City of Hewitt Oak... · Comprehensive Plan 2022 1-3 City of Live Oak, Texas. approximately 1,550...

CChhaapptteerr 11:: BBaasseelliinnee AAnnaallyyssiiss

CCOOMMPPRREEHHEENNSSIIVVEE PPLLAANN 22002222

Baseline Analysis

Comprehensive Plan 2022 1-1 City of Live Oak, Texas

IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn

The Baseline Analysis component of the Comprehensive Plan is intended to provide

background (historical) information, a foundation of facts regarding the City of Live Oak, and

documentation of the physical and demographic characteristics of the community. The

information contained within this chapter will be used to formulate goals and objectives

pertaining to various aspects of the community, and will prove useful in generating the final

recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for Live Oak.

The identification of major issues within the community began early in the comprehensive

planning process, and served as a basis for creating the following components of this analysis:

Historical Background

Regional Relationship

Influence of Regional Factors

Population Characteristics: City and County

Physical Factors Influencing Development

Existing Land Use

Each section of this chapter contains information pertaining to the subject topic in addition to

graphic support, as appropriate. The Baseline Analysis provides documentation of basic

information about the community, which then forms the foundation of the comprehensive

planning process in Live Oak. It presents an overview of the City’s history and its physical

characteristics, as well as general insight into the community’s urban pattern. The primary

objective of the Baseline Analysis is to document current conditions within Live Oak, and to

identify various opportunities and constraints the community must consider in addressing and

shaping its future form and character. The secondary objective of this chapter is to ensure that

the information being used in the planning process accurately portrays the community.

RReellaattiioonnsshhiipp ooff tthhee CCiittyy ttoo tthhee RReeggiioonn

The City of Live Oak, as the “Gateway to San Antonio,” is located at the center of one of the

State’s most active growth areas. It is immediately adjacent to the City of San Antonio, now

Texas’ second largest city. Live Oak is greatly impacted by the larger regional area of which it

is a part. Its close proximity to major airports, major military bases, major population centers,

and its location along Interstate Highway 35 have directly impacted the City. Much of the growth

in the greater San Antonio area has evolved along the Interstate Highway 35 corridor, which

bisects Live Oak from north to south. Plate 1-1 shows Live Oak in relation to the region.

Live Oak is located just 13 miles northeast of downtown San Antonio in Bexar County.1-1 It is

situated in the central portion of Texas at the edge of the Hill Country. As a major gateway for

people entering the San Antonio area from the north, Live Oak is visited by millions of people

every year.1-2 Interstate Highway 35 is a major transportation route to and from the City; this

major highway provides for travel in a northeastern to southeastern direction and runs

Baseline Analysis


Plate 1-1

City of Live Oak, Texas

Regional Relationship Date: September 2011

Baseline Analysis


approximately 1,550 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border in Laredo, Texas, to Duluth, Minnesota.

Loop 1604 also serves as a major transportation route, providing for regional transportation

needs to the east and west of Interstate Highway 35.

The City is ideally located to become a regional retail hub for the quickly evolving residential

areas to the north. It has already begun to experience the effects of these factors with the

recent development of the large-scale shopping center located at the northeast corner of

Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604. A large amount of vacant land within the Live Oak

corporate limits is located along the west side of the Interstate Highway 35 corridor, within close

proximity to the intersection with Loop 1604. Refer to the Existing Land Use map, Plate 1-3.

This is another potential area that may prove suitable for additional regional office, retail, and

commercial growth.

As part of the greater San Antonio urban area, Live Oak is located within close proximity to

major air transportation facilities and the region’s major military bases. These are two major

factors that have directly influenced the City’s economy and physical growth pattern and are

discussed in the following sections.

AAIIRR TTRRAANNSSPPOORRTTAATTIIOONN

TThhee SSaann AAnnttoonniioo IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall AAiirrppoorrtt ((SSAATT))

The San Antonio International Airport (SAT) plays a major role in the economy and the lives of

the people of Live Oak and the San Antonio region. The airport is located 15 minutes north of

downtown San Antonio on Interstate Highway 410.1-3 The San Antonio International Airport is

approximately 15 minutes from the City of Live Oak and offers residents and local businesses

and industries with convenient access to a large-scale international airport.

The SAT occupies approximately 2,600 acres and has two terminals.1-4 The airport has two all-

weather runways and averaged 260 daily flights during the 2010 calendar year.1-5 It is

estimated that the airport served 8,034,720 passengers. 1-6 The City of San Antonio’s

Department of Aviation with a staff of 450 people oversees the airport. In addition, twelve air

carriers service the airport, with non-stop flights to 29 destinations. 1-7

SSttiinnssoonn MMuunniicciippaall AAiirrppoorrtt ((SSSSFF))

The Stinson Municipal Airport serves as the primary reliever for general aviation traffic in San

Antonio. 1-8 It is located approximately 10 minutes south of downtown San Antonio and has

access to the region’s major roadway system. 1-9 The airport is also the second oldest general

aviation airport in continuous operation in the United States today.1-10 It primarily serves small,

privately owner aircraft rather than large carrier jets.

Baseline Analysis


RRaannddoollpphh AAiirr FFoorrccee BBaassee ((RRNNDD))

The Randolph Air Force Base (AFB) serves as an economic boost to the local and regional

economy. Located a few miles east of Live Oak, Randolph AFB is the employment home to

over 10,000 military personnel who reside in the area surrounding the base. 1-11 The base has

been credited with creating 7,500 jobs,1-12 and is also reported to contribute in payroll $350

million annually to the local area. 1-13 Randolph AFB is commonly referred to as the “Showplace

of the Air Force.” It houses the 12th Flying Training Wing and the Air Education and Training

Command (AETC), and it serves as one of the U.S. Air Force’s primary training facilities for

military flight instructors. 1-14 The base is headquarters for the Air Force Recruiting Command

Service and the Air Force Personnel Center, and also serves as a meeting place for local

community clubs and organizations. 1-15

SSUURRRROOUUNNDDIINNGG JJUURRIISSDDIICCTTIIOONNSS

BBeexxaarr CCoouunnttyy && SSuurrrroouunnddiinngg CCiittiieess

San Antonio is the largest city in Bexar County and is the County seat. The population of Bexar

County has grown substantially since 1990, with an increase of 17.5% 1990-2000 and 23%

2000-2010, according to the U.S. Census (refer to Table 1-4). Altitudes range from 600 feet in

the southern portions of the County to 1,200 feet in northwestern part of the County.1-16

The City of Live Oak is immediately surrounded by four different municipalities of various sizes.

The Cities of Converse, San Antonio, Selma, and Universal City each share common municipal

boundaries with Live Oak. Many of these common boundaries are centered along some of the

region’s major roadway corridors. As a result, the City of Live Oak has no extraterritorial

jurisdiction (ETJ) and is not likely to extend its physical boundaries beyond the current City

limits.

Due to the fact that Live Oak is immediately surrounded by these other municipalities and has

common boundaries with them, the City will likely be required to engage in multi-jurisdictional

initiatives with each of its neighboring cities in order to protect its gateways and provide for well-

planned and coordinated development. In order to achieve mutually acceptable goals with its

neighbors, Live Oak will need to establish uniform zoning standards and development

guidelines as appropriate with each of the five cities. An example of one such successful

cooperative project is The Forum at Olympia Parkway where Live Oak worked closely with the

City of Selma to create a regional retail center. In this instance, both Live Oak and Selma

worked to resolve zoning and platting issues in order to help the developer complete this large-

scale project. These issues are further discussed within the Neighborhood & Business

Enhancement Plan, Chapter 5.

Baseline Analysis


TThhee HHiissttoorryy ooff LLiivvee OOaakk

Live Oak was incorporated in the 1960s. By the time the first U.S. Census was taken in 1970,

Live Oak had a population of 2,779. In the next 10 years, from 1970 to 1979, the City’s

population grew by nearly 200 percent, adding 5,404 residents. The City’s largest home

building trend occurred during this decade with 1,941 new units being constructed. Residential

construction during the 1970s represents the City’s most significant period of growth, accounting

for approximately 37 percent of the City’s current housing stock.

Live Oak also experienced significant levels of housing and population growth during the 1980s.

Even though growth during this decade was significantly less than that experienced in the

1970s, the City added 1,840 people to its population, which represented a 22.5 percent increase

in its population. By 1990, Live Oak’s population reached an estimated 10,023, according to the

1990 U.S. Census. During the 1980s, 1,127 new homes were added to the total housing stock.

Approximately 21 percent of all homes in the City were constructed during this 10-year time

span.

During the 1990s, Live Oak experienced fluctuations in population growth and home building.

According to the U.S. Census, Live Oak decreased in population by approximately 867

residents, or 8.7 percent of its population, from 1990 to 1999. The City experienced a slow

down in new home construction during this period. Homes constructed in the 1990s account for

only six percent of the City’s total housing stock.

Since 2000, home construction has increased within Live Oak. According to the 2005-2009

American Community Survey by the U.S. Census, Live Oak had added 927 new homes

between 2000 and the collection of 2005-2009 data. These housing units constitute about 18

percent of the housing stock within the City.

The greater San Antonio area is one of the oldest settled areas in the nation. Archaeologists

have found that people inhabited the area along the San Antonio River as far back as 10,000

years ago. 1-17 The modern era of development within the San Antonio area started toward the

end of the 1600s, with the arrival of the Spanish and the establishment of missions. Live Oak

represents the modern era of growth within the San Antonio area.

TThhee IInnfflluueennccee ooff tthhee BBaallccoonneess EEssccaarrppmmeenntt

The Balcones Escarpment is the major geologic feature that made the settlement of the San

Antonio area possible. According to the Handbook of Texas:

The Balcones Escarpment is a geologic fault zone several miles wide

consisting of several faultings, most of which both dip and are

downthrown to the east. It extends in a curved line across Texas from Del

Rio to the Red River and is visible eastward from Del Rio, where it is

about 1,000 feet high, and northeastward from San Antonio to Austin,

where it is about 300 feet high. 1-18

Baseline Analysis


The Balcones zone was formed under conditions of strain during the

Tertiary [geologic] era, when a downwarping occurred near the Gulf

Coast with a moderate uplift inland. Water-bearing formations passing

beneath the plateau to the plains are broken across by the Balcones fault

group, and much water is forced to the surface by artesian pressure.

Barton Springs, San Marcos Springs, and Comal Springs are examples of

the resulting artesian wells or springs. 1-1

The springs formed as a result of the Balcones Fault provided a fresh water source that paved

the way for human habitation and, ultimately, urbanization of the area. The San Antonio river

has been used both as a source for drinking water and for irrigation, thus allowing settlements to

evolve.

PPhhyyssiiccaall FFaaccttoorrss IInnfflluueenncciinngg DDeevveellooppmmeenntt

NNAATTUURRAALL FFEEAATTUURREESS

Natural features will influence where and what type of development can occur. Geology,

topology, soils, vegetation, and wildlife are factors that influence land use and development.

Knowledge of these existing conditions aids in the comprehensive planning process by

establishing the types of development likely to occur within specific portions of the City.

Bexar County contains 1,248 square miles. Low and slightly hilly lands exist to the south,

undulating and moderate hilly lands exist within the central portion of the County, and hilly areas

exist to the northwest. The areas to the northwest are part of the region of Texas commonly

known as the Hill Country. 1-20

Plate 1-2 on the following page shows the physical features for the City of Live Oak.

NNaattuurraall RReeggiioonnss1-21

There are numerous natural regions that characterize the land across Texas. Bexar County is a

mix of three different types of regions.

TThhee EEddwwaarrddss PPllaatteeaauu

The Edwards Plateau is generally the region known as the “Hill Country”. 1-22 The border of

the “Hill Country” is the Balcones Escarpment, located in the north portion of Bexar County.

1-23 The Plateau then expands to the north and the west. Elevations vary between 100 feet

to over 3000 feet with several river systems draining the plateau. The average rainfall for

the plateau ranges from 15 to 33 inches a year. As a result of the climate, man-made lakes,

ranches and farms have been developed across the plateau. 1-24 The U.S. Bureau of Land

Management has classified the plateau into four distinct regions: 1-25

Central Western Region: This region has level uplands and gently

sloping steams.

Baseline Analysis


Baseline Analysis


The Balcones Canyonlands: Commonly known as the Hill

Country, the area is characterized by fast moving streams, steep

canyons, and hills.

Lampasas Cut Plains: This region is characterized by broad

valleys.

Llano Uplift: This region is differentiated by the existence of a

granite substrate.

TThhee BBllaacckkllaanndd PPrraaiirriiee

The Blackland Prairie can be found east of the Balcones Escarpment on the middle portion

of Bexar County. This region is considered to be grasslands. According to The Handbook of

Texas, “grasslands are defined as areas dominated by grasses, with tree or shrub canopies

covering less than 25 percent of the area.” 1-26 Rainfall for the region averages between 30

to 40 inches annually. 1-27 The Blackland Prairies stretch from the Red River to around San

Antonio and cover approximately 25,500 square miles. 1-28

SSoouutthh TTeexxaass PPllaaiinnss

The South Texas Plains are located in the southern portion of the County, adjacent to the

Balcones Escarpment. The entire region extends south from San Antonio to cover most of

the southern tip of the State. The area encompasses approximately 28,000 square miles

and has an annual rain fall of 16 to 35 inches. 1-29

SSooiill TTyyppee

The soil types within the County match the characteristics of the natural regions previously

mentioned. In the northern third of the County, which is in the Edwards Plateau, soils are

alkaline (which are soils with a pH of greater than seven1-30), limy (which are soils that contain

lime or limestone1-31) and loamy (which are soils that consist of a mixture of varying proportions

of clay, silt, and sand1-32) with limestone underneath. 1-33 Soils vary in texture and are typically

shallow in depth. As a result of the shallow soil, the land is not suitable farming, and therefore,

the area is a prime location for grazing. 1-34

“The remainder of the County has very dark, loamy soils with some clayey subsoils and gray to

black, cracking clayey soils with a high shrink-swell potential.” 1-35 Typically, this soil increases

development costs because the shrinking and swelling of the soil tends to cause foundation

problems. A small strip of loamy to clayey sub soils is found at the southern end of the County.

1-36 This land has an undulating terrain and is classified as the South Texas Plains natural

region.

VVeeggeettaattiioonn1-37

The County’s pattern of vegetation generally follows the soil characteristics. According to The

Handbook of Texas, “the northern quarter of the County has Edwards Plateau vegetation of tall

Baseline Analysis


and medium-height grasses, live oak, juniper, and mesquite.” 1-38 The second vegetation area is

a strip located in the central portion of the County where there are tall grasses. 1-39 This type of

vegetation is consistent with that of the Blackland Prairies.

The remaining part of the County has South Texas Plains’ vegetation. 1-40 This region consists

of plants such as grasses, Live Oak, Mesquite, thorny bushes, and cacti. 1-41 According to the

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the South Texas Plains were once dominated by

grassland or savanna-type vegetation. Today, grazing and natural fires have altered the original

vegetation by allowing more wooded vegetation, such as Mesquite and Live Oak trees, to take

its place. 1-42

CClliimmaattee1-43

The region’s climate of the regions can be classified as sub-tropical-sub-humid. The area tends

to be susceptible to flooding because of the natural land formations and soil types. Standard

temperatures and rainfall for the summer and winter months are:

Normal July daily maximum: 96 F

Normal July daily minimum: 73 F

Normal January daily maximum: 62 F

Normal January daily minimum: 39 F

Number of days below 32 F: 201-44

Average yearly rainfall in inches: 28 1-45

Growing Season: 265 days

DDrraaiinnaaggee aanndd FFllooooddppllaaiinn

Generally, surface drainage flows from the northwest section of the City to the southeast section

of the City. Live Oak’s highest elevations can be found in that portion of the City located at the

northwest corner of Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604. The City’s primary natural drainage

feature is the East Salitrillo Creek, which bisects the City from north to south. The drainage

basin for this creek includes most all of the area within the City that is located southwest of

Interstate Highway35/Loop 1604. A small portion of the City located along the northern-most

City limit line drains to the northeast. The East Salitrillo Creek drains to an existing reservoir,

created by the Martinez Creek Dam. This reservoir is located in the southeast quadrant of the

City and represents the primary water feature for the Live Oak City Park.

The area generally located at the northwest corner of the Miller Road/O’Connor Road

intersection contains the City’s most significant natural drainage feature. Physically, this area is

low in the center with a floodplain that flows from the northwest to the southeast. Opportunities

for the preservation of this environmentally sensitive area will be explored. Flood-prone areas

often provide excellent parks, recreation, and open space opportunities. This floodplain will be

analyzed for both its recreational opportunities as well as its ability to tie into the existing park

system.

Baseline Analysis


Table 1-1 STATUS OF SPECIES

Bexar County, Texas SPECIES STATUS

Amphibians

Black Spotted Newt Threatened

Comal Blind Salamander Threatened

Edwards Plateau Spring Salamanders Rare

Texas Salamander Rare

Arachnids

Government Canyon Cave Spider Endangered

Madla’s Cave Spider Endangered

Robber Baron Cave Harvestman Endangered

Robber Baron Cave Spider Endangered

Veni’s Cave Spider Endangered

Vesper Cave Spider Endangered

Birds

American Peregrine Falcon Endangered

Arctic Peregrine Falcon Threatened

Black-capped Vireo Endangered

Golden-cheeked Warbler Endangered

Henslow's Sparrow Rare

Mountain Plover Rare

White-faced Ibis Threatened

Whooping Crane Endangered

Wood Stork Threatened

Zone-tailed Hawk Threatened

Fishes

Guadalupe Bass Rare

Toothless Blindcat Threatened

Widemouth Blindcat Threatened

Insects

Ground Beetle (Rhadine exilis) Endangered

Ground Beetle (Rhadine infernalis) Endangered

Helotes Mold Beetle Endangered

Maculated Manfreda Skipper Rare

Mammals

Black Bear Threatened

Cave Myotis Bat Rare

Plains Spotted Skunk Rare

Mollusks

Mimic Cavesnail Rare

Reptiles

Cagle’s Map Turtle Threatened

Indigo Snake Threatened

Keeled Earless Lizard Rare

Spot-tailed Earless Lizard Rare

Texas Garter Snake Rare

Texas Horned Lizard Threatened

Texas Tortoise Threatened

Timber/Canebrake Rattlesnake Threatened

Vascular Plants

Big red sage Rare

Bracted twistflower Rare

Correll’s false dragon-head Rare

Elmendorf’s onion Rare

Park’s jointweed Rare

Sandhill woolywhite Rare

Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

AAqquuiiffeerrss

Bexar County is bisected by three major aquifers.

Portions of the Trinity, Edwards, and Carrizo-Wilcox

aquifers are located within the County. Live Oak is

not located directly above any of these major

aquifers.

TThhrreeaatteenneedd aanndd EEnnddaannggeerreedd SSppeecciieess

WWiitthhiinn BBeexxaarr CCoouunnttyy1-46

As development encroaches into the City’s natural

areas, its native species of plants and animals are

directly impacted. As more of the natural

environment is disturbed to make way for new

development, the habitat necessary to support

native life is destroyed. The destruction of these

habitats places more strain on native species and

their ability to survive within the area.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department notes the

locations of such species across the State by

county. Several different types are located with

Bexar County, as shown by Table 1-1. A number

of these endangered and threatened species do not

reside within the Live Oak corporate boundaries.

For example, it is not likely that the City is home to

black bears, Guadalupe bass or other such

animals. However, the City may be home to other

smaller species of plants and animals like the

Texas horned lizard, Texas tortoise, and big red

sage.

The City may consider establishing and

implementing a program to identify and document

the locations of the rare and endangered species

listed in Table 1-1. Once the existence and

location of these plants and animals have been

confirmed, the City may need to take steps to

preserve them. Various environmentally sensitive

design principles, such as clustering development

or allowing for density transfers, may prove

effective tools to balance growth and ensure the

preservation of the natural environment.

Baseline Analysis


DDeemmooggrraapphhiicc aanndd SSoocciiooeeccoonnoommiicc CChhaarraacctteerriissttiiccss

CCIITTYY OOFF LLIIVVEE OOAAKK

PPOOPPUULLAATTIIOONN GGRROOWWTTHH

Live Oak has experienced fluctuations in its rate of

population growth over the last 30 years. Table 1-

2 shows how Live Oak’s population has changed

by decade from 1980 to 2010.

From 1980 to 1990, Live Oak’s population grew by

1,840 persons, which represented a 22.5 percent

change. By 1990, the City’s population was

estimated to be over 10,000. Growth during this

period was significantly lower than that

experienced during the 1970s. However, the

percentage of growth during this decade was still

considered healthy.

The City’s population trend changed dramatically from 1990 to 2000. According to the Census,

Live Oak actually experienced a reduction of 867 people, or a decline of 8.7 percent, in its total

population during this period. Between the years of 1990 and 2000 the total population

decreased from 10,023 to 9,156. This fact is mirrored by a substantial decrease in residential

construction activity and substantial shifts in the age characteristics of the population; However,

the 2000 Census count was likely an undercount, due to the fact that the City has a large

population of military personnel and Spanish-speaking persons.

Table 1-2

POPULATION CHANGE


YEAR Population Population

Change

Percent

Change

1980 8,183 --- ---

1990 10,023 1,840 22.5%

2000 9,156 -867 -8.7%

2010 13,131 3,975 43.4%

Source: U.S. Census

Baseline Analysis


BBEEXXAARR CCOOUUNNTTYY PPOOPPUULLAATTIIOONN GGRROOWWTTHH

Bexar County has experienced a growth

pattern similar to that seen for other

metropolitan areas within the State. Table

1-3 shows Bexar County population growth

from 1910 to 2010. The County

experienced a significant amount of growth

in the early part of the 20th Century and a

reduced rate of growth in the latter part of

the century. The County experienced its

highest percentage of growth from 1910 to

1920, with a percentage of nearly 69

percent. Its lowest rate of growth occurred

between 1930 and 1940, when it increased

at a percentage of approximately 15.5

percent.

The early part of the 20th Century was

critical in that it was the period in which the

regional rail system was being expanded

and the San Antonio area became a

transportation hub and an important center

of commerce. Bexar County’s lowest rate

of growth, from 1930 to 1940, occurred

during the period of the Great Depression

and the Country’s worst economic period.

County economic growth experienced a

dramatic increase from 1940 to 1950,

rebounding to a growth percentage of 40

percent, in the post World War II years.

Since 1950, the rate of County population growth has steadily declined from 48 percent in 1950

to 17.5 percent in 2000. This decline in the calculated growth percentage is primarily a function

of the large number of total population that has grown within the County. As of 2010, an

estimated 1.7 million people resided in Bexar County as opposed to the 120,000 who called the

County home in 1910. The County experienced rapid growth between 2000 and 2010, 31% or

an increase of 321,842 residents. Bexar County has some cities that have been identified as

among some of the fastest growing in the State over the past several years including the City of

San Antonio, which has eclipsed the City of Dallas as Texas’ second largest city.

Table 1-3

POPULATION CHANGE

Bexar County, Texas

YEAR Population Population

Change Percent Change

1910 119,676 --- ---

1920 202,096 82,420 68.9%

1930 292,533 90,437 44.7%

1940 338,176 45,643 15.6%

1950 500,460 162,284 48.0%

1960 687,151 186,691 37.3%

1970 830,460 143,309 20.9%

1980 988,800 158,340 19.1%

1990 1,185,394 196,594 19.9%

2000 1,392,931 207,537 17.5%

2010 1,714,773 321,842 31.0%

Source: U.S. Census

Baseline Analysis


PPOOPPUULLAATTIIOONN GGRROOWWTTHH IINN TTHHEE CCIITTYY OOFF LLIIVVEE OOAAKK

&& SSUURRRROOUUNNDDIINNGG CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTIIEESS

Table 1-4 shows population growth for selected cities within close proximity to Live Oak.

Although the Census reported Live Oak decreasing by about 1,000 residents between 1990 and

2000, the population increased by about 4,000 residents over the next decade. All of the

surrounding communities increased during the 2000-2010 period with the exception of Kirby

City, which decreased by 0.7%. Schertz (68.3%), New Braunfels (58.2%), and Converse

(58.1%) experienced the most rapid growth, followed by Live Oak (43.4%).

Live Oak is located centrally to these cities and has significant amounts of vacant property

within the Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604 corridors. This vacant land if ideally located for

the regional retail and commercial uses that will be needed to serve growing consumer

demands. This will be further discussed within the Existing Land Use Characteristics section of

the Baseline Analysis.

RRAACCEE && EETTHHNNIICC DDIISSTTRRIIBBUUTTIIOONN

Table 1-5 depicts trends in ethnic composition for the City of Live Oak over the past 20 years.

Historically, those in the White ethnic group have contributed the largest portion of the total

population. However, the City of Live Oak has become more ethnically diverse since 1990.

This is a trend seen for many cities throughout the State and it is a trend that is likely to continue

for the foreseeable future. For the 20-year period of 1990 to 2010, the White group steadily

decreased from a high of 85.6 percent of the total population 1990 to 78.2 percent in 2000, and

70.9 percent in 2010. The Hispanic group also contributes a significant amount to the City’s

total population; this group more than doubled in size over the past 20 years and now

TABLE 1-4 POPULATION & HOUSING –1980 TO 2010

CCIITTYY OOFF LLIIVVEE OOAAKK,, TTEEXXAASS AANNDD SSUURRRROOUUNNDDIINNGG CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTIIEESS

City

1980 1990 2000 2010

Population Housing

Units Population

Housing Units

Population Housing

Units Population

Housing Units

Live Oak 8,183 2,634 10,023 3,671 9,156 3,502 13,131 5,632

San Antonio 785,940 277,807 935,933 365,414 1,144,646 433,108 1,327,407 524,246

New Braunfels 22,402 8,544 27,334 11,065 36,494 15,021 57,740 23,381

Schertz 7,262 2,458 10,555 4,105 18,694 6,902 31,465 12,047

Universal City 10,720 3,894 13,057 5,423 14,849 6,367 18,530 8,036

Converse 5,150 1,663 8,887 3,035 11,508 4,064 18,198 6,627

Kirby City 6,435 2,216 8,326 3,006 8,673 3,154 8,000 3,052

Windcrest 5,332 2,000 5,331 2,276 5,105 2,280 5,364 2,505

Source: U.S. Census

Baseline Analysis


represents an estimated 35 percent of the total population. In addition, the African-American

group has grown by about 1,100 people, more than two and a half times the population in 1990.

AAGGEE

DDIISSTTRRIIBBUUTTIIOONN

The age distribution

of a population can

help a city determine

the future needs or

requirements of its

residents. For

example, if there is a

large number of

young people or

children in a city, then

building active parks

and recreation

facilities should be

considered as priority

items necessary to meet future or existing needs. Conversely, an aging population might desire

more passive parks facilities or need alternative transportation systems or assistance with the

maintenance and upkeep of their homes. Table 1-6 shows age trends for the City for the last

10 years.

Overall, Live Oak’s population has remained relatively consistent over the past 10 years. The

City experienced a slight increase in the percentage of young families (College, New Family)

and older persons (Elderly), and a slight decrease in all other categories.

TABLE 1-5 RACE & ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION – 1990 TO 2010


RACE/ETHNICITY 1990 2000 2010

Number Percent(1)

Number Percent(1)

Number Percent(1)

White 8,579 85.6% 7,160 78.2% 9,305 70.9%

African-American 654 6.5% 773 8.4% 1,753 13.4%

American Indian 28 0.3% 71 0.8% 66 0.5%

Asian 244 2.4% 232 2.5% 474 3.6%

Hispanic (of any race)(2)

1,931 19.3% 2,469 27.0% 4,594 35.0%

TOTAL POPULATION 10,023 9,156 13,131

(1) Inclusion of Hispanic origin in 'of any race,' total will not equal 100.0%

(2)

Hispanic origin can be of any race

Source: U.S. Census

TABLE 1-6 AGE DISTRIBUTION – 2000 & 2010


AGE GROUP 1990 2000

Number Percent Number Percent

Young (0-14 years) 1,991 21.7% 2,632 20.0%

High School (15-19 years) 625 6.8% 751 5.7%

College, New Family (20-24 years) 472 5.2% 943 7.2%

Prime Labor Force (25-44 years) 2,845 31.1% 3,963 30.2%

Older Labor Force (45-64 years) 2,390 26.1% 3,363 25.6%

Elderly (65 and over) 833 9.1% 1,479 11.3%

TOTAL 9,156 100.0% 13,131 100.0%

Median Age 36.5 Years 35.5 Years

Source: U.S. Census

Baseline Analysis


EEDDUUCCAATTIIOONNAALL AATTTTAAIINNMMEENNTT

The educational level of a community is typically a good indicator of the skills and abilities of the

local work force. This is also often an important factor in a city’s ability to attract and retain

business and is an important element of a city’s economic development efforts. Knowledge of a

city’s work force also helps a city to target the types of businesses that should be recruited to

the community.

Table 1-7 shows the levels

of educational attainment

for the City of Live Oak as

reported in the 2005-2009

American Community

Survey by the U.S.

Census. Overall, the City’s

level of educational

attainment exceeded that

of the State of Texas (with

the exception of graduate

or professional degrees).

The majority of the Live

Oak work force has

achieved an ultimate

educational level

consisting of some college

without a degree (34.5

percent). In 2005-2009,

more than 91 percent had

attained, at a minimum, a

high school diploma. The

percentage of people in Texas to attain at least a high school diploma was approximately 79

percent. Therefore, the City of Live Oak’s education level for people with at least a high school

diploma is greater than that of the State by 12.5 percent. In addition, the percentage of Live

Oak residents who reported having some college education (no degree) was 34.5 percent,

which is higher than the State average of 21.5 percent. Also, the total percentage of people

who have a college degree, including an associate, bachelor’s, graduate, or professional

degree, is greater in the City of Live Oak, at 33.2 percent, than overall in the State, at 31.5

percent. In general, the data on educational attainment for the City of Live Oak indicates a well-

educated population. Also, the City’s population is generally more educated than the State

average. This well-educated population may serve to increase the attractiveness of Live Oak to

businesses in need of skilled labor.

TABLE 1-7 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT – 2005-2009 ACS

City of Live Oak & the State of Texas

EDUCATION LEVEL

Live Oak Texas

Number Percentage Number Percentage

Less Than 9th Grade 153 1.8% 1,517,089 10.3%

9th to 12th Grade (No Diploma)

534 6.4% 1,534,021 10.4%

High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency)

1,988 23.9% 3,855,923 26.2%

Some College, No Degree

2,865 34.5% 3,167,580 21.5%

Associate Degree 706 8.5% 914,757 6.2%

Bachelor's Degree 1,598 19.2% 2,508,991 17.0%

Graduate or Professional Degree

460 5.5% 1,224,557 8.3%

TOTAL 8,304 100.0% 14,722,918 100.0%

Source: U.S. Census 2005-2009 American Community Survey Note: The number and percentages within this table are representative of the segments of the population that are 25 years of age or older.

Baseline Analysis


HHOOUUSSEEHHOOLLDD IINNCCOOMMEE LLEEVVEELLSS

Retailers often review the

levels of income for a city to

determine ideal locations for

new stores. The amount of

available disposable income is

also a major factor that

influences the type and

amount of retail development

that a city can support.

Income is also a factor in a

person’s ability to purchase a

home and should be

considered when planning for

future residential areas.

Table 1-8 shows Live Oak’s

household incomes according

to the 2005-2009 Census

American Community Survey

and compares it to the State

averages. The largest

percentage of Live Oak

households is in the $50,000

to $74,999 income range.

Nearly one third of the City’s

households (1,516 of 4,930 households) earn between $50,000 to $74,999 annually, which is

12.9 percent higher than the State average for the same income level.

The City has lower percentages than the State averages for the higher income levels of both the

$150,000 to $199,999 and the $200,000 or more categories. Only 1.1 percent of the City

households earn more than $150,000 a year compared to the State average of 7.7 percent.

The City also has lower percentages for low-income households than the State average. Only

17.7 percent of the City’s households earn less than $25,000 a year; this percentage is

significantly lower than the State’s percentage, 25.7 percent, of the same income level.

In addition, the median income of the household for the City exceeds the median income of the

State. The average household in the City earned $55,620 per year compared to the State

average of $48,199, a difference of $7,421. In summary, the City’s income distribution is

centered on the middle-income levels of $35,000 to $49,999, $50,000 to $74,999, and $75,000

to $99,999 which are above State averages. At both ends of the income distribution, the City

has lower percentages of high- and low-income households compared to the State.

TABLE 1-8 HOUSEHOLD INCOME – 2005-2009


Income Level Live Oak Texas

Number Percentage Number Percentage

Less than $10,000 327 6.6% 671,142 8.1%

$10,000 to $14,999 142 2.9% 484,624 5.9%

$15,000 to $24,999 403 8.2% 965,762 11.7%

$25,000 to $34,999 422 8.6% 937,992 11.3%

$35,000 to $49,999 766 15.5% 1,205,223 14.6%

$50,000 to $74,999 1,516 30.8% 1,483,303 17.9%

$75,000 to $99,999 701 14.2% 951,399 11.5%

$100,000 to $149,999 596 12.1% 929,569 11.2%

$150,000 to $199,999 35 0.7% 323,021 3.9%

$200,000 or more 22 0.4% 317,011 3.8%

Total Number of Households

4,930 100.0% 8,269,046 100.0%

Median Household Income

$55,620 $48,199

Source: U.S. Census 2005-2009 ACS

Baseline Analysis


EEMMPPLLOOYYMMEENNTT BBYY OOCCCCUUPPAATTIIOONN && IINNDDUUSSTTRRYY

Employment opportunities often affect the rate of population and housing growth within a city.

The greater the employment opportunities located within or reasonably close to a community

the more likely it is that the community will experience increased levels of demand for housing.

The pattern and type of development in most cities is dependent on the growth and the

employment opportunities that exist in the area.

Live Oak, located at the heart of one of the State’s most dynamic economic centers, the San

Antonio region, is situated conveniently to the employment centers related to that economic

engine. Live Oak is

also located within

close proximity to two

of the nation’s largest

military bases and to

the San Antonio

International Airport.

As a result, the City

benefits from the

ability to maintain its

population base since

it offers ready access

to the region’s major

employment centers.

Table 1-9 shows the

occupational charac-

teristics for the City of

Live Oak. It compares

employment trends

from 1990 to 2000.

The data reveal that

the Management, Professional, and Related Occupations experienced the largest increase over

the last 10 years. As of 2000, almost 38 percent of the City’s work force was employed within

this occupation, compared to 30.2 percent in 1990. Increases in the Service Occupations and

the Production, Transportation, and Material Moving Occupations also occurred during this 10-

year period. The growth in these employment sectors may be attributed to two factors. First,

the overall population has aged and has likely been promoted over the course of time. Second,

the San Antonio area has experienced significant levels of commercial growth and, as a result,

more job opportunities have become available.

The Sales and Office Occupations had the largest decline of any category, specifically from 40.5

percent in 1990 to just below 32 percent in 2000. The smallest category in 1990 was the

Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations. There were no people working within this

occupation, according to the Census, in 2000.

TABLE 1-9 EMPLOYMENT BY OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY – 1990 & 2000


OCCUPATION 1990 2000


Management, professional, and related

occupations 1,522 30.2% 1,713 37.9%

Service occupations 529 10.5% 572 12.7%

Sales and office occupations 2,039 40.4% 1,435 31.8%

Farming, fishing, and forestry

occupations 50 1.0% 0 0.0%

Construction, extraction, and

maintenance occupations 513 10.2% 372 8.2%

Production, transportation, and material

moving occupations 387 7.7% 423 9.4%

TOTAL 5,040 100.0% 4,515 100.0%

Source: U.S. Census

Baseline Analysis


TABLE 1-10 EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY – 2000


INDUSTRY

Live Oak Texas


Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining

10 0.2% 247,697 2.7%

Construction 258 5.7% 743,606 8.1%

Manufacturing 367 8.1% 1,093,752 11.8%

Wholesale trade 201 4.5% 362,928 3.9%

Retail trade 566 12.5% 1,108,004 12.0%

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 238 5.3% 535,568 5.8%

Information 121 2.7% 283,256 3.1%

Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing

453 10.0% 630,133 6.8%

Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services

422 9.3% 878,726 9.5%

Educational, health and social services 982 21.7% 1,779,801 19.3%

Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services

274 6.1% 673,016 7.3%

Other services (except public administration) 224 5.1% 480,785 5.2%

Public administration 399 8.8% 417,100 4.5%

TOTAL 4,515 100.0% 9,234,372 100.0%

Source: U.S. Census

Table 1-10 shows the industries in which the Live Oak workforce is employed. This table also

compares Live Oak to the State as a whole. In Live Oak, most of the workforce is employed in

the Educational, Health and Social Services, which employs 21.7 percent or 982 people. This

category is higher for the City than what is typically found across the State, which is

approximately 19.3 percent. The second largest category for the City is Retail Trade at 12.5

percent, which is also slightly higher than the State average. The Finance, Insurance, Real

Estate, and Rental and Leasing is the third largest category in the City and employs 10 percent

of the City workforce; this again is above the State’s percentage of 6.8 percent. Live Oak also

has more than twice the amount of people employed in the Public Administration sector than the

State. This can likely be attributed to the strong presence of the U.S. military and the other

federal agencies located in the San Antonio area. The smallest industry category is the

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, and Mining, with a negligible 0.2 percent, or 10

people, employed. This category is also the smallest category for the State at 2.7 percent.

This section was not revised during the 2011 revisions because this data was not included in

the 2010 U.S. Census report.

Baseline Analysis


EExxiissttiinngg LLaanndd UUssee CChhaarraacctteerriissttiiccss

TTHHEE PPUURRPPOOSSEE OOFF AANNAALLYYZZIINNGG EEXXIISSTTIINNGG LLAANNDD UUSSEE

The pattern of land use that exists today greatly influences the growth pattern and future design

of the City. The City has been surveyed and land uses documented for each tract and lot.

Plate 1-3 contains a map of the existing land uses for the City of Live Oak. One of the principal

goals that leads communities to engage in a comprehensive planning process is to provide for

the orderly and efficient use of land. Just as a house cannot be successfully constructed

without a plan in the form of blueprints, a community cannot be successfully developed without

a plan that considers future land use. The foundation of Live Oak’s Future Land Use Plan,

which will be determined within the scope of this comprehensive planning process, is rooted in

analysis of the City’s existing land use pattern.

The way in which Live Oak has developed thus far has largely been a product of market

demand. The pattern of land use that exists today within the City has evolved to satisfy the

needs of the local population as it has grown, both in geographic size and in population. The

activities of the residents of a city create a need for a variety of land uses including residential,

retail, commercial, recreational, office, and industrial areas. Therefore, the discussion of

existing land use will ultimately help the Future Land Use Plan reflect local market needs.

TTYYPPEESS OOFF LLAANNDD UUSSEE AANNDD RREELLAATTEEDD DDEEFFIINNIITTIIOONNSS

RReessiiddeennttiiaall LLaanndd UUssee

Residential land use is representative of areas used for residential dwelling units and related

accessory buildings. This type of land use is delineated into the following residential categories:

Single-Family – one family, detached dwellings and related accessory buildings;

Townhome – one-family, attached dwellings and related accessory buildings;

Duplex – two-family dwellings and related accessory buildings;

Multi-Family – apartments, rooming houses and related accessory buildings;

Manufactured Home – single tract containing two or more manufactured homes or

other non-site, built structure used as a residence.

NNoonn--RReessiiddeennttiiaall LLaanndd UUssee

Non-residential land uses have been segregated into various land use classifications on the

basis of land use intensity. Non-residential uses have been delineated into the following land

use categories:

Office/Retail Uses - Professional/administrative offices, doctors, dentists, real estate,

architects, accountants, secretarial services, etc.; retail stores,

shops and personal service establishments, shopping centers,

service stations, banks and any associated off-street parking

facilities;

Baseline Analysis


Pla

te 1

-3

Baseline Analysis


Baseline Analysis


Commercial Uses - Commercial amusements, building materials yards, automobile

garages and sales lots, automobile body repair, warehouses,

telecommunications/broadcasting towers and facilities,

wholesale establishments, sale of used merchandise, welding

shops, and cabinet shops;

Industrial Uses - Industrial processing, storage, fabrication, assembly and repair.

PPuubblliicc LLaanndd UUssee

Parks and Open Spaces - Parks and associated facilities, playgrounds and public or

private open spaces.

Public/Semi-Public Uses - Schools, churches, cemeteries, public utility structures

and public buildings.

VVaaccaanntt//UUnnddeevveellooppeedd

Vacant land was classified as such when it had no apparent use, or was used for agricultural

purposes (ranching/farming).

EEXXIISSTTIINNGG LLAANNDD UUSSEE AANNAALLYYSSIISS

Existing land uses within the Live Oak corporate limits has been documented and is shown

graphically on Plate 1-3 and numerically within Table 1-12. The planning area consists of the

entire property located within the City limits, containing approximately 3,060 acres.

DDeevveellooppeedd LLaanndd

As Table 1-11 shows, nearly half of the developed land within the City, approximately 43

percent, is consumed by Residential land uses. About 40 percent of all land is attributable to

single-family uses. In fact, of all the types of land use within Live Oak, Single-Family land use

accounts for the highest amount of developed acreage at about 893 acres out of a total of

approximately 2,331 developed acres. Land utilized for Right-of-Way (primarily roadways) is

the second largest use at nearly one quarter of the developed land. Public/Semi-Public,

Parks/Open Spaces, Retail, and Commercial are the next largest uses, ranging between nine

and seven percent each. The Public/Semi-Public land use calculations include the Live Oak

Community Center, which is becoming one of the area’s more active convention and meeting

halls. There are relatively small amounts of land dedicated to Town Home, Duplex,

Manufactured Home, and Industrial use.

TToottaall AAccrreeaaggee wwiitthhiinn LLiivvee OOaakk

Approximately 76 percent of the total acreage within Live Oak’s corporate limits is developed,

and approximately 24 percent, or 729 of the 3,060 acres within the City, is currently vacant, as

Baseline Analysis


Table 1-11 shows. This vacant land will become increasingly important in the future as

development continues to occur, especially because there is no additional land available for

annexation into the City. It is the existing Vacant/Undeveloped land, therefore, that will enable

Live Oak to accommodate increases in population.

The importance of the calculation of undeveloped land also lies in the fact that it is this land

wherein decisions will have to been made regarding service provision and roadway

construction, because it is the availability of such services and access that will make these

areas attractive for development. It is important to note also that most communities do not

develop such that 100 percent of the land is utilized; generally, approximately 10 percent

remains vacant. If this applies to Live Oak in the future, Live Oak’s 24 percent of

Vacant/Undeveloped land actually leaves approximately 14 percent, or 429 acres for new

development.

CCuurrrreenntt LLaanndd UUssee DDeennssiittiieess

Another method of analyzing land use is by examining current land use densities – that is,

establishing how much land is being consumed for each type of land use by the current

population. As Table 1-11 shows, this information is provided within the column labeled

TABLE 1-11 EXISTING LAND USE – 2011


LAND USE CATEGORY Acres Percent of

Developed Land Percent of Total Land

Acres Per 100 Persons

(1)

Single Family 892.9 38.3% 29.2% 6.80

Townhome 4.6 0.2% 0.2% 0.04

Duplex 5.2 0.2% 0.2% 0.04

Multi-Family 80.8 3.5% 2.6% 0.62

Manufactured Home 12.5 0.5% 0.4% 0.09

Residential Sub-Total 996.0 42.7% 32.5% 7.59

Office 28.1 1.2% 0.9% 0.21

Retail 167.8 7.2% 5.5% 1.28

Commercial 163.2 7.0% 5.3% 1.24

Industrial 19.3 0.8% 0.6% 0.15

Non-Residential Sub-Total 378.4 16.2% 12.4% 2.88

Public/Semi-Public 206.6 8.9% 6.8% 1.57

Parks/Open Spaces 197.1 8.5% 6.4% 1.50

Right-of-Way 553.0 23.7% 18.1% 4.21

Public Sub-Total 956.7 41.0% 31.3% 7.29

TOTAL DEVELOPED LAND 2,331.1 100.0% 76.2% 17.75

Vacant/Undeveloped 729.0 ------------ 23.8% 5.55

TOTAL LAND WITHIN THE CITY 3,060.1 ------------ 100.0% 58.81

(1) Based on the 2010 U.S. Census population of 13,131 residents.

Baseline Analysis


Number of Acres per 100 People. The 2010 U.S. Census population estimate of 13,131

residents was used to calculate this information.

The density of Single-Family residential land use is 6.80 acres per 100 persons, or 0.068 acre

for each person in the City. This indicates a relatively dense development pattern, which is also

reflective of the fact that Live Oak has very few large residential lots. Other residential land

uses have negligible calculations related to Acres per 100 Persons due to the fact that there are

not many acres used for other types of residential land use.

Also important is the ratio of retail uses to the population. A high ratio, between 0.6 and 0.7

acres per 100 persons, is representative of a community that is capturing the retail demand

generated by the local population, as well as that of other nearby communities or the County. A

ratio of around 0.5 acres per 100 persons is considered average, meaning that a community is

capturing most of the retail demand generated by the local population. A low ratio, between 0.3

and 0.4 acres per 100 persons, results when the local population is traveling elsewhere to

patronize retail establishments. Live Oak has an extremely high ratio of retail uses to

population, with 1.28 acres per 100 persons; this may be due to the fact that the City is located

in a dynamic regional area and to The Forum retail development.

SSuummmmaarriizzeedd LLaanndd UUssee CChhaarraacctteerriissttiiccss

The following statements summarize the major features of the existing land use pattern for the

Live Oak planning area:

1. The City of Live Oak is mostly developed, with about 24 percent of the area within

the City limits being undeveloped.

2. Of the developed portion of the City, the predominant land use is single-family

residential.

3. The greatest concentration of single-family residential land uses is located in the

southeast quadrant of the City.

4. The City has large areas of vacant land located within the Interstate Highway 35 and

Loop 1604 corridors, which provides the City with ample opportunities for economic

development.

5. The City is bisected from north to south by the East Salitrillo Creek, which serves as

the City’s primary stormwater drainage system.

6. The majority of non-residential land uses (office, retail, commercial) are located

within the Interstate Highway 35 corridor.

7. Topperwein Road serves as one of the City’s major thoroughfares and provides for

secondary access to Interstate Highway 35. This road forces a high volume of traffic

through the central portion of the community.

8. An office/retail corridor has evolved along both sides of Topperwein Road. This

office/retail corridor provides for goods and services tailored to the local needs of

Live Oak’s residents.

Baseline Analysis


EExxiissttiinngg HHoouussiinngg CChhaarraacctteerriissttiiccss

TTHHEE PPUURRPPOOSSEE OOFF AANNAALLYYZZIINNGG LLOOCCAALL HHOOUUSSIINNGG

The quality of housing and the affordability of housing options are important planning

considerations. Among the factors influencing the desirability of Live Oak as a place to live is

the availability of existing housing and the quality of the existing neighborhoods. Housing also

plays an important role in affecting the potential commercial development of various portions of

the City and the immediately surrounding area. The community has an interest in the ability to

attract new businesses in addition to ensuring adequate habitation for its residents.

The quality and physical condition of housing units within Live Oak are important considerations

in evaluating the adequacy of the existing housing stock and in estimating future housing

requirements. “Condition” is a primary physical characteristic of the housing supply that reflects

the present quality of housing. The condition of housing within an area also influences the

attractiveness of reinvestment in new or remodeled dwelling units. Neighborhood areas with

well-maintained housing units and adequate public facilities, such as adequate streets, parks,

schools, and drainage, typically experience low levels of health, economic, and social problems.

Analysis of a residential neighborhood area assists in defining any existing problems or

deficiencies that are related to the physical features found within the surrounding environment.

It further provides a basis for determining proper directive measures required to bring targeted

areas into compliance with acceptable community standards. To help ensure the long-term

viability of future residential neighborhoods, it is appropriate to establish goals and pursue

development standards that will emphasize and encourage the continuation of existing

characteristics that positively contribute to the City’s livability and quality of life as a whole. The

following sections discuss various aspects of Live Oak housing.

DDEENNSSIITTYY AANNDD NNUUMMBBEERR OOFF HHOOUUSSIINNGG UUNNIITTSS Table 1-12 shows the housing trends within Live Oak

from 1970 to 2010. The growth in housing from 1970

to 1980 directly paralleled the growth in population. In

the 1970s, the City’s housing stock tripled. In the

1980s, the growth in housing was less, but remained

steady, with 1,037 new residential units built within the

City by 1990. In 2000, the U.S. Census reported a

reduction in the City’s number of housing units by 169

units. The 2010 U.S. Census reported a total of 5,632

housing units in the City.

Table 1-12 TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS


YEAR Persons per Housing Unit

Number of Housing Units

1970 3.25 856

1980 3.11 2,634

1990 2.73 3,671

2000 2.67 3,502

2010 2.47 5,632

Source: U.S. Census

Baseline Analysis


Table 1-12 also shows the trend in average household size from 1970 to 2010. Overall, the

City has experienced a reduction in average household size since 1970. The average persons

per housing unit have decreased from 3.25 in 1970 to 2.47 in 2010. This reflects a trend

observed for households throughout the State of decreasing household size and is also

illustrative of the overall aging trend of the total population.

Table 1-13 shows the number of

dwelling units within Live Oak

and the State of Texas by type

of dwelling unit, according to the

2005-2009 U.S. Census

American Community Survey.

Live Oak’s housing stock is

composed primarily of single-

family detached units, which

account for 78.9 percent of the

housing stock. The City’s

percent of single-family units is

higher than the State average of

65.24 percent.

The City also has a slightly

lower percentage of multi-family

units, which account for 20.2

percent of the housing stock

versus 26.9 percent for the

entire State. Mobile homes

represent another category that

contributes a relatively small number of units within the City, with only 0.7 percent of the housing

stock, or 35 units. Overall, approximately 22.1 percent of housing units within the City limits are

classified as something other than 1-unit, detached. It should be noted that these findings are

consistent with the existing land use analysis. An increase in the housing mix could provide

additional living opportunities to young families and may encourage them to live in the City.

TABLE 1-13 HOUSING TYPE – 2005-2009


HOUSING TYPE Live Oak Texas


1-unit, detached 4,175 78.9% 6,136 65.2%

1-unit, attached 160 3.0% 247,595 2.6%

2 units 18 0.3% 198,781 2.1%

3 or 4 units 213 4.0% 311,416 3.3%

5 to 9 units 294 5.6% 480,809 5.1%

10-19 units 216 4.1% 629,107 6.7%

20 or more units 170 3.2% 671,661 7.1%

Mobile home 35 0.7% 717,365 7.6%

Boat, RV, Van, etc. 9 0.2% 14,385 0.2%

TOTAL 5,290 100.0% 9,407,692 100.0%

Source: 2005-2009 U.S. Census American Community Survey

Baseline Analysis


YYEEAARR OOFF CCOONNSSTTRRUUCCTTIIOONN FFOORR HHOOUUSSIINNGG UUNNIITTSS

Structural age often influences the physical condition and desirability of a home. Table 1-14

show the ages of existing structures in the City of Live Oak and for the State of Texas. Much of

the housing stock was

constructed between 1970

and 1979, accounting for

36.7 percent of the housing

units. Approximately 72.2

percent of the existing

housing stock was built from

1960 to 1989. This trend is

reflective of the population

growth pattern experienced

for the same time periods.

The table also reflects the

decrease in population

growth already documented

during the 1990s. After

experiencing two decades of

substantial growth, the City

experienced markedly less

growth in local housing

construction during this

period.

TTEENNUURREE ((RREESSIIDDEENNCCYY))

Tenure refers to the relationship between owner occupied housing units, such as a family

owning a home versus renter occupied units, typically apartments, where the person living there

does not own the property. It is generally accepted that the length of time people reside in a

community results in the improved condition of the existing neighborhoods, and that renters

tend to live in a single location for a shorter period of time than do owners. It is also generally

accepted that there is a greater likelihood that a property owner would maintain a physical

structure in better condition than would a property renter. These are concepts that should be

considered when reviewing renter- and owner-occupancy rates within a city.

Table 1-15 compares owner and renter occupancy data for the City of Live Oak, selected area

cities, and the State of Texas. Each of the cities and the State on Table 1-15 experienced

decreases in the percentage of owner-occupied housing units from 2000 to 2010, with the

exception of Windcrest. Live Oak’s owner occupancy rate decreased from 73.2 percent in 2000

to 60.9 percent in 2010, a 12.3 percent change. The City of Windcrest increased its owner

occupancy rate by 2.0 percent, from 83.4 to 85.4, which represented the only increase of any of

the cities within Table 1-15.

TABLE 1-14 YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION FOR HOUSING STRUCTURES – 2005-2009


YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION Live Oak Texas


Before 1939 27 0.5% 457,271 4.9%

1940 to 1949 24 0.5% 418,659 4.5%

1950 to 1959 158 3.0% 915,896 9.7

1960 to 1969 750 14.2% 1,021,004 10.9%

1970 to 1979 1,941 36.7% 1,762,723 18.7%

1980 to 1989 1,127 21.3% 1,764,655 18.8%

1990 to 1999 336 6.4% 1,499,864 15.9%

2000 to 2004 643 12.2% 1,129,835 12.0%

2005 or later 284 5.4% 438,085 4.7%

TOTAL 5,290 100.0% 8,157,575 100.0%


Baseline Analysis


HHOOUUSSIINNGG VVAALLUUEE && RREENNTTAALL RRAATTEESS

Housing values and rental rates

play an influential role in a family’s

decision on where to live. The

usual guide for the amount of

money to be spent on shelter is

approximately 30 percent or less of

the family income. Table 1-16

shows the housing values for the

City of Live Oak and the State of

Texas for the 2005-2009 period.

Most of the City’s homes, or 84.4

percent of all housing units, are

valued within the $50,000 to

$149,999 range. This percentage

is about 35 percent greater than the

State’s percentage for the same

category.

The City had 2.3 percent of its

homes valued at less than $50,000.

On the other end of the value

spectrum, 13.3 percent of the

housing units were valued between $$150,000 and $299,999. The U.S. Census reported that

the City had no homes valued at $300,000 or more. The State average for homes over the

price of $300,000 is 10.0 percent. Overall, the City’s housing stock is concentrated within the

$50,000 to $149,999 range.

TABLE 1-16 HOUSING VALUE OF OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS –2005-2009


HOUSING VALUE Live Oak Texas


Less than $50,000 84 2.3% 762,330 14.2%

$50,000 to $99,999 1,607 44.9% 1,410,780 26.4%

$100,000 to $149,999 1,411 39.5% 1,223,369 22.9%

$150,000 to $199,999 403 11.3% 795,202 14.9%

$200,000 to $299,999 71 2.0% 623,200 11.6%

$300,000 to $499,999 0 0.0% 359,386 6.7%

$500,000 to $ 999,999 0 0.0% 134,957 2.5%

$1,000,000 or more 0 0.0% 40,982 0.8%

TOTAL 3,576 100.0% 5,350,206 100.0%

Median Value $102,300 $82,500


TABLE 1-15 PERCENTAGES OF RENTER- & OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS –2000 & 2010 City of Live Oak, Surrounding Communities, & the State of Texas

City/State

2000 2010

Owner- Occupied Percentage

Renter- Occupied Percentage

Owner- Occupied Percentage

Renter- Occupied Percentage

Live Oak 73.2% 26.8% 60.9% 39.1%

Windcrest 83.4% 16.6% 85.4% 14.6%

Schertz 79.7% 20.3% 77.5% 22.5%

Kirby City 74.7% 25.3% 71.9% 28.1%

Converse 72.2% 27.8% 69.1% 30.9%

Universal City 59.4% 40.6% 56.4% 43.6%

Texas 63.8% 36.2% 63.7% 36.3%

Source: U.S. Census

Baseline Analysis


Table 1-17 shows the monthly gross

rental rate for housing for the 2005-

2009 period. According to the US

Census gross rental is:

(Contract Rent + Utilities =

Gross Rent)

The amount of the contract

rent plus the estimated

average monthly cost of

utilities (electricity, gas, and

water and sewer) and fuels

(oil, coal, kerosene, wood,

etc.) if these are paid for by

the renter (or paid for the

renter by someone else).

Gross rent is intended to

eliminate differentials which

result from varying practices

with respect to the inclusion

of utilities and fuels as part of

the rental payment.1-48

If the median gross rental value of $857 per month is accepted as the amount required to obtain

adequate shelter and if it is assumed, as has been previously mentioned, that 30 percent of the

family income is expended for this purpose, then an annual income of approximately $34,280

would be required to occupy a rental unit having the median rental rate of $857 per month. This

value is substantially below the Live Oak’s median income level of $55,620 that was established

by the 2005-2009 U.S. Census American Community Survey. In fact, the median gross rent is

approximately 18.5 percent of the median income. This shows that the availability of affordable

housing in the City is statistically reasonably balanced.

TABLE 1-17 GROSS RENT –2000 & 2005-2009


GROSS RENT PER MONTH

2000 2005-2009


Less than $200 26 2.8% 21 1.6%

$200 to $299 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

$300 to $499 197 21.5% 141 10.7%

$500 to $749 273 29.8% 329 24.9%

$750 to $999 264 28.9% 400 30.3%

$1,000 to $1,499 62 6.8% 389 29.4%

$1,500 or more(1)

0 0.0% 41 3.1%

No cash rent 93 10.2% 33 N/A

TOTAL 915 100.0% 1,321 100.0%

Median Gross Rent $631 $857

Source: 2000 U.S. Census and 2005-2009 U.S. Census American Community Survey

Baseline Analysis


EEnnddnnootteess 1-1 The Handbook of Texas Online: “Live Oak” Christopher Long August 20, 2002; ADDRESS: www.tsha.utexas.

edu/handbook/online/articles/view/LL/hfl6.html

1-2 The City of Live Oak: “Gateway to San Antonio” Jim Nardone August 20, 2002; ADDRESS: www.ci.live-oak.tx.us

1-3 San Antonio International Airport: “Fast Facts” September 7, 2011; ADDRESS: http://www.sanantonio.gov/Aviation/info_fastfacts.asp”

1-4 Ibid.

1-5 Ibid.

1-6 Ibid.

1-7 Ibid.

1-8 The San Antonio Community Portal: “Stinson Municipal Airport” August 20, 2002; ADDRESS: www.sanantonio. gov/airport/stinson.asp?res=1024&ver=true

1-9 Ibid.

1-10 Ibid.

1-11 Randolph AFB; “Randolphmetro.com” August 20, 2002; ADDRESS: www.randolphmetro.com/randolphAFB. htm

1-12 Ibid.

1-13 Ibid.

1-14 Ibid.

1-15 Ibid.

1-16 The Handbook of Texas Online: “Bexar County” Christopher Long Aug. 20, 2002; ADDRESS: www.tsha.

utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/BB/hcb7.html

1-17 The San Antonio River Improvement Project: “River Improvements Project to Refresh Storied Past of Historic San Antonio River” Aug. 20, 2002; ADDRESS: www.sanantonioriver.org/history.html

1-18 The Handbook of Texas Online: “Balcones Escarpment” Aug. 21, 2002; ADDRESS: www.tsha.utexas.edu/ handbook/online/articles/view/BB/rxb1.html

1-19 Ibid.

1-20 The Handbook of Texas Online: “Bexar County” Christopher Long Aug. 20, 2002; ADDRESS: www.tsha. Utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/BB/hcb7.html

1-21 Ibid.

1-22 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: “Region 7: The Edwards Plateau” Aug. 21 2002; ADDRESS: www.tpwd. state.tx.us/nature/ecoreg/pages/edward.htm

1-23 U.S. Department of the Interior – Bureau of Land Management: “Edwards Plateau” Dean Demarest Aug. 22 2002; ADDRESS: www.blm.gov/wildlife/pl_53sum.htm

1-24 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: “Region 7: The Edwards Plateau” Aug. 21 2002; ADDRESS: www.tpwd. state.tx.us/nature/ecoreg/pages/edward.htm

1-25 U.S. Department of the Interior – Bureau of Land Management: “Edwards Plateau” Dean Demarest Aug. 22 2002; ADDRESS: www.blm.gov/wildlife/pl_53sum.htm

1-26 The Handbook of Texas Online: “Grass Lands” David. D. Dimaond Aug. 20, 2002; ADDRESS: www.tsha. utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/GG/gqg1.html

1-27 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: “Region 3: The Blackland Prairies” Aug. 21 2002; ADDRESS: www.tpwd.state.tx.us/nature/ecoreg/pages/edward.htm

1-28 Ibid.

1-29 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: “Region 6: South Texas Brush Country” Aug. 21, 2002; ADDRESS: www.tpwd.state.tx.us/nature/ecoreg/pages/edward.htm

1-30 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: Aug. 21, 2002; ADDRESS: www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

1-31 Ibid.

1-32 Ibid.

1-33 The Handbook of Texas Online: “Bexar County” Christopher Long Aug. 20, 2002; ADDRESS: www.tsha. utexas. edu/handbook/online/articles/view/BB/hcb7.html

http://www.sanantonio.gov/Aviation/info_fastfacts.asp

Baseline Analysis


1-34 Ibid.

1-35 Ibid.

1-36 Ibid.

1-37 Ibid.

1-38 Ibid.

1-39 The Handbook of Texas Online: “Bexar County” Christopher Long Aug. 20, 2002; ADDRESS: www.tsha. utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/BB/hcb7.html

1-40 Ibid.

1-41 Ibid.

1-42 Texas A&M University “Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Texas” Aug. 22, 2002; ADDRESS: www.csdl.tamu. edu/FLORA/tracy/taesreg6.htm

1-43 The Handbook of Texas Online: “Bexar County” Christopher Long Aug. 20, 2002; ADDRESS: www.tsha. utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/BB/hcb7.html

1-44 The Greater San Antonio Changer of Commerce: “Relocation Information” Aug. 22, 2002; ADDRESS: http://sachamber.org/relo/general_info.php#weather

1-45 Ibid.

1-46 All species are from a list: Annotated County Lists of Rare Species from the Texas Parks and Wildlife about Bexar County, Last Revised 8/13/02.

CChhaapptteerr 22:: GGooaallss && OObbjjeeccttiivveess


Goals & Objectives



The City of Live Oak has taken an important step in guiding its future with the decision

to undertake this comprehensive planning process. The purpose of the Goals &

Objectives chapter of the Comprehensive Plan is to state clear goals for the City and to

identify clear directions that should be taken to achieve such goals. It is the goals and

objectives established herein that will determine the focus of the Comprehensive Plan

recommendations contained within subsequent chapters. In basic terms, Live Oak’s

Comprehensive Plan should reflect “public decision-making, which emphasizes explicit

goal-choice and rational goals-means determination, so that decisions can be based on

the goals people are seeking and on the most effective programs to achieve them.”2-1

AA VViissiioonn ffoorr tthhee FFuuttuurree

Establishing a community vision is an important part of the process of identifying goals

and objectives. Live Oak has recognized its position as the Gateway to San Antonio.

This idea could be used as a starting point for the City to establish a vision of what it

wants to be in the future. Also, the City’s website celebrates different aspects of Live

Oak’s character with the following commentary:

Live Oak's past is steeped in a rich farming and ranching tradition

which today has yielded to peaceful suburban home developments

set in the natural beauty of the region, making it one of the prime

neighborhoods located just northeast of San Antonio. Whether you

are just passing through or planning to stay, you will find Live Oak to

be the ideal place to relax and enjoy your visit.

These characteristics should be considered in the establishment of a community vision.

The Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee should be involved in the establishment

of such a vision.

IIssssuueess IIddeennttiiffiieedd

During this comprehensive planning process, Committee members were asked to

identify major issues that they thought Live Oak was currently facing or would face in

the future. The discussion clearly indicated members’ views concerning quality of life

issues in the City of Live Oak, the City’s strengths and weaknesses related to

development, as well as other critical characteristics. The identified issues served as a

basis for the goals and objectives established herein.

2-1

People and Plans: Essays on Urban Problems and Solutions, Herbert J. Gans, Preface, pg. vii

Goals & Objectives


DDeeffiinniittiioonnss

In a broad sense:

Goals are general statements concerning an aspect of the City's desired ultimate

physical, social and/or economic environment. Goals set the tone for

development decisions in terms of the citizens' desired quality of life.

Objectives express the kinds of action that are necessary to achieve the stated

goals without assigning responsibility to any specific action.

The policies and recommendations related to these goals and objectives will be

contained within subsequent chapters of this Plan will help to clarify the specific position

of the City regarding a specific objective, and will encourage specific courses of action

for the community to undertake to achieve the applicable stated objective.

The goals and objectives established herein relate to the Comprehensive Plan

recommendation chapters, such as the Future Land Use Plan and Transportation Plan,

of Live Oak’s Comprehensive Plan 2022.

GGooaallss && OObbjjeeccttiivveess RReellaatteedd ttoo FFuuttuurree LLaanndd UUssee

GOAL 1:

Encourage the most desirable and efficient use of land while enhancing the

physical and economic environment of Live Oak.

Objective 1.1: Ensure that local land use policies encourage appropriate areas for the development of

nonresidential uses, such as along Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604.

Objective 1.2: Establish standards related to the development of nonresidential uses in order to ensure

a positive visual perception of Live Oak along major thoroughfares.

Objective 1.3: Establish land use policies to encourage areas along Interstate Highway 35 and Loop

1604 to become high quality retail corridors that would enhance Live Oak, both

economically and visually; incorporate such policies into the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Goals & Objectives


Objective 1.4: Ensure that Live Oak’s land use policies encourage a balance of land uses such that

there are adequate areas for nonresidential uses that will provide the essential tax base

needed for the City to support existing and future residents.

Objective 1.5: Ensure that the regulatory policies within the City’s Zoning Ordinance and related map

are consistent with current City needs and desires; establish ways in which the

Ordinance can be regularly reviewed.

Objective 1.6: Identify specific land uses that are needed to serve the citizens of and visitors to Live

Oak, such as healthcare-related land uses, hotels, recreation, and retail; establish ways

in which the City can proactively attract these identified land uses.

Objective 1.7: Review, and revise if necessary, the City’s Zoning Ordinance to ensure that there are

an adequate number of zoning districts available to the development community and to

ensure that zoning districts are reflective of the City’s desires related to future

development.

GOAL 2:

Maintain and enhance the City’s local character and aesthetic value

through land use planning.

Objective 2.1: Review, and if necessary revise, the City’s Zoning Ordinance to ensure that high

standards are required for new nonresidential development.

Objective 2.2: Ensure that new nonresidential development enhances the quality of life in Live Oak.

Objective 2.3: Ensure that new development, both residential and nonresidential, will be compatible

with existing land uses in terms of use, density, building heights, scale, and off-site

effects.

Objective 2.4: Investigate current development review procedures to ensure that they are adequately

enforcing the City’s development policies.

Goals & Objectives


GOAL 3:

Ensure that public services and facilities will adequately serve the needs of

residents and businesses within the City of Live Oak, and that such

services and facilities are adaptable to future growth.

Objective 3.1: Maintain a continuous and coordinated planning process that involves citizens, City

boards/commissions, City staff, and the School District.

Objective 3.2: Recognize that the quality of the local school district is related to economic development

opportunities and the ability of the City to provide a positive employment base for its

citizenry on an on-going basis; foster a relationship and coordinate applicable City

activities with the School District.

Objective 3.3: Complete a detailed spatial analysis of all public buildings, such as City Hall, in order to

ascertain whether new or expanded facilities are needed.

Objective 3.4: Ensure that there is sufficient police and fire protection for current residents, and ensure

that the City remains aware of necessary increases in staff and/or related resources

(e.g., police cars, fire engines, etc.) to enable such protection for future residents.

Objective 3.5: Ensure that new development respects local drainage areas, floodplain areas, and

topography; review current related City policies and regulations, and revise them, if

necessary.

Objective 3.6: Recognize the importance of water availability to the City’s future growth by

investigating future potential water sources.

Objective 3.7: Conduct a feasibility analysis for the potential sale and redevelopment of the existing

Civic Center site.

Goals & Objectives


GGooaallss && OObbjjeeccttiivveess RReellaatteedd ttoo TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn

GOAL 4:

Provide an efficient, safe and connective transportation system that is

coordinated with existing needs and with plans for future growth; this

system should be economical and responsive to adjacent land uses.

Objective 4.1:

Use the Thoroughfare Plan in conjunction with the Future Land Use Plan, specifically to

ensure that the various land uses within the City are accommodated by the

transportation system.

Objective 4.2:

Work closely with regional transportation planning groups and neighboring

municipalities, including San Antonio, to ensure that regional transportation issues,

especially those that directly affect Live Oak (e.g., frontage roads), are addressed with

City input.

Objective 4.3:

Ensure that the following concerns are addressed when making decisions regarding

transportation within the City:

Regional transportation,

Roadway integrity (i.e., ensuring mobility),

Roadway maintenance,

Adequate access (to and from Live Oak, and to and from land uses and

residential subdivisions within Live Oak),

Connections between existing roadways,

Neighborhood traffic concerns,

Signalization, and

Impact of various types of land uses (i.e., trip generation and parking needs).

Objective 4.4:

Provide for a street network that will facilitate and adequately serve development of the

Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604 intersection and related corridors.

Objective 4.5: Utilize the Thoroughfare Plan to identify rights-of-way locations (for dedication

purposes) and criterion such that future growth can be accommodated; ensure that

criterion are integrated into the City’s Subdivision Ordinance.

Goals & Objectives


Objective 4.6:

Investigate ways in which the development community is involved in protecting the

integrity of roadways in Live Oak (i.e., by requiring traffic impact analyses, infrastructure

construction and improvement prior to final development approval, or establishing an

impact fees).

Objective 4.7: Ensure that local roadways can accommodate increases in traffic, and that local

intersections are efficient and provide a reasonable level of service.

Objective 4.8: Utilize the Thoroughfare Plan to establish standards for shared drives, for circulation

within new developments, and for protecting the integrity of major roadways; ensure that

such standards are integrated into the City’s Subdivision Ordinance.

Objective 4.9: Investigate ways to provide citizens with alternative means of transportation to ensure

that there is interconnectivity between residential uses, nonresidential uses, parks,

schools, and public facilities.

Objective 4.10: Utilize existing rights-of-way to incorporate sidewalks to provide increased pedestrian

and bicycle access; ensure that future rights-of-way widths allow for the incorporation of

sidewalks.

Objective 4.11: Review the City’s current street construction standards and revise them if necessary to

ensure that such standards are resulting in high-quality, low-maintenance roadways.

GGooaallss && OObbjjeeccttiivveess RReellaatteedd ttoo PPaarrkkss && RReeccrreeaattiioonn Note: The following goals & objectives were taken directly from the City’s Park and Recreation System

Master Plan.

GOAL 5:

Conserve, protect and enhance the cultural, historical, archeological, and

natural resources of the City of Live Oak.

Objective 5.1: Identify and enhance cultural, archaeological, historical, and natural resources of Live

Oak.

Goals & Objectives


Objective 5.2: Plan, research and budget for the conservation and preservation of these sites for

citizen enjoyment and educational interpretation.

Objective 5.3: Encourage eco-tourism opportunities through the development of sites to provide

enhanced visitation to Live Oak (i.e. disc golf tournaments, bird watching, sports

tournaments, special events and etc).

GOAL 6:

Plan, develop, and maintain a diversified balanced park and recreation

facilities and programs based upon Live Oak’s community needs.

Objective 6.1: Support the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board that provides diversified civic

involvement and on-going development of the Park and Recreation System for Live

Oak.

Objective 6.2: Acquire and develop new park and recreation facilities in areas that are presently

underserved.

GOAL 7:

Develop, maintain and enhance existing park and recreation facilities,

providing quality resources for the citizens of Live Oak, Texas.

Objective 7.1: Renovate and replace existing facilities to meet contemporary park and recreational

programming needs.

Objective 7.2: Implement and budget for a system-wide maintenance plan that takes into account the

aging infrastructure and condition of many recreational facilities.

Objective 7.3: Provide on-going beautification efforts in city parks, traffic islands and entrance points

throughout Live Oak.

Goals & Objectives


GOAL 8:

Provide an Indoor Recreation Facility that will adequately provide for an

eight-lane competitive indoor swimming pool, hydrotherapy pool, fitness

room, basketball, volleyball, racquetball, gymnasium, television/teen room,

arts-and-crafts room, aerobics room, meeting rooms, parking and

landscaping.

Objective 8.1: Create as feasibility study for financing, designing, and constructing a multi-purpose

community center

Objective 8.2: Budget, construct and develop a facility that will meet the future needs of the citizens of

Live Oak, by providing an indoor facility.

Objective 8.3: Explore the possibilities of locating a Senior Center within the Facility

GOAL 9:

Ensure that park and recreation facilities are safe and easily accessible for

all users.

Objective 9.1: Budget for and provide safe, well-marked and easy access to all park and recreation

facilities.

Objective 9.2: Establish programs to provide security measures protecting the park and recreation

system and programs through cooperative efforts with law enforcement and citizen

awareness groups (e.g., adopt-a-park program).

GOAL 10:

Support community efforts to expand recreational and multi-cultural

activities, events and facilities.

Objective 10.1: Encourage efforts to locate and construct an outdoor amphitheater and plaza area for

community gatherings and outdoor events.

Goals & Objectives


Objective 10.2: Develop recreational programming activities and events to meet the diverse needs of

Live Oak citizens.

GGooaallss && OObbjjeeccttiivveess RReellaatteedd ttoo NNeeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd && BBuussiinneessss

EEnnhhaanncceemmeenntt

GOAL 11:

Provide for housing diversity in neighborhoods throughout the City.

Objective 11.1: Establish strategies for encouraging increased square footages and lot sizes to

encourage low-density residential development.

Objective 11.2: Ensure that the City’s Zoning Ordinance provides for an adequate range of square

footages and lot sizes for new development.

Objective 11.3: Review the City’s policies related to two-family and multiple-family housing, including

zoning regulations, market need, potential effects on land use compatibility, traffic

generation, and aesthetics.

GOAL 12:

Protect the integrity of existing and future neighborhoods by ensuring that

existing neighborhoods are maintained to a high standard and by ensuring

that new neighborhoods are developed to a high standard.

Objective 12.1: Recognize the importance of existing older neighborhoods to the character of Live Oak

by implementing policies, such as proactive code enforcement, that will support their

long-term viability, marketability, and attractiveness.

Objective 12.2: Ensure that new residential areas are developed to a high standard by reviewing, and

revising if necessary, the existing standards for residential development.

Goals & Objectives


GOAL 13:

Enhance and expand the local economy by attracting and maintaining

businesses in Live Oak.

Objective 13.1: Review current policies related to economic development, such as tax abatement, and

revise such policies if necessary.

Objective 13.2: Establish a listing of targeted industries that the City should actively pursue to locate in

Live Oak.

Objective 13.3: Establish specific ways in which to actively market Live Oak as a premier location for

target industries.

Objective 13.4: Create a general marketing theme for Live Oak that emphasizes positive local

characteristics such as quality of life, quality labor force, competitive land prices and

supportive City government.

Objective 13.5: Research and investigate the ability of Live Oak to compete with surrounding

communities for new business development, business retention, and conferences;

identify ways in which Live Oak can be increasingly competitive.

Objective 13.6: Maximize economic development opportunities along Interstate Highway 35 and Loop

1604.

Objective 13.7: Work in conjunction with the Economic Development Corporation on all economic

development related efforts.

GOAL 14:

Ensure that Live Oak projects a positive visual image that makes the City

attractive to quality businesses.

Objective 14.1: Investigate the feasibility of City funding participation to improve the appearance of

existing businesses along major thoroughfares, such as Interstate Highway 35;

examples of City participation include matching grant programs and infrastructure

improvements.

Goals & Objectives


Objective 14.2: Ensure that the City’s land use policies and Zoning Ordinance provisions include

requirements for high quality new nonresidential development; ensure that land use

policies are consistent with economic development objectives.

Objective 14.3:

Ensure that a positive image of Live Oak is reflected within major transportation

corridors, specifically Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604.

Objective 14.4: Investigate various ways in which to enhance the visual character of Live Oak, including

the establishment of gateways at strategic locations, the incorporation of landscaping,

the enhancement of key corridors, such as Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604.

Objective 14.5: Investigate ways in which to increase community identity.

CChhaapptteerr 33:: TThhee FFuuttuurree LLaanndd UUssee PPllaann


Future Land Use Plan



The significance of the Future Land Use Plan text and map cannot be overstated. Similar to the

way in which a map serves as a guide to a particular destination, the Future Land Use Plan

should serve Live Oak as a guide to its particular, unique vision for the future. Each mile driven

that is represented on that map can also be compared to each individual decision that the City

makes with regard to land use and zoning; these individual decisions can either lead to or deter

from the City attaining its vision.

In order to provide the most complete map possible, the Future Land Use Plan designates

various areas within cities for particular land uses based principally on population growth,

locational criteria, compatibility criteria, and a balance of land use types. The Future Land Use

Plan establishes an overall framework for the preferred pattern of development within the City of

Live Oak. Graphically depicted on Plate 3-1, the Future Land Use Plan should ultimately be

reflected through the City’s policy and development decisions.

The Future Land Use Plan is not a zoning map, which deals with specific development

requirements on individual parcels; the zoning map should, however, be based on the

Future Land Use Plan.

PPrroojjeecctteedd FFuuttuurree PPooppuullaattiioonn

Increased demand for all types of land uses must be taken into account when establishing a

Future Land Use Plan. Such increased demand is inevitable with population growth. The

population projections contained herein form the foundation of establishing how much land

should be allocated to particular types of land use. The following is a discussion of the way in

which the population projections for Live Oak were established, beginning with the current

population of the City.

Table 3-1 POPULATION CHANGE OF LIVE OAK & SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES

1990-2010

City 1990 2000 2010 Growth

Percentage

Compound Annual Growth Rate

(CAGR)

Live Oak 10,023 9,156 13,131 31% 1.36%

San Antonio 935,933 1,144,646 1,327,407 42% 1.76%

New Braunfels 27,334 36,494 57,740 111% 3.81%

Schertz 10,555 18,694 31,465 198% 5.61%

Universal City 13,057 14,849 18,530 42% 0.65%

Converse 8,887 11,508 18,198 105% 3.65%

Kirby City 8,326 8,673 8,000 -4% -0.20%

Windcrest 5,331 5,105 5,364 1% 0.03%

Source: U.S. Census NOTE: Related information is contained within the Baseline Analysis, Table 1-3.



Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 contain Census population estimates for 1990, 2000 and 2010 for the

City of Live Oak and several surrounding communities.

Figure 3-1 POPULATION CHANGE OF NEARBY COMMUNITIES

1990-2010



The population projections

shown in Table 3-3 have

been calculated based on

two principal factors –

one, the City’s past growth

rates, and two, the growth

rates of surrounding

communities (refer to

Table 3-1).

Using the current

population of 13,131

people and comparing that

to the 1990 Census count

of 10,032, the City has experienced an average compounded growth rate of 1.36 percent.

Scenario A in Table 3-3 represents a growth rate that is more conservative when compared to

the City’s growth rate between 1990 and 2010 at one percent.

Scenario B is reflective of a slightly more aggressive average annual compounded growth rate

of 1.6 percent, which is near the average for the surrounding communities A 1.6 percent

average growth rate would result in Live Oak reaching a population of approximately 15,400 by

2020 and the ultimate capacity of 15,480 by 2025.

Scenario C reflects the most aggressive rate of growth for Live Oak, and assumes that the City

would reach its projected ultimate capacity (discussed below) of 15,480 people by 2020. The

two percent average compounded rate of growth used to calculate this scenario is greater than

the growth rates of several of the cities surrounding Live Oak, including San Antonio, but is less

than the rate of growth experienced by Schertz and Converse between 1990 and 2010.

For planning purposes, the moderate growth rate represented by Scenario B, specifically a

compounded rate of 1.6 percent, is used herein to project the future population of Live Oak to

reach build out by 2025 with 15,480 people. This rate will be used throughout the

Comprehensive Plan in relation to future needs within Live Oak (i.e., public facilities, parks,

etc.).

Table 3-3 POPULATION PROJECTIONS City of Live Oak, Texas

Year Scenario A

1% Growth Rate Scenario B

1.6% Growth Rate Scenario C

2.0% Growth Rate

2010 13,131 13,131 13,131

2015 13,801 14,216 14,498

2020 14,505 15,390 15,480

2025 15,245 15,480 15,480

2030 15,480 15,480 15,480

Note: Population caps at projected ultimate capacity of Live Oak; refer to Table 3-4.



PPrroojjeecctteedd UUllttiimmaattee CCaappaacciittyy

The City of Live Oak does not have the rights to any extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) due to the

fact that the city limits of adjacent communities completely surround Live Oak; therefore, the

City will not be able to grow geographically in the future. A positive result of this is that a

relatively accurate assessment of Live Oak’s ultimate population can be made because the City

will only be able to accommodate additional population within vacant areas within its current City

limits. Table 3-3 shows how Live Oak’s population capacity has been calculated.

There are several sources that provide the data to calculate the ultimate capacity. First, Live

Oak’s existing land use map is reviewed to obtain information on where vacant areas exist

within the City. Second, the Future Land Use Plan map (Plate 3-1) is reviewed to obtain

information on planned locations for future residential areas and on the densities that are

projected to develop within them (e.g., low, medium or high). The areas that have been

designated for mixed uses are expected to have a mixture of residential densities, as will be

discussed later herein. Mixed Use: Retail is estimated that about 20% of the acreage will be

residential at approximately 12 dwelling units per acre; Mixed Use: Nonresidential is estimated

that about 10% of the acreage will be residential at approximately 20 dwelling units per acre.

The City’s 2010 U.S. Census information is then reviewed to obtain information on Occupancy

Rate and Persons per Household. These elements are all calculated together, and are added

to the City’s current estimated population of 13,131 people. As Table 3-4 shows, the ultimate

population capacity of Live Oak as calculated herein is approximately 15,480 people.

Table 3-4:

PROJECTED ULTIMATE CAPACITY


Acres/

Lots

Percentage

Subtracted for

Roadways

Average Number

of Dwelling Units

Per Acre

Occupancy

Rate

Persons

Per Household

Estimated

Population

Low Density Residential

129 30% 4 94.2% 2.47 840

Medium Density Residential

35 15% 8 94.2% 2.47 554

High Density Residential

9 10% 20 94.2% 2.47 377

Mixed Use: Retail

6 15% 12 94.2% 2.47 142

Mixed Use: Nonresidential

11 15% 20 94.2% 2.47 435

Population Accommodated within Existing Vacant Areas 2,349

Current Population 13,131

Ultimate Population Capacity of Live Oak 15,480

Source: 2010 U.S. Census and FNI data collection



AA BBaallaanncceedd && CCoommppaattiibbllee FFuuttuurree LLaanndd UUssee PPaatttteerrnn

The various types of land use have different

needs in terms of location. For example,

residential areas should be located away from

major roadways so that automobile traffic is

generally able to circumvent such areas,

thereby preserving the integrity of local

neighborhoods and ensuring the safety of local

residents. In contrast, nonresidential uses

should generally be located along major

thoroughfares in order to allow them the highest

visibility possible. The exception to this may be

heavy commercial and industrial uses, which

may have open storage areas and large

warehouses that would not make a positive

contribution to the way in which Live Oak is

viewed from Interstate Highway 35 and/or Loop

1604 (this concept will be discussed further in

the Neighborhood & Business Enhancement

Plan).

Retail and some commercial land uses require

locations that provide visibility, because these

types of land use often depends on “walk-in

business” for success. Consequently, land along Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604 have

been designated for and should be preserved for retail and limited commercial land uses,

particularly those that are designed such that they are aesthetically pleasing - in contrast to

most heavy commercial and industrial uses. The market, in conjunction with City policy, has

dictated the existing land use pattern (shown on Plate 1-3 in the Baseline Analysis) in Live Oak

over the years, a pattern that generally supports these concepts of residential and

nonresidential locations. The Future Land Use Plan, graphically shown on Plate 3-1, further

reinforces these concepts. It should be noted that nonresidential development will become

increasingly important as the City needs to support additional population with an expanded tax

base within an increasingly limited geographical area.

The Future Land Use Plan also guides the allocation of land uses in a pattern that is intended to

yield greater compatibility between the different types of land use. As Illustration 3-1 shows,

the more intense the type of nonresidential land use is, the less compatible the land use is with

residential uses. In general, office uses and small (neighborhood) retail establishments

adjacent to residential uses create positive relationships in terms of land use compatibility; these

are considered lower intensity land uses. There are many techniques, including setback

standards, buffering, screening, and landscaping, that can be implemented through zoning and

subdivision regulation that would help increase compatibility between different land uses. These

techniques will be discussed in detail in the Neighborhood & Business Enhancement Plan.

Illustration 3-1

COMPATIBILITY COMPARISON OF VARIOUS TYPES

OF LAND USE

NOTE:

Most Park

and Public

Uses

are

considered

to be

compatible

with any

type of

land use.

LLooww DDeennssiittyy

RReessiiddeennttiiaall

MMeeddiiuumm DDeennssiittyy


HHiigghh DDeennssiittyy


OOffffiiccee UUsseess

RReettaaiill UUsseess

CCoommmmeerrcciiaall UUsseess

LLEEAASSTT

IINNTTEENNSSEE

MMOOSSTT

IINNTTEENNSSEE

DDEE

CCRR

EEAA

SSII NN

GG CC

OOMM

PPAA

TTII BB

II LLII TT

YY

IInndduussttrriiaall UUsseess



MMIIXXEEDD UUSSEE DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT

“Mixed use” refers to a development style that

creates areas which combine a mix of land uses

within one defined zoning district. For example,

residential, retail, restaurants, office and public uses

may be allowed in the same building, same lot,

same tract, block or zoning district. Benefits of

mixed-use development include:

Flexibility of building spaces over time;

Long term viability of commercial districts;

Providing higher quality high density

residences;

Efficiency in the provision of public services;

Inclusion of public facilities;

Reduction in the frequency of vehicular trips;

and

Minimizing land consumption.

Mixed use developments are defined by their

design—building orientation, roadway configuration

and amenities such as shade trees, benches and

lighting, create a safe environment that is conducive

for walking. Intentional integration of diverse land

uses within one localized area creates a lifestyle

option where a person can perform many of their

daily needs and recreational desires within a short

distance of home. Such environments are

particularly attractive to young professionals and

young couples, but are growing in popularity among

couples with children and empty-nester households.

Mixed uses are structured either horizontal or

vertical in nature. Horizontal mixed-uses involve

retail, office and residential all located within one

defined area, but within separate buildings. Vertical

mixed-use developments would include any

combination of retail, office and residential within the

same building. A common example is residential

lofts and apartments above street-level retail and

office space.

General Guidelines

Maximum Setbacks: bring building facades

closer to the street.

Central Gathering Space or Focal Point:

Create an identity through public space.

Pedestrian Orientation: Facilitate the

pedestrian experience through quality urban design. Ensure access and connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods.

Architecture: moldings, spires, canopies,

balconies and building locations all create a sense of identity and contribute to the experience.

Strategic Parking: utilize shared parking,

on-street parking, parking behind buildings and structured parking.

Connectivity: mixed use areas should be

tied in to adjacent residential development.

Illustration 3-2

EXAMPLES OF MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT



RReeccoommmmeennddeedd LLaanndd UUsseess

All of the above-referenced locational

needs of and compatibility issues

related to the various types of land

use have been considered in the

establishment of Live Oak’s Future

Land Use Plan.

Land uses have been recommended

based in three principal factors: 1)

recognizing existing land uses by

ensuring compatibility, 2) maximizing

nonresidential land uses, 3) creating

an overall balanced land use pattern.

Knowledge of the recommended

future use of the land can help the

City apply its zoning regulations

accordingly. This knowledge can also

help the City ensure that there are

adequate public facilities available,

such as water, wastewater, police

protection, and park facilities. The

following sections outline the various

types of land uses that will help to

provide a positive land use pattern in

Live Oak as the City approaches its

ultimate build-out configuration.

RREESSIIDDEENNTTIIAALL LLAANNDD UUSSEESS

Residential land use is the

predominate use within the

City currently, and it is

recommended within the

Future Land Use Plan that this

continue. It should be noted

that single-family residential

land uses can be buffered from

nonresidential uses with

medium and high density

residential land uses.

Table 3-5

FUTURE LAND USE CALCULATIONS


LAND USE CATEGORY Acres Percent

Low Density Residential 1,434 47%

Medium Density Residential 44 1%

High Density Residential 115 4%

Parks and Open Space 105 3%

Public/Semi-Public 303 10%

Office 44 1%

Retail 495 16%

Mixed Use: Retail 32 1%

Mixed Use: Nonresidential 110 4%

Light Commercial 276 9%

Industrial 71 2%

Lake 31 1%

Total Acreage Within the City Limits 3,061 100%

Source: FNI

Figure 3-2 FUTURE LAND USE PERCENTAGES




LLooww--DDeennssiittyy RReessiiddeennttiiaall LLaanndd UUssee

This use is representative of traditional, single-family

detached dwelling units. Of the residential

categories, it is recommended that low density

residential continue to account for the largest

percentage. Although all single-family areas have

been labeled “low density”, the City should strive for

a range of lot sizes to develop, and should reinforce

this by providing a choice of several single-family

zoning districts with various lot sizes in the Zoning

Ordinance.

MMeeddiiuumm DDeennssiittyy RReessiiddeennttiiaall LLaanndd UUssee

This use is representative of two-family, attached

dwelling units, such as duplex units and townhomes.

Medium density land uses often provide areas for

“empty nesters”, who may not want the maintenance

of a large-lot single-family home, and for young

families, who may find a townhome or duplex more

affordable than a single-family home.

There are very few such units within Live Oak; those

that do exist are located in the southwestern area of

the City between Judson Road, Toepperwein Road,

and Avery Road. It is anticipated that new areas for

medium density land use will be developed in the

future. One recommended area is located on currently vacant land north of Interstate Highway

35 and south of Lookout Road. There are two other areas recommended for medium density

residential land uses near the intersection of Old Spanish Trail and Pat Booker Road. This type

of land use would also be encouraged to locate within areas designated for Mixed Use: Retail

and Mixed Use: Nonresidential.

HHiigghh DDeennssiittyy RReessiiddeennttiiaall LLaanndd UUsseess

Traditional apartment-type units in attached living

complexes characterize high density residential land

use. There are currently several high density

residential areas within Live Oak, and future areas

that have been recommended for high density are

generally close to those existing areas. One is along

Oak Terrace Drive adjacent to existing apartment

units to the north. Another is south of some existing

units on the east side of Loop 1604 along

Centerbrook Road. As with medium density land

Illustration 3-5

MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE

Illustration 3-6

HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE

Illustration 3-4

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE



uses, additional multiple-family areas could also occur within the Mixed Use: Retail or Mixed

Use: Nonresidential areas. In order to ensure that multiple-family areas are designed to a high

standard wherever they develop in the future, the City should consider incorporating the

following guidelines into the Zoning Ordinance:

The proposed multi-family tract should be adjacent to a major collector or arterial

roadway (i.e., not directly adjacent to local residential streets);

All structures within the multi-family development should be 80 percent masonry;

The tract should not be less than approximately five acres in size;

If the tract is adjacent to single-family residential dwellings, transition areas

(greenspace, buffer areas, medium density development, etc.) should be

incorporated into the project;

Based upon the density of the complex, an appropriate amount of usable open

space should be required;

At least fifty percent of the units should have one garage space; covered parking

should be provided for all other units; and

Apartment complexes should be gated and should have limited access entry.

PPAARRKK && OOPPEENN SSPPAACCEE LLAANNDD UUSSEESS

This land use designation is provided to identify all

public parks and open spaces within Live Oak. A

community’s park system is key to a high quality of

life. The City has recognized this not only through its

allocation of significant park areas, but also by the

fact that a Parks, Recreation, and Open Space

Master Plan for Live Oak is currently being drafted.

The Master Plan will address specific future park

locations, local park and open space needs, and

other recreation-related issues, as well as funding

mechanisms, and will help Live Oak meet the park and recreation needs of its citizens as it

continues to grow in population. The park and open space areas that are recommended within

this Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan will be reflected on the Future Land Use

Plan map as soon as the document is in final form.

Illustration 3-8

EXAMPLE OF A PARK IN LIVE OAK



PPUUBBLLIICC//SSEEMMII--PPUUBBLLIICC LLAANNDD UUSSEESS

This land use designation is representative of

uses that are educational, religious,

governmental or institutional nature. Public/semi-

public uses are generally permitted within any

area; therefore, the areas shown on the Future

Land Use Plan map include the related uses that

are currently in existence. It is, however,

anticipated that there will be a need for additional

public uses with future population growth. The

City should remain aware of necessary increases

in police and fire protection based on population

growth and of potential needed increases in

space and personnel for City administration.

Illustration 3-9

LIVE OAK CITY HALL



NNOONN--RREESSIIDDEENNTTIIAALL LLAANNDD UUSSEESS

Residents of a community should be able to live, work and recreate all within the community

itself; the existence of nonresidential uses allows this. There are several areas of the City that

have been recommended for various types of nonresidential use, primarily depending on the

area’s location and proximity to other types of land use. The following sections discuss specific

aspects of the various types of nonresidential land uses recommended for Live Oak.

OOffffiiccee LLaanndd UUsseess

There is a relatively small amount of land used for

office purposes in Live Oak today. However, it is

recommended that the amount of land used for

office purposes be increased, as shown on the

Future Land Use Plan map. There are three areas

that have been recommended for concentrated

office land use. One is located between Shin Oak

Drive and Palisades Drive west of Loop 1604.

Another is located along the east side Toepperwein

Road south of Interstate Highway 35, on the north

and south sides of the intersection of Village Oak

Drive and Toepperwein Road. The third is located

south of Judson Road and west of Woodsrim Road.

Office land uses are also generally appropriate in all other nonresidential areas of the City, as

well as in areas designated for Mixed Use: Retail or Mixed Use: Nonresidential, provided that

the proposed development meets the following criteria. First, the proposed office development

should be compatible with any adjacent residential area. Second, the land upon which the

office use would be developed is not directly located along a major thoroughfare, such as

Interstate Highway 35; land along such major thoroughfares should be retained for retail and

limited commercial uses because of the visibility that they provide.

RReettaaiill LLaanndd UUsseess

Retail land uses areas are intended to

provide for a variety of retail trade,

personal, and business services and

establishments. As mentioned

previously, retail establishments

generally require greater visibility than

do other types of nonresidential land use

(e.g., office, commercial). In response to

this need, retail land uses have been

designated in the higher traffic areas of

Live Oak, with concentrated retail uses

recommended along Interstate Highway

Illustration 3-10

AN OFFICE USE IN LIVE OAK

Illustration 3-11

RETAIL USES IN LIVE OAK



35 and Loop 1604. Toepperwein Road and O’Conner Road also have been recommended as

retail corridors; however, these roadways are intended to support smaller retail establishments

than are Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604.

The recent retail development that

has occurred at the intersection of

Interstate Highway 35 and Loop

1604 has been positive for Live Oak

for two principle reasons. One, the

new retail development is

aesthetically pleasing and therefore

projects a positive image of Live Oak

at this highly visible location. Two,

this retail area is capturing sales tax

dollars from citizens of Live Oak and

from people traveling from adjacent

localities, thereby increasing the

City’s sales tax revenue. It is recommended that the City continue to pursue similar retail

development in other highly visible areas, such as the retail area that has been recommended

for the northwest corner of Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604. The Neighborhood &

Business Enhancement Plan, Chapter 5, further addresses recommended increased aesthetics.

Several other areas have been designated for future retail development, as Plate 3-1 shows.

Also, similar to office land uses, retail uses are generally appropriate in areas designated for

higher-intensity nonresidential land uses, specifically in Commercial and Industrial areas. Retail

uses should also be developed within areas designated as Mixed Use: Retail and Mixed Use:

Nonresidential.

It should be noted that development along Live Oak’s major roadways will become increasingly

important in terms of tax revenue for the City as the local population continues to grow and the

City reaches its build-out configuration. Therefore, the City should protect the optimal locations

for retail development that remain within its corporate limits; a piece of property should not be

developed as residential when it has all the characteristics of a prime nonresidential location.

MMiixxeedd UUssee:: RReettaaiill

This future land use category is intended to create a

smaller-scale mixed use district near the Northeast

Lakeview College campus. The area should be

primarily retail uses that support the demands of the

campus, such as bookstores, restaurants, coffee

shops, and smaller boutique style shops. Small

offices and live-above residential units should be

permitted as well.

The Mixed Use: Retail area is envisioned to have a

“town center” type of atmosphere, with active street

life and a safe, neighborhood feel.

Illustration 3-12

A LARGE RETAIL USE IN LIVE OAK

Illustration 3-13

EXAMPLE OF MIXED USE: RETAIL PEDESTRIAN-

FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT



This area should include both vertical and horizontal

mixed uses – meaning residential/office located

above or adjacent to retail. The Mixed Use: Retail

area should be pedestrian-oriented with sidewalks,

street trees, on-street parking, sidewalk café seating,

and little or no setback from the sidewalk. The area

should be accessible by bicycle, incorporating bike

racks and marking designated or shared bike lanes

to connect to the campus.

MMiixxeedd UUssee:: NNoonnrreessiiddeennttiiaall

This category includes a mix of retail, light

commercial, office, and higher density residential

uses. It includes primarily nonresidential uses,

however multiple family uses should be considered

along the northwestern portion of the area to buffer

the nonresidential development from the single

family area north of the site.

The location at the intersection of I-35 and Loop

1604 is ideal for larger scale retail development.

This area is anticipated to be similar to the Forum at

Olympia Parkway, and serve as a source of

significant sales tax revenue for the City.

This category differs from the Mixed Use: Retail

category primarily due to scale; the Mixed Use:

Nonresidential area is envisioned as a more

traditional, auto-oriented development with larger

scale retail sales locations. Mixed use development

in this category is more likely to be horizontal mixed

use – differing types of uses located adjacent to one

another.

Illustration 3-14

EXAMPLE OF MIXED USE: RETAIL DEVELOPMENT

Illustration 3-15

EXAMPLE OF MIXED USE: NONRESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT

Illustration 3-16

EXAMPLE OF MIXED USE: NONRESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT



LLiigghhtt CCoommmmeerrcciiaall LLaanndd UUsseess Areas designated for light commercial land use

are intended for a variety of commercial, retail,

and office uses. Examples of light commercial

uses include banks, appliance and accessory

repair shops, health clubs, medical offices, and

bowling alleys.

Commercial uses often locate along major

thoroughfares not because they need the

visibility, as retail uses generally do, but because

they need the accessibility. The challenge lies in

the fact that commercial uses generally have a

greater need for outside storage areas, and

these areas tend lessen the visual quality of

major thoroughfares. For areas in which light

commercial uses have been recommended and

that are along Interstate Highway 35, increased

design-related guidelines should be applied to

future commercial development within close

proximity of Interstate Highway 35 (i.e., 100 feet).

This could be done with an Overlay District, and

would help to ensure that these commercial uses

do not detract from the positive aesthetic quality

of Live Oak along this high-traffic thoroughfare.

These guidelines should, at a minimum, require 1) open storage areas to be buffered and/or

screened from public view, and 2) building facades to be of masonry material. The

Neighborhood & Business Enhancement Plan, Chapter 5, further addresses these concepts for

increased aesthetics.

It should be noted that within recommended light commercial areas, office uses and retail uses

should be permitted as well; however, commercial uses should not be permitted within office

and/or retail areas, or within the Mixed Use: Retail area. Commercial uses should be permitted

within industrial areas, provided that they are buffered from less-intense uses properly and they

follow the guidelines previously recommended.

Illustration 3-17

EXAMPLE OF A LIGHT COMMERCIAL USE

Retail Uses

Florist Shop

Restaurants

Convenience Store

Coffee Shop

Pet Shop

Shopping Center

Commercial Uses

Mini-Warehouse

Auto Body Repair

Outside Storage

Feed Store

Welding Shops

Used Car Lots

Light Comm.

Uses

Banks

Offices

Quick-Lube

New Car Sales

Funeral Home

Illustration 3-18

EXAMPLE OF A LIGHT COMMERCIAL USE



IInndduussttrriiaall LLaanndd UUsseess

The industrial land use designation is applied to areas

intended for a range of heavy commercial, assembly,

warehousing, manufacturing and service-type uses.

Large tracts of land with easy access to major

thoroughfares are becoming increasingly hard to find

for the industrial business community. One large area

of Live Oak has been recommended for industrial

land use; the area is at the intersection of

Toepperwein Road and Lookout Road. Access to

these major roadways will likely be an attractive

feature for a future industrial use. It should be noted

that other types of nonresidential land uses would

also be appropriate for this area.

Illustration 3-19

EXAMPLES OF INDUSTRIAL USES



AAddmmiinniissttrraattiioonn ooff tthhee FFuuttuurree LLaanndd UUssee PPllaann

DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT PPRROOPPOOSSAALLSS && TTHHEE FFUUTTUURREE LLAANNDD UUSSEE PPLLAANN

At times, the City will likely encounter development proposals that do not directly reflect the

purpose and intent of the land use pattern shown on the Future Land Use Plan. Review of such

development proposals should include the following considerations:

Will the proposed change enhance the site and the surrounding area?

Is the proposed change a better use than that recommended by the Future Land Use

Plan?

Will the proposed use impact adjacent residential areas in a negative manner? Or,

will the proposed use be compatible with, and/or enhance, adjacent residential

areas?

Are uses adjacent to the proposed use similar in nature in terms of appearance,

hours of operation, and other general aspects of compatibility?

Does the proposed use present a significant benefit to the public health, safety and

welfare of the community? Would it contribute to the City’s long-term economic well-

being?

Development proposals that are inconsistent with the Future Land Use Plan (or that do not meet

its general intent) should be reviewed based upon the above questions and should be evaluated

on its own merit. It should be incumbent upon the applicant to provide evidence that the

proposal meets the aforementioned considerations and supports community goals and

objectives, as set forth within this Comprehensive Plan. It is important to recognize that

proposals contrary to the Plan could be an improvement over the uses shown on the Plan for a

particular area. This may be due to changing market, development and/or economic trends that

occur at some point in the future after the Plan is adopted. If such changes occur, and

especially if there is a significant benefit to the City of Live Oak, then these proposals should be

approved, and the Future Land Use Plan should be amended accordingly.

ZZOONNIINNGG && TTHHEE FFUUTTUURREE LLAANNDD UUSSEE PPLLAANN

Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code states that “zoning regulations must be

adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan”. Consequently, a zoning map should reflect

the Future Land Use Plan to the fullest extent possible. Therefore, approval development

proposals that are inconsistent with the Future Land Use Plan will often result in inconsistency

between the Future Land Use Plan and the zoning regulations. It is recommended that Live

Oak amend the Future Land Use Plan prior to rezoning land that would result in such

inconsistency. In order to expedite the process of amending the Future Land Use Plan to

ensure zoning regulations correspond, the related amendment recommendation(s) may be

forwarded simultaneously with the rezoning request(s). If a rezoning request is consistent with

the Plan, the City’s routine review process would follow. It is recommended that the City of Live

Oak engage in regular review of the Future Land Use Plan to further ensure that zoning is

consistent and that the document and the map reflect all amendments made subsequent to the



Plan’s initial adoption. It should be noted that specific implementation measures related to

zoning are addressed within the Implementation Strategies of this Comprehensive Plan.

IInn CCoonncclluussiioonn

The recommendations contained herein should guide Live Oak’s future land use planning and

related policies. It is important to note that the Future Land Use Plan is not the community's

official zoning map. Rather, it is a guide to decision making in the context of the City’s future

land use patterns. The Future Land Use Plan should be used consistently and updated as

needed, as coordinated, quality development continues in Live Oak over time. The official copy

of the Future Land Use Plan map is on file at Live Oak’s City Hall. The boundaries of land use

categories as depicted on the official map should be used to determine the appropriate land use

category for areas that are not clearly delineated on the smaller-scale Future Land Use Plan

map contained within this Comprehensive Plan document. The recommended future land use

policies contained throughout this chapter are summarized in Table 3-6.



Table 3-6 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS


Review the current zoning districts to ensure that the recommended land uses are accurately

represented within the zoning districts available to the development community and to ensure

that the zoning districts are located consistent with the Future Land Use Plan map.

Use the population projections (1.6 percent compounded rate) and the build-out population

scenario presented herein (15,480 people) as a guide for land use, infrastructure and park

planning efforts.

Encourage single-family residential land use to continue to account for the largest percentage

of land use within the City, but strive for a range of lot sizes to develop and for other types of

residential land use, including medium, high, and mixed use areas.

Use the mixed use concepts herein to encourage unique development in designated Mixed

Use: Retail and Mixed Use: Nonresidential areas of the City.

Incorporate the multiple-family development guidelines outlined herein into the City's Zoning

Ordinance.

Permit less intense nonresidential uses in higher intensity nonresidential areas (e.g., office

uses in designated retail use areas), but not vice versa.

Review existing retail and commercial zoning district standards, and consider establishing

either a special zoning district or an overlay zoning district that applies to the Interstate

Highway 35 and Loop 1604 corridors with increased development standards related to

aesthetics for future nonresidential land uses (this is further discussed within the

Neighborhood & Business Enhancement Plan, Chapter 5).

Protect the optimal locations for retail development that remain vacant, especially along

Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604; a piece of property should not be developed with

another type of land use when it has the characteristics of a prime retail location.

Amend the Future Land Use Plan immediately following a City Council vote rezoning land that

results in inconsistency between the Future Land Use Plan map and the Zoning Map.

Regularly review the Future Land Use Plan to further ensure that zoning is consistent and that

the document and the map reflect all amendments made subsequent to the Plan’s initial

adoption.

Note: Not in any order of priority.

CChhaapptteerr 44:: TThhee TThhoorroouugghhffaarree PPllaann


Thoroughfare Plan



A community’s thoroughfare system is vital to its ability to grow in a positive manner.

Transportation is inherently linked to land use. The type of roadway dictates the use of adjacent

land, and conversely, the type of land use dictates the size, capacity and flow of the roadway.

Many of the decisions regarding land uses and roadways within Live Oak have already been

made; rights-of-way in the developed areas of the City were established and roadways were

constructed years ago. A major challenge for the City of Live Oak now lies in the

accommodation of population growth within the existing thoroughfare system and in the

accommodation of new land development through the expansion of that system.

As stated within the Goals & Objectives, Live Oak’s thoroughfare system should ultimately:

Be based on a system of classification and related level of service;

Provide for regional transportation;

Provide for adequate mobility, as well as access to local land uses;

Meet current and future needs of the City;

Recognize the need for pedestrian access.

TThhee FFuunnccttiioonnaall CCllaassssiiffiiccaattiioonn SSyysstteemm &&

RReellaatteedd LLeevveell ooff SSeerrvviiccee

The Thoroughfare Plan for Live Oak is based upon a classification system that recognizes that

every roadway within the City has a classification according to either its size or function.

Thoroughfare types, as discussed in the following sections, include freeways, major

thoroughfares, collectors, and local streets. Their functions can be differentiated by comparing

their general ability to provide mobility with their ability to provide access to various locations.

Illustration 4-1, which graphically depicts these functional differences, and Table 4-1 should be

used as a reference for the discussion herein.

Illustration 4-1 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Local Streets Collectors Arterials Freeways

Increasing Movement

Decreasing Access

Property Access Function

Mobility and Movement Function

Thoroughfare Plan


Table 4-1 ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS AND GENERAL PLANNING GUIDELINES

CLASSIFICATION Function Continuity Approx. Spacing

Direct Land

Access

Minimum Roadway

Intersection Spacing

Speed Limit (mph)

Parking Comments

FREEWAY

(Interstate Highway 35, Loop 1604)

Traffic Movement

Continuous 4 miles None 1 mile 60 to

70 mph

None

Supplements capacity and

major thoroughfare system, and

provides high-speed

mobility.

MAJOR

THOROUGHFARE

(Topperwein Road)

Moderate distance inter-

community traffic;

Land access should be primarily at

intersections

Continuous 1/2 to 1 1/2

1

miles

Restricted; some

movements may be

prohibited; Number & spacing of driveways controlled;

May be limited to

major generations on regional

routes.

1/8 mile

1/4 mile on regional

route

35 to 45

mph

None "Backbone" of

the street system.

COLLECTOR

(Village Oak Drive)

Collect / distribute

traffic between local & major

streets;

Direct land access;

Inter-neighborhood

traffic movement.

Not necessarily continuous

May not extend

across a major

thorough-fare.

1/4 to 1/2

2 mile

Safety controls; limited

regulation.

Residential access

prohibited; commercial

access allowed

with shared driveways.

300 feet 30 mph

Limited Through traffic

should be discouraged.

LOCAL

Land Access Sidewalks

None As

needed

Safety controls

only. 200 feet

30 mph

Permitted Through traffic

should be discouraged.

1 Spacing determination should also include consideration of (travel projections within the area or corridor based upon) ultimate anticipated development.

2 Denser spacing needed for commercial and high-density residential districts.

3 Spacing and intersection design should be in accordance with state and local thoroughfare standards.

Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments

Thoroughfare Plan


LLEEVVEELL OOFF SSEERRVVIICCEE

The phrase level of service refers to the level of adequateness with which a roadway (or

segment of roadway) is serving the transportation needs of those utilizing it. As Table 4-2

shows, the descriptions of each level of service relates to how traffic is flowing, maneuverability,

and operational problems. Several roadways within Live Oak experience low levels of service

at peak hours; however, most roadways within the City at most times during the day can

generally be described as providing a high level of service. Level of service “C” is considered to

be acceptable in most cities across Texas. Generally, level of service “D” is used by

municipalities to justify the need for roadway improvements. Live Oak should ensure that local

roadways are operating at a level of service “C”.

Table 4-2

DEFINITION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR ROADWAY LINKS

LEVEL OF SERVICE

(LOS) Description Example

A and B

Light, free-flowing traffic volumes. Virtually

no delays with smooth progression of traffic, and

speed is generally unaffected by other vehicles.

Slight decline in the freedom to maneuver from

A to B.

Residential or rural streets

C

Basically satisfactory to good progression of

traffic, but at that point where individual

drivers become affected by interactions with

other vehicles. Light congestion, and speed

is affected by the presence of other vehicles.

Urban thoroughfares at

off-peak hours

D

High density, but stable, traffic flow. Speed and

freedom to maneuver are restricted. Small

increases in traffic flow will cause significant

operational problems. This LOS is generally used

to justify thoroughfare improvements.

Secondary streets

at peak hours

E

Operating conditions at or near capacity

level. All speeds are reduced to low, but remain

relatively uniform, meaning

generally not stop-and-go. Operations at

this level are usually unstable, because

small increases will cause severe speed reductions.

Primary streets at peak hours

F

Forced flow. Heavy congestion. Total

breakdown with stop-and-go operation. Queues

(i.e., vehicle stacking) at intersections on these

lengths may exceed 100 vehicles.

Developed areas in

larger cities at the

A.M. or P.M. peak hours

Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments

Thoroughfare Plan


RReeggiioonnaall TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn FFaacciilliittiieess

Freeways, which are discussed herein as the primary regional transportation facility, can be

described as high-capacity thoroughfares along which direct access to property is generally

minimal or eliminated altogether. Ingress and egress are controlled by access ramps,

interchanges and frontage roads; regional examples include Interstate Highway 35 and Loop

1604. Construction and maintenance of freeways is

not usually the responsibility of municipalities. The

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and

federal monies generally fund improvements of this

type of roadway facility.

IINNTTEERRSSTTAATTEE HHIIGGHHWWAAYY 3355

Interstate Highway 35 has been and will continue to

be key to the growth of Live Oak. The City should

ensure that it is aware of and involved in any

discussions or decisions related to Interstate

Highway 35. Especially important for Live Oak would

be any discussion or decision of widening or

controlling access onto and off of the highway. The

fact that Interstate Highway 35 links several major

Texas cities has led to the need for widening and for

controlling access along some portions. NAFTA (the

North American Free Trade Agreement) has been

one of the catalysts for the increased traffic numbers

that have led to this need for widening and controlled

access. The portion of Interstate Highway 35

through the city of Austin is currently undergoing

construction to widen it in order to accommodate

increasing traffic flows; this may very well be

necessary in the future in relation to San Antonio

communities as the area continues to grow.

LLOOOOPP 11660044

Loop 1604 serves as the San Antonio area’s outer

loop. This roadway is also a major corridor for Live

Oak, and its intersection with Interstate Highway 35

is especially important to the City’s economic

development prospects. Access onto and off of this

thoroughfare is controlled through the use of ramps.

The San Antonio-Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization, in cooperation with other

state and local agencies, has made improvements to various segments of Loop 1604 in recent

years. As with Interstate Highway 35, it would be important for Live Oak to be involved in any

alterations to this major transportation corridor in proximity to the City.

RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS RREELLAATTEEDD TTOO

IINNTTEERRSSTTAATTEE HHIIGGHHWWAAYY 3355 AANNDD LLOOOOPP

11660044

Live Oak needs to ensure that the City is

made aware of and involved in

discussions of implementing any

measures leading to further controlling

access by decreasing the number of on-

and off-ramps in relation to Interstate

Highway 35 and Loop 1604, although

none are planned at this time. One of

the ways in which the City can achieve

this is to be involved in the San Antonio-

Bexar County Metropolitan Planning

Organization (MPO) and the Alamo Area

Council of Governments (AACOG).

Involvement in these groups would

further enhance Live Oak’s position

during such discussions and decision-

making processes on a regional basis.

In addition, because Interstate Highway

35 and Loop 1604 are such a well-

traveled regional transportation corridors,

it is extremely important for the City to

ensure that land uses along this roadway

reflect positively on Live Oak.

Aesthetically pleasing restaurant and

retail uses, such as those that have

developed in the past few years in this

area, make a positive contribution to the

City because of the additional sales tax

they create from travelers on these

regional highways. This important

concept is discussed in further detail in

the Future Land Use Plan, Chapter 3

and will be discussed within the

Neighborhood & Business Enhancement

Plan, Chapter 5.

Thoroughfare Plan


PPrroovviiddiinngg ffoorr MMoobbiilliittyy && AAcccceessss LLooccaallllyy

The following recommended roadway sections are intended to help the City provide for

adequate mobility along high-traffic roadways, while also providing for access to local land uses.

It should be noted that an increased width has been recommended for some roadways;

however, this is not intended to result in the displacement of existing residents or businesses.

Roadways within Live Oak should be initially constructed to the following standards, but existing

roadways may never be able to be rebuilt to achieve the widths recommended herein. Plate 4-

1 shows the roadways

TTYYPPEE ““AA””:: MMAAJJOORR TTHHOORROOUUGGHHFFAARREE

Roadways identified as major thoroughfares are designed to convey relatively heavy volumes of

traffic. The thoroughfares provide mobility, but because of the speed and volume of traffic,

access to properties should be minimal. Therefore, a limited number of intersections and curb

cuts (driveway openings) should be permitted along major thoroughfares in order to protect the

integrity of the high-speed traffic flow. A small number of existing roadways have been

classified within this Thoroughfare Plan as major thoroughfares, either due to their respective

right-of-ways, current function, or future projected function. These existing roadways are as

follows:

Topperwein Road, and

Judson Road.

The recommended right-of-way for a major

thoroughfare is shown within Illustration 4-2.

Roadways of this size are intended to be able to

support in excess of 40,000 vehicles per day.

The City does not currently have a thoroughfare

section of this size within its Subdivision

Ordinance. This right-of-way should be

incorporated into the Subdivision Ordinance

subsequent to this Thoroughfare Plan adoption;

the City will need to use this for expansion of the recommended roadways as growth and

development occurs and the additional capacity is needed.

CCOOLLLLEECCTTOORR SSTTRREEEETTSS

Collector streets are generally designed to distribute traffic from local access streets and funnel

it to major roadways (i.e., from residential developments). Collectors should provide more

access to adjacent land uses than do major thoroughfares, but access should still be controlled

through the use of shared driveways (refer to Illustration 4-3) and other techniques that

minimize disturbance of the free-flow of traffic. This type of roadway should provide an equal

Illustration 4-2 TYPE “A” MAJOR THOROUGHFARE

Thoroughfare Plan


Thoroughfare Plan


amount of mobility and access to land uses. Neighborhoods should

be developed between major thoroughfares and collector streets in

the future so that traffic may be diverted from residential areas. In

addition, good subdivision design should orient residences to local

streets, not to collector streets. Following existing roadways have

been classified as major or minor collectors within this Thoroughfare

Plan:

Avery Road,

Lookout Road,

Shin Oak Drive,

Village Oak Drive,

Leafy Hollow,

Loan Shadow Trail, and

Forest Bluff.

Two types of collector street sections, major and minor, are

recommended within this Thoroughfare Plan. The following

discussion describes these recommendations.

TTyyppee ""BB"":: MMaajjoorr CCoolllleeccttoorr

Equipped to serve up to 40,000 vehicles daily,

the Type “B” Major Collector (see Illustration 4-

4) consists of 4 lanes of traffic, two lanes in each

direction of 12 feet, with 86 feet of right-of-way.

The center median, which should be a minimum

of 16 feet in width, may be painted or raised. The

flat median offers ease of access, but can be

dangerous. The raised, curbed median creates

a divided roadway, which is considered safer and

offers opportunities for beautification elements,

such as landscaping, to be incorporated within it.

It is recommended that wherever possible, the City

construct major collectors with raised medians, for

safety as well as aesthetics. No on-street parking

should be permitted on this type of thoroughfare. It

should be noted that this right-of-way width is

consistent with the “Major Street” requirement within

the City’s Subdivision Ordinance.

TTyyppee ""CC"":: MMiinnoorr CCoolllleeccttoorr

Type “C” minor collector streets are low to moderate

volume facilities whose primary purpose is to collect

traffic from smaller streets within an area and to

Illustration 4-4 TYPE “B” MAJOR COLLECTOR

11’ 11’

86’ R.O.W.

Illustration 4-5 TYPE “C” MINOR COLLECTOR

60’ R.O.W.

10’ 10’ 40’

Illustration 4-3 SHARED DRIVEWAY ACCESS

RECOMMENDED FOR COLLECTOR

STREETS

Property Line

Left-Turn Lane

Joint Cross-Access

Thoroughfare Plan


convey it to the nearest major collector or major thoroughfare. The average daily traffic volume

for this type of street is approximately 10,000 to 15,000 trips per day. Illustration 4-5 shows

cross-section of Type “C” undivided major collectors, with 60 feet of right-of-way with 40 feet of

paving. It should be noted that this cross-section is consistent with the “Secondary Street” right-

of-way within the City’s Subdivision Ordinance.

TTYYPPEE ““DD”” LLOOCCAALL SSTTRREEEETT

Local streets provide the greatest access to adjacent

properties, but they function poorly in terms of mobility.

Due to the fact that local streets are generally

constructed within residential areas, safety is an

important issue. To ensure that these roadways are

not used a great deal for mobility purposes and to

ensure that their ability to provide access safely, local

streets should be configured to discourage through-

traffic movement by using traffic calming elements,

such as offset intersections, curvilinear streets,

discontinuous streets, and stop signs. Structured to

convey lighter traffic volume (approximately 500 to

1,000 vehicles per day), the local street section shown

in Illustration 4-6 has a total right-of-way of 50 feet, with 30 feet of paving. This recommended

cross section is consistent with the City’s current “Minor Street” requirement. It should be noted

that no roadways of this type have been shown on Plate 4-1, due to the fact that these

roadways are typically interior roadways within residential developments.

MMeeeettiinngg tthhee CCuurrrreenntt aanndd FFuuttuurree NNeeeeddss ooff tthhee CCiittyy

A number of issues must be considered in the process of developing a Thoroughfare Plan for

Live Oak. First, the Plan must be compatible with the City’s Future Land Use Plan (Chapter 3)

and related growth and development considerations. Second, it must address the integrity of

existing residential and nonresidential areas; the Plan must balance functions of the

thoroughfare system through efficient moving of traffic, and facilitate access requirements. It

must consider alignments and right-of-way issues. Finally, the Thoroughfare Plan must also

incorporate realistic recommendations within the context of budgeting constraints. The following

discussion addresses these issues.

Illustration 4-6 TYPE “D” LOCAL STREET

Thoroughfare Plan


CCOOMMPPAATTIIBBIILLIITTYY WWIITTHH TTHHEE FFUUTTUURREE LLAANNDD UUSSEE PPLLAANN

Land use and roadway planning are closely linked; just as inappropriate land uses can reduce

the effectiveness of adjacent roadways, poorly planned roadways can reduce the viability of

adjacent land uses. Inappropriate zoning, various types of development activity, the existence

of older roadways that now carry higher traffic volumes than originally intended, and continually

changing traffic patterns can have negative impacts on the City’s thoroughfare system. As

previously mentioned, Live Oak should ensure that adequate access (driveway) spacing

standards are implemented for land uses located on major thoroughfares and major collector

streets in order to promote a smooth flow of traffic and to minimize the impact of individual

developments on the safe and efficient function of these roads. The different mobility and

access needs of residential and nonresidential land uses are recognized within the Future Land

Use Plan, and have resulted in the various land use location recommendations therein.

EEXXIISSTTIINNGG RREESSIIDDEENNTTIIAALL AANNDD NNOONNRREESSIIDDEENNTTIIAALL LLAANNDD UUSSEESS

As Plate 4-1 shows, none of the recommended roadways or roadway extensions causes

displacement of any existing residential or nonresidential use. The importance of continued

access to nonresidential uses has been reflected primarily in the recommendations for major

thoroughfares in areas of the City that are characterized by high concentrations of

nonresidential uses. The thoroughfare system as it exists today in Live Oak has evolved over

decades, especially from the early 1970’s when Live Oak experienced marked growth. Many

areas of the City have been previously developed with rights-of-way and land uses firmly in

place. Therefore, opportunities for improving traffic flow and access in such areas will mainly be

the product of street maintenance and widening, wherever possible. As stated previously, it is

not the intent of this Thoroughfare Plan to endorse the displacement of existing businesses or

residences; existing roadways should generally only be widened to the widths recommended

herein wherever existing rights-of-way allow.

FFUUNNDDIINNGG TTHHOORROOUUGGHHFFAARREE SSYYSSTTEEMM IIMMPPRROOVVEEMMEENNTTSS

In addition, building and maintaining an efficient street network requires significant investment of

local resources. Careful planning is needed to ensure that Live Oak makes the most cost-

effective investments in its street network. Funding is usually based upon general obligation

bonds or the general fund budgeting process. The City should also coordinate efforts with

regional transportation-related agencies, such as the San Antonio-Bexar County MPO and the

AACOG, and with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) in order to maximize the

potential for shared financing. Consistent participation in MPO and AACOG planning efforts

may also help Live Oak foster relationships that would ultimately help with funding

improvements.

Thoroughfare Plan


PPrroovviiddiinngg ffoorr PPeeddeessttrriiaann AAcccceessss

Our nation relies heavily on automobiles, and therefore, alternative modes of transportation

have often been neglected during the planning process. The City, however, as recognized the

need to accommodate pedestrian circulation, and is in the process of designing and planning for

a system of trails to encourage walking, cycling or other forms of alternative transportation. The

trail system has been included on the Thoroughfare Plan map, Plate 5-1. This system would

not only add to the overall physical health of the community, but would also contribute to the

enhancement of the overall quality of life and environment in Live Oak. Detailed

recommendations for a pedestrian and bicycle circulation system are discussed in detail within

the Park, Recreation & Open Space Master Plan that is currently being developed for the City.

In general, pedestrian walkways should be required for all new site plans and redevelopment

plans, along major thoroughfares and collector streets, and in areas where connections to

existing sidewalks could be made as a result of development.


Implementation of the Thor-

oughfare Plan will require

consistent administration by

the City; this will be specifically

addressed within the Imple-

mentation Strategies, Chapter

6. Design and technical stand-

ards should continue to be

contained within the City’s

adopted Subdivision Ordin-

ance, and should be con-

sistently reviewed to ensure

that such practices are uniform

in terms of required size of

right-of-way, access controls

along rights-of-way (i.e. joint or

shared access to mitigate

traffic congestion). It should

be noted that proposed

changes and recommend-

ations for future thoroughfares

are predicated upon the goals

and objectives formulated

during the comprehensive

planning process (Chapter 2).

Live Oak’s recommended

Thoroughfare Plan policies are

summarized within Table 4-3.

Table 4-3 THOROUGHFARE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS


Ensure that local roadways are operating at a level of service “C”

(refer to Table 4-2).

Continue to be aware of and involved in the San Antonio-Bexar

County MPO and the Alamo Area Council of Governments (AACOG)

and any regional transportation plans; ensure that such regional

plans acknowledge Live Oak’s needs and that they are reflected in

localized transportation planning efforts.

Utilize the roadway sections within the Thoroughfare Plan as a guide

for roadway requirements within the City's Subdivision Ordinance.

Construct arterials with raised medians, for safety as well as

aesthetics.

Ensure that adequate access spacing standards are implemented

for land uses located on arterial and major collector streets in order

to promote a smooth flow of traffic and to minimize the impact of

individual developments on the function of the roadways.

Note that the recommended roadways, roadway extensions, or

increased roadway widths are intended to cause displacement of

any existing residential or nonresidential use.

Investigate different funding mechanisms to ensure that future

roadways can accommodate population growth. Coordinate efforts

with regional transportation-related agencies, such as the San

Antonio-Bexar County MPO and the AACOG, and with the Texas

Department of Transportation (TxDOT) in order to maximize the

potential for shared financing.

Ensure that future development provides for adequate automobile as

well as pedestrian circulation.


Source: City of Live Oak’s Thoroughfare Plan.

CChhaapptteerr 55:: TThhee NNeeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd && BBuussiinneessss EEnnhhaanncceemmeenntt PPllaann


Neighborhood & Business Enhancement Plan



The City of Live Oak, as the “Gateway to San Antonio,” has a unique opportunity to make a

substantial regional impression. Because of its proximity to Interstate Highway 35 and Loop

1604, it is seen by millions of visitors to the San Antonio area each year. Live Oak has the

ability to greatly impact the way the region is seen by these visitors and the way it is perceived

by its residents. The City, therefore, must balance its local and regional roles, serving both

those who visit Live Oak and those who reside here.

One important element within Live Oak locally is the quality of its residential neighborhoods.

Neighborhoods that provide safe and attractive living environments with convenient access to

recreation, shopping, and work prove to be sustainable areas that contribute positively to the

overall community for many years to come. An important regional element is the way in which

Live Oak is viewed from major roadways, especially Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604. This

view from the road, formed mainly by the businesses that exist along them, is extremely

important in that it often provides people with their first impression of Live Oak. This influences

their basic perceptions of the City before they fully experience it. The Neighborhood & Business

Enhancement Plan of the Comprehensive Plan provides an analysis of these two important

elements of Live Oak.

NNeeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd EEnnhhaanncceemmeenntt

While it is difficult to define, a neighborhood can be described as a residential area in the

community with boundaries demarcated by thoroughfares, collector streets, or other man-made

or natural features. The neighborhood may vary in size from several blocks to hundreds of

acres. However, a neighborhood cannot adequately be described solely by its physical

structures. The definition of a neighborhood is affected by an almost indefinable sense of

community and quality of life enjoyed by its residents. Each neighborhood is unique, and it is

that uniqueness which makes neighborhoods difficult to define with any degree of precision.

However, for residential development and planning purposes, the following factors should be

considered:

Physical condition of housing units (this is described by housing type within the

Baseline Analysis and later within this Chapter);

Opportunities for social interaction (e.g., centralized gathering areas, parks);

Careful placement of public and retail land uses (i.e., on the edges of the

neighborhood);

Proximity to schools, churches, and recreational facilities;

Accessibility by emergency services;

Adequate lighting and other features which foster the feeling of safety (along streets

and within park areas);

Continued investment in public and private property to stabilize property values (i.e.,

consistent code enforcement);

Acceptable level of owner-occupied dwelling units; and,

Condition of public facilities and infrastructure serving the area (i.e., street

maintenance and adequate drainage facilities).



A successful neighborhood is the creation of a sustainable environment where ongoing

investment in property is supported by public investment in schools, parks and open spaces,

and infrastructure, where there are opportunities for social interaction, where there is

accessibility for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles, and where distinctive characteristics are

apparent, which give an area a unique identity. The quality and livability of Live Oak’s

neighborhoods are integral to the community’s overall character and quality. Upkeep and

maintenance of both private and public property are critical to neighborhood viability and

sustainability. Maintenance of neighborhoods and facilities also affects the larger community. If

left unabated, blighted areas create a ‘ripple effect,’ which impedes other civic objectives,

including such actions as economic development and private investment. Thus, it is in the

public interest to maintain the highest possible housing quality and environmental character

within each neighborhood area. Generally, cooperative action by property owners, tenants, the

municipality and volunteers are required to maintain and upgrade the quality of housing.

At the beginning of the comprehensive planning

process, an assessment of the City’s housing stock

was conducted in conjunction with the existing land

use survey. Within this assessment, each of the

single-family and two-family housing units in Live Oak

was categorized as Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3.

Units categorized as “Type 1” were

observed as being maintained in good

physical condition, with no visible exterior

problems.

Units categorized as “Type 2” were

observed as being in need of minor repair,

which includes repair that could generally

be performed by the property owner;

examples include painting of trim

and exterior wood surfaces,

replacement of small trim areas,

and cleaning/replacement of

gutters.

Units categorized as “Type 3”

were observed as being in need

of major repair, which includes

repair that could generally not be

undertaken by the property

owner; examples include

sagging of the roof, cracked

brick, rotted wood, missing brick or siding, and missing shingles.

Table 5-1 shows the information on housing type.

Table 5-1 HOUSING CONDITION – 2002


Housing Condition

Number Percentage

Type 1 2,503 77.30%

Type 2 722 22.30%

Type 3 13 0.40%

Total 3,238 100.00%

Note: Margin of error of ±3%

Note: Reflects single- and two-family units only.

Source: Dunkin, Sefko & Associates, Inc.

Type 1

Type 2

Type 3

Type 1

Type 2

Type 3

Figure 5-1 HOUSING TYPE




NNEEIIGGHHBBOORRHHOOOODD SSTTRRAATTEEGGIIEESS

Based in part on the assessment described above, three neighborhood enhancement strategies

have been devised for Live Oak and are presented herein. First, the Neighborhood

Preservation Strategy is intended to encourage continued preservation of well-kept

neighborhoods. Second, the Maintenance & Rehabilitation Strategy is intended to promote

increased maintenance where aging housing is in need of minor rehabilitation. And finally, the

Development Guidance Strategy is intended to identify ways in which new neighborhoods can

incorporate elements that will ensure their sustained quality over time.

NNeeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd PPrreesseerrvvaattiioonn SSttrraatteeggyy

In areas where sound, quality housing exists, a preservation strategy is appropriate. Over 77

percent of the housing units in Live Oak have been identified as “Type 1”, which describes units

that are maintained in good physical condition, with no visible exterior problems. The purpose

of the Neighborhood Preservation Strategy is to recognize areas in which the City should

sustain and protect existing desirable conditions. This can most successfully be achieved by

proactive code enforcement in and around these areas, and by ensuring complementary

relationships with adjacent land uses. It will be important for the City to carefully review any

development proposals that are in proximity to these areas to ensure that they will not be

adversely affected by approval of such proposals. In addition, an effective Neighborhood

Preservation Strategy includes the continued provision and maintenance of adequate utilities

and community facilities, such as parks, schools and streets. Preservation efforts by Live Oak

within these areas should minimize the need for rehabilitation programs in the future. As part of

the activity of normal planning, community development, and code enforcement practices, the

Neighborhood Preservation Strategy can be implemented by appropriate City departments on

an on-going basis.

Also, there are identifiable elements, such as street trees, sidewalks, and well-maintained

streets, that have been proven over time to contribute to the sustained quality of neighborhoods.

With new neighborhoods, incorporating such elements is relatively simple by requiring them

through City regulation. Providing them in older neighborhoods is no less important to the

quality of life, but is more of a challenge because it must be done retroactively. As part of the

Neighborhood Preservation Strategy, a gradual and sustained program of incorporating the

following improvements wherever possible where they are lacking is recommended:

Provide pedestrian and bicycle routes (refer to the Thoroughfare Plan Chapter and to

Live Oak’s Park, Recreation, & Open Space Master Plan);

Provide recreation spaces within neighborhoods;

Encourage the formation of neighborhood associations;

Continue proactive code-enforcement efforts, and be proactive in protecting the

appearance of residential areas;

These existing structures will contribute to Live Oak’s future stock of affordable

housing. New housing of equal size and quality could not be constructed and sold at

the same prices of these units.



While some of these suggestions require capital reinvestment, others do not and may be easily

achieved with limited capital outlay. It is recommended that the City allocate capital and

maintenance funds to an established reinvestment program for the long-term preservation of

existing, older neighborhoods.

MMaaiinntteennaannccee && RReehhaabbiilliittaattiioonn SSttrraatteeggyy

The Maintenance & Rehabilitation Strategy is appropriate where the housing units are

substantially sound, but are in need of some type of repair. Houses that were categorized as

Type 2 or Type 3 are appropriate for this housing strategy.

The main purpose of this strategy is to reduce the incidence of further deterioration of these

housing units. If minor repairs are not accomplished on Type 2 units, such units may fall into

the Type 3 category, making rehabilitation an increasing challenge. Currently, approximately 22

percent of the City’s housing stock falls into the Type 2 category, while just 0.4 percent fall into

the Type 3 category. It is recommended that the Type 2 and Type 3 units that have been

identified be immediately addressed for several reasons:

Over a period of time, if neglected, these areas can further deteriorate;

If the deterioration of housing/neighborhoods is not addressed, further decline may

negatively impact surrounding areas;

The overall image or “quality of life” of the community can be enhanced by improving

these housing units.

There are numerous state and federal housing rehabilitation programs that the City can initiate

to begin to improve housing in these areas. Examples of these programs, as well as some

related non-profit agencies include:

The Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP) – Federal; administered by the Fair

Housing and Equal Opportunity Office; allocates funds on a competitive/discretionary

basis; no requirement for matching funds on the part of the receiver

The Healthy Homes Initiative Program (HHI) – Federal; administered by the Lead

Hazard Control Office and builds upon the Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Department's existing housing-related health and safety issues; no requirement for

matching funds on the part of the receiver

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) – Federal, State, and County;

administered by the Community Planning and Development Office; allocates funds

on a formula/entitlement basis; funding for activities directed toward neighborhood

revitalization, economic development and the provision of improved community

facilities and services; participation can be through funds allocated by the State or

County; no requirement for matching funds on the part of the receiver

The HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) – Federal, State, County, and

Local; administered by the Community Planning and Development Office and

allocates funds on a formula/entitlement basis; funding may be used for a variety of

activities, including housing rehabilitation, tenant-based rental assistance, assistance

to homebuyers, acquisition of housing, new construction of housing, site acquisition,

site improvements, demolition, and relocation; requirement for matching funds on the



part of the receiver equal to 25 percent of the grant amount

Neighborhood Initiatives Grants - Federal, State, County, and Local; administered by

the Community Planning and Development Office; allocates funds on a

competitive/discretionary basis; no requirement for matching funds on the part of the

receiver

Habitat for Humanity - A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that builds and rehabilitates

homes in partnership with low-income people. Houses, sold at no profit to pre-

qualified, low-income families, are financed through no-interest mortgages.

Mortgage payments are returned to a revolving fund, which is used to finance more

construction. Pre-qualified homeowners are required to invest hours directly working

on the Habitat project. The organization utilizes volunteer labor, monetary, and in-

kind donations to build houses

Christmas in April Program – A non-profit, “grassroots” effort; discussed below

Community Development Corporation (CDC) - A 501(c)(3) private, nonprofit

corporation formed to address special needs of a community, such as the

revitalization of lower- and moderate-income neighborhoods; generally rely upon

fundraising efforts for capital, funding may also include CDBG or HOME funds from

the local government or state grants; typically undertake smaller projects that are

less profitable to a bank lender by lending money directly or utilizing funds as a

guarantee for conventional bank loans; usually comprised of a group of active

community volunteers, managed by financial administrators

The City should solicit input on what the specific needs are of the individuals who own and/or

live in the units identified as Type 2 or Type 3. For example, some of these individuals may be

elderly and may not be physically able to undertake the minor repairs needed to improve their

homes. In other cases, lack of funds may keep individuals or families from making necessary

improvements. Knowledge of factors that may be keeping individuals from undertaking proper

maintenance will help the City to determine the best steps to take.

A majority of the Type 3 housing units that were identified can be addressed by the City taking

simple steps to help the property owners. Many cities help to coordinate volunteer efforts by

identifying properties and by putting willing volunteers together with donated supplies. This may

include prioritizing properties in need of improvement, obtaining donations from local

businesses, signing up interested Live Oak staff and citizens, and donating basic items. This

type of effort (often referred to as “Christmas in April”) could help to improve numerous homes

on an annual basis. In addition, if major repairs are needed and funding is an issue, the City

could simply provide information, such as information on grants and on low-interest bank loans,

to citizens. A system for feedback and continued contact with property owners could also be

established.

DDeevveellooppmmeenntt GGuuiiddaannccee SSttrraatteeggyy

The standards for new residential development should be such that maintenance and

preservation strategies become less necessary over time. Applying the Development Guidance

Strategy, either during the stages of zoning change or subdivision approval, provides City staff

with an opportunity to ensure that Live Oak’s commitment to quality will be reflected in a



residential development of lasting value and stability. It is recommended that the City develop a

range of lot and dwelling sizes to continue the goal of a balanced housing mix (also see the

Housing Density discussion that follows). In addition, the City should continue to enforce the

Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Ordinance, building codes and minimum housing standards in

areas that are undeveloped. Proactive enforcement of City policies and regulations prior to

development is critical to the maintenance of the local housing stock and to the high standards

of community development to which Live Oak is committed. The following is a list of standards

recommended for new residential development that should be included within the City’s Zoning

or Subdivision Ordinance, as applicable:

Single-family (low density) development:

All new residential lots should be a minimum of 6,500 square feet

All units should have a two-car garage

Driveways should be constructed on concrete or brick pavers

Some units should have “J” drives

All homes should be connected to a permanent, reinforced concrete foundation

All units should have a 6-to-12 roof pitch

A certain amount of landscaping (e.g., street trees) should be required

Multiple-family (high density) development (refer to the Future Land Use Plan):

The development should be adjacent to a major collector or arterial roadway (i.e.,

not directly adjacent to local residential streets)

All structures should be 80 percent masonry

The development should not be less than approximately five acres in size

Transition areas (greenspace, buffer areas, etc.) should be incorporated into the

development if it is adjacent to an existing or planned single-family development

Usable open space should be incorporated

At least fifty percent of the units should have one garage space; covered parking

should be provided for all other units

Apartment complexes should be gated and should have limited access entry

IInnccrreeaassiinngg CCooddee EEnnffoorrcceemmeenntt EEffffoorrttss

Many cities have codes and ordinances in effect that are not generally enforced unless a citizen

voices concern. Often, the result of this is that municipalities are consistently in the position of

being reactive instead of proactive. One of the issues that Comprehensive Plan Steering

Committee members discussed at length was the need for more proactive enforcement of Live

Oak’s regulations. The views expressed were that the desired result of this would be more

visually pleasing neighborhood areas without much cost to the City. Some of the items that are

often considered as cities engage in proactive code enforcement measures include broken

down vehicles, damaged fences, recreation vehicles parked for extended periods of time,

excessive trash in front yards, and dilapidated accessory structures. Many cities have adopted

property and housing code ordinances that include regulation of these elements. The City of

Live Oak should consider adopting such an ordinance, and should practice proactive code

enforcement throughout the City on a consistent basis.



BBuussiinneessss EEnnhhaanncceemmeenntt

Several major aspects of the City's physical urban design can enhance local land uses,

especially in terms of nonresidential development and the related image that the public forms of

Live Oak. As discussed within the Future Land Use Plan (Chapter 3), the land that is

designated for nonresidential use is of prime importance to the City due to the fact that, in

general, the land is located along the City’s major thoroughfares, Interstate Highway, Loop

1604, Topperwein Road, O’Conner Road, Lookout Road, and Pat Booker Road, making the

nonresidential uses very visible. These areas also represent Live Oak’s major tax-generating

opportunities.

DDEESSIIGGNN GGUUIIDDEELLIINNEESS FFOORR DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT AALLOONNGG MMAAJJOORR RROOAADDWWAAYYSS

The fact that the City of Live Oak has recognized the importance of protecting its image along

Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604 is apparent through the high-quality development the City

strived for resulting in “The Forum”. The following discussion focuses on regulations that could

be applied to the City’s major roadways, including Interstate Highway, Loop 1604, Topperwein

Road, O’Conner Road, Lookout Road, and Pat Booker Road, specifically within the areas

identified on Plate 5-1. These regulations will help Live Oak achieve its goal of enhancing its

image within these important corridors. The following will specifically be addressed:

Parking areas,

Shared driveways,

Lighting,

Setbacks,

Screening,

Exterior construction,

Loading docks,

Landscaping, and

Signage.

PPaarrkkiinngg AArreeaass

Large expanses of pavement for parking do not

generally contribute to a positive visual image.

Therefore, the City should consider either providing

incentives for or requiring parking areas to be

placed to the side or the rear of the primary on-site structure (to the back of the lot) and

out of the view of people traveling along Interstate Highway 35 Loop 1604,

Topperwein Road, O’Conner Road, Lookout Road, and Pat Booker Road. An example of

an incentive would be to require the construction of a slightly reduced number of parking

spaces when parking areas are located to the rear. Landscaping and screening, which are

discussed later within this Chapter, should also be incorporated into parking areas. The

Illustration 5-1

NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH PARKING AREAS

ORIENTED TO THE INTERIOR OF THE SITE (City of Southlake Town Center)



following is an example of the language that

could be incorporated into the Live Oak’s Zoning

Ordinance to regulate parking area location:

The required parking area within any new

development shall be not be visible from

Interstate Highway, Loop 1604, Topperwein

Road, O’Conner Road, Lookout Road, and Pat

Booker Road; the required parking area shall be

oriented such that it is located to the interior of

the site, with the on-site structures surrounding it

to the furthest extent possible.

SShhaarreedd DDrriivveewwaayyss The concept of requiring shared driveways is not related directly to aesthetics, but to safety.

Although there is not direct ingress or egress access from Interstate Highway 35 and Loop

1604, the integrity of the related service roads is

important. The need for shared driveways and

limiting curb cuts that would serve to help protect

the integrity of roadways in Live Oak is also

discussed within the Thoroughfare Plan, Chapter 4.

The following is an example of the language that

could be used to require shared driveways:

The minimum distance between any two (2)

driveway entrances, whether on the same or

different lots, shall be thirty-five (35) feet, measured

along the curb line. Mutual access agreements for

parking lots, driveways and adjoining properties

shall be required. A professional traffic engineer,

subject to City Council approval, shall establish the

specific number, width and location of ingress and

egress points.

LLiigghhttiinngg

Lighting for businesses along Interstate Highway,

Loop 1604, Topperwein Road, O’Conner Road,

Lookout Road, and Pat Booker Road is needed to

provide visibility for the businesses and safety for

those who patronize them. To avoid any adverse

impacts on residential areas, lighting facilities to be

reflected away from adjacent residential areas.

However, aesthetics are also extremely important. In

order to address impacts on adjacent residential

areas as well as aesthetics, the following language is

Illustration 5-3

A MAJOR ROADWAY WITH NO SHARED DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENT

Illustration 5-2

NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT WITH PARKING AREAS

ORIENTED TO THE INTERIOR OF THE SITE

Illustration 5-4

EXAMPLES OF AESTHETICALLY PLEASING LIGHT FIXTURES



recommended for inclusion into the City’s Zoning Ordinance:

Lighting facilities shall not produce unwanted light onto adjacent residential property as

measured from the property line. If, after all corrective action has been taken, there is

illumination crossing the property boundary, under no circumstance shall the illumination be

greater than 0.05 footcandles, as measured at five (5) feet inside the adjacent residential

property.

Light poles and fixtures shall be of a single color that is compatible with and complementary to

the architecture of the building and the entire overall development.

SSeettbbaacckkss

Minimum setbacks along the service roads of Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604 should be a

minimum of 35 feet from the right-of-way, and side street setbacks should be 20 feet from the

right-of-way. Minimum side and front street setbacks along Topperwein Road, O’Conner Road,

Lookout Road, and Pat Booker Road should be 20 feet from the right-of-way. This

recommendation should not only apply to building setbacks, but also parking areas and

accessory elements. Requiring these elements to be set back from the right-of-way as well not

only contributes to better aesthetics, but also is safer because it creates less visual confusion

for drivers on the rights-of-way. The revised regulation could read:

The minimum front setback distance for buildings, parking areas, loading areas, and accessory

elements from the rights-of-way of Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604 and related service

road rights-of-way shall be thirty (30) feet. The minimum side street setback distance for

buildings, parking areas, loading areas, and accessory elements from the rights-of-way of

Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604 and related service road rights-of-way shall be twenty

(20) feet. The minimum side and front street setback distance for buildings, parking areas,

loading areas, and accessory elements from the rights-of-way of Topperwein Road, O’Conner

Road, Lookout Road, and Pat Booker Road shall be twenty (20) feet.

Illustration 5-5

EXAMPLE OF A WIDE SETBACK BETWEEN THE SERVICE ROAD AND A RETAIL DEVELOPMENT



SSccrreeeenniinngg

There are many elements that are needed for

business to operate that are not generally considered

to be visually attractive. These various elements

include trash receptacles (and related areas), open

storage (and related areas), expansive parking lots,

service areas, ground-mounted equipment, and roof-

mounted equipment. Acceptable means by which to

provide screening generally should include

landscaping, earth berms in conjunction with

landscaping (mainly for parking areas), masonry

walls in conjunction with landscaping, parapet walls

(mainly for roof-mounted equipment), and use of

other materials that are compatible with the

structure(s). Screening mechanisms should be

constructed at a height that is appropriate to the

element being screened, which is generally between

three and eight feet. Other issues include

maintenance and visual appeal. Following is a

discussion of the various elements that should be

considered in the context of requiring screening.

EELLEEMMEENNTTSS TTOO BBEE SSCCRREEEENNEEDD

The following language should be incorporated

into the Zoning Ordinance to screen these

specific elements:

Trash receptacles (and related areas) that are not

within a screened service area and that would

otherwise be visible from a public right-of-way

shall be screened from public view and from

adjacent property by a minimum six-foot (6')

screening wall on three (3) sides. The fourth

side, which is to be used for garbage pickup

service, may provide an optional gate to secure

the trash receptacle (and related area).

Open storage of materials, commodities or

equipment (and related areas) shall be screened

from public view and from adjacent property with

a minimum six-foot (6') screening wall. No open

storage may exceed the height of the screening

wall.

All parking areas that are located adjacent to a

public right(s)-of-way shall be screened from the

general view of the right(s)-of-way by a three-foot

(3’) berm. Illustration 5-8

EXAMPLE OF A SCREENING WALL THAT PROTECTS A REFUSE

CONTAINER FROM PUBLIC VIEW

Illustration 5-6

MASONRY SCREENING WALL & LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS

SCREEN A LARGE TRASH RECEPTACLE AREA & LOADING AREA

(Wal-Mart in Plano, Texas)

Illustration 5-7

MASONRY SCREENING WALL & LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS

SCREEN A LARGE TRASH RECEPTACLE AREA & LOADING AREA

(Wal-Mart in Plano, Texas)



Illustration 5-11

SCREENING WALL WITH COMPATIBLE MATERIALS & VARIATION

Service areas, such as loading docks and

delivery entrances, shall be screened from

public view and from adjacent property with a

minimum six-foot (6') screening wall.

Ground-mounted mechanical equipment,

including utility structures, transformers and

natural gas regulating stations, shall be

screened from public view and from adjacent

property with a screening wall that is equal to

or greater in height than the structure(s)to be

screened.

Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view and from adjacent

property with a parapet wall, mansard-style roof or other architectural extension equal in height

to the unit(s), except when the unit height exceeds five (5) feet. When the height does exceed

five (5) feet, an additional roof setback shall be required at a ratio of two (2) horizontal feet for

each additional foot of vertical height above five (5) feet.

LLAANNDDSSCCAAPPIINNGG

The City should allow landscaping elements

to be used as a screening wall, but only after

approval by City staff. Also, language should

be included within the Zoning Ordinance that

ensures landscaping elements will provide

adequate screening. For example:

Landscaping elements are permitted to be

used to meet screening requirements upon

approval by the City Manager or his/her

designee. Landscaping elements shall

provide a solid, opaque screen within two (2)

years of the initial planting, and such

elements shall be maintained so that a solid,

opaque screen is provided on a consistent

basis.

HHEEIIGGHHTT SSPPEECCIIFFIICCAATTIIOONNSS

Height guidelines should define the allowable

minimum and maximum screening height; height

requirements vary depending on the element to

be screened, but generally, masonry or wrought

iron screening walls should be a minimum of six

(6) feet.

Illustration 5-10

LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS DO NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE SCREENING IN THIS EXAMPLE

Illustration 5-9

SCREENED OPEN STORAGE AREA



MMAATTEERRIIAALLSS SSPPEECCIIFFIICCAATTIIOONNSS

The City should specifically prohibit the use of chain link, solid wood, barbed wire, fiberglass

panels, and corrugated steel to be used to meet screening requirements. In addition,

screening walls should be complementary to the design of the business (or business

development); the following language should be included to ensure this in the future:

Masonry screening walls shall be constructed with brick or wrought iron and shall be

designed in a manner that is consistent with the exterior finish of the main building(s) in

material and color. Screening walls shall generally be extensions of the business’s or

development’s architectural design. The only exception to this shall be a landscape screen,

approved by the City Manager or his/her designee.

RREEQQUUIIRRIINNGG VVAARRIIAATTIIOONN

In addition to the screening wall itself, the City should consider requiring variation of the

screening wall where masonry elements are used; this is especially important for screening

walls that need to be extremely long to provide adequate screening. This regulation should

read:

All masonry screening walls that are 20 feet in length or longer shall provide some horizontal

variation in the wall that is equal to at least 3 feet in depth for every 20 feet in length.

CCOONNSSIISSTTEENNTT IIDDEENNTTIITTYY Although it is important to create a visually interesting community, it is also important to

establish an identity for Live Oak. The City is bisected by Interstate 35 and Loop 1604, resulting

in a fragmented community image. This can affect both residential and nonresidential areas,

however the results are more apparent in the nonresidential development along the corridors.

Consistent requirements for signage and building materials can play a major role in promoting a

consistent image along a corridor. The City should ensure that design standards are applied

evenly across corridors, and develop a template design to be used for directional and locational

signage throughout the City.



EExxtteerriioorr CCoonnssttrruuccttiioonn

The way in which the exterior of a structure looks

along Interstate Highway, Loop 1604, Topperwein

Road, O’Conner Road, Lookout Road, and Pat

Booker Road has a major effect on the visual image

of Live Oak that is projected. The following is a

discussion of recommendations specifically related to

the design of buildings within these important

corridors within Live Oak.

EEXXTTEERRIIOORR CCOONNSSTTRRUUCCTTIIOONN

Materials used for the exterior facades of

buildings within these areas of the City should

generally be limited to brick, stone, rock, or some

variation thereof. These materials should

comprise at least 80 percent of the walls that

face or can be seen from Interstate Highway,

Loop 1604, Topperwein Road, O’Conner Road,

Lookout Road, and Pat Booker Road. Either a

City official or City Council should be able to

approve alternate materials such as concrete,

concrete block, or stucco. It is also

recommended that reflective and/or mirrored

glass not be permitted to comprise more than fifty

percent of the façade(s) facing Interstate

Highway, Loop 1604, Topperwein Road,

O’Conner Road, Lookout Road, and Pat Booker

Road. Metal buildings should likewise not be

permitted, unless the façade(s) facing either of

these highways is covered with brick, stone or

rock, thereby shielding the metal façade from

being visible.

FFAAÇÇAADDEE AARRTTIICCUULLAATTIIOONN FFOORR LLAARRGGEE BBUUIILLDDIINNGGSS

The facades of large nonresidential structures can

be large and visually unappealing; this is

sometimes referred to as “massing”. Massing

concerns have generally arisen in response to

large retailers (often referred to as “big box”

retailers). A building that is 100,000 square feet in size can have a façade that is more than

300 feet in length, and often with large retailers, this façade is a flat expanse of wall with

little to no variation or decoration. While large retailers are a real asset to Live Oak, large,

flat walls do not provide the visual appeal for which the City is striving. Therefore, similar to

the recommendation made for requiring variation of masonry screening walls, the City

should consider requiring “façade offsets” to address this before it becomes an issue. An

Illustration 5-14

RETAIL USE WITH FAÇADE OFFSETS

Illustration 5-12

THE “VIEW FROM THE ROAD” OF A METAL BUILDING

Illustration 5-13

RETAIL USE WITH FAÇADE OFFSETS



example of the language that should be used to

incorporate such a requirement within the Zoning

Ordinance is:

For all nonresidential structures 50,000 square

feet in size or greater, architectural variation of

the exterior walls of the structure that are visible

from Interstate Highway 35 or Loop 1604 shall be

provided. The architectural variation shall be

equal to at least 5 feet in depth for every 25 feet

in vertical or horizontal length.

LLaannddssccaappiinngg

Landscaping is generally accepted as adding value to property and is an aesthetically pleasing

element to incorporate along Interstate Highway, Loop 1604, Topperwein Road, O’Conner

Road, Lookout Road, and Pat Booker Road. Landscaped areas also increase the amount of

land that is devoted to pervious surface area,

allowing more water to permeate into the soil and

helping to recharge the aquifer. Xeriscape

landscaping, which requires a lesser amount of water

than other types of landscaping, should be

encouraged within Live Oak. The following are

landscaping requirements that should be considered

for inclusion within the Zoning Ordinance:

A landscaped edge shall be incorporated adjacent to

the rights-of-way of Interstate Highway 35 and Loop

1604 and related service road rights-of-way and to

the rights-of-way of Topperwein Road, O’Conner

Road, Lookout Road, and Pat Booker Road.

A minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the front yard shall be

landscaped area.

Landscaped areas within parking lots shall be equal in size

to at least one (1) parking space, with no landscaped area

less than fifty (50) square feet in size. The total landscaped

area within a parking lot shall be equal to at least sixteen

(16) square feet per parking space.

One shade tree shall be provided for every twelve (12)

parking spaces within parking lots that contain twenty (20) or

more parking spaces. Up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the

required trees shall be permitted to be planted within the

landscaped edge.

Plants used shall be drought-resistant, and xeriscape

techniques shall be used to the furthest extent possible.

Illustration 5-15

LANDSCAPING BETWEEN A NONRESIDENTIAL USE & A MAJOR ROADWAY

Illustration 5-16

LANDSCAPING BETWEEN A RETAIL USE & THE

REQUIRED PARKING AREA

Illustration 5-17

EXAMPLE OF LANDSCAPING BETWEEN A NONRESIDENTIAL USE

AND A MAJOR ROADWAY



In addition to the previous recommendations, a credit to put toward the overall required

landscaped areas should be provided for the protection and preservation of existing trees. Also,

in order to provide guidance to the development community to help these requirements to be

met, the City should provide a listing of appropriate plant materials, particularly xeriscape

materials. Use of plants not specified should be subject to approval by the City.

SSiiggnnaaggee

Signs perform many functions and come in many different forms – directional, locational, and

informational (i.e., announcing special events), to name a few. The City can use all types of

signs in a cohesive manner to help give Live Oak a special identity that would be recognizable,

particularly along Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604.

CCIITTYY--EESSTTAABBLLIISSHHEEDD GGAATTEEWWAAYY SSIIGGNNSS

Well-designed, visible gateway treatments placed at the strategic locations identified on

Plate 5-1 would provide citizens of and visitors to Live Oak with a visual image of the

geographic location of the City, thereby effectively and

clearly defining Live Oak’s identity. Establishing

gateways would help people to differentiate Live Oak

from the City of San Antonio, which is especially

difficult for those traveling along Interstate Highway 35

and Loop 1604. These gateway treatments, although

they will likely be established at different times, should

have a consistent design so that a particular image

becomes associated with the City.

GGEENNEERRAALL SSIIGGNNAAGGEE FFOORR NNOONNRREESSIIDDEENNTTIIAALL LLAANNDD UUSSEESS

As was discussed within the Future Land Use Plan

(Chapter 3), nonresidential uses generally seek to

locate along major thoroughfares due to the visibility.

For the same reason, nonresidential uses generally

desire the largest, brightest, highest sign to

further increase their visibility. In order to prevent

the proliferation of signs within along Interstate

Highway, Loop 1604, Topperwein Road,

O’Conner Road, Lookout Road, and Pat Booker

Road, the City should consider certain

requirements for new nonresidential

development, such as:

The maximum allowable height, including the

base, of any sign shall be fifty feet (50’). Note: There could be special provisions for new

nonresidential uses locating in proximity to an existing

nonresidential use with a higher sign in order to

ensure fair market opportunity.

Illustration 5-19 EXAMPLE OF WELL-DESIGNED SIGNS

Illustration 5-18

AN EFFECTIVE GATEWAY TREATMENT

ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY OF ENNIS, TEXAS



Colors used for any sign shall be consistent with the overall design of the primary building.

The use of fluorescent colors shall not be permitted.

Flashing signs, specifically sings with moving letters, words, or pictures, shall not be

permitted.

The use of temporary signs (i.e., signs that advertise special sales, etc.) shall be limited to a

period not to exceed thirty (30) days, unless otherwise permitted by the City Building Official.

BBIILLLLBBOOAARRDD SSIIGGNNSS

In addition, billboards should be prohibited within the Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604

corridors. Regardless of the fact that, in general, the development community will want to locate

billboards along Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604, such signs are inconsistent with the

community image Live Oak wants to project within this high-traffic corridor. Many cities across

the state of Texas have recognized that the proliferation of billboard signs is not a positive thing

for the image they want to put forth along their major roadways. Live Oak can eliminate the

potential future problem of visual clutter that can be caused by billboards by prohibiting them

before they become a concern for the City.

EECCOONNOOMMIICC DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT EEFFFFOORRTTSS

In examining economic development programs and their impact within a community, it is wise to

acknowledge all of the elements that fall within the term “economic development”. One is the

creation of new business activity within a community, as measured by increases in employment

and expansion/growth of the tax base. Retention and increased viability of existing businesses

is another element. The attraction of outside investment into a community, such as a

concentration on tourism, is yet another. The quality of local housing stock, addressed

previously within this chapter, is also an important element related to economic development.

Recommendations herein pertaining to Live Oak’s economic development strategies are

designed to guide City leaders in crafting programs and services that respond to the needs of

existing businesses and the need for new businesses. These recommendations are presented

as actions the City of Live Oak should take, or should take in partnership with its economic

development partner, the Economic Development Corporation (EDC). Where applicable, a

recommendation as to the appropriate entity that should be responsible in taking the action has

been identified. Additionally, the recommended strategies have been divided into categories to

aid in determining importance and assigning priorities. It should be noted that the EDC’s

Economic Development Business Plan (dated January 15th, 1998) has been reviewed in relation

to these recommendations.



NNeeww BBuussiinneessss DDeevveellooppmmeenntt

Local Need: Business development that will enhance the City’s economy and

quality of life.

Related Recommendations: Develop a listing of

targeted businesses for the

various areas of Live Oak

related to location. Target-

ed businesses along Inter-

state Highway 35 and Loop

1604 should be of a retail

nature; this would differ

from targeted businesses

along Topperwein, which

should generally be light

industrial uses. Target

businesses that would be

appropriate to locate within

the designated Technology

Park area would also vary.

The Future Land Use Plan

should be used as a guide

to establishing these target

businesses.

Recommended target busi-

nesses are outlined in

Table 5-1.

Participatory Entity: EDC

Business Need: Land that is allocated for

the applicable nonresiden-

tial land use, located prop-

erly, and priced compet-

itively.

Related Recommendations: Maintain a listing of vacant

land that is planned for and available for targeted non-residential

uses, especially large tracts.

Ensure that there is an adequate amount of non-residential land to

allow for market choice.

Ensure that water and wastewater services are available for the

prime nonresidential sites.

Create a highway-oriented zoning district for Interstate Highway

35 and Loop 1604 that is correlated to target businesses.

Participatory Entity: City

Table 5-2 RECOMMENDED TARGET INDUSTRIES


General Office Uses

Bank

Medical facilities, offices, & services

Professional offices (e.g., attorneys, insurance agency, etc.)

General Retail Uses

Outlet Mall

Restaurants (limit the number of drive-thru restaurants)

Recreation & Entertainment Uses (e.g., movie theaters, gyms)

Hardware Stores

Grocery/Food Stores

Clothing Stores

Shoe Stores

Pet Stores

Coffee Shops

Sporting Goods Superstores

Limited Commercial Uses

Hotels

Motels

New Car Sales

Home Improvement Stores

Auto Rental

*Target industry recommendations are predicated on the assumption that the previously discussed nonresidential

aesthetic guidelines are adopted and enforced by adopted regulations.



Business Need: Economic programs that provide assistance to small, emerging

businesses.

Related Recommendations: Establish a Small Business Development service that would focus

on aiding and assisting businesses and on providing information,

such as business plans, marketing, legal, administrative,

personnel, and financial/accounting matters.

Consider the establishment of a small business incubator. The

Texas Department of Commerce’s Texas Capital Fund Small

Business Incubator Program provides grants to establish new

small business incubators. A feasibility study is required prior to

applying, however, which would require some funding on the part

of the City and/or the EDC.

Participatory Entities: City & EDC

Business Need: A community that is open and receptive to new business.

Related Recommendations: Formalize the City’s positive attitude that encourages and attracts

more business development and expansion.

Re-evaluate the City’s ED incentive policy in regard to new

business development to determine Live Oak’s competitiveness

with neighboring and/or nearby cities.

Market and advertise the City as business-friendly.


Business Need: Land that has access to major thoroughfares.

Related Recommendations: Utilize the City’s location at the intersection of Interstate Highway

35 and Loop 1604 as a marketing tool.




Business Need: Access to information on the demographics and economics of the

community as well as the region.

Related Recommendations: Provide up-to-date research and data information on Live Oak,

surrounding communities, and San Antonio, as applicable, to

inquiring businesses.


BBuussiinneessss RReetteennttiioonn && EExxppaannssiioonn

Business Need: Economic assistance programs aimed specifically at helping

existing Live Oak businesses to prosper.

Related Recommendations: Establish and cultivate a Business Retention and Support

Program focused specifically on aiding targeted existing Live Oak

businesses that want to compete effectively and progress

economically. Help these firms identify and service new market

opportunities.

Encourage local business to diversify, modify, and/or expand their

products.


Business Need: Economic assistance programs that provide information to

existing Live Oak businesses on growing/expanding their

business.

Related Recommendations: Encourage local businesses to utilize the Texas Department of

Commerce’s (TDOC) Texas Marketplace – an electronic bulletin

board system with access to numerous business-related

databases and directories


Business Need: Proactive programs that provide opportunities for the City to

monitor the success local businesses.

Related Recommendations: Develop a Business Development Program that would be

designed to encourage direct and regular contact with existing

businesses to identify the needs of local businesses and the

challenges facing them. Volunteers could be enlisted to contact

businesses to survey their success. Businesses in need of

assistance could be identified and the City and/or the EDC could

act accordingly.



Participatory Entity: City & EDC

Business Need: An attractive appearance that would appeal to people traveling on

Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604.

Related Recommendations: Develop a matching grant program to help existing businesses

improve their appearance along Interstate Highway 35 and Loop

1604. Improvements could include landscaping and upgrading

the façade of buildings.


BBuussiinneessss RReeccrruuiittmmeenntt

Local Need: An expanded tax base of industrial and commercial, retail and

office firms.

Related Recommendations: Efforts should be made to recruit businesses from a target

business list.

Survey residents to determine needed goods and services and

then develop a recruitment program to attract those types of

businesses to fill the gaps and to fill vacant buildings. The EDC

should address these needs in its long-range plan in the form of a

formalized “target industry” recruitment program.


Local Need: A reputation as a progressive community.

Related Recommendations: Create and launch a marketing theme that presents Live Oak as a

business-friendly community. Emphasize the City’s quality of life,

quality neighborhoods, quality labor force, regional position, and

supportive local government.

Participatory Entities: EDC

TToouurriissmm OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess

Local Need: Additional income and tax base from imported dollars.

Related Recommendations: Take advantage of the City’s location along Interstate Highway 35

and Loop 1604 and adjacent to San Antonio to promote Live Oak.




Local Need: Higher visibility of Live Oak as a tourism destination in the San

Antonio area.

Related Recommendations: Research publications that would help promote local and regional

events, and would provide information on places in Live Oak to

stay, shop, and eat in relation to those events.

Participatory Entity: Hotel Motel Tax

GGeenneerraall RReeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss

It is not uncommon for economic development strategies or programs to stretch over five years

or more in their execution. City staff, Economic Development Corporation (EDC) members, and

local elected officials need to be keenly aware of this, and need to be patient with the maturation

and evolution of seed programs. The above-referenced strategies are intended to help the City

and the EDC over the short-term. A more detailed master plan for economic development will

likely be warranted in the future, which would provide greater detail and direction.


As mentioned previously, quantifying the elements that contribute to a community’s quality of life

is a challenging task, primarily because the defining of those elements is subjective. This

chapter has provided discussion of numerous enhancement strategies related to neighborhoods

within Live Oak and to businesses along Interstate Highway 35 and Loop 1604, as well as

economic development recommendations for the City. These strategies and recommendations

should be considered cohesive – it will take daily implementation over a period of time for these

elements to make a real, lasting contribution to Live Oak’s community image and economic

future. Table 5-3 (continued onto the following page) summarizes the recommendations made

within this chapter.

Table 5-3 NEIGHBORHOOD & BUSINESS ENHANCEMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS


Neighborhood Enhancement Strategies

Incorporate a gradual and sustained program of improvements (refer to the listing

recommended herein) into existing neighborhoods as part of the proposed Neighborhood

Preservation Strategy.

Solicit input on what the specific needs are of the individuals who own and/or live in the units

identified as Type 2 or Type 3.

Use the funding aid provided by state and federal housing rehabilitation programs to begin

initiating the improvement of identified Type 2 and Type 3 housing.


Source: City of Live Oak’s Neighborhood & Business Enhancement Plan.



Table 5-3 (Continued) NEIGHBORHOOD & BUSINESS ENHANCEMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS


Neighborhood Enhancement Strategies

Coordinate volunteer efforts by identifying properties that need improvement and by putting

willing volunteers together with donated supplies. Coordination may include prioritizing

properties in need of improvement, obtaining donations from local businesses, signing up

interested Live Oak staff and citizens, and donating basic items.

Provide information, such as information on grants and on low-interest bank loans, to citizens,

especially if major repairs are needed and funding is an issue. Also, establish a system for

feedback and continued contact with property owners.

Incorporate the list of standards recommended for new residential development, specifically for

single-family and multiple-family development, into the City’s Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance,

as applicable.

Consider adopting such a property maintenance ordinances that would allow the City to

regulate the maintenance of broken down vehicles, damaged fences, recreation vehicles

parked for extended periods of time, excessive trash in front yards, and dilapidated accessory

structures.

Practice proactive code enforcement throughout the City on a consistent basis

Business Enhancement Strategies

Increase development standards along the City’s major thoroughfares, including Interstate

Highway, Loop 1604, Topperwein Road, O’Conner Road, Lookout Road, and Pat Booker

Road. Such standards should specifically address parking, shared driveways, lighting,

setbacks, screening, exterior construction, loading docks, landscaping, and signage.

Adopt these standards either through a zoning district or through an overlay district.

Utilize the recommendations herein to further Live Oak’s economic development efforts; these

recommendations are designed to guide City leaders in crafting programs and services that

respond to the needs of existing businesses, as well as the needs of new businesses.

Utilize the recommended target industry list (Table 5-2) to market Live Oak to these specified

industries.


Source: City of Live Oak’s Neighborhood & Business Enhancement Plan.

CChhaapptteerr 66:: TThhee IImmpplleemmeennttaattiioonn SSttrraatteeggiieess PPllaann


Implementation Strategies Plan



With the publication and adoption of this Comprehensive Plan document, the City of Live Oak

will have taken an important step in shaping its future. The Plan will provide a very important

tool for City staff and civic leaders to use in making sound planning decisions regarding the

long-term growth and development of Live Oak. The various elements of the Plan are based

upon realistic growth objectives and goals for the City that resulted from an intense

comprehensive planning process involving a Steering Committee, citizens, Live Oak staff,

elected and appointed officials, and major stakeholders in the community.

The future quality of life in Live Oak, as well as the environment of the City, will be substantially

influenced by the manner in which Comprehensive Plan recommendations are administered

and maintained. The Comprehensive Plan should never be considered a finished product, but

rather a broad guide for community growth and development that is always evolving and

changing in scope.

Changes within Live Oak, such as economics and development trends, that were not

anticipated during preparation of the Plan will occur from time to time, and therefore,

subsequent adjustments will be required. Elements of the City that were treated in terms of a

general relationship to the overall area may, in the future, require more specific and detailed

attention. Planning for the City's future should be a continuing process, and the Comprehensive

Plan is designed to be a dynamic tool that can be modified and periodically updated to keep it in

tune with changing conditions and trends.

The full benefits of the Plan for the City of Live Oak can only be realized by maintaining it as a

vital, up-to-date document. As changes occur and new issues within the City become apparent,

the Plan should be revised rather than ignored. By such action, the Plan will remain current and

effective in meeting the City's decision-making needs.

TThhee RRoolleess ooff tthhee CCoommpprreehheennssiivvee PPllaann

AA GGUUIIDDEE FFOORR DDAAIILLYY DDEECCIISSIIOONN--MMAAKKIINNGG

The current physical layout of the City is a product of previous efforts put forth by many diverse

individuals and groups. In the future, each new development that takes place, whether it is a

subdivision that is platted, a home that is built, or a new school, church or shopping center that

is constructed, represents an addition to Live Oak's physical form. The composite of all such

efforts and facilities creates the City as it is seen and experienced by its citizens and visitors. If

planning is to be effective, it must guide each and every individual development decision. The

City, in its daily decisions pertaining to whether to surface a street, to approve a residential plat,

to amend a zoning ordinance provision, to enforce the building codes, or to construct a new

utility line, should always refer to the basic proposals outlined within the Comprehensive Plan.

The private builder or investor, likewise, should recognize the broad concepts and policies of the

Plan so that their efforts become part of a meaningful whole in planning the City.



AA FFLLEEXXIIBBLLEE && AALLTTEERRAABBLLEE GGUUIIDDEE

TThhee CCoommpprreehheennssiivvee PPllaann ffoorr tthhee CCiittyy ooff LLiivvee OOaakk iiss iinntteennddeedd ttoo bbee aa ddyynnaammiicc ppllaannnniinngg

ddooccuummeenntt ---- oonnee tthhaatt rreessppoonnddss ttoo cchhaannggiinngg nneeeeddss aanndd ccoonnddiittiioonnss.. Plan amendments

should not be made without thorough analysis of immediate needs, as well as consideration for

long-term effects of proposed amendments. The Live Oak City Council and other Live Oak

officials should consider each proposed amendment carefully to determine whether or not it is

consistent with the Plan's goals and policies, and whether it will be beneficial for the long-term

health and vitality of the City of Live Oak.

At one- to three-year intervals, a periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan with respect to

current conditions and trends should be performed. Such on-going, scheduled reevaluations

will provide a basis for adjusting capital expenditures and priorities, and will reveal changes and

additions which should be made to the Plan in order to keep it current and applicable long-term.

The Planning and Zoning Commission shall devote one meeting annually at the end of the

calendar year to reviewing the status and continued applicability of the Plan in light of current

conditions. Within 90 days of this meeting, a report with any recommended changes to the

Comprehensive Plan and/or to ordinances (e.g., the Zoning Ordinance) should be prepared and

should be submitted to the Live Oak City Council. Those items that appear to need specific

attention should be examined in more detail, and changes and/or additions should be made

accordingly. By such periodic reevaluations, the Plan will remain functional, and will continue to

give civic leaders effective guidance in decision-making. Periodic reviews of the Plan should

include consideration of the following:

The City's progress in implementing the Plan;

Changes in conditions that form the basis of the Plan;

Community support for the Plan's goals, objectives & policies; and,

Changes in State laws.

PPuubblliicc PPaarrttiicciippaattiioonn

In addition to periodic annual reviews, the Comprehensive Plan should undergo a complete,

more thorough review and update every five years. The review and updating process should

begin with a citizen committee similar to the one appointed to assist in the preparation of this

Plan, thereby encouraging citizen input from the beginning of the process. Specific input on

major changes should be sought from various groups, including property owners, neighborhood

groups, civic leaders and major stakeholders, developers, merchants, and other citizens and

individuals who express an interest in the long-term growth and development of the City.

An informed, involved citizenry is a vital element of a democratic society. The needs and

desires of the public are important considerations in Live Oak's decision-making process.

Citizen participation takes many forms, from educational forums to serving on City boards and

commissions. A broad range of perspectives and ideas at public hearings helps City leaders

and the City Council to make more informed decisions for the betterment of the City as a whole.



Live Oak should continue to encourage as many forms of community involvement as possible

as the City implements its Comprehensive Plan.

IImmpplleemmeennttaattiioonn SSttrraatteeggiieess

TThheerree aarree ttwwoo pprriimmaarryy mmeetthhooddss ooff iimmpplleemmeennttiinngg tthhee CCoommpprreehheennssiivvee PPllaann -- pprrooaaccttiivvee aanndd

rreeaaccttiivvee mmeetthhooddss.. BBootthh mmuusstt bbee uusseedd iinn aann eeffffeeccttiivvee mmaannnneerr iinn oorrddeerr ttoo ssuucccceessssffuullllyy

aacchhiieevvee tthhee rreeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss ccoonnttaaiinneedd wwiitthhiinn tthhee PPllaann.

Proactive methods include the following, which have been put in priority order in relation to their

importance to Live Oak:

1. Engaging in proactive code enforcement;

2. Establishing/enforcing Zoning Ordinances;

3. Establishing/enforcing Subdivision Ordinances;

4. Developing a capital improvements program (CIP), by which the City expends funds

to finance certain public improvements (e.g., utility lines, roadways, etc.), meeting

objectives that are cited within the Plan.

Reactive methods, which are not in any order of priority include:

Rezoning a development proposal that would enhance the City and that is based on

the Comprehensive Plan;

Site plan review;

Subdivision review.

Several specific strategies, both proactive and reactive, and financing mechanisms that could

be used by the City of Live Oak to implement the recommendations and policies contained

within the Comprehensive Plan are described within the following sections.

CCAAPPIITTAALL IIMMPPRROOVVEEMMEENNTTSS PPRROOGGRRAAMMMMIINNGG

Capital improvements are integrally linked to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance,

and Subdivision Ordinance. A capital improvement such as a water treatment plant illustrates

this concept. The Comprehensive Plan recommends areas for a particular type of development,

the Zoning Ordinance reinforces Plan recommendations with applicable zoning districts

consistent with that type of development, and the Subdivision Ordinance regulates the facilities

(e.g., utility extensions, roadway widths, etc.) necessary to accommodate that type of

development. The type of development that is recommended by the Comprehensive Plan and

that is regulated and approved in accordance with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance

dictates the water treatment plant’s size and capacity.

The Comprehensive Plan makes recommendations on the various public improvements that will

be needed to accommodate growth and development envisioned for the City over the next 20

years or more. Many of the changes involve improvements that will be financed by future



improvement programs. It will be a desirable to invest regularly in the physical maintenance

and enhancement of the City of Live Oak rather than to undertake large improvement-type

programs at longer time intervals. A modest amount of money expended annually on prioritized

items in accordance with Plan recommendations will produce a far greater return to the City

than will large expenditures at long intervals.

FFuunnddiinngg MMeecchhaanniissmmss

Budgeting and cost are primary considerations in terms of implementing Plan

recommendations. Therefore, a discussion of the various funding mechanisms that could be

utilized by Live Oak to realize these recommendations follows. It is important to note that the

discussion does not represent an exhaustive list of the funding sources that may be used, but

includes those mechanisms that are likely to be most applicable for use within Live Oak.

Impact Fees

Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code addresses the issue of developer

participation in the construction of off-site facilities such as water, wastewater, and

roadways. This state law allows cities in Texas to decide whether to assess fees for 1)

roadway construction, 2) water service expansion, and 3) wastewater service expansion to

new residential and nonresidential development. The City should investigate the feasibility

of using Chapter 395 as a funding mechanism for such capital expenditures.

Impact fees can be described as fees charged to new development based on that

development’s impact on the infrastructure system. The primary advantage to having this

funding source is that it provides cities with the increased ability to plan and construct capital

facilities so that the needed infrastructure system capacity is available when the market

warrants. If they are not implemented, new capital facilities will likely be financed through

taxes (e.g., ad valorem, sales), which are paid by existing as well as future residents. With

impact fees, the development community is responsible for paying its related share of the

cost of growth and the impact of that growth on local infrastructure systems.

However, while impact fees provide financing help for cities, they also increase the cost of

development. As most costs associated with development are “passed through” to the

consumer, it can be argued that impact fees increase the cost of housing or deter economic

development. In order to mitigate any negative effects of adopting impact fees on economic

development opportunities, the City can investigate development incentives, such as

waiving all or a portion of impact fees, for larger retail uses that locate along Interstate

Highway 35. It must also be noted that if the facilities (and the related capacity) are not

available, growth would likely not occur anyway, and therefore, impact fees would not be

charged.

State & County Funding

Coordination with state agencies and with Bexar County is recommended for the joint

planning and cost sharing of projects. A widely utilized example of state funding is the use

of funds allocated by Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). TxDOT receives funds

from the federal government and directly from the state budget that it distributes for roadway

construction and maintenance across Texas. There are several roads within Live Oak that

may be eligible for such funds.



Bexar County also has programs with monies available for various projects, including capital

improvements and feasibility studies. Capital improvements funded by the County generally

include roadways, park facilities, and public buildings. The City should research County

funding availability specifically for implementation of Plan recommendations related to

thoroughfares and parks.

Various Types of Bonds

The two most widely used types of bonds are general obligation bonds and revenue bonds.

General obligation bonds, commonly referred to as G.O.s, can be described as bonds that

are secured by a pledge of the credit and taxing power of the City and must be approved by

a voter referendum. Revenue bonds can be described as bonds that are secured by the

revenue of the City. Certificates of obligation, commonly referred to as C.O.s, can be voted

on by the City Council without a City-wide election/bond referendum. It should be noted that

if Live Oak chooses to adopt an impact fee ordinance and bonds have been included in the

assessment of impact fees, funds derived from impact fees could be used to retire bonds.

Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)

CDBG grants can be used to revitalize neighborhoods, expand affordable housing and

economic opportunities, and improve community facilities and services. A minimum of 70

percent of all grant funds allocated to a city must be devoted to programs and activities that

benefit low- and moderate-income individuals. Cities can use grants toward a number of

actions, including reconstructing or rehabilitating housing, building public infrastructure (i.e.,

capital facilities such as streets, water and sewer systems), providing public services to

youths, seniors or disabled persons, and assisting low-income homebuyers. This type of

funding was also briefly discussed within the Neighborhood & Business Enhancement Plan

in relation to improving local housing.

RREEGGUULLAATTOORRYY MMEECCHHAANNIISSMMSS && AADDMMIINNIISSTTRRAATTIIVVEE PPRROOCCEESSSSEESS

The usual processes for reviewing and processing zoning amendments, development plans,

and subdivision plans provide significant opportunities for implementing the Comprehensive

Plan. Each zoning, development and subdivision decision should be evaluated and weighed

against applicable proposals contained within the Plan. The Plan allows Live Oak to review

proposals and requests in light of an officially prepared document adopted through a sound,

thorough planning process. If decisions are made that are inconsistent with Plan

recommendations, then they should include actions to modify or amend the Plan accordingly in

order to ensure consistency and fairness in future decision-making. Amending the Subdivision

Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance represent two major, proactive measures that the City can

take to implement Comprehensive Plan recommendations. Specifics on the way in which this

can be effectively achieved for both are discussed in the following sections.

TThhee SSuubbddiivviissiioonn OOrrddiinnaannccee

The act of subdividing land to create building sites is one that has the greatest effect on the

overall design and image of Live Oak. Much of the basic physical form of the City is currently

created by the layout of streets, easements, and lots. In the future, the basic physical form of



Live Oak will be further affected by elements such as new development, both residential and

non-residential, and the implementation of the Thoroughfare Plan. As mentioned previously,

many of the growth and development proposals contained within the City's Comprehensive Plan

can be achieved through the exercise of subdivision control and other “reactive” practices.

Some elements of the Plan, such as major thoroughfare rights-of-way and drainage easements,

can be influenced, guided and actually achieved during the process of subdividing the land.

Once the subdivision has been filed (recorded) and development has begun, the subdivision

becomes a permanent, integral part of the City's urban fabric. Thereafter, it can be changed

only through great effort and expense. Live Oak’s Subdivision Ordinance should be updated in

accordance with Thoroughfare Plan recommendations, specifically with the rights-of-way widths

and sections contained therein. With this implementation measure, as individual plats are

approved, the City can require that rights-of-way be dedicated in conjunction with the

recommendations as generally set forth in the Thoroughfare Plan.

TThhee ZZoonniinngg OOrrddiinnaannccee

All zoning and land use changes should be made within the context of existing land uses, future

land uses, and planned infrastructure, including roadways, water and wastewater. The City’s

Zoning Ordinance should be updated with the recommendations contained within this

Comprehensive Plan. In addition, after a thorough review of the Zoning Ordinance, it is

recommended that the following listed changes be made within the Ordinance.

Ensure Consistency Between the Zoning Map and the Future Land Use Plan map.

Take proactive measures to rezone parcels of land in prime retail areas to ensure

that these areas develop with nonresidential uses that will help the City’s tax

base.

Ensure Variety For Residential Lot Sizes

The minimum required lot size should be 6,500 square feet.

Encourage Unique Neighborhoods and Mixed Use Development

Incorporate districts allowing for Residential TND and Mixed Use TND into the

Zoning Ordinance.

Ensure Quality Residential Development

Incorporate the standards related to future single-family and multiple-family

development listed within the Neighborhood & Business Enhancement Plan,

Chapter 5, into the applicable sections and districts within the Zoning Ordinance.

Ensure Quality Neighborhoods

Adopt a property maintenance ordinance that would address the regulation of

visually unattractive elements, such as the maintenance of broken down

vehicles, damaged fences, recreation vehicles parked for extended periods of

time, excessive trash in front yards, and dilapidated accessory structures

Ensure Quality Development Along Major Roadways

As recommended within the Neighborhood & Business Enhancement Plan, the

City should establish either a separate zoning district or an overlay district related

to ensuring high-quality, aesthetically pleasing nonresidential development along

its major roadways, including Interstate Highway 35, Loop 1604, Topperwein

Road, O’Conner Road, Lookout Road, and Pat Booker Road.




Implementation is probably one of the most important, yet most difficult, aspects of the

comprehensive planning process. Without viable, realistic mechanisms for implementation, the

recommendations contained within the Comprehensive Plan will be difficult to realize. The two

primary recommendations that are made as a result of this comprehensive planning effort are

as follows:

1. Review the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and amend it as recommended

herein.

2. Evaluate and revise the current property maintenance code as

recommended within the Neighborhood & Business Enhancement

Plan.

There are numerous other recommendations made within this Plan that will be important to the

future growth of Live Oak. They are listed at the end of each chapter, and they should be

prioritized and implemented in the coming years. The City should concentrate on implementing

the two primary recommendations listed above immediately following adoption of this

Comprehensive Plan.

City of Hewitt Oak... · Comprehensive Plan 2022 1-3 City of Live Oak, Texas. approximately 1,550...

Documents

Transcript of City of Hewitt Oak... · Comprehensive Plan 2022 1-3 City of Live Oak, Texas. approximately 1,550...