>> 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 request
from property owners for
variances and special
exemptions from locally
adopted ordinances. This board
MAY also hear appeals of
decisions made by city staff
and administering these
ordinances. The general
procedure for each case is a
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 the
request next. The board or
Quest 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 5 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 in 2
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
request to be approved. State
law requires that 4 out of 5
of the board members vote to
approve the variance requests.
The request fails if no motion
or second is made for
approval. If denied the same
or similar request cannot
reappear before the board for
at least 6 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 of law. And if
you have any questions, you
MAY City staff member after
the meeting. All right. Can I
have role call? Police? Member
quickly? Member am here member
I Alternate member Schneider
here, CHAIRMAN Here. Thank you
so much. First rule on on the
agenda is the approval of the
JUNE 25th 2026 regular meeting
minutes. I make a motion to
approve. I second the motion
great. Can we have ruled on
that? Please. Member quickly.
Member am yes member right
know. Yes. Members Schreiner
yes, and yes, thank you.
Moving down. We have citizens
communication and then we're
gonna move to our public
hearing that items for
individual consideration was
moved down. There. First item
this evening, c s 2, 6 Dash,
0, 2, 6, 2, a public hearing
and consideration of a request
by 24 design on behalf of a
nerd can't Black New Braunfels
Holdings, llc for an alternate
site plan to allow a proposed
American flag to exceed the
maximum allowable size for
flags for property within the
c-one be General Business
district and with frontage
along loop 3.37 currently
addressed at 9.36 Loop 3.37,
MR. Barker, hello, and Little
MISTER Chair and Good Evening
board members called Barker
with neighborhood in community
planning.
>> For your consideration this
evening is a proposed
alternative sign plan. This
request is not a sign
variance, rather. It's the
appropriate process for
considering proposals that MAY
not fully comply with the city
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 in
nearly 2 acre commercial lot
home to the original Black's
barbecue and located at the
intersection of Loop 3, 3, 7,
and Common Street and has
frontage on both of those
roadways. The property is
located within the c-one be
General Business district and
sits near the center of an
active commercial corridor.
Residential zoning as can be
seen on the periphery of the
area here. Here's a few photos
of the property is seen from
across the loop and along
Common Street showing the
properties frontage along both
of the roadways. Staff notes
that the site contains an
existing non-conforming pull
side advertising the
restaurant as well as an
abandoned pull 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 sign ordinance.
A comparison of the proposed
alternative plan to the city's
existing standards can be seen
here in this chart. Fleck
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 and most zoning
districts. Flagpoles located
within the c-one be 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 and requests
that American flag be allowed
to exceed the maximum flags
signs established under the
city sign ordinance. The
applicant notes that the
proposed increase in flags on
his to 96 square feet is
intended to be approx
appropriately scaled to the
new 60 foot flagpole planned
for the site and would ensure
proper visibility and
proportional appearance
relative to the taller poll.
They emphasize that the flag
is intended to serve as a
prominent patriotic feature
for the restaurant,
particularly given the
properties frontage along
heavily trafficked roadways.
The provide a site plan shows
that the flag pole 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 site
plan process condition. Number
one would be that that only an
official United States flag
MAY exceed the maximum flag
size up to 96 square feet. In
condition. Number 2, the
abandoned formerly utilized
sign pole be removed from the
property. The proposed flag
Sajdak seat proposed flag size
exceeds the standard allowance
is proportionate to the taller
60 foot flagpole allowed in
the property. Zoning.
Stephens. 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 2. They've
indicated that there are
future plans to utilize the
event in Seoul. Sign pole and
intends to submit a separate
alternatives signed plan
request for its use. This will
conclude our introduction, the
applicant believe MR. Black is
for this evening. I'm happy to
answer any questions you MAY
have for staff. Thank you,
sir.
>> Do we have any questions
for Colton this evening?
>> Do you know height? So the
signs out there that are out
there ready existing.
>> I don't have an exact
height on since I've been
doing this a little bit. I
give them at least the 40
feet. Just all of them.
>> Right. But the the
original.
>> Lex looks even tall.
>> It might be And as seen in
the past, a lot of these signs
existing in town established
for the city, had a sign code
around 2009 or 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
>> Coca-cola has the for the
existing abandoned sign. Yes,
sir, has it. Been submitted
and is it going to conform?
Johnston?
>> We it would also, I
believe, fall into one of
those nonconforming
categories. It's shorter than
the existing black signed. But
staff has met with MR. Black
some of these folks in the
past to discuss potential
options for utilizing that
signage. And it's kind of a
tough cookie to crack here.
The current sign codes allow
for a pulse at that size at
this location or within the
property zoning district. But
the applicants made clear that
they intend to potentially
realize that okay, ended but
not submitted. Get correct?
Yes, sir.
>> Thing else on the other end
of the table. So the the
height. That they're looking
to do is currently would-be
conforming at the 60 foot can.
75 feet currently allowed?
Yes, sir. So it's just
basically the size of the flag
itself. Yes, sir, that's
that's what the this
alternative site plan is
proposing. Just a
>> Exceeding of the in the
setback 50 foot vs. Believe
the typically it would be just
5 feet for flag pulls off the
off the property line. But
given the location over
supposing it. Yeah, at least
50 feet will
>> Let me ask you one
question. How far back as the
current signed when I read the
packet, I I understood there
they're going to put it where
that current sign was. So I
might have misread that.
>> And you wouldn't be a a
when Jamie for that because I
thought the same It's going to
go right with that old poll is
that's what looking back at
the property. It's actually a
street street pole, parking
lot like right where the
flagpoles looking case. That's
going to replace that parking
lot. That's our understanding
at this time. But perhaps some
stuff. Okay, that's no. That's
fine. Thank you for clarifying
All right. No other questions.
Thank At this point, we would
like to ask the applicant to
come up and please state your
name for the address.
>> His name for the record.
Hello, I'm Mark Stewart.
Architect with 24 7 at 605,
which drive New Braunfels,
Texas.
>> Thank you. Would like to
tell us about your project,
all that so that this you see
the flag is appropriately
located. Well, back from the
setbacks.
>> And ideal location even
interfere with current
parking. And did our homework.
And we've proportionately size
the flag to be proportional to
the height, but not over the
top. Literally. No pun
intended. In regards to the
existing nonconforming sign
that 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 the stone. As an
application in at that time we
can address it's full
compliance. I would like
behalf of the owner suggest
that we approve the size of
the flag and then let that
other sign be addressed fully
in a separate application. The
other side is not on our
agenda this evening. We're
just don't work and worried
about the Understood. Yeah. I
mean, that's a condition for
the flag. Esteban suggesting
that get women? The questions.
So will this replace the line
that is in the parking lot or
is this going to be in
addition to be in addition to
it'll sit back in the striped
area where there's no parking
>> About 10 feet away from
that. And the reason is so we
can keep that light where it
is and had this beast its own
structure, 60 foot hole. Okay.
And only going to be housing
American flight or are they
going to stack flags all the
way down?
>> Given that there's a 90
covid. Could you go back to
that? You know, we have
maximum size of 96 square
feet. Just kind trying to
envision what else is going to
be on there. Just the American
flag see American All right.
Do we have any other questions
for are
>> So it's going to be flying
24, 7, correct? Yeah. So what
the intent was to have
appropriate lighting. Okay. So
like the flag downer up, I
guess to be up the Point
towards the flag. I guess that
would be a question for the
city. It needs requirements
for. Whatever lighting we
have.
>> I usually try and be
prepared for your question.
Don't have with at the moment.
But typically are what we
don't have an official dark
skies policy in place. We do
try and strive for dark skies
where where possible. All had
something that as well.
Kristie Lu, any planning to
record city of Braunfels if a
flag erected raise for the
rector MISS For a flag, U.S.
Flag or 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 lighting, we would
be able to enforce those of
the federal government
mandated up lighting for the
lights.
>> Well, thinking down, like
can you can also live
different way. But let's pull
And I think, too, that it
would be of focused
directional light. What we can
control the being very
precisely.
>> To hit the flag and not
project behind it. I do have
one more sorry.
>> Why it is why 60 feet like
that is tall. Even though I
understand 75 foot for the
commercial is, you know.
>> Allowable.
>> But like in that area, 60
feet, would be like really
high.
>> And I'll tell you why the
the property is surrounded by
power lines and they're at 40
2 feet above the ground. So as
we studied the placement of
the flags, so that would be
visible when we had a low and
that 40 some odd foot range.
What we found looking at the 3
d model and study in the site
was that as you are looking
at, you be looking at the flag
through power lines. So 60
foot was that magic number
that got the flag above the
power lines were when you're
looking at it, you didn't see
wires obscuring their view. So
that's why it's not high. All
right. Any other questions for
the initial eruption? Thank
you. Thank you.
>> At this time, anyone else
would like to come up and
speak in favor of this as the
applicant. You're there
anybody else for the
applicants like speaking
favor. All right. That will
open the public. Are you
coming up for the public?
We'll open our public.
>> part of this hearing, if
you like to come up and speak
in favor or in opposition
state your name, please. They
didn't want district 5. I am
going to every board meeting.
>> In a wooden quite sure what
this one was. You know, I live
on the condo condo on the
river and what to look out at
night. Cypress been 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. This
culture, what we believe in
you know, American flag is a
very simple thing that ties
back to your cultures in our
founding. That is really being
bashed in many ways. The
culture is sort of trying to,
you know, diminish America
many way to changing change.
Now, but be a great thing.
Him, you know it. It's a
wonderful business and
wonderful civic-minded owner
sell. I'm very much in
support. Thank you, Thank you.
Appreciate that. All right. 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 to get up there.
Quick enough for the time. I
just want to thank all of you
for your service. And I know
what 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 of I enjoy German
culture and no one has a
little kid and the German I
learned was when I was doing
something bad, one answered
uncle as would the use some
different phrases. But
appreciate you all's
consideration and thank you
for your public service. Thank
k. 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
>> Emotions that someone like
to make? I came up with a new
question for Colton, the slide
that has the current, the I
guess what's allowed height
was inside Buzz. It shows that
the c-one be he's allowed of
75 feet. Do you know? What is
allowed just and see one would
be the same as the c-one be.
In the neighboring properties
are all c-one is why I'm
asking the question. It seems
like this property itself as
the c-one be.
>> Yeah. And actually sure I'm
understanding your question.
If a similar height would be
allowed in the c-one nearby.
Correct. Give me one moment. I
think I have paper copy of the
full chart. They would have.
That information for in
regards the flagpoles
particular or yes. And I guess
that's 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 see one
zoning down the Loo then say,
well, I also want all right,
super tall. That's a good
question. Year is Yes, I
included this line here. This
is the code eggs for
government of flags and you'll
notice at the bottom letter d
lists the other zoning Dick's
districts that this is allowed
to where it can match whatever
the maximum height is for that
zoning district. It does not
appear that see one is in that
category. Icc, one b and c 2
and so on. I don't see. See
one in there. Okay. Thank
Discussions. Emotions anyone
like to make on I want to make
a motion. But again, my
opinion just with the other
signs being nonconforming, 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 4 signs to one
large signs. We want a large
on. I feel like with this
request, it just asking for
that. Almost feel like it's
theirs. Something going to
come up in the future with the
2, looks like there's 2
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
2 existing signs.
>> I think if we follow the
city's guidelines and saying
that they would have to and
then the other that they're
going to do this, I have no
problem with
>> think it's a separate
issue, too. That would be a
separate issue in.
>> Cold could you read what
the what your recommendation
was for city, please,
>> We had recommended that
we've recommended 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.
Addition to that, the
abandoned former joining Curry
knows last Gennaro the
existing remaining structure
be removed. Just the polls
there. Use that exact. For my
motion. And mean, to restate
that I can or we can just use
exactly how cold properly
stated that we can. All you
can also freeze. It with the
conditions listed in the staff
report. Like, yeah.
>> We also. Make sure it's
only the flag like I don't
want. 2 years from now.
Something else is going to be
out something else is going to
get. Then something you know,
then it's like that car
dealership. Would you like to
motion your motion with my
staff,
>> It again,
>> making a motion.
>> For the flag pole has
proposed at 60 feet with the
96 square-foot flag with
United States flat. With no
other. Do I do. The commission
commission now with no other
flights attached to that one
poll. In addition, this second
condition of removing the
existing. Signs on the
property.
>> As stated in the
>> as stated in the staff
recommendation. Okay.
>> We have a motion that we
have a second to that motion.
I'll second that motion. All
Can we have a roll call,
please. Member quickly. Member
am.
>> Member reckon.
>> Yes. Member Schreiner. Yes,
and I.
>> Thank you. Congratulations.
Your motion is passed. Items
for consideration with us.
Let's talk about Zb. 2, 6, 6,
that 0, 0, 0, 9, a public
hearing in consideration of a
request for a variance from
Section 1, 4, 4 dash, 3.3 dash
to be one. I I to allow an
accessory structure structure
to encroach. 25 feet into the
required. 25 foot corner side
setback with the art to a
chill single family. 2 family
Historic landmark District
currently addressed at 307,
North Gunther's Avenue. And so
mouthful, Sorry.
>> Good evening. Chair and
board members, Mary level with
neighborhood in community
planning department. The
subject property is a 2 story.
1900 square-foot single-family
residential home constructed
in about at about 1920,
located at the corner of North
Gunther Avenue and East Bridge
Street. It is owned are 2 and
is surrounded entirely by are
2 properties. The existing
house. It's only about 8 feet
from the corner side property
line, which is what the
variances for today is the to
encroach into that corner side
property line, which is
significantly significantly
closer than today's required.
25 foot corner site setback.
These photos show the current
conditions of the side yard
along the corner of East
Bridge Street and North Gunter
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
set back 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 Set-back. 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 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 7
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? Have a
question. I don't know if you
know the answer. One of the
think the opposition card
mentions something about the
garage 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 a a.
>> 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
variance request, you would
need multiple variances for
that. And so that would not be
allowed by code in order to do
that. You know, an applicant
would have to come back and
asked for a variance for at
least 2 different berries
variance requests. I did
notice that in the one person
that was opposed to the
requests they stated in their
car that they we're against a
garage, but they were okay if
it were just a storage
building with no the garage
door along the roadway of East
Bridge.
>> And is there a current rear
setback or is that only going
to a side said that? I believe
that they're going to be
meeting the rear setback and
that is 3 feet in the rear.
Which is under allowed under
our current code.
>> So see exact same size that
we saw 2 months ago, they just
removed the garage door.
>> That I think that's very
it's very similar in size. If
not smaller. I don't have the
other. Dimensions with me to
tonight that the applicant
refer to rule on the last as
well. I don't see that either.
>> Yeah, that the it's always
recommended that the applicant
strictly, you know, the
floorplan 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 if whatever variance,
if we approve the variance. If
a garage or was at a later
time without approval.
>> That would most likely be a
code compliance issue
enforcement issue. Okay. All
right. Thank you. Okay. Thank
you. And at this time invite
the applicant to come up to
the podium. You will come in.
He says, okay,
>> Just trying to pull a shed
in my backyard so I can store
things like that. I please
have your name for the record.
I'm sorry. Gregg Williams.
Yeah. Trying to but a shed to
store items like a on Moore's
yard tools, personal tools,
things like that. We are
trying to preserve some space
for, you know, living space in
the backyard. So that's that's
goal. You have questions for
the applicant.
>> Yeah, I've got I've got a
question and so stated at our
last meeting. My concern was
having the building right on
the property line. You know,
would you be open to shifting like 5 feet from the
property line? You're set on
having it right. On the right
away. You know, I'm just
concerned having a building
exactly on the boundary line.
It could encourage him to the
right away if it's not bill,
perfectly. And that's
typically why there's some
kind of setback.
>> Yeah, I would be flexible
shifting it over a few I were
just again trying to preserve
as much space in the backyard.
It's a pretty small lot. So I
didn't want the shed to be
like in the middle of the
backyard. If we were to follow
like the back requirements,
that's essentially what
happened and who would be
pretty awkward. But moving it
over close to the property
line is kind of the goal.
Yeah, definitely open that the
size. That and to answer the
question about the size is the
exact same size as before. But
we're flexible and modifying
that if needed.
>> Thanks against 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 we have any
other questions for the
applicant. All right. Thank
you. Thank you. We will open
up the public hearing at this
time. If we have anyone who
like to speak in favor of this
happened. Please come up and
state your name for the
record. My name is Damon
Spears.
>> And I mean, House number 9
right there on the couple
houses down from break. And my
wife and agree that, you know,
have a storage unit there to
be able to put things and he's
he's amassed. I think
everybody in this room has a
place that they store stuff.
And and I'll take it asking
too much. So I would
appreciate if you guys could
strongly considered great have
storage unit there to but
things having it outside. So
thank you so much. Thank you,
sir.
>> Would anyone else like to
step up and speak in the favor
of this? Would anyone like to
speak up in opposition of
this? Seeing none. We will
close that segment go to
discussion board that we have
any discussion comments. Or
motions. We like to make. I
agree with that I.
>> Have a lot of heart from
with the building being right
on the property line. I I
just. I can do that. So I'm
just I feel like it needs to
moved 5 foot, 3 5 foot with
the ideal. Like a side lot.
Being right on the property
line is just. A permanent
structure should not be there.
>> You're saying 5 foot in
towards the other.
>> I mean, either make the
shed smaller or shift at 5
feet like. I mean, that's kind
of up to the owner. But
permanent structure should not
be on The property line.
>> Any other thoughts,
comments otherwise?
>> I don't have any feelings
on the the property line. But
with most of these variants,
as we look at that have to do
with historical, my feelings
is good with that, too.
Maintain their being a
historical home there. So. We
do approve it. I like to add
the condition of like the
existing footprint and high to
that structure remaining in
place. The house was ever torn
down to build something new.
Variants wouldn't. We need to
make a change for the setback.
I don't disagree with.
>> Other comments. Do we have
any motions anyone would like
to make evening? All right.
I'm sorry to see no motion. We
will not be able to approve
variance this evening. And
even into the next. Zb to 6
Dash, 0, 0, 1, 0, All the
public hearing and
consideration of the request
for a variance from Section 1,
4, 4, that's 5 dot for e to
allow detached excess
restructure to exceed the
height. The main dwelling by
10 feet. One, the ends within
the are one 86 0.6
single-family residential
district currently addressed
at. 31 want to come and drive.
>> The subject property is
developed with the 1200 Square
Foot. Single-family home built
in 1960. It is owned are one a
6.6 and is surrounded by
similar single-family zoning
structures. The applicant
proposes a detached two-storey
structure that includes a
garage on the ground floor and
in excess retooling 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 North
West frontage and a 15 foot
corner set site setback along
the southern frontage these
limitations reduce the
buildable area of the law. The
site plan shows the location
of the proposed to story
accessory, building the
structure would be 22 feet.
One inch tall, which exceeds
the height of the existing 12
that tall home. And the
applicant is requesting a
Hyperion to 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 at 2
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 2 story, accessory
structure window placement has
been intentionally
intentionally designed to
maintain privacy by voting
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 in
aligns with the draft lto
which proposes a uniform. 35
foot high cap for all
residential structures,
including accessory structures
on residential lot. The
applicant states at the height
variances necessary due to the
lots 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 9 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, We have
any questions for staff on
>> It's a one story. Is
existing dwelling and this
because it's one story. The
atu can't be higher than that.
Why So a lot of houses over 2
stories. So the property owner
has stated that they need a
garage or covered, you know,
garage.
>> And so what they wanted to
do is combine and also a space
for children or family
relatives for an accessory
dwelling It's very it's very
common that people do it
downstairs garage with the
apartment above. And 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 2 accessory
structures in a rear yard and
this would be one. But it
would be a combined one in
instead of like spreading it
out and covering the entire
backyard, which would not be
allowed there proposing to go
up right and and do still have
a question related to that.
Well, because it's 10 foot
above the existing So
>> is it because the existing
home is only one story and
that's so so there is a
requirement in the code which
is in the caption.
>> It's a section that states
that any excess restructure,
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 times in a clay.
explained.
>> You know, it's going to ask
so it's.
>> It's being attached to the
main structure
>> No, they would not be able
to attach it to the main
structure because so they they
have a line between images,
the distance. They're not
attaching it to the main
structure. If they did, they
would have to have a 20 foot
set back any Maine structure
would require it to be set
back 20 feet and that there
isn't that much room back
there to be able to
accommodate that. It would be
part of remained willing,
okay.
>> Yeah. It's going to ask to
could receive that opposition
card. If put in a car it or
no, sir, I didn't bring I can
pull it up on agenda packet
does anybody have a copy of 4
o'clock email you got to He
yes to End up acting on lines
and have the opposition want
to add all the approval ones,
but not the. So if I remember
correctly, the opposition one
that came through that email
today. So I think it was from
the neighbor would be on top
of this picture about privacy
concerns. And I think they
could see into house lives
with
>> Got it. Yeah, you're
correct. There is that was
email sent out with all of the
and up to date a male e mail
notices that we received in
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.
>> a rethink a vacancy and
they're up Yes. Any other
questions for staff over here?
>> Mary MAY not know, but
there's an existing tree on
the lot. And I assume that
it's going to be completely
removed. Let the applicant
speak to the treaty. In just
to let you know that
residential
>> development, they are
allowed by right to remove
trees or shrubs for the
development of. Buildings
things on the lot. 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. At the Avenue would
like to come up and speak on
your behalf. Just state your
name. For the record. Come up,
please. That's
>> Jana Prof the owner. First
want to start off by saying
thank you to marry. She's been
so wonderful. Lovely in. As
completely naive citizens.
Coming to the so blind. She's
been of sync. Okay. So just
for a quick statement, I guess
the necessity. Is it for the
last 15 years, 3 things have
been true about my family. My
husband is worked out of town
over half the month and we've
had.
>> Separate little one-bedroom
house that he lived in place
us when he was gone. We've
always had over 800 square
feet of storage for my
husband, blue collar man to
have all the things all of the
welding equipment, the drill
press, the power washer. The
thing that most people would
run to my husband owns and it
is to improve our home to
improve our neighbors. Homes.
And number 3, my boys of all,
we shared a room with bin a 5
person family in a 3 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 place is for this
last year. Wall. Sure that
this job was going to be good.
We're going to still be able
to make ends meet with this
job and and we still have that
storage. But he has so many
things that he needs having
this. And we've also been.
Paying for 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 concrete
existing concrete driveway
isn't that back portion of the
House? Of a lot? And we were
talking initially with
contractors. It was that at
that time I think brought to
this level detention and one
of the contractors came and
spoke with her and was like
note that we'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. My oldest is
17 in the senior and his
brother that he shares a room
with the 16 and my daughter is
14. She's always had a room.
Writes, but we know that we're
coming to a point where we're
going to have not just 2 boys
sharing a room. In within the
next 5 years. The plan was to
potentially at square footage.
Sure home. Where we're
building that would and rush
accessory apartment where we
could just have an extra
bedroom for a win. A married
couple comes to visit or child
boomerangs back and they need
a little
>> space. But a space that's
their own. And so we knew that
those 2 things we're going
need the necessities for
family. And when we found out
we couldn't have both because
of the lot restrictions or
could have a garage. 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
will not be a driveway. It
will be a shop and the
proposed back part of it was
so that my husband could have.
The shop door in the back so
that he could load and unload
it struck walking to and from
that from our existing
driveway. But it is not. It is
just a shop on the bottom. So
it's not really a rush
apartment. And just to clarify
that when I was talking to
with our contractor, the cost
of raising our roof line and
elevating a roof line. He gave
a bit of an additional $80,000
which is just when the whole
thing together is going to
cost. Maybe 200. Which is
already a really tight stretch
to do all at once as opposed
pacing it out over several
years. To raise the roof are
roofline cost prohibitive or
to add a second story is even.
And speaking to the tree and
that tree, would we are going
to have to take down no matter
what it is dropped. Lim twice
under House one on their the
opposition Benson broken that
fence once on that neighbor on
the night, large large
branches that have caused
damage to to a neighboring
properties and our own. And
so. I hate to lose a tree.
That is one that's going to
have to come down for just the
safety for safety reasons. For
neighborhood Harmony. I will
say, too, that as you
mentioned, there multiple
houses were 1960's whole
neighborhood with 1200 Square
foot homes as the majority of
our neighbors and just in the
little circle. It just go to
that little map. Welcome to
this one. That was good
enough. So in just a little
lot of coma, a little ashmore
circle there.
>> You know, there's been 4 or
5 homes that have been leveled
in a 2 story has been put up
in the its place and we want
we can afford a debt left
grows best in small houses.
But though it our neighborhood
is still in harmony with those
people changes. We love those
neighbors. You know, those
neighbors invite the girls
next door in their 1200 Square
foot home to come play
pickleball in their backyard.
You know, one of the neighbors
that built a 2 story home that
does overlook other people's
property. Hit. He says
Professor Texas State offered
to have my son who was
interested engineering. Come a
listen to will hit one of his
lectures. They're lovely.
People were lovely
neighborhood in her money and
I'm not surprised. 9 of my
neighbors. Road in
specifically to say they were.
For us. We do. We're very
supportive community. And it
is a very supportive
neighborhood. And I will just
speak to the only one in
opposition. Is not a resident
of our neighborhood there. The
owner and their renters. Our
lovely newlywed couple who
went to high school my cousin
here at Canyon. And so. They
don't know us and they don't
know what we're doing either
to supporters are not support
us. We did take our neighbors
privacy into the most
consideration. The windows
that are show are the only
ones that were putting on the
house and they overlook our
roof. We have 0 windows,
nothing along. Lot. 9 which is
13. We have 0 windows facing
that way and only like the
shower high high windows that
would overlook lot 15. It's a
backyard. So there is a 0
visibility and we. Because we
love our neighbors and they
love us. We that was a big
part of our design plan. Thank
I'm ready.
>> Okay. Do we have any
questions for the applicant?
Question you mentioned looking
at raising the roof line, was
that exploring the option of
just adding on to the existing
home? Right? Just.
>> no to meet the hike to not
have to get a height variance.
We're told all of 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 are adding second
story that I thought would be.
Would much more expensive.
That was the bit. What was to
raise or moved 10 feet just to
change the roof line. Not at
any but attic space. I guess
it's currently we have. 120
square feet of storage on our
property. One small shed 0
attic space because it's a 12
foot roofline. So there's like
2 to 3 feet of attic space. So
you can't even crawl. And
they're like it is. And so we
would have had expects if we
did that. But it was $80,000
for change. Was a bit. And
what it would really be. Thank
>> 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 with the rate Got
it. Thank Wonderful. Thank
you. This level at a general
question are maybe she
mentioned that dollar.
>> Proposing changing the
residential ordinance to be 35
feet. And I wouldn't have been
the assessor reverses original
building restriction. I wish
wear 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, we will
hopefully council will be
adopting that in the proposal.
Is that all structures on the
lot would be. 35 feet height,
limit for residential for
these type of zoning.
>> The district's it wouldn't
have anything to do with
original height of my houses.
So when is it is that's
proposed. I will be well
within. We will be well
within. That's a part of that.
But with that still. Does the
existing high for the house of
that? That 8 e u.
>> It can be 35 foot. Even the
existing houses. 12 foot.
>> The other proposal would be
to not have that ruling. More
that rule dates back to the
60's, maybe even before that.
And that's what the residents
want to back them. That in one
accessory structures to be
told the main structure that
doesn't appear to be a
PRESIDENT Anymore. However. We
could be wrong there in the
residence. MAY still want to
rule like that. But that would
be a proposal that, of course,
would still have to go through
planning Commission and City
Council final approval. I to
Thank you. All right. Any
other questions for the
applicant? Okay. We 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. Some
Larry Hensley and I on the
property at 6.82 Ashmore.
>> Yes, it's number 7 I'm in
favor of this Our neighborhood
is is a very tight
neighborhood of that. The
people that actually own
properties, even the rivers in
the neighborhood are our
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. You can't
what's happened in our
neighborhood is people come in
level of houses that are there
and build a two-storey, big
mansions and that's changing
the whole the home structure,
the neighborhood really?
They're what what it normally
people that are doing that are
retirees, older, older
individuals. And so we have no
kids in the neighborhood
except in this one little one
little area right there they
live and where my house it's
just it's a hardship to deny.
This storage because these
houses were built like in the
50's, 60's. They were built to
that standard. And today
standard is totally different.
All the stuff you have got
have a place to put your stuff
and there's there's no storage
for this property. So they
really need it. And we're in
favor. Thank you, sir. Winning
like else like to come up and
speak in favor of this. Okay.
Would anyone like to speak in
opposition of this? Seeing
none. We'll close the public
hearing. And go to the board
for discussion comments or
possibly a motion.
>> I will. I'll start. I love
the street. That's one of the
hidden gems of New Braunfels
or look to buy few houses down
there over the past. 25 years
and I know exactly what she's
dealing with. Friend that was
right down the street side for
many of the area and it's hard
having kids and 4 kids myself,
you need a little extra room
and I don't have a problem
with this. What so ever? So
that that is my $0.02
>> I feel better with would
allow it in the future. So I
mean, it's code is headed that
direction. The cost of going
up. On existing homes. More
than just building a separate.
They're so in. Like you said
with a going through the
process anyway, for 35 foot. I
think I'm in I'm in agreement
with that.
>> We have an ongoing motion.
I'd like to make a motion to
approve the variance with the
condition that the main
dwelling remain. The same
height as it is to.
>> Second, the motion.
>> Do I Can I ask for
clarification? So you're
saying that? If they keep the
existing house that that's so
like in the future, if they
want to change that height.
>> thought was, again to this.
Going with the neighbors and
keeping the feeling of the
neighborhood again is to keep
from.
>> Uniformly. But they're not.
In for the additional
structure, not the.
>> You see as they want to
motion. We can have a second
edition of that is and that's
that's why one of the
clarification that he's like.
Saying that if in the future,
if they wanted to build up
they couldn't because of what
your motion is.
>> issue variances so that we
have a second tools motion. We
do not. I was like ok with
another motion like to be
maintained. On the ocean isn't
approved as is. In the
seconds. Quickly.
>> Ok, can I have a role? Call
them? Member quickly? Number
Rams. Yes, member right
Members Trident. Yes. CHAIRMAN
Yes.
>> Congratulations. Your
motion is passed. With that.