Flower Mound considers Eden Ranch master‑plan and zoning changes as neighbors debate access, buffers and open space

The Flower Mound Town Council on March 17 discussed requests from the developer of the proposed Eden Ranch project for master‑plan and zoning changes, including eliminating an east‑west collector road and reclassifying a portion of Shiloh Road, in a work session that drew lengthy public comment and detailed planning staff review.

Why it matters: Eden Ranch, a proposed cluster/conservation development on roughly 335 acres south of Hawk Road and north of Cross Timbers, would require changes to the Cross Timbers Conservation Development District plan and the town thoroughfare plan. Planning staff and the applicant said the changes affect traffic, open space, scenic corridors and what nonresidential uses may be allowed on several agricultural lots; council members asked for clearer standards before formal decisions.

Council and staff framed the conversation around three technical steps the application would need to clear: a master plan amendment to allow the applicant’s site plan and design, a zoning application (ZPD) for the planned development, and likely a tree‑removal permit. Planning manager Lehi Murphy told the council the application will also trigger a Planning & Zoning Commission work session because the site is larger than 20 acres, proposes a master‑plan amendment and requests multiple exceptions to the Cross Timbers plan.

Planning staff said the project as submitted would require at least two formal changes. First, the applicant proposes removing an east‑west collector street that currently appears in the town thoroughfare plan. A traffic impact analysis showed the thoroughfare plan would still meet the town’s mobility and “smart growth” requirements if the town simultaneously redesignated about 1,600 linear feet of Shiloh Road to an urban minor arterial undivided (effectively a four‑lane section). Staff and the Transportation Commission recommended that thoroughfare amendment be considered.

Second, staff identified multiple Cross Timbers area‑plan provisions that the application does not meet as drafted, including a provision that discourages solid masonry walls and berms on scenic corridors, and language expecting houses to front country roads or have substantial open space between rear yards and roadways. Planning staff noted the application proposes some masonry columns and entrance stonework and multiple landscape features that would need council direction about whether they satisfy the Cross Timbers intent.

Public comment at the start of the meeting showed divided neighborhood views. Pat Welland, identified as deputy mayor pro tem for Double Oak, said, “We oppose the increased housing density that is part of this plan and we also oppose having an egress from this development tied to Kings Road,” and asked the council to require the developer remove the Kings Road exit. Other speakers from Double Oak and Flower Mound urged different outcomes: several residents praised the proposal’s emphasis on trees, conservation and ‘farm‑to‑family’ living, while others asked the council to preserve the town’s previously adopted cluster protections.

Old Shiloh Cemetery representatives also asked council to consider a proposed donation of adjacent land to extend the cemetery’s capacity. Brian Webb of the Old Shiloh Cemetery Association told council the cemetery “contains the history of our town” and asked that any gift be treated as park or open‑space in development discussions so the cemetery could accept and preserve the parcel for burials.

Developer comments and open‑space, agriculture uses: Developer Tyler Radbourne described Eden Ranch as a “farm and wildlife habitat” community with orchards and trails and said the plan intentionally minimizes impervious surfaces and preserves wildlife corridors. He said the project is proposing roughly 45 percent open space (excluding a package of agricultural lots), and asked flexibility on how some agricultural lots could be used — examples mentioned included a small farm market, orchard operations and small‑scale agritourism limited by parameters the developer would write into the planned‑development standards.

Planning staff and the applicant said the cluster/conservation plan could allow such nonresidential agricultural uses, but staff advised those uses would need precise definitions and limits in the PD so they do not functionally become commercial or industrial uses. Staff also noted the applicant initially requested a change to the town’s home‑occupation standards to remove limits on employees and patrons; after staff feedback the applicant said it would remove that request.

Other technical items and next steps: Planning staff said preliminary tree surveys indicate removal of at least 20 specimen trees will be required and that the project’s parkland dedication proposal — much of which sits along internal trail corridors and in narrow strips — did not meet staff expectations for public parkland. Parks staff asked the applicant to return with parkland options that provide accessible, usable park spaces rather than narrow strips behind private yards.

Murphy told council that because multiple plan changes and exceptions are requested, the application will proceed to the Planning & Zoning Commission for a work session and then return to council with refined plans and a recommended list of modifications. The applicant said he would work with staff on landscape standards, tree planting sizes and the park layout, and asked council for guidance on acceptable design parameters.

Council reaction and remaining issues: Several council members pressed for specificity on what constitutes acceptable open space between backyards and scenic roads, how much mature vegetation would be planted at project edges, and how parkland would be dedicated and improved. Council also asked staff to confirm minimum fire‑access requirements and whether the applicant could remove the Kings Road connection to address Double Oak’s concerns.

For now there was no formal vote; the work session provides direction and sets public expectations for the formal PD and master‑plan amendment hearings to follow. The planning staff will bring revised materials and options — including parkland examples, tree‑planting standards and possible ways to swap or reconfigure bulk‑pickup days or trailheads tied to the site — to future commissions and to council for final decisions.