Limited Time Offer. Become a Founder Member Now!

Votes at a glance — Southlake City Council, Oct. 21, 2025

October 21, 2025 | Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Votes at a glance — Southlake City Council, Oct. 21, 2025
This itemizes formal votes recorded during the Southlake City Council meeting on Oct. 21, 2025. Where the council took formal action the result and key conditions are listed. For full background see staff reports and the meeting video/transcript.

Consent agenda (approved 6–0)

- Consent motion carried 6–0 and included 4a–4h plus items 8a and 9a moved to consent. Notable consent items: 4b — Resolution No. 25‑043 denying Encore Electric Delivery Company LLC’s application to change rates within the city; 4c — Ordinance No. 1297 (first reading previously) adopting 2026 standards of care for recreation programs for elementary‑aged children; 4d — plat revision CA25‑0064 (Highway Jones addition) at 500 E. Bob Jones Road; 4e — Resolution No. 25‑041 supporting an application to the PUC to decertify a portion of water CCN 10101 (revising service area and removing overlap with Westlake); item 4f was withdrawn by applicant; 4g was a motion to table a Burger King sign variance request indefinitely; and 8a and 9a (board/commission appointments and a sign variance for Lambert Home headquarters) were added and approved on consent.

Trademark mixed‑use development (item 6a) — Approved 5–1

- Summary: Council approved the Employment Center zoning change and site plan for Trademark, subject to detailed conditions. Conditions included min commercial height 18 ft and typical max 65 ft, a single hotel exception up to 84 ft (location-limited), mandatory masonry screening and tall evergreen plantings around loading and along Kirkwood, continuous evergreen screening at the detention pond, delivery hours matched to Central Market standard, construction traffic limited to the Highway 114 approach (except necessary tie‑in work), residential setbacks and lot-size minima, and no more than seven front‑facing garages (eligible lots defined in the motion). A gas station use was removed from permitted uses and any future hotel/entertainment/restaurant on Lot 1 requires a SUP/site plan.

Shady Oaks FLUP amendment and zoning/concept plan (items 6b & 6c) — Approved 6–0

- Summary: Council amended the consolidated future land use plan and rezoned the 1835 Shady Oaks site to SF‑20 and approved a concept plan for 27 single‑family lots. Conditions included a 50‑foot landscape buffer from the 114 frontage, a tree conservation target raised to 33%, a private gated access for the subdivision at Highway 114 (with HOA maintenance), minimum lot-size guarantees for Lots 25, 26, 1, 9 and 10 (30,000 sq ft) and minimum 20,000 sq ft elsewhere, and HOA‑recorded maintenance covenants for common areas.

Preliminary plat, 410–414 Shady Lane (item 9b) — Denied 6–0

- Summary: Council denied a preliminary plat that would have created a flag/panhandle lot and a conventional lot on approximately 2.45 acres. Staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended denial because subdivision ordinance No. 483 Section 8.01.k generally prohibits panhandle lots except under narrow exceptions; council found the proposal did not meet those exceptions. Council also denied the applicant’s requested sidewalk variance in the same action.

Votes and procedural notes

- Consent agenda: approved 6–0 (motion maker: Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Talley). 6a Trademark: approved 5–1 (motion maker: Mayor Pro Tem Williamson). 6b & 6c: approved 6–0 (motion maker: Council member Reynolds / second as recorded). 9b: denied 6–0 (motion maker: Council member Reynolds).

Where to read more

Staff reports, exhibits, the ordinance language and the full meeting transcript/video are posted on the City of Southlake website. For any action that requires further submittals (site plans, specific‑use permits, final plats), the developer must return to staff and, in some cases, the council for subsequent approvals.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Texas articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI