Item 6D - Staff Report CI"T`Y OF Item 6D
SOUTHLAKE
Department of Planning & Development Services
STAFF REPORT
August 24, 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
for 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 originally
requested to add "C-3" General Commercial District uses, as well as "Used
Merchandise Sales and Collection Center" as permitted uses and revising the
plan from a three-building configuration to a single building configuration with
revisions to the parking configuration and access on Lot 6R only; however, the
applicant has since withdrawn the change of uses.
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 revisions and the proposed Site Plan apply only to 2350
W. Southlake Boulevard (Lot 6R).
Existing Zoning "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District
with "C-2" uses.
Proposed Zoning "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with
"C-2" uses.
Land Use Designation Retail Commercial, Office Commercial,
100-Year Flood Plain
Gross/Net Acreage 3.68/1.96 acre
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.
ACTION: 1) Conduct a Public Hearing
2) Consider 2nd Reading approval of a Zoning Change and Site Plan
ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information
(B) Vicinity Map
(C) Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated August 24, 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.
ZA26-0041
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 "0-1" Office District Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: "S-P-2" Detailed Site Plan District with "C-2" Local Retail Commercial
District and "0-1" 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 3
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 4
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.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 1st Reading: August 18, 2026; Approved (7-0) subject to the Staff Report
dated August 10, 2026, and subject to the Site Plan Review Summary
No. 3 dated August 10, 2026, noting approval of the variance to driveway
Ordinance No. 634, as amended, section 5.2(a) to allow a right in, right
out driveway with a minimum centerline spacing of approximately 100 feet
from Brock Drive, noting they will allow accent trees in lieu of the required
canopy trees, they would like to see options for parking along Southlake
Boulevard to be reduced or changed, and potential parking pavement
materials that are different than concrete.
STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated August 24, 2026.
Case No. Attachment A
ZA26-0041 Page 5
Vicinity Map
2340 W. Southlake Blvd., 2350 W Southlake Blvd.
_ • s y f3 7517
�'• '
20
. •1 is C '!��r ..y
20
165
1 A� f65 0 NJ
r �2 Y2310 2310
155
OfJ6 d.ti.. 150
lb 2320, .
° . OP
M.-01,
KS Oro
112 ❑ . 01
_2 Y
09 3 5 2350
01
2329..
104104 •P y...
77
1OD
41-5c
is.
n 90
24
S�U�HIAKE 19 .�'.E
24.
14
N
0 0.010.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 4 Y�
inpM i.e -,1,s P,M
Miles 11
-
ZA2 -0041 r w.
.,I�y�vins
6�rN r, x•s.il�s9 o"
Case No. Attachment B
ZA26-0041 Page 6
SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
Case No.: ZA26-0041 Review No.: Four Date of Review: 08/24/26
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 8/21/2026 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. Correct the directional labeling on the elevation plans. Ensure all visible elevations visible from
W. Southlake Boulevards are correctly articulated. The western elevation does not appear to
comply with vertical articulation.
6. 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 7
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 8
* 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 Minimum percentage of the
the entire site existing tree cover to be
reserved*
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 9
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: sendyCcD-ci.south lake.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 10
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 0511312026. Comments may
be incorporated into the formal review to be considered by either the Planning and Zoning
Case No. Attachment C
ZA26-0041 Page 11
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 12
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 C
ZA26-0041 Page 13
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS MAP
1059
___-- 2sm •
- 136 25m 250 -
25o 00
Ib z19 ub _ ,n«I
` rn 1za vs ns Gslag -
h 224A 2i5�
y 175- I
- 12a' ni 1s
ib bs t�°0
Yzs 122.
_ _ ___ izo lz6
__
_
a
3 {
122
_ - S
_ S
1 c t
132021
'
9
I15 •P J IOLO
8 to
il
I
.--. - 1
_. m 2-
122E
t09
!Il _ 1U01 Ef 11 2301 - 2]25
22252225
t 131tl5 -
- 2225 2225 1115 22259�22
5
22zs nxs
2336
___ .... y0
101 1011
130 - 151 10] 2315
0
llq - 4
2 17 30m 1916 31J
3[
IOfi 1W8 ' 2- 1
S 320
•1 2618 --
r,
1..._
-__ __ -____
` I l - -
��I 2919 I 324 32S I --19x11
i
lox -----------
J ,
zzo
- tas aoe r 6na
�9
im Al"
LtC .- 2t0 169 i
� V
atfi =.
SPO Owner Zoning Physical Acreage Response
# Address
1 437 NORTH MAIN PARTNERS LP SP2 210 RANDOL 0.25 NR
MILL AVE
2 S & S LAND HOLDING LLC SP2 165 0.32 NR
STONEBRIDGE
LN
3 CRC INNOVATIONS LLC SP2 121 RIVER 0.43 NR
OAKS DR
4 FIRST CARLYLE CAPITAL FUNDING SP1 170 0.49 NR
STONEBRIDGE
LN
5 RISING SUN PROPERTIES LLC SP2 2310 W OAS NR
SOUTHLAKE
BLVD
6 FSCF II LLC SP1 150 1.27 NR
STONEBRIDGE
LN
7 MITCHELL BUILDERS INC SP2 155 0.58 NR
STONEBRIDGE
LN
Case No. Attachment D
ZA26-0041 Page 14
8 STRIKE MANAGEMENT, SERIES C3 2320 W 0.64 NR
LLC SOUTHLAKE
BLVD
9 PES MANAGEMENT LLC SP2 105 RIVER 1.63 NR
OAKS DR
10 DYER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SP2 113 RIVER 0.07 NR
LLC OAKS DR
11 CFT NV DEVELOPMENTS LLC C2 2325 W 0.18 NR
SOUTHLAKE
BLVD
12 CNNTEXAS HOLDINGS SOUTHLAKE SP2 109 RIVER 0.08 NR
LL OAKS DR
13 PES MANAGEMENT LLC SP2 105 RIVER 0.08 NR
OAKS DR
14 MCNACK PROPERTY SP1 2335 W 0.17 NR
MANAGEMENT LLC SOUTHLAKE
BLVD
15 KARTHIK&ASSOCIATES REALTY LL C2 2345 W 0.31 NR
SOUTHLAKE
BLVD
16 KLOESEL, GREGORY B SP2 101 RIVER 0.91 NR
OAKS DR
17 AJLOUNI, RAED AG 2415 W 0.45 NR
SOUTHLAKE
BLVD
18 TAK ENTERPRISES INC SP1 2419 W 0.35 NR
SOUTHLAKE
BLVD
19 DAN AND MARY HEARN FAMILY SP1 2419 W 0.00 NR
TRUS SOUTHLAKE
BLVD
20 SOUTHLAKE BAPTIST CHURCH INC CS 2417 W 0.01 NR
SOUTHLAKE
BLVD
21 GKP INVESTMENTS LLC SP2 190 DAVIS 1.35 NR
BLVD
22 SYND2-23 LLC SP2 100 RIVER 1.15 NR
OAKS DR
23 AISHWARYA PROPERTIES LLC SP2 104 RIVER 0.83 NR
OAKS DR
24 SOUTHLAKE NEUROLOGY SP2 175 1.43 NR
PROPERTIES STONEBRIDGE
LN
25 437 NORTH MAIN PARTNERS LP SP2 2300 W 0.82 NR
SOUTHLAKE
BLVD
Case No. Attachment D
ZA26-0041 Page 15
26 TUCKER 23 LLC C2 2301 W 1.11 NR
SOUTH LAKE
BLVD
27 AISHWARYA PROPERTIES LLC SP2 112 RIVER 0.85 NR
OAKS DR
28 SUPERINTENDENT OF CARROLL NR
ISD
29 SUPERINTENDENT OF GRAPEVINE NR
COLLEYVILLE ISD
30 SUPERINTENDENT OF NR
NORTHWEST ISD
31 SUPERINTENDENT OF KELLER ISD NR
1000 DESPERADO SOUTHLAKE TX LLC SP2 2340 W 0.70
SOUTH LAKE
BLVD
1001 ANKINZ LLC SP2 2350 W 3.76
SOUTH LAKE
BLVD
Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response
Notices Sent: Thirty-three (33)
Responses received: None (0)
Case No. Attachment D
ZA26-0041 Page 16