Item 7ACITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
MEMORANDUM
April 14, 2010
To:
From:
Subject:
Action
Requested:
Background
Information:
City Council
Ken Baker, AICP — Director of Planning & Development Services
Ordinance No. 971: Southlake 2030 North Sector Land Use Plan
Consider the 1" reading for Ordinance No. 971: Southlake 2030 North
Sector Land Use Plan.
The City of Southlake approaches land use planning through sector
planning, a method which divides the City into sectors to identify
development issues and to develop recommendations for each individual
area. This approach recognizes that planning issues are numerous and
complex, and may vary from area to area or even site to site. In short,
the purpose of a sector plan is to:
• Establish a detailed background for the planning area,
• Identify current development constraints and issues,
• Identify features, resources and areas to be protected or
improved,
• Explore development opportunities and
• List recommendations for the future development and
conservation of the area.
The first sector plan to be developed during the Southlake 2030 Plan is
the North Sector Plan. As directed by the Land Use Plan Committee,
staff has incorporated recommendations received from the SPIN meeting
into the document as indicated in the following table:
Issue /Concern from SPIN Meeting
Document Revision
Cyclists on N. White Chapel Blvd.
Added M4 on page 18
and Dove Rd.
Pedestrian sidewalks along arterials
Added M6 on page 19
should be a priority
Walnut Grove Trail is not mentioned
Added brief information about the
anywhere in the plan
trail and a map on page 28; added
P5 on page 30; expanded E3 on
page 22
Access to trails along Corps
Added M5 on page 18
Property; development of properties
adjacent to Corps Property
No mention of "ecology" in the plan
Added E7 on page 23
Daytime water use for public /
Expanded E11 on page 25
p rivate properties
Neighborhood park land Added E14 on page 26
maintenance (e.g. Oak Pointe)
Financial
Considerations: None.
Strategic Link: The North Sector Land Use Plan relates to all focus areas of the strategy
map.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: All meetings of the Southlake 2030 Land Use Plan Committee were open
to the public. The following committee meetings were held to discuss the
North Sector:
• November 12, 2009
• January 27, 2010
• March 3, 2010
In addition, a SPIN citywide meeting was held on February 25, 2010 (see
the SPIN report in Attachment A).
A public hearing was held for this item at the Planning & Zoning
Commission meeting on April 8, 2010. A public hearing will also be
scheduled for City Council pending approval of the 1s' reading.
Planning & Zoning
Commission: April 8, 2010; Approved (5 -0) as presented.
Legal Review: None.
Alternatives: Recommend modifications to the proposed North Sector Plan or move
forward with the North Sector Plan as presented.
Attachments: (A)
SPIN Meeting Report
(B)
Ordinance No. 971
(C)
Southlake 2030 North Sector Plan
(D)
Comments Received
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Attachment A
SPIN MEETING REPORT
PROJECT NAME: Southlake 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Plan — North Sector Plan
SPIN DISTRICTS: SPIN # 1, 2,3 & 4
MEETING DATE: February 25, 2010
MEETING LOCATION: 1400 MAIN STREET, SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
MEETING ROOMS 3C & 3D
TOTAL ATTENDANCE: Forty -One (41)
• SPIN REPRESENTATIVE(S) PRESENT:
• STAFF PRESENTING & PRESENT: Ken Baker, Director of Planning &
Development Services, Clayton Comstock, Planner II, Jenny Crosby, Planner II,
Daniel Cortez, Planner I, Gordon Mayer, City Engineer and Mike Starr, Fire Chief
STAFF CONTACT: Clayton Comstock, (817)748 -8269; ccomstock(a)ci. south lake. tx.us
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Situation
The North Sector is bordered by Lake Grapevine to the north, T. W. King Rd. and Kirkwood
Blvd. to the west and the City limits to the east. The southern boundary is defined by
Highland Rd., SH 114 and the southern boundary of existing subdivisions between White
Chapel Blvd. and N. Carroll Ave.
Plan Details
The North Sector Plan is the first of eight sector plans developed during the Southlake 2030
process. The sector has a distinctive rural character due to the large lot residential
development pattern and the heavy concentration of natural landscape. As such, the
primary objectives for planning in the north sector are the preservation and enhancement of
the existing rural character and the preservation of natural areas. The North Sector Plan
further addresses the unique characteristics and challenges of the north side and provides
specific planning recommendations in regard to land use, mobility, environmental resources,
as well as parks, recreation and open space.
QUESTIONS /CONCERNS
• Where was the Land Use Plan when Winfield Estates was approved? It doesn't
match the current Land Use.
o The Land Use Plan is used only as a tool to attempt to guide future
development; when staff presents projects to boards and committees the
land use designation is presented to them.
• So the areas indicated on the map are what's changing in Land Use?
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
o Staff has attempted to identify the areas that have been developed already and
adjust the land use accordingly to be reflective of the development that exists
there.
• You're using a broad change to identify what's there, it's only a technicality to go denser,
we should just keep it to Low Density Residential.
• What is the threshold for Medium Density Residential, how dense is that?
o Anything more than 1 dwelling unit (d /u) per acre.
• That concerns me because wouldn't that allow a developer to go as dense as they would
like?
o Southlake does not have any high density land use designation, the most dense
this land use would permit is lot sizes that average 20,000 square feet [Referring
to Medium Density Residential]. The most dense area in the city would be the
brownstones in Town Square.
• What's the point of having a plan if it doesn't preclude what ends up getting built there,
the plan keeps getting ignored?
• Why do you want to remove the Rural Conservation from the Cliffs of Clariden Ranch?
o Since the tract has already been developed with many homes on it the optional
land use category wouldn't be necessary on the area as it is a tool for developers
to develop land in a less environmentally disturbing way.
• Where was the threshold for 20 acres for the Rural Conservation designation obtained
from?
o Staff did research during the 2025 process that indicated that a minimum of 20
acres is necessary for this type of development to be successful.
• Who are you looking out for the developers or the citizens?
• When Kimball Avenue gets widened are you ruling out any businesses going on
Kimball?
o The Rural Conservation is an option for whoever decides they want to develop,
currently the land use is Low Density Residential and wouldn't permit for office
zoning.
• So you're saying this is allowing a developer to come in on a smaller tract and develop
under the Rural Conservation?
o The amount of land area is still required if someone decides to develop under the
Rural Conservation optional land use but does act as an enabling tool to develop
denser lots with more preserved open space that couldn't be developed.
• There's a lot of cyclists going through White Chapel and Dove Road, shouldn't it be
considered to add a bike lane or trail for the cyclists, it's a cyclists mecca out there?
o A couple of options will be considered during the process of our Mobility Element
of the Comprehensive Plan which could include much wider lanes for cyclists.
Cyclists traditionally prefer the roads over any sidewalks particularly when they
ride in groups.
• The Walnut Grove Recreational Trail is something that is not in any of the city's literature
or in any plan.
CITY OF
SOUTH LP KE
o That could potentially be added as a recommendation to the plan.
• The water is running at Bob Jones Park in the ponds and for their grass when we're
being restricted heavily on water use, then they have a sign saying its well water, I'm
sure it comes from the same aquifer, they should be restricted as well.
• We need to be careful during development of the properties that are adjacent to the
Corp of Engineers property because they could potentially block off access to the lake
and trails.
• 1 don't see ecological protection addressed in this plan and it wasn't in the previous plan,
it is important to distinguish between environmental and ecological.
o The 2025 plan was our first attempt at any kind of environmental resource
protection identification, we're going to attempt to further elaborate and identify
more issues and areas in the new one.
• How can we get property designated by land use to ensure that it is maintained by the
city and regularly done so; the open space by Oak Pointe is poorly maintained and we
have not seen anyone come by for upkeep?
o It is possible to require a maintenance plan by the developer when they have
some open space within the development. If it is City parkland however, the
Community Services Department should be maintaining that area.
• Do you know if they would return that parkland at Oak Pointe to the HOA?
o It may be possible but I couldn't say for certain right now.
• 1 would simply like to comment that I am strongly opposed to any changes from Low
Density Residential to Medium Density Residential or the removal of the Rural
Conservation from any property.
GENERAL CONCERNS
• Density
• Conservation
• Tree Protection
• Traffic
• Implementation of the Plan
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.
ORDINANCE NO. 971
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE NORTH SECTOR PLAN
AS AN ELEMENT OF THE SOUTHLAKE 2030 PLAN, THE
CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
WHEREAS, a Home Rule Charter of the City of Southlake, Texas, was approved
by the voters in a duly called Charter election on April 4, 1987; and,
WHEREAS, the Home Rule Charter, Chapter XI requires an update to the City's
comprehensive plan elements every four years,
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that the North Sector Plan is an element
of the Southlake 2030 Plan, the City's Comprehensive Master Plan,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the North Sector Plan complies
with the Southlake 2030 Vision, Goals, & Objectives,
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that the North Sector Plan provides the
guiding principles for all the elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Land
Use and Master Thoroughfare Plans, for the North Sector,
WHEREAS, the City Council has deemed that the North Sector Plan has been
formulated with adequate public input,
WHEREAS, the City Council has deemed that the recommendations in the North
Sector Plan herein reflect the community's desires for the future development of the
North Sector,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, THAT:
Section 1. All of the findings in the preamble are found to be true and correct and the
City Council hereby incorporates said findings into the body of this
ordinance as if copied in its entirety.
Section 2. The statements in `Exhibit 1' are hereby adopted as the North Sector Plan
of the Southlake 2030 Plan.
Section 3. The different elements of the Comprehensive Master Plan, as adopted
and amended by the City Council from time to time, shall be kept on file in
the office of the City Secretary of the City of Southlake, along with a copy
of the ordinance and minute order of the Council so adopting or approving
the same. Any existing element of the Comprehensive Master Plan which
has been heretofore adopted by the City Council shall remain in full force
until amended by the City Council as provided herein.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be cumulative of all provisions of ordinances of the
City of Southlake, Texas, except where the provisions of this ordinance
are in direct conflict with the provisions of such ordinances, in which event
the conflicting provisions of such ordinances are hereby repealed.
Section 5. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the
phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance
are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section
of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment
or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality
shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences,
paragraphs and sections of this ordinance, since the same would have
been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this
ordinance of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence,
paragraph or section.
Section 6. The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby authorized to publish
this ordinance in book or pamphlet form for general distribution among the
public, and the operative provisions of this ordinance as so published shall
be admissible in evidence in all courts without further proof than the
production thereof.
Section 7. The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish
the proposed ordinance or its caption and penalty together with a notice
setting out the time and place for a public hearing thereon at least ten (10)
days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if this ordinance
provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any
violation of any of its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally
publish this ordinance or its caption and penalty in the official City
newspaper one time within ten days after final passage of this ordinance,
as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake.
Section 8. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage
and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained.
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the 20 day of April, 2010.
John Terrell, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Lori Payne, CITY SECRETARY
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the 4 day of May, 2010.
John Terrell, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Lori Payne, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
CITY ATTORNEY
DATE:
ADOPTED:
EFFECTIVE:
LU
0 U
Q
J
F-
N
•
2030
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010
CITY OF
SOU
Abstract
The North Sector Plan is the first of eight sector plans developed during the Southlake 2030 process.
The sector has a distinctive rural character due to the large lot residential development pattern and the
heavy concentration of natural landscape. As such, the primary objectives for planning in the north
sector are the preservation and enhancement of the existing rural character and the preservation of
natural areas. The North Sector Plan further addresses the unique characteristics and challenges of the
north side and provides specific planning recommendations in regard to land use, mobility,
environmental resources, as well as parks, recreation and open space.
Sector Planning and Land Use Planning
Introduction
The City of Southlake's Land Use Plan serves as the community's vision for future development by
allocating the appropriate location, concentration and intensity of future development by land use
categories. The plan serves as a guide to all decision making as it pertains to the City's future
development.
The City of Southlake approaches land use planning through sector planning, a method which divides
the City into sectors to identify development issues and to develop recommendations for each individual
area. This approach recognizes that planning issues are numerous and complex, and may vary from area
to area or even site to site. In short, the purpose of a sector plan is to:
• Establish a detailed background for the planning area,
• Identify current development constraints and issues,
• Identify features, resources and areas to be protected or improved,
• Explore development opportunities and
• List recommendations for the future development and conservation of the area.
Sector planning was first implemented in Southlake during the development of the Southlake 2025 Plan
in 2004. The City was originally divided into nine planning areas, although some areas were combined
during the actual planning process. For the purposes of the 2030 Plan, the City has been divided into
eight sectors:
North Sector Plan
DRAFT March 29, 2010 Page i
MAP 1: SOUTHLAKE 2030 PLANNING SECTORS
W BOB JONES RD
I , , I
SOUTHLAKE
1 3
Sector Plan Areas
114 CORRIDOR
1708 CORRIDOR
1578 CORRIDOR
CENTRAL
EAST
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST
LU
Y
Q
2
Although recommendations may vary from area to area, all sector plans are intended to work together
to support a desired direction for growth as outlined in the adopted Vision, Goals and Objectives of the
Southlake 2030 Plan (Ordinance No. 960). As such, the land use recommendations from the sector plans
are consolidated to create one cohesive document for the City as a whole and the result is the City's
Land Use Plan.
Recommendations developed in the sector plans will also be incorporated into other plan elements,
such as the Master Thoroughfare Plan and Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, as
appropriate. In addition, the sector plans will be utilized in setting priorities in the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) planning process, updating current development ordinances and creating new planning
related ordinances or programs as needed.
Relationship to Southlake's Strategic Management System
Strategic planning is an ongoing process where resources, critical concerns, community priorities and
citizen needs are combined to produce both a plan for the future and a measure for results. More
specifically, Southlake's Strategic Management System links the city's day -to -day activities to a
North Sector Plan
DRAFT March 29, 2010 Page ii
X 17 a
a,
\
\
COVE
RD
E OOYE Rd.
y
4
o
u
R O
o
HNiHLAND ST
FLORENCE RD
5
3
a JOHNSON RD
Wspui HLARE 84V4
E. SOU iRLAdfE SLYd.
w
4
C
a
tt
A
-
}
O
A
, URIOR CHURCH RD.
W CORRNEIITAL BLVD
ECOHTINEHTAU BLVd.
0 2,500
5,000
10,000
Feet
N
I , , I
SOUTHLAKE
1 3
Sector Plan Areas
114 CORRIDOR
1708 CORRIDOR
1578 CORRIDOR
CENTRAL
EAST
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST
LU
Y
Q
2
Although recommendations may vary from area to area, all sector plans are intended to work together
to support a desired direction for growth as outlined in the adopted Vision, Goals and Objectives of the
Southlake 2030 Plan (Ordinance No. 960). As such, the land use recommendations from the sector plans
are consolidated to create one cohesive document for the City as a whole and the result is the City's
Land Use Plan.
Recommendations developed in the sector plans will also be incorporated into other plan elements,
such as the Master Thoroughfare Plan and Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, as
appropriate. In addition, the sector plans will be utilized in setting priorities in the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) planning process, updating current development ordinances and creating new planning
related ordinances or programs as needed.
Relationship to Southlake's Strategic Management System
Strategic planning is an ongoing process where resources, critical concerns, community priorities and
citizen needs are combined to produce both a plan for the future and a measure for results. More
specifically, Southlake's Strategic Management System links the city's day -to -day activities to a
North Sector Plan
DRAFT March 29, 2010 Page ii
comprehensive long term strategy for public policy and management decisions. The Strategic
Management System identifies Strategic Focus Areas and Objectives to guide effective and efficient
resource allocation and provides benchmarks to assess performance. The Strategic Focus Areas and
Objectives are driven by the City's Citizen Survey and are outlined in the City's Strategy Map (please see
Appendix B).
The Strategic Management System guided the development of the Southlake 2030 Plan Vision, Goals
and Objectives (VGO), which define a desired direction for growth for the City. As such, all
recommendations in the Southlake 2030 Plan are tied to at least one Strategic Focus Area from the
Strategic Management System and at least one Objective from the Adopted Vision, Goals and
Objectives.
North Sector Plan
DRAFT March 29, 2010 Page iii
Table o Contents
Abstract
Land Use Planning and Sector Planning Introduction
1.0 Introduction to the North Sector
1.1 Character of the Sector
1.2 Preliminary Analysis
1.2.1 Existing Land Use Distribution
1.2.2 Existing Zoning
1.2.3 Demographic Summary
1.2.4 Recent Development Changes
2.0 Planning Challenges and Issues
3.0 Land Use Recommendations
4.0 Mobility Recommendations
4.1 North Sector Transportation Network
4.2 Recommendations
5.0 Environmental Resource Recommendations
5.1 Cross Timbers Ecosystem
5.2 Tree Protection
5.3 Wildlife Management
5.4 Recommendations
6.0 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Recommendations
Appendix A: Adopted Southlake 2030 Plan Vision, Goals and Objectives
Appendix B: City of Southlake Strategy Map
North Sector Plan
DRAFT March 29, 2010 Page iv
1.0 Introduction to the North Sector
The North Sector is bordered by Lake Grapevine to the north, T. W. King Rd. and Kirkwood Blvd. to the
west and the City limits to the east. The southern boundary is defined by Highland Rd., SH 114 and the
southern boundary of existing subdivisions between White Chapel Blvd. and N. Carroll Ave.
MAP 2: SOUTHLAKE 2030 NORTH SECTOR BOUNDARIES
0
W BOB JONES RD
z
3
s
A
x
O
O
O
C
G O
_' 11
N
- m ' , rW DOVE RD - - E DOVE RD
l�
� O
4 1 \ a
� z
F l
O _ _
D �—
rd E HYGNlANO ST
O a s
W
0 2,500 5,000 10,000 \
N Feet
1.1 Character of the Sector
SOUTHLAKE
1 9
NORTH SECTOR
Southlake Cfly Limes
°2030
The north side of Southlake is characterized by large residential lots, large lot neighborhoods, equestrian
uses, significant natural features such as tree cover and flora, lakes, streams and ponds, rural road
sections, parks, schools and the Corps of Engineers property. It is not uncommon to see deer, turkey,
coyotes, roadrunner, native birds or other species more commonly found in less developed areas
outside the Metroplex. It is also part of the Cross Timbers ecosystem and sufficient non - fragmented
areas have been retained to date to allow this system to exist in the City.
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 1
Y
Typical house in the North Sector Plan Area
Equestrian trailhead
Most of the land in the north sector is either developed (with single family residential uses) or protected
(as Corps property or parkland). There is very little commercial development in the sector. Although
equestrian estates are found throughout Southlake, the majority are located in the north side. In
addition, several properties in the area are devoted primarily to livestock uses.
These features and the development pattern in the north area provide Southlake with a distinctive rural
character which differentiates it from other cities in the region. As the Metroplex's population
continues to grow rapidly and surrounding communities face build -out, this type of development
pattern will become less probable. Accordingly, the preservation of the rural character in the north side
of Southlake is of the utmost importance to the citizens. Preservation of the north side's development
pattern will provide an exceptional environment in the middle of one of the most rapidly developing
areas of the country. Also, as available developable land becomes scarce in Tarrant County, this unique
type of development pattern will help maintain and even increase property values over other more
typical or standard types of development.
1.2 Preliminary Analysis
To fully understand the development issues facing the north side, an analysis of existing conditions is
critical. The following section offers an assessment of the existing land uses, zoning and demographics
as well as a description of recent development changes in the north sector.
1.2.1 Existing Land Use Distribution
The distribution of existing land uses indicates that over half of the 3,999 acres in the north sector is
comprised of residential uses (2,159 acres). Almost 30% of the total area is Corps Property and Parks
and Open Space (1,137 acres). Commercial property comprises less than one percent of the sector,
consisting of approximately six acres of retail land at the intersection of Kimball Ave. and Dove Rd. and
eleven acres of industrial land. Only about 267 acres (6 %) is vacant or underdeveloped land that is
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 2
suitable for further development. Recent developments have been residential in nature and include the
Estes Park subdivision.
TABLE 1: NORTH SECTOR EXISTING LAND USES
Existing Land Use
Residential
Acres
2159
Percentage
54.0%
Corp Property/ Flood Plain
790
19.7%
Parks & Open Space
347
8.7%
Vacant/ Underdeveloped
267
6.7%
Lake Grapevine
311
7.8%
Public/ Civic / Religious
108
2.7%
Commercial / Industrial
17
0.4%
Totals
3999
100%
Existing Land Uses
Residential
Corp Property / Flood Plain
Parks & Open Space
Vacant / Underdeveloped
• Lake Grapevine
Public / Civic / Religious
• Commercial / Industrial
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 3
The map below illustrates existing conditions of the north area. The classifications are based on the
Land Based Classification Standards (LBCS) model developed by the American Planning Association. This
model extends the notion of classifying land uses by refining traditional categories into multiple
dimensions, such as activities, functions, building types, site development character, and ownership
constraints. Each dimension has its own set of categories and subcategories. These multiple dimensions
allow users to have precise control over land -use classifications.
MAP 3: NORTH SECTOR EXISTING LAND USES
1.2.2 Existing Zoning
Existing Land Use
Noah Sector Plan Area
Legend
Nonh Seaor
--- W Nolan Collor
Faeldenrul Asthalea
Har"whd Aarci
Slwpymy A[iitiNta
ORn Act
prN 'Ff Plant ur FecES 'Vr.. Aee:IXs
Praeardy Good%Storage or H.Mling Ac? Xi
Scaunl or LO—y
Emergexy Rerpwlre er P.ble Sa1.1y
- AV"Il A ;Se ojod—lArlgiee
- Pb� Control Danis and Other
W% Storage Water S9orage
Healh Lars. NAdlul of Tr Acowbn
Internmertt dr Crealanan Araty%
Veh—Q, Parking. S,mage. Etc
Adt" L#iWre Spoils and Reraled ACUvr14%
PM.Ne, Lerane Acrnay
Farming or LnreMl tfelmed Ad,fl
No Human AdvAy or Vndesila6k Ad,Ay
\I
r
Scale - 1:36m
1 irch= 30M rasa
pm cr n -,o.u� er�a.a
The north side area is zoned primarily agricultural or residential. Much of the agriculturally zoned
property is park property or Corps of Engineers land. Residential zoning is mostly "SF1 -A" Single Family
Residential District (1 acre lot size minimum), although many of the newer subdivisions, including Estes
Park, Cliffs at Clariden Ranch and Oak Pointe, are zoned "RPUD" Residential Planned Unit Development.
There are some smaller residential lots in the sector that are zoned "SF -20B" Single Family Residential
District (20,000 sq. ft. lot size minimum), such as the Dove Estates and South Lake Park subdivisions. In
addition, "MH" Manufactured Housing District zoning is found along the northern end of T.W. King
Road.
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 4
MAP 4: NORTH SECTOR ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS
=�a
U)
J-
i
■
- I
d
_ f
.er�r�pnwsa
6inzaW
is w�►Wrt4rs�
,�1 mMnV l+erernwaNd}i�
an4lih�p� R
i1 JIIA rrxM•w..srse..
1.2.3 Demographic Summary
Zoning
North Sector Flan Area
Legend
Q 14m Soma,
n"4 - %1
7 no e2
RE -G7
$PIA - Cd
8F113 - NR -PUD
SF2 S NC
4;rw a,
] SF2OA _ W
.� SF20B I1
R -Rill 12
_ MFS 0 SP
® MF2 - SF:
MN Dy
[� 7f L- 1
Scale . 1 - 36000
11RCh m 3000>MeC
Oak C166W 11- 10.2039
nnwrowewwr«rr
Eya S.eH. l�+r
anfv�tW Wnn�wMW
V"W—tldR �r�w.+r Gwt l
.dE".p.t aWwM n
h7arpHtldGmiell�n SYSierna ��•� �Wa.�
There are approximately 5,730 people and 1,747 households in the north sector. The median lot size is
almost one acre, and the median property value is just over $400,000.
TABLE 2: NORTH SECTOR DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY
Total Population
5,730
Total Households
1,747
Median Property Value
$ 402,800
Median Living Area
3,579 sq. ft.
Median Lot Size
0.99 acre
Net Density
0.9 du /acre
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 5
1.2.4 Recent Development Changes
The most significant developments in the sector in the past few years have been the Estes Park
subdivision and other smaller subdivisions, such as Cotswold Valley and Wimbledon Estates, which have
changed the character of the southern part of the area adjacent to properties along the SH 114 corridor.
MAP 5: RECENT (5 YEAR) DEVELOPMENT SINCE SOUTHLAKE 2025 ADOPTION
pray/af0.
4 f .: Date Chested 02.25-2010 m.a. e..m�wame
I+ ar � r rancor
® p n £ tuuest4 wkb
� haienl F Plannin ..�. aw.ara• E•,rxrm
C. 2A00 4.00 2.000 d {les'elapm t5 i
Feet C -graphic Inf —horn Systems .em
As a result of the additional residential development, traffic counts in the area have increased in the last
few years. The segment of N. Carroll Ave. between Highland St. and Dove Rd. saw a 42% increase in
daily trips from 2006 to 2009, although some of that increase was due to construction traffic. Daily trips
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 6
W[E �t
( yk Gr
A N]
H
2-030
r nub. ewes wu
n' BOB JONES RC
Legend
V
O North Sector Boundary
_
Recent Development
a;owr
rn �vr R o
R�aTM!FmxL'an �W ml
z-tNNe ivory rtpaNdn a �dph
a�Re a6n:l DUa61N,6
� nnwrc✓krWeW p+srred�m
IM maeare eNa eeenaed b bn
pcbe »] de g�+ix ardl✓na mv,
,Nrgeswm�nupn.prne
p� -.ml a mrq. gpri spw� mwnk
't1b -
n..aewrmihlsvdr�,.tmsw,.,
Ra.i ae wroa+e.a ammaae
E WC.HL Nb sr
pray/af0.
4 f .: Date Chested 02.25-2010 m.a. e..m�wame
I+ ar � r rancor
® p n £ tuuest4 wkb
� haienl F Plannin ..�. aw.ara• E•,rxrm
C. 2A00 4.00 2.000 d {les'elapm t5 i
Feet C -graphic Inf —horn Systems .em
As a result of the additional residential development, traffic counts in the area have increased in the last
few years. The segment of N. Carroll Ave. between Highland St. and Dove Rd. saw a 42% increase in
daily trips from 2006 to 2009, although some of that increase was due to construction traffic. Daily trips
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 6
on Highland St. between Kimball Ave. and N. Carroll Ave. increased by 24% during the same time period.
Traffic counts on roads farther to the north have remained relatively stable.
Another recent change in the north sector was the opening of the Bob Jones Nature Center and
Preserve in 2008. Located on East Bob Jones Road, the nature center and preserve is a City of Southlake
park that hosts a variety of events and programs, such as bird walks, star parties (in partnership with the
Fort Worth Astronomical Society), guided hikes, a camera club and much more. As such, the nature
center and preserve attracts visitors of all ages from Tarrant County, Denton County and beyond.
Although the City has not historically tracked traffic counts on East Bob Jones Road, the opening of the
Bob Jones Nature Center and Preserve has likely increased daily trips on this roadway.
A few properties in the sector remain that are undeveloped or have the potential for redevelopment.
However, the primary objectives for planning in the north sector are the preservation and enhancement
of the existing rural character and the preservation of natural areas.
1.2.5 Future Changes to the Area
Beyond the existing development pattern, consideration must also be given to expected or proposed
changes to the area. For example, build -out of approved subdivisions in the north sector will continue
to change the character of the area. Anticipated changes from subdivision build -out include increased
traffic counts and increased demand for city services.
Another expected change in the north sector is the opening of a new city park, Liberty Park at
Sheltonwood, along East Dove Road. The park is currently under construction and will include a
pavilion, playground, wildflower meadow, pond, trails and parking. The opening of the park increases
the need for sidewalks and trails along Dove Road to provide pedestrian access. At present, an 8 foot
trail is planned for construction along the north side of Dove Road.
Additional projects in the north sector that have been submitted as development cases and are
currently under consideration include a Carroll Independent School District elementary school along
North White Chapel Boulevard, a Department of Public Safety station and training facility along Dove
Road and a public park along Dove Road. The sites where these developments are proposed require
careful consideration in regard to land use designation and mobility recommendations.
There are also impending developments in adjacent plan areas that will impact the north sector, such as
a new middle school, the Carillon development and Gateway Church:
• Carroll Independent School District Middle School: A zoning change, site plan, and final plat have
been approved for a new Carroll Independent School District middle school that will be located
on the south side of the 1800 block of East Highland Street. This school is expected to replace
the existing Carroll Middle School located at the northwest corner of North Carroll Avenue and
East Dove Street. The existing Carroll Middle School will become administrative offices for the
Carroll Independent School District. The construction of the new school increases the need for
sidewalks near Highland Street to provide pedestrian access.
• Carillon: Carillon is an approximately 285 acre mixed use development at the northeast corner
of N. White Chapel Boulevard and S.H. 114 that is planned to include retail, office and
residential uses as well as an arts center.
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 7
Gateway Church: Gateway Church is constructing a new facility adjacent to S.H. 114 between N.
Kimball Avenue and N. Carroll Avenue. Phase I will include a 4,000 seat auditorium, a bookstore
and coffee shop, classrooms and children's play area. The development also includes
construction of two new roads (Grace Lane and Blessed Way).
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 8
2.0 Planning Challenges and Issues
Protection of the north side area's distinct character is not without its challenges. New development,
particularly in the form of public facilities such as the middle school and elementary school, a park, and a
north side DPS facility are planned. While these types of facilities are needed to serve the population,
integrating them into the existing character of the area and providing vehicle and pedestrian access is
critical.
In addition, completion of Kirkwood Boulevard will present new challenges that the north sector has not
faced before. Kirkwood Boulevard is a four lane divided roadway that runs along the length of the City
east to west, north of SH 114. The facility is designed to improve traffic flow and safety and allow
residents to access schools, shopping, parks and neighborhoods without having to utilize SH 114.
Currently, portions of this roadway are being built in conjunction with the Gateway Church project and a
portion of the roadway exists today on the Sabre campus. Development along this roadway is
anticipated to be less intense than S.H. 114 and F.M. 1709 in terms of commercial and retail
development. In addition, this roadway will serve as an entryway to the north and must be designed in
a manner that respects the rural character of the northern areas of the City.
A regional transportation project, the DFW Connector Project, is also expected to impact the north
sector. This 8.4 -mile, $1.02 billion project includes reconstructing and expanding the S.H. 114 and S.H.
121 interchange and building continuous frontage road lanes along S.H. 114 between William D. Tate
Avenue and Northwest Highway. The project also includes adding an approximately 4 mile section of
tolled managed lanes to S.H. 114 that will run roughly from near S.H. 26 to just east of the Tarrant
County /Dallas County line. In order to access the tolled managed lanes heading eastbound, drivers will
need to access S.H. 114 no later than Kimball Avenue. This will likely increase traffic volumes on N.
Kimball Avenue during peak AM as a result of Grapevine citizens utilizing N. Kimball in the morning to
access the DFW Connector managed facilities.
Another unique challenge in the north sector is the appropriate use, development and conservation of
the parkland and Corps of Engineers land in the area. The north sector is home to the Bob Jones Nature
Center and Preserve, the largest City park within the City. The Bob Jones Nature Center and Preserve is
also a partnership of the Bob Jones Nature Center organization (a 501c3 nonprofit) and the City of
Southlake. The City has also entered into a lease for 218 acres of U.S. Corps of Engineers property,
purchased an adjacent horse ranch and an additional 30 acres at the far end of E. Bob Jones Road with
lakefront access. Altogether the Bob Jones park and adjacent Corps of Engineer's property represents
nearly 500 acres of prime native Cross Timbers habitat. The Nature Center will play a critical role in the
education and preservation of a prime remnant of the Cross Timbers region.
Along with the adopted Vision, Goals and Objectives of the Southlake 2030 Plan, these challenges and
issues serve as the basis for many of the recommendations outlined in the following chapters.
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 9
3.0 Land Use Recommendations
In the context of comprehensive planning, "land use" typically refers to future land use designations as
shown on the Future Land Use Map. The Future Land Use Map illustrates the desired location and
distribution of land uses throughout the City, as opposed to the Existing Land Use Map (discussed is
Section 1.2.1) which shows how land is currently being utilized. As such, the Future Land Use Map is an
important visual tool used by city decision - makers, city staff, developers, and citizens to understand the
community's desired development pattern.
Using the Southlake 2030 Plan Vision, Goals and Objectives as a guide and taking the challenges and
issues identified in the previous chapter into consideration, the Southlake 2025 Plan Future Land Use
Map was reviewed for sites that may require land use designation changes. Several sites were
identified for a land use designation revision, primarily due to development changes that have occurred
or are expected to occur in the near future. The following maps highlight the areas with recommended
land use designation changes. The numbers on the maps correspond to the reference numbers in the
table that follows the maps.
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 10
MAP 6A
North Sector Plan Area
unaenying Lana use Kecommenaatlons
w
w
J
Ck F ® O
ik
�
'g 02[330
z
Y
Y Legend
F 608 :ONES RD O Borth Sector Boundary
Yr BOBJShuES RD Recommended Land Use Changes
m Future Land Use
100 -Year Flood Plain
Corps of Engineers Property
- Public Parkldpen Space
- Publl CIS emi- Public
Cow Density Residential
I Medium density Residential
Office Commercial
o Retail Commercial
Mixed use
z
_Town Center
m id
:i T.- _' Regional Retail
Industrial
rl
E LAW1= HL ® ten
6 kte
A mrprnYrmmmr Fi»i dql aA4
m eire�ilJri niniR riRJlim,re rvSGl:h
nAg d&d eawed..
The assidMtWd fa presto Y-
m the -p ae mly intended 1e 6e .
�,rJ�:irei vine e�iilm uandfrtrt: mry
warant charges wM1ib errpheamg
— mrrunaHr to:1laip �wi rgeue.nlYOrk.
�.I4�l — —, neaserehelofeBwtbie2025R.
:.d J t.:
'.`. he eddtidulirPomatiwu.
Fr
Ud: WK
Dat e Cfeeed dt 7210
ik.dakinhH pGdfprRy
@e dfW
Department of Planning
wn Nu.nmxhm w aye'
0 2.000 4,000 8.000
and DewelopmentSmice
Feet
GWaptVG l rfomnal Ion Sygws
ea.ryokaumwe « <emn
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 11
Em
North Sector Plan Area
upzlonal Lana use Kecommenaatlons
J ®®
O ®W
032030
a
z
Y
I
4
�1
-1
— 1 — 1rT?'
Legend
O North Sector Boundary
® Recommended Removals
Recommended Additions
RC
T -1
T -2
EC -1
EC -2
- EC -R
E -1 u_ HLAr•1L. S I
U'
�lJl
l �
V-d
rinra
n �, c n.� �we.ar
mredildr� rtiniq rie�J:li�n�i ee i -3LI:h
mring ddrid 6o W arias.
The — id.Aitd fu praeerrabm
7 ft ..pare mly irk nded 1. 6ea
iyd: arti ali= �runliu iandlnrt: nub
warrmtchmgas while -Pry -mg
mm,� to a L.Ts rpw, �,- -1—rk.
R.. W., i.lha SpJfileke 205 Ran
:rd A ds rm�nr.ad nbrmd:;
F addiimdie. —U..
I
pH WR
owe Crealed 01 X7.2010
Thu dap Aar hran cimdNfor ils
rs�N�.uaw wd,�.
Ocpartmcrlt ofPanrinq
wfiaNxAVmxkn.kwifdlul
0 2,006 4,000 U00
and Development '3ervlces
Feet
Gao�aphic lrta m�ion Sys ins
er I.dumna.rarotr
d �Id dM
The land use recommendations are outlined in the following table. The numbers in the first column of
the table are references to the numbers in the preceding two maps. The second column provides a brief
description of the issues specific to the site and the third column provides recommendations to address
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 12
the issues. The implementation metric in the fourth column is a quantifiable goal with a specified
deadline for achievement. Finally, the "Strategic Link" and "VGO Tie" in the last two columns relate the
issues, recommendations and implementation metrics to Strategic Focus Areas from the City's Strategy
Map and to specific objectives from the adopted Southlake 2030 Vision, Goals and Objectives. This
format is followed for all the recommendation tables in this plan.
TABLE 3: NORTH SECTOR LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS
Ref.
Issues
Recommendations
Implementation
Strategic Link
VGO
No.
Metric
Tie
LU1
• Land use designation is
Change underlying land
Amend Land Use
Quality
4.6
&
Low Density Residential
use designation from
Map by Q4 FY2010
Development,
LU2
• Former Fretwell (1) and
Low Density Residential
C3
Miles (2) properties
to Public Park /Open
• City -owned property
Space
designated for expansion
of Bob Jones Park & Bob
Jones Nature Center &
Preserve
LU3
• Land use designation is
Pending case approval,
Amend Land Use
Quality
9.2
Medium Density
change the underlying
Map pending case
Development,
Residential
land use designation to
approval
C3
• Proposed site for a CISD
Public /Semi - Public.
elementary school
Although the current
land use designation
allows this use, a
Public /Semi - Public land
use designation is more
commonly associated
with a school use.
LU4
• Land use designation is
Pending case approval,
Amend Land Use
Quality
8.1
Public /Semi - Public & Low
change the boundary of
Map pending case
Development,
Density Residential
the Public /Semi - Public
approval
C3
• Proposed site for future
land use designation to
DPS station and training
reflect the anticipated
facility
lot configuration.
Although the Low
Density Residential land
use designation allows
this use, a Public /Semi-
Public land use
designation is more
commonly associated
with city facilities.
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 13
Ref.
Issues
Recommendations
Implementation
Strategic Link
VGO
No.
Metric
Tie
LU5
• Land use designation is
Pending case approval,
Amend Land Use
Quality
4.6
Low Density Residential
change the land use
Map pending case
Development,
• Proposed site for a city
designation to Public
approval
C3, 131
park facility
Park /Open Space.
Although the current
land use designation
allows this use, a Public
Park /Open Space
designation is more
commonly associated
with public parks.
LU6
• Land use designation is
Change underlying land
Amend Land Use
Quality
6.7
Low Density Residential
use designation to
Map by Q4 FY2010
Development,
• Recent development of
Medium Density
131
Estes Park Phase IV (2007)
Residential.
and Brentwood (2006)
residential subdivisions
• Brentwood = 1.04 du /acre
• Estes Park IV = 1.46
du /acre
LU7
• Land use designation is
Change underlying land
Amend Land Use
Quality
6.7
Low Density Residential
use designation to
Map by Q4 FY2010
Development,
w/ Rural Conservation
Medium Density
131
Option
Residential.
• Development approval of
Winfield Estates
(anticipated completion
2010)
LU8
• Land use designation is
• Remove Rural
Amend Land Use
Quality
6.7
Medium Density
Conservation Overlay
Map by Q4 FY2010
Development,
Residential w /Rural
131
Conservation Option
• Development of Cliffs at
Clariden Ranch
significantly reduces
possibility of successful
Rural Conservation
application
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 14
Ref.
Issues
Recommendations
Implementation
Strategic Link
VGO
No.
Metric
Tie
LU9
• Land use designation is
• Remove Rural
Amend Land Use
Quality
6.7
Medium Density
Conservation Overlay
Map by Q2 FY2011
Development,
Residential and Low
B1
Density Residential
• Optional Land Use
designation of Rural
Conservation
• Development of Winfield
Estates significantly
reduces possibility of
successful Rural
Conservation application
LU10
• Land Use Designation is
• Remove Rural
Amend Land Use
Quality
6.7
Low Density Residential
Conservation Overlay
Map by Q2 FY2011
Development,
• Optional Land Use
B1
designation is Rural
Conservation
• Development of
Wimbledon Estates, St.
Emilion, Villas Del Sol, and
other single -lot properties
along Sunshine Lane
significantly reduces
possibility of Rural
Conservation application
LU11
• Land Use Designation is
• Add Rural
Amend Land Use
Quality
6.7
Low Density Residential
Conservation Overlay
Map by Q2 FY2011
Development,
• No Optional Land Use
B1, C3
designation
• Considerable acreage of
land developable within
next 20 years
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 15
4.0 Mobility Recommendations
"Mobility" refers to the City's transportation network and includes automotive, pedestrian, bicycle and
other alternative modes of transportation. Over the past several decades, the physical, social and
economic success Southlake has experienced can be attributed in part to the City's transportation
network. The highways, streets, paths, railway and proximity to the Dallas -Fort Worth International
Airport that provide mobility within the City and access to points beyond have caused Southlake to
transition from a relatively isolated community at its incorporation to a premier City in the DFW
Metroplex and beyond today. However, the same transportation network has also created adverse side
effects: traffic congestion due to regional travel patterns, increased pollutant emissions and high stress
levels due to commuting. Despite the north sector's rural characteristics, the area is still faced with
these mobility issues.
4.1 North Sector Transportation Network
The north sector of Southlake is characterized by more rural thoroughfares when in comparison to other
areas of the City. The primary east west corridors through this sector are Dove Road and Bob Jones
Road. The primary north south corridors consist of T.W. King Road, White Chapel Boulevard, N. Carroll
Avenue and Kimball Avenue. The City will have two new traffic circles in the study area constructed by
the fall of 2010. These facilities are located at Carroll Avenue and Dove Street and White Chapel
Boulevard and Dove Street. A portion of Kirkwood Boulevard (Kimball to the Gateway Church site) has
recently been completed and is open to the public. The City will extend Kirkwood Boulevard to Highland
prior to the opening of the new Middle School. The City is also planning to begin the widening of
Kimball Avenue from 2 lanes to 4 lanes from SH 114 to Patterson Pond Rd (Phase 1) in 2010. Phase II of
the Kimball Ave. widening project (Patterson Pond to Dove St.) is planned at a later date depending on
funding availability.
The City of Southlake places a high priority on sidewalks and trails for both mobility and recreation.
Currently the City has an approved Sidewalk Pathways Plan which indicates the location of future
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 16
sidewalk facilities in the City and priorities these facilities for construction. Also, the City of Southlake
ensures construction of sidewalks by the following actions: 1) allocates approximately $400,000 annually
for the construction of trails and sidewalks in the CIP (Capital Improvements Program); 2) seeks grants
for funding; 3) requires new development to construct sidewalks along public streets adjacent to the
site; 4) implemented the sidewalk matching program (a 50% cost sharing program for the design and
construction of sidewalks within neighborhoods); and 5) implemented the Sidewalk Partnership
program (promotes the dedication of easements by citizens and business for the construction of
sidewalks).
Although there are sidewalk segments along Dove Road, N. Carroll Avenue and N. White Chapel
Boulevard, most of the major roadways in the north sector lack sidewalks and trails. The sidewalk
segments that are in place are not contiguous and as such do not provide an effective pathways
network. Despite the lack of sidewalks along roadways, the north sector has an impressive network of
hiking and equestrian trails (totaling approximately 15 miles) on City parkland and on Corps of Engineers
property.
The City's planned pedestrian and bike path network is intended to provide connections between
schools, shopping centers, parks, work and residential areas. With the proposed addition of an
elementary school along N. White Chapel Boulevard, the construction of Liberty Park at Sheltonwood,
the proposed construction of a city park along Dove Road and ongoing residential construction in and
around the north sector, pedestrian mobility is becoming an even more critical issue in the area.
5.2 North Sector Mobility Recommendations
In coordination with the Vision, Goals & Objectives, adopted by City Council in November 2009, the
following table lists the recommendations for the north sector plan area regarding mobility. For a
description of each column heading, please refer to the legend that following the table.
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 17
TABLE 4: NORTH SECTOR MOBILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
Ref.
Issues
Recommendations
Implementation
Strategic Link
VGO
No.
Metric
Tie
M1
There is limited or no
Prioritize the
Consider
Mobility,
3.1,
pedestrian connectivity
construction of
prioritizing these
Infrastructure,
3.3,
between schools and
sidewalks in these
projects in the FY
Performance
3.5,
residential areas in the north
specific areas:
2011 sidewalk
Management
3.9
sector.
• Kirkwood Hollow to
priority list.
and Service
new CISD
Immediately begin
Delivery,
elementary school
to utilize the
C1, C2
• Clariden Ranch to
Sidewalk
Clariden school
Partnership
• Highland to new
Program to
CISD middle school
expedite
construction of
these facilities.
M2
The last access point to the
Prioritize the
Consider for
Mobility,
3.1,
DFW connector managed
construction of North
funding for
Infrastructure,
3.6,
lanes will be Kimball Avenue.
Kimball Avenue from
construction in the
Performance
3.9
This access point will result in
Kirkwood to Dove to
CIP prior to FY
Management
increased traffic on Kimball
accommodate DFW
2015, when the
and Service
Avenue beginning at Dove St.
Connector traffic.
managed lanes of
Delivery,
Increased traffic is expected
the DFW
C2
from Grapevine.
connector are
expected to open.
M3
As a four -lane divided facility,
Develop a median plan
Include in city's
Mobility,
1.5,
the Kirkwood Boulevard
for Kirkwood Boulevard.
FY2011 work
Infrastructure,
1.9,
extension will have a
program.
Performance
1.11,
significant visual impact.
Management
3.2
and Service
Delivery,
C2
M4
Cyclists sharing the roadway
Consider options for
Address in
Mobility,
3.1,
along N. White Chapel
improving safety for
Mobility Plan by
Infrastructure,
3.2,
Boulevard and Dove Road are
motorists and cyclists
FY 2011.
Performance
3.7
a safety concern.
sharing the roadway,
and Service
such as:
Delivery,
• Signage to alert
C1, C2
drivers
• Educational
outreach materials
• Dedicated bike
lanes
M5
As property is developed
Consider access to trails
Include as part of
Mobility,
1.4
along Corps Property, access
during development
staff review for all
Quality
to trails on Corps Property
review process.
properties
Development,
may be diminished.
adjacent to Corps
C2
Property.
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 18
Ref.
Issues
Recommendations
Implementation
Strategic Link
VGO
No.
Metric
Tie
M6
The community desires to
Improve pedestrian
Address in
Mobility,
1.2,
improve pedestrian mobility
mobility along arterials:
Mobility Plan by
Infrastructure,
3.1,
along arterials.
• Identify gaps in the
FY 2011.
Performance
3.2,
sidewalk network
and Service
3.3
along arterials
Delivery,
• Prioritize
C1, C2
construction of
these gaps
M7
The community desires to
Identify and seek to
Address in
Safety and
3.1,
maximize pedestrian and
eliminate hazards to
Mobility Plan by
Security,
3.3,
bicycle mobility to encourage
increase safe, efficient
FY 2011.
Mobility,
3.5,
exercise and to reduce
bicycle or pedestrian
Infrastructure,
3.7,
dependence on automobiles.
movement citywide.
C2
3.9
M8
The community desires to
Increase access to
Address in
Mobility,
3.1,
maximize bike and pedestrian
existing and future parks
Mobility Plan by
Infrastructure,
3.3,
access to parks.
and expand pedestrian
FY 2011.
Performance
3.5,
linkages between park
Management
3.7,
and recreational
and Service
3.9
facilities.
Delivery,
C2
Recommendations Table Legend
Ref. No. = Reference number.
Issues = A brief description of the issue requiring action.
Recommendations = Recommendations to address the issues.
Implementation Metric = A quantifiable goal, often with a deadline for achievement.
Strategic Link = The Strategic Focus Area(s) from the City's Strategy Map that relate to the issue and
recommendations.
VGO Tie = Specific objective(s) from the adopted Southlake 2030 Vision, Goals and Objectives that relate
to the issue and recommendations.
Gray Shading = Citywide goals (not unique to the north sector).
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 19
5.0 Environmental Resource
Recommendations
Environmental sustainability is vital to the current and long term financial health of the City and the
physical and emotional health of area residents. As such, the City of Southlake places a high priority on
the protection and conservation of the community's natural assets. "Environmental resources" in this
section primarily refer to natural amenities, such as trees, water, soil, air, and wildlife. A more detailed
discussion on sustainability, including topics such as energy use, waste reduction, and recycling, may be
found in the Sustainability Plan.
The primary environmental resource issues in the North Sector are protection and conservation of the
Cross Timbers, tree protection, and wildlife management, as discussed below.
5.1 Cross Timbers Ecosystem
Southlake is part of the Cross Timbers ecosystem, an ecological region that spans from southern Kansas
to Central Texas. The Cross Timbers is characterized in part by Post Oaks, Blackjack Oaks, Cedar Elms,
American Elms and grasslands and is home to a diversity of wildlife. Throughout this document, "Cross
Timbers habitat" and "natural landscape" will be used interchangeably.
The North Sector is unique in that it is bordered by Lake Grapevine and has the largest concentration of
uncultivated Cross Timbers habitat in the City. Although much of this habitat was significantly altered by
the construction of Lake Grapevine in the 1950s and from other human activities, it has developed
naturally into a vibrant and diverse environment. This uncultivated, natural landscape is primarily found
on Corps of Engineers land and undisturbed park property. The natural areas in the North Sector vary
considerably, from sandy, rocky shoreline (adjacent to Lake Grapevine) to heavily wooded areas with
intermittent meadows.
Key Points to Consider
• The Corps property around Lake Grapevine provides wildlife corridors between adjoining cities.
• The wildlife habitat around Lake Grapevine is unique and distinct.
• There is a significant concentration of relatively undisturbed natural landscape.
• The presence of the Bob Jones Nature Center and abundance of relatively undisturbed natural
landscape provide unique opportunities for natural resource education.
5.2 Tree Protection
Trees provide a multitude of benefits, such as reducing air pollution, improving water quality,
moderating climate, reducing erosion, supplying food and shelter for wildlife, providing beauty and
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 20
increasing property values. Southlake recognizes the importance of trees and strives to protect,
maintain, and enhance the City's urban forest.
Although the City has always valued its trees, increased emphasis has been placed on tree protection in
recent years as the City faces build -out. For example, certain areas with significant tree cover were
identified as areas recommended for preservation with the approval of the Southlake 2025
Environmental Resource Protection Plan in 2005. In addition, the City's tree protection regulations were
strengthened through the adoption of a new Tree Preservation Ordinance in 2006. The Tree
Preservation Ordinance was further amended in 2007 to require the posting of the approved Tree
Conservation Plan at all construction sites.
These efforts have not gone unnoticed. In 2006, Southlake received the Project Planning Award for the
City's Tree Preservation Ordinance from the Midwest Section of the Texas Chapter of the American
Planning Association. That same year, the Cross Timbers Urban Forestry Council selected the Southlake
2025 Plan for their Urban Forestry Award. In addition, the City has received Tree City USA certification
for 12 years and 11 Growth Awards from the National Arbor Day Foundation.
Despite these advancements, there is still much work to be done to improve tree protection within the
City and Southlake is always considering options to improve the protection and maintenance of the
urban forest. By working with developers, builders, engineers, landscape architects and homeowners we
can preserve the integrity of the Cross Timbers and create a sustainable environment for the trees and
the community.
As discussed previously, the North Sector has an abundance of trees. Most of these trees are
characteristic of the Cross Timbers ecosystem, including Post Oaks, Blackjack Oaks, Cedar Elms,
American Elms, Hackberries, Pecans, and Cottonwoods.
5.3 Wildlife Management
The abundance of native trees and vegetation as well as the proximity to Lake Grapevine make the
North Sector an ideal home for many animal species. While most species are welcome to some degree,
active management is sometimes required for any or all of the following reasons:
• To protect human health and safety;
• To minimize damage to the ecosystem due to unnaturally high numbers of a particular species
or due to the presence of a non - native species;
• To minimize damage to personal property;
• To protect rare, threatened or endangered species.
At present, the most common nuisance species in the North Sector is feral hogs. Examples of other
species that are sometimes problematic include coyotes, beavers, foxes, deer, ducks, gophers, moles,
rabbits, raccoons, skunks and opossums.
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 21
5.4 North Sector Environmental Resource Recommendations
Based on the Southlake 2030 Vision, Goals, and Objectives and with consideration for the unique
environmental features of the north sector, the following general environmental resource
recommendations are proposed. For a description of each column heading, please refer to the legend
that following the table.
TABLE 5: NORTH SECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Ref.
Issues
Recommendations
Implementation
Strategic Link
VGO
No.
Metric
Tie
E1
Due to the proximity to Lake
Explore opportunities
Include in DPS and
Safety and
5.6,
Grapevine, certain wildlife
for wildlife
PDS work plan for
Security,
5.8,
species are causing increasing
management, focusing
FY 2011. Present
Partnerships
7.2,
problems in relation to human
on citizen education
a proposal to City
and
9.1,
safety and property damage.
programs. Consider
Council by 2Q
Volunteerism,
9.3
partnerships with TPWD,
FY2011.
Performance
adjacent cities, Corps of
Management
Engineers and BJNC.
and Service
Explore grant
Delivery,
opportunities.
C1, B2, B3, B4,
L5
E2
Cliffs of Clariden Ranch has a
Remove the "Tree
Complete as part
Performance
7.5,
"Tree Cover /Open Space"
Cover /Open Space"
of the
Management
7.7
designation on the
designation from the
Sustainability Plan
and Service
Environmental Resource
Cliffs of Clariden Ranch
by FY 2011.
Delivery,
Protection Map.
property.
131
E3
There is currently limited
Explore options for
Develop a strategy
Partnerships
6.1,
promotion of the Bob Jones
promotion, such as
for promotion as
and
6.5
Nature Center and Walnut
adding information
part of the Parks,
Volunteerism
Grove Trail System as tourist
about the center and
Recreation and
C5, L5
destinations.
trail system to
Open Space Plan
Southlake's tourism
or Economic
website,
Development Plan
www.visitsouthlaketexas
by FY 2011.
.com.
E4
Recognize the importance of
Maintain Tree City USA
Complete the Tree
Quality
7.5
the urban forest.
status.
City USA
Development,
application
C3
annually.
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 22
Ref.
Issues
Recommendations
Implementation
Strategic Link
VGO
No.
Metric
Tie
E5
The community desires a
Evaluate options for
Begin a public
Quality
7.5
higher level of urban forest
improving tree
street, parks and
Development,
maintenance, management
protection. Consider:
property tree
C3, F2
and protection.
• Software programs or
inventory by end
other tools for
of 1Q FY2011.
managing and
assessing existing
Consider if
tree cover.
ordinance
• Revisions to existing
revisions and /or
ordinances to
implementation of
strengthen tree
incentive
protection
programs are
requirements and to
required by 1Q
allow for creative site
FY2012.
design to protect
trees.
• Providing incentives
for tree protection.
• Conducting a tree
survey.
E6
There is currently not an easy
Develop a map of all
Complete and
Performance
7.3,
way for homeowners or
areas with approved
publish a map that
Management
7.5
developers to determine if a
Tree Conservation Plans
includes approved
and Service
property has an approved
or add the areas to the
Tree Conservation
Delivery,
Tree Conservation Plan.
Environmental Resource
Plans by 1Q
B4
Protection Map. Provide
FY2012. Update
the map on the City's
map at least
website.
annually.
E7
The Environmental Resource
Update the
Complete as part
Performance
7.2,
Protection Plan does not
Environmental Resource
of the
Management
7.7,
address ecology and wildlife
Protection Plan to
Sustainability Plan
and Service
7.8
corridors.
include a discussion on
by FY 2011.
Delivery,
local ecology and wildlife
F2
corridors.
E8
The Environmental Resource
Update the
Complete as part
Performance
7.3,
Protection Map has not been
Environmental Resource
of the
Management
7.5,
updated since its adoption in
Protection Map to
Sustainability Plan
and Service
7.7
2005. It shows areas that
reflect development that
by FY 2011.
Delivery,
have been developed as areas
has occurred in the past
B4
recommended for
4 years.
preservation.
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 23
Ref.
No.
Issues
Recommendations
Implementation
Metric
Strategic Link
VGO
Tie
E9
Stream corridors, wetlands
Encourage development
Address as part of
Quality
1.4,
and floodplains require
that allows floodplains,
the Sustainability
Development,
7.3,
additional consideration
wetlands and stream
Plan by FY 2011.
F2
7.4
during review of development
corridors to remain in a
and redevelopment cases.
natural state. Consider
establishment of
standard "no
development" distances
from these areas.
E10
As the City and region grow,
• Identify concrete
Address as part of
Safety and
1.4,
water pollution from runoff
drainage channels
the Sustainability
Security,
7.3,
also increases.
that may be
Plan by FY 2011.
Infrastructure,
7.4,
rehabilitated to
Quality
7.5,
include vegetation
Development,
9.1,
that can filter runoff.
Partnerships
9.3,
• Minimize impervious
and
10.5
surfaces in new
Volunteerism,
development.
C3, C5, F2
• Consider use of
pervious /porous
concrete, bio- swales
and other alternative
storm water
management devices.
• Encourage the use of
native and adapted
plants in landscaping.
(Native and adapted
plants require less
chemical
maintenance.)
• Continue to develop
water conservation
educational
materials.
• Consider partnerships
with other agencies
for educational
initiatives.
• Ensure that trees and
vegetation adjacent
to streams are
preserved.
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 24
Ref.
No.
Issues
Recommendations
Implementation
Metric
Strategic Link
VGO
Tie
E11
The DFW region faces
• Encourage the use of
Address as part of
Safety and
7.2,
significant challenges for
native and adapted
the Sustainability
Security,
7.3,
meeting increasing water
plants in landscaping.
Plan by FY 2011.
Infrastructure,
9.1,
demand in coming years.
o Continue to
Quality
9.3
develop
Development,
landscaping
Partnerships
demonstration
and
gardens within
Volunteerism,
city parks and at
Performance
the Bob Jones
Management
Nature Center
and Service
that may be
Delivery,
utilized in
C3, B2, F2
medians and
traffic circles.
• Continue to
encourage water
conservation through
public education.
• Consider establishing
a program for citizens
or businesses that
significantly decrease
their water usage.
• Consider partnerships
with other agencies
for educational
initiatives.
• Evaluate watering
methods for public
and private
properties, such as
utilizing well water
and prohibiting
watering during
certain times.
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 25
Ref.
Issues
Recommendations
Implementation
Strategic Link
VGO
No.
Metric
Tie
E12
The DFW region continues to
• Continue to develop
Address as part of
Safety and
3.1,
be classified as nonattainment
the infrastructure for
the Sustainability
Security,
3.3,
for the pollutant ozone.
and encourage the
Plan by FY 2011.
Infrastructure,
3.7,
use of non - motorized
Quality
3.8,
travel options, such
Development,
3.9,
as walking and biking.
Partnerships
7.2,
• Protect existing tree
and
7.5,
cover and increase
Volunteerism,
7.6,
tree cover by planting
Performance
9.1,
more trees.
Management
9.3
• Consider partnerships
and Service
with other agencies
Delivery,
for educational
B2, F2, L5
initiatives.
E13
As development continues,
• Evaluate options for
Include in city's FY
Quality
7.2
light pollution is an increasing
addressing and
2011 work
Development,
problem in North Central
reducing light
program.
B3
Texas.
pollution.
E14
Residents' expectations for
• Require maintenance
Amend the Zoning
Quality
1.1
maintenance of common
plan as part of zoning
Ordinance in FY
Development,
open space in neighborhoods
application process
2011.
C3
are not always the same as
for public /private
the required level of
parks.
maintenance.
Recommendations Table Legend
Ref. No. = Reference Number.
Issues = A brief description of the issue requiring action.
Recommendations = Recommendations to address the issues.
Implementation Metric = A quantifiable goal, often with a deadline for achievement.
Strategic Link = The Strategic Focus Area(s) from the City's Strategy Map that relate to the issue and
recommendations.
VGO Tie = Specific objective(s) from the adopted Southlake 2030 Vision, Goals and Objectives that relate
to the issue and recommendations.
Gray Shading = Citywide goals (not unique to the north sector).
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 26
6.0 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
With the Corps of Engineers property and Bob Jones Park, the North Sector includes the largest
concentration of open space in the city. The area also includes several smaller parks and a joint use
property, as shown in the following map and listed below. A complete discussion on each facility may
be found in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan.
• Bob Jones Park, including Boo Boo's Buddies Dog Park
• Bob Jones Nature Center and Preserve
• Lonesome Dove Park
• Liberty Park at Sheltonwood
• North Park (undeveloped, official name to be determined)
• Kirkwood -Sabre Linear Park (undeveloped)
• Coker Property
• Oak Pointe Park
• Carroll Middle School (a joint use property)
• Corps of Engineers Property
MAP 7: PARKS IN THE NORTH SECTOR
City of Southlake
North Sector
Parks Locator Map
Legend
Public Perks
Carpe of Elgineers PmperlY
_ GimpeNne Lek@YlG&YR F100d Fled
P.-I BorrrAanes
- SoA hrake City U.1
C+eekaM.ler 99Qe6
ScEle - 436000
f irrch = 3000 feat
marl —I d aaa..
.and B.A pm Sem[es
C ggkw ldnmadon sy:[wrrs
N Wk4.xv�w aNx
p. M dm.wx. Ewy �ffwi
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010
Page 27
In addition, the North Sector has a significant trail network on public park land and Corps Property that
provides opportunities for recreational activities such as horseback riding, hiking, and bird watching.
This network includes the Walnut Grove Trail System which connects Southlake to both the Town of
Trophy Club and the City of Grapevine along Lake Grapevine. In recognition of its local and regional
significance, the Walnut Grove Trail System was designated as a National Recreation Trail in 1991.
City
of
Southlake
Bob Jones Park
Nature Center & Preserve
Trail Map
Hrkmg Nals
Walnut Grove Trails
NUP,xW R&weafmzO Tr*
Hiicr9 aW H"bal* Pklrag Frail
— Cq urm 6—fty
Hiknr{1 u J - q-A ..n 1-IN
0 -q- P-PenY
- FRhx F.kl
Hu6ea erd Iieg�duBms
ra�wear�.dw
h.xa...oRr-h.,mu3e-
noF�
e smdm�wcsx
NAeP)l Tah
s.�.ardr'a.
Nal`rmvu
1. 29M
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 28
MAP 8: NORTH SECTOR TRAIL MAP
Based on the Southlake 2030 Vision, Goals, and Objectives, the following parks, recreation and open
space recommendations are proposed. For a description of each column heading, please refer to the
legend that following the table.
TABLE 6: NORTH SECTOR PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE RECOMMENDATIONS
Ref.
Issues
Recommendations
Implementation
Strategic Link
VGO
No.
Metric
Tie
P1
Throughout the region,
Consider designating
Address as part of
Quality
7.5,
native Cross Timbers habitat
certain undeveloped
the Parks,
Development,
7.7,
is rapidly disappearing. In
areas of Bob Jones Park,
Recreation and
Partnerships
7.8,
Southlake, the largest
particularly around Bob
Open Space
and
9.3
concentration of
Jones Nature Center, as
Plan /Bob Jones
Volunteerism,
uncultivated landscape is
Cross Timbers
Nature Center
C3, B4
located in the North Sector.
educational areas.
Plan.
Evaluate options for
preservation, such as
placing the areas into
conservation easements.
P2
The presence of the Bob
Expand natural resource
Address as part of
Partnerships
4.9,
Jones Nature Center and the
education programs.
the Parks,
and
4.12,
large concentration of
Recreation and
Volunteerism,
7.2,
natural landscape in the
Open Space Plan.
Performance
7.8,
North Sector provide an ideal
/Bob Jones Nature
Management
9.3
situation for natural resource
Center Plan.
and Service
education.
Delivery,
C3, B4, L5
P3
Inappropriate recreational
Educate the public on
Address as part of
Partnerships
4.12,
use of Corps property and
appropriate recreational
the Parks,
and
4.13,
Bob Jones Park is
use of sensitive lands.
Recreation and
Volunteerism,
7.5,
detrimental to the delicate
• Provide
Open Space Plan.
Performance
7.7,
ecosystem.
education on
Management
7.8,
leash laws and
and Service
7.9
the impact
Delivery,
unrestrained
C3, B4, L5
pets can have
on the delicate
ecosystem.
• Discourage trail
users from
diverging from
existing trails
(This may
include a Corps
of Engineers
trail study).
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 29
Ref.
Issues
Recommendations
Implementation
Strategic Link
VGO
No.
Metric
Tie
P4
Access and utilization of
Explore opportunities
Address as part of
Partnerships
4.7,
Corps property is currently
for additional passive
the Parks,
and
4.13,
limited.
recreational uses in
Recreation and
Volunteerism,
9.1
keeping with current
Open Space Plan.
Performance
Corps plans (Hiking,
Management
Equestrian Use, and
and Service
Education). This may
Delivery,
include a Corps of
C3, B4, L5
Engineers trail study
P5
The Walnut Grove Trail has
Develop
Address in the Bob
Quality
1. 1,
been recognized as a
recommendations on
Jones Nature
Development,
3.3,
National Recreation Trail and
the proper use and
Center Plan, a
Mobility, C3,
3.9
is a significant asset for the
maintenance of the
component of the
B3
city and region.
Walnut Grove Trail
Parks, Recreation
System.
and Open Space
Plan.
P6
Directional signs within city
Develop internal park
Prepare a Park
Quality
1.12,
parks are either nonexistent
signage plans for all
Sign Master Plan
Development,
10.8
or inadequate.
parks. Consideration
that addresses
Safety and
should be given to both
signage in all
Security,
active use signage, such
parks.
Performance
as directional signs to
Management
sports fields, and to
and Service
passive use signage,
Delivery,
such as trail head signs
C3, B4, L5
and directional signs at
trail forks.
Recommendations Table Legend
Ref. No. = Reference Number.
Issues = A brief description of the issue requiring action.
Recommendations = Recommendations to address the issues.
Implementation Metric = A quantifiable goal, often with a deadline for achievement.
Strategic Link = The Strategic Focus Area(s) from the City's Strategy Map that relate to the issue and
recommendations.
VGO Tie = Specific objective(s) from the adopted Southlake 2030 Vision, Goals and Objectives that relate
to the issue and recommendations.
Gray Shading = Citywide goals (not unique to the north sector).
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Page 30
Appendix
w
I S/
0 Q
J
N
•
2030
Vision, Goals &Objectives
Adopted by City Council on November 17, 2009
Ordinance No. 960
CITY Of
SOUTHLAKE
1 3 ,
DRAFT North Sector Plan
March 29, 2010 Appendix A
SOUTHLAKE 2030 VISION STATEMENT
Southlake will continue to enhance its status as a desirable, attractive, safe, healthy and
fiscally -sound community with quality neighborhoods, while maintaining a high standard of
living, learning, shopping, working, recreation, and open spaces. Southlake will continue to
be a vibrant community that epitomizes both economic and environmental sustainability.
SOUTHLAKE 2030 GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Goall. QualitvDevelopment
Promote quality development that is consistent with the Urban Design Plan, well -
maintained, attractive, pedestrian- friendly, safe, contributes to an overall sense ofplace and
meet the needs of vibrant and diverse community.
Objective 1.1 Encourage the maintenance of existing neighborhoods, features and
amenities in order to preserve property values and a unique sense of place.
Objective 1.2 Create and preserve attractive pedestrian- friendly streets and pathways to
encourage transportation alternatives to the automobile.
Objective 1.3 Encourage appropriately- scaled neighborhood design that compliments
existing development patterns while creating unique places, recognizing that
quality residential neighborhoods are the cornerstone of our community.
Objective 1.4 Emphasize creativity and ensure environmental stewardship in the design of
all development and public infrastructure, maximizing the preservation of
desirable natural features such as trees, topography, streams, wildlife
corridors and habitat.
Objective 1.5 Promote unique community character through a cohesive theme by
emphasizing urban design detail and performance standards for structures,
streets, street lighting, landscaping, entry features, wayfinding signs, open
spaces, amenities, pedestrian /automobile orientation and transition to
adjacent uses.
Objective 1.6 Consider high- quality single - family residential uses as part of a planned
mixed -use development at appropriate transitional locations.
Objective 1.7 Explore and encourage opportunities for redevelopment when appropriate.
Objective 1.8 Ensure high - quality design and a heightened sensitivity towards the
integration of new development with the existing development and urban
design pattern.
SOUTHLAKE2030
Vision, Goals & Objectives 1
November 17, 2009
Objective 1.9 Strengthen street and landscape design standards to enhance the visual
quality along major corridors.
Objective 1.10 Continue to promote a strong working relationship with the Texas
Department of Transportation to improve the appearance of bridges,
embankments and entryways into the City.
Objective 1.11 Ensure that city - and developer - provided infrastructure is functional,
aesthetically well- designed, and integrated with the natural environment.
Objective 1.12 Continue to strengthen the City's regulations to encourage effective signage
that is appropriately designed and scaled to minimize adverse impacts on
community aesthetics.
Objective 1.13 Explore creating participation programs with home owner associations and
subdivision groups to enhance the long -term viability of neighborhood
features and amenities.
Goa12.• Balance
Maintain a balanced approach to growth and development in order to preserve the City's
assets (schools, public safety, and competitive edge in the region) and fiscal health.
Objective 2.1 Encourage a balance of uses, including retail, office, medical, hospitality,
entertainment, institutional, industrial and residential that is both responsive
to and sustainable within changing market conditions and sustains growth
in property values for the future.
Objective 2.2 Support appropriate public - private financial partnerships that will help
retain and enhance the City's economic base.
Objective 2.3 Ensure the City's built environment fosters a positive relationship between
the taxable value of real property and the corresponding cost of municipal
services.
Goal 3. Mobility
Develop an innovative mobility system that provides for the safe, convenient, efficient
movement of people and goods, reduces traffic congestion, promotes energy and
transportation efficiency and promotes expanded opportunities for citizens to meet some
routine needs by walking or bicycling.
Objective 3.1 Provide a safe and efficient streets and pathways network that allows travel
to shopping areas, schools, parks and places of employment, reducing the
SOUTHLAKE2030
Vision, Goals & Objectives 2
November 17, 2009
need to travel on the City's major arterials (FM 1709, FM 1938, or SH 114)
and minimizes cut - through traffic in residential neighborhoods.
Objective 3.2 Implement and promote a mobility system that addresses safety, design,
comfort and aesthetic elements such as landscaping, crosswalks, railing,
lighting, traffic - calming and signage in order to provide distinct character
and functionality for the City.
Objective 3.3 In accordance with a need identified by the Citizen Survey, provide and
promote a continuous pedestrian pathways system that is user - friendly,
efficient, safe, economical, and connect parks, shopping, schools, work and
residential areas.
Objective 3.4 Pursue opportunities to link Southlake's pathways to systems in adjacent
cities and trails on the Corps of Engineers property.
Objective 3.5 Develop a program to encourage the dedication of easements for pathway
construction in accordance with the sidewalk priority plan and Capital
Improvements Plan.
Objective 3.6 Identify and prioritize the funding and construction of mobility system
capital improvements projects according to the impacts on safety, system
efficiency, costs, and maintaining acceptable levels of service.
Objective 3.7 Increase safe bicycle mobility when reasonably possible.
Objective 3.8 Continue to promote a strong working relationship with the Texas
Department of Transportation to identify, design and implement projects
that prevent or relieve congestion in the area.
Objective 3.9 Continue to evaluate and improve upon the existing mobility system within
the City, maintaining existing infrastructure, making required improvements
and evaluating innovative ways to integrate transportation and land use.
Objective 3.10 Obtain adequate right -of -way for future roadway corridors and
improvements.
Goal 4.• Parks, Recreation and Opev Space
Support a comprehensive integrated parks, recreation and open space system for all ages
that creates value and preserves natural assets of the City.
Objective 4.1 Ensure that new development incorporates usable open space.
SOUTHLAKE2030
Vision, Goals & Objectives 3
November 17, 2009
Objective 4.2 Ensure that parkland and open spaces include an integrated mix of
developed and natural areas with consideration of protecting the City's
ecosystem and wildlife corridors.
Objective 4.3 Promote water conservation and reuse in the design of parks and open
spaces.
Objective 4.4 Utilize partnerships to create open space and recreation facilities.
Objective 4.5 Ensure an even geographic distribution of park facilities and recreation
activities —both active and passive —for citizens of all ages.
Objective 4.6 Provide a full range of park facilities and linear linkages that will
accommodate the current and future needs of the City's residents and
visitors.
Objective 4.7 Integrate passive recreational opportunities into preserved natural and
drainage areas.
Objective 4.8 Incorporate feedback received from the Parks and Recreation Citizen
Survey into recreation activities and park facilities.
Objective 4.9 Acknowledge the City's rich natural history, heritage and historical
landmarks.
Objective 4.10 Determine parkland desirable for dedication as part of the development
process based on classification, location and maintenance cost.
Objective 4.11 Prioritize investments in existing and established parks understanding that
there will be strategic opportunities for land acquisition.
Objective 4.12 Incorporate educational and learning opportunities within parks and related
facilities.
Objective 4.13 Pursue recreational and educational opportunities on Corps of Engineers
property compatible with the goal of protecting and preserving the existing
ecosystem for future generations.
Goal 9- Public Safety
Establish and maintain protective measures and policies that reduce danger, risk or injury to
property and individuals who live, work or visit the City.
Objective 5.1 Maintain a level of police, fire and ambulance services commensurate with
population and business needs.
SOUTHLAKE2030
Vision, Goals & Objectives 4
November 17, 2009
Objective 5.2 Provide effective and efficient professional public safety services in
partnership with the citizens we serve, encouraging mutual respect and
innovative problem - solving, thereby improving the quality of life in our
community.
Objective 5.3 Ensure compliance with the stated standard of response coverage and
industry guidelines through the provision of facilities, equipment, personnel
and roadways.
Objective 5.4 Ensure that all buildings and public facilities are constructed in compliance
with all applicable federal, state, and local safety regulations and standards.
Objective 5.5 Maintain the continued compliance with national standard of excellence
through the accreditation process.
Objective 5.6 Enhance and promote public safety through public- private partnerships and
utilization and training of volunteers.
Objective 5.7 Maintain a high level of community readiness through training and
communications among neighborhood and volunteer groups and city,
county, state, and federal entities.
Objective 5.8 Develop and implement safety education programs that enhance the quality
of life and safety in the community.
Objective 5.9 Promote security of public buildings and infrastructure.
Objective 5.10 Ensure safe and healthy working conditions for city staff, volunteers and
officials by providing security, facility, vehicular and equipment
maintenance, information, education and training.
Goal 6.• Economic Development
Create a diversified, vibrant and sustainable economy through the attraction and support of
business enterprises and tourism meeting the vision and standards desired by City leaders.
Objective 6.1
Objective 6.2
Objective 6.3
Promote the City both nationally and regionally as a great place to live,
work, visit, shop and recreate.
Provide necessary, desirable and diverse goods and services for residents of
the City.
Foster an environment that retains and supports existing businesses to
ensure the sustainability of our existing tax base.
SOUTHLAKE2030
Vision, Goals & Objectives 5
November 17, 2009
Objective 6.4 Attract desired businesses to ensure economic growth as well as continued
employment and services for residents of the City.
Objective 6.5 Enhance the quality of life for residents and the sustainability of City
business through the promotion of the tourism, convention and hotel
industry in the City.
Objective 6.6 Develop a clear and understandable incentive policy that accomplishes the
business attraction and retention goals of the City and is based on factors
such as job creation, investment, quality of business, return on investment
and overall value to the community.
Objective 6.7 Foster communication between the public and private sectors.
Goal 7.• Sustaivah&CL
Encourage the conservation, protection, enhancement and proper management of the
natural and built environment.
Objective 7.1 Nfaintain and implement policies to reduce the use of nonrenewable
resources, such as energy in the heating, cooling, and operation and
maintenance of city facilities.
Objective 7.2 Promote public awareness and education on such sustainability issues as
public health, energy and water conservation and overall environmental
stewardship.
Objective 7.3 Promote sustainable public and private development practices and
patterns, building design, water -use reduction and waste reduction while
maintaining the existing character of the city.
Objective 7.4 Protect surface, storm, and groundwater quality from septic discharge,
impervious surface runoff, improper waste disposal and other potential
contaminant sources.
Objective 7.5 Conserve, restore and promote tree and plant cover that is native or
adaptive to the City and region while also protecting existing significant
vegetation and maintaining the existing character of the City.
Objective 7.6 Protect and enhance air quality in coordination with federal, regional and
local agencies.
Objective 7.7 Recognize the importance of and protect the biological diversity for the
ecological and aesthetic benefits to the community.
SOUTHLAKE2030
Vision, Goals & Objectives 6
November 17, 2009
Objective 7.8 Define, protect, and celebrate the local Cross Timbers Ecosystem as a
community asset for future generations.
Objective 7.9 Assess and minimize the ecological impact of any new trails provided on
Corps of Engineers property.
Goal 8.• Community Facilities
Plan and provide quality community facilities and services that effectively meet the service
needs ofSouthlake's residents and businesses.
Objective 8.1 Provide a level of community facilities that meet the needs of both the
existing and projected population.
Objective 8.2 Encourage cooperation with the school districts in planning for and
financing community facilities to encourage the cost - effective provision of
resources.
Objective 8.3 Systematically evaluate City -owned buildings in terms of their quality of
service delivery and prioritize maintenance and renovation accordingly.
Objective 8.4 Incorporate new computer and telecommunications technologies into
public buildings and designated areas in order to improve time and cost
efficiency of service delivery and to meet increasing demands of
information access and sharing.
Goal 9.• Parmershins
Fully utilize and coordinate with the City's many partners to address issues facing the area,
provide services and facilities, promote volunteerism, support events and programs and
encourage economic growth.
Objective 9.1 Partner with other government entities, non - governmental organizations
and the North Central Texas Council of Governments to address regional
and local issues.
Objective 9.2 Continue mutually beneficial partnerships between the City and local school
districts to explore the provision of facilities, services, technology, and other
opportunities through open communication and close coordination.
Objective 9.3 Continue active partnerships with non- profit organizations, civic groups
and local businesses to create opportunities that benefit the community.
Objective 9.4 Partner with local school districts to educate Southlake's youth in their
municipality and seek youth input when planning the future of our
community.
SOUTHLAKE2030
Vision, Goals & Objectives 7
November 17, 2009
Goa]10.• Infrastructure
Through sound management and strategic investment, develop, maintain, improve and
operate public infrastructure that promotes health, safety and an enhanced quality of life for
all members of the community.
Objective 10.1 Ensure equitably - distributed and adequate services and facilities.
Objective 10? Plan and program land acquisition and the installation of all essential public
facilities to reasonably coincide with the need for such facilities.
Objective 10.3 Identify and implement programs where costs may be shared by multiple
agencies and /or developers.
Objective 10.4 Provide for adequate public water and sewer services in appropriate
areas of the City.
Objective 10.5 Provide and maintain an effective stormwater management system
throughout the City.
Objective 10.6 Maintain and enhance existing infrastructure and levels of service through
the provision of timely maintenance, repair and replacement as needed.
Objective 10.7 Provide and maintain effective solid waste collection and recycling
programs for residents.
Objective 10.8 Provide a streetlight system for adequate illumination and a wayfinding
signage system for pedestrian and driver safety where appropriate.
SOUTHLAKE2030
Vision, Goals & Objectives 8
November 17, 2009
• �1
A � A
r�l
CL
w
i
W.,
r J
C / ) Cf
4 —
0
U
L
7
0 v
ODLL
m
�❑
u >
�s co
o c
L
a
N N
fL tlL
s as
i C
a) Es
Q
C
a - a
as
_T
� O
U
N
D
v
7
U
U)
T
O
� T
aT+ L
L
0 c8
N
as
as W
U
9) O
LL
L
O
m
U
a�
n�
U
x
W
O
Q
U
•
O
U
U
a
O
7
O
C
•
T
a1
OY
N
S�
7
d?
p
U
N
J
L GM! N _r_
0] -= N 03 R t N II1
0 E 0
N ZA , 7 C L '� L
> p N o O 0
L r J L = L N
W ji N 0L J sB
U U]
Page 1 of 3
Stephanie Breitbarth
From: Ken Baker
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 1:47 PM
... ........... .
To: Stephanie Breitbarth; Clayton Comstock
Subject: Fwd: Our call re: North Sector Plan
Please hand out.
Sent front nay 1Phone
Begin forwarded. message:
From: "Gregory Swain"
Date: April S, 2010 1:34:29 PM CDT
To: "Ken Baker" �kbaer {�rsci.sc�uthlttl<e.tx.tts�
Subject: Our call re: North Sector Plan
Dear Mr. Baker:
Thank you.for returning my call. Per our conversation, here is a
summary of some of my comments from our discussion, particularly those
concerning the document "North Sector Plan 03- 29- 2010."
To preface .these remarks, know that I have been a Southlake resident
for over 20 .years. 1 chose Southlake for its small size (4,500
residents at that time), rural: character, strict development codes
(minimum 1 -2 acre lots), proximity to my office at the then -new Solana
complex, and proximity to DFw airport for business travel. During my -
time here, I have seen explosive, uncontrolled growth in residential
housing, little industry (better tax base), and ever - increasing taxes,
particularly for a school system that has no concept of fiscal
responsibility.
Overall, while the City has stated some worthy goals in its strategy
and vision, I do not see it living up to thetas. Today's attempts at
planning seem to be more like_ closing the proverbial barn door after
the horse.has escaped.
Regarding the report in question:
1. As stated on page 2,
"Accordingly, the preservation of the rural character in the north
side of `
Southlake is of the utmost importance to the citizens."
I cannot agree more with this statement. However, it is clear from
page 23, item E8,
"The Environmental Resource Protection Map has not been updated
since its adoption in 2005. It shows areas that have been developed as
areas recommended for preservation."
that, development not preservation is the City's priority.
4/8/2010
Page 2 of 3
By continuing to approve new development --- especially residential
development — in the North Sector, the City Council is more interested
in satisfying real estate professionals (developers and salesmen) than
those of us who already live here.
Frankly, no one with a real estate license should be allowed to serve
on either the P &D Commission or the City Council. Despite assertions
from the Mayor that I received from him concerning "conflict of
interest" clauses, my experience has been that Southlake has a history
of being run and managed by people with a vested interest in
development, particularly residential development, at the expense of
the City's rural character.
2. The Issues and Recommendations cited in items LU7 -10 on pages 14 -15
appear to be nothing more than rubber - stamping development that has
already been approved, again despite the citizens' desire for the
"preservation of the rural character" cited earlier. Again,
development trumped preservation.
3. The infrastructure for new residential developments, such as street
widening and other improvements needed to accommodate more traffic,
always lags considerably behind the building of houses. No new houses
should be built in the planned new developments until the
infrastructure, particularly roads, is in place. This infrastructure
development should be at the expense of the developers, not the
taxpayers. By failing to do this, the City lets the developers profit
at the expense and convenience of the existing taxpayers.
4. It is unclear if the City derives any benefit from its
participation in "Tree City USA" and what this costs the taxpayers.
If one actually reads the Tree City USA requirements, one could
conceivably obtain this designation while simultaneously cutting down
every tree in town: there is no requirement to plant trees, preserve
trees, or the like merely €he "care and rnanagernent" of trees, which
development has been "managing" out of existence.
The first step in every new development project I've seen in Southlake
is to bulldoze most, if not all, of the trees. The required "Tree
Care Ordinance" could be found on the City's Web site via its search
engine (one has to dig through the site) and, frankly, given the
bulldozing of trees, Southlake should probably be labeled a "Tree
Killer." I see no evidence that "Tree City USA" participation is
anything other than a phony advertising campaign. Despite the
"increased emphasis" and related accolades cited on page 21, there
appear to be far fewer trees in Southlake now than when I moved here,
and current development plans will probably mean a further reduction
in trees.
5. Zone 1 1 on Map 6B should be permanently set aside as Rural
Conservation. The Issue cited under LU 11, noting in the third bullet
that there is "Considerable acreage for land developable within next
20 years" probably has developers salivating, but as can be seen from
the City's history of development over preservation (re: point 2
above), whether the City will truly preserve anything designated as
"Rural Conservation" — per the associated Recommendation - -- is highly
suspect.
6. I am very concerned that "wildlife management" will simply mean
killing the animals whose habitat has been displaced by Southlake's
uncontrolled development and its clear priority (re: point 1) for
development over preservation. We frankly like the wildlife. While I
4/8 /2010
Page 3 of 3
have yet to see a feral hog, we see fewer and fewer Roadrunners and
other native Texas wildlife as unchecked development has proceeded.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments and to add them
to the record of tonight's meeting which, unfortunately, 1 will be
unable to attend.
Sincerely,
Gregory E, Swain
2407 Taylor Street
Southlake, TX 76092
817 -929 -4303
4/8/2010
Page 1
From:
Ken Baker
Sent:
Wednesday, February 10, 2010 3:41 PiVI
To:
Jennifer Crosby; Clayton Comstock
Subject:
FW: Development on Shady Lane
Please place email in the N sector file. Thanks.
Ken Baker, AICP
Planning and Development Services Director
City of Southlake
817 -748 -8067
From: Place 2
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 2:30 PM
To: Suzie Craney
Cc: Ken Baker
Subject: RE: Development on Shady Lane
Thank you for your letter stating your position on the land use for the 6 acre tract backing up to Shady Lane. We will
record you position on this land tract. I suggest you attend the SPIN meeting for the 2030 Plan regarding land use
for the North Sector of Southlake, It is scheduled for Feb. 25 at 6.pm on the 3rd floor of City Hall.
I do not have a copy of the proposal from the developer. I om copying Ken Baker, Director of Planning, as I think he
will be able to forward you an electronic copy of the proposal.
Carolyn Morris
Council Member, Place 2
City of Southlake
From: Suzie Crane
Sent: Mon 2/8/2010 9;44 AM
To: Place 2
Subject: Development on Shady Lane
Carolyn:
I have been informed by neighbors that development of a 6 acre tract backing up to Shady Lane is being proposed,
and that the developers are requesting a zoning change to Transitional (?) 1 or 2; with a mixed -use option. As an
owner of a quiet, peaceful lot on Rolling Lane with a rural feel to it; that prospect is quite distressing. Southlake
has so few areas left that don't feel like Plano or Highland Park, it would be a shame to ruin those so that someone
can build ANOTHER retail /commercial strip.
The proposal letter from the developer was an attachment, but I really couldn't read it. Is that posted somewhere
on line or can it be attached and sent to nee so that I can review it? And what is the timetable for that proposal?
Thanks for your help,
Sm* Cang
2504 Rolling Lane
Cell 817.235.7138
file: / /L:1ProjectslSouth1ake 2030 PlanlCommentslFW Development on Shady Lane.htm 4/14/2010
January 28, 2010
Mr. Ken Baker
Pirector of Planning and Development Services
City of Southlake
1.400 Main Street
Suite 300
Southlake, Texas.76092
Re: Southlake 2030 Plan/Tom Alters Letter
'Dear Ken:
I have read Mr. Aden's response letter and can fully appreciate his position. Still, part of his
premise is based u on a document that was.
re p. ed as an paper. Granted,
there were recommendations included in that document, and it was attachedto the 2030
planning document perthe Council's request for a:historical artifact The. informational
ifocp:nent was not,a response to the SPiN meeting as sorrie:may have thought. To my
knowledge, the document certainly was never approved;as any part of city policy, regulations,
or planning. if that fact is accurate, #here is no reason to provide,a pointjcounterpoint
response. it is moot, and furthendebate would.serve no. purpose unless it is.4ping proposed z.
that the original document be ofFcrally adapted. i do not think.that was ever:the City's intent
nor was that the intent of the document.
The only addressed statement was .extracted from the.respanse.submitted after-the 1st
"Reading for Draft,Vision,.Gouls &Objectives" on November : 3, 20!0. That statement was
included in Objga ve 7 S which states, .Define, protect, and celebrate ,the local Cross. Timbers
Ecosystem as a community assetl`ar future.enerations,'.'; The way the statement is written, It
conveys a vision that the City.will work to define exactly. what the .Local ecosystem entails, the
city will determine how:it wants to protect what it has def ngd, and fnally,.it will devise means
to celebrate the.Cross Timbers Ecosystem.. A vision statement speaks to a broad based
generality that the City would want considered in its future planning.
To abandon a general hroad- based.corisideratlon that the City might want to.consider in future
deliberations is equivalent to inadvertently supposing tha..th4p concept of a. development
alternative in the conservation overlay would be used. in the developers simply bypassed
any consideration of the over lay and the result was that the.Q y lost its leverage to protect or
control Southlake's growth. Abandoning Objective 7.8.would result in the same type of loss of
leverage.
cannot accept the argument that it is "quite another to suffer potential condemnation from
someone seeking to protect a special interest on a nearby government property". Such an
argument is based upon a reciprocal special interest using a hypothetical as a counter
argument..This same argument could be used to challenge the City's existing policy on buffer
zones along waterways or, for that matter, not allowing a super store to be built, or protecting
an existing housing addition from new structures being built that will seriously encroach on
privacy. Are these not all issues that the City must evaluate and solve?
The issue.is the word "protect ". The wording allows the City to equitably and fairly decided the
degree of.protection it wants to sanction in any proposal. That is the purpose and stewardship
responsibility of the City Council.
I do think it is good to have citizen input such Mr. Allen's, and I appreciate his efforts. Through
such input, the City gets a broader perspective on issues. Still, I caution the Council against
supporting long term planning that limits its ability to consider all views or to positively affect
City growth.
Sincerely,
Ray L. Chancellor
From: contact @cityofsouthlake.com [mailto .contact @cityofsouthiake.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:27 AM
To: Morrie Fletcher; Stephanie Breitbarth; Ken Baker
Subject: Website Contact Form Request
..................................................................................................................................... ...............................
This is an automated email generated from the Contact Us page on CityOfSouthlake.com.
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE! REPLY TO SENDER'S EMAIL ADDRESS BELOW!
From-
Name: Paul W. Johnson
Errna4 Address:
Comment/Questioni
hello I live at 610 Katelyn lane in southlake. I was reviewing your pathways plan, and you still have a
pathway going through my property. I have mentioned sevearal time that I do not want a pathway going
through my property. I have also disussed this with my neighboring homelproperty owners whom are also
against the pathway going through their property. Please find an alternate route for your pathway. Thank
you
Page 1 of 2
Stephanie Breitbarth
From: Lori Payne
Rec
2010
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 5:09 PM
...... g
To: Mayor -Int
Cc: Ken Baker; Stephanie Breitbarth
Subject: FW: Comments regarding proposal by Sage Group for Land Use Plan Revision for the Mertz,
Fusella, and LeTournot tracts near Shady Lane and Roiling Lane
From: Gibson, Michele
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 4:41 PM
To: Mayor; Place 1; Place 3
Subject: Comments regarding proposal by Sage Group for Land Use Plan Revision for the Mertz, Fusella, and
LeTournot tracts near Shady Lane and Rolling Lane
Mayor John Terrell
Carolyn Morris
Brandon Bledsoe
Please do not grant the request to designate the area mentioned above with a "Transition I or 2" overlay
and an underlying land use of "Mixed Use ". We do not wish to .Have the possibility of this type of
development in the middle of our residential area.
Jed and Michele Gibson
2420 Raintree Drive
Southlake, Texas 76092
Treasury Circular 230 Disclosure: To the extent this conununication cosh -ai.ns any s'_utement regard'nj federal
t.axe s ,
that statement was not 41'it'tetl or intended to be used, and it cannot be used, by any person Ii) as a basis for
avciding
fedp:-al tax pena:it,ies may be imposed on that person, or (ii) to promote, market er recommend to another
parry
any transaction or matter addressed herein.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Thv information ii: this einail :nay be confid, and /o3� privileged. This email is
intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended
reci pient or an
2/212
Page 1 of 1
Stephanie Breitbarth
Prom: Lori Payne
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 2:14 PM
To: Mayor -Int
Cc: Ken Baker; Stephanie Breitbarth
Subject: FW: Request for Land Use Plan Revision
. . .. .......... ...............................
..... ...............................
_
From:
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 1:47 PM
To: Mayor
Cc: Place 2; Place 3
Subject: Request for Land Use Plan Revision
Dear Mayor Terrell,
i am writing to express my opposition to the Request for Land Use Plan Revision submitted to the Southlake 2030
Committee by Mr Curtis Young on behalf of the SAGE GROUP, INC. No one will benefit from such a revision
except the developer.
Since moving to Southlake in 1995 1 have seen undeveloped tracts hosting native species of plants and animals
replaced with tons of concrete. The resulting noise, pollution and loss of habitat is a pity. The proposed request
for "mixed use" zoning promises more of the same,
Please use the influence of your office to prevent the requested revision to this neighborhood's Land Use Plan.
Best regards,
Sara Alexander
519 Shady Lane
Cc: Carolyn Morris
Brandon Bledsoe
1/28/2010
Jennifer Crosb
From: Ken Baker
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 2:29 PM
To: Jennifer Crosby; Clayton Comstock; Bob Price; Gordon Mayer
Subject: FW: Information for Council regarding 2030 plan and bicycles
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...............................
Please include in 2030 reference materials.
Ken Baker, AICP
Planning and Development Services Director
City of Southlake
817 -748 -8067
From: Lori Payne
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 2:27 PM
To: Mayor and City Council
Cc: Ken Baker; Shana Yelverton
Subject: FW: Information for Council regarding 2030 plan and bicycles
From: Emily Galpin
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 J 1;52 AM
To: Lori Payne
Subject: Information for Council regarding 2030 plan and bicycles
Hello, Lori,
I spoke to Carolyn Morris.about the Bicycle Friendly City designation. She suggested 1 send the link to you to
provide to council members. Not sure how you handle the dissemination so hope the link is sufficient.
httg://www. ke lea ue o[g/p rog ram s/bic clefriendl americalcomrnunitiesf ettin started. php
Thanks,
Emily Galpin
817.939.1110
Page 1.
From: Ken Baker
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 2:19 PM
To: Jennifer Crosby
Subject: FW: Forward Please re: Future Thinking - Ray Chancellor
Attachments: Future Planning -Corps Property -Light Pollution.docx
Please include in the correspondance#ile. Thank you_ .... ......... ......
From: Lori Payne
Sent: Tue 12/22/2009 11:48 AM
Subject: FW: Forward Please re: Future Thinking - Ray Chancellor
From: RayChancellor @aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 11:45 AM
To: Lori Payne
Subject: Forward Please re: Future Thinking
City Council Members
City Manager Yelverton
Planning And Dev. Services Dir. Baker
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
file: / /L:1Projects\Southlake 2030 Plan\Comments\FW Forward Please re Future Thinking - Ray Chan... 4/14/2010
Page 2
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. It creates the competitive edge. 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. l hope you will keep this in mind as you look to the year 2030.
file://L:1ProjectslSouthlake 2030 PlanlCornmentslFW Forward Please re Future Thinking - Ray Chan... 4/14/2010
Page 3
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 if 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, l am sharing the draft with you as "heads up" information. See attached.
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
$17- 421.6353
file:HL:1ProjectslSouth1ake 2030 P1anlCommentslFW Forward Please re Future Thinking -Ray Chan... 4/14/2010
s Ef- 500
LMEGTi_Ae: E, l�%�
...... ................... ......... ...... ........................... ........ ..... ........ ... ... ...... ..... .... ............ ..................... ........ ...... ....... :S.G2 E? ............. ............... ...
December 9, 2009
Mr. Ken Balser, AICP
Director of Plarming and Development Services
City of Southlake
1400 Main Street
Suite 300
Southlake, Texas 76092
Re: Southlake 2030 Plan
Dear lien:
I have read your November 11 memorandurn to the City C ouncil regarding the Southlake 2030 vision
statement, together with its attaclvnents, and am writing to get on the record regarding Dr.
Chancellor's conrrnents and paper and on what appears to be the inclusion of some of those comments
in the draft vision statement.
The draft vision statement is well written and it is obvious that a lot of time and effort has been
expended. That doesn't surprise me at all, and I commend you and the many others who are involved.
Dr. Chdncellor has obviously spent considerable tine on his paper as well, and it is also well written.
However, I an very concerned that including points /requests made by his paper in the vision statement
will have a very negative effect on private property, and specifically on our remaining Southlake land,
as explained below.
Dr, Chancellor's comments are centered on a series of adjoining areas which do not include any of our
Solana property and which seem to be generally confined to Corps of Engineers (and possibly City)
property. However, it seems clear to me that without language restricting the effects of these
comments to the public property covered by the paper, land owned by ourselves and others stands to be
significantly impacted.
We own approximately 228 acres of undeveloped land in Southlake. As you probably know, our
property is all located north of Dove Road and south of the Corps of Engineers property (i.e. within the
area identified by Dr. Chancellor's comments as the "last remaining portion" of the "Southlake Cove
Ecosystem "). The northern portion of our property is adjacent to the southern boundary of the area
identified as "F -1" in Mr. Chancellor's report.
I would estimate that about 75% of our property has some level of tree cover, and /or "topography"
and /or is crossed by creeks, including by Kirkwood Creels. Since any land with these characteristics
could potentially also house wildlife, our land could probably be said to fall in the category of a
wildlife area as well. Accordingly, we have great concern about the effect that including some of Dr.
Chancellor's requested statements in the vision statement could have on our private property. We
believe that such general statements as "define, protect and celebrate the local Cro.ss.Timbers
Ecosystem ", without restricting the application to property owned by the Corps of Engineers and the
City, will open the door for allciiipts by special interest groups to keep some or all of our property in
an undeveloped state. Already, Dr. Chancellor's paper contains a statement on page 36 that buffer
zones for wildlife corridors should be provided on private property.
We have been highly cognizant of nature in our development to date and are very proud of the results.
For example, our number one planning goal in the development of Kirkwood Hollow was to save
every tree possible, and we did so. It is one thing, however, to engage in thoughtful, sensitive planning
and quite another to suffer potential condenuiation from someone seeking to protect a special interest
on a nearby government property. We should not suffer that fate by virtue of having the done the best
job of protecting our property thus far.
Thank you again for all of your work on this, and for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
< �om A len
Partner
cc: Richard Kuhlman
Mike Silliman
�'_ MASTER PLANNING �0R13AN 0E„ IGN ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUR
SAGE GROUP, INC.
November 12, 2009
T 01 -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 along 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).
1330 14. CARROLL AVENUE -SUITE 200 SOUTHLAKE, 'TEXAS 76092
TEL 817.424.2626 FAX 817.424.2890
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 pampa( aNe 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 /and 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.
04 41 E qb�5,
Curtis W. Young, AIA
Principal
CWY/d b
Page 2 of 2
rr)
op
We
0
7a7)
V
GL
4-J
(A
x
W
Fv
4-J
-
0
a�