Commission backs Armstrong Hills planned development but deadlocks on future‑land‑use map change

The City of Keller Planning and Zoning Commission voted March 11 to recommend approval, 6-1, of a rezoning that would create the Armstrong Hills planned development (PD) on about 49 acres near the Davis Boulevard and Creek Road intersection. The PD would rezone the property from single-family (SF-36) to a plan-development district with lots proposed as small as 20,000 square feet; the developer’s plan shows 49 residential lots and roughly 16.6% open space.

A linked request to change the city’s future land-use plan designation from low-density single family (36,000 sq. ft. and up) to medium-density single family (15,000–35,999 sq. ft.) resulted in a 3-3 tie at the commission; under the city’s rules a tie is a recommendation for denial, so the commission will send a recommendation of denial on the future-land-use amendment to City Council.

Planning staffer Sarah Hensley summarized the developer’s submittal and noted where the PD deviates from the Unified Development Code (UDC): 13 of the proposed 49 lots are smaller than the SF-25 base zoning minimum (about 26% of lots), a flat 10-foot side-yard setback is proposed in lieu of the UDC’s 10% of lot width (not to exceed 15 feet), and garage-door exposure and certain lot-width standards differ from the base code. Hensley said the PD layout shows an average lot size of about 30,000 square feet, a maximum lot shown near 48,000 square feet and roughly 8 acres of open space; the plan calls for a gated entry with an approximately 350-square-foot guardhouse and for a homeowners association to maintain private streets and common areas.

Applicant Terry Holmes presented the site concept and described an approach that works with the property’s steep topography. Holmes said his team intends to build custom and semi-custom homes and to preserve tree stands and trails; he described stepped foundations and “dropped grade beams” to avoid large visible retaining walls. Holmes told the commission he and his team had met with adjacent neighbors in multiple neighborhood meetings.

The developer’s civil and traffic engineers described technical work submitted with the application. Will Schoonover of Barron Stark Engineers said the design team prioritized tree preservation and layout that followed the natural terrain. Project engineer Drew Guthrie summarized traffic and drainage work: the traffic analysis used Institute of Transportation Engineers trip-generation rates and counted weekday peak-hour traffic; the consultant reported roughly 37 AM peak trips and about 49 PM peak trips attributable to 49 single-family lots and said TxDOT approved the proposed driveway permit plans pending city approval. Guthrie said the drainage design uses on-site detention ponds sized to meet the city’s 100-year storm standards and that, at the model points shown in the civil plans, the design reduces post‑development peak releases compared with existing conditions. Guthrie told the commission that the civil plans will need final department reviews before any grading or building permits are issued.

About 59 property-notification letters were mailed; staff reported nine letters of opposition, one email of support and two additional emails submitted after the noon packet cutoff. Dozens of neighbors spoke at the public hearing. Speakers who opposed the PD raised concerns about traffic and safety at the Davis Boulevard and Creek Road approaches, potential increases or redistribution of storm runoff to adjacent yards, tree removal and the number of lots smaller than the city’s adopted base zoning. Supporters and some near neighbors praised the applicant’s building quality, the design that follows topography, and the proposed open-space and trail amenities.

Commission deliberations reflected that split: some commissioners said the PD translates the property’s difficult topography into a higher-quality layout and protects more open space than a straight SF-36 subdivision would; others said the proposed 13 lots that fall below the SF‑25 minimum represent a meaningful deviation from the code’s intent. After discussion the commission approved the PD rezoning 6-1; the resolution and civil exhibits will go to City Council with the commission’s recommendation. The companion future land‑use amendment resulted in a 3-3 tie, so the commission’s recommendation on the map change will be denial by tie vote; the future-land-use matter also goes to City Council for final action.

If City Council approves the PD, staff noted, the developer must obtain final civil-plan approvals and a final plat that match the approved PD exhibits before any construction permits can be issued. Among conditions discussed during the meeting were a requirement the developer include fire-suppression (sprinkler) systems in all homes — the applicant agreed to add that to the development standards — and continued coordination with TxDOT on driveway access design.