Item 6 - 2030 Public Comments SOUTHLAKE 2030 PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2011
1
PUBLIC COMMENT
o Mike Mills, 1528 Main Street, Southlake, TX
Email comments regarding the Vision, Goals and Objectives;
Received October 1, 2009
Email comments regarding the Southeast Sector Plan; Received
July 26, 2010.
o Ray L. Chancellor, Ph.D.; 890 Harbor Court, Southlake, TX
Preserving Southlake’s Natural Heritage - The Southlake Cove
Ecosystem and Wildlife Area; Received October 2, 2009
Comments on SPIN Meeting; Received October 9, 2009
Comments on Tom Allen Letter Dated December 9, 2009; Received
February 16, 2010
Comments on Future Planning, Corp Property and Light Pollution;
Received April 14, 2010
o Curtis W. Young, 1130 N. Carroll Avenue, Ste. 200, Southlake, TX
Request for Land Use Plan Revision Consideration to the Southlake
2030 Committee; Received November 12, 2009
Map
o Tom Allen, Partner, Maguire Partners; 9 Village Circle, Suite 500,
Westlake, TX
Land Use Plan Revision Considerations; Received December 9,
2009
o Sara Alexander; 519 Shady Lane, Southlake, TX
Email comments regarding North Sector; Received January 28,
2010
o Emily Galpin; 1481 Post Oak Trail, Southlake, TX
Email comments regarding a “Bicycle Friendly City”; Received
January 28, 2010
o Jed and Michele M. Gibson; 2420 Raintree Drive, Southlake, TX
Email comments regarding North Sector; Received February 1,
2010
2
o Paul W. Johnson; 610 Katelyn Lane, Southlake, TX
Email comments regarding pathways; Received February 4, 2010
o Suzie Craney, 2504 Rolling Lane, Southlake, TX
Email comments regarding the North Sector Land Use Plan;
Received February 8, 2010
o Gregory Swain, 2407 Taylor Street, Southlake, TX
Email comments regarding the North Sector Land Use Plan;
Received April 8, 2010
o Jeff and Krista Klein, Southridge Lakes Resident, Southlake, TX
Email comments regarding Sidewalks; Received June 24, 2010
o Wendi Carlucci, 2000 North Peytonville Avenue, Southlake, TX
Email comments regarding Central Sector Plan and sidewalks;
Received June 30, 2010
Email comments regarding Central Sector Plan; Received August
28, 2010
o Barbara Schlauch, 1605 Mockingbird Lane, Southlake, TX
Email comments regarding drainage issues along Randol Mill
Avenue; Received June 30, 2010
o Joe Church, 1346 Meadow Glen, Southlake, TX
Email comments regarding Central Sector Plan; Received July 3,
2010
o Greg Goodrich, 405 Chesapeak Lane, Southlake, TX
Email comments and photos regarding West Sector Plan and the
intersection at Pearson Lane and Southlake Boulevard; Received
August 5, 2010
o Joe Pipes, Pipes Plant Farm, Ltd., 901 South Pearson Lane, Keller, TX
Letter regarding West Sector Plan; Received August 12, 2010
o Teresa Jane Thompson, 1395 Hideaway Lane West, Hideaway, TX
Email regarding Southeast Sector Plan; Received September 22,
2010.
o Theresa Thompson et al, 1395 Hideway Lane West, Hideaway, TX
Letter regarding Southeast Sector Plan; Received October 7, 2010.
3
o Roger Williams
Email regarding the proposed collector between South Kimball
Avenue and Nolen Drive; Received October 12, 2010.
o John Gallagher
Email regarding a sidewalk on the west side of Randol Mill from
Hillside Ct to F.M. 1709; Received November 26, 2010.
o Vicky Davis
Email regarding property on 200 S. Peytonville; Received April 5,
2011.
o Greg Tichenor
Email regarding a sidewalk connecting Dove Rd to Tuscan Ridge;
Received May 8, 2011.
o Angelo Mendez
Email regarding F.M. 1709 & F.M. 1938 Corridor Plan; Received
June 29, 2011.
o Juergen Strunck
Email regarding F.M. 1709 & F.M. 1938 Corridor Plan; Received
June 27, 2011.
o Vicky Davis
Comment card regarding a connector road from Players Circle to S.
Peytonville (discussed by Land Use Plan Committee at July 27,
2011 meeting); Received July 27, 2011.
November 12, 2009
TS01-00
Mr. Clayton Comstock
City of Southlake
Planning and Development Services
Southlake, Texas
RE: Request for Land Use Plan Revision consideration to the Southlake 2030 Committee
Clayton:
As discussed, we have been working with the property owners and a potential development group
regarding the three tracts of land shown on the attached graphic. (The Mertz, Fusella and LeTournot
tracts). While all three properties (totaling almost 20 acres) are “undeveloped,” two of the three
tracts presently have older residences on them (Fusella and LeTournot).
We have studied the development potential of this property and have come to the conclusion that the
biggest obstacle to its development (for any use other than the present one) is a lack of access
directly from a public street. The existing residences get to their homes by way of a long access
easement, through another residential lot fronting onto Shady Lane. We believe, unfortunately, that
it is not practical to expect that easement would be able to be improved into the kind of a street
required for further development of any kind. There is no other current access to these tracts.
While we understand that the current approval and development regulation practices of the city
would not allow for this situation to occur, for whatever reasons development and/or zoning
approvals over the years have proceeded without any requirement to extend street access to this
area. (We do not know the complete development history of this area, and are not suggesting
blame, only identifying the current situation).
Of the surrounding properties, almost all are fully developed; complicating and minimizing the
possibilities for gaining access. To the west is the Country Acres subdivision, 5 residential lots
fronting on Shady Lane; the subject property has no access to Shady Lane, other than via the
aforementioned access easement through one of these lots. To the north is the S. Freeman
subdivision; there is no access to or from Rolling Lane. To the east is the Austin Oaks subdivision, in
Grapevine; again, no access. To the south are two commercial properties- the Morrison Office Park
(fully developed with pads and parking lots for future office buildings, with no through access) and
the Bonola property (partially developed as a dental office, partially undeveloped). It is via the
undeveloped portion of the Bonola property that we believe we have the best and perhaps only hope
for gaining access (from the SH-114 frontage road, through and in conjunction with development on
the Bonola tract).
If an agreement for access from SH-114, through the Bonola property can be worked out and
coordinated with the development of that Commercial property, it follows that the uses on the
subject tract would need to at least be compatable with the nature of that access and the uses
through which it passes. This is not to say the same as the “freeway frontage office/commercial”
potential of the Bonola property itself, but something more compatible than the Low Density
Residential it is currently designated. Of course, adequate consideration of and buffering to the
adjacent residential areas to the West, North and East would be also required, as this would then be
a transitional land use area between the Commercial areas along the freeway, and the residential
areas further in.
Therefore, our request is that the Committee consider designating this area with a “Transition 1 or 2”
overlay, and perhaps an underlying land use of “Mixed Use,” to allow for the possibility of the
preparation and approval of a well thought out, creative land use plan for this area; and at the same
time, one which provides for a solution to the current access problem.
We would expect, of course, that there will be questions and discussion necessary to get everyone
comfortable with this, as well as outreach to the neighbors, and are committed to that.
Thank you, and please let me know if you have any questions.
Best Regards,
SAGE GROUP, INC.
Curtis W. Young, AIA
Principal
CWY/db
Page 2 of 2
First let me express my appreciation for your consideration and inclusion of
ecosystem factors in the 2030 Plan. Changes do not come rapidly. But when an
idea becomes part of the planning process, great things eventually evolve. You
have not compromised the growth of Southlake, but you have noted
the importance of our natural history. Thank you.
I would like to propose another effort for your consideration. The City is slowly
leasing or wants to lease all the Corps of Engineers land along the city’s northern
boundary. That effort is to be applauded. But the next question that should be
asked is, "What do we do with it when we get it?" As with all management
activities, they start slowly, rise rapidly, and then level off or decline. The place to
make the long term sustaining gains is not at the leveling off or declining stage. It
is when you are doing your best and are on the sharp incline. How does this
affect the leased Corps property? While gains are being made with the 2030 Plan,
the possible expansion of Bob Jones Nature Center, and the leasing of Corps
property, it will be important to get ahead of the process.
In leasing the Corps of Engineers land, part of the negotiations should involve
renaming the area as an ecosystem reserve. (I will discuss names later.) What will
be important is to create leverage that can be used later in seeking grants from a
number of sources including government funding. This establishes a framework
that will provide evidence that the City has this project on the drawing boards and
is not just creating a paper tiger to secure funds. Much work has already been
done to document the ecosystem and what it contains. A little effort will benefit
the City in nearly all grants supporting such areas.
If you want a close example, just look north to Denton where they have created
the Clear Creek Natural History Preserve. They are just now building a grant base
and have asked the local universities to research the ecology of the preserve.
Southlake has already accomplished what Denton has just discovered as a
requirement for potential funding proposals.
This is just an idea to be studied. It makes little sense to claim an area as large as
the Corps of Engineers property and not set the stage to gain from future actions
and benefits.
The name of such an area needs to blatantly advertise Southlake. Any expansion
of the name "Bob Jones" will have no meaning out of the immediate area. This is
similar to the Clear Creek name that Denton has chosen. It says nothing about
Denton. Names such as the following might serve as preliminary proposals to
market Southlake:
• Southlake Natural History Reserve (You might not want to use "preserve"
as it is already in use.)
• Southlake Cove Wildlife Area (This has been used to denote the epicenter
of the greater ecosystem.)
• Southlake Natural History and Bird Sanctuary (This could be an eco-
tourism bullet for Southlake’s brochures and may open more doors for
grants.)
All of these would give a special emphasis to the City—important in a competitive
market. It would begin establishing potential for external funding.
I hope you will keep this in mind as you look to the year 2030.
One last item—light pollution. While many may discount any discussion of light
pollution, it may be one of those creeping giants. You never know it has arrived
until it steps on you. I write a number of educational articles for the Bob Jones
Nature Center. I am preparing one on light pollution for an upcoming issue of
their newsletter. It is for educational purposes and is being offered to acquaint
people with this problem. This draft is not for release at this time. Because you
may get questions in the future related to this information, I am sharing the draft
with you as "heads up" information.
Thank you for the work you do on behalf of all of us. I wish you a very Merry
Christmas and a Joyous New Year!
Ray Chancellor
Southlake, Texas
817-421-6353