Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Our meeting order. This is the pre meeting for the planning and zoning commission on Tuesday, 05/12/2026, and it is 06:31. Administrative comments, miss Hensley.

Thanks, chairman. So May 5 council meeting recap. So work session had one item that will certainly be of interest to this group and will eventually come through as a UDC amendment. So you'll see this again. It's short term rental, regulations in the city of Keller.

So we did get direction from, council to to start putting a a plan together for adopting some some regulations for short term rentals or you'll you'll hear the term STRs thrown around a lot. We mean properties that are rented through Airbnb, VRBO. We've been talking to some of the surrounding cities and in particular North Richland Hills that have recently adopted regulations. And we'll probably use those in particular to to model the the color language after. So you'll see that as we go through the summer.

Regular business that evening, we had the amazing hair salon at UP. This was a very small structure over in Old Town near Shotzi's. That was tabled to July 7. The council was hoping to have the applicant commit to some exterior improvements and possibly apply for the facade improvement grant to the economic development department to improve the the outside look of the building. And then the last two items were the preserve at Keller Oaks, planned development, and related fluff item. Both of those were were also tabled to July 7. So we'll we'll get to do those again in a couple months.

Special thanks for that first one.

Did you stay and listen

to him talk about

it? Afterwards?

Yeah. I can't remember.

With with the amazing salon, did the does the applicant own that building?

So and I should have clarified. The The applicant and the owner were there at council that night, and so they were really encouraging the owner to go forward with some exterior improvements and maybe apply for the facade improvement grant. So the the tenant, the hair salon operator, was there with the with the the property owner at at council. I don't remember if they were both here for

for PNC. I know we had the operator.

No. They were both here.

They were both here? Okay.

Because Okay. When does the rehab get heard again?

I'm sorry?

When does the rehab center get seen seen again again by by council? Counsel?

The Baylor Scott and White physical therapy next Tuesday, the nineteenth.

It's at the nineteenth.

That's right. Okay. Alright. Item c, discuss and review the agenda items. Item d one, consider the minutes of the April 28 planning and zoning commission meeting. Were there any comments or corrections to that? Okay. Seeing none. Item e one is our only agenda item tonight. Consider a request for an SUP for an existing 768 square foot detached garage at 2101 Meadowview Drive. And miss Gillman?

Yes. So as you said, this is a specific use permit to be allowed to retain an existing 768 square foot detached garage with an average height of 18 feet. This structure was partially constructed without an approved building permit. I have a basic timeline in your memo, and what I'll kinda, briefly go over that. So in February 2025, the applicant submitted a building permit for their detached garage, but it was an incomplete submittal.

In May 2025, co compliance got a complaint that a structure was being built without a permit, and a staff work order was issued for the building. From June 2025 to about January 2026, we had conversations with the contractor and property owner trying to get that missing information for the building permit, mostly needing an engineered green plan as well as clarification of the building height because it wasn't made clear on the plans. And then in February 2026, that's when they're informed that the structure would require an SUV, and I'll explain kind of the height of the building. And then they applied for the SUV in April 2020 The detached garage is to be used for storage, lawn equipment, and the property owner's personal vehicles. There is an attic space showing on the floor plan, but the property owner has indicated that is only for storage.

And they will be here this evening to speak on the use if you have any questions. Regarding the height, so there is a five foot grade difference between the elevation of the main home and the detached garage. I think that's where the discussion on the height came from. But the UDC says that building height is calculated from the lowest point of the building to the average of the highest and lowest points of the roof. With that calculation, the average height of the structure is approximately 18 feet.

An SCP is required for any structure that is more than 15 feet on average. With this application, they're also requesting a variance to allow for more than two accessory structures on the property. There are already two accessory structures on the property. The first is an approximately 240 square foot shed, and the second is a approximately a 130 square foot covered chicken coop. The property owner has not indicated that they're willing to remove any of those, but, again, they will be here this evening to speak on that. And so they would require a variance to allow for three structures on the property if this SCP is approved. And we have not received any public opinion in response to this request.

Isn't there an exception for, like, at I thought that for livestock or agricultural, so when the

chicken could be exempt? That is a great question. So that is an exception that is granted to s f 36 and s f 30 zoning. That exception for it's for buildings that are a 120 square feet or less and used solely for agricultural purposes, but it's only graded to those two zoning districts. This property is zoned s f 20, so it would not get that exemption.

How how big is the property?

It is 0.81 acres.

So it's close to s f 36.

So an acre is 43,560 square feet.

Mhmm. Question. What is the cost and time to get a permit? Mhmm. And was this in an HOA?

So I don't think there is an HOA for this neighborhood. We can ask the applicant to

confirm. I mean, this this comes up often. I've already built it, and I didn't know any better. So what is the cost and time period to get a permit for a garage?

So for a structure of this size, permit's about a thousand dollars. I'm looking at their fees right now. Was 992. It's dependent on the square footage for the for the residential. It's a different calculation for for non residential properties.

In terms of time to get a permit, the permit itself can typically go through in less than thirty days. Obviously, if the SUP is required, it adds, you know, some some time to that timeline for the applicant. But for the actual permit review, usually less than thirty days. If it's a good set of plans and whoever is responding to the staff comments is turning around revisions, if there are any, fairly quickly.

I thought you said they applied for a permit.

It was

incomplete, and then they started building. Yeah. Before they finished the permit. Did they say well, they'll be here tonight. I assume we we can ask them. But did they say anything about the thought process there? Please give me a permit. You haven't given me one name. I'll go build anyway. I'm I'm I'm missing logic. And do we

not give them the rules for the size of the building prior to? Or they just go build something?

They come in and more so would be does Keller I'm gonna put it back on Keller in the sense that Joe Public, do they know you have to have a permit? I've never got anything in the mail or an email that says, you need a permit for x y z, all these different things. So I'm out there. I'm gonna go build my shed. I'm gonna find a contractor to build it or I'll build build it on my

own. Mhmm.

I won't tell anybody. So

So we I don't know of a time other than maybe when there were a major code updates where there was any sort of public information campaign by the city to let people know that a permit was required. Certainly, if you call our office, if you do a bit of research either within the code or on our website, you can you can probably get those answers. I most any legitimate contractor who is doing work in the city should know at least to ask that question.

Well, I know that I wanted a patio cover. And I and so first thing I did before I even is I went to the website and said, do I need a permit to put

a patio

cover? Right?

And it

said You don't count.

Well, it's You didn't count. Years Well

done. It

was before I was on planning

and zoning.

And, you know, and it clearly said, you know, when you need it, when you don't. And I had a few other questions and I called the city and they asked. But I didn't need a permit for mine, but I had to go get my HOA, you know, because I already had the the rest of the structure. I just wanted to cover it. But to me, I'm with you. It should if I wanna do something even in my yard, I should should check I mean, it's easy enough to check the city site to say and it sounds like they started it. So they started it the permit process before they built. So Well, they should. But why did they start building when they said, hey. I've got an incomplete permit. Alright. So you're fine.

From there.

So I

I was just thinking we just had a a festival here. Right? And it'd be great if you had a QR code with did you know? I mean, I'll bring it up with some of the city councilmen and say, did you know you need permits for this? And here's a QR code. You already have a public event. And when you come to vote, there could be a QR code. These are things you need permits for.

So I think some of these may be better answered by the property owner. Certainly, our understanding is that the there was a maybe more than minor communication breakdown between what they got from the original contractor and what they thought was actually approved through the city. But they can probably elaborate on that better than than the staff can.

Well, to make it even worse, the person I know, not me, built a cover or whatever you call it, garage, whatever, in his backyard, about a permit. It was six inches over the easement.

Oh. And

when, you know, they drive by they drive by. And they drive that's their job is to drive by. So they go, hey. Do you have a permit? He goes, no. And then they looked into it and says, you know, you're gonna have to move this. He goes, but, you know, I'd have to tear it down. So

Did he tear it down?

He had to. Yeah. Because you get fined because it was over the easy. But Anyway, I didn't city

of Keller. This was in Keller?

Yes. Okay.

Alright. But it sounds you

went into it sounds like you and

the the owner and the contractor had a meeting. Didn't you just say that y'all you met with the owner and the contractor to go over what was needed. I thought I thought that's what you said in your in your statement.

So I don't know about in person meetings. I just have records on the building permit and on the compliance case that communication occurred between those parties. But

So I I don't know what her exact words, but the what happened was building permit commence comes in and it's incomplete. Our plans examiner who does our our residential accessory structures would have reached out to the contractor and said, hey, you're missing this, this, and this. That may have been an in person discussion or it may have been over the phone or a series of emails. I don't know that we have that exact really, you know, how exactly how that correspondence happened. But that that was what was communicated back to the contractor at the time was, hey, this this permit can't even be reviewed yet because it's missing key documents.

So if a if a billing permit comes in and doesn't have you know, if it requires a grading plan or an engineer foundation plan or a site plan or or, you know, doesn't have the elevations or some other key thing that we need, we won't even start the review on it because we wanna have everything together. And so that's part of his job is completeness check and then communicating to the applicant, contractor, property owner, whoever applied for the permit. You're missing these documents and we need those.

Yep. And I don't mean to belabor it, but when y'all said that there was communication with the owner and the contractor, did they continue on building after that? Because it sounds like that would have been the you should have stopped

They continued building after the stop work order was issued. But that may be the simplest way to

put it bluntly. They

so they built, put on a permit, then you gave them to stop work, they kept building? That is correct.

And my question

They started without a permit. Yeah.

And then they got to stop work, and then they kept going. Yeah.

So is there a document when someone applies for a permit that lets them know what our rules are so they already knew that it was gonna be overhyped?

It'd be on the permit.

That's fine. I mean, do we know I mean, we know. But what But if you go in and look if you look to the website, it seems like it's pretty clear as to what the conditions are for building accessory buildings and how many and how high and percentage of property. You know what mean? It's gotta be less than 50% of the building and dot dot dot. We all know that. Mhmm. But when they come in and and I do believe that contractors know a lot of that. Mhmm. But is something given to people that lets them know that this is kind

of the building code? So typically, that's part of the review. So Okay. Certainly, all that information is available in different ways on the website. But there is no process right now where if you apply for a building permit cause there's so many different types of building permit. They're not automatically and sometimes people apply for the wrong thing or they applied for something they thought they you know, whatever. So a lot of times part of the review, that initial review is education.

Catches some

of things. And part of the problem and I and I know this because I was on the review for this one. We it was illegible where we couldn't even read some of the sheets. And so we couldn't even tell quite what the height was proposed as for a few different times when they were submitting documents, unfortunately. But but normally, if you get a set of plans and they've got building height at this or they've got, you know, something that's either going to trigger an SUV or sit it's just simply not allowed.

That's that's in that first round of review. That's And it also gives them the opportunity. We've we've had this happen a few times where they're at fifteen feet eight inches and we're like, hey, on their average height, hey, this is going to require the SUP and this is the process. And they're like, you know what? We'll just drop it eight inches or or whatever to to be able to get everything else just administratively approved.

What happens

if someone works past a stop order?

So it's a first case. You know, usually what happens if we get a stop it it I should start with it is very unusual for us to issue a stop work order and work to continue. But, typically, the stop work order is the initiation of a code case on the property. And then we'll begin communication with the owner, the contractor, whoever. The goal with the stop work order is to not issue citations or pile up notices on them. It's to get them to apply for the permit that they need and get that through the proper process. Within compliance. This one was just much more fraught in getting through that process than usual.

When a stop order is given

because I'm aware that when you do a

permit, it goes

back to whoever applied for

the permit. So it's like feasible that the owner maybe didn't know if like, didn't have close communication. My question is, does the stop order also go to

the owner of a property in addition to

the person who initially applied for

the permit? It typically does. Yes. Okay. And any any code code action and follow-up notices go to the property owner. Okay. So But it got these notices. I will verify that.

But moving forward, it seems like our biggest thing is to see if this is even a structure we would normally have accepted. And if it's not a structure we would have normally accepted or don't agree with, then we just say we would not agree with giving this SUP and then it would move towards council. Is that right?

They could take it to the ZBA. There's if there's a situation with the grade that's putting them in that predicament.

So unfortunately, the thing about that is the UDC is clear that anything that has an SUP trigger can't go to ZBA. If it was just a traditional building permit and there was no zoning entitlement like an SUP, then it could have gone to ZBA. But if if it's declined,

they can go to ZBA?

I don't think so.

Because it needs Because of the height. It needs an SUP for the height.

Or they have to lower the height. I I would I would say

they could say that the height's needed because they lost a foot due to the grade. I mean, that's kind of the antithesis of of the CBA protocol. Right?

So, ultimately, what I told you is in the code in terms of ZBA can't hear cases on a project that requires an SUP. If we were to get in that scenario where this goes all the way through counsel, it's denied and the applicant wants to go through CBA, then I'm I'm gonna get a I would get a city attorney opinion on process.

But your your statement made no sense, Bill. Why is that? If there's a grade, it's irrelevant because they measure from the ground to the top of the building.

But there's We're not. Right. So The reason that If there's a grade The reason it makes sense measurement. The reason it makes sense is because it it has there's language in there that talks about things that are under their control, and that those are unusual situations.

Ground I understand. To the top of

the page.

So if there's a grade But

if they couldn't, they build but if they couldn't build because of that grade, something that were

You are completely wrong.

I'm not sure.

Well, if they if there's even if it's gotta be down to get a garage of a driveway, you still that doesn't necessarily mean the height has to be as much at three three and a half feet higher than what it needs to be.

I don't know if the grade had anything to do. You measure from the ground at the base of the building to the top of the building.

But it doesn't matter. We can ask the question.

So just to follow-up among your questions, the the violation notices were sent to the property owner as well. We usually were sent to any owner of record we can find. So, like, if a property is being rented, we'll send to the the tenant and the property owner.

So they were notified of

the stop work? And Well,

in their in their letter, it sounds like they were notified. The contractor told them he fixed it. They took it on good faith, and they just continued.

I don't know. That's what the lawyer said? That's what some lawyer said.

If I can, one sidebar on Whitechapel, you know, that's busy

street. Mhmm.

My buddy put in a well, And contractor came in and then city city came up and asked the contractor, where's your permit? You didn't have one. $10. And my friend did not have to pay it. It was the contractor.

That well?

Yes. So you cannot dig a water well, and and everybody's got green earth can see it being built, you know, without somebody pulling up and asking me why.

That was in Southlake? Yeah.

It was on Whitechapel Boulevard.

So I guess my

question, logistics wise is do we are we supposed to take into account the circumstances prior? Or do we say they're now in getting into code compliance? We take this as this is a normal SUP of is this a structure we would normally go for or not? And go forward as if there was no problem with the compliance. Are we supposed to take that into account when we

I think your question is right on. And the way that I plan on approaching this is if we didn't know all of this and he had come in with an s for a request for an SUV and this was all new and we looked at it, would we say day or day? Now the rest of this actually is a council problem because when it gets to them, they're gonna either say yay or nay and then it's gonna turn into an issue for Stan. But yeah, this is all, you know, interesting. Well, I think

where to me, with your question, where it does come in a

little bit

is if we would have said no to it, say, and they're gonna have to tear this building down like apparently it's been done before, they knew they had a stop order the whole time. So I'm not gonna allow that to the fact that it's because we had that building not too long ago that they had already built. Right?

We shouldn't take into account the fact that it's already there. Like, the hardship for taking it down.

Yeah. The the hardship because for one thing in this group, they they had some knowledge that there was a problem. And then when I've had contractors, contractors usually will tell you when they need permits because they are held accountable. So if if they didn't go get the permit from the city, they're the ones that usually are held accountable in the contract between you

and them.

I guess to your question to me is when do we allow the fact that they did not follow and that they had a stop work and there was a code compliance? When should we take that into account? Yeah. Because if they had come in and there was no issue, that would but we seem to bypass the fact that there's a code compliance. And I know it's a city council thing. But to me, that seems to be the bigger question of this. And it's like, you know, a little slap on the hand and they're not gonna get a fine. They're not gonna get a fee. You know, it's just like There's

no slap on the hands.

And and,

you know, how do you address the fact that they did not they you violated your stop work.

Mhmm. And Oh, I think it's gonna be addressed at city council. I guess

So from our standpoint, just looking at this as

an I bet you guys will address it tonight too. Yeah. Because the question is, why didn't the contractor say that the guy wants this bill and the contractor goes, I'll be glad to. It is only owners of the contractor to know the job.

But they change contractors too.

Well, either way.

But then the

second contractor should have verified.

Whoever walked in so did the contract did you issue a fine to either contractor?

We have not. No.

Okay. So I think that you see how you're walking down that line?

Well, let's continue this discussion. Yeah.

Pretty So in your opinion, we should just be looking at this from just the SUP perspective and let counsel deal

with the

code No. You can do whatever you want.

I you can do what you want. And I think that your points are well taken. That we wouldn't be in this particular situation if they had paid attention to the stop work order.

Two of our kings. Right? Yeah. I got it.

I'm all awake till you get to this. Okay.

Planning

and Zoning Commission meeting on Tuesday, 05/12/2026. And, pledges to the flag, we'll start off with if you'll please stand. Honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible. Alright. Thank you.

I'd like to introduce our commission this evening starting over here to my right, please.

Deborah Johnson.

Bill Slagle.

Aaron Farner. Eric Leist.

John Scott.

Michelle Sandovalcovanez.

Ross Brensinger. And I'm John Baker, your chairman for this evening. Now is the time for persons to be heard portion of the meeting. This is the time for the public to address the 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.

We do have one item here in a couple of minutes that is a public hearing. So if you're here to speak on that item, you can wait just a couple of seconds, we'll be there. But if there's anything else that anybody would like to speak to the commission about, now is your time to come forward. Alright. I see no interest. We'll move on. Consent agenda, consider the minutes for the 04/28/2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? And I see a motion, Mr. Leist.

Move to approve the consent agenda.

Okay. And Commissioner Sandoval Kibonis.

I second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those, let's take a vote. And that is approved seven to zero.

Now we're moving on to new business. We have one agenda item this evening. It is a public hearing. Consider a request for a special use permit for an existing seven sixty eight square feet detached garage with an approximate average height of 18 feet located on point eight one acres on the North Side of Meadowview Drive approximately 1,058 feet northeast of the intersection of North Pearson and Meadowview Drive. Legally described as Lot 1 Block a of the Agape Acres subdivision.

Zoned single family 20,000 square foot and this is applicant owner S UP2604Dash0010. Miss Zimmerman?

Thank you, chairman. I have the aerial and zoning maps. The subject property is zoned s f 20. The applicant this evening requests an STP to be allowed to retain a 768 square foot detached garage with an average height of 18 feet. The detached garage is to be used for storage, lawn equipment, and for the property owner's personal vehicles.

Attic space shown within the structure is also intended solely for additional, storage. The applicant is also requesting a variance with this application to allow for more than two accessory structures on their property. A little bit of background on the building. The detached garage was partially constructed without an approved building permit. In February 2025, the applicant submitted a building permit for the detached garage.

However, the submittal was incomplete. In May 2025, a code case was opened for the structure being built without a permit and a stop work order was issued. From June to August of that year, staff had conversations with the building contractor about the missing paperwork for the building permit. Later in August, the missing documents were received and the building permit was sent for staff review. From August 2025 to January 2026, multiple rounds of review and revision requests were conducted in which staff requested clarification of the building height and for an engineered grading plan.

In February 2026, it was determined that the building that was being proposed would require an SUP approval for the average height to exceed 15 feet. In March 2026, an additional stop work order was issued, and then in April, the SUP application that's before you this evening was submitted. The building permit still has not been issued pending SUP approval. About the site design, the proposed site plan shows the structure is located behind the existing home and will conform to the setback requirements of the SF 20 zoning district. There is an approximate location shown with the detached garage not scale.

This detached garage was designed to match the materials of the main home on the property and is constructed of white siding and a shingle roof. Here are some elevations that were provided by the applicant. Regarding building height, per the UDC, building height is calculated from the lowest point of the building to the average of the highest and lowest points of the roof. The average height of this structure is approximately 18 feet. There again is the front elevation of the structure.

As I mentioned, the detached garage is to be used for storage, lawn equipment, and for the property owner's personal vehicles. The attic space shown here is intended solely for additional storage, and here is the floor plan included in the applicant packet. There are two other accessory structures on the lot. The first is a 240 square foot detached shed, and the second is an approximately 130 square foot covered chicken coop. Per the UDC, only two accessory structures are allowed on a single family lot, so the applicant is requesting a variance to allow for more than two accessory structures on the property.

The combined square footage of all the accessory structures on the lot is less than 50% of the square footage of the main home, which according to TAD is about 2,855 square feet. On April 30, we mailed out 24 letters of notification for this public hearing to all property owners within a 300 foot buffer of the subject site, but staff has received no public feedback in response to this request. Section 8.02 F2A of the UDC states that when considering an SUP, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following: whether the use is harmonious and compatible with surrounding existing uses whether the activities requested by the app can are normally associated with the permitted uses in the base district. The nature of the use is reasonable and appropriate in the immediate area. 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 the height of the structure to exceed an average of 15 feet tall. In this case, the proposed average height is approximately 18 feet. And two, a variance to allow for more than two accessory structures on the property. The commission has the following options when considering this request, recommend approval as submitted or with modifications, table or recommend denial. If a recommendation is provided tonight, this will be forwarded to the June 2 city council agenda. Staff and the applicant are here if you have any questions.

Alright. Thank you. Is the applicant here and wish to add to come forward, please? And if you'll give us your name and address, please, sir.

Yes, My name is David Andres. I'm the owner and applicant of the SCP for this for 2101 Meadowview Drive.

Okay, sir.

So back in February, we had hired a contractor to build out this garage. He did the design or the architect did the design. They were working with each other for the design of the garage. I wasn't involved in the process of that. We kinda told them the basic plans of what we wanted.

The structure itself is for my mainly for my in laws. They have some family loom heirloom cars that they would like to store that they don't have room for on their in their house. And so with that, it'll be the two cars. I have three children, one on the way. And our home was built in the 1980, so there's not a lot of storage in it in general.

So we're just trying to make some space for their, you know, bikes and whatnot. The structure does have an attic space as well that we're wanting to store boxes is and Christmas supplies, all that kind of stuff. So that was the idea behind the garage. Like I said, we weren't involved in the, I guess, the requirements that are if it's maybe in the requirements of the city. I wasn't or we weren't we kind of hired the contractor for that purpose to verify those occurrences.

And we throughout this last year, we had gotten a couple, I think, three stop work orders. The communication was it was being handled, and we were okay to resume construction on the properties so the

a little

then,

on able the anything by. We just want to, you know, do it the right way. So, you know, since then, we've hired a new contractor to finish this project after we get through this SCP process. And I put a submission in for a change of contractor. I don't remember exactly what the term is, but And it was a contractor that we had used when we first bought the home to do some remodeling. So, they, you know, are familiar with the city, have a good working relationship. So that's a hopeful plan moving forward. Do you have any anybody have any questions for me?

Okay. We may I'm sure we'll have a few. So if you'll stay nearby, we will open this up now to a public hearing. Is there anybody here is there anybody here who wishes to speak on this subject? And I'm looking for a motion, miss Farner.

I motion that we close to public hearing.

And miss Sandoval Cabanas.

I second.

We have a motion and a second to close public hearing. Any further discussion? Let's go ahead and vote. Okay, that motion passes seven to zero. The public hearing is now closed. And at this time, I'm if there are any commissioners who have a few questions. Okay. Commissioner Schlegel.

Thank you. For the applicant, You mentioned that you hired a contractor to finish. What state is the is the project in now?

The project is currently in the state that's shown on the picture.

I I could it looked like it was finished.

It's it's it's think there question. And that's a

that's good other one, one, the other

one, so the contractor that I am, like, I'm wanting to move to has not been involved in the project at all. The previous one, they had been talking with I'm not sure who at the city, but they we I was repeatedly told that, you know, they're working through it. We're almost there. And then we would start building. I I I've never heard of a specific use permit until this last stop recorder was given to us. And somebody that works for the city came by and talked to my wife and said that we're gonna need a specific use permit. So

So were you still under contract with that first contractor?

Am I still under contract? Were you at that point? At this time, yes.

And what what was his response? Does he feel any responsibility?

I reached out to him a couple of times after that and have not gotten a response from him.

Excuse me, mister chair. Would you mind speaking up a little bit? Because you start high and then it goes down. Sorry

about that. Thank you. Yes. I have I have not gotten a response to him from him after that point.

Okay. Is he local?

I believe so. Okay. That's that's all I have. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. And, commissioner Liesch?

What what's the name of the firm, just for the record, that you were your first contractor?

Kingston.

Kingston.

Okay. It's been in construction, I believe.

Got it. So a question for staff. So the is the typical process when a building permit is submitted and then approved, does that usually go to the contractor or directly to the property owner, does that vary? What's the typical communication process once that stamped approved?

So it's really whoever applies and is listed as a contact in our portal. You can set it up however you want with, you know, 16 contacts for every type of contractor that's on a job plus the owner plus, you know, whoever or sometimes the contractor you know does it on their own. So the portal is set up so all the different contacts associated with the permit can go in and look at the status, they can set up an account and look at the dashboard, It doesn't mean they always do that, but the the information's available if somebody wanted to.

Okay. In this case, was it the applicant who was the appoint of contact, was it the contractor, or was it both?

Yeah. For this one, it was the contractor initially. The original contractor.

Just trying to understand how this could have gotten here. Is it possible that the contractor could have received look, even given that the contractor didn't get an approved building permit on this project and proceeded, obviously, that's why we're here. So it's is it possible then that the applicant could have never known and the contractor could have said, hey, we're good to go and started working. This gentleman would be none the wiser from how that transpired?

It's certainly possible. I think it's the most unfortunate thing is that the the stop work orders and the violation notices were going to the property owner also, but our understanding is that he was told by the contractor, I've already taken care of that with with the city. It's not knowing communication between the owner and contractor. And understandably, you know, we have a lot of owners that put a lot of trust in the contractor. They're paying them a lot of money to do this project on their property. So it's possible.

Okay. And how much work was completed between the first stop work order and the second?

Moment. Don't have that specific

I'm sorry, can you repeat that one more time?

Are you asking about I'm trying to understand how much work was completed between the first stop work order and the second stop work order.

Most of the finish out, the roof, paint, and windows.

Okay. So a substantial amount of work was still being completed. And sir, is it it's my understanding from what I just heard that you were told, hey. By the contractor at the time, your former contractor, we talked to the city. And, yes, we had the stop work order, but now we're good.

Correct.

Okay. So I think that takes care of it for me on that part of it. I mean, when you're in that spot, I don't know what else to do. I've we've had home renovations done before. We hired a contractor and architect, and we got into problems too. Architect told us they were gonna build it. They proposed something to get built in setback, and they were he said it gets approved all the time. And then what happens? The contractor brings the plans to the former planning director at the city of Keller, and they say, no. We don't ever approve anything that goes into the setback. You can't do that. Now that was done before approval, and they told our contractor, and then they told us. Right? So proper information flow. He could have told me, yeah, he says it's okay.

Right? And then they started building something in the setback, and I just because I would have just taken his word at it. So so I can see how how we got there. So my my my second question then on this is, because the SEP is obviously needed, what are the accessory structures under question?

I can speak on that.

Yeah, I'm just

going pull up the slide that I

have Yeah, on the

just need to see the chart would be helpful.

So the red square, that is a shed that has tool, different long tools in there. We have some storage bins in there right now as well. The chicken coop, it's probably a six by six chicken coop that's enclosed, and then it goes out to a chicken run that's, you know, open sides to the air, but Mhmm. Has a roof over it. We have 18 chickens, so they fill that thing up pretty good.

Just a question for staff. If that chicken coop was moved or the chicken coop was attached to the structure that's not really movable, would that count as one accessory structure?

If it was attached to the smaller shed, would it count as one? Yep. I mean, I don't would just combine the square footages if they were somehow joined together under the same roof.

Yeah. Okay. Because I think for me, going down to the right number of structures is important, especially just for zoning's sake. Especially if we're talking about a seven acre lot, I think for me, I would be okay, granting the variance or the exception for that. But we're less than an acre here.

And if we keep adding structures, right, that continues to make the the feel of the property more dense. So I do think that it makes sense to either eliminate the chicken coop or you could move it and make it under make it part of one structure And chicken coops aren't too hard to move, not knowing how big yours is. But that seems to me like a possible solution. I'll leave that to you. But from my standpoint, it's unfortunate that we're here, but I'm certainly amenable to approving this.

It's just communication that happens. Based on what you're telling us, there's nothing really you could have done about it, since you weren't giving the correct information. So I'm in support of the SEP request. I would just ask that we we do need to find a way to get down to the proper number of structures on the property.

Alright.

Commissioner Johnson.

Thank you, mister chairman. So I was kind of directing this to the city for a couple of questions. So if this had been in, was it February '25 when this started?

Correct.

Okay. So in February '25, if this had finished the process of getting the permit, the owner would have known at that point he needed to come before council because the structure is outside and he would have of the our dimensions for height, and he would have had to have come to an s u p so he would have become before planning and zoning and from city council. Is that true?

Yes. If it was made clear on the building permit that the height was exceeding 15 feet at the time of submittal, then they would have been informed that they needed the s u p then. But the building permit was an incomplete submittal. We didn't have documentation showing the height of the structure until later in the process.

So, basically, it was an incomplete, permit or request for a permit from us, and so that's why we needed to keep going back to him for continued, documents. We didn't even know what he was building, basically.

Correct.

Okay. So the first stop order, if I remember from your timeline, was, like, two months later because they had not completed the permit process. There was no permit to build on this property. Correct?

Yes. This first stop work order was issued in May of twenty five twenty twenty five.

Okay. So and that and when we issued a stop order, that was issued to the homeowner also. So he knew two months later that there was some kind of problem with so when a stop order is issued, what is it or do we tell them what the issue is? Or do we just say, well, we're just stopping it? Or do they know that they're stopping it because the application process is not complete?

Let me pull that communication. I don't have that. I'm not in that communication very often.

So typically, do

we The code notice definitely says you're you're getting this for building without a permit. I don't know how much more it elaborates on that.

But I mean it does tell them you're building without a permit. Yes, ma'am. That's what the stop order was issued for.

Yes, ma'am.

So they started building again without approval from the city that they had completed the thing, and another stop order was issued. Correct?

Yes, ma'am.

How many times did we have stop orders when they never had completed the application process to begin with?

There is two stop work orders issued.

So the homeowner along the way knew there was a problem, and he knew that it was because of the application. So he did have ample time to ask the city exactly what the issue was, not just only with his contractor. Correct?

Can you repeat the question, commissioner?

Well, there were several so we never had an we still don't have, I'm assuming until we finally meet the city meets he still doesn't have a work or I mean he just still doesn't have the ability to build this building because we never have approved it correct?

That is correct and and that aligns with our typical process where we won't issue a building permit for something that requires an SUP until the SUP is approved by counsel.

And so we kept giving them a stop order because we didn't have that and that was what they were told was the stop order was for and yet the building continued to be built until we finally had a building that was almost completely built. And now we're in front of PNC to now, in arrears, ask for an SUP because if we had been approached, at the beginning of the process, there may have been, well, it's 15 feet. If you go under 15 feet, then you're going to not have to have an SUP anyway and you can continue to build. But there never was anywhere along the way for input from either PNC or from counsel as to the to the structure. And yet along the way and I do I am I do feel for you.

But along the way, you were told several times, you don't have the permit to even build this building. And your contractor you're let down by your contractor because your contractor kept building. But you did have an opportunity to ask the city what's what's the problem, especially when you got the second one. You got a stop order and then you get another stop order. You know, it's like at what point do you realize maybe I better ask the city what's the issue? You know, do I need do I not even have a permit to build the building in the first place? But I mean, can talk about it if you want, but I mean, I don't quite understand why there wasn't.

Yeah. No. And you're completely right. I should have been gotten myself involved a lot sooner after the first stop work order was was given to us. You know, when when we received that stop work order, the contractor been communicating with the city. So I asked him, hey. What's going on? And he just said, they just want clarification on whatever. I'm not sure what it was on something. I'm working on it now. We were stopped for a couple weeks. They weren't doing work. And then he said, okay. It looks like it's clear to go. And then he started building again. And then it happened.

And then you got another one?

Correct. Yes.

And then what was his excuse then for? Because he never had the right to build. You're Right. Yes.

And I understand that. And and it's very frustrating.

And I appreciate the frustration. I'm not Yeah.

Not understanding. Like I said earlier, we our intent is not to do anything out of what's legally allowed in the city of Keller. Where our intent was to hire a contractor, you know, have them get the permitting done the right way, and then build the structure. The simple way. But and I've never dealt with cities and dealt with permits. I'm I honestly, I'm not sure how the whole process even works. So I'm learning it now that after this last stop work order. So now that I'm involved, I'm just trying to get it squared away and, you know, do what we can do to to make it right.

Yeah. There's basically it looks like two issues. If you saw what we have is this the building's taller than it should be. And then, of course, the two structure, which, know, maybe there is a solution of just moving the the chicken coop so it's semi or attached to the to the other building. What is any possibility to remedy? Because if you make it below 18 feet and you make it down at 15, then there's no need for an SUP with the city. And if you attach the other building, by the way, then there's no there's nothing else that needs to be done. You could have gotten a work order.

Yes. And I've talked to my Yeah. To the new contractor about the pass possibility of what could be done to lower the roof, but I I just don't know the extra cost on that.

Point of information?

Yes.

We're here to discuss the SEP. So I just don't think this that question or the is really germane because we're talking about essentially stopping the meeting and saying, hey, we're going go back and get another building permit that has the roof lower than 15 feet. We're here to talk about the SEP, I don't think it's helpful to talk about, well, what if you changed it so you didn't need the SEP?

Well Well, if we would

Are you finished with that line of questioning?

Well, the point of that though, what Eric's saying though, is a point because if this had been brought to us at first, we would we could have had that discussion. And so we're left out of that discussion about the height of the building because now the building is. And that was my was what I was just wondering is there was a remedy to that issue. But, yes, I am I am finished. Thank you, John.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. I have

a few questions. Is this structure, you said earlier, you don't think it's quite complete?

It is not completely complete. It's it has the paint, the garage doors. There it needs to be essentially touched up paint where some scaffolding was. And and then there's a door that just needs to be installed. Yeah. But the whole inside is roughed out.

Okay. The upper floor, is this building heated or are you going to put AC into it?

We don't have any in town doing that right now.

Are you planning to? No, sir. In the current garage where you have it swing in, what are you going to do with that? Are you going to

The sorry. The garage that's part the my garage right now, part of my house. My wife parks her car in there, and I'm intending to put a gym, some work on equipment in it.

Okay. Thank you.

When you hired the first contractor and you got the stop work order and in that process there was a delay and eventually you parted ways with that contractor and got another contractor. After the second stop work order, you get a second contractor. In that whole process, it seems appropriate that there would have been a, hey, we need to figure out what's going on here with, I have two contractors that don't have a building permit. I mean it goes even beyond the first contractor to the second contractor.

So I'd like to clarify the second contractor. After this last stop work order is when I contacted the new contractor. He hasn't been involved in anything in anything yet. He's kinda just waiting on the sidelines until

Okay.

We're able to.

I see. So he really wasn't active in building this truck. Correct. I agree with commissioner Johnson that if this had been brought before the P and Z in a year and a half ago or approximately with two variances, the height of the building, the size of the building, I mean the fact that there are now three buildings on the property. I think it would have been a discussion as to whether that would have been approved at that time.

And now here we are a year and a half later and we're trying to look at the building already built. We don't have much choice at all. I went out and looked at this property today and I think that I look at the neighbor to your east who is looking at a 20 foot, 18 foot wall that's how deep is this building? Do you recall right off? 24 feet or so?

That sounds right. I'm not I'm not a 100% sure how

deep I it can't get my iPad to tell me the dimensions of the of the building on the Ground Floor if somebody can throw that at me. But anyway those are all issues, concerns that I have with this project for the whole process. And so I'm interested to hear what the rest of our commissioners have to say on this but it is a disappointment and at some point in that process it would have been appropriate to call a halt to this and call the city and say, what's the issue? What are we doing here?

Correct. And I guess I definitely should have done that.

Okay. I appreciate that.

And I'm in agreement with you that that this should have been addressed in the beginning before anything was ever done. Alright. And we could have adjusted the height and whatever else needed to be adjusted.

Alright. Thank you. Commissioner Breisinger? Thank you, mister chairman. I don't like it when people build things without permits. It annoys me. But, I've got sympathy for you. You hired an expert to build a garage. And we're not talking about a skyscraper. We're not talking about Home Depot. It's a two car garage with a some space over top of it. You hire an expert, you expect they know what they're doing. And you don't have the expertise you do now, but you didn't. So I have sympathy for where you are. It looks like a reasonable structure.

You know, it's not huge. Also, the lots of point eight one acres, if you do math, that's 35,283.6 square feet. It's almost an SF 36 lot. It's zoned SF 20, but it's a big lot. And all of his neighbors, the lots are on the eye test about the same size.

So I think it's what he's done is actually reasonable. I'm okay with the three structures again because there's it's almost 36,000 square foot property and you don't see them from the road. They're they're kind of inconspicuous. So I'm I'm okay with all this. Plus, none of the neighbors have raised any concerns and they've all been notified for this. It's it's annoying, but I I think we should go ahead and recommend approval. Because if if it was me, that's the kind of town I'd wanna live in. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, sir. And commissioner Sandoval Cabanas?

Yes. I have a couple of questions that I think I would have asked regardless of the circumstances of you getting here. What's the reasoning behind the height of the attic? Because it goes from like five foot six to like over nine feet.

Yeah. So it's it's pitched. And so it has, you know, I think it's around five feet at the lowest point. And like I said before, I wasn't involved in the architectural drawings. But what I was told the reasoning that they did it like that is because of it sitting approximately five feet below the grade of the rest of the house. So, there's a driveway that goes down and then it So, it sits lower. So, if they they were thinking if it If they built it, you know, however many feet lower, it would kinda look funky compared to the rest of the house. And so I think they were trying to make it match a little better.

Okay. And it do you happen to know what the height of your home is? Like, where it looks like it meets? Because I was trying to tell from, like, the pictures. It it doesn't seem like it's taller than your home.

No. It's not.

Great. It's

It's comparable with a few it's lower than the home.

Lower than the home. Yes.

It's just that it's lower down to the Correct.

From the ground.

Okay. And so my lot is on a hill, and the part of the home that's closest to the garage is it's a two story. So there's a garage, like a garage that's part of my house, and then a living area above that. And so that's two stories there. So that's the height of the the my regular home right there.

Gotcha.

Yeah. I I think I agree with Commissioner Leiss and Commissioner Brensinger in that I I I feel for you. I could definitely see how communication is poor between people. And I think it makes sense to me that you wouldn't question if someone told you to just continue to work as long as you know that they'd had communication. Like, that all seems very plausible to me. And I think the structure as it is looks very nice. It matches your home. I think it is good reasoning behind the reason for the height, and it matches the home. It's not higher than the home. It's not a different structure looking thing to the neighbors next to you.

And I think they didn't say anything. So this was their chance to come forward and say if they had some concerns about the structure and the height and where it is and all of those things. And I don't know about you guys, but it may be in an s f 20, but the size of the lot, I for sure don't want your chickens to burn just so you can have a garage. And it seems like a very small shaded chicken coop. So I think it is perfectly reasonable.

I think in the size of lot that you have a small chicken coop is awesome. And I hope that your kids enjoy it. So I stand in favor of this structure as it is. I do, with the caveat that I think council should consider some sort of fees, or fines, or things. There's a reason why we have things the way that we do.

There's a reason why we have an SUP, and why we have a process for us to continue. And I think it is important that, especially the contractor, gets at least some sort of fine or legality, some sort of headache for this. But I feel you. I don't know if they will consider that for you, but I think there's a reason why there's rules the way that they are, and that's what I would counsel to consider. But that's not my job, so I stand in favor of your SUP.

Thank you. Alright. Thank you. Commissioner Farner?

So not to belabor any points, and I and and I I feel for you. I have been working with some contractors. I had a flood, so I understand dealing with contractors. Did on any of the paperwork there ever there was a line that said permits. Did you ever did any did the contractor bill you or did you look at the itemized billing in in those and see was there a permit?

No. It's a good point. No. I don't I don't recall, you know, a line item that says that, you know, specified permit permitting on there.

So does the new contractor did you look at theirs or because at some point in time, there's gonna have to be a payment for the permit. Correct. So I and I know it sounds like you've already paid a lot of money to contractor number one.

Yes. And I I haven't signed anything or, you know, signed any contracts or anything with the second contractor because I don't know when it's gonna happen. And so I've just been in communication. He's actually a good family friend of mine. And so he's just been I've just been talking to him on the side.

You might go back and look, and it might be in a way to at least have somebody go back to that contractor number one who did the work without the permit and find out if he charged you for it

Yeah.

To have him go pay that money to the city if and when the permit gets issued.

Correct. That's a great point. Because I I paid the fee for the SEP when I submitted that in April. I believe it was April. And and I was looking through the website and saw that there, you know, there was the regular building permit that was still under review. So I'm not sure what he

Yeah. I I yes. And I know all that's not cheap, so I, I wish you well on this.

Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Commissioner Scott?

Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you for your time, sir, and and I do empathize with you for everything that you're here. You're kinda caught in the middle. I would love for the contractor to be here. I've empathized with all my colleagues, but I'm gonna let this be moved over my head. I will vote against it for the simple reason there's too many things wrong. Not you personally, but too many things wrong. So there must be some kind of a fine, penalty, whatever. And I'm not aiming it at you, I'm aiming it at the one that allowed this to be built. So I'm gonna I'm not against you at all.

You still have what you want. But there has to be something that has to be accountable. If we all say yes, then what it says is it's okay to do anything. So I'm gonna take the opposite approach and say no for the simple reason that we need to somehow address this problem. And that and you're kinda stuck in the middle, and I think your contractor ought to be the one to fix this problem. Thanks, sir. Alright.

Thank you. Commissioner Sandoval Cabanas?

Can I ask for clarification? So and I don't know the answer to this, commissioner Scott, but if we if we vote to decline the SUP, if we if we as a body, let's say, all vote to decline if that happened, that would mean not that we'd be recommending a fine, but that we'd be asking for the structure to be torn down. We're not giving permission for the structure. Is that correct? No. I just wanna be clear of what we're approving and disapproving because it's the structure's already there. So if we disapprove, what happens to the structure?

So if ultimately, if the commission recommends to deny, nothing happens right now. Right? Right. Goes on. Commission counsel.

Yeah. If counsel denies, then he really has the option to modify the structure somehow, which would be very challenging so that it was no longer needing the the SUP, it would comply with everything in the zoning or to tear it down. Those really are the the options. Fortunately, I have not had a lot of cases like that, so we we would probably take a beat and explore any other options available to the applicant, but but very simply if counsel was denied, probably the first thing we would look at is there a way to modify the structure to to bring it into compliance. Got it.

Could is a possibility for let's say I make a motion to approve. Could I make a motion to approve with the recommendation of a fine of some sort? Is that something that's even been done or you would I

think that's outside of of the commission's purview and would typically be assessed by the municipal court and not even by the council. Gotcha. Thank you. I was

just curious what our options are.

Yes. I agree with that analysis right there. And I think the question on the table is do we approve this SUP in hindsight? And again, it's a recommendation. When it gets to the council, they will wrestle with it and come to whatever conclusion they come to. So with that, any more speakers? I see none. Commissioner Leis?

Move to approve item e one as presented.

And commissioner Sandoval Cabanas?

I second.

Alright. We have a motion to approve with a second. Any further discussion? Alright, let's vote. Okay. That motion fails four to three. Okay. I'm making sure I said that correct. So sir, we are recommending body. You heard the discussion today and as you go forward on June 2, you can bring that before the council.

You can get with staff. You might have some other options. You can wait, pull it for a while and do something else with it. I don't know what those options might be, but gives you some time to work with it. And again, we're only a recommending body and I wish you well with this project. I wish the process had been a lot cleaner from the beginning for you and for everybody involved. So with that

Oh. If I could just make a quick if I could just make a quick comment. I'm really disappointed with that vote because this body has a number of times approved building permits for projects where the applicant, the homeowner built the object, and they did not know that their excuse was that they did not know they needed to get a permit. And you obviously know you needed a permit. You hired a contractor to do that for you.

And I think it's really disappointing tonight that that we recommended a denial of this because, ultimately, if that followed through, you would either need to tear it down, bring it into conformity, which is for the SEP requirement of the height. So I think I think that it's important that we consider our past actions when we make votes like this. Because I can think of at least four options since I've been on council and two in the last year where we have approved projects that needed a permit and the applicant themselves did the project themselves and did not get their own permit. You did the right thing. You hired an expert.

That expert did not give you accurate information. And then sounds like, I mean, sounds like they lied to you and said they could keep building. And I think it's To to Commissioner Brenzinger, like, a city like, the city that I wanna live in doesn't hold people accountable for trying to do the right thing and hiring a bad contractor. So that's my thoughts on that vote.

All right. Thank you very much. Commissioner Scott.

Thank you, Mr. Baker, Chairman. No one is against you wanting to do this, and I don't appreciate, commissioner telling us what we should have not done. I want everyone to build what they wanna build, but we have to have rules and laws. And I think this is something that can we can work around. So I would appreciate the commissioner keeping his comments to himself.

Alright. Commissioner Johnson.

Okay. Mine's not quite there. Mine was, I do sympathize sympathize with you. But I looked at this as, to give clarification as to my vote, is I looked at it as would I have approved it a year and a half ago. And I would have had some current concerns of it then, which was part of why I asked the question that I asked. It probably would have been, you know, could we not have went with the 15 feet. That's not your fault, and I do understand that that was the contractor. But I tried to look at it as this was a fresh thing that was brought before me and would I have approved the SUP at that point in time. And, that was where the vote mostly had come from. I probably would not have approved it unless we had modified some of it.

So I just wanted you to know. I do sympathize with you hugely.

Alright. Thank you very much. Alright. I got a few things off our chest this evening. So with that, sir, again, you'll go before the council on June 2. Wish you luck with your project and, thank you much.

Thank you, everybody.

Alright. Thank you all. Alright. That completes our agenda for this evening. So we are now adjourned at 07:52.