Item 4G 2030 Public Commentsw
v_
Q
J
Bfl
::) [a
Q2030
PUBLIC COMMENT
SOUTHLAKE 2030 PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2011
o Mike Mills, 1528 Main Street, Southlake, TX
■ Email comments regarding the Vision, Goals and Objectives;
Received October 1, 2009
■ Email comments regarding the Southeast Sector Plan; Received
July 26, 2010.
o Ray L. Chancellor, Ph.D.; 890 Harbor Court, Southlake, TX
■ Preserving Southlake's Natural Heritage - The Southlake Cove
Ecosystem and Wildlife Area; Received October 2, 2009
■ Comments on SPIN Meeting; Received October 9, 2009
■ Comments on Tom Allen Letter Dated December 9, 2009; Received
February 16, 2010
■ Comments on Future Planning, Corp Property and Light Pollution;
Received April 14, 2010
o Curtis W. Young, 1130 N. Carroll Avenue, Ste. 200, Southlake, TX
■ Request for Land Use Plan Revision Consideration to the Southlake
2030 Committee; Received November 12, 2009
■ Map
o Tom Allen, Partner, Maguire Partners; 9 Village Circle, Suite 500,
Westlake, TX
■ Land Use Plan Revision Considerations; Received December 9,
2009
o Sara Alexander; 519 Shady Lane, Southlake, TX
■ Email comments regarding North Sector; Received January 28,
2010
o Emily Galpin; 1481 Post Oak Trail, Southlake, TX
■ Email comments regarding a "Bicycle Friendly City"; Received
January 28, 2010
o Jed and Michele M. Gibson; 2420 Raintree Drive, Southlake, TX
■ Email comments regarding North Sector; Received February 1,
2010
i
CITY OF
St'JLJTHLAK,E
o Paul W. Johnson; 610 Katelyn Lane, Southlake, TX
■ Email comments regarding pathways; Received February 4, 2010
o Suzie Craney, 2504 Rolling Lane, Southlake, TX
■ Email comments regarding the North Sector Land Use Plan;
Received February 8, 2010
o Gregory Swain, 2407 Taylor Street, Southlake, TX
■ Email comments regarding the North Sector Land Use Plan;
Received April 8, 2010
o Jeff and Krista Klein, Southridge Lakes Resident, Southlake, TX
■ Email comments regarding Sidewalks; Received June 24, 2010
o Wendi Carlucci, 2000 North Peytonville Avenue, Southlake, TX
■ Email comments regarding Central Sector Plan and sidewalks;
Received June 30, 2010
Email comments regarding Central Sector Plan; Received August
28, 2010
o Barbara Schlauch, 1605 Mockingbird Lane, Southlake, TX
■ Email comments regarding drainage issues along Randol Mill
Avenue; Received June 30, 2010
o Joe Church, 1346 Meadow Glen, Southlake, TX
■ Email comments regarding Central Sector Plan; Received July 3,
2010
o Greg Goodrich, 405 Chesapeak Lane, Southlake, TX
■ Email comments and photos regarding West Sector Plan and the
intersection at Pearson Lane and Southlake Boulevard; Received
August 5, 2010
o Joe Pipes, Pipes Plant Farm, Ltd., 901 South Pearson Lane, Keller, TX
■ Letter regarding West Sector Plan; Received August 12, 2010
o Teresa Jane Thompson, 1395 Hideaway Lane West, Hideaway, TX
■ Email regarding Southeast Sector Plan; Received September 22,
2010.
o Theresa Thompson et al, 1395 Hideway Lane West, Hideaway, TX
0 Letter regarding Southeast Sector Plan; Received October 7, 2010.
CITY OF
S0UTHLAI<E
o Roger Williams
■ Email regarding the proposed collector between South Kimball
Avenue and Nolen Drive; Received October 12, 2010.
o John Gallagher
■ Email regarding a sidewalk on the west side of Randol Mill from
Hillside Ct to F.M. 1709; Received November 26, 2010.
o Vicky Davis
■ Email regarding property on 200 S. Peytonville; Received April 5,
2011.
o Greg Tichenor
■ Email regarding a sidewalk connecting Dove Rd to Tuscan Ridge;
Received May 8, 2011.
o Angelo Mendez
■ Email regarding F.M. 1709 & F.M. 1938 Corridor Plan; Received
June 29, 2011.
o Juergen Strunck
■ Email regarding F.M. 1709 & F.M. 1938 Corridor Plan; Received
June 27, 2011.
o Vicky Davis
■ Comment card regarding a connector road from Players Circle to S.
Peytonville (discussed by Land Use Plan Committee at July 27,
2011 meeting); Received July 27, 2011.
3
----- Ori final Message -----
From:
Sent: Thu 01-Oct-09 12:50 AM
To: Place 6; Mayor; Place 1; Place 2; Place 3; Place 4; Place 5
Subject: 2030 Vision Statement comments
Mr. Mayor and Council:
I am out of town and will not be able to attend the SPIN meeting to comment on the draft 2030 Vision
Statement posted on the city web site. Actually many of the following comments are more
detailed/specific and therefore better offered in writing anyway so perhaps not being there is better.
So I offer the following for consideration and to stimulate other ideas:
Objectives:
1.2 refers to "limiting" the impact of the automobile .... I would suggest that the word limit be replaced by
either "minimize" or better yet to "encourage transportation alternatives to the" automobile.
1.4 refers to "steep slopes rather than limit ourselves to just steep slopes I would suggest replacing
steep slopes with "topography".
3.4 refers to "Explore opportunities..." which is a weak/non-committal statement.... suggest changing to a
more concretelspecific "Link Southlake's pathways to those of adjacent communities and regional
intercity networks, e.g. Corps of Engineers property, The Cottonbelt Trail, etc." The NTCOG has a plan
that we should be linking in to and providing input for.
3.7 Suggest shortening to simply "Increase safe bicycle mobility." All objectives are to be done "when
reasonably possible" so including this caveat as part of this objective and none of the others is......"
4.8 Suggest adding the words "development of just before park facilities near the end of the objective.
4.11 Suggest adding the words "...and/or disposition" at the end of the objective. I am a park advocate
but we currently hold over twice as many acres of park land than any rule of thumb parameters (see 2025
plan statements) and are planning to take more land off the tax rolls by having the city buy it. Selling
surplus or less than optimal city land holdings returns them to the tax rolls and yields both a one time
cash payment from the sale and an increase in tax revenue to the city for every year in the future.... funds
that can be used to purchase more appropriate land. We may have strategic opportunities for further
acquisition but we can also improve our portfolio and the cities financial capability by selling property
that has lessor value for further use by the city. Yes I know it takes a public vote but if presented
factually it is logical and would find the necessary support to get it done.
5.1 states "Maintain and adequate level of police, fire......." I think we need to commit to something
better/stronger than "adequate".
6.6 Suggest rewriting the last portion to read "....quality of business, return on investment and overall
value to the community."
7.3 1 do not have a recommendation for changing the wording but I do suggest that we look at "pricing"
as a tool to accomplish these objectives...for example water usage cost per unit is almost insensitive to
volume.
7.6 Suggest adding "...in taking actions that provide transportation alternatives to internal combustion
engine vehicles."
8.1 Point out that "acceptable" does not sound like a Southlake type of standard to aspire to.
8.3 Suggest revising to read "Systematically evaluate City -owned land and buildings in terms of their
quality and value in providing service delivery and prioritize development, maintenance, renovation
and/or divestiture accordingly."
9.2 Delete the extra periods at the end of the sentence.
10.2 Suggest rewording to be "Optimize the portfolio of city owned land by planning and programming
the acquisition and/or divestiture and the installation of public facilities to coincide with the anticipated
need for such facilities.
10.8 Suggest strengthening the statement to read "Provide a streetlight system that prioritizes
illumination for the safety of users of the road and pathways of the city."
I did not try to figure out how to include this thought in the document but I believe we should be looking
for ways to encourage interactions between different ages of citizens. For example we isolate the senior
center rather than integrate it with facilities where all different ages meet and have opportunity to
interact.... places like the library, a community center, recreational activities could be
programmed/designed to encourage rather than discourage these interactions. Another idea would be to
have one of the Parks Board seats be filled by an officer/representative of the Senior Center and another
filled by a SYAC officer/representative.
I will be back in town in a couple of weeks and will attempt to plug back into the 2030 process.
Mike Mills
1528 Main Street
Southlake TX
Preserving Southlake's Natural Heritage
The Southlake Core Ecosystem and Wildlife Area
Before Lake Grapevine filled in 1952, much the current ecosystem was part of the old Denton Creek
tributary system. It represented a riparian conduit to the Trinity River System. As a result, Southlake sat
at a crossroads that allowed a meeting of flora and fauna from both the moisture rich east and semiarid
west. The archipelago of savannah and cross timbers habitat allowed the diversity of flora and fauna to
flourish. Since 1952, that diversity has gone through an ecological "rebalancing" and has evolved into a
new powerful ecosystem. This new ecosystem supports some documented 287 species of birds, well
over 300 species of plants along with virtually every animal found in the area historically except for black
bear, prong horned antelope, bison, river otter, and possibly mink.
Sufficient non -fragmented areas have been retained to date to allow this system to exist and to recycle
when necessary to overcome obstacles like floods, drought, and poor land management. Like most
other places in Texas, development is the primary source of ecosystem demise.
The Southlake Cove Ecosystem sits in an area that for many years was not developed. That factor
allowed it to literally build itself into a post -lake construction ecosystem. The key ingredient to this
rebuilding was biodiversity. The lake created new ecotones that allowed more flora and fauna to exist
than the land previously supported. The following map shows the various habitat zones that have been
identified.
The habitats are as follows:
Aland A2: Mudflats
B: A mixture of Cross Timbers and riparian habitat.
C: A diverse habitat that transitions from cedars, pecans, Oaks and open savannah to a large area of
more hardwoods on the east.
D: This area is highly prone to high water and represents a more level area transitioning from a non -
mud flat shoreline to a flat grass/green ash dominant habitat to hardwoods above the high water
boundaries. This area serves as the critical wildlife corridor that allows fauna to move from west to east.
E: This area includes Kirkwood Creek and what local birders call Quail Creek. This is the heart of the
ecosystem. it is this cove, where these two creeks enter the Lake Grapevine for which the ecosystem
was named. Much biodiversity and at least five ecotones are found in this area. The areas adjacent to
the creeks contain black willow, cottonwoods, and white and green ash. During wetter years, Quail
Creek becomes a wetlands environment. Many years the wetland habitat is enhanced by beaver dams.
Elevation changes of as much as 80 feet within a few hundred yards provide "upslope" habitats of new
tree growth and underbrush necessary to support about 60 percent of all wildlife in the area. Button
bush and other mud flat vegetation creates an ecotone which provides nesting sites for birds that is
seldom are found in the area.
F! and E2: These were once contributing parts to the system but now take on more significance as buffer
zones. Development has blocked many of the wildlife corridors that once supported the total
ecosystem.
City
of
Southlake
Bob .ones Para.
Nature Center & Preserve
Trel Map
H"V na&
Wdnut Grove Trafs
N WAV Ra W=I hhk
Hk V Md nudF I&V r0fic
E=a n?Traltims
---- Dry limy. envrdrry
% we Gene TiEW
H1ang am EquesUmn Trues
CDPS Propmty
PAIL Pares
m�..asr.e
'Tn7� CIONi b ikrpr WhrrN�l
a
a r
rR�rrr,w
u.r.a arr
The one-time observer has little opportunity to see or experience the recycling ability of this
ecosystem —one key ingredient to defining an "ecosystem". Each component area of the Southlake
Cove Ecosystem is very fragile and sensitive to natural and manmade impacts. The mud flats (areas Al
and A2) are the most sensitive. Within the last decade, these mud flats demonstrated enormous change
because of environmental effects.
Ten years ago, the area was covered with sedges and many water plants and was essentially a true
wetland marsh environment where birds like egrets, herons and bitterns and rails could be found. Three
years ago in the depth of a long drought, the mud flats and the supportive vegetation virtually
disappeared. on the previous mud flats was a plethora of marsh fleabane, rattle bush, amminia
coccina, sedges, and loosestrife—the perfect sparrow habitat. Sparrows by the hundreds occupied the
area that winter, including rare species, The vegetation was almost head high and was the protected
corridor for mammals to move freely along from corridor.
r ,{�,, - � ��� i��i � � z ��` ,+•a+� ,L,"d"�'�6�arpan ti y-•�+z ^+�M �°1
k
Y v T � � �""! yr�5i � /'rr9+ �/.�,'f AA �r � ♦ l ,r�(,y�, : �1 ♦ - _i
"� • i� r'i, �� �" *" �. � � [, � fir„ a ti'
Ad"
* .+
Area A2 2006 with loosestrife and rattlebush as predominant species
Then in 2007, the area experienced severe flooding.
Area Al 2007 with only the rattle bush still above water
4
Area B includes a dense riparian environment interlaced with horse trails, some accessed by private
commercial equestrian groups. The creek is seasonal and at time goes dry. Still, on its banks are some
very large cottonwoods. These grade into oaks as you move away from the creek. Its seclusion has made
it a sanctuary for many animals. They can move out of it to hunt and then return for safety. Area B, like
parts of Area E, is undergoing incremental demise caused primarily by human encroachment.
Area B Sample
Approximately 50-75 yards of dense vegetation adjacent to the mudflats of Al are at low elevations and
flood when lake levels rise. Significant lake level increases floods much of this area. The creek does
drain directly onto the mudflats of area Al. During dry periods, the creek runoff after rains nourishes the
adjacent mudflats with moisture.
Area B Creek flow onto the adjacent mudflats
A single observation does not show how the silt levels are continually filling the lake. This cut which is
approximately five feet high clearly shows how erosion upstream is rapidly filling the mudflat area. In
the last few years, silt has been deposited at depths as much as a foot per year. In time, this part of the
mud flats will disappear as part of a forced natural progression.
Area B example of season erosion
A part of Area B that appears to be Corps Property was totally cleaned of underbrush this past winter. A
number of trees, including some up to a foot in diameter, possibly non -oak species, were removed, This
removal of habitat reduces the habitat value by 60 percent, and more importantly, it fragments the
remaining parts of the ecosystem.
Area B showing the complete removal of underbrush (Note camera date was in error -it is in 2009.)
The trees were removed all the way down to the equestrian trail going through the area. Many trees
were just piled in the more easily flooded zones.
5
7
UM upRo
Adjacent to and east of Area B is Area C. This contains a diverse habitat and provides cover for many
wildlife species. During the winter months, it is a valuable food source and protective area for birds. It
also is adjacent to the eastern shoreline of the Area A mudflats. The western side of Area C is a mixture
of cedars, oaks, pecans, ash, elm, bumelia, and persimmon. Near the water are green ash and
buttonbush. Both of these plants prevent much erosion by providing a natural rain runoff buffer.
Area C western side looking north
Again, to the one time observer, this area is deceptive. During dry seasons, the water's edge may be a
quarter mile from the trail head at the end of White Chapel Road. During high water, the water's edge
may only be 50 feet from the trailhead.
Area C trail entrance during times of flooding
During high water, virtually all the property is underwater even though it appears high above the lake
bed. This flooding serves much the same ecological function as the periodic wildfires that once were
part of the natural cycle. Now the flood waters kill off most cedars and many smaller trees.
Area C western side looking north
Still, trees like the green ash and buttonbush thrive in this environment and form dense natural buffers
along the lake edge. In the following picture, water flow is from right to left. The horse trail has little
effect here because of the flat terrain.
Area C northern edge adjacent to shoreline
10
Buttonbush is the dominant shoreline vegetation and occurs in a band determined by water level s in
varying years. These plants are a powerful buffer to stop soil from being dumped into the lake. Notice in
the following picture how the sand had been trapped to the left of the Buttonbush.
Area C Buttonbush buffer to Area A mudflats on northern edge
As one moves east in Area C, the habitat changes to dense hardwood forests interspersed with
meadows, very much like the old Cross Timbers. Late blooming boneset and common primrose are
dominant open area ploants.
Area C
11
The heart of Area C contains various tree species that have attained large dimensions. Beneath that
canopy, are new growth trees emerging after the latest flood. (Vote on the following picture the light
bands about half way up the tree trunks. This is the last maximum flood level mark.
Through this area runs a creek which has water only in wet years. The horses have cut some deep trails,
as much as 8-4 feet, where the creek is crossed. In wet periods, hiking across this area is impossible.
Area C eastern edge along dry creek bed
12
Continuing east in Area C, the habitat changes to dense woodlands that is almost impenetrable without
following the natural meadow paths.
Area C eastern edge
Where the trails decrease in elevation, erosion occurs with every rain. Over time, riders simply shift the
trails. In the following photos, the left trails are approximately 18-24 inches deep. Trails eroding like
these send an enormous amount of soil into the lake.
13
Area C erosion examples
As one continues eastward in Area C, the habitat changes to the more level flood plain of Area D. To the
human eye, this is the least aesthetic portion of the ecosystem. But it serves two of the most important
functions for the system —(I) It maintains a continuity of wildlife range that allow species requiring large
ranges, e.g., deer, turkey, bobcats, and coyotes, to survive, and (2) it provides a wildlife corridor that
14
allows movement at critical times of seasonal changes. A collapse of this corridor would seriously
fragment the ecosystem.
Area D as you leave Area C
There are natural processes at work as the land works to balance itself. Along the shoreline of Area D
are occasional groves of green ash. These trees can survive most floods. Their density provides a buffer
to rapid flow runoff. As one can see in the following two pictures, this grove of green ash has slowed the
slow of runoff and caused the sand to settle into a ridge. When underbrush vegetation like that shown is
removed, all the silt goes directly into the lake.
Area D Trail along green ash grove and button bush shoreline vegetation
15
Area D Green ash preventing soil erosion —note sand that has been trapped.
The water off of the shoreline is deeper than that of the mud flats and does not support the shorebird
populations of the Areas Al and A2 mudflats.
Area D shoreline
16
Between the shoreline and forest line of Area D, is a varied collection of new growth and small shrubs,
cockleburrs, and other plants that first take over flooded land are in abundance.
Area D Floodplain vegetaion in the zone
The following picture includes a good sample of the terrain in Area D. Most of it is level and transitions
from the shoreline back to the more heavily wooded Farhat property.
Area D transition zone leading back to the Farhat property (Note the bat houses which were Boy
Scout projects.)
17
This next photo is of the Farhat property taken at the entrance which is at the end of East Bob Jones
Road. This location is where a future park has been contemplated. The property should be taken as
part of the whole of Area D. It is an integral part of the wildlife corridor and has provided cover for
animals for many years. It is a transition zone from the flat flood plain in Area D and the dense
hardwoods of Area E. Without careful planning, the corridor can be destroyed and the ecosystem will
become fragmented. The area supports its own diversity of wildlife and should be maintained as a
preserve emphasizing the aspects of the corridor.
Area D Entrance to Farhat property
As one continues toward the eastern edge of Area D which is actually in the Corps area of Bob Jones
Park, the terrain becomes the flood plain of the park. This area floods easily but is a very productive
wildlife area.
fi1:3
Area D Flood Plain of Bob Jones Park looking toward the Kirkwood/Quail creek delta
From the Area D flood plain, one heads toward the beginnings of the hardwood forests associated with
Area E. This area is a large and productive transition Zone.
Area D Heading west toward the hardwoods of Area E.
19
Area E and Area A2 form the heart of the Southlake Cove Ecosystem. Because of their significance to
both flora and fauna of the local area, I will discuss them in detail. Their preservation will guide the
future of this powerful ecosystem.
Area E is considered one zone even though it is made of three distinct areas —Bob Jones Park Trail, Quail
Creek Trail, and the South Walnut Grove Trail. Following the zone map in a counter clockwise direction, I
will begin with the Bob Jones Park Trail. This trail begins near the dog park. Historically, the hill on which
the dog park was built was a major wildlife corridor leading from the pond in the park to the safety of
Kirkwood Creek. Most of the wildlife has now moved deeper into the trail habitat away from the dogs.
The areas near the entrance to the trail still contain remnants of native prairie grasses. Little protection
is provided to these stands of grasses. There are also stands of prairie rose that are not protected in any
manner.
Area E Little Blue Stem meadows near the entrance to Bob Jones Part Trail
The trails in Bob Jones Park are easy to walk except on wet muddy days. The trails are of the old
Woodbine beach sands and dry quickly.
21
r
.4. 4
' iY• l Y � i.
Area E as viewed from the Area D flood plain showing the dense tree line marking the beginning of Area
E
Area E showing trail from Area A as it heads into and drops off into the flood plain on Area D
Post oaks and blackjack oaks are the dominant tree species of the Bob Jones Park Trail area. But what
makes Area E the heart of the Southlake Cove Ecosystem is its ecological diversity. White ash, green ash,
black willow, hackberry, pecan, box elder, eastern red cedar, common persimmon, escarpment live oak,
red mulberry, white mulberry, osage orange, eastern cottonwood, mexican plum, wooly -bucket
bumelia, cedar elm, and American elm are just a few of the tree species represented in Area E.
23
Area E specimen American Elm that is approximately 60-70 feet in height with a diameter of
approximately 3 feet
Area E showing some of the large oaks and the tree diversity in the understory
24
Significant to the Bob Jones Park Trail area is Kirkwood Creek. The creek which runs year round adds a
raparian environment that is fairly well protected because trails have not been placed on its edge. It has
a significant buffer area that includes black willow and ash as predominant tree species. It is along this
and Quail Creek that many animals seek safety from humans and loose running dogs.
Area E Kirkwood Creek
This creek contains an abundance of aquatic life that supports wildlife utilizing the riparian environment.
There have been incidents where copper sulphate and other chemicals are washed into the creek and
eventually into Lake Grapevine. These incidents are symptoms of pollution which must be monitored for
a protected area.
Area E Kirkwood Creek showing the blue plume of Copper Sulphate moving down the creek
25
The fragile soils are held together by the dense vegetation. This symbiotic relationship provides laminar
water runoff which keeps the soils from eroding.
Area E Dense foliage holding the soil
When the horse trails are unmanaged, the vegetation/soil relationship is broken. Because of the slope of
the land, serious erosion occurs. Some erosion cuts are over 6 feet deep and are continuing to deepen.
Area E Trail erosion example
Area E Trail erosion Example
Along Kirkwood Creek, no protection schemes have ever been considered or implemented. The result is
that there are numerous erosion cuts similar to the following photograph. Some of these are as much as
1S feet deep. In every case, tons of soil are being loaded into the creek and eventually into the lake.
Serious consideration should be given to preserving this sensitive environment.
Area E Kirkwood Creek sample of trail erosion.
27
South of Bob Jones Park Trail is what is called the South Walnut Grove Trail that forms the western most
part of Area E and runs along Kirkwood Creek until it meets the Bob Jones Park Trail.
Area E walking trail from south to north on the South Walnut Grove Trail
Parts of the trail are dense riparian and provide totally shaded areas. Here the dominant grass is inland
sea oats. Large masses of this grass fill the surrounding trail areas.
Area E South Walnut Grove Trial (Kirkwood Creek is to the right.)
This trail has dense woods, meadows, prairie, and riparian environments in a small area which makes it
choice wildlife transition habitat. There are a number of deer on this trail, and bobcats are seen
28
annually. Bucks will travel up to 25 miles during rutting season. The number of deer rubs indicates that a
number of bucks are coming into in the area during rutting season.
Area E South Walnut Grove Trail ten point buck
One problem associated with this trail is the pooling of water or even actually flooding after heavy rains.
Area E South Walnut Grove Trail after a rain.
29
When the water of Kirkwood Creek rises it floods parts of the trail and it becomes impassable.
Area E South Walnut Grove Trail flooded.
Part of the problem on a continuing basis is water flowing from Bob Jones Park, presumably from the
retention pond just north of the trail. From its seepage there are some muddy areas for much of the
year. Here there is a "Catch 22". The moisture from this seepage has created a mini environment where
plants like the inland sea oats can flourish. On the other hand, some trees no longer can survive in the
constant moisture. Take the water seepage away and the environment will change.
There is a "high trail" in this area and it is the only trail that horses can traverse year round.
Area E South Walnut Trail Water pooling from seepage originating in Bob Jones Park
At the western entrance to the South Walnut Grove Trail, a Boy Scout project put down timbers to stop
trail erosion. The Parks Department then mowed to the sides of the repairs. The result is that since the
entrance to the trail has been upgraded to bring in more riders, the riders are creating a new trail. From
the cut, one can quickly see the volume of dirt that flows into Kirkwood Creek. Within a short time the
trail to the right will look like the old path.
Area E South Walnut Grove Trail about 50 feet from the western entrance
Completing the arc of Area E, we move to the last area, the Quail Creek Trail. This area over the years
has been extremely well protected by a buffer called the "Miles Property". The area contains the
greatest concentration of ecotones of any area in the ecosystem. As a result, it has become the area
that continually pumps life into the rest of the system . It will continue to do so as long as it is protected
and as long as the wildlife corridors remain open.
The trails of this area are pure beach sands until the higher elevations of the trail are reached. There the
soils are primarily decomposed sandstone colored by iron content. Historically, a few riders have used
this singular trail and did not produce much damage to the fragile soils. That condition is rapidly
changing.
31
Area E example of the sandy soil trail at lower levels
Area E Quail Creek Trail showing soil transition from sand to sandstone
2
Area E Quail Creek Trail showing sandstone terrain at higher points
The Quail Creek Trail area is unique to the area because it has a sharp elevation increase from the flow
channel of Quail Creek to the maximum point on the north end of the trail. That allows for five ecotones
to exist within a short linear distance. Near the top of this grade is second and third growth of the
original Cross Timbers containing post oak and blackjack oak. Just below that is new tree growth of oaks
interspersed with meadows. Below that is shrub and small tree area composed primarily of Persimmon,
bumelia, green ash, white ash, slippery elm, American elm, flame leaf and smooth sumac, yaupon,
possum haw holly, and roughleaf dogwood. Below that is the regular high water channel, which in most
years is filled with rattle bush, snailseed, smilax and other herbaceous plants along with black willows.
And at the bottom is a channel that can take on several faces —that of a creek bed, a marsh, or a pond.
This enormous diversity allows virtually every plant and animal found in north Texas to survive and
reproduce there. The irony is that the City of Southlake has not leased this portion of the ecosystem and
the Corps of Engineers has no program that is actively protecting sensitive areas. This also is the most
scenic area in the ecosystem.
33
Area E Quail Creek Trial At the top of this trail is the old cross timbers habitat.
These soils are fragile sands that would quickly erode without the age old symbiotic relationship
between the dense sand loving plants and trees and the sand that allows roots to travel deep in search
of water.
Area E Quail Creek Trail protecting the soil with vegetation
34
The following photo shows how the ecosystem has balanced the vegetation during the past 50 years
and now have evolved powerful transition zones.
Area E Quail Creek Trail transition zones
The lower transition zone can sometimes just be a creek bed.
Area E Quail Creek as a creek bed (looking south from the highest point of the trail) Note the rattle
bush on either side that is approximately 5 feet tall and provides significant wildlife cover. Also, note the
dear track on the right bank.
35
When the lakereaches flood level, the creek bed becomes a lake. This picture is an important one for
city official and developers. When water is this high, the wildlife corridor is shifted up onto private
lands. Any planning that does not allow buffer zones next to the wildlife corridors fragments the whole
ecosystem. If these levels are maintained for long periods as they were in the last flood, the ecosystem
may be seriously damaged in terms of its ability to regenerate. (Look back at the vegetation changes in
Area Al caused by floods. It is a complex relationship that goes beyond a deer moving from point A to
point B.)
Area E Quail Creek Trail at flood levels (Note that this picture was taken at almost the same spot as the
previous picture.)
With normal high water that is maintained in the lake for long periods, the creek bed turns into a marsh
that backs up almost to the Harbor Oaks subdivision. Historically, there were periods where the marsh
habitat held through summers for many years. During those periods, wood ducks, herons, and egrets
nested in numbers along Quail Creek. In recent years Canada Geese have nested there.
0
Area E Quail Creek Trail creek bed as a marsh (Note the willow that were cut by beaver for food.)
During the recent years of severe drought, beavers created ad am on Quail Creek. The resulting pond
backed water for over a quarter mile. Plant life flourished and the water table was maintained nearby
while most areas were wilting or dying in the drought.
Area E Quail Creek showing beaver dam
37
The diversity of plant life along Quail Creek Trail provides an abundant food supply for birds and animals
year round. This persimmon tree is an example of seasonal food supply that many animals use.
Area E Quail Creek Trail Persimmon fruit
This trail is suffering the most serious abuse at the present time. Most of the damage began when the
new Loch Meadows subdivision was added and no consideration was given to this part of the
ecosystem. New homes piped water runoff directly onto the trails making them unusable. Youth are
going into the area at night where they have drinking parties that include building fires. People are using
the bluffs as a new graffiti wall. No dog leash requirements are followed. Most devastating has been the
driving of four wheel vehicles from Loch Meadows subdivision onto the trail and then across Quail creek
to the eastern part of the trail. These vehicles are damaging the fragile soils of this trail and will cause
serious erosion overtime. Again, there is no authority that addresses these issues.
Area E Quail Creek Trail four wheelers damaging the trails
38
The following two pictures are symptomatic of a non -claimed portion of the ecosystem. The public has
no ties to the land and has no understanding of the need to preserve our natural heritage.
The reason that the this sensitive area must be protected is that it includes the point where Kirkwood
and Quail Creeks join to form one channel. From there, it flows onto a mud flat delta that supports
myriad bird and animal life during all seasons.
39
Area A2 Mudflats showing the channel of the combined Kirkwood and Quail Creeks looking north from
the Quail Creek Trail
The actual mudflat area like so much of this ecosystem takes on many faces. The following picture
shows the beginning of the mud flats during the last drought. Note the dense vegetation that had been
present when the lake was high enough to keep the area moist.
ElM
Area A2 Mudflats during drought periods (Looking west from Quail Creek Trail —horse riders are on the
Bob Jones Park Trail.)
W"I
Area A2 Mudflats the same view as above during high water
41
These mudflats extend to the lake's water edge. The vegetation changes with the fluctuations of water.
An ecosystem by definition is cyclic. This means that the area must be capable of regenerating itself. If it
suffers a decline that will not allow recycling, the system will collapse. This first picture shows the
mudflats when rattlebush was dominant.
Area A2 Mudflats with rattlebush as the dominant species
After sessions of high water, most of the dominant vegetation is removed. Much of it is covered with silt
washed down the two creek beds.
Area A2 Mudflats with new silt layer
EIN
Where rattlebush flourished, the new vegetation is slender leaf primrose and a massive growth of
goldenrod that will turn the area to yellow later in the summer. Though the picture does not show good
detail, the shore edge is slowly moving out into the lake. In a few years, during periods of drought, there
will no longer be a mudflat within the cove itself. This area is silting that quickly —the source is primarily
from new development and trail erosion.
Area A2 showing current vegetation (April 2009)
For now, this area is a vital part of the total ecosystem. Not only does it provide a protective area, but it
also is a major part of the wildlife corridor. Whitetails use this area as a corridor from Bob Jones Park to
Quail Creek . Bucks will travel as many as 25 miles to mate. Without a corridor, the carrying capacity of
the land would decrease significantly.
Area A2 Mudflats white -tail deer crossing the mudflats
43
Species like fox, coyotes, and bobcats need large hunting ranges. Without the mud flat as a corridor, the
ecosystem would be fragmented at times and prevent viable hunting ranges. The populations would
decrease in size and in time would be extirpated from the area or be forced to move into neighborhoods
for food.
Area A2 Coyote hunting the mudflats
During the winter and during migration periods, hundreds of shorebirds can be found utilizing the
mudflats for food and as a rest stop. Based on water levels around the lake, there are times when this
mudflat is one of the few birds can use for feeding.
Area A2 Mudflats prime bird feeding area.
44
As we end our tour, hopefully I have shown the beauty and magnitude of this magnificent ecosystem
that has been placed in our stewardship. The magnitude is such that many will never see all of it or
realize the complexity of the biological, geological, and chemical relationships within its confines. What
we do know is that it is a sensitive ecosystem. Without a long range land management program, its
future is limited.
The City of Southlake has taken some significant steps to initiate preserving a part of this ecosystem in
the development of the Bob Jones Nature Center and Preserve. This land was used for farm and
ranching for many years. As a result, its habitat value was decreased significantly over the years. Now it
is reestablishing some of its natural state even with a massive cover of coastal Bermuda grass. Its
juxtaposition to the Corps property and the potential for additional additions makes it a perfect gateway
into the whole Southlake Cove Ecosystem.
Bob Jones Nature Preserve before the Center was established. (Note how it differs from most of the
natural ecosystem.)
As the city begins its planning for 2035, no better time exists to bring a lot of good isolated segments of
the park system into one comprehensive systematic land management plan that will serve future
generations. I do not wish to present a formulized plan for sake of missing other creative solutions. Still,
I want to place before the reader some possible pieces that may have significant impacts on future
planning.
45
First, let us look at what the City has done —each action a singular plan with no systematic relationship. I
will reference the following map as a conceptual base. Bob Jones Nature Center is thought of as the
gateway to the ecosystem. In the 2025 planning, it was recommended that a demarcation line be
established in Bob Jones Park to separate the recreational part of the Park from the natural areas. There
is almost a natural demarcation line that could easily be formalized. A line could be drawn from the
equestrian parking lot corner to the area south of the dog park. The dog park should be left in the
recreational portion because of its total lack of compatibility to the natural area.
Conceptual Map unifying already established city improvements:
E ob Jornes Pod
E3ob Jorx-s
l
Tay ce /
dt-le-Lb0e. -�C 6nes
Consider the existing pieces.
1. An existing amphitheater was built very early for outdoor presentations.
2. A Day Camp was created for outdoor education and outdoor activities.
3. A stocked fishing pond was constructed and is in succession that will draw more and more
wildlife. The pavilion provides an excellent place for educational activities.
4. The Miles Property purchased by the City offers the possibility of a Cross Timbers research area
and outdoor learning lab.
5. The Farhat Property could be added to the Nature Center to create a preserve of sufficient size
to offer real protection for indigenous species. More importantly, this would solidify the
Center's role as gateway to the Southlake Cove Ecosystem and Wildlife Area.
46
6. Some trails that are already in existence could become major "spoke" connectors without
having detrimental effects on the total ecosystem. (This would need Corps approval if trails on
their property are affected.)
7. All Corp Property should be leased to tie the whole ecosystem within the City's boundary to be
united into a whole.
8. Some horse trails near sensitive areas should be designated as hiking only trails to prevent
erosion and to protect sensitive areas.
These various parts and recommendations could be easily formed into a comprehensive nature center
and preserve that would be multi -faceted and capable of serving all the citizens of Southlake. More
importantly, it would for once establish a system of natural heritage management that will foster
positive stewardship of the city's natural history heritage. It requires a dedicated community and just a
few trails to build the initial framework that can serve as a powerful base leading to 2035.
Southlake has the opportunity that few other communities have to create a single non -fragmented
ecosystem and wildlife area within its city boundaries. It is a community treasure that could serve not
just current families but for future generations. All of the parts are sitting on the decision table. It now
needs the formulation of a creative vision to bring about a conceptual design that will create a unique
opportunity for citizens while preserving our natural history.
Some factors must be included in all planning. The first is remaining aware of development adjacent to
defined ecosystem areas. The buffer areas of Area F1 and F2 should be an integral part of the planning.
The following picture shows the typical development strategy of totally clearing the land near the
ecosystem boundaries.
Area F1 development next to the F1 buffer area (Area F1 to the left)
47
More and more four wheel vehicles and off road motor bikes are finding the trails and doing damage in
several arenas. First, many are seeking the thrill of riding in the mud along the trails. This damage can
take years to recover from just one ride. Secondly, riders are on some of the most sensitive areas and in
time will affect the nesting of many birds that are already in serious decline. (e.g., Painted Buntings,
Indigo Buntings, Orchard Orioles, Summer Tanagers, and Broad -winged Hawks will be driven from the
secluded and sensitive nesting areas of the Quail Creek Tail and the northern end of the Bob Jones
Trail.)
Four wheeler on Quail Creek
Four wheeler tracks where four wheelers enter Bob Jones Park from the Quail creek Trail
48
Four wheeler tracks along the mudflats where winter and migrating birds feed
r�� .�1 - ^-�..�. y fir _ t• - ^* - � -
Citizens must be educated why the leash requirement on the trails is important. The number of people
running unleashed dog along the area trails is increasing geometrically. There are more people on the
trails with dogs than can be found in the dog park at any time. It is not just the constant mess from dog
feces as at the entrance of the Bob Jones Park Trail. A single dog running down the trial is not a problem.
The problem is that dog after dog travel the trail all day long. In time the wildlife moves out of the area.
The Bob Jones Trail is a classic example. Just a few years ago, wildlife was easily found just past the
entrance. Now, the wildlife has moved over a quarter mile away from the entrance.
Of course, the other problem occurs when the dogs go after wildlife. In one case, a dog caught a young
beaver and killed it. As of this writing, Canada Geese have young in the park. These young are prime
targets for dogs along the water's edge. The young of ground nesting birds like turkey are quickly killed
by unleashed dogs. Corps regulations prohibit running unleashed dogs and this is noted on entrance
signs.
During migration periods, many birds stop along the mudflats and shorelines to feed and rest on their
long migrations. A constant flow of dogs scaring them into flight is an ecological detriment.
49
Dog chasing shoreline birds
It is common to run into groups of dogs that are separated long distances from their owners. These may
pose a threat to other leashed dogs, children, or equestrians using the trails.
IW,O- —
}Y^ 4
7W OW
F. LL
. srr
P,t�
50
The last major obstacle is the explosion of the population of wild hogs that has occurred this past year.
The first signs were along the mudfiats of Area Al. In just one year, they have moved across the whole
ecosystem and crossed Quail Creek this past winter. In the last month, they have moved southward
almost the whole length of Quail Creek. These are very destructive and change the relationship
between the plants and the soil. This both encourages further erosion and creates an opening for
invasive non -indigenous plants to get started
Quail Creek Trail adjacent to the Huse Homeplace development
Tracks show that the expanding range is accompanied by a corresponding increase in population. The
following picture shows a larger group of piglets were traveling on the Quail Creek Trail.
Quail Creek Trail piglet tracks
r
51
Hopefully, this paper gives the reader a broad overview of Southlake Cove Ecosystem and how much
natural heritage lies within our city boundaries. There is much reason to look to how future planning
might incorporate the Bob Jones Nature Center and Preserve as a major gateway. With creative and
dedicated planning, a natural history landmark could be created for our community. The product would
be a prize to be secured for our citizens and for future generations. Failure to find the leadership,
commitment, and vision within the community to preserve this treasure will open the door to its
continuing degradation and demise. That would be a tragic loss to never be regained.
Prepared by:
Ray L. Chancellor, Ph.D.
62
Re: Comments of Ray Chancellor Related to 10-9-2009 Spin Meeting
DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
SOUTHLAKE 2030 OBJECTIVES
Introduction
Much work has gone into the development of the Southlake 2030 draft of recommendations. l do not
care to second guess the professional staff and council members who have better insight into some of
the management strategies needed to move the City ahead in the next 20 years. Still, I have to suggest
that in the review process the enabling verbs or action words be considered carefully. They will dictate
how the goal objective is to be evaluated in the future. Those that express value judgments and not
action are difficult if not impossible to measure in future evaluations. For example, as small as the
difference may seem, "Encourage high -quality design..." and "Foster (or ensure) high —quality design...."
are evaluated in a totally different manner. "Encourage" is a value term and can be evaluated as being
achieved if either 10 percent or 100 percent of the objective is accomplished -whatever that result might
mean. "To foster or to ensure" requires the enabling objective to be written in a manner to be evaluated
as accomplished or not accomplished. This is a minor item to most, but if management wants to
actually evaluate strategic planning process status, attention must be given to the implicit and explicit
meanings of the action verbs and how they are to be evaluated.
That issue is not the purpose of my suggestion. My concern rests on the failure of the Draft Plan 2030 to
contain any action to consider the Southlake Cove Ecosystem in this important planning cycle. This
ecosystem which has been studied from Hwy 377 to the Lake Grapevine Dam is centered on the north
boundary of the City. Just a few decades ago this ecosystem incorporated a large region including the
area from the lake to the north to Big Bear Creek to the south. In just a few years, all but about 10
percent of the original ecosystem has been lost to development. That remaining 10 percent now rests
primarily on Corps of Engineers property and the few undeveloped areas north of Dove Road.
This ecosystem is a community treasure and surpasses most such areas in Texas in biodiversity and
species to be found. As written, the Draft Plan 2030 incorporates objectives that will impinge on the
remaining portion of the ecosystem without first defining, protecting, and celebrating this unique
treasure. Without addressing this backdoor approach to development in the remaining ecosystem, a
City treasure will be lessened and can never be regained. It is time to carefully assess and recognize this
treasure before letting even an iota of incremental development occur.
I have always supported the premise that development really can occur while preserving our natural
heritage. The key is to recognize the scope and quality of the ecosystem in our city. Then, plan the
wildlife corridors and the sensitive areas requiring protection to keep the ecosystem viable.
Development plans and policy/regulations will then be put into practice that will allow quality
development. As the Draft Plan is written, this process has been reversed. I ask that the committees
consider planning strategies that will define, protect and celebrate this community treasure, primarily
on Corps of Engineers property as a precursor to future planning strategies particularly related to
Mobility plans, Quality Development, Parks, Recreation and Open Space, and Sustainability goals.
These are my specific recommendations for wording changes. I will begin with Goal 4: Parks, Recreation,
and Open Space which should be the driving force for seeking recognition and protection for this
ecosystem that is a valuable community commodity.
I. ADD AN OBJECTIVE TO FOCUS ON THE ECOSYSTEM
"Define, protect, and celebrate the Southlake Cove Ecosystem as a community asset for future
generations while exploring non -detrimental active and passive recreation opportunities.
2. Change the wording of Objective 4.2 to read :
"Ensure that parkland and open spaces include an integrated mix of developed and natural
areas with the emphasis on protecting the City's ecosystem and wildlife corridors."
3. Objective 4.7-This objective contains ambiguous meanings in the words used. I know what is
intended but "preserved natural" areas would not be a place for active recreational activities,
Drainage areas if defined as natural areas could have wonderful "pocket trails" with
educational signage and would provide a variation of park design. These would protect the
natural history of the area, the wildlife corridors, and provide passive educational programs.
personally would omit this objective and incorporate its more narrow scope into a larger
ecosystem plan.
4. Objective 4.9 Change wording to emphasize a Parks Department's prime objective
"Develop plans to emphasize the City's rich natural history and historical landmarks."
5. Objective 4.13 Rewrite or eliminate
"In conjunction with the Corps of Engineers, pursue recreational opportunities on the Corps of
Engineer's property compatible with the goal of protecting and preserving the existing
ecosystem for future generations."
If the Park objectives are set first, then other objectives are affected. I recommend the
following changes as a result of the Park changes.
Objective 1.4 Rewrite the objective
"Emphasize creativity and ensure environmental stewardship in the design of all development
and public infrastructure, maximizing the preservation of natural features such as trees, topography,
streams, wildlife corridors, and wildlife habitat."
Objective 1.8 Rewrite the Objective
"Ensure high -quality design and a heightened sensitivity towards the integration of new
development with existing development and urban design patterns."
Objective 3.4 Rewrite the Objective
"Explore opportunities to link Southlake's pathways to systems in adjacent cities including
ecologically non -detrimental nature trails on Corps of Engineers property."
Objective 7.7 Rewrite the Objective
"Recognize the importance of and protect the biological diversity for the ecological and aesthetic
benefit of the community."
As I said in the meeting, light pollution, primarily from the town center area, and omni-directional
lighting at businesses along HWY 114 has reduced the number of stars visible to the naked eye by a
magnitude of 3. This means one can see only about 1/6 of the stars that were visible only 15 years
ago. Newcomers have no idea how beautiful the sky used to be here in 5outhlake. The Milky Way
was a visible part of the sky --no longer.
I would like to see the community be attuned to what is happening as a result of air quality , light
dispersion, and dust. The "Light -Pollution Free" city designation could be used to emphasize other
environmental objectives and certainly fits the vision statement that says"...epitomizes both
economic and environmental sustainability." Some directional lighting is already used and the city
should be praised for that. Just an idea...
I wish to compliment the staff. They and the respective committee members have diligently worked
to put together an excellent draft. Thank you for considering the issues I have raised. If any
comments need further detail, feel free to contact me.
Respectfully submitted,
Ray L. Chancellor, Ph.D.
890 Harbor Court
Southlake, Texas
817-421-6353
raychancellor@aol.com
Vol 0 MASTER PLANNING URBAN DESIGN ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
SAGE GROUP, INC.
November 12, 2009
TS01-00
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 a long 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).
1130 N. 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 comnatablewith 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 land 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.
(I k) .
batb- lf�7-
Curtis W. Young, AIA
Principal
CWY/db
Page 2of2
MaguirePartners
December 9, 2009
Mr. Ken Baker, AICP
Director of Planning and Development Services
City of Southlake
1400 Main Street
Suite 300
Southlake, Texas 76092
Re: Southlake 2030 Plan
Dear Ken:
S O LANA
9 VILLAGE CIRCLE
SMITE SO❑
WESTLAKE, TX
76262
I have read your November 11 memorandum to the City Council regarding the Southlake 2030 vision
statement, together with its attachments, and am writing to get on the record regarding Dr.
Chancellor's comments 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. Chancellor has obviously spent considerable time on his paper as well, and it is also well written.
However, I am 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 Creek. 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 Cross Timbers
Ecosystem", without restricting the application to property owned by the Corps of Engineers and the
City, will open the door for attempts 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 condemnation 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,
<;in A len
Partner
cc: Richard Kuhlman
Mike Silliman
Jennifer Crosby
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 152 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..bi ke leaue.. o[g/p rog ram s/bic clefriendl americalcomrnunitiesf ettin started. php
Thanks,
Emily Galpin
817.939.1110
Page 1 of 1
Stephanie Breitbarth
............... .
From: Lori Payne
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 2:14 PM
To; Mayor-Int JAN
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
Pagel of?
Stephanie Breitbarth Received
From: Lori Payne F _ ; E.1,, 201
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 5:09 PM
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 Rolling 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 1 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 caununication contains any statement regarding federal
taxes,
that statement was not written or intended to he used, and is cannot be used, by any person (.i) as a F-lasis for
avoiding
federal tax penalties that may be imposed on that person, o (ii) to promote, market or recolTunend to another
party
any transaction or matter addressed herein.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this email, may be confidential and/or privileged. This email. is
intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organi Zatlon named above. If you are noi: the intended
recipient of an
2/2/2010
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
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
Mr. Ken Baker
Director of Planning and Development Services
City of Southlake
1400 Main Street
Suite 300
Southlake, Texas 76092
Re: Southlake 2030 Plan/Tom Allen Letter
Dear Ken:
l have react Mr. Allen's response letter and can fully appreciate his position. Still, part of his
premise is based upon a document that was prepared as an informational paper. Granted,
there were recommendations included in that document, and it was attached to the 2030
.planning document as per the Councl's request for a historical artifact. The informational
document was not.a response to the SPIN. meeting as some may have.thought. To my
knowledge, thedocument certainly was never approved as any part of city policy, regulations,
or planning. If that fact is accurate, there is no reason to provide a point/counterpoint
response. It is moot, and further debate would serve no. Purpose unless it is being proposed
that the original document be officially adopted. 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 response submitted after the 1st
"Reading far Draft Vision, .Goals & .Objectives" on .No. vember 3, 201.0.. That statement was
included in Objective 7.8 which states, "Define, protect, and celebrate the local Cross Timbers
Ecosystem as a community asset for. future generations." 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 defined, and finally, 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 broad -based consideration that the City might want to consider in future
deliberations is equivalent to inadvertently supposing that the concept of a. development
alternative in the conservation overlay would be used. In the past, developers simply bypassed
any consideration of the over lay and the result was that the City lost its leverage to protect or
control Southlake's growth. Abandoning Objective 7.8 would result in the same type of loss of
leverage.
I 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
Page l 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 8, 2010 1:34:29 PM CDT
To: 'Ken Baker" �kba er{�rsci.sc�uth]al<e.(x.tts�
Subject: Our call re: North Sector Plan
Dear Mr. Baker:
Thank you.for returning my call. Per our conversation, liere is a
summary of some of my comments from our discussion, particularly those
concerning the document "North Sector flan 03-29-2010."
To preface .these remarks, know that I have been a Southlake resident
for over 20 .years. I 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 them. 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 1 8,
"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 the "care and management" 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 penrianently 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 Southtake'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
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 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. 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.
I hope you will keep this in mind as you look to the year 2030.
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 it 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, I am sharing the draft
with you as "heads up" information.
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
Pagel of 3
Stephanie Breitbarth
From: Jennifer Crosby
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:50 PM
To: Stephanie Breitbarth
Subject: FW: Pathways Feedback
Go ahead and include this one too. Thank you.
From: Jennifer Crosby
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 5:13 PM
To: 'Krista Klein'
Subject: RE: Pathways Feedback
Thank you for your email. I will pass your comments onto the Southlake 2030 plan committee that will be
reviewing the sidewalk plan. Please contact me if you have questions or additional comments.
Jenny Crosby, AICP
Planner 11
City of Southlake
1.400 Main Street, Suite 310
Southlake, TX 76o92
Ph: (817) 748-81-95
FAX: (817) 748-8077
From: Krista Klein ININNEW
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 6:42 AM
To: Jennifer Crosby
Subject: Re: Pathways Feedback
Starting sidewalks that start and stop makes no sense. For a city who is arguably one if the most affluent
in the country, and whos citizens pay significant taxes, we can't finish sidewalks? But we can build a
multiple million dollar police and fire station, but sidewalks are beyond our means. Clearly, the signal is
sent that keeping our kids safe is not as important as internal projects.
i appreciate your time and know you are busy, but please pass on my concerns as many of my friends
have the same concerns. I understand choices need to be made for the use of funds. It just would be nice
to be able to ride safely on our streets.
Jeff and Krista Klein
'Phone
On Jun 25, 2010, at 5:15 PM, "Jerinifer Crosby" - jcrosby@c1.sou1hlal(e.tx.us> wrote:
Ms. Klein,
Thank you for your comments. Each year, the city reviews sidewalk gaps and prioritizes the
construction of those gaps based on factors including (but not limited to) proximity to schools,
proximity io oxisting sidewalks, c;Qsst of anpstruc;tiop, apd availabig WAding A large fa=r ip the cost
and feasibility of construction is whether or not there is adequate eight -of -way. In some cases,
7/15/2010
Page 2 of 3
sidewalks start and stop on opposite sides of the street due to right-of-way issues. Acquiring right-
of-way can be very costly and there are limited funds available each year for sidewalk construction.
Site conditions (such as steep grade, mature trees, drainage features, etc.) can also add
considerable cost. The city has to make difficult decisions on how best to utilize and maximize
available funds.
Along F.M. 1709, some sidewalk segments are missing because of planned deceleration lanes.
Those sidewalk segments will be built with deceleration lane construction. The city has applied for
grant funding through the Texas Department of Transportation to help complete the remaining gaps
on F.M. 1709. We expect to hear whether or not we will receive that funding by the end of the
calendar year.
In the last 3 years, over $1.1 million dollars has been authorized by City Council for sidewalk
construction. Although this is a considerable commitment toward completing our sidewalk network,
sidewalk projects can be surprisingly expensive.
School connectors are a high priority for Southlake, and nearly all of the Fiscal Year 2010 sidewalk
segments included for direct funding through the Capital improvements Program are school
connectors. The exceptions are sidewalk segments along F.M. 1709. Below is the FY10 sidewalk
construction list:
�i$iZtli6
II_.oca lon
rp ij)t`
segment
t,inear-
1:vef
F
Soutlilakc Blvd (FM 1709) Sidewalk
Sidewalk/Trail
11
3,200
Initiated
Improvements
Connector
Peytonville from Chimney Works Dr to
Initiated
Continental Blvd
School Connector
579
Completell
Carroll Ave from Westmont Dr to Bordeauxl
School Connector
Complete
Carroll Ave from E Dove to Taylor St
IF School Corincetor
1,235
ll Ave from Whispering Dell to Triple
School Connector
2,236
Completerar�o
C addition
I assure you that school connectors will continue to be a priority, particularly as we prepare the
FY2011 priority list. We are working very hard to fill the gaps, but it takes time.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this issue further, please contact me. Again,
thank you for your feedback.
Jenny Crosby, AICP
Planning & Development Services
City of Southlake
1400 Main Street, Suite 310
Southlake, TX 76092
Ph: (817) 748-8195
From: TouchPoint@cityofsouthlake.com[mailto:TouchPoint@cityofsouthlake.com]
Sent: Thu 6/24/2010 6:04 PM
To: Cristina McMurray; Candice Sanders; Jennifer Crosby
Subject: Pathways Feedback
First Name: Krista
7/15/2010
Page 3 of 3
Last Naive: Klein
Email Address:
Comments: Please consider making sidewalks on the way to and from schools a priority.
There are many sidewalks that simply stop and then start again on the opposite side of the
street. We live in southride lakes neighborhood (We have for 17 years). My children always
wanted to ride their bikes to durham Elern. and intermediate. If we rode out the back way of
our neighborhood, Peytonville is a narrow street with a lot of traffic and no sidewalk. We
could cut through Coventry neighborhood, but we can't get down peytonville. The other
direction we could take is on Shady Oaks from southlake blvd. It's another very busy street
with a partial sidewalk. We were so thrilled to see there start on the path last year, only to
find it stopped part way, again snaking it impossible for us to ride to school in that direction.
We would love to be able to walk and bike in our beautiful city, but it is too difficult and
dangerous with so many gaps in the sidewalks. It would be so wonderful to see some of the
sidewalks that were started at least finished up. It would make such a difference in our city.
7/15/2010
Page 1 of 1
Stephanie Breitbarth
From: Clayton Comstock
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 12:22 PM
To: Stephanie Breitbarth
Subject: FW: 2030 plan
From: Barbara Schlauch
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:03 PM
To: Clayton Comstock
Subject: 2030 plan
Clayton
Wondering if you might address the ditches along Randal Mill close to Dove and along Dove Road.
Some of them are not even ditches anymore and do not serve their intended purpose. Water runs down the
road and then across residents yards. Where their were ponds on Dove (this is Westlake Property but Southlake
use to drain into those ponds) we have water back up.
I'd be happy to explain further as I might not be making it very clear in this email.
Thanks.
Barbara Schlauch
Spin #5 _ aernate
City of Southfake
7/1-S/?010
Pagel of 3
Stephanie Breitbarth
From: Clayton Comstock
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 12:23 PM
To: Stephanie Breitbarth
Subject: FW: SPIN Meeting. Request 2030 Land Use Plan: Central Sector
From: wendi carlucci
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 5:10 PM
To: Clayton Comstock
Subject: RE: SPIN Meeting Request - 2030 Land Use Plan: Central Sector
thanks Clayton for the info... I would like to see the recommendations before the meeting so I can Pass
them along. Concerns for us in 5 are SIDEWALKS (everyone else has them and I don't think we have
any in our area), noise from the new 1938? (we made the mistake of not asking TX Dot to Put Dove over
114 instead of under and the noise that travels from. 114 is terrible... don't want to see it happen again),
and the lack of public parks over on this side of the city. Maybe if we had a walking trail we would not
need a park ... but no sidewalks. Even when Coventry was built, the City did not require their to put a
sidewalk in along the street and the park is private.... same is true for the subdivision next to it.
W endi
--- On Wed, 6/30/10, Clayton Comstock <ccnrsastock rr ci.soutlrlake.tc.us> wrote:
From: Clayton Comstock <ccomstock a ci.southlake.tx.us>
Subject: RE: SPIN Meeting Request - 2030 Land Use Plan: Central Sector
To:
Cc: "Alison Ortowski" <aortowski ca' ci.southlake.tx.us>
Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2010, 3:32 PM
Hi VVendi,
The Southlzake 2030 Land Use Plan Committee has not considered any pear-t of lhie Cer`ilr tl
Sf,cfc:,r Flan yet. Planning Department staff is ecArrently working on background data 11 of will be
presented to that ccrnmitlee an July 15 and July 29 for discussion and area recornrnenoWions.
We (staff) saw it necessary sary to reserve the August 23 SPIN meeting date now with tl,e
committee's approval on June 24---since meeting times wore already I) ing claimed I')_y
dt. veloper�s ,,nd/or other city departments.
If you have any additional questions or even any concerns you'd like, to see addressed in the Central
Sector Plan, feel free to call me. Thanks and take care,
Dayton Comstock
Planner d
City of Southlake
(817)748-0269
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 2:26 PM
7/15/2010
Page 2 of 3
To: Clayton Comstock
Subject: FW: SPIN Meeting Request - 2030 Land Use Plan: Central Sector
Clayton,
I think Wends is referring to the into can Southlake2030.corn. Can you hell--)?
Thanks!
ALISON ORTOWSKI
Assistant to the City Manage-,r-
City of SoUthlake
817-74 8-8261 office
aortowski @ci.southlake.tx.us
From: wendi carlucci
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 2:18 PM
To: Alison Ortowski
Subject: RE: SPIN Meeting Request - 2030 Land Use Plan: Central Sector
A
I only saw 3 of the 8 sectors listed.... central was not one of them. W
--- On Wed, 6/30/10, Alison Ortowski <aor•towskigci.southlake.bc.us> wrote:
Froin: Alison Ortowski <aortowski @ci.south] ake.tx.us>
Subject: RE: SPIN Meeting Request - 2030 Land Use Plan: Central Sector
To: "wendi carlucci" <wcarlucci5740@yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2010, 9:34 AM
Wendi,
Since this is a city -hosted meeting, a. SPIN Rep isn't needed t(:) host. It you are interested in the
subject, you are certainly weiconie to attend. r."
Also, if you have questions about proposed changes to the Central Sector Plan, Clayton is available to
answer those.'1"hanks!
ALISON ORTOWSKI
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Southlake
817-748-8261 office
aortowskici.southlake.tx.us
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 9:30 AM
7/15/2010
Page 3 of 3
To: Alison Ortowski
Subject: Re: SPIN Meeting Request - 2030 land Use Plan: Central Sector
I will be in town if you need me to Play hostess or Party Planner or whatever. Wendi
--- On Mon, 6/28/10, Alison Ortowski <aoi-toivski rr ei.soutlilake.ifr.us> wrote:
From: Alison Ortowski<aortowski@ci.soutl-►lake.tx.us>
Subject: SPIN Meeting Request - 2030 Land Use Plan: Central Sector
To:
Date: Monday, June 28, 2010, 1:08 PM
Good afternoon,
I am writing to let you know that I received a request today from the City's Planning & Development
Services Department to schedule a meeting for the 2030 Land Use Plan: Central Sector. You are
receiving this email because this element of the 2030 Plan affects your SPIN Neighborhood (SPINS 5, 6,
7). Here is the description for the meeting:
"The City of Southlake's Planning & Development Services department will host a SPIN meeting to
present and receive feedback on the proposed Central Sector Plan, a component of the Southlake 2030
Land Use Plan: The Central Sector Plan includes recommendations for the future development of
Southlake which is generally east of Davis Blvd (FM 1938), north of Southlake Blvd (FM 1709), and
west of Carroll Ave but excludes properties fronting those roads. For more information on this plan,
please visit �t �� ttir.southi�tl<e2[130.com.,,
Since this is a city -requested meeting, a SPIN Representative as host is not required but I wanted to
make sure you knew about the meeting so that you could inform your neighborhoods. The meeting will
be held on August 23rd at 7:00p.m.
If you Have any questions about this topic, please contact Clayton Comstock, City Planner at
ccol31stocl�(C(,c].soLitllltike'.•.t?i.u5 or 817-748-8269.
Thanks,
MASON 011TOWSKI
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Southlake
817-748-8261 office
aortowsk1(4l ci.soutlilake.tx.us
7/15/2010
Stephanie Breitbarth
From:
contact@cityofsouthlake.com
Sent:
Saturday, August 28, 2010 2:57 PM
To:
Ken Baker; Stephanie Breitbarth; Lorrie Fletcher
Subject:
Website Contact Form: Director
This is an automated email generated from the Contact Us page on CityOfSouthlake.com.
PLEASE DO NOTREPLY TO TM8 MESSAG�,.,k RE -PLY TO SENDER'S EM'NL. AD.DRESS. BELOW
Front
Name: wendi Carlucci
E-mail:
Phone: 817 488-5640
Comments:
Sor y I was out of town for the central 2030 meeting. What I see is an entire section of Southlake that unless
you live in a subdivision has NO PARK, NO SIDEWALK or any trails and no interest in building any or
allowing for any in the next 20 years! Hobe you didn't have to spend much time figuring that out .... So what you
are saying is that if you don't live in a subdivision you are not important! Oh ... and the waterwise practices that
are proposed for the citizens should be addressed with our city.officials FIRST because they do not have any
idea what that means! GREAT JOB
I
Page 1 of 1
Stephanie Sreitbarth
From: Clayton Comstock
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 12:23 PM
To: Stephanie Breitbarth
Subject: FW: Southlake 2030 Central Sector Plan
From: Joe Church
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 5:14 PM
To: Clayton Comstock
Subject: Southlake 2030 Cenral Sector Plan
Clayton -
I was perusing information on the Southlake 2030 Plan on the city's website today, but l see that there are no
links to the Central Sector plan. Can you provide me a plan draft or information on the Central Sector, where
Cross Timber Hills is located?
One of the charms of our neighborhood is the country feel, where we have bar ditches and no sidewalks or
streetlights. I have heard from a number of CTH residents who are concerned that as a part of the 2030 plan the
city will be installing sidewalks and street fights in our neighborhood; I would like more information so I can either
confirm or allay their fears.
Thanks, -Joe
Joe Church
President, Cross Timber Hills Homeowners Association
817-442-8343
7/15/2010
Daniel Cortez
From: Ken Baker
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 5:29 PM
To: Clayton Comstock; Jennifer Crosby; Daniel Cortez; Dennis Killough
Subject: Fwd: Southlake 2030 Meetings & News
Sent from my if one
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: July 26, 2010 5:44:23 PM EDT
To: Kl3akci-0, ;i.southlakc.tx.us
Subject: Re: Southlake 2030 Meetings & News
Ken:
I just got pre-empted from attending tonights SE Plan meeting but had a couple of things to contribute:
The heading on the map on page 16 reads "West" and it probably should be "Southeast"
The planned trails on Brumlow from the south edge of the Timarrron to SR 26 are one of my babies that
has gotten all honked up. This half mile segment was why I started going to parks board and city
meetings in 2000 and we still have not gotten it built.
Consistent with our stated objective of intercity connectivity this half mile segment needs to be built (also
before someone gets killed riding their bike along there). The route going cross country thru the tank
farm was something I had added to the plan at the last minute of the 2025 plan only as an alternative.
The 2030 plan should show the segment on Brumlow between Timarron and the Cottonbelt Trail on SR
26 as the 8' multi -use trail ... the one going cross country thru the tank farm should only be as an
alternative .... ie we would not need or want both and it could even be dropped if the Brumlow segment is
shown as an 8' consistent with that running along Timarron.
realize there is a right of way issue with a property owner on Brumlow but at some point that issue
needs to be addressed ... ie this is not the sleepy little town it was 25 years ago when the good old boys
ruled the roost.
Currently I thing the map downgrades the route on Brumlow and I do not think that is the best answer for
the community and so will push this point as the process goes forward.
Thank you
Mike
Page I of 1
Stephanie Breitbarth
From: Jennifer Crosby
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 12:32 PM
To: Stephanie Breitbarth
Subject: FW: P&Z Meeting tonight
Please include in the 2030 correspondence folder and make copies for tonight. Thank you.
Jenny Crosby, AICP
Planner 11
City of Southlake
3.400 Main Street, Suite 3:10
Southlake, TX 76o92
Ph: (83-7) 748-$195
FAX: (83-7) 748- 8077
From: Greg Goodrich
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 12:01 PM
To: Jennifer Crosby
Subject: P&Z Meeting tonight
Hi There,
I just spoke with Lamberto (who is going to email you some pictures of the 1709/Pearson intersection), I think it
would be great (if this is the appropriate venue) for the commission to discuss this intersection tonight as part of
the West Sector Plan for Southlake 2030. 1 don't necessarily think this is a "forgotten" intersection, but it is one
that improvements keep being delayed on (probably due to it being a border street with Keller). Nevertheless,
it is a very busy intersection and in serious need of improvement, l've seen where the West plan includes the
Southlake City entry features, sidewalks, trails, and retaining wall improvements for this zone, but nothing
regarding an overhaul of this intersection. Streets may simply not be included in this plan, I don't know. But I
do know our whole neighborhood and the many travelers of this street would greatly appreciate improvements
for it being a part of the West Sector plan.
Thanks,
Greg Goodrich
Resident Chesapeak Place, Southlake
8/5/2010
pit
77�
, _
.x; w• �'"i'� 'tea ,. ti {' � ^ J t Z..
} �
4" riy�
���°,'-'-fir-
�, "''f�� -'A •, 1_.7 "y' � .
a
r
=' MARKER
•. Tom' � � � !
�.y't Y ....
NOW
i , 01
Ken Baker Planning
Director of Planning and Development Services Department
City of Southlake
1400 Main Street, Suite #310
Southlake, Texas 76092
RE: SOUTHLAKE 2030 WEST SECTOR LAND USE PLAN
Dear Mr. Baker:
My.name is .Joe Pipes, owner of Pipes Plant Farm and The. Flower Ranch at 901 S. Pearson Lane. My piece of
property is three acres. I have owned the property and operated the same business at this location since 1985.
My property is addressed in the Southlake 2030 West Sector Land Use Plan. The purpose of this letter i.s.to state
my opposition to the "proposed." Southlake 2030 West Sector Land Use Plan.
Since 1980 the population of. Southlake. has exploded almost 900% from 2700 people to .just over 27000.
Residential housing permits issued for that same time frame. are approximately 727S.
It is hard for me to comprehend. how a group of. people sitting around a map in an office declare that. this land
Would be great for housing. Developers and builders (the persons, who actually do this for a living, work with
the public, have to sell .and promote their projects) have shown ZERO. interest or desire to speak to me about
buying and/or developing for future home sites on my land. Not one.person, company, developer or builder has
ever.. approached mein 25 years.
There is a nine acre tract of land. located across the street from my property.. The owners, .Ro.nny and Jeanette
Pipes (my parents), areapproached three to four times a year by developers who.actively:try to purchase the
property for development —If my property is so "prime" for single family medlum.density residential housing,
why has not one .developer approached me? The two properties are on the same street. within 100 yards of
each other and on the same corner of Pearson Lane.
1 am very interested in discussing this further with anyone on the Planning and Zoning Commission or Members
.of • Southlake 2030 Plan. Please contact me should you have any further direction to advise me with. my
opposition to the"proposed" plan.
Regards,
-Joe.Pipes
Owner
Cell (817) 994-91.19
Office (817) 379-6946 -
jpipes61@gmall.com
901 S. Pearson Lane ® Keller, Texas 76248 • Phone (metro) 817-379-6946 - Fax 317-431-5959
Stephanie- Breitbarth
From: Lori Payne
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 3:38 PM
To: Mayor-Int
Cc: Ken Baker; Stephanie Broitbarth
Subject: FW: Southlake 2030
From: Teresa Floyd
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 1:35 PM
T'o, . Mayor
Subject: Southlake 2030
Today, September 22, 1 received a notice of a public hearing to be held on October 7 regarding Ordinance
980. Evidently several "SPIN" meetings have been held regarding this Ordinance "I do not know what a SPIN
meeting is but I looked at the agendas of previous meetings and it looks to me like the public was invited to
attend.
I moved to Grapevine in 1971 and bought property in Southlake city limits in 1978. "Things" were just a tad bit
different back then.
I am very concerned about changes going on that I know nothing about. My property is on South Kimball and
without my consent Southlake changed the entire appearance.of my property when they widened South
Kimball several years ago.
NOBODY could find anybody or anything about why these changes were made without my consent. What
they did is appalling to me. Nobody would own up to who took it upon themselves to make that much of a
change without consulting the owners. I was too ill then to pursue the problem, but I'm not now.
Since I do not live in Grapevine anymore, 1 get the distinct feeling that you think you can just run over me with
a bulldozer and I won't care. When it comes to my land, I do care and I take offense to being left out and not
having a say.
I understand this October 7 meeting is a public hearing to consider Ordinance 980 and that it has not been
passed. Perhaps the ordinance is a good thing; perhaps not. As hard as it is for me to ,get to Southlake, I will
be there. I just wanted you to know that I am now prepared to "take someone to task" to what happened in
the past and that I should be fully notified of any meetings that pertain to my property.
Thank you,
Teresa Jane Thompson
1395 Hideaway Ln W
Hideaway, TX 75771
817,475,1365
The adjoining property is owned by my children: William Blaine Thompson and Kimberly Thompson Koelzer
To my knowledge they do not know anything either.
t
FROM :TERESA FLOYD FAX NO. :903 002 4043 Oct. 07 2010 11:01AM P1
DATE: October, 79 2010
TO. City of Southlake
clo Jennifer Crosby
FROM; Teresa Thompson.
William Blaine Thompson
Kimberly Thompson Koelzer
RE: Southlake 2030
Southeast Sector Land Use Plan
Public Hearing Notice,
Ordinance No. 980
We are writing in regard to property that we own on the east side of
South Kimball Avenue across from the elementary school. This is
-vacant property consisting of a -total of $'acres.
Your last land use plan called for this property to be a type T 1 koning.
As we understand your current proposal, this type of zoning will be
removed and possibly be called a low density housing area.
We would like to respectfully request that this property continue to be
considered for other land use (no matter what you call it) such as low
density commercial -officesor -businesses. Weeite-thiree-:reasons..
1. because of the DFW flight cone
2. because of the land's close proximity to commercial property along
FM 1709 (Southlake Blvd)
3. because it backs up to agricultural property along Crooked Lane
which you propose to change to officetcommercial use.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Teresa "Thompson
Dennis Killough
From:
Donna Williams
Sent:
Tuesday, October 12, 2010 8:49 PM
To:
Dennis Killough
Cc:
Subject:
Property Easter Thomas survey. Abst474 tr .11
Mr Killough,
I want to thank you and Mr Baker for your time and considerations,toward
understanding the issues involved with the proposed road and the marketing of my property .As
you know,my property is too narrow to support the release of land for part of the road and
easement.I feel this would drastically hinder opportunities to sell my property.Thank you for
any and all considerations.
Regards,
Roger Williams
Sent from my iPad
5-t� Nate
fe f ey- M Ce d r0aJ
IS Ae p rO pbSe
o( C61 1e-i v'
NVe4iu2
"d N� le
rive .
1
Jennifer Crosby
From: TouchPoint@cityofsouthiake.com
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 11:45 AM
To:----- ------- ------Eristina McMurray; Candice Sanders; Jennifer Crosby
Subject: Pathways Feedback
First Name: John
Last Name: Gallagher
Email Address:
Primary Street Location: Randal Mill Ave
From: Southlake Blvd
To: Hillside Ct
Picture:
Comments: i propose a sidewalk project on the west side of Randol Mill Ave from Hillside Ct to FM 1709
Southlake Blvd. This would allow walking/biking to shopping areas at the FM1938 and FM 1709 intersection.
Red light camera money could pay for it.
Jennifer Crosby
From:
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 5:46 PM
To: ------ Jennifer-Erosby, Ken -Baker-; Dennis Killough
Subject: 2030 plan zoning request on 200 S. Peytonville, Southlake.
Jenny
Hello, We own the property at 200 S. Peytomrille, Southlake. We are currently zoned 01 Office.
We would like to request a Retail Commercial Zoning.
To open our property up for uses to help us sell it on the 2030 plan's.
WE DO NOT WANT THE SF ZONING ON OUR PROPERTY, we want something for
Retail Commercial uses. PLEASE!
We are next to Commercial, Walgreen's is on the corner, and Varsity is next to
our property. We own 1 acre. We get a lot of interest in our property, for uses
out side of our 01, like a hair salon, small boutique, type of uses. All our inquires
we do contact the planning department to see if it will work here.
.������\
<y� y\� ««:s
. � \� � �
��\�\��wd
2�� � /
Jennifer Crosby
From: TouchPoint@cityofsouthlake.com
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 12:11 PM
To: - -- -----------C-ristina-McMurray;-Candice-Sanders; Jennifer Crosby
Cc: Valerie Potter
Subject: Pathways Feedback
First Name: Greg
Last Name: Tichenor
Email Address:
Primary Street Location: Randol Mill
From: Dove
To: Tuscan Ridge or Morgan
Picture:
Comments: Several small neighborhoods are isolated unless you are willing to brave Randol Mill. A sidewalk
that connected Dove (even though that intersection is in Westlake) to Tuscan Ridge or even Morgan would put
miles of sidewalks within reach.
Ci.southlake.tx.us Mail - Fwd: Fw: Emailing: 240 NC LAND USE Page 1
Ty
,.S H LAKE Jennifer Crosby <jcrosby@ci.southlake.tx.us>
Fwd F-w:-EmaHing 240-NC-LAND USE ----
Clayton Comstock <ccomstock@ci.southlake.tx.us> Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:43 AM
To: Ken Baker <kbaker@cl.southlake.tx.us>, Jennifer Crosby <jcrosby@ci.southiake.tx.us>
FYI
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Angelo, Mendez, M.D.
Date: Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:50 AM
Subject: Fw: Emailing: 240 NC LAND USE
To: Clayton Comstock <ccomstock@ci.southlake.tx.us>
Dear Clayton:
RE: 240 North Carroll Ave
It was a pleasure seeing you at the Spin Meeting earlier this week.
I received the attached letter from the Planning Department recommending that the land use designation of my property
at
240 N Carroll Ave be changed to Office Commercial.
As the owner of this property I am IN SUPPORT of this change. This property has an excellent location across from the
Town Square and
this land use designation is indeed most appropriate.
I respectfully ask that you forward this email to all City Council members and Planning & Zoning members. As you
know , I have been a resident of Southlake since 1989 and I have owned this property for over a decade. I ask that
Planning & Zoning and City Council please vote in favor of this change/update to the land use plan. This use would be
excellent for this property and for the City and its residents. This would be the highest and best use for all involved. I
thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Angelo C Mendez MD
817-938-3480
----- Original Message -----
From: Angelo. Mendez, M.D.
To: Angelo, Mendez, M.D.
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 8:32 AM
Subject: Emailing: 240 NC LAND USE
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
240 NC LAND USE
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file
attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
Clayton Comstock, AICP
Planner 11
City of Southlake
(81-7-)748-82G9 --
https:llmai 1. google. com/mail/?ui-2&ik=5564bOc45c&view=pt&q=cayton%20comstock&gs—true&s... 7/26/2011
Ci.southlake.tx.us Mail - Fwd: Fw: Emailing: 240 NC LAND USE
Page 2
affltFi- a- IMM, WWI
L
240 NC LAND USE.jpg
418K
https:llmail.google.comlmaill?ui=2&ik=5564bOc45c&view--pt&q--clayton%20comstock&qs=true&s... 7/26/2011
Clayton Comstock <ccomstock@ci.southlake.tx.us>
10�960OTHLAKE
Fw: f.m.1709 corridor land use plan
Juergen Strunck
To: ccomstock@ci.southlake.tx.us
-----Original Message -----
From: "Juergen Strunck"
Sent 6/27/2011 10:29:57 AM
To: south lake2030Aci.southlake.tx.us
Subject: f.m.1709 corridor land use plan
Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:43 AM
dear ms crosby and mr comstock,
the secretary of the department of planning and development services gave me your names for my response to the letter of june
17 i received from your department.
i planned to attend the spin meeting tonight but found that i am unable to attend, so i am writing to you with my response:
1. my wife and i have lived on 200 n carroll ave for more than 30 years. we do not consider this a residential property but our
permanent home. we have no intention to have our home developed for office use. hopefully we will be able to remain here way
past 2030.
2. the way i understand the 1709 corridor[i very actively participated in the corridor overlay study] our home is not part of the
corridor but part of the residential area bordered by carroll ave.
3. i am stunned to find that you would consider changing the long held medium residential designation of our home and its
surrounding. i strongly oppose that idea. i find it hard to believe that the residents who live to the north and west of us would be
inclined to encourage the change to commercial/office designation. you may recall that a large number were opposed to the
sunrise assisted living centerjust five years ago. everyone wanted to retain the residential designation of the land immediately to
the north of our home.
4. our property land use designation was divided into near halves when the 2025 plan was developed. i objected to that
'mapping' at that time and was told not to worry about it, that it was just for'clarity'. if you want to change the map for the 2030
plan in order to make the map reflect the boundaries of current office use i think you should return the south portion of our
property back to medium density designation.
please accept my apology for not attending the spin information meeting.
sincerely,
juergen strunck
712:7(2011
2030
Southlake 2030
Land --Use Committee Meeting
Comment/Question Submittal Card
Name:
Organization/Company:
(if applicable)
Address:
Comment/Question or
Topic of Concern: L(�,__�ca� c
Cq(k C_�Cw16AJ-&e _ W "AL, •kVu- kt.,(", �141&(
C"a
Email and/or Phone: aC 4�VWRI Q oi- rkx) r2�cL� f
(optional)
V(? (4V- 716 (
If you provided an email address, would you like to be added to the Southlake 2030 email list? Yes No