Council denies rezoning and four‑lot plat for 2257 Florence Road after contested public hearing

Keller City Council on Feb. 4 denied a developer’s request to rezone 2257 Florence Road from single‑family residential 36,000‑square‑foot lots (SF‑36) to single‑family residential 20,000‑square‑foot lots (SF‑20) and later voted to deny the final plat that would have created four lots with four variances.

The rezoning and plat would have allowed Pentavia Custom Homes to subdivide the 2.54‑acre site (formerly Roanoke Christian Center / River of Grace Church) into four single‑family lots; the applicant presented plans for lots ranging roughly from 0.52 to 0.83 acres and homes with living area in the 5,500–5,800 square‑foot range. Planning and Zoning Commission had unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning; staff said the property was annexed in the late 1980s and automatically zoned SF‑36 and that utilities (sewer on Florence Road and Judge Bland) are now available.

Why it mattered: speakers for and against framed the choice as one between removing a long‑standing eyesore and preserving the low‑density character of North Keller. Supporters told the council redevelopment would remove derelict structures and improve drainage; opponents said down‑zoning near the Southlake border could set a precedent and cited concerns about infrastructure, traffic and population pressures.

Applicant Kurt Devos of Pentavia Custom Homes described the proposal as “fit for the product” in that part of the city and said the development would include a 20‑foot trail easement near the school and engineered drainage improvements. Resident Jim Mammon, who lives on Florence Road, said the parcel had been on the market for years and argued the four‑lot plan was the only financially feasible redevelopment; Joan Boyle, representing a group calling itself Citizens to Protect Keller’s Small Town Feel, urged council to deny the rezoning and said the request appeared motivated by financial gain.

Staff and engineers addressed technical questions during the hearing. City staff noted the city mailed 18 notifications within 300 feet; staff reported two emails of support, five signatures on a petition of opposition from property owners within the 200‑foot buffer (47% of that buffer), and additional opposition emails from outside the buffer. The 47% figure, staff said, triggered a super‑majority requirement for approval.

Council deliberations referenced the UDC and recent on‑the‑ground changes in the neighborhood. Several council members said they favored quality development but differed on whether four lots would be appropriate for the site. Council members asked about drainage; city staff and a longtime city engineer said the planned subdivision would include a civil drainage plan and is likely to reduce stormwater issues compared with the existing paved parking lot and impervious surfaces.

Outcome and next steps: On the motions taken Feb. 4 the council denied the rezoning request as presented and later denied the final plat with four variances. Staff explained the owner can pursue a three‑lot configuration under the existing SF‑36 square‑footage rules but would still need to submit a plat with variances for review; the council discussion closed with direction that the applicant may return with a revised plat consistent with that approach.

Votes at the meeting on this item included a motion to approve as presented that failed (rezoning for four lots denied) and a later council motion to deny the four‑lot final plat, which passed. The Planning & Zoning Commission’s unanimous recommendation in favor and the public comment record will accompany any future submittal.

The council’s denials leave the property’s current SF‑36 zoning in place; the applicant and staff said they would pursue (or permit) options consistent with SF‑36 lot yield and the city’s platting process.