[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.