Sep 08, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission

[00:00:03]

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING.

[1. Call to Order.]

GO TO THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER THREE, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS.

NO COMMENTS TONIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR BAKER.

ITEM NUMBER FOUR, CHAIRMAN COMMENTS.

I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT OUR CHAIRMAN IS OUT TONIGHT AND WE'LL WELCOME HIM BACK, I THINK, AT THE NEXT MEETING.

SO THAT'LL BE GOOD. DID I SKIP OVER THE MINUTES? NO, THAT'S ON THE CONSENT.

ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

EVERYBODY'S HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THOSE.

IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, I'D BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM.

SO, CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 4TH, 2022.

I HAVE A MOTION, DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE.

ITEM CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER SIX, CP22-0002, A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT.

[6. Ordinance No. 1264, CP22-0002, a Land Use Plan Amendment, an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, changing the Land Use Designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Medium Density Residential" on Lot 1, Block 1, Raven Bend Addition, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 1100 Raven Bend Ct, Southlake, Texas. SPIN Neighborhood #6. PUBLIC HEARING]

THIS IS A REQUEST TO AMEND THE CITY'S LAND USE PLAN ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOT ONE BLOCK, ONE RAVEN BEND ADDITION.

THE PHYSICAL ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY IS 1100 RAVEN BEND COURT, AND THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED IN RED.

AND SOME PERSPECTIVE PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY.

THE UPPER LEFT IS A EAST VIEW FROM THE INTERSECTION OF RAVEN BEND AND PEYTONVILLE AVENUE.

THE LOWER LEFT IS A VIEW LOOKING NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE LOT AND RAVEN BEND COURT. AND THEN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND PHOTO IS ONE LOOKING IN A NORTHEASTERN OR EXCUSE ME, NORTHWESTERN DIRECTION AT THE RESIDENCE TOWARDS THE EAST BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY.

THIS IS THE CURRENT LAND USE FOR THE PROPERTY.

IT IS ABUTTED BY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AS SEEN ON THIS EXHIBIT.

THIS IS A EXHIBIT JUST SHOWING THE VARIOUS SUBDIVISIONS THAT SURROUND THE PROPERTY.

MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY IS ENCOMPASSED BY SHADY OAKS SUBDIVISION AS WELL AS SOUTH RIDGE LAKES.

AND THIS IS THE PROPOSAL ON THE LEFT IS THE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION SHOWING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO AMEND THE MAP TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

AND THIS IS A CURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY.

IT IS IN SF 1A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING.

THE GENERAL PURPOSE BEHIND THE REQUEST IS TO PROVIDE ABILITY FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE LOT, CREATING ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SITE.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY STAFF QUESTIONS.

THE APPLICANT HAS THEIR OWN PRESENTATION, WHICH THEY WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS? THANK YOU, DENNIS. THANK YOU.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE ON THIS ONE? YES, SIR. HOW ARE YOU? YES. PLEASE COME ON DOWN AND DO ME A FAVOR AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

AND THEN I NOTICED YOU PROVIDED A PRESENTATION IN OUR MATERIALS AND YOU DID A GOOD JOB ON THAT.

WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT.

SO IF YOU WOULD KIND OF GO RIGHT TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER SO WE DON'T HIT THE SHOCK BUZZER ON YOU THERE.

SOUNDS GREAT. IS THAT MY TIME? 3 MINUTES. YEAH, AND I THINK IT'S LIKE 3 MINUTES.

AND I'M NOT GOING TO HOLD YOU TO 3 MINUTES IN ONE SECOND OR ANYTHING.

BUT SURE, YOU UNDERSTAND.

MY NAME IS J.D. KEARNEY, JOHN DANIEL KEARNEY JR.

[00:05:02]

I LIVE THERE WITH MY WIFE AND TWO CHILDREN THAT ARE YOUNG DRAGONS AND ONE AT WALNUT GROVE ELEMENTARY.

I'M EARLY IN THE STAGE TO GO THROUGH A REPLAT, AS DENNIS MENTIONED, BUT I'LL GO KIND OF THROUGH THIS QUICKLY SINCE TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.

WE KNOW WHERE THE LOT IS LOCATED.

IT'S ROUGHLY THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF A FOOTBALL FIELD.

IT'S REALLY WIDE AND IT'S NOT THAT DEEP.

WE HAD SOME TERRIBLE FLOODING WHERE A DEVELOPER CAME IN THEY BROUGHT IN ABOUT SIX FEET OF DIRT.

THEY DIDN'T DO PROPER EROSION CONTROL.

AND THAT FILLED IN THE CRITICAL DRAINAGE EASEMENTS THAT YOU SEE ON THIS SLIDE.

THIS WHAT'S CALLED THE 15 FOOT DRAINAGE UTILITY EASEMENT GOT FLOODED IN.

AND SO WE'RE CONTINUING AND PERPETUALLY WORKING THROUGH TO WORK THROUGH AND REMEDIATE THOSE ISSUES.

AND IT'S AN ISSUE THAT UNFORTUNATELY STILL PERSISTS TO THIS DAY.

THIS ISN'T LIKE IT'S HAPPENED ONCE OVER THE LAST SEVEN YEARS.

IT'S ONCE A MONTH, ESPECIALLY DURING THE RAINING SEASONS, AND THAT'S OUR SEPTIC LEACH FIELD.

SO YOU CAN IMAGINE WHAT THE BACKUP IS LIKE IN OUR HOME.

WE ACTUALLY ENDED UP GOING TO COURT AND WE WON UNANIMOUSLY IN A JURY VERDICT AGAINST THE DEVELOPER.

AGAINST THAT, THEY HAD VIOLATED THE TEXAS WATER CODE AND THE SOUTHLAKE CODE OF ORDINANCE IN SECTION 9.5 65 G, IT SAYS YOU CAN'T DIVERT OR IMPOUND WATER ON SOMEONE'S PROPERTY.

SO A POINT ONE HERE IS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, A PORTION OF THESE PROCEEDS, POINT ONE IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER FOR YOU.

THE POINT IS WE'RE GOING TO USE SOME OF THESE FUNDS TO OFFSET THE MATERIAL COST INFLATION THAT'S EXISTED THAT'S GONE ON SINCE WE SUBMITTED THE BID TO THE COURTS BACK IN 2019 BECAUSE OF COVID, WE GOT DELAYED TWO YEARS AND THEN FINALLY GOT OUR DAY IN COURT TWO YEARS LATER.

SO PART OF THIS IS TO OFFSET THAT THAT PRICE ESCALATION.

THE OTHER POINT IS THERE'S THIS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THAT THE CITY IS UNDERGOING.

THIS WASN'T ENVISIONED WHEN WE CAME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER.

IT'S ABSOLUTELY THE RIGHT THING TO TIE INTO THIS, BUT THERE IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT COST ASSOCIATED WITH DOING SO.

SO THE SECOND POINT IS WE'RE GOING TO USE THE PROCEEDS TO TIE INTO THIS THIS CITY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.

POINTS ONE AND TWO I JUST WENT THROUGH.

WE'RE ABSOLUTELY GOING TO PUT SIDEWALKS ON THERE.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS FROM OUR SPIN MEETING.

WE'RE ABSOLUTELY PUTTING IN SIDEWALKS.

THAT'S PART OF THE PLAN AND WE WILL BE THE ONES TO MAINTAIN THEM.

WE'LL ALSO GOING TO DO SOME JOINTLY UPGRADE OF THE COMMUNAL AREAS WITHIN RAVEN BEND, AND WE'RE WORKING WITH OUR NEIGHBORS VERY MUCH TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN AND DO IT IN A COORDINATED AND TRANSPARENT WAY.

AND THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS CASE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

HERE'S WHAT [INAUDIBLE] SAYS 840,000 PROPERTIES SHOULD BE WORTH, BUT THIS YEAR IT'S BEEN ARTIFICIALLY LOWERED TO 487,000.

THIS IS COSTING SOUTH LAKE NINE OVER $100,000 OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS.

AND WITH MY PROJECT AND PROPOSE, IT WOULD ACTUALLY GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL $720,000.

SO THERE'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS CASE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

HERE'S ALL THE CONCERNS THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAD THINGS ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD DENSITY.

IF I LOOK AT ALL THE OTHER HOUSES IN RAVEN BEND, THE AVERAGE CORNER TO CORNER DIMENSIONS IS 79 FEET.

AND ONCE YOU LIE IN MY REPLAT TO PROPERTY AND ABIDE BY THE THE ZONING AND THE SETBACKS, IT'S AN 87 FOOT SO IT DOESN'T DAMPER THE RURAL FEEL IT ACTUALLY MAINTAINS IF NOT INCREASES SLIGHTLY AT THE CORNER TO CORNER LOT DIMENSIONS.

AND WE'RE KIND OF AT THE END SO IF YOU COULD KIND OF.

SO I'LL JUST LAND THE PLANE HERE.

HERE'S ALL THAT. WE'VE BEEN VERY TRANSPARENT.

THESE ARE ALL THE CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAVE HIGHLIGHTED.

WE PROACTIVELY HIGHLIGHTED HERE'S HOW WE'RE WE'RE MITIGATING ALL OF THEM.

AND OF COURSE, I HAVE MY INFORMATION.

WE'RE STILL OPEN TO FUTURE THINGS THAT FOLKS COME UP WITH.

THEN I LOOKED AT BASICALLY EVERY PIECE OF THIS ONE'S NEW SINCE THIS MORNING, SO I'LL LAND ON THIS ONE AND GIVE YOU YOUR TIME HERE.

THESE ARE ALL THE SOUTHLAKE LAND USE SECTOR PLAN TALKS ABOUT SIDEWALKS, WATERSHED, THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, THE SOUTHLAKE VISION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AROUND THIS IS ALL THE STATED VERBIAGE THAT THE CITY PUTS OUT THERE, AND OBVIOUSLY NO ONE WANTS WHAT'S HAPPENING ON MY PROPERTY TO BE HAPPENING.

AND THEY DON'T FIT WITH THE DOCUMENTED VERBIAGE OF THINGS LIKE WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS, FEATURES AND AMENITIES IN ORDER TO PRESERVE PROPERTY VALUES.

OBVIOUSLY, MY PROPERTY VALUES ARE BEING PRETTY NEGATIVELY IMPACTED AND MY WHOLE ASPIRATION IS TO REINVEST THE FUNDS THAT COME FROM THIS IN A WAY THAT RESTORES THOSE PROPERTY VALUES, THAT GETS SIDEWALKS, THAT MAKES IT SAFER FOR MYSELF AND MY FAMILY AND MY NEIGHBORS.

THANK YOU, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

[00:10:02]

SO WE'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT AND WE'LL NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANYTHING OR NOT.

I GOT A COUPLE HERE.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO STILL CONTINUE TO LIVE IN THE SAME HOUSE.

YOU'RE JUST GOING TO SUBDIVIDE AND SELL THE HALF OFF TO RAISE MONEY.

THE THE ACTUAL PLAN IS THAT I WOULD, BUILD THE HOUSE OVER HERE. I WOULD MOVE INTO THAT HOUSE.

THEN I WOULD RENOVATE THE EXISTING 85 RANCH HOUSE AND MOVE BACK INTO THAT AND THEN SELL OFF THE IMPROVED NEW CONSTRUCTION.

ALL RIGHT. THANKS.

SURE. [INAUDIBLE] ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. THANK YOU SIR.

MUCH. APPRECIATED. THANK YOU. YOU BET.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER SIX ON OUR AGENDA DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.

OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHES TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO HERE'S KIND OF MY THOUGHTS ON THIS.

AS I SAID, I THOUGHT YOU DID A REALLY GOOD PRESENTATION.

I GUESS MY INITIAL CONCERN IS AND I KNOW THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER PEOPLE UP HERE THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION AS LONG AS I HAVE OR LONGER, ACTUALLY. AND WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THE LAND USE PLAN MULTIPLE TIMES.

AND SO THIS HAS NEVER BEEN CHANGED.

AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, AND I'M NOT USING A SUBDIVISION IN THE LEGAL SENSE OF THE WORD, BUT YOU'RE IN A SUBDIVISION AND I DON'T KNOW SINCE I'VE BEEN INVOLVED THAT THERE'S EVER BEEN A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT OR CHANGE IN A WHAT WE ALL COMMONLY REFER TO AS A SUBDIVISION.

SO ALL I'M SAYING IS THIS MAY BE APPROPRIATE.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS OR NOT.

I DON'T THINK IT IS JUST BASED ON THE HISTORY OF GOING THROUGH THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT BECAUSE I THINK PRIOR COUNCILS COULD HAVE DONE THAT.

BUT I THINK YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HERE AND ASK THE QUESTION.

AND I THINK ULTIMATELY THIS IS THE KIND OF QUESTION THAT'S MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE ELECTED OFFICIALS.

BUT I THINK JUST BASED ON THE WAY HISTORICALLY THE LAND USE PLAN AND THE AMENDMENTS HAVE GONE, THIS ONE DOESN'T FIT.

BUT LIKE I SAID, I APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR PRESENTATION.

YOU DID A GOOD JOB. SO THAT WOULD BE MY COMMENTS.

AND I THINK I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT.

I REALLY HATE GOING DOWN THIS ROAD BECAUSE IT JUST IS OPENING UP A DOOR TO EVERYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO DECIDE TO DO THE SAME THING.

AND SO IT'S I MEAN, I KNOW YOU SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE IN THE AVERAGE, YOU'RE IN THE LARGER LOTS, BUT STILL, IT'S I THINK IT'S JUST A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT TO START DOWN.

YEAH, NO, WE'VE ALREADY DONE IT AT THIS POINT.

BUT KEEP IN MIND THESE COMMENTS THAT WAY WHEN YOU GO TO CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE YOU'LL HEAR THE SAME COMMENTS I WOULD EXPECT.

MAYBE NOT. AND THEN YOU CAN ADDRESS THEM THERE.

FAIR ENOUGH. ANYBODY GOT A COMMENT? YEAH, I MIGHT HAVE PUT IT JUST A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS INITIALLY AND CERTAINLY THE MAP THAT THE CITY SHOWED OF THE LAND USE PLAN AND THE SUBDIVISION, I HAD A CONCERN THEN AND I DON'T THINK HAS BEEN BEEN ENOUGH TO CONVINCE ME THE OTHER WAY THAT YOU'RE KIND OF SETTING YOU ARE SETTING A PRECEDENT BECAUSE YOU'RE SUBDIVIDING SOMETHING WITHIN AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION.

IF THIS WERE A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WERE OUTSIDE OF AN ESTABLISHED SUBDIVISION, I THINK I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

BUT I THINK THIS IS I THINK IT'S PRECEDENT SETTING NOT ONLY FOR RAVEN BEND, BUT I THINK POTENTIALLY FOR OTHER COMMUNITIES IN THE CITY THAT DECIDE.

YOU KNOW, A LOT OWNERS SAYS, YOU KNOW WHAT, I THINK I CAN CUT THIS THING IN HALF AND I CAN BUILD ANOTHER HOUSE AND I CAN SELL THE HOUSE AND I CAN MAKE MORE MONEY.

SO THAT'S I THINK THOSE ARE THE SAME CONCERNS I HEAR VOICED BY BY THE OTHER GENTLEMAN.

ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT.

IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS, I'D BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER SIX.

MR. VICE CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE DENY CASE NUMBER CP22-0002 SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2022, AND I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER REFERENCE IN OUR DOCUMENTS.

YEAH, I THINK WE'RE FINE WITH A DENIAL AT THAT POINT.

DENNIS, RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION, DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE.

ALL RIGHT. THE DENIAL CARRIES FIVE ZERO AGAIN.

THANK YOU. YOU'LL GET THE SIMILAR QUESTIONS AT CITY COUNCIL, BUT GOOD JOB WITH THE PRESENTATION AND I APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR DESIRE TO HAVE THIS LOOKED AT.

ALL RIGHT. TAKE CARE. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ZA22-0037, A ZONING CHANGE IN CONCEPT PLAN FOR

[7. Consider: ZA22-0037, Zoning Change and Concept Plan for Malik Estates, on property described as Lot 1A, Malik Estates Addition, and Tracts 1A01A2B and 1A01A2C, Ben J. Foster Survey Abstract 519, located at 905-925 Randol Mill Ave., Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas. Current Zoning "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District. Proposed Zoning: "SF-1A" and "SF-30" Single Family Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood #5 PUBLIC HEARING]

[00:15:01]

THE ZONING CHANGE IS SPECIFICALLY FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.7 ACRES OF THE TOTAL AREA UNDER THE CONCEPT PLAN, AND THAT REQUEST IS FROM SF 1A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO SF 30 ZONING.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 905 THROUGH 925 RANDOL MILL AVENUE AND THIS IS ALSO KNOWN AS FM 1938.

THIS IS THE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY.

IT IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

AND THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY IS ALL SF 1A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

THIS IS AERIAL OF THE SITE.

THERE'S AN EXISTING HOME ON THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.

UNDER THE CONCEPT PLAN, THERE'S AN EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD WOULD BE REMOVED UPON FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE CONCEPT PLAN ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.

THE LEFT HAND EXHIBIT SHOWS THE CURRENT EXISTING CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY.

THE SITE WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENCE ON IT IS PLATTED.

THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT PLATTED.

YOU MIGHT NOTE THAT PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY INCLUDES WHAT WAS ALLOCATED AS A ROADWAY EASEMENT KNOWN AS GIFFARD COURT.

IT WAS NEVER IMPROVED AS SUCH AND WOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE TO THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY BEING DEVELOPED.

MAJORITY OF THAT ROADWAY EASEMENT WAS ABANDONED AND DEVELOPED AS PART OF THE PALOMAR ESTATES RESIDENTIAL PD THAT'S TO THE EAST OF IT.

THE CONCEPT PLAN SHOWS THE PROPOSED LOT CONFIGURATION OF THE SITE.

THE AREA SHOWN AS LOT TWO IS PROPOSED TO BE REZONED SF 30 AND THE CONCEPT PLAN PROPOSES ADJUSTING THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN PLATTED PORTION OF THE SITE AND THE PLATTED PORTION TOWARDS THE NORTH, AND THEN WOULD ALLOCATE TO ADDITIONAL BUILDABLE LOTS TO THE SOUTH.

THE SOUTHERN LOT LOT THREE WOULD REMAIN SF 1A SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL ZONING AND THE NORTHERN LOT WOULD ALSO REMAIN SF 1A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING.

FROM A DENSITY STANDPOINT AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION RECOMMENDS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT DOES NOT EXCEED ONE DWELLING UNIT PER NET ACRE.

AND BASED ON THE PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN THE APPLICANT IS PRESENTED, THE OVERALL DENSITY WOULD WOULD CONFORM WITH THAT LOW DENSITY DESIGNATION.

IT WOULD ULTIMATELY ULTIMATELY BE APPROXIMATELY 0.8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

WHAT THE IMPROVEMENTS OF 1938 TXDOT PROVIDED A CURB CUT TO THIS PROPERTY WHICH THEY WOULD INTEND TO USE AS A COMMON ACCESS BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS, THEY WOULD NOT REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL CURB CUT TO SERVE THE TWO ADDITIONAL PROPOSED LOTS.

THERE IS A VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED WITH REGARD TO THE MINIMUM REAR LOT WIDTH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIRES WHERE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED AND ABUTS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT WAS PLATTED AT A SIZE OF ONE ACRE OR LARGER THAT THOSE REAR LOT LINES BE AT LEAST 125 FEET IN WIDTH.

THIS PROPOSED LOT TWO IS ABOUT 101 FEET IN WIDTH AND IT ABUTS THE MAJORITY OF WHICH IS AN OPEN SPACE LOT WITHIN PALOMAR THAT IS PLATTED AT LARGER THAN AN ACRE, BUT THEN ALSO ABUTS A PORTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT THAT IS PLATTED AT ACRE OR MORE IN SIZE.

[00:20:06]

THEY WOULD CONFORM WITH THE CITY'S PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS AS THEY'VE CURRENTLY PROPOSED IT.

THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING IN A SOUTHEASTERN DIRECTION.

THIS IS AN EXISTING HOME ON THE PROPERTY AND TO THE RIGHT OF THE PHOTO IS THE UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.

TO DATE, WE'VE RECEIVED NO NO RESPONSES FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I'VE CONSIDERED REPRESENTING THE ITEM AS WELL.

DENNIS, REAL QUICK, JUST TO CONFIRM, THERE IS NOT ACCESS ON DREAM, WHATEVER IT IS, DREAM WEAVER OR DREAM MAKER.

SORRY, I'M PULLING OUT THE MUSIC THERE.

AND THAT IS CORRECT.

THAT THAT IS A PRIVATE DRIVE AND AN EASEMENT THAT IS SPECIFIC TO THE NON-CONFORMING INDUSTRIAL PARK TO THE EAST OF THIS.

AND THAT DRIVEWAY LIES ON PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE CLARK PROPERTY.

AND IS THIS CONSISTENT WITH I GUESS IT WOULD BE TO THE NORTH.

THERE WAS A SUBDIVISION OF A LOT INTO TWO LOTS.

THEY WERE BOTH KIND OF SIMILARLY FACED ONTO RANDALL MILL.

YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T HAVE AN EXHIBIT REPRESENTING THAT, BUT THE COMMISSION MAY RECALL THERE WAS A ZONING CONCEPT PLAN AND THEN ULTIMATELY A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION PLAN OR PLAT THAT WAS APPROVED THAT IS THAT THAT CREATED TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS FACING 1938 RANDOL MILL.

AND IT'S RIGHT WHERE RANDOL MILL CHANGES TO DAVIS AS YOU GO INTO WESTLAKE AND THEN RANDOL MILL TAKES A TURN TO THE EAST AND BSA.

THERE WERE TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS, EACH HAVING INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAYS [INAUDIBLE].

YES. OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES. DENNIS, ON THIS LOT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT'S LOOKING FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THE WIDTH, YOU SAID THAT WAS BUTTING UP TO AN OPEN SPACE. I MEAN, IS THAT LIKE A PERMANENT OPEN SPACE OR IS IT JUST HAPPEN TO BE OPEN NOW? YES, THAT PROPOSED THE PROPOSED LOT BOUNDARY RUNS PRETTY CLOSE TO WHERE THE EXISTING TRACT LINE IS RIGHT HERE.

THIS IS A PERMANENTLY DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE LOT COULD NOT BE ANYTHING ELSE WITHOUT REZONING OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PALOMAR. AND WHAT'S OUR SETBACK FROM THAT REAR BUILDING LINE? THE LOT FOR FOR THE DISTRICT THEY'RE PROPOSING IT WOULD BE 40 FEET FOR ANY STRUCTURE FROM THAT BOUNDARY.

YES. ALL RIGHT. THANKS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, DENNIS.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN? HOW ARE YOU THIS EVENING? IF YOU WOULD DO ME A FAVOR AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FIRST.

HELLO. GOOD EVENING.

I'M [INAUDIBLE] MALIK, OWNER OF THE PROPERTY 905 TO 925 ON RANDOL MILL.

ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? NO, I DON'T. OKAY, JUST HERE TO ANSWER IT.

I CAN JUST GIVE YOU THE BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE PROPERTY.

WE BOUGHT THIS LOT IN 1996, AND IT WAS 4.25 ACRE.

AND FROM THE DAY WHEN WE HAD THIS PLAN TO DIVIDE INTO THREE LOTS FOR MYSELF AND MY TWO DAUGHTERS, BUT BECAUSE OF THIS 1938 [INAUDIBLE] I THINK CLOSE TO THREE FOURTH OF AN ACRE HAS GONE INTO EMINENT DOMAIN.

AND THAT IS THE REASON WE ARE IN THIS ISSUE RIGHT NOW, THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH LAND TO DIVIDE EQUALLY.

ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SO YOUR DAUGHTERS ARE GOING TO LIVE HERE OR ARE YOU JUST GOING TO PUT THESE ON THE MARKET? NO THEY LIVE HERE IN SOUTHLAKE.

BUT I MEAN, BUT THEY'RE NOT PLANNING ON MOVING ON TO THESE TWO LOTS SITE.

SAY THAT AGAIN, THEY'RE NOT PLANNING ON MOVING ONTO THESE TWO LOTS.

THEY WILL BE MOVING.

THEY WILL EVENTUALLY.

YEAH. [INAUDIBLE] OKAY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTION?

[00:25:03]

THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ON OUR AGENDA DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.

I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHES TO COME FORWARD SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

DID YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD? NO. HOW ARE YOU THIS EVENING? IF YOU WOULD DO ME A FAVOR AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

VALARIE CLARK, I OWN THE PROPERTY ON GREENACRE.

MY CONCERN IS THE TWO [INAUDIBLE] ARE FACING DAVIS.

OKAY. THERE'S A TURNAROUND THERE.

DENNIS. IS IT POSSIBLE PUT THE AERIAL UP SO WE CAN.

I'M SORRY. I WAS.

HE'S GOING TO PUT THE AERIAL UP SO WE CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE YOUR..

OK DREAM MAKER COMES OUT THERE AND A LOT OF THAT TRAFFIC GOES DOWN DAVIS SO HOW ARE THEY GOING TO GET OUT ON DAVIS ARE Y'ALL GOING TO PUT AN EXTRA A LOT THERE OR SOMETHING? I THINK THAT WOULD BE A TXDOT ISSUE NUMBER ONE.

AND NUMBER TWO, THEY'VE ALREADY PUT CURB CUTS THERE, SO I'M GUESSING THEY'VE ANTICIPATED THAT.

BUT DENNIS, YOU WANT TO OR CAN ANYBODY ADDRESS THAT? YEAH, I'M NOT SURE I SPECIFICALLY UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, BUT THERE WOULD NOT BE A MEDIAN BREAK FOR EITHER OF THE DRIVEWAYS SO.

WOULD THEY SHARE ONE DRIVEWAY GETTING BACK TO DAVIS? YES. YES.

THEIR PROPOSAL THEIR PROPOSAL FOR THE TWO LOTS IS TO HAVE A SINGLE CURB CUT TO SERVE BOTH LOTS, BECAUSE I SEE THE DRAWING IN THE GREEN THIS WAY, BUT I SAW ANOTHER ONE HAVING IT RUNNING THE OTHER WAY.

SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

SURE. YEAH SEE THERE WE'RE ON TOP OF THE OTHER ONE WHERE THEY BOTH, SO THAT'S HOW THEY WOULD GET THERE OKAY.

YES. THE SINGLE CURB CUT WOULD REMAIN AND MAYBE IT SHOWS UP BETTER ON THIS ONE.

THEY'VE ALLOCATED AN ACCESS EASEMENT OVER THAT CURB CUT.

SO BOTH LOTS WOULD BE SERVED BY THAT ONE ONE DEAL, ONE DRIVEWAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.

ALL RIGHT, SEEING NO ONE WILL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING.

I GUESS MY ONLY COMMENT ON THIS AND WOULD BE SEEMS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE PRIOR SPLIT TO THE NORTH AND THE FACT THAT THEY'VE ALREADY GOT CURB CUTS.

AND IT SEEMS KIND OF LIKE THIS WAS ANTICIPATED AT SOME POINT.

SO I'M GOOD WITH IT.

I GUESS. ONE QUESTION, DENNIS, ALSO I FORGOT TO ASK YOU, IS IT CONSIDERED IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS, IS IT ALREADY A REQUIREMENT THAT ANY FUTURE REPLATTING OR DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSENT PLAN? OR DO WE NEED TO INCLUDE THAT IN ANY MOTION? I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL, BENEFICIAL TO PUT EVERYONE ON NOTICE THAT THAT ANY PLANNING OR REPLATTING OF THE PROPERTY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CONFORM WITH THIS CONCEPT PLAN.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS, COMMENTS? I MEAN, I'M OKAY WITH IT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT THEY PREVIOUSLY WOULD HAVE HAD ENOUGH TO HAVE THREE LOTS THAT WERE COMPLIANT.

BUT WITH THE WITH THE ROAD WIDENING THAT I WAS THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK THE PROPERTY OWNER.

SO GIVEN THAT THAT THEY THAT WAS TAKEN THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN, I THINK IT'S I'M OKAY WITH APPROVING.

THAT'S KIND OF WHERE MY HEAD WAS AS WELL.

I FEEL LIKE I WAS HEADED DOWN THE PATH OF NOT BEING AGREEABLE TO IT BECAUSE I LIKE THE LOW DENSITY, BUT BECAUSE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY TAKEN, I THINK IT'S AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE.

ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, I'D BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AND I GUESS, PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE.

OKAY. MR. VICE CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CASE NUMBER ZA22-0037 APPROVING THE VARIANCES REQUESTED AND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2022, AND NOTING THAT ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OR REPLATTING WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CONFORM WITH THIS CONCEPT PLAN.

AND WE'LL DO A PLAN REVIEW SOMEWHERE ELSE.

DID I MISS I'M SORRY ALREADY AND ALSO SUBJECT TO THE PLAN USE SUMMARY NUMBER TWO DATED SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2022.

ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD. I HAVE A MOTION DO I HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE.

THAT ITEM CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.

[8. Consider: ZA22-0038, Preliminary Plat for Rainey Court, on property described as Tract 15, R.D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 992A, City of Southlake, Denton County, Texas, and located at 4078 N. White Chapel Blvd, Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood^. PUBLIC HEARING]

[00:30:04]

AND WE ALREADY HAD THE PRESENTATION BACK IN THE WORK SESSION.

SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO GO STRAIGHT TO THE APPLICANT IF THE APPLICANT WOULD COME UP ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.

HOW ARE YOU DOING? VERY WELL, THANK YOU.

YOU KNOW THE DRILL THE NAME AND THE ADDRESS AND KEEP IT SHORT AND SWEET.

RIGHT. I'LL BE DOWN IN A FEW SECONDS.

MY NAME IS RICHIE ALLEN. I'M THE CIVIL ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT.

JAMES COX IS THE DEVELOPER.

HE'S HERE TOO.

AND I'VE SEEN THE STAFF REPORT, AND I KNOW YOU ALL KNOW EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THIS.

BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER THEM.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL SIT DOWN.

VERY GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON OUR AGENDA DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING.

OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHES TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.

SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND IF THERE'S NO COMMENTS OR FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'D BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MR. VICE CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CASE NUMBER ZA22-0038 SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2022 AND THE PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER ONE DATED AUGUST 25TH, 2022.

ALL RIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION, DO I HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE.

THAT ITEM CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER NINE.

[9. Consider: ZA22-0039, Preliminary Plat for Highland Terrace, on a portion of property described as Lot 1R1, Block 1, Southlake Assembly of God Addition, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and located at 101 E. Highland Street, Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "SF-20A" Single Family Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood #7. PUBLIC HEARING]

SO WE'LL SKIP TO THE APPLICANT IF THE APPLICANT WOULD COME UP ON ITEM NUMBER NINE, DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT ON ITEM NUMBER NINE? WELL, THIS IS NOT GOOD.

WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND DO 10 AND 11 AND MAYBE THEY SHOW UP.

AND IF THEY DON'T. WE WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU TAKE AN APPROPRIATE ACTION.

GO AHEAD AND DO IT NOW.

YES, MR. MR. VICE CHAIRMAN, GIVEN THE TIME FRAME TO ACT ON TO ACT ON IT.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE COORDINATION ON THIS ONE, BUT THEY WERE NOTIFIED TO MY KNOWLEDGE OF.

OK, AND WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING, CORRECT? YES. SO THE APPLICANT IS NOT SHOWED ON ITEM NUMBER NINE, BUT WE DID HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THE WORK SESSION.

AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS MINISTERIAL IN NATURE.

SO I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER NINE.

ASK IF ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHES TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I GUESS IF WE COULD GO AHEAD AND GET A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER NINE.

MR. VICE CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CASE NUMBER ZA22-0039 SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2022 AND THE PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER TWO DATED SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2022.

ALL RIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION, DO I HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE.

THAT ITEM CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER TEN.

[10. Consider: ZA22-0040, Plat Revision for Hilltop Acres, being a revision of Lot 14 Hilltop Acres Addition, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and including a 0.116 Acre tract of land in the David Douthit Survey, Abstract No. 448, Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and located at 4021 Hilltop Drive, Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood #2. PUBLIC HEARING]

YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. ALL RIGHT. AND IF YOU'RE GOOD WITH IT, WE'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND CALL THE APPLICANT UP ON ITEM NUMBER TEN ALSO.

THANK YOU. YES, SIR.

HOW ARE YOU? DO ME A FAVOR STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

AND THIS ONE'S KIND OF MINISTERIAL FOR US SO KEEP IT SHORT AND SWEET.

YOU BET. NICHOLAS CARTER.

I'M THE APPLICANT.

I LIVE AT 4021 HILLTOP HILLTOP DRIVE IN SOUTHLAKE.

A QUICK OVERVIEW.

WE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE A FEW YEARS BACK AND THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION.

IT WAS IT WAS TWO PARCELS, IT WAS DEEDED TO THE SELLER.

AND SO WE'VE HAD WE JUST HAD TWO TAX PARCELS AND WE'RE, WE'RE DOING THE OPPOSITE OF THE, THE FIRST APPLICATION AND TRYING TO COMBINE THEM INTO ONE.

THE REASON FOR COMBINING THE PARCELS IS THERE IS AN AN UNUSED UTILITY EASEMENT THAT THAT RUNS BETWEEN THE TWO TRACKS THERE.

AND WE NEED THAT EXTINGUISHED FOR BUILDING A GARAGE ON THE SITE.

GOTCHA TRYING TO CLEAN UP A LITTLE BIT OF A MESS.

IT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A MESS.

YES, IT WAS. IT WAS CLEANED UP DURING THE TITLE PROCESS, BUT IT'S STILL TWO TAX BILLS.

SURE. SO.

ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I JUST WANTED TO SAY, YOU'RE GETTING A TAX BILL FOR A 10TH OF AN ACRE.

I BELIEVE SO. YEAH, WELL, OUR LENDER IS OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THAT'S INTERESTING.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER TEN ON OUR AGENDA DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.

I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHES TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER TEN.

[00:35:06]

AND UNLESS THERE'S ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION TO BE WILLING ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER TEN.

MR. VICE CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CASE NUMBER ZA22-0040 SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2022 AND PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER TWO DATED SEPTEMBER 2ND 2022.

I HAVE A MOTION DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE.

THAT ITEM ALSO CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER 11.

[11. Ordinance No. 483-R, being an amendment to the City of Southlake Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, as amended, adding provisions requiring notes on plats pertaining to maintenance responsibilities of park land, open space, drainage easement, and other dedications where applicable. PUBLIC HEARING]

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 11, WHICH IS THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.

I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER 11.

ASK IF ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHES TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

SEEING NO ONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND UNLESS THERE'S ANY COMMENTS, I'D BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION HERE AS WELL.

DENNIS, CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME GUIDANCE ON EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IN THE WAY OF A MOTION PLEASE.

APPROVE AS PRESENTED IF OF COURSE, YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.

MR. VICE CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CITY'S PROPOSED CHANGES TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 483-R AS PRESENTED.

I HAVE A MOTION, DO I HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE.

ALL RIGHT, THAT ITEM CARRIES FIVE ZERO, AND I WILL GAVEL OUT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.