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,