Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Rpud Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies rezoning for four-lot subdivision on North Whitechapel Boulevard, 4-1
Summary
The commission voted 4-1 to deny a rezoning and development plan that would have converted agricultural land at 1965/1975 North Whitechapel Boulevard to an RPUD for a four-lot subdivision; commissioners cited lot-size concerns and similarity to a previously denied proposal.
The City of Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission on Aug. 21 denied, by a 4-1 vote, case ZA25-0035—a request to rezone two parcels at 1965 and 1975 North Whitechapel Boulevard from agricultural to RPUD to allow a four-lot residential subdivision.
Staff presented a revised development plan and said the applicant sought RPUD to write in specific lot sizes and open-space commitments after a previous submittal under the SF-28/SF-20 frameworks was denied. The staff presentation included an aerial view, proposed landscape plan showing 10% common open space, and a tree preservation plan listing existing tree coverage of 22% and a proposed tree canopy to remain at 46%.
The applicant, who identified himself as Axel and as the property owner, and the project builder, Andrew Haddock, spoke in support of the application. The applicant and a consultant, identified as Ahmed, said the revised plan enlarged Lots 1 and 2 compared with the earlier proposal and shifted the main entrance to create a larger buffer along the north boundary. The submission lists Lot 1 at about 26,000 square feet and Lot 2 at about 25,000 square feet; staff explained those figures are larger than the prior submittal but remain below the 30,000-square-foot threshold discussed earlier under the SF-28 standard.
Commission discussion referenced an earlier denial and a six-month resubmittal limitation; commissioners said the plan looked "similar" to the version the commission and some council members had previously denied. One commissioner said the new front-yard open space and setback changes represented an improvement, but several commissioners remained unconvinced that the changes were sufficient.
After debate, a commissioner moved to deny case ZA25-0035, referencing the staff report dated Aug. 15, 2025 and the development plan review summary. The motion to deny passed 4-1. A public comment card from Asaf Hussain in support of the application was submitted for the record after the public hearing had closed; Hussain did not speak during the hearing.
What happens next: The applicant may take the matter to City Council for final action; the commission record will be forwarded to council.
