Keller council denies planned development for ‘Preserve at Keller Oaks’ after lengthy debate

The City Council voted 6–1 on July 7 to deny a proposed planned development called “The Preserve at Keller Oaks,” which would have rezoned roughly 39.38 acres from SF‑36/Commercial to a planned development allowing SF‑15 lots and two commercial tracts.

Applicant Adam Butchak (Scribe Company) presented a revised plan that removed several earlier variances, reduced the number of lots from 59 to 55, added a 0.63‑acre open‑space buffer next to commercial lots and proposed a 35‑foot tree‑preservation easement along several lots. He told council nearby neighbors had supported many of the changes and that independent analysis showed a material long‑term tax benefit for the city from the proposed project.

Opponents, including residents who live near the site, urged denial. Speakers said the request represented a down‑zoning from what they described as the longstanding 36,000‑square‑foot minimum and warned it would change neighborhood character and increase traffic on Mount Gilead and Borland roads. One opponent said the city should “protect what country feel we have left.” Another asked why the council would repeatedly reclassify properties away from low‑density zoning.

Developer response and letters: Butchak said the project’s median lot size would average about 20,400 square feet and that many public letters opposing the plan were outside the 300‑foot notification buffer or appeared to be identical form letters. He told council staff had counted 70 support letters and 134 opposition letters as of mid‑afternoon; he said 86 of the oppositions were identical outside‑the‑buffer form letters and urged council to weigh neighbors’ proximity.

Council debate: Members split on how to balance the city’s long‑term vision for the Highway 377 corridor with residents’ preference for larger lots. Several council members praised the applicant for changes to the plan and higher‑quality materials but expressed concern about reducing lot sizes by roughly half of the current SF‑36 holding category across the tract. One council member said the future‑land‑use plan (FLUP) is advisory and must be considered with quality and adjacency; another called for clearer citywide guidance on corridor redevelopment.

Outcome and process: Councilmember Watley made a motion to deny the PD; the motion passed 6–1. Council then denied the related future land‑use amendment. Staff told the applicant the project may be revised and resubmitted; the normal process would return any new application to the Planning & Zoning Commission before council consideration.

What was said (representative quotes): “We removed the road connection to Harmonson Farms and increased lot sizes in key locations,” said Adam Butchak during his presentation. “But I counted 86 identical form letters that appeared to contain misstatements of fact.” A resident opposing the plan said, “This development diametrically opposes that small‑town character we voted to preserve.”

What’s next: The applicant may revise the plan and refile; councilmembers asked staff to support clearer corridor guidance so future proposals align with the community’s long‑term vision.