Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, thank you. I'd like to go back to administration our last P&Z meeting. At the end of it, we had an item that was a motion and then we had an amendment to that motion. And we really got kind of wrapped around the axle as to how to handle that. So I thought we would just revisit that basic process. After that meeting, I reached out meeting with amendments to motions and this is his email i am responding to mr baker's email below mr baker is correct in that a motion needs to be made and seconded as the first step thereafter a member can make a motion to add an amendment to the underlying mo

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

It's even easier to think of them... I find amendments, when it's physical property, it's hard to comprehend because there's not just the... But even think of it like when Dr. Scott recommended, or had his recommendations to change the UDC, it's very easy to think of it with words, because if he says a medical, this is non-invasive, and then you say, yeah, I motion to approve, second, and I say, well, and then I say, no, I wanna say minimally invasive. I motion to amend non-invasive to minimally invasive. We just discussed and decided disagree and maybe I'm going to vote, no, but I'd rather tr

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

This is the point, and it kind of popped up there in that meeting. You make the motion to approve. It requires a second before the body can even talk about it. But when you get a second, that isn't a vote. That just means, hey, this is what we're going to start discussing. Here's the main body. Now, when you make the motion, And you have a second. Do you have any further discussion? Yes, I have discussion. I want to amend that motion. So now you've just created a second voting opportunity. And that's going to be a motion to amend with a second. Is there any further discussion? And you discuss

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

Okay, I appreciate that. That's where I got confused. Let me tell you, this electronic system, from the chairman's point of view, I spent half my brain cells... trying to get our meeting to fit this electronic system. And even that evening, when people are in the queue to speak, and then we start making motions with amendments tied to it, that was really another confusing aspect of it. Because at one point, I'm looking down there saying, Ross had come up with the idea, Bill was making the amendment, and I had somebody else in the queue on the electronic thing that was ready to go. That's when

And this was during discussion, by the way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If he says he can't, you can't because he's the chair. It's the purview of the chair. If you want to kill it and say you have to make an amendment, you can. No, I'm serious. I've been there. I'm a vice speaker, and I can kill it and say no, and then someone says point of order or something like that, but then you get all concluded. But it's your choice to say, no, I want it this way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ross Brensinger. And I'm John Baker, your chairman for this evening. Our next agenda item is persons to be heard. This is a time for the public to address the Planning and Zoning Commission on any subject. However, the Texas Open Meetings Act prohibits the Planning and Zoning Commission from discussing issues which the public has not been given three business days notice. Now, we do have two public hearings this evening, so if you're here to speak to those items, you can wait here in just a moment. We'll get to them, and you'll have an opportunity to speak. But if there is anybody that has any

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

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

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

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

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

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

Got it. Yeah, I think, um, in this instance, I mean, I don't think there's a fire concern with this. I mean, you can't burn this material. It would be a terrible fire, um, if, uh, if this was, uh, on fire. I think for me, it's more of a, um, understand it was there. It was probably just there because no one asked, um, So from my perspective, it's really difficult to approve putting this up. I know that it sounds like the neighbor wants it, but I think from our precedent standpoint, I can't, for me, and I know that some other commissioners are going to speak, picturing what apart from it's does

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah. Yeah, I can remember at least two that we have looked at. But the one point that seemed pertinent is that those carports were not 22 inches from the property line. Even though they had intruded into that side setback, they still had a matter of feet before they got to the property line. But with that, what I see is our applicant is kind of standing on shifting sands to a degree. He buys the house. He's got a carport. It was done prior to the ordinances that have been put into effect for this LD or this density of 20,000 square foot lots. And so he tears the carport down. Now we pass an o

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

So I agree with Chairman Baker that this one is tough. I guess the height and the distance to it, since it's open, to me doesn't feel like it's like some of the ones that we've seen, right? They're solid structures and that kind of appears to encroach because I'm just thinking if my neighbor built this 22 inches from my fence and I don't know do you sit higher or lower my neighbor sits higher than me you know what would that look like on my fence but if it's since it's open it still gives the airiness I know this neighborhood it's very it's very established you know it's been there for as long

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Send of all Cabanas?

I think I agree with Commissioner Farner. I think it is a different scenario when you buy a home and you have a list of possibilities because of what's already there. you take something old down and you want to refresh it, you want to make it better, and then now you're not able to put back up what was already there, feels very different than somebody coming to us and now wanting to build on their property line in a new fashion. It feels different, and I think would be clearly different if this had not already been a structure that was there, and obviously had bought something and made plans t

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

Commissioner Leish? Just a quick comment before Commissioner Farner makes her motion. Just with the comments regarding it being there, so we're okay with something else going there, no. Now that it's not allowed, there's a lot of policy where we have where we will change zoning and other policies throughout the city, whether it's residential or commercial, and the design is to, over time, Think of Old Town Keller, where we change a lot of rules. Or 1790, we change a lot of rules, and someone could show up and say, well, I want my orange and yellow Taco Casa sign with stucco siding, and we're l

All right. Thank you. Commissioner Sandoval-Cabanas?

respect that statement. I think that makes a whole lot of sense. I do think it feels different when it is a person who owns a property. So if we're talking about businesses and we're talking about Old Town and we're talking about different things, in my mind it feels like from the prospect of an owner, You have this land that you bought that had something, and your neighbors all feel okay with it. It just feels different, I think, when it's the one person who has their own land, their own home, and that's how they bought it, and they're trying to upgrade it. So I don't know. It feels slightly

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

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

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

Thank you. Commissioner Scott? Second. We have a motion and a second to approve item D1. Is there any further discussion? Okay, let's vote. Interesting. Four to three. The motion carries. Sir, I want to tell you we really appreciate the fact that you showed up and made the case. And I think that you can see what a sticky wicket this is for the commissioners because they want to help you. But again, on the other hand, the ordinances currently suggest that that wouldn't be the case. But I do want to emphasize that This is a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council, our elected le

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

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

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

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

So you're just putting support beams or those poles at the edge of the driveway? Or at the end of that cement pad, I should say.

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

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

Yeah. So I think a lot of my comments are similar on this item to the last. I think a couple things that are – that jump out are one, there's nothing there. And then two, when we look at, and we're talking about this in our, just on the last item and even in our pre-meeting, but these are very narrow lots and they're also wooded lots. And then when you get, I'm just concerned that when we get a structure even closer to that fence line into our 13 foot setback where it could be, 20 feet maybe from future development. Just like it's happening here, I drive by this lot most every day. A lot of th

issues like Commissioner Lice does, and it's the same issue that I had with the last, is we're getting closer to the line, and that's why we have a certain amount of easements. The concrete work, just to get to what Commissioner Farmer had to say, the concrete work isn't underneath the same as a structure. And so just because the pad is there doesn't mean that we can build it as big as that is for the concrete work. I do see that you've got the garage, and it's right on that line that is right to the 13-foot build line. So if this carport was coming off of it, where it could go over into what

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Sandoval-Cabanas.

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

Is anybody prepared for a motion? Commissioner Scott?

A motion that we approve this carport. Thank you.

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