[0:09] >> Good evening. Welcome to

[0:09] the regular city of New

[0:11] Braunfels Board of Adjustment

[0:13] meeting. We are a five-member

[0:14] board that is appointed by

[0:17] City Council pursuant to state

[0:19] law. This board hears request

[0:21] from property owners for

[0:22] variances and special

[0:24] exemptions from locally

[0:26] adopted ordinances. This board

[0:27] MAY also hear appeals of

[0:30] decisions made by city staff

[0:30] and administering these

[0:34] ordinances. The general

[0:34] procedure for each case is a

[0:37] board will hear first from

[0:38] city staff who will provide a

[0:40] summary of each applicant's

[0:42] request. Then the applicant or

[0:43] agent will be asked to come

[0:46] forward and advocate for the

[0:48] request next. The board or

[0:49] Quest public comment from

[0:50] anyone who would like to speak

[0:52] in favor or in opposition to

[0:54] the request. Those speaking in

[0:55] favor or in opposition will be

[0:58] limited to 5 minutes. However,

[0:59] the chair does reserve the

[1:01] right to adjust these times.

[1:02] The board will keep all

[1:04] discussions to the issues at

[1:06] hand and cannot deviate in 2

[1:08] unrelated topics or areas that

[1:08] do not contribute to the

[1:10] merits of this request. After

[1:12] the close of the public

[1:14] hearing, the pending case will

[1:15] need to have a motion and a

[1:17] second to the motion from the

[1:18] board members in order to

[1:22] proceed to a vote in order for

[1:23] request to be approved. State

[1:25] law requires that 4 out of 5

[1:26] of the board members vote to

[1:29] approve the variance requests.

[1:31] The request fails if no motion

[1:32] or second is made for

[1:35] approval. If denied the same

[1:38] or similar request cannot

[1:39] reappear before the board for

[1:42] at least 6 months unless new

[1:43] substantial evidence not

[1:44] available at the initial

[1:47] hearing is produced by the

[1:48] applicant. Any aggrieved party

[1:50] MAY appeal a decision made by

[1:52] this board and appeals are

[1:52] made to the district court or

[1:54] county court of law. And if

[1:56] you have any questions, you

[1:58] MAY City staff member after

[2:00] the meeting. All right. Can I

[2:02] have role call? Police? Member

[2:07] quickly? Member am here member

[2:12] I Alternate member Schneider

[2:18] here, CHAIRMAN Here. Thank you

[2:20] so much. First rule on on the

[2:22] agenda is the approval of the

[2:25] JUNE 25th 2026 regular meeting

[2:29] minutes. I make a motion to

[2:32] approve. I second the motion

[2:33] great. Can we have ruled on

[2:37] that? Please. Member quickly.

[2:39] Member am yes member right

[2:42] know. Yes. Members Schreiner

[2:47] yes, and yes, thank you.

[2:49] Moving down. We have citizens

[2:53] communication and then we're

[2:54] gonna move to our public

[2:56] hearing that items for

[2:56] individual consideration was

[3:01] moved down. There. First item

[3:04] this evening, c s 2, 6 Dash,

[3:06] 0, 2, 6, 2, a public hearing

[3:06] and consideration of a request

[3:10] by 24 design on behalf of a

[3:12] nerd can't Black New Braunfels

[3:14] Holdings, llc for an alternate

[3:18] site plan to allow a proposed

[3:19] American flag to exceed the

[3:20] maximum allowable size for

[3:22] flags for property within the

[3:24] c-one be General Business

[3:26] district and with frontage

[3:30] along loop 3.37 currently

[3:34] addressed at 9.36 Loop 3.37,

[3:36] MR. Barker, hello, and Little

[3:36] MISTER Chair and Good Evening

[3:37] board members called Barker

[3:38] with neighborhood in community

[3:39] planning.

[3:41] >> For your consideration this

[3:41] evening is a proposed

[3:43] alternative sign plan. This

[3:45] request is not a sign

[3:47] variance, rather. It's the

[3:48] appropriate process for

[3:49] considering proposals that MAY

[3:51] not fully comply with the city

[3:53] sign code because of this. A

[3:54] hardship is not required and

[3:55] approval MAY be granted by a

[4:00] simple majority of the board.

[4:01] The subject property is in

[4:02] nearly 2 acre commercial lot

[4:04] home to the original Black's

[4:06] barbecue and located at the

[4:07] intersection of Loop 3, 3, 7,

[4:10] and Common Street and has

[4:11] frontage on both of those

[4:14] roadways. The property is

[4:15] located within the c-one be

[4:17] General Business district and

[4:18] sits near the center of an

[4:22] active commercial corridor.

[4:22] Residential zoning as can be

[4:23] seen on the periphery of the

[4:28] area here. Here's a few photos

[4:28] of the property is seen from

[4:30] across the loop and along

[4:32] Common Street showing the

[4:32] properties frontage along both

[4:36] of the roadways. Staff notes

[4:37] that the site contains an

[4:40] existing non-conforming pull

[4:41] side advertising the

[4:42] restaurant as well as an

[4:43] abandoned pull sign structure

[4:43] that historically served

[4:47] previous restaurant uses. A

[4:48] few more photos here. And we

[4:51] can always come back to these.

[4:52] Standards for flags and

[4:53] flagpoles are established

[4:55] under the city sign ordinance.

[4:57] A comparison of the proposed

[4:58] alternative plan to the city's

[4:59] existing standards can be seen

[5:02] here in this chart. Fleck

[5:03] sizes are limited to a maximum

[5:04] of 40 square feet across all

[5:07] zoning districts and flagpoles

[5:08] are set to a maximum height of

[5:09] 25 feet and most zoning

[5:11] districts. Flagpoles located

[5:14] within the c-one be district

[5:15] are permitted to exceed the

[5:18] typical 25 foot height limit

[5:19] up to the maximum building.

[5:20] Height permitted in the

[5:20] district, which in this case

[5:26] is 75 feet. The proposed

[5:27] alternative plan and requests

[5:29] that American flag be allowed

[5:30] to exceed the maximum flags

[5:30] signs established under the

[5:34] city sign ordinance. The

[5:34] applicant notes that the

[5:35] proposed increase in flags on

[5:37] his to 96 square feet is

[5:38] intended to be approx

[5:39] appropriately scaled to the

[5:40] new 60 foot flagpole planned

[5:44] for the site and would ensure

[5:45] proper visibility and

[5:45] proportional appearance

[5:50] relative to the taller poll.

[5:50] They emphasize that the flag

[5:52] is intended to serve as a

[5:53] prominent patriotic feature

[5:54] for the restaurant,

[5:54] particularly given the

[5:55] properties frontage along

[6:00] heavily trafficked roadways.

[6:00] The provide a site plan shows

[6:01] that the flag pole is set back

[6:02] more than 50 feet from the

[6:03] property lines along both of

[6:07] those roadways. Staff is

[6:08] recommending approval of the

[6:10] request with the following

[6:11] conditions consistent with the

[6:13] intent of the alternative site

[6:15] plan process condition. Number

[6:17] one would be that that only an

[6:17] official United States flag

[6:18] MAY exceed the maximum flag

[6:20] size up to 96 square feet. In

[6:23] condition. Number 2, the

[6:24] abandoned formerly utilized

[6:25] sign pole be removed from the

[6:29] property. The proposed flag

[6:31] Sajdak seat proposed flag size

[6:34] exceeds the standard allowance

[6:35] is proportionate to the taller

[6:36] 60 foot flagpole allowed in

[6:39] the property. Zoning.

[6:40] Stephens. The proposal would

[6:42] enhance site visibility and

[6:43] the recommended conditions

[6:44] would help reduce existing

[6:47] nonconformities on the site.

[6:48] Since posting the agenda for

[6:49] this meeting. Staff has had

[6:49] additional discussions with

[6:50] the applicant regarding

[6:53] condition number 2. They've

[6:54] indicated that there are

[6:55] future plans to utilize the

[6:59] event in Seoul. Sign pole and

[7:01] intends to submit a separate

[7:01] alternatives signed plan

[7:04] request for its use. This will

[7:07] conclude our introduction, the

[7:08] applicant believe MR. Black is

[7:10] for this evening. I'm happy to

[7:11] answer any questions you MAY

[7:15] have for staff. Thank you,

[7:15] sir.

[7:16] >> Do we have any questions

[7:22] for Colton this evening?

[7:23] >> Do you know height? So the

[7:25] signs out there that are out

[7:28] there ready existing.

[7:29] >> I don't have an exact

[7:31] height on since I've been

[7:32] doing this a little bit. I

[7:33] give them at least the 40

[7:35] feet. Just all of them.

[7:38] >> Right. But the the

[7:38] original.

[7:42] >> Lex looks even tall.

[7:45] >> It might be And as seen in

[7:47] the past, a lot of these signs

[7:49] existing in town established

[7:50] for the city, had a sign code

[7:50] around 2009 or is when we

[7:54] adopted that. So a lot of

[7:55] these are still in existence.

[7:56] They're grandfathered in, but

[7:57] they're just considered

[7:57] nonconforming. Okay. All

[7:59] right. Thank

[8:03] >> Coca-cola has the for the

[8:05] existing abandoned sign. Yes,

[8:08] sir, has it. Been submitted

[8:14] and is it going to conform?

[8:15] Johnston?

[8:16] >> We it would also, I

[8:18] believe, fall into one of

[8:18] those nonconforming

[8:19] categories. It's shorter than

[8:22] the existing black signed. But

[8:24] staff has met with MR. Black

[8:26] some of these folks in the

[8:26] past to discuss potential

[8:27] options for utilizing that

[8:28] signage. And it's kind of a

[8:31] tough cookie to crack here.

[8:32] The current sign codes allow

[8:35] for a pulse at that size at

[8:36] this location or within the

[8:39] property zoning district. But

[8:40] the applicants made clear that

[8:42] they intend to potentially

[8:43] realize that okay, ended but

[8:44] not submitted. Get correct?

[8:48] Yes, sir.

[8:49] >> Thing else on the other end

[8:50] of the table. So the the

[8:52] height. That they're looking

[8:55] to do is currently would-be

[8:57] conforming at the 60 foot can.

[8:57] 75 feet currently allowed?

[9:00] Yes, sir. So it's just

[9:02] basically the size of the flag

[9:04] itself. Yes, sir, that's

[9:05] that's what the this

[9:06] alternative site plan is

[9:09] proposing. Just a

[9:10] >> Exceeding of the in the

[9:14] setback 50 foot vs. Believe

[9:16] the typically it would be just

[9:17] 5 feet for flag pulls off the

[9:18] off the property line. But

[9:21] given the location over

[9:22] supposing it. Yeah, at least

[9:25] 50 feet will

[9:26] >> Let me ask you one

[9:28] question. How far back as the

[9:29] current signed when I read the

[9:32] packet, I I understood there

[9:32] they're going to put it where

[9:33] that current sign was. So I

[9:34] might have misread that.

[9:38] >> And you wouldn't be a a

[9:38] when Jamie for that because I

[9:39] thought the same It's going to

[9:42] go right with that old poll is

[9:42] that's what looking back at

[9:43] the property. It's actually a

[9:46] street street pole, parking

[9:48] lot like right where the

[9:49] flagpoles looking case. That's

[9:51] going to replace that parking

[9:52] lot. That's our understanding

[9:53] at this time. But perhaps some

[9:54] stuff. Okay, that's no. That's

[9:57] fine. Thank you for clarifying

[9:59] All right. No other questions.

[10:01] Thank At this point, we would

[10:04] like to ask the applicant to

[10:04] come up and please state your

[10:05] name for the address.

[10:14] >> His name for the record.

[10:17] Hello, I'm Mark Stewart.

[10:19] Architect with 24 7 at 605,

[10:20] which drive New Braunfels,

[10:24] Texas.

[10:25] >> Thank you. Would like to

[10:26] tell us about your project,

[10:30] all that so that this you see

[10:31] the flag is appropriately

[10:34] located. Well, back from the

[10:35] setbacks.

[10:35] >> And ideal location even

[10:36] interfere with current

[10:41] parking. And did our homework.

[10:43] And we've proportionately size

[10:45] the flag to be proportional to

[10:46] the height, but not over the

[10:47] top. Literally. No pun

[10:53] intended. In regards to the

[10:54] existing nonconforming sign

[10:58] that that the blacks want to

[11:00] work with us to come up with a

[11:01] conforming solution to bring

[11:03] it back to life. What I'd like

[11:06] to suggest is. That that be

[11:10] considered on the stone. As an

[11:12] application in at that time we

[11:13] can address it's full

[11:17] compliance. I would like

[11:19] behalf of the owner suggest

[11:21] that we approve the size of

[11:23] the flag and then let that

[11:27] other sign be addressed fully

[11:29] in a separate application. The

[11:30] other side is not on our

[11:31] agenda this evening. We're

[11:32] just don't work and worried

[11:34] about the Understood. Yeah. I

[11:35] mean, that's a condition for

[11:35] the flag. Esteban suggesting

[11:48] that get women? The questions.

[11:51] So will this replace the line

[11:52] that is in the parking lot or

[11:53] is this going to be in

[11:56] addition to be in addition to

[11:57] it'll sit back in the striped

[12:00] area where there's no parking

[12:02] >> About 10 feet away from

[12:03] that. And the reason is so we

[12:04] can keep that light where it

[12:06] is and had this beast its own

[12:11] structure, 60 foot hole. Okay.

[12:14] And only going to be housing

[12:15] American flight or are they

[12:16] going to stack flags all the

[12:17] way down?

[12:18] >> Given that there's a 90

[12:19] covid. Could you go back to

[12:23] that? You know, we have

[12:24] maximum size of 96 square

[12:28] feet. Just kind trying to

[12:30] envision what else is going to

[12:31] be on there. Just the American

[12:35] flag see American All right.

[12:36] Do we have any other questions

[12:40] for are

[12:42] >> So it's going to be flying

[12:44] 24, 7, correct? Yeah. So what

[12:45] the intent was to have

[12:46] appropriate lighting. Okay. So

[12:48] like the flag downer up, I

[12:53] guess to be up the Point

[12:54] towards the flag. I guess that

[12:55] would be a question for the

[12:56] city. It needs requirements

[12:57] for. Whatever lighting we

[13:04] have.

[13:05] >> I usually try and be

[13:05] prepared for your question.

[13:08] Don't have with at the moment.

[13:09] But typically are what we

[13:10] don't have an official dark

[13:11] skies policy in place. We do

[13:12] try and strive for dark skies

[13:16] where where possible. All had

[13:17] something that as well.

[13:18] Kristie Lu, any planning to

[13:24] record city of Braunfels if a

[13:25] flag erected raise for the

[13:26] rector MISS For a flag, U.S.

[13:29] Flag or state flag. And of

[13:30] course, with approval of the

[13:32] board for the size and such as

[13:34] requested. I believe the

[13:35] federal government requires

[13:35] that it be lighted at night.

[13:36] So even if the city had

[13:39] limitations lighting, we would

[13:40] be able to enforce those of

[13:41] the federal government

[13:43] mandated up lighting for the

[13:44] lights.

[13:45] >> Well, thinking down, like

[13:45] can you can also live

[13:50] different way. But let's pull

[13:52] And I think, too, that it

[13:53] would be of focused

[13:54] directional light. What we can

[13:54] control the being very

[13:57] precisely.

[13:58] >> To hit the flag and not

[14:01] project behind it. I do have

[14:04] one more sorry.

[14:09] >> Why it is why 60 feet like

[14:11] that is tall. Even though I

[14:12] understand 75 foot for the

[14:14] commercial is, you know.

[14:18] >> Allowable.

[14:19] >> But like in that area, 60

[14:20] feet, would be like really

[14:22] high.

[14:26] >> And I'll tell you why the

[14:29] the property is surrounded by

[14:31] power lines and they're at 40

[14:35] 2 feet above the ground. So as

[14:36] we studied the placement of

[14:39] the flags, so that would be

[14:39] visible when we had a low and

[14:42] that 40 some odd foot range.

[14:44] What we found looking at the 3

[14:46] d model and study in the site

[14:47] was that as you are looking

[14:48] at, you be looking at the flag

[14:51] through power lines. So 60

[14:52] foot was that magic number

[14:52] that got the flag above the

[14:53] power lines were when you're

[14:57] looking at it, you didn't see

[14:58] wires obscuring their view. So

[15:03] that's why it's not high. All

[15:04] right. Any other questions for

[15:07] the initial eruption? Thank

[15:11] you. Thank you.

[15:13] >> At this time, anyone else

[15:14] would like to come up and

[15:15] speak in favor of this as the

[15:19] applicant. You're there

[15:20] anybody else for the

[15:21] applicants like speaking

[15:26] favor. All right. That will

[15:27] open the public. Are you

[15:27] coming up for the public?

[15:29] We'll open our public.

[15:32] >> part of this hearing, if

[15:34] you like to come up and speak

[15:35] in favor or in opposition

[15:36] state your name, please. They

[15:37] didn't want district 5. I am

[15:40] going to every board meeting.

[15:40] >> In a wooden quite sure what

[15:43] this one was. You know, I live

[15:45] on the condo condo on the

[15:47] river and what to look out at

[15:48] night. Cypress been there's

[15:49] this giant flag that just

[15:52] flies above the whole city.

[15:53] That is such a wonderful view

[15:56] to see and such a statement.

[15:59] Of New Braunfels. This

[16:03] culture, what we believe in

[16:06] you know, American flag is a

[16:07] very simple thing that ties

[16:08] back to your cultures in our

[16:10] founding. That is really being

[16:11] bashed in many ways. The

[16:14] culture is sort of trying to,

[16:15] you know, diminish America

[16:16] many way to changing change.

[16:18] Now, but be a great thing.

[16:20] Him, you know it. It's a

[16:20] wonderful business and

[16:21] wonderful civic-minded owner

[16:22] sell. I'm very much in

[16:25] support. Thank you, Thank you.

[16:29] Appreciate that. All right. We

[16:30] have anyone else like to speak

[16:31] in favor. Please feel free to

[16:31] come up and state your name

[16:40] for the record.

[16:41] >> Hello, everyone. My name is

[16:44] Kent Black. And I'm sorry. I

[16:45] missed the to get up there.

[16:49] Quick enough for the time. I

[16:49] just want to thank all of you

[16:53] for your service. And I know

[16:54] what doing is very important.

[16:57] And it's been a real honor for

[17:01] me and my family to be in New

[17:02] Braunfels and do our best to

[17:05] be a part of the community my

[17:07] mother's first language was

[17:13] German. So of I enjoy German

[17:15] culture and no one has a

[17:17] little kid and the German I

[17:20] learned was when I was doing

[17:21] something bad, one answered

[17:23] uncle as would the use some

[17:26] different phrases. But

[17:28] appreciate you all's

[17:29] consideration and thank you

[17:31] for your public service. Thank

[17:35] k. Anyone else like to speak

[17:40] in favor. Okay. Would anyone

[17:41] like to speak in opposition of

[17:43] this?

[17:44] >> Seeing none. We'll close

[17:47] the public hearing board

[17:48] members. Do we have any

[17:53] discussion? Do we

[17:54] >> Emotions that someone like

[17:58] to make? I came up with a new

[18:01] question for Colton, the slide

[18:06] that has the current, the I

[18:06] guess what's allowed height

[18:08] was inside Buzz. It shows that

[18:10] the c-one be he's allowed of

[18:14] 75 feet. Do you know? What is

[18:16] allowed just and see one would

[18:20] be the same as the c-one be.

[18:21] In the neighboring properties

[18:23] are all c-one is why I'm

[18:24] asking the question. It seems

[18:25] like this property itself as

[18:28] the c-one be.

[18:28] >> Yeah. And actually sure I'm

[18:31] understanding your question.

[18:34] If a similar height would be

[18:36] allowed in the c-one nearby.

[18:36] Correct. Give me one moment. I

[18:37] think I have paper copy of the

[18:41] full chart. They would have.

[18:43] That information for in

[18:45] regards the flagpoles

[18:46] particular or yes. And I guess

[18:46] that's part of our discussion.

[18:48] The reason I'm asking is just,

[18:49] you know, obviously with this,

[18:50] you know, setting a precedent

[18:55] of this is. Does every see one

[18:56] zoning down the Loo then say,

[18:59] well, I also want all right,

[18:59] super tall. That's a good

[19:05] question. Year is Yes, I

[19:06] included this line here. This

[19:08] is the code eggs for

[19:08] government of flags and you'll

[19:12] notice at the bottom letter d

[19:14] lists the other zoning Dick's

[19:15] districts that this is allowed

[19:16] to where it can match whatever

[19:17] the maximum height is for that

[19:20] zoning district. It does not

[19:22] appear that see one is in that

[19:23] category. Icc, one b and c 2

[19:25] and so on. I don't see. See

[19:33] one in there. Okay. Thank

[19:37] Discussions. Emotions anyone

[19:42] like to make on I want to make

[19:44] a motion. But again, my

[19:47] opinion just with the other

[19:47] signs being nonconforming, if

[19:49] there is potential that.

[19:51] >> I feel like in our other

[19:54] sign alternative plans.

[19:55] Usually there's like some type

[19:56] of trade off like, hey, we

[19:57] want to go from 4 signs to one

[19:59] large signs. We want a large

[20:00] on. I feel like with this

[20:02] request, it just asking for

[20:05] that. Almost feel like it's

[20:06] theirs. Something going to

[20:08] come up in the future with the

[20:10] 2, looks like there's 2

[20:11] existing poll signs. I don't

[20:12] know if both would be allowed

[20:15] in the zoning, but it seems

[20:17] like some type of plan that

[20:19] incorporated the flag and the

[20:20] 2 existing signs.

[20:20] >> I think if we follow the

[20:21] city's guidelines and saying

[20:23] that they would have to and

[20:24] then the other that they're

[20:25] going to do this, I have no

[20:26] problem with

[20:27] >> think it's a separate

[20:29] issue, too. That would be a

[20:33] separate issue in.

[20:34] >> Cold could you read what

[20:35] the what your recommendation

[20:38] was for city, please,

[20:42] >> We had recommended that

[20:42] we've recommended approval of

[20:45] the proposed plan with the

[20:46] condition. One that only an

[20:47] official United States flag

[20:48] MAY exceed the maximum flag

[20:52] size up to 96 square feet.

[20:53] Addition to that, the

[20:56] abandoned former joining Curry

[20:57] knows last Gennaro the

[20:58] existing remaining structure

[20:59] be removed. Just the polls

[21:05] there. Use that exact. For my

[21:09] motion. And mean, to restate

[21:10] that I can or we can just use

[21:12] exactly how cold properly

[21:15] stated that we can. All you

[21:16] can also freeze. It with the

[21:17] conditions listed in the staff

[21:18] report. Like, yeah.

[21:21] >> We also. Make sure it's

[21:22] only the flag like I don't

[21:28] want. 2 years from now.

[21:29] Something else is going to be

[21:30] out something else is going to

[21:31] get. Then something you know,

[21:34] then it's like that car

[21:35] dealership. Would you like to

[21:36] motion your motion with my

[21:39] staff,

[21:42] >> It again,

[21:47] >> making a motion.

[21:49] >> For the flag pole has

[21:52] proposed at 60 feet with the

[21:53] 96 square-foot flag with

[21:54] United States flat. With no

[21:58] other. Do I do. The commission

[22:00] commission now with no other

[22:01] flights attached to that one

[22:07] poll. In addition, this second

[22:08] condition of removing the

[22:10] existing. Signs on the

[22:12] property.

[22:16] >> As stated in the

[22:17] >> as stated in the staff

[22:22] recommendation. Okay.

[22:23] >> We have a motion that we

[22:23] have a second to that motion.

[22:27] I'll second that motion. All

[22:28] Can we have a roll call,

[22:32] please. Member quickly. Member

[22:36] am.

[22:36] >> Member reckon.

[22:40] >> Yes. Member Schreiner. Yes,

[22:43] and I.

[22:44] >> Thank you. Congratulations.

[22:50] Your motion is passed. Items

[22:52] for consideration with us.

[22:54] Let's talk about Zb. 2, 6, 6,

[22:57] that 0, 0, 0, 9, a public

[23:00] hearing in consideration of a

[23:02] request for a variance from

[23:04] Section 1, 4, 4 dash, 3.3 dash

[23:07] to be one. I I to allow an

[23:10] accessory structure structure

[23:12] to encroach. 25 feet into the

[23:16] required. 25 foot corner side

[23:18] setback with the art to a

[23:21] chill single family. 2 family

[23:24] Historic landmark District

[23:25] currently addressed at 307,

[23:29] North Gunther's Avenue. And so

[23:33] mouthful, Sorry.

[23:34] >> Good evening. Chair and

[23:35] board members, Mary level with

[23:37] neighborhood in community

[23:39] planning department. The

[23:40] subject property is a 2 story.

[23:42] 1900 square-foot single-family

[23:45] residential home constructed

[23:48] in about at about 1920,

[23:48] located at the corner of North

[23:51] Gunther Avenue and East Bridge

[23:54] Street. It is owned are 2 and

[23:56] is surrounded entirely by are

[23:59] 2 properties. The existing

[23:59] house. It's only about 8 feet

[24:00] from the corner side property

[24:02] line, which is what the

[24:06] variances for today is the to

[24:09] encroach into that corner side

[24:10] property line, which is

[24:11] significantly significantly

[24:12] closer than today's required.

[24:17] 25 foot corner site setback.

[24:18] These photos show the current

[24:19] conditions of the side yard

[24:22] along the corner of East

[24:24] Bridge Street and North Gunter

[24:26] Avenue as well as other

[24:26] structures and fences that

[24:27] have been built very close to

[24:30] the property lines. The

[24:30] applicant originally applied

[24:34] for a garage, a variance for a

[24:35] garage to encroach into the

[24:37] set back in JUNE of this year.

[24:40] But concerns were raised at

[24:43] that time regarding vehicle

[24:43] circulation and backing out

[24:47] safety at this intersection.

[24:49] The garage component has been

[24:51] removed and the applicant is

[24:52] now requesting only an

[24:55] accessory storage building,

[24:56] the applicant states that the

[24:57] request is in harmony with the

[24:58] purpose and intent of the

[25:00] ordinance allowing a

[25:02] reasonable accessory structure

[25:05] without affecting neighboring

[25:07] properties. The hardship

[25:09] results from physical

[25:09] characteristics of the lot and

[25:12] is tied directly to the

[25:13] historic development up to

[25:17] this point. And the current

[25:18] code requirement to have a 25

[25:20] foot yard Set-back. Side yard

[25:24] setback. The site plan shows

[25:25] the proposed storage building

[25:28] along the existing fence line.

[25:30] The proposal is for storage,

[25:31] only eliminating any of the

[25:32] traffic impacts that were

[25:35] associated with the previously

[25:37] requested variance for garage.

[25:40] The building is modest in

[25:42] scale and maintains the

[25:43] residential character of the

[25:44] area. Additionally, the

[25:46] building would be located

[25:49] along that existing fence line

[25:50] resulting in little to no

[25:52] visible change to the side

[25:52] yard appearance from either

[25:54] the street or surrounding

[25:58] properties. Notices were sent

[26:01] to 20 property owners.

[26:02] Surrounding property owners

[26:05] and staff has received 7

[26:07] responses in favor and one in

[26:10] opposition. The applicant is

[26:12] here to present and advocate

[26:13] for their request. And I can

[26:14] also answer any questions that

[26:17] you MAY have for staff. Thank

[26:17] you, ma'am. Do we have any

[26:23] questions for staff? Have a

[26:24] question. I don't know if you

[26:26] know the answer. One of the

[26:27] think the opposition card

[26:28] mentions something about the

[26:31] garage not approved.

[26:33] >> The drawing doesn't show

[26:34] any doors on that structure.

[26:37] Is there any information on?

[26:38] What would be in that

[26:38] structure for doors? I did

[26:42] have a a.

[26:43] >> Someone reach out about the

[26:43] doors so this could never be

[26:45] turned in if this was approved

[26:47] tonight, this could never be

[26:48] turned into a garage with a

[26:52] garage door on the outside

[26:54] because as was stated in the

[26:55] variance request, you would

[26:58] need multiple variances for

[27:00] that. And so that would not be

[27:02] allowed by code in order to do

[27:03] that. You know, an applicant

[27:05] would have to come back and

[27:08] asked for a variance for at

[27:10] least 2 different berries

[27:11] variance requests. I did

[27:14] notice that in the one person

[27:15] that was opposed to the

[27:15] requests they stated in their

[27:19] car that they we're against a

[27:21] garage, but they were okay if

[27:22] it were just a storage

[27:25] building with no the garage

[27:25] door along the roadway of East

[27:29] Bridge.

[27:30] >> And is there a current rear

[27:32] setback or is that only going

[27:33] to a side said that? I believe

[27:35] that they're going to be

[27:37] meeting the rear setback and

[27:39] that is 3 feet in the rear.

[27:40] Which is under allowed under

[27:42] our current code.

[27:46] >> So see exact same size that

[27:47] we saw 2 months ago, they just

[27:51] removed the garage door.

[27:53] >> That I think that's very

[27:54] it's very similar in size. If

[27:55] not smaller. I don't have the

[28:01] other. Dimensions with me to

[28:03] tonight that the applicant

[28:03] refer to rule on the last as

[28:07] well. I don't see that either.

[28:10] >> Yeah, that the it's always

[28:11] recommended that the applicant

[28:11] strictly, you know, the

[28:12] floorplan on the left. You

[28:15] know.

[28:16] >> Image isn't really

[28:17] necessarily required. They

[28:18] could have just had the

[28:19] property outlines. So we just

[28:22] want to focus on the you know

[28:25] what the request is today.

[28:26] >> And if whatever variance,

[28:30] if we approve the variance. If

[28:31] a garage or was at a later

[28:34] time without approval.

[28:37] >> That would most likely be a

[28:37] code compliance issue

[28:40] enforcement issue. Okay. All

[28:41] right. Thank you. Okay. Thank

[28:44] you. And at this time invite

[28:45] the applicant to come up to

[28:50] the podium. You will come in.

[28:55] He says, okay,

[28:57] >> Just trying to pull a shed

[28:58] in my backyard so I can store

[28:59] things like that. I please

[29:00] have your name for the record.

[29:04] I'm sorry. Gregg Williams.

[29:07] Yeah. Trying to but a shed to

[29:12] store items like a on Moore's

[29:13] yard tools, personal tools,

[29:16] things like that. We are

[29:18] trying to preserve some space

[29:21] for, you know, living space in

[29:22] the backyard. So that's that's

[29:26] goal. You have questions for

[29:34] the applicant.

[29:35] >> Yeah, I've got I've got a

[29:37] question and so stated at our

[29:39] last meeting. My concern was

[29:40] having the building right on

[29:43] the property line. You know,

[29:45] would you be open to shifting like 5 feet from the

[29:49] property line? You're set on

[29:54] having it right. On the right

[29:56] away. You know, I'm just

[29:58] concerned having a building

[30:00] exactly on the boundary line.

[30:01] It could encourage him to the

[30:02] right away if it's not bill,

[30:04] perfectly. And that's

[30:05] typically why there's some

[30:09] kind of setback.

[30:11] >> Yeah, I would be flexible

[30:13] shifting it over a few I were

[30:16] just again trying to preserve

[30:17] as much space in the backyard.

[30:20] It's a pretty small lot. So I

[30:21] didn't want the shed to be

[30:22] like in the middle of the

[30:25] backyard. If we were to follow

[30:26] like the back requirements,

[30:26] that's essentially what

[30:30] happened and who would be

[30:31] pretty awkward. But moving it

[30:32] over close to the property

[30:35] line is kind of the goal.

[30:37] Yeah, definitely open that the

[30:38] size. That and to answer the

[30:39] question about the size is the

[30:41] exact same size as before. But

[30:43] we're flexible and modifying

[30:49] that if needed.

[30:49] >> Thanks against your doors

[30:53] will be on the inside of the

[30:56] property. No doors to the

[30:56] street, no doors to the

[30:59] street. All on the inside.

[31:01] Okay. Yeah. All right. Now I

[31:02] understand that we have any

[31:03] other questions for the

[31:08] applicant. All right. Thank

[31:10] you. Thank you. We will open

[31:11] up the public hearing at this

[31:13] time. If we have anyone who

[31:13] like to speak in favor of this

[31:16] happened. Please come up and

[31:17] state your name for the

[31:23] record. My name is Damon

[31:24] Spears.

[31:25] >> And I mean, House number 9

[31:29] right there on the couple

[31:30] houses down from break. And my

[31:31] wife and agree that, you know,

[31:33] have a storage unit there to

[31:35] be able to put things and he's

[31:35] he's amassed. I think

[31:36] everybody in this room has a

[31:39] place that they store stuff.

[31:40] And and I'll take it asking

[31:43] too much. So I would

[31:44] appreciate if you guys could

[31:45] strongly considered great have

[31:46] storage unit there to but

[31:48] things having it outside. So

[31:50] thank you so much. Thank you,

[31:54] sir.

[31:54] >> Would anyone else like to

[31:55] step up and speak in the favor

[32:01] of this? Would anyone like to

[32:01] speak up in opposition of

[32:08] this? Seeing none. We will

[32:11] close that segment go to

[32:11] discussion board that we have

[32:13] any discussion comments. Or

[32:16] motions. We like to make. I

[32:21] agree with that I.

[32:22] >> Have a lot of heart from

[32:22] with the building being right

[32:23] on the property line. I I

[32:28] just. I can do that. So I'm

[32:30] just I feel like it needs to

[32:32] moved 5 foot, 3 5 foot with

[32:38] the ideal. Like a side lot.

[32:39] Being right on the property

[32:42] line is just. A permanent

[32:43] structure should not be there.

[32:46] >> You're saying 5 foot in

[32:51] towards the other.

[32:52] >> I mean, either make the

[32:52] shed smaller or shift at 5

[32:56] feet like. I mean, that's kind

[32:59] of up to the owner. But

[33:00] permanent structure should not

[33:07] be on The property line.

[33:07] >> Any other thoughts,

[33:10] comments otherwise?

[33:13] >> I don't have any feelings

[33:15] on the the property line. But

[33:16] with most of these variants,

[33:18] as we look at that have to do

[33:19] with historical, my feelings

[33:22] is good with that, too.

[33:23] Maintain their being a

[33:24] historical home there. So. We

[33:27] do approve it. I like to add

[33:31] the condition of like the

[33:31] existing footprint and high to

[33:32] that structure remaining in

[33:35] place. The house was ever torn

[33:37] down to build something new.

[33:44] Variants wouldn't. We need to

[33:46] make a change for the setback.

[33:52] I don't disagree with.

[33:57] >> Other comments. Do we have

[33:58] any motions anyone would like

[34:10] to make evening? All right.

[34:10] I'm sorry to see no motion. We

[34:11] will not be able to approve

[34:12] variance this evening. And

[34:21] even into the next. Zb to 6

[34:24] Dash, 0, 0, 1, 0, All the

[34:25] public hearing and

[34:26] consideration of the request

[34:28] for a variance from Section 1,

[34:30] 4, 4, that's 5 dot for e to

[34:32] allow detached excess

[34:34] restructure to exceed the

[34:36] height. The main dwelling by

[34:38] 10 feet. One, the ends within

[34:43] the are one 86 0.6

[34:45] single-family residential

[34:47] district currently addressed

[34:52] at. 31 want to come and drive.

[34:53] >> The subject property is

[34:54] developed with the 1200 Square

[34:55] Foot. Single-family home built

[35:00] in 1960. It is owned are one a

[35:00] 6.6 and is surrounded by

[35:04] similar single-family zoning

[35:06] structures. The applicant

[35:07] proposes a detached two-storey

[35:08] structure that includes a

[35:11] garage on the ground floor and

[35:11] in excess retooling unit on

[35:14] the second floor. As shown in

[35:16] the photos, the property is a

[35:19] corner lot with significant

[35:21] setback constraints. A 25 foot

[35:22] front setback along the North

[35:23] West frontage and a 15 foot

[35:25] corner set site setback along

[35:29] the southern frontage these

[35:29] limitations reduce the

[35:32] buildable area of the law. The

[35:34] site plan shows the location

[35:37] of the proposed to story

[35:37] accessory, building the

[35:41] structure would be 22 feet.

[35:42] One inch tall, which exceeds

[35:43] the height of the existing 12

[35:47] that tall home. And the

[35:49] applicant is requesting a

[35:50] Hyperion to 10 feet one inch

[35:52] to accommodate both the garage

[35:54] and the accessory dwelling

[35:56] unit with one combined

[35:56] building placed in the rear

[35:57] yard. As shown on the site

[36:00] plan. The rear lot could not

[36:02] sustain the building at 2

[36:04] separate structures because it

[36:06] would exceed the lot coverage

[36:06] for accessory structures in

[36:09] the rear yard. These

[36:16] elevations. Illustrate the

[36:17] scale and appearance of the

[36:18] proposed 2 story, accessory

[36:21] structure window placement has

[36:22] been intentionally

[36:23] intentionally designed to

[36:26] maintain privacy by voting

[36:28] avoiding direct views into

[36:30] neighboring properties and the

[36:31] proposed structure would meet

[36:32] all setback requirements for

[36:36] detached, accessory buildings.

[36:37] The request is consistent with

[36:38] the spirit of the ordinance in

[36:41] aligns with the draft lto

[36:42] which proposes a uniform. 35

[36:45] foot high cap for all

[36:46] residential structures,

[36:47] including accessory structures

[36:51] on residential lot. The

[36:52] applicant states at the height

[36:53] variances necessary due to the

[36:56] lots restrictive setbacks and

[36:58] the low height of the existing

[37:00] home and the need to combine

[37:02] the garage and the accessory

[37:06] dwelling into one structure.

[37:07] Public notices were sent to 22

[37:10] surrounding property owners

[37:11] and staff received 9 mailed-in

[37:15] responses in favor of the

[37:16] request and one in opposition

[37:18] as shown on the response map.

[37:20] The applicant is here to

[37:21] discuss their request. And I

[37:22] can also answer any questions

[37:26] for staff. Thank you, We have

[37:32] any questions for staff on

[37:33] >> It's a one story. Is

[37:37] existing dwelling and this

[37:37] because it's one story. The

[37:42] atu can't be higher than that.

[37:46] Why So a lot of houses over 2

[37:47] stories. So the property owner

[37:49] has stated that they need a

[37:50] garage or covered, you know,

[37:51] garage.

[37:52] >> And so what they wanted to

[37:55] do is combine and also a space

[37:56] for children or family

[37:58] relatives for an accessory

[38:01] dwelling It's very it's very

[38:05] common that people do it

[38:06] downstairs garage with the

[38:11] apartment above. And and so

[38:12] because there's so much

[38:14] limited space in the rear

[38:14] yard. We also have a

[38:16] requirement that you cannot

[38:18] cover more than 30% of the

[38:21] backyard. So that in addition

[38:22] to what they're trying to add

[38:24] on the property, you can also

[38:26] only have 2 accessory

[38:28] structures in a rear yard and

[38:32] this would be one. But it

[38:32] would be a combined one in

[38:34] instead of like spreading it

[38:36] out and covering the entire

[38:38] backyard, which would not be

[38:41] allowed there proposing to go

[38:44] up right and and do still have

[38:46] a question related to that.

[38:47] Well, because it's 10 foot

[38:50] above the existing So

[38:51] >> is it because the existing

[38:54] home is only one story and

[38:56] that's so so there is a

[38:57] requirement in the code which

[38:59] is in the caption.

[39:03] >> It's a section that states

[39:04] that any excess restructure,

[39:05] any building that you would

[39:06] put in your backyard like a

[39:09] storage shed. It cannot exceed

[39:11] the height of the main home.

[39:13] Okay. Got it. And that's why

[39:14] anything that would even if it

[39:14] was just one foot over, we

[39:16] would be they would have to

[39:19] request a variance, but

[39:20] they're adding an extra story.

[39:22] So that's where the 10 feet

[39:25] one inch times in a clay.

[39:30] explained.

[39:30] >> You know, it's going to ask

[39:32] so it's.

[39:33] >> It's being attached to the

[39:37] main structure

[39:38] >> No, they would not be able

[39:39] to attach it to the main

[39:44] structure because so they they

[39:46] have a line between images,

[39:48] the distance. They're not

[39:49] attaching it to the main

[39:50] structure. If they did, they

[39:50] would have to have a 20 foot

[39:55] set back any Maine structure

[39:57] would require it to be set

[39:59] back 20 feet and that there

[40:00] isn't that much room back

[40:03] there to be able to

[40:04] accommodate that. It would be

[40:04] part of remained willing,

[40:07] okay.

[40:10] >> Yeah. It's going to ask to

[40:12] could receive that opposition

[40:13] card. If put in a car it or

[40:15] no, sir, I didn't bring I can

[40:19] pull it up on agenda packet

[40:22] does anybody have a copy of 4

[40:24] o'clock email you got to He

[40:26] yes to End up acting on lines

[40:27] and have the opposition want

[40:29] to add all the approval ones,

[40:30] but not the. So if I remember

[40:31] correctly, the opposition one

[40:32] that came through that email

[40:34] today. So I think it was from

[40:35] the neighbor would be on top

[40:37] of this picture about privacy

[40:38] concerns. And I think they

[40:39] could see into house lives

[40:41] with

[40:43] >> Got it. Yeah, you're

[40:45] correct. There is that was

[40:47] email sent out with all of the

[40:48] and up to date a male e mail

[40:48] notices that we received in

[40:50] one of them.

[40:51] >> Was in opposition and it

[40:52] stated to what you just

[40:57] mentioned. And I can go back

[40:57] to that response map so you

[41:01] can see it there.

[41:01] >> a rethink a vacancy and

[41:04] they're up Yes. Any other

[41:08] questions for staff over here?

[41:09] >> Mary MAY not know, but

[41:10] there's an existing tree on

[41:13] the lot. And I assume that

[41:15] it's going to be completely

[41:17] removed. Let the applicant

[41:18] speak to the treaty. In just

[41:21] to let you know that

[41:22] residential

[41:23] >> development, they are

[41:25] allowed by right to remove

[41:26] trees or shrubs for the

[41:29] development of. Buildings

[41:33] things on the lot. There would

[41:34] not be any mitigation that

[41:36] would be required. Not at this

[41:36] time under our current code.

[41:40] Okay. All right. Any other

[41:43] questions for staff?

[41:44] >> Okay. At the Avenue would

[41:46] like to come up and speak on

[41:47] your behalf. Just state your

[41:48] name. For the record. Come up,

[41:55] please. That's

[41:59] >> Jana Prof the owner. First

[42:00] want to start off by saying

[42:01] thank you to marry. She's been

[42:05] so wonderful. Lovely in. As

[42:08] completely naive citizens.

[42:09] Coming to the so blind. She's

[42:14] been of sync. Okay. So just

[42:16] for a quick statement, I guess

[42:21] the necessity. Is it for the

[42:22] last 15 years, 3 things have

[42:26] been true about my family. My

[42:27] husband is worked out of town

[42:27] over half the month and we've

[42:32] had.

[42:33] >> Separate little one-bedroom

[42:34] house that he lived in place

[42:37] us when he was gone. We've

[42:38] always had over 800 square

[42:40] feet of storage for my

[42:42] husband, blue collar man to

[42:43] have all the things all of the

[42:47] welding equipment, the drill

[42:49] press, the power washer. The

[42:50] thing that most people would

[42:51] run to my husband owns and it

[42:51] is to improve our home to

[42:54] improve our neighbors. Homes.

[42:59] And number 3, my boys of all,

[43:01] we shared a room with bin a 5

[43:02] person family in a 3 bedroom

[43:09] house. Our entire lives. Last

[43:10] AUGUST. My husband actually

[43:11] got a job in New Braunfels

[43:12] area that allowed him to move

[43:14] home more permanently. We did

[43:18] not sell. The home that he was

[43:19] living in place is for this

[43:22] last year. Wall. Sure that

[43:24] this job was going to be good.

[43:25] We're going to still be able

[43:27] to make ends meet with this

[43:32] job and and we still have that

[43:33] storage. But he has so many

[43:33] things that he needs having

[43:34] this. And we've also been.

[43:39] Paying for storage unit. And

[43:41] so we knew that a garage was

[43:41] going to be an immediate

[43:44] necessity for him to be home.

[43:46] And so when we started the

[43:47] process initially back in

[43:49] FEBRUARY of just first making

[43:52] the plan to just get a garage

[43:52] built where the concrete

[43:53] existing concrete driveway

[43:54] isn't that back portion of the

[43:58] House? Of a lot? And we were

[43:59] talking initially with

[44:02] contractors. It was that at

[44:03] that time I think brought to

[44:05] this level detention and one

[44:06] of the contractors came and

[44:09] spoke with her and was like

[44:10] note that we're not going to

[44:11] be able to build a garage

[44:12] there. There's no room for you

[44:13] to build a garage. There. And

[44:21] so. We knew also. My oldest is

[44:22] 17 in the senior and his

[44:23] brother that he shares a room

[44:25] with the 16 and my daughter is

[44:27] 14. She's always had a room.

[44:33] Writes, but we know that we're

[44:33] coming to a point where we're

[44:34] going to have not just 2 boys

[44:38] sharing a room. In within the

[44:38] next 5 years. The plan was to

[44:39] potentially at square footage.

[44:41] Sure home. Where we're

[44:45] building that would and rush

[44:47] accessory apartment where we

[44:47] could just have an extra

[44:49] bedroom for a win. A married

[44:53] couple comes to visit or child

[44:56] boomerangs back and they need

[44:56] a little

[44:57] >> space. But a space that's

[44:59] their own. And so we knew that

[45:01] those 2 things we're going

[45:02] need the necessities for

[45:05] family. And when we found out

[45:06] we couldn't have both because

[45:08] of the lot restrictions or

[45:16] could have a garage. We had to

[45:17] go up. There's just no way to

[45:25] get both and not go up. The.

[45:26] It is not going to be a garage

[45:26] will not be a driveway. It

[45:28] will be a shop and the

[45:31] proposed back part of it was

[45:35] so that my husband could have.

[45:36] The shop door in the back so

[45:37] that he could load and unload

[45:38] it struck walking to and from

[45:39] that from our existing

[45:44] driveway. But it is not. It is

[45:46] just a shop on the bottom. So

[45:47] it's not really a rush

[45:51] apartment. And just to clarify

[45:51] that when I was talking to

[45:55] with our contractor, the cost

[45:55] of raising our roof line and

[45:58] elevating a roof line. He gave

[45:59] a bit of an additional $80,000

[46:02] which is just when the whole

[46:02] thing together is going to

[46:06] cost. Maybe 200. Which is

[46:08] already a really tight stretch

[46:10] to do all at once as opposed

[46:11] pacing it out over several

[46:16] years. To raise the roof are

[46:19] roofline cost prohibitive or

[46:23] to add a second story is even.

[46:26] And speaking to the tree and

[46:29] that tree, would we are going

[46:29] to have to take down no matter

[46:32] what it is dropped. Lim twice

[46:35] under House one on their the

[46:36] opposition Benson broken that

[46:40] fence once on that neighbor on

[46:41] the night, large large

[46:42] branches that have caused

[46:43] damage to to a neighboring

[46:44] properties and our own. And

[46:52] so. I hate to lose a tree.

[46:53] That is one that's going to

[46:53] have to come down for just the

[46:56] safety for safety reasons. For

[47:00] neighborhood Harmony. I will

[47:03] say, too, that as you

[47:05] mentioned, there multiple

[47:07] houses were 1960's whole

[47:08] neighborhood with 1200 Square

[47:10] foot homes as the majority of

[47:14] our neighbors and just in the

[47:15] little circle. It just go to

[47:17] that little map. Welcome to

[47:18] this one. That was good

[47:21] enough. So in just a little

[47:21] lot of coma, a little ashmore

[47:23] circle there.

[47:24] >> You know, there's been 4 or

[47:25] 5 homes that have been leveled

[47:28] in a 2 story has been put up

[47:31] in the its place and we want

[47:32] we can afford a debt left

[47:33] grows best in small houses.

[47:38] But though it our neighborhood

[47:40] is still in harmony with those

[47:42] people changes. We love those

[47:43] neighbors. You know, those

[47:44] neighbors invite the girls

[47:45] next door in their 1200 Square

[47:46] foot home to come play

[47:48] pickleball in their backyard.

[47:49] You know, one of the neighbors

[47:51] that built a 2 story home that

[47:52] does overlook other people's

[47:56] property. Hit. He says

[47:57] Professor Texas State offered

[47:59] to have my son who was

[47:59] interested engineering. Come a

[48:02] listen to will hit one of his

[48:03] lectures. They're lovely.

[48:04] People were lovely

[48:04] neighborhood in her money and

[48:07] I'm not surprised. 9 of my

[48:10] neighbors. Road in

[48:13] specifically to say they were.

[48:14] For us. We do. We're very

[48:16] supportive community. And it

[48:18] is a very supportive

[48:20] neighborhood. And I will just

[48:21] speak to the only one in

[48:24] opposition. Is not a resident

[48:25] of our neighborhood there. The

[48:27] owner and their renters. Our

[48:29] lovely newlywed couple who

[48:30] went to high school my cousin

[48:34] here at Canyon. And so. They

[48:34] don't know us and they don't

[48:37] know what we're doing either

[48:40] to supporters are not support

[48:42] us. We did take our neighbors

[48:44] privacy into the most

[48:45] consideration. The windows

[48:45] that are show are the only

[48:48] ones that were putting on the

[48:50] house and they overlook our

[48:52] roof. We have 0 windows,

[48:55] nothing along. Lot. 9 which is

[48:59] 13. We have 0 windows facing

[49:00] that way and only like the

[49:02] shower high high windows that

[49:07] would overlook lot 15. It's a

[49:08] backyard. So there is a 0

[49:11] visibility and we. Because we

[49:12] love our neighbors and they

[49:13] love us. We that was a big

[49:18] part of our design plan. Thank

[49:22] I'm ready.

[49:23] >> Okay. Do we have any

[49:27] questions for the applicant?

[49:28] Question you mentioned looking

[49:30] at raising the roof line, was

[49:31] that exploring the option of

[49:32] just adding on to the existing

[49:35] home? Right? Just.

[49:36] >> no to meet the hike to not

[49:39] have to get a height variance.

[49:40] We're told all of our roof

[49:40] line was as high as what we

[49:44] want to build. That we could

[49:44] just raise our roof line and

[49:45] we thought, well, that will be

[49:48] the most affordable option

[49:49] because we are adding second

[49:52] story that I thought would be.

[49:55] Would much more expensive.

[49:57] That was the bit. What was to

[49:59] raise or moved 10 feet just to

[50:01] change the roof line. Not at

[50:02] any but attic space. I guess

[50:07] it's currently we have. 120

[50:08] square feet of storage on our

[50:09] property. One small shed 0

[50:13] attic space because it's a 12

[50:15] foot roofline. So there's like

[50:17] 2 to 3 feet of attic space. So

[50:18] you can't even crawl. And

[50:21] they're like it is. And so we

[50:23] would have had expects if we

[50:23] did that. But it was $80,000

[50:27] for change. Was a bit. And

[50:34] what it would really be. Thank

[50:35] >> Any other questions for the

[50:37] applicant?

[50:38] >> So the existing shed that

[50:40] you have on there that would

[50:41] be removed. That's where the

[50:43] new building with the rate Got

[50:52] it. Thank Wonderful. Thank

[50:53] you. This level at a general

[50:54] question are maybe she

[50:57] mentioned that dollar.

[50:58] >> Proposing changing the

[51:00] residential ordinance to be 35

[51:03] feet. And I wouldn't have been

[51:05] the assessor reverses original

[51:05] building restriction. I wish

[51:09] wear clarification on that.

[51:09] >> Yes, we have a draft, a

[51:10] land development ordinance

[51:11] that we've been working on to

[51:14] update all of our codes and in

[51:17] the near future, we will

[51:18] hopefully council will be

[51:20] adopting that in the proposal.

[51:21] Is that all structures on the

[51:24] lot would be. 35 feet height,

[51:25] limit for residential for

[51:28] these type of zoning.

[51:29] >> The district's it wouldn't

[51:30] have anything to do with

[51:32] original height of my houses.

[51:33] So when is it is that's

[51:34] proposed. I will be well

[51:35] within. We will be well

[51:38] within. That's a part of that.

[51:42] But with that still. Does the

[51:43] existing high for the house of

[51:49] that? That 8 e u.

[51:50] >> It can be 35 foot. Even the

[51:54] existing houses. 12 foot.

[51:55] >> The other proposal would be

[51:57] to not have that ruling. More

[51:58] that rule dates back to the

[51:59] 60's, maybe even before that.

[52:01] And that's what the residents

[52:02] want to back them. That in one

[52:02] accessory structures to be

[52:03] told the main structure that

[52:04] doesn't appear to be a

[52:06] PRESIDENT Anymore. However. We

[52:07] could be wrong there in the

[52:08] residence. MAY still want to

[52:11] rule like that. But that would

[52:11] be a proposal that, of course,

[52:12] would still have to go through

[52:13] planning Commission and City

[52:14] Council final approval. I to

[52:18] Thank you. All right. Any

[52:18] other questions for the

[52:25] applicant? Okay. We open up

[52:25] the public hearing. Would

[52:26] anyone like to come and speak

[52:29] in favor of the application?

[52:30] Please come up and state your

[52:35] name for the record. Some

[52:37] Larry Hensley and I on the

[52:45] property at 6.82 Ashmore.

[52:51] >> Yes, it's number 7 I'm in

[52:53] favor of this Our neighborhood

[52:54] is is a very tight

[52:57] neighborhood of that. The

[52:59] people that actually own

[53:03] properties, even the rivers in

[53:03] the neighborhood are our

[53:04] friends and get along real

[53:09] well, I would hate to lose

[53:12] this family from our

[53:13] neighborhood because you're

[53:16] denying them. The building

[53:21] that they need to stay really.

[53:22] They bought it when it was

[53:24] affordable. Prices went

[53:27] through the roof. You can't

[53:29] what's happened in our

[53:30] neighborhood is people come in

[53:33] level of houses that are there

[53:35] and build a two-storey, big

[53:36] mansions and that's changing

[53:38] the whole the home structure,

[53:42] the neighborhood really?

[53:43] They're what what it normally

[53:45] people that are doing that are

[53:47] retirees, older, older

[53:48] individuals. And so we have no

[53:49] kids in the neighborhood

[53:51] except in this one little one

[53:54] little area right there they

[53:59] live and where my house it's

[54:01] just it's a hardship to deny.

[54:06] This storage because these

[54:06] houses were built like in the

[54:12] 50's, 60's. They were built to

[54:13] that standard. And today

[54:14] standard is totally different.

[54:16] All the stuff you have got

[54:20] have a place to put your stuff

[54:21] and there's there's no storage

[54:22] for this property. So they

[54:23] really need it. And we're in

[54:29] favor. Thank you, sir. Winning

[54:30] like else like to come up and

[54:34] speak in favor of this. Okay.

[54:35] Would anyone like to speak in

[54:38] opposition of this? Seeing

[54:39] none. We'll close the public

[54:42] hearing. And go to the board

[54:43] for discussion comments or

[54:52] possibly a motion.

[54:53] >> I will. I'll start. I love

[54:54] the street. That's one of the

[54:55] hidden gems of New Braunfels

[54:56] or look to buy few houses down

[54:59] there over the past. 25 years

[55:00] and I know exactly what she's

[55:02] dealing with. Friend that was

[55:03] right down the street side for

[55:08] many of the area and it's hard

[55:11] having kids and 4 kids myself,

[55:12] you need a little extra room

[55:13] and I don't have a problem

[55:18] with this. What so ever? So

[55:22] that that is my $0.02

[55:25] >> I feel better with would

[55:26] allow it in the future. So I

[55:27] mean, it's code is headed that

[55:35] direction. The cost of going

[55:40] up. On existing homes. More

[55:44] than just building a separate.

[55:45] They're so in. Like you said

[55:48] with a going through the

[55:52] process anyway, for 35 foot. I

[55:52] think I'm in I'm in agreement

[55:55] with that.

[56:02] >> We have an ongoing motion.

[56:04] I'd like to make a motion to

[56:06] approve the variance with the

[56:07] condition that the main

[56:08] dwelling remain. The same

[56:13] height as it is to.

[56:19] >> Second, the motion.

[56:20] >> Do I Can I ask for

[56:20] clarification? So you're

[56:24] saying that? If they keep the

[56:25] existing house that that's so

[56:26] like in the future, if they

[56:30] want to change that height.

[56:34] >> thought was, again to this.

[56:36] Going with the neighbors and

[56:38] keeping the feeling of the

[56:38] neighborhood again is to keep

[56:42] from.

[56:42] >> Uniformly. But they're not.

[56:43] In for the additional

[56:50] structure, not the.

[56:52] >> You see as they want to

[56:54] motion. We can have a second

[56:54] edition of that is and that's

[56:55] that's why one of the

[56:57] clarification that he's like.

[56:58] Saying that if in the future,

[57:02] if they wanted to build up

[57:02] they couldn't because of what

[57:06] your motion is.

[57:07] >> issue variances so that we

[57:10] have a second tools motion. We

[57:11] do not. I was like ok with

[57:12] another motion like to be

[57:16] maintained. On the ocean isn't

[57:20] approved as is. In the

[57:22] seconds. Quickly.

[57:23] >> Ok, can I have a role? Call

[57:28] them? Member quickly? Number

[57:32] Rams. Yes, member right

[57:37] Members Trident. Yes. CHAIRMAN

[57:37] Yes.

[57:38] >> Congratulations. Your

[57:48] motion is passed. With that.

Board of Adjustment on 2026-08-27 6:00 PM

Agenda

Transcript