart, architect with 247 Design. I'm at 605 Ridgecliff Drive, New Braunfels, Texas.

Thank you. What would you like to tell us about your project?

Oh, so you see the flag is appropriately located well back from the setbacks in an ideal location where it won't even interfere with current parking. And we did our homework and we proportionately sized the flag to be proportional to the height, but not over the top, literally, no pun intended. But in regards to the existing non-conforming sign that the blacks want to work with us to come up with a conforming solution to bring it back to life, what I'd like to suggest is that that be considered on its own as an application, and at that time we can address its full compliance. So I would like to, on behalf of the owners, suggest that we approve the size of the flag and then let that other sign be addressed fully in a separate application.

The other sign is not on our agenda this evening. We're just only worried about the flag.

Understood, yeah, I mean, as a condition for the flag, I'm suggesting it get removed.

All right, do we have any questions? So will this replace the current light that is in the parking lot, or is this going to be in addition to?

It'll be in addition to. It'll sit back in the striped area where there's no parking, approximately about 10 feet away from that. And the reason is so we can keep that light where it is and have this be its own structure, 60 foot tall.

Okay, and is it only going to be housing an American flag, or are they going to stack flags all the way down, given that there's a 90, Colton, could you go back to that? There we go. We have a maximum size of 96 square feet. Just trying to envision what else is going to be on there.

Just the American flag.

Just the American flag, okay. All right, do we have any other questions for the applicant?

I remember. There we go. Lighting. So it's gonna be flying 24-7, correct?

Yes, so the intent was to have appropriate lighting to light the flag.

Down or up, I guess?

It'd be up, be up, pointing towards the flag.

I guess that would be a question for the city. It meets requirements for whatever lighting we have.

I usually try and be prepared for your questions, but I don't have that info with me at the moment. But typically, while we don't have an official dark skies policy in place, we do try and strive for dark skies where possible.

Can I add something? Yes, absolutely. I'll add something to that as well. Christopher Looney, planning director for the city of New Braunfels. If a flag is erected, raised, whatever the right term is for a flag, a US flag or a state flag, And of course, with approval of the board for the size and such as requested, I believe the federal government requires that it be lighted at night. So even if the city had limitations on uplighting, we wouldn't be able to enforce those if the federal government mandated uplighting for the lights.

Well, I was thinking downlight, because you can also light it a different way. But that's cool. I mean, I think you answered my question.

And I would point out, too, that it would be a focused directional light where we can control the beam very precisely. to hit the flag and not project beyond it.

I do have one more, sorry. Why 60 feet? That is really tall. Even though I understand 75 foot for the commercial is allowable, but in that area, 60 feet would be really high.

And I'll tell you why. The property is surrounded by power lines and they're at 42 feet above the ground. And so as we studied the placement of the flag so that would be visible, When we had it lower in that 40 some odd foot range, what we found looking at the 3D model and studying the site was that as you were looking at it, you'd be looking at the flag through power lines. So 60 foot was that magic number that got the flag above the power lines where when you're looking at it, you didn't see wires obscuring your view. So that's why it's that high.

All right, any other questions for the initial applicant? No? All right, thank you. Thank you. At this time, if anyone else would like to come up and speak in favor of this as the applicant. Anybody else for the applicants like to speak in favor? No? All right, then we'll open the public. Are you coming up for the public? Okay, we'll open our public part of this hearing. If you'd like to come up and speak in favor or in opposition, and state your name, please.

Yeah, David, 1P District 5. I am going to every board meeting, and I wasn't quite sure what this one was, but I live on the condo, in a condo on the river, And when I look out at night, Cypress Bend, there's this giant flag that just flies above the whole city that is such a wonderful view to see and such a statement of New Braunfels, its culture, what we believe in. And the American flag is a very simple thing that ties back to our cultures and our founding that is really being bashed in many ways. The culture is sort of trying to you know, diminish America in many ways. That's changing now. It's changed now. But I think it would be a great thing. And, you know, it's a wonderful business and a wonderful civic-minded owner. So I'm very much in support of it. Thank you. God bless you.

Thank you. Appreciate that. All right. Do we have anyone else like to speak in favor? Please feel free to come up and state your name for the record.

Hello everyone, my name is Kent Black and I'm sorry I missed the, didn't get up here quick enough for the applicant time, but I just wanted to thank all of you for your service. I know what y'all are doing is very important and it's been a real honor for me and my family to be in New Braunfels and do our best to be a part of the community. My mother's first language was German, so I enjoy German culture, and I know when I was a little kid, The German I learned was when I was doing something bad. The aunts and uncles would use some different phrases, but I appreciate y'all's consideration and thank you for your public service.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right. Anyone else like to speak in favor? Okay. Would anyone like to speak in opposition of this? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Board members, do we have any discussion? Do we have any motions that someone would like to make?

I came up with a new question for Colton. The slide that has the current, I guess what's allowed height-wise and size-wise, it shows that the C1B is allowed of 75 feet. Do you know what is allowed just in C1? Would it be the same as the C1B? And the neighboring properties are all C1 is why I'm asking the question. It seems like this property itself is the C1B.

Yeah, and actually, let me make sure I'm understanding your question. If a similar height would be allowed in the C1 nearby? Correct. Give me one moment. I think I have a paper copy of the full chart that would have that information for you in regards to the flagpoles in particular, or?

Yes, and I guess as part of our discussion, the reason I'm asking is just, you know, obviously with this, you know, setting a precedent of this is, does every C1 zoning down the loop then say, well, I also want a super tall flag? That's a good question.

So I was curious. Apologies. Yes, I included this slide here. This is the code excerpt for governmental flags. And you'll notice at the bottom, letter D lists the other zoning districts that this is allowed in to where it can match whatever the maximum height is for that zoning district. It does not appear that C1 is in that category. I see C1B and C2 and so on, but I don't see C1 in there. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir.

Okay, discussions. Any motions anyone would like to make on this?

I don't want to make a motion, but again, my opinion, just with the other signs being non-conforming, if there is potential that, I feel like in our other sign alternative plans, usually there's like some type of trade-off, like, hey, we want to go from four signs to one large sign, so we want a large one. I feel like with this request, it's just asking for that. I almost feel like if there's something gonna come up in the future with the two, it looks like there's two existing poll signs. I don't know if both would be allowed in the zoning, but it seems like some type of plan that incorporated the flag and the two existing signs.

I think if we followed the city's guidelines and saying that they would have to remove the other one if they're going to do this, I have no problem with that.

I think it's a separate issue too. That would be a separate issue.

Colton, could you read what your recommendation was for sitting, please? Yes, sir.

We had recommended that, we'd recommend approval of the proposed plan with the condition one, that only an official United States flag may exceed the maximum flag size up to 96 square feet. And condition two, that the abandoned former Johnny Carino's slash Gennaro's sign, the existing remaining structure be removed. Just the poll there.

I would use that exact for my motion. And if I need to restate that, I can, or we can just use exactly how Colton properly stated that.

You can also phrase it as with the conditions listed in the staff report if you'd like them.

Can we also make sure it's only the flag? Like I don't want like two years from now something else is gonna be added, and then something else is gonna be added, and then something else. You know, then it's like a car dealership.

Would you like to motion your motion with the staff's addendum?

Wait a minute. So I'm making a motion for the flagpole as proposed at 60 feet with the 96 square foot flag, United States flag, with no other Do I do the condition now? With no other flags attached to that flagpole. In addition, the second condition of removing the existing sign on the property.

As stated in the?

As stated in the staff recommendation, okay.

Perfect, all right. We have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? I'll second that motion. Very good. All right. Can we have a roll call, please?

Member Quidley?

Yes.

Member Ranth? Yes. Member Reichenau?

Yes.

Member Schreidner?

Yes.

Chair Mund?

Aye. Thank you. Congratulations. Your motion is passed. All right, items for consideration. Let's talk about ZB266-0009, a public hearing in consideration of a request for 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 with the R2HL single-family, two-family historic landmark district currently addressed at 307 North Gunthers Avenue. That's a mouthful right there. Sorry. It's okay.

Good evening, Chair and Board Members. Mary Lovell with Neighborhood and Community Planning Department. The subject property is a two-story, 1,900 square foot, single-family residential home constructed at about 1920, located at the corner of North Gunther Avenue and East Bridge Street. It is zoned R2 and is surrounded entirely by R2 properties. The existing house sits only about eight feet from the corner side property line, which is what the variance is for today, is to encroach into that corner side property line, which is significantly closer than today's required 25-foot corner side setback. These photos show the current conditions of the side yard along the corner of East Bridge Street and North Gunther Avenue, as well as other structures and fences that have been built very close to the property lines. The applicant originally applied for a garage, a variance for a garage to encroach into the setback in June of this year, but concerns were raised at that time regarding vehicle circulation and backing out safety at this intersection. The garage component has been removed and the applicant is now requesting only an accessory storage building. The applicant states that the request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, allowing a reasonable accessory structure without affecting neighboring properties. The hardship results from physical characteristics of the lot and is tied directly to the historic development up to this point and the current code requirement to have a 25 foot yard setback, side yard setback. The site plan shows the proposed storage building along the existing fence line. The proposal is for storage only, eliminating any of the traffic impacts that were associated with the previously requested variance for a garage. The building is modest in scale and maintains the residential character of the area. Additionally, the building would be located along that existing fence line resulting in little to no visible change to the side yard appearance from either the street or surrounding properties. Notices were sent to 20 property owners, surrounding property owners, and staff has received seven responses in favor and one in opposition. The applicant is here to present and advocate for their request, and I can also answer any questions that you may have for staff.

Thank you, ma'am. Do we have any questions for staff?

I have a question.

I don't know if you know the answer. One of the I think the opposition card mentioned something about the garage being not approved. The drawing doesn't show any doors on that structure. Is there any information on what would be in that structure for doors?

I did have someone reach out about the doors. So this could never be turned in, if this was approved tonight, this could never be turned into a garage with a garage door on the outside because as was stated in the last variance request, you would need multiple variances for that. and so that would not be allowed by code. In order to do that, an applicant would have to come back and ask for a variance for at least two different variance requests. I did notice that in the one person that was opposed to the request, they stated in their card that they were against a garage, but they were okay if it were just a storage building with no garage door along the roadway of East Bridge.

Is there a current rear setback or is it only going to a side setback?

I believe that they're going to be meeting the rear setback that is three feet in the rear, which is allowed under our current code.

Thank you. So is this the exact same size that we saw two months ago? They just removed the garage door?

I think it's very similar in size, if not smaller. I don't have the other dimensions with me tonight, but the applicant can refer to that.

I think there's a pool on the last one as well that they had. I don't see that either.

Yeah, the request, it's always recommended that the applicant strictly, you know, the floor plan on the left, you know, image isn't really necessarily required. They could have just had the property outlines. So we just want to focus on the, you know, what the request is today.

And whatever variance, if we approve the variance, if a garage door was added at a later time without approval,

That would most likely be a code compliance issue and enforcement issue. Okay, all right, thank you. Okay, thank you. And at this time, I'll invite the applicant to come up to the podium. You're welcome to use this.

Okay, hello. So I'm just trying to put a little shed in my backyard so I can store things like- Could I please have your name for the record? Oh, sorry, Greg Williams.

Thank you.

Yeah, trying to put a shed to store items like lawnmowers, yard tools, personal tools, things like that. We are trying to preserve some space for living space in the backyard. So that's the goal.

Okay, we have questions for the applicants.

Yeah, I've got a question. So I stated at our last meeting, my concern was having the building right on the property line. Would you be open to shifting it like five feet from the property line or you're set on having it right on the right of way? I'm just concerned having a building exactly on the boundary line, it could encroach into the right-of-way if it's not built perfectly. That's typically why there's some kind of setback in the right-of-way.

Yeah, I would be flexible in shifting it over a few feet. We're just, again, trying to preserve as much space in the backyard. It's a pretty small lot. I didn't want the shed to be in the middle of the backyard. If we were to follow the setback requirements, that's essentially what would happen, and it would be pretty awkward. But moving it over close to the property line is kind of the goal. But yeah, I'm definitely open to that. The size, and to answer the question about the size, it's the exact same size as before, but we're flexible in modifying that if needed.

Okay, but I guess your doors will be on the inside of the property, no doors to the street? No doors to the street, all on the inside. Okay. Yeah. All right, now I understand that. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? No? All right, thank you. Thank you. We will open up the public hearing at this time if we have anyone who would like to speak in favor of this applicant. Please come up and state your name for the record.

Good evening. My name is Damon Spears. I'm in house number nine right there on a couple houses down from Greg. And my wife and I agree that, you know, to have a storage unit there to be able to put things in is a must. I think everybody in this room has a place that they store stuff. And I don't think it's asking too much. So I would appreciate if you guys could strongly consider letting Greg have a storage unit there to put things in instead of having it outside. So thank you so much.

Thank you, sir. Would anyone else like to step up and speak in favor of this? Okay. Would anyone like to speak up in opposition of this? Seeing none, we will close that segment and go to discussion board. Do we have any discussion, comments, or motions we would like to make?

I agree with Seth. that I have a lot of heartburn with the building being right on the property line. I just, I can't do it. So I'm just, I feel like it needs to be moved. Five foot, three foot, five foot would be ideal, like a side lot. But being right on the property line is just, a permanent structure should not be there.

Okay, you're saying five foot in towards the other side.

Right. I mean, either make the shed smaller or shift it five feet. Like, I mean, that's kind of up to the owner. But I just, permanent structure should not be on the property line.

Okay. Any other thoughts, comments, otherwise?

I don't have any feelings on the... the property line, but with most of these variances we look at that have to do with historical, my feelings are always that I'm good with it to maintain there being a historical home there. So if we do approve, I like to add the condition of like the existing footprint and height of that structure remaining in place to where if the house was ever torn down to build something new, that the variance wouldn't ride. Okay. we'd need to make a change for the setback. I don't disagree with, which I'll have to say about that.

Okay, any other comments? Do we have any motions anyone would like to make this evening? Okay, all right, I'm sorry, seeing no motion, we will not be able to approve your variance this evening. We'll be moving on to the next. ZB26-0010, hold a public hearing in consideration of a request for a variance from section 144-5.4E to allow a detached accessory structure to exceed the height of the main dwelling by 10 feet one inch within the R1A6.6 single family residential district currently addressed at 31 Guadacoma Drive.

Thank you. The subject property is developed with a 1200 square foot single family home built in 1960. It is zoned R1A 6.6 and is surrounded by similar single family zoning and structures. The applicant proposes a detached two story structure that includes a garage on the ground floor and an accessory dwelling unit on the second floor. As shown in the photos, the property is a corner lot with significant setback constraints, a 25-foot front setback along the northwest frontage and a 15-foot corner side setback along the southern frontage. These limitations reduce the buildable area of the lot. The site plan shows the location of the proposed two-story accessory building. The structure would be 22 feet, one inch tall, which exceeds the height of the existing 12 foot tall home. And the applicant is requesting a height variance of 10 feet, one inch to accommodate both the garage and the accessory dwelling unit with one combined building placed in the rear yard as shown on the site plan. The rear lot could not sustain the building of two separate structures because it would exceed the lot coverage for accessory structures in the rear yard. These elevations illustrate the scale and appearance of the proposed two-story accessory structure. Window placement has been intentionally designed to maintain privacy by avoiding direct views into neighboring properties, and the proposed structure would meet all setback requirements for detached accessory buildings. The request is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance and aligns with the draft LDO which proposes a uniform 35 foot height cap for all residential structures including accessory structures on a residential lot. The applicant states that the height variance is necessary due to the lot's restrictive setbacks and the low height of the existing home and the need to combine the garage and the accessory dwelling into one structure. Public notices were sent to 22 surrounding property owners and staff received nine mailed in responses in favor of the request and one in opposition as shown on the response map. The applicant is here to discuss their request and I can also answer any questions for staff.

Thank you, ma'am. Do we have any questions for staff on this?

so it's a one story is the existing dwelling and this because it's one story the adu can't be higher than that is that why like so there are a lot of houses over there that are two stories and

So the property owner has stated that they need a garage, a covered garage. And so what they wanted to do was combine also a space for children or family relatives for an accessory dwelling unit. So it's very common that people do a downstairs garage with an apartment above. And so because there's so much limited space in the rear yard, we also have a requirement that you cannot cover more than 30% of the backyard. So that in addition to what they're trying to add on the property, you can also only have two accessory structures in a rear yard. And this would be one. but it would be a combined one. And instead of spreading it out and covering the entire backyard, which would not be allowed, they're proposing to go up.

Right.

And do you still have a question related to that?

Well, because it's 10 foot above the existing home.

Mm-hmm.

So... Is it because the existing home is only one story and that's why?

Oh, so there is a requirement in the code, which is in the caption. It's a section that states that any accessory structure, any building that you would put in your backyard, like a storage shed, it cannot exceed the height of the main home.

Okay, got it.

And that's why anything that would, even if it was just one foot over, we would be, they would have to request a variance. But they're adding an extra story, so that's where the 10 feet, one inch comes in play. I hope that explains it. All righty, yes sir.

Yeah, I was gonna ask, so it's being attached to the main structure, right?

No sir, they would not be able to attach it to the main structure So they have a line between it, and it's just the distance. They're not attaching it to the main structure. If they did, they would have to have a 20-foot setback. Any main structure would require it to be set back 20 feet, and there isn't that much room back there to be able to accommodate that. It would be part of a main dwelling.

Okay. Okay. Yeah, I was gonna ask too, could we see that opposition card if they put in a card or?

No, sir, I didn't bring them. I can pull it up on our agenda packet. Does anybody have a copy of the?

Yeah, so the agenda packet online didn't have the opposition one. It had all the approval ones, but not the...

So if I remember correctly, the opposition one that came through that email today said, I think it was from the neighbor who would be on top of this picture about privacy concerns. I think if they could see into their house, I believe is what it said.

Got it.

Yeah, you're correct. There was an email sent out with all of the up-to-date mail notices that we received, and one of them was in opposition, and it stated to what you just mentioned. And I can go back to that response map so you can see it. There you go.

Just a neighbor thinking they can see in if they're up there, I guess. Okay. Any other questions for staff over here?

Mary may not know, but there's an existing tree on that lot. And I assume that it's going to be completely removed.

I'll let the applicant speak to the tree. And just to let you know that residential development, they are allowed by right to remove trees or shrubs for the development of buildings and things on the lot.

Okay. Thank you.

there would not be any mitigation that would be required, not at this time, under our current code. Okay.

All right, any other questions for staff? Okay, if the applicant would like to come up and speak on your behalf, just state your name for the record when you come up, please.

I'll go back to the site plan.

Perfect, thank you so much.

Jana Proff, owner. I first want to start off by saying thank you to Mary. She has been so wonderful and lovely. And as completely naive citizens coming to this so blind, she's been a blessing. Okay, so just for a quick statement, I guess, of the necessity, is that for the last 15 years, three things have been true about my family. My husband has worked out of town over half the month, and we've had a separate little one-bedroom house that he lived in, Palacios, when he was gone. Two, we've always had over 800 square feet of storage for my husband, blue-collar man, to have all of the things, all of the welding equipment, the drill press, the power washer, the thing that most people would rent, my husband owns, and it is to improve our home, to improve our neighbors' homes. And number three, my boys have always shared a room. We've been a five-person family and a three-bedroom house our entire lives. Last August, my husband actually got a job in New Braunfels area that allowed him to move home more permanently. We did not sell the home that he was living in, Palacios, for this last year while we made sure that this job was going to be good. We're going to still be able to make ends meet with this job. And we've still had that storage, but he has so many things that he needs to have. And this time we've also been paying for a storage unit. And so we... knew that a garage was going to be an immediate necessity for him to be home. And so when we started the process initially back in February of just first making the plan to just get a garage built where the existing concrete driveway is in that back portion of the house of the lot, and we were talking initially with contractors It was at that time, I think, brought to Ms. Lovell's attention. And one of the contractors came and spoke with her and was like, no, you're not going to be able to build a garage there. There's no room for you to build a garage there. And so we knew also that my oldest is 17 and a senior. And his brother that he shares a room with is 16. And my daughter is 14. She's always had her own room. Girl writes. But... We know that we're coming to a point where we're going to have not just two boys sharing a room. And within the next five years, the plan was to potentially add square footage to our home where we're building that garage accessory apartment, where we could just have an extra bedroom for when a married couple comes to visit. a child boomerangs back and they need a little space, but a space that's their own. And so we knew that those two things were gonna be necessities for our family. And when we found out we couldn't have both because of the lot restrictions or couldn't have a garage, then we had to go up. There's just no way to get both and not go up. The It is not going to be a garage. There will not be a driveway. It will be a shop. And the proposed back part of it was so that my husband could have a shop door in the back so that he could load and unload his truck walking to and from them. from our existing driveway. But it is not, it is just a shop on the bottom. So it's not really a garage apartment. Just to clarify that. When I was talking to with our contractor, the cost of raising our roof line and elevating our roof line, he gave a bid of an additional $80,000, which is just when the whole thing together is gonna cost maybe 200, which is already a really tight stretch. to do all at once as opposed to pacing it out over several years, to raise our roof line is cost prohibitive. Or to add a second story is even more so. And speaking to the tree, that tree we are going to have to take down no matter what. It has dropped limbs twice on our house, one on the opposition fence and broken that fence, once on the ninth, large, large branches that have caused damage to neighboring properties and our own. And so I hate to lose a tree, but that is one that's going to have to come down for safety reasons. For neighborhood harmony, I will say, too, that, as you mentioned, there are – Multiple houses. We're in 1960s neighborhood with 1,200 square foot homes as the majority of our neighbors and Just in the little circle, I'm gonna just go to that little map. Well, I'll go to this one That one's good enough. So in just a little Guadalcoma a little Ashmore circle there You know, there's been four or five homes that have been leveled in a two-story has been put up in its place. And one, we can't afford to do that, and love grows best in small houses. But our neighborhood is still in harmony with those people's changes. We love those neighbors. Those neighbors invite the girls next door in their 1,200 square foot home to come play pickleball in their backyard. One of the neighbors that built a two-story home that does overlook other people's property He's a professor at Texas State and offered to have my son, who was interested in engineering, come and listen to one of his lectures. They're lovely people. We're a lovely neighborhood in Harmony, and I'm not surprised that nine of my neighbors wrote in specifically to say they were for us. We are a very supportive community and it's a very supportive neighborhood. And I will just speak to the only one in opposition is not a resident of our neighborhood. They're the owner and their renters are a lovely newlywed couple who went to high school with my cousin here at Canyon. And so They don't know us and they don't know what we're doing either to support us or not support us. And we did take our neighbor's privacy into the utmost consideration. The windows that are shown are the only ones that we're putting on the house and they overlook our roof. We have zero windows, nothing along lot nine, which is 13 we have zero windows facing that way and only like the shower high high windows that would overlook lot 15 it's a backyard so there is zero visibility and we because we love our neighbors and they love us we that was a big part of our design plan Okay, I'm ready. Thank you. I'm ready.

Okay, do we have any questions for the applicant?

I have a question. You mentioned looking at raising the roof line. Was that exploring the option of just adding on to the existing home?

Right, just to meet the height, to not have to get a height variance, we were told, well, if our roof line was as high as what we want to build, that we could just raise our roof line. And we thought, well, that will be the most affordable option because we aren't adding a second story that I thought would be, and it would be much more expensive. And that was the bid, was to raise our roof 10 feet, just to change the roof line, not add any, But attic space, I guess. Because currently we have 120 square feet of storage on our property. One small shed. Zero attic space because it's a 12-foot roof line. So there's like two to three feet of attic space. So you can't even crawl in there. And so we would have attic space if we did that. But it was $80,000 for that change was the bid. I don't know what it would really be.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Any other questions?

Any other questions for the applicant?

So the existing shed that you have on there, that would be removed? That's where the new building would be? Right. Okay, got it. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Wonderful. Thank you so much.

Ms. Lovell, I do have a question for y'all maybe. She mentioned that y'all are proposing changing the residential ordinance to be 35 feet, and I wouldn't have been the accessory versus original building restriction. I just wanted clarification on that.

Yes, we have a draft, a land development ordinance that we've been working on to update all of our codes. And in the near future, hopefully council will be adopting that. And the proposal is that all structures on the lot would be 35 feet height limit for residential, for these type of zoning districts.

And it wouldn't have anything to do with what my original height of my house is. So as soon as that's proposed, I will be well within, or we will be well within those requirements.

But would that still, does the existing height of the house affect that ADU? Or it can be 35 foot even though the existing house is 12 foot or whatever?

Yeah, the proposal would be to not have that rule anymore. Okay. That rule dates back to the 60s or maybe even before that, and that's what the residents wanted back then. They didn't want accessory structures to be taller than the main structure. That doesn't appear to be a desire of residents anymore. However, we could be wrong there, and the residents may still want a rule like that. Okay. But that would be a proposal that, of course, would still have to go through Planning Commission and City Council for final approval.

Okay, cool. Thank you.

All right, any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Okay, we will open up the public hearing. Would anyone like to come and speak in favor of the application? Please come up and state your name for the record.

I'm Larry Hensley, and I own the property at 682 Ashmore. Yes, it's number seven. I'm in favor of this. Our neighborhood is a very tight neighborhood. Of the people that actually own the properties, even the renters in the neighborhood are friends and get along real well. I would hate to lose this family from our neighborhood because you're denying them the building that they need to stay, really. They bought it when it was affordable. Prices went through the roof. What's happened in our neighborhood is people come in and level the houses that are there and build two-story big mansions. And that's changing the whole structure of the neighborhood, really. Normally, those people that are doing that are retirees, older individuals, and so we have no kids in the neighborhood except in this one little... one little area right there where they live and where my house is. And it's a hardship to deny this storage because these houses were built like in the 50s and 60s and they were built to that standard. And today's standard is totally different of all the stuff you have. You gotta have a place to put your stuff. And there's no storage for this property. So they really need it and we're in favor. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Would anyone else like to come up and speak in favor of this? Okay, would anyone like to speak in opposition of this? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and go to the board for discussion, comments, or possibly a motion. Well, I'll start. I love this street. It's one of the hidden gems of New Braunfels. I looked at buying a few houses down there over the past 25 years. And I know exactly what she's dealing with. I have a friend that lives right down the street, so I'm familiar with the area. And it's hard. And having kids, having four kids myself, you need a little extra room. And I don't have a problem with this whatsoever. So that is my two cents.

I feel better with the LDO would allow it in the future. So, I mean, if the code is headed that direction, it makes me feel better about it. Okay.

I think the cost of going up, like you said, the cost of going up on existing homes is way more than just building a separate building there. So, and like you said, with it going through the process anyway for a 35 foot, I think I'm in agreement with it.

Okay. Do we have anyone to make a motion?

I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance with the condition that the main dwelling remain at the same height as it is today.

Okay. Do we have a second to that motion?

Can I, do I second or can I ask for a clarification? So you're saying that we have to keep the existing house at that, so like in the future if they want to change that height?

The thought was, again, to if going with the neighbors and keeping the feeling of the neighborhood, again, is to keep from...

The uniformity, but they're not, we're asking for the additional structure, not the home. So...

You see what I'm saying?

We don't have to approve his motion. We can have a second motion if we don't have a second to his motion.

That's why I wanted the clarification that he's saying that in the future, if they wanted to build up, then they couldn't because of what your motion is.

So do we have a second to his motion? We do not have a second. Okay, would another motion like to be made?

I'll motion to approve. As is.

We have a motion, do we have a second? Quidley second. Okay, can I have a roll call then?

Member Quidley?

Yes.

Member Ram? Yes. Member Reichenau?

Yes.

Member Schreidner?

Yes.

Chair Mund?

Yes. Congratulations, your motion is passed. With... With that, that is the last item of this evening. So I am going to go ahead and call this meeting adjourned.