HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-22-08 PZ Agenda Packet TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
May 22, 2008
6:00 pm
WESTLAKE CIVIC CAMPUS - BOARD ROOM
2600 J. T. OTTINGER ROAD
1. CALL TO ORDER.
2. REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION MEETINGS HELD ON APRIL 24,2008 and MAY 8, 2008.
3. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION
REGARDING THE FOLLOWING CASES:
A) SITE PLAN; CASE NO. SP-08-01
B) PRELIMINARY PLAT; CASE NO. PP-08-01; Lots 1-6
C) FINAL PLAT; CASE NO. FP-08-01; Lots 1-2 only
ALL THREE APPLICATIONS LISTED ABOVE PERTAIN TO THE FOLLOWING
TRACTS OF LAND: approximately 10.22 acres of land in the Planned Development 3-
Planning Area 10 (PD 3-10) zoning district, being a tract of land situated in the William
Huff Survey, Abstract No. 648, Tarrant County, Texas, and being a portion of that tract of
land conveyed to AIL Investment, L.P., by deed recorded in Volume 13588, Page 189 and
all of that tract of land conveyed to Hillwood Development Co. LLC (Tract 1) by deed
recorded in County Clerk's Filing No. D205179108, both of Deed Records, Tarrant County,
Texas; and, generally located at the Southwest corner of SH 377 and SH 170.
4. CONTINUE A PUBLIC HEARING, SCHEDULED FOR 7:00 PM, 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); (THIS CASE IS BEING CONTINUED FROM THE
MAY 8, 2008, SPECIAL CALLED MEETING)
5. ADJOURNMENT.
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the above notice was posted at the Town Hall of the Town of Westlake, 3 Village
Circle, Suite 202 and Westlake Civic Campus, 2600 J.T. Ottinger Road, Westlake, Texas, 76262, on
Monday, May 19, 2008, by 5 p.m. under the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 of the Texas
Government Code.
Kim Sutter, TRMC, Town Secretary
If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special needs, please
advise the Town Secretary 48 hours in advance at 817-490-5710 and reasonable accommodations
will be made to assist you.
Is A
7
MINUTES OF THE
TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
May 8, 2008
PRESENT: Chairman Bill Greenwood and Commissioners Tim Brittan. Walter Copeland, Allen
Heath and Sharon Sanden.
ABSENT: None.
OTHERS PRESENT: Town Manager Tom Brymer and Town Secretary Kim Sutter.
1. CALL TO ORDER.
Chairman Greenwood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
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 C'E'NTER, DATA CENTER, OFFICE AN"" RETAIL USES;
DEFINING CERTAIN TERNIS; 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; PRO`v'IDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Chairman Greenwood introduced the item.
Planning and Zoning Commission 2 of 3
Special Meeting
May 8, 2008
Town Manager Brymer addressed the Board regarding the case and advised the Commission
that this is a continuance from the April 24, 2008, meeting, and the applicant has requested
an additional continuance.
Mr. Joe Schneider, Vice President of Land Development for Hillwood Properties,
representing the applicant was present to address questions from the Commission.
Town Manager Brymer advised that the following items have been provided to the
Commission:
- Briefing memo;
- Draft of proposed ordinance;
- PD Concept Plan;
- Vicinity Maps;
- Traffic Impact Analysis;
- Letter from Staubach Company with regard to service/employee access;
- Letter from Hillwood with regard to allowable density within the remaining
portion of PD 3-3.
Chairman Greenwood continued the public hearing.
Mr. Joe Schneider, Hillwood Properties, addressed the Commission, and requested a
continuance of the case to May 22, 2008.
Discussed ensued with regard to traffic counts on Dove Road.
There being no others requesting to address the Board regarding the case, Chairman
Greenwood requested a motion to continue the public hearing.
MOTION: Commissioner Brittan made a motion to continue the public hearing to May
22, 2008, at 7 p.m. Commissioner Heath seconded the motion. The motion carried by a
vote of -0.
Commissioner Sanden reminded Mr. Schneider of the sense of the Commission to have the
applicant work with the Westlake Public :Art Society to explore opportunities for public art
sites on the tract and/or opportunities to incorporate public art in the signage as they work
through the site plan process.
Mr. Schneider acknowledged the Commissions request.
Planning and Zoning Commission 3 of 3
Special Meeting
May 8, 2008
3. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE UPCOMING CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING OIL & GAS WELL DRILLING SITES.
Town Manager Brymer addressed the Commission regarding the item. Mr. Brymer
reviewed the policy relative to gas well drilling as approved by the Board of Aldermen
during the April 28, 2008, workshop.
Mr. Brymer advised the Commission that the process encompasses two components: 1)
zoning related relative to land use and will be include a recommendation from the
Commission; and 2) revisions to the technical standards relative to the drilling, which falls
under the jurisdiction of the Board of Aldermen.
Town Manager Brymer advised the Commission that, at the direction of the Board of
Aldermen, staff is conducting the research relative to land use and technical review as they
relate to gas well drilling in Westlake, and the process is expected to take 60 to 90 days. As
a result of the direction by the Board and the estimated timeline, Mr. Brymer advised the
Commission that the May 19, 2008, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will not be
held.
Discussion ensued with regard to the technical standards of the proposed gas well drilling
ordinance.
4. ADJOURNMENT.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Greenwood
asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting.
MOTION: Commissioner Heath made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner
Brittan seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
Commissioner Sanden adiourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on the 22nd day of May 2008.
William E. Greenwood. Chairman
ATTEST:
Kim Sutter, TRMC, Town Secretary
,J • �S
MINUTES OF THE
TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
April 24, 2008
PRESENT: Chainnan Bill Greenwood and Commissioners Walter Copeland, Allen Heath, and
Sharon Sanden.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tim Brittan.
OTHERS PRESENT: Town Manager Tom Brymer, Town Attorney Michael Kallas, Town
Secretary Kim Sutter, Planning and Development Director Eddie
Edwards, Facilities and Recreation Director Troy Meyer, DPS
Director Don Wilson, and Assistant to the Town Manager Ginger
Awtry.
1. CALL TO ORDER.
Chairman Greenwood called the meeting to order at 6:09 p.m.
2. REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 28,2008.
Chairman Greenwood introduced the item and asked for a motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Copeland made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.
Commissioner Sanden seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of
3-0, with Commissioner Heath abstaining from the vote as he was not present
at the February 28 meeting.
3. CONDUCT 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-PLANNED AREA 12
Town of Westlake Page 2 of 5
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 24,2008
(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.
Chairman Greenwood introduced the item and opened the public hearing.
Town Manager Brymer presented the case to the Commission. Mr. Brymer stated that the
case includes the rezoning of a 107 acre tract located north of Dove Road and east of J.T.
Ottinger, and currently is included in the existing PD 3-3. Mr. Brymer explained that the
applicant is requesting a new planning area be created to include the 107 acre tract (PD 3-
12).
Town Manager Brymer presented a comparison chart of the current and proposed uses:
COMPARISON OF PERMITTED USES
PD 3-3 PD 3-12
Office Office
Retail Retail—Accessory Use
Residential Conference/Education Center
Hotel/Motel Data Center
Golf Golf
Restaurant Restaurant
Town Manager Brymer advised the Board that, at the applicants request, the number of
single family residences will not be reduced. Mr. Brymer further advised that the applicant
is requesting a continuance of the public hearing to allow more time for the completion of a
traffic impact analysis.
Mr. Joe Schneider, Vice President of Land Development for Hillwood Properties,
representing the applicant was present to address questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Heath inquired as to the impact on residential housing density.
Town of Westlake Page 3 of 5
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 24,2008
Planning and Development Director Edwards responded that the residential housing density
for the acreage has not decreased; however, he reminded the Commission that the applicant
must meet the Town's open space, setback. and building height requirements when
development occurs.
Mr. Joe Schneider, Hillw-ood Development, responded that the applicant intends to meet the
open space requirements which could reduce the density.
Chairman Greenwood expressed his concern that simply considering the case in front of the
Commission at this time seems short sighted relative to development of the remainder of PD
3-3.
MOTION: Commissioner Sanden made a motion to continue the public hearing to May
8. 2008, at 7 p.m. Commissioner Heath seconded the motion. The motion
carried by a vote of 4-0.
Town Manager Brymer advised the Commission that information relative to residential
density for the existing PD 3-3 will be provided to the Commission, as well as a map
depicting the area as it relates to the existing PD, and the results of the traffic impact
analysis.
4. CONDUCT 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 10.22 ACRES FROM PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT 3-PLANNING AREA 8 (PD 3-8) AND REZONING THAT
ACREAGE TO BE CALLED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 3-PLANNED AREA 10
(PD 3-10); AUTHORIZING 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.
5. CONDUCT 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 10.82 ACRES FROM PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT 3-PLANNING AREA 9 (PD 3-9) AND REZONING THAT
ACREAGE TO BE CALLED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 3-PLANNED AREA 11
(PD 3-11); AUTHORIZING 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
Town of Westlake Page 4 of 5
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 24, 2008
SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chairman Greenwood introduced items 4 and 5 and opened the public hearings for each.
Town Manager Brymer presented item 44 (PD 3-10) to the Board and advised that the case
includes the rezoning of approximately 10.22 acres currently located within PD 3-8, south of
SH 170 and east of SH 377. Mr. Brymer advised that the density of the area will not be
impacted and there are no changes in the permitted uses; however the applicant is requesting
changes to the proposed regulations.
Mr. Joe Schneider, Vice President of Land Development for Hillwood Properties,
representing the applicant was present to address questions from the Commission.
Director of Planning and Development Edwards reviewed the current and the proposed
changes to the planning area with regard to lot size, lot width, rear and side yard setbacks,
sign standards, landscaping, parking lot landscaping, lighting, and tree density.
Discussion ensued with regard to the size of the signs, access from US 377 and US 170, type
of tenants expected to occupy the buildings, proposed lighting and adherence to "dark sky'
standards.
Town Manager Brymer presented item #5 (PD 3-11) to the Commission. Mr. Brymer
advised that there are no changes in the permitted uses; however the applicant is requesting
changes the same proposed regulations as reviewed with item 44.
Mrs. Michelle Corson, chair of the Westlake Public Art Society, requested the applicant
consider consulting with the Westlake Public Art Society to explore opportunities to include
public art in the signage.
There being no on requesting to speak, Chairman Greenwood asked for a motion to close the
public hearing.
MOTION: Commissioner Heath made a motion to close the public hearings.
Commissioner Sanden seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of
4-0.
MOTION: Commissioner Heath made a motion to recommend approval of the zoning
cases as presented (PD 3-10, removing 10.22 acres from PD 3-8 and rezoning
that acreage to be called PD 3-10; and PD 3-11, removing 10.82 acres from
PD 3-9 and rezoning that acreage to be called PD-3-11), subject to the
comparative tables (lot size and width, setbacks, signage standards, landscape
development, parking lot landscaping, and lighting standards), presented with
the case. Commissioner Copeland seconded the motion. The motion carried
by a vote of 4-0.
Town of Westlake Page 5 of 5
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 24,2008
MOTION: Commissioner Copeland made a motion supporting the sense of the
Commission to have the applicant explore opportunities for public art sites on
the tracts and/or opportunities to incorporate public art in the signage as they
work through the site plan process. Commissioner Sanden seconded the
motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4-0.
6. ADJOURNMENT.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Greenwood
asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting.
MOTION: Commissioner Sanden made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner
Heath seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4-0.
Chairman Greenwood adjourned the meeting at 7:14 p.m.
Approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on the 22nd day of May 2008.
William E. Greenwood, Chairman
ATTEST:
Kini Sutter, TRMS", Town Secretary
TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TX
STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION /BOARD OF ALDERMEN
I. CASE INFORMATION
Case No(s): SP- 08 -01, PP -08 -01 Lots 1 -6, and FP- 08 -01, Lots 1 -2 Only
Date: 5 -22 -08
Request: Applicant is requesting approval of the following:
Site Plan X (for Westlake Corners South, Lots 1 -6)
Preliminary X (for Westlake Corners South, Lots 1 -6)
Final Plat X (for Westlake Corners South, Lots 1 -2)
Development Name: Westlake Corners South, Lots 1 -6
Location: Subject property is located at the southwest corner of SH 170 and SH 377.
The site is 10.2 acres and is bounded on the east by SH 377, on the north by SH 170,
on the west by Union Pacific RR right -of -way. The site has a triangular configuration.
Owner: Hillwood
Developer: Hillwood
Zoning: PD- 3 -10
Proposed Use(s): The applicant intends to develop the site with neighborhood
commercial /retail /service uses.
Phasing: The applicant is submitting a site plan and preliminary plat for Lots 1 -6 of the
subject property, and is submitting a final plat for Lots 1 and 2 with the intention of
developing those 2 lots initially and developing the remainder in subsequent phases.
II. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
1. General: This is a request for approval of a site plan and preliminary plat for
Lots 1 -6 of Westlake Corners South, as well as a request for approval of a final
plat for Lots 1 and 2, Westlake Corners South.
1
This project represents the first stand alone retail development activity in
Westlake. As such, it with be setting the aesthetic, design, traffic, and quality
standards for such development in this area because there are additional sites
available in this general area for further retail development by this owner in the
future. For that reason, in the staff comments below, a heavy emphasis is placed
on architectural design, traffic access management, and creating a "sense of
place" for this neighborhood commercial /retail development. This development
sets the tone for the community appearance we wish to establish for this
western /southwestern retail gateway into the Westlake.
The applicant represents that all conditions of zoning for PD 3 -10 that affect the
site plan and platting for this property have been met.
2. Utilities (including on and off -site extensions and easement dedications):
Water and sewer utilities for this site are provided by the Town of Westlake. All
staff comments related to water and sewer lines have been addressed by the
applicant including line sizing, as well as spacing of manholes, fire hydrants, and
valves. A second water line crossing has been added to provide adequate
service redundancy (i.e.- looping) and the Town's requirement that no "dead end
line" may exceed more than 600' in length has been met. On -site access
easements have been provided for all public improvements and off -site
easements necessary for water and /or sewer utilities to serve the site will be
dedicated by the applicant by separate instrument. A note must be placed on the
utility construction plans showing the approved hydrant type, installation cross
section, etc. All on -site electric utility lines, new or existing, should be placed
underground.
3. Storm water (including on and off -site facilities and easement dedications):
The applicant's engineer has verified that the drainage structures under SH 377
have capacity to receive run -off from this site. Further, the applicant's engineer
has confirmed that the site can be properly drained without an on -site storm drain
system (i.e.- detention or retention). The time of concentration has been
changed to a 10 minute time of concentration per our requirement for a retail site.
No off -site drainage easements are necessary to serve this site. There is no
mapped FEMA 100 -year floodplain on the subject property.
2
4. Setbacks /Building Lines:
The building line for Building 1 on Lot 1 along SH 170 is requested at 35' given
its function as a side setback, as opposed to the required 50' front - setback. Staff
is in support of this request.
5. Parking /Fire Lanes:
Proposed on -site vehicular parking meeting the Town's standards is being
provided. Due to challenges of the site's configuration, the standard 50 foot fire
lane inside radius is being requested to allow for the industry accepted 25 foot
minimum (per the International Fire Code, Sec. 503.3.4). This request is
supported by staff. Certain parallel parking at the rear of Building 1 on Lot 2 has
been modified to be designated as only for unloading /loading spaces for this
building.
6. Solid Waste Collection Facilities:
Shared dumpster locations are shown on the site plan. These locations shall be
screened with materials that must match building architecture and building
materials.
7. Street/Highway Right -of -Way Dedication Requirements:
No additional right -of -way dedication on SH 377 is required to be dedicated for
this project given the applicant's representation that:
a.) TxDOT will allow their existing lane capacity to be striped for use as an
acceleration /deceleration lanes for all site ingress /egress points on SH 377
and,
b.) should TxDOT require use of this lane on SH 377 in the future for through -
traffic, there is adequate right -of -way remaining on -site to build replacement
acceleration /deceleration lanes to serve the development's points of
ingress /egress. The applicant has stated that there is 25' to 30' of right -of-
way from back of curb to the property line that is sufficient for future
replacement acceleration /deceleration lanes, if needed.
No additional right -of -way dedication is required on SH 170 to serve this site.
3
8. Traffic Access Managementlinternal Site Circulation and Connectivity to
Adjacent Property Tracts (both owner's and non - owner's tracts):
Roadway access for the subject site is provided entirely by TxDOT controlled
roadways (SH 170 and SH 377). As such, minimum access requirements are set
by TxDOT. However, with TxDOT concurrence, the Town can set access
requirements over and above TxDOT minimum standards. Access management
standards are set by the Town to provide adequate site access to the property
owner, while providing for proper through- traffic movement balanced with safe
turning movements. Turn movements into the site that are from main lanes or
that conflict with too many other turning movements at one point of
ingress /egress should be not be allowed.
The applicant has requested 1 point of ingress /egress on to their site off of SH
170 and 3 points of ingress /egress off of SH 377. These points of ingress /egress
should be subject to these conditions:
a. The SH 170 ingress /egress point is acceptable if it uses a split- throat right -
in /right -out only design as shown on the applicant's site plan.
b. the 3 access points on SH 377, with the spacing shown on the applicant's
site plan, are acceptable (assuming TxDOT concurrence), if..
1. All 3 of the SH 377 access points shown on the applicant's site plan
are to be served by a deceleration /acceleration lane that is
currently excess TxDOT lane capacity (now used as shoulder) and
must be striped per Town requirements to provide for this
deceleration /acceleration lane function.
2. The northern SH 377 ingress /egress point (closest to the SH 377
and 170 intersection) should be designated as right -in /right -out only
if TxDOT and the Town concur that there are too many left turning
movements to make full ingress /egress movements safely at this
location.
3. The remaining 2 ingress /egress points on SH 377 be permitted to
serve as full ingress /egress points provided adequate
deceleration /acceleration lane capacity is provided per 8 -b -1 above.
If this is not provided, the southern -most ingress /egress point
should be restricted in to right -in /right -out turning movements only.
!9
9. Site Design
While the applicant plans to phase his development by developing Lots 1 and 2
first, the site plan submitted covers Lots 1 -6. Thus, the comments below also
apply to Lots 3 -6 as well.
A. Materials, Building Design, Architecture, and Hard Screening
Materials. The attached exterior elevations show the building materials to
be used will be:
• simulated stone
• concrete with textured painting and cast reveals
• wood kickers
• standing seam metal roofs
• concrete column
• galvanized steel awnings at certain points on each building
• a contrasting awning material at other points on the building
• texturized paint
• metal /wood kicker
These materials are acceptable and should be used in all the buildings on
the site without significant deviation, unless a formal site plan amendment
is approved.
Roof lines. The roof line and tower element in Building 1 on Lot 1 are
acceptable. The roof line on Building 1 on Lot 2 must be revised to show
further roof line articulation at the north and south ends of the building to
avoid a monolithic rectangular building appearance facing SH 377.
Architecture. All buildings are required to have 4- sided, 360 degree
architecture. The Town's development standards require all sides of
these buildings to be articulated. Building 1 on Lot 1 must be articulated
on all 4 sides due to its full street view. The drive -in access for this
building must be placed on the south side of the building only. All
remaining buildings on Lots 2 -6 must be articulated on all sides except for
the side facing the Union Pacific RR right -of -way (i.e.- articulation on 3
sides), if it has no street view and is being used only for service access as
well as loading /unloading. Since four -sided architecture is required and
the side of this building facing the railroad would not be articulated, this
building side must have adequate treatments to break -up monolithic
appearances including banding and variation of building materials in
attractive patterns.
5
Hard Screening. All gas meters, electric meter boxes, breaker boxes, and
conduit, etc located at a building's service entrances should be screened
with materials that match the building's architecture and materials, and /or
placed inside the building, and /or be painted to match the building. All
heating /air conditioning equipment, placed on the ground near the building
or on the roof, must be fully screened from view.
B. Landscaping and Landscape Screening
A tree survey and landscape plan has been submitted that reflects one of
the conditions of the zoning granted for this site involving a reduction in
trees required. There is one existing protected tree on -site that will be
mitigated per the Town's ordinances. Language needs to be added to the
landscape plan that all plantings in public right -of -way are the applicant's
maintenance responsibility and adequate clearance for service vehicles
must be observed. All electric transformers, irrigation equipment, gas
meters, etc located away from the buildings, or located at the sides of
buildings, should be totally screened with landscaping.
C. Signage
Numbers and sizes of monument signs for this site were set as condition
of zoning. Monument sign locations are shown on the site plan. All of
these signs will require detailed review per the Town's sign permit
ordinance. However, the monument signage for this site plan approval
process should comply with the details submitted with this site plan as
minimum standards regarding sign size, illumination, and materials. All
sign materials must harmonize with site's architectural theme and
materials. Sign faces must have internal illumination or fixtures that direct
all light downward toward the sign face or a combination thereof.
D. Lighting
The applicant has submitted a photometric survey stating that it meeting
the Town's standards. A note should be placed on the photometric plan
and the site plan stating that the site plan complies with the Town's
lighting standards. Prior to construction, the applicant needs to submit the
type of parking lot light fixture proposed for staff review and approval for
the entire site as well as any on- building light fixtures (sconces) for
Buildings 1 and 2, if any are proposed. All fixtures must meet Town
N
standards to direct all on -site light downward on the applicant's site only
and minimize ambient light migration off -site.
E. Water Features /Public Art
No water features (i.e.- storm water retention) is required for this site.
Locations for public art may be available, are encouraged, but not
required. The applicant has indicated a willingness to work with the Public
Arts Committee regarding placement of public art on this gateway location.
F. Pedestrian Circulation (within the site)
Pedestrian traffic should be provided by a delineated means of safe foot
travel on site. Ways to accomplish this include stamped colorized
concrete cross walks.
G. Trails /Open Space
No trail locations are required since the site is not located in the 100 -
year flood plain per the Town's trail plan.
10. Other:
A. This property is in MUD 1 and will require de- annexation from the
MUD 1 boundaries. The applicant has proposed that this be
completed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy of the
buildings on Lot 1 and 2 as opposed to making it a condition of filing
the final plat for Lots 1 and 2. Staff concurs with this request.
B. All vicinity maps on all documents should be changed to read "JT
Ottinger Road" as opposed to " Ottinger Road" and all buildings on all
lots on all documents should be numbered sequentially to be the same
as the lot number on which the building is located.
C. No accessory buildings should be allowed on this site.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the site plan and preliminary plat for
Westlake Corners South, Lots 1 -6 and the final plat for Westlake
Corners South, Lots 1 -2 subject to following stipulations:
1. Utilities: approval with all staff changes as submitted by the applicant as
described in above Section 11 -2 of this, including a note being placed on the
utility construction plans showing approved hydrant type, installation cross
section, etc. All on -site electric lines, new or existing, shall be underground.
2. Storm water: approval with all staff changes as submitted by the applicant
as described in Section II -3 of this report
3. Setbacks /Building Lines: approval with the requested 35' building line for
Building 1 on Lot 1 along SH 170 as requested.
4. Parking /Fire Lanes: approval with the 25' inside radius fire lane width and
with certain parallel parking at the rear of Building 1 on Lot 2 being
designated for loading /unloading only with the site plan change to reflect
these items.
5. Solid Waste Collection Facilities: approval with the dumpster locations as
designated on the site plan and all dumpsters screened with solid screening
using materials that must match building architecture and building materials.
6. Street/Highway Right -of -Way Dedication Requirements: approval with no
additional right -of -way dedication required subject to the following conditions:
a.) TxDOT will allow their existing lane capacity to be striped for use as an
acceleration /deceleration lanes for all site ingress /egress points on SH
377 and,
b.) should TxDOT require use of this lane on SH 377 in the future for through -
traffic, there is adequate right -of -way remaining on -site to build replacement
acceleration /deceleration lanes of serve the development's points of
ingress /egress. The applicant has stated that there is 25' to 30' of right -of-
way from back of curb to the property line that is sufficient for future
replacement acceleration /deceleration lanes, if needed.
c.) No additional right -of -way dedication is required on SH 170 to serve this
site.
7. Traffic Access Ili'lanagement;lnternal Site Circulation and Connectivity
to Adjacent Properly Tracts (both owner's and iron- ov„ner's tracts):
approval of 1 point of ingress /egress on to their site off of SH 170 and 3
points of ingress /egress off of SH 377 subject TxDOT approval and to these
conditions:
E:?
a.) the SH 170 ingress /egress point is acceptable if it uses a split- throat
right -in /right -out only design as shown on the applicant's site plan.
b.) the 3 access points on SH 377, with the spacing shown on the
applicant's site plan, are acceptable, if all 3 of the SH 377 access points
shown on the applicant's site plan are to be served by a
deceleration /acceleration lane that is currently excess TxDOT lane
capacity (now used as shoulder) and must be striped per Town
requirements to provide for this deceleration /acceleration lane function.
c.) The northern SH 377 ingress /egress point (closest to the SH 377 and
170 intersection) should be designated as right -in /right -out only if TxDOT
and the Town concur that there are too many left turning movements to
make full ingress /egress movements safely at this location.
d.) The remaining 2 ingress /egress points on SH 377 be permitted to
serve as full ingress /egress points provided adequate
deceleration /acceleration lane capacity is provided per 7 -b above. If this
is not provided, the southern -most ingress /egress point should be
restricted in to right -in /right -out turning movements only.
8. Site Design: approval subject to: staff's review and approval of the final
exterior elevations for all building on Lots 1 -6, that the final exterior elevations
comport to the applicant's attached preliminary exterior elevation drawing, as
well as the following requirements for Lots 1 -6:
A. Materials, Building Design, Architecture, and Hard Screening
1. Materials. Approved building materials for this project shall consist of
the following minimums described in Section II -9 -A above.
These materials will be used in all the buildings on the site without
significant deviation, unless a formal site plan amendment is approved.
2. Roof lines. The roof line and tower element in Building 1 on Lot 1 are
acceptable as submitted. The roof line on Building 1 on Lot 2 shall be
revised and subject to final approval by staff to show further roof line
articulation at the north and south ends of this building to avoid a
monolithic rectangular building appearance facing SH 377.
3. Architecture. All buildings are required to have four - sided, 360
degree architecture. The Town's development standards require all
sides of these buildings to be articulated. Building 1 on Lot 1 must be
articulated on all 4 sides due to its full street view. The drive -in access
for this building must be placed on the south side of the building only.
All remaining buildings on Lots 2 -6 must be articulated on all sides
except for the side facing the Union Pacific RR right -of -way (i.e. -
articulated on 3 sides), if it has no street view and is being used only
for service access as well as loading /unloading. Since four -sided
architecture is required, and the walls of buildings facing the railroad
will not be articulated, this wall must have adequate treatments to
break -up monolithic appearances. These can include banding, inlays,
coining, and variation of building materials in attractive patterns as
approved by staff. All these items must be reflected on final elevations
and approved by staff prior to building permit issuance.
4. Hard Screening. All gas meters, electric meter boxes, breaker boxes,
and conduit located at service entrances of buildings should be
screened with materials that match the building's architecture and
materials or be placed inside the building. All heating /air conditioning
equipment, whether placed on the ground, near the building, or on the
roof, must be fully screened from view.
B. Landscaping and Landscape Screening: approval subject to:
1. adding language to the landscape plan that all plantings in public right -
of -way are the applicant's maintenance responsibility and adequate
clearance for service vehicles must be observed, and
2. All electric transformers, irrigation equipment, gas meters, etc located
away from the buildings, or at/near the side of buildings, shall be totally
screened with landscaping.
C. Signage: approval subject to the monument sign requirements set by
zoning and the locations shown on the site plan. Further, all of these signs
will require detailed review per the Town's sign ordinance process.
Additionally, the monument signage for this site plan approval process shall
comply with the details submitted with this site plan as minimum standards
regarding sign size, illumination, and materials. All sign materials shall
harmonize with site's architectural theme and materials. Sign faces must
have internal illumination or fixtures that direct all light downward toward the
sign or a combination thereof.
D. Lighting: approval subject to a note being placed on the photometric
plan and the site plan stating that the site plan complies with the Town's
lighting standards. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit the type of
parking lot light fixture proposed for staff review and approval for the entire
site as well as any on- building light fixtures (sconces) for Buildings 1 and 2, if
10
any are proposed. All fixtures should fit with the site's architecture and design
as well as must meet Town standards to direct all on -site light downward on
the applicant's site only and minimize ambient light migration off -site.
C. Water Features /Public Art: recommend approval noting that no water
features (i.e. - storm water retention) are required for this site. Locations
for public art may be available, are strongly encouraged, but are not
required. The applicant has indicated a willingness to work with the Public
Arts Committee regarding placement of public art on this gateway location.
D. Trails /Open Space: not applicable as there are no trail locations
required since the site is not located in the 100 -year flood plain and there
is no open space dedication required for this site per the Town's trail plan.
9. Other: recommend approval with these additional stipulations:
A. The applicant shall, prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for
the buildings on Lot 1 and 2, have Lots 1 -6 de- annexed from the MUD 1
boundary.
B. All vicinity maps on all documents shall be changed to read "JT Ottinger
Road" as opposed to "Ottinger Road" and all buildings on all lots on all
documents shall be numbered in the same sequence as the lot number on
which the building is located.
C. No accessory buildings shall be permitted on the site.
11
WE- TLAKE CORNER___
SOUTH
Site Plan and Preliminary Plat
(Lots 1 thTu 6)
Pz oS/zZioB
Finn] Plat
(Lots 1 & 2)
SITE LOCATION
-!N"-
r
s
I
uu
0 f M
2
PROPOSED USES:
Neighborhood Commercial,
Retail and Service Uses
_-
S.H.170
EXISTING
1^ -ti y
f,
.tII IANCC GA1[WAY- PfIAiC yA.
AS 4M
VOL 1 14335 PC
90
OUNIPST ion
W_ "I A
�J7`F
r INGRE55� RsE0
�/ N928 %]244 E S32°3G'47'E
HE ` .59.93'
ET
579°6'3 "E _ --
/ 3o.dD• /
1931 °55'26"w
110.50, REWL
531-55 WE
'11 "E
os' �
E
DRAINAGE
M1@
io E INV£SINE III .f .
ATER 4 -
R EASFNEN7
O'2VE .ILL ' VOL
�ti � / T =29 ?6556
L =59.]1•
266 85'
-PROPOSED INGRESS
AND EOflE55
659 °0'20 '
NBE
— —
524,
ACRES SO FT AREA COVERAGE
IYIiL/1'- 2000'1
)' 33'•w
>6'
i
7500 B.6%
15f..
Y
LOT I/ OT 2 SHARED
290.97'
DLAPSTER LOCATION -
-
1 v 6S OFF STREET %
RE
-
LA0I HO SPACE
O
33 9431000 SF
l!)
- ALL /ANCE 110 SUII0llw PARrAERS, LLP /
rC„a7'1264 C
•�•' '
LEGEND'
E %ISTING ASPHALT
PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED --i• -`
L
COMMERCIAL
1Q�
DUMPSTER
,E
SCREENING DETAIL
NOTES:
- -- N15
1. WATER WILL DE SUPPLIED BY THE TOWN OF WTSTLAYLE. SANITARY SEWER SERVICE WILL
BE PROVIDED BY THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE.
OFFICE
(PD -8)
2. ALL PAYING TO BE CONCRETE
4 Sal la Walt 51RI1E
3. VISIBILITY TMANOELS AT ALL STREET INTERSECTIONS WILL COMPLY WITH THE TORN OF
}yP
WESILME ENGINEERING STANDARDS FOR ROADWAY FACILITIES AND TADOT STANDARDS.
tiV IrF
P4/STER L)dATION
OW{{,,Oi LOT 5 $HARED
ti
1
l 4.
®®
A
EXISTING
1^ -ti y
f,
.tII IANCC GA1[WAY- PfIAiC yA.
AS 4M
VOL 1 14335 PC
90
OUNIPST ion
W_ "I A
�J7`F
r INGRE55� RsE0
�/ N928 %]244 E S32°3G'47'E
HE ` .59.93'
ET
579°6'3 "E _ --
/ 3o.dD• /
1931 °55'26"w
110.50, REWL
531-55 WE
'11 "E
os' �
E
DRAINAGE
M1@
io E INV£SINE III .f .
ATER 4 -
R EASFNEN7
O'2VE .ILL ' VOL
�ti � / T =29 ?6556
L =59.]1•
266 85'
-PROPOSED INGRESS
AND EOflE55
659 °0'20 '
III,
•E
10,14'
•rC'��`- X954°0' ¢s "E
,so. T9'
e ow20°E\
25.00'
9500.,V `ANOPEGN NCRE65
EGRESS
D "W
SITE AREA BUILDING' BUILDING
VICINITY MHF
LOT
ACRES SO FT AREA COVERAGE
IYIiL/1'- 2000'1
)' 33'•w
>6'
i
7500 B.6%
61 ' 8.13'1000 Si
E
U' IIIG' 2W' 300'
290.97'
194 7.29'1000 Sf
37 . 10.57!1000 BE
.
S' 90`x
727. 3.00 10.7%
19'
a
III,
•E
10,14'
•rC'��`- X954°0' ¢s "E
,so. T9'
e ow20°E\
25.00'
9500.,V `ANOPEGN NCRE65
EGRESS
D "W
Li
SH- 170 •___...r
- SITE
M
J4' '
I
35EO INGHL66
EGRESS
SITE AREA BUILDING' BUILDING
VICINITY MHF
LOT
ACRES SO FT AREA COVERAGE
IYIiL/1'- 2000'1
)' 33'•w
>6'
i
7500 B.6%
61 ' 8.13'1000 Si
, L
U' IIIG' 2W' 300'
42826600 14.6%
194 7.29'1000 Sf
37 . 10.57!1000 BE
.
� �
727. 3.00 10.7%
T
b
a
33 9431000 SF
_.. _. HASrnllr nuuR
WALP: 1" _ IIR)'
21 4.671000 BE
•— TO MLTCN
ouna�xa N +rw,Als
LEGEND'
13 6.501000 SF
L
24 WIDE FIRE LANG
111
BUSINESS MONUMENT SIGN - TYPE I hftll -TENANT
DUMPSTER
SCREENING DETAIL
NOTES:
- -- N15
1. WATER WILL DE SUPPLIED BY THE TOWN OF WTSTLAYLE. SANITARY SEWER SERVICE WILL
BE PROVIDED BY THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE.
OFFICE
(PD -8)
2. ALL PAYING TO BE CONCRETE
4 Sal la Walt 51RI1E
3. VISIBILITY TMANOELS AT ALL STREET INTERSECTIONS WILL COMPLY WITH THE TORN OF
}yP
WESILME ENGINEERING STANDARDS FOR ROADWAY FACILITIES AND TADOT STANDARDS.
tiV IrF
C THE LW YEAR FLOOD PLAN4 DOTS NOT ENCUMBER THE PROJECT SITE
mI
®®
/
y�
Li
SH- 170 •___...r
- SITE
M
J4' '
I
35EO INGHL66
EGRESS
SITE AREA BUILDING' BUILDING
VICINITY MHF
LOT
ACRES SO FT AREA COVERAGE
IYIiL/1'- 2000'1
)' 33'•w
>6'
i
7500 B.6%
61 ' 8.13'1000 Si
, L
U' IIIG' 2W' 300'
42826600 14.6%
194 7.29'1000 Sf
37 . 10.57!1000 BE
.
� �
727. 3.00 10.7%
T
b
a
33 9431000 SF
_.. _. HASrnllr nuuR
WALP: 1" _ IIR)'
21 4.671000 BE
•— TO MLTCN
ouna�xa N +rw,Als
LEGEND'
13 6.501000 SF
L
24 WIDE FIRE LANG
111
BUSINESS MONUMENT SIGN - TYPE I hftll -TENANT
DUMPSTER
SCREENING DETAIL
NOTES:
- -- N15
1. WATER WILL DE SUPPLIED BY THE TOWN OF WTSTLAYLE. SANITARY SEWER SERVICE WILL
BE PROVIDED BY THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE.
OFFICE
(PD -8)
2. ALL PAYING TO BE CONCRETE
4 Sal la Walt 51RI1E
3. VISIBILITY TMANOELS AT ALL STREET INTERSECTIONS WILL COMPLY WITH THE TORN OF
}yP
WESILME ENGINEERING STANDARDS FOR ROADWAY FACILITIES AND TADOT STANDARDS.
tiV IrF
C THE LW YEAR FLOOD PLAN4 DOTS NOT ENCUMBER THE PROJECT SITE
9' p
5. THE FIRE NNE CONFIGURATION ASSUMES BUILDINGS TO BE EQUIPPED WITII FIRE
/
y�
SPRINKLERS. IF BUILDINGS DO NOT NAVE SPRINKLERS, THE MILE LANE WHA NEED TO
/ 7
BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY.
........
6 REFER r0 LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE LOCAIIM OF ALL PROPOSED LANDSCAPING AND
° C r 11w
SCREENING.
AUTO PARKING DETAIL
7. REFER TO LIGHTING PLAN FOR PROPOSED SITE LIGHTING.
HT6
8, VARIANCE REQUESTED TO REDUCE BUILDING SET BACK ALONG 6H 170 FROM 5VTO 35'.
9, VARMAYE REQUESTED TO BENCE FIRE LANE LNNNUM RADIUS FROM 50'TO 25'.
,r OL 10
r'P /� 1 [ S1RrPE
w
OWNER /DEVELOPER: DESIGNER /ENGINEER:
J
AIL INVESTMENT, LP JACOBS
13600 HERITAGE PARK1V'AY
l ---
FORT 24 RIO 1% 76177 Carter Burgess
IBn1229 -6ao6
- aA1• c
CARTER a BURGESS, INC
PARALLEL PARKING DETAIL
xrs
c CIIAFaAAGV
A PD SITE PLAN FOR
WESTLAKE CORNERS
SOUTH
LOTS 1'-6
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
BE AG 10.2 ACRESCO —SED a 2 T09TS 01 LAN
SI UJI, rH T4 w Ll �
. -1 SURVEY. ABSTA 1 AME A,A.
I. TOPN 01 PE6ILAYE, 1 - EARS.
MAY 15, 2008 SHEET I aY 3
4
SITE AREA BUILDING' BUILDING
I PARKING PARKING
LOT
ACRES SO FT AREA COVERAGE
I PROVIDED RATIO
1
7500 B.6%
61 ' 8.13'1000 Si
2
4W86,903.617
42826600 14.6%
194 7.29'1000 Sf
37 . 10.57!1000 BE
.
3
727. 3.00 10.7%
4
0.78 33,9853 3,500 103%
33 9431000 SF
5
1.05 1 45,764.6 4,500 9.8%
21 4.671000 BE
6
1.45 63,362.5 2,000 32%
13 6.501000 SF
A PD SITE PLAN FOR
WESTLAKE CORNERS
SOUTH
LOTS 1'-6
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
BE AG 10.2 ACRESCO —SED a 2 T09TS 01 LAN
SI UJI, rH T4 w Ll �
. -1 SURVEY. ABSTA 1 AME A,A.
I. TOPN 01 PE6ILAYE, 1 - EARS.
MAY 15, 2008 SHEET I aY 3
4
KEY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the site plan and
preliminary plat for Westlake Corners South,
Lots 1 -6 and the final plat for Westlake Corners
South, Lots 1 -2 subject to following stipulations:
E
KEY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Utilities:
2. Storm water:
3. Setbacks /Building Lines:
4. Parking /Fire Lanes:
5. Solid Waste Collection Facilities:
6. Street /Highway Right -of -Way Dedication
Requirements:
0
7. Traffic Access Management /Internal Site
Circulation and Connectivity to Adjacent Property
Tracts (both owner's and non - owner's tracts):
y The SH 170 ingress /egress point
➢ The 3 access points on SH 377
➢ The northern SH 377 ingress /egress point (closest to the SH 377 and 170 intersection)
➢ The remaining 2 ingress /egress points on SH 377
7
AERIAL VIEW -
PROPOSED INGRESS/EGRESS
570 Fhu ®�
EXAMPLE -
ROANOKECROSSING ACCESS MANAGEMENT
I
3
o� 9
h�
Marshall Creek Rd
tr
J
1
333000 , i P 6 � %� //r //I
WAL *MART
raw s�w►�� . .
y A •
w
S
0
Po
EXAMPLES -
INGRESS /EGRESS I$SUE$ 1
WC
EXAMPLES -
INGRESS /EGRES$ ISS41E$ 2
�u "1
11
8. Site Design:
Materials, Building Design, Architecture, and Hard Screening
■ Materials
■ Roof lines
■ Architecture
■ Hard Screening
y Landscaping and Landscape Screening:
➢ Signage:
➢ Lighting:
Water Features/Public Art:.
y Trails/Open Space:
12
BUILDING CONCEPT ELEVATIONS
1D:f11L ROOP �_ ,.,,.;
ROOF
T NIFT& 7.
TOMM PAW
NEE En
SfillATM � Oomc1 ML,. � —= N DMMTm
8101U —w. STM AM
SR%"TED
a—
PANT AM CAST �S ST0-
O'BRIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. US 377 + SH 170 EL 09----
ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING TOWN OF WEST LAKE• TEXAS
HILLWOOD PROPERTY COMPANY
13
4w
ma"m —
oow_� wri TEXTMD
PANT AM CAST
MEfM ROOF 7
001000[ wrr" TOOIOM
T-T-
rAwr ow 7-A
Off' oyAm MAU
7. PA"' 100
FM F71
wr-y"Molli
SfillATM � Oomc1 ML,. � —= N DMMTm
8101U —w. STM AM
SR%"TED
a—
PANT AM CAST �S ST0-
O'BRIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. US 377 + SH 170 EL 09----
ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING TOWN OF WEST LAKE• TEXAS
HILLWOOD PROPERTY COMPANY
13
4w
EXAMPLES OF OTHER DEVELOPMENTS -
FRONT &SIDE VIEWS
14
EXAMPLES OF OTHER DEVELOPMENTS -
BACK WALL VIEWS 1
15
EXAMPLES OF OTHER DEVELOPMENTS -
BACK WALL VIEWS 2
16
B. Staff has reviewed the Preliminary Plat and the applicant has addressed most of
staffs comments. However, as of the date of this memo there were still items that
staff thinks should be addressed prior to approval.
C. Staff has reviewed the Final Plat and the applicant has addressed most of staffs
comments. However, as of the date of this memo there were still items that staff
thinks should be addressed prior to approval.
As of the date of this memorandum, staff is still reviewing the applicant's
submissions in response to staffs comments at the Development Review Committee
meeting. Based on that review, staff will present a full recommendation to the
Commission at Thursday's meeting.
ACTION REQUESTED:
The Commission can for each of these items, approve the item as submitted, approve it
with stipulations per staff recommendations, deny the item, or continue the hearing for
the item. Consequently, three actions are being requested:
A. Make the recommendation "That the Westlake Board of Aldermen approve as
submitted, or approve with stipulations, or deny, or continue the hearing for,
the proposed PD Site Plan SP- 08 -01."
B. Make the recommendation "That the Westlake Board of Aldermen approve as
submitted, or approve with stipulations, or deny, or continue the hearing for,
the proposed Preliminary Plat PP- 08 -01."
C. Make the recommendation "That the Westlake Board of Aldermen approve as
submitted, or approve with stipulations, or deny, or continue the hearing for,
the proposed Final Plat FP- 08 -01."
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: Regular meeting of May 22, 2008
Date: May 16, 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)
Planned Development 3- Planning Area 12 (PD 3 -12).
and rezoning that acreage to be called
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 e remaining previously 57acre approved The
approximately 365 acres, to be constructed on t g
newly created planning area PD 3 -12 (Planning Area 12 of Planned Development 3) has b
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 O d trafficRareas, ea Dove Road
and what that means for the school, bridges, increase
The Board of
Aldermen met on Monday, April 28, 2008 for their regularly scheduled 9, 008
meeting and also voted unanimously to continue lde en expressed lthe� same colncerns noted by
m g
at 7:00 pm. Additionally, the Board of Al erm
the Commission. May 8th to
ng
and Zoning Commission met again at 7:00 pm on Thursday,
The Planni
' e the Public Hearing for this case and voted he unanimously asked for the additional
continue Ma 22, 2008 at 7 :00 pm. T pp
to be held Thursday, Y
' uance in order to obtain more information and conduct additional investigations
contra
relating to several site access options.
t of attachments for your review. It is the same information you received in
Below is a list Analysis with a summary,
the May 8th P &Z agenda packet. It includes the Traffic
the a applicant. In addition, you will find an assessment of this analysis
provided by
pp f naineo hire by the To`vn and two letters. One letter is
a 3rd party traffic is e. a changes, specifically
performed b� the effects of the PD
from the applicant, Hillwood, summarizing
density of the remaining PD 3 -3 and one from Deloitte's land broker, The
regarding the access.
Staubach Company, relating to the service/employee
UPDATE for Mav 22 "d Meetin Town staff is still reviewing the applicant's
As of the date of this memoran dum, iven to the applicant at the
submissions in response to the latest
13, 2008. Once this review is
meeting h comments /requests n May s g the Commission at
Development Review Committe m tlallld o omme recommendation to
completed, Town staff present
Thursday's meeting.
ACTION REQUESTED
Make a recommendati as presented
amendments to PD supplement
ATTACHMENTS
Draft of proposed Ordinance for the newly
created zoning district PD 3 -12
PD Concept Plan
Vicinity Maps — 2 different aerial views
Applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis
with summary
Board of Aldermen to approve the proposed
(See enclosed draft Ordinance.)
Traffic Impact analysis comments by P party Engineer
Letter from The Staubach Company;
Re: service /employee access
Letter from Hillwood; Re: allowable de PD 3 -3
within the remaining portions
Paae Number
Pages 1 -21
Pages 22
Pages 23 -24
Pages 25 -42
Pages 43 -44
Pages 45 -47
Pages 48 -50
S-- 1 z/ C's
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 ;•" ALDERMEN OF THE
TOWN OF WESTLAKE,TEXAS:
That the recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated herein, adopted by the Town and
declared to be true and correct.
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 I 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 "I'D 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
ORDINANC'
Page 2 of 50
WM--M
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 I
ATTEST:
Town Secretary
, Town Manager
Stan Lowry,Town Attorney,
12008 PA 3-12 Conference and Educational Center Page 3
ORDINANCE
Page 3 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; (ii) 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 5.1 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
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".
MME14113013-
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 3.1 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.
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 I
ORDINANCE
Page 6 of 50
Section 5.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center..................................9
SECTION 6 FRONT YARD SETBACKS...................................................................................V
Section 6.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center..................................9
Section 6.2 {3cnera ---.---.-------.-----''-----'----.----.l0
SECTION REAR YARD SETBACKS...................................................................................l0
Section 7.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center................................lO
SECTION SIDE YARD SETBACKS......... ............................... ...........................................l|
Section 8.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center................................ll
SECTION SLOPE REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................\l
Section 9.1 Residential Slope........................................... --...... ..............................ll
SECTION 10 MISCELLANEOUS DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS....... ................ .......||
Section 10.1 Hiking and/or Biking Trails...................................... ...............................\2
Section 10.2 Landscape Irrigation...................................................................................12
Section10.3 Fencing..... ............................................................... ............... .................l2
Section 10.4 Lighting---.--.--.—......—..—.—...---.---'—..--,----..J2
EXHIBIT \ Legal Description ofPlanning Area 3-12
EXHIBIT PD Concept Plan
Table of Contents
,2008 yA3'\Z Conference and Educational Center
ORMANCE
..........................................
Page 11
Page 5of5O
SECTION SHORT TITLE
SECTION2 PURPOSES.......... .............................................................. ........................... ........l
SECTION GENERAL DEFINITIONS ............................................... .....................................l
Section 3.1 Usage -----.----.-----.--..----_ ........................ ...........|
SECTIONS APPLICABILITY OF EXISTING REGULATIONS..............................................
Section 5.1 Applicable Town Ordinances.............................. ........................................2
Section 5'2 General Approval Criteria...................... ................ ......... ..........................2
8BCTT[DNb CONCEPT PLAN, DEVELOPMENT PLANS,AND SITE PLANS. ....................
3
Section6.1 PD Concept Plan.............................................. ...........................................]
Section 0.2 I'D Development Plans................................................................................j
ARTICLE11. USES......................................................................................................................4
SECTIONLAND USE SCHEDULE..................................................... ..................................4
ARTICLE 111, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS----.--.—.------'--..—.---..'9
SECTIONDENSITY............. .............. ...................................................................................y
Section 1.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center..................................9
SECTIONMINIMUM LOT SIZE.................. ................ ...... ..................................................y
Section 2.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center..................................9
SECTIONMINIMUM LOT WIDTH.......................................... .... ....... ................................g
Section3.1 Office................................................................................................. .........9
SECTION 4 MAXIMUM BL]lLDTNK] HEIGHT.............................................---. ......................)
Section 4.1 Conference and Educational Center and Data Center..................................Q
S ection4.2 Exceptions� to 8eiobi Requirements.. ---..---.--..—'..-.—.--,..9
SECTION MINIMUM BUILDING SlZE..,--.-----.-----.--.—'--...---..—.,g
Table vfContents
2008 PA 3-|2 Conference and Educational Center Page
ORDIINIANICE
Page 4 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 6.1 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
12008 PA 3-12 Conference and Educational Center Page 3
ORDINANCE
Page 8 of 50
Buildings, structures, and land within the sub-areas identified on the PD Concept Plan shall be
used only in accordance with the uses.pemiitted in the following "Land Use Schedule". The
symbol "Y' 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 after 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.
AND DATA CENTER
LAND USE SCHEDULE
PERMITTED Permitted"X"
USES Special Use'IS"
a Accesses ry"A"
AGRICULTURAL USES
Orchard
Plant Nursery(Growing)
X
Plant Nursery(Retail Sales)
Fauns General(Crops)
X
Farms General(Livestock,Ranch)
x
Veterinarian(indoor Kennels)
Veterinarian(Outdoor Kennels)
Stables Wrivate Use)
S
Stables(As a Business)
RESIX)ENTML USES
Single Family Detached
Single Family Zero Lot Line
Single Family Attached
Duplex
Home Occupation
Servarilsi'Caretakers Quarters
Accommodation for
Einployet-s!Cusioniersl,'Visitors
A
Swimming Pool(Private)
A
Detached Garage(Private)
A
Sport Tennis Courts(private)
A
Article 11. Uses
.2008 PA 3-12 Conference and Educational Center- Page 4
ORDINANCE
Page 9 of 50
PERMITTED Permitted "X"
USES Special Use'IS"
Accesson,"A"
INSTMUTIONAL and
GOVERNWNTALUSES
Emergency Ambulance Service
x
Post Office(Governmental)
x
Mailing Service(Private)
x
Heliport
Helistop/Venj-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 Sirccts/Afleysf Drives
x
Retirement Home
Nurging/Convalescenit Home
Hospice
Hospital
Psychiabic Hospital
Clinic
A
Child Daycare.(Public;7 or more)
Child Daycare(Private,7 or more)
A`
School.K-12(Public or Private)
School(Vocational)
Collc9c or University
x
Community Center(Public)
Civic Club
x
Church or Place of Worship
x
Use Associated to aReligious InsI,
x
Government Building
x
Police Station
x
Fi—St.d-i
x
Library
x
Data Center
x
Article 11. Uses
PA 3-12 Conference and Educational Center- Page 5
ORDINANCE
Page 10 of 50
PERMITTED Permitted "X"
USES Special Ilse"S"
Accessory`r,A"
GAD CM USES
Multifamily(Apartments)
Offices(General)
X
Studio
X
Banks and Financial Institutions
X
Information Processing
X
Hotel-Motel
X
Hoteh'Motel with Conferencing Facility
X
Laundry%Dry Cleaning(<3,000 S.F.)
A
Laundry/Dry Cleaning(Drop/Pick)
A
Shoe Repair
A
Beauty Parlor/Barbershop
A
Clothing Store
A
Quick Copy/Duplicating-Services
A
Personal Services
A
Liquor Store
Micro-brevvery and Wine Production and
Sales(<30,000 S.F.)
S
Grocery
Convenience Store
A
Service Station
Drug Store
A
Variety Store
A
Bakery Sales
A
Stationery and/or Book Store
.A
Antique Shop
Art GaflervlMuseums
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 Paris and Accessories
Household Furniture./Appliances
(including Sales and Service)
Fanner-s Market
Feed Store
Parking Structure
X
Cafeteria(Private)
A
Article I1. Uses
2008 PA 3-12 Conference and Educational Center- Page 6
ORDINANCE
Page 11 of 50
PERMITTED Permiffed -X"
USES Special Use'IS"
Accessory"A"
Job Printing,Lithography,Printing,or
Blueprinting
A
Vehicle Display and Sales(inside)
Medical Laboratory
Conference Center
X
Motion Picture Theater
A
Custorn Business Services
X
Electronic Appliances Store-and -
Computer Sales and Service
Tavern,Bar or Lounge
S
Dance Halls/Nightclubs
S
AMUSIEMIMIRWIlEATION
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
X
Country Club(Private Membership)
X
GolfClubbouse(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
Health/Spa Facilities(Private)
A
Athletic Fields(Private)
A
Athletic Courts(Private)
A
Equestrian Center
A
Athletic Courts(Public)
A
Conunercial Amusement(inside)
A
Lake CruisclWater Taxi
AUTOSERVICU
Truck!Tiaiier Rental
Auto Body Repair
Auto Mechanical Repair
A
Article 0LUses
2008 PA3-12 Conference and Educational Center- Page
ORDINANCE
Page 12of5D
PERMITTED Permitted"X"
USES Special Use I'S"
Accessory"A"
Quick LubetOil Change
Vehicle Maintenance(Private)
A
WHOLESALE TRADE
Wareliousel'Storage(Inside)
WarehouselStorage(Outside)
Scrap"Waste Recycling Cohlection and/or
Storage
Gas/cheinical Bulk Storage
Light Marnificturing/Assenibly
Apparel Manulacturing
Packaging and/or Distribution
Printing,Engraving and related
Reproductive Services
Distribution of Books"Other Printed
Material
Machine Sbop
Weldin�g Shop
Temponary Construction Office
X�
Temporary Construction Materials
Storage
X3
Temporary Sales Office,
x4
L Individual retail occupants(except grocery store and drug store)cannot exceed 25,0U0 square feet.
2. Including water,sewer,electric,gas,cable,telephone,fiber optic,and other public and private utility
distribution lines.
3. Limited m period nfconstruction.
4. Limited to^`buiW'oufperiod.
5. "Private"shall be deemed to include a daycare that is made available to any ernployee on the property.
6. Limited to white collar research and development(i.e.,non-industrial,non-chernical,and non-water
processing).
An accessory use or structure pvbicb is customarily incidental to the principal use or atrochxn:
and which is located on the ouozc lot or tract of land, obaD he permitted as an accessory use
without being separately listed as a pennitted use.
Article 0LUses
,2UUQ 9&3-|2 Conference and Educational Ccoter- 9o�c8
ORDINANCE
Page 13of50
ARTICLE 111. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
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 2.1 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.
0� 9 W11-11111
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 4.1 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.
MA
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 6.1 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
ORDNANCE
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 I'D 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 fi•om 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 comer 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
comer 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 7.1 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 frorn the rear lot line.
Article M. 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.
A. Required side yards must be open and unobstructed except for fences and signs
allowed by this I'D 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 fi•ont 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 9.1 Residential Slope Except as provided below, non single family structures shall
not exceed the height of a line 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 permitted 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 10.1 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 trails)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 111. Development Standards
.2008 PA 3-12 -Conference and Educational Center Page I I
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 all 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 facade
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
way.
Article 111. Development Standards
,2008 PA 3-12-Conference and Educational Center Page 12
ORDINANCE
Page 17 of 50
FAM�Um�.`
EXHIBIT I Legal Description of Planning Area 3-12
EXHIBIT 2 PD Concept Plan
Article TV. Exhibits
2008 PA 3-12 Conference and Educational Center- Page B
ORDINANCE
Page 18 of 50
rV
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
comer in the southerly property line of said AIL Tract 2, said point also being the northeast
�lroperty 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"49'56"W 787.23 feet alon the common iroDerti line of the southerlv Drovertv
THENCE N 00045'29"W, 357,87 feet;
THENCE N 20032'l O"E,243.20 feet;
C&B Job No. 0l 5007.094 ACF 42412
CTR April 15,2008
J:\JOB\01 500701\094\SUR\WP\LEG\PD3-12ZONING,doc Page I oft
Page 19 of 50
a
JAMES F. KASSON
4500
C&B Job No. 0 15 007.094 ACF#2412
CTR April 15,2008
J:\JOB\01 500701\094\SUR\WP\LEG\PD3-12ZONING.doe Page 2 aft
Page 20 of 50
._-----------_
vl
w -
RICHARD. TEARS SURVEY
�ti ABSTRAOT NUMBER 402 U.
JESSE SUTTON SURVEY
b, AMfTRACT WUMB(ER 1459
It I
-•- n PD__ _ __ PR0x1&AATE '>URVEY l iNE I SURVEY LINE APPR0Xi6aATE SUPVEr 1.{NE
chi ! 4 3-52
'o .n 0 107.375 ACRES �
41L INVESitoyr, L.P. REMAMER i
07 a Q v� z ER VOL.132%5,PO.S 2 PD 3-3
<2 0�4 c�5 PD 3 3 gi b a iR T 2 PART 2 y
I— PART I
cc
Sq!l is
o 0>-o «o
U L 4KEWAY L WO, LTD,
L 1 R-.'c w a VOL,J3978,PG,222
im
;rte
DOVE
.:
L �.-.1 i
i;
C13
AN EXHIBIT SHOWING PD 3--12 ZONING __......•.........::........
TOW�T1HOF WESTIAKE,OTARRANT ZONIMG 1aMES F. K,ASSON
, .0 . w
..4500.. .. :,_. T
� p pti:ti
SCALES'-1000' FILE° J,\JOB\01500701\094\SUR\5D0794ZI.dgn i
DATE# 15-Air-06
(O
(D
N
s
O
C57
O
40
campsms
Service Vehicle Traffi
Guest Traffic
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.
Page 3 of 3
Printed on.4/29/108
Page 25 of 50
Summary of Traffic)Transportation Assumptions for Pro)ect X
Used by DeShazo,Tang&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.
(PREUMINARY,subject to review and revision)
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Number of Guest Rooms: 800
2. Assembly Area: 94,000 SF
a. >75%of capacity from June through n-dd-December;<75%of capacity
from January through May.
b. highest Monday through Wednesday,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 at one thne,when considering overlap ol
multiple programs: 1,500(not all guests stay overnight)
Page I of 2
Page 28of50
ESTIMATED SERVICE VEHICLE NEEDS
13. Estimated number of"18-wheeler" veMcles serving the site: 14 per week
14. Estimated number of"Single UnW trucks service the site: 15-25 per weelvi
15. Deliveries can be scheduled by the Owner,as needed
Page 2 of 2
Primed on.4/272/08
Page 27 of 50
ir-qj IF
■
Prepared for.
Gensler
711 Louisiana,Saute 300
Houson,Texas 77002
MMMEME
DMA#07252
Page 28 of 50
DRAFT-a5h aw,Tang&.aissaci&4 Inc.
Alai@ 21,200
Traffic Impact o.
Center
a" t
Table Of Contents
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ARY............................................................................................I
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................I......................'I
Purpose...............................a.......................,.................................................................t
ProjectDescription........................................................................................................2
StudyParameters.........................................................................................................2
StudyArea...................................................................................................................2
TRAFFICIMPACT ANALYSIS..................................................................................
Approach...............................a.............................._.......................................................3
Background Traffic Volume Data..................................................................................3
Sate-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...................................................................................................5
AnalysisTraffic Volumes...............................d...............................................................6
Summaryof Resul ts.........................................................................•.............................6
RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................I.........................3
CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................
CorB.arntc C047 MIir GNI ter
Traffic but nrt Amrlpis
Table of Contents
Page 29 of 50
DRAFT-DeShazo,Tang&Aswdales,hic.
April2l,M
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 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 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 cross-section. Due to the intermittent nature
of site traffic and the extensive use of private transit, the traffic impact to the local 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
Corparale Conftwo?&(lenfer
Traffic hirimcl Analois
Page i
Page 30 of 50
DeShazo,Tang&Associates,Inc.
Engineers Planners
400 Sou lie Hointon Street Suite 330
Dallas,TX 75202-4899
214.748,6740®FAX 234,748.7037
www,deshazatang.corn
To Mr.David Alderete—Gensler
From: DeShazo,Tang&Associates,Inc.
Date: April 21,2008
RL- Traffic Impact Analysis for Corporate Conference Center in Westlake,Texas
DMA Pr*ct 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 (TIP.) for development of a
Corporate Conference Center in the Town of Westlake,Texas("the Project"). DT&A is an
engineering consulting firm providing licensed 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 Exhibit 1.
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 TIC,will
be provided to the Town of Westlake staff ("the Staff") for technical review to fulfill the
associated requirements of the local approval process.
C*,7--1r Canftremrr Cenlor
Traffic ImpaclAnalysis
Page I
Page 31 of 50
DRAFT-DeS)wo,TanS&Asw6afts,Inc.
April 21,2008
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,
'Me 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
jKq riAvima _sij _�3,_Fsw tVej?rp*- .3 c�W
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 11 construction of the Fidelity Investments corporate campus (i.e.,background
traffic volumes include the projected volurnes from Fidelity Investments) - base
traffic volumes were collected in March 2007.
UMN=1
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:
(b) Westlake Parkway at Capital Parkway: STOP-controlled on Capital Parkuny(Westlake
Parktivy curprntly terininaics of Ilse bilerseclion)
(c) Ottinger Road at Secondary Driveway(future): STOP-conlrolled air drivomy
C00710rale C001firm"re Qrsarr
Traffic impywt Analysis
Page 2
Page 32 of 50
DRAFT-DeShazo,Tang&AssoriNes,hir.
Apkil 21,2008
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-u-nission and Town Council for
consideration.
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.
Traffic volumes derived in the 2007 Traffic Impact Analysis for Fidelity Investments Phase 11
(conducted by DT&A) were used to reflect the current peak period traffic volumes on
Westlake Parkway and Dave Road (base data collected by DT&A on March 20,21, and 27,
2007) and are sun-anarized 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.
Trip Generation and Mode 5 i
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 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.
Descripgon 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 two weeks; the number of attendees of programs
Ca,p6rnfe Canfreprm Center
Tmjfic finparl AaRlysis
Alge 3
Page 33 of 50
DRAFr-DeShnzo,Tang&AssodaK hic.
App 21,2=
will range from 50 to 1,000. Start and end times for programs also vary -8-00 AM-0o 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 hip generation and parking assumptions are
summarized in Appendix A. An overview of the hourly site-related trip generation is
summarized in Table 1.
Table I- Weekday Site Tfip Generation Summary
(from DT&A Tr47 GeneraVon Model)
•
ff-TUITM, E
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-.
Cosporair Camft #Jrecrvter
Traffic Impart Ajanlysis
Pagc 4
Page 34 of 50
DRAFT-De,51jazo,Tang&Assacidm Mr.
April 21,2008
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.
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 WB-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 1)
by the corresponding traffic assignments(from Exhibit 4). The resulting cumulative(for all
uses) peak period site-generated traffic volumes at buildout of the Project are summarized
in Exhibit 5.
=MM ' F
Traffic operational conditions for traffic-signal-controlled ("signalized") 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 Highway 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 "I" (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 acceptable gaps in the opposing traffic
stream(s). LOS for unsignalized locations are not measured for the entire intersection;
C6?710"It C011feFelICC Q-1tter
?}aft ImpacI.Analysis
Page 5
Page 35 of 50
DRAFT-DeShaw,Tang&Assodaks,Isic
Alvil 2L 2009
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
maderate-volume locations where the traffic is,generally,evenly distributed throughout the intersection(e.g.,an
intersection of two local streets). However,for unsignalized intersections located onmidor thoroughfares(where
traffic volume or roadway capacity is very high and/or vastly disproporticaat4 or "unbalanced), the
methoiMogy is deficienL Although LOS D or better is desirable, LOS F (cakulaW)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 presented
herein. It is recommended that analysis results for such locations be taken in the context of day to-day
experience rather than as an absolute determination of inadequacy.
Analysis Traffic Volumes
Determination of the Projects traffic impact is measured by comparing the incremental
change in operational conditions with and without siL-related traffic. Exhibit 6
summarizes the background-plus-site peak period traffic volumes at the analysis period.
Summa!y 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 obtained directly from the optirnized soft-are output based upon
signal phasing and cycle lengths observed in the field and may differ slightly from actual signal opera ffixns,
Corjs rale Caftforesim Center
Traffic linpad Anatysis
Page 6
Page 36 of 50
v r1
cl
tS
cu
Cz
R9
z
CL
C13
U
cz
dS
IZ
ri
Q
Z
ED
(D
vi
ID
R di l<
fl: At id
0a^»
m
CD
q;i
_rj
C,
5
Irz
%�ab cb
VI
di
>
ea
eC
vi
ID
XI
2 and
.69
S
Z.9
N
E
3,2
Page 37 of 50
Vy
g
o z o:z
Z
IV
-
XI
2 and
.69
S
Z.9
N
E
3,2
Page 37 of 50
DRAFT-DeShaza Twig&Assixinks,trio.
April 21.2008
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.
Under Scenario Z 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 light,delays at the
intersection are expected to be nominal.
;;V;KtAili Vil 4 iNal-Al L91 Z
NCJTF— Recommendations for public improvements within the study area presented in this report reflect the
opinion of DT&A based solely upon technical analysis and professional judgment and are not inteo&-d to
define,imply,or allocate funding sources nor required improvements. Applicable legal precedent indicates that
the Owner of a Project should only be requbed to proportionately fund necessary infrastructure improvements
that are directly attributable to implementation of the Project. Such requirements will depend ulxm the
individual circumstances of each project that may be viewed differently by each particular agency/municipality.
1. For Scenario 1 (all traffic accessing the site via Westlake Parkway), configure the
intersection of the Westlake Parkway-Capital Parkway intersection as illustrated in
Exhibit 7. Installation of an all-way STOP is reconunended 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.
Corporate Conferesseecenter
Tmffic Impact Aadysis
Page 8
Page 38 of 50
DRAFT-DeShazo,Tang&AssodAirs,lric.
April 27,2008
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
CarFromtc Caufcrrrrrr Griller
Traffic Impact Analysis
page 9
Page 39 of 50
of
15
Outbound
50
F1550-N, z
WeWake PArkwuy
Secondary
Driveway
10
D
Exhibit 4A _-traffic Assigrinxtia for Staff
Site Traffic Assignment (Scenario 1)
=Traffic Assilpirrient.ray Gucst�
Corporate Conference Center Tm,Me Impact Analysis
Westlake Paegmy
Page 40 of 50
M
m
m
(8:03
/j r
Wesdakc Parkway
m
to
90% ''
4 FI-o-%-1
100
WcAlake PjAway
A' Fio-o-N
u
Exhibit 4B
Site Traffic Assignment (Scenario 2)
Corporate Conference Center Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic A-sisnrntw for Stair
Traffic A%Mgmnent fur Guesm
L .41
F14",
Page 41 of 50
Existing Condition
11 a8
Z
Recommended Condition
00
Future Site
Driveway ---7
(Conceptual)
Exhibit 7
Westlake Parkway-Driveway Intersection Configuration
Corporate Conference Center Traffic Impact Analysis Page
Page 42 of 50
cn
ma
r
O
Page 50 of 50
>
E 4"
Q
R
rat
1:64
u
un
o
4)
00
mL
4
4A
u
u
d
I �=
IV
CD
G
CD
go
�T
%dD
49
cr
5
q-0
ma
r
O
Page 50 of 50
A Civil 3 ngin=Wg Practice
Thomas E Brymer,Town Manager
Eddie Edwards, Director of Planning and Development
3 Village Circle, Suite 202
Westlake,Texas 76262
Re: Traffic Impact Analysis M)far 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 for 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 running 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 of this study.If the Town determined
it was comfortable with these assumed 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; 10% by taxi; and 15% by rental car. While this methodology
seems reasonable, it has are 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 far the different types of vehicles. The applicant should
provide a method of tracldng the number and types of vehicles using the service
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 Dave Cell (817)945-8648
Arlington,Texas 76011 3den9@sbC31oba1.ne Fax(817)462-82172
Page 43 of 50
3-q W004W xP Y..-FIR.
A Civil Engines Practice
o 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.
o 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.
o Table 3 should include 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.
o 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.
• If on an interim basis that service is allowed off dttinger,a new route could be
extended westward to Roanoke Road in 3 years and then further extended to Hwy
377 within 6 years. If that is not palatable to the applicant,then Westlake could
consider allowing the use of Dove/Ottingea far 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,
0,,L L T7
Charles F. Dibrell,III, PE
2109 Franklin Ome Cell(817)995-864B
Arlmgtan,Texas 76011 Fax(817)462-8202
Page 44 of 50
� -
STAUBACH
A 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 2: 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,Suite 400
Addison,Texas 75001 The Staubach Company
(972)361-5000 Fax(972)361-5910 provides global coverage three 45 of 50
www.staubach.com DTZ Staubach Tie Leung.
As we discussed,Deloitte and their consultant team believe Scenario 1 above is the only
functional 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 Otttinger 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.
Scenarios 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 Dove 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 indicated
the ability to lj 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 HC PANY
To y M. arrett AiA
Exec ' e V e President
Design & Construction Consulting Services
Cc: Deloitte
Hillwood
Page 47 of 50
HILLWOOD
A PEROT COMPANYO
May 2, 2008
Mr. Thomas E. Brymer
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, I 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 500,004 sf 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).
13600Ymwge Parkway Suite 200 I;iT Wmh,Ttxz 76177 Phvne 817224 6000 Fiuv$17 224 6060 or 6061 hz&,w dcom
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 the 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 cooperation 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
JCSIkk
Enclosure
cc: Russell Laughlin,Hillwood
Bill Burton,Hillwood
Mike Berry,Hillwood
Page 49 of 50