Loading...
Item 7A - Corridor Committee Meeting Report Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Meeting Report Meeting 58 – May 18, 2026 MEETING LOCATION: 1400 Main St., Southlake, Texas 76092 City Council Chambers IN ATTENDANCE: • City Council Members: Randy Robbins, Frances Scharli • Planning & Zoning Commission Members: Daniel Kubiak, Michael Springer, David Cunnigham • City Staff: Dennis Killough, Jenny Crosby, Avery Price, Ryan Firestone AGENDA ITEMS: 1. Call to Order. 2. Administrative Comments. 3. Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed pavement expansion, increased open storage, and off-street parking for tenants on property located at 1100 S. Kimball Avenue. 4. Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed 18,939 SF retail and restaurant building on property located at 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. 5. Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding proposed storm shelters for Novus Academy on property located at 2250 E. Continental Boulevard. 6. Adjournment. MEETING OVERVIEW: On May 18, 2026, the Southlake Corridor Planning Committee held their 58th 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 Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. Meeting #58 – May 18, 2026 Page 3 ITEM #4 DISCUSSION – Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed 18,939 SF retail and restaurant building on property located at 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. Staff presentation: Ryan Firestone • Future Land Use: Retail Commercial and Office Commercial with a 100-Year Flood Plain overlay • Zoning: S-P-2 • Summary: The applicant is proposing a 3.68-acre retail development that contains an 18,939 SF building and associated parking. The proposed use of this facility will be a mixed-use retail/restaurant building. Questions for Staff and Applicant Daniel Kubiak: Do you mind going back to the previously approved plan? Thank you. So that one had access from Southlake Boulevard, but did not have access to River Oaks. Is that right? Ryan Firestone: To which one? Sorry. Daniel Kubiak: To River Oaks, which I guess is what's being contemplated here. Ryan Firestone: That is correct. Correct me if I'm wrong, Dennis. Dennis Killough: That is correct. However, when River Oaks came through—and I think the plan they have reflects it—a common access has been extended to the boundary of this property that the revised proposal they have would make use of. Daniel Kubiak: Okay. No, perfect. That was my only question. Michael Springer: What's the parking count on the site, and how does that fit if this is going to have restaurants in it? Ryan Firestone: They didn't provide any site data summary, so I would defer to the applicant on that. They just gave me the site plan. Daniel Kubiak: Okay, we'll ask the applicant. Any other questions for staff? All right, we're good. Is the applicant here? Mind stating your name and address for the record. You heard some of the questioning, so feel free to comment on that. Clay Cristy: Absolutely. Clay Cristy, Claymore Engineering, 3231 Harwood Road in Bedford. Appreciate your time. I'll go through this to hit the restaurant stuff. We know Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. Meeting #58 – May 18, 2026 Page 4 we'll have to hit 1 per 100 square feet with our parking calculation. We're in the process right now of vetting out the leasable square footage of that to see what's realistic regarding what we might be able to get there. Honestly, the primary portion of this building is going to be retail uses. We're including the restaurant in our site plan, but understanding that whenever that goes forward, we'll have to provide the 1 per 100 parking, which is a little bit more intense than what we have. We did reduce it down—I think there was about 21,000 square feet across three separate buildings originally. We've consolidated that into one smaller building to provide flexibility on those retail sizes, in case a larger tenant wants to come in. Staff already went over the site plan. We have a pretty large constraint with the drainage channel and the floodplain that drains through our site. We are conducting a flood study to work through that from a drainage standpoint and confirm the details. There's a little bit of discrepancy between the elevations and the original flood study, but we're updating all of that to make sure it's right. As we mentioned, we're just short of 19,000 square feet on a 3.68-acre site. As the site sits here, a common access easement was dedicated to the west of us previously. We're working to connect that back in. It'll benefit both properties by giving us a second point of access for fire, emergency, and entry/exit. There is an existing driveway on Southlake Boulevard. We're going to have to work through TxDOT in order to get that approved and put in, but that's legitimately the only place you could put driveway access onto there. Daniel Kubiak: Looking at this and trying to think ahead, a lot of your traffic is going to come from the east. They're going to come in, eat, and try to go back to the east. It looks like where this access point is, in order to U-turn, they would literally have to cut across three lanes to get right over to the turn lane to hop a U-turn, which we all know they're going to do. They're going to play chicken going across traffic. If they're going to do that, would you not be better off trying to push it a little bit more to the east to give them more room? If you go back to the one where you showed the island here—if you push that back a little to the east, at least that gives people more time to get in that left turn lane versus charging right across. Ideally, you'd love for it to just be off River Oaks, but I get it, you want a second entry point. Is there a better way to do it? Clay Cristy: A single point of entry off of River Oaks is going to be tough for anything to be successful. Daniel Kubiak: I get it. But we want to design something that isn't going to lead to wrecks. Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. Meeting #58 – May 18, 2026 Page 5 Clay Cristy: Correct, and we'll have to work it out with TxDOT as we go. The only permittable driveway permitted when they redid 1709 is a small driveway that has been constructed on that far western side. Daniel Kubiak: Dennis, you're the expert on this, but in an ideal world, wouldn't you put the access farther east rather than farther west? Dennis Killough: I would agree with that. I don't know if TxDOT would agree; I'm sure it would require an exception because of the distance to where Stonebridge Drive is. They would also likely have to put that drive on the west side of the floodplain next to it. But I agree that would be better placement than being that close to the end of that stacking lane for the left turn, because it's human nature to try to get across those three lanes. Daniel Kubiak: Yeah, I just struggle with that access point. Clay Cristy: The other component is that we're trying to get in front of TxDOT to see if they're going to require a turn lane. If they make us do a right-hand turn lane into there, looking back at the site plan, it's going to make it tougher because the only location you could really put a driveway and a turn lane before you get to the bridge structure is where we have it shown. I totally agree with you on it. We can try to look at it and work on it. It might be difficult from a site plan standpoint if we move that to the east, because then how do you avoid dead-end parking there? If you have the drive on the west side, and then you've got to make that 30-foot radius to turn back into the River Oaks Drive we have shown here, you're going to eat up a lot of the land. That prevents having the building further to the east where we have the fire lane right over there, mitigating some of the floodplain constraints. It's going to be a challenge, to be honest, but I can happily relay that feedback and follow back up with TxDOT. We had some initial conversations with them and they really didn't want to allow any access to the road—that's just their stance on almost anything right now. We showed them a concept plan and they told us to get more information, get it further developed, and bring it back. We can bring that up with the team and see what we might be able to do. Daniel Kubiak: If you had just a "right-in" and not a "right-out," you would say that's the end of the world, right? Because that would solve it. Clay Cristy: I would probably have to converse with our client on that. Daniel Kubiak: There's no perfect solution, as you're saying, but you can just see it coming a mile away. Clay Cristy: I don't disagree. I'm thinking on the stand here—if you put a little median in the middle there to bullnose it to prevent them from making that left turn or getting over Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. Meeting #58 – May 18, 2026 Page 6 those three lanes, that might help. When they make that right turn to get back out on Southlake Boulevard, it could discourage them from trying to take those three lanes and make that U-turn. I'd have to look at the geometry, but maybe we could do something there to discourage people from driving across traffic. The point is noted and valid. I can take that to our group, present some kind of solution, and follow up with TxDOT to get more in writing regarding their desires. Daniel Kubiak: We're not necessarily trying to come up with an ironclad solution in this meeting, more just to identify stress points. I'd say that's one for me. Clay Cristy: Absolutely. Frances Scharli: Can we go back in time on the slides? You're taking out a lot of trees there, right? Clay Cristy: I've got a tree preservation plan here that'll show you what we're taking out. We're keeping the majority of all the trees in the back and in the floodplain. There are a couple of old trees along the tree line on that western side. The majority of those will have to be removed for the roadway connection for the fire lane, but I have an exhibit to show that. Frances Scharli: That will definitely be something that's asked. Is any of this building in the floodplain then? Clay Cristy: No, ma'am. The building is not within the floodplain; everything is located outside of it. The whole back half of the site that we're not utilizing contains the floodplain. You can see here where we're keeping a considerable amount of trees. We have a few to take out due to that fire lane connection, and there are two in the southern side of the site that I don't think are going to survive if we build our driveway. There's a pretty large topographical challenge matching where they built the fire lane for the office buildings that goes in between the two. We've got to bring our site up quite a bit to match those grades in that back corner. We are going to be raising our site, but the building, the fire lane, and everything on that far northern side should be located outside of the floodplain. Michael Springer: So I wanted to clarify, you said the fire lane would be out of the floodplain. Clay Cristy: That's what we're working on right now. It's shown a little bit differently on the old study, which is why we've gone in and done a complete analysis of the existing channel, the floodplain, the developed conditions, and everything else to clarify it. It looks like there's a little bit of a mapping error that we're going to work with staff to get updated and corrected. Yes, sir. Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. Meeting #58 – May 18, 2026 Page 7 Regarding tree preservation, I don't remember the exact percentages because I kept this simple for the meeting, but I do think we're going to meet the code requirements for site tree preservation. Frances Scharli: Any tenants in mind? Clay Cristy: Not currently. I know they have a couple who are interested. Huntington is the development company that does this; we probably have 15 retail developments with them across the Metroplex area. The typical MO working with them is that they have interested tenants, but before those tenants sign a Letter of Intent (LOI), they want to ensure entitlements are in place. In order to get that, we'll probably have to get the SP1 approved, and then we can start moving forward with signing tenants. These are just black-and-white elevations, but here is a rendering of what they're anticipating. I see all the signage the architect put on there—take that with a grain of salt because we know they're not going to be able to sign it like that here in Southlake. They did it for visual purposes. Daniel Kubiak: Why do you say it like that? Who are you looking at when you say it like that? Clay Cristy: I live here, I know. Daniel Kubiak: I'm not against it. This isn't a sign board meeting. Is there anything else you need feedback from us on? Clay Cristy: Unless there was something on the elevations that you all saw, that was really all I had. Access is one of the main issues, along with trees, sidewalks, and TxDOT. Daniel Kubiak: Okay. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. Clay Cristy: Thank you. Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. Meeting #58 – May 18, 2026 Page 8 Staff Presentation 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. Item 4 River Oaks Stonebridge Park Addition Parker ’s Corner Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. Meeting #58 – May 18, 2026 Page 9 Future Land Use 100-Year Flood Plain Retail Commercial Office Commercial Zoning C2 S-P-2 C3S-P-1 Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. Meeting #58 – May 18, 2026 Page 10 Street View from W. Southlake Blvd. (Facing North) Street View from Stonebridge Ln. (Facing West ) Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. Meeting #58 – May 18, 2026 Page 11 Amended Plat (ZA09-035) Previous Concept Plan (ZA04-047) Lot 6RStonebridge Park Site Plan The Carlyle at Stonebridge Park Proposed Site Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. Meeting #58 – May 18, 2026 Page 12 Proposed Site Plan Summary Summary of Proposal: The applicant is proposing a 3.68-acre retail development that contains an 18,939 SF building and associated parking.The proposed use of this facility will be a mixed-use retail/restaurant building. Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. Meeting #58 – May 18, 2026 Page 13 Applicant Presentation Questions? Applicant Presentation Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. Meeting #58 – May 18, 2026 Page 14 Hunington SouthlakeMay 18th, 2026 Presented by:Clay CristyClaymoore Engineering(817) 458-8997clay@claymooreeng.com Site Location 2350 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD. SITE SITE Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. Meeting #58 – May 18, 2026 Page 15 Narrative: -Rezone to SP-1 for Retail/Rest uses. -18,939 SF Retail/Rest. -3.68+/-Acres SITE PLAN Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. Meeting #58 – May 18, 2026 Page 16 LANDSCAPE PLAN TREE PRESERVATION PLAN Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. Meeting #58 – May 18, 2026 Page 17 ELEVATIONS ACHITECTURAL RENDERING Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. Meeting #58 – May 18, 2026 Page 18 Questions? THANK YOU VERY MUCH