HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdditional info distributed during meeting ivl - tit
Response to Mr. Schneider's Email
1 . We really need to understand the Town's anticipated parks "Program":
a. What does the Town want to accomplish?
i. Is the goal Parks. Traits, or Open Space'? (I've heard all 3 at one point or
another over the last 3 months since this was originally presented in a
workshop on June 13th). —
Troy: Council driven and to be defined with recommendations from Staff
as to the types of park-sitrails which would complement our current
development standards. Eddie: Yes
ii, What is the ultimate "Goal" of this ordinance'?
Troy: To be used as a too] to ensure growth pays For growth and to allow
adequate open space and public amenities to maintain our quality of life
and attract future residents to the Town.
iii. Types of facilities desired?
Troy: T131) by Council with staff recommendations
iv. Active or Passive facilities?
Troy: Not anticipating facilities with intense upkeep or long-terns support
from Staff -more in line with current parks and open space — for the next
few years. Could change as we expand our residential base and Council
provides and/or community requests expanded facilities.
b. Quantity (nurnber) of facilities (Trails, Playgrounds, Baseball/Softball fields.
Soccer/Rugby pitches)? At some point in the future
Troy. See above responses. Eddici TBD
c. Would they be open to the public or just to Westlake Residents or do you
anticipate use as regional facilities such as Keller KYS/KSA parks, Roanoke's
Ball Fields and Activity Centers
Troy: Undetermined at this point-, learning toward open, public space. Eddie-,
Wants to check vJth Stan on our ability to limit to Westlake residents
d. Is the t
goal Parks Trails. or Open Space'?
L-
Troy and Eddie.- Yes
2. Proximity issues - where does the Town want these facilities'? — Most of the residential
and residentially zoned land is on the East Side of the Town, with primary Office/R.etai l
on the west side. Has the Town identified areas to be targeted for park development?
Troy: Centralized location preferable--otherwise, TBD Eddie: No
3. What"credit" would developers of multi phase projects be given for park land that has
already been dedicated?
Troy: Not considering or retroactive clause or credit in the proposal.
4, if a development provides its own amenities within the development; would they receive
100% credit for those facilities, public or private to serve its residents (e.g. Vaquero,
Terra Bella and Glenwyck)? Vaquero for example would.have had to account for 39
acres of park land, or fee in lieu of, in order to develop their original 388 lots at the
proposed 1 acre for every 10 lots.
Troy: We increased the ratio to 1 acre per 40 dwelling lots (residential) and. 1 acre per 50
acres of developri-tent. 100°ro credit not anticipated— if it is private then ordinance allows
for 10% credit — if it is public then it is credited toward total amount required by the
ordinance. Eddie: Moot point
5. Would single or small lot developers be required to also dedicate proximate to their lots,
or be allowed to pay an amount consummate with the size of their development (for
instance if you have someone develop 5 lots on 10 acres, would they be required to set
aside .5 acres for park. or would they be required to pay a fee for 1/2 an acre (5 lots*l ac/10
lots)?
Troy: This formula no longer applies and will be reviewed by Council. Eddie: Yes
6. Would any credit be given for extremely low density development (for instance Deloitte
developed about 750.000 SF on 107 acres for about a 0.16 FAR)? (QuikTrip is
developing an approximate 7,000 SF store on about 3.44 acres for about a 0.053 FAR and
since they are on a corner are providing, significant open space due to the town edge
requirements),
Troy: To be reviewed on a case by case basis. Fddiv: Not based on FAR
7. This ordinance seems to be additive to the Town's current ordinances that require
significant open space, reduced density- and dedication of all floodplains and floodways
to the town (where this requirement is not overridden by a PD or ether agreement').
Would the ordinance be written in such a way as to allow for these other significant
requirements count towards the proposed town's open space/trail/parks requirements'?
Troy: Only floodways required not floodplain. Fddie: 1✓loodplains not required -
only If public park-,
8. Would trail dedications and construction (either within existing ROW or within the
proposed"trail corridors") be allowed to count towards the park land improvements and
dedications?
Troy: Could be considered by Council. Eddie: Trail systein is different than parks.
9. How does the town propose to acquire park land (if a fee is paid in lieu of dedication)?
Troy: Purchase from the landowner. Eddie: 13archase,'tiegtttiateltrade
10. How does the town propose to operate and maintain the park land (from general tax
revenues, special assessments, additional fees, etc.)?
Troy and Eddie: General Fund
11. How would a low density/low impact facility (e.g. Deloitte), who provides for all their
own recreational facilities on their site, be exempted from any dedication requirements.
Troy and Eddie: Would get 101/"0 credit for private open space development,
12. The requirements seem excessive, being more than double the most stringent in the area
(Keller) which has a requirement of l acres of dedication for 30 residential lots. We
recommend you look to something that is in the vicinity of 1 acre of dedication for 30
residential units of development. This also goes for commercial developnrtents, with a 1.
acre per 50 acres of gross development being more reasonable (commercial areas are not
significant/active users of parks),
Troy; No longer the recommendation.
S PERO T COMPANY'
October 21, 2011
Mr. Thomas Brymer
Town Manager
Town of Westlake
3 Village Circle, Suite 202
Westlake,TX 76252
Dear Mr. Brymer,
We appreciate the Town of Westlakds desire to better understand the park requirements necessary to
serve their citizens, Hillwood has a long history of supporting park land development, organization
and, in some cases, donation of parkland to its partner cities including Westlake, Roanoke, Haslet and
the City of Fort Worth. We have already donated several acres of property, adjacent to the office
building located on Roanoke Road to the Town for trail and park land. Currently, Hillwood is working
with Fort Worth to help them develop a regional park in the much underserved northern part of the
city. Additionally, through recent development agreements, Hillwood has agreed to construct over
6,000 feet of trail from FidelityNaquero to the Westlake Academy as part of the Dove and Ottinger
Road improvement program.
At your request, I have reviewed and have several comments/questions regarding the proposed
Westlake Parks Ordinance:
I. We really need to understand the Town's anticipated parks`Prograni':
a. What does the Town want to accomplish?
i. Is the goal Parks, Trails, or Open Space? What is the ultimate"Goal'of this
Ordinance?
ii. Types of facilities desired?
iii. Active or Passive facilities?
b. Quantity (number) of facilities (Trails, Playgrounds, Baseball/Softball fields,
Soccer/Rugby pitches)?
c. Would they be open to the public or just to Westlake Residents or do you
anticipate use as regional facilities such as feller KYS/KSA parks, Roanokds Ball
Fields and Activity Centers?
2. Proximity issues - where does the Town want these facilities?—Most of the residential and
residentially zoned land is on the east side of the Town, with primary Office/Retail on the
west side. Has the Town identified areas to be targeted for park development?
3. What"credit' would developers of multi-phase projects be given for park land that has
already been dedicated?
1,360 0; h hu,,r+ $'uu:200 Art 7k-.-s?r177 "barn 7 , 4 0,00 Na (W60 1 r re ,
Letter to Mr.Thomas Brymer
Dated October 21,2011
Page 2 of 3
4. If a development provides its own amenities within the development, the development
should receive 100% credit for those facilities, public or private to serve its residents (e.g.
Vaquero, Terra Bella and Glenwyck). Vaquero for example would have had to account
for 13 acres of park land, or fee in lieu of, in order to develop their original 388 lots at the
proposed 1 acre for every 30 lots.
5. A low density/low impact development (e.g. Deloitte and Fidelity), which provides for all
their own recreational facilities on their site, should be exempted from any dedication
requirements or receive 100% credit for recreational facilities provided on site for the use
of their employees, visitors and guests.
6. Section 82.391 - very ambiguous. If denied without reason, then need to provide some
significant detail to what they will accept so that there is some certainty for the
developer/owner. Fort Worth is very prescriptive for equations of "X Ludt type and
quantity = Y number of people = Z park land type dedication" and then details on what
type of land (eg. % floodplain) and what type of park(active or passive) is provided.
7. Dedication "fee simple" to Town versus "deed restrict" with public access easement how
does this effect credits,potential shared maintenance agreements, capital improvements?
8. Would single or small lot developers be required to also dedicate proximate to their lots, or
be allowed to pay an amount consummate with the size of their development (for instance
if you have someone develop 5 lots on 10 acres, would they be required to set aside 5
acres for park, or would they be required to pay a fee for 1/2 an acre (5 lots*lac/10 lots)?
9. Would any credit be given for extremely low density development (for instance Deloitte
developed about 750,000 SF on 107 acres for about a 0.16 FAR and QuikTrip is
developing an approximate 7,000 SF store on about 3.44 acres for about a 0.053 FAR and
since they are on a corner are providing significant open space due to the Town edge
requirements). Ultra low density development should receive credit for lower density that
accommodates the Town's desire for minimization of impacts of non-residential
development, which according to the proposed ordinance would be ",—providing park or
open space areas which buffer adjoining land uses, prevent undue concentration of paved
areas, allow for the reasonable dissipation of automotive exhaust fumes, provide natural
buffers to the spread of fire or explosion, and provide separation of lighting, waste
disposal, and noise by-products of non-residential operations and activities from adjacent
residential areas...".
10. This ordinance appears to be additive to the Town's current ordinances that require
significant open space, reduced density, and dedication of all floodways to the Town
(where this requirement is not overridden by a PD or other agreement). Should this
ordinance be written in such a way as to allow for these other significant requirements
count towards the proposed Tor Fn's open space/trail/parks requirements?
Letter to Mr.Thomas Brymer
Dated October 21,2014
Page 3 of 3
11. Would trail dedications and construction (either within Right-of-Way or within the
proposed "trail corridors") be allowed to count towards the park land improvements and
dedications?
12. How does the Town propose to acquire park land (if a fee is paid in lieu of lieu of
dedication)? Has any potential land been targeted or defined?
13. How does the Town propose to operate and maintain the park land that is dedicated (from
general tax revenues, special assessments, additional fees, etc.)?
Most of the above items could be addressed with a better understanding of the "Program" mentioned in
number I above. Several others will fall out with further explanation of the connection between the
proposed and existing ordinances, including previously approved Planned Developments for, Fidelity,
Deloitte,Vaquero, Terra Bella, Solana and the Circle T Ranch.
We'll be glad to continue to help the Town with their overall master planning, and its connected parks
planning. We look forward to working with the Town as these items progress in the coming months.
Thanks for the opportunity to review and comment. Please let me know if you have any questions.
SincereI ;; t
jI r
t
Uoseph C. Schneider
Vice President
cc: L.Russell Laughlin
Mayor Laura Wheat
Troy Meyer
Eddie Edwards
Motion:
I make a motion that we approve an amendment to the Specific Use Permit SUP-GWPS- 09-01
to allow delaying the installation of the permanent fencing and landscaping until after the
installation of a production gas line capable of carrying gas from this Gas Well Pad Site, with the
provision that if the production gas line is not installed within two (2) years from the date of this
approval, or if development on property within 600 feet of this Gas Well Pad Site is permitted
prior to the installation of the production gas line,the applicant must comply with the Landscape
Plan. The permanent fencing and landscaping must be installed within 90 days of the applicant
receiving notification from the town that the production gas line is in place and capable of
transporting gas or that development has been permitted within 600 feet of the Gas Well Pad
Site, or come back before the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council to seek an
additional extension or alternate remedy.
Town of Westlake, Texas
General Obligation Refunding Bonds
Series 2011
Table of Contents
Report
Escrow Summary Cost 1
Escrow Fund Cashflow 2
2011 Rfd I SINGLE PURPOSE 1 10/2412011 1 11:37 AM
Lawrence Financial Consulting
Registered Municipal Advisor& Texas Securities Dealer
Town of Westlake,Texas
General Obligation Refunding Bonds
Series 2011
Escrow Summary Cost
Par Principal +Accrued
Maturity Type Coupon Yield Price Amount Cost interest =Total Cost
Escrow
05/01/2012 SLGS-Cl 0.020% 0.020% 100-.000000 177,977 177,977.00 - 177,977.00
11/01/2012 SLGS-CI 0.080%a 0.080%a 100-.000000 174,300 174,300.00 174,300.00
05101/2013 SLGS-NT 0.140% 0.140% 100-.000000 174,417 174,417.00 174,417.00
11/01/2013 SLGS-NT 0.230% 0.230% 100-.000000 174,540 174,540.00 174,540.00
05/01/2014 SLGS-NT 0.310% 0.310% 100-.000000 7149,740 7.149 740.00 7 149 740.00
Subtotal - - - $7,850,974 $7,850,974.00 - $7,850,974.00
Total - - $7,850,974 $7,850,974.00 - $7,850,974.00
Escrow
Cash Deposit _ ------------- 0.90
Cost of Investments Purchased with Bond Proceeds 7,850,474.00
I--,......... ........... _.._. _ ____._.
Total Cost of Investments $7,850,974.90
Delivery Date 12128/2011
2011 Rfd I SINGLE PURPOSE 1 10724/2011 1 11:37 AM
Lawrence r Consulting LLC
Registered Municipal Advisor i Texas Securities Dealer
Town of Westlake, Texas
General Obligation Refunding Bands
Series 2011
i
Escrow Fund +Cashflow
Cash
Date Principal Rate interest Receipts Disbursements Balance
02/15/2012 - - - 0.90 - 0.90
02/1512013 352,277.00 0.080% 19,367.80 371,644.80 371,645.00 0.70
02/15/2014 348,957.00 0.230% 22,687.71 371,644.71 371,645.00 0.41
02/15/2015 7,149,740.00 0.310% 11,082.09 7,160,822.09 7,160,822.50 -
Total $7,850,974.00 - $53,137.60 $7,904,112.50 $7,904,112.50 -
Investment Parameters
Investment Model[PV,GIC,or Securities] Securities
Default mvest..... el target __..__.._.___ Bond Yield
Cash Deposit
...... .__.-.,_.___.__._._._._. ._._.............. __..: .,._._._._.._.-..............__._..:__..__._._._._._._._._._._._. 0.90
Cost of Investments Purchased with Bond Proceeds 7,850,974.00
._._,.._.,._._................................. __.._..._._.....- - ........... ___._.___..._. _._ __._ _..,_._..__.._..-_. .... ___.._..
Total Cost of Investments ____ _,_-_._,__-.___..___.___$72850,974.90
Target Cost of Investments at bond yield $7,425,179.15
.__.,_._._...____.-----..._.._.___-._.,..._._.___._._._.___,_- . __ __..__.._._._._._._-_._-_-----_-_--
Actual positrve or(negative)arb�trae _.._. X425,795.75)
Yield to Receipt......_.....................__._.._._. .._ 0.3035515%
Yield for Arbitrage Purposes _.__._____.W- 2.8331998°t°
State and Local Government Series SLGS)rates for 10/24/2011
2011 Rfd I SINGLE PURPOSE 1 1012412011 1 11:37 AM
Lawrence Financial Consulting LLC
Registered Municipal Advisor Dealer Page 2
(7 j
October 17,2011
Tom Brymer,Town Manager
Town of Westlake
3 Village Circle,Suite 202
Westlake,TX 76262
RE: Briefing on Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Dear Mr. Brymer:
The hydraulic fracturing of shale gas has given rise to a contentious, ongoing debate long on hyperbole
but short on facts. Sensing a need to inject science into this emotional issue,the Energy Institute at The
University of Texas at Austin is conducting an independent study of the practice.
On November 9,the Energy Institute will release initial observations and preliminary findings from its
new study,"Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Resource Development," at a
briefing in downtown Fort Worth. Attendees will include local government officials,representatives
from regulatory agencies,energy companies,environmental organizations,and others. The Texas
environmental law firm of Guida,Slavich&Flores,P.C.will sponsor the event.
The briefing will be held Wednesday,November 9,2011 from 11:30 a.m.to 1:00 p.m.at the City
Club of Fort Worth, 301 Commerce Street. Lunch will be provided. Seating is limited,so please
RSVP at infoPenergy.utexas.edu to secure a place at this important event.
At the briefing, Energy Institute Associate Director Dr.Chip Groat will present preliminary findings from
researchers'assessment of alleged groundwater contamination,air pollution,and seismic events
ascribed to hydraulic fracturing within the Barnett,Marcellus and Haynesville shales. The study also
will include a detailed analysis of the scope and effectiveness of regulations related to fracturing,along
with an evaluation of peer-reviewed literature and public perceptions of the issue.
Dr.Groat also will provide an overview of two other Energy Institute research initiatives related to
hydraulic fracturing that are currently in development.
Please join us at the November 9 briefing to learn more about this groundbreaking research.
Sincerely,
4W41/;1144ell
Raymond L.Orbach
Director,Energy Institute
The University of Texas at Austin