[6. B. ZA25-0044, Site Plan for Kirkwood Professional Office Building, on property legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Kirkwood East Addition, and located at 1420 Kirkwood Blvd. Current zoning: “NR-PUD” Non-Residential Planned Unit Development. SPIN Neighborhood #1. ]

CASE NUMBER ZA25-0044, A SITE PLAN FOR KIRKWOOD PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING, LOCATED AT 1420 WEST KIRKWOOD BOULEVARD. DIRECTOR KILLOUGH.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1420 WEST KIRKWOOD BOULEVARD.

IT'S PART OF WHAT'S BEEN REPLATTED AS THE KIRKWOOD EAST ADDITION.

THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU IS SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 04,922 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED.

THIS IS AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.

THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THIS PROPERTY IS OFFICE, COMMERCIAL AND THE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY IS NON-RESIDENTIAL PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS A STREET VIEW OF THE PROPERTY, AND THIS IS THE LOCATION CLOUDED SHOWN AS LOT 2 OF THIS PARTICULAR SITE AND THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY.

THIS IS A SITE PLAN BEING PROPOSED BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING AND A LARGER VIEW OF THAT SITE PLAN.

THIS IS DATA SUMMARY FOR THE SITE.

THIS IS THE TREE CONSERVATION APPROVED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

AS SHOWN FOR THIS SITE, ALL THE TREES WITHIN THE BUILDING AREA WOULD BE REMOVED.

THIS IS A TREE REMOVAL PLAN SUBMITTED WITH THE SITE PLAN.

THIS DOES CONFORM WITH WHAT WAS APPROVED UNDER THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THIS IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.

THE LANDSCAPE PLAN BETWEEN BUFFER YARD AREAS, INTERIOR LANDSCAPE WOULD ADD APPROXIMATELY EIGHT CANOPY TREES ALONG WITH ACCENT TREES AND SHRUBS.

THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS, THIS IS THE NORTH AND EAST ELEVATION OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND THE SOUTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS.

[00:20:08]

THIS IS A LIGHTING PLAN.

SITE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CONFORM WITH THE CITY'S LIGHTING ORDINANCE WITH ANY LIGHTING ADDED TO THE SITE.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 5-0, SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT AND THE SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY PRESENTED TO THEM THAT EVENING.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY NOTIFICATIONS FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.

I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

IF YOU WISH, THE APPLICANT ALSO HAS A PRESENTATION TO GO INTO ANY ADDITIONAL DETAIL YOU WOULD LIKE.

>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR KILLOUGH.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS? ANYONE HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS OR NEED THAT APPLICANT PRESENTATION? I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY ALL RIGHT.

UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING YOU ALL WANTED TO ADD.

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> WE'LL CALL UPON YOU IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, BY THE WAY, BEFORE WE CALL THEM UP? THANK YOU DENNIS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WE'LL SKIP RIGHT AHEAD TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ITEM 6B REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.

I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON 6B.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 6B? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AGAIN, ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KILLOUGH OR THE APPLICANT? WITH THAT, I'LL ASK FOR A MOTION FROM MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIAMSON.

>> YES, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 6B ZA25-0044, SITE PLAN FOR KIRKWOOD PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING ON PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 2, BLOCK 1, KIRKWOOD EAST ADDITION, AND LOCATED AT 1420 WEST KIRKWOOD BOULEVARD, SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2025.

IN THE SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER 2 DATED AUGUST 29, 2025, NOTING THAT WE WOULD BE APPROVING A SITE PLAN FOR A SINGLE STORY OFFICE BUILDING, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 4,922 SQUARE FEET AS PRESENTED.

>> I SHOULD HAVE NOTED THAT WE HAD SEVEN PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION SENT OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITH NO RESPONSES.

WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON 6B.

THAT MOTION CARRY 7-0.

ITEM 6B IS APPROVED.

CONGRATULATIONS, GUYS. THANKS FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.

ITEM 6C IS BLANK.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP ALL THE BUDGET AND TAX RATE STUFF AT THE END, SO LET'S SKIP AHEAD TO ITEMS, I BELIEVE, 7A AND 7B WILL BE TAKEN TOGETHER.

ITEM 7A IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 1269-E, CASE NUMBER CP25-0002.

[7. A. Ordinance No.1269-E, CP25-0002, 1st Reading, Amendment to the City of Southlake Consolidated Future Land Use Plan, an Element of the Southlake Comprehensive Plan, for 2530 Johnson Road, on property described as Tract 8A02C, J. J. Freshour Survey Abstract No. 521. Current Underlying Land Use Designation: “Low Density Residential”. Requested Underlying Land Use Designation: “Medium Density Residential”. SPIN Neighborhood #11. ]

[7. B. Ordinance No. 480-838, ZA25-0052, 1st Reading, Zoning Change and Development Plan for 2530 Johnson Road on property described as Tract 8A02C, J. J. Freshour Survey, Abstract No. 521. Current Zoning: “AG” Agricultural District. Requested Zoning: “RPUD” Residential Planned Unit Development. SPIN Neighborhood #11. ]

FIRST READING AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE CONSOLIDATED FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FOR 2530 JOHNSON ROAD.

ITEM 7B IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 480-838, CASE NUMBER ZA25-0052.

FIRST READING ZONING CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 2530 JOHNSON ROAD. DIRECTOR KILLOUGH.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.

THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SITE.

SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THIS ABUTS JOHNSON ROAD, AND A PORTION OF THE EASTERN BOUNDARY ABUTS A RIGHT OF WAY FROM REMUDA COURT, WHICH IS STUBBED INTO THE EAST BOUNDARY OF THIS PROPERTY.

THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE PROPERTY IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND THE CURRENT ZONING ON IT IS AGRICULTURAL.

THIS IS STREET VIEW OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING NORTH.

THIS IS A STREET VIEW LOOKING WEST.

THIS IS AT THE END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC REMUDA COURT.

THE FIRST ITEM UNDER CONSIDERATION IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM ITS CURRENT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION TO ALLOW FOR MEDIUM DENSITY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THE PROPOSED ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH IS THE SECOND ITEM BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

IT PROPOSES THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONE OF WHICH WOULD HAVE ITS FRONT AGE AND ACCESS ON JOHNSON ROAD, AND TWO LOTS THAT WOULD HAVE THEIR ACCESS THROUGH A COMMON ACCESS EASEMENT EXTENDING TO THE RIGHT OF WAY STUB THAT'S AT THE WESTERN END OF REMUDA COURT.

THAT IS A 50 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY STUB THAT EXTENDS OFF

[00:25:02]

THE RADIAL CUL-DE-SAC FOR THAT PROPERTY.

THIS IS A SITE DATA SUMMARY OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN A COMPARISON OF JOHNSON PLACE FOR WHICH IT ABUTS.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE JOHNSON ROAD PROJECT COMPARED TO THE STANDARD SF-20 DESIGNATION, WHICH IS THE STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT THAT THIS IS BEING MODELED FROM.

THIS IS EXHIBIT THE APPLICANTS SUBMITTED SHOWING THE ACCESS EASEMENT SETBACKS THAT WOULD CONNECT TO REMUDA COURT.

THIS IS THEIR FENCING PLAN AND THIS IS THEIR TREE PRESERVATION PLAN.

ALTHOUGH THIS IS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION EXCEEDS THAT OF WHAT A STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT WOULD REQUIRE, WHICH IS 60% PRESERVATION OF THE APPROXIMATE 20% TREE COVERAGE ON THE PROPERTY AND THEY'RE PROPOSING 63% OF THAT EXISTING TREE COVER BE PRESERVED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN SHOWING UTILITY CONNECTIONS THAT WOULD BE MADE.

PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL 5-0 ON BOTH THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THIS IS RESPONSES RECEIVED BOTH WITHIN THE 300 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA.

CURRENTLY, WE HAVE NONE OPPOSED WITHIN 200 FEET, AN ADDITIONAL FOUR WITHIN THE 300 FOOT NOTICE BOUNDARY AND THEN 12 THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE NOTIFICATION AREA.

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

APPLICANTS, ALSO, WE'VE GOT A PRESENTATION.

>> DENNIS, CAN YOU GO BACK SEVERAL SIDES AT LEAST FIVE BACK.

I'LL TELL YOU WHEN YOU GET THERE. KEEP GOING.

MAYBE TWO MORE. STOP. THAT'S THE ONE I WANT.

THE LIGHT YELLOW ONE HERE, DOES THAT INDICATE ONE ACRE LOTS? WHAT IS THAT OR LARGER?

>> THE LIGHT YELLOW IS THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION.

THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE TO THE WEST OF THIS, THERE'S TWO PROPERTIES.

ONE UNPLATTED PROPERTY, ONE PLATTED PROPERTY.

TO THE WEST OF IT, THERE IN THE LOW DENSITY DESIGNATION, AND THEN THE PROPERTY SOUTH OF JOHNSON ROAD ARE ALL LOW DENSITY.

THE JOHNSON PLACE SUBDIVISION AND I BELIEVE THE RIDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION ARE ALL MEDIUM DENSITY.

>> THANK YOU.

>> DENNIS, JUST TO CONFIRM, WATER FLOW THERE IS SOUTH, IS THAT CORRECT, THE LOCATION?

>> COULD YOU REPEAT THAT?

>> SORRY. YOUR STORMWATER FLOW INTO DRAINAGE LOOKS LIKE IT GOES INTO A COUPLE RETENTION PONDS THAT'S FLOWING SOUTH. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THERE IS A RETENTION POND THAT CAPTURES SOME OF THE DRAINAGE FROM JOHNSON PLACE.

THE MAJORITY OF THIS DRAINAGE FLOWS BACK TOWARDS THE WEST AND THEIR DRAINAGE ANALYSIS OF THIS DOES NOT INDICATE THAT THEY WILL REQUIRE ANY DETENTION FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY, BUT IT PRIMARILY FLOWS TOWARDS A SOUTHWESTERN DIRECTION INTO THIS CHANNEL TO THE WEST OF THEM.

[00:30:02]

THIS LIGHT BLUE BOUNDARY IS THE BOUNDARY OF WHAT IS ZONE X FLOOD HAZARD, WHICH COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS A 500-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, ALTHOUGH FEMA HAS REDEFINED THAT TO A COUPLE OF PERCENTAGE CHANCES OF FLOODING HAZARDS IN THAT AREA.

>> DENNIS, WHAT WAS P&Z'S, DID THEY SPEAK TO THE REASON THEY WERE DENYING IT AT ALL?

>> I THINK, IN GENERAL, THEY DID NOT WANT TO DEFER FROM THE LAND USE PLAN.

SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THEY ASKED THE PROPERTIES JUST UNDER TWO ACRES.

A TWO-LOT DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT TECHNICALLY MEET THE DEFINITION OF A LOW DENSITY PLAN.

THEY JUST DIDN'T FEEL LIKE A THREE-LOT DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KILLOUGH? THANK YOU, DENNIS.

APPLICANT HERE WITH A PRESENTATION.

COME ON DOWN, GUYS. YOU ALL CAN STATE YOUR NAMES AND ADDRESSES FOR THE RECORD.

>> YES, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS CURTIS [INAUDIBLE] WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] GROUP, 1130 NORTH CARROLL.

>> TRAVIS FRANKS, WILLOWTREE CUSTOM HOMES, 680 NORTH CARROLL.

>> THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO GET THIS PRESENTATION.

DENNIS COVERED MOST OF IT, BUT IT IS JUST UNDER TWO ACRES AT THE END OF REMUDA COURT AND JOHNSON ROAD NEAR THE JOHNSON PLACE DEVELOPMENT.

THE LONGER DASH LINE THERE IS THE CREEK, AND IT DOES FLOW SOUTH.

THAT WAS WHAT YOU WERE ASKING.

THE SHORTER DASH LINES ARE THE EDGE OF THE FLOOD PLAIN.

THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST OF US IS PRETTY MUCH ENTIRELY IN THE FLOOD PLAIN.

WHEN WE DID JOHNSON PLACE, WHICH WAS ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO, THERE WAS TALK AT THAT TIME OF ACQUIRING BOTH OF THESE PARCELS AND RECLAIMING THE FLOOD PLAIN A LITTLE BIT AND EXTENDING THAT CUL-DE-SAC INTO THERE.

BUT WE WERE UNABLE TO GET THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME WHEN WE WERE DOING JOHNSON PLACE.

CITY COUNCIL AT THAT TIME SAID, WELL, THAT MAKES SENSE THAT IT WOULD GO THROUGH IN THE FUTURE AND THEY ASKED US TO STUB THE CUL-DE-SAC DIRECTLY TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

THIS PROPERTY WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO REMUDA COURT IF IT EVER WERE TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE. THAT'S WHAT WE DID.

THERE IS A CUL-DE-SAC CIRCLE THERE, BUT THERE'S ALSO A 50-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY THAT GOES RIGHT UP AGAINST THE PROPERTY.

IT IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BUT, OF COURSE, SO WAS JOHNSON PLACE BEFORE IT WAS DEVELOPED.

IF YOU LOOK AT A WIDER PICTURE, ALMOST ALL THE PROPERTIES NORTH OF JOHNSON EAST AND WEST OF HERE FOR QUITE A WAYS ARE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THIS PROPERTY, OF COURSE, IS RIGHT NEXT TO JOHNSON PLACE, SO IT SEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR US TO DO SOMETHING WHICH WAS SIMILAR IN SIZE TO THOSE LOTS AND COMPATIBLE.

IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED AG, THOUGH, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE REQUESTING THE REZONING.

AS I MENTIONED, THERE'S THE CREEK AND FLOOD PLAIN.

THIS WAS JOHNSON PLACE, HAD AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF JUST OVER 20,000 SQUARE FEET, SMALL AS LOTS OF 17.5, 54 TOTAL LOTS IN THERE PLUS A COUPLE OF OPEN SPACE LOTS, SOME OF WHICH ARE TENSION.

THE OTHER THING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ASKED US TO DO BACK THEN WAS TO PUT SIGNS AT THE END OF ALL THESE CUL-DE-SACS, BOTH HERE AT THE END OF REMUDA COURT, WHICH IS WHERE THIS PICTURE IS SHOWN.

BUT ALSO UP HERE, THERE'S SIMILAR SIGNS THAT FEATURE THROUGH STREET.

NONE OF THE HOMEOWNERS ON THESE LOTS IN THESE CUL-DE-SACS WOULD BE SURPRISED IF THE STREET WAS EXTENDED AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.

>> IN FACT, HERE'S A PICTURE OF THE PLAN.

YOU CAN SEE THE PLAN FOR JOHNSON'S PLACE ON THE RIGHT PART OF THIS, AND YOU CAN SEE HOW THE COLSAC WAS WIDENED TO 50 FEET AT THE END.

WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE ALIGNED THE TWO INTERNAL LOTS ON THAT, SO THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO SHARE ACCESS IN THAT 50-FOOT AREA.

I THINK THERE WAS SOME EITHER MISUNDERSTANDINGS OR MISINFORMATION THAT SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN JOHNSON PLACE COMMUNICATED TO THEIR OTHER NEIGHBORS.

[00:35:05]

THEY SAID AT THE P&Z THAT IT WAS A PRIVATE ROAD, IT IS NOT A PRIVATE ROAD, IT IS A PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY.

THEY SAID THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GET PERMISSION FROM THEIR HOA TO CROSS THIS AREA, AND THAT'S UNTRUE, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE A 50-FOOT AREA THERE.

IN FACT, THE DRIVEWAY COULD BE PUT HERE TODAY.

IF THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY WANTED TO ACCESS HIS PROPERTY FROM HERE, HE'S GOT 50 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A RIGHT AWAY.

I JUST THINK THERE WAS SOME INCORRECT STATEMENTS MADE THAT GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE HOT AND BOTHERED.

OUR THOUGHT IS THAT THIS IS A COLSAC WITH FIVE OR SIX LOTS ON IT, AND THIS WOULD CHANGE IT TO SEVEN LOTS.

THERE'S A LOT OF COLSAC IN SOUTHLAKE WITH SEVEN LOTS ON IT, AND I DON'T SEE HOW THIS WOULD BE A DISADVANTAGE TO THEM.

ANYWAY, OUR CONCEPT PLAN, THREE LOTS, MINIMUM SIZE IS 25821, AND AVERAGE SIZE OF 27.

YOU CAN SEE ON AVERAGE, OUR LOTS ARE LARGER.

ALL OF OUR LOTS ARE LARGER THAN THE JOHNSON PLACE LOTS, AND SO HERE'S OUR CONCEPT PLAN.

WE'RE SHOWING A COMMON ACCESS EASEMENT FOR LOTS 2 AND 3 COMING OFF THE COLSAC.

AS WE'VE GOT INTO THINKING ABOUT THAT, WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER THAT SHOULD BE ONE DRIVEWAY, TWO DRIVEWAYS.

I THINK WE'RE FLEXIBLE THERE, BUT WE HAVE PLENTY OF ROOM IN THE 50 FEET TO COME INTO THOSE LOTS.

THOSE DRIVEWAYS WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE DRIVEWAYS OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE GOING INTO THEIR HOMES.

HERE'S THE SITE DATA FOR OUR PROJECT, BUT ONE WAY THAT THIS COULD HAPPEN.

THIS SHOWS A SINGULAR DRIVEWAY IN THE MIDDLE THERE, COMING IN AND THEN BRANCHING OFF TO TWO HOMES.

THERE COULD ALSO BE TWO DRIVEWAYS THAT COME IN, AND THE HOMES COULD BE TILTED A LITTLE BIT.

YOU CAN SEE THE FOOT PLANE HERE, BUT THEY COULD FACE THE COLSAC AS WELL.

I THINK WE HAVE SOME RENDERINGS HERE, WE'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU.

>> THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL.

THESE AREN'T THE HOUSES THAT WILL BE THERE.

THESE ARE JUST PLOPPED IN PLACE, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO ABOUT A 45 DEGREE, WE'LL JUST SAY ANY COLSAC WOULD OFFER.

YOUR DRIVEWAYS WOULD HAVE ACTUAL DATA.

WE CAN PUT THESE ON THE NEXT SLIDE OR THE NEXT RENDERINGS ON THE SECOND READING, BUT YOU'LL HAVE 16-FOOT DRIVEWAYS.

YOU'LL HAVE A 10-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN, SO WHAT YOU SEE IN THE MIDDLE, THOUGH IT LOOKS WIDER, IT WOULD BE 10-FOOT.

YOU HAVE 16-FOOT DRIVEWAYS, WHICH IS TYPICAL DRIVEWAY STANDARD FOR US TODAY.

THEN YOU HAVE ABOUT FOUR FOOT ON THE RIGHT AWAY LEFT ON EACH SIDE.

YOU'RE REALLY MAXIMIZING THAT RIGHT AWAY SPACE TO GET TWO DRIVEWAYS IN ON THIS CONCEPT.

A COUPLE OF THINGS TO NOTE IS THAT WE WANT TO BE COMPLEMENTARY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD 100%.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUILT 20 YEARS AGO, BUT WE FEEL WE ARE ANTI-WHITE BIG BOXES THAT ARE MODERN.

WE WOULD BE VERY TRADITIONAL IN SENSE AND NATURE, WE WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL FOR THE SIZES AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE GOAL AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN THIS WOULD BE FINISHED, WOULD LOOK NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER COLSAC IN THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE ALSO WANT TO COMMENT ON THE CONSTRUCTION PIECE, THERE IS COMMENTS ABOUT CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC, AND WE WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL FOR THIS.

JUST SAY, MANY OF YOU GUYS SEE THAT WE'VE DONE MANY DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS AREA.

WE WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL TO THE NEIGHBORS AND HAVE GOOD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT THEY WANT, WHAT THEY NEED.

WE HAVE OFFERED, WE'VE RENT IT OUT TO DELTA HOTEL ROOM, WE'VE OFFERED TO HAVE MULTIPLE MEETINGS.

ALL HAS BEEN DENIED.

WE WERE TRYING TO DO WE CAN TO THE NEIGHBORS TO SEE WHAT THEY CAN DO.

WE JUST HAVE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL MEETING WITH THEM.

ONE OF THE CONCERNS WITH TRAFFIC WITH CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC.

WE ALWAYS SCREEN OUR CONSTRUCTION.

TRAFFIC-WISE, ALL CONSTRUCTION TRUCKS WOULD GO ONTO THE PROPERTY AND BE SCREENED BY AN EIGHT-FOOT PRIVACY SCREEN.

THEREFORE, THE VISIBILITY OF DEERING CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE VERY, VERY MINIMUM.

IT GETS LOCKED AT NIGHT FOR SECURITY REASONS, SO THAT'S ALSO GOING TO BE VERY MINIMUM.

WE ALSO WANT TO BE PART OF THE HOA, MEANING THAT EVENTUALLY, WHEN WE'RE FINISHED WITH THE PROJECT, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE HOA ADOPT THESE HOMES AND THESE NEW HOMEOWNERS INTO THE HOA TO BE RESPECTFUL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE ARCHITECTURE, GOING BACK TO THE SIMILAR STYLES.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WOULD BE THE NEW HOMES VERSUS THE OLDER HOMES, BUT AS FAR AS PRICE POINTS GO, AGAIN, TRYING TO TARGET A PRICE POINT THAT EMULATES THE NEIGHBORHOOD CURRENTLY.

WE'RE NOT TRYING TO BUILD A $5 MILLION HOME ON AN AVERAGE SALE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD 2-2, THREE, 24, DEPENDING ON THE HOUSE.

WE REALLY WANT TO BE OVERALL, JUST JUST RESPECTFUL TO EVERYBODY AROUND US.

[00:40:03]

THESE NEXT RENDERINGS WE DO ON THE NEXT, READING TWO, WE'LL GIVE YOU VERY SPECIFIC MEASUREMENTS AND ANGLES AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO KIND OF GIVE YOU REALLY A RESEMBLANCE OF WHAT WE COULD DO ON THE COLSAC TO MAKE IT NOT LOOK LIKE IT WAS FORCED IN.

THAT'S MY PART OF THE PRESENTATION.

>> SUPER THANK YOU, TRAVIS.

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT. WE'LL BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS YOU HAVE.

>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

>> THE RECORD WE ASKED THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE HOA.

ARE THESE THREE HOMES FOR SURE GOING TO BE A PART OF THAT HOA?

>> WE HAVE OFFERED TO JOIN THEIR HOA.

IF THEY WANT US, OBVIOUSLY, IT'S UP TO THEM, BUT WE'VE OFFERED TO PAY THEIR DUES AND JOIN THEIR HOA TO SUPPORT THEM.

I KNOW THEY'RE STRUGGLING TO MAINTAIN SOME OF THEIR OPEN SPACE THINGS.

WE'VE EVEN OFFERED TO MAYBE DO SOME PLANS FOR THAT TO SHOW HOW THAT COULD BE BE IMPROVED.

>> I WANT TO SPEAK THAT GREAT QUESTION.

ONE OF OUR PIECE OFFERINGS, IF YOU WILL, THAT THEY HAVE A PRETTY LARGE OPEN SPACE THAT'S NORTH OF THIS AND WE OFFERED THAT WE WOULD DO A VALUE OF $20,000 A LANDSCAPE PLAN DESIGNED WITH RENDERINGS TO INFILL THAT OPEN SPACE THAT HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN CARE OF, THAT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED.

WE'RE OFFERING THESE THINGS IMPROVED THEIR HOA AS WELL AS WE WOULD LIKE TO JOIN IT IF THEY WOULD ALLOW US WHEN THE HOMES ARE BUILT.

>> ON THE HOA QUESTION, IF THEY WOULD HAVE YOU, WHAT POINT WOULD YOU JOIN? AT WHAT POINT WOULD YOU JOIN?

>> WE WOULD LIKE TO JOIN WHEN WE GET A HOMEOWNER MOVED DOWN, THE HOUSE IS COED.

>> NOT UNTIL THERE'S SOMEBODY IN THE HOUSE, NOT BEFORE THAT.

>> CORRECT.

>> ON THE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC, ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK THEIR CONCERN WAS, COULD YOU BRING IT IN FROM JOHNSON RATHER THAN OFF THE COLSAC THERE?

>> I THINK, AGAIN, WILLING TO DO THAT, LOVE THAT IDEA.

I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY CHALLENGING IN A SENSE THAT PREDICT THE SALABILITY OF WHICH ONE SELLS FIRST, BUT LET'S SAY THAT WE HOLD OFF ON LOT 1 OFF THE JOHNSON ROW AND JUST NOT PUT THAT ON THE MARKET UNTIL TWO AND THREE ARE BUILT, I WOULD BE WILLING TO DO THAT 100%.

TRAFFIC WOULD ENTER OFF OF LOT 1.

>> ONE THING ON THAT.

FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, I THINK WE COULD TOTALLY COME IN ON JOHNSON ROW.

THE DEVELOPMENT WHERE WE PREPARE THE GRADING AND PUT THE UTILITIES AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.

I THINK THAT'D BE EASY TO ONLY COME UP OF JOHNSON ROW, AND WE'D CERTAINLY BE WILLING TO DO THAT.

I THINK ONCE YOU BEGIN THE HOUSES, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

>> BUT I WOULD SAY THAT I'D BE WILLING TO PUT LOT 1 ON HOLD AND LET LOT 2 AND 3B.

FIRST TO BE BUILT TO USE AS MUCH AS ACCESS WE CAN OFF JOHNS IN 100%.

AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE EIGHT PRIVACY FENCES, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD RUN THE PROPERTY LINE AND AGAIN, LOCKED AND GATED AT NIGHT AFTER WORK DAYS AND ON WEEKENDS.

IT WOULD BE A NON-VISIBLE CONSTRUCTION TO THE NEIGHBORS.

>> WHAT KIND OF WORK SCHEDULE WOULD YOU HAVE? LIKE FROM WHEN TO WHEN IN DURING THE DAY?

>> IT WOULD JUST BE NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.

TYPICALLY, THE BEGINNING, IT GETS EARLIER, BECAUSE OF THE HEAT WHEN THEY'RE OUTSIDE WORKING.

BUT ONCE WE GET MORE OF THE INSIDE, TYPICALLY SOMEWHERE 839-3-4.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY ANTICIPATION EVER REALLY TO WORK ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS, AND OBVIOUSLY NOT HOLIDAYS AS WELL.

JUST BE YOUR NORMAL MONDAY TO FRIDAY.

>> THANK YOU.

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> I HAVE HAVE A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION FOR YOU GUYS, BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE.

LET'S USE ON REMUS COURT, WE NEITHER USE THE TWO PROPERTIES AT THE END OF THE COLSAC OR THE TWO AT THE BOTTOM.

LET'S LOOK AT THE NORTH SIDE. YOU GOT A PROPERTY THERE.

CURRENTLY AT THE END OF THE COLSAC, AND YOU'VE GOT ONE TO THE RIGHT.

I CAN SEE THAT THE ONE ON THE LEFT IS SLIGHTLY LARGER, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT BIGGER AND SQUARE FOOTAGE.

BUT WOULD YOU SAY THAT IF YOU WERE A BUYER, THAT THE VALUE PER SQUARE FOOT FOR THE PROPERTY THAT'S CURRENTLY AT THE END OF THE COLSAC WOULD BE MORE THAN THE ONE THAT'S NOT AT THE END OF THE COLSAC?

>> LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE VALUE OF OUR TWO LOTS WOULD BE BETTER THAN THAT?

>> NO, I'M SAYING, THE ONES THAT ARE THERE NOW, IF THOSE WERE EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE, LET'S SAY EACH ONE WAS 30,000 SQUARE FEET, SO THE 30,000 SQUARE FOOT AT THE END OF A COLSAC, DOES IT HAVE A HIGHER VALUE OR LOWER VALUE THAN ONE, NOT AT THE END OF THE COLSAC?

>> WELL, THINK OF THE PRIVILEGE OF LOOKING OUT ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY RIGHT NOW WITHOUT ANY HOMES ON IT.

THAT WOULD GO AWAY CERTAINLY ON THIS.

[00:45:01]

THE HOUSE THAT'S NEAR THE FOOT PLANE OR THE OPEN SPACE WOULD, I THINK ALWAYS HAVE AN EXTRA BOOST IN VALUE.

>> MY CONCERN WOULD BE THAT BY ADDING THESE TWO HOUSES AT THE END OF THE COLSAC, YOU NOW CREATE TWO HOUSES AT THE END OF THE COLSAC, WHICH THEN BLOCKS THE AESTHETIC APPEAL OF THE TWO HOUSES THAT ARE CURRENTLY AT THE END OF THE COLSAC.

WHEN THEY GO TO SELL THEIR HOUSE, THEY BOUGHT THEIR HOUSE LIKELY.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I USED TO LIVE AT THE END OF THE COLSAC.

THE REASON WHY WE BOUGHT OUR HOUSE AT THE END OF THE COLSAC WAS IT WAS AT THE END OF THE COLSAC AND IT WAS NICE AND WE COULD AFFORD IT.

BUT MY EXPECTATION WOULD BE THE VALUE OF THOSE PROPERTIES WOULD GO DOWN BECAUSE YOU ADDED TWO ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES AT THE END OF THE COLSAC IS KIND OF MY QUESTION AND POINT.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF STATISTICALLY, IF I CAN GIVE YOU ANY STATISTICS AT THIS POINT, OBVIOUSLY, I LOOK INTO THAT THAT IF THE HOUSE NORTH DEVALUES BY A PERCENTAGE BECAUSE THERE'S ANOTHER HOUSE NOW NEXT DOOR TO IT.

THE THE HOMEOWNER PLANS ON BUILDING A HOUSE, THE LAND OWNER.

I'M NOT THE LAND OWNER, IS TO BUILD IT AND HAVE IT ACCESSIBLE OFF THAT ROAD ANYWAY.

I GUESS THE OUTCOME WILL BE THE SAME IN A SENSE OF, I THINK ALL COLSAC LOTS REGARDLESS IT'S ON THE FIRST START OF THE COLSAC OR THE VERY TIP OF THE INSIDE OF IT, I THINK VALUE THE SAME.

OBVIOUSLY, OUR PRICE POINT WILL BE MORE BECAUSE IT'S NEWER.

BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A DROP AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S A DEVALUE OF LOCATION OF THE COLSAC ANYWHERE IN THERE BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A SMALL COLSAC. THAT'S MY POINT.

>> BUT I AM I CORRECT, THOUGH, IN DIRECTOR KILLOUGH PRESENTATION THAT THE COUNCIL THAT APPROVED THIS ORIGINALLY REQUIRED A THROUGH STREET SIGN?

>> YES.

>> PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED AT THE END OF THE COLSAC.

CLEARLY, ANYBODY THAT IS BUYING EITHER OF THOSE HOMES AT THE END OF THE COLSAC SEES A SIGN THAT SAYS THROUGH STREET, SO THEY KNOW THOSE ARE NOT GOING TO FOREVER BE THE END OF THE COLSAC?

>> EXACTLY. YES.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS?

>> IS THERE ANYTHING TO KEEP, IF YOU DID GO FORWARD WITH THIS AS AN ALTERNATIVE THOUGHT OF MAYBE MODIFYING THAT ROAD OF REMUS COURT SO THAT THE ACTUAL COLSAC LOCATION ITSELF WAS MORE ONTO THE TWO NORTHERN PROPERTIES TWO AND THREE.

MAYBE GIFTING I KNOW THE CITY OWNS LAND NOW, BUT WORKING SOMEHOW TO PURCHASE THAT AND GIFTING THOSE SECTIONS OF THAT EXISTING COLSAC TO THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> IT MAKES SENSE. I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE TROUBLE FOR THOSE TWO HOMES ON THE END OF THE COLSAC TO TEAR UP THAT COLSAC AND MOVE IT FURTHER IN THAN THEY WOULD LIKE.

IF I WAS THEM, I'D SAY JUST LEAVE IT WELL ENOUGH ALONE.

>> I THINK ANOTHER AESTHETIC MAYBE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION WOULD BE, IF WE WERE NOT TO DO THE SINGULAR DRIVEWAY, WHICH THIS IS MY LEAST FAVORITE VERSION, BUT TO DO IT AS TWO INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAYS, THE CIRCLE WOULD FEEL LIKE A NORMAL COLSAC AND I THINK AESTHETICALLY, IF YOU WEREN'T IN OUR BUSINESS, AND THEY WOULDN'T REALIZE THAT IT WAS DONE LATER, I GUESS IF THE HOMES WERE IF I FLOPPED IN OVER HOME THERE, YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THAT THAT WAS AN ADDED THOUGHT.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I WILL BE WILLING TO COMMUNICATE WITH ANYTHING WITH ANYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR SURE.

>> THE DESIRE, AS I THINK A LOT OF US KNOW OF A COLSAC IS NOT A LOT OF THROUGH TRAFFIC.

IT'S NOT WHETHER YOU'RE AT THE END OF THE BEGINNING OF IT, IT'S THAT YOU CAN RUN AROUND, CHILDREN CAN PLAY, AND THERE'S NOT A LOT OF CARS GOING THROUGH THERE A LOT.

I DON'T KNOW, I FEEL LIKE IF YOU REMOVED THAT CIRCULAR COLSAC AND PUSHED IT DOWN KIND OF CREATES A LESSER DESIRABLE SITUATION.

>> I AGREE.

>> BECAUSE THAT'S IDEALLY, IT'S MORE SPACE TO PLAY.

THAT'S THE DESIRABLE COLSAC, AT LEAST.

I NEVER GREW UP ON ONE, BUT I ALWAYS THOUGHT IT'D BE COOL, BUT THAT'S HOW I VIEW IT.

>> WELL, THAT ONE I SHOWED YOU, IF I CAN BRING THAT UP REAL QUICK.

I KNOW TO TRY TO GET ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE ATHETIC SIDE OF IT.

I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED TO DO IS THAT'S WHY I DID THE 10-FOOT MIDDLE LINK AGAIN, JUST PRETEND THAT'S A 10-FOOT IN THE MIDDLE, AND THAT WOULD GIVE YOU A DRIVEWAY.

THAT WOULD GIVE YOU THAT COLD AND SAT COMPLETE FEEL OF WHAT IT IS. YOU'RE NOT MESSING WITH THE CIRCLE.

>> GO AHEAD. I ASSUME WE CAN PUT THAT IN THE MOTION, CAN'T WE THAT WE WOULD BECAUSE I AGREE, I THINK THE ONE THAT'S PRESENTED IN THE ORIGINAL WITH THE SINGLE.

LOOKS ODD AND KIND OF KILLS THAT.

BUT THIS IS PERFECTLY FINE TO ME.

THAT'S WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED.

THAT WOULD BE BEST CASE COMING OFF THE COLSAC RIGHT THERE.

BECAUSE I DON'T I DON'T REALLY CONSIDER THOSE TWO HOUSES THAT ARE THERE AT THE END OF THE COLSAC.

AT THE END OF THE COLSAC WAS WHAT THIS IS, TO ME.

>> WHAT YOU COULD HAVE HAD IS A SINGLE ROAD GO THROUGH HERE

[00:50:02]

OVER THE FLOODPLAIN AND CONNECTING FURTHER AND THEN THE COLSAC TRULY GONE.

>> SURE, I'M ASSUMING THE TWO INTERIOR LOTS ARE BIGGER THAN THE ONE THAT BUMPS UP TO JOHNSON BECAUSE OF THIS RIGHT AWAY, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> JUST TO CONFIRM, I KNOW THAT THERE'S THAT FUTURE THREE STREET SIGN, BUT THAT'S 20-YEARS-OLD.

SOMEBODY WHO WAS BORN THERE CAN NOW, DRINK A MARGARITA.

THAT TYPE OF DISTANCE IN TIME IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

>> I WAS STANDING HERE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 20 YEARS AGO.

THE SIGN IS PROBABLY ONLY ABOUT 18-YEARS-OLD.

>> I DON'T KNOW, JUST THE FEELING TO ME WOULD BE LIKE IF IF I WAS AN OWNER IN THERE IN A COLSAC AND I WAS THERE FROM THE BEGINNING EVEN AND I'M LOOKING AT THIS THING FOR 20 YEARS, AT SOME POINT, YOU FIGURE THAT THIS IS HOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS SUPPOSED TO BE. BUT ANYWAY.

>> WELL, MAYBE THIS IS MORE DISCUSSION FOR COUNSEL.

IT'S NOT A QUESTION FOR APPLICANT RIGHT NOW.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS RIGHT NOW? STICK AROUND, GUYS AND THEN HAS MORE QUESTIONS.

>> APPRECIATION.

>> ITEM 7A AND 7D DO NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 7A AND 7D, AND I'LL INVITE PEOPLE TO COME ON DOWN AND SPEAK ON THOSE ITEMS IF THEY WISH.

I'LL NOTE FOR THE RECORD. THE CITY SENT OUT 27 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATIONS.

AS OF TODAY, WE HAD 24 WRITTEN RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION, AND THOSE ARE PART OF THE RECORD.

I ALSO NOTE THAT WE HAVE SOME COMMENT CARDS HERE FROM PEOPLE WHO WISH TO SPEAK AND SOME PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

YOU CAN, OF COURSE, CHANGE YOUR MIND IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, AND YOU INDICATED YOU DID NOT.

YOU'RE CERTAINLY WELCOME, IF YOU INDICATED YOU DID WISH TO SPEAK, BUT CHANGE YOUR MIND, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPEAK.

BUT I'LL JUST CALL OUT THESE NAMES IN THE ORDER THAT I HAVE THEM, AND COME ON DOWN.

FIRST STEP IS MIGUEL REYES AT 20 408 TOP TRAIL HERE IN SOUTHLAKE, WISHES TO SPEAK AND HAS CHECKED OPPOSITION.

MIGUEL REYES.

NO.

>> NEXT UP IS TRAN WYNN AT 2309 RANCH HOUSE DRIVE, WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 7A AND 7B.

GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.

NEXT UP IS CHRIS GRAYS AT 2301 RANCH HOUSE DRIVE.

I THINK IT'S CHRIS GRAYS, 2301 RANCH HOUSE DRIVE, WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 7A AND 7B? NO. NEXT UP IS SUSAN FRENCH AT 2401 REMUDA COURT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 7A AND 7B. GO AHEAD. THAT'S YOU.

>> THAT'S ME.

>> WELCOME. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

THE THE GREEN LIGHT WILL COME ON TO GO.

WHEN IT GETS TO ONE MINUTE, THE YELLOW LIGHT WILL COME ON, AND THEN WHEN THE RED LIGHT COMES UP, THEN THAT'S TIME TO WRAP IT UP, BUT GO AHEAD.

YOU HAVE THE THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

>> SUSAN FRENCH, 2401 REMUDA COURT.

THIS APPLICATION PRIMARILY AFFECTS RESIDENTS ON REMUDA COURT AND THE PROPERTY WHOSE BACKYARDS FACE THE LOT FROM TOP RAIL LANE.

BUT WE HAVE OVER 50% OF OUR ENTIRE SUBDIVISION OPPOSED TO THE APPLICANT'S PLAN.

I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL OF US IN OPPOSITION.

THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED FOR AT LEAST FOUR ADDITIONAL REASONS AND MAYBE ONE MORE THAT I HEARD TONIGHT.

FIRST, THERE'S NO FRONTAGE FOR LOTS 2 AND 3.

UNDER OUR CITY ORDINANCES, AND I THINK IT'S 483, EVERY LOT NEEDS TO FRONT ON A DEDICATED PUBLIC STREET.

THE APPLICANT'S LOT DOES NOT FRONT ON REMUDA COURT, IT FRONTS ON JOHNSON ROAD.

I'VE SUBMITTED COPIES TONIGHT OF WHAT THE END OF REMUDA COURT LOOKS LIKE, AND I PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED A COPY OF OUR RECORDED PLOT FOR JOHNSON PLACE.

SECOND, THE COPIES WILL SHOW THAT THERE IS OVER 10 FEET OF HOA OWNED PROPERTY AT THE END OF THE CUL DE SAC, WHERE THERE IS A LANDSCAPING STRIP, A SIDEWALK, AND THE HOA'S WROUGHT IRON FENCE PRIOR TO REACHING THE APPLICANT'S LOT.

THE FLAT SHOWS THERE IS A FINISHED CUL DE SAC.

IT'S NOT STUBBED OUT AND NO RECORDED ACCESS EASEMENT AT THE END OF REMUDA COURT WITH WHICH TO CONNECT THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED LOTS 2 AND 3.

THIRD. WITHOUT FRONTAGE OR THEIR LOT DIRECTLY ABUTTING OUR STREET, THE APPLICANT CANNOT CREATE ACCESS BY TRESPASSING ACROSS SOMEONE ELSE'S LAND, EVEN IF THERE IS A PUBLIC ROAD JUST BEYOND.

A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY DOES NOT GIVE AN ADJACENT LAND OWNER THE RIGHT TO BUILD A DRIVEWAY OVER INTERVENING LAND WHEN THEIR PROPERTY DOES NOT FRONT ON THE ADJACENT STREET.

THEY NEED EITHER A RECORDED EASEMENT OR A REPLATTING THAT DEDICATED THAT NEW FRONTAGE AS WELL AS HOA APPROVAL.

[00:55:01]

FOURTH, FINALLY, FROM LOOKING AT THE CITY'S 2035 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, THE APPLICANT'S LOT IS ONE OF SEVEN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF JOHNSON ROAD, DESIGNATED AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

TWO OF THOSE SEVEN HAVE EITHER BUILT A RECENT SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR ARE STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

IF MEDIUM DENSITY IS APPROVED FOR THE APPLICANT'S LOT, IT COULD CREATE A SLIPPERY SLOPE AND CHANGE THE RURAL NATURE OF JOHNSON ROAD AND THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE 2035 PLAN WAS TRYING TO PRESERVE.

I ALSO WANTED TO STAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE SIGNS THAT WERE THERE AT THE END OF THE CUL DE SAC, THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE AT ANOTHER END OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT IS THEY WERE 18-YEARS-OLD.

THEY'VE BEEN IN THERE FOREVER.

I BUILT MY PROPERTY KNOWING THAT THERE WERE SIGNS THERE.

BUT ONCE TOLL BROTHERS AND MADE DEVELOPMENT TURNED OVER THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE HOA, THE PLATE WAS RECORDED.

THERE WAS NO EASEMENT, AND NOW IT'S ALL UNDER HOA CONTROL.

THE COPIES THAT I'VE SHOWN YOU SHOW SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S BEING DISPLAYED ON THE IMAGES THAT YOU'RE BEING SHOWN.

I HOPE YOU CONSIDER ALL THESE REASONS FOR MY OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. I'LL NOTE THAT YOU ALSO LOOKS LIKE SUBMITTED AN ONLINE COMMENT FORM. WE HAVE THAT AS WELL.

WE HAVE BOTH OF THOSE IN THE RECORD.

NEXT, WE HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT FORM FROM LAWRENCE LANGFORD AT 2405 REMUDA COURT, WHICH IS A SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 7A AND 7B. YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU.

>> IF YOU COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, EVEN THOUGH I JUST DID IT, BUT THEN YOU'LL HAVE THOSE THREE MINUTES.

>> ABSOLUTELY. LAWRENCE LANGFORD, 2405 REMUDA COURT.

WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED HERE WOULD PERMANENTLY ALTER OUR ESTABLISHED QUIET CUL DE SAC OF FIVE HOMEOWNERS AND THEIR FAMILIES, HAVING LIVED THERE ALMOST 20 YEARS.

THIS WOULD UNREASONABLY INVADE THE RIGHTS OF US WHO BOUGHT AND IMPROVED OUR PROPERTY WITH OUR INITIAL INVESTMENTS.

I'D LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT DESPITE WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD, WE DO NOT HAVE A TEMPORARY CUL DE SAC.

WE HAVE A CUL DE SAC.

IF IT WERE INTENDED TO BE TEMPORARY, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A DEAD END.

SO REALISTICALLY, IT WAS UNLIKELY TO EVER HAVE BEEN A THROUGH STREET, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE BUILDER FINISHED THE 54TH HOUSE.

ONE PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD NOT SUPERSEDE THE NEEDS OF FIVE ESTABLISHED HOMEOWNERS ON REMUDA COURT AND IMPACTING MANY OTHER HOMEOWNERS IN JOHNSON PLACE.

WE WERE ONE OF THE FIRST HOMEOWNERS TO BUILD IN JOHNSON PLACE IN 2008.

WE LOVE LIVING IN SOUTHLAKE AND THE LIFESTYLES THAT WE HAVE HERE.

WE WANT TO LIVE HERE WITH OUR FAMILIES.

WE BUILT OUR LIVES HERE.

THIS PROPOSAL WOULD GO AGAINST EVERYTHING SOUTHLAKE STANDS FOR.

ALL HOMEOWNERS ON REMUDA COURT OPPOSE THIS WITHIN 200 FEET, AS STATED, NINE OUT OF 13 HOMEOWNERS OPPOSE.

70%, OVER 30 HOMEOWNERS IN JOHNSON PLACE OPPOSE THESE AGENDA ITEMS, AND OVERWHELMING NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION.

[NOISE] IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAND USE DIAGRAM PROJECTED FURTHER EAST TO DAVIS RANDALL MILL, YOU WILL SEE NORTH AND SOUTH OF JOHNSON ROAD, EXCEPT FOR JOHNSON PLACE, ALL OF THOSE ARE LOW DENSITY STATUS.

OUR MESSAGE TO THE APPLICANT IS THIS.

YOU CAN'T JUST TEAR THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE YOU WANT TO, BECAUSE YOU WANT TO DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE ENTITLED TO.

MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU DENY AGENDA ITEM 7A AND 7B PRESENTED AT THIS MEETING IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE UNANIMOUS DENIAL BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEMBERS OF WHICH MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN ON PRIOR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

NEXT, WE HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT FORM FROM THOMAS MACK AT 2412 RANCH HOUSE DRIVE, WHICH DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT RECORDS OPPOSITION TO 7A AND 7B.

DOES MR. MACK HERE, CHANGE YOUR MIND? NO. WE'LL RECORD THAT AS OPPOSITION.

NEXT IS WEST VAUGHN AT 300 CORAL COURT HERE IN SOUTHLAKE.

RECORDS OPPOSITION.

DOES NOT STATE WHETHER YOU WANT TO SPEAK OR NOT, MR. VAUGHN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK?

[01:00:02]

>> NO.

>> WE'LL PUT YOU DOWN AS OPPOSED TO 7A AND 7B. WE HAVE YOUR COMMENT CARD.

JEFFREY MOFFATT, 2620 JOHNSON ROAD, RECORDS OPPOSITION, DOES NOT INDICATE WHETHER WISHES TO SPEAK OR NOT. MR. MOFFATT.

NOT HERE. WE'LL RECORD THAT OPPOSITION IN THE RECORD.

SIDNEY CHOW, 2312 ANCHUSA DRIVE RECORDS OPPOSITION TO 7A AND 7B.

AGAIN, DOES NOT INDICATE WHETHER SPEAKING OR NOT SPEAKING.

SIDNEY? WE'LL RECORD THAT OPPOSITION.

JOHN HUDGENS AT 2316 RANCH HOUSE DRIVE HERE IN SOUTHLAKE IS OPPOSED TO 7A AND 7B.

DOES NOT INDICATE WHETHER SPEAKING OR NOT.

MR. HUDGENS HERE? NO. WE'LL RECORD THAT OPPOSITION TO 7A AND 7B.

JAMIE GLASS HIPCHIN, 2405 RANCH HOUSE DRIVE IS OPPOSED TO 7A AND 7B.

DOES NOT STATE WHETHER SPEAKING OR NOT.

JAMIE HERE? WE'LL RECORD THAT OPPOSITION TO 7A AND 7B.

MIRIAM TANAMU AT 2408 REMUDA COURT.

DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT RECORDS OPPOSITION TO 7A AND 7B.

MARY BETH SCHWARZHOF, AT 2409 RANCH HOUSE DRIVE HERE IN SOUTHLAKE, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT RECORDS OPPOSITION TO 7A AND 7B.

JEFFREY KEARNAN AT 2417 TOP RAIL LANE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT RECORDS OPPOSITION TO 7A AND 7B? COME ON DOWN, SIR.

>> SURE.

>> COME ON DOWN. JUST IN TIME.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN YOU'LL GET THE THREE MINUTES LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

>> HONORABLE MAYOR, HONORABLE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL.

IT'S A PRIVILEGED TO BE IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING, JEFFREY KEARNAN, K-E-A-R-N-A-N.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY AND RESPOND TO THREE QUESTIONS THAT THREE OF YOU HAD THIS EVENING DURING THE PRESENTATION.

CAN SOMEONE PULL UP THE OVERHEAD MAP, SO I USE THAT AS A REFERENCE, PLEASE? YEAH, JUST A MINUTE. YES. YEAH, I DON'T WANT TO TOUCH ANYTHING.

>> THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU.

IS THIS ONE IS FINE.

>> SURE. THANK YOU.

THREE QUESTIONS WERE BROUGHT FORTH.

ONE WAS ON WATER FLOW, ONE WAS ON THE STREET SIGN, ONE WAS ON VALUATION.

I WOULD LIKE TO JUST CLARIFY SOME OF THOSE.

THE STREET SIGN WAS REMOVED, I THINK A WEEK OR TWO AGO BY THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE. IT WAS TAKEN DOWN.

I DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT THEY WERE THERE AND IT WAS TAKEN DOWN, SO THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION ON THAT.

[NOISE] THE VALUATION QUESTION WAS EXCELLENT.

WE LIVE AT 2417 TOP RAIL LANE, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY NORTH OF THE PROPOSED LOT NUMBER 3.

IT'S JUST TO THE NORTH OF THAT RED RECTANGLE AND THE REASON WHY WE PURCHASED THAT PROPERTY THREE YEARS AGO WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS A PASTURE IN THE BACKYARD, AND MY DAUGHTER'S FELL IN LOVE WITH IT.

THERE'S SOME HORSES BACK THERE AND THE POND.

THAT WAS THE PRIMARY REASON WHY WE PURCHASED THAT.

HAVING LOOKING AT A 2.5 STORY HOUSE WILL DEFINITELY DEPRECIATE OUR INTEREST THERE.

MY WIFE IS CONCERNED WHAT THAT MAY LOOK LIKE AND CONSIDERING MAYBE POSSIBLY RELOCATING BECAUSE IT DOES AFFECT US IN THE WATER FLOW.

ONE THING THAT WAS PRESENTED WAS THERE'S A CREEK FROM THAT TOP LEFT POND THAT SWAYS INTO THE PROPERTY AND THEN FILTERS OUT ONTO JOHNSON ROAD.

WELL, THAT CREEK MORE OR LESS FILLS THE 2540 LOT, IT'S A MARSHY BACKYARD THERE.

THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION 2530, BETWEEN THE POND AND MY HOUSE, THAT IS A WETLAND, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT RAINS OUT.

BUT THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TWO YEARS AGO INSTALLED A STORM WATER DRAINAGE FOR THE ENTIRE WEST SIDE OF THE JOHNSON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

BOTH STREETS, ALL OF THE DRAINAGE FROM THE STORM DRAINS FLOWS

[01:05:01]

UNDER MY DRIVEWAY AND IT FLOWS INTO THE BACKYARD OF 2530.

IF YOU SEE THE OVERHEAD, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE LINE THAT HAS BEEN CUT OUT FROM THE WATER FLOW.

THAT'S ACTUALLY CUT INTO THE EARTH.

IT'S SO DEEP THAT THE HORSES CANNOT CROSS THAT BECAUSE IT'S TOO DANGEROUS FOR THEM, AND THAT FLOWS, EVERY TIME IT RAINS AND EVERY TIME PEOPLE SPRINKLERS GO OFF, IT JUST FLOWS WATER DOWN THERE.

IT'S ON A DAILY BASIS.

ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF MY PROPERTY, LOOKING AT THE MAP, WE'RE ON THE HIGH GROUND.

THE PROPERTY TO MY RIGHT, 2113 IS ALSO ON THE HIGH GROUND, AND THEN 2408 REMUDA, IS ALSO AT A HIGHER ELEVATION.

THOSE THREE PROPERTIES WHEN THE SPRINKLERS ARE ON OR WHEN IT RAINS OUT, THE WATER FLOWS INTO 2530, AND IT FILLS THAT POND.

THAT POND IS GETTING WATER ALMOST ON A DAILY BASIS.

THAT'S A CATCH BASIN.

THAT TRULY IS A WETLAND BACK THERE.

I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION AND WE ROUND.

>> YOUR TIME IS UP, IF YOU COULD WRAP IT UP.

I KNOW WE HAD A DELAY WITH GETTING THE OVERHEAD UP IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE I NEEDED TO ADD.

>> YOU ASKED ABOUT WATER FLOW.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE THAT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> NEXT UP IS PATRICK OGBU AT 305 TRAIL DUST DRIVE, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT RECORDS OPPOSITION TO 7A AND 7B.

NEXT IS SAME API DAYA AT 2404 REMUDA COURT.

I APOLOGIZE ON THE NAME PRONUNCIATION.

DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT RECORDS OPPOSITION TO 7A AND 7B.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT A CARD OR WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON 7A OR 7B? WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 7A AND 7B.

COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KILLOUGH OR THE APPLICANTS.? WELL, MY THOUGHTS ON THIS ARE P&Z DENIED IT.

I KNOW IT'S A WEIRD SITUATION WHERE WE'VE GOT LOW DENSITY RIGHT BESIDE AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S MEDIUM DENSITY.

I THINK I'D BE IN FAVOR OF, SAY, A ONE ACRE LOT FRONTING JOHNSON, AND THEN SOMETHING A LITTLE OBVIOUSLY BE A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN ONE ACRE, BUT PRETTY CLOSE TO BEING LOW DENSITY.

AT THE END OF THE CUL DE SAC, THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE, BUT THAT'S JUST MY TWO CENTS ON HAVING TWO LOTS RATHER THAN THREE.

I GET THAT IT'S NOT QUITE TWO ACRES, BUT THAT'S WHERE I'M AT ON THIS. COUNCIL?

>> I DID LISTEN TO THE PNC MEETING AND THEY MADE AN INTERESTING POINT THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN THROUGH TWO OR THREE EVALUATIONS OF 2035, I THINK, BEING THE LAST AND THE MASTER PLAN, AND NEVER HAS THAT BEEN CHANGED FROM TO MEDIUM DENSITY.

IT'S BEEN LOW DENSITY.

AS A GENERAL RULE, MY CONCERN IS THAT IF WE ALLOW THAT TO GO TO MEDIUM DENSITY, WHAT'S TO STOP THE HOUSES LIKE MAYBE NOT THE WETLAND, THE 2540, BUT THE ONES ACROSS THE STREET TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY AND WANT TO PUT MULTIPLE HOUSES THERE.

IN GENERAL, I AGREE WITH PNC AND I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS.

>> THE MORE I THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND THE MORE LOOKED INTO IT AND JUST HEARING SOME OF THE DISCUSSION TODAY FROM RESIDENTS.

I THINK MAYER, I TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU.

I THINK TWO PROPERTIES ON HERE.

BRINGING IT AS CLOSE AS IT COULD BE TO LOW DENSITY OR TO WHAT IS NEIGHBORING.

WOULDN'T MAKE MORE SENSE.

CUL-DE-SACS ARE HIGHLY DESIRABLE.

IF YOU TALK TO ANY REALTOR THAT'S A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.

SAFETY, THE KIDS CAN RUN AROUND AND PLAY AND NEIGHBORS GET TO KNOW NEIGHBORS.

I THINK THERE'S VALUE IN PUTTING A HOME THERE FOR WHOEVER BUYS IT AND FOR MAKING NEW FRIENDS WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS ON THE STREET.

BUT ESPECIALLY WITH THE LAYOUT, AND THERE'S JUST SOME ODD THINGS ABOUT IT.

I THINK I COULD BE INTERESTED IN SEEING WHAT TWO HOMES WOULD LOOK LIKE, BUT TODAY, I CAN'T GET WRAPPED AROUND THE THREE.

>> I UNDERSTAND THE COUPLE OF THINGS.

GENTLEMEN THAT OWNS 2417, I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE GUY, THE OWNERS OF 2530, THEY DO HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

THEY DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD ON THAT PROPERTY.

IF THEY DO BUILD SOMETHING ON THAT PROPERTY, THERE'S NOTHING REALLY TO STOP THEM FROM DOING THAT AND

[01:10:01]

YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT A HOUSE OF SOME TYPE.

IT WOULD ALSO APPLY TO THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE ON THE CUL-DE-SAC.

THAT BEING SAID, I THINK, 20 YEARS IS A LONG TIME.

IF I BOUGHT AT THAT CUL-DE-SAC, I WOULD HAVE BOUGHT ONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES ALONG THAT CUL-DE-SAC WERE BUILT ON THAT CUL-DE-SAC WITH THE EXPECTATION WAS GOING TO STAY AT CUL-DE-SAC, AND IT NEVER HAS CHANGED FROM THAT.

I DO FEEL THAT THEIR VALUES OF THEIR PROPERTIES WOULD BE IMPACTED, NOT NECESSARILY BY LOOKING AT A PROPERTY THAT GETS BUILT ON 2530, BUT JUST BY THE FACT THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY ON A CUL-DE-SAC AND NOW THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT THEY'RE AT THE END OF A CUL-DE-SAC.

IT WAS AN RPD BUILT NEIGHBORHOOD 20 YEARS AGO.

I THINK IF THE INTENT WAS TO HAD 2530 AS PART OF THAT RPD THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

THE LAST THING THAT I WANT TO BRING UP IS DRAINAGE.

THERE ARE A LOT OF FOLKS HAVE BROUGHT UP SOME ISSUES WITH DRAINAGE MORE RECENTLY IN SOUTHLAKE.

I CAN SEE SEVERAL RETENTION PONDS THAT ARE ALL CONNECTED TOGETHER.

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD ON TOP OF THAT POND THAT'S THERE NOW, BUT IN ANY EVENT, I THINK THAT DRAINAGE WOULD BE A BIG ISSUE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. GO AHEAD.

>> COUPLE OF COMMENTS. I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IF I LIVED ON THE STREET, I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE HALF ACRE LOTS LIKE WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

THE ALTERNATIVE IS MEDIUM DENSITY, SO WE'RE TALKING ONE ACRE LOTS.

FROM A UNIFORMITY STANDPOINT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO MASSIVE HOMES, 08,000, 10,000 SQUARE FOOT HOMES AS YOUR ALTERNATIVE IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS.

I FEEL LIKE IF THEY WANT TO BE IN THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND HELP PAY THE FREIGHT, THEN THAT SEEMS PRETTY FRIENDLY IN MY OPINION.

BUT I'M SURPRISED BY THE PUSHBACK BECAUSE I JUST WOULD THINK YOU WOULDN'T WANT MASSIVE HOMES DWARFING THE SIZE OF THESE NEIGHBORING HOMES BECAUSE SOMETHING'S GOT TO GO THERE.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE COMMERCIAL, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE HOTELS OBVIOUSLY.

IT'S GOING TO BE SOME FORM OF RESIDENTIAL, SO IT'S EITHER GOING TO BE VERY LARGE OR MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.

I WOULD JUST SAY, I GUESS, BUT CLEARLY THE RESIDENTS DON'T WANT IT.

I'LL SIDE WITH WHAT THE NEIGHBORS WANT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

BUT I'M JUST TELLING YOU IF THEY COME BACK WITH ONE ACRE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME VERY LARGE HOMES NEXT TO YOU THAT AREN'T UNIFORM TO THIS.

>> I WOULD ADD, [NOISE] IT'S COCIAN REYNOLDS, I THINK YOU CAN CAPTURE THAT WELL.

IT'S GOING. IT'S VERY LIKELY THIS IS GOING TO GET DEVELOPED.

THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO DO THAT.

IT CAN'T BE LOST ON ANY OF US THAT EVERYTHING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF JOHNSON, EVERY HOUSE, IN EVERY DIRECTION, THE TRAIL HEAD, JOHNSON PLAYS, EVERYTHING THERE IS SMALLER THAN WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.

I THINK THAT'S WORTH NOTING.

THE OPPOSITION IS COMING FROM LOTS THAT ARE SMALLER THAN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

THE CUL-DE-SAC CERTAINLY IT'S A DIFFERENT LOOK OF A CUL-DE-SAC, BUT IT'S STILL CLEARLY IT SERVES AS A CUL-DE-SAC.

IT'S GOING TO BE THE END OF THE LINE THERE.

THE OTHER PIECE THAT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR COUNSEL TO NOTE OR FOR ANYBODY WHO, IF SOMEBODY IS PATENTLY OPPOSED TO THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DEVELOP THIS WITHOUT DOING THAT.

IT'S AT 1.97.

IT'S GOING TO GO TO MEDIUM DENSITY AND DEVELOPED AS THE MAYOR SHARED, OR IT'S GOING TO STAY JUST LIKE IT IS.

I THINK WE HEARD ENOUGH COMMENTS HERE THAT THAT'S NOT FAIR TO THE OWNER OF 2530.

DO THAT MATH IN YOUR HEAD, 1.97 DOESN'T WORK.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RECLASSIFY THE LAND USE IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE MORE THAN ONE HOME ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.

>> IT COULD BE IN PART OF IT IF YOU DID A ONE ACRE LOT FRONTING JOHNSON, THAT COULD STAY LOW DENSITY AND THE REST OF IT.

>> THE SUB-SECTION OF THE LOT THAT WOULD BE MADE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE.

>> THERE'S A COMPROMISE THERE BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT QUITE TWO ACRES.

>> WELL THERE'S NOTHING TO SAY THAT SOMEBODY WOULDN'T WANT THAT LARGE LOT PUT ONE BIG HOUSE ON IT AND HAVE A HORSES AND A POND IN THE BACK.

>> ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S ALWAYS SOMEBODY'S OPTION JUST TO THAT'S NOT HAPPENED.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER ROBBINS, YOU HAVE YOUR MICROPHONE ON?

>> I THINK THAT AS WE LOOK BACK OVER THE LAST YEAR OR SO AT THESE DEVELOPMENTS HAVE COME IN,

[01:15:01]

THE DRUM THAT'S BEEN BANGED THE LOUDEST, I FEEL LIKE IS YOU NEED TO MIRROR WHAT'S AROUND YOU.

YOU NEED TO BE LIKE WHAT'S NEXT TO YOU.

I FEEL LIKE THEY'RE DOING THAT.

WE CAN SAY, HOW DO WE NOW SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO BE LIKE 2540 AND 2620? YOU CAN'T BE LIKE 2409, 2408, 2413, 2417, 2421.

BECAUSE THE BULK OF IT IS ACTUALLY MORE DENSE THAN WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, JUST LIKE COUNCILMAN WILLIAMSON MENTIONED, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE TWO.

I DON'T LIKE THE SINGLE DRIVEWAY LOOK.

FOR US TO BE COMMENTING THAT IT'S NO LONGER A CUL-DE-SAC IS JUST ERRONEOUS.

IT'S STILL A CUL-DE-SAC.

IT'S NOT A THROUGH STREET.

THE SIGN SAYS A THROUGH STREET.

I GUESS THEY COULD HAVE PUT A THROUGH STREET THERE AND BUILT HOUSES ON 2540 IF THEY WANTED TO, BUT IT'S STILL A CUL-DE-SAC.

WHILE I HEAR OF 2417 CONCERNS, WE CAN'T IMPOSE YOUR WILL ON ANOTHER LANDOWNER'S LAND.

IT'S SIMPLE IF IF YOU WANTED THAT TO STAY LIKE IT IS, THEY'LL PROBABLY SELL IT TO YOU NOW AS IS.

I'M FINE WITH IT AS PRESENTED, BUT IF THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE SUPPORT, I'M OKAY WITH WHAT THE MAYOR SAID, BUT I DO THINK TO ME, IT LOOKS UNFINISHED AS IS.

THERE NEEDS TO BE A HOUSE AT THE END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC TO COMPLETE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

I THINK THE RHETORIC OF RUINING THE LIVES OF THE FIVE FAMILY MEMBERS THAT ARE THERE IS A LITTLE OVER THE TOP FOR ME.

IT'S ANOTHER FAMILY.

IF YOU PUT ONE HOUSE ON THERE, GET READY.

IT'S GOING TO BE A $3-5 MILLION HOUSE ON AN ACRE LOT.

>> SHOULD WE ASK THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK WITH A TWO LOT SCENARIO, AND THE RESIDENTS CAN SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE SIZE OF HOME STANDPOINT BECAUSE THAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE.

>> THE APPLICANT WANT TO COME TO THE PODIUM?

>> IT'S NOT GOING TO DIRT FOREVER.

EITHER SOMEONE BUYS IT AND KEEPS IT AS DIRT OR IT'S GOING TO BE RESIDENTIAL.

IF YOU WANT TO SEE RENDERINGS OF WHAT A ONE ACRE TYPE HOUSE WOULD LOOK LIKE ON EACH OF THESE AND THAT STARING DOWN REMODA AND STARING IN THE BACKYARDS OF 2417, YOU HAVE PERSPECTIVE ON THAT?

>> AS THERE'S JUST I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE I'D LIKE TO EVEN SEE TWO THERE TO BE QUITE HONEST WITH YOU BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT.

BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF YOU'VE GOT THAT BACKING UP TO THE SMALLER LOTS, THAT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.

THAT HAPPENS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

MY NEIGHBORHOOD HAS SOME BEAUTIFUL ONE ACRE LOTS THAT BACK UP TO THE BACK OF US. EVERYBODY LOVES IT.

>> THEY MAY HAVE ZERO PROBLEM WITH IT.

I'M JUST TELLING YOU A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

IF YOU HAVE A REALLY MASSIVE HOME AT THE END OF THE STREET, LOOKING DOWN ON ALL THESE LESS THAN HALF ACRE HOMES, A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. NOT EVERYBODY.

>> I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHY I'M SAYING THIS IS IN TOWN WHERE IT DOES HAPPEN, BUT I.

>> THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING IF HE SHOWS THAT AS AN OPTION, THEY'D HAVE THAT PERSPECTIVE.

BECAUSE IF THEY'RE SAYING NO TO THIS, AND THEN THREE MONTHS LATER OR TWO YEARS LATER, SOMEBODY COMES WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THEN THEY SAY NO TO THAT, THEN WE'RE LIKE, WELL, WHAT DO WAS TO HAPPEN?

>> I THINK PART OF THE CONVERSATION, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING TO COUNCIL MEMBER ROBBINS, THAT CAN BE LOST IN THESE CONVERSATIONS IS WE CAN JUST WORK WITH WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.

WE HAVE TO RESPOND TO WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.

I THINK THAT OFTENTIMES A LOT OF THE OPPOSITION IS AROUND.

I JUST DON'T WANT IT.

ALL OF US WOULD RATHER HAVE THE STATUS QUO THAN HAVE ANYTHING BUILT AROUND US.

IT'S EASY TO GO NEIGHBORHOOD TO NEIGHBORHOOD AND SAY, HEY, DO YOU WANTED TO BUILD ON THIS NICE PIECE OF AG PROPERTY DOWN HERE OR NOT? IT'S A LAY. THE QUESTION IS SO OBVIOUS.

NO, OF COURSE, I'LL SIGN.

I'LL SAY NO. BUT I DON'T THINK THE RESIDENTS ALWAYS THINKING ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEING TALKED ABOUT HERE AND TO COUNCIL MEMBER ROBBINS POINT.

SURE, 2530.

MAYBE SOMEBODY ROLLS IN WITH A BIG CHECKBOOK AND SAYS, YEAH, I DO WANT HORSES, AND I WANT TO BUILD ABOUT A 12,000 SQUARE FOOT MODERN ARCHITECTURE HOME, NOT THE KIND THAT THE BUILDER IS COMMITTING TO TO TRY TO MATCH THE LOOK OF THE AREA THAT'S 20-YEARS-OLD.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND BUILD MODERN ARCHITECTURE, 10,000 SQUARE FOOT AND PLOP IT RIGHT DOWN AROUND WHERE THE END OF REMODA IS LOOKING IN EVERY DIRECTION.

IF THAT HAPPENS, THEY'RE WELL WITHIN THE RIGHTS TO DO THAT.

I JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE TO SAY IT'S ANOTHER ONE OF

[01:20:01]

THESE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU WANT OR SAY YOU WANT OR OPPOSE BECAUSE IT MAY TURN RIGHT AROUND AND BE THAT.

>> WELL, WHERE WE'RE AT, I THINK I'LL LOOK AT THE CITY ATTORNEY.

I THINK WE CAN MAKE A MOTION, MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIAMSON, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION FOR WHAT'S PRESENTED, AND WE'LL SEE HOW THAT GOES.

THEN IF THAT FAILS, THEN WE CAN TAKE UP AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION UNLESS YOU ALL DON'T WANT US TO.

IT'S YOUR APPLICATION, SO YOU COULD ALSO TABLE IT. I'M NOT SURE WE NEED TO.

I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY ON FIRST READING, GO AHEAD AND TRY SOME TRY A MOTION OR MOTIONS AND GO FORWARD, OR DO YOU WANT TO SHOW AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN?

>> IF THE MOTION ALLOWS US TO DO AN ALTERNATIVE TO SHOW THREE AND TWO?

>> DO YOU WANT TO TABLES [INAUDIBLE].

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO YOUR POINT EARLIER ABOUT THE LOT SIZE.

I'M NOT SAYING I WOULD BUILD IT AT THAT POINT ON YOUR EXAMPLE, THE 10-12,000 MODERN HOUSE BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE DOING THOSE, ESPECIALLY IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, I RESPECT SOUTHLAKE, I'VE BEEN HERE PROBABLY LONGER THAN MOST.

I WOULD SAY THAT I WOULD RESPECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS MUCH AS I COULD.

BUT IN THEORY, THE LOT OWNER WILL BUILD IF IT'S A SINGULAR HOUSE, HE WILL MARKET IT THE FACE REMODA IF YOU BUY THAT LOT, WHEN YOU TAKE LOT COSTS VERSUS HOME SIZE, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER AS BUILDERS.

WHEN A LOT COST A ONE ACRE, 1.97 ACRES NOW GOES FROM SAY A HALF MILLION DOLLAR LOT AT 25,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, IT GOES TO NOW A 1.5 TO $2 MILLION.

WELL, NOW THEY'RE BUILDING EIGHT TO NINE TO $10 MILLION.

IF WE GO TO TWO LOTS, SAME THING, ONE ACRE LOT, AVERAGE ONE ACRE RAW LAND, SEE COSTS IN SOUTHLAKE IS $1 MILLION.

ONE MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE IS GOING TO EQUIVATE TO A $4 MILLION PROPERTY.

IT COMES TO A POINT WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE THE FUTURE HOMEOWNER WE'LL BE FACING REMODA.

IS IT GOING TO BE THE ONE LOT AS A SINGULAR? IS IT GOING TO BE TWO SPLIT LIKE MAYOR MCCASKILL OFFERED, AND THEN OR IS IT GOING TO BE THE THREE.

I WOULD SAY THAT I WOULD LOVE TO SHOW IT ALTERNATIVE TO SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AND ALSO REFINE THE THE THREE AS WELL.

AGAIN, MY COMMITMENT IS TO HONOR AND COMMIT TO THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND RESTRICT.

YOU ONLY PUT SO MUCH LOT COVERAGE ON A LOT OF THE SIZE, SO IT WOULD ACTUALLY EQUALIZE.

THERE'S A HOUSE IN THE MARKET IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AS WE SPEAK FOR $2.3 MILLION AT 6,000 SQUARE FEET.

I WOULD DOUBT WE WOULD GET THAT HIGH.

WE WOULD PROBABLY HIT MAXIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FOOT IN OUR CURRENT APPLICATION REQUEST.

WE WOULD BE VERY MUCH ALIKE TO EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE LAST THING IS GOING BACK TO LAND COST AS EQUAL HOME SIZE.

NO ONE'S GOING TO BUY $2 MILLION LOT AND PUT 13,500 SQUARE FOOT.

>> I'M HEARING A REQUEST TO TABLE?

>> WELL, AS YOU SUGGESTED, WE COULD HAVE A MOTION PERHAPS FOR US TO BRING BACK THE TWO OPTIONS, THE TWO LOT PLANT AND THREE LOT PLAN.

THEN IN TWO WEEKS OR WHENEVER THE NEXT MEETING IS, YOU COULD DECIDE AMONGST THE SEVEN OF YOU WHICH ONE YOU PREFER AND GO FORWARD WITH THAT.

>> WE'VE LEARNED THAT LESSON. HE HAD TO LEARN IT OFF ME.

WE DENY THEY HAVE TO COME BACK TWICE.

HE DIDN'T HAVE TO TABLE.

WE CAN PASS IT TONIGHT, AND IF HE IF WE DON'T LIKE WHAT HE HAS ON THE SECOND ONE, WE CAN TABLE IT OR WE CAN APPROVE THE MODIFIED ONE AT THAT POINT.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIAMSON CAN MAKE A MOTION THAT WE'RE APPROVING IT, BUT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO BRING BACK A VERSION WITH TWO HOMES AS DISCUSSED TONIGHT.

WE'RE SENDING IT THROUGH TO SECOND READING.

WE'LL PICK 2-3 NEXT TIME.

>> GREAT. YES, SIR.

>> REMEMBER THERE ARE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.

THERE'S ONE TO AMEND THE PLAN AND THEN THE OTHER TO APPROVE FOR THE ZONING.

RIGHT. SO WE NEED TO TAKE THOSE SEPARATELY.

>> WELL, THEN WE WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO TABLE THE LAND USE DECISION AND THEN I COULD MAKE A MOTION TO PASS THE SECOND ONE WITH THE TWO HOUSE OPTION.

THEN WE COULD TAKE UP, I GUESS SEVEN WE CAN EITHER TAKE 7A AND B TOGETHER IN NEXT READING OR TAKE 7B FIRST TO VERIFY WHERE WE WERE ON THE PLAN BEFORE WE CHANGED THE LAND USE.

>> WELL, NOTHING'S FINALIZED UNTIL THE SECOND READING.

>> NO, BUT LAND USE WOULD BE TABLED TONIGHT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.

>> THEN WE HAVE TO DO TWO THEN WE HAVE TO PASS THE LAND USE TWICE.

>> THAT'S TRUE.

>> I WOULD THINK THE MOTION WOULD BE TO PASS BOTH OF THEM TONIGHT, AND IF THEY FAIL NEXT TIME, THEY FAIL, OR THEY PASS NEXT TIME.

>> IF WE PASSED BOTH TONIGHT AND WE LOOKED AT THE OPTION PRESENTED AT THE NEXT MEETING AND THEN IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE SUPPORT WASN'T THERE, THEN WE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO DENY ON SECOND LAND USE AND THE OKAY.

THAT WOULD PUT US BACK TO THE STARTING POINT.

>> I DON'T WANT THE RESIDENTS TO HAVE TO COME TO SAY, THREE MEETINGS.

[01:25:02]

IF WE TABLE IT TONIGHT AND THEN HAVE ANOTHER FIRST READING AND THEN A SECOND READING.

>> I JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION.

DID WE CONFIRM THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T OWN ANY BIT OF STRIP OF LAND RIGHT THERE THAT'S GOING TO INTERFERE WITH THE ACCESS BECAUSE YOU'RE ASKING AN EXISTING R POD THAT WAS DESIGNED AS AN R POD 20 YEARS AGO TO BE FORCED TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES BY ACCESS THROUGH THERE.

>> I'M SAYING THREE, BUT THE TWO WOULD FOR SURE BE THE SAME AS IF 20 YEARS AGO, THIS WAS PUT IN.

I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM BEFORE I VOTE WHAT ONE OF THE RESIDENTS SAID IS NOT TRUE THAT THE HOA DOES NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT STRIP.

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I AGREE. DIRECTOR KILLOUGH.

>> THIS IS A BLOW UP OF THE RIGHT OF WAY AND GRANTED THE DIGITAL QUALITY IS NOT AS HIGH AS WE'D LIKE, BUT THIS IS A RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF REMUDA COURT, AND IT GOES AND STUBS COMPLETELY INTO THE WEST BOUNDARY OF JOHNSON PLACE, WHICH IS COMMON TO THAT ADJOINING TRACT.

THESE LEGS THAT RUN IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION FROM THE CUL DE SAC ARE APPROXIMATELY 6.7 FEET, LONG AND DEEP, AND THEN THE MEASUREMENT BETWEEN THESE IS 50 FEET.

THERE IS A 50 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY THAT EXTENDS FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF REMUDA COURT INTO THAT WESTERN BOUNDARY.

>> [OVERLAPPING] WE SAY CURTIS THAT 50 FOOT, THOSE TWO DRIVEWAYS YOU REPRESENTED ARE INSIDE OF THAT 50 FEET.

>> YES. CORRECT.

>> THE CURB LINE OF REMUDA COURT, IS INSIDE OF THAT RIGHT OF WAY.

THE BACK OF CURB IS, I'M GUESSING PROBABLY 10, 10.5 FEET INSIDE THE RIGHT OF WAY.

THERE IS PARKWAY AREA INSIDE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY THAT CONTAINS THE SIDEWALK, WHICH IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, AND ALSO THE STUBBING STREET RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH WAS INTENDED TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE THROUGH SHOULD THE THREE TRACKS THAT WERE TO THE WEST OF THIS HAD SOME OPPORTUNITY IN THE FUTURE TO COLLECTIVELY REDEVELOP.

>> WHERE'S THE FENCE LINE RIGHT THERE?

>> THE PEARS FENCE LINE IS PROBABLY RUNNING ALONG THE BOUNDARY, SO IT IS INSIDE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A PORTION OF THAT IRON FENCE.

>> THERE'S NO STRIP OF LAND RIGHT THERE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN MAINTAINING AND IMPROVING WITHOUT ANYONE HAVING AN ISSUE WITH IT FOR 18 YEARS?

>> EITHER THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS OR THE HOA HAS BEEN MAINTAINING THAT PARKWAY, WHICH OUR MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR CITY CODE REQUIRE THAT THAT BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

HOWEVER, IS IN PUBLIC RADICAL.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCIL? WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD WITH A MOTION.

WE HAVE TO TAKE THESE SEPARATELY 7A, AND THEN ANOTHER MOTION ON 7B, WITH ALSO NOTING 7B INSTRUCTIONS TO THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK WITH A ALTERNATIVE WITH TWO LOTS.

ONE OF THEM BEING ONE ACRE IN SIZE.

GOT PRO TEM WILLIAMSON, IS ALL YOURS.

>> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 7A, ORDINANCE NUMBER 1269-E, CP25-0002, FIRST READING, AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE CONSOLIDATED FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, AN ELEMENT OF THE SOUTHLAKE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

FOR 2530 JOHNSON ROAD.

I'M PROPERLY DESCRIBED AS TRACT 8A02C JJ FRESH HOUR SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 521, SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 2025, AND NOTING THAT WE WOULD BE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE UNDERLYING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION ON 7A. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> CAST YOUR VOTES ON 7A.

THAT MOTION CARRIES 5-2.

NEXT UP, WE'LL TAKE A MOTION ON 7B.

>> MAYOR OR COUNCIL, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 7B, ORDINANCE NUMBER 480-838, ZA25-0052.

FIRST READING ZONING CHANGE IN DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 2530 JOHNSON ROAD ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS TRACT 8A02C, JJ FRESH HOUR SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 521, SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 2025, AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER 2, DATED AUGUST 29, 2025.

NOTING THAT WE WOULD BE APPROVING ZONING DEVELOPMENT PLAN FROM AG TO RPUD,

[01:30:05]

RESIDENTIAL PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING.

HOWEVER, NOTING THAT WE ARE INSTRUCTING THE APPLICANT TO RETURN TO SECOND READING WITH A VERSION OF THIS APPLICATION INDICATING TWO LOTS.

>> WITH ONE BEING AT LEAST ONE ACRE?

>> YEAH, I NOTED, ONE BEING AT LEAST ONE ACRE.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION ON 7B. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> CAST YOUR VOTES.

THAT MOTION CARRIES 5-2.

WE'LL SEE YOU FOR SECOND READING.

WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO PUBLIC FORUM ITEM NUMBER 5.

[5. Public Forum. ]

PUBLIC FORUM ALLOWS THE PUBLIC TO BRING FORWARD ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON OUR REGULAR AGENDA.

I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC FORUM.

I SEE WE HAVE A COMMENT FROM SAPMA PATEL, 1016 WHITTINGTON PLACE HERE IN SOUTHLAKE, WISHES TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC FORUM. COME ON DOWN.

GOOD EVENING. IF YOU COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AGAIN, AND THEN GO AHEAD.

>> DAVIA PATEL, 1016 WHITTINGTON PLACE.

>> OMNI PATEL, 400 ST. TROPEZ DRIVE.

>> WELCOME.

>> HONORABLE MAYOR, CITY COUNCILMEMBERS, AND SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS.

MY NAME IS DAVIA PATEL, AND THIS IS OMNI PATEL, AND WE ARE HONORED TO STAND BEFORE YOU GUYS TODAY, AND AS PROUD SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS, EXTENDED INVITATION ON BEHALF OF BPTREE SAMIN MUNEER TO JOIN US IN CELEBRATING THE VALLEY OR THE FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS ON OCTOBER 21, FROM 1:00 P.M. TO 8:00 P.M. AT THE BAP STREE SAMIN TEMPLE IN IRVING.

THE VALUE CARRIES PROFOUND SIGNIFICANCE ACROSS VARIOUS CULTURES, AND IT SYMBOLIZES THE VICTORY OF GOOD VERSUS EVIL, KNOWLEDGE OVER IGNORANCE AND HOPE OVER DESPAIR.

IT IS TYPICALLY A MULTI DAY CELEBRATION, SPANNING FROM 1-5 DAYS AND THIS IS DEPENDING ON PERSONAL AND TRADITIONAL VALUES.

>> THE VALLEY IS THE FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS, BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THE TRUE LIGHT COMES FROM WITHIN US.

WHEN WE TALK, WE WATCH, AND THE THINGS THAT WE SEE SHAPES THE LIGHT THAT WE CARRY INSIDE.

JUST AS WE FILL THE AIR WITH MUSIC AND LAUGHTER, WE ALSO FILL OUR HEARTS AND OUR BRAINS WITH UPLIFTING WORDS AND POSITIVE SOUNDS.

ON THE DAY OF FESTIVITIES, WHICH IS ONE OF THE DAYS, WE HAVE A BUNCH OF CELEBRATIONS OUTSIDE AND DAVIA AND I VOLUNTEER AT THE FOOD STAND.

WE DO CULTURAL PROGRAMS, COLLABORATION WITH OUR COMMUNITY, FOOD DRIVES AND SERVICES, JUST AS SOUTHLAKE IS OUR HOME, OUR MONDAY IS OUR SECOND HOME, AND WE WANT TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU ALL.

>> WHILE THE VALLEY IS MAINLY CELEBRATED BY HINDU, SIKHS AND JAINS, ITS IDEA OF LIGHT CAN RESONATE WITH ALL OF HUMANITY.

THIS FESTIVAL SERVES AS A POWERFUL SENSE OF UNITY AS IT BRIDGES THE GAP BETWEEN VARIOUS DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS AND DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

BECAUSE FROM THE INTRICATE COLORFUL UNGOLS ON PEOPLE'S DOORSTEPS TO THE FIREWORKS WITHIN THE SKY, THE VALLEY GIVES US A SENSE OF BRIGHTNESS AND LIFTS HUMAN SPIRIT.

IT IS A TIME FOR REFLECTION, RENEWAL, AND JOY, WHICH IS SHOWN BY OUR THEME, LIGHT WITHIN AND LIGHT AROUND.

BY JOINING US AT THE VPS SUM IN WHEN THEY'RE IN IRVING ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, YOU WILL NOT ONLY BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BEAUTIFUL CULTURAL CELEBRATIONS, BUT BE ABLE TO EXPERIENCE THIS UNITY AND HOPE THAT THE VALLEY BRINGS.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO WELCOMING THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, AS WELL AS SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS AT OUR CELEBRATION.

IF YOU WANT MORE INFORMATION, FORMAL INVITATIONS WILL BE SENT OUT, BUT YOU CAN ALSO FEEL FREE TO VISIT US AT BPS.ORG/DALLAS OR CONTACT US THROUGH THE EMAIL DFW.PA@GMAIL.COM. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. THANKS FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC FORUM ON AN ITEM THAT'S NOT ON OUR AGENDA. SEEING NONE.

I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC FORM, AND WE'LL GO BACK IN ORDER TO ITEM 7C, ORDINANCE NUMBER 480-445B.

[7. C. Ordinance No. 480-445b, ZA25-0030, 1st Reading, Zoning Change and Plan for Carrus Care Southlake on property described as Lots 9-12, L.B.G Hall No. 686 Addition, and located at 600 — 660 W. Southlake Blvd. Current Zoning: “S-P-1” Detailed Site Plan District. Requested Zoning: “S- P-1” Detailed Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #6. ]

CASE NUMBER ZA25-0030, FIRST READING ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN FOR CARRIS CARE, LOCATED AT 600 THROUGH 660 WEST BOULEVARD, DIRECTOR KILLOUGH.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.

AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ZONING CHANGE TO AMEND THE CURRENT SP1, DETAILED SITE PLAN DISTRICT.

THAT EXISTS ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY TO ALLOW FOR

[01:35:01]

A FULL DAY OUTPATIENT MENTAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY FOR YOUTH.

THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY, FOR WHICH THE REQUEST OF THAT USE IS PROPOSED TO BE ADDED.

THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THIS PROPERTY IS OFFICE COMMERCIAL, AND THE CURRENT ZONING ON THE PROPERTY IS SP1, DETAILED SITE PLAN DISTRICT MODELED AFTER OUR ONE OFFICE DISTRICT AND OUR ZONING ORDINANCE.

THIS IS A SITE EXHIBIT THAT SHOWS THEIR PROPOSED TRAFFIC FLOW FOR DRIVING PATIENTS INTO THE FACILITY AND DROPPING THEM OFF FOR THE DAY.

THIS IS A KEY PLAN OF THE BUILDING.

THEY ARE OCCUPYING AND PROPOSING THIS USE IN SUITE 120 OF THE BUILDING.

THIS IS A FLOOR PLAN OF THE SPACE.

THIS PROPERTY IN YOUR HISTORY, DID GO THROUGH A ZONING CHANGE WITH THE INITIAL REQUEST OF ADDING THIS TYPE OF USE UNDER A PRIVATE SCHOOL PROVISION.

THAT REQUEST WAS DENIED APPROXIMATELY A YEAR AGO.

THEIR REQUEST THIS EVENING IS TO PROVIDE THIS AS A MENTAL HEALTH CARE DAY TREATMENT FACILITY FOR UP TO 20 STUDENTS WITH FULL TIME STAFF OF FIVE INDIVIDUALS AND WOULD PROVIDE CLINICAL TREATMENTS AS WELL AS GROUP THERAPIES FROM 8:00-5:00 P.M.

THIS IS A DESCRIPTION OF THEIR PROGRAM.

THIS IS A SECURITY EXHIBIT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED THAT SHOWS THEIR PROCESSES FOR RECEIVING THE PATIENTS AND THEN SECURING THEM IN THE FACILITY THROUGHOUT THE DAY.

THE STREET VIEW OF THE PROPERTY FROM SHADY OAKS AND STREET VIEW OF THE PROPERTY FROM WEST SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD AND FRONT VIEW FROM INTERIOR OF THE SITE OFF OF THE SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD DRIVEWAY.

FOR THE NOTIFICATION AREA, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES REGARDING THIS ITEM.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL 3-1 WITH ONE OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS DISSENTING.

THIS ITEM'S BEEN TABLED AT YOUR PREVIOUS MEETINGS, ALLOWING THE APPLICANT SOME TIME TO ADDRESS SOME OF WHAT THEY BELIEVE CONCERNS MIGHT BE.

WITH THAT, I'M GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANTS HERE AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR KILLOUGH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS? THANK YOU, SIR. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? APPLICANTS? IF YOU ALL COULD STATE STATE YOUR NAMES AND ADDRESSES FOR THE RECORD, AND THEN GO AHEAD.

>> SURE. MY NAME IS JOHN RAINES.

I'M THE PRESIDENT OF CARRIS HEALTH AND MANAGING PARTNER.

THAT'S GOING TO BE 1810 US HIGHWAY 82 AND SHERMAN, IS WHERE WE'RE BASED.

>> I'M RIGHT HERE. I'M PETER YORG, AND I AM IN CHARGE OF FACILITIES AT CARRIS.

I OPERATE FROM THE SAME ADDRESS AT 1810 WEST US HIGHWAY 82 IN SHERMAN.

>> YOU ALL HAVE A PRESENTATION OR ANYTHING TO ADD TO DIRECTOR KILLOUGH'S PRESENTATION?

>> YES. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES SO FAR AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH PREPARING THE SPACE TO ADDRESS PATIENT FLOW ISSUES.

PROVIDING SECURITY AND SAFETY BOTH EXTERNALLY AND INTERNALLY FOR THE FACILITY.

WE'VE MET WITH SEVERAL DIFFERENT CITY STAFF, THE FIRE MARSHAL, I BELIEVE, IS WORKING WITH PETER ON THIS AS WELL.

[01:40:01]

WE WANTED TO PROVIDE FOR HOW PATIENTS ARRIVE AND LEAVE THE FACILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE SAFE.

SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE POSED BEFORE IS, HOW DO YOU PREVENT SOMEBODY FROM RUNNING OUT OR HOW DO WE MAINTAIN SAFETY FOR THE POPULATION? IF YOU CAN SEE THE LITTLE CURSOR.

AS YOU CAN SEE, WHEN PATIENTS ENTER THE BUILDING, THEY'RE GOING TO COME IN FROM THE OUTSIDE, WHICH IS RIGHT OVER HERE AS WE SHOW THE DRIVE THROUGH DROP OFF.

ONE OF OUR STAFF MEMBERS WILL BE RIGHT HERE.

PARENTS DROP OFF THE KIDS EVERY DAY THAT ARE IN THE PROGRAM.

PARENTS DO HAVE TO OBVIOUSLY PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM WITH THEIR CHILDREN.

OUR STAFF MEMBER WILL BE HERE, THEY'LL GO UP INTO THE BUILDING HERE.

AT ONE POINT, THIS WAS ALSO OPEN WITH SOME STAIRS OVER HERE.

WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND JUST CLOSE THAT OFF.

WE'RE GOING TO EXTEND THE GATE, THE ALREADY EXISTING RAILING THAT GOES HERE JUST TO HAVE BETTER FLOW.

WHEN THE KIDS ENTER THE BUILDING, THERE'S GOING TO BE TWO STAFF MEMBERS, OBVIOUSLY, THEY GET WANDED DOWN TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE NOT BRINGING ANYTHING FUN FROM THE OUTSIDE IN FOR SHOW AND TELL.

YOU WILL HAVE A RECEPTIONIST HEALTH UNIT COORDINATOR WHO SITS HERE.

ALSO, THE CENTER MANAGER AND HEAD THERAPIST.

WHEN THE KIDS ENTER AFTER THEY'RE WANDED OFF, THEY GO INTO ONE OF TWO AREAS, THIS WAY OR THIS WAY.

BOTH OF THESE ARE LOCKED DOORS SO THAT THEY CAN'T GET IN OR OUT THEIR TIME DELAY EGRESS DOORS.

THEN ALL THE PATIENT CARE IS PROVIDED BEHIND THE TIME DELAY DOORS.

WHEN KIDS COME AND GO, THEY ARE PASSING TO STAFF MEMBERS PLUS TIME DELAYED DOORS HERE FOR ENTRY AND EXIT.

I KNOW THAT WAS SOME OF THE QUESTION THAT WE HAD BEFORE AND HOW ARE WE GETTING THE KIDS IN AND GETTING THE KIDS OUT, AND WE'RE NOT HAVING A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE RUNNING ALL OVER THE PARKING LOT OF THE BANK.

OBVIOUSLY, WE DID TALK TO THEM ABOUT THAT AS WELL AS WE'VE WORKED THROUGH THIS PROJECT.

WE HAVE PRESENTED THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE BUNCH OF LIGHT CENTERS OF THESE AROUND, SO WE'VE HAD TO COLLABORATE AND GO BACK AND FORTH TO MAKE SURE WE DESIGN THE SAFEST APPROACH.

THIS IS WHAT WE'VE COME UP WITH.

I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS.

>> YOU SAID THAT YOU HAVE GATED ON THE RAILING ON THE OUTSIDE.

DO YOU HAVE GATES ON BOTH ENDS OF THAT RAILING?

>> THIS END DOES NOT.

THIS ALREADY HAD AN EXISTING, LIKE IT WAS LIKE A WROUGHT IRON, FENCE RAILING DUE TO THE ELEVATION.

THIS IS LIKE AN ELEVATED AREA ABOVE THE PARKING LOT.

THIS END RIGHT HERE WAS NOT COMPLETE.

BASICALLY, YOU COULD HAVE WALKED IN OR DOWN HERE AND RAN DOWN SOME STAIRS OFF THIS ELEVATED AREA.

WE'RE JUST CLOSING THAT OFF FOR MEANS OF CONTROL.

WE'RE GOING TO PUT A GATE HERE SO YOU COULD OPEN THE GATE, THEORETICALLY IF YOU WANTED TO.

BUT THAT WAY WE CAN ALSO CLOSE AND LOCK THE GATE FOR PICKUP AND DROP OFF JUST TO MAKE IT EASIER TO CONTROL THE FLOW.

>> YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PUT A GATE ON BOTH ENDS OF IT THEN?

>> NO, THE ONE END THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING NOW, SO THAT WAY WE CAN HAVE PEOPLE GO IN AND OUT.

REMIND ME AGAIN THE AGE OF YOUR STUDENTS CURRENTLY.

THEY START AT AGE EIGHT IN THIS PROGRAM, AND THEY GO ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL AGE 17.

THEY'RE SEGREGATED INTO TWO SEPARATE POPULATIONS.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AGES 8-12 AND AGES 13-17 WHO ARE SEGREGATED INTO POPULATIONS TOGETHER.

THERE ARE THREE TREATMENT ROOMS. YOU WOULD HAVE TREATMENTS WOULD BE SEGREGATED BY AGE, AND THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT TRACKS OF THE PROGRAM.

THERE'S A FAITH BASED TRACK AND A NOT FAITH BASED TRACK, SO THE THIRD ROOM IS FOR THE FAITH ROOM, BASICALLY.

THOSE ARE ALTERNATED BETWEEN THE TWO DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS.

LAST QUESTION IS, HOW ON THOSE TIME DELAY DOORS, HOW DOES DO YOU GET A WARNING IF LIKE IN RESTAURANTS WHERE YOU OUT THE WRONG DOOR, YOU GET A RENT THAT THOSE DO THEY HAVE ANY SOUND ASSOCIATED WITH THEM IF SOMEBODY TRIES TO BREACH IT? IF SOMEBODY TRIES TO BREACH THE DOORS, DO THEY ALARM? I HAVE VERIFIED WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE THAT IT IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE CODE TO HAVE 15 SECOND PANIC POLICY.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR SEPARATE FROM THE ACTUAL BUILDING PERMIT, BUT IT IS WITHIN THE CODE, AND IT HAS BEEN VERIFIED WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

WHEN THE CHILDREN WANT TO EXIT, THEY WILL HIT THAT DOOR AND THAT ALARM WILL GO OFF, BUT THEY CANNOT ACTUALLY OPEN THE DOOR FOR 15 SECONDS.

[01:45:02]

WHEN THEY GET THROUGH THAT DOOR, THERE'S A MANAGER IN THE OFFICE AND THERE'S A RECEPTIONIST, BY THE DESK.

WE HONESTLY, HAVE NOT HAD A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE ESCAPING BEFORE, BUT IT IS YOUR CONCERN, AND WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS IT.

THERE IS A LOUD AUDIBLE TONE TO YOUR ANSWER.

ANYTIME YOU MASH THE DOOR WITH THAT 15 SECONDS, YOU HAVE A CONTINUOUS LOUD, AUDIBLE TONE, LIKE BEEP.

THANK YOU. THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

YOU HAVE INSTALLED IT OR YOU'RE GOING TO INSTALL IT OR WHERE ARE YOU IN THAT PROCESS? WITH THIS APPROVAL, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD IN INSTALLING IT ALL.

WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PLAN WAS APPROVED BEFORE WE EXPUNGED THE MONEY OF INSTALLING BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, THESE THINGS ARE QUITE EXPENSIVE TO HAVE TO PUT IN.

WE WENT BACK WITH THE ARCHITECT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE COMPLETELY OUTLINED THE PROCESS.

WHEN IT'S APPROVED HERE, WE'LL INSTALL IT PRIOR TO OPENING.

THANK YOU.

YES, MA'AM.

WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT.

THERE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED.

THE FLOOR PLAN THAT YOU SEE THERE, WE BELIEVE THAT ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES THAT THE CITY HAS PREVIOUSLY COME UP WITH.

WE HAVE NOT SUBMITTED THOSE PLANS BECAUSE WE'RE WAITING TO SEE WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO GET THE HEAD FROM THE COUNSEL.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? THANK YOU, GUYS, JUST HOLD ON A MINUTE.

WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP FOR SOME MORE QUESTIONS.

ITEM SEVEN C DOES NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 6,7C.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM SEVEN C? ALSO NOTE FOR THE RECORD, THE CITY SENT OUT 28 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATIONS ON THIS ITEM, AND TO DATE, NO RESPONSES HAVE BEEN FILED.

ANYONE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON 7C, GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 7C.

COUNSEL, ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT ON 7C.

WELL, I'VE BEEN THE PERSON WHO'S PUSHED A LOT ABOUT THE SAFETY HERE BECAUSE THE PROXIMITY IS 1709 AND THE POPULATION.

I'VE SINCE LEARNED THAT DOWN THE ROAD, EAST WHERE THE WELLS FARGO BANK IS, THERE'S A SIMILAR FACILITY, LITTLE BIT FURTHER AWAY.

BUT I HAVE I MET WITH THESE FOLKS, TALKED ABOUT MY CONCERNS.

I DO LIKE THE DELAYED DOORS, AND I TRIED TO WEIGH MY CONCERNS ABOUT SAFETY FOR THE KIDS AND THE NEED FOR THE FACILITY AND BEEN TOLD BY PEOPLE WHO WORK WITH THIS POPULATION THAT RIGHT NOW OUR PARENTS ARE TAKING KIDS TO FORT WORTH TO GET TREATMENT AND MAYBE FURTHER.

MY FEELING RIGHT NOW IS THEY'VE DONE A GOOD JOB, THEY'RE TRYING REALLY HARD.

I'VE HAD TO WEIGH THE IT'S A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS.

I THINK IF THESE KIDS ARE DRIVING TO FORT WORTH, THEY'RE EQUALLY LIKELY TO GET HIT BY A CAR IF THEY GO OUT THAT WAY.

I HAVE GIVEN THE FACT THAT THEIR WILLINGNESS TO PUT THOSE GATES IN, WELL, NOT THE GATE, BUT THE TIME TO LAY DOORS, AND THE STAFF MEMBERS, I AM FEELING MORE COMFORTABLE.

I'M NOT 100%, BUT I'M FEELING COMFORTABLE ENOUGH THAT I THINK THE BENEFITS TO THIS FACILITY OUTWEIGH THE POSSIBLE PROBLEMS WITH IT.

THAT'S WHERE I AM AS I SAID, AS I WAS OPPOSED TO IT FOR THE SAFE FOR SAFETY PURPOSES, BUT I THINK IT'S OKAY RIGHT NOW, BUT DEFINITELY WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO OPEN IT UNTIL THOSE DOORS ARE IN PLACE SO THAT'S WHERE I STAND.

THERE WAS ANY HOMEWORK FOR THEM TO DO BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING IN YOUR MIND, ANY TO DO LIST? WHEN I MET WITH HIM PERSONALLY, I GAVE HIM MY TO DO LIST.

ONE QUESTION REAL QUICKLY.

IS THERE ANY REAR EXIT? I DIDN'T THINK SO TO THAT.

IF YOU COULD COME BACK TO THE PODIUM, SIR, JUST FOR A MOMENT TO ANSWER THAT SO WE CAN GET IT ON CAMERA AND GET IT ON THE MICROPHONE? I APOLOGIZE, I HAVE IT ON MY NOTES, BUT I FORGOT TO ASK YOU.

NO, YOU CAN SEE AT THE BACK THERE, HOW THE BANK HAS THAT WHOLE BACK PORTION THERE.

THAT'S WHY WE LEFT IT THAT WAY WITH THE BANK TO MAKE SURE THAT IT STAYED COMPLETELY SECURE.

PERFECT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

COUNSEL, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? I JUST WANT TO ECHO COUNSEL MEMBER CHARLIE'S COMMENTS AND CONCERNS AS WELL.

I KNOW IT'S NOT QUITE THE SAME, BUT NOT FAR DOWN THE STREET RIGHT ON 1709, WE HAVE EXCEL CHILDREN FACILITY, WHICH TAKES CHILDREN FROM BASICALLY EIGHT WEEKS OLD UP TO, I BELIEVE, EVEN PAST FIRST GRADE.

MY OWN CHILDREN WENT THERE WHEN IT WAS BRILLIANT CHILDREN'S.

I KNOW THAT'S BEEN THERE NOW SINCE FOR, LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, 14 YEARS, AND THEY'VE NEVER HAD ANY ISSUES WITH IT.

[01:50:02]

AGAIN, I KNOW IT'S NOT THE SAME, BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A 4-YEAR-OLD GETTING OUT, I CAN TELL YOU SOME STORIES OF WHEN I WAS FOUR, AND WHAT I COULD GET OUT OF, BUT IT'S A LOT HARDER NOW.

WITH THAT, KATHY TALLEY, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION ON ITEM 7C ON FIRST READING.

DEPUTY KATHY TALLEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION ON ITEM 7C? SURE, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 7C, ORDINANCE NUMBER 480-445B ZA 25-0030, FIRST READING, ZONING CHANGE IN SITE PLAN FOR CARS CARE SOUTHLAKE AND PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS NINE THROUGH 12, LBG HALL, NUMBER 686 EDITION, AND LOCATED AT 600 THROUGH 660 WEST SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD.

SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2025, THE SITE IN THE SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER FOUR DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 2025.

NOTING WE ARE APPROVING A ZONING CHANGE IN SITE PLAN TO AT A FULL OUTPATIENT MENTAL HEALTHCARE FACILITY AS PRESENTED.

WE HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM 7C. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

CAST YOUR VOTES ON 7C FIRST READING.

THAT MOTION CARRIES 5-2 ON FIRST READING, AND WE'LL SEE YOU BACK HERE FOR SECOND READING.

THANK YOU THANK YOU.

NEXT, WE'LL GO TO ITEM 9 A,

[9. A. MSP25-0001, Master Sign Plan for the Residences at Southlake, located at 351 Central Avenue, generally located at the southeast intersection of Central Avenue and Park Ridge Boulevard in Southlake Town Square. ]

CASE NUMBER MSP 25-0001 MASTER SIGN PLAN FOR THE RESIDENTS THAT'S AT SOUTHLAKE, LOCATED AT 351 CENTRAL AVENUE, DIRECTOR KILLOUGH.

THANK YOU, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL.

THE SIGN PACKAGE FOR THIS PROPERTY WAS PRESENTED AT YOUR LAST ME MEETING IN AUGUST, I DO BELIEVE, AND THIS IS AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.

THE CITY COUNCIL REMOVED AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.

SIGNS F AND G, WHICH WERE SOME UPPER STORY LOGO SIGNS THAT THE SIGNBOARD HAD RECOMMENDED REMOVAL.

THE CITY COUNCIL DID APPROVE SIGNS A, B, C AND E AND THEN SIGN D WAS A MONUMENT STYLE SIGN THAT WAS AFFIXED TO THE ORNAMENTAL METAL WALL ON A BRICK WALKWAY THAT RUNS ALONG THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THIS BUILDING.

THE CITY COUNCIL ASSET THE APPLICANT, BRING THAT BACK DIRECTLY TO THE COUNSEL, NOT GO BACK THROUGH SIGNBOARD WITH A MONUMENT STYLE SIGN TO YOUR RIGHT AS THE REVISED MONUMENT STYLE SIGN BEING PROPOSED, THAT WOULD BE PLACED ON THE RAISED WALKWAY WITH THE BRICK FACE ON IT.

THE PARTICULAR MONUMENT STRUCTURE WOULD BE A METAL FABRICATED MATERIAL THAT'S CLAD WITH A SYNTHETIC STUCCO THAT HAS THE APPEARANCE AND FILL AND TEXTURE OF STUCCO AND THEN HAVE THE PROPOSED SIGN PLACED ON THAT STRUCTURE.

IT DOES NOT MEET THE FULL DEFINITION OF A MONUMENT SIGN, BUT MAY MEET THE SPIRIT OF THAT.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KILLOUGH ON SIGN D, THE MONUMENT SIGN? I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FOCUSED ON OR WHY WE'RE BACK FOR THIS AGAIN.

ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS PRESENTATION? IT LOOKS GREAT, THAT'S INFINITELY BETTER THAN LAST TIME, I THINK AGREED.

MUCH BETTER. AS I RECALL, WE APPROVED LAST TIME OTHER THAN THIS THIS WAS RIGHT.