The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 7A - Staff ReportCase No. ZA26-0041 Department of Planning & Development Services S T A F F R E P O R T August 10, 2026 CASE NO: ZA26-0041 PROJECT: Zoning Change and Site Plan for Hunington Southlake EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Clay Cristy, ClayMoore Engineering, on behalf of Karim and Anila Maghani, ANKINZ LLC, is requesting approval of a Zoning Change and Site Plan for Hunington Southlake, on property described as Lots 6R and 1, Block 1, Stonebridge Park Addition and located at 2350 and 2340 W. Southlake Boulevard. Current Zoning: “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District. Requested Zoning: “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #11. DETAILS: The purpose of this request is to seek approval of a Zoning Change and Site Plan approval to add “C-3” General Commercial District uses to Lot 6R. The existing “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District allows “C-2” Local Retail Commercial District uses on Lots 1 and 6R. The applicant is also requesting to add “Used Merchandise Sales and Collection Center” as a permitted use on Lot 6R. This use was added to the request following Planning and Zoning Commission consideration. In addition, the proposed S-P-2 zoning regulations would allow accent trees in lieu of the required canopy trees within the southern bufferyard along W. Southlake Boulevard. The proposed building consists of approximately 18,939 square feet and is intended to accommodate a mix of retail and restaurant uses. This application includes both 2350 and 2340 W. Southlake Boulevard because the properties comprise the remaining lots within the original S-P-2 district boundary. However, no changes are proposed to 2340 W. Southlake Boulevard (Lot 1). The requested additional uses and the proposed Site Plan apply only to 2350 W. Southlake Boulevard (Lot 6R). Site Data Summary Existing Zoning “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District with “C-2” uses. Proposed Zoning “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District with “C-3”uses, to include “Used Merchandise Sales and Collection Center” Land Use Designation Retail Commercial, Office Commercial, 100-Year Flood Plain Gross/Net Acreage 3.68 /1.96 acre Item 7A Case No. ZA26-0041 Total Building Floor Area (Gross) 18,939 square feet Number of Stories 1 Impervious Coverage 45.7% Total Parking Required 95 Total Parking Spaces Provided 112 VARIANCE REQUESTED: Driveway Ordinance No. 634, as amended, Section 5.2 (a) requires the minimum centerline spacing for full-access driveways on F.M. 1709 & F.M. 1938 to be 500 feet as per Table One; however, the minimum centerline spacing may be reduced to 250 feet for right-in/right-out driveways. The applicant is proposing a right- in/right-out driveway with a minimum centerline spacing of approximately 100 feet from Brock Drive. ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated August 10, 2026 (D) Surrounding Property Owners Map and Responses PowerPoint Presentation Narrative Plans Corridor Planning Committee Meeting Report Ordinance No. 480-208b STAFF CONTACT: Ryan Firestone (817) 748-8127 Jennifer Crosby (817) 748-8195 Case No. Attachment A ZA26-0041 Page 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNER: Karim and Anila Maghani, ANKINZ LLC APPLICANT: Clay Cristy, ClayMoore Engineering PROPERTY SITUATION: 2350 and 2340 W. Southlake Blvd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 6R and 1, Block 1, Stonebridge Park Addition LAND USE CATEGORY: Retail Commercial, Office Commercial, 100-Year Flood Plain CURRENT ZONING: “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District with “C-2” Local Retail Commercial District and “O-1” Office District Uses PROPOSED ZONING: “S-P-2” Detailed Site Plan District with “C-3” General Commercial District, “C-2” Local Retail Commercial District, and “O-1” Office District Uses. HISTORY: -The property was annexed into the City in 1956. -A change of zoning to “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District was approved for Stonebridge Park by City Council on September 18, 1996. -City Council approved a preliminary plat for Stonebridge Park on October 7, 1997. -A final plat for Stonebridge Park Lot 1 was approved by P&Z on October 23, 1997. -P&Z approved a final plat for Stonebridge Park Lots 2 – 6 on January 22, 1998. -A Zoning Change and Concept Plan (ZA04-047) was approved on May 3, 2005. -An Amended Plat (ZA09-035) was approved on November 16, 2009. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Consolidated Future Land Use Plan The underlying land use designations are Flood Plain and Retail Commercial. Floodplain Purpose and Definition: The Floodplain category illustrates areas designated by the August 1995 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps as being within the 100-year floodplain. The floodplain is an expanse of natural vegetation and wildlife and should be preserved as a natural open area. Within the floodplain is the “floodway,” which must be kept free of encroachment in order for the 100-year flood to be carried without harmful Case No. Attachment A ZA26-0041 Page 4 increases in the height of floodwaters. Although it is not encouraged, the portion of the floodplain not within the floodway may be reclaimed for development under certain circumstances, provided it complies with FEMA regulations. The designated land use for reclaimed floodplain areas shall be that of the immediately adjacent land use category. This designation may also include environmentally sensitive areas, habitats, or wetlands that are not identified within FEMA-designated floodplains. Retail Commercial Purpose and Definition: The Retail Commercial category is a lower- to medium-intensity commercial designation that provides for neighborhood-type retail shopping facilities and general commercial support activities. It is intended to accommodate limited local retail and/or office uses that serve nearby neighborhoods. All uses within this category should be compatible with adjacent single-family residential areas, maintaining the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods. This category encourages comprehensively planned developments. In areas where Retail Commercial is adjacent to residentially zoned properties or areas designated for residential use on the Land Use Plan, lower-intensity activities—such as office or office-related uses—should be located adjacent to those residential areas. Other suitable activities include those permitted within the Public Parks/Open Space, Public/Semi-Public, and Office Commercial categories. Mobility & Master Thoroughfare Plan The Master Thoroughfare Plan designates W. Southlake Boulevard a 130’ to 140’ (A6D) divided six-lane arterial road. Pathways Master Plan & Sidewalk Plan According to the Master Pathways Plan, an 8-foot multi-use trail is planned adjacent to the development along W. Southlake Boulevard. The trail has been constructed. TREE PRESERVATION: The existing tree cover preservation complies with the existing tree cover preservation requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-E. There is 32% of existing tree cover on the property and a minimum of 60% of the tree cover is required to be preserved. A total of 12% of the existing tree cover is proposed to be removed, and 88% to be preserved. UTILITIES: The property has an existing 12-inch waterline along the Southlake Boulevard frontage and is proposing an 8-inch internal water loop. The property has a 12-inch sanitary sewer line along the west property line. DRAINAGE: The property currently drains from northwest to southeast into the existing creek. The proposed drainage pattern will route runoff toward the creek by surface flow, with a portion of the southern parking lot being captured in a storm drainage system that outlets into the creek. The proposed design does not include onsite detention. The property also contains floodplain and floodway. Because the site is not providing onsite detention, and contains floodplain and floodway, additional drainage Case No. Attachment A ZA26-0041 Page 5 calculations will be provided during construction plan review and platting to ensure compliance with the City’s Storm Drainage and Floodplain Ordinance. CITIZEN INPUT: A Corridor Planning Committee Meeting was held on May 18, 2026. The report is included in the packet. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: June 18, 2026; Approved (5-0) subject to the Staff Report dated June 12, 2026 and subject to the Zoning Change and Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated June 12, 2026, noting approval of the variance to the driveway ordinance to reduce the minimum centerline spacing from 250 ft. to 100 ft. from Brock Dr. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated August 10, 2026. Case No. Attachment B ZA26-0041 Page 6 Case No. Attachment C ZA26-0041 Page 7 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA26-0041 Review No.: Three Date of Review: 08/10/26 Project Name: Zoning Change and Site Plan – Hunington Southlake APPLICANT: OWNER: Clay Cristy, ClayMoore Engineering Karim and Anila Maghani, ANKINZ LLC CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 07/06/26 AND 7/29/2026 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT RYAN FIRESTONE AT (817) 748-8127. 1. Place the City case number “ZA26-0041" in the lower right corner for ease of reference. a. Site Plan needs to be updated as it shows the case number as “ZA26-0041” 2. Show and label all minimum building setback lines in accordance with the requested zoning. a. Please label the building setback lines from the northern, eastern, and southern property lines 3. Label the distance from building to property lines a. Please label the distance from the northern, eastern, and southern property lines on the Site Plan. 4. Driveway Ordinance No. 634, as amended, Section 5.2 (a) requires the minimum centerline spacing for full-access driveways on F.M. 1709 & F.M. 1938 to be 500 feet as per Table One; however, the minimum centerline spacing may be reduced to 250 feet for right-in/right-out driveways in accordance with Appendix 1. The applicant is proposing a right-in/right-out driveway with a minimum centerline spacing of approximately 100 feet from Brock Drive. A variance has been requested. 5. Clarify how proposed collections are taken such as the location, method, purchase for resale, consignment, and/or donation. 6. Correct the directional labeling on the elevation plans. Ensure all visible elevations visible from W. Southlake Boulevards are correctly articulated. All facades must comply with the masonry requirements of the Corridor Overlay regulations of Section 43.3 of the zoning ordinance No. 480, as amended. Stucco must be true cement based. Synthetic stucco is not permitted. Case No. Attachment C ZA26-0041 Page 8 Tree Conservation/Landscape Review Case No. ZA26-0041 Review No. Two Dated: June 4, 2026 Number of Pages: 3_ Project Name: Hunington Southlake (Zoning/Site Plan) Contact: Keith Martin Phone: (817) 748-8229 Fax: (817) 481-5713 ============================================================================= == The following comments are based on the review of plans received on May 11, 2026 . Comments designated with a number may be incorporated into the formal review to be considered by either the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council. Other items will not be addressed by either the P&Z or City Council. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact the department representative shown above and make modifications as required by the comment. ============================================================================= == TREE CONSERVATION COMMENTS: 1. A Tree Conservation Analysis was submitted instead of a Tree Conservation Plan. A Tree Conservation Plan is required to be submitted in conjunction with a Site Plan submittal. Information required for Tree Conservation Plan: i. Identification of Critical Environmental Features of the site: A. All individually protected trees B. Existing streams, drainage creeks, ponds, and other water bodies (if any) ii. Tree Survey or alternative to a tree survey iii. 2-foot contour map of the site iv. Protected trees within the tree preservation area including tree size and type v. Critical Root Zones of groups of trees vi. Critical Root Zones for individual trees required for site plans only vii. Boundaries of any tree preservation areas as identified in the ERP Map viii. Identification of areas of environmental constraints not suitable for development ix. Identification of areas of minimal environmental constraints that are suitable for development x. Areas of encroachment into Critical Environmental Features identified on the site xi. Clear delineation, for each protected tree, of whether the tree will be preserved after the proposed development is constructed, altered due to proposed improvements, or could potentially be saved based upon site specific conditions xii. Stream/Creek buffers, if any xiii. Detailed site plan of all proposed improvements. (All proposed improvements shall be required to be shown only at the site plan stage for all development. Preliminary plats shall, however, show building setbacks and general location of buildings and infrastructure.) xiv. Setbacks, building lines, and buffer yards xv. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of those persons or entities who own the property and those persons or entities filing the application xvi. Such additional information as the Administrative Official may reasonably require given the particular characteristics of the property. Case No. Attachment C ZA26-0041 Page 9 * The existing tree cover preservation complies with the existing tree cover preservation requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-E. There is 32% of existing tree cover on the property and a minimum of 60% of the tree cover is required to be preserved. A total of 12% of the existing tree cover is proposed to be removed, and 88% to be preserved. Except as provided by subsection 7.2.b. of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, a Tree Conservation Analysis or Tree Conservation Plan shall be approved if it will preserve existing tree cover in accordance with the percentage requirements established by Table 2.0. If the property has previously received a tree permit related to development, the percentage of existing tree cover at the time the first such permit was issued shall be used to calculate the minimum existing tree cover that must be preserved under this section. Table 2.0 – Existing Tree Cover Preservation Requirements Percentage of existing tree cover on the entire site Minimum percentage of the existing tree cover to be preserved* 0% – 20% 70% 20.1 – 40% 60% 40.1% - 60% 50% 60.1% - 80% 40% 80.1% - 100% 30% *The minimum percentage of existing tree cover to be preserved shall exclude any area in public rights-of-way as approved by City Council. For property sought to be zoned for the Downtown zoning district or a planned development zoning district, including an S-P-1 Site Plan, S-P-2 Site Plan, Transition, Rural Conservation, Planned Unit Development, or Employment Center zoning district, the City Council shall consider the application for a Conservation Analysis or Plan in conjunction with the corresponding development application (as established in Table 1.0). The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the application. The City Council shall approve the Plan or Analysis if the Council finds that the Plan or Analysis provides for the: i. placement of building pads, parking areas, driveways, streets, and utility easements so as to maximize the preservation of environmental features of the property including mature tree stands, natural creeks and ponds, and significant grades; ii. maximizes the preservation of tree cover preservation areas indicated on the Environmental Resource Protection Map; iii. maximizes the preservation of existing tree stands with the potential to buffer residential areas from the noise, glare, and visual effects of nonresidential uses; iv. maximizes the preservation of existing trees, if any, adjoining a natural or man-made drainage creek; v. maximizes the preservation of existing protected trees along rural roadways and other streets as identified and prioritized in the Street Typology designation; and vi. mitigation of altered trees through proposed tree replacement procedures pursuant to Case No. Attachment C ZA26-0041 Page 10 this Ordinance. * Please be aware that all existing trees shown to be preserved on the City Council approved Tree Conservation Plan must be preserved and protected during all phases and construction of the development. Alteration or removal of any of the existing trees shown to be preserved on the approved Tree Conservation Plan is a violation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and the zoning as approved by the Southlake City Council. Please ensure that the layout of all structures, easements, utilities, structures grading, and any other structure proposed to be constructed do not conflict with existing trees intended to be preserved. LANDSCAPE COMMENTS: 1. A revised color Landscape Plan was not submitted with the second review submittals. Please submit the required color Landscape Plan. * Indicates informational comment. # Indicates required items comment. Public Works/Engineering Review Review No. 2 Date: 6/4/2026 Case No. ZA26-0041 Zoning/Site Plan Project Name: 2350 W. Southlake Blvd. Contact: Sandy Endy, P.E. Email: sendy@ci.southlake.tx.us Phone: (817) 748-8033 The following comments are based on the review of plans received on: 6/2/2026 It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact the department representative shown above and make modifications as required by the comment. GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. Per the Driveway Ordinance, the driveway curb return at the point of tangency with the street curb shall not be located within 10’ of the upstream edge of the curb inlet. Since this is an existing condition, engineering is approving the driveway location with respect to the storm inlet, pending TxDOT approval. 2. While the driveway is an existing driveway, it is an existing residential driveway, and not a commercial driveway. Since this development is required to modify the driveway to conform with the minimum commercial driveway width, any deviation from the Driveway Ordinance will require a variance request. A memo from a traffic engineer shall be provided to provide additional back up data to approve the variance. At a minimum, the traffic memo should address that the driveway doesn't meet the separation requirements defined in the Driveway Ordinance, and whether there are any concerns with the proposed driveway. This will also help address the concerns that were provided at the Corridor Planning Committee meeting. Case No. Attachment C ZA26-0041 Page 11 DRAINAGE COMMENTS: 1. Proposed Drainage Map a. The C value for proposed conditions is low (0.6). The ISWM manual shows a minimum of 0.7-0.8. A runoff coefficient of 0.6 for the proposed conditions requires justification. b. The flow listed in plan view for C-2 does not match what is shown in the table. * Flood Study – c. The only changes between pre- and post- project mentioned were the cross-sectional geometries to reflect the proposed grading. Does this include Manning’s values? (retaining wall added near/in flood fringe). d. Include pre/post project cross section geometries as part of report (not just the model). Justification: The only changes were to the channel geometries yet these were not included as printed exhibit for the report. e. Please clearly identify which cross sections were modified from the effective FEMA model and provide a summary of all revisions incorporated into the proposed condition model. f. Please provide supporting documentation to support the proposed conditions are in compliance with the City’s Storm Drainage Policy (Chapter 9.5, Article II of the Southlake Code of Ordinances) & Flood Hazard Reduction Ordinance (Chapter 9.5, Article V of the Southlake Code of Ordinances). g. Use of effective FEMA discharge flow for the post-project conditions requires justification. * Proposed improvements do not provide any detention analysis, but project appears to significantly increase impervious area. If detention is not being proposed for the increase in runoff, then documentation supporting and certifying that detention is not necessary will be required prior to approval of construction plans. Discharge of post development runoff must have no adverse impact on downstream properties and meet the provisions of Ordinance No. 605. * Please be aware that the Flood Study is only being preliminarily reviewed at this stage and will be fully reviewed once entitlement has been approved. Further comments may be forthcoming. UTILITY COMMENTS: * Water meters (dom and irr) required to be within a dedicated easement if not located within the ROW. Fire Department Review Case No. ZA26-0041 Review No. 1 Dated: 05/20/2026 Number of Pages: 1 Project Name: 2350 W Southlake Blvd – Hunington Southlake Contact: Lorenzo Chavez, Fire Marshal Phone: 817-748-8671 Fax: 817-748-8181 =========================================================================== The following comments are based on the review of plans received on 05/13/2026. Comments may be incorporated into the formal review to be considered by either the Planning and Zoning Case No. Attachment C ZA26-0041 Page 12 Commission or City Council. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact the department representative shown above and make modifications as required by the comment. =========================================================================== GENERAL COMMENTS: The required backflow protection (double check valve) for the sprinkler systems can be located on the riser if the riser is within 100 feet of the water main, measured linearly along the length of the pipe. If the riser is further than 100 feet from the main, the double check valve shall be in a vault. Riser rooms shall be a minimum of 5’X5’ if the double check is located in a vault, or a minimum of 6’X6’ if it is located on the riser. The Fire Department Connection for the sprinkler system must be within 100 feet of a fire hydrant, and within 50 feet of fire department fire lanes on the property. (FDC location not indicated on the plans) Add FDC location, wall mount or remote connection to meet the distance requirements or add a fire hydrant. FIRE LANE COMMENTS: Fire apparatus access needs to be an all-weather surface, asphalt or concrete, 24 feet wide and able to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus. (Minimum of 85,000 pounds GVW) FIRE HYDRANT COMMENTS: Fire hydrants are required at a maximum spacing of 500 feet for commercial locations with completely sprinklered buildings. (Fire hydrants located on the property meet the spacing requirements) General Informational Comments * No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required prior to construction of any signs. * Building permit(s) are required prior to commencement of any work. * All mechanical equipment must be screened of view from right-of-ways and residential properties in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended. The Site is subject to the Corridor Overlay regulations of Section 43.3 of the Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended. * All lighting must comply with the Lighting Ordinance No. 693, as amended. * All development must comply with the Drainage Ordinance No. 605 and the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance No. 946, as amended. * In addition to the City of Southlake impact fees, please be aware that through the wholesale water customer contract with the City of Fort Worth, all new water connections are required to pay the City of Fort Worth impact fee. The City of Fort Worth impact fee assessment is based on the final plat recordation date and building permit issuance. The applicant is encouraged to review the City of Fort Worth's assessment and collection of Impact Fees Guide to determine the fee amount. Case No. Attachment C ZA26-0041 Page 13 Informational Comments * Per the Driveway Ordinance, the proposed driveway off W. Southlake Blvd. meets the City’s minimum centerline spacing requirements from Stonebridge Ln., provided the driveway operates as a right-in/right-out access only. * A permit from TxDOT must be obtained prior to any curb cut along F.M. 1709, F.M. 1938, and S.H. 114. Case No. Attachment D ZA26-0041 Page 14 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS MAP SPO # Owner Zoning Physical Address Acreage Response 1 437 NORTH MAIN PARTNERS LP SP2 210 RANDOL MILL AVE 0.25 NR 2 S & S LAND HOLDING LLC SP2 165 STONEBRIDGE LN 0.32 NR 3 CRC INNOVATIONS LLC SP2 121 RIVER OAKS DR 0.43 NR 4 FIRST CARLYLE CAPITAL FUNDING SP1 170 STONEBRIDGE LN 0.49 NR 5 RISING SUN PROPERTIES LLC SP2 2310 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.45 NR 6 FSCF II LLC SP1 150 STONEBRIDGE LN 1.27 NR 7 MITCHELL BUILDERS INC SP2 155 STONEBRIDGE LN 0.58 NR Case No. Attachment D ZA26-0041 Page 15 8 STRIKE MANAGEMENT , SERIES LLC C3 2320 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.64 NR 9 PES MANAGEMENT LLC SP2 105 RIVER OAKS DR 1.63 NR 10 DYER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC SP2 113 RIVER OAKS DR 0.07 NR 11 CFT NV DEVELOPMENTS LLC C2 2325 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.18 NR 12 CNNTEXAS HOLDINGS SOUTHLAKE LL SP2 109 RIVER OAKS DR 0.08 NR 13 PES MANAGEMENT LLC SP2 105 RIVER OAKS DR 0.08 NR 14 MCNACK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC SP1 2335 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.17 NR 15 KARTHIK & ASSOCIATES REALTY LL C2 2345 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.31 NR 16 KLOESEL, GREGORY B SP2 101 RIVER OAKS DR 0.91 NR 17 AJLOUNI, RAED AG 2415 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.45 NR 18 TAK ENTERPRISES INC SP1 2419 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.35 NR 19 DAN AND MARY HEARN FAMILY TRUS SP1 2419 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.00 NR 20 SOUTHLAKE BAPTIST CHURCH INC CS 2417 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.01 NR 21 GKP INVESTMENTS LLC SP2 190 DAVIS BLVD 1.35 NR 22 SYND2-23 LLC SP2 100 RIVER OAKS DR 1.15 NR 23 AISHWARYA PROPERTIES LLC SP2 104 RIVER OAKS DR 0.83 NR 24 SOUTHLAKE NEUROLOGY PROPERTIES SP2 175 STONEBRIDGE LN 1.43 NR 25 437 NORTH MAIN PARTNERS LP SP2 2300 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.82 NR Case No. Attachment D ZA26-0041 Page 16 26 TUCKER 23 LLC C2 2301 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 1.11 NR 27 AISHWARYA PROPERTIES LLC SP2 112 RIVER OAKS DR 0.85 NR 28 SUPERINTENDENT OF CARROLL ISD NR 29 SUPERINTENDENT OF GRAPEVINE COLLEYVILLE ISD NR 30 SUPERINTENDENT OF NORTHWEST ISD NR 31 SUPERINTENDENT OF KELLER ISD NR 1000 DESPERADO SOUTHLAKE TX LLC SP2 2340 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 0.70 1001 ANKINZ LLC SP2 2350 W SOUTHLAKE BLVD 3.76 Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response Notices Sent: Thirty-three (33) Responses received: None (0)