The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil Commission PresentationP&Z Commission and Council Joint Work Session Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 1 The Planning Team Principal in Charge & Project Manager Robin McCaffrey, AIA, AICP (Land Use, Urban Design, Growth Economics, and Architecture) Tia Primova (Web Design) Ashley Shook, LEED AP BD+C (Urban Planning & Design) Eli Pearson, AICP, LEED AP (Urban Planning & Design) Todd LaRue, Principal (Land Use Economics & Real Estate) Carissa Cox, AICP (Environmental Sustainability) Alex Martinez, PE & Kevin Tilbury (Civil Engineering & Transportation Planning) Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 2 Agenda: 1.Comp. Plan 101 2.Review Assessments, Goals & Citizen Priorities, Framework Plan 3.Review of the Planning Elements 4.Break 5.Case Study –Margaret Lee Property 6.Moving Forward Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 3 The Steering Committee Role: Assures the Town that key public concerns are heard by the consultant and addressed in the process of the comprehensive plan review and update Members: Alesa Belvedere Allan Thompson Derrell Johnson Don Redding Greg Goble Jack Dawson Jeff Williams Joe Schneider Mayor, Laura Wheat Paul Beauchamp Pete Sackleh Rick Rennhack Roland Arthur Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 4 The Planning Process Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 5 The Planning Process Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 6 Comp. Plan 101 The Comprehensive Plan is a: •Guide that brings public concerns and vision into the decision/policy making process of local governance •Living document that may be amended as needed through the public process •Example: Council refers to The Plan when a development project needs rezoning or platting to make sure it is in line with the publicly supported vision for the future of Westlake A Planner’s Duty is to: •Provide a Plan that promotes “sound development…public health and welfare” (Texas Govt. Code Section 213.001), which •Takes into consideration the extent of all existing entitlements and development rights should they be realized in full or not. Therefore, the Plan should be: •General enough to give flexibility in decision making but •Thorough enough to provide sufficient direction should the full extent of entitlements be realized. Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 7 Comp. Plan 101 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 8 Comp. Plan 101 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 9 Comp. Plan 101 Cost of Growth •Growth Pays for Growth •What is the Potential Cost of Growth if Growth Does Not Pay for Growth? Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 Town Arterial Land Area for Proposed Roads Value of Land at $10.00/ sf Value of Improvement at $120/ sf @ .3:1 FAR Total Cost of Condemnation 3,510,000 sf $35,100,00 $126,360,000 $161,460,000 Regional Arterial Land Area for Proposed Roads Value of Land at $15.00/ sf Value of Improvement at $120/ sf @ .3:1 FAR Total Cost of Condemnation 2,356,000 sf $35,340,00 $113,088,000 $148,428,000 Grand Total $309,888,000 10 The Growth Context The Zoning Entitlements The Relative Position of Westlake Challenges: Existing Conditions & Trends Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 11 The Growth Context •High Velocity Growth Corridor –295,521 people by 2036 in the 15 minute drive-time window –Current median household income of $100,000 –$4.4 billion spending potential can support 18 million sq. ft. of retail within Westlake –Expected workforce population of 142,000 –Land further west is encumbered making Westlake the future center of office and retail activity Challenges: Existing Conditions & Trends Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 12 The Growth Context •Emerging Regional Office Center –US 75, Dallas North Tollway, and Highway 114 are the major office corridors in the Metroplex Westlake is within 30 minutes of 108 million sq. ft. of office Dallas North Tollway/Preston Rd. and Highway 114 are the primary executive housing corridors in the Metroplex Challenges: Existing Conditions & Trends Executive Housing Corridor Study Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 13 The Growth Context •Target for High End Housing Growth –Westlake and Highland Park have the highest median home values in the Metroplex –Build-out of other custom home markets in neighboring communities will make Westlake a desired location for relocation of those markets –Pressures will increase to meet the needs of other high-end markets such as younger, high-end buyers –Markets expanding in neighboring communities will seek to continue movement into Westlake Challenges: Existing Conditions & Trends Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 14 Build-Out and Zoning Entitlements •Town is completely zoned •Planned Developments –PDs are ordinances that grant specific rights of use, density, and conditions of development –4 major PD ordinances written in the 1990’s that do not fully compliment the Vision forged in Public Workshop #2 –The Plan must work within the limitations imposed by PDs and other zoning currently in place Challenges: Existing Conditions & Trends Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 15 Build-Out and Zoning Entitlements •Commercial Dominance –Planned Development rights to land owners: •Office Use: 16.7 million sq. ft. •Retail Use: 3.9 million sq. ft. •Mixed Use: 2.5 million sq. ft. •Hotel Use: 1.4 million sq. ft. •Education and Conference Center Use: 1.2 million sq. ft. •Total Non-Residential Area: 25.7 million sq. ft. –Unlikely that all will be built but the market context supports development of a significant portion ( 19 to 20 million sq. ft.) –PDs and existing residential zoning permit approximately 2,500 residential units of various types Challenges: Existing Conditions & Trends Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 16 Challenges: Existing Conditions & Trends Empire State Building is slightly more than 2 million sf. Therefore, 11 Empire State Buildings equal 24 million sf. 5 points of connection with no other local continuity Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 17 Build-Out and Zoning Entitlements •Potential Impacts on Town fabric: –Total Trip Volume = 466,000 trip –Significant traffic and potential traffic congestion –Closer proximity between residential and non- residential uses –Potential infill of the open landscape –How the residential Town component and the non-residential Town component come together will define the Town overall. Challenges: Existing Conditions & Trends Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 18 19 Relative Position of Westlake •Commercial Center for the Region –25 million sq. ft. is the size of the downtown of a major city, like Fort Worth –290,000 people within the 15 minute drive-time window is the population of a major city, such as Corpus Christi –The structural importance of Westlake’s commercial area as a focus of employment, shopping, and entertainment will make Westlake the regional center –Traffic volumes to and from Westlake will be significant, especially at peak hours Challenges: Existing Conditions & Trends Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 20 Relative Position of Westlake •Daytime Community –The non-residential dominance means that Westlake will have a bigger daytime community than a permanent community –This impacts services, roads, and parks Challenges: Existing Conditions & Trends Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 21 Relative Position of Westlake •Ad Valorem Balance –Westlake enjoys one of the lowest tax rates in the Metroplex –As Westlake’s population increases, its financial costs of governance and services will also increase –To the future city and keep the current low tax rate in place, Westlake must realize at least 19 million sq. ft. of non- residential development –High quality non-residential development supports the high quality residential development. Therefore, Westlake must promote quality in design and construction across the board. Challenges: Existing Conditions & Trends Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 22 Vision: Citizen Direction Citizen Direction is… •Step #1 •The foundation upon which the Plan is built •The result of: –Citizen Direction and Input given at Public Workshop #1, –Review of Goals and Citizen Priorities presented at Public Workshop #2, and –Final review of Goals and Citizen Priorities after Public Workshop #2 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 23 Citizen Direction concerns the… •Quality of Life Vision: Citizen Direction Goals and Citizen Priorities •Preserve the quiet sense of rural-ness •Promote the Town as an Education Center •Provide sufficient emergency services and infrastructure to serve future growth •Prevent traffic congestion •Be a model of water conservation and environmental preservation •Offer distinctive recreation and park opportunities Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 24 Citizen Direction concerns the… •Quality of Life Vision: Citizen Direction Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 25 Citizen Direction concerns the… •Quality of Housing, Development and Sustained Value Vision: Citizen Direction Goals and Citizen Priorities •Promote high caliber design of buildings and sites •Provide greater level of amenity and water features •Establish clear residential & non-residential areas •Establish a strong Ad Valorem Tax Base that preserves the current low rate of taxation •Encourage campus like, non-residential development •Encourage continues high value residential development Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 26 Citizen Direction concerns the… •Quality of Housing, Development and Sustained Value Vision: Citizen Direction Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 27 Citizen Direction concerns the… •Quality of “Town” (overall sustained value and form) Vision: Citizen Direction Goals and Citizen Priorities •Preserve the natural and rural views and pastoral beauty •Preserve important natural assets and features •Promote one holistic township with a focal core and residential/ non-residential elements •Provide town-wide connectivity with trails and roadways •Preserve rural Dove Rd. where possible Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 28 Citizen Direction concerns the… •Quality of “Town” (overall sustained value and form) Vision: Citizen Direction Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 29 Vision: The Planning Framework The Planning Framework is… •Step #2 •A graphic expression of the Goals and Citizen Priorities and the View Analysis •A template for The Plan Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 30 Vision: The Planning Framework The Planning Framework is… •Step #2 •A graphic expression of the Goals and Citizen Priorities and the View Analysis •A template for The Plan Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 The Framework Plan shows 5 basic communities held together by contiguous open space that protects characteristic views and natural features. 31 Vision Statement An oasis of natural beauty that maintains our open spaces in balance with distinctive development, trails, and quality of life amenities amidst an ever expanding urban landscape. Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 32 3. Plan Elements Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 The Plan must Accomplish the Framework vision within the fabric of present and emerging conditions. 33 34 35 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 4. 10 Minute Break Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 50 5. Case Study –Margaret Lee Property Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 51 Case Study –Transfer of Sq. Footage Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 52 Initial Application Submittal Staff Review Application Resubmittal based on Staff Recommendations P&Z and Council Consideration Case Study –Process Staff compares application to Comprehensive Plan Staff provides recommendations to Applicant Applicant voluntarily revises application based on staff recommendations Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 Applicant submits reasonable application Does not consider Transfer of Commercial Square Footage May or may not consider all staff recommendations Staff recommends approval or denial and provides Development Checklist to P&Z and Council with notes supporting recommendation P&Z and Council consider the application and the Development Checklist Should base vote on how the proposed application does or does not support the goals of the Comprehensive Plan Staff Phase 53 Case Study –Margaret Lee Property Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 Lake Turner Westlake Academy Margaret Lee Property Land Area 5,833,217 sq. ft. = 133 ac. Case Study Site 54 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 Existing Zoning Map Q1: What is the allowable development per the Current Zoning? Case Study –Margaret Lee Property 2,289,536.5 sf = 52.56 ac. @ .25:1 FAR = 572,384.13 sf. of Office 3,592,097.4 = 83 ac. Max. 83 Single-Family 1 ac. lots 55 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 Lake Turner Westlake Academy Q2: What does the Initial Rezoning Application request? Case Study –Margaret Lee Property 6 AC 30 AC 99 AC Initial Application 56 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 Future Land Use Map Case Study –Margaret Lee Property Requesting .4:1 FAR of commercial use in an Open Space Area Q3: Does this Initial Request coincide with the Comprehensive Plan, starting with the Land Use Plan? 57 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 Future Land Use Map Case Study –Margaret Lee Property Q4: If it does not comply, what areas does the Comprehensive Plan allow the applicant to receive transferred commercial square footage? CC2-A CC2-B RC-D TC-D OPEN SPACE CC2-A: Community Com. 2: View Shed CC2-B: Community Com.2: View Corridor RC-D: Regional Com.: View Shade Zone Open Space TC-D: Town Core: View Shade Zone 58 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 Case Study –Margaret Lee Property CC2-A CC2-B RC-D TC-D OPEN SPACE A: View Shed Zone = Receiving/Sending Area B: View Corridor Zone = Sending Area D: View Shade Zone = Receiving Area Open Space: Sending Area Areas Preferable for Development and Preservation 59 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 Case Study –Margaret Lee Property Revised Land Areas per Use Q5: With revised areas established, what is the base zoning recommendation? 60 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 Case Study –Margaret Lee Property Revised Scenario 1: Development at .4:1 FAR as per Adjacent PDs Office/Hotel Area A-B: 566,906 commercial sq. ft. @ .4:1 FAR Office/Hotel Area A-B Office Area C: 262,632 commercial sq. ft. @ .4:1 FAR Office Area C Office Area D Office Area D: 267,060 commercial sq. ft. @ .4:1 FAR 61 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 Case Study –Margaret Lee Property 0 Office/Hotel Area A-B Total Office/Hotel without TDR (base zoning recommendation) = 1,096,598 commercial sq. ft. @ .4:1 FAR Office Area C Office Area D Revised Scenario 1: Development at .4:1 FAR as per Adjacent PDs 62 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 Case Study –Margaret Lee Property CC2-A CC2-B RC-D TC-D OPEN SPACE Considering Transfer of Development Square Footage Q6: Which of the Sending Areas has commercial square footage available for transfer and what is the rate of transfer?63 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 Case Study –Margaret Lee Property CC2-A CC2-B RC-D TC-D OPEN SPACE Q6: Which of the Sending Areas has commercial square footage available for transfer and what is the rate of transfer? Considering Transfer of Development Square Footage 64 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 Case Study –Margaret Lee Property CC2-A CC2-B RC-D TC-D OS AREA 2 OS Area 2 cannot be transferred because the base zoning is R-1 and does not include commercial uses OS AREA 1 OS Area 1 can be transferred because the base zoning is Office. Commercial Square Footage can be transferred from an Open Space sending area at 1:1 as long as it is publicly accessible. 9.36 acres @ 1.3:1 rate of transfer = 406,236 transferrable commercial square footage Considering Transfer of Development Square Footage 65 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 Case Study –Margaret Lee Property 6.1 acres of Town/Regional Arterial R.O.W. @ 1.25:1 rate of transfer = 83,339.4 transferrable commercial square footage Considering Transfer of Development Square Footage 66 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 Case Study –Margaret Lee Property 3 acre Fire Station Dedication @ 3:1 rate of transfer = 98,010 transferrable commercial square footage Considering Transfer of Development Square Footage 67 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 Case Study –Margaret Lee Property Revised Scenario 2: Development using Transfer of Development Square Footage Office/Hotel Area A: 496,562 sq. ft. @ .64:1 FAR Office/ Hotel Area A Office Area C: 170,711 sq. ft. @ .26:1 FAR Office Area C Office Area D Office Area D: 347,178 sq. ft. @ .52:1 FAR Office Area B Office Area B: 436,144 sq. ft. @ .68:1 FAR 180 Patio Home Units @ 6 units/ac 68 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 Case Study –Margaret Lee Property Initial Application: •.4:1 FAR •Office/Hotel: 1,725,389 sq. ft. •Residential: 200 units @ 6.6 units/acre Revised Scenario 1: •.4:1 FAR •Office/Hotel: 1,096,598 sq. ft. •Residential: 180 units @ 6 units/acre Revised Scenario 2: •Appropriate FAR per LUP •Office/Hotel: 1,450,594 sq. ft. •Residential: 180 units @ 6 units/acre 69 Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 Case Study –Margaret Lee Property Initial Application: •No open space preservation/amenity •Disregards view preservation •Does not provide roadway connectivity Revised Scenario 1: •Open space preservation and connectivity •Disregards view preservation •Does not provide roadway connectivity Revised Scenario 2: •Open space preservation and connectivity •Views preserved •Roadway connectivity provided 70 Moving Forward January 21st, 2015 Steering Committee Roles Planning Team Roles Joint Work Session Committee Role – Introduction P&Z Commission Hearing for Recommendation to Council Committee Roles - Introduction, Present Presentation, Answer Questions Town Council Hearing for Adoption Committee Roles - Introduction, Present Presentation, Answer Questions Use of Plan after Adoption Committee Roles - Form on-going advisory committee like “United Kyle” or “United Brownsville” Planning Team Roles –Present Definitions, Use of Plan, TDSF, Case Study, Future Updates Planning Team Role - Assist with creation of presentation, Answer Questions Planning Team Role - Assist with creation of presentation, Answer Questions Planning Team Role - Consultation upon request TODAY Dec. 8th Potential Date: February Joint Work Session December 8, 2014 71