Loading...
Item 11BProposed New Zoning District Kura Conservation u is on (RCS) mplements the following recommendations of the Southlake 2025 Plan, Phase II: • Protect the city's remaining ranching /agricultural and environmental areas by providing an opportunity for residential development to occur in a manner that has the minimum impact on these resources. Implements a new land use district that protects and preserves a portion of Southlake's agricultural /ranching environment and rural character. �A` 2 � RCS — Purpose & Intent Allows clustering of homes & development flexibility Protects key elements of Southlake's rural environment Protects key environmental resources �Av 3 � Permitted & Prohibited Uses — P ermitted Uses Residential Uses Community Facility Uses Conservation Easements /Protected Open Space Prohibited Uses • golf courses, surface parking lots, etc. �A` 0 PEI Example 1 Site Conventional Subdivision -- S T i s �o Woodl foal i Woodland % Woodla Woodland •\ I . Main Road Main Road 5 Conservation Subdivision Woodland Woodland �`-------— L L -- -- ! - i Main Road � General Standards for Development 20,000 sq. ft. ? ?? (min.) lots; overall net density not to exceed 1 DU /acre Open space dedication match for every sq. ft. in a residential lot ? ?? Contiguous open space protected by a conservation easement Availability of infrastructure 0 7 Other Standards in the RCS a Development regulations established by the developer at the time of Development Plan approval by Council Open Space Management Plan criteria Legal instrument for permanent open space protection �A, RC Incentives Bonus Lots with higher % of open space Conservation Easements can meet open space dedication requirements • Is the RCS a viable economic as an optional land use designation? E RC Incentives' Analysis a Variables: — Minimum lot size — Base Open Space Requirements / Bonus Open Space Requirements — Size of the tract B Outputs: — Ending Net Density — Ending Open Space % Difference in Profit between SF1 -A and RC oations �Av Assumptions '/2 acre lots are valued at approx. 75% of 1 acre lots All resulting lots are exactly at the minimum lot size • 20% of the site for roads and other infrastructure Bonus lots are at the same minimum lot size as the base lots 12 Impact of Open Space Requirement on Ending Net Density 2.5 a N w 1.5 0 v z � 1 r c w 0.5 20,000 sq.ft. min T 18,000 sq.ft. min 100%/150% 75%/100% 50%/75% 25%/50% 10%/25% Open Space Requirement - Base LotslBonus Lots �A'' 13 IM rl Difference in profitability between SF1 -A and RC Options $2,500,000 $2,000,000 20 acre site $1,500,000 50 acre site is the Bre keven o $1,000,000 D nsity a c v c $500,000 w `w 06 1. 1 1.34 1.39 1.62 1.86 $(500,000) $(1,000,000) Ending Net Density IM Impact of Open Space Requirement on Ending Net Density 2.5 a N w 1.5 0 v z � 1 r c w 0.5 20,000 sq.ft. min T 18,000 sq.ft. min 100%/150% 75%/100% 50%/75% 25%/50% 10%/25% Open Space Requirement - Base LotslBonus Lots �A'' 15 Open Space Percentage by Net Density 45% 40% ' Critical Density =1.3 ■ Open Space % =30% 35% ■ in ■ y 30% O ■ 2 25% o 20% v ' ■ 15% �n ■ a 10% O ■ 5% ' ■ 0% ■ 1.06 1.17 1.21 1.34 1.39 1.62 1.86 Ending Net Density xi RC District Comparisons SF1 -A: — 1 acre min. lot size; 1du /net acre density limit — 1 acre for every 40 DU — open space dedication requirement (equates to about 3% open space requirement) R -PUD — No minimum lot size — 1.8 DU /acre density limit — 10% minimum open space requirement �A 17 � Analysis Results a Critical Density for a feasible development in the RC district =1.3 Regulatory Options: — Establish maximum density and minimum open space standards and let minimum lot size be flexible — Limit R -PUDs in the Rural Conservation Land Use Designation to increase the attractiveness of the RCS Zoning District. �A,