Residents, parks board press Eden Ranch developer to place public park by pond, not inside buffer

The Flower Mound Parks Board on June 5 reviewed park-related plans for the Eden Ranch zoning-plan-development and urged the developer to relocate the proposed public park from a narrow buffer along Shiloh/1171 to a site adjacent to a larger pond or other open space the broader community could access.

Board members, neighbors and the developer discussed the parkland required under the town's parkland dedication ordinance, as well as alternatives including dedication of nearby acreage. The developer said he's willing to pursue acquiring adjacent land and donating it as parkland and asked staff about next steps and timing.

The discussion matters because the property would add to the town's park supply in an area with fewer parks and trails. The developer's plan proposes 168 single-family lots across roughly 334 acres with nearly 150 acres of open space; the current concept shows about 23.35 acres of on-site parkland. Under the town's parkland dedication rules the project would owe roughly 5.65 acres, which can be reduced by up to 50% when large conservation/open-space tracts are preserved.

During the work session, board members repeatedly objected to the developer's placing park facilities inside the required buffer along a busy corridor. Board member Rick Kenyon said, "I just don't like where you put the park. You put the park basically in an area that you have to leave as a buffer." Kenyon and others said a park behind houses and within a buffer on a trunk road would not serve the broader community or be safe for children walking there on their own.

Developer Tyler Radbourne (Eden Ranch) and design consultant Quint Redmond described the project as a low-impact, conservation-focused development with options for how parkland is allocated. Radbourne said the development team was committed to working with the town and neighbors. "This is where we live... we're doing something that is as a developer, it's not about all money for us at all," he told the board.

Board members and staff outlined alternatives: shifting the park closer to one of the site's larger ponds, acquiring and dedicating an adjacent parcel near Red Rock that several members identified as safer and more accessible, or providing a mix of publicly accessible open space inside and outside a gated portion of the development. Staff noted the town can accept parkland as land, fees in lieu, or a mix and described how fees are paid with development phasing.

The developer said a neighboring property to the west could provide roughly 6.5 to 7 acres and that he would follow up with officials and staff. Board members asked staff to vet that parcel's suitability and the timing for any formal recommendation, noting the board's next regular meeting is August 7 and that the board's formal recommendation to council would need to follow town rules and public-notice procedures.

No formal action or vote was taken at the work session; the exchange was advisory feedback to the developer while the zoning-plan-development and master-plan-amendment applications remain under review. Staff encouraged the developer to continue working with planning and parks staff, and board members said they would be willing to view any candidate parcel and meet further with staff to refine options.

Board members emphasized they wanted a park amenity that the wider Flower Mound community could use, not only an internal amenity for a gated neighborhood, and they asked the developer to consider moving lots or reconfiguring the plan so parkland falls outside the 200-foot buffer where it would better serve the public.

The work session closed without a formal parks-board recommendation; staff said the developer can pursue options and return with a proposal that staff can evaluate and, if appropriate, bring back for formal review.