[6. Withdraw: ZA24-0074, Specific Use Permit for a Commercial School for Texas Sandlot Baseball Club, on property described as Lot 9, Block C, Commerce Business Park, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 2870 Exchange Blvd. Current Zoning: “I-1” Light Industrial District. SPIN Neighborhood #8. (The applicant has withdrawn this request) PUBLIC HEARING ]

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WITH STAFF. WE WILL BE VOTING ON ACCEPTING THE APPLICANT'S WITHDRAWAL HERE.

YES AND THERE'S IT'S NOT NECESSARY THAT YOU VOTE ON IT.

BUT WE WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE ON THE AGENDA, SINCE IT HAD BEEN NOTIFIED AS A PUBLIC HEARING THAT IT WAS BEING WITHDRAWN.

AND IF YOU WOULD ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT IS HERE THAT WOULD WISH TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM, ALLOW THEM THAT OPPORTUNITY, BUT THE APPLICANT HAS WITHDRAWN IT FROM CONSIDERATION.

SO THERE WILL BE NO VOTE ON THIS ITEM. WE ARE KIND OF NOTING FOR THE RECORD THAT ITEM NUMBER SIX, WHICH IS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL SCHOOL FOR TEXAS SANDLOT BASEBALL CLUB, HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.

MAYBE OUT OF A COURTESY LIKE STAFF SAID, I GUESS.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO FEELS VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THAT ONE AND WANTS TO PUT ANY COMMENTS ON THE RECORD? SEEING NO ONE, I GUESS WITH THAT, I THINK THAT FORMALLY KIND OF TAKES CARE OF ITEM NUMBER SIX.

SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE REST OF OUR REGULAR AGENDA, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.

[7. Consider: ZA24-0050, Zoning Change and Concept Plan for 1965 and 1975 N. White Chapel Blvd., on property described as Lots 1 and 2, Thrasher Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas. Current Zoning: “AG” Agricultural District. Requested Zoning: “SF-20A” Single Family Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood #3. (This item was forwarded to the January 23, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting due to the weather-related cancellation of the January 9, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.) PUBLIC HEARING ]

ZONING CHANGE AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR 1965 1975 NORTH WHITES CHAPEL BOULEVARD.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSION. THIS IS REQUEST FOR A ZONING CHANGE AND CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL CHANGING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1965 AND 1975 NORTH WHITE CHAPEL BOULEVARD FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO SF-20A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF EAST KIRKWOOD BOULEVARD, AND ABUTS A COMMON OPEN SPACE AREA THAT'S PART OF THE CARILLON DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH AND EAST OF THIS PROPERTY. IT IS AN EXISTING HOME SITE TODAY FOR TWO RESIDENTIAL HOME SITES.

THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON IT IS MIXED USE, AND THE CURRENT ZONING, AS I MENTIONED, IS AGRICULTURAL.

REQUESTED ZONING IS SF-20A, AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN.

IT IS ROUGHLY 2.7 ACRES AND DENSITY IS ABOUT 1.4 AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED TO THE LABELING THERE TO THE LEFT, BUT THERE IS A VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED FOR THE 30 FOOT BUFFER YARDS OR BUFFER LOTS THAT ARE REQUIRED WHERE A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ABUTS PROPERTY THAT IS PLATTED AND ZONED IN A LOW DENSITY DESIGNATION. THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS PLATTED AS A SF1 TRACKED, AND FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT LOTS ABUTTING THAT BE AT LEAST 30,000FT² IN AREA.

[00:05:06]

THE TWO PROPOSED LOTS ADJACENT TO THAT ARE JUST UNDER 25,000FT², AND JUST UNDER 27,000FT².

THIS IS A TREE CONSERVATION PLAN. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO THE MINIMUM PRESERVATION THAT'S REQUIRED BASED ON WHAT IS EXISTING ON THE SITE TODAY. THE SITE HAS 22% EXISTING TREE COVER.

THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT 60% OF THAT BE PRESERVED, AND THEY ARE ONLY ABLE TO PRESERVE 13% OF THAT WHICH IS SHOWN IN GREEN. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING SOUTHEAST FROM NORTH WHITECHAPEL AND A VIEW LOOKING EAST. I'D BE LOOKING NORTHEAST AND A VIEW FROM THE INTERSECTION OF KIRKWOOD AND WHITECHAPEL.

WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE, NOTING THEY ARE UNDECIDED, AND LISTED SOME CONCERNS IN THAT RESPONSE, WHICH YOU SHOULD HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING.

I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THEIR CONCERNS, IF YOU LIKE.

WE'VE NOT RECEIVED ANY OTHER RESPONSES FROM THOSE WITHIN THE 300 OR 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA, AND I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

SO, DENNIS, I GUESS JUST MAYBE A FEW QUICK ONES.

THIS IS THE LAND USE HERE IS MIXED USE. HOWEVER, WHEN IT'S ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL, AS YOU SAID, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF LOT SIZING THAT COME WITH OUR ORDINANCES THAT.

THAT'S CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT. YES. OKAY. AND IT'S NOT GATED.

IS THAT CORRECT? NO, SIR. IT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

THEY HAVE NOT INDICATED THEY HAVE AN INTENT TO REQUEST GATED OR PRIVATE STREET.

AND THEN I GUESS IF APPROVED IN SOME FORM THIS EVENING I GUESS THERE'S NOT ANYTHING IN HERE THAT WOULD BE RELIEVING THE APPLICANT OF A RESPONSIBILITY FOR SIDEWALKS. WHERE THERE ARE NOT, AND WHERE THE CITY WOULD WANT THEM.

IS THAT FAIR? THAT IS CORRECT. YEAH. THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO EXTEND THE SIDEWALK ALONG THE WHITECHAPEL FRONTAGE AND AND TERMINATE THOSE OFF AT THE APPROPRIATE CURB OR TERMINUS POINT OF THEIR NORTH BOUNDARY AND THEN THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDEWALKS INTERNAL TO THE SUBDIVISION ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE AND THOSE WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE A HOME IS FILED FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE AREAS, WHATEVER THEY ABUT.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? DENNIS, CAN YOU PUT THE FUTURE LAND USE BACK UP THERE REAL QUICK, PLEASE? OKAY. PERFECT. THANK YOU.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NOT FOR NOW. SO THANK YOU, DENNIS.

APPRECIATE IT. HOPEFULLY THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING FOR THIS ITEM.

IF YOU DON'T MIND COMING FORWARD JUST PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND WE CAN JUST SEE IF THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS. THERE PROBABLY WILL BE A FEW QUESTIONS. OKAY. MY NAME IS ASHRAF ALI KHAN, AND THE ADDRESS IS 1965 1975 NORTH WHITECHAPEL ROAD.

OKAY. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO JUST SAY? OR WE CAN LAUNCH INTO QUESTIONS, I GUESS. JUST WORK WITH THE ZONING DEPARTMENT AND.

OKAY [INAUDIBLE]. I KNOW THIS ONE WAS MAYBE JUST FOR THE RECORD.

AND STAFF CAN ALWAYS JUMP IN HERE. THIS ONE WAS PRESENTED TO OUR CORRIDOR COMMITTEE MEETING.

PROBABLY A FEW MONTHS AGO. I THINK AT THIS POINT, AND I KNOW SOME OF THE FEEDBACK ON IT WAS ABOUT THE DENSITY WITHIN WHAT WAS PROPOSED THEN, WHICH WAS MORE DENSE THAN WHAT IS PROPOSED TONIGHT.

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THAT FEEDBACK TO HEART.

I GUESS WE'LL SEE IF THE RESPONSE WAS ENOUGH FOR MOST PEOPLE, BUT APPRECIATE YOU LISTENING TO THAT.

I GUESS I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY OTHER SIGNIFICANT.

I WAS TRYING TO REMEMBER ANY OTHER SIGNIFICANT FEEDBACK OTHER THAN THAT FROM THE CORRIDOR MEETING, JUST NOT AWARE. YEAH, I THINK IT WAS MOSTLY FOCUSED ON THAT, I GUESS IF THAT'S WHAT YOU KIND OF RECALL.

[00:10:05]

YES. WHAT WAS THE REQUIREMENT? WE TRY TO GET THAT ONE.

OKAY. ARE THERE ANY I GUESS I'VE PROBABLY GOT 1 OR 2 QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, BUT I GUESS, DO OTHER PEOPLE HAVE I REMEMBER THIS BEING THAT YOU WERE GOING TO USE THIS AS A FAMILY COMPOUND.

IS THAT THE INTENT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOMES LIKE, YOU KNOW, BUT IT'S ALL GOING TO BE LIKE YOUR FAMILY, RIGHT? YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PUT THESE UP ON THE MARKET FOR SALE RIGHT NOW. I PUT THE PROPERTY FOR SALE.

YES I DID. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUY IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO DEVELOP IT, YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

BUT WE WANT TO DOUBLE IT TO FOUR LOTS. SO WE'RE PROBABLY PULLING OUT.

OKAY. SO WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS? YOU KNOW, THE MINIMUM OF 30,000FT² ON THE ADJOINING LOTS TO THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. SO [INAUDIBLE] TO BUILD A HOME LIKE CLOSER TO 5 TO 7000 SQUARE FOOT HOMES.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I GOT RIGHT NOW. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? I GUESS MY COMMENT WOULD BE IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULD JUST BE THOSE TWO, THOSE LOT ONE AND TWO THAT WOULD HAVE THAT 30,000.

SO I WOULD RATHER SEE THESE BE CONSISTENT SIZE THAN IF HE ENLARGED THOSE TWO AND THEN SHRUNK THE OTHER TWO.

I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY ADVICE TO YOU WAS AND I GUESS WE CAN SEE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THE APPLICATION.

BUT RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZE HAS BEEN A BIG FOCUS OF CITY COUNCIL LATELY.

SO ASSUMING THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU KIND OF ADVANCE BEYOND THIS STAGE I WOULD PREPARE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES AND ONE WOULD BE A CONCEPT PLAN THAT SATISFIES THE 30,000 SQUARE FOOT.

REQUIREMENT ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE SITE, AND I GUESS SUBSEQUENTLY ALSO MAYBE INCLUDES FOUR LOTS.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WHETHER YOU, YOU KNOW, ARE EXCITED ABOUT IT OR NOT.

I WOULD ALSO PREPARE ONE WITH THREE LOTS. MY ARCHITECT, I THINK YOU CAN GIVE ME AN ANSWER.

DO YOU MIND STATING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS AHMED [INAUDIBLE]. 545 COVENTRY DRIVE, GRAPEVINE, TEXAS 76051.

PERFECT. I THINK THOSE ARE THE YOU KNOW, WHAT WE TRY TO DO IN THIS POINT IN THE PROCESS IS, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE YOU FEEDBACK THAT YOU'LL LIKELY HEAR DURING CITY COUNCIL SO THAT YOU'RE READY FOR IT AND I, YOU KNOW, USING OUR INTUITION FROM BEING UP HERE FOR A FEW YEARS I THINK YOU WOULD PROBABLY NEED VERSIONS OF THE SITE PLAN IN ADDITION TO THIS ONE THAT SATISFY THAT VARIANCE REQUEST SO THAT YOU DON'T NEED IT AND MAYBE STILL HAS FOUR LOTS AND THEN ANOTHER ONE THAT SATISFIES IT AND HAS THREE LOTS AND THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO EVALUATE ALL OF THOSE.

SO AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE COMMISSIONER PHALEN I THINK IS GOING.

SO I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY, I GUESS, AT LEAST FOR ME TO BE SUPPORTIVE, I THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING WHERE YOU, AS THE APPLICANT, ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU WILL PREPARE THOSE TWO SCENARIOS AND ALSO PRESENT THEM TO COUNCIL.

I GUESS, CAN I JUST ASK STAFF IS THAT DOES THAT SOUND? YEAH, ACTUALLY WE HAVE ALREADY RESPONDED ON THE VARIANCE LETTER.

THAT JUSTIFICATION FOR CONSIDERING THIS A COUPLE OF THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT IS BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT CAREFULLY. THIS IS ALSO CONNECTED WITH THE SAME LOT THERE.

I MEAN R1A OR 1A, BUT THOSE LOTS ARE ONLY 15,000 TO 20,000 SQUARE FOOT.

SO OUR CASE WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS GOOD ENOUGH TO MAXIMIZE ALL THE LOTS AROUND.

OTHERWISE WE CAN EASILY PUSH THE STREET, DOWNSIZE AND MAKE IT PHYSICALLY 30,000 SQUARE FOOT.

BUT BENEFIT OF THAT IS NOT MUCH. IT'S NOT REALLY EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED FOR ALL THE LOTS.

YEAH. NO, I AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I THINK THE YOU KNOW AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO ADVOCATE FOR THAT AT CITY COUNCIL.

BUT I THINK THEY WILL ALSO ASK YOU FOR THOSE SITE PLANS.

SO TO THE EXTENT YOU HAVE THEM READY YOU'LL BE ABLE TO REALIZE WHAT YOU WILL GET APPROVED THAT NIGHT IMMEDIATELY VERSUS MAYBE HAVING TO WAIT ANOTHER MEETING.

SO THAT'S THE GENESIS OF THE COMMENT. OKAY. SO ANY OTHER ALSO, DAN, I'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT THIS, ESPECIALLY IF THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE LIKE A JUST THE CLOSE FAMILY THERE THAT THESE ARE GOING TO BE ON THE MARKET WITH THE REDUCED BUFFER

[00:15:03]

YARDS. I JUST DON'T SEE THAT BEING A GOOD THING EITHER BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S YOUR, YOU KNOW, FAMILY THAT'S THERE, THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN KIND OF LIVE WITH IT A LITTLE BIT. BUT IF IT'S JUST LIKE, YOU MEAN, YOU MEAN I GUESS MAYBE YOU'RE MORE SUPPORTIVE OF A THREE LOT APPLICATION VERSUS A FOUR LOT. WELL, THAT'S I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE BUFFER YARD THAT WE NEED BETWEEN SEPARATION BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES OR THE THREE PROPERTIES AS IT WOULD BE.

SO I MEAN, I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE AS ANOTHER THING TO CONSIDER BECAUSE THEY WERE ASKING FOR REDUCTION IN THE BUFFER YARDS.

JOHN. OKAY. NO, I THINK THAT'S I MEAN, I GUESS THAT WOULD BE THE CONTINGENT ITEM I PUT ON THIS ONE IN A MOTION IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, THAT ALSO INCLUDES APPLICANTS WILLINGNESS TO PROVIDE THOSE OTHER TWO ALTERNATIVE SITE PLANS THAT HAVE FOUR LOTS AND DON'T NEED A VARIANCE ON THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENT OF 30,000FT² TO THE NORTH, AND ONE THAT HAS THREE LOTS AND ALSO DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT VARIANCE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL IS LIKELY GOING TO LOOK AT.

IF I UNDERSTAND THE EXPLANATION YOU GIVE ON WHY YOU WANT IT AND IT'LL BE INCLUDED IN THE MEMO AND THEY CAN READ IT AND THEY CAN COME TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSION.

ACTUALLY THE SHAPE OF THE LAND, WHICH IS REALLY DIFFICULT TO MAKE.

THREE LOTS THERE. IF YOU LOOK AT CAREFULLY THAT THE THREE LOTS, HOW YOU ARE GOING TO SUBDIVIDE THE WAY THE LAND WIDTH AND THE SHAPE OF IT REALLY RESTRICTED. SO WE TRIED THE THREE LOT EARLIER AS WELL.

SHAPE WISE, WIDTH WISE, IF YOU WANT TO FIT THE THREE LOTS WITH THE CUL DE SAC THERE, THEN DEFINITELY IT STAYS THE SAME LOCATION WHERE IT IS SHOWN. WELL, I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU CAN PRESENT TO COUNCIL AND ADVOCATE FOR THOSE, THOSE REASONINGS.

AND THEY WILL YOU KNOW, ENGAGE YOU IN THAT DISCUSSION.

SO. OKAY. DOES THAT SOUND GOOD? YES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? I THINK WE'RE JUST ONE OTHER COMMENT AND I COULD BE WRONG, BUT I SEEM TO REMEMBER A CORRIDOR.

THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DRIVE ENTRANCE THERE AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD 1 OR 02, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE LOTS AND THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT IT'S YOU KNOW, SO CLOSE TO THE MAIN ENTRANCE FOR [INAUDIBLE] ALONG THERE AND THEN I FORGET.

I FEEL LIKE WE LOOKED AT AN OVERHEAD AND THERE WAS WE WERE LINING UP LOTS OF DIFFERENT STREETS AND AND THERE WAS ISSUES THERE.

THE ONLY REASON I BRING THAT UP IS BECAUSE I THINK THE VARIANCE IS I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THE VARIANCES AND I THINK WE'RE CREATING PROBLEMS WITH THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES THERE. BUT I MEAN, I GUESS WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT IN AFTER WE HEAR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. ANY ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE LET OUR APPLICANT GO.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. IF WE NEED TO CALL YOU BACK UP I APPRECIATE IT.

WE'LL DO THAT. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING DOES CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.

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

HOWEVER, I WILL NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE DID RECEIVE THE RESPONSE ITEM FROM [INAUDIBLE] I APOLOGIZE.

THE FONT'S PRETTY SMALL. KATHLEEN SIMPSON. IS THAT OKAY? I'M GETTING A HEAD NOD FROM STAFF AT 104 BRENTWOOD CIRCLE.

SO THAT COMMISSION HAS THAT AND HAS READ THOSE CONCERNS, AND WE KIND OF TRIED TO ADDRESS IT IN THE DISCUSSION.

SO ANY, KIND OF DIALOG ON THIS ONE, I GUESS. YEAH.

SO TWO QUESTIONS MORE PROCEDURAL THAN ANYTHING.

SO I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS. WOULD IT BE PREFERABLE TO HAVE A MOTION TO DENY IT WITH THE ALTERNATIVES, GOING TO CITY COUNCIL OR TO APPROVE IT WITH THE ALTERNATIVES AND THEN VOTE AGAINST MY OWN MOTION, OR HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE MAKE A MOTION IN FAVOR IF THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF IT.

FOR STAFF ANSWERS THAT, I GUESS. IS THERE A I MEAN, WE CAN TRY TO SEE IF THERE'S CONSENSUS ON AN APPLICATION, I MEAN, ANY VERSION OF IT, I GUESS. IS THERE A VERSION OF IT THAT YOU ARE SUPPORTIVE OF OR.

NO AND THE ONLY REASON IS WELL, TWO REASONS. ONE, THE LOT SIZE, THE VARIANCES AND THEN THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE AND I FEEL LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT THE LOT NEXT TO IT AND SO I FEEL LIKE WE'RE KIND OF CREATING A MISHMASH OF PROBLEMS OVER THERE ON KIRKWOOD.

AND SO AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE. IT'S I MEAN, IT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS AND THE WAY THAT AREA IS DEVELOPED.

BUT I FEEL LIKE WE'RE CREATING PROBLEMS AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE LOT NEXT TO IT AND THEN AFTER THAT WE GET INTO THE SUBDIVISION AND SO I'M JUST UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE

[00:20:04]

WHOLE THING, BUT THAT'S JUST ME AND KIND OF WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THAT WAS LIKE ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT IS AS OF TODAY, YOU HAVE TWO DRIVEWAYS OUT THERE, ONE OF THEM KIND OF CLOSE TO KIRKWOOD.

IF YOU LOOKED AT IT AS A THREE LOT DEVELOPMENT THAT SATISFIED AND DIDN'T NEED THE VARIANCE, AND YOU HAD ONE DRIVEWAY AND ONLY ONE MORE HOUSE, WOULD THAT.

I'M NOT SAYING YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT IT, BUT I GUESS. IS THAT CLOSER OR IS THAT POSSIBLY.

I'M JUST I'M REALLY HAVING A HARD TIME ENVISIONING THAT WITH THE SETBACKS AND HOW WOULD YOU? WHAT ARE THOSE LOTS GOING TO LOOK LIKE? IS IT GOING TO BE KIND OF A FLAG? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, I GUESS I'M HAVING TROUBLE ENVISIONING IT.

OKAY, WELL, WHY DON'T I GO TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DAIS HERE AND SEE? CAN I, CAN WE CLARIFY THEN WITH THE STAFF, WHAT IS YOUR DRIVEWAY SPACING FROM THE INTERSECTION AT KIRKWOOD? OVER. WHAT WOULD BE THE DRIVEWAY SPACING REQUIREMENT FOR THE FIRST? ARE THEY ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO THAT? NO, IT'S TECHNICALLY A STREET AND NOT A DRIVEWAY.

AND SO TYPICALLY IT WOULD BE I THINK DISTANCE BETWEEN INTERSECTION SUBDIVISION IS 125FT TO THE CENTER LINES AND I DO BELIEVE IT MEETS THAT FROM.

CENTER LINE TO CENTER LINE. SO OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER JUST THOUGHTS IN GENERAL ABOUT A VERSION OF THE APPLICATION THAT WELL, I THINK I'M MORE IN FAVOR TOWARDS THE THREE LOT SOLUTION. TRY TO GET IT BACK TO THE MINIMUM 30,000FT² BECAUSE I MEAN, I KNOW IT'S ONLY, YOU KNOW, 6 OR 7000FT² DIFFERENCE, BUT I THINK THAT'S SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT GIVEN DUE JUSTICE TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THEM AND, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THE DRIVE, I'M OKAY WITH THE DRIVE.

BUT I JUST THINK THE, YOU KNOW, BUFFER YARDS AND SETBACKS AND GETTING THOSE TWO LOTS TO 30,000 ARE THE MAIN THING FOR ME. OKAY. ANY OTHER. YEAH.

GO AHEAD. WELL I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY I STRUGGLE WITH THE LOGISTICS OF HAVING A MOTION PASSING WITH OTHER ALTERNATIVES.

IF NOBODY IS REALLY ON BOARD WITH THE ONE THAT'S.

WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FERRET OUT. SO THAT'S WHERE I AM.

OKAY. BUT IS THERE A VERSION OF IT YOU'RE SUPPORTIVE OF? I MIGHT BE SUPPORTIVE OF A DIFFERENT VERSION, BUT IT'S NOT BEFORE US.

OTHER THOUGHTS FROM THIS SIDE OF THE DAIS. DO THE PEOPLE THAT THINK THAT THEY MIGHT BE SUPPORTIVE OF A VERSION WITH THREE LOTS THAT DOESN'T NEED A VARIANCE ON THE 30,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, SO THEY THINK THEY'D BE COMFORTABLE VOTING ON THAT TONIGHT, OR DO THEY THINK THEY WOULD NEED TO SEE A SITE PLAN OF IT? CAN I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION TO STAFF? FIRE AWAY AND THEN I'LL.

I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK. SO THE SIDEWALK IS OUT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

IS IT A LOT OF THE LOTS THE SIDEWALKS ACTUALLY ON THE PERSONAL PROPERTY LIKE IN A ISN'T THAT TRUE? LIKE IN A PEDESTRIAN? COULD THEY PLAT IT SO THAT THE LOT GOES OUT AND INCLUDES THE SIDEWALKS AND THERE'S JUST LIKE A PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND THEN THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY MAKE THEIR LOTS BE 30,000FT².

IT WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE TO THE RIGHT OF WAY, DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED BASED ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND THEN WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR A RESIDENTIAL STREET.

THE THERE'S ENOUGH PARKWAY FOR THE SIDEWALKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND THE PARKWAY OF THE RIGHT OF WAY AND BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE TO THE DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS.

OKAY. DID YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION FROM A MINUTE AGO? OR I CAN REPHRASE. I MEAN, I GUESS I'M, I DON'T I GET IT IN CONCEPT THAT IT NEEDS TO BE THREE LOTS AND AND I'M MAYBE OKAY WITH THAT, BUT WITHOUT SEEING IT, IT'S REALLY HARD TO KIND OF SAY.

I MEAN, I HATE TO BE DIFFICULT, BUT I'M KIND OF WITH THE VIEW OVER HERE THAT IT'S KIND OF HARD TO VOTE ON IT UNTIL YOU SEE IT.

SO ANYWAY, OTHER THOUGHTS? I MIGHT ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY WOULDN'T MIND COMING BACK UP TO THE PODIUM AND WE CAN KIND OF TALK THIS THROUGH.

[00:25:02]

I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE WAY THIS CAN PLAY OUT, AND IT'S AT THE APPLICANT'S YOU KNOW, DECISION IS THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY TAKE A VOTE ON IT TONIGHT. ALTHOUGH I, YOU KNOW, YOU KIND OF HEARD IT.

I CAN'T REALLY TELL WHICH WAY THAT WOULD GO. IT MAY OR MAY NOT GO YOUR WAY.

OR AT YOUR REQUEST, WE COULD TABLE THE ITEM. YOU COULD I THINK STAFF WILL TELL YOU.

I GUESS YOU HAVE A FEW DAYS BEFORE YOU'D HAVE TO RESUBMIT TO MAKE OUR NEXT MEETING TO DO A SITE PLAN THAT WOULD NOT TRIGGER A VARIANCE ON THE 30,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, AND JUST HAVE THREE LOTS, AND THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE REVIEWED AT THE NEXT MEETING AND VOTED ON.

SO I HAVE A REQUEST LIKE THERE IS A SIMILAR. DO YOU MIND TALKING TO THE MICROPHONE? I'M HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU.

THEY HAVE A NEW DEVELOPMENT IS DOING THERE ARE MORE SMALLER LOTS THAT WHAT I'M SHOWING YOU RIGHT NOW.

IF YOU CONSIDER THAT ONE TWO OR WE CAN GO ON TABLE TWO.

SO IF YOU CAN SEE THAT. SO YEAH. NO I THINK THEY'RE AWARE OF THAT AND THEY'VE TAKEN THAT INTO ACCOUNT MORE SMALLER THAN YOU KNOW WHAT I'M PRESENTING RIGHT NOW.

YES. YEAH. THEN OR WE CAN GO TO THE TABLE. OKAY.

BUT YOU'D, ASK TO TABLE I GUESS REQUEST TO TABLE THE ITEM THIS EVENING.

YES. OKAY AND I THINK THAT'S THE THOUGHT IS I THINK IF YOU COULD REPRESENT IT THE NEXT MEETING WITH A THREE LOT VERSION THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE VARIANCE FOR THE NORTHERN LOTS. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP PEOPLE GET THEIR ARMS AROUND THIS MORE AND MAYBE KIND OF JUST TALK THROUGH.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, DRIVEWAYS IS OR ACCESS ONTO WHITE'S CHAPEL IS ANOTHER ITEM.

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU CAN BE PREPARED TO SHOW HOW IF YOU'RE REMOVING TWO ACCESS POINTS AND JUST HAVING ONE AND BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THAT COULD HELP THE DISCUSSION TO SHOW THE DIFFERENCE. OKAY. CAN I SUGGEST ONE OTHER ISSUE? SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CONCERN IS ONLY THAT 30,000 SQUARE FOOT FOR LOT NUMBER ONE AND TWO, RIGHT? SO IF WE PUSH THE MAIN ACCESS, SAY A COUPLE OF FOOT SOUTH SIDE, THEN WE CAN HAVE TWO LOTS ONE AND TWO, 30,000 SQUARE FOOT. BUT OTHER TWO LOTS ARE GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT SMALLER AS WELL AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE HEARING UP HERE.

THERE'S DISCOMFORT ABOUT THAT. SO THAT I'M SORRY THERE'S NOT THERE'S NOT A LEVEL OF COMFORT WITH FOUR LOTS.

SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO CONVEY WITH YOU BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE.

OKAY. SO UNDERSTAND OKAY. SO YOU'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND REQUEST TO TABLE.

YES. OKAY AND HOPEFULLY THAT FEEDBACK IS HELPFUL IN TERMS OF WHAT TO WORK ON AND BRING BACK AND THEN WE CAN BETTER CONSIDER IT.

SO OKAY. NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU. OKAY. NO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO WITH THAT, I GUESS MAYBE WE WILL VOTE ON THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO OUR FEBRUARY 6TH MEETING. STAFF? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

PERFECT. DOES THAT SOUND AMENABLE? YEAH. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ON OUR AGENDA THAT WE TABLE THE ITEM AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO OUR FEBRUARY 6TH, 2025 MEETING.

I HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, PLEASE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. APPRECIATE COMING OUT TONIGHT.

NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON OUR AGENDA.

A SITE PLAN FOR SOUTHLAKE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ON HIGHWAY 114.

[8. Consider: ZA24-0066, Site Plan for Southlake Medical Office Building at 451 E. S.H. 114, on property described as Lot 2R, Block 1, Southlake Medical District, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas. Current Zoning: “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #7. (This item was forwarded to the January 23, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting due to the weather-related cancellation of the January 9, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.) PUBLIC HEARING ]

THANK YOU AGAIN, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSION. THIS IS A PROPOSAL FOR A SITE PLAN FOR SOUTHLAKE MEDICAL OFFICE OR MEDICAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 451 EAST STATE HIGHWAY 114. THIS LOT IS PART OF THE SOUTHLAKE METHODIST HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER CAMPUS. THIS IS A PROPOSED SITE LOCATION.

THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THIS IS MIXED USE AND THIS AREA ALSO HAS A MEDICAL OFFICE OVERLAY APPLIED TO IT. OUR OPTIONAL LAND USE CATEGORY AND THE.

CURRENT ZONING IS SP2 GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT ZONING.

THIS IS A VIEW OF THE PAD SITE FROM 114 FRONTAGE ROAD.

EASTBOUND FRONTAGE ROAD AND I VIEW FROM THE DRIVEWAY.

COMING IN OFF OF THE. FRONTAGE ROAD. EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING IS JUST TO THE RIGHT AND PARKING GARAGE IS IN THE

[00:30:01]

BACKGROUND. NOW THIS IS PROPOSED SITE PLAN. I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THIS DASHED LINE THAT THEY HAVE LABELED A FUTURE DRIVEWAY BY OTHERS, AND THE PURPOSE BEHIND THAT IS TXDOT IS IN PROCESS OF. CONSTRUCTING RAMP REVERSALS AND TXDOT'S REVIEWED THE LOCATION OF THIS DRIVEWAY AND NEED THIS DRIVEWAY TO MOVE EAST FOR THAT RAMP TO RUN EFFICIENTLY AND STILL PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE HOSPITAL AND THE THE EMERGENCY ROOM OF THE HOSPITAL AND THE DEVELOPER OF THIS LOT IS MAKING ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THAT TO OCCUR, AT WHICH TXDOT MOVES FORWARD WITH THAT PROJECT.

THIS IS A DETAILED OF THE SITE PLAN. AND ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING.

THIS IS THE CONCEPT PLAN APPROVED WITH THE SP TWO ZONING OF THE PROPERTY.

AND RENDERING OF THAT.

AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES FROM. OWNERS WITHIN THE 300 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA.

I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

DENNIS, I GUESS JUST REAL QUICK A COUPLE THINGS.

YEAH, THE THE ELEVATIONS, I'M ASSUMING, JUST CONFIRMING.

YOU KNOW, THESE ARE GOING TO BE AS SIMILAR AS POSSIBLE TO THE EXISTING BUILDING THAT'S PRESENT.

CORRECT. YES. OKAY. AND THEN JUST LOOKING AT THE TWO CONCEPT PLANS, I GUESS IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ONE REAL QUICK.

SO HERE WE'VE GOT AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, A CORRIDOR MEETING CONNECTIVITY, WALKABILITY BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS CAMPUS LIKE FEEL AND THEN IF YOU GO TO THE PROPOSED ONE. KIND OF THE SAME THING.

DETACHED DRIVE AISLES BETWEEN BUILDINGS, NOT EASILY WALKABLE, NOT CONNECTED.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR THIS ITEM? THANKS FOR COMING UP.

DO YOU MIND STATING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND WE CAN LAUNCH INTO ANY QUESTIONS.

SKYLER LYLE, 3801 WILLIAM D TATE, GRAPEVINE, TEXAS 76051.

THANK YOU. AND ARE YOU REPRESENTING, I GUESS, THE APPLICANT, THE HOSPITAL ARCHITECT? THE APPLICANT? I'M THE CIVIL ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT. CIVIL ENGINEER? OKAY, PERFECT. WITH HAMPTON AND BROWN. OKAY.

ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. SO WE JUST GOT THE NEW RETENTION POND OUT THERE TO THE EAST.

SO IS IT GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE WE'RE PUTTING HERE? YES, SIR. THAT WAS ULTIMATELY DESIGNED FOR THIS LOT TO BE FULLY DEVELOPED.

OKAY. TO ENCOMPASS THE WHOLE CAMPUS DESIGN. CORRECT.

OKAY. IS THERE GOING TO BE NEED TO BE ANYTHING FURTHER DONE TO IT NOW AS FAR AS ENCROACHMENT ON THE EDGES OF IT, REINFORCEMENT OR ANY SUCH? NO, I BELIEVE WE'RE FAR ENOUGH AWAY FROM IT THAT WE SHOULDN'T NEED ANY EXTRA REINFORCEMENT ON IT.

I DON'T EVEN THINK WE ARE PROPOSING AN ADDITIONAL CONNECTION TO IT.

I THINK WE'RE TYING INTO THE EXISTING SYSTEM ON SITE.

OKAY. COULD YOU EXPLAIN THE DRIVEWAY A LITTLE BIT MORE, THE FUTURE DRIVEWAY ISSUE A LITTLE BIT? COULD YOU GO INTO THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT? ABSOLUTELY.

SO WE MET WITH TXDOT AND ULTIMATELY THEY EXPLAINED THAT THEY ARE SHIFTING THEIR OFF RAMP FROM 114 AND TO CREATE BETTER ACCESSIBILITY TO THE DEVELOPMENT THE ER. THEY WOULD LIKE TO MOVE IT EAST.

OKAY AND SO KEEPING THAT DRIVE STRAIGHT, IT REALLY HELPS ACCESSIBILITY AND MAKING IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE TO GET INTO THE AIR.

OKAY. SO WOULD THERE BE A TURN LANE THERE INVOLVED WITH THIS AT ALL? NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANKS. YOU'RE WELCOME. YEAH.

I GUESS, CAN YOU JUST COMMENT TO ME? YOU KNOW, I GUESS I'M KIND OF HUNG UP AND FOCUSED ON THE OLD CONCEPT PLAN WHICH I THINK, YOU KNOW, MOST PEOPLE WOULD LOOK AT AND SAY IS SUPERIOR TO WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED.

[00:35:03]

SO I GUESS MAYBE YOU CAN TAKE A STAB AT EXPLAINING TO ME WHY WE'RE NOT SEEING A VERSION OF THIS PROPOSED SITE PLAN THAT'S CLOSER TO THAT.

ABSOLUTELY. SO THERE'S A HANDFUL OF THINGS. ONCE WE ACTUALLY DID THE SURVEY AND REALLY INVESTIGATED THE SITE.

THAT DRIVE IS DEDICATED AS A PUBLIC ACCESS WATER, SEWER, STORM AND UTILITY EASEMENT THAT IS BEING USED BY THE HOSPITAL.

SO TO PUT A BUILDING ON TOP OF THAT WOULD REQUIRE QUITE A BIT TO MODIFY EVEN THE SITE AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE.

ON TOP OF THAT, ONCE THE TXDOT DRIVE HAS BEEN OR IN THE FUTURE WILL BE RELOCATED.

ULTIMATELY, THIS WILL PROVIDE BETTER SITE ACCESS AND SITE DRIVE ABILITY AND THAT SORT OF THING TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THE HOSPITAL.

WE DID MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE A TEN FOOT CROSSWALK TO CREATE SOME SORT OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS A BUILDING CONNECTION, BUT. SO IF I'M HEARING YOU RIGHT, IT CAN BE DONE.

IT'S JUST A MONEY THING. IS THAT CORRECT? COST MORE.

I MEAN, THERE'S SEVERAL THINGS. THE EASEMENTS, THE TXDOT DRIVE.

AND THEN ONCE WE DO CONNECT THE BUILDINGS, THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT GRADE DIFFERENCE.

SO RIGHT NOW I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY FOUR. I THINK IT'S ABOUT EIGHT FEET FROM FINISHED FLOOR TO FINISHED FLOOR AND SO ONCE WE BRING ALL OF THAT UP, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO BE ACCESSIBLE FROM THE PARKING LOTS.

BECAUSE THOSE ARE STILL NEEDING TO BE ABLE TO CONNECT TO THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS WELL.

YEAH. I'M JUST I MEAN, I'M A LITTLE SENSITIVE TO IT, GIVEN THAT THIS IS ALONG HIGHWAY 114.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE I MEAN, I THINK THERE WAS A REASON THAT GRAND CONCEPT PLAN WAS PUT FORWARD, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WOULD PREFER TO HAVE THERE IN TERMS OF DESIGN ALONG, YOU KNOW, A REALLY VISIBLE CORRIDOR OF THE CITY. SO JUST DOING SOMETHING THAT'S MUCH MORE COMMODITY LIKE AND JUST SURROUNDED BY A SEA OF PARKING AND DRIVE AISLES AND, YOU KNOW, BACKWARD LOOKING SITE PLANNING JUST ISN'T IDEAL.

I GUESS. SO FOR ME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT? WELL, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ON THE DRIVEWAY.

SO TEXAS RAMP REVERSAL WILL HAVE THE EXIT RAMP.

THAT WOULD KIND OF CREATE A CONFLICT WITH HOW THE ORIGINAL DESIGN WAS.

AND SO I'M, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY SPECIFICALLY SAID, HEY, WE WON'T GRANT YOU A DRIVEWAY PERMIT IN THAT LOCATION, SO YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING ELSE TO GET THE DRIVEWAY PERMIT.

IS DOES THAT BASICALLY HAVE THEY KIND OF HELD THAT DRIVEWAY PERMIT AS AN ISSUE? SO THERE'S AN EXISTING DRIVE ON SITE. BUT ULTIMATELY, FROM HOW I'M UNDERSTANDING IT, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ACCESSIBLE FROM THE HIGHWAY AS EASILY WITH THE RAMP REVERSAL. SO THEY ONCE THEY DEMOLISH 114.

THEY'RE WANTING TO PUT IN A NEW DRIVE LOCATION JUST TO THE EAST.

OKAY. I THOUGHT IT WAS AN ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY TO THIS SITE PLAN.

YOU'RE SAYING THE ONE IN EXISTENCE IS GOING TO MOVE TO.

OKAY. CORRECT. YES, MA'AM. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY COULD.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS FOR APPLICANT? WELL, I THINK JUST TO CLARIFY OR WHAT I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS IS A THE PROBLEM WITH THE RAMPS ON 114 IS THE ONE THAT'S OVER BY THAT IS NEAR WHITECHAPEL. THEY WANT TO MOVE THAT ONE BACK SO THAT THEY CAN MOVE IT TOWARDS THE EAST AS WELL.

AND I THINK THEY'RE JUST REALIGNING THEM. THEY'RE RELOCATING THEM.

BUT IT'S BOTH SIDES I THINK IS WHAT THE ACCESS ISSUE WAS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT I THINK WE'RE GOOD. FROM AN APPLICANT STANDPOINT.

SO THANK YOU. IF WE NEED YOU, CALL YOU BACK UP.

APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT DID HAVE A OR DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED WITH IT.

SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING. NOW FOR ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND COMMENT ON THAT ITEM, I WAS GIVING ONE, GIVEN ONE PUBLIC COMMENT FORM THAT I'LL READ IN THE RECORD HERE REAL QUICK, IF YOU DON'T MIND, SIR.

WHICH WAS DOUGLAS MARCEL, 5850 GRANITE PARKWAY, PLANO, TEXAS, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT RECORDS HIS SUPPORT FOR THE ITEM.

SO. DULY NOTED. YOU GUYS ARE OKAY? WELL, WE'LL EVERYBODY HOLD TIGHT.

WE'LL HEAR, IF YOU DON'T MIND. JUST SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN.

ABSOLUTELY. MY NAME IS DOUG MOSELLE. KIND OF A THREE MINUTE LIGHT, BUT I WON'T START IT. NO WORRIES. YOU'LL BE DONE IN THREE MINUTES.

[00:40:02]

DOUG MOSELLE, 5850 GRANT PARKWAY IN PLANO, TEXAS, ACTUALLY REPRESENT THE PROPERTY OWNER AND WANTED TO KIND OF SPEAK JUST TO A COUPLE OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED. SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT IN REGARDS TO THE RAMP REVERSALS, I'M NOT NECESSARILY SURE WHAT'S TRIGGERING THE RAMP REVERSALS ITSELF.

BUT ULTIMATELY, AS THOSE RAMPS ARE REVERSED, IT RESULTS IN A SCENARIO WHERE THE NEW OFF RAMP WHERE IT DOWNLOADS ONTO THE FRONTAGE ROAD, THAT GORE POINT OF THE OFF RAMP IS NOW THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY IS IN AN UNSAFE LOCATION IN REGARDS TO WHERE THAT OFF RAMP IS LOCATED. SO TXDOT IS KIND OF PROACTIVELY TAKING THE APPROACH TO CONTACT THE PROPERTY OWNERS INVOLVED IN THE METHODIST CAMPUS AND REQUESTED THE ABILITY TO POTENTIALLY PUSH THAT THAT DRIVEWAY FURTHER EAST.

SO THERE'S BEEN SOME MEETINGS CONDUCTED THAT HAVE INVOLVED TXDOT, THE ENGINEER, THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS WERE CERTAINLY AMENABLE TO MOVING IT. I THINK ULTIMATELY IT RESULTS IN A SITUATION WHERE TRAFFIC EXITING 114 CAN MORE SAFELY ENTER INTO THE SITE. OBVIOUSLY AMBULANCES AND SUCH.

SO THAT'S THE RATIONALE FOR THE DRIVEWAY RELOCATION.

I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU IN REGARDS TO THE CONCEPT PLAN.

PROBABLY BEING MAYBE A PREFERRED PLAN TO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

BUT ULTIMATELY I WAS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS 18 YEARS AGO.

THAT WAS OUR, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, OUR BEST GUESS AT WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY HAPPEN ON THE PROPERTY.

THINGS CHANGE. PROPERTY OWNERS CHANGE, MARKET CONDITIONS CHANGE.

WE'RE SIMPLY AT THIS POINT, WE AT THAT POINT IN TIME, 18 YEARS AGO, WE OWNED THE ENTIRETY OF THAT PROPERTY.

OBVIOUSLY, THE FIRST RUN AT THE HOSPITAL DIDN'T QUITE WORK OUT.

METHODIST CAME IN. TOOK OVER. PURCHASED THE MOST OF THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE CAMPUS.

WE'RE LEFT WITH THIS ONE LOT AND, YOU KNOW, FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS THAT THE ENGINEER OUTLINED THIS SITE IS OBVIOUSLY PREFERABLE AND SINCE WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN AT THE POINT IN TIME, 18 YEARS AGO, WE WROTE INTO THE PD THE ABILITY TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO THAT CONCEPT PLAN SIMPLY UPON SITE PLAN APPROVAL. SO WE'RE HERE TONIGHT ASKING FOR YOUR APPROVAL OF THAT SITE PLAN.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. PUBLIC HEARING REMAINS OPEN.

IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.

SEEING NO ONE, I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I GUESS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS THOUGHTS BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ONE? ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL LET YOU FIRE AWAY, MR. VICE CHAIR.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE.

ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON OUR AGENDA ZA 2466, SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED JANUARY 3RD, 2025 AND ALSO SUBJECT TO OUR REVISED SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER TWO DATED JANUARY 3RD, 2025.

WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S VOTE PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. PASSES FIVE ONE.

CONGRATULATIONS. GOOD LUCK. AT THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING WHICH I STAFF WAS AT FEBRUARY 3RD.

4TH?. YES, FOURTH. YES. FEBRUARY 4TH IS THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. ALL GOOD. OKAY. LAST ITEM ON OUR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA THIS EVENING.

[9. Consider: ZA24-0073, Zoning Change and Concept Plan for Chapel Crossing Phase 2, on property described as Lot 1R1 and Lot 1R2, Block A, Ravenaux Village, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 245 and 275 W. S.H. 114. Current Zoning: “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District. Requested Zoning: “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #5. PUBLIC HEARING ]

ITEM NUMBER NINE, CONSIDERATION, APPROVAL OF ZONING CHANGE AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR CHAPEL CROSSING PHASE TWO.

YES. THIS REQUEST IS FOR CHAPEL CROSSING PHASE TWO.

THEY ARE WANTING TO AMEND THE EXISTING SP TWO ZONING TO ALLOW A TWO STORY AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTER AS ONE OF THE ALLOWED USES.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY 30,000FT², AND THIS IS LOCATED AT 245 AND 275 WEST STATE HIGHWAY 114.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY. JUST A CLOSER VIEW.

SO THERE'S THE EXISTING BUILDING HERE. AND THE PROPOSED NEW BUILDING WILL BE ON HERE 275.

THE FUTURE LAND USE IS RETAIL COMMERCIAL. AND THE ZONING IS SP TWO.

GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT. THIS IS THE PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN.

SO THIS IS ALL EXISTING HERE AND THIS IS THE ADDITION.

THEY ARE GOING FROM THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY HAD APPROVED A TWO OR I'M SORRY, A THREE STORY, 22,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING.AND THIS WILL BE A TWO STORY, 30,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND THEN THERE IS SOME INCREASED PARKING TO ACCOMMODATE THE LARGER BUILDING.

[00:45:07]

HERE'S A PROPOSED RENDERING. MORE PROPOSED RENDERINGS AND THIS IS THE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN. WITH THE INCREASE IN PARKING AND THE ENLARGED BUILDING, THEY ARE SHOWING THAT THE TREES, AT LEAST THESE THREE TREES ARE GOING TO BE TAKEN OUT AND THEN THEY'RE SHOWING THIS ONE IS MARGINAL. THIS IS THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN AND THESE ARE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONCEPT PLANS. THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT PLAN WAS APPROVED OCTOBER 7TH, 2014 AND IT SHOWED THIS AS AN EXPANSION.