Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves variance and SUP after stop‑work orders on oversized garage at Meadowview Drive
Summary
Council unanimously approved a special‑use permit and variance June 16 allowing a constructed detached garage (768 sq ft, ~18 ft average height) to remain at 2101 Meadowview Drive after staff described a permitting breakdown and Planning & Zoning had recommended denial 4–3.
Keller — The City Council on June 16 approved a special‑use permit and a variance allowing a detached garage that exceeds the accessory‑structure height limit on a lot at 2101 Meadowview Drive. Planning staff told the council that the garage was constructed partially without an approved building permit, that stop‑work orders had been issued in May 2025 and March 2026, and that the Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended denial by a 4–3 vote.
At the council hearing, staff explained the project history and measurements: the accessory structure is about 768 square feet with an average roof height of approximately 18 feet (the UDC limit is 15 feet for such accessory structures). The owner had also requested a variance to allow more than two accessory structures on the lot; staff noted the combined accessory‑structure area is less than 50% of the main house.
The contractor who later took over the project spoke to the council and described the situation as a permitting and review failure by the prior contractor: “I think what it was is a review and permitting mistake… This was definitely not a mistake of someone trying to sneak past the building that they weren't supposed to do,” he told the council. He said the lot slopes and that, visually, the accessory structure reads lower from the street because of grade changes.
Council members discussed the denial at Planning & Zoning, potential fines and the remedies available if the council had denied the request (removal or bringing the structure into compliance). The mayor and other council members noted the decision was rooted largely in process issues and that extreme deviations from code would be handled differently; given the circumstances and contractor testimony the council approved the SUP and variance unanimously.
Staff advised the owner that municipal court and citations are the enforcement mechanism in cases that reach citation stage and that subsequent civil disputes among private parties would remain separate. The staff‑issued building permit for the structure remains pending the SUP action; council approval allowed the permit process to proceed toward finalization.
