Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose Landscape Systems plan development; council denies related future‑land‑use amendment
Summary
After extended public comment on June 17, the Keller City Council denied a proposed future‑land‑use amendment tied to a Landscape Systems plan‑development application, as neighbors raised flooding, lighting, dust and above‑ground fuel‑tank safety concerns.
Keller — A months‑long, contentious plan‑development application by Landscape Systems drew extended public comment at the June 17 Keller City Council meeting. Neighbors raised concerns about flooding, lighting and dust, and about the applicant’s plan for three above‑ground fuel tanks. After discussion the council denied the requested future‑land‑use amendment by vote.
What staff and the applicant presented
The applicant proposed rezoning and a plan development (PD) for roughly 20 acres at the nursery site, including two zoning subareas for retail/garden sales (fronting Keller Parkway) and for a contractor/wholesale landscape yard (to the rear). The PD included staging yards, a plan for a trail along the creek, perimeter screening and a phased build plan. The applicant also proposed a pad with enclosed above‑ground tanks to fuel equipment on site.
Neighbors’ concerns
Nearby residents testified at length during the public‑comment portion of the meeting. Their repeated complaints included:
- Flooding and drainage: Several residents said changes to grading and materials storage have changed stormwater flow and caused new standing water near property lines and barns. They urged a formal flood/drainage analysis before additional approvals.
- Lighting and noise: Residents asked that exterior lighting be shielded or use optics that prevent spillover into adjacent yards. They reported current greenhouse lights and vehicle activity already affect their yards at night.
- Dust and operation hours: Neighbors said unpaved drive areas generate dust and asked for pavement or gravel on work drive areas and controls on delivery times.
- Fuel‑storage safety: Several residents objected to above‑ground diesel/gas tanks near the creek and a floodplain, requesting either reduced tank quantities or stronger containment and inspection rules.
Applicant response and revisions
The applicant’s team and owner (Ed Ruble, Landscape Systems) made multiple concessions during the review process and at the meeting: moving a dumpster enclosure to comply with setbacks, proposing a smaller fuel‑tank configuration (applicant said he reduced the original request and offered to limit tank number and to use a concrete containment pad), adding evergreen screening and committing to irrigation and maintenance for new plantings, and offering earlier demolition of an on‑site residence and timing for phased construction.
Council action
After hearing public testimony and discussing the proposal, council voted to deny the requested future‑land‑use amendment (the change that would convert about 3.5 acres from low‑density single‑family to retail commercial). That vote means the full PD that assumed the land‑use change could not proceed in its present form until the applicant revisits the future‑land‑use step or presents an alternate plan that keeps the current land‑use designation.
Quotations
Resident Michael Bushnell said, “We woke up this morning to go outside and enjoy our backyard and got to look at the eyesore that has been in our backyard now for approximately 1 year.”
Applicant representative Caleb Redinger said engineers would perform flood and drainage analysis as part of future design work: “We can certainly provide information on a flood study that shows…we’re not increasing runoff,” he told council.
What happens next
The denial of the future‑land‑use change does not automatically preclude other approvals but does require the applicant to either modify its PD to match current land‑use designations or to pursue a different public‑hearing process for any future amendment. The council also asked staff to ensure that any future submittal include specific floodplain, drainage and lighting plans and to review any above‑ground fuel storage under the applicable fire‑safety permitting and possible SUP review.
Ending
Council’s denial of the future‑land‑use amendment followed robust public comment and a lengthy staff and applicant presentation. Neighbors said they welcomed several of the applicant’s concessions but asked for more certainty on flood‑plain, lighting, dust, and fuel‑storage issues before a final plan is approved.
