[1. Call to order.]
[00:00:03]
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO OUR SOUTHLAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR OCTOBER 7TH, 2025.
AS MAYOR, I CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
WE'RE GOING TO START WITH OUR WORK SESSION.
AS WE ALWAYS DO, THE FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS TO INVITE PASTOR CLAYTON REID, WHO IS OUR OFFICIAL CITY CHAPLAIN FROM SOUTHLAKE BAPTIST CHURCH TO LEAD US IN PRAYER.
THEN IF YOU WOULD, AND IF YOU'RE ABLE TO REMAIN STANDING FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND THE PLEDGE TO TEXAS.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. LET'S PRAY. GOD WE GIVE THANKS FOR THIS EVENING.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LOVE FOR US AND FOR THE KINDNESS THAT YOU EXPRESSED TO US TODAY IN GOOD WEATHER AND AIR CONDITIONING AND ELECTRICITY AND ALL OF THE HUNDRED THOUSAND THINGS THAT HAPPEN EVERY DAY TO MAKE OUR LIVES WONDERFUL.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO BE BORN HERE.
I PRAY THAT YOU WOULD GIVE US A HEART AS A CITY AND AS PEOPLE TO CARE ABOUT PEOPLE WHO AREN'T IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.
I PRAY THAT YOU GIVE US EYES TO SEE PEOPLE AROUND US WHO ARE STRUGGLING, WHO NEED ENCOURAGEMENT, AND WE PRAY LORD THAT YOU WOULD HELP US TO SPEAK BLESSING AND PEACE AND JOY AND DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES.
LORD, WE PRAY FOR OUR NATIONAL LEADERS.
WE PRAY FOR OUR PRESIDENT, FOR CONGRESS RIGHT NOW.
WE PRAY THAT YOU WOULD GIVE THEM WISDOM AND HELP AS THEY WORK OUT A BUDGET.
WE JUST PRAY BLESSING UPON PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING DIFFICULT DECISIONS.
WE PRAY THAT YOU WOULD HELP THEM TO FIND CONSENSUS AND TRUTH AND WISDOM IN THAT PURSUIT.
BUT WE ALSO GIVE THANKS FOR OUR CITY TEAM, WHERE WE THINK OF OUR STAFF.
TONIGHT WE ESPECIALLY THINK OF ALLISON ORTOWSKI.
WE GIVE THANKS FOR HER LEADERSHIP OVER THIS PAST YEAR.
WE PRAY THAT YOU GIVE HER PEACE AND STRENGTH AND JOY AS SHE LEADS OUR CITY TEAM, AND WE PRAY FOR YOUR WILL TO BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH HER.
LORD, WE PRAY FOR THIS MEETING TONIGHT THAT YOU WOULD FILL OUR COUNSEL WITH INTEGRITY AND WISDOM AND STRENGTH.
WE PRAY, LORD, THAT YOU WOULD HELP THEM AS THEY MAKE DECISIONS AND DEAL WITH SITUATIONS TO HAVE PEACE AND WISDOM AND HEALTH.
LORD, WE THANK YOU MOST OF ALL FOR JESUS CHRIST, WHO CAME, WHO BROUGHT PEACE AND JOY AND HOPE TO A WORLD THAT WAS RACKED WITH DIVISION AND SIN AND PAIN.
I PRAY, JESUS, THAT YOU WOULD WORK IN OUR HEARTS, WORK IN OUR CITY, AND WORK IN US, THAT YOU WOULD BE GLORIFIED IN ALL THAT WE DO AND SAY IN EVERY MEANING IN EVERY MOMENT.
THANK YOU FOR THIS TEAM IN FRONT OF ME.
BLESS THEM TONIGHT AS THEY WORK, IN JESUS NAME, WE PRAY. AMEN.
>> THANK YOU, PASTOR RED. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> THANK YOU, PASTOR REID. WE'RE GOING TO GO A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER, AND WE'RE GOING TO START WITH WORK SESSION ITEM NUMBER 5,
[5. Honors & Recognition: Proclamation for the 25th Anniversary of Call a Ride Southlake (CARS)]
HONORING AND RECOGNIZING THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF CALL-A-RIDE SOUTHLAKE, ALSO KNOWN AS CARS.AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO INVITE ERIC PHELPS AND ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO JOIN YOU ERIC'S THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CARS.
ANYONE AND EVERYONE IS WELCOME TO COME DOWN TO THE PODIUM.
TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT CARS AND THE HISTORY AND WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY.
>> WELL, THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND THANK YOU COUNSEL.
AS YOU STATED, THIS IS OUR 25TH ANNIVERSARY.
SO 25 YEARS AGO, A LOT OF THINGS WERE HAPPENING IN SOUTHLAKE.
OBVIOUSLY, A LOT OF DEDICATED INDIVIDUALS CAME TOGETHER TO DO THINGS FOR THE COMMUNITY IN THE COMMUNITY, AND CARS WAS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT BUBBLED UP TO THE SURFACE.
WE ALL EXPERIENCED A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT MY RIDERS EXPERIENCE ON A DAILY BASIS DURING COVID OR DURING AN ICE STORM WHERE WE GET A LITTLE ANTSY BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET OUT AND ABOUT FOR 24 HOURS OR 48 HOURS.
WELL, THESE FOLKS ARE DOING THE SAME THING.
BECAUSE OF VOLUNTEERS, WHETHER THEY BE ON MY BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR DRIVING FOLKS TO DOCTORS APPOINTMENTS OR TO THE SENIOR CENTER, WE'VE MADE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT HERE IN SOUTHLAKE.
FOR 25 YEARS, WE'VE DRIVEN, OR I SHOULD SAY, OUR VOLUNTEERS HAVE DRIVEN MORE THAN 250,000 MILES AND GIVEN OVER 36,000 RIDES IN THAT 25-YEAR PERIOD.
[00:05:02]
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT THEM AND TO SHARE THE RECOGNITION ESSENTIALLY WITH THEM.>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU FOR THE YEARS OF SERVICE, THE GREAT SERVICE TO PEOPLE WHO REALLY NEED THAT HELP.
IT'S A TRUE BLESSING TO HAVE YOU ALL DOING THAT FOR OUR FELLOW RESIDENTS AND HERE'S TO ANOTHER 25 YEARS, RIGHT?
[LAUGHTER] WE HAVE A PROCLAMATION FROM THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE THAT I'D LIKE TO READ.
THEN IF YOU WOULD JOIN US, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A PICTURE, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT WITH YOU, AND WE HAVE A PROCLAMATION, A COPY OF IT FOR ALL TO TAKE HOME OR FOR WHOEVER'S IN CHARGE, WHETHER THAT'S YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE.
IT MIGHT BE SOMEONE ELSE WHO WAS SITTING BEHIND YOU. SHE MIGHT BE IN CHARGE.
>> [LAUGHTER] I'LL READ THROUGH THE PROCLAMATION AND THEN WE'LL DO THE PICTURE.
WHEREAS, CAR-A-RIDE OF SOUTHLAKE, AFFECTIONATELY KNOWN AS CARS, WAS FOUNDED IN 1999 BY A GROUP OF DEDICATED SOUTHLAKE RETIREES WHO RECOGNIZED THE NEED FOR ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORTATION FOR SENIORS AND DISABLED ADULTS IN OUR COMMUNITY.
WHEREAS SINCE THE FIRST OFFICIAL RIDE IN JANUARY OF 2000, CARS HAS PROVIDED MORE THAN 36,000 SAFE, RELIABLE, AND COMPASSIONATE RIDES TO SOUTHLAKE RESIDENTS, ENABLING INDEPENDENCE, SOCIAL CONNECTION, AND ACCESS TO ESSENTIAL SERVICES.
WHEREAS CARS HAS OPERATED FOR 25 YEARS AT A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION, POWERED BY VOLUNTEERS WHO HAVE LOGGED MORE THAN 250,000 MILES WITH SUPPORT FROM THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TARRANT COUNTY, AND GENEROUS COMMUNITY PARTNERS, EXEMPLIFYING THE SPIRIT OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND NEIGHBORLY CARE.
WHEREAS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ERIC PHELPS AND A DEDICATED BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CARS CONTINUES TO THRIVE, OFFERING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, FOR MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS, SHOPPING, SOCIAL OUTINGS, AND SO MUCH MORE WITHIN A 25 MILE RADIUS OF SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE FOR MEDICAL RIDES, AND A SEVEN MILE RADIUS FOR ALL OTHER RIDES.
WHEREAS THE IMPACT OF CARS EXTENDS BEYOND TRANSPORTATION, IT FOSTERS DIGNITY, CONNECTION, AND COMMUNITY FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE BE ISOLATED, AND IT PROVIDES MEANINGFUL VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTS WHO WISH TO GIVE BACK TO OUR COMMUNITY.
WHEREAS IN CELEBRATION OF ITS 25TH ANNIVERSARY, WE HONOR THE LEGACY, LEADERSHIP, AND VOLUNTEERS OF CARS WHO HAVE MADE A LASTING DIFFERENCE IN THE LIVES OF SOUTHLAKE RESIDENTS.
NOW THEREFORE, I SHAWN MCCASKILL, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, ON BEHALF OF OUR CITY COUNCIL, DO HEREBY RECOGNIZE AND COMMEND CALL-A-RIDE SOUTHLAKE FOR 25 YEARS OF OUTSTANDING SERVICE AND DEDICATION TO OUR COMMUNITY.
I ENCOURAGE ALL OF OUR CITIZENS TO CELEBRATE AND SUPPORT THIS VITAL ORGANIZATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND CONGRATULATIONS [APPLAUSE].
>> I'LL INVITE THE CARS TEAM TO COME ON DOWN AND WE'LL TAKE A PICTURE.
NEXT, WE'LL GO TO WORK SESSION ITEM NUMBER 4,
[4. Honors & Recognition: Proclamation for National Chiropractic Health Month]
HONORING AND RECOGNIZING WITH A PROCLAMATION FOR NATIONAL CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH MONTH.AT THIS POINT, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE DR. TYCE HERGERT, WHO HAS PRACTICED IN SOUTHLAKE FOR 25 YEARS, TO HELP US HONOR AND RECOGNIZE NATIONAL CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH MONTH.
IT'S GOOD TO BE PART OF THE 25-YEAR CLUB HERE TONIGHT, GUESS.
I OWN SOUTHLAKE PHYSICAL MEDICINE HERE IN SOUTHLAKE.
[00:10:04]
WE'VE BEEN HERE 25 YEARS.I'M A PAST PRESIDENT OF THE TEXAS CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION, AND I CURRENTLY REPRESENT THE CHIROPRACTORS OF TEXAS TO THE AMERICAN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION.
I'D LIKE TO THANK THE MAYOR, ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR RECOGNIZING OCTOBER AS NATIONAL CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH MONTH. THANK YOU, GUYS.
>> WE THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT TO OUR ATTENTION.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND ALL YOUR GOOD WORK OVER 25 YEARS HERE IN SOUTHLAKE.
>> WE ALSO HAVE A PROCLAMATION FOR YOU IN RECOGNITION OF THIS EVENT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.
IF YOU'LL BEAR WITH ME, I'LL READ THAT AND THEN IF YOU'RE OKAY, WE'LL TAKE A PICTURE.
>> THERE'S SOME BIG WORDS IN THIS PROCLAMATION, SO I'M GOING TO TRY MY BEST.
WHEREAS CHRONIC MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN IS A WIDESPREAD PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES AND AROUND THE WORLD DUE TO FACTORS SUCH AS AGING POPULATION AND AN INCREASE IN OBESITY AND SEDENTARY LIFESTYLES.
WHEREAS CLINICAL GUIDELINES NOW RECOMMEND NON DRUG TREATMENTS AS THE FIRST LINE OF CARE FOR COMMON MUSCULOSKELETAL CONDITIONS.
WHEREAS CHIROPRACTIC CARE OFFERS EFFECTIVE DRUG-FREE APPROACHES TO MANAGING PAIN AND IMPROVING OVERALL HEALTH.
WHEREAS DOCTORS OF CHIROPRACTIC PROVIDE EXPERT CARE FOR CONDITIONS SUCH AS BACK, NECK, AND JOINT PAIN AND PROMOTE WELLNESS THROUGH LIFESTYLE GUIDANCE.
WHEREAS THE THEME GETS STARTED WITH CHIROPRACTIC ENCOURAGES CITIZENS TO EXPLORE CHIROPRACTIC CARE AS A SAFE AND EFFECTIVE OPTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, I MAYOR SHAWN MCCASKILL, FROM THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, ON BEHALF OF OUR CITY COUNCIL, JOINS THE AMERICAN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION AND THE TEXAS CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION IN PROCLAIMING OCTOBER 2025, AS NATIONAL CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH MONTH.
WE ENCOURAGE ALL RESIDENTS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF MUSCULOSKELETAL HEALTH AND EXPLORE SAFE EVIDENCE-BASED OPTIONS FOR MANAGING PAIN AND IMPROVING WELLNESS.
CONGRATULATIONS, AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
>> [APPLAUSE] LET'S DO THAT PICTURE.
>> THE NEXT ITEM WILL BE WORK SESSION ITEM 3 AND AN UPDATE FROM THE SOUTHLAKE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, BUT I THINK THEY'RE RUNNING A LITTLE BIT LATE.
WE'LL GO AHEAD THEN AND MOVE INTO THE CONSENT AGENDA,
[6. Discuss all items on tonight's agenda. No action will be taken and each item will be considered during the Regular Session.]
AND WE'LL DISCUSS ALL THOSE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.I WILL TURN THAT OVER TO DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM AND CITIZEN OF THE YEAR, KATHY TALLEY.
MARK JUST SHOWED UP. LET'S RUN THROUGH CONSENT SINCE YOU'RE ALREADY READY TO GO.
>> GIVE ME JUST A SECOND. I WASN'T READY FOR THAT.
MAYOR, COUNSEL, I OFFER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS UP FOR CONSIDERATION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ITEM 4A, APPROVED MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2025, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
ITEM 4B, APPROVED RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-038, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR THEIR DESIGNEE TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY IN ALL MATTERS RELATED TO GRANTS.
ITEM 4C, APPROVED RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-035, AMENDING THE CITY FEE SCHEDULE.
ITEM 4D, APPROVING ENCROACHMENT AND JOINT USE AGREEMENT FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE WITHIN A VARIABLE WITH DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED AT 519 NORTH KIMBALL AVENUE.
ITEM 4E, APPROVE A 30-DAY EXTENSION OF CASE ZA 25-0058, PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS TRACT 5B02C, AND 5B02D1, SAMUEL FREEMAN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 525, CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, AND LOCATED AT 410 AND 414 SHADY LANE, CURRENT ZONING, SF-1A, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SPIN NEIGHBORHOOD NUMBER 4.
[00:15:02]
ITEM 4F, APPROVAL OF A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE VALIDITY OF CASE ZA 22-0040, FLAT REVISION FOR LOT 14R OF THE HILLTOP ACRES ADDITION, BEING A REVISION OF LOT 14 HILLTOP ACRES ADDITION, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, AND INCLUDING A 0.116-ACRE TRACT OF LAND IN THE DAVID DOUTHIT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 446 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, AND LOCATED AT 4021 HILLTOP DRIVE, SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS.ITEM 4G, EXCUSE THE ABSENCE OF PLANNING AND ZONING VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL FORMAN AND COMMISSIONER DAVID CUNNINGHAM FROM THE SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2025, REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING; ITEM 4H, TABLE ORDINANCE NUMBER 480-564F, ZA24-0042, SECOND READING ZONING CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CARILLON PARC PLAZA DISTRICT, ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS TRACTS 3A4, 3A4A, 3A5, 3A, 3A3, 3A1B, AND A PORTION OF TRACTS 1E,1D AND 3A1 LARK AND H. CHIVERS SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 300, AND GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF STATE HIGHWAY 114 AND NORTH WHITE CHAPEL BOULEVARD, WEST OF RIVIERA DRIVE AND APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET SOUTH OF EAST KIRKWOOD BOULEVARD, CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TERRANOUNTY, TEXAS, CURRENT ZONING, ECZ EMPLOYMENT CENTER ZONING DISTRICT, REQUESTED ZONING, ECZ EMPLOYMENT CENTER ZONING DISTRICT, SPIN NEIGHBORHOOD NUMBER 3.
ITEM 4I, TABLE SV 25-0007, SIGN VARIANCES FOR BURGER KING LOCATED AT 125 NORTH KIMBALL AVENUE.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION TO MOVE FROM REGULAR AGENDA TO CONSENT AGENDA?
>> YES, MAYOR AND COUNSEL, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER.
>> I'LL ASK FIRST, AND IF YOU'RE GOOD WITH IT, I'LL READ THEM BOTH 8A AND 8B.
THIS IS THE NOMINATING PROCESS FOR THE TARRANT APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
THESE ARE NOMINATIONS. WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE'LL VOTE AT A LATER COUNCIL MEETING.
>> WE HAVE NOMINATIONS FOR DENTON APPRAISAL DISTRICT, AND ALSO THEN FOR THE TARRANT APPRAISAL DISTRICT. WE'RE NOT VOTING.
WE'RE JUST DOING THE NOMINATIONS.
ANYONE HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THOSE BEING ON CONSENT? I THINK WE'RE GOOD WITH 8A AND 8B.
>> ITEM 8A, RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-039, NOMINATING CANDIDATES TO THE DENTON CENTRAL APPRAISIC DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
DO I NEED TO READ THOSE, ANN? WE HAVE ANN POMYKAL, WHO'S THE VICE CHAIR, AND MIKE HENNEFER, PLACE 7.
THEN ITEM 8B, RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-040, NOMINATING CANDIDATES TO THE TARRANT APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
WE HAVE MIKE ALFRED AND WENDY BURGES.
THEN ITEM 9A, WHICH IS SV 25-0010 SIGN VARIANCE FOR PARAGON PLASTIC SURGERY.
>> IS EVERYONE OKAY WITH THAT ON CONSENT, 9A?
>> THEN 9B ZA 25-0060, PLAT SHOWING FOR LOTS 14 AND 15 AH CHIPPERS NUMBER 299 EDITION, 1900 NORTH CARROLL AVENUE, AND 1,100 PRIMROSE LANE.
>> THAT'S A ZBA CASE, I THINK PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THAT. I'M GOOD WITH THAT.
EVERYONE OKAY WITH 9B ON CONSENT? WE'LL ADD 8A, 8B, 9A, AND 9B TO CONSENT AND APPROVE THOSE ITEMS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA?
>> JUST ONE MAYOR, ON ITEM 4C WITH THE CITY FEE SCHEDULE.
I JUST WANT TO AFTER TALKING TO THE CITY MANAGER AND OUR CFO THAT THOSE FEES WILL BE ADDRESSED MAYBE LATER IN THE YEAR, AND THAT THIS IS NOT THE ONLY TIME WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THEM, SO I JUST WANT TO GET THAT ON RECORD.
>> DULY NOTED, AND THAT'S CORRECT.
WE'LL TAKE UP. WE'LL VOTE ON THAT DURING OUR REGULAR SESSION.
[3. Southlake Chamber of Commerce Update - Southlake Oktoberfest]
WORK SESSION ITEM NUMBER 3 FOR A SOUTHLAKE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE UPDATE.MARK GILBERT IS HERE, AND I'M GUESSING WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS OKTOBERFEST.
>> THANK YOU, [INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
APPRECIATE YOUR WORK WITH ME THIS EVENING AND THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THE EXCITING STUFF THE CHAMBER IS UP TO.
HOPEFULLY, YOU'RE ALL VERY WELL AWARE THAT OKTOBERFEST IS COMING UP THIS MONTH ON THE 17TH TO THE 19TH.
THIS IS OUR 24TH YEAR FOR THE EVENT.
WE'RE ALWAYS LEARNING, ALWAYS GROWING, BUT IT HAS MATURED FROM WHERE IT CAME FROM TO WHERE IT IS TODAY.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE WEATHER IS PROMISING SO FAR, SO FINGERS CROSSED ON THAT ONE.
[00:20:01]
THERE'S ALWAYS THE UNEXPECTED, BUT THERE'S A GREAT COMMITTEE THAT'S BEEN WORKING ON IT ALL YEAR LONG.THE FINAL COMMITTEE MEETING IS ACTUALLY TOMORROW.
ANYWAY, WE'RE VERY OPTIMISTIC AND EXPECTING A GOOD TURNOUT THIS YEAR.
BUT IT'S A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE KNOWN OVER THE YEARS THAT WE'VE DONE.
WE'RE OBVIOUSLY KEEPING THE WIENER DOG GRACES AND OTHER ASPECTS.
BUT THIS YEAR, WE HAVE STEPPED UP OUR GAME A LITTLE BIT, AND YOU'LL SEE AN EXPANDED STAGE IN FRONT OF THE GAZEBO, SIMILAR TO, IF YOU WENT TO DALE, WHAT THAT STAGE LOOK LIKE, AND OUR AV IS GOING TO BE A LOT MORE ADVANCED THAN IT HAS BEEN BEFORE.
WE WENT WITH DOUBLE HEADLINERS ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY NIGHT.
THE LAST TWO BANDS ON ANY GIVEN NIGHT ARE VERY EXCELLENT.
WE'RE HOPING THAT'LL HELP HOLD A CROWD AND ENTERTAIN THEM AND THEY'LL DISCOVER MORE ABOUT THE GREAT SHOPS SOUTHLAKE HAS RIGHT HERE IN TOWN SQUARE WHILE THEY'RE HERE.
THERE IS SOME OF OUR FANTASTIC, IN FACT, ALL OF OUR FANTASTIC SPONSORS RIGHT THERE, SO WE ARE GRATEFUL TO EVERYONE WHO HAS INVESTED IN THE EVENT.
OUR NEXT CHAMBER LUNCHEON IS GOING TO BE CHARLIE MORRISON.
I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM HIM.
WE HAD A GREAT SPEAKER LAST MONTH JOHN MARRIS, I BELIEVE HOW YOU SAY HIS NAME.
HE WAS THE SOLO STOKE BEFORE AND NOW HE'S THE FLORET.
HOPEFULLY YOU CAN MAKE OUR NEXT LUNCHEON. GET A GOOD ONE COMING UP.
PRAYER BREAKFAST CONTINUES TO THRIVE.
YOU WERE THERE THIS MORNING, MAYOR, YOU SAW THE SIZE OF THE CROWD.
ANYWAY, IT'S CERTAINLY NOT AS BIG AS OUR MONTHLY LUNCHEON, BUT IT'S ABOUT TO BE THE SECOND HIGHEST THING.
IT'S TAKEN OVER THE EVENING BUSINESS EXCHANGE.
I SEE THAT AS QUITE A BLESSING, AND SOME GREAT NETWORKING OPPORTUNITY THERE.
THEN NEXT TUESDAY, IT'S A FREE BREAKFAST, IF YOU NEED, YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE TO SHOW UP FOR 8:00 AM UNTIL 9:00 AM OVER AT THE WEST END AS WE HAVE AN OPEN NETWORKING EVENT.
IF YOU DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW, THIS IS WHO IS ON OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND SO SHOUT OUT OF GRATITUDE TO EACH OF THEM FOR THEIR SERVICE.
SO FAR THIS YEAR, WE'VE HAD 32 RIBBON CUTTINGS. THAT'S A BUNCH.
SO FAR THROUGH THE SECOND OF THIS MONTH, WE'VE HAD 133 NEW MEMBERS JOIN.
NOW WE DO SADLY FROM TIME-TO-TIME, LOSE MEMBERS, THEY GO OUT OF BUSINESS, THEY MOVE, WHATEVER THE REASON MIGHT BE.
BUT THERE'S A VERY HEALTHY INFLOW OF PEOPLE COMING INTO THE CHAMBER, AND WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THAT.
THAT'S IT. IS THAT MY LAST SLIDE? IT MAY BE. WELL, I THINK THAT IS MY LAST SLIDE.
SORRY. I JUST APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY.
YOU'LL HAVE BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR A LONG TIME, AND THIS BUSINESS COMMUNITY IN GENERAL.
SUCH A BUSINESS FRIENDLY COMMUNITY, IT'S EASY TO BE THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GUY IN SOUTHLAKE, AND SO I APPRECIATE JUST THE WAY EVERYONE FROM THE CITY WHO WORKS WITH THE CHAMBER.
>> WELL, WE APPRECIATE THE GREAT WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND OUR LOCAL BUSINESSES, LARGE AND SMALL, SO THAT'S WHAT MAKES THE COMMUNITY WORK, AND IT'S BEEN A GREAT LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP, MANY YEARS TO GO IN THE FUTURE WITH CONTINUING TO WORK TOGETHER.
TWO QUICK QUESTIONS ON OKTOBERFEST.
ARE THERE STILL VOLUNTEER OPENINGS AVAILABLE OR NEEDED?
THE LAST SHIFTS ON SATURDAY NIGHT CONTINUED TO BE A LITTLE THIN, AND WE DEFINITELY COULD USE SOME MORE HELP.
BUT ALL OF OUR WONDERFUL VOLUNTEERS WANT TO WATCH THE BANDS INSTEAD.
SATURDAY NIGHT, IF ANY OF YOU GUYS KNOW ANYBODY THAT CAN HELP US, ESPECIALLY, WE REALLY NEED SOME VOLUNTEERS IN.
>> WHAT'S THE DEAL IF THERE'S A TEAM OF VOLUNTEERS THAT ARE ALLOWED TO BRING THEIR T-SHIRTS OR ASSIGN OR SOMETHING IF IT'S LIKE A BUSINESS, OR A DIFFERENT ORGANIZATION, IF THEY TAKE A WHOLE BOOTH, WHAT ARE THE RULES ON THAT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. IF ANY COMPANY OR ORGANIZATION TAKES ENOUGH SHIFTS IN A BAR TO FILL THE BAR FOR US, THEN WE ENCOURAGE THEM TO WEAR MATCHING SHIRTS OR COMPANY ATTIRE, OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE.
IT INCLUDES AN A FRAME SIGN OUT IN FRONT OF THE BAR SO THAT IF THEY BRING THE INSERT FORWARD, IT CAN SAY, THIS BAR PROUDLY MANNED BY XYZ ORGANIZATION.
THEY DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY THERE TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR COMMUNITY SERVICE AND IDENTIFY THEIR BRAND IN A POSITIVE WAY. THANK YOU FOR ASKING.
>> WHAT TIME DO WE TAP THE KEGS ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON? I KNOW IT'S A DIRTY JOB AND I WILL DO IT.
>> WHAT TIME DO WE DO THAT? WHAT TIME DO WE GET STARTED ON FRIDAY?
>> 5:00 PM. WE'RE OFFICIALLY OPENING AT FOUR, BUT THE CEREMONIAL PART IS AT FIVE.
[00:25:02]
WE DO HAVE OUR LOGISTICS CREW UNDER PRESSURE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY WAY THAT WE COULD HAVE A BAR OPEN BY TWO, BUT FOUR IS STILL OUR TIME TO TRY TO GET OPEN OFFICIALLY.>> FRIDAY, OCTOBER 17TH, WE'LL BE THERE.
THANK YOU, MARK. ANY QUESTIONS? IS THERE ANYTHING FOR MARK? GO AHEAD.
>> WE REALLY EXPECTED YOU TO ARRIVE WITH LEADER HOSAN.
>> [LAUGHTER] WELL, I'VE GOT IT IN THE CAR, AND I HAVE BEEN WEARING IT AT.
>> WILL BE ON TOWN SQUARE SHOOTING VIDEO TOMORROW RYAN DAY.
>> THERE MAY BE A VIDEO COMING OUT ON MONDAY OR THE NEXT MONDAY, RIGHT?
>> OH, BOY. SOMETHING MAYBE LOOK FORWARD TO.
BUT THANK YOU, MARK FOR EVERYTHING YOU GUYS DO.
YOU GUYS WORK SO HARD ALL YEAR LONG AND I JUST HAD TO SNEAK THIS IN.
I'M SO GLAD IT'S NOT THE WEEKEND OF THE TEXAS OU GAME THIS YEAR.
[LAUGHTER] I'LL BE ABLE TO SPEND MORE TIME THERE.
>> REALLY APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT.
>> WE'LL SEE YOU THERE ON OKTOBERFEST.
THAT CONCLUDES THE WORK SESSION.
NEXT, I'D LIKE TO CALL OUR REGULAR SESSION ORDER AND THE FIRST ITEM OF
[1. Call to order.]
BUSINESS IN THE REGULAR SESSION IS TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.[2.A. Executive Session (Part 1 of 2)]
AS MAYOR, I HEREBY ADVISE YOU, THAT WE'RE GOING TO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071 TO SEEK LEGAL ADVICE FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY, SECTION 551.072 TO DELIBERATE REGARDING REAL PROPERTY MATTERS, AND SECTION 551.087 TO DELIBERATE REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS.I'LL CHECK WITH THE CITY MANAGER ON HOW LONG WE'LL BE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
PROBABLY ABOUT AN HOUR. WE'LL SEE BACK HERE AROUND SEVEN O'CLOCK. THANK YOU.
[2.B. Reconvene: Action necessary on items discussed in Executive Session. (Part 1 of 2)]
I'LL CALL OUR REGULAR SESSION BACK TO ORDER.IS THERE ANY ACTION NECESSARY FOLLOWING EXECUTIVE SESSION?
>> YES, MAYOR, COUNCIL. I MAKE A MOTION TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR PROJECT NUMBER 2024-01 AS DISCUSSED.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
THAT'S IT FOLLOWING EXECUTIVE SESSION.
NOTHING SCHEDULED ONTO THE CITY MANAGER'S REPORT.
[3.B. City Manager’s Report]
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE HAVE TWO ITEMS FOR YOU THIS EVENING.
FIRST, I'D LIKE TO ASK BORA SULOLLARI TO STEP FORWARD.
SHE IS OUR ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER, AND SHE IS GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT OUR RECENT KICKOFF OF THE 2025 CITIZEN SATISFACTION SURVEY.
>> YES. THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER ORTOWSKI.
GOOD EVENING, MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBER.
I'M HONORED TO BE HERE TO DISCUSS THE LAUNCH OF THE 2025 CITIZEN SATISFACTION SURVEY THAT WENT LIVE OKTOBERFEST AND WILL LAST UNTIL NOVEMBER 3RD.
THE SURVEY IS MOBILE FRIENDLY AND TAKES LESS THAN 10 MINUTES TO COMPLETE FROM ANY DEVICE.
EVERY TWO YEARS, WE CONDUCT THE SURVEY TO MEASURE REDIZEN SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES AND TO GATHER INPUT ON COMMUNITY PRIORITIES.
THESE RESULTS WILL PROVIDE COUNSEL AND STAFF WITH IMPORTANT INSIGHTS TO GUIDE STRATEGIC DECISIONS IN SERVICE DELIVERY, PERFORMANCE TRACKING, BUDGETING, COMMUNICATION, AND LONG-TERM PLANNING.
AS OF THIS MORNING, WE'VE ALREADY RECEIVED 170 RESPONSES, AND WE EXPECT THAT NUMBER TO GROW SIGNIFICANTLY AS WE CONTINUE OUR OUTREACH.
TO MAXIMIZE PARTICIPATION, WE'RE USING A MULTI CHANNEL OUTREACH STRATEGY THAT INCLUDES POSTCARDS TO EVERY HOUSEHOLD, SPOTLIGHT VIDEO, MY SOUTHLAKE NEWS ARTICLE, SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS, AND BANNERS AND POSTERS DISPLAYED ACROSS THE CITY, JUST TO NAME A FEW.
PARTICIPANTS WILL ALSO BE ENTERED FOR A CHANCE TO WIN A PICKLEBALL RENTAL, A PARTY AT CHAMPIONS CLUB, OR A LOUNGE RENTAL AT LEGENDS HALL.
WE'RE ENCOURAGING RESIDENTS TO TAKE THE SURVEY BY VISITING THE CITY'S WEBSITE OR BY SCANNING THE QR CODE WHENEVER THEY SEE IT.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO SHARING THE RESULTS WITH YOU EARLY IN 2026.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
WE ALSO HAVE OUR DECISION ANALYST HERE, MS. JULIE TRUJILLO, WHO IS ALSO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU, BORA. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU ALL FOR ALL THE GREAT WORK, PUTTING IT TOGETHER, MAKING IT SUPER EASY TO USE, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE RESULTS IN THE NEW YEAR.
COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THE CITIZEN SATISFACTION SURVEY.
>> I HAVE ONE. IS IT ANONYMOUS?
>> YOU GET ALL WAY ROUGH, YOU HAVE TO SAY, I THOUGHT OUGHT WHEN YOU GOT TO THE END, THEY WANTED YOUR INFORMATION.
>> YOU ENTER IN YOUR ADDRESS, AND THAT STAYS WITH OUR DECISION ANALYST, IF MS. JULIE TRUJILLO COULD TALK MORE ABOUT IT,
[00:30:01]
BUT WE DON'T SEE IT ON OUR END.THEY ARE THE ONES WHO RECEIVED THE ADDRESSES.
>> WHAT NUMBER DO WE NEED TO RECEIVE BACK FOR IT TO BE SIGNIFICANT?
>> THEY SAY USUALLY AROUND 450 RESIDENTS. YES, MA'AM.
>> WELL, IT DOES ASK FOR FIRST NAME.
I WOULDN'T CALL IT COMPLETELY ANONYMOUS.
IF I PUT IN MY ADDRESS AND THEN PUT IN CHARLES, OBVIOUS WHO IT WAS.
>> YES, SIR. FROM OUR STANDPOINT, IT'S ANONYMOUS, BUT FROM OUR DECISION ANALYST, THEY CAN SEE ALL THE RESULTS AND DATA.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, BORA. APPRECIATE IT.
>> NEXT, WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF NATIONAL CUSTOMER SERVICE WEEK.
I'D LIKE TO ASK MELODY ANDERSEN, OUR OPERATIONS MANAGER FOR CUSTOMER RELATIONS, AND THEN INES THORNLOW, OUR CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ASSISTANT TO STEP FORWARD AND TALK ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE PLANNED.
>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.
I AM EXCITED TO BE HERE TO TALK ABOUT MY FAVORITE TOPIC, THE WORLD CLASS CUSTOMER SERVICE THAT OUR TEAM MEMBERS PROVIDE.
I AM FORTUNATE TO BE ABLE TO INTERACT WITH A LOT OF OUR CUSTOMERS, AND I HEAR REPEATEDLY HOW OUR TEAM HELPS THEM ANSWER QUESTIONS, PROVIDE ASSISTANCE, AND RESPOND TO THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY.
I HAVE ASKED INES THORNLOW, OUR CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ASSISTANT TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE PLANS FOR NATIONAL CUSTOMER SERVICE WEEK, AND SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT WE HEAR FROM OUR CUSTOMERS.
>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.
AS MELODY SAID, I'M HERE TO SHARE ABOUT NATIONAL CUSTOMER SERVICE WEEK.
THE CELEBRATION STARTED IN 1987, AND IN 1992, THE US CONGRESS OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED IT AS A NATIONAL OBSERVANCE.
THE 2025 CELEBRATION TAKES PLACE THIS WEEK.
IT HIGHLIGHTS THE VITAL ROLE OF CUSTOMER SERVICE AND EXPRESSES APPRECIATION FOR THOSE WHO ASSIST CUSTOMERS EVERY DAY.
EACH YEAR, A THEME IS SELECTED BY THE CUSTOMER SERVICE GROUP, AND THIS YEAR'S THEME IS MISSION POSSIBLE.
SOUTHLAKE HOSTED ITS FIRST CUSTOMER SERVICE WEEK IN 2022 AND PLANS TO CONTINUE THE TRADITION EACH YEAR.
>> WE HEAR FROM OUR CUSTOMERS AND RESIDENTS EVERY DAY.
SOME CALL OR EMAIL US, SOME COMPLETE A SHORT SURVEY, AND SOME JUST STOP BY.
SOUTHLAKE TAKES PRIDE IN DELIVERING WORLD CLASS CUSTOMER SERVICE EVERY DAY.
WE'RE COMMITTED TO LISTENING TO OUR RESIDENTS NEEDS AND OUR CUSTOMER SERVICE FEEDBACK FORM AS A TESTAMENT TO THAT COMMITMENT.
IN 2025 ALONE, WE'VE ALREADY RECEIVED OVER 50 COMPLIMENTS WITH OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE FEEDBACK SPANNING ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS.
THIS CONTINUED INPUT REINFORCES OUR DEDICATION TO EXCELLENCE AND HELPS GUIDE FUTURE SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS ACROSS THE CITY.
HERE ARE JUST SOME EXAMPLES OF THE FEEDBACK WE HAVE RECEIVED.
THIS WEEK AND EVERY WEEK, WE WANT TO SAY A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO OUR TEAM FOR THE INCREDIBLE WORK THEY DO TO TAKE CARE OF OUR CUSTOMERS.
YOUR DEDICATION, CREATIVITY, AND KINDNESS TURN SMALL MOMENTS INTO LASTING IMPRESSIONS FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU. WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
>> THANK YOU BOTH FOR THE PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU TO ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES.
WE HAVE THE BEST OF THE BEST, AND THAT'S EVIDENT WITH THE FEEDBACK WE GET ON CUSTOMER SERVICE, WE'RE A CUSTOMER SERVICE BUSINESS.
WE DON'T SELL STUFF, BUT WE'RE A CUSTOMER SERVICE BUSINESS HERE AT THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE.
THANK YOU TO EVERYONE. THANK YOU FOR THIS PRESENTATION AND HIGHLIGHTING THAT.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNSEL. I THINK WE'RE GOOD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYTHING ELSE ON THE CITY MANAGERS REPORT? NEXT, WE'LL GO BACK TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
WE REVIEWED THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS DURING THE WORK SESSION.ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR PRESENTATIONS NEEDED ON ANY OF THOSE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA PLUS 8A, 8B, 9A AND 9B THAT WE'RE MOVING FROM REGULAR AGENDA TO CONSENT AGENDA.
DEPUTY PRO TEM TALLEY, YOU'RE UP.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. MAYOR AND COUNSEL.
I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 4A-4I.
NOTING THAT WE ARE ADDING 8A, 8B, 9A, AND 9B.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? CAST YOUR VOTES.
THAT MOTION CARRIES 7,0, THE CONSENT AGENDA IS APPROVED.
THE PUBLIC FORM ALLOWS THE PUBLIC TO BRING UP ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC FORUM ON AN ITEM THAT'S NOT ON OUR AGENDA? I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC FORUM. SEE NONE.
NEXT UP, WE'LL TAKE ITEM 6A AND 6B TOGETHER,
[Items 6.A. & 6.B. (Part 1 of 2)]
6A IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 1269-E, SOCP 25-0002, SECOND READING AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE CONSOLIDATED FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FOR 2530 JOHNSON ROAD, AND ITEM 6B IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 480-838,[00:35:01]
CASE NUMBER ZA25-0052, SECOND READING ZONING CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 2530 JOHNSON ROAD, DIRECTOR KILLOUGH.>> THANK YOU, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL.
THIS IS AS YOU MENTIONED, A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN, CHANGING PROPERTY FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND THEN A ZONING CHANGE, CHANGING TRACT OF LAND FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2530 JOHNSON ROAD.
THIS IS A CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION AND CURRENT ZONING AGRICULTURAL.
THIS IS A VIEW OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING NORTH FROM JOHNSON ROAD, AND A VIEW LOOKING WEST FROM TERMINATING POINT OF REMUDA COURT.
FOLLOWING FIRST READING, COUNCIL APPROVED THIS WITH THE APPLICANT BRINGING BACK ANOTHER OPTION, SHOWING A TWO LOT OPTION WITH AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE LOTS BEING ONE ACRE OR MORE.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED THREE OPTIONS, OR ORIGINAL OPTION AND TWO ADDITIONAL OPTIONS.
THIS IS OPTION A, WHICH IS THE PREFERRED OPTION, CHANGING THE LAND USE FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY FOR THE ENTIRE TRACT.
THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRESENTED AT FIRST READING.
THEY HAVE MODIFIED THAT SLIGHTLY FOR SECOND READING CONSIDERATION.
THE LOT SIZES ARE THE SAME IN AREA AND DIMENSION.
HOWEVER, THEY'VE CHANGED THE ACCESS TO BE TWO INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAYS THAT WOULD ACCESS REMUDA COURT PAVEMENT THROUGH THE 50 FOOT WIDE TERMINUS OF REMUDA COURT INTO THE WEST BOUNDARY OF JOHNSON PLACE ESTATES.
THIS IS OPTION A AND THIS IS DATA FOR OPTION A, AND DETAIL OF THE DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION BEING PROPOSED.
I THINK THE INTENT IS TO PUT UP ORNAMENTAL METAL FENCING OR REPLACE WHERE THERE MAY BE EIGHT FOOT WOOD FENCING IF REPLACEMENT IS NEEDED, REPLACE SAME PER SAME.
THIS IS OPTION B, WHICH PROPOSES A LOW DENSITY LOT ON THE FRONT EDGE OF JOHNSON PLACE AND MEDIUM DENSITY LOT ADJACENT TO REMUDA COURT.
RESIDENTIAL CHANGE WOULD JUST CHANGE THE NORTH PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION.
THIS IS OPTION B DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND DATA SUMMARY FOR THAT.
THEY WOULD HAVE DRIVE ACCESS THROUGH THE TERMINATING POINT OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF REMUDA COURT.
ONCE AGAIN, SIMILAR FENCE EXHIBIT.
OPTION C REVERSES THAT, PLACES LOW DENSITY, ONE ACRE LOT ON THE NORTHERN LOT, WOULD CHANGE THE REMAINDER FRONTAGE ALONG JOHNSON TO MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE CATEGORY.
THIS IS DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH ONE ACRE LOT BEING LOCATED ON THE NORTH PORTION OF THE TRACT AND ROUGHLY 37.5 1,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT ON THE SOUTH FACING JOHNSON.
THIS IS A DATA FOR THAT PROPOSAL AND EXHIBIT FOR THE ACCESS ON THE NORTH LOT AND A SIMILAR FENCING PLAN.
THIS IS OVERALL DATA WITH COMPARISON TO SF20.
[00:40:01]
TREE CONSERVATION PLAN.ALBEIT, THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THE STANDARD PRESERVATION OF A STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT.
THIS DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES 60% OF THE EXISTING TREE COVER TO BE PRESERVED AND THEY'RE PROPOSING 63% OF THAT TO REMAIN PRESERVED.
THIS IS PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN FOR THE SITE AND DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN.
THESE ARE SOME RENDERED EXHIBITS OF POTENTIAL HOME SITES ON THE NORTHERN LOTS FOLLOWING THE OPTION A PLAN AND SOME VARIOUS PERSPECTIVES OF THAT.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF BOTH REQUESTS AT THEIR SEPTEMBER 4, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
FIRST READING OF THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED FOR THE LAND USE AMENDMENT 52 AND FOR THE ZONING DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 52 WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE APPLICANT THAT THEY BRING BACK AT LEAST ONE PLAN WITH THE ONE ACRE LOT WITH THE TWO OPTION.
WE'VE RECEIVED NINE OPPOSITION NOTIFICATIONS FROM PROPERTIES WITHIN THE 200 FOOT NOTICE AREA AND THEN ANOTHER FOUR OUTSIDE WITHIN THE 300 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA, AND THEN TOTAL OF 12 THAT WERE OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA TO DATE.
WITH THAT, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
APPLICANTS GOT A PRESENTATION AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR KILLOUGH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS AT THIS TIME. I THINK WE'RE GOOD FOR NOW.
INVITE THE APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD.
IF YOU ALL CAN STATE YOUR NAMES AND ADDRESSES FOR THE RECORD, AND THEN GO AHEAD WITH YOU.
LOOKS LIKE YOUR PRESENTATION IS LOADED UP.
MY NAME IS CURTIS SHAN WITH THE SAGE GROUP 1130 NORTH CARROL HERE IN SOUTHLAKE.
>> MAYOR. COUNSEL, TRAVIS FRANKS, 775 LAKEWOOD DRIVE, SOUTHLAKE TEXAS.
>> WE WERE HERE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND TALKING ABOUT THIS PROPERTY.
OF COURSE, IT'S NEXT TO JOHNSON PLACE.
THE COMPARISONS THAT DENTIST DID AND WE'VE DONE ARE TO THE JOHNSON PLACE AREA.
PART OF THIS PROPERTY IS AT THE END OF REMUDA COURT.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY'VE KNOWN SINCE THEY MOVED IN THAT THE STREET WOULD ACCESS FURTHER LOTS AT SOME POINT.
THE PLATE, IN FACT, GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE EDGE OF THIS PROPERTY WITH A 50 FOOT STRIP IN THERE THAT GIVES ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S SETTLED THAN KNOWN.
THESE WERE THE THREE LOTS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING ON THIS.
YOU CAN SEE OUR AVERAGE LOT SIZE IS LARGER THAN THOSE THAT IN JOHNSON PLACE, AND WE THINK IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY COMPATIBLE WITH THE HOMES IN JOHNSON PLACE.
HERE'S THE STATISTICS ON THAT DATA SUMMARY.
BUT PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANT, YOU'RE ASKING FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE DEFINITION ON THE SIZE OF THE HOUSES AND HOW THEY WOULD BE POSITIONED ON THE SITE.
THESE ARE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HOMES THAT WE WOULD BE BUILDING ON THE THREE-LOT PLAN WHERE THERE'S TWO LOTS BEING ACCESSED OFF REMUDA COURT.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THESE FLOOR PLANS ARE VERY CONSISTENT WITH THE HOMES THAT ARE CURRENTLY BUILT ON REMUDA COURT AND THAT THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM FOR THEM TO FIT AROUND THE [INAUDIBLE] HERE AND PLENTY OF ROOM BETWEEN HOUSES.
IMPORTANTLY, HERE'S SOME RENDERINGS OF HOW IT WOULD LOOK, ACCESS THERE.
VERY NICE HOMES, WE THINK WOULD POSITIVELY ADD TO THE ATMOSPHERE AND THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
I THINK IT FITS VERY WELL IN THERE.
NOW THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE FOR THE TWO LOT PLAN,
[00:45:01]
WHICH WE'D PREFER NOT TO DO, BUT IF WE IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU GO, THE VERSION C, WHERE THE LARGER LOT IS TO THE NORTH, WE THINK MAKES THE MOST SENSE.BUT WITH ONLY TWO LOTS, THE HOUSES WOULD BE MUCH LARGER AND BIGGER.
HERE'S HOW A TYPICAL HOUSE WOULD LAY OUT ON THE NORTHERN OF THE TWO LOTS HERE.
AGAIN, SOME RENDERINGS ON THAT.
BUT IMPORTANTLY, IF YOU GO BACK TO HERE, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN THE EXISTING HOMES ON REMUDA COURT.
I THINK SOME OF YOU BROUGHT UP THE IDEA THAT MIGHT BE LESS COMPATIBLE THAN SIMILAR SIZED HOMES.
BUT HERE'S SOME RENDERINGS OF HOW A HOME THAT WOULD FIT THAT LOT MIGHT LOOK AT THE END OF THE [INAUDIBLE] ANYWAY, SO WE GET TO THE POINT NOW WHERE HERE'S THE OPTIONS, WE WOULD REQUEST THAT THE TWO OR THREE LOCK CONCEPT PLAN BE THE WAY WE GO FORWARD, BUT WE'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE AND TALK ABOUT ANY OF THE DETAILS.
>> WHAT ABOUT OPTION B? IS THAT YOU'RE NOT PRESENTING THAT? [OVERLAPPING] THIRD CHOICE.
>> YEAH. THAT'S OUR THIRD CHOICE.
>> THAT'S REPRESENTING ABOUT A 7,500 SQUARE FOOT HOME, AND WE GET THAT NUMBER BASED ON LOT COST THAT WE SELL ONE ACRE LOT FOUR AND WHEN A HOME TYPICALLY GOES FOUR ON A ONE ACRE LOT.
IF WE GO BACK TO THE OTHER REPRESENTATION OF THE TWO INDIVIDUAL LOTS, WHICH GET THERE EVENTUALLY, THOSE ARE REPRESENTING ABOUT A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE, WHICH IS MORE COMPATIBLE TO WHAT'S GOING ON IN JOHNSON PLACE CURRENTLY.
FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S WHAT WE FEEL LIKE THE THREE LOT PERSPECTIVE WOULD BE A MORE COMPATIBLE SCENARIO, NOT ONLY OFF OF JOHNSON ROAD AS WELL, BUT AS FAR AS ACCESS FROM REMUDA COURT.
>> WHAT WOULD THE PRICES OF THE HOUSES BE IF UNDER BOTH SCENARIOS, THE THREE HOUSES VERSUS THE TWO HOUSES.
I KNOW WITH THE TWO HOUSES, ONE IS GOING TO BE PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN THE OTHER ONE, BUT GIVE ME A BALLPARK ON THE HOUSE PRICES UNDER THOSE SCENARIOS.
>> ON THESE HOUSES THAT I'M REPRESENTING HERE?
>> THE 7,500 PLUS HOME WITH LOT INCLUDED, YOU'RE PROBABLY HOVERING AROUND 4.5-5 MILLION.
ON THE OTHER REPRESENTATIONS, YOU'RE PROBABLY HOVERING AROUND 2.2-2.5 MILLION.
>> 2.2-2.5, IF IT'S THREE LOTS.
>> COUNSEL, IS THERE MORE TO THE PRESENTATION? I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF.
THAT'S IT. COUNSEL, ANY QUESTIONS?
>> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS YOU DID NOT PRESENT THE ONE WHERE THE LARGER LOT WAS FACING JOHNSON? MY QUESTION TO YOU IS THAT THE ONES THAT ARE OFF JOHNSON ARE LARGER LOTS, AND IT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE THERE.
WHY YOU NOT ADDRESSING THAT? I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY.
>> TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE WHY WE WANTED TO CENTER THE LARGER LOT ON THE TWO-LOT SCENARIO.
OBVIOUSLY, EITHER ONE ON THE TWO-LOT WOULD BE OKAY AND WORK.
WE FELT LIKE BECAUSE IF WE FLIP THE ONE ACRE ON THE BOTTOM LOT ON JOHNSON ROAD, IT WOULD OFFSET THE PROPERTY FOR THE REMUDA LOT.
IF THAT MAKES SENSE? IT JUST PUSHES IT OFF FROM ASIDE.
I THINK WE HAVE REPRESENTATION OF THAT.
>> HERE'S THE OTHER VERSION, VERSION B AND YOU CAN SEE HOW LOT 2 IS LESS CENTERED ON THE END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC, AND WE JUST DON'T THINK IT WOULD WORK AS WELL.
>> I FEEL LIKE BEING END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC, IF YOU DO IT TOO, IT WOULD LOOK BETTER FROM CONFORMITY.
IF YOU DID THE ONE, IT WOULD LOOK BETTER TO CENTER THE LOT UP VERSUS IT HAVING OFFSET.
>> THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS WHEN YOU WERE PRESENTING THE THREE-OPTION SCENARIO, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE RESIDENTS OF JOHNSON PLACE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THE ONES THAT YOU SHOW IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S THERE.
I REALIZE WE'RE SEVERAL YEARS PAST THAT.
IS THERE A WAY TO MAKE IT MORE COMPATIBLE? THOSE ARE VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE EXISTING HOMES.
>> THOSE RENDERINGS, SOME OF THOSE ARE VERY FAR TO THE MORE LEANING, MORE TRANSITIONAL TO CONTEMPORARY.
THE PLAN THAT WE HAVE SHOWN RECENTLY, WHICH ARE THE TOP LEFT CORNER THERE, WE WOULD DEFINITELY HONOR THE TRADITIONAL ARCHITECTURE THAT'S CURRENTLY ESTABLISHED IN JOHNSON PLACE.
WE'VE MENTIONED THAT LAST TIME AND SEVERAL TIMES PRIOR TO TRYING TO PRESENT
[00:50:03]
OUR CASE TO THE NEIGHBORS THAT WE'RE NOT IN HERE TO TRY TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT'S OUT OF THE ORDINARY, BUT I WILL SAY IF WE GET DOWN TO THE ONE SINGULAR LOT, WHEN SOMEONE PAYS THE MONEY THAT THEY PAY ON A ONE ACRE LOT, IT'S HARDER TO CONTROL.I WOULD SAY I WOULD HONOR AND EVEN WRITE IN OUR OWN SPECS THAT WE WOULD DO SOMETHING MORE TRADITIONAL TO FIT AND BE COMPATIBLE TO THE CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR SURE.
ON THAT NOTE, A GREAT POINT IS THAT FROM ACCESS TO REMUDA, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME TRAFFIC TALKS ABOUT GETTING TRAFFIC AND CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC THROUGH REMUDA.
WE ALSO WILL ENCOURAGE A SCREEN FENCE AROUND THE ENTIRE CUL-DE-SAC OF OUR 50-FOOT ROADWAY WITH SECURITY GATES AND ALL ACCESS, ALL WORK WILL BE DONE ON THE PROPERTY.
ALL TRUCKS WILL BE PARKED ON THE PROPERTY AS WELL.
WE'RE NOT STACKING ANY TRAFFIC JAM ON THE CUL-DE-SAC.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS?
>> CAN YOU GO TO THE SITE PLAN FOR THE THREE LOT OPTION FOR A SECOND OF HOW THE LAYOUT OF THE HOUSES WOULD BE?
>> LOOKING AT THOSE, AND I GUESS WE CAN EITHER REMEMBER THAT AND THEN GO TO AN AERIAL, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE POSITIONING OF THOSE DRIVEWAYS IN THOSE GARAGES, THE HOUSES THAT ARE I GUESS ABUTTING EACH OF THOSE, THAT'S THE SIDE THAT THEIR BEDROOMS ARE ON.
IF YOU HAVE THE DRIVEWAYS COME IN AROUND THOSE SIDES IN THE GARAGE AND THERE COMING IN AND OUT, WOULDN'T THE HEADLIGHTS OF THOSE CARS BE GOING DIRECTLY INTO THE MASTER BEDROOMS? BECAUSE IN BOTH CASES, THE GARAGES FOR THOSE HOUSES ON REMUDA ARE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THAT, WHICH MEANS THAT THAT MUST BE WHERE THE MASTER BEDROOMS ARE.
>> I WOULD ANTICIPATE PULLING OUT OF THE GARAGES ON BOTH SIDES.
AS YOU PULL OUT, YOU WOULD BE GOING AWAY FROM.
YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANY DIRECT LIGHTING FROM ANY BEDROOM THAT'S ON THAT SIDE.
ALSO, THOSE SIDES THAT ARE BLOCKED BY EIGHT FOOT WOOD FENCING, BOARD ON BOARD, SO THERE WOULD BE NO REFLECTION AS WELL INTO THE INTERIOR OF THE HOME REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY COME IN AND OUT OF THE DRIVEWAYS.
>> UNLESS SOMEONE BACKED INTO THEIR GARAGES, I DON'T THINK THE HEADLIGHTS WOULD BE SHINING AT THE NEIGHBORS.
>> SOME PEOPLE BACK INTO THEIR GARAGE, BUT ALSO EVEN TURNING AROUND UP THERE.
I'M I'M JUST POINTING OUT THAT THE BEDROOMS ARE ON THAT SIDE AND NORMALLY WHEN YOU DO THE HOUSES, YOU HAVE THE GARAGES, TO THE GARAGES AND THE MASTER BEDROOMS AWAY, SO YOU DON'T HAVE THAT.
I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT AS ONE OPTION THAT MAYBE ONE OF THE REASONS WHY NEIGHBORS ARE NOT AMENABLE TO WHAT YOU GUYS ARE WANTING TO DO.
>> WE FELT THAT THE WAY SINCE THES ARE WIDE 16 FOOT DRIVEWAYS HAVING THE HOUSE MORE EXPOSED VERSUS GOING STRAIGHT INTO IT.
BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE TWO DRIVEWAYS GOING STRAIGHT INTO IT, IT MAKES THE EGRESS LOOK A LITTLE BIT ODD IN OUR OPINION AS FAR AS ARCHITECTURALLY.
THIS IS WHY WE CORNERED THEM OUT A LITTLE BIT AND GAVE AN APPEAL OR YOU'RE SEEING ALL HOUSE NOT NECESSARY GARAGES AS WELL.
I WOULD SAY THAT I FEEL LIKE THE EIGHT FOOT BOARD ON BOARD WOOD FENCING WITH LANDSCAPING AS WELL WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE NOT TO HAVE ANY SHINING.
>> WELL, MAYBE JUST COMMUNICATE WITH THE NEIGHBORS ON THAT AS A WAY TO HELP SATIATE THOSE ISSUES.
THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS, IF WE COULD GO TO THE AERIAL, I GUESS THE FUREST OUT AREA THAT YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE ON THOSE LOTS. THAT WAS FINE.
>> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, AND IT'S SOMEWHAT RELATED.
DIRECTLY SOUTH ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF JOHNSON, AREN'T YOU GUYS WORKING ON A HOUSE THERE AND IT'S A SIMILAR SIZED LOT AND IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE?
>>THAT'S A 1.74 ACRE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, AND THAT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ROTATED TO FACE JOHNSON ROAD, AND BECAUSE OF THE LOT SIZE ON THAT ONE, WE'RE ACTUALLY DRAWING A HOUSE AS WE SPEAK FOR THAT AND THAT HOUSE IS 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
>> NOTHING SIMILAR THAT WOULD FIT ON THE WIDTH BECAUSE OF THE WIDTH OF THAT PROPERTY WOULD NOT ACCOMMODATE THAT.
THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BECAUSE JUST HAS A BETTER VIEWING FROM JOHNSON ROAD.
OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE GOT THE POND OF JOHNSON PLACE AS WELL TO LOOK AT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS.
ON TO THE GROUND, GUYS, WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND YOU MIGHT BE CALLED BACK.
>> NEXT UP, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 6A AND 6B TOGETHER.
I'LL OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING.
WE HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS FROM PEOPLE WHO SUBMITTED THESE, I GUESS THIS EVENING OR ONLINE.
THE WAY IT WORKS, AND SOME OF YOU'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE.
IF YOU'VE SUBMITTED A PUBLIC COMMENT CARD, YOU'LL BE INVITED TO COME DOWN AND SPEAK.
IF YOU'VE NOT SUBMITTED A PUBLIC COMMENT CARD, BUT YOU DO WISH TO SPEAK,
[00:55:01]
YOU'LL BE INVITED TO COME DOWN AS WELL, OR IF YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND AND DON'T WISH TO SPEAK ANYMORE, THAT'S OKAY.BUT EVERYONE WHO'S HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK WILL BE GIVEN THAT OPPORTUNITY.
WE'LL GET STARTED WITH LAWRENCE LANGFORD AT 2405 REMUDA COURT.
WE'LL SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6A AND 6B.
THEN THE TIMING SYSTEM WORKS, IT'LL TURN ON GREEN.
THAT MEANS START, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO ONE MINUTE, IT'LL TURN YELLOW, AND THEN WHEN THE RED LIGHT COMES ON, IF YOU CAN WRAP IT UP. GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COUNSEL.
THE 2035 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, WHICH FOUR OF YOU HERE TONIGHT VOTED TO ADOPT, DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
THAT IS THE STANDARD THAT WAS ADOPTED IN THE CURRENT LAND USE PLAN.
THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THAT STANDARD.
WHEN THE 500 EAST BOB JONES ROAD CASE CAME BEFORE YOU EARLIER THIS YEAR, WE ALL HEARD VERY CLEARLY WHAT THE RULES ARE.
DIRECTOR KILO EXPLAINED THAT LOW DENSITY MEANS ONE ACRE MINIMUM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
THE MAYOR AND SEVERAL COUNCIL MEMBERS REINFORCED IT, SAYING, IF A DEVELOPER COMES IN UNDER AN ACRE, THE APPLICATION WOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED IMMEDIATELY.
THAT WAS THE STANDARD APPLIED ON BOB JONES ROAD.
EXCUSE ME, AND IT WAS THE CORRECT ONE.
IT WAS APPROVED BECAUSE IT COMPLIED WITH THE ONE ACRE REQUIREMENT OF THAT LAND USE DESIGNATION.
IT WAS CONSISTENT, FAIR AND SET THE RIGHT PRECEDENT.
THAT'S HOW THE SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.
HERE THE SITUATION IS REVERSED.
OUR NEIGHBORS OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE ONE ACRE MINIMUM.
THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR AN EXCEPTION FOR HIM, ASKING YOU TO APPROVE SOMETHING THAT CLEARLY DOES NOT COMPLY, THAT SOME APPLICANTS MUST MEET THE STANDARDS, OTHERS ARE EXEMPT.
SEVERAL COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE RIGHTFULLY BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF WHAT THE PRECEDENT AS PROPOSED TONIGHT MIGHT HAVE ON OTHER LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS.
THE APPLICANT BEFORE YOU IS ASKING YOU TO CHANGE THAT DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY ON ALL WERE PART OF HIS LOT.
THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE AND IT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE PLAN VOTED ON.
THIS COUNCIL HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR IN THE PAST.
YOUR JOB IS TO DECIDE BASED ON WHETHER AN APPLICATION COMPLIES WITH THE CITY'S ORDINANCES AND THE LAND USE PLAN.
THE LAND USE PLAN SAYS THAT LOW DENSITY IS ONE ACRE MINIMUM.
IN THE BOB JONES ROAD CASE, COMPLIANCE WAS THE ONLY FACTOR THAT MATTERED.
SO WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DENY A CHANGE IN THE LAND USE DESIGNATION THAT THE 2035 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN HAS DESIGNATED FOR THIS PROPERTY.
THIS PLAN SHOULD BE UPHELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS STEWARDS OF OUR CITY.
I DO HAVE TWO OTHER OPTIONS IF NEITHER OF THESE ARE ACCEPTABLE HERE FOR THE BUILDER, THE BUILDER CAN BUILD ONE HOME IN THIS LOT FACING JOHNSON ROAD AND COMPLYING WITH THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION.
OR IF COUNCIL DECIDES TO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE HOUSE ON THAT 1.97 ACRE LOT, HE COULD BUILD TWO HOMES AS LONG AS HE ACCESS BOTH HOMES FROM JOHNSON ROAD ON A DRIVEWAY OR ALLEY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT, WE HAVE HOLLY MORTON AT 2409 REMUDA COURT.
WE'LL SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6A AND 6B.
>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE I LIVE ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY AT 2530 JOHNSON ROAD, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE PROPOSED LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGES.
FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO ASK, WHAT IS THE JURISDICTION FOR CHANGING THIS PROPERTY'S LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM AGRICULTURAL TO SINGLE FAMILY ONE ACRE LOTS AND FOR CHANGING ITS ZONING FROM LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY.
ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S 2035 LAND USE PLAN, THIS AREA IS NOT IDENTIFIED FOR SUCH DEVELOPMENT.
THIS PROPOSAL APPEARS TO BE DIRECTLY AGAINST THAT PLAN.
I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHY IS THIS CHANGE NECESSARY NOW? WHAT HAS CHANGED IN THE AREA OR
[01:00:02]
CITY PLANNING PRIORITIES THAT WARRANTS DEVIATING FROM THE LONG TERM PLAN? SECOND, THE IMPACT OF THIS CHANGE SEEMS BROADER THAN NECESSARY, SPECIFICALLY, WHY WOULD THE CITY ALLOW ACCESS TO THE NEW HOMES THROUGH REMUDA COURT AND JOHNSON PLACE WHEN THE PROPERTY HAS DIRECT ACCESS FROM JOHNSON ROAD.ALLOWING ACCESS THROUGH ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS SEEMS UNNECESSARILY DISRUPTIVE TO EXISTING RESIDENTS.
IF THE COUNCIL DECIDES TO THIS CHANGE IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
IT SHOULD BE CONTAINED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WITH ACCESS LIMITED TO JOHNSON ROAD RATHER THAN CREATING BROADER IMPACT TO SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS AND INFRASTRUCTURE.
FINALLY, I POINT OUT AN IMPORTANT COMPARISON, AS LARRY SAID, THE DEVELOPMENT ON 500 EAST BOB JONES ROAD, DID NOT REQUIRE A LAND USE OR ZONING CHANGE TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT WAS BUILT THERE.
BY APPROVING A LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGE FOR THIS PARCEL, THE CITY WOULD BE SETTING A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT SIGNALING THAT SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS FROM LAND USE PLAN ARE NOW FAIR GAME, WHICH CAN INVITE MORE SPECULATIVE REZONING EFFORTS THAT UNDERMINE THE PURPOSE AND STABILITY OF THE CITY'S LONG TERM PLANNING.
IN SUMMARY, I RESPECTFULLY ASK, WHY IS THERE A NEED TO CHANGE THE LAND USE AND ZONING NOW AGAINST THE 2035 PLAN? WHY IS THE CITY SUPPORTING THIS MORE DISRUPTIVE OPTION ROUTING THROUGH REMUDA COURT AND JOHNSON PLACE RATHER THAN JOHNSON ROAD THAT IS AVAILABLE? FINALLY, DOES THE CITY COUNCIL RECOGNIZE THE PRECEDENT THIS MIGHT SET AND A MESSAGE IT SENDS TO DEVELOPERS AND RESIDENTS? I RESPECTFULLY URGE THE COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER THESE PROPOSED CHANGES TO PRIORITIZE MINIMIZING COMMUNITY DISRUPTION WHILE MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE CITY'S ESTABLISHED PLANS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE KATHERINE REED AT 4:08 BRANDING IRON COURT.
WE'LL SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6A AND SIX B.
>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.
MY NAME IS KATHERINE REED, AND I LIVE AT 4:08 BRANDING I COURT.
MY HUSBAND AND I ARE AMONG THE ORIGINAL FAMILIES WHO BUILT A HOME IN JOHNSON PLACE.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTS OF 54 HOMES, ALL BUILT BY ONE BUILDER, WHICH IS TOLL BROTHERS, AND THEY PROMOTED THE ADVANTAGES OF BUYING THEIR BRAND OF HOMES WITHIN THEIR MARKETING MATERIALS.
THEY TOUTED THEIR HOME FEATURES AND THEY COULD OFFER A CHOICE OF DIFFERENT FLOOR PLANS AND EXTERIOR DESIGNS.
THERE WERE 12 DIFFERENT ELEVATIONS OFFERED AND ALL COMPLIMENT EACH OTHER, AND WE CURRENTLY HAVE ALL 54 HOMES DISPLAYING ONE OF THOSE EXTERIOR DESIGNS.
IN MY OPINION, ALLOWING ANOTHER BUILDER TO TACK A TOTALLY DIFFERENT HOME DESIGN ONTO AN ENTIRELY TOLL BROTHERS NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.
IT DOES NOT RESEMBLE THE COORDINATED THEME THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROMOTED WHEN THE BUILDING WAS COMMENCED IN JOHNSON PLACE.
IT MIGHT EVEN MAKE THEM A POTENTIAL SPECTACLE, NOT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BUILD DIE HOUSE, WHICH I'M SURE THEY CAN.
I ACCEPT WHAT THE GENTLEMAN SAID THAT THEY WILL TRY AND BLEND IN.
BUT OUR HOMES ARE ALMOST 15-YEARS-OLD, IF NOT OLDER, AND ANY NEW HOME WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIT A SQUARE PEG INTO A ROUND HOLE OR VICE VERSA.
I CAN THINK OF NO REASON TO ALLOW AN ADJACENT OWNER ACCESS TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN THEY CAN BUILD WHATEVER THEY WISH ON THEIR OWN LAND, PROVIDING THE ACCESS VIA JOHNSON ROAD.
MY NEIGHBORS AND I OPPOSE THE BUILDERS PLAN, BUT I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE WEST VAUGN 300 CORAL COURT.
WE'LL SPEAK IN OPPOSITION A AND SIX B.
>> HI. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNSEL. MY NAME IS WEST VAUGN.
I LIVE AT 300 CORAL COURT IN JOHNSON PLACE.
I'M ALSO ON THE HOA, SERVE AS THE HOA PRESIDENT CURRENTLY.
I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT THE RESIDENTS OF JOHNSON PLACE OVERWHELMINGLY FEEL THAT THIS PROPERTY SHOULD BE REMAINED DESIGNATED AS LOW DENSITY, CONSISTENT WITH THE 2035 LAND USE PLAN.
ALL THE LAND AROUND JOHNSON PLACE IS DESIGNATED LOW DENSITY.
WE THINK IT SHOULD STAY THAT WAY.
JUST BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE'S JUST OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSITION TO CHANGING THIS TO MEDIUM DENSITY AND HAVING ACCESS THROUGH REMUDA COURT.
THE BUILDER DEVELOPER, THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THE TROUBLE HERE TO SHOW ALL OPTIONS ON HOW THIS IS GOING TO LOOK ACCESSING REMUDA COURT, BUT THEY'VE YET TO SHOW OR EXPLAIN WHY THEY CAN'T DO THEIR DEVELOPMENT, BUILD ON THEIR PROPERTY, AND JUST MAINTAIN ACCESS THROUGH JOHNSON ROAD.
I THINK THAT'S JUST BEEN LACKING IN THE EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS IS NECESSARY TO GO THROUGH REMUDA COURT.
[01:05:01]
FURTHERMORE, THEY SAY THAT THE ARCHITECTURE IS GOING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSISTENT WITH OUR HOA COVENANTS.BUT THERE'S NOTHING BINDING THEM TO DO THAT.
SO AS THEY START BUILDING, THEY CAN DO AS THEY PLEASE, SUPPOSEDLY, AND HOA HAS NO RESOURCES TO MONITOR THAT OR TRY TO CONTROL THAT.
THEY ALSO BROUGHT UP THE THROUGH STREET SIGN AGAIN.
OBVIOUSLY, A SIGN AT THE END OF A CUL-DE-SAC THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR 15 YEARS IT SAYS FUTURE THROUGH STREET.
NOBODY THINKS THAT THAT MEANS TWO NEW HOMES ARE GOING TO BE BUILT AT THE END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC BY A DIFFERENT BUILDER.
THAT MEANS A NEW PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK THAT TIME HAS LONG PASSED.
THE THROUGH STREET DOES NOT EQUAL TWO NEW HOMES.
BUT IN CLOSING, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT THE RESIDENTS IN JOHNSON PLACE ARE NOT TRYING TO TELL THE LAND OWNER OR THE DEVELOPER WHAT THEY CAN OR CAN'T BUILD.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO ASK THAT THE CITY COUNCIL KEEP JOHNSON ROAD AND JOHNSON PLACE CONSISTENT AND ENFORCE THE 2035 LAND USE PLAN. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE JAN HATCH AT 2412, TOP RAIL LANE.
WILL SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6A AND 6B.
>> MY NAME IS JAN HATCH, AND I'M AN ORIGINAL OWNER IN JOHNSON PLACE, 2412 TOP RAIL LANE, SOUTHLAKE.
IN 2008, THE DEVELOPER TURNED OVER THE MAINTENANCE AND CARE OF JOHNSON PLACE TO THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
TODAY, 17 YEARS LATER, WE ARE A WELL ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, AND I LOVE OUR ATMOSPHERE.
IT'S PEACEFUL, QUIET, SERENE, CLEAN.
WE WILL LOSE OUR PEACEFUL SERENITY FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD IF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THE DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL TO ENTER OUR SUBDIVISION AND USE REMUDA COURT A QUIET HOME LINED CUL-DE-SAC IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT'S THROUGH ACCESS TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PROPOSED BUILDING SITE.
I AM HERE TONIGHT TO ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO PROTECT THE QUIET REFUGE OF OUR ESTABLISHED HOMES IN JOHNSON PLACE BY OPPOSING ANY PLANS BY THE DEVELOPER THAT USE REMUDA COURT AS A POINT OF THROUGH ACCESS TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
THE 1.97 ADJACENT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED LOW DENSITY.
THIS LOW DENSITY DESIGNATION REMAINS ACTIVE IN THE CITY'S 2035 MASTER PLAN AND ALLOWS FOR JUST ONE HOME TO BE BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY.
WITH ONE HOME, THE BUILDER CAN EASILY ACCESS THE PROJECT FROM JOHNSON ROAD, JUST AS THE EXISTING HOME THERE DOES, ELIMINATING ANY REASON TO ENTER JOHNSON PLACE, THEREBY ELIMINATING OUR CONCERNS OF A CHAOTIC CONSTRUCTION ZONE OF ONGOING CREW AND MACHINERY, NOISE AND CONGESTION IN OUR QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD.
SHOULD THE CITY COUNCIL ENTERTAIN A PLAN BY THE DEVELOPER FOR TWO HOMES ON THIS PROPERTY, THE ACCESS TO BOTH HOMES CAN AND SHOULD COME FROM JOHNSON ROAD.
LAST WEEK, THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE SPOTLIGHT WAS ALL ABOUT THE CITIZENS SURVEY.
KATHY TALLEY SAID THIS, "YOUR FEEDBACK IS THE MOST VALUABLE TOOL WE HAVE TO ENSURE SOUTHLAKE IS THE PLACE YOU LOVE TO CALL HOME.
YOUR VOICE GUIDES THE FUTURE OF SOUTHLAKE.
MY HOME IN JOHNSON PLACE IS THE PLACE I LOVE TO CALL HOME.
OUR COMMUNITY SHARES OF COHESIVENESS AND HOME STYLES, THE SAME GOVERNING CCRS, AND AFTER 17 YEARS, A FEELING OF COMPLETENESS." BY THE DEVELOPER ACCESSING THE BUILDING PROJECT FROM JOHNSON ROAD AND NOT REMUDA COURT, 54 HOMEOWNERS ARE SPARED A MAJOR DISRUPTION TO OUR QUIET COHESIVENESS IN A SOUTHLAKE COMMUNITY, WE EACH CALL HOME.
I THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME A VOICE TONIGHT.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT IS PATRICK AGBO FROM 305 TRAIL DUST DRIVE, WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6A AND 6B.
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS PATRICK AGBO.
I WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL HOME OWNERS THAT WE MOVED IN THE 2008.
I'M SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THE LAND USE CHANGE FOR 2530 JOHNSON ROAD.2530 JOHNSON ROAD WAS ESSENTIALLY DESIGNATED AS A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA.
[01:10:07]
THIS WAS ACCORDING TO THE 2035 LAND USE PLAN.THE LAND USE PLAN WAS ACTUALLY APPROVED BY FOUR CURRENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF OF THE LOW DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION IS TO DEVELOP SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES ON LOT SIZES OF ONE ACRE OR GREATER.
2530 JOHNSON ROAD IS ABOUT 1.97 ACRES, WHICH DOESN'T EVEN MEET THE MINIMUM EQUATES TO BUILD EVEN TWO HOMES ON IT.
THERE'S A PROPOSAL TO BUILD TWO OR THREE HOMES AND TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION TO MEDIUM DENSITY.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY DENIES THIS LAND USE CHANGE.
WE'RE ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO ALSO DENY THIS APPLICATION AS WELL.
IF A CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO RECONSIDER HOW THIS LAND HAS BEEN DESIGNATED, IT SHOULD DO SO DURING THE NEXT PLANNING CYCLE.
RESIDENTS LIKE US RELY ON THE CITY TO MAKE PLANS THAT CAN ACTUALLY STAND BEHIND. SORRY. EXCUSE ME.
I ALSO REFERRED TO THE EXAMPLE RAISED BY MR. LANGFORD EARLIER, CONCERNING THE PROPERTY ON BOB JONES ROAD, WHERE THERE WAS A PROPOSED REZONING CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL TO SINGLE FAMILY ONE ACRE.
THE LAND USE AT THAT TIME WAS ALSO CONSIDERED LOW DENSITY, AND THE CITY COUNCIL APPLIED THAT LOW DENSITY RULES BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE STUCK WITH AND IT WOULDN'T CHANGE THAT.
THE BUILDER AT THE TIME HAD PROPOSED BUILDING SEVEN HOMES ON AN EIGHT PLUS ACRE LOT, AND AT THE TIME THIS WAS CONSIDERED LOW DENSITY AS WELL.
NOW MANY HOME OWNERS AT THE TIME SPOKE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS, BUT THIS PLAN WAS ACTUALLY APPROVED BECAUSE IT MET THE CRITERIA FOR ONE HOME PER ACRE LOT.
THE CITY COUNCIL REINFORCED THE PLAN AND SAID THEY WOULD HAVE DENIED IT IF IT DIDN'T MEET THAT CRITERIA.
THAT WAS THE STANDARD THAT WAS APPLIED THEN.
WE'RE ASKING THAT IS A CORRECT STANDARD AND IT SHOULD BE APPLIED IN THAT CASE AS WELL.
THE DEVELOPER IS ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO DO WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL TOLD OR THE HOMEOWNERS COULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
IF THAT STANDARD APPLIED THEN, IT SHOULD APPLY HERE AS WELL AND THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT IS JEFF KENNAN AT 2417 TOP RAIL LANE, WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6A AND 6B.
>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I'M A SOUTHLAKE RESIDENT AT 2417 TOP RAIL LANE.
I AM SPEAKING TO OPPOSE THE REQUESTED LAND USE CHANGE AT 2530 JOHNSON ROAD.
I ASKED THE COUNCIL TO HONOR THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE'S RECENT 5-0 RECOMMENDATION AGAINST THE CHANGE.
THE ADOPTED 2035 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THE JOHNSON ROAD PLATT FOR LOW DENSITY USE.
CHANGING THIS PARCEL NOW UNDERMINES THE PLAN'S INTEGRITY AND SETS A PRECEDENT FOR AD-HOC EXCEPTIONS.
LAND USE PLANS ARE ADOPTED TO PROVIDE PREDICTABILITY TO RESIDENTS, DEVELOPERS, AND PUBLIC SERVICES, DEVIATING WEAKENS TRUST IN OUR COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS.
INCREASED DENSITY HERE WILL STRAIN NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, AND EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGNED FOR LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE REVIEWED THIS MATTER AND VOTED 5-0 AGAINST THE CHANGE THAT UNANIMOUS LOCAL RECOMMENDATION REFLECTS CAREFUL VETTING AND COMMUNITY INPUT.
OVERRIDING THE COMMITTEE WITH ALL CLEAR COMPELLING AND DOCUMENTED PUBLIC BENEFIT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH GOOD GOVERNANCE AND THE PUBLIC'S REASONABLE RELIANCE ON THE PLANNING PROCESS.
LOW DENSITY DESIGNATION ALIGNS WITH EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING, SCHOOL CAPACITY FORECASTS, DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY PLANNING.
CHANGE IN THE DESIGNATION RISKS, UNPLANNED AND DEMANDS ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES.
RESPECT THE 2035 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE'S 5-0 VOTE.
DENY THE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE FOR 2530 JOHNSON ROAD, AND PRESERVE THE PREDICTABILITY AND CHARACTER SOUTHLAKE RESIDENTS EXPECT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR DEFENDING THE LONG RANGE PLAN THAT PROTECTS OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT TO ZACHARY TINAMU AT 2408 REMUDA COURT.
WILL SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6A AND 6B.
>> COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS ZACHARY TINAMU, AND I'VE LIVED AT 24 A REMUDA COURT FOR OVER 15 YEARS.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
OUR COMMUNITY WAS DESIGNED AND APPROVED WITH LOW DENSITY IN MIND.
IT'S PART OF WHAT ATTRACTED FAMILIES.
EVEN IF THIS PROJECT IS SMALL, THE LAND USE CHANGE IS NOT.
IT OPENS THE DOOR FOR MORE DENSITY,
[01:15:04]
DISRUPTS THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND PLACES LONG TERM BURDENS ON STREETS, SERVICES, AND INFRASTRUCTURE.IF APPROVED, THIS WILL SET A PRECEDENT FOR MORE ZONING REQUEST, THAT CHEAP AWAY AT STABLE WELL FUNCTIONING NEIGHBORHOODS.
I URGE YOU TO LISTEN TO THE RESIDENTS MORE DIRECTLY AFFECTED AND VOTE NO ON THIS LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGE.
THANKS FOR DOING WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT, WE HAVE MAGNUM TINAMU AT 2408 REMUDA COURT.
DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT RECORDS OPPOSITION.
WILL SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6A AND 6B.
IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL PEOPLE.
I WANT TO START BY JUST THANKING YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
VOLUNTEER WORK IS A THANKLESS JOB, AND YOU GUYS DO A GREAT JOB OF BEING ACTIVE IN THE COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU DO.
I WANT TO SPEAK TO DESIGN INTEGRITY AND COHESION.
I'VE WORKED INCREDIBLY HARD AT THE AGE OF 33 TO BUY $1 MILLION HOME AND RENOVATE THAT HOME THAT NOW ABOUT THIS PROPOSED PROJECT.
I DO FEEL THAT THIS WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE INTEGRITY IN THE DESIGN COHESION OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
MY ENTIRE CAREER HAS BEEN IN REAL ESTATE AND COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK THEY'RE A PHENOMENAL BUILDER AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD A BEAUTIFUL HOME ON THIS PROPERTY.
HOWEVER, BUILDING TWO HOMES ON THIS PROPERTY WITH ACCESS THROUGH JOHNSON PLACE DEGRADES MY HOME VALUE AND MESSES WITH OUR DESIGN AND COHESION.
I ASK THAT YOU VOTE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT.
>> COULD WE GET YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? IT WASN'T ON YOUR CARD?
>> 2421 TOP RAIL LANE, SOUTHLAKE.
NEXT TO SAMITH UPADIA, 2404, REMUDA COURT, WILL SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6A AND 6B.
WE MOVE IN THIS 2404 REMUDA COURT IN 2013.
WE ARE THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THIS HOUSE AND WE LOVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, LOVE OUR SMALL STREET AND EVERYTHING.
LAST MEETING, THE COUNCIL SAYS THAT BRING UP SOMETHING NEW, NEW PLAN, SOME AMENDMENT IN THE HOUSE AND ALL THAT.
THEY COME UP WITH THE PLAN THE SAME THROUGH THE REMUDA CODE.
THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PLAN THROUGH THE JOHNSON ROAD.
THEY CAN DO IT ONE HOUSE, TWO HOUSE OR THREE HOUSE.
THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, THAT'S THE ONE WE LIKE IT, AND THEY CAN BUILD THE HOUSE THROUGH THE JOHNSON ROAD, NOT THE REMUDA COURT BECAUSE THIS WAS BUILDED IN THE TOLL BROTHERS AND THEN THEY WANT TO CUT THROUGH OUR SMALL STREET AND BUILD THE DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURE HOME AND IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH OUR OLD NEIGHBORHOOD IN TOLL BROTHERS ARCHITECTURE AND ALL THAT.
I REQUEST THE COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER THE WHOLE THING AND TRY TO DO IT AS A LOW DENSITY PROPOSITION. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT UP IS SUNEIL SEMAHAS, AT 2309 TOP RAIL LANE WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6A, 6B.
WE'LL RECORD YOUR OPPOSITION TO 6A AND 6 B.
NEXT IS MATTHEW SHELLY AT 2421 TOP RAIL LANE, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT RECORDS OPPOSITION TO 6A AND 6B.
IS MATTHEW HERE AND CHANGE YOUR MIND? WE'LL RECORD THAT OPPOSITION.
>> NEXT IS ALAN WALLACE AT 309 CORAL COURT.
WE'LL SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6A AND 6B.
[01:20:06]
GO AHEAD, SIR. THERE WE GO.>> OKAY. I WISH TO REITERATE WHAT THE OTHERS HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT.
WE'RE VERY MUCH OPPOSED TO OPENING REMOTE COURT TO MORE HOMES AND CHANGING THE CONTINUITY OF OUR COMMUNITY.
WE DON'T WANT THE RELATED CONSTRUCTION, TRAFFIC, DEBRIS, INCREASED EXPENSES, AND NOISE IN OUR SUBDIVISION.
IT WOULD BE AN UNDUE BURDEN TO OUR ALREADY THIN HOA BOTTOM LINE.
IT WOULD INVOLVE INCURRING LEGAL BILLS FOR THE MODIFICATION OF OUR HOA DOCUMENTS IN ADDITION TO THE APPROVAL OF OUR HOMEOWNERS.
THE HOMEOWNERS HAVE ALREADY INDICATED IN PRIOR MEETINGS THAT THEY DO NOT APPROVE.
THE SUBJECT LOCATION WAS FOR TOLL BROTHERS TO BUILD PHASE 2. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
SOME HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE PROPOSED HOUSES BECOME PART OF OUR SUBDIVISION.
IT COMES WITH INCREASED COSTS AND THE INCORPORATION OF HOMES THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE REST OF THE HOA IN SIZE, AGE, AND APPEARANCE.
I BELIEVE THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THAT THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THE CITY.
AT THE FIRST TWO, THE PROPOSAL WAS REJECTED.
WHY ARE CITY LEADERS CONTINUING TO CONSIDER THIS WHEN THEY SHOULD BE REPRESENTING THE SOUTHLAKE VOTERS TO MAINTAIN THE CITY'S CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF LIFE, NOT TO DEVELOPERS? WHEN THE INTERESTS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BE A BIGGER CONCERN, IN ADDITION TO THE CONTINUED ADHERENCE TO THE CITY'S OWN LAND USE PLAN RULE.
WE ENJOY OUR QUIET, FINISHED COMMUNITY, AND YOU DON'T WANT TO SPEND AN UNKNOWN AMOUNT OF LEGAL FEES ASSOCIATED WITH HOA DOC MODIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR THE ADDITION OF HOMES THAT DON'T MATCH THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY IN AGE, SIZE, OR APPEARANCE.
WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS TWICE, ONCE AT THE SPIN MEETING AND AGAIN AT THE PLANNING AND ZONE MEETING.
BUT CONTINUE TO BE BULLIED INTO ACCEPTING THE DEVELOPER'S IDEA BECAUSE THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE TAKING THE DRIVEWAY UP TO JOHNSON ROAD.
THE AREA ZONE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE.
WHY ARE WE NOW LOOKING AT HIGHER DENSITY ON A QUIET TWO-LANE ROAD LIKE JOHNSON ROAD? CURRENTLY, EVERY SINGLE HOME ON THE ROAD IS SINGLE-FAMILY DENSITY.
THIS MAKES NO SENSE TO CHANGE OTHER THAN THE DEVELOPER.
IT SEEMS THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THIS PLAN THOUGHT HE'D BE ABLE TO MAKE A QUICK BUCK BY SELLING THE OTHER LOT AND THOUGHT HE COULD FORCE US INTO ACCEPTING THIS.
IF HE WANTS TO BUILD ONE HOUSE, HE MUST TAKE HIS DRIVEWAY OUT TO JOHNSON ROAD AND FOLLOW THE ORDINANCE LAID OUT BY THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE AND THE LAND USE MASTER PLAN.
THIS COUNCIL HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR IN THE PAST TO DECIDE WHETHER THE APPLICATION COMPLIES WITH THE CITY'S ORDINANCE AND THE LAND USE PLAN.
THE LAND USE PLAN REQUIRES LOW DENSITY AT A ONE-ACRE MINIMUM.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT HAS SHORT ACREAGE AND THEREFORE CAN ONLY BUILD ONE HOME.
THIS IS WHAT THE PLAN REQUIRES.
PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I'LL NOTE FOR THE RECORD, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY BE NEW TO THIS PROCESS, EVERY CASE THAT COMES THROUGH AND COMES TO CITY COUNCIL THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
WE CAN'T STOP SOMEONE FROM GETTING INSIDE THE BUILDING, SO TO SPEAK, BUT THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO HAVE THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS.
SUSAN FRENCH, 2401, REMUDA COURT, WE'LL SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6A AND 6B. SUSAN FRENCH.
WE'LL RECORD HER OPPOSITION IN THE 6A AND 6B.
I THINK ALL OF THE COUNCIL RECEIVED THIS LETTER BY EMAIL EARLIER THIS WEEK, STATING HER OPPOSITION ON THE LAND USE CHANGE AND HAVING LESS THAN ONE ACRE FOR AT LEAST ONE OF THE LOTS.
HENRY FRENCH AT 2401 REMUDA COURT.
WE'LL SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6A AND 6B, HENRY FRENCH.
WE'LL NOTE HIS OPPOSITION TO 6A AND 6B.
ANOTHER ONE FROM HENRY FRENCH AT 2401 REMUDA COURT.
WE'LL SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM.
I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A MISTAKE, BUT WE'LL JUST PUT IT IN THE RECORD.
IT'S A MISTAKE. FRANCISCO AND DELORS ZAMORAS, AT 2530 JOHNSON ROAD, DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT RECORD SUPPORT FOR 6A AND 6B.
AND THERE'S AN EMAIL FROM MR ZAMORAS SAYING THE CURRENT VIEW AND HOME AT 2530 DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THOSE ON JOHNSON'S PLACE.
[01:25:04]
SO THE DEVELOPMENT WILL UNDOUBTEDLY ENHANCE THE SCENERY.THEY'RE THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, I GUESS.
SO THEY'RE IN SUPPORT OF 6A AND 6B.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WISHES TO SUBMIT A COMMENT CARD OR WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 6A OR 6B? THAT'S IT FOR THE COMMENT CARDS THAT WE HAVE.
ANYONE ELSE WISHES TO SPEAK? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANTS? DENNIS, CAN WE GO BACK TO THE TWO-HOUSE OPTION THAT I THINK WE DISCUSSED AT FIRST READING, AND WE ASKED THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK WITH A TWO-LOT OPTION? THAT'S FINE.
>> MAYOR, I DO HAVE A QUESTION. GO AHEAD.
DIRECTOR KILO, WHILE YOU'RE UP. NO, THANK YOU.
AND I KNOW I'M CATCHING YOU FLAT-FOOTED HERE, BUT WOULD YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW AT THE TIME OF THE JOHNSON PLACE WHEN THAT APPLICATION CAME 20 PLUS YEARS AGO? DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHAT THE LAND USE DESIGNATION WAS AT THAT TIME OF THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY?
>> IT WAS LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
>> AND REZONED TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT IT IS TODAY? YES.
I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU, ACTUALLY.
SO LET'S SAY WE DENY ALL THIS AND MAKE THEM BUILD A SINGLE HOUSE ON THIS.
THAT OBVIOUSLY COULD BE POTENTIALLY A SIGNIFICANT ESTATE.
IF THEY WERE TO BUILD A HOUSE ON THE FRONT PART OF THIS AND SAY STABLES OR AN RV STORAGE OR SOMETHING ON THE BACK PIECE OF THIS PROPERTY, WOULD THEY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO ACCESS THAT LAND FROM REMUDA COURT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE AS A COUNSEL DECIDE? IS THAT THEIR LEGAL RIGHT TO DO THAT?
>> CAN YOU TURN HIS MICROPHONE SWEET MICROPHONE? YES.
GIVEN THAT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ABUTS THE BOUNDARY, THEY COULD APPLY TO THE CITY FOR A DRIVEWAY APPROACH, AND IF IT MEETS THE DRIVEWAY APPROACH STANDARDS, WE WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO ISSUE A PERMIT FOR THAT, YES.
SO WITH A SINGLE HOUSE, THEY COULD HAVE ACCESS BACK THERE FOR WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO, BASICALLY? I BELIEVE SO, YES.
COULD YOU ALSO PROVIDE INSIGHTS FROM YOUR EXPERTISE AS IT RELATES TO THERE WERE A LOT OF COMMENTS RELATED TO IF THERE WERE A TWO LOT VERSION APPROVED, ACCESSING BOTH PIECES OF PROPERTY OFF OF JOHNSON ROAD, IN ESSENCE, A FLAG LOT TYPE SITUATION.
CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT AS IT RELEASE OF CITY REGULATIONS, ORDINANCES AND SO FORTH?
>> CERTAINLY, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE DOES PROHIBIT PANHANDLE LOTS OR FLAG LOTS WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS.
IF IT'S GOT SOME TOPOGRAPHY OR ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF IT THAT OF REALLY PREVENT IT FROM MEETING A CONVENTIONAL STREET FRONTAGE STANDARD, OR IF IT IS A TEMPORARY SITUATION, MEANING AT SOME POINT, PERHAPS A CONFORMING THOROUGHFARE WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED AND BUILT THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE FLAG LOT OR IN THE CASE THAT THE SUBDIVISION HAS NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ANY OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
AND THERE'S THREE CRITERIA IN THE SUBDIVISION FOR THAT, AND IT HAS TO MEET TWO OF THOSE THREE CRITERIA THAT I DESCRIBED.
GIVEN WHAT'S BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING WITH THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
OF COURSE, THE COUNCIL DOES HAVE VARIANCE AUTHORITY TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ITSELF, BUT UNDER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT AND THE COUNCIL HAVE FLEXIBILITY TO ADJUST REGULATIONS IN BOTH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO SUIT AN APPROPRIATE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE AREA.
JUST TO EXPLAIN, THE TERMINOLOGY FLAG LOT OR PANHANDLE LOT.
I THINK MOST PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IT, BUT SAYING THERE WOULD BE A LONG DRIVEWAY GOING ALONG THE SIDE OF LOT 1 TO ACCESS LOT 2 WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF THAT.
[01:30:03]
AND THAT'S WHAT WE CALL A FLAG LOT OR A PANHANDLE LOT.>> AND THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS TO JUST DESIGNATE AN ACCESS EASEMENT THROUGH THE LOT, OR THAT THE LOT IT PASSES THROUGH OWNS THE DIRT, BUT HAS TO PROVIDE AND KEEP ACCESS OPEN TO THE REAR LOT.
>> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S TYPICALLY PROHIBITED.
THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS, BUT TYPICALLY PROHIBITED.
>> DENNIS, I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS IS GOING TO GO, BUT IF THERE WERE, SAY, TWO OR THREE HOMES, AS A PART OF THE DECISION, COULD WE REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC TO ONLY BE THROUGH JOHNSON ROAD?
>> ALONG THOSE SAME LINES THAT HE WAS ASKING ABOUT THE FLAG LOT AND STUFF.
I'M JUST LOOKING AT THIS BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THE BIG PIECE FOR THEM IS THIS ACCESS THROUGH REMUDA COURT THAT IS JUST ILLEGAL THROUGH FARE, BASICALLY.
I MEAN, IF YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE A DRIVEWAY, THERE'S NOTHING TO STOP THIS PRIVATE OWNER FROM TAKING A ROAD FROM JOHNSON TO THAT ACCESS, GETTING IT FOR HIM OR HERSELF, I GUESS, AND MAKING THAT ESSENTIALLY A THREE STREET FOR THEM, CORRECT?
>> YES. I WOULD [OVERLAPPING].
>> SO THERE'S A LOT OF O I CAN BE MARKEDLY MORE NEGATIVE THAN TWO MAIN HOMES ON THOSE TWO SPOTS.
>> SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THAT.
SO IF IT WERE DEVELOPED AS A SINGLE LOT WITH ONE HOME, THAT HOMEOWNER, THAT LAND OWNER, OR DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME OFF OF REMUDA NOW.
>> WITHOUT APPROVAL BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY DESIGNATED THAT WAY.
>> BUT EVEN IF IT ENDS UP BEING A TWO-LOT.
AND EVEN IF IT WAS A FLAG LOT AND THE ACCESS WAS A SINGLE ROAD ALL THE WAY BACK, THE FAMILY OR THE PERSON THAT LIVES ON THAT NORTHERN TRACT IS PROBABLY JUST GOING TO ACCESS THAT TO REMUDA AS WELL.
THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT. SO THEN THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO POINTS OF INGRESS IN EGRESS.
>> I PRESENT ANY PROHIBITION THAT MIGHT TAKE PLACE UNDER THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY, YOU ARE CORRECT, YES.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? APPLICANTS HAVE ANYTHING THEY'D LIKE TO ADD IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO. I THINK WE'RE GOOD [OVERLAPPING]. GO AHEAD.
>> I WOULD GO AHEAD AND COMMENT HERE. I'M THINKING ABOUT VALUE.
AND A LOT OF TIMES, DEVELOPERS ARE THROWN UNDER THE BUS, SAYING, THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE LESS PROFIT OR MORE PROFIT DEPENDING ON HOW THESE THINGS GO.
THE SCENARIO WE HAVE HERE IS, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THIS LAND IS UNDER CONTRACT, SO THEY'RE NOT CLOSING UNTIL THEY GET THE ENTITLEMENTS.
AND I THINK I'M COMING TO THAT CONCLUSION BECAUSE NUMBER 1, THAT'S NORMAL BECAUSE YOUR ENTITLEMENTS DICTATE VALUE.
BUT NUMBER 2, THE ONLY SUPPORT CARD WAS THE LAND OWNER THEMSELVES.
IF THEY'VE ALREADY SOLD THE LAND, THEY WOULDN'T REALLY CARE TO SUPPORT OR NOT.
AND SO IF YOU LIMIT THIS LAND AND SAY, IT HAS TO BE LOW DENSITY, WHICH I THINK DENNIS POINTED OUT THAT THIS WHOLE SUBDIVISION WAS DEEMED LOW DENSITY BEFORE IT WAS REZONED TO MEDIUM DENSITY.
BUT IF YOU LIMIT IT TO LOW DENSITY AND SAY THAT THIS HAS TO STAY INTACT AS A 1.97-ACRE, WHICH I MEAN, IT'S ALMOST AT THE THRESHOLD OF BEING TWO LOT ACRE AND AN ACRE AND MAINTAIN THAT LOW DENSITY, YOU'RE AFFECTING VALUE FOR THAT SELLER TOO.
SO YOU'RE SAYING TO THIS SELLER, YOUR LAND ISN'T AS VALUABLE BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE A CHEAPER TOTAL PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT, I SHOULD SAY, IF IT CAN ONLY BE ONE LOT RELATIVE TO TWO LOTS.
AND SO IT'S A SOUTHLAKE RESIDENT THEY HAVE LAND OWNERS' RIGHTS TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY, AND WE'RE PENALIZING THEIR VALUE, AND THEY'VE PROBABLY LIVED HERE A LONG TIME TOO.
>> DENNIS, WOULD YOU MIND GOING TO THE SLIDE THAT HAS THE C OR RED DOTS ON IT WITH THE PEOPLE THAT ARE OPPOSED TO THIS?
>> I'VE GOT A FEW POINTS THAT I WANT TO MAKE AND LISTENED TO WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE HAS SAID, AND I LISTENED TO WHAT THE RESIDENTS HAVE SAID TOO.
I WANT TO START WITH THE BOB JONES COMMENT.
[01:35:02]
IT'S LIKE DEJA VU, WE HAD A WHOLE SLEW OF PEOPLE COME IN AND ASK US TO NOT DO SOMETHING, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT THE DEVELOPMENT TO HAPPEN ON THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY, BUT WE TOLD THEM, AS A CITY COUNCIL, THAT WE HAD NO WAY TO STOP THEM.THERE WERE SEVERAL OF US UP HERE INCLUDING MYSELF, WHO SAID, IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT WE COULD FIND TO PRESERVE THAT TO KEEP THE LAND USE PLAN FROM HAPPENING FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT FROM HAPPENING, THEN WE WOULD DO IT, BUT BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T ASKING FOR A CHANGE, THEN WE HAD NO CHOICE.
MY FIRST POINT IS GIVING A MIXED SIGNAL.
THE SECOND IS THESE DOTS ARE VOTERS AND TAXPAYERS AND RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS, AND THESE PEOPLE ARE COMING TO US SAYING THAT THIS IS GOING TO IMPACT THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE.
THEY'RE COMING TO US SAYING THAT WE BOUGHT OUR LAND BASED ON THIS LAND USE PLAN.
NOT ABOUT IT'S GOING TO AFFECT WHAT THIS GUY WANTS FOR HIS LAND.
WE ALL PAID MONEY FOR OUR PROPERTY BASED ON WHAT THIS CITY COUNCIL, APPARENTLY, SOMEBODY HAD BROUGHT UP.
I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THIS HAS BEEN DESIGNATED MAYBE DISH YOU CAN ANSWER, HOW LONG THIS HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS LOW DENSITY, BUT MY GUESS IS IT'S BEEN A WHILE AND PEOPLE IN THE CITY COUNCIL HAVE VOTED FOR IT AND THAT'S HOW IT'S BEEN.
I GET CHANGE, I KNOW THAT IT'S LOW-DENSITY, ACCORDING TO LAND USE PLAN.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE CASES WHERE THERE'S A PARTICULAR PROPERTY THAT HAS A BETTER VALUE TO THE COMMUNITY.
IF WE CHANGE THAT LAND USE DESIGNATION, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A COUPLE OF THOSE TONIGHT RIGHT AFTER THIS.
THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT PROPERTIES COMING UP.
WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT LAND USE PLAN CHANGES AND OVERALL, WE SEE THE BENEFIT, AND EVERYONE AROUND IT SEES THE BENEFIT, INCLUDING ALL THE NEIGHBORS ON ONE OF THEM FOR SURE.
IN THIS CASE, WHO BENEFITS? NOT ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS IS FOR THIS.
NO ONE NEIGHBOR BENEFITS FROM THIS IN ANY WAY.
THE ONLY PERSON WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS CHANGE IS THE DEVELOPER. WHAT'S THAT? WELL, DEVELOPER AND SELLER, BUT POINT BEING IS REALLY THERE'S NO REASON FOR IT.
THERE'S NO COMMERCIAL OVER TO RESIDENTIAL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S JUST THERE JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A REASON OTHER THAN FINANCIAL GAIN. I GUESS THAT'S REALLY IT.
I JUST THINK AT SOME POINT, WITH REGARDS TO THE SIGN AND THE LOW DENSITY, AND THERE'S ALWAYS THIS THOUGHT THAT MAYBE SOMETHING WOULD HAPPEN.
I THINK AFTER 17 YEARS, YOU JUST GOT TO SIT BACK AND GO, NOMADS.
I'M NOT FOR IT, AND I'M JUST GOING TO LISTEN TO WHAT THE RESIDENTS OF SOUTHLAKE YOU ARE SAYING.
>> I THINK ONE THING THAT AGAIN, THE REASON I ASKED DIRECTOR KILO ABOUT WHAT WAS THE LAND USE DESIGNATION WHEN THE JOHNSON PLACE APPLICATION CAME FORWARD, BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT IT WAS.
IT WAS LOW-DENSITY AND THEN REZONED.
I THINK THOUGH WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT LOOKING AT THINGS IN THE VACUUM OF JUST RIGHT NOW BECAUSE 20 YEARS AGO, ALL THE ADJACENT LAND OWNERS TO JOHNSON PLACE COULD MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENT AND SAY, I BOUGHT MY LAND BASED UPON THIS VIEW OR BASED ON THIS USE, AND THAT'S ALWAYS WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT AS DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS, THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS.
I SIMPLY SAY, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF THIS THAT 20 YEARS AGO, THAT WAS THE EXACT SAME SCENARIO.
THERE WERE PEOPLE THAT ARE ADJACENT TO WHAT'S CURRENTLY JOHNSON PLACE NOW, WHO COULD HAVE SAID THE EXACT SAME THING, WHICH WAS, WELL, IT WAS ZONED THIS WAY OR LAND USE PLAN WAS THAT WAY, AND THEN THAT COUNCIL MADE THAT DECISION. IT'S JUST WORTH NOTING.
>> THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY TO THAT IS THAT MAYBE THESE PEOPLE WOULDN'T HAVE PURCHASED THEIR HOME THERE HAD THEY KNOWN THAT WAS GOING TO CHANGE.
IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THIS HAS BEEN THROUGH MORE THAN ONE LAND USE PLAN WHERE THEY KEPT A LOW DENSITY.
WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS LAST TIME IT CAME THROUGH, ONE OF THE COMMENTS MADE WAS THAT SIGN WAS THERE.
THEY KNEW WHEN THEY BOUGHT THOSE HOUSES THAT COULD BE A THROUGH STREET.
WE'RE SAYING, NO MERCY, BECAUSE THAT SIGN WAS THERE, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, WE'RE WILLING TO SAY THIS LAND USE PLAN DOESN'T MATTER.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT WHY DID WE NOT CHANGE THE LAND PLAN?
[01:40:04]
OBVIOUSLY, IT WASN'T ME, BECAUSE I WASN'T INVOLVED, BUT I THINK WE'VE BEEN THROUGH TWO OR THREE LAND USE PLANS AND WE HAVE NOT CHANGED THAT.I DON'T COMPLETELY ACCEPT YOUR ARGUMENT, I GUESS ON THAT.
>> DR. KILO, CAN YOU GO TO THE SLIDE THAT WAS UP DURING THE ENTIRE PUBLIC TESTIMONY SECTION, THE ONE THAT SHOWED THE THREE LOT? THERE IT IS THREE. NO, ACTUALLY, THE OVERHEAD SATELLITE VIEW THE ONE. THAT'S THE ONE.
>> I APOLOGIZE. I DON'T KNOW HOW I GOT HERE.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION.
IT WAS THE ONE THAT WAS UP DURING THE PRESENTATION.
>> I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION.
>> I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK TO THAT LINK.
I'M GOING TO THROW AN INCH INTO THE CONVERSATION, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT I TRY TO LOOK AT THINGS AS TO WHERE ARE WE AT NOW OR WHAT MIGHT COME IN THE FUTURE.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IF THIS WERE APPROVED, WHETHER IT'S A THREE-LOT OR A TWO-LOT VARIATION.
WE HAVE TO NOTE THAT THE ADJACENT LOT TO THE WEST, AND I STAND TO BE CORRECTED, IF ANYBODY CAN TELL ME WHERE I'M WRONG HERE, BUT IT NOW IS BY DEFAULT, GOING TO BE A SINGLE LOT.
BECAUSE THERE IS NO ACCESS EXCEPT FROM JOHNSON AT THAT POINT.
YOU WERE FORCING THAT INTO A SINGLE LOT.
I THINK THE COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER LET ME LOOK AROUND, LOOK AT THIS.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT ALL LOTS THAT ARE, WHAT WAS THE SIZE? I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE SIZE WAS.
I THINK IT WAS AROUND 18,000 SQUARE FEET OR SOMETHING WAS THE AVERAGE.
I JUST I FEEL LIKE AS I LOOK AT THIS, I CAN STEP BACK AND GO.
HONESTLY, TO ME, IT FEELS LIKE IT'S A MUCH MORE PLANNED OUT DEVELOPMENT.
RECOGNIZING THAT THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T HAVE RIGHTS TO THAT PROPERTY TO THE LEFT TO THE REST, BUT IT WOULD MAKE MUCH MORE SENSE IF WE WERE CONSIDERING AN APPLICATION WITH THAT ENTIRE PIECE OF PROPERTY.
BECAUSE THEN YOU CAN REALLY LOOK AT SOME OPTIONS THAT OPEN UP A WHOLE LOT MORE, OPTIONS, FOR INSTANCE, IF WE WERE CONSIDERING THAT ENTIRE PIECE OF PROPERTY, YOU COULD HAVE A SINGLE ENTRANCE OFF OF JOHNSON.
THAT ACCESSES THAT ENTIRE PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND I'M JUST SAYING FOR KICKS, IT'D BE SIX LOTS COMING IN FROM THE SOUTH OFF OF JOHNSON, YOU COULD HAVE THAT.
YOU COULD HAVE A SCENARIO WHERE IF THE NORTHERN TWO THIRDS OF THOSE TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY WERE HELD BY THE DEVELOPER.
I KNOW THE REMUDA FOLKS WON'T LIKE THIS, BUT THAT THROUGH ROAD COULD BE TAKEN THERE AND YOU NOW HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE FOUR LOTS AND YOU REBUILD A CUL-DE-SAC AT THE END OF THAT STREET.
YOU ALSO HAD THAT SCENARIO WHERE THAT WOULD WORK, AND THEN THE TWO REMAINING LOTS ON THE BOTTOM, COULD BE ACCESSED EASILY OFF OF JOHNSON.
MY POINT IS THAT I'VE BEEN CLEAR.
I'M IN SUPPORT OF DEVELOPING THIS LAND.
I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
I THINK IT MATCHES THE PROPERTY AROUND IT.
I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO, BUT I AM OPEN TO THE CONSIDERATION TOO OF, IS THIS THE RIGHT THING TO DO? BECAUSE YOU CAN MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS ENTIRE AREA THERE, AND I'M TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S BEING CONSIDERED PLUS THAT PROPERTY TO THE WEST COULD MAKE A MUCH NICER CONTINUATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
I JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE. AS POSSIBLY A REASON NOT TO APPROVE.
>> ONE OF THE POINTS THAT YOU JUST MADE IS, I KNOW IT SOUNDS CRAZY THAT WE'RE IN SYNC ON THIS, BUT THE LAST MEETING WE HAD, I HAD ASKED A QUESTION THAT MAYBE SEEMED UNUSUAL AT THE TIME, AND THAT WAS WOULD IT NOT MAKE SENSE TO MAYBE EXTEND REMUDA A LITTLE BIT
[01:45:02]
IN THROUGH WHAT WAS IT GOING TO BE THE FUTURE DRIVE THROUGH STREET AND PUT A COUPLE OF HOUSES THERE TO EXTEND THAT CUL-DE-SAC.THE REASON WHY I SUGGESTED THAT AND THOUGHT ABOUT THAT IS, I KNOW THAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE 54 LOTS FROM THE BEGINNING AND IT WAS 52 AND THEN LATER TOLL BROTHERS FOUND THE OTHER TWO IN ANOTHER LOCATION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS WHY IT'S 54, BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS AND WE SAY, LOTS 2 AND 3 APPEAR LIKE THEY'LL COMPLETE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
WELL, A, WHY DIDN'T THEY DO IT BEFORE? WELL, BECAUSE THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY DIDN'T WANT TO SELL BECAUSE HE WANTED TO KEEP IT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ALL THESE YEARS, AND HE RECENTLY SOLD IT, AS I UNDERSTAND, IT WASN'T THAT LONG AGO, BUT ALSO B, IF WE'RE GOING TO THINK OF A FUTURE T THROUGH STREET, YOU WOULD ACTUALLY LOOK AT THIS CONCEPT AND SAY, YES, TO YOUR POINT, RANDY, THAT IF BOTH THOSE LOTS WERE BOUGHT AND SOMETHING HAPPENS, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE A THROUGH STREET OVER THERE AND THAT WOULD BE THE NATURAL COURSE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, I WOULD ACTUALLY, AT LEAST FROM AN AERIAL PERSPECTIVE, MAKE SENSE.
HOWEVER, THAT TO THE WEST OF IT FOR SURE IS IN FLOODPLAIN, AND WE ALREADY GOING TO HAVE SOME DRAINAGE ISSUES ON THE WEST SIDE OF THIS LOT.
THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO POINT OUT HERE TOO IS THAT WHILE JOHNSON ROAD HAS GOT SOME BIG, BEAUTIFUL HOUSES ON IT, AND WE MIGHT THINK THAT IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE THIN HERE ON THIS LOT.
I DID THIS REAL QUICKLY PIECE OF PAPER.
IF YOU OUTLINE THE PROPERTY WEST OF THE ONE ADJACENT, SO THE BIG HOUSE THAT'S A PRETTY BIG HOUSE.
THAT HOUSE WOULD ACTUALLY FIT ON THIS LOT.
I BE THIN, BUT IT WOULD DEFINITELY FIT ON THIS LOT.
IT IS BUILDABLE AS A SINGLE LOT WITH ONE HOUSE ON IT, IS WHAT MY POINT IS.
AGAIN, I JUST THINK THAT'S WHAT THE WHAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE TRYING TO MAKE AS A POINT.
I DON'T THINK THAT THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE GIANT HOUSE NEXT TO THEM.
I KNOW FOLKS HAVE YOU ON HOUSES NEXT TO THEM AS WELL. THAT'S WHERE I STAND.
>> I DON'T THINK ANYONE'S ARGUING THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT BUILDABLE AS A SINGLE LOT.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT COUNCILMAN WILLIAMSON IS SAYING, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT'S NOT WHAT'S BEFORE US.
WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHAT'S BEFORE US.
I'M JUST GOING TO SAY, WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, I JUST TRY TO TAKE A COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO THIS.
WE HAVE BEEN HAMMERED AND WE HAVE HAMMERED PEOPLE LET'S DO WHAT'S LIKE AROUND YOU.
TRY TO MATCH WHAT'S AROUND YOU.
TO ME, THIS THREE LOT SCENARIO MAKES THE MOST SENSE.
IT'S GOING TO GIVE YOU TWO HOMES THAT MATCH THE HOUSES IN JOHNSON PLACE, THE MOST ACCURATE.
IT'S GOING TO GIVE YOU THE EASIEST ACCESS FROM REMUDA THAT'S GOING TO BE THE MOST AESTHETIC.
OTHERWISE, IF YOU MAKE THEM ONE, WHO KNOWS, LIKE I SAID, THEY MAY BUILD AN RV COVER BACK THERE? THEY MAY BUILD A STABLE BACK THERE AND RUN TRAILERS OR CATTLE OR WHATEVER THEY WANT TO OUT OF THERE.
BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE ACCESS, THEY HAVE THAT LEGALITY THERE.
WE TALK ABOUT VALUE AND STUFF AND WE HEARD FROM THE DEVELOPER THAT I THINK, IF I HEARD CORRECTLY, THEY'LL MAKE MORE MONEY OFF TWO LOTS THAN THREE LOTS HERE, BECAUSE THEY'LL BUILD FOUR TO $5 MILLION HOMES VERSUS TWO TO $2.5 MILLION HOMES.
I DON'T THINK I GET THAT THEY MAY MAKE MORE OFF TWO THAN ONE, BUT COMMON SENSE JUST SAYS THIS MATCHES EVERYTHING AROUND IT.
I REALLY STRUGGLE WITH EVERYONE THAT'S THESE LOTS ARE BIGGER THAN EVERYTHING THAT THEY TOUCH, EXCEPT FOR THE ONE LOT THAT AS CHUCK MENTIONED, IS BASICALLY UNDER FLOODPLAIN, THEY MATCH EVERYTHING ELSE.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE AS CLOSE TO THE OTHER HOUSES AS POSSIBLE.
COMMON SENSE SAYS THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.
>> WELL, THIS IS TOUGH. ALL OF THESE CASES WE RECEIVED THAT HAVE A LOT OF SIMILARITIES. THERE'S BEEN LAND.
THE LAND HAS BEEN BUILT UP AROUND IT, PROBABLY SOME OF THE TOUGHEST CASES I'VE EVER SAT UP HERE AND LISTENED TO.
IT'S HARD, BECAUSE WHEN YOU'VE LIVED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 15, 18, 20 YEARS AND YOU'VE LOOKED AT LAND THAT ENTIRE TIME, IT'S HARD TO CONTEMPLATE ANYTHING ELSE, AND OF COURSE, YOU WANT IT TO STAY THAT WAY, THAT MAKES SENSE.
A YOUNG LADY WHO CAME UP HERE AND SPOKE A LITTLE BIT AGO AND QUOTED ME, YES, I WANT TO KEEP SOUTHLAKE A PLACE WE ALL CALL HOME, BUT WHAT I WRESTLE WITH IS NOT WANTING TO BRING TWO NEW FAMILIES IN TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD OF AMAZING PEOPLE.
LET THEM ENJOY SOUTHLAKE AND CALL SOUTHLAKE HOME AS WELL.
I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MORE NEIGHBORS, MORE PEOPLE, MORE CHILDREN GOING TO OUR SCHOOLS, ENJOYING THE QUIETNESS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD OF THIS CUL-DE-SAC.
[01:50:01]
RANDY, YOU MADE GREAT POINTS.THE PROBLEM IS WE'RE NOW CONTEMPLATING AGAIN WHAT COULD OR COULD NOT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE WITH THIS PARTICULAR LANDOWNER.
THIS IS A TOUGH ONE, AND I HEAR ALL OF YOU LOUD AND CLEAR.
IT'S JUST HARD FOR ME NOT TO IMAGINE THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO BRING AT LEAST A COUPLE MORE FAMILIES INTO YOUR WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WILL SAY WHATEVER'S DECIDED, I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE.
I HEARD A LOT OF YOU TALK ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC, AND I AGREE 1 MILLION% WITH YOU.
IT SHOULD COME OFF OF JOHNSON, IT SHOULD NOT COME THROUGH YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IF WE CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS.
I'M NOT EVER INTERESTED IN CREATING FLAG LOTS.
I THINK SOME OF YOU COMMENTED THAT WHY COULDN'T IF THERE'S 12 OR THREE HOMES, JUST THE ACCESS BE OFF OF JOHNSON.
THAT WOULD CREATE THAT SCENARIO.
THE FLAG LOTS WE HAVE IN TOWN THAT WE HAD BEFORE THE ORDINANCES WERE CHANGED ARE PROBLEMATIC, AND THEY HAVE BEEN FOR A LONG TIME FOR A LOT OF REASONS.
I SUPPORT SOMETHING BEING HERE, A HOME, TWO HOMES, THREE HOMES.
PERSONALLY, AGAIN, I DON'T LIVE ON THAT CUL-DE-SAC, I LIKE THE LOOK OF THE TWO HOMES WHERE YOU'VE GOT THE GREEN SPACE IN BETWEEN.
ONE HOME IS GREAT, BUT I JUST STRUGGLE WITH NOT ALLOWING THIS LAND OWNER TO HAVE AN OPTION.
WE DO WE RECEIVE THESE CASES AND CONTEMPLATE THEM ONE AT A TIME FOR WHAT THEY ARE AND WHERE THEY ARE.
WE HAVE CHANGED LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS, AND WE HAVE NOT.
IT'S TOUGH WHENEVER WE'RE FACED WITH THAT AND WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TONIGHT. I SUPPORT 1, 2 OR 3 HOMES GOING HERE.
>> I KNOW THAT'S NOT HELPFUL BUT.
>> I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY REALLY SAY DEFENDANT. YOU SAID THREE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE HOUSES TO THE WEST AND THE LAND, THOSE ARE LARGE LOTS.
IF YOU HAD ONE HOUSE THERE OFF JOHNSON, YOU WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
MY CONCERN, OVERALL, ARE WE GOING TO START TAKING THESE LOTS AND MAKING THEM MULTIFAMILY WHEN THEY'RE INTENDED FOR LOW DENSITY.
I STRUGGLE WITH THAT BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF PLACES IN TOWN WE COULD DO THIS AND REALLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF SOUTHLAKE.
I SUPPORT ONE HOUSE ON THIS, BUT NOT TWO AND NOT THREE, AND I SUPPORT IT COMING OFF OF JOHNSON.
I ACCEPT DR ROBBINS' POINT THAT THEY COULD HAVE ACCESS AFTER REMUDA.
THAT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER ISSUE.
BUT I ALSO THINK WE MAY HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DECIDE THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER THAT THAT MIGHT BE ONE FOR THE ATTORNEY OR ONE FOR DENNIS.
BUT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING MORE THAN ONE HOUSE HERE.
>> WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO APPLAUSE, GUYS.
LAST TIME I SAID I WASN'T IN FAVOR OF THE THREE, I ASKED FOR THE TWO LOT OPTION.
MAINLY, I WAS LOOKING AT THE ONE ACRE BEING ON JOHNSON.
THE ALL POINTS ARE WELL TAKEN ABOUT HAVING 1.95 ACRE PIECE OF PROPERTY.
BUT WHAT MAKES THIS DIFFERENT FOR ME IS THE CUL-DE-SAC RIGHT THERE CONTEMPLATES SOMETHING HAPPENING TO THE WEST, WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE A STREET THAT CONTINUES INTO SOMETHING ELSE OR A HOUSE OR HOUSES THERE.
I STRUGGLE WITH THIS. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THREE HOUSES.
IT'S GOING TO BE TWO OR ONE FOR ME.
AGAIN, I'D PREFER THE ONE ACRE HOUSE OR ONE ACRE LOT TO BE ON JOHNSON, THE REVERSE OF WHAT THE APPLICANT PRESENTED TONIGHT.
BUT THAT'S WHERE I'M NO GO ON THREE, BUT I THINK FOR PROCEDURALLY, I'M NOT SURE HOW WE WANT TO DO THE MOTION, IF YOU WANT TO START WITH THREE AND WORK OUR WAY DOWN AND SEE WHERE WE'RE AT.
>> WELL, MAYOR, THE ONE THING I'LL SAY IS IN LISTENING TO ALL THE RESIDENTS BECAUSE THAT'S SO APPRECIATIVE AND ALSO SPEAKING TO RESIDENTS ON THE PHONE PRIOR TO THIS AND SO FORTH.
THE ONE PIECE THAT'S HARD TO DISSECT IS CLEARLY THERE'S A PREFERENCE TOWARD TWO LOTS.
BUT IT SEEMS A LOT OF THAT PREFERENCE WAS ALSO RELATED TO THE POTENTIAL FOR A FLAG LOT.
[01:55:01]
BECAUSE IT TAKES EVERYTHING OFF OFF REMUDA BECAUSE TO ME, WHAT I HEAR IS THAT'S THE REAL ISSUE.REMUDA IS THE BIG ISSUE HERE THAT I HEARD THE MOST, WHICH IS PLEASE DON'T ALLOW ACCESS OFF REMUDA.
IF WE GO WITH A TWO LOT OPTION, THERE'S ACCESS OFF REMUDA.
IF I HEARD CLEARLY FROM DIRECTOR KILO, REMUDA REMAINS AN OPTION.
THAT LANDOWNER CAN POP RIGHT IN THERE AS SOON AS THEY WANT TO.
THAT SEEMS TO BE OFF THE TABLE AS FAR AS OUR ABILITY TO CONTROL THAT OTHER THAN AN OUTRIGHT DENIAL.
WHAT I'M GETTING AT WITH ALL THAT LONG WINDED TALK IS THAT, HONESTLY, FOR ME, IF I'M SITTING THERE, I'M THINKING, WHAT'S GOING TO LOOK THE BEST AND MOST CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND FOR ME IT'S THE THREE LOT OPTION.
IT'S STILL BACK TO THE THREE LOT OPTION, WHICH IS THREE HOMES.
IF YOU HAD THAT OVERHEAD VIEW ONCE IT WAS COMPLETED, AND YOU HAVE COMPLETED HOMES ON THOSE LOTS, 1, 2, AND 3, YOU WOULD LOOK AT THAT AND GO, IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT THE PLAN WAS.
I JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT A TWO LOT OPTION.
I THINK THAT'S GOING TO LOOK REALLY ODD.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LARGE HOUSE, AND THEN IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO FIT.
>> FOR THE RECORD, I THOUGHT I WAS PRETTY CLEAR OF ONE LOT OPTION OR ONE HOUSE OPTION ON THERE.
I THINK THAT THAT FITS, AND I THINK THAT THAT LOOKS GOOD.
I THINK WE ALL NEED TO KEEP IN MIND THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THREE BOXES THAT ARE DRAWN BASED ON WHERE HOUSES WOULD GO IF IT WAS A THREE LOT OPTION, AND SURE, FROM THE SKY WITH A DRONE, IT WOULD LOOK COMPLETE, BUT NOT FROM THESE PEOPLE'S DRIVEWAYS, NOT FROM DRIVING DOWN, REMUDA.
LET'S TALK ABOUT LAND USE RIGHT.
THIS PROPERTY IS 1.9 ACRES, AND THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY HAS THE RIGHT TO BUILD A HOUSE ON IT.
NOBODY IS DENYING THAT PERSON THE RIGHT TO BUILD A HOUSE ON 1.9 ACRES, BUT WE DO HAVE A LAND USE PLAN.
DEVIATION FROM THE LAND USE PLAN SHOULD BE BASED ON SEVERAL FACTORS AND ONE WOULD BE NECESSITY, AND THE OTHER WOULD BE WHAT DOES THE PUBLIC WANT.
IF THE PUBLIC DOESN'T WANT IT, AND IT'S NOT REALLY NEEDED.
IS IT NEEDED FOR THE DEVELOPER TO MAKE MORE MONEY? I WOULD ARGUE THAT FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, IF I PUT $3, $2 MILLION HOUSES ON THAT LOT, THE CITY IS GOING TO GET THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY AS $1, $6 MILLION HOUSE.
THE DEVELOPER HAD SAID THAT THAT HOUSE WOULD BE ABOUT 4.5-5 MILLION FOR THE ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE, IF IT WAS A TWO LOT OPTION.
ONE LOT OPTION OVER THERE WITH A HOUSE THAT'S 6-7,000 SQUARE FEET, WOULD BE, THAT'S A JOKE.
IF YOU GUYS HAVE HEARD THAT, BUT ANYWAY, SIX OR 7,000 SQUARE FEET ON A BIG LOT.
THAT'S GOING TO BE PROBABLY $6- $8 MILLION PROPERTY.
REALISTICALLY, WHICH IS GOING TO BE THE SAME TAX REVENUE TO THE CITY AS 3, 2 MILLION OR $2.5 MILLION PROPERTIES.
BUT OVERALL, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT SWAYS ME ON THIS IS THE FACT THAT I HAVE ALL THESE PEOPLE OUT THERE, ALL THESE RED DOTS, ALL THESE PEOPLE OPPOSED TO IT.
OTHER HOUSES IN THE AREA ALONG JOHNSON ARE LARGE, AND I JUST THINK THAT A ONE LOT OPTION WOULD BE THE BEST.
>> CAN WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION?
[2.A. Executive Session (Part 2 of 2)]
>> AS MAYOR, I HEREBY ADVISE YOU THEY'RE GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071 TO SEEK LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND WE'LL BE BACK IN JUST A FEW MINUTES.
[2.B. Reconvene: Action necessary on items discussed in Executive Session. (Part 2 of 2)]
WE'RE BACK IN SESSION.IS THERE ANY ACTION NECESSARY FOLLOWING EXECUTIVE SESSION?
>> COUNCIL, ONE LAST PASS ON THIS.
[Items 6.A. & 6.B. (Part 2 of 2)]
LIKE I SAID EARLIER, IT'S A NO GO ON THREE LOTS FOR ME AT MOST TWO WITH THE ONE ACRE LOT ON JOHNSON.COUNCIL, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR THOUGHTS? I KNOW WE'VE ALREADY BEEN AROUND THE DIAS ONCE OR TWICE, BUT LAST CALL.
MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIAMSON, WITH ALL THAT GUIDANCE, YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> WHERE DID WE LAND ON THE OPTION B OR C ON THE TWO LOT OPTION? WAS IT OPTION?
>> I PREFERRED OPTION B, WHICH HAD THE ONE ACRE LOT ON THE SOUTH FRONTING JOHNSON.
DEPUTY MER PROTAM TALLEY, I THINK BROUGHT UP THE POINT ABOUT LIMITING CONSTRUCTION ACCESS TO ONLY UTILIZING JOHNSON AND NOT REMUDA FOR CONSTRUCTION.
I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS MADE SOME AGREEMENTS OR STIPULATIONS ABOUT SCREENING AND FENCING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION,
[02:00:03]
THAT I THINK WE NEED TO BUILD INTO ANY MOTION ON THAT.LET'S SEE. THERE WAS SOME COMMENTARY OR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TRADITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.
WE MIGHT NEED SOME DIRECTION FROM DIRECTOR KILO OR THE CITY ATTORNEY ON HOW WE PUT THAT INTO THE MOTION.
SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS IN JOHNSON PLACE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE HOUSES LOOKING THE SAME OR HAVING THAT CONSISTENT STYLE.
HOW DO WE SPEAK TO THAT IN A MOTION FOR PRO TEM WILLIAMSON'S BENEFIT?
>> I THINK THAT STYLE ONLY APPLIED IF THEY WERE GIVEN THREE LOTS IN TWO LOTS, THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD A $5 MILLION HOME, I THINK, OR $4 MILLION HOME, IN THAT ACCURATE APPLICANT.
THEY CAN'T MATCH WHAT'S THERE.
>> IF IT WAS ONLY ONE HOUSE, THAT WAS OFF REMUDA.
WOULD THAT STILL BE PART OF THE HOA? IF SO, DO WE ADDRESS THAT IN THE MOTION, AND HOW DO WE ADDRESS IT IN THE MOTION?
>> I'M NOT SURE IT'S POSSIBLE.
I HAVE NO IDEA HOW YOU PUT A MOTION ON STYLE.
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT DOING IT MY WAY. [OVERLAPPING]
WE CAN'T REQUIRE A LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD [OVERLAPPING] GOVERN WHAT HOA'S BY LAWS ARE.
>> WE CAN'T MAKE THEM JOIN THE HOA EITHER.
I WOULD BE AGAINST PUTTING THAT STIPULATION ON THAT ON THEM, ESPECIALLY WITH A SINGLE HOUSE BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE SO MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> DID WE AGREE TO OR I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DEVELOPER ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC WOULD BE COMING OFF OF JOHNSON?
>> MADAM, I'LL PUT IT ON THE MICROPHONE SO WE CAN RECORD IT.
>> I'M ALSO OPEN TO CONSTRUCTION IF WE WANTED TO COME OFF JOHNSON, THE ONLY HINDRANCE THAT WE HAVE TO SELL LOTS IN COORDINATE.
IF WE DID A THREE, HAVE TO SELL THREE FIRST, TWO, THEN NEXT.
IF WE SELL LOT 1 FIRST, THAT BUYER WOULD BE HINDERED TO WAIT FOR LOT 2 OR 3 IF WE HAD THE TWO LOT PLAN, SAME SCENARIO, IF WE'RE TRYING TO GET EVERYTHING OFF JOHNSON, WE REALLY BE HAD A DOMINO EFFECT SITUATION TRYING TO GET THESE THINGS SOLD.
AGAIN, OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS ON THAT.
I'M JUST SPEAKING FOR THE CURRENT LAND OWNER OF HOW WE SELL THESE PROPERTIES. THAT MAKES SENSE?
>> BUT I CAN TAKE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.
IF THE TWO LOT OPTION IS WHAT WOULD BE APPROVED, IF THAT HAPPENS, FOR ME, I THINK YOU GOT TO COME IN OFF OF JOHNSON.
I REALIZE IT'S DIFFICULT WITH YOUR WHOLE BUYING PATTERN AND WHO BUYS WHAT FIRST.
>> IT'S EASIER ON TWO LOT FOR SURE.
IT WOULD BE ON THREE FOR SURE.
>> THE ONE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW ON THE SCREEN?
>> THIS IS MORE FOR THE MAYOR THAN FOR YOU.
>> THEY'RE SHOWING OPTION C HERE.
THEY HAVE THE ONE ACRE FLIP HERE.
BUT OPTION B, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED, NOT ON THIS SLIDE, HAS THE ONE ACRE LOT TO THE SOUTH.
>> THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING IS THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING.
>> I NEED TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR THOUGH, COUNCIL, ARE WE SAYING THAT NO CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC MAY COME IN OFF OF REMUDA AND IT ALL MUST COME OFF OF JOHNSON, OR ARE WE SAYING THE OPPOSITE?
>> ARE YOU MAKING A TWO OR THREE LOT PROPOSAL?
>> I'M GOING TO MAKE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT MOTIONS AND SEE WHERE IT GOES.
>> FOR THE THREE LOT PROPOSAL, CAN WE DO BOTH? CAN WE SAY FOR THE THIRD HOME? THAT CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC. DOES THAT WORK? IT COULD COME OFF OF REMUDA, BUT THEN THE OTHER TWO HAVE TO COME OFF OF JOHNSON.
>> LIKE YOU SAID, YOU'LL KEEP ALL CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ON THIS HOME OR THIS LANDOWNER'S LAND OFF OF THE CUL-DE-SAC AT ALL TIMES AND EVERYTHING.
>> I WILL COMMIT TO GATING SCREEN, AND ALL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE PARKED ON A CONSTRUCTION GRAVEL PAD ON SITE.
NOTHING WILL BE PARKED IN THE STREET.
>> I'LL DO MY BEST WITH THIS. LIKE I SAID, THIS MAY END UP BEING TWO MOTIONS BECAUSE I WANT TO PUT IT OUT THERE TO SEE WHERE WE ARE AT.
MAYOR COUNCIL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 6A ORDERS NUMBER 1269-E, CP 25-0002, SECOND READING AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE CONSOLIDATED FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, AN ELEMENT OF THE SOUTHLAKE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR 2530 JOHNSON ROAD.
[02:05:02]
ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS TRACT 8A02C JJ FRESH HOUR SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 521, SUBJECT TO A STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 29TH 2025.NOTING THAT THIS WILL BE AN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE UNDERLYING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
AS SHOWN ON OPTION B PRESENTED THIS EVENING.
NOTING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO SCREEN ALL CONSTRUCTION OFF OF OR TO CREATE A SCREENING BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AND THE REMUDA PORTION OF THE JOHNSON ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT WOULD BE OFF OF REMUDA AND ON A GRAVEL PAD ON SITE OF THE PROPERTIES.
>> THIS IS A MOTION ON ITEM 6A.
>> EXCUSE ME, MAYOR. I WANT TO AMEND.
THIS MOTION IS TO APPROVE OPTION A, THE THREE LOT VERSION.
>> ITEM 6A, APPROVING OPTION A, THE THREE LOT PROPOSAL.
>> WITH THE SAME ADDITIONAL ADD ONS.
>> BUT THE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC FOR HOUSE NUMBER 3 CAN COME OFF OF REMUDA.
>> I MIGHT ADD THAT 6A IS JUST THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT.
ANY CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE INCLUDED ON ANY MOTION FOR 6B.
>> SHOULD I JUST TAKE THOSE OFF OF THIS MOTION, BUT WE'RE STILL VOTING ON OPTIONS, THOUGH RIGHT NOW.
>> [OVERLAPPING] HOLD ON. LET'S BE CAREFUL BECAUSE SOME OF THIS WILL STAY LOW DENSITY, SOME WILL BE MEDIUM DENSITY.
MAYBE WE'LL LOOK AT THE CITY ATTORNEY ON HOW WE WORD THAT MOTION, DEPENDING ON WHERE WE GO WITH THIS.
IF IT'S GOING TO BE A THREE LOT, I GET IT, IT WILL ALL GO TO MEDIUM DENSITY, BUT IF IT'S GOING TO BE A TWO LOT, IT'LL BE PART LOW DENSITY AND PART MEDIUM DENSITY.
>> CORRECT. THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS THE THREE LOT.
DEPENDING ON HOW THINGS GO IF WE END UP WITH A TWO LOT PROPOSAL, THEN THAT WOULD NEED TO BE [OVERLAPPING]
>>I'LL CLARIFY THAT IN THE MOTION.
THIS MOTION STANDS THEN AS IS FOR OPTION A, REMOVING THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
GO HERE, RANDY WILLIAMSON, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE ANOTHER MOTION? YES, MAYOR COUNCIL MOVES THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 6A ORDINANCE NUMBER 1269ACP25-0002.
SECOND READING AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE CONSOLIDATED FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, AN ELEMENT OF THE SOUTHLAKE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR 2530 JOHNSON ROAD, A PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS TRACT 8A02CJJ FRESH HOUR SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 2521.
SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 29TH, 2025.
IN NOTING THAT WE ARE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE UNDERLYING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AS SHOWN ON OPTION B TONIGHT, WHILE MAINTAINING LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE ADJACENT LOT.
DOES THAT GET IT THE WAY YOU NEED IT, DENNIS, FOR THAT PORTION OF THE MOTION? YES. AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE LOW DENSITY WOULD REMAIN ON THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THAT PROPERTY, THE SOUTHERN LOT.
OPTION B. NOTING THAT LOW DENSITY DESIGNATION WOULD REMAIN ON THE SOUTHERNMOST LOT, THE MEDIUM-DENSITY DENSITY ON THE NORTHERNMOST LOT.
ALSO, NOTING THE APPLICANT'S AGREEMENT TO SCREEN REMUDA COMPLETELY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.
OH, YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S ON THE ZONING PORTION, SO WE DON'T NEED THAT ON HERE.
WE HAVE A MOTION ON 6A CONTEMPLATING OPTION B. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND.
THAT'S ON ITEM 6A, AND 6A IS APPROVED.
AS THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 6B ORDERS NUMBER 480-8 38Z 25-0052.
SECOND READING ZONING CHANGE IN DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 2530 JOHNSON ROAD, ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS TRACT 8A02C,
[02:10:01]
JJ FRESH HOUR SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 521, SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 2025, AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER 3, DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 2025.NOTING THAT WE ARE APPROVING A ZONING CHANGE IN DEVELOPMENT PLAN FROM AG TO RPD, RESIDENTIAL PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING, AND WE ARE APPROVING OPTION B, A TWO LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH PROPOSED LOT SIZES OF APPROXIMATELY 43,571 SQUARE FEET FOR LOT ONE AND APPROXIMATELY 37,475 SQUARE FEET FOR LOT TWO AND ACCESS WOULD BE FROM JOHNSON ROAD FOR LOT ONE AND REMUDA COURT FOR LOT TWO.
AND NOTING THE APPLICANT'S AGREEMENT TO SCREEN REMUDA COURT DURING ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
ALSO, THE APPLICANT'S AGREEMENT THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT WILL BE ON A GRAVEL PAD ON SITE. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? YOU TALKED ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ONLY FROM JOHNSON? WELL, IT IS. YEAH. I THINK I NOTED THAT.
AND THEN CONSTRUCTION ACCESS WOULD BE OFF OF WOULD BE LIMITED TO JOHNSON ROAD.
ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE 6B WITH OPTION B. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND.
AND THAT MOTION CARRIES 4 TO 3.
ITEM 6B WITH OPTION B IS APPROVED.
YES. ITEM 6B WITH OPTION B IS APPROVED 4 TO 3. WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THAT? ALL RIGHT.
THAT CONCLUDES THE VOTES ON ITEMS 6A AND 6 B.
WE HAD A TECHNICAL FREEZE-UP UP HERE, BUT I DON'T THINK I DID IT. ALL RIGHT.
[6.C. Ordinance No. 480-445b, ZA25-0030, 2nd Reading, Zoning Change and Site 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: “SP-1” Detailed Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #6. PUBLIC HEARING ]
NEXT UP IS ITEM 7, OR LET'S SEE, 6C ORDINANCE NUMBER 480-445B, CASE NUMBER Z25-0030, SECOND READING ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN FOR CARRIS CARE OF SOUTHLAKE LOCATED AT 600 THROUGH 660 WEST SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD, DIRECTOR KILO.THANK YOU, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO AMEND THE CURRENT SP1 DETAILED SITE PLAN DISTRICT TO ADD A MENTAL HEALTHCARE YOUTH, WHICH IS A FULL-DAY OUTPATIENT MENTAL HEALTHCARE FACILITY FOR YOUTH.
HERE'S A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SITE.
CURRENT LAND USE ON IT IS OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL.
THE ZONING IS SP1, A GENERALIZED SITE PLAN, FOLLOWING OFFICE DISTRICT ZONING.
THIS IS A SITE EXHIBIT PROVIDED AT YOUR FIRST READING AND AN ADDITIONAL SITE PLAN JUST SHOWING INTERIOR AND THE SUITE SPACE THAT WOULD BE OCCUPYING, AND AN ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT SHOWING EGRESS OF THE SITE, DESCRIPTION.
IT WOULD SERVE A MAXIMUM OF 20 STUDENT-AGE CHILDREN WITH FULL-TIME STAFF AND WOULD PROVIDE ALL-DAY CLINIC AND GROUP THERAPY ACTIVITIES FROM 8 TO 5:00 A.M.
THIS IS A DESCRIPTION OF THEIR TYPICAL PROGRAM AT SOME OF THE OTHER FACILITIES.
AND THE APPLICANT PROVIDED AT THE FIRST READING.
SAFETY EXHIBIT SHOWING HOW THEY WOULD MANAGE THE YOUTH IN AND OUT OF THE FACILITY.
[02:15:01]
I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, AKINS.ANY QUESTIONS? I KNOW WE'VE ALREADY SEEN THIS BEFORE IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS, BUT ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, DENNIS.
NEXT UP IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR 6C? COME ON DOWN. YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
JOHN RAINES, THE PRESIDENT, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AND MANAGING PARTNER FOR CARRIS HEALTH, 1810 US HIGHWAY 82, SHERMAN, TEXAS 75092.
ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD, OR ANY PRESENTATION, OR JUST AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS? I'M JUST AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
WE'RE SUPER EXCITED ABOUT THIS.
HIT ME IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING. ALL RIGHT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I TRIED TO HELP YOU OUT THERE, BUT.
ALL RIGHT. STICK AROUND. WE MAY HAVE SOME LATER.
ITEM 6C REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 6C.
DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK REGARDING ITEM 6C, THE CARRIS CARE OF SOUTHLAKE? SEE NONE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 6C.
COUNCIL, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR DENNIS? ALL RIGHT. MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIAMSON.
LET'S TAKE A MOTION ON ITEM 6C.
YEAH. I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD A COMMENT REAL QUICK, MAYOR, YOU KNOW, I WAS OPPOSED TO THIS AT FIRST READING, AND I WILL BE TODAY AS WELL.
I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE WORK THAT'S BEING DONE, THOUGH.
THE WORK BEING DONE HERE IS FANTASTIC.
I JUST, FROM A LOCATION STANDPOINT, SHARING WITH A BANK TO ME SEEMS NOT THE BEST USE, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
ALL RIGHT. AND BEFORE WE GO TO A MOTION, I'LL NOTE THAT THE CITY SENT OUT 28 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATIONS, AND AS OF TODAY, THERE WERE NO RESPONSES ON ITEM 6C.
SO DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM TALLEY, IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION FOR US ON SIX C.
THANK YOU, MAYOR. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 6C, ORDINANCE NUMBER 480-445BZA25-0030, SECOND READING ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN FOR CARS CARE SOUTHLAKE ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS NINE THROUGH 12, LBG HALL NUMBER 686 EDITION, AND LOCATED AT 600 TO 660 WEST SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD, SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 29TH, 2025, AND THE SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER FOUR DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 2025.
NOTING WE ARE APPROVING THE ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN FOR A FULL-DAY OUTPATIENT MENTAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY AS PRESENTED.
WE HAVE A MOTION ON 6C. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
AND THAT MOTION CARRIES 4-3, AND ITEM 6C IS APPROVED.
[7.A. Ordinance No. 480-836, ZA25-0035, 1st Reading, Zoning Change and Development Plan for 1965 and 1975 N. White Chapel Blvd., on property described as Lot 2, Block A, and Lot 1, Block A, Thrasher Addition, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas. Current Zoning: “AG” Agricultural District. Requested Zoning: “R-PUD” Residential Planned Unit Development. SPIN Neighborhood #3. ]
CASE NUMBER ZA 25-0035, FIRST READING ZONING CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 1965 AND 1975 NORTH WHITE CHAPEL BOULEVARD, DIRECTOR KILO.THANK YOU AGAIN, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE ZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL TO RESIDENTIAL PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AS YOU SAID, 1965, 1975, NORTH WHITE CHAPEL BOULEVARD.
THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
IT IS JUST NORTH OF EAST KIRKWOOD BOULEVARD AND WEST OF KARLAN PHASE ONE DEVELOPMENT.
IT ALSO ABUTS A LOW-DENSITY OVER AN ACRE-SIZED PLATTED LOT TO THE NORTH.
AND THEN IT'S ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF WHITE CHAPEL.
THIS LAND USE DESIGNATION IS MIXED USE.
AND AS I MENTIONED, THE CURRENT ZONING IS AGRICULTURAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
AT THE FIRST READING, THE COUNCIL LOOKED AT THIS AND ALLOWED THE APPLICANT TO TABLE AND LOOK AT A THREE-LOT OPTION.
THEY DO HAVE A THREE-LOT OPTION AS A SECONDARY OPTION, BUT I BELIEVE ONE OF THE CONCERNS MAY HAVE BEEN THE BUFFER LOT REQUIREMENTS ALONG WHERE THIS LOT ABUTS THE LOWER-DENSITY PLATTED LOT.
THE APPLICANT'S CONSULTANT ADJUSTED THE LENGTH OF THE CUL-DE-SAC AND SHIFTED THAT SOUTH A BIT TO GET A LOT CONFIGURATION THAT HAS 30,000 SQUARE FOOT OR GREATER LOTS ALONG THAT NORTHERN PORTION OF THE CUL-DE-SAC, AND THEN 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS ALONG THE SOUTHERN TIER OF LOTS.
THIS IS A PREFERRED OPTION AND SITE DATA SUMMARY FOR THAT.
[02:20:07]
THIS IS A THREE-LOT OPTION THAT THEY HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD TO ADDRESS THE ORIGINAL CONDITION.HOWEVER, THEY WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE FOUR-LOT OPTION.
THESE ARE SUPPLEMENTAL PLANS THAT THEY WOULD UPDATE TO MATCH WHICHEVER OPTION MOVES FORWARD, WHICH ARE INTENDED TO SHOW THE OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
A TREE CONSERVATION PLAN IS BEING REQUESTED TO BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED, JUST GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THE TREES AND WHERE BUILDING PADS WOULD SIT IN A CONFIGURATION.
THERE ARE ONLY A FEW TREES THERE ABLE TO SAVE THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN.
THEY WOULD EXTEND THE SANITARY SEWER TO THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS EXTEND WATER SERVICE TO ALL THE LOTS.
WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES FROM ANYONE INSIDE THE NOTIFICATION AREA OR OUTSIDE THE NOTIFICATION AREA.
AND THESE WERE THE MOTION AND ACTION OF THE P&Z.
THEY RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE PLAN AT THEIR AUGUST 21ST MEETING.
AND THE ITEM WAS TABLED AT YOUR PREVIOUS MEETING AND IS BEING BROUGHT BACK THIS EVENING FOR CONSIDERATION.
I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
WE SHOWED THE APPLICANTS' VIDEO AT THE LAST MEETING, UNLESS THERE'S AN INTEREST IN SEEING THAT AGAIN.
I DON'T BELIEVE THE APPLICANT FEELS IT'S NECESSARY UNLESS YOU WOULD LIKE TO VIEW IT AGAIN.
JES, WHAT'S THE FUTURE USE PLAN ON THIS, PLEASE? IT IS A MIXED-USE CATEGORY.
GENERALLY, MIXED USE IS, OF COURSE, THE BROADEST LAND USE CATEGORY IN THE LAND USE PLAN, AND IT IS INTENDED TO DEVELOP EITHER COMPREHENSIVELY OR TRANSITIONALLY BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AROUND IT.
THIS PROPERTY HAS KIRKWOOD TO THE SOUTH, CAROLON RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO THE WEST, AND THEN A LOWER-DENSITY LOT TO THE NORTH.
AND SO, GIVEN THOSE FACTORS, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD PROBABLY BE CONSIDERED THE MOST COMPATIBLE IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KILO? THANK YOU, DENNIS. I THINK WE'RE GOOD. IT'S THE APPLICANT HERE.
>> IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> GOOD EVENING MY NAME IS ASHER KANT, 203 WITH SPRING LANE, SOUTHLAKE.
>> DID YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION ALSO OR A VIDEO OR SOMETHING TO SHOW?
>> THIS THE PREVIOUS ONE IS JUST THE SAME THING WHAT YOU HAVE AND I THINK AT THE LAST MEETING, WE HAD IT.
A COUNCIL MEMBER WAS DECIDING FOR 3 OR 4 OPTION SO WE WENT TO THE ARCHITECT AND WE LOOKED THROUGH AND WHAT WAS FEASIBLE WITH FOUR AND THREE LOTS.
WE HAVE TO BRING THE DRAINAGE LINE TO THE KIRKWOOD BOULEVARD AND SO WE HAVE TO SPEND THOSE EXTRA FUNDS ON THAT SO THAT'S WHY WE PROPOSED OPTION 1.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, SIR.
I'LL NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THE CITY SENT OUT 21 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATIONS AND AS OF TODAY, WE HAVE NO RESPONSES TO THOSE PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATIONS.
SEVEN A DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON 7A.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 7A? SEEING NONE.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 7A.
COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KILO OR THE APPLICANT, AND WE'VE GOT THESE OPTIONS WITH FOUR LOTS AND THREE LOTS.
>> I SUGGESTED, I'M LOOKING AT THE THREE LOTS, SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT. ARE YOUR WORKS WELL WITH YOU?
>> I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THE FOUR LOTS.
>> I LIKE THE THREE LOT OPTION.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, GUYS?
>> I'M GLAD TO SEE US GET TO THIS POINT.
I KNOW WE'VE SEEN THIS ONE MANY TIMES AND TO GET TO THIS POINT WHERE WE HAVE SOME COMPROMISE IT'LL FIT IN NICELY.
[02:25:01]
>> WE MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIAMSON, WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU FOR A MOTION ON SEVEN A.
>> YES MAYOR AND COUNCIL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 7A ORDINANCE NUMBER 480-836, ZA 250035, FIRST READING ZONING CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 1965 AND 1975, NORTH WHITE CHAPEL BOULEVARD, ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 2, BLOCK A, LOT 1, BLOCK A, THRASHER ADDITION, CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS.
SUBJECT TO STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 2025, AND THE SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER 4, DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 2025, NOTING THAT WE'RE APPROVING A ZONING CHANGE IN DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CHANGING THE ZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ARPA DISTRICT, AS PRESENTED FOR OPTION 2, THREE LOTS THAT RANGE FROM APPROXIMATELY 30,000 SQUARE FEET TO 40,000 SQUARE FEET.
>> WITH MOTION ON 7A DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> CAST YOUR VOTES AND THAT MOTION CARRIES 7:0.
ITEM 7A IS APPROVED ON FIRST READING.
WE'LL SEE YOU IN TWO WEEKS FOR SECOND READING.
[7.B. Ordinance No. 480-837, ZA25-0045, 1st Reading, Zoning Change and Development/Site Plan for Trademark Southlake, on property described as Tracts 1A and 1A03, James J. West Survey Abstract No. 1620 and located at 1800 and 1900 N. White Chapel Blvd. Current Zoning: “AG” Agricultural District. Requested Zoning: “ECZ” Employment Center Zoning District. SPIN Neighborhood #3]
ORDINANCE NUMBER 480-837, CASE NUMBER ZA 25-0045, FIRST READING ZONING CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN FOR TRADEMARK SOUTHLAKE ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS TRACKS 1A AND 1 A03 JAMES J WEST SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 1620 AND LOCATED AT 1800 AND 1900 NORTH WHITE CHAPEL BOULEVARD, DIRECTOR KILO.>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.
THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY, ENCOMPASSES APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRES JUST NORTH AND EAST OF 114 ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF WHITE CHAPEL BOULEVARD.
KIRKWOOD BOULEVARD STUBS INTO THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THIS TRACT AND THIS PROPERTY ALIGNS WITH THE CONTINUATION OF KIRKWOOD BOULEVARD, WHICH IS AN ARTERIAL STREET DESIGNATED ON OUR THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
THIS IS A VIEW LOOKING WEST ACROSS THE CHAPEL FRONT EDGE OF THE PROPERTY METER SUBDIVISION IS IN VIEW OVER ON THE RIGHT HAND CORNER.
THIS IS A VIEW LOOKING SOUTH FROM THE TERMINUS OF KIRKWOOD BOULEVARD, WHERE IT RUNS THROUGH THE METER SUBDIVISION AND THIS IS A VIEW LOOKING EASTERLY DIRECTION FROM 114 FRONTAGE.
THE PRIMARY LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THIS IS MIXED USE THIS PROPERTY ALSO HAS A COUPLE OF OPTIONAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OR OVERLAYS ONE OF THOSE IS THE CAMPUS OFFICE OVERLAY.
THEN THIS PROPERTY ALSO HAS THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER EC-1, EC-2, EC-R DESIGNATION AS WELL.
AS I MENTIONED, THE CURRENT ZONING ON THE PROPERTIES AGRICULTURAL, AND THEY ARE REQUESTING EMPLOYMENT CENTER ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY.
THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER WHILE USE ZONING CATEGORIES INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING OFFICE, RETAIL, HOSPITALITY, AND RESIDENTIAL.
IT'S ALSO PRESENT TO PROMOTE ANY CORPORATE CAMPUS AND QUALITY TYPE COMMERCIAL DESIGN, AND PROTECT NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND INTEGRATE OPEN SPACE INTO THE DEVELOPMENT, CREATE PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENTS.
THE DISTRICTS CHARACTERISTICS IS IT SHOULD INCLUDE AT LEAST TWO OF THE CATEGORIES OF TRANSITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT.
THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES COMMERCIAL CORE AND THEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPONENTS OF THOSE LAND USE CATEGORIES AS WELL AS PROVIDING THE MINIMUM 15% OPEN SPACE OR MORE.
THIS IS THE OVERALL PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SITE.
WE'VE SHADED THESE IN, IDENTIFIED THESE PARTICULAR AREAS AS LOT NUMBERS FOR EASIER REFERENCE.
LOT 1 IS DESIGNED OR DEFINED AS A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT BUT IS KEYED FOR A POTENTIAL HOTEL USE AT THAT LOCATION.
[02:30:01]
THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED ALL THE PLANS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE SITE PLAN FOR THIS PARTICULAR PORTION OF THE SITE, SO ANY ACTION ON IT THIS EVENING WOULD SIMPLY POTENTIALLY ENTITLE THE USE IN SOME FORM AND THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COME BACK AT A LATER DATE WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL.SAME HOLDS TRUE ON WHAT IS IN BUILDING 13, WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE LOT 3 AREA.
THIS BUILDING OVER IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER IS JUST A PAD DESIGNATION INTENDED FOR A RESTAURANT USE, AND IT TOO WOULD REQUIRE TO COME BACK FORWARD WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL BEFORE RECEIVING A BUILDING PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT.
LOT 2 INCLUDES 33,000 PLUS SQUARE FOOT GROCER AND RETAIL STORES AS WELL AS RESTAURANT PADS.
THEN LOT 3 INCLUDES OFFICE AND USES IN THAT COMPONENT.
LOT 4 INCLUDES 12 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THE MINIMUM SIZE BEING PROPOSED AND THERE IS 10,000 SQUARE FEET, AVERAGE IS JUST OVER 13, MINIMUM 12,000 SQUARE FEET.
THE AVERAGE SIZE IS RANGING JUST ABOUT 13,200 SQUARE FEET.
LOT 5, ALSO DESIGNATED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THERE AT 10,000 SQUARE FEET WITH THE AVERAGE RUNNING JUST UNDER 11,000 SQUARE FEET.
THIS IS REDWAY ACCESS PLAN THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD EXTEND THE FULL HUNDRED FOOT WIDTH AND FOUR LANE DIVIDED CROSS SECTION OF KIRKWOOD BOULEVARD THROUGH THE PROPERTY AND WOULD CONNECT AND TRANSITION WITH THE TWO LANE THAT TERMINATES INTO THE NORTH BOUNDARY TODAY TO WORK THROUGH THE EXTREME CURVATURE OF THE GEOMETRY OF HOW THESE ALIGNMENTS MATCH UP.
THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING A ROUNDABOUT WITH SOME AESTHETIC LANDSCAPE AND POTENTIAL OTHER FEATURES IN THAT STRUCTURE.
THEY ARE ALSO PROVIDING CONNECTIVITY AND ACCESS BACK TO 114 THROUGH INTERNAL PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVES THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH I WILL POINT OUT IN OUR REVIEW COMMENTS.
WE'VE ASKED ON A PARTICULAR DRIVE THAT EXTENDS FROM THE ROUNDABOUT, THAT THIS HAVE SOME DESIGN FEATURES TO IT THAT DELINEATES IT TO CLEARLY APPEAR MORE PRIVATE AND THAT YOU'RE IN A RETAIL DEVELOPMENT AREA RATHER THAN THAT BEING A PUBLIC STREET.
ONE OF THE SUGGESTIONS WE HAVE IS THAT THEY RECONFIGURE THEIR PARKING WITH EITHER SOME HEAD IN OR ANGLED PARKING ON BOTH SIDES WITH SOME INTERMITTENT LANDSCAPE ISLANDS SPACED ALONG THAT ONCE THEY GET PAST SOME OF THEIR STACKING AREAS COMING OFF THE ROUNDABOUT.
THIS IS THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PLAN AND TREE CONSERVATION.
WITH THIS BEING ONE OF THE NON-STANDARD SPECIALIZED DISTRICT, IT'S NOT REQUIRED TO MEET A MINIMUM PRESERVATION STANDARD.
THEY ARE PROPOSING ROUGHLY 12% OF THE EXISTING TREE COVER, AND WHAT THEY'VE IDENTIFIED IS SOME HIGHER VALUE TREES THAT DO STILL EXIST ON THE PROPERTY THAT THEY WOULD INCORPORATE INTO THEIR OVERALL DESIGN.
THIS LANDSCAPE RENDERING OF THE SITE AND OPEN SPACE PLAN.
THIS IS A SITE DATA SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT AND THIS IS A DETAIL OF EACH OF THE IDENTIFIED LOT AREAS.
[02:35:02]
LOT 1, AS MENTIONED, IS A FUTURE BUILDING SITE, BUT CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED FOR A POTENTIAL HOTEL.THEY'RE REQUESTING A HOTEL USE BE INCLUDED IN THEIR ZONING AS A PERMITTED USE.
OUR REVIEW OF THIS RECOMMENDS THAT IT FOLLOW THE LAND USE PLAN AND SPECIFY THAT IT BE A FULL SERVICE HOTEL THAT INCLUDES RESTAURANT AND MEETING SPACE, ROOM SERVICE, ETC.
LOT 2 IS A RETAIL SITE THAT INCLUDES THE GROCER, WHICH IS BUILDING 4, AND THEN MULTI-TENANT RETAIL ON BUILDING 5 WITH RESTAURANT PAD SITES AT 2 AND 3.
THESE ARE ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDING 2 ON THAT PARTICULAR LOT, BUILDING ELEVATIONS OF THREE.
RENDERING. THIS IS A AESTHETIC RETENTION DETENTION FEATURE THAT THEY ARE INCLUDING WITH THE PROJECT AND THERE'S ELEVATION OF THE GROCER AND MULTI-TENANT RETAIL.
CONTINUED ELEVATIONS OF THOSE BUILDINGS AND RENDERING OF THAT BUILDING.
THIS IS A PERSPECTIVE VIEW FROM 114 WITH POTENTIAL HOTEL ON THE LOT 1.
LOT 3 INCLUDES RESTAURANT AND OFFICE COMPONENTS WITHIN THAT BUILDING CONFIGURATION.
IT ALSO INCLUDES A PRIVATE PARK AREA.
THIS IS ONE OF THE AREAS THEY ARE PRESERVING SOME OF THE QUALITY TREES THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY.
BUILDING 13 IS CONCEPTUALLY LAID OUT.
THEY WOULD COME BACK FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL ONCE A PARTICULAR END USER IS IDENTIFIED.
THESE ARE SOME OF THE ELEVATIONS IN THE LOT 3 AREA.
>> THIS IS THE OFFICE BUILDING WITH RETAIL ON THE LOWER FLOOR.
ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS THEY'RE REQUESTING WITH THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER DISTRICT IS TO ALLOW A DRIVE THROUGH LANES FOR A BANK AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.
THE DRIVE AWNING AND COVER WOULD ALSO SERVE AS A SECOND FLOOR OUTDOOR PATIO AND COVERED SEATING AREA.
THIS IS THE SOUTHEAST VIEW OF THE DRIVE THROUGH COVERED AREA AND UPPER FLOOR PATIO.
THIS IS A RENDERING OF THOSE BUILDINGS.
RENDERING OF THE BUILDING CONFIGURATION AND THE PRIVATE PARK AREA.
THE RESIDENTIAL INCLUDES WHAT'S IDENTIFIED AS LOT 5 AND 5.
THERE ARE 12 LOTS, ALL 12,000 SQUARE FEET OR MORE ON THE LOT 4 AND 25 LOTS SHOWN IN FIVE,
[02:40:04]
ALL 10,000 SQUARE FEET OR MORE AND DETAIL OF THAT AREA AND ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS OF THE ANTICIPATED HOMES.THIS IS A RENDERING OF THE ROUNDABOUT AREA WITH THE RESIDENTIAL TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN AND SOME OF THE EXTERIOR WALL AND SUBDIVISION FEATURES.
THESE ARE SET OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS, PROPOSED USES INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS SHOWN, A GROCER, RESTAURANT USES, RETAIL, HOTEL, OFFICE, MEDICAL OFFICE, AND MEDICAL USES IN GENERAL, AND THEN PERMITTING THE DRIVE THROUGH, WHICH IS ALL APPARENT PURPOSES INTENDED FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION AND DRIVE THROUGH SERVICE.
ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, TWO STORY LIMITATION ON ALL BUILDINGS, AND SETBACKS ON FRONT WOULD BE 25 FEET, EIGHT FOOT ON SIDE, 30 FOOT ON THE REAR FOR ALL THE PRODUCT TYPE, AND SOME OF THE OTHER CRITERIA SPECIFIED IN THE REGULATIONS, THE MAXIMUM HOME OR LOCK COVERAGE, WHICH WOULD BE THE PAD SIDE OF ANY BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY WOULD BE 40 PERCENT AND MAXIMUM PERVIOUS COVERAGE, 60 PERCENT.
ON BUILDING STANDARDS ARE ARE SETTING A MINIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 18 FEET AND INCLUDING ANY PARAPET.
THEN TYPICALLY A 65 FOOT MAXIMUM, HOWEVER THEY'RE ASKING TO BE PERMITTED UP TO THE 90 FOOT HEIGHT AND UP TO 100 FOOT IN HEIGHT FOR HOTEL USE.
BUILDING SETBACKS ALONG 114 WOULD BE 50 FEET.
ALL OTHER SETBACKS VARY AS IDENTIFIED ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
OPEN SPACE STANDARDS REQUIRED MINIMUM IS 15 PERCENT.
THEY ARE PARKING THE SITE FOR RESTAURANTS AT ONE SPACE FOR 150, RETAIL, ONE SPACE FOR 200 AND ALL OFFICE USES A ONE SPACE 300 SQUARE FEET.
PARKING SIZE AND CONFIGURATION WOULD EITHER BE HEAD IN OR ANGLED AND MEETS THE CITY'S STANDARD 918 SPACE SIZE.
HERE'S DEVIATIONS IDENTIFIED FROM TYPICAL STANDARDS OF THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER DISTRICT.
RESIDENTIAL CONFIGURATION IS TYPICALLY IS TO SOME DEGREE, A DEAD END WHERE EMPLOYMENT CENTER IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY.
FOR THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, THEY ARE REQUESTING THE DRIVE THROUGH FACILITY WHERE DRIVE THROUGHS ARE NOT PERMITTED.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, IDENTIFYING THAT THAT UPPER FLOOR AREA OF THE CANOPY WOULD SERVE AS A SECOND FLOOR AMENITY AREA FOR OUTDOOR COVERED SEATING.
ALSO, THEY ARE REQUESTING 3 KIOSKS THAT COULD BE PROPOSED IN THE PARK.
THEY HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED WHERE THOSE ARE LOCATED OR WHAT THEIR APPEARANCE OR DESIGN TYPE WOULD BE.
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS FOR A COMMERCIAL CORE AREA ARE PERMITTED IN ECZ A WITH APPROVAL OF A SUP.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE USE BY RIGHT.
[02:45:01]
THEY'RE REQUESTING EXCEPTION ON THE HEIGHT TO PERMIT 90 FOOT ALONG THE 114 FRONTAGE AND UP TO 100 FOR ANY HOTEL USE AND THEY ARE REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE TREE PRESERVATION AND LANDSCAPE PLANS AS BEING PRESENTED TO YOU THIS EVENING.SOME VARIANCE REQUESTS RELATED TO DRIVEWAYS.
THEY'VE GOT THREE DRIVEWAYS THAT DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM 100 FOOT OF STACKING REQUIRED BY THE DRIVEWAY ORDINANCE.
THE STACKING DEPTH ON THE DRIVEWAYS COMING INTO THE GROCER ARE PRIMARILY MEETING OR EXCEEDING THAT 100 FOOT.
THERE IS A DRIVEWAY THAT ACCESSES THE NORTH PORTION OF KIRKWOOD BEING EXTENDED THAT IS 33 FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE.
HOWEVER, THIS PARTICULAR DRIVE IS LIMITED TO SERVICE AND EMPLOYEE VEHICLES, THE WAY IT IS DESIGNED.
IT DOES NOT CONNECT IN WITH THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
THE SOUTHERN DRIVEWAY, SOUTH WESTERN DRIVEWAY ON 114 FRONT EDGE IS AT 58 FEET.
THEN THE COMMON ACCESS DRIVEWAY BEING PROPOSED WITH THE LAMBERT HOME PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH AS IT CURRENTLY IS SHOWN AND EXIST IS AT APPROXIMATELY 26 FEET.
CURRENTLY, LAMBERT HOMES, THEIR CONSTRUCTION IS AHEAD OF PROGRESS ON THIS DEVELOPMENT, AND SO THEY HAVE CONSTRUCTED AND GOTTEN A DRIVE APPROACH AT THIS LOCATION.
TRADEMARKS WILLING TO WORK WITH LAMBERT TO RECONSTRUCT A SINGLE ACCESS DRIVEWAY BETWEEN THE TWO AND WORK WITH THEM ON CONNECTION POINTS.
I BELIEVE A LETTER WAS RECEIVED OR GIVEN OUT THIS EVENING FROM LAMBERT HOMES WITH SOME CONCERNS ON THAT.
APPLICANT AND LAMBERT HOME REPRESENTATIVE MAY BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE MORE IN A BIT.
THEY DID PROVIDE SOME EXHIBITS TO US THIS AFTERNOON THAT INDICATE THEY ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO RESOLVE THEIR CONCERN THAT EXISTS ALONG THAT COMMON DRIVEWAY.
OPTION ONE IS HOW THE DRIVE IS CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED, WHICH WOULD ELIMINATE THE LAMBERT CONNECTION WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW AND SHOT THAT DRIVEWAY NORTH OF THE MAJORITY OF IT NORTH OF THE LAMBERT HOME BOUNDARY.
IT WOULD BETTER ALIGN WITH CENTER LINE OF STREET COMING OUT OF CAROLINE.
THEN THEIR DRIVEWAY WOULD BE CONNECTED TO THIS COMMON DRIVE, ROUGHLY WHERE IT IS COMING OUT OF THEIR PARKING LOT NOW.
IN DISCUSSIONS WITH LAMBERT HOMES, LAMBERT WOULD LIKE AN ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY THAT WOULD INTERSECT AND ALIGN WITH EITHER THEIR INTERIOR FIRE LANE WITHIN THEIR DEVELOPMENT OR ANOTHER COMMON DRIVEWAY THAT THEY SHARE WITH THE OFFICE DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST OF THEM.
TO JUST PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL CONNECTION POINT FOR PEOPLE TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY.
WE HAVE FOUR RESPONSES IN FAVOR, ABSENT OF WHAT WE RECEIVED TODAY FROM LAMBERT HOMES THAT INDICATED OPPOSITION WITH SOME CONCERNS ON DRIVEWAY AND ALSO CONCERNS WITH THE I BELIEVE SOME OF THE HEAD END PARKING SCREENING ON PARKING LOT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED NORTH OF THEIR OFFICE AND FUTURE CAFE AREA.
I BELIEVE THEY HAVE SOMEONE HERE THAT MAYBE CAN ADDRESS WITH COUNCIL, IF YOU WISH TO HEAR FROM THEM.
WITH THAT, I'M GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I HAVE AN ATKINS PRESENTATION FIRST, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT OR AFTER A SERIES OF QUESTIONS.
THEN FOLLOWING THAT, THEY'VE GOT A VIDEO AS WELL THAT DEPICTS SOME OF THE RESIDENTIAL AND KIRKWOOD BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS.
>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR KILO. ANY QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS AT THIS TIME?
>> YEAH. I HAD ONE QUICK ONE AND I SAW TODAY AND I THOUGHT ABOUT CALLING YOU,
[02:50:05]
BUT WE WERE SO CLOSE TO THE MEETING TONIGHT THAT I APOLOGIZE.I MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN THE ANSWER THERE.
WHY I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS IS BECAUSE I ACTUALLY SAW SOMETHING ON THE NEXT ITEM THAT'S GOING TO BE UP FOR DISCUSSION AFTER THIS ONE.
THE DRAINAGE ON THIS, WHICH IS BECOMING A TOPIC LATELY FOR THE COMMERCIAL SECTION, ACCORDING TO THE REPORT, IS GOING TO DRAIN TO THE RETENTION POND OBVIOUSLY ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE EAST SIDE IS GOING TO GO TOWARDS WHITE CHAPEL.
I THINK IT'S GREAT. IT'S GOING TO BE WONDERFUL OVER THERE.
BUT MY THOUGHT WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT IT WAS, WHERE'S THE WATER GO FROM THERE? AND ACCORDING TO THE REPORT, IT JUST SIMPLY SAYS THAT'S GOING TO GO INTO THE 114 DRAINAGE.
DRIVING OVER THERE, I SAW THAT THERE'S A WHOLE SLEW OF STORM STORM WATER DRAINS ALONG THE ACCESS ROAD. WE DO THOSE GO.
I NOTICED THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 114, WHICH IS WHERE THE DRAIN WHERE WATER FLOWS THROUGH 18 35 NORTH WHITE CHAPEL, WHEN I GOT OUT OF MY CAR AND I WENT DOWN THERE, THERE'S A LARGE BOX CULVERT COMING FROM 114 ONTO THAT PROPERTY AND IT'S AT LEAST FIVE CULVERTS AS PART OF THIS IS PRETTY BIG.
I JUST SO I SPENT THE AFTERNOON TRYING TO FIND THE I GUESS, ANY SORT OF LAYOUT FROM 114 AS TO WHERE THE WATER COMES FROM, WHICH IT LOOKS LIKE IT COMES FROM THE STORM DRAINS ON THE OTHER SIDE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 114.
THAT'S WHY I WAS THINKING ABOUT YOU, BUT WE GOT TOO CLOSE TO THE MEETING, SO I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO NAIL YOU DOWN ON THAT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT?
>> THEIR DESIGN SO AND I FULLY EXPECT THEIR ENGINEERING TEAM TO ANALYZE CAPACITY SYSTEMS. THEY'RE MANAGING THE WATER ON THEIR PROPERTY AND DETAINING IT SO THAT IT DOES NOT EXCEED WHAT THE CURRENT UNDEVELOPED RUNOFF OF THAT PROPERTY IS TODAY.
THEY ARE CAPTURING THEIR DEVELOPED CONDITION, TIMING THAT AND THEIR ENGINEERING SHOULD DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE CAPACITY EXISTS DOWNSTREAM FOR WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE RELEASING.
I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT IF THAT IS CONNECTED OVER THERE BECAUSE I THINK WE MAY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT DEVELOPER KNOWS THAT WHEN THEY'RE DOING THEIR DESIGN IN THE CASE OF AND I'M JUST LOOKING AT IT FROM A SIGNIFICANT RAINFALL AND THIS PAST YEAR, YEAR BEFORE, WE SEE SIGNIFICANT RAINFALLS COMING IN AND WE SEE LARGE DRAINAGE FROM VARIOUS NEIGHBORHOODS HIT HITTING OUR DIFFERENT CREEKS AND STUFF.
I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT IN A LARGE RAINFALL EVENT OVER A PERIOD OF A WEEK, THAT THIS THING MAY BE FILLED THE CAPACITY, AND THEN IT COULD POTENTIALLY IMPACT THE DESIGN OF A RETENTION POND LITERALLY NOT ADJACENT BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE, IF THAT'S WHERE ALL THAT WATER GOES.
I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU KNEW THAT IS WHERE CONNECTS ACROSS OR NOT.
>> OF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I DO NOT.
>> LET'S CHECK WITH THE APPLICANT.
I THINK WITH THEIR GROUP THERE, THEY'VE GOT SOMEONE WHO IS GOING TO STAND UP AND ADDRESS THAT IN JUST A FEW MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE FOR DIRECTOR KILO? NOT NOW, BUT MAYBE LATER.
ASK THE APPLICANT OR APPLICANTS TO COME ON DOWN.
IF YOU GUYS COULD STATE YOUR NAMES AND ADDRESSES FOR THE RECORD, I SEE THAT YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION HERE AND A VIDEO, SO WHATEVER ORDER YOU ALL WANT TO DO IT IN.
THEN ALSO WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE WATER AND THE RETENTION POND AND WHERE IT GOES. WHAT HAPPENS WITH IT?
WE'RE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF MIDNIGHT. WE'RE DOING GOOD.
MAYBE WHILE YOU'RE ALL ARE DOING THAT, I'LL TAKE CARE OF SOME BUSINESS.
I'LL TAKE CARE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT, PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES.
TWENTY-EIGHT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES WERE SENT OUT.
FROM THE CITY, WE HAVE FOUR RESPONSES IN SUPPORT, AND THEN WE HAVE THE RESPONSES FROM LAMBERT THAT WERE OPPOSED, THE RESPONSES IN SUPPORT, ZAMUGA, KATANA AT 2221 WHEELER DRIVE, MARY ALFORD, AT 1812 ST. PHILLIP, JIM MILNER WITH NO ADDRESS, BRANDON AND JESSICA BARR AT 212 MURPHY DRIVE, ALL IN SUPPORT, AND THEN THE LAMBERT HOMES, WHICH WE'LL GET TO HERE IN A MOMENT, ARE OPPOSED. GO AHEAD, GUYS.
>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
I'M TERRY MONTEZ, LIVE AT 2108 BRADFORD PARK IN FORT WORTH,
[02:55:02]
TEXAS. GLAD TO BE HERE.WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR 21 MONTHS.
WE CALCULATE IT TONIGHT, AND I THINK WE'VE ENDED UP IN A GOOD SPOT.
I'M GOING TO RACE THROUGH COMPANY STUFF, BUT NOT COMPLETELY IGNORE IT.
I FOUND A TRADEMARK PROPERTY COMPANY 33 YEARS AGO.
YOU GUYS CAN READ, BUT WE ARE KNOWN FOR DOING HIGH QUALITY RETAIL AND MIXED USE ENVIRONMENTS, AND THIS IS REALLY RIGHT IN OUR WHEELHOUSE, AND WE'RE JUST UP THE ROAD.
SO WE'RE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK IN SOUTHLAKE.
YOU'LL SEE WITH OUR PORTFOLIO, WE DO A LOT OF MIXED USE PROPERTIES AND A LOT OF PUBLIC SPACES, AND LIKE I SAID, WE'RE KNOWN FOR THAT AND EXCITED TO PUT OUR COMPANY TO WORK IN SOUTHLAKE.
I'LL KEEP MOVING. OUR TRACK RECORD.
YOU SEE, WE'VE DONE 15 GROCERY ANCHORED PROPERTIES AND 15 POWER AND COMMUNITY CENTERS, A LOT OF MALLS AND LIFESTYLE, AND WE'LL GET TO DO A LITTLE OF ALL OF THAT HERE.
WE'VE DONE A LOT OF PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS, AND I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE OF THOSE TONIGHT.
WE'VE ACTUALLY DONE 16 SUCCESSFUL ONES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
NOW, WE'LL TALK ABOUT IS THIS THE VIDEO.
HARD FIRST TO THE VIDEO BACK TO THAT.
I THINK IT'D BE GOOD TO SHOW THE VIDEO FIRST BECAUSE IT'S A MICRO PERSPECTIVE, AND THEN WE'LL GET A LITTLE MORE MICRO.
>> BY THE WAY, WE WERE DIRECTED TO THE SITE ORIGINALLY BY THE NATIONAL ORGANIC GROCER THAT WE ALL ARE INTERESTED IN.
I'VE MENTIONED BEFORE, THE ARCHITECTURE IS CUT ABOVE.
IT'S NOT GOING TO LOOK ANYTHING LIKE YOUR AVERAGE GROCERY ANCHOR SHOPPING CENTER.
ONE THING I NOTICED IN LOOKING AT THIS, THAT SIDEWALKS ARE A LITTLE DULL.
THEY DON'T HAVE POTS AND PLANTS AND PLANTERS AND TREE DIAMONDS, SO JUST KNOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THOSE.
THIS PUBLIC SPACE HERE, WE'RE KEEPING SEVERAL BIG EXISTING TREES, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT I'VE HEARD FROM YOU, AND I'VE ALSO HEARD FROM THE SELLER THE FIRST TIME WE MET WITH HER.
AS THEY WERE READING THE CORRIDOR PLAN OUTLINED, PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING IT ENCOURAGES, MIXED USE, PUBLIC SPACE, ETC, IS ON HERE.
THIS IS THE RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN, IF YOU WILL, THE ROUNDABOUT.
>> THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. BACK TO THE PRESENTATION BACK TO THAT.
>> I'LL JUST FLY THROUGH THIS. I JUST REALLY TALKED YOU THROUGH THIS.
IF YOU WANT ME TO STOP ANYWHERE, JUST STOP ME, SO I'M GOING TO GO FAST.
THE VIEW FROM 114, I THINK IS IMPORTANT.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT WITH P&Z IN THE QUARTER MEETING.'S.
ACTUALLY, ON THE PUBLIC SPACE DIAGRAM EARLIER, THEY MISSED THIS ONE IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY HAVE A THIRD IN FRONT OF THE OFFICE BUILDING.
THIS PARK WAS ADDED BY THE REQUEST OF, I THINK IT WAS P&Z FOLKS, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
BLAKE, WHY DON'T YOU TALK ABOUT THE HISTORY?
>> BLAKE BIO, 1701 RIVER RUN, FORT WORTH.
WE JUST WANTED TO GO THROUGH REAL QUICK.
[03:00:02]
AS TERRY MENTIONED, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR SEVERAL MONTHS AND JUST THE EVOLUTION OF THE SITE PLAN.IT'S BEEN A REALLY POSITIVE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT COMMITTEES THAT WE'VE MET WITH, AND A LOT OF FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY.
THE FIRST PLAN AS YOU CAN SEE, BACK IN MARCH 2024, WE CAME, AND THE MAIN DIFFERENCE HERE IS THE AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL HERE.
WE HAD 65 TOWN HOMES AND I THINK 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, AND THE TOWN HOMES ARE REALLY THERE ON THE PLAN BECAUSE WE REFERRED BACK TO THE LAND USE PLAN AND TOWN HOMES ARE ON THE LAND USE PLAN.
WE TOOK THAT THAT IDEA FROM THE LAND USE PLAN AND PUT IT HERE.
THE FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT FROM CORRIDOR WAS THAT WE DIDN'T WANT THIS TYPE OF DENSITY HERE.
WE COME TO THIS YEAR, CAME TO SPIN & CORRIDOR.
WE HAD SOME NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS AS WELL, WHERE WE SHOWED THE PLAN AND GOT FEEDBACK.
WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THE LEFT IS, ESSENTIALLY, WE MIRRORED THE DENSITY THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET AT CARILLON PARC, AND WE TESTED THAT PLAN OUT WITH YOU ALL AND WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND AGAIN, DIDN'T WANT THAT TYPE OF DENSITY HERE ON THIS PLAN.
THE PLAN THAT YOU SEE IN THE MIDDLE IS, ACTUALLY, A PLAN THAT WE RECEIVED AFTER TALKING WITH SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS AND SOME PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF DOING A HIGHER DENSITY, BUT AGE RESTRICTED OPTION.
I THINK THERE'S STILL SOME SUPPORT FOR THAT, BUT GOING THROUGH A CORRIDOR THE RESULT WAS REALLY THAT WE WANTED TO DO EVEN LOWER DENSITY HERE, AND SO WE REDUCED IT FROM 47 LOTS TO 45 DOWN TO 39.
THE FEEDBACK, COMING OUT OF CORRIDOR, WAS TO ADD THAT RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC SPACE THAT YOU SAW RENDERED.
WHAT YOU SEE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN IS WHAT WE SHOWED AT P&Z LAST MONTH WHERE WE INCREASED THE LOT SIZES AND WE ADDED THAT PUBLIC SPACE.
THE PLAN THAT WE'RE SHOWING TODAY IS BASICALLY THAT SAME PLAN, BUT AGAIN, WE'VE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF LOTS HERE AS A RESULT OF HEARING YOUR FEEDBACK.
ACTUALLY COMING OUT OF P&Z, WE WERE GIVEN SOME VERY SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS FOR WHAT WE SHOULD LOOK FOR IN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
THIS COMPARISON SHOWS OUR SITE DOWN HERE IN THE BOTTOM LEFT CORNER, MINIMUM LOT WITH 80, AND THEN THE SETBACKS FRONT SIDE AND REAR 258 AND 30, AND THEN MAXIMUM COVERAGE RATIO OF 40%.
LOOKING AT THE METER NEIGHBORHOOD AND LOOKING AT ST'S PARK PHASE 4, WE'RE IN LINE WITH THOSE SETBACKS AND IN SOME CASES, WE'RE EXCEEDING THOSE SETBACKS.
WE'VE DONE OUR BEST TO LISTEN OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS TO HEAR YOUR FEEDBACK AND WHAT YOU WANT AND WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS.
THIS IS OUR RESPONSE TO THAT, TRYING TO INCORPORATE ALL OF THAT FEEDBACK.
>> THOSE SETBACKS SIDE AND REAR WERE SPECIFIC AND AND MINIMUM WIDTH WERE SPECIFIC REQUESTS FROM P&Z.
>> JUST IN CLOSING, I THINK LIKE I MENTIONED, WE'VE LISTENED, WE'VE DONE OUR BEST TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT YOUR FEEDBACK.
WE'VE HEARD THAT WE WANT TO SAVE TREES.
WE'VE GONE BACK TO THESE TREES THAT YOU SEE FADED OUT RIGHT HERE, WE'VE PLANNED THIS SITE AROUND THOSE TREES TO TRY TO SAVE THOSE.
THERE'S NOT REALLY A LOT OF TREES TO BEGIN WITH ON THE SITE, AND SO WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO SAVE AS MANY AS WE POSSIBLY CAN.
WE'VE ALSO HEARD WE WANT PUBLIC SPACE.
WE WANT PLACES THAT ARE WHERE YOU CAN GATHER WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS, WITH YOUR FAMILY.
WE'RE PROVIDING A SERIES OF POCKET PARKS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT.
AGAIN, BACK TO LAND USE AND WHAT THE GOAL IS FOR THE CORRIDOR HERE AND TO HAVE MIXED USE, ADDING THE OFFICE, POTENTIALLY A HOTEL OR A MEDICAL TYPE USE, RETAIL, GROCER, WE REALLY DO FEEL LIKE THIS IS CHECKING THE BOXES OF WHAT YOU WOULD WANT FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT HERE.
AGAIN, WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY WE'VE HEARD, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'VE TESTED OUT SEVERAL SITE PLANS, AND WE FEEL LIKE THIS ONE THAT WE'RE PRESENTING TONIGHT IT HITS ALL THOSE PIECES OF FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED.
>> I CAN TELL YOU BEEN DOING THIS A LONG TIME AND DEVELOPED.
I THINK IT'S 25 CENTERS OVER TIME AND MIXED USE PLACES, AND I WOULD BE REALLY PROUD TO HAVE THIS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, IF I WERE YOU.
THIS IS GOING TO BE LIKE I MENTIONED, CUT ABOVE, IT IS TRULY GOING TO BE MIXED USE, WALKABLE. THESE NEIGHBORS.
I'D LOVE TO LIVE IN ONE OF THOSE HOUSES AND BE ABLE TO WALK TO THIS PLACE.
[03:05:02]
WE'RE REALLY PROUD OF THE QUALITY AND PROUD OF THE PLAN THAT WE'VE ENDED UP IN COLLABORATING WITH ALL YOU GUYS.APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT AND YOU KNOW WE NEED IT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, GUYS. APPRECIATE THAT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS AT THIS TIME? I THINK WE HAD, OH, GO AHEAD.
>> I HAVE SOME. IN LOOKING AT THE ELEVATIONS OF THE HOMES.
I DRIVE BY THE MARY ALL DAY EVERY DAY, BUT I SPENT TIME DRIVING THROUGH IT THIS MORNING AND I REALIZE THOSE ARE LARGER HOMES, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS I NOTICED IS THAT THEY TYPICALLY HAVE THREE GARAGES.
THEY'LL HAVE A DOUBLE AND THEN A SINGLE.
THE SINGLE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT IN ALMOST ALL THOSE CASES FACES THE STREET.
MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS IT LOOKS LIKE JUST IN THE BRIEF ELEVATIONS WE SAW THAT YOUR PLAN IS TO HAVE THE GARAGES BOTH FACE THE STREET, AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY.
THE REST OF COUNSEL MAY BE INDIFFERENT. I DON'T KNOW.
I JUST PREFER THE LOOK OF LESS GARAGES FACING THE STREET IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS, ESPECIALLY THESE NEWER NEIGHBORHOODS THAT LOOK SO NICE. OUR OLD ONES LOOK NICE, TOO.
>> WE'RE WORKING WITH TRAVIS ON THAT.
>> THAT WON'T BE A PROBLEM, IF WE WANT TO MAKE SOME KIND OF SIDE SWING.
>> I UNDERSTAND ON SOME OF THE ANGLES YOU PROBABLY CAN'T DO IT.
>> THAT WON'T BE A PROBLEM. THERE'S SOME EXAMPLE RENDERING, DEPENDING ON THE LOT SIZES.
BUT I AGREE WITH THESE SWINGS ALWAYS MORE ATTRACTIVE FOR THE ELEVATIONS.
>> I WANTED TO SPEND A LITTLE TIME TALKING ABOUT THE HUGE PART OF THIS IN ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS IS PEDESTRIAN SAFETY.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF PEDESTRIANS MOVING THROUGH AND AROUND THE SPACES, ESPECIALLY FROM THE HOMES NEAR THE ROUNDABOUT AND THE NORTHERN HOMES AND THE SOUTHERN HOMES.
THE SOUTHERN HOMES NOT SO MUCH.
HAVE YOU CONTEMPLATED NOT JUST REGULAR CROSSWALKS, BUT THE LIGHTED CROSSWALKS.
I KNOW THAT IT ADDS MORE SIGNAGE AND SO FORTH, BUT I FEEL LIKE WITH THIS KIRKWOOD PIECE COMING THROUGH, IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO HELP THE PEDESTRIANS GO TO AND FROM THEIR HOMES, GO TO AND FROM THE SHOPPING.
THEN ON ONE OF THE MAPS, YOU CALL THEM PROMENADES, THE TWO LONGER DRIVES THAT GO TO THE 114 ACCESS ROAD.
I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THOSE BEING I KNOW WE ALL HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS PROBABLY A LOT IN THE AUDIENCE, TOO.
TEN SQUARE, A LOT OF FOLKS AREN'T SURE WHAT A STOP SIGN MEANS, AND IT'S SOMETIMES CHALLENGING, AND MY CONCERN ON PROMENADE A AND B IS THAT THERE FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM STRAIGHTAWAYS.
I'M WONDERING IF YOU HAVE OR WOULD CONSIDER ANY TABLE.
I'M NOT A FAN OF SPEED BUMPS, BUT THE TABLE WHERE THE ROAD JUST GOES UP AND IT JUST DISCOURAGES THAT.
WHILE STILL IN MY OPINION, IT HAS A NICE LOOK TO IT.
I DON'T NEED A YES OR NO TODAY, JUST WONDERING IF YOU WOULD CONTEMPLATE THAT.
I THINK THAT WOULD DISCOURAGE IT AT LEAST HELP DISCOURAGE IT AS MORE OF A CUT THROUGH USE, AND THEN ON A DIFFERENT NOTE, LIVING ON THE NORTH SIDE, I SEE A LOT OF GOLF CARTS.
I WONDER IF YOU'VE CONTEMPLATED AT ALL ANY GOLF CART PARKING.
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. THAT'S MY FAVORITE SUBJECT.
IN FACT, SOME OF THE DESIGNS OF THE RESIDENTIAL WOULD OFFER A GOLF CART GARAGE PARKING IN THE RETAIL SPACE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YES, MA'AM. I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT GOLF CARTS.
THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO SOME OF THAT.
>> I JUST THINK IT ENCOURAGES.
>> JUST HOW YOU CONTEMPLATING THE SPACE BEING USED FAMILIES COMING.
>> THEN ON THE TABLING, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER ME RIGHT NOW, BUT IF I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE ON THAT.
>> ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE LIKE NOT A SPEED BUMP, BUT A RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK.
>> MAYBE IT'S NOT NECESSARY, BUT I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT ONE OF THESE DIAGRAMS, IT'S CALLED A PROMENADE A AND B, WHERE IT GOES FROM THE BACK OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE 114 ACCESS ROAD.
>> MAYBE JUST ONE, BUT JUST SOMETHING TO DISCOURAGE SPEEDING.
>> WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. I DON'T LOVE PEOPLE RACING THROUGH PARKING LOTS, EITHER.
WHETHER IT'S STOP SIGNS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
[03:10:05]
WE'LL, FOR SURE, TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.>> THE CITY ALSO HAD A COMMENT ALONG THE LINES OF ENHANCING THOSE STREETS FROM MAKING THEM FEEL PRIVATE AND NOT A PUBLIC DRIVE.
>> GUYS, I KNOW THERE'S A BUNCH OF YOU UP THERE, BUT IF YOU COULD, COULD YOU GO INTO THE MIC WHEN YOU'RE SPEAKING WE CAN HEAR YOU, BUT I DON'T THINK PEOPLE AT HOME CAN HEAR YOU. THANK YOU.
>> THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT FOR NOW.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I KNOW WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT SOME WATER HERE, SO I THINK WE'VE GOT SOMEONE ELSE, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN ADDRESS THE RETENTION POND AND THE WATER ISSUE.
>> YES, SIR, PATE MCGEE. I WORK AT KIMEY HORNE.
IT'S 9641 ENGLE RIDGE AND DALLAS, TEXAS IS MY ADDRESS.
THE DRAINAGE FOR THIS PROJECT, AS DENNIS MENTIONED, WE DESIGNED TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE SITE AND MAKE SURE THAT OUR RUNOFF DOES NOT CAUSE ADVERSE IMPACTS DOWNSTREAM.
THIS PARTICULAR CASE, A LARGE PORTION OF 114, ALL THE WAY UP TO WHITE CHAPEL, ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT EAST OF WHITE CHAPEL DRAINS DOWN THE MAIN LANES OF 114, AND SO THE MAJORITY OF THE CULVERT THAT IS EXITING 114 TO THE WEST SIDE IS COMING FROM THE 114 PAVEMENT.
OUR SITE, WHAT WE LOOK AT IS WE USE A 10% RULE.
WE LOOK DOWNSTREAM UNTIL OUR SITE IS CONTRIBUTING 10% OR LESS TO THE OVERALL DRAINAGE AREA, 90% OF THE WATER IS COMING FROM SOMEWHERE THAT'S NOT OUR SITE, AND THAT IS THE DOWNSTREAM CULVERT EDGE AT 1:14.
THEN WE DESIGN OUR DETENTION POND ON OUR SITE TO REDUCE THE FLOW FROM THE DEVELOPED CONDICTION, BACK DOWN TO THE UNDEVELOPED CONDITION, PRE-EXISTING SITE.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF THE GUYS UP HERE?
>> WHEN YOU PRESENTED TO P&Z, THERE WAS A GAS STATION.
THEY DENIED IT. ARE YOU OKAY LETTING THAT GO, OR WHERE ARE YOU ON THE GAS STATION ISSUE?
>> I THINK WE REMOVED THE GAS STATION FROM THE SUBMITTAL, SO WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT.
>> ON THE KIOSKS, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THOSE ARE GOING TO BE OR WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE OR WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK LIKE AND WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THEM WOULD BE?
>> THEY WERE IN THE VIDEO REAL QUICKLY, BUT THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO HAVE IN IT.
I THINK THERE ARE TIMES WHERE IN A PUBLIC SPACE LIKE THAT, SOMEBODY MIGHT WANT TO SELL COOL SUNGLASSES AND A POP UP OR SOMETHING.
IF ALL AREN'T COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL.
>> WELL, WHAT I CAN SAY, COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE IS THAT THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME EITHER UNDER SITE PLAN OR AN SUP BACK TO US ANYWAY.
I THINK CONCEPTUALLY WE WOULD BE CONSIDERING IT AND APPROVING IT OR WHATEVER, BUT IT'S GOING TO COME BACK AS A SITE PLAN OR AN SUP ON ALL THREE OF THOSE.
>> I'M NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT THEY ARE BEFORE I GET ANY APPROVAL.
>> SOME EXAMPLES LIKE IF THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE LIKE A COMPUTER OR TV SCREEN ON THEM ALSO WITH ROTATING ADVERTISING ALONG.
>> WITH THAT WE HAVE TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF YOU IF IF WE EVER WANT THOSE.
>> ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS ABOUT THE HOTEL.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT THE TIMELINE ON THAT?
>> NO. THAT'S INTENTIONAL WITH THIS SUBMITTAL THAT WE LEFT THAT AS JUST APPROVED THE USE BECAUSE THERE ARE GROUPS THAT WE ARE TALKING TO.
THERE'S SOME OTHER USES THAT WE'RE ALSO TALKING TO.
COMING BACK WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL AT A FUTURE DATE, WE'LL BE COMING BACK WITH THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE FOR THAT CORN.
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I NEED RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU.
>> MY QUESTION IS RELATED TO TIMELINE.
I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT AT CORRIDOR.
OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE TRYING TO MEET A DEADLINE FOR THIS GROCER.
BUT HOW MUCH OF THIS IS BUILT DAY 1, HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE, AND THEN THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE, TALK ABOUT ALL THE TIME TIMING.
>> THE NATIONAL ORGANIC GROCER IS REQUIRING US TO BUILD EVERYTHING YOU SEE THERE BEHIND THE HOTEL.
WE HAVE A BUNCH OF REALLY GOOD RESTAURANTS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON [INAUDIBLE] WITH FOR THOSE BUILDINGS OVER BY THE OFFICE.
IS IT POSSIBLE THE OFFICE DELAYS A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE OF FINANCING? I THINK SO, BUT I THINK YOU COULD DEPEND ON EVERYTHING.
FOR SURE, THE GROCER IN THOSE TWO BUILDINGS, AND I DON'T SEE IT SLOWING DOWN TO WHERE WE WOULDN'T DO THOSE BUILDINGS THAT YOU SEE THERE AROUND THE GREEN.
AGAIN, WE HAVE TO GO FAST AND WE HAVE TO BUILD A LOT OF IT IMMEDIATELY FOR THEM, SO LEASE.
>> THE MAIN TENANT IS REQUIRING THE INLINE NEXT TO IT TO BE [OVERLAPPING].
[03:15:04]
>> AND THE TWO BUILDINGS UP FRONT NEXT TO THE DETENTION, WOULD THOSE BE ALONG WITH IT AS WELL?
>> IS IT POSSIBLE THEY'RE A FEW MONTHS BEHIND OR SOMETHING?
>> YES. BUT GENERALLY, ABSOLUTELY.
>> THE ONLY ONE THAT WOULD BE LAGGING POTENTIALLY IS THE OFFICE?
>> ARE YOU ALL TALKING TO ANY TENANTS FOR THE OFFICE?
>> YEAH. WE HAVE AN ANCHOR TENANT.
THAT'S GOING TO TAKE ABOUT A THIRD OF IT.
>> WE HAVE AN ANCHOR TENANT THAT'S GOING TO TAKE ABOUT A THIRD OF IT'S A BIG REGIONAL BANK.
THAT'S WHY WE BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO DRIVE THROUGH, BUT IT'S A GREAT BANK.
IT'S OUR BANK ON TWO BIG MULTIFAMILY DEALS, AND WE'RE SUPER EXCITED THAT THEY WANT TO LEAVE SPACE THERE.
I THINK WE'LL PROBABLY END UP BUILDING THAT DAY ONE AS WELL.
>> WONDERFUL. THEN HOW DOES THAT DOVETAIL TO THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE IN TERMS OF TIMING?
>> YEAH. WE'VE WORKED WITH A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT BUILDERS IN THE AREA ALREADY THAT WE HAVE LOIS FOR THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION, SO DURING THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT, WE'LL BE PRE SELLING AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN.
WE SEEM TO BE ACTIVE IMMEDIATELY AS SOON AS WE GET SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
>> COMMERCIAL WILL BE FIRST, BASICALLY.
>> THE COMMERCIAL LOOKS LIKE WILL GO FIRST [OVERLAPPING]
>> SIMULTANEOUSLY BECAUSE THE COMMERCIAL IS GOING TO GO UP DURING DEVELOPMENT ARE GOING TO DEVELOP THE RESIDENTIAL.
WHEN ALL IS COMPLETE, WE'LL BE GOING VERTICAL AS WELL AS RESIDENTIAL WITH THE COMMERCIAL.
ALL THE SITE WORK THE SAME TIME.
THEN WE'LL BE DELIVERING LOTS TO THE SINGLE FAMILY BUILDERS AND WHILE THEY'RE LIKELY GOING VERTICAL WITH SINGLE FAMILY WITH THEIR PRE SALES, WE'LL BE GOING VERTICAL WITH THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT.
>> TO BE CLEAR, IT WOULDN'T BE ALL OF THE SINGLE FAMILY IMMEDIATELY.
I THINK IT LOOKS LIKE THE TAKEDOWN WILL BE ABOUT A HALF DAY 1, SIMULTANEOUS CLOTHES, AND THEN, OVER THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO THE BALANCE OF THEM.
THIS IS GOING TO BE A LOT FASTER THAN A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE FRUSTRATED PEOPLE AROUND HERE AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE GROCER REQUIRES IT.
>> I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN TIE TO THE DELIVERY OF THE REST OF THE RETAIL WITH IT WITHIN A TIME FRAME.
THE INLINE AND THE GROCER WILL COME, AND THAT'S THAT HAS TO HAPPEN.
BUT THE OTHER TWO UP FRONT NEAR TO DETENTION AND THE ONES ACROSS THE ROAD, MAYBE MORE FLEXIBILITY ON THE OFFICE, BUT ON THE RETAIL PIECE AND THE PARK AND ALL THAT, THAT WOULD NOT DRAG BY MORE THAN I DON'T KNOW, NINE MONTHS BEYOND.
>> I WAS THINKING MAYBE 12 MONTHS. I'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.
>> DENNIS, IS A GAS STATION A USE WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THIS.
>> NO, IT IS NOT, AND THEY HAD REQUESTED IT INITIALLY.
THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION AND THEIR RECOMMENDATION REMOVED IT.
SO THEY REMOVED IT FROM THE MATERIAL THEY SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED AT THIS POINT.
>> YOU THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
>> [INAUDIBLE] CORRIDOR. I LIVE ON THE NORTH SIDE AND THEY'RE LITERALLY, DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU LIVE ON THE NORTH SIDE.
THERE JUST IS NO GAS STATION, I'LL SAY NEARBY.
I'M NOT TRYING TO GIVE SOME GAS STATION SOB STORY, BUT I WILL SAY THAT IF YOU THINK ABOUT CRITON RANCH AND WHERE THOSE FOLKS ARE, PRETTY THEY'RE THE FARTHEST NORTH, RELATIVELY SPEAKING.
A LOT OF THEM, I'VE TALKED TO SOME OF MY FRIENDS THAT LIVE IN THERE, THEY'LL GO OVER TO THE GAS STATION AND TROPHY CLUB.
I WANT OUR RESIDENTS TO USE OUR GAS STATIONS.
FOR ME, I EITHER GO DOWN THE ROAD TO YATES AND YATES IS GREAT, OR I CROSS OVER 114 AND PICK ONE OF THE GAS STATIONS OVER THERE.
I THINK IT'S A GREAT CONVENIENCE TO HAVE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF COUNSEL IF YOU GUYS DON'T WANT TO DO IT, THAT'S FINE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER IT, I THOUGHT.
>> LET'S SEE THAT AS AN OPTION, MAYBE IF WE GET A SECOND READING, THROW THAT IN THERE AND WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT, GO A LOCATION AND WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
>> I THINK ABOUT MYSELF IF I HAD A QT RIGHT THERE, REALLY NICE GAS STATION, I THINK IT WOULD BE A COMMUNITY AMENITY.
YOU CAN TELL, WE'RE HERE TO TRY TO DO AS BEST WE CAN WHAT YOU GUYS WANT.
I'D LOVE TO HAVE THAT OPTION AND OBVIOUSLY WE'D HAVE TO BRING THE RENDERINGS BACK TO YOU AND EVERYTHING, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DIE ON OUR SWORD OVER.
>> LET'S TAKE A LOOK AND FIND A PLACE TO POSSIBLY PUT IT AND BRING IT BACK AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE FINISHED PRODUCT, OBVIOUSLY, BUT JUST GIVE US AN IDEA WHERE THAT MIGHT GO AND HOW IT MIGHT IMPACT EVERYTHING ELSE AS FAR AS TRAFFIC AND ALL THAT PARKING AND ALL THAT.
BUT THOSE MEAN GUYS ON P&Z, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING THERE, BUT WITH [INAUDIBLE]
>> WELL, IT WE'RE NOT HIT WITH A BLIND SPOT.
I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S SOME RESISTANCE BY
[03:20:01]
THE NEIGHBORS TO HAVING A GAS STATION, IS THAT RIGHT?>> IS THERE A RESISTANCE BY THE NEIGHBORS FOR A GAS STATION THERE?
I DO THINK LAMBERT HOMES DID NOT WANT IT ON IT WOULD BE, BUILDING 13 IN THAT SECTION?
>> WHICH IS THE ONE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I THINK.
>> I THINK WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT, IS PROBABLY LOT 1 UP THERE.
>> I'M IN FAVOR OF A GAS STATION, BUT JUST WANT TO FOCALIZE THAT.
>> GUESS THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY ON A GAS STATION IS IF YOU TALKED ABOUT QT, I KNOW THEY HAVE A SMALLER MODEL RATHER THAN THE BIG ONE, I'D BE MORE AMENABLE TO THE SMALLER MODEL QT OFFERS.
>> NOT EVEN WHAT WE HAVE ON A BAR STREET, I WOULD BE MORE INTERESTING.
>> WE'LL TAKE A LOOK WE CAN DO THAT.
I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE LIKE RESTRICTING GAS STATIONS AND STUFF, WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
>> ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? THANK YOU GUYS STICK AROUND.
ITEM 7B IS A FIRST READING AND DOES NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 7B.
IS THERE ANY ONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 7B? YES, SIR. COME ON DOWN.
IF YOU COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE THE THREE MINUTES.
YELLOW MEANS ONE MINUTE LEFT AND RED MEANS WRAP IT UP.
>> JACOB SCOGGINS, I'M THE ARCHITECT OF THE LAMBERT HOME PROJECT.
MY ADDRESS IS 6406 REDSTONE DRIVE.
I CAME TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE LAMBERTS.
THEY HAVE LITTLE KIDS AT HOME AND SO THEY'RE SLIT IN BED, WATCHING IT ONLINE RIGHT NOW.
BUT THEIR MAJOR OPPOSITION WAS NOT TO THE PROJECT, BUT WAS REALLY THE AXIS TO THEIR SITE FROM WHITE CHAPEL COMING IN.
BUT I HAD A GREAT CONVERSATION FRET WITH TERRY.
I GUESS THAT'S THE BENEFIT OF THESE LONG MEETINGS, IF YOU WILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.
BUT THE OPTIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED ON DENNIS' PRESENTATION, THE OPTION TWO, THERE AMENABLE TO FOR SURE.
THAT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED WITH THE TWO DRIVE APPROACH ALONG THAT DRIVE THAT I THINK THEIR OPPOSITION HAS TAKEN AWAY.
THE GAS STATION IDEA, I APPRECIATED BLAKE SAYING NOT ON LOT PROJECT 13.
THAT WOULD BE A DEAL PILLAR FOR THEM AS WELL, JUST BECAUSE THAT'S DIRECTLY LOOKING OUT FROM THEIR A BEAUTIFUL CAFE THAT THEY'RE PLANNING FOR.
THEN JUST ADDITIONAL SCREENING, WHICH TERRY AND I TALKED ABOUT.
AS LONG AS THAT CONVERSATION HOLDS TRUE, WE HAVE THE DUAL ACCESS, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION FROM LAMBERTS.
>> THAT WAS OPTION 2 ON THE PROPERTY LINE?
>> WITH THE BLUE DRIVE IN THE MIDDLE.
YOU HAD ONE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS SO YOU BEAT ME TO THE PUNCH.
>> ALSO FOR PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS, KATIE LAMBERT, 2787 EAST SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD, SUITE NUMBER 105 DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK THAT RECORDS OPPOSITION, BUT MAYBE WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THAT AND ALSO SARAH LAMBERT AT 2787 EAST SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD, SUITE 105 DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK BUT RECORDS OPPOSITION, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE CONVERSATIONS ARE ONGOING.
ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 7B? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 7B.
COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KILO OR THE APPLICANTS?
>> I HAVE ONE FOR DIRECTOR KILO.
TYPICALLY, WHAT IS THE STANDARD HEIGHT FOR A HOTEL?
>> OUR TALLEST DISTRICT HEIGHT IS 60 FEET WITH SIX STORIES.
>> QUESTION ABOUT THAT? THAT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE AIRPORT.
BUT I THINK THE PROPOSAL BEFORE IS FOR 90 OR 100 FOOT?
>> CORRECT. I BELIEVE SIMILAR LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN IN THE CARLON.
I THINK I WOULD HAVE TO [INAUDIBLE]
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THAT, PLEASE, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE CARLON PIECE.
>> I WOULD HAVE TO VERIFY, BUT I THINK SIMILAR HEIGHT LANGUAGE IS SPECIFIED IN CARLON AS WELL REGARDING THE HEIGHT.
>> BUT IF WE APPROVE THIS TONIGHT, ARE WE APPROVING 100 FEET, OR WHAT ARE WE APPROVING?
>> WHATEVER YOU ALL WANT? HERE'S THE THING.
THIS IS A GOOD SPOT FOR THIS COMMENT.
IT'S ONE OF THE LARGEST ONES I'VE SEEN IN 12 YEARS.
I THINK YOU CAN TELL THERE'S A GENERAL IDEA THAT WE'D LOVE TO FIND A PATH FORWARD, MOST LIKELY, WE'LL SEE.
I KNOW THAT THAT'S MY OPINION ON IT.
[03:25:01]
THAT SAID, THERE'S A TON TO DIGEST HERE.WE'VE STARTED HITTING SOME TOPICS AND HAD SOME GOOD CONVERSATION HERE ON SOME THINGS THAT ARE OBVIOUS THINGS THAT WE'D LIKE TO HAVE YOU GUYS ADDRESS.
I SAY ALL THAT TO SAY, I PERSONALLY RESERVE THE RIGHT AND I DON'T WANT YOU GUYS TO BE SURPRISED IF YOU IF IT WERE TO PASS TONIGHT, YOU COME BACK TO SECOND READING, AND THERE'S MORE STUFF THAT CAN'T GET RESOLVED ON THE SPOT, AND THIS ENDS UP POTENTIALLY BEING TABLED TO ANOTHER READING.
I MEAN, IS THAT A FAIR COMMENT, COUNCIL TO THINK THAT WE'VE HIT EVERYTHING POSSIBLE THAT WE WANT THEM TO ADDRESS, I THINK IS TOUGH TO SAY AT THIS POINT.
SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE DEVELOPERS TO KNOW THAT'S A POSSIBILITY THAT EVEN IF IT AND THAT'S NOT UNUSUAL.
WE DO THAT SOMETIMES WHERE WE'LL MOVE SOMETHING FORWARD ON FIRST READING, NOTING THAT THERE'S STILL A LOT OF WORK TO DO.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT COULDN'T PASS ON FIRST AND SECOND, I WOULDN'T WANT YOU TO BE SURPRISED. COME ON DOWN.
>> I DON'T REALLY WANT THAT HEIGHT TO BE A LOT OF FRICTION TOO.
IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT 65 FEET, THAT'D BE OKAY.
IF WE FIND SOME FABLES HOTEL THAT WANTS 90 FEET, WE'LL COME BACK AND SEE YOU.
>> I CAN DO IT AT THAT LIGHT, AND THEN THEY CAN ALWAYS COME BACK.
>> I WAS GOING TO MAKE SUGGESTIONS A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH COUNCIL MEMBER TALLEY AS IT RELATES TO THE GARAGES NOT FACING THE ROAD.
ONE THING THAT WASN'T BROUGHT UP, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SOME PROVISION IN THERE THAT SAYS THAT THE ARTICULATION OF THE HOMES NEEDS TO BE VARIED BETWEEN THEM, SO IT'S NOT A UNIFORM ARTICULATION OF THE HOMES.
I'D LOVE TO SEE A PHASING PLAN FOR THE RETAIL WE JUST DESCRIBED, THAT TRAILS BY 12 MONTHS BEYOND COMPLETION OF THE FIRST PHASE.
THEN I'M IN FAVOR OF THE LAYERING IN OF THE THINGS THAT P&Z OUTLINED, WHICH, BY THE WAY, PLAINTIFF DID A REALLY GOOD JOB ON THIS. I FELT LIKE.
>> AGREED. [OVERLAPPING] COUNSEL REYNOLDS, YOU'RE SPEAKING TO LOT 3, WITH REGARDS TO THE RESTAURANT AREA BEING BURNED WITH LANDSCAPING FOR SCREENING, AND THEN AT LOT 2 LOADING DOCKS, SCREENED BY LANDSCAPE AND RETAINING WALLS IN THE LOADING AREAS AND BACK PART OF RETAIL.
THAT'S PART OF LOTS WHAT ELSE?
>> IN THE SETBACKS ON THE RESIDENTIAL.
SPECIFICALLY, THOSE, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT IT DOES A REALLY GOOD JOB OF IS MAKE SURE THAT THE LOTS AREN'T OVER-COVERED.
THEY'RE 40% COVERAGE, AND THE OPTICS ARE GOING TO MAKE THE LOTS LOOK EVEN BIGGER.
ARE THEY IN THE APPLICATION, THE SETBACKS THAT WERE RECOMMENDED BY P&Z, OR WOULD THAT BE?
>> IN THE CURRENT APPLICATION?
>> RANDY, I WOULD JUST SAY JUST FOR THE GARAGES, WHENEVER POSSIBLE, OR WARD IT SOME WAY, WHERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALL THESE CURVES AND SHAPES, SO THE GOAL WOULD BE HOW HAVE YOU WANT TO AWARD THAT?
>> THE GARAGES ARE NOT FACING.
>> NOT FACING THE ROADWAYS. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE COMMENT WITH REGARDS TO ARTICULATIONS? WHAT WE'VE DONE BEFORE ON LARGER AREAS IS REQUIRE A MINIMUM NUMBER OF UNIQUE ARTICULATIONS, NO LESS THAN X AMOUNT, AND SOME GUIDELINE AROUND HOW CLOSE TOGETHER THEY CAN BE, NO LESS THAN FIVE ARTICULATIONS, AND NO CLOSER THAN EVERY THIRD HOUSE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> WE HAD ANOTHER CASE WHERE WE DID SOMETHING LIKE THAT WITH SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT VARIETY.
>> I'M OPEN TO WHAT YOU GUYS THINK, AND PERHAPS THE DEVELOPER HAS TO COMMENT ON THAT.
>> THE OTHER CASE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
MAYBE THE DEVELOPER THESE IDEAS ON THAT FOR THE SECOND READING, JUST WHAT YOU WOULD PROPOSE AS ARTICULATION DIFFERENCES, WHETHER IT'S THERE'S 37 HOMES.
NO MORE THAN FIVE CAN BE THE SAME, WHATEVER. TAKE A STAB AT IT.
>> YOU'VE GOT MULTIPLE BUILDERS IN THERE, TOO, THOUGH.
BUILDERS FOUR BUILDERS 45 BUILDER FIVE BUILDERS.
>> I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE CUSTOM HOMES, ALL CUSTOMS, YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO HAVE TWO THAT ARTICULATE BE MY GUESS.
>> I THINK I STILL THINK THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE
[03:30:03]
LANGUAGE TO PROTECT AGAINST THINGS CHANGED.>> IF IT WAS ALL SOLD TO ONE BUILDER AND THEN THEY CHANGED IT WHATEVER.
>> WHAT DID WE DO BEFORE? I WAS LIKE A MAXIMUM OF FIVE THE SAME OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I CAN'T RECALL. IT'S BEEN LIKE A YEAR.
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE DID IS IT WAS A MAXIMUM OF ANY ONE ARTICULATION BEING REPLICATED NO MORE THAN X AMOUNT OF TIMES.
>> IT WAS FOUR OR FIVE. I REMEMBER THAT.
>> FOUR OR FIVE THE SAME. LET'S SEE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THIS, AND I JUST WANT TO LET MY FEELINGS BE KNOWN, AND I AM HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THE DENSITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL.
I LOVE THE COMMERCIAL, BY THE WAY, I LIKE THE NAME OF THE COMMERCIAL HONORING THE SHIVERS FAMILY.
I THINK THAT'S GREAT, BUT I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE DENSITY ON RESIDENTIAL.
I JUST WANT TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION?
>> I'VE BEEN ON COUNSEL AS LONG AS RANDY HAS BECAUSE I'M A LOT YOUNGER THAN HE IS.
I DO THINK THIS IS HANDS DOWN THE BIGGEST THING WE'VE SEEN.
BUT I THINK KUDOS TO YOU GUYS, I THINK IT'S THE MOST COMPLETE PRESENTATION I'VE SEEN FROM THESE GUYS.
AS FAR AS REALLY DETAILS, AND REALLY, YOU CAN TELL THAT YOU GUYS HAVE WALKED THROUGH THE PROCESS AT EVERY LEVEL AND TRIED TO BE COGNIZANT OF WHAT YOU'VE BEEN GUIDED TO.
KNOWING THAT ALL OF THOSE WERE RECOMMENDING AUTHORITIES, AND YOU PROBABLY GET TO ONE HERE THAT CAN RUBBER-STAMP SOMETHING.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DENSITY.
I THINK THAT ONCE AGAIN, WE'VE HAMMERED, BE LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SURROUNDED BY.
I THINK YOU'RE LESS DENSE THAN EVERYTHING YOU'RE SURROUNDED BY OTHER THAN ONE OR TWO ESTATE LOTS, SO I THINK YOU'VE DONE THE RIGHT THING, LOOKING AT THOSE.
YOU DON'T HAVE ANY THAT ARE UNDER 10,000.
I THINK YOU'RE BRINGING IN SIGNIFICANT RETAIL.
I THINK THAT SIDE OF 114 HAS BEEN BEGGING FOR SOMETHING FOR 15 PLUS YEARS, THAT'S BEEN PROMISED FOR 15 PLUS YEARS, THAT YOU GUYS PROBABLY WILL DELIVER LONG BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE COMES ALONG.
I THINK IT'S I THINK THE NORTH SIDE DESERVES SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
[LAUGHTER] I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING FOR SOUTHLAKE.
I THINK IT MAKES A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE FOR THE CITY AND FOR THE CITIZENS, AND I JUST I THINK THIS IS AS COMPLETE AN APPLICATION AS I'VE SEEN.
SURE, THERE'S GOING TO BE LITTLE NUANCES HERE AND THERE THAT NEED TO BE MASSAGED A LITTLE BIT.
BUT I THINK OVERALL, THIS IS AS IMPRESSIVE A PRESENTATIONS I'VE SEEN.
>> LET ME IF I CAN ADD BLAKE AND TRAVIS, IT WAS A GREAT MEETING WITH YOU GUYS.
I TRULY APPRECIATE YOU GUYS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING THAT EVERYBODY HAS SAID ON THIS.
I AGREE WITH RANDY ROBBINS ON THIS THAT REALLY GREAT JOB.
NORMALLY, I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO SOMETHING ON HERE, BUT ALL OF IT TOGETHER IS JUST A REALLY GOOD PRESENTATION, REALLY GOOD PACKAGE, AND OVERALL, I'M PRETTY HAPPY MYSELF. THANKS.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIAMSON, IT'LL BE A MOTION WITH A LOT TO IT, BUT GO AHEAD.
>> IT'S A LONG MOTION. I WANT TO GO THROUGH AND MAKE SURE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE ON ANYTHING THAT'S ALL CONVENIENT.
FIRST OF ALL, WITH REGARDS TO THE DRIVEWAY STACKING VARIANCES, SPECIFIC TO LAMBERT, WHAT ARE WE AGREEING ON? IS IT THE 58-FOOT STACKING DEPTH ON DRIVEWAY FIVE AND A 33-FOOT STACKING DEPTH ON DRIVEWAY SEVEN? A 26-FOOT STACKING DEPTH ON DRIVEWAY FOUR.
THOSE WERE ALL UP IF ANY, AND I'M NOT SURE WHERE WE STAND ON THAT.
>> WHAT LAMBERT CLARIFIED TO US THIS EVENING RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING IS THAT THE LAMBERT PREFERS TO KEEP THE DRIVEWAY THAT THEY HAVE THAT WOULD BE 26 FEET AND TO PROVIDE SOME ADDED RELIEF FOR THEIR TRAFFIC, HAVE A SECOND DRIVEWAY, WHICH WAS SHOWN ON THE OPTION 2
>> YES, THEY ARE STILL ASKING FOR THE SAME VARIANCES, AND IF THERE'S ANY ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR WORKING WITH THE LAMBERTS, YOU COULD CERTAINLY INCLUDE THAT.
I DO NOT WANT TO DELAY YOUR ACTION ON THIS, BUT I WANT TO CLARIFY THE HEIGHT REGULATION OR ZONING ORDINANCE.
I MISSPOKE IN THE TWO, IT IS SIX STORIES AND 90 FEET, AND I DID VERIFY THAT THE REGULATION THAT THEY'RE PRESENTING IN THEIR APPLICATION IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE IN CAROLINE.
>> WHERE ARE WE AT ON THAT, AND THEN 90 FEET IS WHAT'S APPROVED ON CAROLINE.
>> I'M FINE WITH THAT SIX STORIES AND 90 FEET,
[03:35:02]
AND THAT WOULD BE JUST FOR A HOTEL, THOUGH.>> BACK TO THE STACKING DEPTH.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I GOT THIS RIGHT, SO IT APPEARS THAT LAMBERT IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE 26 FOOT STACKING DEPTH ON DRIVEWAY FOUR, WITH THE AGREEMENT, ALSO THAT THERE BE A SECOND DRIVEWAY AS SHOWN TONIGHT IN OPTION 2?
>> IT SIMPLY STATED LIKE THAT. I'LL GET IT.
>> THEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE KIOSK, WILL BE A SITE PLAN OR AN SUP.
DRIVE-THROUGH IS JUST FINANCIAL.
WE'VE GOT EVERYTHING WITH REGARDS TO RESIDENTIAL.
I'LL ADD IN EVERYTHING'S THERE BECAUSE THE SETBACKS ARE IN THE APPLICATION TONIGH.
THEN I HAVE ALL THE OTHER STUFF THAT WE TALKED ABOUT OR THAT THE APPLICANT AGREED TO, SO I'LL WORK THROUGH IT, LISTEN CLOSELY, AND CORRECT ME ON THE WAY.
MISS MAY, COUNSEL, I APPROVE THAT I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM SEVEN B, ORDER NUMBER 480-837, Z 25 0045.
COME ON DOWN TO THE MICROPHONE.
>> I WAS JUST GETTING READY TO GO TOO.
>> I TO BE HERE TILL BIT NIGHT NOW.
ONE THING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO CAN THAT BE A MUTUALLY AGREED UPON SOLUTION BETWEEN US AND THE PROPERTY OWNER OF WHAT COMES OUT THERE RATHER THAN DICTATING THERE HAS TO BE TWO DRIVEWAYS.
WE STILL HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS TO HAVE WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE IS IT REALLY HOW DOES THE CONFIGURATION WORK, HOW DOES THE GRADING WORK? AS LONG AS IT'S A MUTUALLY AGREED UPON SOLUTION, WOULD THAT BE SUFFICIENT?
>> WE CAN'T CRAFT A MOTION THAT'S DEPENDENT ON A MUTUAL AGREEMENT.
>> THE DRIVEWAY STACKING IS WHAT IS THE VARIANCE REQUEST, CORRECT? THAT IS BEING COMPL CONTEMPLATED.
>> NORMALLY, 100 FEET IS REQUIRED.
>> CORRECT. IF YOU COULD IF THEY WANT THIS DRIVEWAY ON THE EAST SIDE TO BE TO STAY, IT WOULD REQUIRE THE VARIANCE TO 21 FEET.
IF WE I MEAN 20S MOVE IT TO THE ONE TO THE WEST, NO VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED, OR IF WE WANT TO KEEP BOTH, THE VARIANCE WOULD BE NEEDED AT 21 FEET.
I THINK ALL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS CONTEMPLATING IS A VARIANCE OF 21 FEET ALLOWED YES OR NO, THE SECOND DRIVEWAY WOULD BE UP TO THE TWO PROPERTY OWNERS TO FIGURE OUT.
>> I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT'S 26 OR 21 OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
>> BUT WE'RE ESTIMATING 26 20?
>> THEN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THEN WOULD BE APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE STACKING DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 26 FEET, AND THEN WE LEAVE IT TO YOU TO HAVE A CONVERSATION BETWEEN FIRST SECOND DRIVE THAT WOULD BE ALL WE WOULD APPROVE.
>> THEN YOU CAN SHOW UP AT SECOND IF YOU HAVE A AGREEMENT OR NOT?
>> MAKES SENSE? YOU GOOD NOW? I'LL START OVER, MAYOR AND COUNSEL, MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 7B, ORDINANCE NUMBER 488 37Z 25-0045.
FIRST READING ZONING CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN FOR TRADEMARK SOUTHLAKE, ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS TRACKS 1A AND 1A03, JAMES J WEST SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 1620, AND LOCATED AT 1,819 HUNDRED NORTH WEST CHAPEL BOULEVARD.
SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 2025, IN THE ZONING CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER 4, DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 2025.
NOTING THAT WE'D BE APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE DRIVEWAY ORDINANCE NUMBER 634, WHERE A NORMAL STACKING DEPTH OF 100 FEET IS REQUIRED.
IN THIS CASE, WE'RE APPROVING APPROXIMATELY 26 FOOT STACKING DEPTH ON DRIVEWAY 4, AND NOTING THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE TALKING TO LAMBERT HOMES BEFORE SECOND READING WITH REGARDS TO ANY ADDITIONAL OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION.
ALSO NOTING THAT AS A PART OF THIS APPLICATION, WE'RE APPROVING A ZONING CHANGE IN DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN, CHANGING THE ZONING FROM AG AGRICULTURE TO ECZ EMPLOYMENT CENTER ZONING DISTRICT, AS PRESENTED WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS.
THE USES SHALL BE AS PRESENTED ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS.
THE FUTURE HOTEL ON LOT ONE WILL BE A FULL SERVICE HOTEL AS STATED IN THE CITY'S LAND USE PLAN, PROVIDING THE HOTEL WILL INCLUDE A TABLE SERVICE RESTAURANT WITHIN OR DIRECTLY ATTACHED TO THE HOTEL, BELL SERVICE AND RIM SERVICE, AND MEETING SPACE.
THIS WILL BE UPDATED IN THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PRIOR TO SECOND READING AND MUST BE SHOWN AND DESCRIBED ON THE FUTURE SITE PLAN.
ALLOWING A MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL HEIGHT FOR A BUILDING ADJACENT TO STATE HIGHWAY 114 OF 90 FEET FOR HOTEL USE ONLY,
[03:40:03]
SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL.NOTING THAT THE THREE KIOSKS REPRESENTED THIS EVENING WILL REQUIRE SITE PLAN OR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OR INSTALLATION.
IT MUST BE A PERMITTED USE AND COMPATIBLE WITH DESIGN OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.
NOTING THAT WE'RE ALLOWING THE DRIVE THROUGH TO BE ONLY FOR A FINANCIAL OR BANKING USE, BANKING USE WITH THE DRIVE THROUGH, CANOPY ALSO SERVING AS A FULLY FURNISHED OUTDOOR PATIO ON THE SECOND LEVEL OF THE OFFICE BUILDING AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
NOTING THAT WE'RE REQUIRING THAT THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY EXTENDING SOUTH FROM THE ROUNDABOUT BE CONFIGURED TO HAVE HEAD IN OR ANGLED PARKING AND LANDSCAPE ISLANDS TO BETTER IDENTIFY IT AS A PRIVATE DRIVE OF THE RETAIL CENTER.
NOTING THAT THE RESIDENTIAL LOT SHALL BE PERMITTED AS SHOWN ON THE DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN THIS EVENING STIPULATING THAT LOT 4, DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 83 FEET, A MINIMUM LOT DEPTH OF 145 FEET, AND A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 12,000 SQUARE FEET, AND LOT 5 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 80 FEET, A MINIMUM LOT DEPTH OF 125 FEET, AND A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
NOTING WE'RE APPROVING TREE PRESERVATION AND LANDSCAPE AS PRESENTED.
NOTING THAT WE'RE PROVIDING AN OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BOTH THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PORTIONS THAT WILL REQUIRE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OWNER ASSOCIATION THAT ENSURES MAINTENANCE AND PERPETUITY FOR ALL OPEN SPACE, RETENTION DETENTION STRUCTURES AND AMENITIES PRIOR TO SECOND READING.
NOTING THAT CC&R SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT RECORDATION FOR CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW, ENSURING MAINTENANCE AND PERPETUITY OF ALL OPEN SPACE AMENITIES AND FILED IN THE COUNTY RECORDS.
ALSO, NOTING AS PER P&Z RECOMMENDATIONS ON LOT 3, THE RESTAURANT AREA WILL BE BURNED WITH LANDSCAPING FOR SCREENING PURPOSES.
ON LOT 2, THE LOADING DOCKS WILL BE SCREENED BY LANDSCAPE AND RETAINING WALLS AND THE LOADING AREAS AND BACK PART OF THE RETAIL.
ALSO ADDING ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE ALONG THE POND TO SCREEN THE PARKING FROM STATE HIGHWAY 114 AND THE FRONTAGE ROAD.
>> THEN NOTING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO PRESENT POTENTIAL OPTIONS AT SECOND READING WITH REGARD TO GOLF CART ACCESSIBILITY IN THIS DEVELOPMENT.
NOTING THE APPLICANT'S AGREEMENT TO CONSIDER TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES, AS ASKED ABOUT THIS EVENING.
NOTING THE APPLICANT'S AGREEMENT TO PRESENT AT SECOND READING, A POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PHASING PLAN WITH CONSTRUCTION TIMELINES.
NOTING THE APPLICANT'S AGREEMENT TO PRESENT A POTENTIAL GAS STATION OPTION AT SECOND READING.
NOTING THE APPLICANT'S AGREEMENT THAT GARAGES IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA WILL BE NON-ROAD-FACING, NOT STREET-FACING.
NOTING THAT THE APPLICANT WILL END ON THE ARTICULATIONS.
>> WAS IT NOT MORE THAN FIVE OF THE SAME? THAT'S WHAT WE DID IN ANOTHER CASE.
>> TRAVIS. NOTING THE APPLICANT'S AGREEMENT THAT NO MORE THAN FIVE OF THE SAME ARTICULATION FOR THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING MAY BE USED IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA, NO MORE THAN FIVE OF THE SAME. THAT'S IT.
>> IT WAS ALMOST PERFECT, BUT I CAUGHT THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS DRIVEWAY 5 AND DRIVEWAY 7, THE STACKING DEPTH VARIANCES.
>> I THINK THAT HAS TO DO THOUGH.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE LANDED ON THE LAMBERT PIECE, THAT WE'RE APPROVING THE 26 FOOT.
THEN THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION WITH LAMBERT TO ADDRESS THOSE.
>> WE DO NEED TO ADDRESS THOSE THEN.
FIFTY-EIGHT FOOT STACKING DEPTH FOR DRIVEWAY 5 AND 33 FOR DRIVEWAY 7.
>> THAT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE MOTION.
>> I HAD GENERALLY APPROVED THE DRIVEWAY STACKING AND THEN JUST NOTATED THE 26 FOOT.
>> GOT IT. I WILL MAKE MY MOTION TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE VARIANCE ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 634 AND STACKING.
WE'D ALSO BE APPROVING A 58-FOOT STACKING DEPTH ON DRIVEWAY 5 AND A 33-FOOT STACKING DEPTH ON DRIVEWAY 7.
>> DON'T WE HAVE SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE HOUSES THAT WE WANT TO BE NON-STREET FACING GARAGES, BUT NOT ON ALL OF THEM? DO WE NEED TO STIPULATE THAT WHEN POSSIBLE, IN CASE THERE'S SOME THAT DON'T? BECAUSE WE DIDN'T STIPULATE ANY OPTION OTHER THAN NON-STREET FACING.
[03:45:06]
>> ARE YOU SUGGESTING MAYBE A PERCENTAGE, NO MORE THAN X PERCENT OF RESIDENTIAL COULD BE?
>> I THINK IT'S MORE, WHEREVER POSSIBLE, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD PREFER, I THINK, BUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE CORNER SPOT OR SOME WEIRD SPOT WHERE IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF, FOR SECOND READING, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHICH ONES WOULD BE A PROBLEM?
>> SO APPLICANTS MEND THE PORTION WITH REGARD TO THE GARAGES FACING THE RESIDENTIAL STREET.
THE APPLICANTS, WHAT WE'RE PROVING IS THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO COME TO SECOND READING, ADDRESSING THAT ISSUE AS FAR AS HOW THAT WILL BE DEALT WITH, AND MAXIMUMS AND SO FORTH.
>> DENNIS, ARE WE GOOD ON THE MOTION?
>> COME TO THE MICROPHONE SO WE CAN CAPTURE THIS ON.
>> ONE THING IT'S IMPORTANT, BUT SMALL.
WHAT SHE REQUESTED, COUNCILWOMAN TALLEY, I THINK, WAS SOME TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURE, AND YOU MENTIONED HEAD-INS OR ANGLES.
THOSE WON'T WORK. WE DON'T HAVE THE ROOM FOR THAT.
>> NO. THOSE WERE TWO SEPARATE PIECES.
>> THEY WEREN'T BECAUSE I HEARD ANGLES AND HEAD-INS PART.
>> I THOUGHT YOU HAD TRAFFIC CALMING IN OTHER AREAS, THOUGH, OR ARE YOU SAYING THE.
>> I THOUGHT THE HEAD-IN AND ANGLES WERE A DIFFERENT PART OF THE MOTION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I WAS CONFUSED.
ON THAT DRIVE, THAT'S BETWEEN THE EASTERN END OF THE STRIP NEXT TO THE GROCER AND WHERE THAT STREET COMES FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT'S WHERE YOU'VE REQUESTED.
>> ON ONE OF THE DIAGRAMS, THEY'RE CALLED PROMENADE A AND B.
SO IF YOU WANT TO REFER TO IT, THAT WAY.
>> I JUST WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND AND REQUEST THAT WE SAY SOMETHING LIKE PARALLEL SPACES OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE YOU'RE GOING TO WANT PARKING DOWN HERE NEXT TO 114.
>> I WASN'T REFERRING TO PARKING AT ALL, THOUGH.
I WAS REFERRING TO THESE, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, STRAIGHTAWAYS.
>> I DID. LET ME TELL YOU WHAT IT WAS.
>> IT WAS SOMETHING ALONG THOSE PROMENADES.
>> I'M NOT SURE IT WAS WITH RESPECT TO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER TALLEY WAS TALKING ABOUT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO DOUBLE-CHECK THE MOTION.
>> IT READ THAT WE WERE APPROVING REQUIRING THAT THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY EXTENDING SOUTH FROM THE ROUNDABOUT BE CONFIGURED TO HAVE HEAD-IN OR ANGLED PARKING IN LANDSCAPE ISLANDS TO BETTER IDENTIFY IT AS A PRIVATE DRIVE OF THE RETAIL CENTER?
>> YES. SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE ROOM TO PUT HEAD-INS OR ANGLES.
WE HAVE ROOM TO DO SOME TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES, WHICH MIGHT BE PARALLEL PARKING OR MEDIANS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ROOM TO DO.
>> ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ROAD, THOUGH?
>> SHE CALLS IT PROMENADE A AND B.
IT'S THE ONE BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE END OF THE GROCERY STRIP.
THAT DRIVE THAT GOES OUT TO 114.
I'M TRYING TO GET IT RIGHT. I KNOW IT'S LATE.
>> LET'S USE THE CURSOR BECAUSE I'M NOT FOLLOWING THIS.
MAYBE IF YOU USE THE CURSOR ON THE SCREEN TO SHOW US.
>> PLEASE. IT'S THE TWO DRIVES COMING OUT TO 114 ON EITHER SIDE OF THE GROCERY, RIGHT COUNCIL MEMBER TALLEY?
>> I DIDN'T SPEAK TO PARALLEL PARKING AT ALL.
I JUST AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THOSE DRIVES.
EITHER GOING INTO OR OUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
[BACKGROUND] ON THE ROAD ITSELF.
NOT RELATIVE TO PARKING. RIGHT.
>> AS HE JUST READ, THAT WAS A SEPARATE.
>> NO, THE TRAFFIC CALMING WAS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE OPTION.
>> PARTICULAR DRIVEWAY COMING IN OFF THE ROUNDABOUT? WE WERE UNDER THE BELIEF THAT YOU ALL HAD AN UNDERSTANDING OF MY WORK.
>> I THINK WE CAN AGREE TO A TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICE ON THE TWO RED ROADWAYS GOING OUT TO 114, SOME TYPE OF ENHANCEMENT TO CALM TRAFFIC.
WE NEED TO INSTEAD OF SAYING HEAD-IN OR ANGLED PARKING ALONG THOSE ROADS, THOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE PARALLEL PARKING DUE TO THE SPACE CONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE PLAN.
>> IF WE DID PARKING, TO CALM THE TRAFFIC.
IT'S COMPLICATED, BUT I THINK I'D LIKE IT IF YOU WOULD AGREE, I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE WOULD INCORPORATE TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES.
AREN'T YOU MAINLY WORRIED ABOUT THE ONE FROM THE ROUNDABOUT? NOT SO MUCH THE ONE.
>> NO, I'M WORRIED ABOUT BOTH OF THEM.
>> THERE WAS A DIFFERENT PART OF THE MOTION WHERE HE READ THAT HEAD-IN AND ANGLE.
[03:50:02]
>> THAT YOU DON'T NEED PARKING.
>> THEN OUR CIVIL AND THE STAFF WILL HAVE TO AGREE ON THAT.
>> BUT AS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE, COMING OUT OF P&Z, THERE WAS AGREEMENT TO HAVE HEAD-IN OR ANGLED PARKING AND LANDSCAPE ISLANDS TO BETTER IDENTIFY A PRIVATE DRIVE OF THE RETAIL CENTER, IS THAT?
>> I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER THAT.
>> WE DON'T HAVE ROOM IN THAT DRIVE TO DO HEAD-IN OR ANGLE PARKING.
>> IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PARALLEL PARKING.
WE AGREED TO SOME TYPE OF WE THOUGHT TRAFFIC CALMING STREET ENHANCEMENT TO MAKE IT FEEL MORE PRIVATE.
BUT THE HEAD-IN AND ANGLE PARKING.
THAT'S THE ONLY PART THAT WORKS.
>> WHY DON'T WE THEN AMEND THE MOTION AS IT RELATES TO THAT PORTION TO SAY THE APPLICANT IS AGREEING BY SECOND READING TO COME SHOWING OPTIONS FOR TRAFFIC CALMING EFFECTS, AS WELL AS HOW TO PARK THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY EXTENDING SOUTH FROM THE ROUNDABOUT TO BETTER IDENTIFY IT AS A PRIVATE DRIVE OF THE RETAIL CENTER.
IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS TO COME AND CLEAR THAT UP FOR US.
WILL THAT WORK FOR YOU GUYS HERE BETTER? THANK YOU.
ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO CLEAN UP BEFORE WE DO A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? [BACKGROUND] COUNCILMAN TAGGART, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO REPEAT IT?
>> WE DIDN'T HEAR THAT. I SAID, I DON'T THINK SO, SIR.
>> CITY ATTORNEY, WE ARE GOOD ON THAT MOTION.
ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION ON 7D. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
WE WILL SEE YOU AGAIN FOR THE SECOND READING IN TWO WEEKS. THANKS, GUYS.
>> NEXT UP, WE'LL TAKE ITEMS 7C AND 7D TOGETHER.
[Items 7.C. & 7.D.]
7C IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 1269-FCP25-0003, FIRST READING AND AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE CONSOLIDATED FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FOR 1835 SHADY OAKS, AND 7D IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 40-839, CASE NUMBER Z25-0057, FIRST READING ZONING CHANGE AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR 1835 SHADY OAKS. DIRECTOR KILO.>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.
THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
THE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE PROPERTY IS OFFICE COMMERCIAL.
IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL.
THE PROPERTY ALSO HAS A MULTI-TENANT OFFICE OVERLAY, OPTIONAL LAND USE ON THAT PROPERTY, AND THE APCIN IS REQUESTING TO AMEND THAT PORTION OF THAT SITE TO ALL MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND WE WOULD REMOVE THAT OPTIONAL LAND USE CATEGORY.
THIS IS A VIEW LOOKING SOUTH FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF A SITE ALONG SHADY LANE OR SHADY OAKS DRIVE.
THIS A VIEW LOOKING NORTH FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER.
VIEW LOOKING IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER, AND A VIEW LOOKING NORTH FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.
THIS IS THE CURRENT LAND USE PLAN ON THE UPPER PORTION OF THE SLIDE.
BELOW IS THE PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION.
IT WOULD GO FROM OFFICE COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, IF APPROVED.
THIS IS THE OPTIONAL LAND USE OVERLAY, WHICH INCLUDES THE MULTI-TENANT OFFICE OVERLAY.
IF APPROVED, THIS WOULD BE REMOVED AS A DESIGNATION IN THE OPTIONAL CATEGORY AS WELL.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN BEING PRESENTED.
THEY'RE REQUESTING SF20, A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING, 27 RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THEY ARE PROVIDING A 50-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER LOT ALONG THE 114 FRONTAGE.
EACH OF THE LOTS SET ABOVE THE 114 FRONTAGE ROAD WOULD HAVE A MINIMUM 50-FOOT BUILDING SETBACK FROM THAT 50-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
[03:55:05]
A 50-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER IS ALSO BEING PROVIDED ALONG THE BUFFER YARD, OR EXCUSE ME, LANDSCAPE BUFFER EASEMENT, ALONG THE SHADY OAKS STREET FRONTAGE.THEY ARE PROPOSING AN EIGHT-FOOT MASONRY WALL ALONG THE COMMON LINE BETWEEN THE LOT BOUNDARY AND THE BUFFER LOT WITH A 10-FOOT-WIDE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT.
ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THAT WALL, IT WOULD BE MAINTAINED BY THE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION.
ALL LOTS ARE 20,000 SQUARE FEET OR MORE.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE DATA SUMMARY FOR THE PLAN AND TREE CONSERVATION PLAN.
STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PRESERVE A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THIS TREE COVER.
THEY ARE SHOWING JUST OVER 30% PRESERVATION OF TREE COVER.
THIS IS A LANDSCAPE EXHIBIT AND A DETAIL EXHIBIT OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER, AND A CROSS-SECTION OF THE LANDSCAPE EXHIBIT.
THEY ARE STILL PROPOSING, AS THEY DID WITH A SIMILAR REQUEST THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD UNDER RPD CLASSIFICATION, A PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT THAT WOULD PROVIDE RESIDENT-ONLY GATED ACCESS FROM 114 FRONTAGE ROAD INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS AREA WOULD BE PRIVATE AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOA.
>> AND THIS IS THE FENCING PLAN.
AND DRAINAGE PLAN SHOWING THE DRAINAGE AREAS.
AND PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN.
THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN.
THEY ARE REQUESTING WHAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERMITS IS A REDUCTION IN SIDE YARD SETBACKS WHERE CORNER LOTS EXIST.
THEY WOULD REQUEST UP TO 15 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ALONG SIDE STREET OF A CORNER LOT WITH AN EXCEPTION ON ONE LOT THAT WOULD HAVE A 25 FOOT SETBACK THAT'S SHOWN ON THE CONCEPT PLAN WHERE SOME OF THE CUL-DE-SAC LOTS ARE CONFIGURED.
THEY ANTICIPATE INCREASING THE SETBACK TO ACHIEVE 100 FOOT LOT WIDTH AND SOME OF THOSE AREAS, WHICH WOULD JUST PROVIDE A GREATER SETBACK.
ALSO, THEY'RE PROPOSING THE PRIVATE ACCESS STREET FOR THE CUL-DE-SAC RESIDENT ONLY ACCESS POINT, AND THEN WHERE THE CUL-DE-SAC RIGHT OF WAY DIAMETER, GIVEN THAT FIRE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS REQUIRE THE DIAMETER OF THE PAVING TO BE 100 FOOT IN AND DIAMETER.
TYPICALLY, WE WOULD HAVE 120 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.
SURROUNDING THAT, THEY'RE REQUESTING A 110 FOOT DIAMETER RIGHT OF WAY WITH AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FOOT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT THAT WOULD SURROUND THAT.
SO YOU FUNCTIONALLY HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND UTILITY ACCESS AS YOU WOULD WITH THE 120 FOOT DIAMETER RIGHT OF WAY.
[04:00:04]
PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE AMENDMENT, 5-0 AS PROPOSED AND THEN ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CHANGE AND PLAN SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT PROVIDING A RENDERING OF FINISHED BUFFER WALL WITH THE LANDSCAPE FEATURES.AND TO DATE, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES REGARDING THIS APPLICATION.
I DO HAVE NAPKINS PRESENTATION AND I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS NOW OR ANY TIME DURING THIS DISCUSSION.
>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR KILLOUGH. GO AHEAD.
>> DID WE SEND OUT NOTICES ON THIS?
>> YES. WE SENT OUT 33 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATIONS.
NONE WERE OFFICIALLY RECEIVED, BUT WE DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL FROM GREG KRAUS BY EMAIL TODAY.
WE'RE JUST DOUBLE CHECKING HIS HIS RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, BUT GREG KRAUS IN GARDEN COURT.
I THINK IT IS. WE'LL HAVE THAT IN A MINUTE, BUT 33 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT BY THE CITY.
>> THE ONLY REASON I ASKED IS I TALKED TO ONE RESIDENT AND THEY DID NOT GET ONE.
SO I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS MAYBE JUST THEIR OWN MAIL PROBLEMS, I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE.
THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KILLOUGH? THANK YOU, DENNIS.
APPLICANT HERE. IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD?
>> YES, MAYOR, COUNCIL. MY NAME IS CURTIS YOUNG WITH THE SAGE GROUP 11 30 NORTH CARROLL AVENUE HERE IN SOUTHLAKE.
I KNOW YOU'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE AND BASICALLY THE CHANGES ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM COUNSEL.
PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED THE LAST VERSION, AND WHEN THIS CAME THROUGH THEM LAST MONTH, THEY SAID, "IT'S EVEN BETTER. WE LOVE IT."
>> LET'S GO STRAIGHT TO THE CHANGES.
WE WANT TO BE OUT OF HERE BY MIDNIGHT.
SO WHAT'S THE NEWEST, LATEST, AND GREATEST.
>> THIS WAS THE LAST ONE, WHAT WE HEARD FROM YOU WAS A GREATER BUFFER BETWEEN LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN THE FREEWAY AND THE LOTS.
SO THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT THE CHANGES WERE.
THIS WAS ANOTHER VERSION OF RPUD, BUT BECAUSE IT WAS DENIED, WITH PREJUDICE, I GUESS.
WE COULDN'T DO THIS FOR SIX MONTHS.
INSTEAD, WE'RE COMING BACK WITH A STRAIGHT SF 20 A ZONING, WHICH IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
SO WE LOST A FEW LOTS DOING THAT, BUT WE'RE READY TO GO ON HERE.
THIS NOW, IN EFFECT, IS 100 FOOT BUFFER ALONG THE FREEWAY HERE.
AND WE ALSO CHANGE THE ENTRY TO COME IN AND WE THINK IT'LL BE A NICER ENTRY ALONG THIS OPEN SPACE HERE AND LOOKING AT THIS OPEN SPACE HERE AT THE END, WITH FEWER LOTS, WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT.
STATISTICS THAT DENNIS SAID, IRON FENCES, BASICALLY ALONG THE OPEN SPACES, CHANGE FROM OFFICE COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
HE TALKED ABOUT THE PRIVATE STREET EASEMENT THERE.
I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU THIS WAS AN IDEA OF THE NEIGHBORS TO ALLOW OUR RESIDENTS TO COME IN AND OUT OF THERE DIRECTLY FROM THE FREEWAY WHERE THEY COULD, THINKING THAT IT WOULD LOWER THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC ON SHADY OAKS DRIVE, BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT REGULAR TRAFFIC TO BE CUTTING THROUGH THERE.
SO THAT'S WHY IT'S A PRIVATE GATED ACCESS POINT THERE.
ANYWAY, HERE'S THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
DENNIS TALKED ABOUT THAT, TALKED ABOUT THE SECTION.
REGARDING WHERE THE FENCE WILL BE VISIBLE.
HERE'S THE FRONTAGE ALONG THE FREEWAY.
AND ONCE THE FENCE IS BUILT, IT'S PROBABLY STILL GOING TO LOOK LIKE THIS.
YOU WON'T SEE THE FENCE BECAUSE IT'S 50 FEET INTO THAT FOLIAGE ON THAT, BUT IF YOU WERE TO SEE THE FENCE, IT MIGHT LOOK SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
AND OF COURSE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE SHOWING ALONG THERE IS A 25 FOOT BUFFER YARD ALONG THE FREEWAY,
[04:05:02]
WHICH IT'S UNUSUAL FOR RESIDENTIAL TO HAVE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS, BUT IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE WE'RE ALONG 114, THERE IS A 25 FOOT BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENT AND THE EXISTING TREES ARE GOING TO SATISFY A LOT OF THAT, BUT WHERE THERE'S GAPS IN THERE, THERE'S OTHER REQUIREMENTS IN THE BUFFER YARD THAT WE CAN ADD VEGETATION TO PRETTY MUCH HAVE A COMPLETE SCREEN ALONG THERE.THAT'S THE IDEA. AND OF COURSE, DENNIS SAID THE TREE PLAN MEETS THE STANDARDS.
SO HERE'S THE PLAN THAT WE HAVE.
I THINK IT'S ADDRESSED A LOT OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD FROM YOU ALL THE LAST VERSION, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. I AGREE IT'S MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT WE SAW LAST TIME AND LESS LOTS, 100 FOOT SETBACK OR BUFFER BETWEEN 114 AND AND THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SO IT'S BETTER.
I'M STILL UNDECIDED ON THE WALL.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED IT, BUT THAT'S JUST MY $0.02 ON THE WALL, THE GREAT WALL OF SOUTHLAKE, BUT WHATEVER, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> CURTIS, ON THE GARAGE QUESTION AGAIN, RELATIVE TO THIS, SO THE GARAGE IS GOING TO BE ON THE SIDE OR BEHIND THESE HOMES?
>> YEAH. THAT'S A LOT EASIER TO DO WITH LOTS OF THE SIZE.
>> YEAH. I WOULD ASSUME ON HALF ACRE LOTS, THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE SIDE SITUATION.
>> YEAH. NOW, WITH A THREE-CAR GARAGE, OFTENTIMES WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS THE TWO SIDE, AND THEN BEHIND THE TWO SIDE, YOU HAVE THE ONE FACING FORWARD.
THAT'S PRETTY STANDARD, BUT CERTAINLY THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY FRONT-LOADING GARAGES ALONG THE FRONT SETBACK.
>> I WANT TO COMMEND YOU. I THINK THIS IS A WIN FOR THESE RESIDENTS ALL AROUND HERE.
I KNOW THEY WERE PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS OUTCOME.
I THINK IT'S A WIN FOR SOUTHLAKE BECAUSE WE PRESERVE GREENERY ALONG 114, AND THANKS FOR WORKING WITH US ON GETTING THAT SET BACK THERE.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO LOOK A WHOLE LOT BETTER, SO THANK YOU.
>> SO I DO WANT TO COMMEND YOU.
THIS DOES LOOK A LOT BETTER WITHOUT A DOUBT.
I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS FOR YOU TO SEE IF YOU CAN ANSWER FOR ME, THOUGH.
AGAIN, I'M STILL LOOKING AT THE TREE PRESERVATION AND BEFORE WE HAD AGREED TO TRYING TO RETAIN 33% OF THE TREES IN CASE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF VARIANCE.
THE BIGGEST THING, AND AGAIN, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF CONCEPTUALLY, IF WE DID THIS WALL, HOW THIS WALL WOULD ACTUALLY GET INSTALLED.
IF WE'RE AT 30% TREES, AND THE REQUIREMENT IS 30%, AND A STONE WALL OR MASONRY WALL IS INSTALLED, IT'S GOING TO BE INSIDE ALL OF THE DRIP LINE FOR ALL OF THE TREES IN THE TREE PRESERVATION.
I JUST DON'T SEE HOW YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT IN A MASONRY WALL WITHOUT DIGGING A FOOTER AND THAT FOOTER WILL HAVE TO BE A COUPLE OF FEET DEEP, A COUPLE FEET WIDE AT A MINIMUM, AND THEN THAT WOULD HIT ROOTS ALL UP ALONG THAT AREA, WHICH THEN WOULD DECREASE THE TREE PRESERVATION TO BELOW 30%.
I WAS HOPING MAYBE WE COULD SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE TREE PRESERVATION IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO COUNTER THAT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> WELL, YES, AND KEEP IN MIND, WE WANT AS MUCH TREE PRESERVATION AS POSSIBLE AS WELL BECAUSE THOSE ARE VALUABLE THINGS, BUT WHAT WE'RE PROMISING TO DO HERE IS TO MEET THE CODE.
WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO SAVE AS MANY TREES AS WE CAN, BUT WHAT WE'RE PROMISING TO DO HERE IS TO MEET THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AS DONE.
AND I THINK THERE ARE SOME OPTIONS TO DOING A CONTINUOUS FOOTING WALL, YOU CAN DO, EVEN THIN WALLS OR PANEL WALLS, YOU BASICALLY GOT COLUMNS AND THEN IT GOES IN BETWEEN THERE AND WITH A LITTLE VARIATION IN THERE, WE CAN TRY AND ELIMINATE THOSE.
WE WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE CODE.
IF WE HAVE TO TAKE OUT SOME TREES FOR THE WALL, THEN THOSE WOULD GO AGAINST OUR SAVING PERCENTAGE.
>> I GET THAT. AND THEN THE SECOND THING WAS I THINK YOU HEARD THE COMMENTS FROM KIMEY HORNE ON THE LAST PROJECT.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE 10% OF THEIR RUNOFF.
HIT THE STORM WATER SYSTEM AT 114, AND YOU CAN SEE ON THERE WHERE IT STARTS ON THERE AND THEN IT HITS THAT RETENTION POND YOU HAVE, AND I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN COMMENTS ON THE PAST FROM THE NEIGHBORS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SHADY OAKS WITH REGARDS TO GETTING A LOT OF STORM WATER RUNOFF TODAY.
[04:10:04]
MY CONCERN IS THAT WHEN I LOOK AT RETENTION PONDS, AND THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY YOU.WHEN I LOOK AT DIFFERENT PONDS AND HOAS, THEY'RE ALL FULL BECAUSE AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT IS DONE, THEY FILL THESE PONDS UP FOR AESTHETICS.
AND EVEN THOUGH TODAY THAT POND MAY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RUNOFF, A YEAR FROM NOW, OR TWO YEARS FROM IT MAY NOT ANYMORE, AND I KNOW THAT'S ON THEM.
SO WHAT I WAS HOPING WAS TO MAKE SURE AND IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE TODAY.
IT WOULD JUST TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE RUNOFF THAT WE'RE GETTING COMPLAINTS ABOUT DOWNSTREAM FROM THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION WHILE WE CAN BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF RUNOFF GOING THERE NOW.
SO IF THAT CAN GET ADDRESSED TO BE GREAT, AND THEN ALSO IF YOU TO BE PREPARED FOR THE ADDITIONAL 10% FROM ACROSS THE HIGHWAY.
>> WELL, I THINK HE SAID I'M NOT SURE THEY'RE INCREASING IT BY 10%.
I'M NOT SURE THAT'S WHAT HE SAID.
THE ORDINANCE BASICALLY SAYS THAT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO INCREASE THE DRAINAGE FROM WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY.
THAT'S WHY THEIR BIG DETENTION POND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FREEWAY WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT.
AND SO THEN YES, SOME OF IT DOES GO UNDERNEATH THE FREEWAY INTO HERE AND IT GOES DOWN THAT CREEK.
I THINK THE DRAINAGE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ON SHADY OAKS ITSELF IS PROBABLY LARGELY A RESULT THAT THE DRAINAGE THAT COMES ACROSS 114 HAS GOT NOTHING CONTROLLING IT.
WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING IS BUILDING A DETENTION POND, WHICH WILL BE ABLE TO GATHER THAT DRAINAGE AND THEN LET IT OUT IN A SLOW AREA.
SO OFTENTIMES DEVELOPMENT CAN REALLY HELP THE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS FROM THEIR EXISTING.
>> AND THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT MY POINT IS TO YOU, AND IT'S NOT TO BE RESTRICTIVE IN ANY WAY, IT'S TO CONSIDER THAT BECAUSE OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE CURRENTLY THERE A RETENTION POND IN THIS CASE, NOT DETENTION POND.
I'M ASSUMING IT'S A RETENTION POND.
>> WOULD BE A BIG BENEFIT TO THE DOWNSTREAM NEIGHBOR, SPECIFICALLY THE ONE WHO'S HAD THEIR DRIVEWAY, I THINK, KNOCKED OUT, AT LEAST ONCE ALREADY FROM THE CURRENT DRAINAGE THAT'S COMING FROM 114 THAT I SAW FROM THE BOX CULVERT.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S ADEQUATELY TAKEN CARE OF IT.
I'M SURE IT WILL BE. I JUST WANT TO TRY TO ITERATE THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE HAD.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR.
WE MAY HAVE SOME MORE FOR YOU LATER.
THIS IS A FIRST READING ON 7C AND 7D.
IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.
AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, WE HAD A COMMENT, AN E-MAIL FROM GREG KRAUS AT 596 GARDEN COURT IN SUPPORT OF 7C AND 7D, AND WE HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT FORM FROM ESTHER SPICLER, 1950 SHADY OAKS DRIVE.
STILL HERE. COME ON DOWN, WHO WILL SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ITEM 7C AND 7D.
THANK YOU FOR STAYING LATE WITH US.
>> IS IT MIDNIGHT YET. TODAY IS 47TH ANNIVERSARY, AND I'M HERE.
>> HAPPY ANNIVERSARY AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.
>> THANK YOU. 1950 SHADY OAKS DRIVE.
MY PROPERTY STARTS AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO END, AND I APPRECIATE YOU, MR. TAGGERT FOR POINTING OUT THAT I DO HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH WATER BECAUSE OF THE CULVERT THAT IS UNDER THE ROAD THAT POINTS RIGHT AT MY BRIDGE, AND IT'S BEEN RESTORED TWICE, ACTUALLY.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY SAY THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF IT AND THEY DON'T AND IT DOESN'T WORK OUT THE WAY THEY PLANNED WHAT HAPPENS THEN? IS THE CITY GOING TO COME BACK AND HELP ME OUT? THAT'S ALL I WAS SERIOUSLY CONCERNED ABOUT.
AS FAR AS THE BEING NOTIFIED, NO ONE IN GARDEN COURT THAT I KNOW OF WAS NOTIFIED BY MAIL.
I WAS NOT NOTIFIED BY MAIL AND I WASN'T NOTIFIED WHEN IT WENT TO P&Z, EITHER.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN, BUT NO ONE GOT A NOTIFICATION.
I TALKED TO RHONDA KRAUS AND SHE CONFIRMED THAT.
>> WE'LL DOUBLE CHECK ON THAT FOR SECOND READING, MAKE SURE THAT THE NOTICES GET WHERE THEY NEED TO GO.
>> I WOULD ALSO OBJECT TO VARIANCES LIKE 15 FT SIDE YARDS.
TALK ABOUT HAVING A SEA OF ROOFS OVER THERE.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT OTHER THAN THEY HAVE TOO MANY HOUSES.
WE HAVE LOW DENSITY ACROSS THE STREET.
THEY WERE INTERESTED IN MIRRORING THAT LOW DENSITY, BUT THEY'RE NOT DOING THAT.
[04:15:11]
I DO ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT ABOUT 1,700 SHADY OAKS, WHICH IS WHERE THAT FOX GLEN COMES DOWN IN THAT BRIDGE, THERE'S A SMALL BRIDGE THERE THAT AGAIN, THE CREEK GOES BACK AND FORTH.THAT WENT OUT TWICE IN TWO YEARS.
JUST A FEW MONTHS BACK, IT FAILED ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET, AND TWO YEARS AGO, IT FAILED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET.
I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE DATES, BUT THE CITY COULD TELL YOU THAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 7C OR 7D? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 7C AND 7D.
COUNCIL, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THOSE TWO ITEMS. WE'LL TAKE SEPARATE MOTIONS ON THEM, BUT ANY DISCUSSION ON THOSE TWO ITEMS?
>> DO WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE WALL? I KNOW YOU MENTIONED YOU'RE 50/50 ON THE WALL.
>> I MIGHT BE THE ONLY ONE THAT REALLY DOESN'T CARE FOR THE WALL OR CARE ABOUT IT.
>> I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF THE WALL, AND ALSO THE VEGETATION CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED, IT'S LIKE YOU REQUIRED A WALL TO PUT IN THAT REALLY NOT GOING TO BE SEEN VERY WELL, AND PERHAPS BY PUTTING IT IN, IT BECOMES SEEN VERY WELL.
BECAUSE YOU END UP KILLING VEGETATION ALONG THE WAY.
>> IF THE ISSUE IS MORE THAT THOSE RESIDENTS WILL WANT SOME FENCE THERE, SO NO ONE THAT WALKS THROUGH THE WOODS AND GETS INTO THEIR BACK YARDS, MAYBE NOT REALLY REALISTIC, BUT IF THAT'S THE ISSUE, WE COULD GO WITH AN IRON FENCE, WHICH I THINK WOULD BE LESS INVASIVE.
>> AN IRON FENCE SOLVES THE PROBLEM OF CREATING A PATHWAY WHERE THIS STONE WALL IS GOING TO HAVE TO ACTUALLY GO.
BECAUSE AN IRON FENCE, YOU CAN JUST GO IN AUGUR PERIODICALLY AND INSTALL IT.
I KNOW THAT IT IS NOT AS POPULAR, I THINK TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE HAD HEARD IN THE PAST, BUT THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF THAT PROBLEM.
>> MAYBE CURTIS FOR SOME HOMEWORK.
LET'S THINK ABOUT AN OPTION WITH AN IRON FENCE INSTEAD OF A MASONRY FENCE.
>> WELL, IF I REMEMBER, RIGHT, A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORS WHO TALKED ABOUT THAT, THEY WANTED A SOUND BARRIER.
THERE WAS A HEFTY DISCUSSION ABOUT A SOUND BARRIER, AND I THINK THAT VEGETATION PROBABLY ALREADY IS A PRETTY GOOD SOUND BARRIER.
>> YEAH. ALSO, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THESE HOMES ARE GOING TO HAVE THEIR OWN FENCING ANYWAY.
I WOULDN'T BUY ONE OF THESE LOTS THAT BACK UP TO 114 WITH ALL THE POTENTIAL CRITTERS AND SUCH WITHOUT HAVING MY OWN FENCE INSTALLED.
I AGREE. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT BUILDING THE WALL.
>> OR FOR THAT MATTER, ANY WALL TO THAT POINT, IF THE BACK YARDS ARE ALL GOING TO HAVE THEIR OWN FENCES.
>> I THOUGHT THE DISCUSSION WAS FOR THE WALL AS A NOISE BARRIER.
TO ME, THE MORE VEGETATION YOU HAVE, WE WERE ALSO LOOKING AT A VERY DIFFERENT VEGETATION AT THAT POINT.
NOW WE HAVE MORE VEGETATION, WHICH I THINK WOULD HOPEFULLY, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
SEEMS TO ME IT WOULD ABSORB SOUND BETTER.
>> YEAH, AND KEEP IN MIND, THE PEOPLE THAT WERE ASKING ABOUT THE WALL FOR A SOUND BARRIER, WERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SHADY OAKS.
ALL THOSE HOUSES WILL BE A SOUND BARRIER ALONG 114.
THAT'S GOING TO BLOCK A LOT MORE NOISE THAN AN EIGHT FOOT WALL IS GOING TO ACTUALLY BLOCK.
>> I FEEL LIKE TOO, I REMEMBER MAYBE IT WAS APPLICANT POINTING OUT FROM AN ELEVATION STANDPOINT, THE MAJORITY OF THE NOISE COMING OFF 114 IS GOING TO BE AT A HEIGHT FAR ABOVE THE HEIGHT OF THE WALL.
HOW MUCH USE DOES THE WALL HAVE TO?
>> WELL, IT'S DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT AREAS.
>> CURTIS, THE PROJECT THAT'S JUST NORTH OF HERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF DOVE THAT WE'RE COMPARING THOSE SETBACKS TO.
THAT'S AN IRON FENCE, ISN'T IT? OR ARE THEY JUST INDIVIDUAL LOT? DO YOU HAVE ANY CLUE?
>> NO. BUT THERE IS A WALL THERE.
THERE'S A COMMERCIAL BUILDING RIGHT UP THERE AT THE END OF THAT SIGN.
>> A COUPLE OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.
>> BUT BEHIND IT, THERE'S A TON OF GREENERY, AND I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A FENCE BEHIND THAT OR NOT.
>> WELL, THERE'S A WOOD SENSE FOR A LOT OF IT.
THE PURPOSE OF THE MASONRY WALL IS 100% SOUND.
IT WOULD ACT AS THE BACKYARD FENCE OF ALL THOSE LOTS ALONG THERE.
WE WOULDN'T BE BUILDING A SEPARATE FENCE ON THAT.
THE NEIGHBORS WANTED A WALL ALONG THERE TOO.
THEY FELT THAT THAT WOULD HELP WITH THE SOUND, BUT THE HOUSES WOULD TOO, BLOCK A LITTLE OF THAT, BUT VEGETATION DOESN'T BLOCK MUCH SOUND.
FOR THE BACK YARDS OF THOSE HOMES, THE THOUGHT WAS THAT THEY WOULD ALL WANT A MASONRY WALL THERE
[04:20:04]
TO HAVE THEIR BACK YARDS QUIETER.>> THEN LET'S PUT IN THE WALL.
>> FALL ON MY SWORD ABOUT THAT, BUT I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
>> I THINK IN REALITY, WALLS REALLY AREN'T THAT EFFECTIVE SOUND.
>> THEY'RE A LOT MORE EFFECTIVE THAN VEGETATION.
>> WHAT ABOUT WOOD FENCES? I WOULD ASSUME WOOD FENCES ARE BETTER THAN NOTHING.
>> THEY'RE BETTER THAN WROUGHT IRON, BUT NOT AS GOOD AS MASONRY.
>> YEAH. IS WOOD A COMPROMISE? BECAUSE I'M SAYING, IF I WERE ON THOSE, I WOULD WANT SOME SOLID FENCE.
I DON'T WANT A WROUGHT IRON FENCE BACKING UP TO ONE.
>> OF COURSE YOU'RE AGREEABLE TO A WALL, THAT'S WHAT YOU CAME WITH.
>> YOU'RE AGREEABLE TO A WALL. THAT'S WHAT YOU CAME WITH.
>> I THINK MASONRY LOOKS BETTER.
>> HOW WOULD YOU MASONRY FIT A WALL.
>> I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE FAR ENOUGH BACK.
I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO KILL ENOUGH VEGETATION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE WALL THROUGH THERE.
I THINK THAT THEY'LL CONSTRUCT THIS WALL, I ASSUME, FROM THE INSIDE OUT.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PLOW THROUGH THE VEGETATION TO CONSTRUCT THE WALL.
>> BUT THAT WAS MY POINT BEFORE LAST TIME WAS WITH REGARDS TO IF YOU'RE GOING TO ACCESS PORTIONS OF THE WALL FROM THE LOTS.
THEY GOT TO GO THROUGH TREES TO GET TO EACH OF THOSE SECTIONS OF THE WALL AS WELL.
>> THEY WERE DOING 25 FOOT, NOW THEY'RE 50 AND 100 FOOT OR SOMETHING.
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO KEEP THE TREE PRESERVATION OF UP 30% IS ALL. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO.
>> LET'S SEND IT THROUGH. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE FENCE AND THE WALL MORE NEXT TIME, BUT WE'LL TALK ABOUT THOSE OPTIONS.
>> BECAUSE THE NEW ZONING GOT DENIED.
>> I LIKE THAT THEY CHANGED THE BUFFER, AND I LIKE THE GATE THAT'S CONTROLLING THE TRAFFIC.
I DO TO MRS. SPICLER COMMENT IS THAT NOW, LOTS FACING THE PROPERTIES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SHADY OAKS.
MY THOUGHT IS, IS THERE A POSSIBILITY WE COULD DO AT A MINIMUM, A STEP DOWN TO THE 30,000 SQUARE FEET ON THOSE LOTS IF WE CAN'T DO ACRES.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE. YOU'VE GOT 36 AND 28 AND 28 AND 34 AND 27 VERSUS 20.
[BACKGROUND] ARE THERE AVERAGE 30, I THINK, THOUGH.
YOU WANT IT TO BE 30 MINIMUM? I'M OKAY WITH AVERAGE 30. THAT'S JUST ME.
>> I'D LIKE TO SEE 30 MINIMUM MYSELF, BUT ALSO IF WE DO END UP WITH A STONE WALL, I'D LIKE TO SEE US TRY TO ASK FOR 33% TREE RETENTION JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HIT THAT NUMBER BECAUSE WE WILL LOSE TREES ALONG THERE.
>> I RECALL WE DID TALK ABOUT THE 33% WAY BACK WHEN.
RANDY, YOU HAVE LIKE 6.5 MINUTES TO GET US OUT OF HERE BEFORE MIDNIGHT.
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 7C ORDINANCE NUMBER 1269-F CP 25-0003, FIRST READING AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE CONSOLIDATED FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, AN ELEMENT OF THE SOUTHLAKE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR 18 35 SHADY OAKS ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED ATTRACT 1A01B, JAMES J WEST SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 1620, CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TARRANT COUNT, TEXAS, AND LOCATED 1835 SHADY OAKS DRIVE.
SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 29TH, 2025, WE'RE APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE CONSOLIDATED FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FROM OFFICE COMMERCIAL WITH AN OPTIONAL MULTI TENANT TENANT OFFICE OVERLAY TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION ON 7C. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> MAYOR, COUNCIL, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 7D.
ORDER IS NUMBER 480-83 925-0057, FIRST READING ZONING CHANGE IN CONCEPT PLAN FOR 1835 SHADY OAKS.
[04:25:01]
I PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS TRACT 1A01B.JAMES J WEST SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 1620, CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS, AND LOCATED 1835 SHADY OAKS DRIVE.
SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 2025, AND THE CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER 3, DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 2025.
NOTING THAT WE'RE APPROVING A ZONING CHANGE IN CONCEPT PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 21 ACRE DEVELOPMENT WITH 27 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, CHANGING ZONING FROM AG TO SF 20 A, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AS PRESENTED.
NOTING THAT WE'RE APPROVING THE REQUESTED SIDE YARD SETBACK REDUCTIONS ADJACENT TO A STREET FOR CORNER LOTS WITH A MINIMUM SETBACK OF 15 FEET ALONG THE SIDE STREET ON CORNER LOTS, EXCEPT FOR LOT THREE.
WE SHALL HAVE A 25 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK.
ALSO APPROVING THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS ON THE CUL DE SAC LOT SHALL BE THE REQUIRED 35 FT MINIMUM, BUT MAY BE GREATER TO ACHIEVE A 100 FOOT LOT WIDTH MEASURED ALONG THE BUILDING LINE AS SHOWN.
THE STREETS AND SIDE REAR LOT LINES SHALL GENERALLY BE CONFIGURED AS SHOWN ON THE CONCEPT PLAN, ALLOWING FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY TO SAVE SPECIFIC TREES, BUT SHALL MEET THE MINIMUM DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS.
ALSO THAT APPROVING THAT THE ACCESS TO AND FROM STATE HIGHWAY 114 SHALL BE GATED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND ALL EMERGENCY SERVICE VEHICLES.
A PRIVATE STREET LOT HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR SUCH USE.
THIS LOT AND THE PAVING WALLS AND GATES ASSOCIATED WITH IT SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOA.
FINALLY, THAT THE CUL DE SAC SHALL BE THE STANDARD 100 FOOT DIAMETER PAVING FROM BACK OF THE CURB TO BACK OF THE CURB AND A 110 FOOT DIAMETER STREET RIGHT OF WAY, WHERE THE WHERE THE MINIMUM IS TYPICALLY 120 FEET WHERE THE PERIMETER FIVE FOOT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT.
NOTING THAT THIS APPLICATION, WE WOULD BE REQUIRING A 33% TREE RETENTION AND NOTING THE APPLICANTS WILLINGNESS TO COME TO SECOND READING WITH POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE FENCING OPTIONS TO CONSIDER.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION ON 7D. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
THAT MOTION CARRIES 5-2, AND WE'LL SEE YOU FOR SECOND READING ON 7C AND 7D.
THAT'S OUR LAST ITEM. MEETING ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.