Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's 6.30. Let's call our planning and zoning pre-meeting order for August 25th, 2026. And under administrative comments, Ms. Hensley, do you have something for us?

Yes. So last week's council meeting, we had three new business items that had come to the commission previously. I'm sorry, two. First was 1280. Yes, sir.

She can't hear it. Can you speak up?

so two new business items on the council agenda last week that had come to the Commission previously first was the detached garage at 1289 Ottinger if you remember correctly they they had their plaque come through before it was the flag lot kind of carved out of a rather large lot off the auditor that was approved Unanimously, and then the UDC amendment for the town center medical overlay uses. This was just a cleanup from the previous one we did on town center switching grooming and veterinarian clinics to SEP from permitted by rights. This is a little ways out right now, but we also had a work session discussion on the UDC guidelines related to fences. This is something staff has been working on for quite a while. So we had kind of a kickoff discussion with council just to see if they even wanted us to pursue it based on the trends and issues that staff has identified. And they did give the thumbs up to bring back some specific code amendments. So that'll be in front of the commission probably later this fall. Okay, thank you.

We're going to come back to administrative comments here after we do agenda item C. The agenda item is item D1. Mr. Flanagan?

Yes, sir. So this is a SEP request for a 253-square-foot carport with a variance to encroach the side setback and a variance to allow for more than two accessory structures on. existing driveway northwest of the main structure. The structure will have a peak height of 12 feet and 6 inches, so not an SEP trigger for the height, and will be composed of all metal, including a dark green metal roof. Just a little background on this property. existing carport located in the same spot as the new proposed carport location. That was removed but there is currently a 24 inch retaining wall around the proposed location along with the chain link fence. From what I know the owner intends to keep both of those things there. of those two structures, and the carport is less than 50% of the main home. This is also a public hearing, so we did mail out letters to all property owners. We have not received any formal feedback, but I will point out that the applicant did submit a text screenshot with the neighboring property to the north that would be affected by the side setback variance, just them stating that they are OK with the proposal. And the applicant is here and will be able to answer any questions you have this evening.

Yes, so this is a specific use permit for a attached carport. It's about 883 square feet. It is also encroaching the east side setback. They have a 13-foot setback. It's going to encroach it by about 8 feet. Let's see. I don't have the maximum height of it. because it's attached to the main home. But the peak of the roof is not above the roof of the main home. Additionally, there are four existing detached structures on the property. But again, this is an attached structure. It's not a detached. So they're not required to have a variance for additional structures. But with the house being approximately 5,000 square feet, they are well underneath the 50% for the total square footage of the accessory buildings compared to the main home. As far as public opinion, they did submit one letter of support from a neighboring property, the property to the east of them, with their application, but I've not received any other public feedback. And they will be here this evening if you have any questions.

The carport's on the west side of their property, though, correct? It's on the east side of their property. It is on the east side, okay. All right, good. to see that when we get the presentation. Okay, any questions or comments?

Just thinking like the setback stuff, like is there, like for this one in particular, is there anything regarding the property that is requiring it to enter the setback? I'm thinking from, this is more of a ZBA lens, but we're thinking of variances. makes it have to go in. I mean, it's not there now, but they want it. Is there a need to be in the setback because of something unique on the property?

I believe the placement was based off the existing driveway. It's a cardboard, so they will be parking underneath it. It's not a portrait, but they do have a detached garage back there as well. And I think it's just the orientation of the house on the lot. They've got a 13-foot side setback.

Is the detached garage in the setback as it will be long-performing right now?

I don't believe so. Because I didn't think the concrete was in the setback.

Concrete, so concrete flat work can be in the setback.

It looks like the detached garage is right along that setback, but not encroaching it.

Okay, thank you. I'd like to go back to administration our last P&Z meeting. At the end of it, we had an item that was a motion and then we had an amendment to that motion. And we really got kind of wrapped around the axle as to how to handle that. So I thought we would just revisit that basic process. After that meeting, I reached out meeting with amendments to motions and this is his email i am responding to mr baker's email below mr baker is correct in that a motion needs to be made and seconded as the first step thereafter a member can make a motion to add an amendment to the underlying motion The amendment is voted on. If it passes, then it becomes part of the motion that was initially made. The same process applies to any subsequent amendments, i.e. each subsequent amendment is voted on separately. When we are on the diets and somebody makes a motion, I have no idea whether you're going to make a motion to approve or deny. If we're going to make amendments, it makes sense that and now we're gonna massage it a bit. So once that motion is made and it's seconded, the very next thing that I'm gonna say, I declare there's a motion, there's a second, is there any further discussion? That's when it is appropriate to offer your amendments. And I encourage it, I mean, and comments. If there's something else that you just thought of that you wanna throw into the mix, that's great too. But then what happens when you make that motion to amend? It requires a second, which it probably would get. And then we're going to discuss it in the same manner. So we discuss it, and then we're going to vote on that amendment. Once we decide whether that amendment is going to be attached to the original motion, then we will do so. But if it fails, then we just ignore it. And anybody at that point can make another motion. Let's say that it's a motion where you say, I think we ought to get paid $50 a day. And that fails. And then somebody immediately says, I think I'm amending that motion to say I move to amend for $100 a day. And we would vote on that. Whatever the point being is that even though the process of making the motion, second, ask for discussion is a little bit tedious, a little bit time-consuming, it actually helps clarify exactly what the commission is thinking. So as we discuss the motion, and this is where the parliamentary procedure and Texas law kind of have a problem melding together, in that the motion that we're going to make is the agenda item. And we know what that agenda item, when we sit down 72 hours prior, we now know exactly what that motion is going to be, other than whether you're going to deny it or approve it. But basically, that's what we're working on. And so we discuss it, and in the process that happened last meeting, we, as a group, get consensus that, hey, we like that motion, but we think, Ross had a suggestion, and everybody pretty much jumped on it and said, yeah, I agree with that. But OK, that's all fine and dandy. But now when we're ready to start moving the question, now we're going to get a little more formal. And that's where we say, OK, is there a motion to be made? If somebody makes the motion, is there a second? If nobody seconds it, I'll second it, because I want that to be on the table. I want it to be considered. And then, as soon as we do that, I'm going to say, now, is there any further discussion? And at that point, we can amend it if we wish, or we can talk some more about it. And then we'll vote on it, and we'll move on. But anyway, it got a little bit confusing there at the end, and I thought it was probably appropriate that we just review it one more time, particularly when we have a sticky issue where we may have several amendments. That's where the process, one at a time, those amendments get processed. Why would they approve it if it needed an amendment? No, you're not approving it. You're only putting it...

somebody says, you know, I have a better idea. I want to make an amendment. But we already talked about that. Okay. Then you talk about that. Then you vote. You have to have a second. Then you vote on that amendment. If it fails, you go back to the original motion. If it passes, it's adjoining with the motion.

It's even easier to think of them... I find amendments, when it's physical property, it's hard to comprehend because there's not just the... But even think of it like when Dr. Scott recommended, or had his recommendations to change the UDC, it's very easy to think of it with words, because if he says a medical, this is non-invasive, and then you say, yeah, I motion to approve, second, and I say, well, and then I say, no, I wanna say minimally invasive. I motion to amend non-invasive to minimally invasive. We just discussed and decided disagree and maybe I'm going to vote, no, but I'd rather try to make a motion and convince you to change non-invasive to minimally evasive. Same thing I would have with property. It could be that it's not a, like we talked about this before, the idea of a friendly amendment. There's no such thing in Robert's Rules of Orders of a friendly amendment unless it where it's like just someone misspoke a word. But if it changes it, then you need an amendment. So it could be like, well, I'd be okay with this, but instead of putting a condition on it, I want to amend and say that the side setback for this property is gonna be 20 feet for some reason. And then we're gonna amend And then, in a sense, they might just say, you can't do that because it's their side plan, and you can't vote to amend their side plan. But you could make the motion, and she could tell it's wrong. But that's where you would make an amendment, where you feel strongly, and you don't think it could be a condition, and you don't think you could win. You're trying to change the question, and everyone's right to do it.

But I think that, to your point, is that we discussed, potentially, in that case, those words, right? Minimally to none, but when he made the motion,

This is the point, and it kind of popped up there in that meeting. You make the motion to approve. It requires a second before the body can even talk about it. But when you get a second, that isn't a vote. That just means, hey, this is what we're going to start discussing. Here's the main body. Now, when you make the motion, And you have a second. Do you have any further discussion? Yes, I have discussion. I want to amend that motion. So now you've just created a second voting opportunity. And that's going to be a motion to amend with a second. Is there any further discussion? And you discuss that amendment. And then you're going to vote on that amendment, whichever way it goes. And then you go back to the original motion. But you have to have a motion on the table in other words, seconded motion, that we know what we're talking about. Because if we just, in the ether, say, I move to amend this, what exactly are you amending? We're not even sure if the motion is going to be a motion to approve or a motion to deny. So we have to have something solid. But in this case,

Ms. Hensley, if we could, no, that wasn't you, that's right. Ross, if we could, what did you ask to change? If it was okay to change it?

Well, we were, where I got confused with that was we were in discussion and you started talking about a motion and a motion wasn't on the floor. So all I said was we need to make a motion. Then you called for a motion. And then, because you had changed some of it, then we needed to You said, which is right, we have to make the motion to then even get to the second. Because I didn't get called on. I was on the list waiting to be called, and we were stuck on Ross, and we were still in the discussion phase. And then that's when I went, whoa, wait a minute, we're not in the motion phase.

Okay, I appreciate that. That's where I got confused. Let me tell you, this electronic system, from the chairman's point of view, I spent half my brain cells... trying to get our meeting to fit this electronic system. And even that evening, when people are in the queue to speak, and then we start making motions with amendments tied to it, that was really another confusing aspect of it. Because at one point, I'm looking down there saying, Ross had come up with the idea, Bill was making the amendment, and I had somebody else in the queue on the electronic thing that was ready to go. That's when I said to Kalina, we're not gonna, don't worry about this electronic thing. We're gonna do it the old fashioned way. And then we went through it with the motion and it was the charging stations, whether they applied to residential homes was what the issue was. And we all agreed that that's where we wanted to go. All I needed to do Now that we generally know where we're going to go, and somebody wants to make a motion, let's do it sequentially. Let's do it, give me a motion, give me a second. Discussion? Oh yeah, we have discussion. We want to make an amendment to that motion. And then it's done. And the point being, on a simple situation like we had the other night, it's a little bit tedious. But where it's really going to pay off is when we get to discussing Kroger as an example or some of the other developments. And we get multiple amendments. And in fact, you'll see people in various R meetings and other meetings here in the city where a member, and this happened a couple of council members, where one of our members said, Mr. Chairman, what are we even voting on? They had discussed two different changes to the to the ordinances and they had made changes to both of them but they had just kind of come to a an agreement in general consensus there really wasn't I don't know which council members were for or against it and then they just kind of and as I said one council member said what exactly have we with this discussion where are we and that's where to approve now which what let's take the amendments one at a time here's an amendment vote on it here's an amendment vote on it and we work our way back until we finally have the original motion with or without amendments and then we make a final vote

said, ask Ms. Hensley. Obviously, you don't mean to include private homeowners in this.

And this was during discussion, by the way.

We didn't have a motion before. And she said, no. And he said, could that easily be changed in the language? And I think she said, yes. And so my assumption was I was on the ZBA, and if we made it, someone could or did at that time make a motion with that caveat. That's where I was confused. I didn't know that you needed to. I believe you can do that. You can do that. That's what I thought we were doing.

because we didn't have the motion before was to actually say it.

I wasn't here, but that was the one thing that I was going to offer. Obviously, we've done this before. If we all feel there's consensus on a change that needs to get made, we make a motion with the change. With that change already made. And that's what I thought.

And I get trying to keep track of what was happening as people are trying to get in queue. But in my mind, that was just such a simple one. Ross had a great suggestion. Sarah said, yeah, absolutely, we could

If we as a group, and I feel that it's consensus, like your example, and somebody says, I make a motion with this minor change to it, an amendment to it, everybody knows there's only one amendment. We all know it. I have, in the past, allowed that to say, okay, let's just go ahead and vote on it. Because we have consensus. We know what we want to do.

I think This one just seemed, it seemed to me, and again, my apologies, that I just felt that that one was so simple that we just needed to strike the homeowner, right?

But I don't think that that was the motion they put on the floor.

Yeah, that's what I said, with the caveat that it didn't include a private residence. And that's where I got confused, so yeah, my apologies.

everything you said is correct. In the past, and it's been a couple years since we've had some gnarly ones, but we've had a lot of good discussion, and we had a motion, we had a change, we had another change, we had another change, and we finally voted on it, and then we said, Sarah, do you know what we voted on? And she said yes, and went back for us, but we really shouldn't put that burden on staff or anybody else for that matter. We should be rigorous in it so that It's easier for them, but it also ensures we all really know what we're voting on. Because it's all good intentions.

Well, I don't think in this case none of us knew what we were voting on. And I think with what you're getting to, what I expected was, because we were all pretty much in consensus with you, was that the original motion would have already had it in it. Because in Robert's Rules, we don't have to do exactly the wording. And I heard you say that. It's on there. We could have already put in that original motion what you wanted to say. Because you could have made the motion and said, and since I don't have it in front of me, but with the caveat that we want to not put in residential. That could have been the original motion. We didn't have to go to a motion and an amendment to get that accomplished.

And that one got really confusing because people had clicked to make a motion... and clicked to make a second, and then withdrew. We had to withdraw.

And that, because... Well, I went through because I got confused on what they were asking, and I wanted to start over again.

Well, I think the answer, Stan even says in his last thing, anyway, in his email, he kind of says, this is the way it's done. So if we do it where we say, oh, we have consensus, it's only one minor change, and we start drifting in that direction, where's that line between a minor change and a mediocre change and then a substantial change, and then we get more? And a little bit you have to leave to the discretion of the chair as he listens to this discussion and tries to figure out which way this herd of cats is going.

Again, and this was a confusing one, and maybe it isn't the best example for the rules of law that you're talking about. But for this- Robert's rule of order. Robert's rule of order, yeah, order. But on this particular one, it just seemed like

It was, yeah, it would have been.

But I think.

If Ross.

He was going to put the amendment, he was going to state it, because I was sitting beside it. We were going to, I think I was the second on it. We were going to state it already in the beginning with what was written there with it already in that language. You can't do that. Yes, you can't. No, you can't have it.

If he says he can't, you can't because he's the chair. It's the purview of the chair. If you want to kill it and say you have to make an amendment, you can. No, I'm serious. I've been there.

I've been the chair.

I'm a vice speaker, and I can kill it and say no, and then someone says point of order or something like that, but then you get all concluded. But it's your choice to say, no, I want it this way.

The weird thing is, and you have brought this up before. You already brought it up. we talk a lot and then we make a motion. That's why we don't have a lot of amendments because we talk before we make a motion. But that's where it gets backwards. It's kind of backwards.

And it gets combobulated because what you say, see you took the discussion and until somebody says recognize Mr. Chairman and you say you're recognized what would you like to say and say I move to approve

on the table.

All of this discussion is because of the fact that Texas state law with the Texas Open Meetings Act and parliamentary procedure don't meld real well right there. So we have to backtrack, get the motion, get a second, ask for discussion, and then get the amendment. It's not It works out, and so I think it's just the fact that if you think that I have made an error, that the chair has made an error, that he's forgotten about the second or he's forgotten about occasionally in the process of this, the process itself pointed out to me, and I will consider it and agree with you 98% of the time if I have gone in the wrong direction.

Yeah, I don't think I erred with it. a lot more expeditious.

And it's also the purpose of the chair to start it over.

What I said ten minutes ago is this seems to be take a little bit more time if you're doing it sequentially and you're doing it so that when at the end of the meeting it's very clear what the body thought of the original motion and what they thought of the amendment. And we have a vote and a record that says that amendment passed five to two or whatever it was. So it's really, you go backtrack a little bit when you start adding amendments to the original motion to approve. Okay, we have pretty well talked that thing to death. Anyway, bear with me. the value we get paid, that's right. So anyway, with all that, let's go ahead and adjourn to the dais. The time is six.

Chairman, just real quick, and I should have mentioned this earlier, we have some pretty hefty agendas coming up. I think all four of us actually currently have a PD that we're working on, plus we've got Kroger in the works and just our normal routine of cases. And the reason I'm telling you that is please make sure and let us know if you're not going to be here. I know Chairman Baker is going to be out of the country Just wanna make sure we have a quorum for these meetings that we're probably gonna have some folks show up for. Just the next several meetings. Okay, and if you'll send us an email, because I will never, or Kalina, send Kalina an email, because I'll forget. And like I said, right now for September 8th, we have possibly the Kroger SUP and a plan development. And it's just kind of a lot that we've got going on, so I wanna make sure we've got a quorum for the upcoming meetings. And you don't have to tell me tonight, just if something comes up and you can't make it, please let us know.

Do we need to meet earlier on any of these if the agendas are that packed?

I will look and see. I think if they're coming kind of one or two at a time, if we end up having a really stacked agenda, I'll talk to Commissioner Baker or Commissioner Farner, I keep stumbling over the word chairman, to see what you guys think in terms of moving maybe the pre-meeting back to 6 p.m. or something. So.

Okay. All right, thank you. That's appropriate. Okay, let's adjourn to the dais and we'll start out there at 7.05. Thank you. Meeting of the Keller Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on August 25th, 2026 to order at 7.05 p.m. At this time, would you please stand and join me in the pledges?

states of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one All right. Thank you, everybody. I'd like to introduce our commission this evening, starting down here by far right, please.

Andrew Young. Deborah Johnson.

Bill Schlegel.

Aaron Farner.

Eric Leist. John Scott.

Michelle Sandoval-Cavanez.

Ross Brensinger. And I'm John Baker, your chairman for this evening. Our next agenda item is persons to be heard. This is a time for the public to address the Planning and Zoning Commission on any subject. However, the Texas Open Meetings Act prohibits the Planning and Zoning Commission from discussing issues which the public has not been given three business days notice. Now, we do have two public hearings this evening, so if you're here to speak to those items, you can wait here in just a moment. We'll get to them, and you'll have an opportunity to speak. But if there is anybody that has any other subject or those items, if they wish to come forward and speak, now is your time to do so. Okay. Seeing no interest, we'll move on to new business. And item D1. This is a public hearing. Consider a request for a special use permit with variances. for a 253-square-foot carport on .44 acres located on the west side of Oak Bend Lane, approximately 1,533 feet north from the intersection of Rapp Road and Oak Bend Lane, legally described as lot 17, block 4 of the Oak Bend Estates, zoned single-family 20,000-square-foot lots, and SUP number 2607-0020. Mr. Flanders.

Thank you, Chairman. Good evening, Commissioners. Aerial and zoning map before you, subject property is zoned SF20. The applicant this evening is requesting an SUP to construct a 253 square foot carport with a variance to encroach the side yard setback and a variance to allow for more than two accessory structures on the property. And the SF20 zoning district in SUP is required for a carport. As I mentioned, the proposed carport is 253 square feet. It will have a peak height, approximately 12 feet 6 inches. Proposed building material will consist of all metal, and the roof will also be composed of metal with a dark green color. Site plan submitted by the applicant indicates that the carport will be located along the existing driveway northwest of the main structure, approximately 15 feet from the west property line and 22 inches from the north property line. As I mentioned, they will be requesting that variance to encroach the side yard setback by approximately 10 feet and 6 inches. According to TAD, the main home was built in 1986 and is approximately 3,164 square feet. There are two existing structures on the property, existing 146 square foot shed and existing 248 square foot shed. UDC limits the number of accessory structures per single family lot to two. And the applicant is requesting a variance to allow for more than two accessory structures on the property. On August 13th, the city mailed out 31 letters of notification for this public hearing. And staff has received no public feedback in response to this request. However, the applicant did provide documentation of their correspondence with their neighbor to the north. Section 8.02 of the UDC states when considering SUP request, the commission shall consider the following factors. That the use is harmonious and compatible with surrounding existing uses or proposed uses. The activities requested by the applicant are normally associated with the permitted uses in the base district. The nature of the use is reasonable and appropriate. Any negative impact on the surrounding area has been mitigated. And that any additional conditions specified ensure that the intent of the district purposes are being upheld. Again, the request before you this evening is an SUP for a 253 square foot carport. a variance to allow the proposed structure to encroach the side yard setback by 10 feet and six inches and a variance to allow for more than two accessory structures on the property commission has the following options when considering sup requests with variances recommend approval with those requested variances recommend approval with modifications table or recommend denial and if a recommendation is provided tonight this application will be forwarded to the september 15th city council agenda staff and the applicant are here for any questions

All right. Thank you. And if the applicant is here, do you wish to add anything or say anything?

Sure. So originally...

If you'll speak into the mic and state your name and address, please. Sure.

My name's Richard Carreno. I'm the owner of this property currently. When we first moved into this house, there was a carport in that area. The issue is the carport was made for a car. And I have recently bought a trailer. As I've aged, I wanted to get a full trailer so my wife and I could travel a little bit more. So the structure is actually to protect the trailer from sap, from branches, from hail of the, you know, with the environment. So the area has actually been there for quite some time, over 20 years. The only change is I'm going from a six-foot carport, which I took down, and now I'm putting in a metal structure And this structure should sustain 135 mile an hour winds. So I'm having this professionally put in. So any questions on the carport itself?

We may have some questions for you here in a moment. So if you'll stay close by, we'd appreciate it. Sure. Absolutely. Thank you. Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anybody here that wishes to speak on this issue? And seeing no one, Commissioner Leist.

Move to close the public hearing.

And Commissioner Farner. I second. We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Any further discussion? And let's vote. Okay, the public hearing is now closed, 7-0. With that, are there any... Questions from the commissioners? All right. Commissioner Weiss.

A question for staff. Do we have record of there being an SCP or any variances on the form or any sort of permits with the prior carport?

No, we do not.

Okay. Just thinking about this application, can we, are there other instances recently we can think where we have approved, like this isn't, to me like the issue here is not even just, we're not talking about in the setback by six inches, this is like it's almost wholly enclosed within the setback area. Is it common or have we approved anything recently similar?

I just want to make sure I understand your question. approved like as the city might be like council yes there's a city yeah i think there's certainly been a handful of accessory structures that have been approved in with a variance in the setback but we didn't pull like a list of them for this evening i can't think of a carport recently similar to this one that would have been approved in the setback um i mean i'm i'm struggling to think of even any any accessory structures that i've i mean i haven't been to every meeting um but thinking of any that have been in the setback just for kind of help us understand what is that what is the zoning intention of like the setback area away from the other fences and property line so some of it is just you know always have that separation between structures partly for the the feel and enjoyment of your home you know you have a different feel to your backyard if you've got somebody that's built you know, their house or some other structure right up on your fence line, right? We probably all, and the structures exist in Keller, particularly in some of the older neighborhoods, but you can all imagine that, you know, your backyard enjoyment is going to decrease if somebody's house is where you can touch it from your fence. But the more practical and kind of life safety part of it is massing, and that's why the setbacks in some areas get bigger, the bigger the lots are, so that um, you, you still maintain that, uh, larger lot feel, and also just to maintain that, that fire separation between structures.

Got it. Yeah, I think, um, in this instance, I mean, I don't think there's a fire concern with this. I mean, you can't burn this material. It would be a terrible fire, um, if, uh, if this was, uh, on fire. I think for me, it's more of a, um, understand it was there. It was probably just there because no one asked, um, So from my perspective, it's really difficult to approve putting this up. I know that it sounds like the neighbor wants it, but I think from our precedent standpoint, I can't, for me, and I know that some other commissioners are going to speak, picturing what apart from it's does I understand you desire it to be there and there was one there before but For putting something right up against the fence it seems pretty difficult for me to get my head around So that's kind of where I'm at now, but I'm really interested to see where other commissioners come in on this All right, thank you and Commissioner Johnson

I think I'm in agreement with Commissioner Leist. I have a little bit of difficulty with the fact that it's right up against the fence line. And then the size, and I don't know if you're going to be able to answer or the staff, but the size of the old carport, was it the same as this? Is this not a larger carport than what was there before? Because you mentioned one car. That's why I'm asking. I know it's taller. Yeah, but it's not taller than the house. Okay, that was another question. And then looking at the structure, it's just going to be the steel. It's not going to be the same materials that are in the home then because a lot of the carports that we come from, they match the style of the home.

Yeah.

Thank you.

So the structure itself is actually going to be steel. The columns will be steel. It'll be bolted into the concrete itself. And along the fence line, we have a drainage area about two foot that has been existing there since I bought the property. So it would actually have an area that drains down the side and onto my driveway. That structure already exists for flow. And this has been there since I've been in the house 21 years this way. So...

From the pictures of the structure, it's not going to be all the way to the ground then, is that correct?

That is correct. That is correct. It's only going to be the roof. And part of the reason for that is because we have a wood fence that protects the northern side. And then on the west side and the south side, the plan is to put in what they call, there's a chain link fence currently right there. I'm going to use what they call chain link tape that will actually mask it, and that'll be green so you can't actually see into the backyard.

Okay, so then it potentially will block some of the drainage from your driveway into this gully that you were describing, it sounds like.

No, ma'am. Right now, that area is actually about two foot lower than my backyard, so that's already been graded. So the drainage has been that way. for 21 plus years.

Okay, so yeah, I think my biggest issue is that it's up against the fence, but let me consider what my fellow commissioners have to say. Thank you.

Yeah, you're welcome. And there is a photo, Ethan. Do you have the photo that shows that side that shows what that drainage area looks like? Maybe that gives them a little bit better.

So I do know it's included in your applicant packet. These are a couple... um, photos provided by the applicant of what that location looks like.

Okay. So you could see in the top left how it actually comes down. This was actually built in. This is part of the backyard, the chain link fence that is shown as the chain link fence I'm talking about. This is actually facing the West. And if you look to the very, it's hard to see to the right of that photo, you'll actually see the secondary wall that actually has the drainage from my neighbor that goes down. And then the photo to the top right is actually as if you're standing in the corner and right there is where the trailer is actually going to sit, it sits there today. And the structure actually would go over that trailer to protect it from branch and sap and so on and hail. And then the very bottom is actually what you see and in the square that indicates where that carport would actually sit. I don't know if you could see that red square at the bottom picture. And so from the street, if you get 90 degrees from it, you won't actually see it because that tree actually blocks the view.

Okay. Any other questions? I don't think so. Not at this time. Commissioner Scott.

Don't sit down. How are you, sir? I'm doing well. Yourself? Good. What are the other two structures?

So there are two. Two of them are storage sheds that are built in. One of them is where I have my wood shop. And the second one is where I keep all the pool supplies. What is the second one? It's a regular shed where I keep pool supplies.

You know, simple question is, do you need both of them? You know, you're getting a car report. See how that, if you took down one, you would fit in the deal? Probably not.

It's just a lot of work to destroy one of them.

Okay.

Right.

And then moving it, the second part of this question is, is moving it for it fits in the actual and not have to have a variance? Is that a possibility?

I could probably get a fork truck and move it. I'd have to lift the whole building and then move it over a few feet. You could have. I possibly could. I would just have to see how much that costs. Got it.

Got it. I understand. I understand. And your neighbors had no problems with it. My neighbors did not. Are you in an HOA? No HOA. Okay. Well, thank you for your time, sir. Absolutely.

Chairman, if I might just follow up on Commissioner Leist's question. It looks like this year we had one request so far for an accessory structure to encroach the setback that was heard by the commission but then withdrawn before it went to council. In 2025, it looks like we had at least three or four requested. Three, and I'm doing this research on the fly, so this is certainly not complete, but three for sure that it looks like were approved. One, with the condition that they moved the structure out of the setback, though. They approved the structure on the lot, but said only if you move it out of the setback. It was one that, unfortunately, was built before they started the process.

Yeah. Yeah, I can remember at least two that we have looked at. But the one point that seemed pertinent is that those carports were not 22 inches from the property line. Even though they had intruded into that side setback, they still had a matter of feet before they got to the property line. But with that, what I see is our applicant is kind of standing on shifting sands to a degree. He buys the house. He's got a carport. It was done prior to the ordinances that have been put into effect for this LD or this density of 20,000 square foot lots. And so he tears the carport down. Now we pass an ordinance that says, for the reasons that were articulated, that we want to see space between houses, we want to see space for fire code, all of those very worthy objectives. And so we create an ordinance that now has him building a structure that, if we approve it, is 22 inches from that property line. And where I find myself looking at this, that if one of Mr. Carreno's neighbors were to come forward to the commission and try to build a carport 22 inches from their property line, what would our answer be? And I think we would say, well, new construction, it's a new situation, this is the ordinances, this is what the community has wrestled with to some degree, and now they've come to their conclusion with this ordinance that I don't know that the commission would still be in a tough spot. So that's where I think we as a commission find ourselves this evening. And it's kind of a rough situation that Obviously, it was approved when the previous carport was there, but now that we try to replace it some years later, now we run into a new set of rules and regulations. It's a difficult one, and I know that I think any commissioner or city council person, for that matter, is going to have to weigh either side of that and how far that they think that this particular case warrants maybe an exception. But with that, I see I have another commissioner that wishes to speak, and Commissioner Farner.

So if I could ask the applicant, so if you can come back up. So when you build this structure, those pipes or the steel poles holding the structure up are going to be within the footprint of the prior carport, correct?

The new structure will actually go on the inside. So if you look at the picture at the top left, the structure is actually going to sit on the concrete pad up against the wall. So it's inside those walls? So it's going to be on the inside, yes, ma'am.

And the old one was on the walls?

The old one is basically dead center of the wall itself. So it's actually further out. Yes, ma'am.

So I agree with Chairman Baker that this one is tough. I guess the height and the distance to it, since it's open, to me doesn't feel like it's like some of the ones that we've seen, right? They're solid structures and that kind of appears to encroach because I'm just thinking if my neighbor built this 22 inches from my fence and I don't know do you sit higher or lower my neighbor sits higher than me you know what would that look like on my fence but if it's since it's open it still gives the airiness I know this neighborhood it's very it's very established you know it's been there for as long as I've been in Keller and those houses were there before. I don't know that I personally have a problem since it's moving in and it's open with the height that I don't feel like it's, you know, your neighbor's going to look at it and say, gosh, what did he build on the fence? And I have to look at that. And if the guy next to me says, I don't have a problem, Now, you're right. If the neighbor came in and said, I want to build something 22 inches on the other side, and it's, you know, 10 feet above my, you know, 3 feet above my 8-foot fence, what am I having to look at? And would I have the same opinion? And it does put us in a situation where, did I set a precedence? And I think in this case, he's replacing something that was there and moving it in, versus... I just want to go and build a carport where none existed. So from that, I don't know that I would have a problem with the carport.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Send of all Cabanas?

I think I agree with Commissioner Farner. I think it is a different scenario when you buy a home and you have a list of possibilities because of what's already there. you take something old down and you want to refresh it, you want to make it better, and then now you're not able to put back up what was already there, feels very different than somebody coming to us and now wanting to build on their property line in a new fashion. It feels different, and I think would be clearly different if this had not already been a structure that was there, and obviously had bought something and made plans to cover it eventually, and now to find out that you can't I think prematurely may age what you have bought. So I stand in favor of honoring what you bought initially on your property. And I think we're not making a big, terrible change, especially with your neighbor being on board and nobody here saying that they disagree with it. This would be totally different if your neighbor was here saying they were not in agreement with this. That would be totally different. But I think if you have all your neighbors are in agreement that nobody stands opposed to this, I think it seems like a reasonable idea to me.

Yeah, before I even went this direction, I did talk to all my neighbors. And I even asked them about the color. That's why it's dark green, right? Because normally you would just go with a metallic look, but they asked if it would be, if they could blend into the landscape, you know. And so dark green, the area is very wooded. So my neighbors asked that, just that we make it a green color so that it would It would blend in with the foliage.

And I think the fact that none of your neighbors are here and nobody wrote anything for something that's being built basically on your property line says that you most likely spoke to your neighbors, and I think that was great.

All right. Thank you.

Commissioner Leish? Just a quick comment before Commissioner Farner makes her motion. Just with the comments regarding it being there, so we're okay with something else going there, no. Now that it's not allowed, there's a lot of policy where we have where we will change zoning and other policies throughout the city, whether it's residential or commercial, and the design is to, over time, Think of Old Town Keller, where we change a lot of rules. Or 1790, we change a lot of rules, and someone could show up and say, well, I want my orange and yellow Taco Casa sign with stucco siding, and we're like, sorry, you're not allowed to do that anymore, right? And so I'm not necessarily saying that applies to that situation, but I just wanted to flag that. When ordinances and zoning is changed, it's often changed with a vision that we don't want that to be like that anymore. And so we want it to start to be like something different. And so we want things will come down eventually. We did that with the intent that we don't want things going back up. That's more of a broad comment, not necessarily so, like, that doesn't mean that this is right or wrong how you vote, but I think that, like, we recognize that when we're doing, like, major corridors, like, 1709, we're like, we're not going to, just because your building looks like that, we don't want your building to look like that anymore, and we pass laws to change that over time.

So, Commissioner, just one comment from me is, if it involved safety, a hazard, egress, I would totally agree, right? I think in this case, it's really just aesthetics and Right? And the rules were placed for aesthetics. And so, maybe there's more flexibility, but I absolutely understand what you're saying. Right? Now, if it would have hit any of the key topics of safety or, you know, where they can't get into the egress, then I totally would understand. Absolutely. Yeah.

All right. Thank you. Commissioner Sandoval-Cabanas?

respect that statement. I think that makes a whole lot of sense. I do think it feels different when it is a person who owns a property. So if we're talking about businesses and we're talking about Old Town and we're talking about different things, in my mind it feels like from the prospect of an owner, You have this land that you bought that had something, and your neighbors all feel okay with it. It just feels different, I think, when it's the one person who has their own land, their own home, and that's how they bought it, and they're trying to upgrade it. So I don't know. It feels slightly different than, I think, some of the other times when we've said we're not going to make any changes because we want the feel of the community to feel differently. And maybe you're not wrong, because we want neighborhoods to not feel really close together. But I

don't know i think this is an acceptable exception sure just a thing i do want to add on that that when you said that this is what this is a property that that a person owns there's there's no property in the city of color that a person doesn't own um even if it's a business it's a person so i did so it is a different use this is certainly a different use than kroger um but people own property um so i just wanted to like for consistency's sake but heard

All right. Thank you. Any other speakers? Commissioner Farner.

So I do respect and understand and agree that we have changed rules over time for the betterment of the city based on what we have today versus what was here 20, 30 years ago. But I motion that we approve item E1 as presented based on the presentation and information given.

Thank you. Commissioner Scott? Second. We have a motion and a second to approve item D1. Is there any further discussion? Okay, let's vote. Interesting. Four to three. The motion carries. Sir, I want to tell you we really appreciate the fact that you showed up and made the case. And I think that you can see what a sticky wicket this is for the commissioners because they want to help you. But again, on the other hand, the ordinances currently suggest that that wouldn't be the case. But I do want to emphasize that This is a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council, our elected leaders, will decide one way or the other on this. Anyway, this is a good start in that direction, and I wish you well with the project, and thank you very much. I certainly appreciate you being here to answer questions and to present your case. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, with that, item... D2 is a public hearing, again, considered request for a special use permit, a specific use permit, I'm sorry, with a variance for an approximately 883 square foot carport located on 1.53 acres on the south side of Johnson Road, located approximately 400 feet southwest from the Johnson Road and Keller Smithfield Road intersection, legally described as Lot 3 of the Frank Morris subdivision. Zoned... single family, 8,400 square foot lot, size or greater, and addressed as 1330 Johnson Road. It's SUP-2607-0023. Ms. Zimmerman?

Thank you, Chairman. I have the aerial and zoning map shown here. The subject property is zoned SF 8.4. The applicant this evening is requesting an SUP for an attached 883 square foot carport with a variance to encroach the east side setback. Here is the site plan that was provided by the applicant. This property does have a 13 foot side setback. The proposed carport would encroach that by eight feet and would be really along that five foot easement there that you see on the bottom of that image. Here are the proposed elevations. As I mentioned, the carport will be attached to the main home and will match the existing roof line. The building materials will also match the main structure. Now you may have seen in your applicant packet there were two different elevations provided for this. I think they're still trying to decide which option they're going with as far as the roof line goes. As far as existing structures, the main home was built in 1994 and is approximately 5,000 square feet. There are four existing detached structures on the property. However, since the proposed carport is attached to the main structure, the number of structures on the property is not increasing and therefore a variance is not required for additional detached structures like the previous application that you just seen. On August 13th, we mailed out 32 letters of notification for this public hearing. Staff has received no public feedback in response to this request. However, the applicant did provide a letter of support from the owner of the adjacent property to the east, which was included in the agenda packet. Here's a reminder of the UDC criteria to look at when considering an SUP request. And again, the request for you this evening is an SUP for an 883 square foot attached carport in the SF 8.4 zoning district and a variance to allow that carport to encroach the side yard setback by eight feet. Planning and Zoning Commission has following options when considering an S2P request with variances. Recommend approval as submitted with that request of variance. Recommend approval with modifications, table, or recommend denial. If a recommendation is provided tonight, this application will also be forwarded to the September 15th City Council agenda. Staff and the applicant are here if you have any questions.

All right. Thank you very much. Is the applicant here and wish to I had comments. Please come forward, sir. Do you want to say anything? I should ask. Okay. And your name and address, please.

My name is Blake, and I'm the applicant for 1330 Johnson Road. So with this, you probably see that there's some development on the left side of the property. They put a, like a four-foot retaining wall about a foot away from the property line. And with that said, they took out a bunch of trees, building a house right there. Oh yeah, perfect. And you can see in the backyard, they have a detached garage. If we built this carport in the variance, 13 feet off the property line, we actually would not have proper clearance for us to put a car back there into that but also they have donkeys back there they've got a barn back there as you can tell with the existing structures and so they need to pull a truck back there as well and so it does need to be a pretty substantial size to get these that truck back there to haul hay back there and everything like that yeah all right thank you and if you would

Stay close by. We may have some questions for you here in a moment. This is a public hearing, so is there anybody here that wishes to speak on this issue? And seeing no interest, Commissioner Leish? Move to close the public hearing. Thank you. And Commissioner Johnson? Second. We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Any further discussion? All right. Let's vote. Okay, the public hearing is now closed. Seven to zero is the vote. And at this time, we'll entertain questions. Commissioner Farner?

Yeah, for the applicant, are you currently extending that cement pad into the setback or does that cement pad driveway already extend into the setback? It's hard to tell from the picture.

Absolutely. The current driveway is already about five feet away from the property line, right where we're going to be putting the new carport. Now, we do need to chip out that old and put in new concrete. And with the plot that's on the screen right now, the red is also going to be new concrete as well for a back out and drive in. for turnaround access.

So the current driveway as it exists is just like it is on this picture?

Correct. Well, not the red.

Not the red?

Correct, yeah. Got you. But everything underneath the carport will be, is already there, yeah.

So you're just putting support beams or those poles at the edge of the driveway?

Correct.

Or at the end of that cement pad, I should say.

Yes, ma'am. Now I am replacing the driveway still. I'm still taking out the driveway, but I'm placing it right back where it is existing.

I'm sure I put additional rebar and support for a structure like that.

Yes, ma'am.

Now you said that they're doing this to put in a trailer or something. Does the garage... The garage doesn't open to the back. So they would just pull something, a trailer or something through it and stop before they get to the garage.

So they, yeah, they will pull a trailer through to the garage, but not in the garage to get to like, get the donkeys in, get them out and the hay and feed. Whatever you need for donkeys. I'm a contractor. I'm not a farmer.

Yeah, I was going to say. All right. So I don't have any other questions. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Thank you. And Commissioner Lice?

Yeah. So I think a lot of my comments are similar on this item to the last. I think a couple things that are – that jump out are one, there's nothing there. And then two, when we look at, and we're talking about this in our, just on the last item and even in our pre-meeting, but these are very narrow lots and they're also wooded lots. And then when you get, I'm just concerned that when we get a structure even closer to that fence line into our 13 foot setback where it could be, 20 feet maybe from future development. Just like it's happening here, I drive by this lot most every day. A lot of these lots are going to get redeveloped, and they're getting redeveloped with beautiful large homes like this one. So they're going to have to push the sides. So I think those setbacks on that property are fairly important. One, for maintaining the SF-36 zoning, because SF-36 was meant to feel very open. If they're all deep lots, we can't experience the space right we don't from the road uh you get that sense of the space from the sides right and the property is not being the homes not being close to each other um so that that um that i i think those reasons it's going to be hard for me to vote in favor of because it's um i understand the need for some covered parking there's a garage in the back perhaps that could be expanded if we need more places for vehicles to be um and there's space for that to not be in the setback but i think from just from my perspective and they're really the safety purpose for keeping the safety purpose and the aesthetics of the community and keeping the buildings um spaced out um i just i i don't see how i can support this but also open to hearing perspective from my fellow commissioners on it all right thank you and commissioner johnson um i have similar

issues like Commissioner Lice does, and it's the same issue that I had with the last, is we're getting closer to the line, and that's why we have a certain amount of easements. The concrete work, just to get to what Commissioner Farmer had to say, the concrete work isn't underneath the same as a structure. And so just because the pad is there doesn't mean that we can build it as big as that is for the concrete work. I do see that you've got the garage, and it's right on that line that is right to the 13-foot build line. So if this carport was coming off of it, where it could go over into what I can see is the yard, then that way, then you would be able to still get by with this truck and everything. But I am having issue with, I do drive by this property also, like Commissioner Lice does, so I do know those are very narrow lots. But that is my concern. potentially moving it back and attaching it off of the garage. So just my visual thoughts. At least you can get to where you can widen it to get the size that he is potentially wanting. But thank you.

Chairman, I just wanted to make a note. This lot is actually zoned 8.4. It looks and feels and operates very much like a lot of other large narrow lots in SF 36, but it's actually zoned 8.4 all the way up to Johnson Road. I actually questioned it myself this morning.

All the way up to what?

Johnson Road. And we can pull up the . I actually asked Alexis this morning when we were doing the presentation review Because I said, surely it's SF-36, but it is actually 8.4.

So the variance is just because of the size of the lot? Why is the variance 13 feet?

That's their side setback. And, I mean, it's pretty standard across all. We would probably be in this exact same position.

SF-36 is 15 feet, so it would actually be 2 feet wider.

It's pretty much across all, and it may be all single-family neighborhoods. Your side setback is... 10% of your lot width up to 15 feet. So we would be having the same conversation either way. I just want to make sure that the zoning was clear on this one. Because it is a little unusual. You look at that lot and you automatically think SF-36.

Okay, so if we were to look at a brand new zoning of 8.4, a lot that small, you would have a 15-foot setback on the on the side property line?

So the way the UDC is written is 10% of lot width up to 15 feet. So I think the minimum lot width in SF 8.4 is 65 feet. So there's lots of 8,400 square foot lots out there where their side step back is 6.5 feet. But if it is a bigger lot in 8.4, then they have to do that 10%, again, up to 15 feet.

Okay. Thank you. So once again, we're faced with what we've discussed in the previous case and here, too, that we have a long, narrow lot that was probably platted or figured out 40, 50, 70 years ago. And now that we've updated our ordinances and the city has grown up around it, we have now come up with our new value. The one thing I am impressed with this is the fact that this carport, the roof line, is going to go into the roof of the home and it's gonna be integral to the house roof system, correct?

Correct, yes. So the homeowner wanted it to match exactly on the home. So we're doing brick columns, painting it exactly how the house is. We are doing exact same roofing and fascia and soffit matching the same paint. When we're done, It'll look a little newer when you're real close to it, but when you drive by it, it won't look like it's new.

To me, this is, I saw a statement earlier on one of these applications that said this carport complements the home that it's being built next to. This one genuinely, in my view, complements the home because it is integral to the roof line of the home, and even though it does overlap into the setback I think it's reasonable. So at this point, at least, unless my commissioners persuade me otherwise, I would support this. But with that, let's hear from Commissioner Scott.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you show the picture of the artist rendition? How many car garages is it?

I'm sorry.

Whatever you want to call it.

The detached garage or the carport?

Carport.

It'll be a two car.

Two car. And the other one's still going to be used as a garage too? Yes.

I'm sorry. Which exhibit did you want me to pull up?

I'm going to see the picture. That's it.

Okay.

And they never had a garage there?

So that really, I don't know. I think they did because when I went into the home, it looked like there was a garage that went straight in or went from the side, from that left side. And it looks like it was remodeled. I mean, that's my industry, so I can kind of tell that it looks like it was remodeled. It probably was, if it was remodeled, It was probably a 5 to 10-year remodel.

And then a carport as opposed to finishing off like a garage. That way they can get to the other garage, drive through. Yes, sir. Yeah. All right. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Sandoval-Cabanas.

I just had one quick question. Is there any reason why it can't go in front of the current garage if it's just for parking?

So they really wanted to be able to park and go inside the home if it's raining. With that, it would be an extremely odd-looking structure if we built it with, let's say, a breezeway going into the home. Their door inside the home right now is on the left side. Are you able to see my cursor? So the current door right now is right there. And so if we did do something like on the front side of that garage, see if I can like on the front side of this garage right here we'd have to build out a it'd be like a breezeway that would go out through here or to the back door right through there I think it would look a little odd especially from the street okay thank you okay are there any further questions

Is anybody prepared for a motion? Commissioner Scott?

A motion that we approve this carport. Thank you.

Commissioner Lice? I'll offer a second. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve item D2. Is there any further discussion? Okay, let's vote. Okay, that motion carries five to two. Sir, you'll be before the city council on September 15th. Just to remind everybody, we are a recommending body, advisory to the council. The council will make the ultimate decision on this. But we thank you very much for attending this evening, and we wish you well with your project. Okay, with that, we've completed our agenda. Any other comments? And with that, let's adjourn at 7.54.