Keller planning commission recommends special-use permit for large detached garage but denies setback variance

The Keller Planning and Zoning Commission on April 22 recommended approval of a special-use permit allowing a 1,080-square-foot detached accessory structure at 1401 Summer Breeze Court but declined to recommend the applicant’s requested variance to encroach five feet into the property’s 15-foot rear setback.

The commission’s decision follows a staff presentation describing a stop-work order issued in November 2024 after city inspectors found partial construction without permits. Staff told the commission the house on the 0.91-acre lot is about 2,323 square feet and that, when combined with an existing detached carport, the new building would make accessory structures exceed 50% of the main house’s square footage — the threshold that requires a specific-use permit under the Unified Development Code (UDC). Staff said the structure’s proposed metal exterior and 13-foot average ridge height conform to other code limits.

The request drew a public comment from a next-door neighbor, Marcia Jura of 1402 Summer Breeze Court, who said the structure’s doors would face the street and voiced concerns about aesthetics, stormwater run‑off and property values. “My concern is about all of the doors in the garage,” Jura said during the hearing, adding that the adjacent lot sits several feet higher and that runoff could increase toward her property.

Commissioners said the size of the proposed building itself was reasonable for the lot and the zoning district (SF-36), but several members expressed concern about the proposed rear-setback encroachment and an on-site utility easement. “I’m okay with the size that you’ve asked for. I’m okay with the orientation … I’m not good with the variance,” said Commissioner Leish during deliberations.

The commission voted 5–2 to recommend approval of the SUP while withholding support for the five-foot rear-setback variance. The recommendation and record will be forwarded to Keller City Council for final action at its May 20 meeting.

Staff noted the property owner previously applied for a building permit in January after the stop-work order and that one letter of opposition and one letter of support were received during the public-notification period. City staff also advised the applicant to resolve any outstanding survey or property-line questions before presenting to council.

The commission did not require a concrete floor for the structure as proposed; the applicant told commissioners the building would have a gravel floor and would be used mainly for boat storage and to protect an existing well. Commissioners urged the applicant to seek the necessary building permits and to consider moving the structure farther from the rear property line to avoid conflict with the utility easement and neighbors.

With the commission’s split recommendation, the matter will appear on the May 20 City Council agenda for final disposition.