Commission recommends denial of 2300 West Continental development plan, 4–2

The Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4–2 on Feb. 6 to deny a zoning change and development plan for 2300 West Continental that sought to rezone an agricultural parcel to the Transition Zoning District and to construct a five‑lot residential subdivision.

Staff described the property as currently zoned AG with a future land‑use designation of medium‑density residential. The proposed development plan included five single‑family lots and a detention pond, and requested multiple deviations from Transition Zoning District (TZD) standards—chiefly that the TZD typically requires a minimum of two distinct components (for example, a veil area plus a retail edge), but the applicant proposed residential development only; proposed building heights above the two‑story limit; a cul‑de‑sac where no physical constraint was documented; and potentially insufficient first‑floor elevation relative to sidewalk grade. Staff also noted the absence of surrounding property responses at the time of the staff presentation.

Applicant Curtis Shannon (1130 North Carroll Avenue) argued the site is effectively cut off from Davis Boulevard by a strip center and other commercial uses and that residential development would be an appropriate transition to neighboring medium‑density neighborhoods. He said the plan he presented averaged roughly 19,000‑square‑foot lots and was informed by Corridor Planning Committee feedback. A member of the public, Shalini Selvin (2024 Woodbury Court), spoke in favor of the proposal, expressing concern that nearby nighttime noise from commercial activity could affect new residents; she encouraged staff assistance on noise enforcement.

Commissioners noted several concerns: whether the TZD deviations were appropriate when the district’s intent is mixed use; driveway spacing and access near existing commercial driveways on West Continental; traffic impacts on Continental and Davis; and that City Council has in recent cases signaled resistance to smaller lots. Several commissioners said they would be more comfortable if the plan reduced the number of lots to four to increase lot sizes closer to 20,000 square feet; others said the parcel’s constraints made the five‑lot plan reasonable.

A motion was made to deny the application as presented and to note the commission’s recommendation that the applicant consider a four‑lot alternative. The motion passed 4–2. The commission’s denial is a recommendation to City Council; the applicant may revise the plan and present it to council at a future meeting.