2035 Corridor Committee Meeting Report - Mtg. 1 - Items 3-5
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Meeting Report
Meeting 1 – December 2, 2015
MEETING
LOCATION:
Southlake Town Hall
1400 Main Street, 3rd Floor Training Rooms C/D
Southlake, Texas, 76092
IN
ATTENDANCE:
• City Council Members: Brandon Bledsoe, Gary Fawks
• Planning & Zoning Commission Members: Michael Springer, Chris
Greer
• Park Board Member: Frances Scharli
• City Staff: Ken Baker, Bob Price, Alison Ortowski, Daniel Cortez, Chris
Tribble, Shannon Hamons, David Jones, Lorrie Fletcher, Jerod Potts
• Developers/Applicants: Paul Spain, David Karr, Konstantine Bakintas
• Public: Throughout the meeting there were between one (1) and nine (9)
members of the public present
AGENDA
ITEMS:
1. Call to Order.
2. Review the role and responsibilities of the Corridor Planning Committee.
3. Review and make recommendations on the Stone Acre Estates Concept
Plan (proposed 36 acre residential subdivision south of FM 1709 and west
of Davis Boulevard).
4. Review and make recommendations on the Kimball Avenue/Crooked
Avenue proposed Office Concept Plan.
5. Discuss the creation of a new Land Use Category (Rural Residential
Estate) and Zoning District (Residential Estate – 2) and possible areas of
application in the City.
6. Public Comments.
7. Adjournment.
MEETING
OVERVIEW:
On December 2, 2015 the Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee
met for the first time. The Committee was sent a packet of materials prior
to the meeting that were to be discussed during the session. The packet
items were made available to the public and the meeting itself was open
to the public. The following meeting report focuses on discussion points
made during the meeting by members of the Committee, public,
developers, and City staff and only contains information for agenda items
3, 4, and 5. This report is neither verbatim nor does it represent official
meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed
officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by
the Committee, City staff, and any attendees of the meeting. Interested
parties are strongly encouraged to follow development cases through the
process. Please visit CityofSouthlake.com/Planning for more information.
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #3 – Stone Trail Estates
Meeting #1 - December 2, 2015 Page 1
ITEM #3 DISCUSSION – STONE TRAIL ESTATES (proposed 65-lot, 36 acre
residential subdivision south of FM 1709 and west of Davis Boulevard):
• Staff made presentation to the Committee, and there were no immediate
questions for staff.
• Paul Spain, developer of Stone Trail Estates made a presentation to the
Committee. The following includes comments by the developer:
o Creek running through the property goes down to Bear Creek
o Originally wanted (development) to go out to Davis with offices, but could not
acquire land
o Davis Blvd. is dividing line in Southlake of Carroll Schools and Keller School
districts
o The creek area has many trees. Creek (channel) is 6-8 feet wide
o In the future as the City is looking at the creek area it would be a great space for
a hike/bike trail
o Purchasing the Haney tract, which is currently part of Brock Dr. neighborhood
o Have been visiting with Brock residents and working on issues
o To the west is the church and the Watermere Villas
o Limited access to 1709 (right-in, right-out) - street stubs-out to the south. Will
have water/sewer
o The question becomes: "What makes a great neighborhood?" Hard to tell from
plans. Take the prettiest piece of the property and make it open space. Up at the
corner there are some trees along 1709 on the north
Questions the developer wanted to answer while putting the plan together:
1) W hat will the drive look like on 1709?
o Proposing the entrance off 1709. Only two lots back onto 1709
o Will have stone wall on the north side of lots with fountain, open space
2) How do we make the entrance as spectacular as we can?
o Have a buffer with existing trees and pond
o Have 7 lots that face onto pond with trees - preserve the existing tree line
3) Neighborhood Design
o Learned doing green space endcaps from developing Shady Oaks
o Part of open space is putting endcaps wherever there are lots facing the side of
other lots
o In SPIN meeting were asked about having land for expansion from a
representative from church to the north east
o The lot most affected by the development is the McCall’s. They will have
common access given through deed to them and instead of backing lots to them.
Told the McCall’s they would put up fence to them and the corner off the cul-de-
sac will remain access from Brock Dr. into the open space
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #3 – Stone Trail Estates
Meeting #1 - December 2, 2015 Page 2
o 1.8 du/acre
o Right now lots average 15,000 square feet with open space
o In this case we have squeezed out more open space to make the entrance
fabulous and add endcaps
• Questions for Developer:
Q: Single driveway with 65 lots with a right-in, right-out is troubling to me. Why is there a
stubbed out street?
A: Residents to the south do not want people driving through their neighborhood per
feedback at SPIN. Will do an emergency access to the south, must provide
emergency access because we are required two points of access
Q: In a perfect design world the neighborhood would connect to Davis. Is this not going
to happen?
A: The problem with the Davis intersection construction is that people would cut through
(from Davis). Can’t afford to acquire the property at residential prices
Q: The amount of vehicle trips with right-in, right-out is not preferred and people will
have to do U-turns. How does this work with the right-in, right-out only?
A: Need another median break onto 1709
Q: Can open space be groomed?
A: Cut once a month - this is what we do on rural parks
Q: Is the open space useable?
A: Yes, it is beautiful
Q: Is there a way to open the open space so it is more of an amenity for the
neighborhood?
A: Opened it up on the creek. See the creek area being a fabulous asset for the City in
the future
Q: Why no access onto Brock? Why is Brock untouchable?
A: What I work at doing is not bringing unhappy citizens to City meetings. Visited with
everybody there
Q: Will drainage be an issue?
A: Drainage will go into streets and be carried south to the creek. McCall’s and Haney’s
are getting this runoff now - and the development would take care of this
Q: Removing a sizable amount of trees?
A: We try and save the best
Q: What are thoughts on tree preservation?
A: Have tied down the easiest ones to save, and require every lot to have two trees on
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #3 – Stone Trail Estates
Meeting #1 - December 2, 2015 Page 3
the front and 2 on the back - and we put the right kind of trees. The larger the tree
the harder to save. It is easier to save those around the edge and in open spaces
• Comments by Committee:
o Have seen it where houses face the open space
o Mobility seems to drive development potential for this area
o First red flag is the single access, I would be happier if there were three points of
access
DEVELOPER RESPONSE: Could bridge creek if initial phases are successful
o Should think about a phasing plan ...access to open space is not a phase II or
Phase III part of the plan. When lots are released open space is available to
neighborhood
o I like the concept of how you dress up endcaps - I think that is interesting way to
approach open space. Anything to break up the cookie cutter (more imagination)
are nice planning elements
o I find the two boxes (street layout) boring. Possibly consider draw more people to
the open space in the middle of the project. Maybe more curvilinear streets,
which may help with access to the south over time because you do not have the
visual of a straight shot through the neighborhood
• Comments by Public:
o One of the big appeals to the property was the solitude of it. There are no
sidewalks. The biggest concerns are topography, runoff. Want to make sure
these things are addressed. Currently the way Brock Dr. is right now, drivers
attempt to do a turnaround and they can’t make the turn so they come down
Brock thinking it is an exit, and people will speed down the street. There are so
many people that come through, because it is a country setting, and the asphalt
is cracked because semis turn around on my driveway
o In an emergency how will people get out safely? Would be worried. Also, Brock
Dr. - these people have been long time residents and have been involved and
there have been issues with traffic turning in there. Also, if there was a cut
through the people wanting to go west on 1709 would cause a backup
• Comments by Developer:
o Eventually may have a fabulous entry off of Davis
o Will work with City to get median break in 1709
• Developer Question for Committee:
Q: Does the City like the more open space, endcaps? What about lots under 15,000?
A: Like the fact there is open space, and a nice size entry buffer on 1709. Concerned
about setbacks and side yards
• Comments by Staff:
o (Regarding median break comment by developer) existing median opening at
Brock and Watermere Dr. These are on about half-mile intervals and it is the
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #3 – Stone Trail Estates
Meeting #1 - December 2, 2015 Page 4
landscaped area. Do not believe storage lengths would meet TXDOT
requirements and will have to take medians out
o People (trucks, etc.) driving on Brock may possibly be a signage issue
STONE TRAIL ESTATES PLANS / DOCUMENTS SHOWN TO COMMITTEE:
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #3 – Stone Trail Estates
Meeting #1 - December 2, 2015 Page 5
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – Kimball/Crooked Concept Plan
Meeting #1 - December 2, 2015 Page 1
ITEM #4 DISCUSSION – KIMBALL/CROOKED PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN:
• Staff presented the project details to the Committee, and there were no
immediate questions for staff.
• The developers of the site, David Karr and Konstantine Bakintas, presented an
overview of the project to the Committee. The following includes comments by
the developers:
o Project is a partnership between Brown Company Partners and Office Equity
Solutions
o Brown Company partners has (is developing) the northwest development (green
on concept plan) and Office Equity Solutions has (is developing) everything else
o The northwest piece (green on concept plan) is three tracts which the developer
got under contract in February. Were guided by staff to work with neighbors to
understand how the entire development works from a tree preservation
perspective but also a mobility, connectivity perspective
o Developer met with (City) staff in June or July regarding the project
o Indoor tennis court is under contract, and it has some issues. There are adjacent
residential lots. Looking for feedback on roadway alignment
o Understand in conversations with staff that a connection onto Crooked Lane
would probably not be received well
o Wanted feedback from Committee on access
o Developer feels like another access point is needed but don’t feel like it is viable
to access onto Nolen. Hoping for small connection onto Crooked Ln. If access
cannot be obtained may reconfigure so there is another access point
o Staff has advised not to leave the property owner stranded (red area on concept
plan)
o At Champion Crossing there are circular sidewalks and benches that personalize
the space, and maybe we (developer) need to figure out a way to do this in the
trees
o Do not want six of the same thing; possibly incorporate a Vaquero concept - give
the buildings and designers a palate of materials for the area
o Will have association that could veto materials that won’t work with the park
o Have a TIA that is still being done, may need deceleration lane to manage
stacking as people turn into the development. Developer worries that as you start
cutting into the roots of trees you start losing them. Losing trees for a
deceleration lane is a concern
o Do not have ROW north of Village Center, but do to the south
• Questions for Developer:
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – Kimball/Crooked Concept Plan
Meeting #1 - December 2, 2015 Page 2
Q: Looks like this will be divided to sell the lots
A: Yes
• Comments by Committee:
o Items in 2030 reiterated
o Looks like many trees will be preserved
o I am going to challenge you to take it up a couple notches
o We often get into the urban design, streetscape, a lot of detail in some of these
plans and on these larger plans and because of the environment around you
could incorporate some of these features
o Think the concept of splitting the tracts in half to get access to the southern piece
eliminates need to get access onto Crooked
o Based on previous meetings, would encourage you to take that driveway off
Crooked and align access to Nolen
o Tennis indoor facilities are big and they end up being a three story structure - in
terms of the appropriateness of the use there is virtually no way to articulate it, it
is a big building
o There is a big complex at Bicentennial (tennis courts). Is there a demand for
that? Is this the best concept for this area? If there is not a wait list at
Bicentennial you may not have the demand
DEVELOPER RESPONSE: Tennis court development would be done by a
separate entity, not Office Equity Solutions
o There is topography and you took into consideration the trees, but if there was
any way to cluster buildings or do certain things to create a marketable product
but consider the woodland areas in the region - maybe consider the plan area
recommendations
o May want to utilize the retaining wall and pond area to manicure the entries so it
feels like you are entering a campus type area
o It would be cool if when you enter the site you drive through the tree area - to
force a drive through, which would be a neat approach
DEVELOPER RESPONSE: A deceleration lane into the site could negatively
impact the trees. Maybe take advantage of tree cover. Maybe pull the sidewalk
into the trees and meander it through there, add benches
o Mr. Karr may need more contemporary architecture in nature. I would encourage
the developers to work together so the projects are complementary in terms of
building materials
o Would be a nice touch if the projects feel like they belong together
o Maybe have a few different elevations to work from
o Would encourage you to find alternative access
• Comments by Public:
o Crooked Ln. is a historic road
o Is it possible for temporary access until Village Center Dr. is completed or worked
out? Also, I suggest everyone look at traffic when school is being let in and let
out
o The tennis courts do not make any sense under the 75 LDN. We have tennis
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – Kimball/Crooked Concept Plan
Meeting #1 - December 2, 2015 Page 3
courts but they are all outside
o Please change the name of Village Center (road) from East / West to something
else
• Comments by Staff:
o The majority of the project is in the LDN which prohibits residential development
o Would have to acquire ROW at S. Village Center – Staff to do cost estimates
o When you start looking at any possible access points onto Kimball there is a lot
of rise and fall on Kimball and there are a number of driveways that have vertical
site distance issues to the north and south...as we get into more detailed
discussions staff will look at that but this will benefit us from an overall mobility
standpoint
KIMBALL/CROOKED CONCEPT PLANS / DOCUMENTS SHOWN TO COMMITTEE:
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – Kimball/Crooked Concept Plan
Meeting #1 - December 2, 2015 Page 4
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #4 – Kimball/Crooked Concept Plan
Meeting #1 - December 2, 2015 Page 5
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – New Land Use Category/Zoning District
Meeting #1 - December 2, 2015 Page 1
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:
o 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
straightforward way
o We are a democracy, this is passionate for some people maybe not for others -
we get this out there for discussion. If we are going to talk about this let everyone
chime in and see where the process goes
o 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 Southlake develop in the best way possible
o What is going to motivate people to do this? To have your land rezoned...
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – New Land Use Category/Zoning District
Meeting #1 - December 2, 2015 Page 2
o Not talking about rezone, talking about land use, overlay. Doesn't encourage you
to rezone but does say you won’t ask for 15 houses on 15 acres
o As a community we are open for debate. Property owners would need to come
talk to us
o Concerned the landowners won’t want to do this
• Direction for Staff from Committee:
o 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
• Comments by Staff:
o The one issue about going higher (7 acre) you will get the top end but a number
of people coming forward with land use amendment requests to plat their
property
o May conduct SPIN or special meeting to give property owners idea
o Will present to Council and ask how to proceed
• Comments by Public:
o None
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – New Land Use Category/Zoning District
Meeting #1 - December 2, 2015 Page 3
NEW LAND USE CATEGORY/ZONING DISTRICT RESEARCH SHOWN TO
COMMITTEE:
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – New Land Use Category/Zoning District
Meeting #1 - December 2, 2015 Page 4
North Peytonville Study Area
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – New Land Use Category/Zoning District
Meeting #1 - December 2, 2015 Page 5
Sunshine Study Area
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – New Land Use Category/Zoning District
Meeting #1 - December 2, 2015 Page 6
South White Chapel Study Area
Southlake 2035 Corridor Planning Committee Item #5 – New Land Use Category/Zoning District
Meeting #1 - December 2, 2015 Page 7
Bob Jones Study Area