Loading...
Item 6 - Corridor Committee Meeting Report - Stormwater Master Plan Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Meeting Report Meeting 54 — January 28, 2026 MEETING LOCATION: 1400 Main St., Southlake, Texas 76092 City Council Chambers IN ATTENDANCE: • City Council Members: Randy Robbins, Frances Scharli, Kathy Talley, Austin Reynolds • Planning & Zoning Commission Members: Daniel Kubiak, Michael Forman, David Cunnigham • City Staff: Dennis Killough, Jenny Crosby, Daniel Cortez, Cyndi Cheng, Ryan Firestone, Jeff Ginn, Lauren LaNeave AGENDA ITEMS: 1 . Call to Order. 2. Administrative Comments. 3. Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed office and warehouse development on an approximately 8.1-acre property located at 2185 E. Southlake Boulevard. 4. Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding site plan improvements for Pottery Barn located at 1440 Civic Place. 5. Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed Westin Event Venue Addition located at 1200 E. SH 114. 6. Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed 21-acre mixed- use development, including commercial and residential uses, and an alternative all- residential development plan for property located at 300-684 Davis Boulevard. 7. Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed residential development to include 11 single-family lots and located at 940-1050 S. Carroll Ave. and 1000-1040 Breeze Way. 8. Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed realignment of two single-family lots located at 1275 and 1285 Shady Oaks Drive. Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting#54—January 28, 2026 Page 1 9. Overview of the Stormwater Master Plan, an Element of the Southlake Comprehensive Plan. 10.Adjournment. MEETING OVERVIEW: On January 28, 2026, the Southlake Corridor Planning Committee held their 54th meeting. The Committee was sent a packet of materials prior to the meeting that were to be discussed during the session. A meeting agenda was posted, and the meeting time was advertised on the City's website. The following meeting report focuses on discussion points made during the meeting by members of the Committee, public and City staff. 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 ITEM #9 DISCUSSION — Overview of the Stormwater Master Plan, an Element of the Southlake Comprehensive Plan. Staff presentation: Daniel Cortez • Comprehensive Plan Elements • How are the plans aligned • Committee role • Policy framework considerations • What should the policy consider? • Example policy considerations • Plan adoption process • What are utility master plans? • Water system focus • Wastewater system focus • Stormwater and drainage focus • What to expect? • Communication • Public engagement Questions for Staff Daniel Cortez Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting#54—January 28, 2026 Page 2 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Council and Commission. I'm happy to finally kick off this utility plan process with this committee. Today, I want to revisit what this process means for us and where we are starting. We are now touching the plan elements related to the comprehensive plan. Council is used to seeing plan elements connected to the City's Strategic Management System, and this should be viewed in a similar way. It's important to be clear that we are not engineering solutions today. Instead, we'll be asking policy-level questions—generally yes-or-no questions—that will guide staff direction. From those answers, staff will draft policy statements. Those statements will be shared during upcoming SPIN open houses and will incorporate feedback from residents, Planning & Zoning, and City Council. Think of this as creating a stormwater strategy map for the City. Tonight, we'll cover background, context, and data—how drainage basins function, FEMA and NFIP requirements, and state permits. We'll also discuss what our infrastructure looks like today and what it could look like. Then we'll shift into policy discussion. The purpose tonight is to review regulatory and financial considerations, provide a high- level overview of stormwater management, summarize prior studies from the last five to ten years, and address resident concerns. Throughout, we'll pause for policy discussion and seek your feedback. At the highest level, stormwater management has four jobs: 1 . Convey water safely so it doesn't overwhelm streets, homes, or infrastructure 2. Store water to manage peak flows 3. Mitigate risk, recognizing hazards vary across the city 4. Protect water quality from sediment, oils, nutrients, and pollutants Each policy question tonight ties back to one or more of these jobs. The overall intent of stormwater management is simple: soak it in, slow it down, and spread it out. Speeding up stormwater is often not desirable. Our City Engineer, Jeff Ginn, will expand on that shortly. With that, I'll turn it over to our Director of Public Works, Lauren Laneve, to walk through regulatory and financial considerations. Lauren LaNeave Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting#54—January 28, 2026 Page 3 Thank you, Daniel. We'll start with the fundamentals—regulatory and financial considerations. These are the boundaries within which any policy goals must operate. Stormwater management in Southlake is governed by multiple layers: federal, state, and local requirements, along with practical constraints of the built environment. Some requirements are mandatory; others allow flexibility. The policy questions we ask tonight help define where that flexibility exists. Southlake's stormwater planning evolved with the city's growth. Key milestones include: 1969: First subdivision ordinance requiring drainage studies 1990 (Ordinance 482): Formal storm drainage policy 1994 (Ordinance 605): Foundation of current drainage standards 2023 (Ordinance 1268): Post-construction stormwater ordinance with ongoing maintenance requirements Today's system operates under MS4 permits, FEMA floodplain regulations, U.S. Army Corps jurisdictional waters, Texas Water Code, and local ordinances. A frequent concern is responsibility. The City maintains public drainage infrastructure—inlets, culverts, and systems in public rights-of-way or improved easements. Property owners and HOAs are responsible for private drainage systems, including natural channels and unimproved easements. That includes debris removal, erosion repair, and vegetation management. A policy question for the committee is whether this division of responsibility should be revised. Our MS4 permit requires public education, illicit discharge enforcement, construction runoff control, post-construction management, and annual reporting to the state. Policy Question #1: Should the City consider changes to its stormwater enforcement approach? Daniel Kubiak Does anyone want to jump in? Is there a city recommendation, or examples of how enforcement might change? Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting#54—January 28, 2026 Page 4 Lauren LaNeave Enforcement varies widely by city. Southlake takes a customer service—first approach. For minor issues, we educate first and escalate only if issues persist. More egregious violations—like illegal dumping—trigger enforcement immediately. The question is whether that approach is sufficient or whether the City wants to become more proactive, which would require additional resources. Austin Reynolds I think education is key. I'd bet 90% of residents don't know their HOA is responsible for detention ponds. People only find out when it's expensive. If maintenance had been ongoing, costs wouldn't be so high. Tracking HOA maintenance—even lightly—could help prevent downstream impacts. Kathy Talley I strongly agree. HOAs often don't understand permitting or stormwater responsibilities, and residents certainly don't. I didn't even know draining a pool into the street was an issue. Education supports our customer-first culture. David Cunningham There's also an awareness problem. New property owners may not know they have drainage easements or responsibilities. This is common in older areas, especially in the west. Education and disclosure are critical. Randy Robbins Education is good, but does enforcement have enough teeth? Do we actually have the authority and effectiveness to make changes when issues persist? Lauren LaNeave Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item#9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting#54—January 28, 2026 Page 5 Currently, enforcement is mostly reactive. Proactive inspections would require evaluating staffing and resources. Frances Scharli I hope we're also looking at what the City can do better. Development has increased runoff, and while formulas say it should balance, residents don't always see that. We need to examine both HOA and City responsibilities. Daniel Cortez That's a great point. Several upcoming policy questions focus on City operations and responsibilities. We structured the presentation to avoid overwhelming you all at once. Daniel Kubiak And of course, additional results usually require additional resources. Lauren LaNeave Exactly. Any policy recommendations will include an evaluation of required resources. Frances Scharli When was the last stormwater fee increase? Lauren LaNeave 2008. Daniel Kubiak Okay, let's move on. Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item#9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting#54—January 28, 2026 Page 6 Lauren LaNeave Public education is part of our MS4 permit. What I'm hearing is that the committee supports increasing education efforts beyond minimum requirements. Randy Robbins My concern is that if we study everything, the cost will be astronomical. You mentioned that we tend to be more reactionary in our approach. Does staff already have—probably through a team approach—an anecdotal understanding of where the issues currently are and where they're likely going to be? We probably have staff who are bright enough to identify problem areas without paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for a study. Can we start addressing those issues anecdotally? Say, "This area is going to be an issue over the next 18 months due to development—how do we mitigate that risk now?" Instead of studying it just to confirm what we already know and ending up six months behind because we studied first rather than acted. Jeff Ginn To Lauren's point about the models we have: there is a model for each watershed that shows flood-prone areas under current infrastructure. The concern comes when we get into public-private improvement areas. Every time we upgrade a critical drainage structure, we are required by FEMA regulations to do a deeper model to evaluate upstream and downstream impacts. That process does take time. Determining the scope and extent of improvements helps narrow down long-term capital costs. Daniel Kubiak Any other comments or questions on this? Frances Scharli I know I've been advocating for a study, but if we already know there are high-risk flood areas, not addressing them doesn't make sense either. Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting#54—January 28, 2026 Page 7 Is there a way to take the information we already have, look at the whole system, and make future decisions? If we know an area is flooding and we're not addressing it, that doesn't make sense. Jeff Ginn That's a great question. The North White Chapel Bridge Improvements study evaluated the entire Kirkwood watershed basin. That study identified several additional CIP projects that are now under design or planning. When we design major drainage infrastructure, we often take that opportunity to model the entire watershed and identify other areas for the five- and ten-year CIP programs. The question becomes whether we only look at public infrastructure or also include private drainage easements. Daniel Kubiak Hopefully the moving target settles down as the city approaches 90% build-out. Some areas are more built out than others, but hopefully things won't change drastically over time. As new development applications come in, a comprehensive viewpoint should help us address issues consistently. Lauren LaNeave This question gets at development standards and ordinances. If a property is developing in or near a floodplain, there are already additional requirements. The policy question is whether the city wants more stringent or adjusted standards for higher-risk areas. We do know where floodplains are—federal and state governments recognize them as well. Daniel Kubiak Anyone want to weigh in? Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting#54—January 28, 2026 Page 8 Frances Scharli When you're doing a study like the White Chapel Bridge, how do you weigh that against problems elsewhere in town? How does staff determine which problems get attention? Lauren LaNeave Prioritization is driven primarily by public safety. On the map Jeff showed, low-water crossings highlighted in yellow are priority areas, such as Continental Boulevard. The North White Chapel Bridge was replaced because it was a low-water crossing. When prioritizing CIP projects, we look at public safety, readiness to move forward, land ownership, funding availability, and feasibility. Some projects stall due to property acquisition challenges or unwilling easement dedication. Many factors go into prioritization. Daniel Kubiak Anything else on this item? Lauren LaNeave The next question addresses proactive planning versus reactive response. Should the city establish a regular cadence for watershed studies rather than conducting them ad hoc? This would help validate assumptions, refresh priority lists, and support long-term stormwater planning. Daniel Kubiak Based on tonight's discussion, I think yes. Lauren LaNeave That's what I'm hearing. Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting#54—January 28, 2026 Page 9 Austin Reynolds I think this could dovetail with earlier comments. Perhaps every two or three years, the city should remind HOA boards of maintenance responsibilities and require reporting, including detention pond dredging. Frances Scharli The city should also take ownership of its own projects, not just private ones. Lauren LaNeave Moving on to Question 7: Should the city explore opportunities to address impervious coverage through limits, mitigation requirements, or incentives? Austin Reynolds I'm not as concerned about impervious coverage itself as long as runoff is properly detained and modeled for full build-out—both upstream and downstream, including neighboring cities. David Cunningham Isn't the developer required to release runoff at the same rate as undeveloped land? Lauren LaNeave Yes, they must meet existing conditions prior to development. David Cunningham Then impervious coverage is indirectly regulated. If runoff exceeds undeveloped conditions, the developer must detain it. Especially given existing drainage issues, restrictions are appropriate. Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item#9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting#54—January 28, 2026 Page 10 Frances Scharli We have drainage problems, which tells me our ordinances need to be reviewed. If there weren't problems, this wouldn't be an issue. Randy Robbins Are we talking proactive or retroactive? Going back and fixing existing development is unrealistic. I'm fine with moving forward, but retroactive changes would be very difficult. Lauren LaNeave The intent is forward-looking. Retroactive fixes would be challenging. Daniel Kubiak We used to recommend alternative driveway materials. Perhaps we could incorporate recommendations—not requirements—for more permeable options. Dennis Killough That's a viable policy direction. The city already allows permeable paving and provides stormwater fee discounts, though uptake has been limited. Daniel Kubiak Maybe those incentives could be enhanced. Lauren LaNeave Next question: Should the city modernize ordinances to align more closely with regional practices? Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting#54—January 28, 2026 Page 11 Daniel Kubiak We should see what neighboring cities are doing that works or doesn't. We're not alone in these issues. Lauren LaNeave Last policy question: Should documented resident drainage concerns carry more weight in capital project prioritization? David Cunningham That would be difficult. Life safety should be first, property damage second. Individual complaints are hard to weigh objectively. Randy Robbins Resident concerns matter, but many issues are on private property, which limits what the city can do. Frances Scharli We pride ourselves on service. Ignoring resident concerns would be contrary to that. We should have criteria to evaluate them. Daniel Kubiak Resident concerns should be a variable, but data-driven analysis must lead. If it's a major problem, the data will show it. Daniel Cortez Staff will now develop the plan based on this feedback. Policy statements will be refined and brought to SPIN, Planning & Zoning, and City Council. Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting#54—January 28, 2026 Page 12 The next meeting is February 10 and will cover water and wastewater. SPIN meetings are televised, and materials will be available on south lakecompplan.com. STAFF PRESENTATION SHOWN TO COMMITTEE: Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting#54—January 28, 2026 Page 13