Item 17 - CP16-001 - Rural Estate Residential Land Use
Department of Planning & Development Services
Department of Planning & Development Services
S T A F F R E P O R T
February 4, 2016
CASE NO:CP16-001
PROJECT:Land Use Plan Amendment to create Rural Estate Residential Future Land
Use Designation Category
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY:
In an effort to retain certain rural estate qualities still in evidence but disappearing
within the City of Southlake, and to enhance the attractiveness of the City as a
whole, an amendment to the Future Land Use Plan for certain areas of Southlake
will be considered. This land use amendment would create a new Future Land
Use category known as “Rural Estate Residential” which would recommend a 5
acre minimum lot size on affected parcels of land.
DETAILS:
The Southlake 2030 Land Use Plan is Southlake’s vision for future development
that serves as a guide for land use decisions and as a foundation for Southlake’s
zoning and subdivision regulations. The plan is a policy document that allocates
the general location, concentration, and intensity of future development within the
City by land use categories.
Proposed is a Rural Estate Residential Future Land Use designation which
recommends density to no more than 5 acres on affected properties. The
proposed implementation areas are shown as Attachment B. Existing zoning on
these lots would remain as it is currently. Any future rezoning contemplated on
these properties would be evaluated based upon conformance to the Future
Land Use designation, or be preceded by a change in the Future Land Use
designation to a designation appropriate to the requested zoning.
Purpose:
To identify, provide for, and preserve the rural aesthetics and natural
resource characteristics of very low density single-family residential
development.
Definition:
The Rural Estate category is for detached single-family residential
development at a net density of one or fewer dwelling units per 5 acres. The
Rural Estate category encourages the openness and rural character of the City.
The institution of the Rural Estate Residential Land Use would provide an
additional level of scrutiny to these properties and a greater degree of discretion
to City Council in granting or denying rezone requests to greater densities.
ATTACHMENTS:
(A) Background Information
(B) Vicinity Map
(C) Support Information - Link to Power Point Presentation
Case No.
CP16-001
(D) SPIN meeting report – January 26, 2016
(E) Corridor Planning Committee meeting Report – December 2, 2015
(F) Affected Property Owners
(G) Affected Property Owners Responses
STAFF CONTACT:
David Jones (817) 748-8072
Ken Baker (817) 748-8067
Case No.
CP16-001
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OWNERS:
See attachment E
APPLICANT:
City of Southlake
PROPERTY LOCATION:
See attachment B
EXISTING
LAND USE CATEGORY:
Low Density Residential or Medium Density Residential (depending on
property)
PROPOSED
LAND USE CATEGORY:
Rural Estate Residential (5 acre minimum lot size)
CURRENT ZONING:
“AG” Agricultural District; “RE” Residential Estate District; “SF-1A”, “SF-
1B”, “SF-30”, “SF-20A”, or “SF-20B” Single Family Residential District
(depending on property)
PROPOSED ZONING:
No change in zoning is proposed for any property
HISTORY:
Staff was directed to research a new land use category to aid in the
preservation of remaining large agricultural and residential lots. All
residentially zoned lots with 3 acres or more of land and a Low or
Medium-Density Residential Future Land Use designation on the Future
Land Use map were analyzed. Those which retained rural or estate
characteristics and which were situated within close proximity to other
such parcels were delineated into study areas. 5 such study areas are
proposed for consideration under the proposed Rural Estate Residential
Future Land Use.
N:\\Community Development\\MEMO\\Comp Plan Amendments\\2016\\CP16-001\\Staff Report\\CP16-001 - Rural Estate Residential 5ac.docx
Case No. Attachment A
CP16-001 Page 1
Areas Under Consideration for Rural Estate Residential Land Use Description
Case No. Attachment B
CP16-001 Page 1
SPIN MEETING REPORT
Case Number: SPIN16-03
Project Name: CP16-001 Southlake 2030 Rural Real Estate Residential Land Use Category
SPIN Neighborhood:
Citywide
Meeting Date:
January 26, 2016
Meeting Location:
1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX
City Council Chambers
Total Attendance:
28
Host:
Bobbie Heller, CEC
Applicant(s) Presenting:
Ken Baker, Senior Director of Planning and Development Services
City Staff Present:
Patty Moos, Planner I
City Staff Contact:
David Jones, Principal Planner, email: djones@ci.southlake.tx.us phone: 817-748-
8070
Attached to the end of this report are the Blackboard Connect Delivery Results for the January 26, 2016 SPIN Town Hall
Forum
Presentation begin: 6:15 pm Presentation ended: 6:45 pm
Town Hall Forums can be viewed in their entirety by visiting http://www.cityofsouthlake.com and clicking on “Learn More” under
Video On Demand; forums are listed under SPIN by meeting date.
FORUM SUMMARY:
Property Situation:
Citywide
Development Details:
Note: SPIN16-02 and SPIN16-03 were presented as one presentation at the SPIN meeting
Staff was directed to research a new land use category for the City’s Future Land Use Plan. The Land
Use Plan is a policy document only for City Council. It is a framework for commercial and residential
development, a fundamental plan for all city services. Zoning is a regulatory document. City Council
uses the Future Land Use map for rezoning and as a tool with zoning and lot configuration, tree
preservation, etc. in the framework.
The Land Use category is for Rural Estate Residential. Staff is analyzing 3-5 acre, 5-7 and 7+ acre
properties in Southlake. There are 5 general areas for the Land Use Plan amendment:W Bob Jones
Road (north); Dove/N. Peytonville Ave/Shady Oaks (west/northwest); S. White Chapel Road (south);
Sunshine Lane (east); and Highland Ave/Shady Oaks (central).
Case No. Attachment D
CP16-001 Page 1
The Rural Estate Land Use Category:
Purpose: To identify, provide for, and preserve the rural aesthetics and natural resource characteristics
of very low density single-family residential development.
Definition: The Rural Estate category is for detached single-family residential development at a net
density of one or fewer dwelling units per 5 acres. The Rural Estate category encourages the
openness and rural character of the City.
RE Single Family-7 Zoning District:
• Newly Created Zoning Classification
• Same regulations as the existing RE –Single family Residential Estate zoning district except for
acreage minimum.
Planning and Zoning Commission date for ordinance: February 4, 2016 at 6:30 pm (Public Hearing).
City Council dates for the ordinance: February 16, 2016, first reading (not a public hearing, but can
nd
speak at meeting) at 5:30 pm and March 1, 2016, 2 reading (Public Hearing) at 5:30 pm.
Case No. Attachment D
CP16-001 Page 2
Case No. Attachment D
CP16-001 Page 3
QUESTIONS / CONCERNS:
1. If this category is put in place with underlying a 7 acre property, how will this affect a property
that will put a PUD on the property, not existing?
Response: They can always ask City Council for the zoning with the land use and zoning
change.
2. Concern by Bill Lafavers and John Klebs and both are opposed. White Chapel is zoned RE, but
concerned with properties on Pine Street (approx. 9 acres) and what will happen with this
property.
3. Question: What criteria were used and why are there other properties Milner along SH114 and
Rucker (near S. Carroll) not included?
Case No. Attachment D
CP16-001 Page 4
Response: The Milner property will most likely become mixed use in the future and Rucker
property was not included, but can be considered by City Council.
4. Are land values considered with this process for a 5 acre minimum?
Response: City Council will probably consider this.
5. Comment: Three residents on Sunshine Lane may be opposed.
6. Concerned on how this will affect property values for 8 acre property. Property value is not
comparable with acre vs. square foot prices.
7. Concerned about property values.
8. How will this affect property values under 3 acres and 2 acres?
Response: Should not affect property values on this property or affect smaller lots.
9. Concerned about government control of 9 acre property on N. White Chapel.
10. Comment: Opposed to this on E. Highland Avenue.
11. Comment: For this property- controls development surrounding their property.
12. Comment: Opposed to restriction of lots regarding economics and maybe need a reduction in
density and reduction in city taxes.
13. Comment: Opposed (Sunshine Lane) to economic concerns with property values. Southlake is
no longer rural.
14. Comment: Southlake builder opposed as land owners’ values of land, should be able to recoup-
5 acre will reduce value to owners.
15. Comment: Country atmosphere around Sunshine Lane is no longer rural. This should have
been done 10 years ago. Sh114 and office development has made the rural atmosphere long
gone. Less than 15% of land in Southlake is developable.
16. Will new designation for rural estate affect land use?
Response: Definition is: The Rural Estate category is for detached single-family residential
development at a net density of one or fewer dwelling units per 5 acres. The Rural Estate
category encourages the openness and rural character of the City.
17. Comment: Restrictions on land owner should be considered for formula for size of house on a
specific lot size. Now it is bigger homes forced onto smaller lots and needs to change to smaller
homes on bigger lots.
Response: This can be discussed with City Council.
Case No. Attachment D
CP16-001 Page 5
SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives. The report is neither verbatim nor official meeting
minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by residents and the general
responses made. Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken as guarantees by the applicant. Interested parties are strongly encouraged to
follow the case through the Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by City Council.
Case No. Attachment D
CP16-001 Page 6
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Meeting Report
Meeting 1 – December 2, 2015
ITEM #5 DISCUSSION – NEW LAND USE CATEGORY AND ZONING DISTRICT:
Staff presented this item to the Committee, and the following represents questions for
staff after the presentation:
Q: Staff recommendation is the land use category would have a maximum density of 1 house
per 5 acres and RE 2 with 1 house per 7 acres?
A: Correct
Q: How logistically would we move forward?
A: If we went through a land use amendment change we would have to go through the
process. It would have to be adopted by an ordinance
Q: Are there incentives available (voluntarily or otherwise) to motivate a behavior for people to
sign up for this? Tax benefit?
A: Opportunity to put land into a perpetual easement which may result in a tax benefit
Q: Talking about incentive to buy into zoning category? If you are the landowner, why do this?
A: What the land use designation would do, is, for those lots not currently zoned, within this 5
acre or whatever land use category the council or PZ would have basis to not approve that
zoning. If a development came in on 30 acres and has the 5 acre zoning, you would be
limiting them to basically 6 new lots. Land use primarily impacts those properties that are
not zoned currently
Q: What percentage of these study areas is zoned AG?
A: It’s probably close to half
Comments by Committee:
There are tracts in here that have existing RE and would prevent further subdivision
o
Intention is not to encourage subdivision of land, this accomplishes that in a
o
straightforward way
We are a democracy, this is passionate for some people maybe not for others - we get
o
this out there for discussion. If we are going to talk about this let everyone chime in and
see where the process goes
P&Z was going to be the first ones hit with this
o
Gives control we otherwise do not have. Goal to be stewards of existing property to help
o
Southlake develop in the best way possible
What is going to motivate people to do this? To have your land rezoned...
o
Not talking about rezone, talking about land use, overlay. Doesn't encourage you to
o
rezone but does say you won’t ask for 15 houses on 15 acres
Case No. Attachment E
CP16-001 Page 1
As a community we are open for debate. Property owners would need to come talk to
o
us
Concerned the landowners won’t want to do this
o
Direction for Staff from Committee:
Talk about how many dwelling units could be created
o
Provide more data on dwelling units
o
Look to see whether it would be good to include lots on Highland
o
Comments by Staff:
The one issue about going higher (7 acre) you will get the top end but a number of
o
people coming forward with land use amendment requests to plat their property
May conduct SPIN or special meeting to give property owners idea
o
Will present to Council and ask how to proceed
o
Comments by Public:
None
o
NEW LAND USE CATEGORY/ZONING DISTRICT RESEARCH SHOWN TO COMMITTEE:
Case No. Attachment E
CP16-001 Page 2
North Peytonville Study Area
Case No. Attachment E
CP16-001 Page 3
Sunshine Study Area
Case No. Attachment E
CP16-001 Page 4
South White Chapel Study Area
Case No. Attachment E
CP16-001 Page 5
Bob Jones Study Area
Case No. Attachment E
CP16-001 Page 6
Affected Property Owners
SPO # Owner Zoning Address Acreage Response
94 ONE LLC 465, 479 W HIGHLAND ST 4.99
SF1-A
1. NR
940 WEST DOVE RD LLC SF1-A 940 W DOVE RD 4.86
NR
2.
AHMED, IMTIAZ SF2 841 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 1.33
NR
3.
ANDERSON, WILFRED E SF1-A 555 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 3.04
NR
4.
ARMISH LLC RE 1300 SUNSHINE LN 5.47
5. O
AVARY, JOHN SF1-A 1075 W DOVE RD 3.98
6. NR
BAJAJ, GURPREET SF1-A 410 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 2.49
7. O
1280, 1284, 1288
BARKER, DOUGLAS J SF1-A 3.97
8. O
SUNSHINE LN
BEDFORD, MARK D 1331 SHADY OAKS DR 4.95
SF1-A
9. O
BEHRENDS, LINDA AG 1749 E HIGHLAND ST 12.50
O
10.
4700 N WHITE CHAPEL
BOWER, KEVIN R SF1-A 4.84
NR
11.
BLVD
CAMPBELL, JOSE 335 W HIGHLAND ST 0.73
NR
AG
12.
COMBE, DANIEL 339 W HIGHLAND ST 1.01
NR
SF1-A
13.
SF1-A
COSTELLO, MICHAEL J 1862 N PEYTONVILLE AVE 10.60
NR
14.
DAHLSON, RICHARD 1250 SHADY OAKS DR 6.04
NR
SF1-A
15.
DALLAND PROPERTIES LLC AG 700 W BOB JONES RD 6.81
NR
16.
DAVIS, GORDON WAYNE SF2 1900 SHADY OAKS DR 9.99
NR
17.
DEAN, ROBERT RE 911 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 7.77
NR
18.
DEAN, ROBERT AG 859 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 5.96
NR
19.
DERR, ROBERT W SF1-A 1500 SUNSHINE LN 5.97
NR
20.
DOWNING, JAMIE S SF1-A 685 W DOVE RD 2.11
NR
21.
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 1
1350, 1360, 1370
DUERST, BRADLEY J SF1-A 8.08
O
22.
SUNSHINE LN
DUGGINS, JAMES L SF1-A 865 W DOVE RD 6.61
NR
23.
ELLIOTT, BRYAN SF1-A 935 W DOVE RD 7.27
NR
24.
EMMER, DANIEL P SF1-A 345 W BOB JONES RD 4.64
NR
25.
EVANS, LARRY R SF1-A 975 W DOVE RD 4.86
26. F
EVANS, MARZELL F TR M.F. 4078 N WHITE CHAPEL
AG 5.34
NR
27.
EVANS TRUST BLVD
FLEPS, JOHN J 601, 603 W HIGHLAND ST 2.81
NR
AG
28.
4440 N WHITE CHAPEL
FLYNT, JASON & LINDSAY SF1-A 2.05
NR
29.
BLVD
715, 711 S WHITE CHAPEL
FOX, GEORGE SF1-A 4.59
NR
30.
BLVD
FRIEDLAND, LEWIS D RE 2001 N PEYTONVILLE AVE 6.80
NR
31.
GAINES, ROBERT K 1265 SHADY OAKS DR 2.18
NR
SF1-A
32.
GIOLMA, F EDWIN 1311 SUNSHINE LN 2.10
33. O
GRABOWSKI, LESZEK 1285 SHADY OAKS DR 5.41
NR
SF1-A
34.
GRAY, ROBERT J 1275 SHADY OAKS DR 4.30
NR
SF2
35.
SF1-A
GRUBBS, GEORGE 702 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 4.26
NR
36.
HARDY, LINDA S 1100 SHADY OAKS DR 1.13
NR
AG
37.
1111, 1125 S WHITE
RE
HARGETT, GARY 14.22
NR
38.
CHAPEL BLVD
HILL, KENNETH W 1360 SHADY OAKS DR 5.29
NR
RE
39.
HUBEL, PETER H SF1-A 1459 SUNSHINE LN 3.06
NR
40.
J O SR & B M PASSMORE LIV TR 1391 SHADY OAKS DR 4.77
NR
SF1-A
41.
JAMAL, SYED SF2 2000 SHADY OAKS DR 4.96
NR
42.
JAMESON, MARK J SF1-A 1780 SUNSHINE LN 2.93
NR
43.
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 2
JANDON LTD AG 974 W DOVE RD 5.02
NR
44.
JOHNSON, DREW SF1-A 921 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 6.00
NR
45.
4680 N WHITE CHAPEL
JONES, ANDREW & KENLYN SF1-A 3.02
NR
46.
BLVD
JOYNER, J DAVID SF1-A 1559 SUNSHINE LN 1.49
NR
47.
KAY, ROBERT SF1-A 1450, 1460 SUNSHINE LN 6.23
48. O
KEENE, J RANDALL 525 W HIGHLAND ST 5.09
NR
SF1-A
49.
SF1-A
KEENER, DAVID 1950 N PEYTONVILLE AVE 4.02
NR
50.
KEMINS, ROBERT A 605 W HIGHLAND ST 0.52
NR
AG
51.
611 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD
KUELBS, JOHN A RE 14.93
NR
52.
AND 430, 460 PINE DR
520, 530, 580, 620, 640 S
LAFAVERS, WILLIAM E AG 12.72
53. O
WHITE CHAPEL BLVD
LAMON, CHRISTOPHER R & 4720, 4730, 4740 N WHITE
AG 8.40
NR
54.
JANE CHAPEL BLVD
275, 300 W BOB JONES RD
LEGACY LIMITED, LLC AG AND 4060 N WHITE 18.28
NR
55.
CHAPEL BLVD
LINDAMOOD, JAKE W SF1-A 1821 SUNSHINE LN 5.62
NR
56.
LORENZ, RONALD W SF1-A 1297 SUNSHINE LN 2.05
NR
57.
4000 N WHITE CHAPEL
MAHONE, MATTHEW J &
SF1-A BLVD AND 335 W BOB 9.14
NR
58.
LEIGH ANNE
JONES RD
MALIK, AMJAD SF1-A 700 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 7.10
NR
59.
MARSHALL, L E 1300 SHADY OAKS DR 2.52
NR
SF1-A
60.
SF1-A
MARTILLO, JOHN 1779 SUNSHINE LN 2.93
NR
61.
MARYLAND, RUSSELL 510 W HIGHLAND ST 1.71
NR
RPUD
62.
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 3
MCLEMORE, MARK SF1-A 533 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 3.93
NR
63.
MILANI, JOHN C & CHRISTEN AG 500 W BOB JONES RD 9.71
NR
64.
MILLER, ROBERT SF1-A 440 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 2.00
NR
65.
MLADENOVIC, RADE SF1-A 710 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 5.01
NR
66.
NEUSE, STEPHEN H SF1-A 1679 SUNSHINE LN 2.02
NR
67.
NOETZEL, STEVEN J SF1-A 2145 N PEYTONVILLE AVE 3.31
NR
68.
OREN, STEPHEN J SF2 2050 SHADY OAKS DR 4.49
NR
69.
PAXTON, JOHN F SF1-A 1055 W DOVE RD 5.06
NR
70.
RALEY, TIMOTHY 440, 498 W HIGHLAND ST 3.04
NR
AG
71.
REISING, MAX AG 400 W BOB JONES RD 2.54
NR
72.
RENDA, FRANK SF1-A 1469 SUNSHINE LN 3.67
NR
73.
RICHARDSON, SALLYE ANN 1295 SHADY OAKS DR 4.85
NR
SF1-A
74.
400, 480 W HIGHLAND ST
RIDE WITH PRIDE INC 1.94
NR
SF30
75.
AND 324 MONTROSE LN
4650, 4686 N WHITE
AG
ROBINSON, RALPH & WILMA 5.53
76. U
CHAPEL BLVD
RUNYAN, BILLY W 979 SHADY OAKS DR 0.99
O
AG
77.
RUSSELL, ANN 1049 SHADY OAKS DR 1.55
NR
AG
78.
SANCHEZ, CHRISTOPHER
SF1-A
1287, 1251 SUNSHINE LN 4.65
NR
79.
MICHAEL
314, 488, 494 W
SEEBECK, ROBERT OR DOREEN 3.34
NR
SF1-B
80.
HIGHLAND ST
SELLS, RALPH B SF1-A 825 W DOVE RD 6.58
NR
81.
SHAFI, MAZUFER SF1-A 1861 SUNSHINE LN 3.27
NR
82.
4500 N WHITE CHAPEL
SHOWTIME FARMS INC AG 10.01
NR
83.
BLVD
SMITHSON, SHELLEY R SF1-A 1439 SUNSHINE LN 3.08
NR
84.
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 4
330-360 W BOB JONES RD
SPECTRA LAND LP SF1-A AND 4640 N WHITE 42.40
NR
85.
CHAPEL BLVD
SPICKLER, DENNIS G SF1-A 1950 SHADY OAKS DR 8.17
NR
86.
SPIEGELMAN, PAUL 545 W HIGHLAND ST 4.39
NR
SF1-A
87.
AG
STEPHENS, LESTER 500 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 1.90
NR
88.
STROMBERG, WILLIAM 1029 SHADY OAKS DR 1.49
NR
AG
89.
SULLIVAN, PAUL T SF1-A 1900 N PEYTONVILLE AVE 2.06
90. F
SYKES, J R RE 720 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 15.15
NR
91.
TOLBERT, ANTHONY SF1-A 475 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 2.58
NR
92.
WACKER NEUSON
1255 SHADY OAKS DR 2.33
NR
SF1-A
93.
CORPORATION
SF1-A
WAHBY, SAMIR C 811 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 1.11
NR
94.
1340, 1342 SHADY OAKS
WALBURG, JAMES B SF1-A 2.25
NR
95.
DR
WALDRUM, GARRY SF1-A 1310 SHADY OAKS DR 1.37
NR
96.
WASSERMAN JAY RPUD 520 W HIGHLAND ST 1.39
NR
97.
WAYLAND, CHERYL RENEE SF1-A 701 W DOVE RD 3.05
NR
98.
WHITE, THOMAS W AG 600 W BOB JONES RD 36.23
NR
99.
1852, 1842 N PEYTONVILLE
WIRTALA, DAVID A AG 2.81
100. U
AVE
WISNIEWSKI, JAMES C SF1-A 1449 SUNSHINE LN 3.09
NR
101.
WOOD, PAUL D SF1-A 400 S WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 2.42
NR
102.
345, 351, 459 W
YETMAN, BERT M 6.68
NR
AG
103.
HIGHLAND ST
SUPERINTENDENT OF CARROL
NR
104.
ISD
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 5
SUPERINTENDENT OF
NR
105.
NORTHWEST ISD
SUPERINTENDENT OF
NR
106.
GRAPEVINE-COLLEYVILLE ISD
SUPERINTENDENT OF KELLER
NR
107.
ISD
Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided NR: No Response
Notices Sent: One Hundred Seven (107)
Responses Received: Fourteen (14)
In Favor: Two (2) Opposed: Ten (10) Undecided: Two (2)
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 6
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 2
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 2
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 2
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 2
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 2
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 2
Mayor Hill and Southlake City Council Members,
My name is Susan Duerst, 1360 Sunshine Ln, Southlake, and have been a long time
Southlake resident for almost 25 years. My letter is in reference to the consideration of the
City Council for a creation of a new 2030 Rural Estate Residential land use category, which
would personally affect my husband and myself. I did attend the Spin meeting on January 26,
2016.
strongly oppose
After hearing the information I this new land use category. My first question
is who made this recommendation in the first place? Were there any studies completed on
how this will impact us homeowners financially? It seems too little too late.
We have lived through 25 years of from our true beautiful, peaceful rural setting to now a sea
of homes, subdivisions (i.e. 4 in our neighborhood, The Reserve, Wimbledon, Villa Del Sol,
Saint Emilion), traffic, ongoing construction, congestion, etc. Now when the city has
accomplished what they want, the long time Southlake residents will have to suffer the
consequences. Yes, I too want to keep the rural setting so why was this not implemented back
10-15 years ago and have all the subdivisions at a minimum of 5 acre lots which would have
truly given us the country feel that you want now and alleviated a lot of the traffic, construction,
congestion, etc. Now we have the 68 acre Carillion, which by the way would have been
perfect for this, it sells ¼ acre lots, seems not the vision you are asking for now! And what
about the Rucker estate, again, still the rural feel, is this going to fall under this 5 acre
minimum?
From listening to the speakers at the Spin meeting, it appears that most of the residential
areas that you have targeted are those residents who have lived in Southlake 20, 30, 40 50,
60+ years. We are the residents that have put up with losing our rural neighborhood that we
moved to Southlake for and now we, the long time, loyal citizens are being asked to give up
the most. By this I mean depriving of us of the financial opportunities that we could benefit
from in the future, besides the city dictating what we can do with our property. We have no
immediate plans of moving but if and when we do, it would be nice to have the options that all
the other Southlake residents have had for years. It does not seem fair or ethical to punish
your most loyal, long time residents for who knows who or why someone now wants to make a
change to try and save what is left of any rural “feel”. Again, seems too little too late”.
Thank you for your consideration in rejecting this new land use category.
Susan Duerst
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 2
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 2
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 2
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 2
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 2
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 2
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 2
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 2
Case No. Attachment F
CP16-001 Page 2