Item 6E - SPIN Meeting Report CITY OF
SOUTHLAK..-E
SPIN MEETING REPORT
SPIN Item Number: SPIN2026-04
City Case Number: ZA26-0040
Project Name: 4000 N. White Chapel Boulevard
SPIN Neighborhood: 1
Meeting Date: May 12, 2026
Meeting Location: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX
City Council Chambers
Total Attendance: 11
Hosts: Ryan Firestone
Applicant Presenting: Frank Viola
City Staff Present: Ryan Firestone (Assistant to the Director, Planning and
Development Services)
FORUM SUMMARY:
Property Situation: 4000 N. White Chapel Boulevard
Development Details:
• Proposing an 8-lot gated single-family residential subdivision.
Presentation:
Bridlegate
W"� _11111,
13RIDGE4c.l4TE
au�io��uc oua cvTursE roc ETia Ica. ,�
�� I
y A
LUXURY EQUESTRIAN HOA AESTHETICS 7+ACRE LOTS LANDSCAPING WATER FEATURES
INDEX 2
07 OVERVIEW
02 DESIGN
03 CONCEPT PLAN
04 WATER / SEWER
05 DRAINAGE
06 QUESTIONS
07
LOCATION
100
Bri
Y l
I
� - � SJ SADOLe BAC esrnTes y '
• • I Front Design
�r
� xA
Estate Lots N White Chapel
LOT1�
'�K 1ACRE LOT2
Y 1 ACRE
a -�� - r COVERED PATIO
�.1p��� OFF FRONT OF HOUSE
4•l1 „ i�t-lye ,. f{. a r FOR LIKE VIEWING
STMIGH AY .
•MA%IMU ACY �E� F
i �•
•ENHANCED EWS �` '
•CLFAN,EIEGn T �
ENTRY >`.'� STRAIGHT DRIVEWAY
Y� f' •MAXIMUM PRIVACY
't�� ENHANCED VIEWS
�J ` •CLEAN,ELEGANT
�., ,��'. • ENTRY
Y •FLAT,USABLE LOTS
' w10E DR vew •MINIMAL TREES
� FOR EASY ACCESS � • f CLEAN,OPEN VIEWS
"':S V„�-,_ � •PONDS ADD BEAUTY&VALUE
Elevations
El
BEE
x p E i Pry
t
EEO � G
R
�ij
--------------------------
VAN,
----------------
- --- -- ---------------------------
--------------------------------------
•
I II
II
II
N�l
WINE
------ -----------------
--- -----------
---------------------
. .. ... .
_ � t
� l
!� HIRE
0-
6
L
3
.q_r
•
12
4E
TREE SUMMARY
E,
F
TOTAL SITE COVERAGE
PRESERVA-ON VS REMOVAL
PLED TO BE REMOVED TREE SUMMAP
VED
I)VED
QUESTIONS? 13
arf-
A
V1 i
eL g \
Comments, Questions, and Concerns:
Q: So, you are going to come off of W. Bob Jones Rd.?
A: Yes, we are going to come off of W. Bob Jones Road. We are trying to stay away from the
main corridor areas. White Chapel is a main corridor and that is why we chose the main entry to
come off of Bob Jones and across the street from Saddleback.
Q: So, your entrance is almost directly across from Saddleback?
A: It is. It actually has to line up with the right of way.
Q: Is there a reason why it has to be gated? I know Saddleback is gated, but it feels like you are
trying to hide behind a gate and up there we like to be neighbors.
A: Everyone loves the feel of a gated entry. I can't give all of the houses a gated entry, so we
are just making one gate for 5 houses. Ideally, we have not the best area as you go all the way
down Bob Jones and you have those mobile homes. Some of those people have been creeping
into there and we are noticing random traffic coming through. We are trying to maintain value
since this is not Carroll ISD, this is going to be open enrollment. Also, competing with
Saddleback prices across the street for their lot value. So, we are trying to keep the same lot
value as they are having success in their development.
Q: If it is gated, are you going to be fencing the property?
A: If it is gated we would do an open concept with pillars and iron rod fences.
Q: So, will it be similar to the Saddleback to where animals can get through or is it going to be
rod iron where they will be blocked.
A: No, it will be vertical not horizontal (fencing).
SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives.The report is neither
verbatim nor official meeting minutes;rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials,City staff,and the public of the issues
and questions raised by residents and the general responses made. Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken
as guarantees by the applicant. Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow the case through the Planning and Zoning
Commission and final action by City Council.
SPIN Meeting5/12/2026
Proposed Development: 4000 N White Chapel Blvd,SPIN 1
1 am the landowner most affected by this development as my property runs the entire
Length of the W side of their proposed development. Like anyone,I would prefer homes not
to be built up to my property line. However, I believe owners should have the rightto
develop their own land as they choose if they abide by City code and ordinances. I have
talked to the Developers,and their proposal appeared tome to be a strong effort to be as
least obtrusive as possible,and I have no objections at this time. However,verbally there
were a couple commitments that I would like to have on record. First,prior to the current
Developer's ownership,their property had two occasions of dirt work and elevation Lift
primarily along my E property line,work that was done without any permits. The last of this
work changed drainage direction in the NW corner of their property causingthe NE corner
of my property to flood during heavy rains and debris and invasive weeds to flow into my
pond. The Developers stated they would have a drainage plan to address this,part of
which included a pond in their NW corner. Second,the Developers said there would be no
significant elevation lifts,particularly along my E property line and that lots would be
developed by more of cut uphill and fill downhill. Of particular concern was the SW corner
of their property where they stated this would be kept mostly at grade. This would also
Likely be a concern for the Clariden Ranch property owners. With these understandings,I
have no objections and support their proposed development plan.
Dan Emmer
345 W Bob Jones Rd
Southlake,TX 76092
danemmer@att.net
(972)571-6525
Southlake Connect Results for May 12, 2026, SPIN Town Hall Forum
511326,9:48 AM Everbridge-Reports
ortlridge Sus a City of Southlake-Citizen Alert(Orgenastion Admin)
Nken
Dashboard Universe Notifications Incidents Contacts Reports Settings Access
Reports>Detailed Notification Analysis>SPIN Town Hall Forum-May 12th B
Detailed Notification Analysis
SPIN Town Hall Forum-May 12th
DETAILS
19 245(1.95%)Attempted-
Notification ID 2482630146658880 !� Confirmed
Notlficetlon 8856(70.34%)Attempted
Mode Live -Not Confirmed
41 Notification Standard
(2.56%)Attempted-
T Standard Not Connected
ype 2959(23.50%)Not
Start Date May 5,2026 Attempted
Start Time 10:57:59 CDT 209(1.66%)Other
Confirmation Yes Hide Details
Requested
Call Throttling Yes Cell Results(per Delivery Path) Total %of Total
Duration 6 hour(s)
Message VOice/Text
Formal
Voicemall Message Only Confirmed 245 1.95%
Preference
Delivery Order Orgen¢ation Default
Delivery Methods
Organization Contacts
1.Primary SMS Delivered 92 0.73%
2.SecondarySMS
3'Primary Email
4.Primary Mobile Delivered-To Voicem ail 1826 14.50%
5.Seoondary Email
6.Secondary Mobile
7.Home Phone Not Delivered-No Answer 120 0.95%
8.Home Phone 9F2
9.Business Phone
10.TTY/1TD Device Delivered-To Handset 3028 24.05%
11.Everbridge Mobile Ap
Resident Connection
1.VOIP Not Delivered-Voicemail Hung 227 1.80%
2.1-andline Up
Not Delivered-Recipient Hung Up 298 2.37%
Sent 3265 25.93%
Attempted-Not Connected
Not Delivered-Invalid Number 59 0.47%
Not Delivered-Out of Service 111 0.88%
Not Delivered-Carrier Expired 19 0.15%
Not Delivered-Downstream 122 0 97%
Communication Error
https:flman ager.everbri dge.n et/reports/notification/View2482630146658880 112
5113/26,9:48 AM Everbridge-Reports
Call Results(per Delivery Path) Total 96 of Total
Not Delivered-Carrier Rejected 3 0.02%
Not Delivered-Line Busy 8 0.06%
Not Attempted-Inactive Path 274 2.10%
Not Attempted-Unsubscrlbed 1868 14.84%
Not Delivered-Contact Path Not 8 0.06%
Defined
Not Delivered-Duplicate Path 809 6.43%
Not Attempted-Bounced Email 154 1,22%
Not Delivered-Bounced Email 9 0.07%
Not Delivered-Contact 46 0.37%
Unavailable
Attempts Over Time
7.5 k
Ek
2.5 k
0
Show Details
"eVefbfld9e-
Prly Y Pollcx Terms of Use I 02026 Everbridge,Inc.
26.3.1.12-6a8c547-2026-0"7-22:10 FE-VERSION 0 ebsinenager-portaF6845c5bd-z2p4
https:flman ager.everbri dge.n et/reports/notification/view/2482630146658880 212