Commission denies Shady Lane preliminary plat after flag‑lot variance request; neighbor cites trees and drainage

The Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5‑0 to deny a preliminary plat for a property on Shady Lane after concluding the application’s requested variance for panhandle or flag lots did not meet City Council criteria.

City planning staff described the site as just under 2.5 acres and said the applicant requested a variance to allow two single‑family lots configured as panhandle (flag) lots. Staff told the commission that while the panhandle portion would provide the 24‑foot minimum buildable width required for emergency access and driveway ordinance compliance, the application did not meet the set of criteria the council expects for flag‑lot approvals.

Applicant Ashim Graziel (recorded as with Graziel/Grier Designs and Engineering in the hearing) told the commission the flag‑lot layout produced a better interior lot shape than a straight subdivision down the middle, and argued the design was the best solution for the site. The applicant said the elongated alternative lots would be narrower in street frontage and that the flag‑lot approach preserves a more regular lot shape for the buildable areas.

Helen Hansen Clary, a resident who lives directly across Shady Lane, spoke during public comment. Clary said she has lived at 415 Shady Lane for 30 years and raised concerns about the loss of “many old‑growth oak trees,” the presence of deer, and local drainage problems linked to retention ponds near Highway 114. Clary said she was not previously aware of the application until the meeting and asked the commission and applicant to take tree preservation and drainage into account.

Commissioners discussed the long history of flag‑lot variance requests in Southlake and said that without demonstrable hardship or site constraints tied to topography or temporary access needs, they were reluctant to set a precedent allowing panhandle lots. One commissioner noted that council has historically been unsupportive of flag‑lot variances when the applicant’s need appears driven mainly by preferred lot proportions rather than an objective site constraint.

The commission voted 5‑0 to deny the preliminary plat (case ZA25‑58; preliminary plat review summary dated 09/12/2025). Commissioners and staff explained the applicant may take the case to City Council on October 7, 2025, resubmit a conforming plat, or request a 30‑day waiver to provide additional materials (staff noted that a tree‑preservation plan and other details were not yet submitted).

Outcome and next steps: The denial will be forwarded to City Council; the applicant may present at council on Oct. 7 in the current form, withdraw the variance for a conforming plat, or ask for additional time to supply required documentation.