Item 15 - 2035 Corridor Committee Meeting Report - Ridgecrest Addition
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Meeting Report
Meeting 32 – June 2, 2021
MEETING
LOCATION: 1400 Main St., Southlake, Texas 76092
City Council Chambers
IN
ATTENDANCE:
• City Council Members: Chad Patton, Shawn McCaskill, Amy Torres-Lepp,
Kathy Talley, Randy Robbins
• Planning & Zoning Commission Members: Daniel Kubiak, Gina Phalen,
Michael Springer
• Park Board Member: Frances Scharli
• City Staff: Ken Baker, Dennis Killough, Madeline Oujesky
AGENDA
ITEMS:
1. Call to Order.
2. Administrative Comments.
3. Review, discuss and make recommendations on the Ferguson Place
development proposing 2 single family residential lots on approximately 1
acre located at 2589 and 2593 Lonesome Dove Avenue.
4. Review, discuss and make recommendations on Ridgecrest Addition
proposing 9 single family residential lots on approximately 9.87 acres
located at 2645, 2725, 2735 and 2745 Ridgecrest Drive .
5. Review, discuss and make recommendations on 603 N. Kimball Avenue
development proposing 6 single family residential lots on approximately
3.75 acres located at 603 N. Kimball Avenue.
6. Review, discuss and make recommendations on the proposed Greenway-
Kimball Crossing development of two (2) flex office buildings on
approximately 8 acres located at 2175 and 2185 E. Southlake Boulevard,
generally located south of E. Southlake Boulevard, west of S. Kimball
Avenue and north of S. Village Center Drive.
7. Review, discuss and make recommendations on the proposed
development of residential single family townhomes on the Shivers -Utley
tract being approximately 22 acres located at 1835 Shady Oaks Drive,
generally located along the west side of W. State Highway 114, 1200 feet
south of W. Dove Road.
8. Adjournment.
MEETING
OVERVIEW:
On June 2, 2021 the Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee held
their thirty-second meeting. The Committee was sent a packet of
materials prior to the meeting that were to be discussed during the
session. A meeting agenda was posted, and the meeting time was
advertised on the City’s website. The following meeting report focuses on
discussion points made during the meeting by members of the
Committee, public and City staff. This report is neither verbatim nor does
it represent official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and
appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions
raised by the Committee, City staff, and any attendees of the meeting .
Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow development cases
through the process. Please visit CityofSouthlake.com/Planning for more
information.
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – Ridgecrest Addition
Meeting #32 – June 2, 2021 Page 3
ITEM #4 DISCUSSION – Review, discuss and make recommendations on
Ridgecrest Addition proposing 9 single family residential lots on approximately
9.87 acres located at 2645, 2725, 2735 and 2745 Ridgecrest Drive.
Staff presentation: Dennis Killough
• Future Land Use: Low Density Residential
• Zoning: AG
• Proposed concept plan – 9 single-family residential lots on approx. 9.87 acres
o Some lots will front on the cul-du-sac that will be constructed off
Ridgecrest
o Lot 8 will have side access off the privately maintained drive.
o Lot 9 will have access off the privately maintained drive as well.
• Along a private access drive – practically maintained. This has not been
approved by city street standards nor is it accepted by the City.
Questions for staff by the Committee:
Frances Scharli: For Lot 2, where is the access to it?
Dennis Killough: Lot 2 fronts off Ridgecrest, not the cul-du-sac.
Gina Phalen: Privately maintained road?
Dennis Killough: Yes, access off the privately maintained access
Kathy Talley: Road would need to be adjusted; I see this as a huge issue. Barely over
a one-lane road. Probably not built to City standards for Fire and safety. Does the City
not maintain this?
Dennis Killough: As the properties developed around it prior to the City having
annexed it or regulated its subdivision, it was constructed to provide access to the lots
or tracts that would divide the roadway.
Applicant presentation: Kosse Maykus
• Requesting SF-1A zoning
• Development according to land use plan
Questions for applicant by the Committee:
Kathy Talley: Concerns about roadway in general. The City is not maintaining it. I see
some challenges with it if its not brought up to standards.
Applicant: I understand your concerns. There are already 5 other homes using it. Any
costs or burdens should be shared with more than this neighborhood.
Ken Baker: Lot 9 will have street frontage variance, and as part of that we will have
public safety evaluate the access easement.
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – Ridgecrest Addition
Meeting #32 – June 2, 2021 Page 4
Chad Patton: So, that applicant is asking for straight SF-1A and it defaults the
standards expect for Lot 9 (which will have a potential variance).
Applicant: All the homes will be fire sprinkled (suppression).
Kathy Talley: What is the net acreage per lot? No park space or open space required?
Chad Patton: No, this is a SF-1A case that meets the standards. Not much to look at
besides the variance and access for potential lots. Since this is not a zoning request, we
cannot ask for open space.
Amy Torres-Lepp: Isn’t the existing zoning AG?
Applicant: Yes.
Amy Torres-Lepp: So, he is asking for a zoning change?
Chad Patton: Yes, but it meets all the SF-1A requirements.
Applicant: We consciously didn’t come in with a proposal that didn’t exactly meet all
SF-1A requirements. It is 1-acre lots on AG property that identifies as low density
residential.
Randy Robbins: Do you lose a lot if you come in top or bottom and pull the cul-du-sac
down so that you have nine lots as opposed to six lots in the neighborhood and three on
the outskirts?
Applicant: To categorize, this is not a neighborhood. This is blending into an existing
neighborhood with many lots. There are already homes fronting the road up to the
north. We have the cul-du-sac and lots 2 and 1 already exist right now.
Randy Robbins: So, the house on lot 1 is remaining?
Applicant: No, it will be torn down.
Randy Robbins: If six houses front off the cul-du-sac and three that are not part of it,
what are you losing if you move the road up and all nine lots are contiguous to the city
road. By doing this you remove the variance and bring in the outliers.
Applicant: I did not even contemplate it that way, because there are already five homes
using this road.
Shawn McCaskill: Council likes having options. Might include an R-PUD option that
includes the comments heard tonight.
Applicant: Under R-PUD, what would you like to see different?
Shawn McCaskill: I've heard concerns about lot 9 with private access. Lot 8, 9, and 2
not being part of the neighborhood. Maybe buffers along Ridgecrest to make it self-
contained.
Applicant: So, right now we have 4 lots running along Ridgecrest. Is that problematic?
Kathy Talley: If you take out one lot you could configure this better. Visually, I just can't
see this. This is not entirely a neighborhood.
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – Ridgecrest Addition
Meeting #32 – June 2, 2021 Page 5
Daniel Kubiak: Fencing along Ridgecrest, preferably wrought iron and pushed back, for
the lots that front the street.
Applicant: So, you would rather not have fronting and place a wall of iron and isolate
them?
Daniel Kubiak: If they are fronting Ridgecrest. Allow some stacking, more of a logistical
and aesthetic comment. Something to think about.
STAFF PRESENTATION SHOWN TO COMMITTEE:
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – Ridgecrest Addition
Meeting #32 – June 2, 2021 Page 6
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – Ridgecrest Addition
Meeting #32 – June 2, 2021 Page 7
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – Ridgecrest Addition
Meeting #32 – June 2, 2021 Page 8
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – Ridgecrest Addition
Meeting #32 – June 2, 2021 Page 9
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – Ridgecrest Addition
Meeting #32 – June 2, 2021 Page 10