Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

This is the pre-meeting briefing for the City of Keller Planning and Zoning Commission on August 11th, 2026. And it is 6.31. For administrative comments, Ms. Hensley, do you have anything for us?

Yes, thank you, Chairman. So last week, the Council made several items that have gone to the Commission before. 912 Keller Smithfield Road, SUP. This was an accessory structure, a little unusual, had the fireplace in it, if you remember. Approved unanimously. 1743 Florence Road, SUP. This was an accessory dwelling unit. For scheduling reasons, this had actually gone to the commission back in May. And then there was a council meeting canceled and the applicant couldn't come, and so finally we're able to get them through the process last week. That was approved unanimously. This was a over two acre lot for an ADU and then they also own the lot next to it, if you remember that one. UDC amendment related to home occupations and medical spas, that was approved unanimously after some edits to both definitions. And I can go into more detail if you want or if we have time in a little bit. UDC amendment related to town center screening wall, reorg, not changing the content, and then the uses for grooming and veterinarian clinics, that was approved unanimously. And then that housekeeping UDC amendment related to the P&Z being designated as a CIAC, also approved unanimously.

Well, I think Mr. Bresinger would like to know what happened with the amendment. I do know. I watched it.

But yes, if you tell Russ.

Yeah, sure. So for medical spas, they took most of the edits, but they just left it at, obviously, we changed the non-invasive to minimally invasive, because that was the spark for the whole thing, right? So that, of course, was in. I don't have it in front of me, but basically said and, you know, must be under the direction or follow the guidelines of the Texas Medical Board. We remove that mileage language just in case the Texas Medical Board ever changes their regulations. Then if we just say you have to follow the Texas Medical Board, then if they change it and say, hey, we think 75 miles is too far. It needs to be 40. We don't have some kind of conflict in our regulation. in our guidelines. And then on the home occupations, a lot of discussion on this, had a lot of discussion with the city attorney before we even went to council on this. Ultimately, they approved it generally as is, but they did take out that new language on HVAC and plumbing and mechanical companies where we had those defined as not meeting the ordinance with the idea kind of similar to what I think Commissioner Brunsinger had brought up that You know, if you are a plumber and you own your own business and you're only doing your payroll in your home office, that would be, you know, acceptable under the ordinance. And we didn't want to communicate that that wouldn't be. And I think the feeling was that the other things that we had built in in terms of not having employees report to your home and those things would cover someone who was maybe doing more than just payroll in their office.

Doing the garage. Yeah.

That was a tough one for everyone. Staff struggled, P&Z struggled, I think Council struggled with that one. Okay.

Moving on to the agenda items for this evening. D1 is to consider the minutes for the July 28th P&Z meeting. Are there any additions or corrections to that? Okay, seeing none, let's move on to item E1, new business. consider a request for an SUP for an approximately 1,883 square foot accessory structure at 715 Barber Lane. And that's Mr. Edelman's.

So as you said, it's an SUP request for 715 Barbara Lane. They're requesting to build a 1,883 square foot barn with an approximate average height of 18 feet and 2 inches. So the two SUP requests are for the size to exceed 1,200 square feet and then for the height to exceed the average of 15 feet tall. The applicant has stated that they will be here this evening and has not received any public feedback on the request.

Okay, thank you. Any questions? All right. Item E2, by the way, the previous one's a public hearing, and this is going to be a public hearing. Consider a request for a major subdivision final plat with variances at 304, 308, 312, 316, 320 Cal-A Drive. and 1516 Willis Lane. And that's Ms. Zimmerman?

It is, yes. So, as you said, it's a major subdivision plot. It's a replot of those lots off of Calais Drive. Those have been plotted, they were originally plotted in 2003, and they are looking to extend their south property line into the other subject property, which is 1516 Willis Lane. That property has not been plotted, and so since it's being subdivided and the lot lines are changing, it does have a variance for the lot width. They're requesting a minimum lot width of 122 feet in lieu of the 140 foot width requirement that comes with SF-36. It's lost to public hearing, but we have not received any public feedback regarding the request.

Okay, a thought just occurred to me is we're adding some room to the south end of the lots that go along Calais Street. Has that property already been sold to those homeowners, to that development? Or is this... That's all built.

Yeah.

I understand they're built, but we're going to add this unimproved land to the back of their lot. Have they already purchased that property? Because what my question I'm thinking is, are we creating platting

I don't know. So they're adding it onto the existing lots. So those lots on Cal A will just become that much deeper, all the way back to the Willis Lane Elementary property.

So they're not going to sell it to them. You're just going to say, here it is.

Well, they're selling that little portion, but it's not a separate lot. It will be absorbed into their existing residential lots.

But I think he's asking, did they sell it to...

Yes, but they have not finished that real estate transaction, as far as we know, because technically you're not supposed to sell by means and bounds, which is why we're telling, part of the reason they're needing to flat.

It's to redraw those property lines. I'm sorry? They're replatting so they get past that legal. Correct.

So the square footage of the lot stays about the same. They make up what they're asking for with the debt.

Well, they probably met the width

So all of the lots will increase in size except for the one that is selling the property to the others.

I think when we see the presentation we have a schematic up there we can explore it any further if we need to.

This is interesting though because this neighborhood has been there for a long time and the house that's asking for the variance has been on that lot for a long time. What if we say no? I don't know why we would, but it's a great question. What happens?

I don't know what, so if you guys said no, then it would go to council, obviously. If council said no, I'm not sure what recourse they would have other than to not subdivide the lot. So a legal lot of record, which is what they have right now, that's existed as a lot in Tarrant County for years and years, and this is not uncommon in Keller to have a legal lot of record that's never been platted, had a house on it for decades. probably got annexed in, you know, in the 70s or 80s or something like that. It can continue to operate as that single-family lot, and we would even plat it. The UDC allows us to plat legal lots of record, even if they don't meet the base zoning, if they're just platting that legal lot of record. What changes here in this situation is they're not platting a legal lot of record. They're changing that legal lot of record, and so that's where the variance kicks in is they're modifying that lot. So I guess it would have to stay as is, or they would have to, you know, do some research on what recourse they have if council denies them, because I really don't know.

I don't know why we would deny it, but it just looked interesting. And I was, if the people along Calais Drive are actually buying the land to make their lots bigger, okay, they made that choice, I get it. But part of me said, If I was there, I can't build anything on it anyway. Why do I want to pay more in property tax? It's going to look the same. But if they decided to buy it, they made that decision.

And I can't speak for them. I mean, it would increase the size of their yard, you know, depending on what their family needs are. And it would also move that rear setback farther back, you know, to that new property line versus where they're at right now.

Yeah.

So.

It's just unusual. Okay. Item E3 is to consider an SUP for an indoor entertainment facility at 721 Keller, Unit 100. That's Mr. Edelman again?

Yep. So this is an SUP request for an existing restaurant, Eagle Tavern, at 721 Keller Parkway. It was brought to the attention of staff that the restaurant had pool tables, so they were then notified of the SUP requirement to operate as an indoor entertainment facility. So they've come through with that request. There's no proposed change in the primary use of the property. It'll still operate as a restaurant. And the SUP request is solely to authorize the amusement devices and not change their primary use. Have not received any public feedback. The applicant has not confirmed that they'll be in attendance at this meeting, but has confirmed they will be available for the City Council meeting.

Okay. Any questions? Item E4 is to consider a request for a special exception to the City of Keller UNC Article 9 development standards.

sign regulation for chalk and steel company company at 761 keller parkway unit 104 and that is mr flanders yes sir so if you all remember chalk and co steel co recently had their sup request approved to operate an indoor entertainment facility at 761 killer parkway they are now coming before you to request a special sign exception to allow two attached wall signs on the front elevation and as well as to allow sign materials that are not included in the list of approved sign materials in the EDC. EDC sign code states that one attached sign for building elevation or lease space elevation is permitted. Both of the signs are being proposed on the front elevation of the lease space. One is directly above the front entrance and then the other is to the western portion of the front facade of the building. The property's frontage, they are located on Keller Parkway, and they are located over 100 feet away from the street, allowing them a maximum square footage size of 200 square feet for a sign. Materials used for the sign is going to consist of digitally printed vinyl graphics, an aluminum backer panel, and then the letters and borders of the sign will be composed of high-performance vinyl. This item is not a public hearing, so we did not mail out letters, and the applicant will be here this evening.

I didn't notice, but are any of these signs internally lit?

I don't believe so, no.

Okay. Any questions?

It's just the one sign looks out of proportion to the chalk and steel. The billiards and darts just look so much larger.

So one of the things, and we'll have several different images during the presentation. One of the pictures in the packet is real zoomed in on that, like two sections of their lease space. Yeah. And it is a large sign. But if it was by itself, it would meet the attached sign size requirements. But if you look at the entire lease space they have, I don't think it looks quite as maybe out of scale with the rest, because they've got a few other sections of that building that they're leasing.

So if these were two individual buildings, this is as big as the sign could be if this was subdivided and they were separate.

So that sign could be acceptable for one lease space.

Right, that's the sign, because it just looks so out of place. I mean, size-wise. Yeah. Yeah. looks bigger than if you go to that.

And so you are correct. That sign that you're looking at right there is approximately 40 square feet. The billiards one is approximately 143 square feet. If you hypothetically combine them into one sign, it would still be less than the allowed amount of 200 square feet.

So you're taking the three and combining them.

I don't think they need a variance for the sign materials. When I read those words, they meet it. It's aluminum. Because if they didn't meet it, every sign in the city that's painted would need to come before us. Because paint is not on that list. Neither is anything else that can make a letter or a number. So I think we're... They had to come anyway for the SUP, so they would have been here. But I'm... I don't think they need a variance for that material when I read our crappy code.

And we appreciate the feedback. We'll check on whether or not... And I shared with Commissioner Brinsinger when he sent those comments in writing earlier this week. I don't disagree. Sign code has definitely some room for improvement, much like most of the rest of the UDC. We... We have several other code amendments we've been charged with taking forward over the next six to 12 months. So I don't know that the sign code is going to hit an agenda this year, but definitely worth looking into. But I understand what you're saying in terms of the paint.

I'm not going to argue with you on your priority. You're good at that. And this is not the biggest issue in the city, but it is something I think we should fix. But I don't think we should interpret it in a way that makes people need a variance if the words don't say they do. And the words doesn't say they need a variance.

And the variance is because it says the word that they want to come in with the word vinyl?

Correct.

That's what I was thinking.

But they can't have paint either. Or they can't have wooden sticks that make out letters. There's nothing in that code that lets you put any message on any sign. Stucco. I don't know how you make a stucco sign. But you can have a stucco sign, but you can't put any words on it. Because there's nothing in that list that makes a word or a number. I'm just reading a thing.

I'm trying to pull up that email that you sent and Did you send it to me through the city? No, I sent it to your home one. Okay. That's why I can't see it. But do you happen to have a copy of it in your computer there where you can, we have a couple minutes we can spend on this, where the verbiage for the sign ordinance is the materials, but does it say it has to be made of those five materials? It says, such as these five materials. Is that correct?

That's what I'm trying to look at. All permanent signs shall be constructed of quality materials including aluminum, masonry stone, brick, stucco, molded plastics, and acrylic.

So are they really just talking about the construction of the sign itself?

Probably the backing of the sign.

The words only list substrates. Yeah. They don't list anything that can make a word.

What you put on top of the substrate.

Yeah, that gets applied to those materials.

And do we take, when someone wants to put like a lit sign on top of that substrate, do we make them come in for a variance? Yes. Remember the emergency room? Well, they wanted two signs and they wanted, it was the size and the lighting. Well, I thought it was because they wanted two signs and they already had signs on the building.

That wasn't a variance request, but I couldn't remember. I know we talked about it.

I'm sorry, Commissioner, what was your question?

If they didn't need the SUP for having two signs, would we make them come in for a variance? Because they've got the aluminum substrate, and everything is going to be attached. So if they had wanted it lit, I guess, you know... What would they have required a variance if they just came in for one sign with an aluminum backing?

So we have not, at the staff level, approved signs with vinyl on them. Now, we can certainly take... I mean, that's what the commission's for, right? To give us feedback on things like this. It's actually not something that's proposed very often because people usually will... will propose some of these other materials.

It was actually proposed by the city for use in the sports park when they originally talked about some of the signs there.

So I'm talking about our commercial applicants. And I don't want to argue over the words in the code, because no one here at this table wrote them. And we are very open to revising them. And like I said, the commission, part of your role is letting us know, hey, this doesn't make sense, or this needs to be looked at. We always err on the side of if we don't feel like it meets the code, we'll either first get direction from the city manager or the city attorney or let the commission and the council make the decision. Because they were already having to go through the variance process like this, our team felt like including the vinyl in there just so everybody's on the same page in terms of what's being approved for these signs.

So if they had not needed to come before us and it had vinyl plus the aluminum, you would have probably made a staff decision or talked to the manager. And if they said, I don't know, take it to the commission, you'd have brought it. That is correct. And I would think that a lot of people don't use vinyl just because it probably not. In Texas heat, maybe more adorable. That's what I'm worried about.

It actually can be.

Let me ask this question. and maybe somebody here knows, these wraps that go on these vehicles, where they, you know, they put a rapid, and they'll have their name, and maybe they have artistic license there. Is that not vinyl? Isn't that a vinyl wrap?

It is. Yeah, I think there's also, to Commissioner Britzinger's point, I think what you were making, one of the things you were saying is there's different, like, quality of vinyl. You know, it's not all created equal in terms of what might be used for a high quality sign that might last for, you know, a decade or more versus what you might wrap your vehicle as a rip stage. And I don't know. And we're certainly not materials experts.

So then maybe if we're going to ever look at this sign ordinance, we need to think about potentially the grades of the vinyl for this. We'll leave it out and just say it's quality materials, right?

My recommendation is we delete it. And we do things like we do with the fence ordinance. You can't have a dilapidated fence. I don't care what the sign's made of. I only care what it looks like. You just don't want it.

You also can't have a vinyl fence unless you're in certain zoning districts.

No, but the part of the fence ordinance is, I believe, this is going by my faulty memory, that if a fence gets dilapidated, it's a code violation.

Yeah, but what she's saying, though, is we can't allow vinyl fences everywhere.

But my point is, I don't care about vinyl. I don't care about aluminum. I don't care about titanium. I care about what it looks like. If it looks dilapidated, it's a code violation, and we should go get them to fix it. And think about it some more. Who has a sign? Who's forced to have a sign? Absolutely nobody. People have signs because they want them, because they want to be seen, because they want to promote their business. Who wants a crappy sign? We're solving a problem that doesn't exist.

Yeah, I'm kind of, you know, I think that if we deal with the substrate and you tell them it's quality and that the backing, you know, what we put on the front should be left to your discretion and the applicants as to is it durable, is it quality, does it look good, does it represent the business in Keller?

We're not going to solve it tonight, and I didn't expect to, and I don't think we need to. But we can have some fun next year when Sarah pulls this one up on the list.

Okay, well, I appreciate that. Let's move on to item E5. We're getting pressed for time. Consider a request to approve amendments to the City of Keller UDC relating to automobile electric charging stations. Mr. Edelman?

Yep, so... Back in 2015, the UDC update, automobile electric charging stations were added to the use charts for neighborhood services, retail, Old Town Keller, Town Center, and Town Center Medical zoning districts. In Town Center, Town Center Medical, and the neighborhood sub-district of the Old Town Keller zoning district, the use required in an SUP, but in all other non-residential districts where it was allowed, it was allowed by right. So this amendment proposes that the use would require an SUP in all of the zoning districts that it is included in.

Okay. Why are we...

This is a request from council. We were directed to bring this forward. I think the... increased popularity and interest in installing EV charging stations, and in particular, the one that just went in at the Walmart at Bercy and Russo. That's what drove it. It motivated them to ask for this code amendment so that there was a little bit more council oversight on, I think, how the aesthetics and other parts of the installation would be handled.

And the cutoff switch. Does that one require like a permit? The electrical code requires a cut-off switch. Right. No, remember it has to be with an X amount of feet. When we talked about the one at Town Square and then they made retrofitted, had to go back and do that at the ones at the apartment complex. So it's not in code. It has to be there at the site so that someone can see what it is. It just has to be with an X amount of feet. But we required it in those two.

So it's actually in the fire code now. It was updated in April of this year. Stephanie, our new fire marshal, brought forward several fire code amendments related to a lot of different things, but several that were related to EV charging stations, including the requirement that a remote shut off being installed with clear signage. And so that's sort of a fire review.

So did they put that down there?

It hasn't gone through the final inspections, but I know it was required by the fire department. But that's what drove a lot of this.

That's where it should be, because it's a health and safety thing. Oh, I agree.

Okay, I'm going to cut this. meeting of the Color Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for, let me get this correct, August 11th, 2026. And with this, the time is 7.03. If you'll stand, we'll do the pledges to the flags.

under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible. All right, thank you, everybody. And I'd like to introduce our commission this evening, starting at my far right, please.

Deborah Johnson.

Bill Schlegel.

Aaron Farner.

Ross Brensinger. And I'm John Baker, your chairman for this evening. On the agenda, the next item is persons to be heard. Now, before we start this, let me go ahead and read this. This is a time for the public to address the commission on any subject. However, the Texas Open Meetings Act prohibits the commission from discussing issues which the public has not been given three days' notice. Issues raised may be referred to the city staff for research and possible future action. Each speaker will be allowed three minutes to speak. Now we have three, now we have four public hearings this evening. So if you're here and you want to speak during one of those public hearings for those four agenda items, it would probably be better if you wait until we get to that agenda item and then it's, it's, Immediate but if there's anybody here tonight that would like to talk to the Commission about any other subject or even those subjects Now is your time to come forward? Okay, I don't see any interest Let's move on to the consent agenda To consider the minute minutes for the July 28th 2026 planning and zoning Commission meeting Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? I see none. And Commissioner Brenzinger? I move to approve the minutes of the 28 July planning and zoning meeting. Thank you. And Commissioner Johnson?

I second that.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? OK, let's vote. Okay, those minutes have been approved. Moving on to new business, item E1 is a public hearing. Consider a request for a special specific use permit for an approximately 1,883 square foot accessory structure on approximately 11.24 acres. Located on the north side of Barbara Lane approximately thirteen hundred and fifty feet from the intersection of Barbara and roof snow Legally described as lot five a home site of the black edition zone single-family 36,000 square foot and the address 715 Barbara Lane sup dash 2607 day 0022 and mr. Edelman Thank You chairman

I have the aerial and zoning maps here. Subject property is zoned SF36. The applicant requests a specific use permit for a 1,883 square foot barn with an approximate average height of 18 feet and 2 inches. The proposed structure is to be used for storage and a workspace to support the associated agricultural activities on the property. There are two SEP triggers for the proposed structure. Again, it's to exceed 1,200 square feet in the SF 36 zoning district and for the height of the structure to exceed an average of 15 feet tall. The proposed site plan shows the structure is located behind the main home and will conform to the setback requirements of the zoning district. The applicant has stated that the barn will be a fully framed and finished structure that has been designed to complement the architectural character and quality of the main home. You can see the renderings provided there. Additionally, a floor plan provided by the applicant. The existing home on the property is intended to be demolished, and the new home will be approximately 5,980 square feet. The EDC states that the combined area of all accessory buildings on a lot shall be less than 50% of the main structure, unless approved by an SUP. The proposed structure is less than 50% of that square footage. On July 30th, 30th, the City mailed 23 letters of notification to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site, and staff has received no public opinion letters in response to the request. Section 8.02 of the UDC states that when considering an SUP request, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following factors. 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 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 is an SUP for the proposed accessory structure to exceed 1,200 square feet and for the height of the structure to exceed an average of 15 feet tall. The Planning and Zoning Commission has the following options when considering this request. Recommend approval as submitted. Recommend approval with modifications or additional conditions. Table or recommend denial. And if a recommendation is provided tonight, the application will be forwarded to the September 1st City Council agenda. If you have any questions, staff and the applicant are available.

All right. Thank you very much. Is the applicant here and wish to say anything? All right. Thank you. He... is available, but doesn't want to say anything at this time. This is a public hearing. This is a time for anybody in the public that wishes to come forward and speak on this issue. Now is your time, please. Okay, seeing no movement. Commissioner Farner?

I move that we close the public hearing.

Thank you. Commissioner Bresinger? Second. We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Any further discussion? All right, let's vote. That public hearing is closed. The vote was 5-0. All right. At this time, we'll call on any interest in speakers. Okay, Commissioner Farner.

I think that the plan is appropriate to the use and for the location and the size of the yard. I motion that we approve the request as submitted.

Thank you. Commissioner Brunsinger? Second? Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve item E1. Any further discussion? Okay, let's vote. That motion is approved five to zero. Thank you very much, sir. You'll be before the city council on September 1st. We are in a recommending body, but they will make the final decision. But we wish you well. Thank you. All right, let's move on to item E2. Again, a public hearing. Consider requests. for a major subdivision final plat with one variance for lots 3R through 7R block A and lot 1 block B of the CalA estate subdivision being 6.63 acres located on the west side of Willis Lane approximately 1,787 feet southeast of Rapp and Willis Lane being a replat of lots 3 through 7 block A of the CalA the state subdivision, and a final plat of a portion of the John Edmunds Survey Abstract 457 Track 4A1 and 4A2. It is zoned 36,000 minimum square foot lots. The addresses are 304, 308, 312, 316, 320 Calais Drive, and 1516 Willis Lane. And the plat number is dash 2607 dash 0012. Ms. Zimmerman?

Thank you, Chairman. I have the aerial and zoning maps. The subject property is zoned SF36. So starting with the existing condition of the property, the lots three through seven of the CalA state subdivision was originally plotted in 2003. The other subject property, 1516 Willis Lane, has never been platted and is outlined in orange here. The request for this evening is to replat to revise the south lot lines of lots three through seven of that CalA estate subdivision and create a final plat for the remainder lot. This application does include a variance request for the minimum lot width. Per the UDC, the minimum lot width is 140 feet in the SF 36 zoning district. The applicant has requested a variance to allow lot one block B, or currently 1516 Willis Lane, to have a minimum lot width of 122 feet in lieu of that 140 foot width requirement. Since that lot has never been plotted, the city has never actually approved a lot configuration officially with the plot, and so that creates the requirement for the variance. Here is a look at the zoning and the future land use plan designation for these properties. The property is currently zoned SF 36 and is designated low density single family on the floor. On July 30th, we mailed out 34 letters of notification for this public hearing, but staff has received no public feedback in response to this request. Section 2.07 of the UDC states that when considering a final plot with variances, the Commission shall consider the following factors. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved, such that the strict application of the code would derive the applicant of a reasonable use of its land. that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public, that the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other lands in the area, that the granting of the variance will not constitute a violation of any other valid ordinance in the city, and that strict compliance with the regulations and or that the purpose of the regulations will be served to a greater extent by the alternative proposal. The Commission has the following options when considering this final type of variances. Recommend approval as submitted with the requested variance. Recommend approval with modifications, table, or recommend denial. If a recommendation is provided tonight, this will be forwarded to the September 1st 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 say anything? Sir, if you would, your name and address. Thank you.

My name is Chris Blevins. I'm a licensed land surveyor that prepared the subdivision plat. I'm with Britton and Crawford Land Surveying. We are at 3908 South Freeway in Fort Worth. The landowners of lots three through seven are currently helping maintain Miss who's the landowner of lot one, block B, the back end of her property. that goes behind their property. She's elderly and is no longer able to maintain it properly, and they've helped her with that, and they approached her with the thought of buying the back end of that property and increasing each of their lot sizes to help her out, and we're just here to hopefully make this go through. If you have any questions, I'll try to answer what I can.

All right. Thank you very much. If you'll just stay nearby. There may be a few questions. And at this time, it is a public hearing. Is there anybody here that wishes to speak on this issue? Commissioner Farner.

I motion that we close the public hearing.

Just a second.

Okay. Do you wish to say anything? Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Commissioner Farner?

I motion that we close the public hearing.

And Commissioner Johnson?

Second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Any further discussion? And let's take a vote. Okay. The public hearing is closed, five to zero. With that, I am now open for questions from the commission or comments. All right. Commissioner Brenzinger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to move to approve item E2 as presented. I think it's a reasonable request. All the neighbors are in agreement. I mean, they're part of it.

So I see it looks like a good change. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Farner.

I second the motion.

OK. We have a motion and a second to approve item E. Am I correct? E2, yes. Any further discussion? With that, let's take a vote. Okay, that item is approved, 5-0. And you too, sir, will be before the City Council September 1st. And again, we're a recommending body, but occasionally they... take our recommendation. But anyway, we wish you luck with your project and thank you for being here. Okay, moving on to item E3. This also is a public hearing. Consider requests for a specific use permit for Eagle Tavern to operate an indoor entertainment facility in an existing lease space On approximately 3.11 acres on the north side of Keller Parkway, located 220 feet north from the Keller Parkway Borland Road intersection, legally described as lot 7R, block B of the Stone Glen subdivision, zoned retail, SUP-2606-0019. And Mr. Edelman?

Thank you, Chairman. I have the aerial and zoning map shown here, subject property zoned retail. A quick reminder on the UDC definition for indoor entertainment facility on the screen there. It was brought to the attention of city staff that the existing restaurant was operating with pool tables, and the applicant was notified of the SUP requirement to operate as an indoor entertainment facility. The Keller Police Department is researching the use of the gaming machines shown in the submittal from the applicant, but even if the applicant was required to remove those devices and SUP would still be required for the pool tables. The business will continue operating as a restaurant. There's no expansion of the building or change to the primary use of the property that's proposed as a part of this request. The requested SUP is solely to authorize the indoor entertainment facility use associated with the amusement devices. subject properties owned retail and designated mixed use on the city's future land use plan the properties to the north are designated mixed use to the east retail commercial to the south mixed use and retail commercial into the west semi-public on july 30th the city mailed out 25 letters of notification to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site staff has received no public feedback in response to the request reminder of the UDC criteria for considering an SUP request that I read previously. And again, this request is for an SUP to operate an indoor entertainment facility for Eagle Tavern in the retail zoning district. The commission has the following options. Recommend approval as submitted. Recommend approval with modifications or additional conditions. Table the agenda item or recommend denial. If a recommendation is provided tonight, the application will be forwarded to the September 1st City Council agenda. If you have any questions, staff is available.

All right, thank you. Item E3 is a public hearing. Excuse me, before we get to that, the applicant, if you're here, do you wish to say anything? I see no movement. So with that, Commissioner Farner?

I move that we close the public hearing. We are public, though. We wanted to...

Your what? We're not the outskirts. Ah, okay. Got you very much. Okay. Thank you very much for that. We'll hold your motion in a moment here, Commissioner. And if you would please come forward and identify name and address, please.

Do you need our business address? Okay. So, Jonna Perrin, Chalk and Steel Co., and we are at 761 Keller Parkway. So, we are neighbors to 721 Keller Parkway, Eagle Tavern. So, the only thing is that we want to sit there and provide support for this. The two pool tables are clearly not going to be in any sort of competition with our business. However, we are hoping that there will be some sort of modification perhaps added. We're not aware as to If they are approved for these devices, what is to then prevent them from continuing to flip the space into nothing but pool tables, and now we have to, within 400 feet of each other, you now have two entertainment spaces with pool tables and things of that nature, so that is our only concern.

Okay, so your point is you're within 400 feet and you own a similar business, is that it?

Correct.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much.

You're welcome. Thank you.

All right. With that, have we closed? We haven't closed it. All right. I would like to entertain your motion.

I motion that we close the public hearing.

Thank you very much. Commissioner Johnson.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Let's go ahead and vote, please. Okay, that motion carries 5-0. At this time, we're open for comment. And Ms. Commissioner Farner.

So I had a similar question for staff about if we approve this, what prevents them from adding additional items or equipment and especially knowing that Chuck and Steel Co. had been approved several weeks ago to go into the space 400 feet down.

So if they receive an SUP for indoor entertainment and they add things that are allowed under the ordinance, I don't know that there is anything that we could prohibit there. If their entire nature of their business ceases to match what's on the certificate of occupancy, which is for a restaurant, then we would want to look into it further. Because their CO is to operate a restaurant. It's not to operate a billiards business like these folks will have. I don't have a great answer for you. We have not encountered that before where a restaurant received an SUP for indoor entertainment to have a few pool tables or dartboards or whatever and then we go back out and find that they're no longer a restaurant but they're operating a pool. So I don't have a perfect answer for you. But I would say that it would catch our attention if we knew about it because it wouldn't jive with the approved CO for the restaurant.

So if I continue to keep my kitchen and I continue to offer food, am I still a restaurant with a bunch of pool tables or am I an indoor facility that happens to serve, to have a kitchen? So I guess mine, I have a little bit of a problem with this and also why he put them in before he started as a restaurant, he was approved as a restaurant. And, you know, is there, are those tables have yellow tape on them right now? Because you're saying that he's continuing to operate as a restaurant while this is going on. So do those, I mean, how are we stopping him from letting someone use the pool tables?

We have not forced him to stop using, as long as he had, once he submitted the application, we've explained clearly what the SUP was for. I don't want to speak for him, but I don't think he was aware that the addition of the pool tables to his business would trigger any type of additional requirement. He did quickly submit the SUP after we reached out. So we have not forced him to tape them or restrict access to them at this time. I will note, and there may be a question coming from the commissioner, we have enlisted the assistance of the police department to look into the gaming devices. The pool tables are very clearly under the list of allowable amusement devices within the indoor entertainment ordinance or definition I should say. The gaming devices are unclear and certainly we don't have that expertise so the police department is researching that to see if that's even allowed under Texas law for those machines to continue and The owner has indicated he would comply with whatever the city comes back and tells them.

So I guess they're not the old Atari Pac-Man gaming machines. I guess it's something different than that, huh? You are correct. Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

All right. Thank you. Commissioner Johnson?

Well, I appreciate it, Erin. You kind of opened up a little bit of what my concern was. It is concern for the other... Facility that we just gave approval to it's still being Built so I do have definitely share your concerns. My other concern was I've looked at what these gaming Machines are and they are casino style gaming machines they're Giving your winnings and tickets it appears from the pictures and that's all that I can go from so that definitely concerns me and in bringing it to Keller even if they can get around some of the laws because it's not actually exchanging money. I don't know that we want to bring that type of thing to Keller. So if that's what we're allowing in our definition of entertainment at a facility, would that mean that they would even be able to start putting those machines into their facility? Chalk and steel meaning.

So like I said, the gaming machines that they have right now, we were concerned enough about them that we have enlisted the assistance of our friends across the street and leave that in their capable hands to address it. So obviously, if our police department determines that those devices are not allowed, they wouldn't be allowed in any business. Correct. I don't want to speak for them, but I think Chalk and Steel has been pretty clear on the vision for their business, and I don't think those machines fit within that vision. So, and that's, again, the pool tables are clearly allowed under indoor entertainment and the code. The electronic gaming machines, not so much. And to Commissioner Farner's point, cut our eye because it's not Pac-Man and it's not Golden Tee or some of those It's not Duck Hunter, you know, some of those sort of kid games that you might see at a restaurant for the kids to do while the parents are having a beer or something.

Yeah, I guess, and I share the concern of, well, what if the whole place turns into pool tables and gaming, and we just keep the kitchen because we're going to serve? If that still meets the SUP that we allowed them to have, then... I have concerns there because it's not a restaurant anymore where people are sitting down. And actually the majority, do we have like a percentage that we have to have seated restaurant style to allow for it to be a restaurant that just has accessory table tables?

The definition doesn't have a breakdown there. An option for the commission, just to consider if there's the concern over the business morphing into something different than how it's operating right now would be a condition on whether it's the percentage of the floor area dedicated to amusement or indoor entertainment or restriction on the number of pool tables or something along those lines to keep that as clearly an ancillary part of the restaurant and the main use of the tenant space to be restaurant.

And I appreciate that because I can see that we could potentially go down that route. If I was going to go down that route, though, I would want to include something about this potential for the gaming and what we find out. I'm wondering if it would be appropriate for us to maybe deny even so that we can get more information about the gaming facilities and on what maybe the best amount to put for two tables, no more than two, or for the square footage that we want to put on the floor for tables. But that's kind of my thinking at the moment to share with my fellow commissioners.

All right, thank you. And Commissioner Schlegel. Thank you, Chairman.

Yeah, with all due respect to you guys and how you articulated your vision, I'm not concerned about the competition because you guys obviously know what you want in your facility. My concern about this place, you know, living here, lived here for quite a while, remembering how busy the previous tenants in that place were at time of dinner or any food, lunch, dinner, whatever, if the focus now is on an area that has pool tables and other games, is there restaurant business off or are they concentrating more on the bar portion and Miss Hensley, I think I thought of this one Commissioner Johnson talked about wasn't there at one point to have a liquor license Didn't a certain percentage of your receipts need to be?

food Wasn't it 50 plus percent or so that's a TA BC requirement in Keller the definition of a bar and I think Calvin has this on a slide, is if you have more than 75% of your sales dedicate your, or from alcohol, and the TABC, thank you, the TABC permit they submitted for this business did not meet that threshold, so they're not classified as a bar under our UDC.

So that, I mean, that's my concern, that it just doesn't seem to pass the sniff test, that it doesn't seem to really be concentrating on the restaurant aspect.

Okay. I really don't have the concerns to the degree that my fellow commissioners do. If, in fact, two small pool tables in that room and it looks like, in fact, I'll ask this as a question, the area available for pool tables and any other machines looks rather small. Is the photograph we've seen 100% of the area that they could have pool tables or could they put another 5 or 20 pool tables in this room?

I mean they would have to remove restaurant tables in order to accommodate they'd have to move some furniture or do some remodeling to be able to fit in additional pool tables or other things in the space.

So I see this as an addendum to the restaurant business and even though these are concerns, I don't think they outweigh the fact of having a restaurant with a couple of pool tables meets the level of that concern. So I would support it, but is there anybody else that wishes to speak on this? All right. With that, Commissioner Farner.

I motion to deny item E3 as presented at this time.

All right. Thank you. Commissioner Johnson?

I second that.

All right. And we have a motion and a second to deny. So if everybody's clear on that, any further discussion? Let's go ahead and vote. Okay, that motion passes 3 to 2, and this will be before the City Council on September 1st as a recommendation. Okay, with that, let's move on to item E5. E4, thank you, guys. This is a public hearing. Now, consider a request for a special exception to the CETI of Keller Unified Development Code Article 9 Development Standards Section 9.05, signed regulations for Chalk and Steel Company, an indoor entertainment facility in an existing 7,310 square foot lease space on approximately 1.4 acres, located approximately 560 feet northeast of the intersection of Borland and Keller. Legally described as Block A, Lot 4RA of the Shemwell Addition, zoned retail. And this is UDC-2607-0009. And Mr. Flanders.

Thank you, Chairman. Good evening, Commissioners. Aerial and zoning map before you. Subject property is zoned retail. Chuck and Steel Co. recently had their SUP request approved on June 16th of this year to operate indoor entertainment facility They are now requesting a special exception to allow two signs on the front elevation of their lease space. UDC sign code states that one attached sign for building elevation or lease space elevation visible from a public street or with a public entrance is permitted. The other request this evening is to allow for the signs to be composed of materials that are not listed in the UDC. UDC states that all permanent signs shall be constructed of quality materials. including aluminum, masonry stone, brick, stucco, molded plastics, and acrylic. As I mentioned, they are proposing two signs on the front elevation of the building. Both signs would meet the UDC requirements for an attached wall sign if submitted independently. Both of these signs are faced in black and white and include digitally printed vinyl graphics and aluminum backer panel. The letters and borders will be constructed of high-performance vinyl. UDC special exception does not require a public hearing, so no public hearing notifications were sent out to the surrounding property owners. Public added opportunity to speak during this on persons to be heard. Section 9.05 of the UDC list criteria for approval of a special exception to the sign code. Whether the requested exception will not adversely affect public safety, whether the requested exception will not adversely affect surrounding properties, whether the requested exception will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of the sign code, whether special conditions exist which are unique to the applicant or property, whether the requested exception demonstrates increased quality, and whether the requested exception will be aesthetically appropriate in the area. Again, the two requests before you this evening is to allow two attached wall signs on the front elevation of the building and to allow for the use of sign materials that are not included in the list of approved materials specified by the UDC. Commission has the following options when considering UDC special exception request. Recommend approval with the requested special exceptions. Recommend approval with modified or additional conditions. Table or recommend denial. And if a recommendation is provided tonight, this application will be forwarded to September 1st City Council agenda. Staff and the applicant are here for any questions.

All right. Thank you very much. Is the applicant here and wish to say something? Thank you. And again, your name and address, please.

John Aparin, 761 Keller Parkway. Okay. So as far as the signs are concerned, it's my understanding some of the concern is the durability of it. We are being given a 10-year warranty on the entirety of these signs. And as we understand it, that warranty isn't that it should look faded at the 10-year mark, that that's when the fading will begin is at that 10-year mark.

All right, thank you.

You're welcome.

All right, if you would stay nearby, we may have some questions for you here in a moment. All right. This is... At this point, we have a few questions from our commission and Ms. Farner.

I have no questions. I think that it's appropriate for the width of the space and understand the desire to have a sign over the main entrance and then a sign over the other part of it. So I have no issue with that nor of the materials that the sign is made of. So I plan to vote in the affirmative on this.

Okay, thank you. And Commissioner Brenzinger.

I concur with Commissioner Farner, but I do want to state for the record, I don't believe you need a variance for the signed materials based on my reading of the code, but I'm going to support it, and I also think there'll be good signs from the way you've described them. Thank you. All right.

Thank you much. Commissioner Schlegel. Thank you.

And I agree with both comments so far. The shape of the building, I think, isn't conducive to a 200-square-foot sign. I think it's appropriate the way it's laid out. It's less than the max. As far as the construction, our code says to use aluminum, and it's aluminum. I definitely would support it.

All right. Thank you very much.

Commissioner Johnson? And I am in support of it also. I thank you for the 10-year kind of, I think for the public would have been when they hear vinyl, would want to hear that. So I always try to remember that I'm addressing the public, not just the people that are sitting in the audience. So thank you for that. I too, and for the public knowledge, all three signs still meet the code for if you had one big sign. So you're still under the square footage that would be for that. So I think that's important to let the public know also. But I do think with that space when you drive by, it does look like it needs more on the sides. So I am full support. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. And I will comment, we've done this before. I can remember DeVivo Brothers when they expanded, they took over an additional space next door and they ended up with two signs on their building, which was appropriate. And I do agree with Commissioner Bresinger on that. The verbiage in this particular ordinance is unclear, to say the least. And even when you read what we saw there, examples, it says examples of quality construction. It doesn't say it's limited to that. It just says these are examples. So assuming, in fact, I saw an email from Somebody that says, you know, that sign could be made out of titanium, which would be the finest material you could stick on that building, but could you afford it, and is this really what we mean? So I, too, intend to support this application. So with that, Commissioner Farner?

I recommend approval of item E4 as presented.

All right, thank you. Commissioner Johnson?

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. to approve item E4. Any further discussion? Let's go ahead and vote, please. Okay, that motion passes 5-0. You'll be before the City Council on September 1st. Wish you well with your project, and thank you very much. Now we get to do E5, which is a public hearing, consider a request to approve amendments to the City of Keller Unified Development Code adopted by Ordinance Number 1746, dated July 7, 2015, by amending Article 8 relating to automobile electric charging stations, providing penalties, authorizing publication, and establishing an effective date. UDC-2607-0008. Mr. Edelman. Thank you, Chairman.

So some background on this item. As part of the comprehensive 2015 UDC update, the use automobile electric charging station was added to the use charts for the neighborhood services, retail, Old Town Keller, Town Center, and Town Center Medical Zoning Districts. At that time, the use was designated as requiring a specific use permit in the Town Center, Town Center Medical, and Old Town Keller, specifically the Main Street Subdistrict. zoning districts while designated as permitted by right in the retail neighborhood services and the neighborhood sub-district of full-town Keller The proposed amendment would modify the use charts of the retail neighborhood services and neighborhood sub-district of otk To require a specific use permit for automobile electric charging stations See this is the The extent of the proposed changes there with retail neighborhood services and Old Town Keller use tables there showing going from permitted to requiring an SUP. Again, that is the extent of this proposal is to change that use automobile electric charging stations from permitted to specific use permit required in those zoning districts. An amendment to the text of the UDC requires a public hearing notice to be published in the local newspaper. This was published in the August 1st edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. And we have not received any public feedback. The Commission has the following options when considering a UDC amendment. Recommend approval as submitted. Recommend approval with modifications or additional conditions.

Table the item or recommend denial and if a recommendation is provided tonight the item will go before City Council on September 1st If you have any questions staff is available All right, thank you very much This is a public hearing is there anybody here that wishes to speak and with that I May have cleared somebody miss foreigner I

I motion that we close the public hearing.

All right. Commissioner Johnson?

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Further discussion? If not, let's vote. Okay, the public hearing is now closed 5-0. And with this, on my electronic... Cueing here. I may have cleared somebody before miss foreigner. Was there anybody you don't wish to speak? Okay All right. Thank you and Commissioner Bresinger.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman Old Town Keller neighborhood sub-district My memory says that includes houses so if somebody lives there and they want to put a charging station in their garage they need a sup and

So I don't know that the intent here is to require it for private residences. I think because these were across the board put in non-residential zoning districts except for OTK, the intent was always for any SUP requirement to apply to private residences. a non-residential applicant. It's certainly an option to do some sort of carve-out, making sure it's understood that if it's a single-family residence that they follow whatever electrical or other permitting requirements might be in place, but that they don't need to come before City Council if that's the concern.

Well, I'm really not too keen on writing another ordinance as good as our sign ordinance, so I think we should table this until you get it right, and then we'll look at it.

Well, isn't this... We're limiting this to retail, correct, in the various...

But that's not what it says. I think what Commissioner Brinsinger is saying is that because in the neighborhood sub-district you can have single-family homes, that you could create a situation where a single-family homeowner would feel that he needed an SUP to put an electric... charging station at their home. I think though if you read the definition for automobile electric charging station, it is pretty clearly not intended for a single family garage. So unless a single family homeowner wanted to put an entire charging station in their driveway, I don't think that the code interpretation would be you need an SUP to charge your electric vehicle at your home. You might need an electrical permit to install whatever you need for that, but you don't need an SUP.

Do we have that wording?

I don't think we have it on a slide, but I will be happy to read it.

You don't think this is covered by the permitting that would be required to put in a...

An automobile electric charging station is an electric vehicle charging station, also called EV charging station. Electric recharging point, charging point, charge point, or EVSE, electric vehicle supply equipment, is an element of infrastructure, either public or private, that supplies electric energy for the recharging of plug-in electric vehicles, including all electric cars, neighborhood electric vehicles, and plug-in hybrids. So... If we feel that could be applied to single family homes, we probably need to do some more work here.

It sounded to me that it would. I am an electrical engineer, so I know something about electricity. I think we should, my recommendation is we table this and rework it.

What kind of rework would you like to have other than a carve-out that this would not apply for single-family homes? I just want to make sure we understand what we need to work on before. Just that.

Okay. Could we make, in the motion, could we put that in there? That it add that language?

If...

Since it's a recommendation to council, right? Could our recommendation is that we approve with that It's a question for you and the chair.

I'm thinking. OK. If staff is confident they could make that in time for the city council meeting so they could consider the actual wording, I'd be OK with that.

Wouldn't it be in here? Wouldn't it be on this chart to just state neighborhood, sub-district? exception for single-family residents?

So likely what we would do is in the use chart, occasionally you will see in the UDC where there's a little asterisk, you know, by the use. And so we would do that here and put, you know, does not apply to, and I'm having, I'm not using super eloquent language. We would work with it a little bit and get some additional input. But something that noted, hey, look a little bit closer at this, and then something that's said at the bottom of the use chart, EV stations and single, or EV charging points, or whatever phrase we want to use, in single-family homes shall not be subject to the SUP requirement. Please check, you know, for other permitting requirements. Again, that's not great language off the top of my head, but something along those lines.

If you're comfortable doing that before you get to city council, I'm okay... making a motion to approve it with that change.

Well, what we can do is, this is an example of where you use an amendment to the motion. And so, assuming that we have a motion on the table to approve, I don't know if you can do this through the electronic system, but Mr. Bresinger wants to make an amendment to the motion that says add a asterisk with the verbiage that we've just discussed that says this does not apply to residences in these areas.

Excuse me, Chairman, I don't think we're at a motion level yet. I think we're in discussion still.

Say what?

We're not at a motion level yet. We're in discussion at the moment.

What we can do in order to parse this sequentially, in fact, I'll tell you what, let's do this. Mr. Schlegel, do you have a motion to approve if you'll put the motion on the table? All right, thank you.

Yeah, I agree 100% with Commissioner Bransinger's comments. And I think, I mean, to clarify that, Ms. Hensley, I think it would be a great idea. It makes sense for consistency. You know, electric vehicles have proliferated. It will continue to expand. It will continue to get more awareness. I would make a motion to approve E5 with the caveat that private homes are excluded. They're not part of this requirement.

Okay. Let's put the motion on the table. We made a motion to approve.

So motion to approve with the caveat that...

I don't want to do a caveat.

OK. Motion to approve, but you want to have a call out for.

I am, after we get the motion on the table. OK. We are then going to vote on the caveat.

OK. Motion to approve.

Thank you. Commissioner Johnson, would you second the motion to approve?

I'm going to be honest, I'm confused because are we going to approve this and then we're going to go back and amend it? Is that what you're wanting to happen?

You can vote on the amendment. And if the amendment fails, then the motion to approve stays on the table and we vote on it. If we approve the amendment, it's going to be a motion on the table with the amendment.

I misunderstood that.

Yeah. What did we do here? Try later?

Try later.

OK, thank you. So with that, oh, is there?

They withdrew.

OK. I'm going to...

So Chair, I motion that we approve item E5.

Thank you. Is there a second? And does it show that I've? Yes. Yes. I have seconded it. So now that we have a motion on the table, now we are able to amend said motion. So would you please make your motion to amend, please?

Thank you. I move to amend the motion on the table to include changes as discussed to make it clear that residences are not required to have an SUP for an electric charging station.

All right. Thank you. Is there a second to the amendment? Second. OK. We're winging it. Now we're doing it.

Mr. Schlegel seconded.

OK. Mr. Schlegel seconded. Motion to amend. So with that, is there any further discussion on the motion to amend? Okay. I, too, agree with it. And with that, let's, by a show of hands, show me, do you, all those that vote in the affirmative for the motion to amend, show your hand, please. Thank you. That motion passes five to zero. Now we have on the table the motion to approve with the amendment. And with that, in my queue for speakers, I have Commissioner Brenzinger.

Did I withdraw my request to speak anymore? Everybody withdrew?

Yes. OK. Thank you very much. OK. With that, so we're back to the motion as amended. And I'm open for... Do we have to motion again? Yeah, we have to move again. Okay, Ms. Farmer?

I motion to approve E5 as amended.

Great. And Commissioner Johnson? Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve E5 as amended. Is there further discussion? All right, thank you. Let's take a vote. OK, that passes 5 to 0. So Sarah, I guess you have now an amended motion or recommendation to the council. And I think they can act upon that, maybe with even a little bit more clarification from you and your verbiage. So that looks good. All right. I think we have gotten to the end of our agenda, if there is not anything else. We are adjourned for the evening. Thank you. At 7.58.