Loading...
2010-02-25 Meeting Report (North Sector Plan)SPIN MEETING REPORT PROJECT NAME: Southlake 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan North Sector Plan SPIN DISTRICTS: SPIN 1, 2,3 4 MEETING DATE: February 25, 2010 MEETING LOCATION: 1400 MAIN STREET, SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS MEETING ROOMS 3C 3D TOTAL ATTENDANCE: Forty -One (41) SPIN REPRESENTATIVE(S) PRESENT: STAFF PRESENTING PRESENT: Ken Baker, Director of Planning Development Services, Clayton Comstock, Planner II, Jenny Crosby, Planner II, Daniel Cortez, Planner I, Gordon Mayer, City Engineer and Mike Starr, Fire Chief STAFF CONTACT: Clayton Comstock, (817)748 -8269; ccomstock(a�ci.southlake.tx.us EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Situation The North Sector is bordered by Lake Grapevine to the north, T. W. King Rd. and Kirkwood Blvd. to the west and the City limits to the east. The southern boundary is defined by Highland Rd., SH 114 and the southern boundary of existing subdivisions between White Chapel Blvd. and N. Carroll Ave. Plan Details The North Sector Plan is the first of eight sector plans developed during the Southlake 2030 process. The sector has a distinctive rural character due to the large lot residential development pattern and the heavy concentration of natural landscape. As such, the primary objectives for planning in the north sector are the preservation and enhancement of the existing rural character and the preservation of natural areas. The North Sector Plan further addresses the unique characteristics and challenges of the north side and provides specific planning recommendations in regard to land use, mobility, environmental resources, as well as parks, recreation and open space. QUESTIONS CONCERNS Where was the Land Use Plan when Winfield Estates was approved? It doesn't match the current Land Use. o The Land Use Plan is used only as a tool to attempt to guide future development; when staff presents projects to boards and committees the land use designation is presented to them. So the areas indicated on the map are what's changing in Land Use? o Staff has attempted to identify the areas that have been developed already and adjust the land use accordingly to be reflective of the development that exists there. You're using a broad change to identify what's there, it's only a technicality to go denser, we should just keep it to Low Density Residential. What is the threshold for Medium Density Residential, how dense is that? o Anything more than 1 dwelling unit (d /u) per acre. That concerns me because wouldn't that allow a developer to go as dense as they would like? o Southlake does not have any high density land use designation, the most dense this land use would permit is lot sizes that average 20,000 square feet [Referring to Medium Density Residential]. The most dense area in the city would be the brownstones in Town Square. What's the point of having a plan if it doesn't preclude what ends up getting built there, the plan keeps getting ignored? Why do you want to remove the Rural Conservation from the Cliffs of Clariden Ranch? o Since the tract has already been developed with many homes on it the optional land use category wouldn't be necessary on the area as it is a tool for developers to develop land in a less environmentally disturbing way. Where was the threshold for 20 acres for the Rural Conservation designation obtained from? o Staff did research during the 2025 process that indicated that a minimum of 20 acres is necessary for this type of development to be successful. Who are you looking out for the developers or the citizens? When Kimball Avenue gets widened are you ruling out any businesses going on Kimball? o The Rural Conservation is an option for whoever decides they want to develop, currently the land use is Low Density Residential and wouldn't permit for office zoning. So you're saying this is allowing a developer to come in on a smaller tract and develop under the Rural Conservation? o The amount of land area is still required if someone decides to develop under the Rural Conservation optional land use but does act as an enabling tool to develop denser lots with more preserved open space that couldn't be developed. There's a lot of cyclists going through White Chapel and Dove Road, shouldn't it be considered to add a bike lane or trail for the cyclists, it's a cyclists mecca out there? o A couple of options will be considered during the process of our Mobility Element of the Comprehensive Plan which could include much wider lanes for cyclists. Cyclists traditionally prefer the roads over any sidewalks particularly when they ride in groups. The Walnut Grove Recreational Trail is something that is not in any of the city's literature or in any plan. o That could potentially be added as a recommendation to the plan. The water is running at Bob Jones Park in the ponds and for their grass when we're being restricted heavily on water use, then they have a sign saying its well water, I'm sure it comes from the same aquifer, they should be restricted as well. We need to be careful during development of the properties that are adjacent to the Corp of Engineers property because they could potentially block off access to the lake and trails. 1 don't see ecological protection addressed in this plan and it wasn't in the previous plan, it is important to distinguish between environmental and ecological. o The 2025 plan was our first attempt at any kind of environmental resource protection identification, we're going to attempt to further elaborate and identify more issues and areas in the new one. How can we get property designated by land use to ensure that it is maintained by the city and regularly done so; the open space by Oak Pointe is poorly maintained and we have not seen anyone come by for upkeep? o It is possible to require a maintenance plan by the developer when they have some open space within the development. If it is City parkland however, the Community Services Department should be maintaining that area. Do you know if they would return that parkland at Oak Pointe to the HOA? o It may be possible but I couldn't say for certain right now. 1 would simply like to comment that I am strongly opposed to any changes from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential or the removal of the Rural Conservation from any property. GENERAL CONCERNS Density Conservation Tree Protection Traffic Implementation of the Plan SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives. The report is neither verbatim nor official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by residents and the general responses made. Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken as guarantees by the applicant. Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow the case through the Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by City Council.