Flower Mound council approves Eden Ranch conservation development with conditions after hourslong hearing
Loading...
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing that drew dozens of speakers, the Flower Mound Town Council approved a master-plan and zoning package for the Eden Ranch conservation development — including park dedication and limited tree removals — by 4–1 votes with conditions on ADUs, tree protection and roadway access.
The Flower Mound Town Council approved a package of land‑use actions for the Eden Ranch conservation development late Wednesday night after a multi‑hour public hearing in which neighbors, conservation advocates and the developer debated the project’s design and exceptions to the town’s standards.
The council voted 4–1 to approve a thoroughfare plan amendment that removes an east‑west collector through the site and redesignates a portion of Shiloh Road as an urban minor arterial (L3). The council later approved the project’s planned‑development zoning (L4) and a parks recommendation (L6) by the same 4–1 margin, and it approved a modified tree‑removal request (L5) with five specific specimen trees denied for removal and the remainder allowed under conditions.
Developer Tyler Radbourne and his wife Julia described Eden Ranch as a conservation‑first neighborhood that preserves open space, restores orchards and provides family‑oriented amenities. Randy (McAdams), the project consultant, presented a concept with 167 lots — roughly 72 one‑acre lots, 86 three‑quarter‑acre lots and nine agricultural lots — and an open‑space network that the applicant says will protect slope and tree resources while allowing limited grazing, orchards and community agricultural facilities. The applicant offered to dedicate about 9.35 acres as public parkland and to dredge and refurbish the on‑site pond for public use.
Many residents spoke in favor of the project, praising its preservation emphasis, orchard and community features and the developer’s engagement with neighbors. Supporters included local landowners and professionals who said they had reviewed the plan and welcomed amenities such as trails, orchards and a community center. Opponents — including nearby homeowners and members of the town’s Environmental Conservation Commission (ECC) — raised concerns about exceptions the developer sought, notably allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by right, varying minimum lot widths, increased lot coverage for accessory structures, and the removal of specimen post‑oak trees.
Council debate focused on three areas: (1) access/traffic and the effect of removing the internal east‑west collector, (2) tree preservation and the number/list of specimen trees proposed for removal, and (3) ADUs and the potential effect on density and public services. Transportation staff and the project’s traffic analysis showed that without the internal connector Shiloh Road’s level of service could fall to a D under build‑out conditions, prompting the council to require a reclassification of the segment to an urban minor arterial undivided and to retain reserved right‑of‑way for future improvements. Fire and emergency services confirmed current access standards would be met but council added a condition that the northeast emergency access point be terminated inside the subdivision (minimal emergency access only) so it cannot be converted in the future to a public connector without a later council action.
On tree removals, council and staff discussed the ECC’s earlier recommendation and a revised, smaller list of 17 specimen trees the applicant had requested. Council ultimately denied removal permits for five specific specimen trees (tree IDs cited in staff report) and approved the remainder; the approval included conditions requiring the applicant to revise plans to save additional trees where feasible and to meet standard mitigation and open‑space planting obligations. Staff also agreed to add explicit language to the Open Space Management Plan to prohibit rodenticides and to require orchard plantings to use disease‑resistant rootstocks and other measures to reduce risk to existing native oaks.
On ADUs, the council rejected the applicant’s request to allow ADUs by right across the development. The council required ADUs to obtain individual special‑use permits (SUPs), maintaining the town’s normal review for accessory units and preventing by‑right proliferation. The council also maintained a 25% lot‑coverage maximum for primary structures while allowing limited accessory coverage consistent with prior conservation developments; it granted a measured set of exceptions to lot‑width standards for a defined subset of three‑quarter‑acre lots to preserve open‑space linkages and specimen trees, subject to staff review and updated plan submittal.
The council voted 4–1 on each of the Eden Ranch items; Mayor Pro Tem Anne Martin cast the lone dissent on the project votes. The council asked staff to ensure the final development standards and revised plan drawings reflect the conditions approved tonight, and staff will review revised layout and permit materials for compliance before the project proceeds to plat and site‑plan stages.
What’s next: The applicant must submit revised plans that incorporate the council’s conditions (modified lot widths for an agreed subset, denied tree permits for specific specimen trees, prohibition of rodenticides in the open‑space management plan and ADUs limited to SUP review). Any future requests to change the gated/emergency access configuration, roadway connections or the public‑park interface would require additional council approval.
