HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-06-92 PZ Min WESTLAKE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING OF JULY 6, 1992
SCOTT BRADLEY (SB) : The public hearing is in order at 6: 13 p.m. on
July 6, 1992 . I think that most of you received in the mail a
black and white or black and gray and white copy of the conceptual
land use plan G. It's now pending before the commission. Is there
anybody who did not receive one of these or who has not seen this
plan? Okay, if any of you have the plan with you, I'd like for you
to take it out. Dennis and Rowland were supposed to be here to
make the presentation. I suspect because this meeting originally
was scheduled at 7 o'clock that they have gotten the times confused
and will probably show up here shortly before 7 o'clock, but I
don't want to keep people waiting until then. I'd like to. . . Well,
here they come. You're saved, you don't get to. . .
For the record I'll state that Dennis Wilson of J. Dennis Wilson
Assoc. is making, passing out the papers at the moment. He is one
of our planners and Rowland Jackson is in the tan-colored suit.
So, we'll turn it over to Rowland and Dennis for their
presentation.
DENNIS WILSON (DW) : We're now having a public hearing to make a
recommendation to the commission on this plan. We've probably been
working on this plan for over a year now. There's some new faces
in here, so you're just a little behind it all. The Board or the
Mayor established a committee last year to develop a plan and one
of the first things that was established was a vision for the Town
of Westlake. I think that's probably important. It's a brief one,
but it's important to you because it's based on this vision that
this plan was developed. That vision states. . . "The vision for
Westlake is to create a community which builds on its existing high
quality office development and rural residential character, and
which maintains and enhances the natural features of the
community. " So, based on that, which was step one, we developed a
plan which you see on the right here, which is put in the draft
comprehensive plan that was heard by the P & Z, Planning and Zoning
Commission last December and at that point it was recommended to
the Board for approval . In January the Board met and asked that we
go back and have further discussions with representatives of Circle
T Ranch and try to resolve a number of issues, which we've done and
now we're coming back with some modified recommendations to that
plan. This is the new plan, basically in terms of land use that's
being recommended. There are some key differences between the two.
This plan shows multi-family uses on it, there is additional single
family residential and further up more land is given to single
family. The densities of land uses are more specific. In the
original plan we talked about ranges, a half acre to ten acres, in
1
here we're fairly specific about five acres, one acre, and half
acre on the zonings. Sort of the key driving force really on both
these plans is that commercial, which is the blue, which is the
office park designation and office industrial, is to be located
adjacent to the freeway entrance to the town. The single family is
located in parts of the Town which have a more rolling topography
because single family can be nestled into that development more
easily. This plan shows a swing land use area, which is area
thirty-four here, that could be either office or single family
development, primarily because it's sandwiched between the Solana
Office Complex and Dove Road and the edge of the town. So, that
is, that's proposed as an option going either direction.
SB: Just might comment that there are more legends than there are
colors on that colored map.
-DW: Now we're showing up here a half acre and an acre cluster.
There's not a large area, one of these large development areas,
which are shown in those colors, but it's intended that on an
application basis that there would be sites that would ultimately
be zoned those densities. The Town appears to be in support of the
higher densities in areas where it's relatively flat terrain, where
there is preservation of additional open space for special feature
in the Town. So, those items are on the legend but they're not
shown on this plan. It is recommended in the policies that the
Town be supportive of those kinds of densities, we're hoping. . .
SB: Well, that depends on an application for plan development.
DW: That would probably be the best way to handle it, right. Or
it could be additional . . it could be in subdivided land where one
area is subdivided down where there it's adjacent to larger tracts
of land, whether it be larger zones or sites or it could be a
variety of ways that that can be approached. In the handout there
are a number of wording changes that are being suggested. I won't
go through each one of them, but maybe pick out some of the key
ones. The. . in the. . . in the comprehensive plan there's a 200 foot
setback recommended from Highway 114 , 170, 377 landscaped area.
We're recommending that that become 150 average setback so that the
setback is moved in and out and that becomes basically an average.
So it's reducing that setback requirement. There are a number of
references to utilities and responding to regional demands and
considerations to working out the utilities within the region as
opposed to the Town on it's own and that, in fact, the process is
well under it's way right now.
These first seven items were items which were worked out with
representatives of the Circle T except for and there's one addition
to be a little bit clearer about it. To item number four, it says
the developer should construct, and we added "and pay for" all
roadways made necessary by it's development and provide for a two
year maintenance bond. So, the "and pay for" is a clarification
2
for the town. The two year maintenance bond has been instituted
because it follows the standard practice. It was three year in the
draft comprehensive plan. We've added a statement dealing with
plan development districts because a lot of people were unclear
about the plan development districts. It says "provide for plan
development districts", whereby a zoning district may be applied
for and utilized in order to allow greater flexibility in land use,
density, and other regulations and more closely reflect special
conditions of development sites. Because we know there are a
number of very particular issues and concerns, environmental
conditions dealing with zones throughout the town, this has been
put together in an effort to provide greater flexibility and some
custom design regulations for those who choose to apply for that
district. A plan development district can include any range of
land uses that are allowed in the zoning ordinance or any range of
setback or density or parking requirements. So, it's sort of a
wild card type of zoning district.
The. . . in addition we've suggested a number of other changes,
a few other changes. First, the vision in the draft comprehensive
plan we spoke to preservation of hardwood trees with a caliper of
twelve inches or more and here we recommend eight inches. We're
also adding a recommendation that the Town should consider public
improvement districts as a vehicle to provide for a supply of
utilities. We revised the range of zoning districts to be a little
bit more specific in relation to the land use map that we're now
proposing and also added in the cluster residential district.
Cluster residential being a district which would allow smaller, if,
for example, it's a half-acre cluster residential development, it
would allow a smaller lot within that district, provided that
additional space is preserved and open space or preservation of
parks or clusters of trees, whatever, might be appropriate. So,
it's allowing overall density of half acre, than individual lots
with a smaller density and we can handle that.
Then there are a number of revisions to some of the maps and
they're attached to that document as well. The, . . . primarily, it
deals with some technical corrections. We have the landscape area
or landscape zones, which becomes a 150 average, it's closer to
200. We have in there a Thoroughfare Plan that shows the hierarchy
of roads that relate to the recommendations on rights of way and
treatments of roadways throughout the Town. Then, I believe most
of the other sections of the roadways deal with sidewalks and those
kind of relations, to make sure that there is consistency and
provisions of sidewalks. Basically, sidewalks be required on all
roads except for local residential streets that do not have curb
and gutter. We have also in here a sort of a summary of the amount
of commercial space and residential space, which could be developed
under the proposed land use map would yield some 6600 residents,
new residents in the Town, if it was built out according to this
plan.
3
SB: That does not take into account any density or treatments to
the commercial and retail.
DW: No, that's just completely residential, yes. And with these
revisions we're recommending approval to the Board.
SB: Okay, let's take comments from the public. Who would like to
speak first?
Pat Atkins (PA) : Sir?
SB: Yes, Pat, would you announce your name and address please?
PA: Do you want me to stand here?
SB: Wherever you're comfortable. Wherever it's easiest for you.
Yeah here, why don't you come over here and the people can sort of
see you.
PA: Everybody you'll have to bear with me, I 'm still trying to get
over this cold, but hopefully I can make it through. For the
record my name is Pat Atkins. I'm with Tipton Engineering. We
are consultants for NBH trust and representing them on their behalf
tonight in regards to the proposal to the Commission. As we all
are aware, I have been working closely with the Commission and
council and the committee, and also staff for the last couple
years, I guess, it's adding up to now. That, we feel, that we are
probably get to a point that we are getting comfortable with land
use and through various discussions and team efforts and all the
issues we addressed and comments Dennis has pointed out. One of
the things that kind of puzzles me in regard to the memorandum that
is brought out is the recommendation below is out of stages. In
the attached revised comprehensive plan map in diagrams reflect the
consensus and our recommendations are, I guess, the body's
recommendations. We really hadn't had a real good opportunity to
review all the specifics that Dennis pointed out. We are
definitely familiar with it, and understand it, but in just the
review in the time we've had. The comprehensive plan itself is not
really reflective of what we felt we were headed towards from the
standpoint of land use. This outline, of course, and the verbage
within the document has several changes that we did recommend and
we were hoping to add them with the comprehensive plan, but they're
all of a common ingredient. The plan, with the verbage with the
plan itself. The plan that we were hoping to see come forward did
allow for a lot more flexibility in the residential districts with
higher densities and Dennis has pointed out that eventually there
could be some higher density, what he refers to cluster housing of
. 5, 5 to 1, which is basically half-acre lots, what you are
identifying to be minimum size of 15, 000. Is that correct?
DW: It would probably be a type close to that.
4
PA: Not in the plan , but in some zone or classification.
Eventually what size are we looking for?
DW: I don't know.
PA: At this point, I don't want an answer, but, just assuming
half-acre lots in the area. We were originally hoping to achieve
a lot more flexibility in the plan based on the input that we had
given from the Trust and showing areas of more of a mixed use
combination, where potentially commercial could be, could happen
and also residential could happen, and categorizing those districts
in more of a mixed use area. Right now the plan that I see is
that we're strictly commercial use, and predominance of the
property remaining being one acre with the potentially, the
flexibility of bringing back either a plan development application
or a site plan that says here's where I can put some cluster
housing. This continues, in our opinion, and again we base it on
the short amount of review time that we've had, to limit the
flexibility of the plan. We've been working closely with Woodbine
under comments of what we think, thought we were headed towards as
far as specific land uses and general overall densities that we
were trying to achieve from a residential standpoint and this
continues to further restrict that approach that we had to work
on. The open space areas are already being dedicated, I would
assume based on the comprehensive plan. In order, my interpretation
to add these smaller lots or the half-acre lots, we would have to
continue to add to the open space which will continue to limit our
density and what you're trying to propose. Point being, is that we
feel like we're a little, just a little surprised, in the end
result of the plan based on what we've been through in the last
couple of years and where we thought we were at, under the
proposals that were generated by ourselves and the group as a
whole. The comments. . .
SB: Pat, could I interrupt for just a moment and clarify something
for me, if you would?
PA: Sure.
SB: It is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, but I had
seem to recollect like was. Weren't you the ones that had
recommended that we consider PDs, Plan Development Districts, so
that we could add flexibility. As I understand that, that is part
of what you are proposing. Now, Dennis is that correct? As I
understand it, you could propose just about anything as long as it
is consistent with the land uses in PD form. And if it is of
adequate quality and serves the overall objective to the Town,
would have, I think, a good chance of being adopted or approved.
PA: Well, I understand that, Mr.Bradley, and you're right. You
know we were a strong proposer in getting planned development
districting established and this is input that we may improve it if
5
we gain that common ground. The problem that we see today is what
we see in any new municipality. . . or any area, is that we have a
plan that is being proposed to be adopted, that generally is
representing a one acre and five tracts, of course, next to Shelby.
That's the starting point. It is a major hurdle to overcome the
change to go to smaller density from one acre when you go back to
the public hearing process, whether you're on the board or somebody
new on the board, it's just a difficult road uphill to change a
plan that's being adopted representing one acre minimums. We know
there's ways in the PD that you can do that. Just blanket the
designation of one acre which, we feel half-acre is really still
not the right size we need, we felt like we had come to that point.
Overall suggestions of density in areas that we get what we were
looking for, but we still felt the smaller half-acre lot was
difficult to deal with.
SB: As I understand it, the one acre designation you're making is
calculated on the gross basis. As opposed to a net basis, so in a
one acre district, almost by definition you couldn't have a lot
that averaged an acre in size. Because it would be less once you
net out roads and other improvements.
PA: The unfortunate thing is that we did say it's a minimum size,
or gross size, or whatever. The interpretation would be that it is
very difficult to contend with in today's world and today's market
and the future market. And the point I'm making, I thought we were
at a point that we had all those caveats in the map itself, and in
the document, that would give the owner the flexibility to come
back and make those decisions and point to the plan and say. . . in
this area, it can either be X, Y, or Z, and that would give
everybody the flexibility with the future commissions and councils,
so I understand that. This particular way of representation and
the way it's being shown, that's not the case. We're starting with
that blanket minimum. We have to work our way to show why the
others are more acceptable, so that in itself is not what we
thought we were going to end up with and is something that is
difficult for us to see as what we were hoping to have. One thing
that we did have done, and I think it's important, is to currently
bring you up to date with what we see in the market through
American Metro's study. And Mike Castleman's here tonight, and I'd
like for him to point out a couple of things based on recent
information, that continues to tell you that we don't drive the
plans of the area or the region or a development. That the market
itself dictates that. The comprehensive plan we're putting. . . that
is being proposed to be put in place, has so many lists of
restrictions, of roadway design, architectural treatments, open
space commitments, thoroughfares. Typically they're oversized than
what you're normally used to dealing with. It creates a large
amount of requirements of financial commitment. In order to have
that, you need the flexibility and density we've always told you.
At this point in time, we're glad we've got all the commitments of
aesthetics and quality, but we have no . . . what we feel is no. . .
6
flexibility for the land use. So I'd like for Mr. Castleman to
point out some current information that is in the region of
Northeast Tarrant County area to bring you up to date on what we
think is important. Mike?
Michael Castleman (MC) : Good evening. My name is Mike Castleman,
Jr. I'm with American Metro Study Corp. Y'all are familiar with
Mike Castleman, Sr. who made the presentation back last fall to the
same type of setting here, I believe.
SB: Mike, would you state your address?
MC: Sure. It's 13641 Omega, Dallas, Tx. ,
SB: Thank you.
MC: I'm the Director of Dallas/Ft. Worth region for American Metro
Study. One, what I wish to address this evening. What I was asked
to address is the current market for, in the Northeast Tarrant
County area. Our market, we define the Northeast Tarrant County
Market in the market research as Southlake/Colleyville/Grapevine,
and the mid-cities area, Keller/Watauga/Westlake. The Northeast
Tarrant County market is, captures fifty percent of the entire
Tarrant County market, housing production on an annual basis.
Currently, that is, the annual rate of production in this, the
Northeast Tarrant County market, is 2000 new homes per year over
the last twelve months. We're on a 2000 starts base in Northeast
Tarrant County market. In our research we've found that the one
acre map and the one acre lots for the last twelve months, we have
had twenty-eight starts on lots greater then 36, 000 sq. ft. , over
the last twelve months. Our existing stock of one acre lots,
that's lots as a group, we've taken it down to 36, 000 sq. ft. , is
about 211 lots in the Northeast Tarrant County market which equates
to a seven to eight year's supply based on current market
absorption basis.
SB: Mike, let me. . .
MC: Yes, sir.
SB: Just let me interrupt for a second and make sure that I
understand what you're saying. When you say one acre lot, what do
you define that as meaning?
MC: The definition, depending upon the types of easements
involved, it's laid out by whatever zoning, whether it's 100 x 300
sq. ft. lot or 150 x 150 sq. ft. lot. In our research we do a lot
size analysis of the Metroplex, and basically in coming up with
that conclusion, I broke down the Northeast Tarrant County market
by overall sq. footage with the lots. And I'm just explaining
toward that. So, these lots that I'm talking about average, or
7
didn't even average, all the above 36, 000 sq. ft. or greater in
size.
SB: Okay, I'm just wondering. If I understand the proposal that's
been made when these planners speak of a one acre district, they're
talking on a gross basis and I'm told by our engineer that you need
to net out at least thirty percent of the land area that count for
roads and other public improvements that would go into that
district. As I calculate it that would. . . If it were thirty
percent, that would mean that you averaged all of the lots that
would put them at about 30, 000 sq. ft. or so. That would put you
in a different category from the one that you just told us about.
Is that correct?
MC: Somewhat, yeah. From an absolute count per square footage.
Yes, it would. I would have to . . . I could sit back down here and
in a moment and recalculate our month's supply or year supply of
that inventory based on that sq. footage. The point that I was
trying to highlight by talking about the 36, 000 sq. ft. and greater
lot is that we. . . that there is an existing seven year supply based
on current absorption rates. That the. . . that if we were to add
900 and some odd acres which is designated as zoned one acre lots,
zoning here in land use Plan G. If it were to all come on the
market at one time, then it'll increase our year's supply to around
a forty year's supply based on our current absorption basis. That
the. . . what we're. . . , the trend that we're seeing in the cities in
the Northeast Tarrant County market area, and we can specifically
look at the Southlake/Colleyville area as generating a lot of
activity along these lines, is towards the smaller lot as being
more economically feasible. Specifically in the
Southlake/Colleyville area as the land, as all land prices have
risen, the ability to deliver the larger lots with any type of
return on investment, whether it's developer or even the builder's
ability to buy those lots and deliver product to the consumer is
minimum. And we see the communities pulling back and allowing for
development of the smaller lots down to half-acre, 15, 000-12 , 000
sq. foot, and the developers are increasingly asking for that lot
designation in their proposed developments. So,
SB: In Southlake, are they still at 20, 000 sq. ft. minimum?
MC: Well, no, not really. Timarron is now down to 12 , 000 on some
of their lots, or as low as 9, 000 sq. ft.
SB: But, that is on ,a specific use plan where they proposed a
plan development and negotiated other concessions to, in order to
get the smaller lots.
MC: I believe, you're right in that instance.
SB: Southlake didn't just say "Here, go do 9, 000 or 12 , 000 sq. ft.
lots. " They said "Come negotiate with us and if you can show us
8
that it's in our best interest, then we'll approve it" , and, in
fact, that's what happened, as I understand it. Is that not
correct?
MC: I believe you're correct. Just that, so that basically that
just wraps up what I have to say, just talking about the current,
what the market is, demand today is for smaller lots and they even
have smaller lots.
SB: Thank you, Mike.
PA: Mr. Chairman, again we would just like for everybody to
understand that, as a whole, that we're not trying to continue to
tell you that one acre, five acre lots, or ten acre lots are not
the thing to do. We're just trying to tell you from the standpoint
of prudent development, the major tracts of land is just over
forty-five percent of the Town of Westlake, and as other developers
have continued to tell you that have looked at the property. And
that Woodbine is currently now looking at the property, that there
needs to be some flexibility with the plan. And the designation of
giving a PD capability, there is flexibility with that, but it's
still as designated as this one acre comprehensive plan
designation. One of the areas that we were talking about
originally, would be more of a residential corridor within this
zone here, which is now being designated as a commercial district.
We were also asking for that overlap flexibility of going from the
commercial to residential which is the reason we had this zone to
the west, and the zone in the east allowed that flexibility. Now
we're just specifically getting details of commercial, one acre and
moving in that direction. And we continue, this continues in our
opinion that caused that restricted land use that is, makes it
difficult to not only market the property to prospective
purchasers, but also eventually to develop the property in the
manner that it needs to be developed in. One of the areas that
we're tying everything in, when we were talking to you, was the
commercial district is now being identified as a . 25 FAR. We
argued and discussed in various sessions with you that we felt that
that was a low designation for a floor to area ratio. Market
studies were given to you and other areas were compared. We know
that Westlake is looking for the lower office campus style
approach, with some flexibility of story heights in the
comprehensive plan. We were tying that in and conceded to that
with the understanding of some more flexibility with the
residential and to reduce the amount of commercial, That continues
to be a concern that we have, based on what we're seeing tonight.
Also the alignment of roadways, with the circuitous manner of the
way Kirkwood is being aligned, creates some irregularities with how
it would work with commercial and also working around the dam. The
way this is, I know we're dealing with graphics and general
designations, but the input we're receiving from the prospective
purchasers is that that zone needs to be flattened out and pushed
more to the north. Also important in what we're hearing is Pearson
9
Lane is a major corridor that is intended to provide better access
for the property and also tie in with Trophy Club Drive to 114 . We
had originally represented that on one of our plans of application,
and my understanding is Woodbine has also indicated to you that,
that is important. And we're not representing a tie-in of
thoroughfares. We feel that through all of this that we have come
a long way from the standpoint of continuing to have a dialogue for
the Town to respond back to us. We feel like this plan that we see
tonight is really not where we thought we were going to be, and, we
at this point and time, would like to see the commission look at it
in the manner of going back with what we were hoping to approach,
with the flexibility overlapping issues in land uses. And to give
us more flexibility. To be able to provide the aesthetics that the
town is looking for, and I don't think we're at that point with
this representation of the plan. I think Mr. LePage had a couple
of comments that he would like to add also. And that will conclude
our presentation.
SB: Thank you, Pat.
William LePage (WL) : Bill LePage, I think that many of you know me
already as an attorney for the NBH Liquidating Trust and Circle T
property. I live at 90509 Loma Vista in Dallas. One of the things
I really want to emphasize here, and, I think it's very wrong to
characterize this as some kind of consensus plan or something we're
in agreement with. What we were in agreement with had much higher
densities, had much greater flexibility across the ranch, that
wasn't depicted here tonight, and that caught us by surprise. It
is not in any way something that we would agree to or have been
agreeing with. In fact, a great portion of the ranch, specifically
zones seven, eight, fourteen, seventeen, eighteen, and nineteen,
which are probably two-thirds of the ranch and some of the core
development tracts, were to have options which would allow much
greater density for residential, and we cut back the area that was
designated as primarily commercial.
SB: Bill, let me interrupt for a second and ask you. Is this
plan, as I understand it, provides for, just in the area that are
shown. . . are represented to be residential, for a population of
something in excess of 6, 000. How much population do you think
would be appropriate for Westlake, under your scenario?
WL: That's really a question best directed to the land planners
that have been working on this a lot longer than I have on this.
I wanted to emphasize purely the legal points involved here. One
of which is that no agreement on land planning or use here. That's
not what we thought we had agreed to, that's not what we're
discussing. There are a lot of things that we thought the Town
would agree to, but it didn't turn up in this. But, frankly, I
don't understand why this Landuse Plan G is coming up for
consideration now when it is, when you know, only three weeks or so
ago, Woodbine was out here talking about their land use plan and it
10
doesn't look anything like this. It doesn't have the kind of, the
kind of market densities that Mr. Castleman talked about and the
range of 10-20, 000 sq. ft. residential. It also. . . another major
difference, as I understand, is the use of Pearson Lane as the
immediate development corridor through the Town. That was in our
zoning application, it was in the Woodbine Conceptual Plan. One of
the things that is very troublesome here to the Circle T and the
landowner is if we can't agree on reasonable densities and
residential market, market residential and market commercial, we
have no desire to dedicate the amount of open space that has been
allocated across the Circle T. If the Town simply wants to impose
that on the ranch, there ought to be a mechanism to buy and pay for
the open space because it's not in our finest interest to simply
dedicate that if, in the remaining land, is not going to be
competitive on the market. We had a number of discussions about
changing medians and setbacks which really haven't been addressed
by anyone. It's the same sort of thing you use a 200 foot wide
boulevard for Kirkwood Blvd. That's not for traffic patterns or
safety. That's for just general aesthetics for the Town and there
ought to be a mechanism for paying the landowners for taking that
much land. The landowner. The great majority of Kirkwood Blvd.
runs through the middle of Circle T ranch. The regional sizing of
utilities really does not make sense unless there is a mechanism by
which Westlake raises the public funds to make that regional size
a possibility. Otherwise, it puts an unfair burden on the initial
developer. The first person to develop in Westlake would have to
provide sewer service, water service, for everybody, That's an
unfair burden and something that is not acceptable, too, because
we're still trying to get the Town to come up with some mechanism
by which public funds can be raised to put in a real sewer, real
water systems. The. . . I'll stop going on. I'm really not a land
use planner. Just repeating some of the things we discussed with
the Town in past meetings. But, the thing I want to mention is,
there's no sense in doing this at this point and time. It doesn't
match zoning application. It doesn't match what Woodbine
ultimately was talking to the Town about just three weeks ago. It
is drastically lower density than what's in comparable market areas
and it sends the same kind of signal as the last zoning ordinance.
Westlake doesn't want to allow development at real market densities
in this area. With the property under contract to a real developer
who would like to do some kind of market development and get the
whole problem out here to go away. This is the wrong time to be
putting something like this, low density commercial and residential
into effect.
SB: Dennis?
DW: I'd like to respond to a couple of Bill's comments. First
off, that was a technical error on our part and was not intended to
imply that the owner had agreed to the Comprehensive Plan Map, that
is not right. I stand corrected. The Thoroughfare Plan has been
reviewed by COG, and in fact, conforms with their model, part of
11
their thoroughfare planning model for Northeast Tarrant County, and
according to them in terms of through-traffic and thoroughfares
meets their standard requirements, and they recommended that we do
that. Why this plan, and not the zoning application from a year
ago? The Woodbine that's now been discussed. In fact, it's been
our position that the Town needs to get a plan in place, so that
they can then develop development codes and ordinances for all the
development, not just the Circle T. But right now, the Town is in
great need of those kinds of guidelines and structures. In fact,
we've dealt with over the last year that we have been involved,
three different prospective purchasers on the land. So there will
undoubtably be some period of time before it becomes evident who
will or who will not actually purchase the land, and it seems
appropriate at that time to deal with the application, a true
application, at that point in time on it's own merits.
SB: Is it fair to say, Dennis, that in each of the cases where you
dealt with the proposed developers of the Circle T, that they each
had some different notion of how they wanted the map to look?
DW: That's fairly true of them all . From all of the plans, the
master plans that I have seen, dating back a number of years, in
fact. A number of them. . .
SB: I would just observe for the record that we made our land
planners available for incredible amounts of time at the Town's
expense. None of these plans have come to fruition. It seems to
me that it's a waste of the public money to be continuing to
negotiate with proposed developers who do not own the property and
wind up with a big expense for the Town. It seems to me that
you're correct that it is appropriate for us to get something down
on paper that would apply to the entire Town and then take it from
there. I don't see that the adoption of this plan necessarily
prohibits any flexibility or anybody from coming in and saying
they've got a better way to do it. I, for one, would certainly
listen to any, any development plan that is more attractive than
this, and would listen with an open mind. But, for the simple sake
of guidance, I think we've got to get something in place. Would
anybody else like to speak?
Ed Walts (EW) : I would.
SB: Okay, Ed.
EW: I'm Ed Walts, attorney for IBM-Maguire Thomas Partners, and I
just want to focus on area twenty-two. I'm looking at this in
black and white and I may have the wrong code here, but. .
SB: That would be the area that we're in right now.
12
EW: That we're in right now, and it looks to me, looking at this
drawing, as if basically, it is just designated open space. If so,
we don't want that, we don't want to tear these buildings down.
SB: Well, I think it may be the representation Ed, and I don't
think there's any intention. . . This side is pretty well developed,
is it not?
EW: Yeah, there's some, it just looks like, you know. We've got
an area twenty-two that shows retail that actually is where our two
office buildings are. And then it looks like and it may just be
the drawing here, but it looks like basically, you know the rest of
it, including where we are right now is designated open space.
SB: Yeah, it does look like it's a little bit out of proportion.
DW: It's highly dramatic. In fact the open space has been taken
primarily from flood plain areas. We just followed the flood plain
path.
ED: Right.
SB: Y'all reclaimed some of the flood plain areas.
DW: Well, at some of the connections. So that, we're not
measuring that distance for some of the open space. So that's very
highly dramatic. We're not taking that amount. In terms of the
retail we've got a small retail component and we have a lot of
office around it. The intent here is to indicate concentrations of
retail activity throughout the Town. So, the fact that you have a
mixture of uses here is absolutely no problem.
EW: Okay, so will you anticipate that the zoning that will go
along with this would essentially be the same as the zoning that we
have now or at least highly identical that would allow mixed use
office-retail that we put out here?
DW: Yes.
SB: Thank you. Ron?
Ron Richards (RR) : Mr. Chairman, and members of the Planning and
Zoning Commission, I'm Ron Richards, Woodbine Development Corp.
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, Suite 5000. A few weeks ago we
did meet in a joint public hearing and work session with members of
this body and with members of the Board of Aldermen, and we
presented a plan. It's a conceptual plan and something we thought
had some merits of working. I would dare say, if you went to five
different planners, none of which knew each other, and asked them
to do something with your Town, you would come up with five
different conceptual plans. So it's not to say that one is good
and four are bad. But, it may be that all five of them are good.
13
It's just that what, which one meets the goals and objectives that
you as a body on your review of development choose to select as a
guide. Frankly, as I look at this particular plan, and I look at
land uses and I look at how you should bring different land uses
and elements together, I have a hard time looking at Tract eighteen
and seventeen B and saying I am going to have office park, and
basically office parks like to front major roadways. Looking over
a street into the residential, to me that is not enough buffer to
adequately buffer a transition of land uses. I think if you' ll
recall most of our plans, we had either the drainage areas or we
had other types of open space where it gives the option of some
type of major open space that separates major distinctions of land
uses. Now, when you change from one density of the same land use,
we may have used street to do so. But in that particular case,
this is just something that bothers me in this particular use and
you have that, basically throughout. This is a transition and
sometimes it is a major boulevard and sometimes it's a local . . . In
relation to your size in thoroughfares, they're a little bit
oversized in my judgement. You can still accomplish some of the
things that you need accomplished with smaller amounts of right of
way and yet I look at the local streets. I look at the amount of
pavement on the local streets and I look at the curb and gutter
that is there, and if you have somebody stalled you basically can't
pass them because there's only one traffic lane. So that gives me
a little concern that some of those streets could be a little bit
wider in that respect, or either we go to a more rural setting and
not have curb and gutter, but have the shoulders for stalled
vehicles to pull onto in case of an emergency or repair situation.
I'm not here to recommend that you approve or disapprove. I'm here
saying I simply do not like this plan. Something that Woodbine
Development Corporation would have an interest in developing.
Whether it's this plan, or whether it's our plan, I'm not saying
one is better than the other one. I'm merely saying to you that we
thought that we had a plan that was not perfect. It needed a lot
of fine tuning because we've not gone to the expense of developing
a comprehensive land use plan, simply because we can't justify it
at this point in time in our cycle and in the negotiations with the
Trust for this property. However, if we elect to buy the property,
we would go to that extent, and then we'd come back to you. If you
have one acre and you're setting that as your guideline, and you're
also saying yes, but you can come back. Then why don't you set it
at something lower and say you can come back. So that people that
want to build a one acre development can deal with it, but give
them the flexibility on the front to do something a little bit
higher density. Then change that to higher rather than going in
the opposite direction, and I also agree with Pat. That once you
do it, it's very difficult. Because you people may not be serving
on this board and you may get tired of it, probably already are
tired of it. But needless to say, you're constantly having to deal
with new people that were either appointed or elected, and you need
to be setting something as a guide. But bear in mind it should not
be set in concrete, it should be merely as a guide and you should
14
be open to further discussions. If you are open for further
discussions, then it would be my thought then, why adopt something.
Why do you need something today? Nobody is developing out here.
Nobody is going to develop out here, in my opinion, and if they do,
you can take those isolated cases and work on something that is
compatible with what your overall goal and objectives are.
SB: And I agree with Ron that there is nobody developing today,
but I would recall that the Carter Pate lawsuit hinges itself on
the fact that Westlake had no comprehensive plan. So I guess, if
nothing else, the answer is, you need a comprehensive plan or
somebody is going to sue you and say that you don't have one.
RR: I can't speak for that. I'm not a party to that, Scott. My
comment to you, and let me just restate it, is that if you're going
to adopt, give it more flexibility than the current plan has. Have
it make some transitions from uses, from major use transitions,
have something besides a street separating those uses. There needs
to be something of a major importance as open space or some of the
acres that can be developed into transition. For example, it
doesn't make any sense to go from office to one acre single family
residential . Also I have to say that I think that the Pearson Road
does have a major importance to the overall circulation within your
Town and is one that should be reconsidered including that
connector to Trophy Club Drive, that interchange on 114 . Also
that's where one of your water supply services needs to come from.
And you can't just build it to where it now stops and just take it
out through the open land because it doesn't work that way. You
really need to have it in a major collector roadway, so that it can
branch off from there to your smaller sized developments as you
develop. So that's just another consideration, remember after
choosing uses, so that your major water supply sources shouldn't
come up through Pearson Lane, or Pearson Road, and without it, to
continue through the property makes it very difficult. Thank you
all.
SB: Thank you, Ron. Would anybody else like to speak?
Doug Kusel (DK) : I would just like to make a few comments. My
name is Doug Kusel. I'm with the NBH Liquidating Trust, 2121 San
Jacinto Tower in Dallas. I can address this to the Commission or
to the ladies and gentlemen present. I think Dennis made a comment
on this. If the sole purpose of this plan is just to have a plan
in place, it would seem to me that the plan should be developed
that, at least from our perspective, would be flexible enough that
either Woodbine or whoever does eventually buy the property would
be able to use it. It seems to me that we spent a lot of money and
time, but we believe and that we can continue to bring people in
here who will tell you the same thing. This plan is not
acceptable. It's not workable. We cannot find anybody to make it
work, and all we're saying is give us a plan or provide a plan that
will work. So, I would challenge what you said earlier, Dennis,
15
about just getting the plan in place just for the sake of having a
plan in place. I think that's the wrong approach to take.
SB: I think that's not the only reason, it's certainly one of the
reasons. One reason for having the plan is so that everybody
understands what the objectives of the Town are. We're really
trying to determine, probably not the people who are sitting here
tonight, maybe some of them, but, by and large, for the generations
to come.
DK: My only comment to that would be, Mr. Bradley, that I hear
what you're saying, but I think there also has to be some weight
given to the fact that we, the Circle T, are approximately fifty
percent of this Town, and we don't seem to be even heard in our
ideas in what you have done.
DW: I would. . . We may not agree on that, but we've accommodated
all the working changes that you had asked for in the Comprehensive
Plan, and, in fact, went to a great extent trying to resolve the
land use plan, which had a lot more flexibility, but which was
ultimately rejected. So based on that and knowing that there was
no near point for getting a plan in place. This town does not have
subdivision ordinances, platting ordinances, that kind of stuff,
and the zoning ordinance has sort of been a cut and paste job for
many years, and that needs to get in place. Because once someone
does acquire that land, they're going to want to do something with
it. Well, then, they're going to get pretty frustrated by the fact
that the Town doesn't have any guidelines about how they develop.
They're going to have to work out every little detail as they go
along. That will cost them a lot of time, so this is not just a
plan. This plan represents the objective of balance in the
community in terms of what they see and it's enabled them to take
the next step to doing a utility master plan, which was presented
to the Board about a month ago, to help provide for future
developments. So that that's another sort of barrier to
development out of the way, with the service plan available.
SB: I would observe that I don't necessarily agree with the plan
myself. There are some things that I suggested that didn't show up
in there. Some wording changes I suggested that didn't show up.
The adoption of a plan for the community necessarily involves a
great deal of give and take, and for our part, this Commission,
we've had to listen to what other people in the Town said and give
some weight to what they say. I can't just disregard the people
who live here and say we need to go with whatever Circle T wants
because it may or may not serve the purposes of the people who live
here currently, and the people who will live here in the future.
DK: If I may comment first on what Dennis said. That is true some
of the changes have been considered and we've added some changes,
so you've massaged some of what we had suggested and asked for and
you know, Mr. Bradley, I would like to hear more comments. I've
16
been to I don't know how many meetings out here, and it seems like
it's a speech between us and you and I just don't hear anybody out
here. I think there's voters that, say 150 people out here, I
don't see these people. So, you must be having conversations with
them in private because they never seem to speak up at the public
meetings and so, you know, I trust what you say is true, but I 've
never heard it. So, that's why I would have to say what I say
about the Circle T because we feel the way we do. I've never heard
anyone else say anything.
SB: I would merely observe that I am an appointed person,
appointed by the elected people and at such time as they think that
I'm not complying, they certainly have the option of firing me.
DK: Where have I heard you say that before?
SB: Well, I guess nobody wants to fire me.
B.J. Minyard (BM) : I'd like to say that I feel that we've come a
long way. I mean, I feel that we've conceded on a lot of areas
where, as Scott said, I personally would love to see the ten acre
minimum hold. That's pure selfishness on my part. I do feel that
it is time when we should adopt a plan, and at this stage we can't
please everybody. But once we have a definite plan submitted, I
mean, we have bent over backwards showing that we are working it
out. It would be nice to see something concrete to work with.
DK: May I comment?
BM: Sure.
DK: Well, from where we came, miles back and no one could ever
use that one. We have come a ways. But you say you're the ones
who have given in so much, you haven't gotten to the point yet
where anybody, at this point, that's going to buy the property. I
mean, you keep saying once it sells, and we develop it. Find us
a developer to buy. If the Town wants to buy the property, fine.
Let them develop it, but you can't find anyone. That's what we're
saying. And we got expert after expert in here saying how these
things are true, and the communities around here are saying the
same thing. So, just to pass this plan for the sake of having a
plan, that won't work, why? That's what I'm saying, why?
BM: I see a large portion of Southlake that is all residential .
It's. . . they're doing just fine. It doesn't bother them.
DK: Their lot size is going down. And it went down, that's true
throughout the region. Lot size is going down. Go talk to the
developers, you don't have to believe me, talk to them yourselves.
Go talk to them.
17
SB: I would observe that yours is not the only property that's for
sale in the area. The Perot Group has, I'm told, about 25, 000
acres and I'm sure Mr. Perot would like for us to go find him a
buyer for some of his property. But that's not our job. Our
job. . .
DK: This is your Town.
SB: Well, that's certainly true, it's not. . .
DK: I don't know if that has any bearing at all .
SB: Well, it certainly has a bearing because he's in the area.
You don't compete within the Town, you compete within the region.
DK: I really can't respond to that, but we can talk about it.
SB: Well, your own expert has outlined a region. He's not saying
that here's the market in Westlake, he's saying here is the market
in Northeast Tarrant County.
DK: You've got that response.
RR: You know we do these same type studies. I think what the
gentlemen with the. . . that was talking about what the absorption
is. . . he is saying that we are, you're correct, we're looking at
the region and he is saying on lot sizes of 36, 000 or greater,
which is approaching the acre or better, there's only about,
correct me if I'm wrong, he said 200 is all that's been absorbed
for some period of time. . .
MC: (inaudible) twenty-eight in the last twelve months.
RR: That's in the area, so it doesn't matter, you still take and
you know that you cannot capture the entire market. You hope that
you will get your fair share, but you won't capture the entire
market. Perot, you mentioned his name, and some of the stuff he
has. He has probably from four to five units per acre in the
development that he's got there. That is probably one of the best
developments in the area, but very dense. Also, what I call the
starter homes, that's not to say somebody should not provide that.
I don't believe this property should provide that. I think there's
a higher and better use than the starter homes as a product. But
somebody has to provide it, and it probably needs to be provided in
the area or this area we discussed as the market study area. But,
bear in mind that we can't create something that says we are going
to capture all the market when all the market is twenty-eight units
per acre or larger. I, as a developer, could not survive on that.
We can't get by with twenty-eight units. We talked about, somebody
said thirty percent, and it's typically about fifteen percent, is
what you lose in your right of ways and the roads, nonuseful
property. So you start out with an acre, you wind up with about
18
36, 000, thirty-six and a half I guess, after you carve out your
roads. So it's not the thirty percent, Scott. It may be in some
of your flood plain acres, you may get that much. You have a lot
of area here that doesn't have the ability to move up.
SB: Are there any other comments? Paul, we'll enter into the
record a written response from Roland Arthur, of the Quail Hollow
Ranch. We received a response from him that favors the adoption of
this plan. Put that in the record. Is there anyone else that would
like to speak? There being no one coming forward we'll close the
public hearing at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission
will now consider it's recommendation to the Board of Aldermen
concerning whether it should adopt or not adopt the Conceptual
Land-use Plan G.
Randy Loftis (RL) : Mr. Chairman, I make the recommendation that
we adopt the Comprehensive Plan with Conceptual Land-use Plan G
with those revisions that were previously discussed and that are
listed in the memorandum.
SB: Okay, so your motion would include the suggested revisions
that Dennis talked about earlier.
RL: It would. Do we have second?
BM: I'll second that.
SB: Any discussion? So, that you can understand what we're
voting on. The motion before this body is to recommend to the
Board of Aldermen of the Town of Westlake that it adopt a
comprehensive plan along the lines of Conceptual Land-Use Plan G
with the amendments as outlined by Dennis Wilson earlier today, is
that correct? Okay, any discussion, as I've stated the motion?
Those in favor signify by raising your right hand. Okay the motion
carries by a vote three to zero, unanimous. So. . . There being no
further business to come before this meeting, we are adjourned.
19