Item 7A - LUA ReportCITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
2006
SOUTHLAKE
2025
Go-: y ,y4.cez
Planning Today for a Better Tomorrow
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS REPORT
BASED ON THE 2005 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN
NOVEMBER 2006
APPROVED BY THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CIAC) ON
NOVEMBER 9, 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Land Use Assumptions Report is a key effort in evaluating the amount of capital infrastructure
required to support future development in the city and financing of that infrastructure through impact fees.
The Land Use Assumptions Report projects future population and employment which impacts the amount
of infrastructure (roads, water, and sewer) required to serve new development.
This report is divided into five (5) major sections. The first section provides an introduction to the report.
The next section provides a background on the Southlake 2025 Plan, the city's 2005 Comprehensive
Master Plan which is the basis for this Land Use Assumptions Report. The third section provides a
baseline analysis to establish current population and employment estimates while the fourth section
analyzes the future development potential for both residential and commercial land uses. The fourth
section describes the methodology used and provides the results of the analysis in terms of future
population and employment projections. The last section provides conclusions on 10 -year and build -out
projections.
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 1 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Southlake 2025 Plan
3. Baseline Analysis
a. Population Trends
b. Employment Trends
4. Analysis of Future Development Potential
a. Identifying Undeveloped and Underdeveloped Properties
b. Assumptions
c. Methodology
d. Population Estimates
e. Employment Estimates
5. Summary
6. Appendices and Maps
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report ii Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Report
The purpose of the Land Use Assumptions Report is to project the amount of and location
of expected population and employment growth expected upon ultimate build -out and
more particularly over the next ten years. This report is a basis for determining the costs
associated with providing infrastructure to new development via impact fees. Impact fees
are charges on new development to help fund the costs of designing, acquiring land, and
constructing major capital improvements necessary to serve new growth.
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code (LGC) requires a local government,
before the assessment of impact fees, to adopt a land use assumptions report and its
associated Capital Improvements Program. Impact fees in Texas are limited to funding of
water, wastewater, and roadway infrastructure only. Chapter 395 governs the financing of
capital infrastructure using impact fees. The LCG § 395.001 (5) defines Land Use
Assumptions as follows:
" "Land use assumptions" includes a description of the service area and projections of
changes in land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a
10 -year period."
Any revisions to the impact fees as a result of the projections in the Land Use Assumptions
Report only impacts future development. Revised fees cannot be applied to development
that has already been assessed nor used for maintenance and operation of existing facilities.
Therefore, the Land Use Assumptions Report first describes a baseline condition, including
current population and employment levels, then projects expected increases in these levels
based on the type, location, quantity, and timing of development in various future land uses
in the community.
The Land Use Assumptions Report is prepared in accordance with Chapter 395 of the
Texas Local Government Code. The last update occurred in 1999 and was adopted in
February 2000.
1 Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code may be found at:
http: / /tlo2.tic. state.tx.us /statutes /docs/LG /content /pdf /18.012.00.0003 95.00.pdf
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 1 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
1.2 Data Sources Used
Various local, regional, and national sources were used in the preparation of this Land Use
Assumptions Report. They include:
City of Southlake ( www.cityofsouthlake.com )
• Planning Department ( Southlake 2025 Plan and development information)
• Building Inspections (building permits data)
• Economic Development (Commercial Properties Summary)
North Central Texas Council of Governments ( www.nctco org
• Demographic and employment data
U.S. Census Bureau ( www.census.gov )
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 2 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
2. SOUTHLA>E 2025 PLAN
The Southlake 2025 Plan is the city's comprehensive plan, which forms the blueprint for the
physical development of the city for the next 20 years. It is a statement of community values and
establishes a vision for the long -term growth and development of the city. The Southlake 2025
Plan process began in October 2003 and was undertaken in two phases. Phase I was adopted in
March 2004 and established a vision as well as goals and objectives for developing all the
comprehensive plan elements of the city. Phase 11 began in July 2004 and included development
of Area Plans for 9 planning areas. Following the Area Plans, the Consolidated Plans for each
comprehensive plan component were developed. Phase 11 included the adoption of the
Consolidated Land Use Plan in August 2005 and concluded in September 2005 with the adoption
of the Southlake Pathways Plan and the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan.
Two components of the Southlake 2025 Plan are of particular importance to the Land Use
Assumptions Report: (1) the 2005 Consolidated Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) and (2) the
Consolidated Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan (MMTP). The Consolidated Future Land
Use Plan is Southlake's vision for future development that serves as a guide for land use
decisions. It also serves as a foundation for Southlake's zoning and subdivision regulations. The
plan is a policy document that allocates the general location, concentration, and intensity of
future development within the city by land use categories. As such, the plan is instrumental in
projecting population and employment for undeveloped and underdeveloped properties (defined
in Section 4.1) in the city.
State Highway 114, a major regional transportation corridor with the most potential for future
development due to the location of the largest concentration ofvacant land in the city.
In response to the community's commitment to economic and environmental sustainability, the
2005 Land Use Plan provides more development flexibility than previously offered in earlier
Land Use Plans through the introduction of optional land use designations. However, this
flexibility necessitates additional analysis for projecting employment and population for
undeveloped and underdeveloped properties with an optional land use designation.
The Consolidated Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan (MMTP) serves as a guide to the
city's future transportation network.
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 3 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
3. ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE
3.1 Population Trends
The most generally accepted estimate of the population of local Dallas /Fort Worth
municipalities is generated by the North Central Texas Council of Governments
( NCTCOG) for January 1 of each calendar year. Beginning with the total count of the most
recent Census (2000 in this case), the NCTCOG demographic personnel provide current
year January 1 estimates by examining building permits and occupancy reports submitted
by the respective cities' building departments through December 31 of the prior year. The
most recent NCTCOG estimate for Southlake is 25,350 for January 1, 2006. Figure 1
below shows Southlake's population history from 1960 to January 1, 2006:
Figure I
Southlake's Population Growth Trend 1960 - 2006
30,000 2006:
25,350
25,000
20,000
0
w
15,000
a
0
C.
10,000
1960:
5,000 1
0
Ye ar
Source: NCTCOG
To establish the most up -to -date population baseline, city staff reviewed building permit
data from January to September 2006 to estimate a current population of 25,654 as of
October 1, 2006.
Images oftypical new residential developments in the city
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 4 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
3.2 Employment Trends
Employment estimates were made based upon nonresidential land uses in the city.
Commercial square footage information was gathered from a variety of sources including,
but not limited to building permits, Tarrant Appraisal District, and the city's Economic
Development Department. Table 3 below summarizes the commercial square footage data
and the corresponding employment estimate by type of commercial land use for 2000 and
2006. The gross square feet per employee assumption is based on industry and regional
standards, and has been verified locally by city staff.
Table 1
Employment Estimates: 2000 - 2006
*Assumes a 95% occupancy rate
The phenomenal 116% increase in employment from 2000 to 2006 can be directly
attributed to the exponential growth in retail and office development in the city. For a
representative list of some of the major commercial developments constructed or approved
since the 1999 Land Use Assumptions Report was prepared, please see Appendix A.
Images of recently developed retail and office development that has contributed to increased employment
in the city.
Nelson, Arthur, 2004. Planner's Estimating Guide: Projecting Land -Use and Facili . Needs
3 North Central Texas Council of Governments, 2006 at
http://www.nctcog.org/fis/deinograpliics/204OForecast/2005 Emp Methodology.pdf
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 5 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
Gross Square
Commercial
Estimated
Commercial
Estimated
Land Use
Feet per
Sq. Footage in
Employment in
Square Footage
Employment
Employee
2000
2000*
in 2006
in 2006*
Office
322
479,465
1,415
2,082,964
6,145
Ind. / Flex
700
1,514,837
2,056
1,559,900
2,117
Retail
380
1,306,413
3,266
2,458,901
6,147
Other
700
154,160
209
435,642
591
Totals
3,454,875
6,946
6,537,407
15,001
*Assumes a 95% occupancy rate
The phenomenal 116% increase in employment from 2000 to 2006 can be directly
attributed to the exponential growth in retail and office development in the city. For a
representative list of some of the major commercial developments constructed or approved
since the 1999 Land Use Assumptions Report was prepared, please see Appendix A.
Images of recently developed retail and office development that has contributed to increased employment
in the city.
Nelson, Arthur, 2004. Planner's Estimating Guide: Projecting Land -Use and Facili . Needs
3 North Central Texas Council of Governments, 2006 at
http://www.nctcog.org/fis/deinograpliics/204OForecast/2005 Emp Methodology.pdf
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 5 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
4. ANALYSIS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Understanding the development potential of all undeveloped properties in the city is critical for
projecting population and employment estimates. The analysis of future development potential
was undertaken using the following steps. The first task was to identify all undeveloped
properties and classify them according to their status in the development continuum. Next,
development potential for all undeveloped properties was then based upon the 2005 Future Land
Use Plan. Development time frames were then assigned to future development based on the
status of the site to estimate the population and employment for 2017 and for the ultimate build -
out of the city.
4.1 Identifying Undeveloped and Underdeveloped Properties
In order to project future development, an accurate assessment of undeveloped and
underdeveloped properties must be made. The following section outlines the methodology
used for establishing the development status of properties in Southlake as of October 16,
2006.
To begin, undeveloped and underdeveloped properties were defined by the following
categories:
1. Pipeline — Properties that have pending or recently approved development applications
with the city as of October 16, 2006.
2. Undeveloped; No Zoning — Properties that do not have any buildings suitable for
occupancy and have "AG" Agricultural District zoning. These properties may be
completely vacant or have a barn or other accessory structure.
3. Underdeveloped — Properties that are currently occupied but that are expected to be
redeveloped due to the value of the building in relation to the value of the property, the
age of the building, and /or adjacency to other development or vacant property.
4. Unbuilt Residential Lots /Tracts — Properties that are vacant but have residential
zoning, either in a large subdivision or as a single lot.
5. Undeveloped Nonresidential — Properties that are vacant but have nonresidential
zoning (SP -1, SP -2, C -2, C -3, NR -PUD, 0-1, etc).
For the purposes of this report, "undeveloped and underdeveloped properties" refers to all
properties described in categories 1 through 5 above, unless otherwise specified.
Next, an initial undeveloped /underdeveloped parcel layer was created in GIS using the
stormwater utility billing database, which links water meters with parcels, as a foundation.
The layer was created using the assumption that if a parcel does not have a water meter,
then it is undeveloped or underdeveloped. Staff then reviewed aerial photography and the
city's 2006 parcel layer, which is based on filed plats for platted properties and 2005
Tarrant County Appraisal District property boundaries for unplatted properties. Based on a
parcel by parcel review of the aerial photography and the city's 2006 parcel layer,
properties were added and deleted to the undeveloped /underdeveloped parcel layer as
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 6 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
needed. During this parcel by parcel review, staff considered the age of buildings,
adjacency to other development(s), and staff knowledge of recent development activity in
the city.
To check for parcels that may have been missed using the stormwater utility billing
database, underdeveloped and undeveloped properties were also identified based on a ratio
of improvement value to total property value. Properties that had a ratio of 0.50 or less
were considered to be undeveloped or underdeveloped. These properties were further
evaluated and properties owned by the Corps of Engineers, home owner associations, and
the City of Southlake were removed. Properties owned by school districts were also
removed, unless the property was undeveloped.
Next, properties in the undeveloped and underdeveloped parcel layer were compared to the
2005 Future Land Use Map to determine the land use designations for the respective
parcels. The following figure (Figure 2) compares the acreage of undeveloped and
developed land by underlying land use designation for 8 of the major land use designations.
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 7 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
Figure 2
Percentage of Developed and Undeveloped/Underdeveloped
Areas by Land Use Designation
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30 %
20%
10%
0%
41
Solid Color = Undeveloped
Striped Color = Developed
To further analyze the development potential for the undeveloped and underdeveloped
properties, parcels with an Industrial, Office Commercial, Public /Semi- Public, Regional
Retail, or Retail Commercial land use designation were classified as commercial. Parcels
with a Low Density Residential or Medium Density Residential land use designation were
classified as residential. Since the Land Use Plan recommends a 15% residential
component in the Mixed Use and Town Center land use designations, 15% of the parcels
designated Mixed Use and Town Center were classified residential and the other 85% were
classified commercial.
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 8 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
Figure 3
Figure 3 above shows the acreages of developed land, undeveloped commercial land,
undeveloped residential land, Corps of Engineers property, and properties in the floodplain.
The chart does not include Lake Grapevine, which is approximately 317 acres.
Approximately 3345 acres are considered undeveloped or underdeveloped in the city with
2,013 acres in residential designations and 1,332 acres in commercial designations.
Figures 4 and 5 show the acreages and percentages of the various land use designations that
make up the undeveloped commercial properties and the undeveloped residential
properties.
Figure 4
Undeveloped/Underdeveloped Commercial Properties by Land Use
Retail Conunercial,
110.1 Acres, 8%
Town Center*, Industrial,
Regional Retail, 55.5 Acres, 4% 184.2 Acres, 14%
7.7 Acres, 1%
Public /Semi - Public, 55.1
Acres, 4%
Office Commercial, 221.4 Mixed Use *,
Acres, 17% 697.7 Acres, 52%
*Assumes an 85% commercial component for Town Center and Mixed Use land use designations.
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 9 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
Distribution of Land by Development Status
Corps of Engineers,
Floodplain,
757 Acres, 5.5%
789 Acres, 6%
Undeveloped/
Underdeveloped
Commercial,
r
o
1,332 Acres, 9.5 /o
} } }
} } } }}
Undeveloped/
Underdeveloped
Residential,
Developed Acres,
2,013 Acres, 14%
9,146 Acres, 65%
Figure 3 above shows the acreages of developed land, undeveloped commercial land,
undeveloped residential land, Corps of Engineers property, and properties in the floodplain.
The chart does not include Lake Grapevine, which is approximately 317 acres.
Approximately 3345 acres are considered undeveloped or underdeveloped in the city with
2,013 acres in residential designations and 1,332 acres in commercial designations.
Figures 4 and 5 show the acreages and percentages of the various land use designations that
make up the undeveloped commercial properties and the undeveloped residential
properties.
Figure 4
Undeveloped/Underdeveloped Commercial Properties by Land Use
Retail Conunercial,
110.1 Acres, 8%
Town Center*, Industrial,
Regional Retail, 55.5 Acres, 4% 184.2 Acres, 14%
7.7 Acres, 1%
Public /Semi - Public, 55.1
Acres, 4%
Office Commercial, 221.4 Mixed Use *,
Acres, 17% 697.7 Acres, 52%
*Assumes an 85% commercial component for Town Center and Mixed Use land use designations.
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 9 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
Figure 5
Undeveloped/Underdeveloped Residential Properties by Land Use
Mixed Use*, Town Center *,
123.1 Acres, 6% 9.8 Acres, 0.005%
Medium Density
Residential,
696.6 Acres, 35%
Low Density Residential,
1183.1 Acres, 59%
*Assumes a 15% residential component for Town Center and Mixed Use land use designations.
As described previously, properties in the undeveloped and underdeveloped parcel layer
were further classified as follows:
1. Pipeline — Properties that have pending or recently approved development applications
with the city as of October 16, 2006.
2. Undeveloped; No Zoning — Properties that do not have any buildings suitable for
occupancy and have "AG" Agricultural District zoning. These properties maybe
completely vacant or have a barn or other accessory structure.
3. Underdeveloped — Properties that are currently occupied but that are expected to be
redeveloped due to the value of the building in relation to the value of the property, the
age of the building, and /or adjacency to other development or vacant property.
4. Unbuilt Residential Lots /Tracts — Properties that are vacant but have residential
zoning, either in a large subdivision or as a single lot.
5. Undeveloped Nonresidential — Properties that are vacant but have nonresidential
zoning (SP -1, SP -2, C -2, C -3, NR -PUD, 0-1, etc).
The following Figure 6 shows the distribution of the undeveloped and underdeveloped
parcel layer classifications described above by underlying land use designation (see
Appendix C for a map showing the geographic distribution of undeveloped and
underdeveloped properties based on land use designations).
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 10 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
Figure 6
4.2 Study Assumptions
Any estimates of population and employment based on future development are inherently
riddled with several assumptions. Common assumptions include:
• Development potential of properties in the pipeline are based on entitlements
(requested and /or approved)
• Undeveloped residential properties will be developed with densities based on the
adopted 2005 Land Use Plan, including both underlying and optional designations
• Development of undeveloped properties will occur at a rate of 90% for both
residential and non - residential properties
• Underdeveloped properties have a relatively lower chance of redevelopment into
residential uses, ranging from 60% to 80% depending on the land use designations
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 11 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
1200
Undeveloped /Underdeveloped Land Classification (in acres)
by Underlying Land Use Designation
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
d'
500
400
300
200
100
0
Industrial
Mixed Use
Office
Commercial
Public /Semi-
Public
Regional
Retail
Retail
Commercial
Town Center
Low Density
Residential
Medium
Density
Residential
■ 1
17.9
192.2
24.2
0.7
7.7
18.7
31.7
237.3
122.1
■ 2
1.0
197.3
85.3
0.4
0.0
14.4
0.0
219.7
235.9
■ 3
28.3
97.9
55.7
36.7
0.0
27.8
27.8
338.1
189.2
❑ 4
1.0
2.7
0.8
7.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
386.6
119.6
■ 5
136.0
330.6
55.4
10.3
0.0
45.9
30.8
1.4
29.8
❑ Total
184.2
820.8
221.4
55.1
7.7
110.1
90.3
1183.1
696.6
4.2 Study Assumptions
Any estimates of population and employment based on future development are inherently
riddled with several assumptions. Common assumptions include:
• Development potential of properties in the pipeline are based on entitlements
(requested and /or approved)
• Undeveloped residential properties will be developed with densities based on the
adopted 2005 Land Use Plan, including both underlying and optional designations
• Development of undeveloped properties will occur at a rate of 90% for both
residential and non - residential properties
• Underdeveloped properties have a relatively lower chance of redevelopment into
residential uses, ranging from 60% to 80% depending on the land use designations
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 11 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
• Development horizons assume build -out based on current status of the property
(whether the property is zoned or platted)
• Non - residentially zoned properties may be developed under the optional land use
categories based on the land use mix recommended (see the 2005 Consolidated Land
Use Plan)
• Household size will gradually decline due to recently approved projects geared
toward empty nesters (such as Watennere and the Brownstones) and due to national
demographic trends
• Household size for residential uses in the optional land use categories are lower than
underlying land use categories (based on census data)
• Employee per square foot assumptions are based on national, regional, and local input
• Floor Area Ratio assumptions for commercial development are based on industry and
regional standards, with local verification
+ Baseline estimates for both population and employment are based on NCTCOG,
building pen data, and economic development department data
• Staff assumed 90% build -out of commercially undeveloped parcels due to market
saturation
4.3
• Areas with a land use designation of Floodplain, Corps of Engineers, and Public
Parks /Open Space were excluded from the analyses described in this report
Population Estimates
To estimate future population, staff reviewed pending and recently approved residential
development applications ( "pipeline" properties) to determine the number of dwelling units
approved or proposed for each development.
Staff also examined properties classified as "undeveloped residential" to determine the
number of dwelling units that could be developed with the current zoning. Next, staff
compared the properties classified as "undeveloped; no zoning" and "underdeveloped"
with the Future Land Use Plan. Those properties that had a land use designation with a
residential component were assigned an appropriate residential density to determine the
number of dwelling units that could be developed based on the land use designation.
Finally, staff evaluated the residential potential for properties designated as "undeveloped
nonresidential ". Development time frames were then assigned to future development based
on the status of the site.
In addition, for all other properties designated as "undeveloped" or "underdeveloped ", staff
analyzed and separated the residential development potential based upon both the
underlying land use designations and the optional land use designations. This resulted in
two population projections: one based on the underlying land use designations and one
based on the optional land use designations. The final population projection is an average
of the two projections and is shown in the following figure:
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 12 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
Figure 7
Southlake's Population Projection
1960-2025
40,000
Build -Out
35,000 34,188
30,000
2017:
25,000
0
20,000 2006:
a 25,654
0
a 15,000
10,000
1960:
5,000 1,023
Year
4.4 Employment Estimates
The most common methodology to obtain employment estimates is to evaluate the amount
of potential commercial square feet at build -out and apply an employee per gross square
foot ratio to the projected build -out commercial area. In following that general
methodology, staff first reviewed pending and recently approved commercial development
applications ( "pipeline" properties) to determine the square footage approved or proposed
by land use (retail, office, industrial, and other) for each development.
Next staff extracted properties with non - residential land use designations that were
classified as "undeveloped, no zoning" to calculate the commercial development potential.
The specific distribution of retail, office, and other land uses in each Land Use category
were based on the corresponding land use mix tables in the adopted 2005 Consolidated
Future Land Use Plan. An estimated floor area ratio was then applied to the resulting net
retail and office acres to determine the approximate square footage of each category of
commercial use. Finally, office, retail, and industrial employment numbers were
determined by applying an employee per gross square foot ratio. Development time frames
were then assigned to future development based on the status of the site.
The above methodology was used separately on properties with only underlying
designations and properties with both underlying and optional designations. This resulted in
two employment projections: one based on the underlying land use designations and one
based on the optional land use designations. The final employment projection is an average
of the two projections and is shown in the following figure:
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 13 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
Figure 8
Employment Estimates
1990 -2025
45000
Build-Out:
38,355
40000
35000
30000
2017:
30,947
25000
2006:
20000
15,001
15000
10000
1990:
3,4-50
5000
0
1990 1995 2000 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 14 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
5. SUMMARY
The data used to compile these land use assumptions were taken from various sources, including the 2005
Consolidated Land Use Plan, the Economic Development Department's Commercial Properties
Summary, building permit data, North Central Texas Council of Governments demographic and
employment data, and the U.S. Census Bureau. From these sources, base data for population,
employment, and development status of the city was assessed. As a result, staff has estimated that the
city is approximately 65% developed and 23.5% undeveloped or underdeveloped. The remaining 11.5%
of the city is located in the floodplain or Corps of Engineers boundary.
The following table shows the 2006 baseline data, 2017 estimates, and build -out estimates for population
and employment:
Table 2
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 15 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
2006 Estimate
Growth
Increment
2017 Estimate
Build -Out (2025)
Estimate
Population
25,654
6,270
31,924
34,188
Employment
15,001
15,946
30,947
38,355
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 15 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
6. APPENDICES AND MAPS
Appendix A: Major New Residential Developments
Appendix B: Major New Non - Residential Developments
Appendix C: Maps
1. Future Land Use Plan Map
2. Development Status of Undeveloped and Underdeveloped Properties
3. Distribution of Undeveloped and Underdeveloped Commercial Properties
4. Distribution of Undeveloped and Underdeveloped Residential Properties
Appendix D: Roadway Service Area Map
Appendix E: Population and Employment Estimates by Roadway Service Areas
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 16 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
APPENDIX A
The following table is a representative list of major new residential developments approved since
the 1999 Land Use Assumptions Report was compiled in late 1999. The table includes
residential subdivisions with 20 or more residential lots that have final plat approval as of
October 2006.
Major Residential Developments Approved or
Built Since the 1999 Land Use Assumptions Report
Name
Zoning
Location
Total
Residential
Lots
Watermere Retirement
S -P -2
2809 W. Southlake Blvd.
237*
Communit
Estes Park
R -PUD
South of Dove Road between Carroll Avenue
177
and White Chapel Boulevard.
Clariden Ranch
SF1A
Between T.W. King and N. White Chapel
113
Blvd., south of W. Bob Jones Rd.
Johnson Place Estates
R -PUD
2440 Johnson Road and 430 Randol Mill
59
Avenue.
Triple C Ranch
SF -lA
East side of N. Carroll Avenue, approximately
5
500 feet south of East Dove Rd.
The Cliffs at Clariden
R -PUD
The west side of 3800 block of N. White Chapel
56
Ranch
Blvd. and the east side of 3900 block of T.W.
King Road.
Tuscan Ridge
MH
Northeast corner of Randol Mill Avenue and
56
Morgan Road.
Kirkwood Hollow Phase
R -PUD
Northeast corner of W. Dove Rd. and Kirkwood
49
III
Blvd.
Siena Addition
SF -20A
North side of Union Church Rd., approximately
43
800 feet west of Davis Blvd.
Southlake Town Square
DT
East of the intersection of Main Street and
42
Brownstones
Central Avenue and north of the intersection of
Summit Avenue and E. Southlake Boulevard.
Westwyck Hills
R -PUD
The 1300 and 1500 block of Randol Mill
40
Avenue.
Palomar Estates
R -PUD
East side of Randol Mill Avenue and the north
33
side of Gifford Court.
Saddleback Ride
SF -lA
330 — 360 West Bob Jones Road.
32
Oak Pointe
R -PUD
West side of Ridgecrest Drive, approximately
30
1200 feet north of East Dove St.
The Reserve of Southlake
SF -lA
The west side of Sunshine Lane, approximately
24
2269 feet north of E. Highland Street.
Stratfort Pare
SF -20A
West side of South White Chapel Boulevard,
2 3
approximately 600 feet south of West Southlake
Boulevard.
Sandlin Manor
SF -20A
The 400 block W. Chapel Downs Drive.
21
*Representative of the nurnber of dwelling units. This number excludes 90 personal care /nursing units.
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report A -1 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
APPENDIX B
The following table is a representative list of major new non - residential developments approved
since the 1999 Land Use Assumptions Report was compiled in late 1999. The table provides a
brief description of developments that are over 50,000 square feet in building area.
Major Non - Residential Developments Approved or
Built Since the 1999 Land Use Assumptions Report
Name
Major Tenants
Location
Total
Square
Feet
Solana
Sabre
West S.H. 114 at Kirkwood
1,005,000
Verizon
Cedar Ridge
Regions Bank
North side of S.H. 114 at Carroll
167,000
Keller Williams
Avenue.
Southlake Town
Harkins Theatres
On the east side of Carroll Avenue
579,000*
Square Expansion
Hilton Hotel
between Southlake Boulevard and the
Barnes & Noble
S.H. 114 Frontage Road.
Southlake Corners
Circuit City
On the west side of Kimball Avenue
110,800
Staples
between the S.H. 114 Frontage Road
and East Southlake Boulevard.
Wyndham Plaza
Costco
Between East Southlake Boulevard and
349,000
24 Hour Fitness
S.H. 114 Frontage Road at Nolen Drive
Gateway Plaza
Kohl's
Southwest corner of East Southlake
357,000
Old Navy
Boulevard and S.H. 114 Frontage Road.
T.J. Maxx
Office Max
Michael's
Bed Bath & Beyond
Harris Methodist
N/A
1545 East Southlake Boulevard.
87,500
Southlake
Lowe's Shopping
Lowe's
On the east side of Kimball Avenue
171.996
Center
between the S.H. 114 Frontage Road
and East Southlake Boulevard.
Shafer Plaza
Shoe Pavilion
Southeast corner of East Southlake
52,548
Boulevard and Nolen.
Cornerstone Plaza
Shops of Southlake
Central Market
Southeast corner of Carroll Avenue and
228,700
(Under Construction)
DSW Shoes
Southlake Boulevard.
Pier One
Jellico Square
Sprouts
Northwest corner of W. Southlake
72,860
(Construction
Boulevard and Randol Mill Avenue.
Pendin
Total
3,181,404
*Excludes 410,000 s.f constructed during Phase L Includes Phases II and III and the Grand Avenue
District
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report B -1 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
APPENDIX C -MAPS
2006 Land Use Assumptions Report B -1 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006
City of Southlake
Future Land Use Plan
Consolidated Underlying & Optional Land Use Designations
Legend
Underlying
Land Use
Optional Land Use
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
® EC -1
CORPS OF ENGINEERS BOUNDARY
EC -2
-
PUBLIC PARKS /OPEN SPACE
EC -R
-
PUBLIC /SEMI - PUBLIC
RC
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
® T -1
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
T -2
OFFICE COMMERCIAL
-
-
RETAIL COMMERCIAL
-
MIXED USE
-
TOWN CENTER
yl
-
�!E .EEEEEF.E
p EE EE ::
REGIONAL RETAIL
-
INDUSTRIAL
i
i AD
Grapevine Lake
:J JOHNSON RD
oI �
UNION CHURCH
�V
EEEE�
SOUTHLAKE
DISCLAIMER
i
This data has been compiled for the
City of Southlake. Various official
and unofficial sources were used to
gather this information. Every effort
was made to ensure the accuracy of
this data, however, no guarantee is Department of Planning
given or imp lied as to the accuracy 0 0.25 0.5 t 1s Geographic Information Systems:
of said data Miles Date Created: 11/01/06
SOUTHLAKE
2025
outhlak
I
p.+Yl /7
�e11 ■:
Ildlll:
\111
■i11111111111111111
/��11111111�
inunC2`Oinnlll,
'
- � II IIII'
1111111111111
1 —
I:o
�•
I
l� � mfr "i►n��ll��n�� �'
v s�.. 1.�� � __ J ■Ila L��
t gyp.. = ■ II ■. 1■�■i� :I,�
lo ■■1� 1 ,II��IIIIIIIIIII 1[�-'T"
y;.. ■111111 . i1�`� 7 1 11 111�I � ���'
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■.a. ► ■1 ■rte �. off i i �r �� .■1�.11►�
�U.N.M.n■ . .:.. - ' - r ....� 1111 p ►� :111 ■�,r•
s. rn■nu�l _r— J �� Ii■■ ■1111? �� ■■ 1�
rlllpm■■- rC��..■i �■ .....:..r 11111111...• 1 •
■■ �: /
,
r' 7�
x'
�
�
■u..?�:....
. .. ■ ■. 1111111111 1111111 `�a ■_ ■
J .krlGiiiiiie \ � 7 1 011111" ,. + • -'
■ �,� n . �; � ,:.:'�� � ■ iii _
.,...;,....�.._ - ► �__ III =■ nor
i '.
x
-
L
I ■ .,� \n� ..111■
I ��I'�:iNnlll■■.��i 1 :-
•■�
►����',' ►i /i� ,�. '
B on n
111 ` ■1111
•• •■
uinpy ■�� li. nl■ , . °[ rf ■ �■ ■.�
♦e ♦ V 11111/��� " ■
►►� ►fV'N Y ■rrn IIIIi. �� ■i 'b
�,ii p ��i L:..
MINN ill
�■■■■
n■
: r
-
-
! /11111
j ■1111■ _■
/
1
♦' , 1 ■ IIII►����i\ ��•.....II /!'
r IGYA L�1 ■ ■ ■ \���II \\ \11111► : °� �R� r
I, � �� 111/11111111111 ���• \r1 i��:■
W � •: a , �
:.
•+ :� �� 11 i
�
■i: a ■ 11 1 '': ■Il n� _ ■ � c c •
�.lir
■ ,
W
,I,�•�.1111�
����
�I7�
51.- �� , ` L� ;. • JI�- ,'•; � '
.
.�
-. ■ —.:
�'•�•
t 1 � :: :;:i�r! /■
` (r � ■ -�,�.
■ C � V'.1 r'�
111 �- 1. _ I C J—
..
� � "t-
i
,... „ � I :: _
r II� �� ■��� r L 1 RUN. .�� -_
nid�� r► r i �■n�
g
' ® ■
�� �L..�.....1..
�
■• ■■ ■
_
-, ■
—
■a r �Il r ,� •�,. arf "� -�ri �'• `�lr r . IIII._
►i� II r r - S 11 � �f I■�, ■��I -II■,
"`',
L►'�J
al
.._, __ •. v x.: :d rte;. "��r' 1
■
City of Southlake
Distribution of Undeveloped and Underdeveloped
Residential Properties with Land Use Designations
Legend
= Grapevine Lake S O U T H L A K E
Optional Land Use Z 0 2 5
MI PC
fi
4�
T -2
Underlying Land Use
Low Density Residential B i
Medium Density Residential
RT
1
J �
al 1.
H�
�m
HIGHLAN S
FLORENCE RD - -
71 1
JO
1 �
r
o i ,. , r✓ 2 1 .
> i
UNION CHURCH - CO
m
DISCLAIMER Ar
This data has been compiled for the
City of Southlake. Various official
and unofficial sources were used to
gather this information. Every effort
was made to ensure the accuracy of
this data, however, no guarantee is Department of Planning
given or imp lied as to the accuracy G 0.2 0.5 t 1.5 Geographic Information Systems
of said data Miles Date Created: 11/01/06
Roadway Service Areas (RSA)
U
DISCLAIMER
This data has been compiled for the
City of Southlake. Various official
and unofficial sources were used to
gather this information. Every effort
was made to ensure the accuracy of
this data, however, no guarantee is
given or implied as to the accuracy
of said data.
Jql
1 inch equals 0.85 miles
outhlak
Department of Planning
Geographic Information Systems
W
A
W
-------- - - - - -- °— ------------------
pJ a)
a)��d
k
�----------- �_ - - -; --- -� - - -- -- -� - - --
p O In'knlOOl Ir-I
---- ----- O U I O: 00 I� I ' M I
O0 o-, "O I W
zs
0
of I i � o'Zt
ti =O �I�? N 00 M
� � 00 00
M O
° 'c ° v r - N N � - M '
C�j a I
� O N 00
tz
MINI — IMI Ibi W �INI�I 00I i t
ti I O!r-,I c pl Ibl 4.) OI
- - - --
¢.S N I\pI1--1001 I—�I
I O• I I I I --IMI co o: "DI Ia\I
CjIN�MII�I IMF
N
N a
f ICI 7, I�INiNI iCOOl
I�I�I�I IOI O
� � � �•� NI�I�'�I III O
I ------- - - - - --
\p 00 O
•� I Il�ll�101 '�I •� '~ I _
N
IN
i
I
I
ID I�IM�OI ICI
Ill:r—ININI
N r..
I I '
i C Q; _CG
W IHI