Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies zoning change for full‑day youth behavioral health clinic at West Southlake Boulevard
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-1 to deny a request to modify SP-1 zoning to permit a full‑day outpatient youth mental health facility at 600 W. Southlake Blvd.; commissioners cited safety concerns about proximity to Southlake Boulevard and noted prior City Council direction.
The Planning and Zoning Commission on June 5 voted to deny a zoning change and site plan request to allow a full‑day outpatient youth mental health facility at 600 West Southlake Boulevard (Suite 120).
Staff described the proposal as an amendment to the SP‑1 (detailed site plan district) to allow a full‑day outpatient mental health care facility for youth. The applicant’s submittal specified a maximum of 20 patients on‑site, up to five full‑time employees on‑site, and operating hours generally 8 a.m.–5 p.m. The proposal stated the program would offer partial hospitalization (PHP) and intensive outpatient (IOP) services, provide private exam and group therapy rooms, and would not include overnight stays, food service, dispensing medication or classroom instruction.
Applicant Peter Juul said the program screens referrals and does not enroll violent or substance‑abuse cases. Juul described safety procedures including staff greeting and logging arrivals, turning over phones on arrival, and coordination with medical transportation when needed. “These are children that desperately needs the care that they're getting and the therapy that they're getting,” Juul said, adding the operator would share police reports from other locations to demonstrate operational safety.
Several commissioners raised the same concern that delayed the earlier application: the facility’s proximity to Southlake Boulevard and the possibility that a child could leave the site and reach the nearby arterial. Dennis (staff) summarized prior council feedback that safety at the site was the predominant concern. One commissioner said that City Council had signaled that the location was not appropriate for this type of use.
After discussion, a commissioner moved to deny case ZA25‑30 referencing the staff report dated 05/30/2025 and the site plan review summary; the motion to deny carried 3‑1. The Planning and Zoning Commission record indicates the item now proceeds as a denial recommendation to City Council; the commission noted the applicant may pursue zoning changes or additional outreach with council members.
