HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-08 PZ Agenda PacketTOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
May 8, 2008
7:00 pm
WESTLAKE CIVIC CAMPUS - BOARD ROOM
2600 J. T. OTTINGER ROAD
1. CALL TO ORDER.
2. CONTINUE A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION
REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE,
TEXAS, BY REMOVING APPROXIMATELY 107 ACRES FROM PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT 3- PLANNING AREA 3 (PD 3 -3) AND REZONING THAT
ACREAGE TO BE CALLED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 3- PLANNING AREA 12
(PD 3 -12); AUTHORIZING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, A CONFERENCE AND
EDUCATIONAL CENTER, DATA CENTER, OFFICE AND RETAIL USES;
DEFINING CERTAIN TERMS; DESCRIBING AND INTERPRETING THE PD
CONCEPT PLAN, REGULATING PERMITTED USES, HEIGHT, LOT SIZES,
BUILDING LINES, TOTAL FLOOR AREA, PARKING, LOADING AND OTHER
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; LANDSCAPING, FLOOD PLAIN, AND
DRAINAGE; PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING
MAP; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
3. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE UPCOMING CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING OIL & GAS WELL DRILLING SITES.
4. ADJOURNMENT.
Town of Westlake
Memo
To: Chairman Bill Greenwood and Members of the Planning and Zoning
Commission
From: Eddie Edwards, Director of Planning and Development
Subject: Special called meeting of May 8, 2008
Date: May 5, 2008
ITEM
Continue a Public Hearing and take appropriate action regarding an application for an
amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Westlake, Texas, by
removing approximately 107 acres from Planned Development 3- Planning Area 3 (PD 3 -3)
and rezoning that acreage to be called Planned Development 3- Planning Area 12 (PD 3 -12).
BACKGROUND
For review, the applicant desires to rezone approximately 107 acres generally located North
of Dove Road and East of Ottinger. (See enclosed site plan.) This property is currently
zoned within PD 3 -3, which means it is part of "Planning Area 3" of the "Planned
Development 3" zoning district. The subject property is surrounded by property owned by
the applicant. The surrounding property to the North and to the East is zoned PD 3 -3, the
property to the West is zoned R -2, and South boundary is bordered by Dove Road with R -5
zoning across the road. By amending the boundaries of PD 3 -3, the planning area is reduced
to approximately 257 acres. However, the entitlements including the allowable number of
houses, square feet of resort hotel and the square feet of office use are not changed. Thus
allowing the exact same potential square footage of structures previously approved for
approximately 365 acres, to be constructed on the remaining approximate 257 acres. The
newly created planning area PD 3 -12 (Planning Area 12 of Planned Development 3) has been
specifically tailored to accommodate the proposed conference and education center, possible
data center and their associated uses. The height increase requested is similar to that recently
approved for the PD -1 (Maguire- Solana) planning district. The residential slope
requirements are being changed from 5:1 to 4:1.
At the regularly scheduled meeting of April 24, 2008, the Commission voted
unanimously for a continuation of the Public Hearing until May 8, 2008 at 7:00 pm.
Although the meeting continuation was requested by the applicant in order to allow more
time for the completion of a traffic impact analysis, the Commission expressed several
concerns as well and asked for additional information. The areas of concern are:
• additional information concerning the impact to density for the remaining 257
acres within PD 3 -3
• current use plans and design for the remaining PD 3 -3 area along with types and
percentages of open space
• information in the traffic impact analysis for JT Ottinger Road and Dove Road
and what that means for the school, bridges, increased traffic areas, etc.
The Board of Aldermen met on Monday, April 28, 2008 for their regularly scheduled
meeting and also voted unanimously to continue the Public Hearing until May 19, 2008
at 7:00 pm. Additionally, the Board of Aldermen expressed the same concerns noted
above by the Commission.
Below is a list of attachments which includes the same items from the last P &Z meeting
along with an updated memo from Staff, and the Traffic Impact Analysis with a
summary, provided by the applicant. In addition, you will find an assessment of this
analysis performed by a 3rd party traffic engineer hired by the Town and two letters. One
letter is from the applicant, Hillwood, summarizing the effects of the PD changes,
specifically regarding the density of the remaining PD 3 -3 and one from Deloitte's land
broker, The Staubach Company, relating to the service /employee access.
ACTION REQUESTED
Make a recommendation to the Westlake Board of Aldermen to approve the proposed
amendments to PD supplement as presented. (See enclosed Ordinance.)
ATTACHMENTS Pate Number
Draft of proposed Ordinance for the newly Pages 1 -21
created zoning district PD 3 -12
PD Concept Plan Pages 22
Vicinity Maps — 2 different aerial views Pages 23 -24
Applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis Pages 25 -42
with summary
Traffic Impact analysis comments by 3rd party Engineer Pages 43 -44
Letter from The Staubach Company; Pages 45 -47
Re: service /employee access
Letter from Hillwood; Re: allowable density Pages 48 -50
within the remaining portions of PD 3 -3
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF
THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS BY REMOVING APPROXIMATELY 107
ACRES FROM THE PD 3 -3 PLANNING AREA AND REZONING THAT ACREAGE TO
BE CALLED PD 3 -12. AUTHORIZING, AMONG OTHER THINGS A CONFERENCE
AND EDUCATIONAL CENTER, DATA CENTER, OFFICE AND RETAIL USES;
DEFINING CERTAIN TERMS; DESCRIBING AND INTERPRETING THE PD
CONCEPT PLAN; REGULATING PERMITTED USES, HEIGHT, LOT SIZES AND
BUILDING LINES, TOTAL FLOOR AREA, PARKING, LOADING AND OTHER
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, LANDSCAPING, FLOOD PLAIN, AND DRAINAGE;
PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP;
PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on August 24, 1992, the Board of Aldermen (sometimes referred to as the
"Board ") of the Town of Westlake, Texas (the "Town "), adopted a Comprehensive Plan (the
1992 Comprehensive Plan ") for the Town; and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 1992, the Board, adopted a Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance (the "Zoning Ordinance "); and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance has been amended by the Board after receiving
recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission (the "Commission "); and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 1997, based on the recommendations of the Commission,
the Board amended the Zoning Ordinance and the subdivision regulations by the adopting of a
Unified Development Code (the "UDC ") for the Town, and
WHEREAS, the UDC has been amended, with the most recent amendments being
adopted on August 23, 2003; and
WHEREAS, there is located within the corporate limits of the Town an approximately
365 acre tract of land (commonly known as Planning Area 3 - Resort and hereinafter sometimes
referred to as the "Planning Area"); and
WHEREAS, the Board of Aldermen agrees that the boundaries for PD 3 -3 must be
amended and certain uses clarified in order to accommodate the aforementioned Conference and
Educational Center and Data Center; and
, 2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center Page I
ORDINANCE
Page 1 of 50
WHEREAS, the Board believes that the interests of the Town, the present and future
residents and citizens of the Town, and developers of land within the Town are best served by
adopting this Ordinance, which the Board has determined to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan, Open Space Plan, and Master Water and Sewer
Plan all as amended:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE
TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS:
PART
That the recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated herein, adopted by the Town and
declared to be true and correct.
PART 1I
That the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Westlake, Texas, as codified
in the Code of Ordinances and the Planned Development Supplement, , is hereby amended by
this PD Ordinance, by amending the property described in the attached Exhibit 1 attached hereto
by reference for all purposes. This PD will be subject to the concept plan, development
standards, and other regulations attached hereto.
PART III
Upon the adoption of this PD, the Town Secretary shall promptly enter the new Planned
Development on the Town's Official Zoning Map, which entry shall include the abbreviated
designation "PD No. 3 -12" and the date that this Ordinance was adopted by the Board.
PART IV
It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Board of the Town that sections,
paragraphs, clauses and phrases of this Ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause,
sentence, paragraph or section of this Ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid
judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not
affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs or sections of this Ordinance
since the same would have been enacted by the Board of the Town without the incorporation in
this Ordinance of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section.
.2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center Page 2
ORDINANCE
Page 2 of 50
PART V
This Ordinance shall become effective upon its passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE TOWN OF
WESTLAKE, TEXAS, ON THIS DAY OF
,MAYOR
ATTEST:
, Town Secretary
, Town Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Stan Lowry. Town Attorney
'1009 PA 3-12 Conference and Educational Center Page 3
ORDINANCE
Page 3 of 50
CIRCLE T PLANNING AREA 3 -12
CONFERENCE AND EDUCATIONAL CENTER
ARTICLEI. GENERAL PROVISIONS ...................................................... ..............................1
SECTION1 SHORT TITLE .......................................................................... ..............................I
SECTION2 PURPOSES ................................................................................ ..............................I
SECTION 3 GENERAL DEFINITIONS ....................................................... ..............................1
Section3.1 Usage .............................................................................. ..............................1
Section 3.2 Words and Terms Defined ............................................. ..............................1
SECTION4 PD SUPPLEMENT .................................................................... ..............................2
SECTION 5 APPLICABILITY OF EXISTING REGULATIONS ................ ..............................2
Section 5.1 Applicable Town Ordinances ......................................... ..............................2
Section 5.2 General Approval Criteria .............................................. ..............................2
SECTION 6 CONCEPT PLAN, DEVELOPMENT PLANS, AND SITE PLANS .....................3
Section6.1 PD Concept Pl an ............................................................ ..............................3
Section 6.2 PD Development Plans .................................................. ..............................3
Section6.3 PD Site Plans ................................................................. ..............................3
ARTICLEII. USES ........................................................................................ ..............................4
SECTION 1 LAND USE SCHEDULE .......................................................... ..............................4
SECTION 2 ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES ............................. ..............................8
ARTICLE 1II. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ........................................ ..............................9
SECTIONl DENSITY ................................................................................... ..............................9
Section 1.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center .... ..............................9
SECTION2 MINIMUM LOT SIZE ............................................................... ..............................9
Section 2.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center .... ..............................9
SECTION3 MINIMUM LOT WIDTH .......................................................... ..............................9
Section3.1 Office ............................................................................. ..............................9
SECTION 4 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ........................................... ..............................9
Section 4.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center .... ..............................9
Section 4.2 Exceptions to Height Requirements ....................... ....... ...............................
SECTION 5 MINIMUM BUILDING SIZE ................................................... ..............................9
Table of Contents
2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center
Page i
ORDINANCE
Page 4 of 50
Section 5.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center .... ..............................9
SECTION 6 FRONT YARD SETBACKS ..................................................... ..............................9
Section 6.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center .... ..............................9
Section6.2 General .......................................................................... .............................10
SECTION 7 REAR YARD SETBACKS ...................................................... .............................10
Section 7.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center ... .............................10
Section7.2 General ......................................... ............................... .............................10
SECTION 8 SIDE YARD SET BACKS ........................................................ .............................11
Section 8.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center ... .............................11
Section8.2 General .......................................................................... .............................11
SECTION 9 SLOPE REQUIREMENTS ....................................................... .............................11
Section 9.1 Residential Slope .......................................................... .............................11
Section9.2 Roadway Slope ............................................................ ..............................1 l
SECTION 10 MISCELLANEOUS DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ... .............................11
Section 10.1 Hiking and /or Biking Trails .......................................... .............................12
Section 10.2 Landscape Irrigation ...................................................... .............................12
Section10.3 Fencing .......................................................................... .............................12
Section10.4 Lighting ......................................................................... .............................12
Section 10.5 Tree Requirement .......................................................... .............................12
ARTICLEIV, EXHIBITS ............................................................................ .............................13
EXHIBIT 1 Legal Description of Planning Area 3 -12
EXHIBIT 2 PD Concept Plan
Table of Contents
2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center Page ii
ORDINANCE
Page 5 of 50
ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1 SHORT TITLE
This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "Circle T Planning Area No. 3 -12
Conference and Educational Center Ordinance ", or simply as the "PD Ordinance'.
SECTION 2 PURPOSES
This PD Ordinance is adopted to provide for a superior design of lots or buildings; to provide for
increased recreation and /or open space opportunities; to provide amenities or features that would
be of special benefit to the property users or community; to protect or preserve natural amenities
and environmental assets such as trees, creeks, ponds, floodplains, slopes or hills and
viewscapes; to protect or preserve any existing historical buildings, structures, features or places;
and to provide an appropriate balance between the intensity of development and the ability to
provide adequate supporting public facilities and services.
SECTION 3 GENERAL DEFINITIONS
Section 3.1 Usage For purposes of this PD Ordinance, certain numbers, abbreviations, terms,
and words shall be used, interpreted and defined as set forth in this Section. Other terms and
words are defined elsewhere in this PD Ordinance. Unless the context clearly indicates to the
contrary, words used in the present tense include the future tense, and words used in the plural
include the singular. The word "shall" will be interpreted as mandatory, and the word "may" as
permissive.
Section 3.2 Words and Terms Defined.
Applicable Town Ordinances means the UDC and all other ordinances, rules, and regulations that
are adopted by the Board and that are applicable to development within the PD District 3 -12.
Board means the Board of Aldermen of the Town of Westlake, Texas.
Commission means the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Westlake, Texas.
Floor Area means the total area of all floors of all buildings on a lot or unified development site
measured between the outer perimeter walls of the buildings excluding (i) area in a building or in
a separate structure (whether below or above grade) used for the parking of motor vehicles, (ii)
courts or balconies open to the sky, and (iii) roof area used for recreation.
Masonry means brick, stone, cast stone, concrete, glass block, split -face concrete masonry unit,
or other masonry materials approved by the Board.
PD District means the planned development zoning district established by this PD Ordinance.
Article 1. General Provisions
2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center Page 1
ORDINANCE
Page 6 of 50
PD Concept Plan means a plan for development which enables the town to evaluate major
impacts of a proposed zoning district or planned development district.
PD Ordinance means this planned development zoning district ordinance, including any
approved PD Concept Plan.
PD Supplement means that certain Circle T Planned Development Zoning District As codified in
the Planned Development Supplement.
Town means the Town of Westlake, Texas.
UDC means the Town's Unified Development Code, as amended.
SECTION 4 PD SUPPLEMENT
The Board adopted the PD Supplement. The PD Supplement includes additional standards that
are applicable within this PD District. The PD Supplement establishes additional standards for
the following: (i) concept, informational, development and site plans; (it) signs; (iii) landscaping;
(iv) roadway construction, parking and loading; (v) fencing; (vi) lighting; (vii) other special
standards; and (viii) illustrations. To the extent that there is any conflict between a provision in
the PD Supplement and this PD Ordinance, the terms of this PD Ordinance shall control.
SECTION 5 APPLICABILITY OF EXISTING REGULATIONS
Section 5.1 Applicable Town Ordinances Except to the extent provided by the PD Concept
Plan, this PD Ordinance and the PD Supplement, development within the PD District shall be
governed by the following UDC standards:
With respect to the Conference and Educational Center and Data Center use area, by the
O -H Office Park -Hotel
Except to the extent provided by the PD Concept Plan, this PD Ordinance, and the PD
Supplement, development within the PD District shall also be governed by the Applicable Town
Ordinances. In the event of any conflict between (i) the PD Concept Plan, this PD Ordinance and
the PD Supplement and (ii) the Applicable Town Ordinances, the terms, provisions and intent of
the PD Concept Plan, this PD Ordinance and the PD Supplement shall control. Except as
provided below, in the event of any conflict between the UDC and the Applicable Town
Ordinances, the terms, provisions and intent of the UDC shall control.
Section 5.2 General Approval Criteria To the extent, if any, that the Applicable Town
Ordinances (and, in particular, the subdivision regulations of the UDC) grant to the Board, the
Commission, the Town Manager or any other Town employee or consultant, the authority to
approve any aspect of development within the PD District (including, but not limited to,
preliminary or final plats or any aspect thereof or any agreements or permits related thereto)
based on conformity with the Town's Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan or Thoroughfare
Plan (or with the objectives, goals or policies of such plans), then such authority shall be
Article 1. General Provisions
, 2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center Page 2
ORDINANCE
Page 7 of 50
exercised to the extent necessary to determine whether the aspect of development being approved
is consistent with the PD Concept Plan, this PD Ordinance, the PD Supplement and the
objectives, goals, and policies of such plan, ordinance and supplement.
SECTION 6 CONCEPT PLAN, DEVELOPMENT PLANS, AND SITE PLANS.
Section 6.1 PD Concept Plan. A PD Concept Plan for this PD District shall be approved
prior to the approval of any development plans and site plans required by this PD Ordinance.
The PD concept plan shall comply with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Open Space and
Trail Plan, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, the Master Water and Sewer Plan of the Town and the
Master Drainage Plan of the town and the UDC
Section 6.2 PD Development Plans Article 1, Section 1-3, (3) of the Planned Development
Supplement states that PD development plans shall not be required for development within any
of the PD Districts.
Section 6.3 PD Site Plans PD site plans are required for development within the PD District.
Article 1, Section 1 -3 (4) of the PD Supplement governs the process by which PD site plans are
submitted and approved (including, but not limited to, the submittal requirements, approval
criteria, and conditions).
Article I. General Provisions
2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center Page 3
ORDINANCE
Page 8 of 50
ARTICLE 11. USES
SECTION 1 LAND USE SCHEDULE
Buildings, structures, and land within the sub -areas identified on the PD Concept Plan shall be
used only in accordance with the uses permitted in the following "Land Use Schedule ". The
symbol "X" shall mean that the use is permitted as a principal use by right. The symbol "S" shall
mean that the principal use is permitted only af3er first obtaining a "Specific Use Permit" as set
forth in the UDC. The symbol "A" shall mean that this use is specifically permitted as an
accessory use to a main use (this does not exclude other land uses which are generally considered
accessory to the primary use). A blank square shall mean that the use is not allowed as a
principal use.
CIRCLE T PLANNING AREA 3 -3 -B CONFERENCE AND EDUCATIONAL CENTER
AND DATA CENTER
LAND USE SCHEDULE
PERMITTED Permitted "X"
USES Special Use "S"
Accessory "A"
AGRICULTURAL USES
Orchard
X
Plant Nursery (Growing)
X
Plant Nursery (Retail Sales)
X
Fanns General (Crops)
X
Forms General (Livestock, Ranch)
x
Veterinarian (Indoor Kennels)
Veterinarian (Outdoor Kennels)
Stables (Private Use)
S
Stable,1 As a Business)
RESIDENTIAL USES
Single Family Detached
Single Family Zero Lot Line
Single Family Attached
Duplex
Home Occupation
Ser+ants'Caretakers, Quarters
Accommodation for
Employees'Customers /V i sitors
A
Swimming Pool (Private)
A
Detached Garage (Private)
A
Sport Tennis Courts (Private)
A
Article Il. Uses
2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center - Page 4
Vrc uriVnrv� [
Page 9 of 50
PERMITTED
USES
Permitted `:k"
Special Use "S"
Accessory "A"
INSTITUTIONAL, and
GOVERNMENTAL USES
Emergency Ambulance Service
X
Post Office (Governmental)
X
Mailing Service ( Private)
X
Heliport
HelistopNeni -stop
S
Telephone, Electric, Cable, and Fiber
Optic Switching Station
X
Electrical Substation
S
Utility Distribution Lines'
X
Utility Shop and Storage
A
Water and Sewage Pumping Station
(below grade)
x
Water and Sewage Pumping Station
(above grade)
S
Water Storage Tank and Pumping
System (Elevated or Above Grade)
S
Water. Sewer. Electric, and Gas Meters
X
Electric Transformers
X
Private Streets /AlleyslDrives
X
Retirement Home
Nursing %Convalescent Home
Hospice
Hospital
Psychiatric Hospital
Clinic
A
Child Daycare ( Public, 7 or more)
Child Daycare (Private. 7 or more)
A`
School. K -12 (Public or Private)
.School ( Vocational)
College or University
X
Conununiiy Censer ( Public)
Civic Club
X
Church or Place of Worship
X
Use Associated to a Religious Inst.
X
Government Building
X
Police Station
X
Fier Station
X
Library
X
Data Center
X
Article]]. Uses
.2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center - Page 5
ORDINANCE
Page 10 of 50
PERMITTED
USES
Permitted "X"
Special Use "S"
Accessory "A"
COMMERCLkL USES
Multifamily (Apartmenis)
O1lices (General)
X
Studio
X
Banks and Financial Institutions
a
Information Processing
X
Hotel- Motel
X
Hotel Motel with Conferencing Facility
X
Laundry Dry Cleaning ( <3,000 S.F.)
A
Laundry/Dry Cleaning (DropTick)
A
Shoe Repair
A
Beauty Parlor /Barbershop
A
Clothing Store
A
Quick Copy,'Duplicaling Services
A
Personal Services
A
Liquor Store
Micro -brewer and Kline Production and
Sales ( <30.000 S.F.)
S
Grocm
Conw tience Store
A
Service Station
Drug Store
A
Variety Store
A
Bakery Sales
A
Stationery and'or Book Store
A
Antique Shop
An Gallery Muscums
A
Hardware Store
Sporting Goods
A
Paint and Wallpaper
Cloth Store
Retail Stores - General
(Excluding Second Hand Goods)
A
Restaurant. Cafe or Dining Facility
X
Auto,Truck Parts and Accessories
Household Fumilure Appliances
(including Sales and Service)
Fanners Market
Feed Store
Parking Structure
X
Cafeteria I Private)
A
Article 11. Uses
.2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center - Page h
ORDINANCE
Page 11 of 50
PERMITTED
USES
Permitted "X"
Special Use "S"
Accessory `•A"
Job Printing, Lithography. Printing. or
Blueprinting
A
Vehicle Display and Sales (inside)
Medical Laboratory
R&D Laboratory
A^
Conference Center
X
Live Theater
A
Motion Picture Theater
A
Custom Business Services
X
Electronic Appliances Store and -
Computer Sales and Service
Tavern, Bar or Lounge
S
Dance Halls /Nightclubs
S
AMUSEMENTRECREATION
Golf Course ( Public or Private)
X
Park or Playground ( Public or Private)
X
Satellite Dish
X
Non - Commercial Radio Tower
Race Track Operation
Recreation Facility. Health Studio
( Public)
X
Country Club ( Private Membership)
X
Golf Clubhouse ( Public or Private)
X
Community Center (Private)
X
Recreation Center( Private)
X
Hike, Bike. and Equestrian Trails
( Public or Private)
X
Golf Maintenance Facility
A
Golf Pro Shop
A
Health'Spa Facilities (Private)
A
Athletic Fields ( Private)
A
Athletic Courts (Private)
A
Equestrian Center
A
Athletic Courts (Public)
A
Commercial Amusement (Inside)
A
Lake CruisefWater Taxi
AUTO SERVICES
Truck,Trailer Rental
Auto Body Repair
Auto Mechanical Repair
A
Article 11. Uses
.2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center- Page 7
ORDINANCE
Page 12 of 50
PERMITTED
USES
Permitted "X"
Special Use "S"
Accessory "A"
Quick LubeOil Change
Vehicle Maintenance (Private)
A
Vehicle Fueling (Private)
A
WHOLESALE TRADE
Warehouse/Siorage (Inside)
Warehouse'Storage (Outside)
ScraP'Waste Recycling Collection andbr
Storage
GasiCheinical Bulk Storage
Light ManufacturingiAssembly
Apparel Manufacturing
Packaging and-or Distribution
Printing. Engraving and related
Reproductive Services
Distribution of & »ksiOther Printed
Material
Machine Shop
Welding Shop
Temporary Batching Plant
S
Temporary Construction Office
X3
Temporary Construction Materials
Storage
X'
Temporary SaltsOtlice
X
NOTES:
1. Individual retail occupants (except grocery store and drug store) cannot exceed 25.000 square feet.
2. Including water, sewer, electric, gas, cable, telephone, fiber optic. and other public and private utility
distribution lines.
3. Limited to period of construction.
4. Limited to "build -out' period.
5. "Private" shall be deemed to include a daycare that is made available to any employee on the property.
6. Limited to white collar research and development (i.e., non - industrial, non - chemical, and non - water
processing).
SECTION 2 ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES
An accessory use or structure which is customarily incidental to the principal use or structure,
and which is located on the same lot or tract of land, shall be permitted as an accessory use
without being separately listed as a permitted use.
Article II. Uses
2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center - Page R
vRUrrvhrv�r
Page 13 of 50
ARTICLE 111. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SECTION 1 DENSITY
Section 1.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center: The maximum
aggregate floor area for the Conference and Educational Center and Data Center shall be
1,250,000 square feet and limited to a total of 1,200 Guest rooms (Guest rooms defined as rooms
used for overnight accommodations).
SECTION 2 MINIMUM LOT SIZE
Section 2.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center The minimum lot size
for the Conference and Educational Center and Data Center use area shall be 200,000 square feet.
SECTION 3 MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
Section 3.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center The minimum lot width
for the Conference and Educational Center and Data Center use area shall be 200 feet.
SECTION 4 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
Section 4.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center Except as provided
below, the maximum height for all structures within the Conference and Educational Center and
Data Center use area shall be no higher that an elevation of 735.00 feet above mean sea level.
Section 4.2 Exceptions to Height Requirements The height limits imposed above shall not
apply to (a) chimneys and vent stacks, church spires, cupolas, entry features, skylights, or other
architectural features that are not intended for occupancy or storage; (b) flag poles and similar
devices; or (c) heating and air conditioning equipment, solar collectors, and similar equipment,
fixtures and devices provided such equipment, fixtures, and devices are screened from view with
a solid wall that is architecturally consistent with the design of the building to which they are
attached.
SECTION 5 MINIMUM BUILDING SIZE
Section 5.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center The minimum building
size for Conference and Educational Center and Data Center use shall be 3,000 square feet.
SECTION 6 FRONT YARD SETBACKS
Section 6.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center The minimum front
yard for the Conference and Educational Center and Data Center use area shall be 100 feet.
Article 111. Development Standards
2008 PA 3 -12 - Conference and Educational Center Page 9
ORDINANCE
Page 14 of 50
Section 6.2 General
A. Required front yards must be open and unobstructed except for fences and signs
allowed by this PD Ordinance; provided, however, ordinary projections of window sills,
belt courses, cornices, and other architectural features may not project more than 12
inches into the required front yard. A fireplace chimney may project up to two feet into
the required front yard if its area of projection does not exceed 12 square feet.
Cantilevered roof eaves and balconies may project up to five feet into the required front
yard.
B. The front yard setback is measured from the front lot line or from the required
right -of -way, whichever creates the greater setback.
C. If a lot runs from one street to another and has double frontage, a required front
yard must be provided on both streets. If access is prohibited on one frontage by plat, the
following structures or portions of structures in the yard along such frontage are governed
by the rear yard regulations: swimming pools; game courts; fences; garages; and other
accessory buildings.
D. If a corner lot has two street frontages of equal distance, one frontage is governed
by the front yard regulations and the other frontage by the side yard regulations. If the
corner lot has two street frontages of unequal distance, the shorter frontage is governed by
the front yard regulations and the longer by the side yard regulations.
SECTION 7 REAR YARD SETBACKS
Section 7.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center The minimum rear yard
for the Conference and Educational Center and Data Center use area shall be 100 feet.
Section 7.2 General
A. Required rear yards must be open and unobstructed except for fences and signs
allowed by this PD Ordinance; provided, however, ordinary projections of window sills,
belt courses, cornices, and other architectural features may not project more than 12
inches into the required rear yard. A fireplace chimney may project up to two feet into
the required rear yard if its area of projection does not exceed 12 square feet. Roof eaves
may project up to three feet into the required rear yard. Balconies may not project into
the required rear yard.
B. The rear yard setback is measured from the rear lot line.
Article III. Development Standards
.2008 PA 3 -12 - Conference and Educational Center Page 10
ORDINANCE
Page 15 of 50
SECTION 8 SIDE YARD SETBACKS
Section 8.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center The minimum side
yard for the Conference and Educational Center and Data Center use area shall be 75 feet.
Section 8.2 General
A. Required side yards must be open and unobstructed except for fences and signs
allowed by this PD Ordinance; provided, however, ordinary projections of window sills,
belt courses. cornices, and other architectural features may not project more than 12
inches into the required side yard. A fireplace chimney may project up to two feet into
the required side yard if its area of projection does not exceed 12 square feet.
Cantilevered roof eaves may project up to three feet into the required side yard.
Balconies may not project into the required side yard.
B. The side yard setback is measured from the side lot line, except when a front yard
is treated as a side yard, in which case, the setback is measured from the lot line or the
required right -of -way, whichever creates the greater setback.
C. Air conditioning units may be located in the required side yard, but not nearer
than one foot to the property line.
SECTION 9 SLOPE REQUIREMENTS
Section 9.1 Residential Slope Except as provided below, non single family structures shall
not exceed the height of aline drawn at a slope of 4:1 (including streets and other rights of way)
from any single family lot line. If the grade of the ground rises or falls from the point of origin of
the slope line, the maximum pennitted height shall increase or decrease by the difference in
grade.
Section 9.2 Roadway Slope Non single family structures shall not exceed the height of a line
drawn at a slope of 2:1 (including streets and other rights of way) from the right -of -way line of
any roadway. If the grade of the ground rises or falls from the point of origin of the slope line,
the maximum permitted height shall increase or decrease by the difference in grade.
SECTION 10 MISCELLANEOUS DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
Section 10.1 Hiking and /or Biking Trails. If required by the Town, public hiking and biking
trail(s) shall be located along and generally parallel to public rights -of -way and designed such
that the trail(s) do not penetrate greater than 100 feet onto the subject property in any direction.
The design of the trail pathway shall meander in keeping with the nature of the area and proposed
development.
Article III. Development Standards
2008 PA 3 -12 - Conference and Educational Center Page 11
ORDINANCE
Page 16 of 50
Section 10.2 Landscape Irrigation. Upon the submission and approval by Town staff of a
landscape design utilizing low water or Xeriscaping plantings, the inclusion of an automated
landscape irrigation system may be waived for part or all of the subject property. A temporary
irrigation system my be utilized at the owner's discretion to allow for the establishment of
plantings, but such a system may be temporarily or permanently disengaged, at such owner's sole
discretion.
Section 10.3 Fencing. Fencing around any data center use may exceed seven feet in height if
such height is reasonably required for the security of such data center; provided, that any fencing
that exceeds seven feet in height be screened from adjacent rights of way or properties by
topography, structures or plantings.
Section 10.4 Lighting.
A. Luminaries used for building security or to illuminate building facades, entrances,
parking areas and loading and service areas may be installed (i) on the building fagade
but not above the building roof line; and (ii) anywhere on the lot with a maximum height
of 25 feet, but not higher than the building roof line.
B. Luminaries used to illuminate pedestrian areas shall have a maximum height of 12
feet, and no pedestrian walkways are allowed to run parallel to a line of upright fixtures
(excluding bollards 12 feet or less in height) and a building. Walkways connecting
pedestrian areas and adjacent buildings shall be allowed to be located in this area, so
long as the primary intent is to connect the pedestrian walkway and the building.
Section 10.5 Tree Requirement. No more than 25 large trees (including existing trees) per
acre of the site's permeable green space shall be required. The foregoing sentence shall not apply
to portions of the site dedicated to open pasture, and any additional trees required shall be
concentrated in appropriate areas to provide buffering from adjacent sites and public rights of
.gray.
Article Ill. Development Standards
, 2008 PA 3 -12 - Conference and Educational Center Page 12
ORDINANCE
Page 17 of 50
ARTICLE IV. EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1 Legal Description of Planning Area 3 -12
EXHIBIT 2 PD Concept Plan
Article IV. Exhibits
2008 PA 3 -12 Conference and Educational Center - Page 13
ORDINANCE
Page 18 of 50
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PD 3 -12
BEING a tract of land situated in the Jesse Gibson Survey, Abstract Number 592, the Wilson
Medlin Survey, Abstract Number 1958, the Charles Medlin Survey, Abstract Number 1084 and
the G. Hendricks Survey, Abstract Number 680, Tarrant County, Texas, and being a portion of
that certain tract (Tract 2) of land described by deed to AIL Investment, L.P., as recorded in
Volume 13275, Page 542, County Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being more particularly
described by metes and bounds as follows:
BEGINNING at a 5/8 inch iron rod with plastic cap stamped "Carter & Burgess" set being an ell
corner in the southerly property line of said AIL Tract 2, said point also being the northeast
property comer of that certain tract of land described by deed to Lakeway Land, Ltd., as
recorded in Volume 13978, Page 222, County Records, Tarrant County, Texas;
THENCE S 89 049'56 "W, 787.23 feet along the common property line of the southerly property
line of said AIL Tract 2 and the north property line of said Lakeway Land tract;
THENCE N 00 045'29 "W, 35 7.8 7 feet;
THENCE N 20032'l 0 "E, 243.20 feet;
THENCE N 24 °21'01 "E, 227.62 feet;
THENCE N 26 047'41 "E, 340.17 feet;
THENCE N 58 007'29 "E, 281.95 feet to the beginning of a non - tangent curve to the left;
THENCE with said non - tangent curve to the left, an arc distance of 504.70 feet, through a central
angle of 23 °33'27" having a radius of 1227.50 feet, the long chord of which bears
N 88050'l 9"E, 501.15 feet;
THENCE N 77 003'35 "E, 1563.23 feet;
THENCE S 00 03243 "E, 762.66 feet;
THENCE S 40 002'39 "W, 871.03 feet;
THENCE S 01 005'24 "E, 1442.77 feet to north right -of -way line of Bove Road, as shown in that
certain tract of land described by deed to the Town of Westlake, as recorded in Volume 16798,
Page 279, County Records, Tarrant County, Texas;
THENCE S 88 °54'36 "W, 1153.05 feet along the north line of said Dove Road;
C &B Job No. 015007.094 ACF #2412
CTR April 15, 2008
J:VOB\ 01500701\ 094 \SLTR \WP\LEG\PD3- 12ZONING.doc Page l oft
Page 19 of 50
THENCE S 87 036'29 "W, 138.19 feet continuing along the north line of said Dove Road to the
east property line of that certain tract of land (Tract 1) described by deed to AIL Investment,
L.P., as recorded in Volume 13883, Page 335, County Records, Tarrant County, Texas;
THENCE N 00 °31'56 "E, 1296.32 feet along the east property line of said AIL Tract 1 and then
along the east property line of the aforementioned Lakeway Land tract to the POINT OF
BEGINNING and containing 4,677,277 square feet or, 107.375 acres of land more or less.
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED UNDER 22 TAC S663.21. AND DOES NOT
REFLECT THE RESULTS OF AN ON THE GROUND SURVEY, AND IS NOT TO BE
USED TO CONVEY. OR ESTABLISH INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY, EXCEPT THOSE
RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IMPLIED OR ESTABLISHED BY THE CREATION OR
RECONFIGURATION OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION FOR
WHICH IT WAS PREPARED.
C &B Job No. 015007.094 ACF #2412
CTR April 15, 2008
J:\lOB\ 01500701 \094\SUR \WP\LEG\PD3- 12ZONING.doc Page 2 of 2
Page 20 of 50
z
li e
II n
cc
■
N -r-
'i m. I
-D 0
Uo.s
2&4
04 0 CPU w
t 'D V`
r
gz-k a a C,
cOO
-ac--
-"� 07,g a I
Lb 0 9 - c
C3
O
ID
=E:&000
5 m
c a
o–
RICHARD. EADS SURVEY
A5STXAt7 HURAVER 402
BURYJEY $TRACT HUNIBE&.20241A
----------------------- 7j�— -
APPROX IMATE y L I N E /111�
SURVEY
CHARLES INCEPLIN SURVEY
ADSTRACV MUMMER 1004 z
JESSE SUTTON SURVEY
ABSTRACT WUMBER 1451
PD 342
W7.375 ACRES
41L INVESrww, L.P.
FD PG
RFNiAJNDER IAZIF 2
VOL . .542
3-3
FART I ®p Ih�pdb
Ot
51, cc
D
ills
L4<EW4y LANO, L7-0.
0. Vk
VOL. 13978. PC. 222
1 ! t f i a
cn
C)
i
DOVE RD
L
AN EXHIBIT SHOWING PD 3-12 ZONING
AND THE REMAINDER OF THE PD 3-3 ZONING
TOWN OF WE5TLAKE, TARMNT COUNTY, TEXAS
=n-kPPROXIMAIE WRVEY LINEI
f ABSTRACT NUN3EA- 9idi--
APPROXIMATE SURVEY LINE
REMAINDER FD 3-3 Iz
PART 2
'v'
uj
uj
O
1"A-<
.0
.4 ...
JAMES .....:........
J.... F. KASSON
............. .........
4;500
0
I'lLE1 )-\JOB',01500701',094\SUR\5D0794zl.dgn
04TE. 15-Apr-08 12,38-nij, -cenninn . — ,
GENERAL SITE CONCEPT NOTES.-
PLAN r
Turner Lake z
=U-7
AMk e gay
J-/
Flood Plain
v.w,•,mv,e,,,,.,..mrnwvear . rmmm xe�.ran,m ;��ry/ / / /��) l V'� k
'0
4;p
cc c,
43
Pr.. 1,J'r., It ..rd.,
coo
In Eritryl R—pt— Pr sed Primary
intry Road
Gar'g, St—tufe t Trip, G-or.r. tu,ildrl
30 I
,
H., 11 1. 70 It. gh COQ
op.. sp... mr.,
C"? Ftz
0 1 OK
C
In Ful— P..d
Aft CIMI,
..... . PrIvnie Recreatiorl 1
rop"ed Sefy 0 s
OU I
Cre —10011 dt/
N'
and S,, P,
t, BuOdmnp
70 11�.ghttt a
% < "I 'i
ll¢ co
.43
P,,bi,. T,a 11
. . . . . . . . . . .
CD P pi
K)
K)
0
U1
0
FY
3
PD Site Concept Plan: gpproximately`1071
et
idelity R.gmual Camp,,s
40
-M
lot
lk I,.
U
Z
W
mi
U
m
23 of 50
1
•
♦ *♦ � ♦e �, o .�f s. *rte• *• ♦." � : t -.
• � b
y�iip ♦ � � 4 � -� � .... �
���7' .f " _ �_ �� ��._�.' - _ ... - _�_, fix. � •
a
r. •
.i �wR � � • • t,
IL
- 04 * ��
40 46
• � w �f* � • � s t
s '
1)+ r
I
N
A
CD
CIRCLE RANCH"
0
`� t
*too
•
M
t
Summary of Relevant Findings — Traffic Impact Analysis
Service Vehicle Traffic
Service vehicles would enter the site via Ottinger Road.
Based on the estimates of service vehicles from our two finalist operators, DeShazo,
Tang & Associates has indicated that service trips to the site are considered
relatively low in number, and not considered high enough to impact normal traffic
flows.
While not impacting traffic significantly, it is understood that the town may wish to
minimize potential impact on active school zone timeframes. Both operators have
indicated that service vehicle traffic/deliveries can be scheduled at times that would
have no material conflicts with school zone hours.
Guest Traffic
O All guests arriving at the facility would enter and exit the site from Westlake Parkway.
Guests would arrive via shuttlelvan/coach, private or rental automobile, or taxi.
Employee Traffic
All employee traffic is expected to normally access the site via Ottinger Road.
Two groups of employees will need access to the site: operator employees and
owner employees.
Based on DeShazo Tang's findings, including current background traffic and added
traffic due to employees, the Level of Service (as defined by Transportation
Research Board as presented in the Highway Capacity Manual — (HCM)) for Ottinger
Road at the emergencylservice /employee entrance on Ottinger is rated `A` or "B° at
peak traffic hours. The HCM rating system, A — F, generally provides that a level "D"
or better indicates an acceptable level of performance for intersections in urban or
surburban locations, while rural locations may demand a better level of service,
Although the Traffic Impact Analysis indicates that Ottinger Road should be only
minimally affected by the added traffic, the Operators and Owner have indicated the
ability to 1) adjust shift change times to avoid peak school hours, and 2) stagger shift
changes to spread traffic over a longer period of time.
Page 3 of 3
Printed on, 4129108
Page 25 of 50
Summary of Traffic/Transportation Assumptions for Project X
Used by DeShazo, Tang do Associates, Inc. for Trip Generation /Parking Demand Models
Based Upon: Phone Interview w/ Owner, Gensler, DT&A; plus, DT&A assumptions
All information pertains to original construction phase, unless otherwise stated.
(PRELIMINARY, subject to review and revision)
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Number of Guest Rooms: 800
2. Assembly Area: 94,000 SF
PROGRAM INFORMATION
3. Typical range of duration: 1 day to 2 weeks
4. Typical Start /end time of other programs:
a. 8:00 AM -6:00 PM (one day)
b. mid -day to mid -day (varies)
5. Attendance:
a. >75% of capacity from June through mid- Decernber; <75% of capacity
from January through May.
b. highest Monday through We, nesdap, lower on Thursday and Friday, no
weekend attendance except for extended -period programs
NUMBER OF GUESTS
6. Typical range in number of guests 50 -1000 per program
7. Maximum number of guests on site atone tune, when considering overlap of
multiple programs: 1,500 (not all guests stay overnight)
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
8. "Operator': 460 employees in three shifts
a. 65% on Shift 1: 7:00 Alva 3:00 PAM
b. 32% on Shift 2: 3:00 PM -11:00 PM
c. 3 % on Shift 3: 11:00 PM -7:00 AM
9. "Owner ": 100 employees on one shift (8:00 AM -5:00 PM)
14. Data Center employees: 12 employees on one shift (5:00 AM -5:00 PM)
ASSUMED TRAVEL MODE
11. Guests:
a. Shuttle Bus /Coach - 65% (assumed average vehicle occupancy: 20
persons per vehicle)
b. Drive Alone (Personal Auto, Local /Regional origin) -10% (assumed
average vehicle occupancy: 1.2 persons per vehicle)
c. Drive Alone (Rental Car) -10% (assumed average vehicle occupancy: 1.5
persons per vehicle)
d. Taxi /Other Drop -off -15% (assumed average vehicle occupancy: 1.0
s
perons per vehicle)
e. If off -site activities are included in program, travel will most likely be
arranged by private coach.
Page 1 of 2
Printed on: 4/22108
Page 26 of 50
12. Staff:
a. "Operator' -Drive AIone (Personal Auto) -100% (assumed average
vehicle occupancy: 1.1 persons per vehicle) [NOTE: "Operator" mould
consider arranging private transportatimi to reduce traffic, if required.]
b. "Owner' -Drive Alone (Personal Auto) -100% (assumed average vehicle
occupancy: 1.1 persons per vehicle)
c. "Data Center" -Drive Alone (Personal Auto) -100% (assumed average
vehicle occupancy: 1.0 persons per vehicle)
ESTIMATED SERVICE VEHICLE NEEDS
13. Estimated number of "18- wheeler" vehicles serving the site: 14 per week
14. Estimated number of "Single Unit" trucks service the site: 15-25 per week
15. Deliveries can be scheduled by the Owner, as needed
END OF DOCUMENT
Page 2 of 2
Prin lyd ar_ 412W
Page 27 of 50
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR
CORPORATE CONFERENCE CENTER
IN WESTLAKE, TEXAS
Pmp"d for.
Gensler
711 Louisiana, Suite 300
Houson, Texas 77002
Prepred by
DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc.
Engineers • Planners
400 South Houston Street
Suite 330 • Union Station
Dallas, Texas 75202
Phone 214/748-6740
Fax 214/748 -7037
April 21, 2008
DT&A 007252
Page 28 of 50
DRAFT - DrSliasq Tang & Associatrs Inc.
April 21.2004
Traffic Impact Analysis for
Corporate Conference Center
— DT &A Projed Ne. 07L52 —
Table Of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................. ...............................
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ ............................... i
Purpose ....... ......... ........ ....... .. ................. ........ .... . ................. .. ....................... . ............. 1
ProjectDescription ........ .. ........................................ ................... ....... . ...................... 2
StudyParameters .... .......................... _. .......................................... ..................... ......2
StudyArea .. ............................................ .. ......... _ ............................................ ... ..... 2
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................... ...............................
3
Approach .............._ ............. .._........._.................. __ ..................... ....�.......................3
Background Traffic Volume Data .............. . ...... .. ............ .. ............................................ 3
Site - Related Traffic »... ...... ... . ................... ..................................... .............. ......
3
Trip Generation and Mode Split ....................................................... ..............................3
Trip Distribution and Assignment ................................ .................................... ...............
4
Site - Generated Traffic Volumes... .................................... ..................................... .....
5
Traffic Operational Analysis — Roadway Intersections ..................................... ........
5
AnalysisMethodology ................................................. ...............................
Analysis Traffic Volumes ................................ ..............................................................
8
Summaryof Resul ts ................................ .....................................................................
6
RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. ...............................
8
CONCLUSIONS......................................... _............................................................ 9
Corporate Confi-rcne<4iiter
Traffic tnrlxict Avalpis
Table of Cottents
Page 29 of 50
DRAFT - De$hazo, Tang & AssocWes, ltic.
ApH121, 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The services of DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. (DT &A) were retained by Gensler on
behalf of the Owner to conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for development of a
Corporate Conference Center in the Town of Westlake, Texas ( -the Project "). The 106.9 -
acre site is part of the Circle T Ranch and is currently zoned as a Planned Development
District The purpose of this report is to summarize the findings of the TIA for use by the
Owner in a request for an amendment to the existing PD zoning to facilitate the Project
The proposed development does notoperate like a traditional hotel or other land uses,so no
standardized trip generation characteristics are available for this analysis. Hence, trip
generation projections for the Project were calculated by a trip generation model developed
by DT&A based upon estimated information provided by the Owner and from DT &A's
own assumptions based upon professional judgment. For purposes of this analysis, two
traffic assignment scenarios were considered:
Scenario 1 - All traffic (except service vehicles) accesses the site through the main entry via
Westlake Parkway.
Scenario 2 - All guests traffic accesses the site through the main entry via Westlake
Parkway; while all staff traffic access the site through a secondary driveway located on
Ottinger Road.
Since most of the property immediately surrounding the site is currently rural in nature, the
roadway network serving the site is commensurately rural in character and /or is only
partially constructed to the ultimately - planned cress- section. Due to the intermittent nature
of site traffic and the extensive use of private transit, the traffic impact to the local roadx,ay
network will be moderate. Depending upon the decision of whether to designate staff
traffic through the main entrance or a side entrance on Otti.^,ger Road, traffic to road-ways
other than Westlake Parkway may be negligible.
As future development occurs and the local thoroughfare network is expanded,
reconfiguration of the site driveways may be appropriate in order to achieve proper
intersection spacing and traffic capacity.
END
Cor --Ic C0'1fi'W"& C"Aler
Traffic ifll[wct Amalysis
Page i
Page 30 of 50
DRAFT
DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc.
Engineers Planners
400 South Houston Street. Suite 330
Dallas, TX 75202-4899
214.748.6740 • FAX 214.748.7037
www,deshazotang.corn
Technical Memorandum
To: Mr. David AIderete— Gensler
From: DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc.
Date: April 21, 2008
Re: Traffic Impact Analysis for Corporate Conference Center in Westlake, Texas
DMA Project No. 07252
INTRODUCTION
The services of DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. (DT &A) were retained by Gensler on
behalf of the Owner to conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for development of a
Corporate Conference Center in the Town of Westlake, Texas ("the Project "). DT &A is an
engineering consulting firm providing Iicensed engineers skilled in the field of
traffic /transportation engineering.
The proposed Project is a conference center for the private use of a corporate tenant located
on a 106.9 -acre site. The subject site is part of the Circle T Ranch and is currently zoned as a
Planned Development District A site location map is provided for reference in cxhibiti.
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to summarize the findings of the TIA for use by the Owner in a
request for an amendment to the existing PD zoning to facilitate the Project. The TIA will
be provided to the Town of Westlake staff ( "the Staff") for technical review to fulfill the
associated requirements of the local approval process.
Cor7`o C-1111
7 raffic I ni pacr Analysis
Page 1
Page 31 of 50
DRAFT- De9m a, Tmig & Associates, Inc.
Aprt7 21, 2408
This TIA analyzes the anticipated impact, if any, of background traffic growth and site -
related traffic at specified buildout conditions. Based upon the results of this analysis,
DT &A has recommended traffic - related measures considered commensurate and
appropriate to mitigate excessive or undue projected impacts. It is intended that the
findings and recommendations presented herein be considered a credible basis to determine
the traffic - related improvements essential for the Project to operate safely and efficiently.
Project Description
The proposed development will initially include a conference center with 800 guest rooms
and 94,000 square feet of assembly space. The proposed zoning request would allow an
expansion to up to 1,200 guest rooms. For purposes of this analysis, occupancy of the
project is anticipated to occur in 2009. A preliminary site plan for the Project as provided by
Gensler is provided in Exhibit 2
Study Parameters
This TIA will analyze the day -to-day traffic operational conditions that are anticipated to be
the most critically impacted by the proposed Project at buildout conditions- Based upon the
traffic generation characteristics of the Project and the prevailing background traffic
conditions, the following periods shall be analyzed.
• various weekday peak hours of adjacent street and site - generated trip generation
o at existing conditions
o at site buildout year 2009 with site - generated traffic
The following technical assumptions were also made in this analysis.
• Background traffic volumes were obtained from DT& A's Traffic Impact Analysis for
Phase ll construction•, of the Fidelity Investments corporate carnpus (i.e., background
traffic volumes include the projected volumes from Fidelity Investments) - base
traffic volumes were collected in March 2007.
StudyArea
Based upon the scale of the proposed Project, the TIA study area was defined in order to
assess the most relevant traffic impacts to the local area. The following locations are
included in the study area.
Intersections:
(a) SH -114 interchange with Westlake Parkway: fraffrc- signer - controlled
(b) Westlake Parkway at Capital Parkway: STOP- controlled on Capita! Farkuny (Molakc
Parkway curnnfly fenninofes of 1 e inlerseclion)
(c) Ottinger Road at Secondary Driveway (future): STOP- ronlrelledondriveimy
Corporate C&"A —, cc Cr„rrr
Trerffie Impart Analysis
Page 2
Page 32 of 50
DRAFT- De5hivzo, Twig &Asso6aks, Arc.
Apnl 21, 2008
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
In accordance with the requirements for site plan approval in the Town of Westlake,
submittal of a Traffic Impact Analysis is required for the Project The study is provided to
the Staff for review of the projected traffic impact; and, Staff review comments are provided
to the Town of Westlake Planning and Zoning Con-unission and Town Council for
consideration
Approach
The TIA presented in this report will analyze the operational conditions for the peak hours
and study area as defined above using standardized analytical methodologies where
applicable- Current traffic volume data were collected throughout the study area to
represent existing traffic conditions. Growth factors were applied to the existing volumes to
project future background traffic at the site buildout year conditions. Then, traffic generated
by the proposed development was projected using the standard four -step approach: Trip
Generation, Mode Split, Trip Distribution, and Traffic Assignment By adding the site -
generated traffic to the background traffic, the resulting site - plus - background traffic impact
to operational conditions may be assessed from which approach mitigation measures may
be recommended.
Background Traffic Volume Data
Traffic volumes derived in the 2007 Traffic Impact Analysis for Fidelity Investments Phase II
(conducted by DT&A) were used to reflect the current peak period traffic volumes on
Westlake Parkway and Dove Road (base data collected by DT &A on March 20, 21, and 27,
2M and are summarized in Exhibit 3. Current daily roadway link volumes on Ottinger
Road were collected by DT &A (subcontractor) on April 17 -18, 2008. Detailed data are
provided in Appendix C.
Site - Related Traffic
Tri Generation and Mode Split
The proposed development does not operate like a traditional hotel or other land uses, so no
standardized trip generation characteristics are available for this analysis. Hence, trip
generation projections for the Project were calculated by a trig; generation model developed
by DT &A based upon estimated information provided by the Owner and from DT &A's
own assumptions based upon professional judgment.
Description of use
The proposed development will host corporate employees from local, regional, and national
offices. Various corporate programs will be held for guests during their stay. The duration
of programs will range from one day to L— o weeks; the number of attendees of p rogran,s
cdgp 'nfe ca" fccc"-Gufci
Traffic An fnct Auadysis
Page 3
Page 33 of 50
DRAFT- DrShnzo, Tmrg & Associates, lire.
April2l, M
will range from 50 to 1,000. Start and end times for programs also vary - 8:00 AM -6:00 PM
for one day programs, and mid -day start and end for other programs_
For purposes of this analysis, it is estimated that approximately 65% of guests will arrive by
private shuttle or coach; 10% by private auto (local /regional traffic); 10% by taxi; 15% by
rental car. It is also estimated that the site will employ up to 460 "operator" staff (in three
work shifts), 100 "Owner" staff; and 12 data center staff.
Additional detailed assumptions and detailed trip generation and parking assumptions are
summarized in Appendix A. An overview of the hourly site - related trip generation is
summarized in Table L
Table 1. Weekday Site Trip Generation Summary
(from DT& A Trip Generation Model)
One -Hour
Period
Begbuiing
TOTAL
IN
OUT
6:00 AM
276
276
0
7:00AM
110
98
13
8:00 AM
8
8
0
9:00 AM
0
0
0
10:00 AM
33
33
1 0
11.00AM
33
33
0
12:00 PM
40
33
7
1.00 PM
47
33
13
2:00 PM
280
167
113
3.-00 PM
305
0
305
4:00 PM
8
0
a
5:00 PM
74
13
61
6:00 PM
147
20
127
7.00 PM
67
33
33
8:00 PM
47
33
13
9:00 PM
20
20
D
10:00 PM
26
26
0
11:00 PM
134
0
134
12:OOAM
0
0
0
Trip Distribution and Assignment
Traffic generated by the proposed development was assigned to the study area roadway
network based upon a subjective interpretation of the geographic distribution of population
and by DT &A`s professional judgment and understanding of the available roadway
network. (NOTE: This analysis only considers the existing roadway network Future
roadway improvements, extensions, and /or expansions are not considered in this analysis
and may require further consideration as those projects are implemented.]
For purposes of this analysis, two traffic assignment scenarios were considered:
Copromlr ConlrnmaCenter
Trnffic lynparl Apialysis
Ngr 4
Page 34 of 50
DRAFT - DeShrtzo, Tang &AssocWn, fttc.
April 21,20M
Scenario 1 - All traffic (except service vehicles) accesses the site through the main entry via
Westlake Parkway.
Scenario 2 - All guests traffic accesses the site through the main entry via Westlake
Parkway; while all staff traffic access the site through a secondary driveway Iocated on
Ottinger Road.
For both scenarios, service traffic is assumed to access the site through the secondary access
point on Ottinger Road. An illustration of traffic assignment assumptions for each scenario
is summarized in Exhibit 4.
Though this may include larger service vehicles, including W1 -50 trucks (approximately 14
per week), those service trips are relatively low in number and can be scheduled at the
discretion of the Owner. The volumes of service vehicles were not considered high enough
to merit an independent analysis of intersection capacity, though the impacts should be
considered subjectively.
Site - Generated Traffic Volumes
Site - generated traffic is calculated by multiplying the trip generation value (from Table i)
by the corresponding traffic assignments (front Exhibit 4). The resulting cumulative (for all
uses) peak period site - generated traffic volumes at buildout of the Project are summarized
in Exhibit 5.
Traffic Operational Analysis — Roadway Intersections
Analysis Methodology
Traffic operatlonal conditio. ns for traffics : gnal - controlled ("signalized" 11 roadway
intersections are quantitatively measured in terms of average delay per vehicle through the
intersection as a function of roadway capacity and operational characteristics of the traffic
signal. The standardized methodology applied herein was developed by the
Transportation Research Board as presented in the Higlavay Capacity Manual (HCM, HCM
also qualitatively rates the overall delay conditions in terms of "Level -of- Service" (LOS)
ranging from "A" (free - flowing conditions) to "F" (over - capacity conditions). Generally,
LOS D or better is considered an acceptable condition for signalized intersections in urban
and suburban conditions, while rural locations may demand better level -of- service. A
detailed description of HCM LOS for signalized intersections is provided in Appendix E.
The standard methodology for measuring the operational conditions of STOP-controlled
( "unsignalized ") intersection capacity was also developed by the Transportation Research
Board and presented in the HCM. These operational conditions are also qualitatively
defined in terms of LOS ranging from "A" to "F" and are quantitatively measured in terms
of average delay per vehicle —but as a function of acceptance gaps in the opposing traffic
stream(s). LOS for unsignaiized locations are not measured for the entire intersection;
Conwate Conference Cos ter
Trafftc hHJWC1 Anslysis
P's, 5
Page 35 of 50
DRAFT- peSha2o, Tail & AssoeioK Jett.
April 11, 2008
rather, LOS is only calculated for individual traffic movements that must stop or yield right -
of -way (traffic movements that do not stop or yield have no effective delay). A detailed
description of LOS for unsignalized intersections is also provided in Appendix E.
NOTE The HCM methodology for unsignalized intersections was originally designed to analyze low- to
rnoderaie-volume locations where the traffic is, generally, evenly distributed throughout the intersection (e,&, an
intersection of two local streets). However, for unsignalized intersections located on maior thoro� ughfares (where
traffic volume or roadway capacity is very high and/or vastly disproportionate; or "unbalanced"}, the
methodology is deficient. Although LOS D or better is desirable, LOS F (calculated) commonly results and
cannot be operationally mitigated unless a traffic signal is installed (subject to the findings of a Traffic Signal
Warrant Analysis and subsequent approved of traffic signal installation by the responsible transportation
agency). External factors such as gaps in the traffic stream created by nearby traffic signals are not sufficiently
accounted for in the methodology but may, in fact, provide better- than-calculated conditions. Since no
alternative analysis methodology exists, the results directly obtained from the calculated values are pmented
herein. It is recommended that analysis results for such locations be taken in the context of darto -day
experience rather than as an absolule determination of inadequacy.
Analysis Traffic Volumes
Determination of the Project's traffic impact is measured by comparing the incremental
change in operational conditions with and without site-related traffic. Exhibit 6
summarizes the background -plus -site peak period traffic volumes at the analysis period.
Summary of Results
Intersection capacity analyses presented in this study were performed using the Synchro 7
software package. Table 2 and Table 3 provide a summary of the intersection operational
conditions for traffic - signal -controlled intersections and unsignalized intersections,
respectively during the peak periods under the analysis conditions presented previously.
Detailed software output is provided in Appendix F.
NOTE Signalized intersection results were obtairxd directly from the optimized sofm-are output based upon
signal phasing and cycle ienglits observed in the field and may differ slightly from actual signal operati�cms.
Coq -rate Conference C -nter
Traffic furpacr Aenfysis
pngr 6
Page 36 of 50
DRAFT - De5ltaro, T'ling & Associates, lttc.
Al►ri121, 1008
Table 2. Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Results (Signalized Intersections)
Table 3. Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Results (Unsignalized Intersections)
Existing
Scenario I (All Access via Westlake
Scenario 2 (Access via Westlake
Scenario 2 (Aauss via We5llake
Parkwai, and Seconds Drive)
COl11460115
Parkway)
irk-roiN and Seconda Drioc)
5:00
PM
6:00
PAf
7,•00
5:00
700
5.00
6:00
6.00
2:00
3:00
7:00
5:00
7.00
5:00
7.00
5.00
rda
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
PM
PAf
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
{dB
6:00
6.00
8:00
6:00
7:00
7.00
3.00
4.00
8.00
6.00
8.00
6:00
8:00
6.00
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
PM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
W arktva
Oltin cr Road
WEIR
►drt
a/rt
n/a
It/a
rda
at/a
r ✓a
r ✓a
A
A
A
A
At WB SH 114 FR
B
C
B
C
►t/a
ova
11/4
rda
8
D
►da
rda
Ida
rt/a
Westlake Parkway
A I
g/a
At EB SF1 114 FIZ
Q
Q
D
D
rt/a
rda
►t/a
rt/a
Q
D
rt/a
rt/a
rdn
rt/n
Table 3. Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Results (Unsignalized Intersections)
KEY: AM and PM peaks based upon actual conditions.
A.D.(:D,E,F— Level of service ror intersection approach movement,
N0, SB, EB, W8 . North -, South•, East -, Westbound approach;
t. T R - App- -k turning mt +vemonr.
'O
v Corporate Conference Cnuer
m Traffic Impact Anol ysis
V Page 7
O
01
0
Existing
Conditions
Scenario 1 (All Access ilia Westlake
Per Very)
Scenario 2 (Aauss via We5llake
Parkwai, and Seconds Drive)
7,00
AM
8:00
AM
5:00
PM
6:00
PAf
7:00
AM
8:00
AM
5:00
PM
6 :00
PIVf
6:00
AM
700
AM
6:00
PM
7.00
PM
2:00
PM
3:00
PM
3.00
PM
4:00
PM
7.00
AM
8.00
AM
5:00
PM
6:00
Phi
7.•00
AM
8:00
AM
5.00
PM
6:00
PM
700
AM
8:00
AM
5:00
PM
6.00
PM
Westlake Parkcva •
WO
rda
rt/a
A
C
►t/a
rt/a
rt /a
I rt/a
A
C
rt/a
rt/n
rt/a
rda
at Capital Pkiv •,
{dB
►du
It/,I
A
A
►da
n/a
rda
rda
A
A
►da
rda
rda
rda
SB
rt/u
rdrt
r
A
►du
rda
►da
►t/a
r
A
►t/a
ova
Ida
n/a
Oltin cr Road
WEIR
►drt
a/rt
n/a
It/a
rda
at/a
r ✓a
r ✓a
A
A
A
A
A
B
at SCt'O11LIar Drive I
SBLT
rdir 1
rt/,r 1
rda
rda
rt/u
rt/a
rda
rda
A
►t/a
A
rt/a
A I
g/a
KEY: AM and PM peaks based upon actual conditions.
A.D.(:D,E,F— Level of service ror intersection approach movement,
N0, SB, EB, W8 . North -, South•, East -, Westbound approach;
t. T R - App- -k turning mt +vemonr.
'O
v Corporate Conference Cnuer
m Traffic Impact Anol ysis
V Page 7
O
01
0
DRAFT- DleShauL ]'wig &Associaks, fee.
April 21.200E
As noted in the results, the capacity analysis indicates that existing operational conditions at
traffic - signal controlled interchange of SH -114 and Westlake Parkway generally operate
efficiently and at acceptable Levels of Service. Acceptable conditions are expected to be
maintained through the addition of site - related traffic.
For the unsignalized intersection of Westlake Parkway at Capital Parkway, it is
recommended to add STOP - control to each approach in order to maintain a conventional
traffic control at the intersection (as opposed to create an unusual two-way configuration
not anticipated by motorists). By introducing the southbound STOP control, the
southbound approach results in a Level -of- Service F during the AM peak hour due to the
heavy background traffic volume. However, this condition is only expected to dissipate at
once the AM peak hour traffic normalizes. Other intersection approaches will operate at
satisfactory conditions before and with the addition of site traffic under both site access
scenarios (1 and 2).
Under Scenario 2, where staff traffic accesses the site via the secondary driveway, the
intersection operations are expected to operate at acceptable Level -of- Service conditions
with the addition of site - related traffic Since background traffic is very Iight, delays at the
intersection are expected to be nominal.
RECOMMENDATIONS
NOTE: Recommendations for public improvements within the study area presented in this report reflect the
opinion of DT&A based solely upon technical analysis and pmfessiorud judgment and are not inten&4 to
define, imply, cr allocate funding sources nor required improvements. Applicable legal precedent indicates that
the Owner of a Project should only be rNuijed to proportionately fund necessary infrastructure improvements
that are directly attributable to implementation of the Project Such requirements will depend ulkn the
individual cirrurrs tares of each project that may be viewed differently by each par titutar agency /municipjlity.
1. For Scenario 1 (all traffic accessing the site via Westlake Parkwav), configure the
intersection of the Westlake Parkway - Capital Parkway intersection as illustrated in
Exhibit 7. Installation of an all -way SLOP is recommended in order to maintain a
traditional traffic control. [NOTE: Once Westlake Parkway is extended in the
future, a new driveway location for the subject site may be required in order to
maintain proper intersection spacing from the existing location of Capital Parkway.]
2. For Scenario 2 (guest traffic accessing the site via Westlake Parkway, staff traffic
accessing the site via secondary driveway on Ottinger Road), also configure the
intersection of the site driveway on Westlake Parkway - Capital Parkway intersection
as illustrated in Exhibit 7.
3. Owner should attempt to schedule service trips to minimize impact on surrounding
community.
Corp vfe r-ouf "werct'ifer
Tm, J9c Impact Asa lysis
1'ngr 8
Page 38 of 50
DRAFT - DeShazo, Tang S Assocrafrs, laac
April 2r, 2008
CONCLUSIONS
Development of the subject property to an 800 -guest room corporate conference center is
proposed on currently undeveloped property. The proposed development will generate
very unique traffic generation patters, much of which will arrive /depart by private shuttle
or coach.
Since most of the property immediately surrounding the site is currently rural in nature, the
roadway network serving the site is commensurately rural in character and /or is only
partially constructed to the ultimately- planned cross- section. Due to the intermittent nature
of site traffic and the extensive use of private transit, the traffic impact to the Iocal roadway
network will be moderate. Depending upon the decision of whether to designate staff
traffic through the main entrance or a side entrance on Ottinger Road, traffic to roadways
other than Westlake Parkway may be negligible.
As future development occurs and the local thoroughfare network is expanded,
reconfiguration of the site driveways may be appropriate in order to achieve proper
intersection spacing and traffic capacity.
END OF MEMO
Corleorale Confercrrcr Gvik-r
Traffic Impact Awlysis
Page 9
Page 39 of 50
Inbound
`ol
OC
e�
1
u
$CCOlidary
Driveway
i
-- - &cond-ry
� Driveway
Westlake
�b Oc
F
��llf
�y}wsY
Cam ' �- I
No T. Snh
Ji _t��r►a
$rte 14'6 /
- r
"!
WcmlAc Psrkway
Y
t
Exhibit 4A
Site Traffic Assignment (Scenario I )
Corporate Conference Center Traffic Impact Analysis
Leycnd:
" = Traffic Assisnnxrit ror Staff
f-
rY
"frarlic Assignment far Guc'J.t
—f—
%u
Page 40 of 50
Inbound
a
Y
C
O
$o°
M.
Outbound
k� s� ►�a
90%
, 0%
1I
,ao
We dake Parkway
1 �
t
Scconda[r
_Privew'%' 1 � P�tiaaY
�• r
c'
< R
L•1
O:
I `J
Wcsllake Pwkway
t.
Delve-ay
1 � i
u
Exhibit 4B
Site Traffic Assignment (Scenario 2)
Corporate Coiirerence Ccnlcr Traffic linpacL Analysis
�C
G
Wt ToSuk
9Q%
esq
��Rgti
1`
�r
V
,0% �
i-
f; -
Rsfl /,qF ; scR4ld
,0%
Rwa
_ /
� 9016
�l Foo
I
Legend:
= Traffic Assignrmw for Siaff
_ = Traffic Asmpinent fist Guests
pare
Page 41 of 50
Existing Condition
Recommended Condition
1
1
.1
t
Future Site
Driveway
(Conceptual)
A"
i
i
i
�1
a
0
n
A
,A
1 ` i
1 n
f:
i
J /
Exhibit 7
' Westlake Parkway- Driveway Intersection Configuration
Corporate Conference Censer Traffic Impact Analysis
(N
Hw Ts sclk
Page
Page 42 of 50
A Civil EuginWllltg, ftC6M
Thomas E "mer, Town Manager
Eddie Edwards, Director of Planning and Development
3 Village Circle, Suite 202
Westlake, Texas 76262
Re: Traffic Impact Analysis 071A) for the proposed
Corporate Conference Center
I have reviewed the traffic study and city's comprehensive plan. I offer the following
general and technical comments:
General Review
The separation of the service vehicles from the main traffic is confusing to some
extent due to the lengthy route being proposed fnr service vehicles. If there was a
more direct route for service vehicles, it would seem reasonable. Consideration
and planning for a more direct route should be incorporated into the final plan.
One option is to extend a new collector from the service entrance on Ottinger
westward to Roanoke Road. A second option is to extend Westlake Pkwy
westward and bring a service entrance off that extension n:nning in a southerly
direction along the west side of the Deloitte property.
The volume of traffic being generated by this site is not being developed using
standard trip generation analysis. This is clearly stated up front in the report. The
report indicates that this type of facility does not operate like a traditional hotel;
therefore, the standard trip generation methods would not apply. The developer is
indicating there are several conditions in which guests will be brought to the
hotel_ These assumed conditions significantly reduce the potential traffic impacts
and have significant influence on the results ofthis sttudy. If the Town determined
it was comfortable with these assurned conditions, the applicant should be
required to incorporate these conditions into the actual site plan during that
process of the development such that they can be measured and enforced by the
Town. The conditions are 65% of the guests will arrive by shuttle or coach; 100/0
by private auto; 100/6 by taxi; and 15% by rental car. While this methodology
seems reasonable, it has an overwhelming impact to the TIA results and volume
of traffic being generated.
Methods of measuring the amount of guests and service vehicles should be
incorporated into the site design to ensure the site functions as proposed and that
it is enforceable as proposed. Examples of ways to do this are video tracking or
gated entry with codes for the different types of vehicles. The applicant should
provide a method of tracking the number and types of vehicles using the ser,6ce
entrance- The applicant could also commit to a specific route to be used by
service and employee vehicles to access the service entrance.
Technical Review
2109 Franklin Drive Cell (817) 945 -8448
Arlington, Texas 76011 3cien4Csbcglo6ei_.n�t Fax (817) 462 -8202
Page 43 of 50
3 -q rB;9C3 Y.-T. r8.
A Civil Enginc aatg Practice
• A more detailed analysis of the traffic and impact should be considered during the
detailed site plan process. A detailed modeling of the signalized intersections,
existing traffic counts, and the actual timings plans is necessary to establish the
existing conditions.
• Proposed changes to the timing plans or new timing plans should be developed to
minimize the flow of traffic during the peak hours for the signalized intersections.
• Table 3 should inc[ude the existing conditions for all times of day for comparison
to Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. Improvements should be proposed and incorporated
into the plan to eliminate the `D' and `F levels of service.
• The traffic report should be revised and resubmitted with the detailed site plan.
Considerations for improvements and new timing plans could be proposed at that
time.
Given the assumed conditions in the applicant's TiA the development of this site does not
propose to have any substantial negative impacts to the traffic in Westlake. however, a
number of issues need to be examined and agreed to:
■ Improvements should be considered to offset the impact to southbound
movement for Westlake Pkwy at Capital Pkwy.
■ The existing traffic conditions of Dove Road should be studied to identify the
volume and type of traffic. What type of increase to the traffic on Dove Road is
being proposed?
■ The existing structure of Dove Road (pavement thickness and sub - grade) should
be analyzed to ensure the additional service vehicles will not cause or accelerate
the deterioration of Dove Road.
lion an Lntenkn basis that service is allowed off Ottinger, a new route could be
extended westward to Roanoke Road in 3 years and then further extended to Hwy
371 within 6 years. If that is not palatable to the applicant, then Westlake could
consider allowing the use of DovelOttinger for a period of 3 years (or what ever
period the Town sets) at which time the service traffic could be re- routed to a
service entrance coming off the extension of Westlake Pkwy with a service drive
that extends in a southerly direction along the west side of the Deloitte property.
These are my findings from the report submitted.
Sincerely,
car_i
Charles F. Dibrell, III, PE
2109 Franklin Dyne
Arlington, Texas 76011 3denaCsbcglabal net
Ceti (817) 995 -8646
Fax (817) 462 -8202
Page 44 of 50
STAUBACH
I World of Real Estate Knowledge
May 2, 2008
Mr. Thomas E. Brymer
Town Manager
Town of Westlake
3 Village Circle, Suite 202
Westlake, TX 76262
RE: Potential Deloitte Project
Dear Mr. Brymer:
As a follow -up to our meeting on April 29th, I want to first thank you again for the time you and
Eddie Edwards spent with us and the valuable input you provided_ As requested, I am providing
you with a summary of the issues we discussed as well as our concerns and proposed operating
solutions.
During our meeting, we collectively identified the following three Operating /Transportation
Scenarios identifying how Guests, Employees and Service vehicles would access the site:
Scenario 1: All Guests arrive via Westlake Parkway and a private drive from the north. All
Employees arrive via a drive off of Ottinger Rd.. All Service vehicles arrive via the drive off
of Ottinger Rd by way of Dove Rd.
Scenario Z: All Guests, Employees and Service vehicles arrive via Westlake Parkway and
the private drive from the north, with Service and Employees splitting off at some point and
taking a different route to the loading dock and employee parking located on the western and
southern portion of the site.
Scenario 3: All Guests and Service vehicles arrive via Westlake Parkway, with Service
vehicles splitting off at some point and taking a different route to the loading docks. All
Employees arrive via the drive off of Ottinger Rd.
We fully understand and appreciate the Town's desire to maintain its "rural nature ". That nature
is one of the characteristics that drew Deloitte to the site. Both the Town and Deloitte are
aligned in that desire. We also understand that the Westlake Charter School is located north of
our proposed Ottinger Rd. service drive, and there is a concern with traffic or trucks mixing with
school traffic during school zone hours. It's not surprising that the Town has had concerns and
reservations about this access and potential impact on traffic without having the benefit of a
thorough understanding of the actual operations. Now that we can present you the actual
operating information below and Deloitte's willingness to work with the Town to minimize the
impact on the surrounding area, we hope your concerns will be mitigated and that we can work
together going forward.
15601 Dallas Parkway, Suitc 400
Addison, Texas 15001 The Staubach Company
(972) 361 -5000 Fax (972) 361 -5910 provides global coverage
www.staubach.com DTZ Scaubach Tir <1 of 50
As we discussed, Deloitte and their consultant team believe Scenario 1 above is the only
fimctional and practical approach to access this site. We were quite taken back when it was
suggested this option might not be approved by the Town, and this suggestion has raised serious
reservations about the site in Deloitte's mind. However, we are confident that, once the true
character and quantity of the vehicular access to the site is evaluated and understood, the Town
will see that this impact would be very minimal.
To summarize the options and issues:
Scenario 1— Deloitte and their design team have gone to great lengths to create a site layout that
preserves the nature of this special site, and that allows for a scripted entry into the facility for
arriving guests. A private "rural- type" entry drive will wind through the site and trees to create a
unique arrival and decompression zone for Deloitte's guests. Our programmed arrival provides
for the segregation of the arriving guests from other traffic into the site. This arrangement meets
each of those desires, and keeps guest and service traffic separated, which allows us to meet one
of our major programming requirements. It is also important to note that this option is the only
scenario that is consistent with the current "long -term" thoroughfare plan which would
eventually take all service traffic due west from the site and away from both Dove and Ottinger.
Scenario 2 — While it keeps all traffic off of Dove Rd. and Ottinger Rd., this scenario creates
major hurdles for the site design. First, we would greatly diminish the entry experience for
arriving guests. Second, bringing large trucks in this way would cause us to have to build a more
substantial road, losing the scripted rural feel, and more importantly, at the crossing of the creek,
a more "commercial" bridge would have to be constructed, at great expense and further
diminishing the country feel. Upon splitting off from guest entrance, the service and employee
drive would have to go through adjacent prime sites to the north of the proposed Deloitte site,
greatly damaging the developability of those sites. You will recall that Deloitte is as concerned
with the development character and use of these sites as the proposed Deloitte site itself. Finally,
a separate service drive would have to cross through the heavily treed area to the north and west
of the facility, most likely traveling adjacent to or near the Town of Westlake's future "Hill"
park site thus degrading those views and, again, the rural feel. Deloitte is trying to develop the
site in a manner that preserves most trees on the property.
Scenario 3 — This scenario basically presents the same issues for Deloitte as Scenario 2 and does
not work for Deloitte.
We have provided you with a Traffic Impact Analysis that has been prepared by DeShazo Tang
& Associates, a recognized leading traffic engineering consultant. Their report is based on
information provided by the two finalist facility operators that Deloitte is considering. These
operators operate some of the finest similar conference centers in the U.S. In summary, the
report is based on the following traffic data:
= Estimated number of "18- wheeler" vehicles serving the site —14 per week
■ Estimated number of "bobtail" "single unit" trucks serving the site —15 -25 per week
■ Estimated number of employees:
o Operator employees — 460 in 3 shifts
Page 46 of 50
o Owner employees —100 in 1 shift
Consequently, you can see that we will only average 2 18- wheelers per day, a negligible number.
The bobtail trucks would average 2 -4 per day, and are basically no more than large vans and very
common on collector streets such as Dove Road.
DeShazo Tang's report indicates that the automobile traffic on Dove Rd. and Ottinger Rd. would
not create a traffic problem. Based on DeShazo Tang's findings, including current background
traffic and added traffic due to employees, the Level of Service (as defined by Transportation
Research Board as presented in the Highway Capacity Manual — (HCM)) for Ottinger Road at
the emergency /service/employee entrance on Ottinger is rated "A" or "B" at peak traffic hours.
The HCM rating system, A — F, generally provides that a level "D" or better indicates an
acceptable level of performance for intersections in urban or surburban locations, while rural
locations may demand a better level of service.
While we do not believe that the minimal number of trucks above will create any sort of negative
to the surrounding streets, we have reached out to our operator candidates to determine potential
operational arrangements to mitigate any concerns about these trucks. They have indicated that
they could dictate to the providers that no 18- wheeler deliveries could occur during school zone
hours. Additionally they can dictate that arriving service deliveries come from stove as opposed
to from the north. This would ensure that a truck never went past the school., as our Ottinger
service entry is around 800 feet south of the school. Of course, you cannot control or predict
nature, breakdowns and the like, but this should allay any fears of large trucks presenting a
danger to school traffic or creating a traffic problem along our proposed Dove Rd. /Ottinger Rd.
service entry.
Regarding automobile traffic, although the Traffic Impact Analysis indicates that Ottinger Road
should be only minimally affected by the added traffic, the operators and Deloitte have indic.atcd
the ability to 1) adjust shift change times to help avoid peak school hours, and 2) stagger shift
changes to spread traffic over a longer period of time.
I hope this summary helps dispel any concern that Deloitte wants to be anything other than a
good neighbor, and has the same desire as the Town in preserving the rural nature of the area.
Sincerely,
THE STAUBA H C PANY
Torn _y M. a.*rett A- A
Exec eV e President
Design & Construction Consulting Services
Cc: Deloitte
Hillwood
Page 47 of 50
HI I H I LWOOD
A PEROT COMPANYe
May 2, 2008
Mr. Thomas E. Bryrner
Town Manager
Town of Westlake
3 Village Circle, Suite 202
Westlake, TX 76262
Re: DU Project Rezoning
Proposed PD 3 -12
Westlake, Texas
Dear Mr. Brymer,
As a follow -up to our April 29 meeting, l would like to thank you and the Town Staff for all
of your time and effort in assisting us through the rezoning process for the proposed Deloitte
University Project at the Circle T Ranch. We know the Town is as excited as we are about
bringing a world class facility such as the Deloitte University to Westlake, and we greatly
appreciate your continued efforts.
Pursuant to your request, we are providing you with a summary of the effect of the proposed
PD 3 -12 rezoning and the remaining portion PD 3 -3 land use allocations.
The PD 3 -12 consists of approximately 107 acres which is proposed to be rezoned to
provide for the specific uses(s) required to facilitate development of the Deloitte University
Conference and Training Facility currently not allowed in PD 3 -3. The currently zoned PD
3 -3 encompasses 365 acres and includes 117 acres of single family residential leaving 248
net acres of resort hotel and office. The 248 acres provides for 500,000 s£ of resort hotel and
164,700 sf of office space.
We understand that the Town's primary concern is the impact of residential development on
the school and maintaining open space throughout the Circle T Ranch. As part of the
original PD 3 -3 rezoning in March of 2004 (which was combined with a rezoning for areas
3-4 and 3 -5) a total of approximately 275 single family residential units were deleted from
the overall development plan on the Circle T. This reduction was agreed upon by Hillwood
in order to alleviate some of the Town's concerns regarding overcrowding of the school.
We remain committed to the overall zoning on the Circle T Ranch, and maintaining open
space (particularly on the southern portion of the Ranch).
13600 Heriwgr Parkway Suite 200 Farr Worth, Texas 76177 Pbone 817224 6000 Fax 817 224 6060 or 6061 hdkiwdcom
Page 48 of 50
Letter - Mr. Thomas E. Brymer
May 2, 2008
Page 2
PD 3 -12 consists of approximately 107 acres that will be removed from the existing PD 3 -3
which was approved on the Town via Ordinance of 453 on March 22, 2004.
When PD 3 -3 was approved it was anticipated that the office and resort hotel buildings
would be one (1) story in height, resulting in a "building site coverage" in those zones of
approximately 6.15 %. The building footprints and building coverage for the residential
areas would be dictated by lot layouts, terrain, roadway layouts and other items that would
normally affect the development of a single family residential project.
With the rezoning of PD 3 -12 there will be a gross acreage remaining in PD 3 -3 of
approximately 258 acres, Netting out the 117 acres of single family residential, the resort
hotel and office components will have a total building coverage of 3.61% assuming that
these buildings will be three (3) stories in height. The increase in height on the buildings is
allowed in the zoning, allows for better utilization of the property, and maintains open space.
When the DU Project, and &.e office and resort hotel are built, we calculate overall
composite building site coverage of approximately 4.8% resulting in a decrease in building
coverage of approximately of 1.28% or 3.7 acres. This assumes that 117 acres of single
family residential, which is currently allowed in PD 3 -3, remains and the associated building
foot prints open space and other items are constant given the normal constraints for
development of single family residential property.
I have attached a spreadsheet showing these calculations for clarity and ease of presentation
to the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board of Alderman.
Once again, we appreciate all the Town's assistance and cooperaticr, in this rezoning case.
We look forward to our presentations at both the Planning & Zoning Commission and the
Board Alderman coming up in the month of May.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely
oseph C. Schneider
Vice President
JCS/kk
Enclosure
cc: Russell Laughlin, Hillwood
Bill Burton, Iillwood
Mike Berry, Hillwood
Page 49 of 50
CT PD 3-3 Rezoning Comparison Table
May 2, 2008
0
cn One Story Option DU rezoning open space analysis.xlsx
Printed: 5/5/2002
12:12 PM
PD 3-3
ORD 453
PD 3-12
DU Project
PD 3-3
Remainder
Composite of Remainder 3-3 and 3-12
Gross Acres
365
AC
107
AC
258
AC
Net Resort/Office Acreage
248
AC
107
AC
141
AC
248 AC
Building Types
Square Footage
Stories
Square Footage
Stories
Square Footage
Stories
Square Footage
Stories
Conference Center and Educational
Facility
-
0
1,250,000
4.10
•
0
1,250,000
4.10
Resort Hotel
500.000
1.00-
0.00
500,000
3.00
500,000
3
Office
164,700
1.00•
0.00
164,700
3.00
164,700
3
Total "Foot Print"
664,700
304,878
221,567
526,445
Increase (Decrease) in Bldg. Coverage
Change from 3-3 - Ord 453
"Building Coverage"
6.15%
6.54%
3.61%
4.87%
-1.28% (3.17) Acres
(Building Coverage is reduced)
Residential Acreage
117
-
117
0
cn One Story Option DU rezoning open space analysis.xlsx
Printed: 5/5/2002
12:12 PM
Page 1 of 1
Kim Sutter
From: Tom Brymer [tbrymer @westlake- tx.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 7:41 PM
To: Allen Heath (aheath @us.ibm.com); Bill Greenwood(zephyr1994 @aol.com); Sharon Sanden
(ssanden @airmail. net); Tim Brittan(infinityog @msn.com); Walter Copeland
(walter_copeland @verizon. net)
Cc: Laughlin, Russell; Schneider, Joe; Brad Selner; Tommy Parrett; Tom Brymer; adegan@westlake-
tx.org; dpiper @westlake - tx.org; dwilson @westlake- tx.org; eedwards @westlake- tx.org;
gawtry@westlake- tx.org; jgreenwood @westlake- tx.org; ksutter @westlake - tx.org;
tmeyer @westlake - tx.org; ToddWood (twood @westlake - tx.org)
Subject: Request for Continuance on Deloitte Site Zoning Change Request
The applicant for the Deloitte zoning change request, Hillwood, has requested a second
continuance on the public hearing scheduled for tomorrow's P &Z Commission meeting in order
to perform further work on site access options. Staff concurs with this request and will be
recommending to the Commission tomorrow evening granting this public hearing continuance
to the date requested by the applicant which is May 22nd. Please let me know if you have any
questions concerning this. Thanks.
700 "
Town Manager
Town of Westlake
3 Village Circle, Suite 202
Westlake, TX 76262
817 - 490 -5720 direct
817 - 430 -1812 fax
tbrymer @westlake- tx.org
5/8/2008