Southlake council approves first-reading land-use change for 2530 Johnson Road amid strong neighborhood opposition

The Southlake City Council voted 5-2 on first reading to amend the city's consolidated future land-use plan for 2530 Johnson Road, changing the designation from low-density residential to medium-density residential, and approved a companion zoning change to an ARPUD residential plan unit development, while directing the applicant to return for a second reading with a two-lot alternative.

The decisions came after more than an hour of presentations and public comment at the council's Sept. 16 meeting. Dennis Killough, Director of Planning, told council the property is just under two acres and that Planning & Zoning had recommended denial by a 5-0 vote. Killough summarized the applicants' plan as a three-lot subdivision served by a 50-foot stubbed right-of-way at the end of Bermuda Court and said the applicant proposed preserving roughly 63% of existing tree cover.

The council heard repeated opposition from nearby residents. "This application should be denied for at least four additional reasons," said Susan French, who lives on Remuda Court, citing alleged lack of frontage for proposed Lots 2 and 3, the presence of HOA-owned landscaping within the public right-of-way, and concerns about the precedent the land-use change could set. Lawrence Langford, also of Remuda Court, told council that "what is being proposed here would permanently alter our established quiet cul-de-sac" and that a majority of Johnson Place homeowners oppose the rezoning.

Applicants Curtis Young (The Safe Group) and builder Travis Franks (Custom Homes) said the property was intended to be accessed from the stub in Bermuda Court and that their proposed lots would be comparable in size to nearby Johnson Place lots and be designed to fit the neighborhood. Young said the cul-de-sac was intentionally constructed with a wider 50-foot end to allow future access. The applicants offered to work with the HOA and to stage construction access from Johnson Road if neighbors preferred, and they pledged architectural compatibility with surrounding homes.

After discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Williamson moved to approve ordinance 1269-E (CP25-0002), the land-use amendment, noting it would change the underlying designation from low-density to medium-density; the motion passed 5-2. The council then approved ordinance 480-838 (Z825-0052), the ARPUD zoning change and development plan, but added a formal instruction that the applicant return for second reading with an alternate plan showing two lots, one of which should be at least one acre in size. The motion on 7B passed 5-2.

Why it matters: The council's vote allows the owner to pursue a subdivision with more than one dwelling unit than the low-density designation would typically permit. Opponents argued the change departs from the 2035 future land-use plan and would alter the character of Johnson Road; proponents and the applicant said the site's context (adjacent medium-density neighborhoods and a stubbed right-of-way) makes the proposed development compatible.

Next steps: Because these were first-reading approvals, the items will return for a second reading. The applicant has been instructed to bring back a two-lot version for council review at second reading. Planning & Zoning's denial and the number of resident responses (the city sent 27 notices and staff recorded 24 written responses in opposition) were both part of the official record.

Votes at a glance: Ordinance 1269-E (CP25-0002), future land-use amendment for 2530 Johnson Road: moved by Mayor Pro Tem Williamson, seconded, passed 5-2. Ordinance 480-838 (Z825-0052), ARPUD zoning change and development plan: moved by Mayor Pro Tem Williamson, seconded, passed 5-2 with instruction to return with a two-lot option.

Speakers who addressed the council during the public hearing included Dennis Killough (planning staff), applicants Curtis Young and Travis Franks, residents Susan French and Lawrence Langford, and homeowner Jeffrey Kernan. Planning & Zoning recommended denial 5-0. The applicant and several council members said development rights remain with the property owner and that the council's action keeps homeowner and applicant options open pending second reading.