Bellmead commission discusses housekeeping changes to zoning code to resolve 5,000 vs. 7,700‑square‑foot conflict

The Bellmead Planning and Zoning Commission met at 6 p.m. March 18 and discussed proposed amendments to the city’s Code of Ordinances (Appendix A, Zoning) and subdivision regulations intended to remove a contradiction over minimum single‑family lot sizes and to clarify setback language.

The item was presented by Mr. Morris, a city staff member, who described the package as a “housekeeping measure” and said the changes would be brought back as a public hearing in April. He told commissioners the zoning ordinance currently lists a 5,000‑square‑foot minimum for single‑family lots (50 by 100 feet), while the subdivision regulations contain a 7,700‑square‑foot minimum with a 70‑foot frontage, producing confusion for developers and property owners.

"This is kind of a housekeeping measure for us too," Mr. Morris said. He proposed making the code consistent either by changing the zoning ordinance to match the 7,700‑square‑foot figure in the subdivision regulations or by amending the subdivision regulations to keep the 5,000‑square‑foot minimum.

Commissioners discussed tradeoffs. Several noted that 5,000‑square‑foot lots reflect an older, denser pattern north of Bellmead Drive, while much of the area now being developed contains larger lots and buyers expect a more suburban, lower‑density character. Commissioner comments also raised utility capacity concerns: staff noted parts of the city still rely on 1½‑ to 2‑inch water mains installed decades ago and said a practical minimum main size would be 6 inches for typical modern service and fire protection.

On setbacks, the staff presentation proposed simplifying language. The front yard maximum depth in the R‑1 single‑family rules is currently 30 feet; staff suggested reducing that to 25 feet. Side‑yard language now calculates 10% of lot width but caps at 6 and no less than 5; staff proposed a flat 5‑foot side setback. The rear yard would be stated as a 30‑foot setback instead of retaining calculative language.

Commissioners asked about possible effects on existing lots and small infill projects. Mr. Morris said existing lots would be grandfathered and that developers with larger sites could still propose smaller lots through planned district procedures or negotiated development conditions. He reiterated that the commission would not vote on changes at the March meeting: "This is not an action item because we'll have to come back and post this as a public hearing," he said.

Staff also reported two minor housekeeping items to bring back: adoption of an official 2025 zoning map to standardize color legends (no boundary changes) and several other non‑substantive edits to align the ordinance text and maps.

No formal amendments or votes on the zoning text were taken at the March 18 meeting. Staff was directed to prepare ordinance language and to schedule a public hearing in April for the commission to consider formal changes.

Votes at a glance: - Approve Planning and Zoning Commission minutes for Feb. 18, 2025 (workshop/meeting): approved (unanimous). Poll recorded votes: Chairman Morgan — yes; Ms. Frank — yes; Mr. Polter — yes; Mr. Bank — yes; Mr. Coleman — yes. - Adjourn meeting: approved (unanimous). Poll recorded votes: Ms. Frank — yes; Mr. Folger/Polter — yes; Mr. Bank — yes; Mr. Coleman — yes; Chairman Morgan — yes.

What’s next: Staff will return to the commission in April with draft ordinance language, a public hearing notice and an officially adopted 2025 zoning map for the commission’s consideration.