The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-16-17 PZ Agenda PacketPage 1 of 3 TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA October 16, 2017 WESTLAKE TOWN HALL 1500 Solana Blvd., Building 7, Suite 7100 1st FLOOR, COUNCIL CHAMBERS WESTLAKE, TEXAS 76262 Work Session 5:00 p.m. Regular Session 6:00 p.m. Work Session 1.CALL TO ORDER 2.EXECUTIVE SESSION The Commission will conduct a closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code, annotated, Chapter 551, Subchapter D for the following: a.Sec. 551.071. Consultation with Attorney (2) on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with this chapter: Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan 3.RECONVENE MEETING 4.ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 3 Regular Session 1.CALL TO ORDER 2.DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 14, 2017. 3.DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 28, 2017. 4.DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING HELD ON AND SEPTEMBER 18, 2017. 5.CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP CONTAINED WITHIN. THE CHANGES ARE LIMITED TO AN APPROXIMATELY 62.53-ACRE PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 3, WESTLAKE/SOUTHLAKE PARK #1, LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF SOLANA BLVD., WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SAM SCHOOL ROAD AND SOLANA BLVD. 6.CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 62.53-ACRE PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 3, WESTLAKE/SOUTHLAKE PARK #1, LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF SOLANA BLVD., WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SAM SCHOOL ROAD AND SOLANA BLVD. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD1-1); PROPOSED ZONING: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD6) FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, INCLUDING A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN; APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR PRIVATE STREETS. Page 3 of 3 7.ADJOURNMENT ANY ITEM ON THIS POSTED AGENDA COULD BE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AS LONG AS IT IS WITHIN ONE OF THE PERMITTED CATEGORIES UNDER SECTIONS 551.071 THROUGH 551.076 AND SECTION 551.087 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. CERTIFICATION I certify that the above notice was posted at the Town Hall of the Town of Westlake, 1500 Solana Blvd., Bldg. 7, Ste. 7100, Westlake, Texas, 76262, October 12, 2017, by 5:00 p.m. under the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code. _____________________________________ Tanya Morris, Assistant to the 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. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Commission will conduct a closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code, annotated, Chapter 551, Subchapter D for the following: a.Sec. 551.071. Consultation with Attorney (2) on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with this chapter: Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Planning and Zoning Item # 2 – Executive Session Back up material has not been provided for this item. Planning and Zoning Item # 3 – Reconvene Meeting Back up material has not been provided for this item. Planning and Zoning Item # 4 – Adjournment Work Session Back up material has not been provided for this item. P&Z Minutes 08/14/2017 Page 1 of 5 MINUTES OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING August 14, 2017 PRESENT: Chairman Tim Brittan, Commissioners Liz Garvin, Greg Goble, Ryan Groce, and Ken Kraska. ABSENT: Michelle Lee and Alternate Sharon Sanden OTHERS PRESENT: Director of Planning Ron Ruthven, Town Secretary Kelly Edwards, Administrative Assistant to the Town Secretary Tanya Morris, Town Attorney Cathy Cunningham, Fire Chief Richard Whitten, Deputy Chief John Ard, Communications Manager Jon Sasser, Director of Park & Recreation and Facilities Troy Meyer, Director of Information Technology Jason Power, Director of Public Works Jarrod Greenwood, and Intern Nick Ford Work Session 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Brittan called the work session to order at 5:05 p.m. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING ITEMS LISTED ON THE REGULAR MEETING AGENDA. Director Ruthven withdrew Items 3 and 5 from the regular agenda. Fire station area to be rezoned for government use. P&Z Minutes 08/14/2017 Page 2 of 5 3. STANDING ITEM: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPMENT \PROJECTS PER JULY 2017 REPORT. Director Ruthven provided updates on the following: Entrada: Block E will have larger homes, Block I and J will have smaller town home style homes, Public Improvements construction has more streets and sewer nearing completion, and the Retail Corner is still under review. Project Blizzard – Plans have been submitted for tunnels and buildings and Schwab Way road construction is scheduled to begin soon. Quail Hollow – Phase IIB home construction has not begun, however builders have finalized plans. Granada – Phase II construction is progressing Street signalization at Dove Road/Solana Boulevard are behind, however they are progressing Street signalization at Davis Boulevard (FM 1938)/Solana Boulevard are continuing to move forward Dove Road Construction – expected to open up next week New trail was constructed from Solana Boulevard up to Highway 114 Highway 114/Solana Boulevard traffic signalization to begin soon Mr. Joe Schneider, Hillwood Properties, 9800 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth moving into the next phase of utility construction. Director Meyer stated that the traffic flow at Westlake Academy will remain the same. Director Ruthven will look into temporary improvement. 4. STANDING ITEM: DISCUSSION REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATED ISSUES AND BOARD PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. Director Ruthven provided an update on the State Planning Conference in Frisco held on November 1st-3rd. 5. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Brittan adjourned the work session at 5:19 p.m. P&Z Minutes 08/14/2017 Page 3 of 5 Regular Session 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Brittan called the regular session to order at 6:03 p.m. 2. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING HELD ON JUNE 12, 2017. MOTION: Commissioner Groce made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Goble seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. Chairman Brittan made the following statement: Due to an error in the notification, Items 3 (concerning the proposed site plan Westlake Entrada) and 5 (concerning proposed residential development on Solana Blvd.) on the Planning & Zoning agenda will be withdrawn from this agenda and will not be heard tonight, August 14, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. Staff plans to send notices and re-advertise the cases for September 18, 2017, meeting. 3. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION OF A SITE PLAN FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 1.392-ACRE PORTION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1, PLANNING AREA 2 (PD 1-2), ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE 703 FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 114, EAST OF DAVIS BOULEVARD, AND NORTH OF SOLANA BOULEVARD, COMMONLY KNOWN AS WESTLAKE ENTRADA. THE AREA SHOWN ON THIS PD SITE PLAN IS LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOLANA BOULEVARD, GRANADA TRAIL, AND CORTES DRIVE Item withdrawn. 4. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION OF A SITE PLAN LOCATED IN THE GU-GOVERNMENT USE ZONING DISTRICT FOR A 5.03 ACRE TRACT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DAVIS BLVD (FM 1938) AND DOVE ROAD. THE PURPOSE OF THE SITE PLAN IS TO APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FIRE STATION. Director Ruthven and Director Meyer provided an overview of the item. Discussion ensued regarding the landscaping on all 4 sides of building, the building will face Dove Road, tree lines will remain and they will be adding trees to the site, looking to break ground in October, drive-thru bays with median break - so that trucks can exit onto Davis Boulevard, completion is estimated at 12-13 months, grating on site, retaining walls, no drainage issues are predicted, and site plan as a whole has not changed since the beginning. P&Z Minutes 08/14/2017 Page 4 of 5 Chairman Brittan opened the public hearing. No one addressed the Commission. Chairman Brittan closed the public hearing. MOTION: Commissioner Goble made a motion to recommend approval of site plan. Commissioner Garvin seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. 5. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 62.53-ACRE PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 3, WESTLAKE/SOUTHLAKE PARK #1, LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF SOLANA BLVD., WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SAM SCHOOL ROAD AND SOLANA BLVD. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD1-1); PROPOSED ZONING: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD6) FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, INCLUDING APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN; APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR PRIVATE STREETS. Item withdrawn. 6. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A FINAL PLAT FOR PHASE 2B OF THE QUAIL HOLLOW SUBDIVISION. THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE FINAL PLAT IS A PORTION OF THE APPROVED 188.28-ACRE PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATED AT 1755 DOVE ROAD, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE FM 1938/DOVE ROAD INTERSECTION. Director Ruthven provided a presentation and overview of the item. Discussion ensued regarding total number of lots changed by 5 from the initial preliminary plat, overall density upon completion to be between 90-91 lots. Chairman Brittan opened the public hearing. No one addressed the Commission. Chairman Brittan closed the public hearing. P&Z Minutes 08/14/2017 Page 5 of 5 MOTION: Commissioner Garvin made a motion to recommend approval of the final plat. Commissioner Kraska seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commissioners, Chairman Brittan asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Commissioner Goble made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Groce seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. Chairman Brittan adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 16, 2017. ________________________________ ATTEST: Chairman, Tim Brittan ______________________________ Tanya Morris, Administrative Assistant P&Z Minutes 08/28/2017 Page 1 of 2 MINUTES OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING August 28, 2017 PRESENT: Commissioners Greg Goble, Ryan Groce, and Sharon Sanden, and Ken Kraska. ABSENT: Liz Garvin, Michelle Lee, and Tim Brittan OTHERS PRESENT: Director of Planning Ron Ruthven, Town Secretary Kelly Edwards, Administrative Assistant to the Town Secretary Tanya Morris, Town Attorney Cathy Cunningham, Communications Ginger Awtry, Communications Manager Jon Sasser, Director of Finance Debbie Piper, Director of, Director of Human Resources Todd Wood, Director of Information Technology Jason Power, Director of Public Works Jarrod Greenwood, and Development Coordinator Nick Ford Regular Session 1. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Sanden called the regular session to order at 4:10 p.m. 2. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION OF A SITE PLAN FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 1.392-ACRE PORTION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1, PLANNING AREA 2 (PD 1-2), ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE 703 FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 114, EAST OF DAVIS BOULEVARD, AND NORTH OF SOLANA BOULEVARD, COMMONLY KNOWN AS WESTLAKE ENTRADA. THE AREA SHOWN ON THIS PD SITE PLAN IS LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOLANA BOULEVARD, GRANADA TRAIL, AND CORTES DRIVE Director Ruthven provided an overview of the item. Ralph Bush, Bush Architects, provided a presentation and overview of the item. P&Z Minutes 08/28/2017 Page 2 of 2 Discussion ensued regarding the site plan with residential structures including: visitor parking, additional parking, building materials, balconies and roof lines, satellite dish placement, size of courtyard area between residential structures and canal, sizes of garages, entrance, reserved parking for residents, street parking, parking study, and timeline for additional residential structures. Commissioner Sanden opened the public hearing. No one addressed the Commission. Commissioner Sanden closed the public hearing. MOTION: Commissioner Goble made a motion to recommend approval of approval of this PD Site Plan, subject to the condition that the guest spaces be located within a public parking easement whereby the spaces will be maintained by the Entrada property owners association. Commissioner Groce seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4-0. 3. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commissioners, Commissioner Sanden asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Commissioner Kraska made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Groce seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4-0. Commissioner Sanden adjourned the meeting at 4:38 p.m. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 16, 2017. ________________________________ ATTEST: Commissioner, Sharon Sanden ______________________________ Tanya Morris, Administrative Assistant8 P&Z Minutes 09/18/17 Page 1 of 3 MINUTES OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2017 PRESENT: Chairman Tim Brittan, Commissioners Greg Goble, Liz Garvin, Ryan Groce, Michelle Lee. Others: Alternates Ken Kraska and Sharon Sanden ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Director of Planning Ron Ruthven, Administrative Assistant to the Town Secretary Tanya Morris, Fire Chief Richard Whitten, Deputy Chief John Ard, Communications Manager Jon Sasser, Director of Public Works Jarrod Greenwood, and Development Coordinator Nick Ford. Work Session 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Brittan called the work session to order at 5:01 p.m. 2. STANDING ITEM: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS PER AUGUST 2017 REPORT. Director Ruthven provided updates on the following: Charles Schwab - ground breaking at Circle T Ranch, grading permit issued, building permit in review, roadway not cleared for construction – being built by Hillwood called Schwab Way, vertical construction to begin next year, Phase I over one million square feet and under review, entrances to campus, no updates on retail corner, traffic impact analysis, and the possibility of de-acceleration lane(s). Entrada – most of the roads have been constructed, water utilities have been significantly improved, permits issued for retail corner and ready to move forward, final P&Z Minutes 09/18/17 Page 2 of 3 design of the Tower is still being discussed, Blocks I & J permits have been issued, Block E was approved by Town Council last week, parking garage, wedding chapel/reception hall, parking and access control, construction staging plan, traffic access to Highway 114, waterway infrastructure still on track, Solana Boulevard medians, and hotel still in Phase I. Town Hall – installation of monument sign Traffic signalization - Solana Boulevard and Davis Boulevard is up and running, Solana Boulevard and Highway 114 moving forward Quail Hollow – construction is progressing Carlyle – construction is progressing Current inventory of platted residential lots is diminishing at a rapid pace. 3. STANDING ITEM: DISCUSSION REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATED ISSUES AND BOARD PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. No additional discussion. 4. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AMENDMENT REGARDING HOUSING AND THE PROPOSED BUILDING QUALITY MANUAL Director Ruthven and Robin McCaffrey, MESA Planning, provided an overview of the item. New policy would ensure standardized requirements throughout the town for quality design and construction standards. This would apply only to new developments and new homes within those developments. Discussion ensued regarding the addition of no duplication of exterior finish materials and elevations within 3 home radius, apply policy to rebuilds as well as new builds, probably effects of increasing density, effects on Westlake Academy enrollment, and submarkets as outlined in Housing Plan of the Comprehensive Plan. P&Z Minutes 09/18/17 Page 3 of 3 5. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Brittan adjourned the work session at 6:47 p.m. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 16, 2017 ________________________________ ATTEST: Chairman, Tim Brittan ______________________________ Tanya Morris, Administrative Assistant estlake Planning and Zoning Commission TYPE OF ACTION Regular Meeting - Action Item Monday, October 16, 2017 TOPIC: Conduct a public and consider a recommendation for approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, amending the Land Use Plan map contained within. The changes are limited to an approximately 62.53-acre portion of Lot 1, Block 3, Westlake/Southlake Park #1, located along the south side of Solana Blvd., west of the intersection of Sam School Road and Solana Blvd STAFF CONTACT: Ron Ruthven, Director of Planning and Development Strategic Alignment Vision, Value, Mission Perspective Strategic Theme & Results Outcome Objective Mission: Westlake is a unique community blending preservation of our natural environment and viewscapes, while serving our residents and businesess with superior municipal and academic services that are accessible, efficient, cost- effective, & transparent. Citizen, Student & Stakeholder High Quality Planning, Design & Development - We are a desirable well planned, high-quality community that is distinguished by exemplary design standards. Preserve Desirability & Quality of Life Strategic Initiative Outside the Scope of Identified Strategic Initiatives PLANNING CASE INFORMATION Case Number: Z-06-19-17 Development: The Knoll Applicant: Lawrence Corson, Wilbow Corporation Owner: BRE Solana, LLC Developer: Wilbow Corporation Site Location: South side of Solana Blvd., west of Sam School Road, east of Granada Addition Site Area: 62.53 acres Existing Zoning: Planned Development District 1, Planning Area 1 (PD1-1) Proposed Zoning: Planned Development District 6 (Including Concept/Development Plan) Specific Use Permit for Private Streets SUMMARY This request is a companion item to the Wilbow rezoning request detailed in the staff memo that follows this item. State law mandates that any zoning change that does not match the future land use shown community’s comprehensive plan neccesitates a formal amendment to the future land use plan as part of the zoning change. The Westlake Comprehensive Plan approved in 2015 includes a Land Use Plan that shows 16 future land districts. The 16 land use districts are derived from eight basic character districts tying back to the community types that were derived from the Framework Plan as well as community input. Given the emphasis on character, the 16 land use districts are rather inclusive of other land uses provided the overall character goals for each district are met. As it relates to the subject property, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan shows a large portion of the subject property as open space, mostly on the western portion of the property. The approximate acreage shown as open space in the Comprehensive Plan is 33 acres, or 52.8% of the total subject property area. The applicant’s proposal includes more acreage for open space, for a total of 37 acres of open space, or 59.5% of the subject property area. The open space proposed by the applicant is broken down as follows: • Parkland Dedication (southeast Hill): 15 acres (40.5% of total open space) • Western and Southern Conservation 150 foot buffers: 11 acres (29.7% of total open space) All other open space: 11 acres (29.7% of total open space) Given the differences noted above and shown on the attached exhibit, the proposed development will require approval of an amendment to the comprehensive plan Land Use Plan. RECOMMENDATION As noted on the subsequent agenda memo regarding the rezoning request, staff recommends approval subject to the conditions contained in the rezoning request agenda memo. Any Commission vote on this request should be consistent with the subsequent vote regarding the rezoning request. The Planning and Zoning Commissions options relative to actions regarding this case are: 1. Recommend approval of the request as submitted; 2. Recommend approval of the request with conditions; 3. Recommend denial of the request 4. Table the request and continue the public hearing to a date certain. ATTACHMENTS 1. Current/Proposed Land Use Exhibit Current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Subject Property CC2A– Community Commercial Open Space Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment Subject Property CC2A– Community Commercial Open Space estlake Planning and Zoning Commission TYPE OF ACTION Regular Meeting - Action Item Monday, October 16, 2017 TOPIC: Conduct a public and consider a recommendation for a zoning change request for an approximately 62.53-acre portion of Lot 1, Block 3, Westlake/Southlake Park #1, located along the south side of Solana Blvd., west of the intersection of Sam School Road and Solana Blvd. the property is currently zoned Planned Development District (PD1-1); Proposed zoning: Planned Development District (PD6) to include primarily single family residential uses, including a request for approval of a concept plan and development plan; approval of a Specific Use Permit for Private Streets. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Ruthven, Director of Planning and Development Strategic Alignment Vision, Value, Mission Perspective Strategic Theme & Results Outcome Objective Mission: Westlake is a unique community blending preservation of our natural environment and viewscapes, while serving our residents and businesess with superior municipal and academic services that are accessible, efficient, cost- effective, & transparent. Citizen, Student & Stakeholder High Quality Planning, Design & Development - We are a desirable well planned, high-quality community that is distinguished by exemplary design standards. Preserve Desirability & Quality of Life Strategic Initiative Outside the Scope of Identified Strategic Initiatives PLANNING CASE INFORMATION Case Number: Z-06-19-17 Development: The Knoll Applicant: Lawrence Corson, Wilbow Corporation Owner: BRE Solana, LLC Developer: Wilbow Corporation Site Location: South side of Solana Blvd., west of Sam School Road, east of Granada Addition Site Area: 62.53 acres Existing Zoning: Planned Development District 1, Planning Area 1 (PD1-1) Proposed Zoning: Planned Development District 6 (Including Concept/Development Plan) Specific Use Permit for Private Streets REQUEST POSTPONED Per the attached letter from the applicant dated August 31, 2017, this request was postponed for consideration to the October 16, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (INCLUDING APPLICABLE ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY) This request involves the creation of a new Planned Development District, which would be called “PD6”. Included as part of this request is the approval of a concept/development plan as required for PD districts in the zoning regulations, and the approval of a Specific Use Permit for Private Streets. It should be noted that any conditions inherent the current PD1-1 zoning (which includes Ordinances 202, 588, 691, 751, 767 and 774) would not apply to this new PD district if approved as proposed. The proposed development would include 65 single family detached units with an average lot size of 13,900 square feet. 59.5 percent of the development would be reserved as open space, much of which would involve conservation areas, set aside to provide buffering and preserve native tree stands. Two entrances would be provided from Solana Blvd. The following is a detailed analysis of the applicant’s proposal. All applicant proposals will be written as regulatory conditions in the approving ordinance for the proposed new Planned Development district. Any staff conditions/recommendations are noted below in red and will also be placed in the approving ordinance. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject property is currently 75.2 acres in size and is platted as Lot 1, Block 3, Westlake/Southlake Park #1. The property is zoned Planned Development District Number One, PD1-1, which allows for various commercial and institutional uses including office and retail. The current land use of the property is commercial with a 38,000 square foot fitness center located on the northeast corner of the property at Sam School Road and Solana Blvd. If the rezoning request is approved, the fitness center would remain in the PD1-1 zoning district and be replatted on a new, smaller 12.6 acre lot separate from the remainder of the proposed 62.53 acre development, which would be subdivided per the approved zoning request. PROPOSED LAND USE The proposed land uses in the development are 65 single-family detached homes, which will be considered the primary uses. Accessory uses include active and passive open space uses. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN According to the applicant, the development will include luxury custom villa homes (3,000 to 5,000 square feet) with one and two story massing and 3-car garages. The applicant estimates the home values to be between $1.2 and $1.7 million dollars. Proposed Lot Specifications Lot Density: 65 residential lots measuring at least 10,000 square feet in area (approximately 80’ x 135’) or approximately 1.04 lots per gross acre. Lot Size: Minimum lot size: 10,000 sf Minimum lot width: 80 feet Lot Coverage: The maximum Footprint for a home shall be limited to 47% of the entire lot area for a 1-story home and 43% for a 2-story residence. Footprint is defined as all areas that are contained within the ground floor air- conditioned space, garages and covered patios of the main residence (excludes open porches, patios, porte-cocheres, or other unenclosed areas and accessory buildings). Proposed Home Specifications Minimum Size: All residences shall be a minimum of 3,000 sf of air-conditioned living space. Massing: For 2-story structures, the 2nd story shall not exceed 50% of the 1st floor footprint. Building Height: The maximum height of all structures shall be two and one-half stories or 28 feet measured to the mid-point of the highest sloping roof above existing grade. Building Setbacks: Given the relative size of the proposed lots, the following setbacks are proposed: Front: 30 feet at the standard front setback line (20 feet on cul-de- sac lots) Rear: 20 feet Side: 10 feet A 10’ encroachment in the standard front setback is permissible for up to 26’ of width of the residence per the attached Lot Dimension exhibits provided by the applicant. Garages: Every house shall have a minimum of three (3) enclosed parking spaces. Garage doors shall be made of sectional wood, or be wood clad, or glass and steel. Garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of six inches from the plane of the adjacent wall. Front facing garage doors are allowed if located further back on the lot than the side-facing garage portion, and are in a motor court setting. Roofs: Roofing materials, where visible, shall be limited to concrete or clay tile, slate, or standing seam metal. No more than two houses on adjacent lots, fronting on the same street, may have the same type and color roof material. Exterior Walls: Exterior walls shall have horizontal and vertical articulation or architectural delineation on all elevations. Landscaping: Landscape beds (including gravel mulch) shall be located along the foundation line of all structures, except where paving is adjacent to the structure, and must extend away from the foundation a minimum of five feet. Fences: All homes shall have a back fence comprised of metal picket. Privacy fences comprised of metal picket shall be permitted only on interior side lot lines to provide privacy to outdoor patio and pool areas. Exterior Lighting: All exterior lighting shall be subdued, indirect, and comply with Town ordinances as well as follow Dark Skies Design Guidelines. In addition the above guidelines contained in the development plan, the applicant has submitted design guidelines (attached) that will be incorporated in the restrictive covenants. The design guidelines will be included as an exhibit in the ordinance that would approve the proposed development. OPEN SPACE / TREE PRESERVATION / LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING According to the concept plan, 59.5 percent of the development will be composed of open space. Most of the open space is located on the perimeter of the development, with a significant portion located adjacent to Sam School Road. The perimeter open space would be located along Solana Blvd. and the western and southern boundary of the development. The open space along Sam School Road is proposed as a possible park dedication to the Town by the developer as detailed below. Tree Preservation and Mitigation through Buffering and Landscaping Most of the subject property is undeveloped and contains numerous native tree stands. Per the requirements of the Code of Ordinances, all trees that are removed shall be mitigated, either through replanting of additional trees for each inch removed and/or payment into a tree mitigation fund for each inch removed. According to the applicant, a tree survey was conducted on the property. Based on the survey, there were approximately 105 protected trees per acre on the east side of the sample area, and approximately 162 protected trees per acre on the west side of the sample area. The tree survey was not submitted as part of this request. Subject to the findings of the tree survey, tree mitigation could be substantial. The applicant states that the development is designed to minimize grade and tree disturbance other than for the creation of the private street and utility systems and some grading and clearing of selected lots. The applicant also proposes a “floating post-tension steel concrete slab foundation” that would be required of all builders to allow for minimal impact to tree root systems near each building envelope. With regard to mitigation, the applicant proposes the following: • “Replanting requirements in the common areas and street ROW’s through a formula of caliper inches of approved hardwood trees, or per 30 linear feet of street frontage of the common area” • “No mitigation shall be required of any individual lot. Each lot shall plant at least two 3.5” caliper trees from an approved hardwood tree list. If existing native trees are preserved in the front or street-side side yards, they can be utilized to satisfy the tree planting requirement on the lot.” • “Designation of a 100% wildlife natural preserve (non-disturbance classification) in the 150’ setback areas that border on Granada, and Glenwyck Farms (other than a 25’ wide water line and trail easement cut-through to Dove Road)” • “Planting of pine trees in the portion of the Solana Boulevard median that fronts the project, in a configuration and size consistent with the proposed Entrada program” • “Environmental enhancements that may include the following: o Investigating rainwater collection systems that would be encouraged on each home to create a first source irrigation option o Where possible, bio-swale installation to reduce storm water runoff” • “In addition to the above components of the Tree Mitigation Plan, two alternatives are proposed to the Town to further address mitigation: o Alternate A - Commitment to fund and install improvements to the Parkland Dedication area fronting on Sam School Road that could include options such as:  Dedicated trailhead parking spaces as part of the existing adjacent parking lot  Wood stairway built into the “Mayor’s Hill” (see attached illustration)  Passive fitness stations on the “Mayor’s Hill”  Picnic area on the “Mayor’s Hill”” o Alternate B – Commitment to deed land to the Town that fronts on Sam School Road that can be used for any municipal purpose. In this case, it is assumed that a municipal use would be exempt from the cumulative PD 1-1 coverage test.” STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following with regard to tree preservation: • Except where necessary to construct roadway, drainage and/or utility improvements as shown in the civil construction plans submitted by the developer, pre-grading of individual single family lots by the developer is hereby prohibited and all trees not located in future roadways and utility mains shall be preserved in place; • Existing trees removed on individual single family lots shall require mitigation per the requirements of the Code of Ordinances; • Trees located in roadways and utility main locations as shown on the preliminary plat and civil construction plans are hereby exempt from the mitigation requirements of the Code of Ordinances; • All protected trees and tree preservation areas (non-exempt) as shown on the concept plan shall be protected per the requirements of the Code of Ordinances. Additionally, a tree protection plan shall be submitted for review and approved by the Town Manager or their designee prior to any site grading/clearing and tree removal. Parkland Dedication The Code of Ordinance requires parkland to be dedicated at one acre per 30 residential units. Given this requirement, 2.17 acres is required for dedication as part of this development. The applicant states that “it is envisioned that a 2.17 acre area fronting on Sam School Road and atop the southeast hill would be an ideal Park area that, at the Town’s election, could either be dedicated to the Town or deeded to the HOA (HOA would have responsibility for maintenance) with a public access easement”. Additionally, as stated above, the applicant proposes to fund and install improvements to this area that could include: • “Dedicated trailhead parking spaces as part of the existing adjacent parking lot • Wood stairway built into the “Mayor’s Hill” (see attached illustration) • Passive fitness stations on the “Mayor’s Hill” • Picnic area on the “Mayor’s Hill” Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: The Parks, Open Space and Trail Plan in the Comprehensive Plan shows a “community park” on the western portion of the subject property. The Comprehensive Plan defines a community park as a “central community park area that provides opportunities for shared community activities. These can include open fields for impromptu sport activities as well as park bench areas, dog-park facilities, pavilions, picnic areas, etc.” The plan further states that a community park should be between 25 and 35 acres in size. Staff analysis: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan shows a large portion of the subject property as open space, mostly on the western portion of the property where the community park area is also shown. The approximate acreage shown as open space in the Comprehensive Plan is 33 acres, or 52.8% of the total subject property area. The applicant’s proposal includes a total of 37 acres of open space, or 59.5% of the subject property area. The open space proposed by the applicant is broken down as follows: • Parkland Dedication (southeast Hill): 15 acres (40.5% of total open space) • Western and Southern Conservation 150 foot buffers: 11 acres (29.7% of total open space) All other open space: 11 acres (29.7% of total open space) Given the deviations noted above, the proposed development will require approval of amendments to the comprehensive plan that would serve to provide further clarification of how the applicant intends to meet the plan’s goals and objectives through the proposed development layout. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Notwithstanding approval of the comprehensive plan amendments noted above, given the above proposals by the applicant and the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends the following: • As a condition of approval, staff recommends that the 15-acre southeast hill portion of the development be developed as the required community park as shown on the Parks, Open Space and Trails Plan, thereby satisfying both the parkland dedication requirements of the Code of Ordinances and the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. • Most of the southeast hill should be graded to provide better access for maximization of amenity use. • Said park shall remain privately owned and maintained but shall be accessible to the public at all times and shall, at a minimum, include amenities as described in Alternate A above. • Maintenance responsibilities, details of amenities, and final locations of parking and trails shall be approved through a separate agreement between the applicant/developer and the Town. Said agreement shall be approved before a notice to proceed with the construction of public improvements is issued by the public works director. • Prior to approval of the final agreement between the developer and the Town, a public workshop shall be held whereby public input is received concerning the final park design and amenities. Based on staff’s analysis, relocating the community park approximately one-half mile to the west will provide for: • reduced tree destruction resulting from parkland construction; • better buffering between existing neighborhoods while maintaining open space corridors and linkages; • better access to trails and public parking as well as current and future daytime population areas such as the existing fitness, retail and commercial development in The Solana. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS The applicant requests a variance to sidewalk construction requirements as follows: “A variance to the Code of Ordinances is requested to allow for a single sidewalk on one side of the main spine road (sidewalks are normally required on both sides of a roadway for lots of 12,000 square feet or less) within the development, in the general location shown on the Concept Plan. Sidewalk width inside the development would be a minimum of 5 feet. All sidewalks shall be made of concrete, stone, or pavestone. The Code of Ordinances only requires sidewalks along public streets. The proposed development will be served by private internal streets. In terms of trails, the applicant states that “the internal sidewalk will tie into the Solana Boulevard public Town Trail via gated connections at both entries. Any public trail construction (outside of the community) will be a minimum of 6 feet in width, other than the connections to the internal sidewalk which shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width (all identified public trails can be seen on the Concept Plan). At the Town’s election, the portion of the Solana Boulevard public Town Trail that fronts on the project will be improved to either a concrete condition or be maintained with the existing decomposed granite”. Per the trail plan provided by the applicant, public trail linkages will be constructed from the proposed park area on the eastern portion of the subject property and from the existing Granada Trail. The linkages will connect the private sidewalks proposed to be constructed within the development. The Code of Ordinances states that hike and bike sidewalks [trails] shall be constructed along streets designated for hike and bike trails. Such sidewalks shall be built by the owner at the time of site development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following: • The existing decomposed granite trail along Solana Blvd. shall be replaced by the developer with an eight (8) foot wide concrete trail along the entire frontage of Solana Blvd. adjacent to the subject property. Said trail shall, as closely as possible, follow the course of the existing trail with all trees to be preserved as existing at the time of construction. Said trail shall be constructed prior to the final acceptance of public improvements. The eight (8) foot trail recommendation maintains consistency with the existing trails in the Town, most of which are eight (8) feet concrete trails. FENCING The applicant states that “Solana Boulevard frontage will have a decorative metal picket fence and entry gates with optional masonry columns and/or panels where screening is necessary on the Solana Boulevard frontage. The fence shall be located at the boundary of the 100’ Solana Boulevard buffer and the development zone. In addition, all individual lot line fences adjacent to the buffer and common areas shall be limited to decorative metal pickets so as to create a more transparent view in the undeveloped forest land. The primary goal for the fencing is to effectively visually disappear and allow the natural forest land setting to be open to view from all perspectives.” All homes shall have a back fence comprised of metal picket. Privacy fences comprised of metal picket shall be permitted only on interior side lot lines to provide privacy to outdoor patio and pool areas. TRAFFIC, STREETS AND ACCESS The proposed development will have two entrances from Solana Boulevard located at existing median cuts. The applicant has provided a traffic memorandum performed by a registered professional engineer. The memorandum states that the development will generate a total of 707 trips per day. The memorandum also recommends the construction of a left-turn lane at the easternmost entrance drive. The reason for the recommendation is due to the higher site volumes, the complexity of the intersection, and the higher amount of competing traffic. Staff concurs with the recommendation and this requirement will be included in the proposed PD ordinance and the development agreement. All community streets will be private and constructed of asphalt with concrete outer bands and/or mountable curbs fronting the lots. The streets are proposed to be 27 feet in width including a mountable concrete curb on both sides. A Code of Ordinances requires a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for any development containing private streets. The required SUP is included with this request. Street lighting shall be located at all corners and intersections. Lights shall be low pedestal type fixtures that comply with Town ordinances as well as follow Dark Skies Design Guidelines. PLATTING Although the subject property is already platted, if approved, the portion of the current plat that includes the subject property will be required to be vacated, after which a Preliminary Site Evaluation and a final plat will be required for submission and approval. Approval of a separate development agreement between the Town and the developer is also required by the Code of Ordinances. PUBLIC ART The Town Design Structure Plan in the Comprehensive Plan contains design action standards that include public art recommendations. The plan states that “it is preferable that art is intrinsic to the design of the space rather than a commissioned piece to be installed in the space. In February and June 2017 respectively the Town Council approved a public art plan and nominated members for a public art competition advisory committee. The developer proposes the following public art contribution: “Donation: Wilbow will make a contribution of $10,000 for public art to the Town of Westlake to be designated toward an outdoor sculpture. Wilbow would welcome matching funds to the extent they are available. Location: At a location within the boundaries of the 62.5 acre parcel, to be selected by either the Town of Westlake Public Art Committee or by Town Council. Wilbow recommends a location in the public-access area of the open space near the Sam School frontage. Competition: Wilbow encourages the concept of a public art competition. The competition should be managed by the Town of Westlake Public Art Committee. Maintenance: To the extent the final artwork will require maintenance, Wilbow recommends the Homeowners Association (“HOA”) associated with The Knolls at Solana be required to fund and provide maintenance. Timing: Based on the current development schedule, it is expected that home construction at The Knolls at Solana will commence in early 2019 with first residents expected in late 2019, early 2020. Ideally, the artwork would be complete and installed by the end of 2019. Wilbow funding would occur at time of land development commencement.” The public art proposal will be referenced in the draft PD ordinance with the above terms to be included in the development agreement between the Town and the applicant. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS The following is an analysis of the compliance of the proposed development to the elements of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan: (1) The Land Use Plan: The Land Use Plan recommends the following land uses for the subject property, which is broken down by approximate area for each zone: • Open Space (33 acres approximate) • CC2-A Community Commercial 2 / View Shed Zone (29.5 acres approximate) Based on staff’s analysis, the proposed development deviates slightly with the Land Use Plan recommendations given that a portion of the subject property designated for future open space uses is proposed for future single-family development. Therefore, the map deviation must be modified and approved by the Town Council upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission as an amendment to the comprehensive plan. Notwithstanding the map deviation, the proposal by the applicant nonetheless provides for consistency with the plan’s goals and objectives as follows: 1. The open space acreage proposed by the development is higher than the actual acreage recommended by the plan. The fundamental change involves modifying the layout of the open space; 2. Transitional Residential Uses, such as those proposed by the applicant, are permitted in the CC2-A Community Commercial 2 / View Shed Zone (see explanation in Housing Plan below); Page 161 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages “that exportation of building square footage be for the purpose of supporting low FAR’s, more open space or conversion from commercial to transitional residential use (as per the Housing Plan to follow) in areas that abut existing residential zoning.” 3. Although not intended for development, the plan allows for some development as follows from Page 151 of Comprehensive Plan: “it is desirable that the Open Space Community is largely undeveloped to remain open and natural. However, existing entitlements do not make provision for such disposition of this property and incentives will be necessary to incentivize the transfer of square footage currently permitted for this area to another Planned Development planning area.” 4. The 16 land use districts shown on the Land Use Plan are derived from eight basic character districts tying back to the community types that were derived from the Framework Plan as well as community input. Given the emphasis on the character of the development, the 16 land use districts are rather inclusive of other land uses provided the overall character goals for each district are met. For example, the Community Commercial districts allow for residential uses as does the Open Space district provided the development’s character complies with the overall recommendations for each district. (2) The Parks, Open Space, and Trail Plan: As described above, a community park is recommended by the plan for the western portion of the property. That said, The Parks, Open Space, and Trail Plan also designates the open space portion of the subject property as a “natural preserve”. A “natural preserve” is defined as an “area(s) of relatively undisturbed landscape (sometimes a restored landscape) for the purpose of maintaining the presence and health of natural systems (such as water flow), tree and other vegetative communities, and ecotone diversity. Meant more to be viewed than used, limited public use promotes environmental understanding and contemplative connection with the native landscape of Westlake without over burdening the natural mosaic with active use. These areas should include landmark landforms distinctive of Westlake and termini of the vistas that residents enjoy”. As noted above, a “community park” is defined as “a central community park area that provides opportunities for shared community activities. These can include open fields for impromptu sport activities as well as park bench areas, dog-park facilities, pavilions, picnic areas, etc”. This effectively creates a discrepancy in that the same land is designated for active uses (Community Park, which promotes active uses such as ball fields, dog parks and playgrounds) but also for passive uses (natural preserve). Therefore, given the opportunity to provide some clarity in conjunction with the development proposal, the community park should be moved approximately one-half mile to the east where the southeast hill is located. Given the current alignment of the Granada Trail, the applicant’s proposal to provide linkages to the development from both the east and the west where trail linkages do not currently exist complies with the plan’s intent to create trail linkages where opportunities exist. This would require approval of an amendment to The Parks, Open Space, and Trail Plan by the Town Council. (3) The Thoroughfare Plan: Solana Blvd. is designated as a Town Arterial on the Thoroughfare Plan. Solana Blvd. is currently in compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan. Per the applicant’s proposal above, given the recommendations a traffic analysis, a left turn lane will be added to westbound Solana Blvd. at the easternmost entrance into the development. (4) The Town Design Structure Plan: The portion of the plan is vital to maintaining the aesthetic qualities that are unique to Westlake. The overall layout of the development complies with the recommendations contained in this section of the plan with regard to active and passive open space and neighborhood and open space edges. However, the more specific elements should be required to comply with the community pallets recommended by this section, including public art, which is described above. Other structure elements include lighting, signage, open space facilities and landscaping. (5) The Facilities and Town Hall Plan: This section is not applicable to the proposed development. (6) The Storm Water and Water Conservation Plan: The applicant states that development runoff will employ a combination of bio-swales, detention pond(s), and connection to the existing public street storm water system. This is generally compliant with the recommendations of this section. (7) The Housing Plan: As referenced in the Land Use Plan above, the CC2-A Community Commercial 2 / View Shed Zone encourages more open space and/or transitional housing opportunities (as further defined in the Housing Plan) for district where possible, particularly on the edge of the district next to existing residential areas. The Housing Plan describes two housing submarkets whereupon the development is generally consistent: (1) “Diversify the higher-income market to attract younger buyers”, and (2) “Meet future housing needs of an aging population”. Regarding the attraction of younger buyers, the plan states that “product types could be priced over $800,000 or $1 million, but would come in lower maintenance forms such as villas and small-lot detached homes designed for busy lifestyles and convenience, without sacrificing quality.” With regard to older, aging buyers, or “empty nesters”, the plan states that “product types appealing to this buyer include higher density (townhomes, villas, and garden residences), higher security, and lower maintenance typologies with housing interiors capable of handling art and furnishings of the wealthy older folks. The ideal size of these projects is approximately 15 to 35 acres, making them ideal for small parcels north of Dove Rd., as transitional between lower density, single-family development and commercial development.” (8) The Economic Development Plan: Tactic C-3-2 in the plan states: “Establish sequence by several measures. First move important transitional spaces into the public domain via acquisition, easement, or dedication (such as the central open space as shown on the Park, Open Space and Trail Plan). Second, incentivize density and building form transitions from areas of higher commercial intensity to areas of residential use.” The proposed development is consistent with this tactic. Based on the above analysis, staff concludes that the development is generally consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. However, prior to final approval of the zoning request by the Town Council, several issues described above will require formal clarification through several comprehensive plan amendments as follows: 1. An amendment to the Land Use Plan that classifies the portion of the subject property to be used as single family residential to CC2-A Community Commercial 2 / View Shed Zone with the remainder of the subject property to be classified as Open Space. This requires a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission with final approval by the Town Council. 2. An amendment to The Parks, Open Space, and Trail Plan moving the Community Park from its current location on the western portion of the subject property to the proposed southeast hill location. This will require Town Council approval only. 3. An amendment to The Parks, Open Space, and Trail Plan modifying the current Open Space area designated as “natural preserve” to conform to the proposed conservation areas proposed by the applicant while also adding “recreational area” Open Space to the southeast portion of the subject property where the community park is proposed for location. This will require Town Council approval only. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION A total of 51 public hearing notices were sent to property within a minimum 200 feet of the subject property. Additionally, notice of the public hearing was published in the Fort Worth Star Telegram a minimum of 15 days prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. At the time the packet was sent, staff has received official correspondence opposing the request from 35 residents. Correspondence from three residents in favor of the request has been received as well. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The subject property is currently undeveloped, except for the existing fitness center at the southwest corner of Solana Blvd. and Sam School Road. It is acknowledged that much of the subject property is a somewhat ancient remnant of the rapidly disappearing cross-timbers forests that once covered large portions north and central Texas. That said, the current PD1-1 zoning of the subject property, originally approved in 1992, allows for a myriad of commercial and institutional uses including offices, restaurants, hotels, schools, etc. In order to construct any of these uses, the only legislative approval required is the submission of a site plan. The land uses themselves are already entitled to the property and the PD1-1 regulations contain no specific provisions for buffering, exclusive open space set-asides or tree preservation beyond what the Code of Ordinances already requires. Therefore, the current, existing zoning of the property presents a scenario wherein development may occur that is not congruent with the recommendations of Comprehensive Plan in comparison to the proposed zoning. As detailed in this briefing, the proposed zoning is generally consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and addresses aesthetics, buffering, tree preservation, parks, and open space in a manner that is sensitive to the surrounding neighborhoods and the topography of the property. Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the conditions contained in this report. The Planning and Zoning Commissions options relative to actions regarding this case are: 1. Recommend approval of the request as submitted; 2. Recommend approval the request with conditions; 3. Recommend denial of the request; 4. Table the request and continue the public hearing to a date certain. ATTACHMENTS 1. Existing Location Map 2. Developer Submittal: Request to Postpone Item 3. Developer Submittal: Applications and Written Proposals from Developer 4. Developer Submittal: Development Concept Plans and Exhibits 5. Developer Submittal: Proposed Design Guidelines 6. Developer Submittal: Entryway Exhibits 7. Developer Submittal: Lot Layout Exhibits 8. Developer Submittal: Open Space Amenities 9. Developer Submittal: Traffic Memorandum 10. Staff Exhibit: Current Zoning Map 11. Staff Exhibit: Comprehensive Plan Parks, Open Space and Trails Plan 12. Staff Exhibit: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan 13. Staff Exhibit: Correspondence Received in Favor 14. Staff Exhibit: Correspondence Received in Opposition Z‐06‐19‐17 Davis Blvd. Dove Rd. 1 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROPOSED PLANNING DISTRICT 1-4 TOWN OF WESTLAKE This document is intended to be a summary of the key development terms and principles proposed for the development of The Knolls at Solana, a 62.5 acre land parcel that fronts on Solana Boulevard and is located between the Granada residential community and Sam School Road. GENERAL INFORMATION Developer: Wilbow Corporation, Inc. (www.wilbow.com) Community: Gated enclave of 65 custom villa homes walkable to the Solana Urban Center and Larry North Fitness Product Type: Luxury Custom Villa Homes (3,000 to 5,000 square feet) 1 and 2 story massing, 3-car garages Higher security and lower maintenance typologies Home Pricing: Estimated to be $1.2 to $1.7 million Sales Program: Lot sales to local custom home builders with a limited offering to individuals Access: Two entrances from Solana Boulevard located at existing median cuts Community Amenities: Pavilion, Dog Stations, Bocce Court Private internal trail network with connections to the Solana Boulevard and Dove Road public Trails Community Fencing: The community’s Solana Boulevard frontage will have a decorative metal picket fence and entry gates with optional masonry columns and/or panels where screening is necessary on the Solana Boulevard frontage. The fence shall be located at the boundary of the 100’ Solana Boulevard buffer and the development zone. In addition, all individual lot line fences adjacent to the buffer and common areas shall be limited to decorative metal pickets so as to create a more transparent view in the undeveloped forest land. The primary goal for the fencing is to effectively disappear and allow the natural forest land setting to be open to view from all perspectives. PD 1-1 – 10% Coverage Test: Based on an assumption of 65 homes all at the maximum footprint of 5,000 sf, less an allowance of 850 sf for 3-car garages and 200 sf for a covered patio, or 3,950 sf, the project is estimated to have total cumulative coverage of 256,750 2 sf against a total land area of approximately 2,722,500 square feet, or 9.43% coverage. It is understood that Blackstone/EOP and the other land owners in PD 1-1 are committed to a cumulative test across PD 1-1 that the coverage will not exceed 10%. COMMUNITY INFORMATION Home Owner Association: The community will be governed by a to-be-established Homeowner’s Association (“HOA”) that will be responsible for common area maintenance, private street maintenance, front yard maintenance and enforcing the Design Guidelines for the community. Home Builders: An Approved Home Builder program will be established with specific criteria that will limit home building to only approved custom home builders Design Guidelines: A detailed Design Guideline document is being prepared that will follow the examples set by Vaquero and Granada to ensure a high quality of design and construction of all homes. Architectural Review: An Architectural Control Committee (“ACC”) will be established through the HOA/Declarant that has approval authority over house designs prior to submittal for permitting. LOT SPECIFICATIONS Lot Density: 65 residential lots measuring at least 10,000 square feet in area (approximately 80’ x 135’) or approximately 1.04 lots per gross acre. A Concept Plan is attached for reference. Lot Size: Minimum lot size is 10,000 sf Minimum lot width is 80 feet measured at the standard front setback line Lot Coverage: The maximum Footprint for a home shall be limited to 47% of the entire lot area for a 1-story home and 43% for a 2-story residence. Footprint is defined as all areas that are contained within the ground floor air-conditioned space, garages and covered patios of the main residence (excludes open porches, patios, porte- cocheres, or other unenclosed areas and accessory buildings). HOUSE SPECIFICATIONS Minimum Size: All residences shall be a minimum of 3,000 sf of air-conditioned living space. Massing: For 2-story structures, the 2nd story shall not exceed 50% of the 1st floor footprint. 3 Building Height: The maximum height of all structures shall be two and one-half stories or 28 feet measured to the mid-point of the highest sloping roof above existing grade. Building Setbacks: Given the relative size of the proposed lots, the following setbacks are proposed: Front: 30 feet at the standard front setback line (20 feet on cul-de-sac lots) Rear: 20 feet Side: 10 feet A 10’ encroachment in the standard front setback is permissible for up to 26’ of width of the residence (please see the Lot Dimension exhibits). Garages: Every house shall have a minimum of three (3) enclosed parking spaces. Garage doors shall be made of sectional wood, or be wood clad, or glass and steel. Garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of six inches from the plane of the adjacent wall. Front facing garage doors are allowed if located further back on the lot than the side-facing garage portion, and are in a motor court setting. Roofs: Roofing materials where visible shall be limited to concrete or clay tile, slate, or standing seam metal. No more than two houses on adjacent lots, fronting on the same street, may have the same type and color roof material. Exterior Walls: Exterior walls shall have horizontal and vertical articulation or architectural delineation on all elevations. Landscaping: Landscape beds (including gravel mulch) shall be located along the foundation line of all structures, except where paving is adjacent to the structure, and must extend away from the foundation a minimum of five feet. Fences: All homes shall have a back fence comprised of metal picket. Privacy fences comprised of metal picket shall be permitted only on interior side lot lines to provide privacy to outdoor patio and pool areas. Exterior Lighting: All exterior lighting shall be subdued, indirect, and comply with Town ordinances as well as follow Dark Skies Design Guidelines. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Open Space: Per the Westlake Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Plan, approximately 36 acres of the 62.5 acres subject site is designated as open space including the to-be-designated Parkland Dedication (please see below). Per the proposed development plan, approximately 37.2 acres or 59.5% of the gross acreage is set aside as either open space or park dedication area. Parkland 4 Dedication: In accordance with Section 82-389 (a) (1) of the Code of Ordinances regarding Land Dedication Requirements for Residential Developments, “Park and recreational areas … shall be dedicated to the town at a ratio of one acre of park land for every 30 residential dwelling units or prorated portion thereof.” Accordingly, the proposed 65 lot density would result in a parkland dedication area of approximately 2.17 acres. It is envisioned that a 2.17 acre area fronting on Sam School Road and atop the “Mayor’s Hill” would be an ideal Park area that, at the Town’s election, could either be dedicated to the Town or deeded to the HOA (HOA would have responsibility for maintenance) with a public access easement. STREETS, PARKING, SIDEWALKS, TRAILS Streets: All community streets shall be private and constructed of asphalt with concrete outer bands and/or mountable curbs fronting the lots. Proposed that the streets be no less than 27’ in width including a mountable concrete curb on both sides (please see the Lot Dimension exhibits). Visitor Parking: To minimize on-street parking and improve emergency access, a minimum of one (1) visitor parking space shall be provided for every two (2) homes and the spaces are generally dispersed across the community. Street Lights: Street lighting shall be located at all corners and intersections. Lights shall be low pedestal type fixtures that comply with Town ordinances as well as follow Dark Skies Design Guidelines. Sidewalks: A variance to the Code of Ordinances is requested to allow for a single sidewalk on one side of the main spine road (sidewalks are normally required on both sides of a roadway for lots of 12,000 square feet or less) within the development, in the general location shown on the Concept Plan. Sidewalk width inside the community will be a minimum of 5’. All sidewalks shall be made of concrete, stone, or pavestone. Trail System: The internal sidewalk will tie into the Solana Boulevard public Town Trail via gated connections at both entries. Any public trail construction (outside of the community) will be a minimum of 6’ in width, other than the connections to the internal sidewalk which shall be a minimum of 5’ in width (all identified public trails can be seen on the Concept Plan). At the Town’s election, the portion of the Solana Boulevard public Town Trail that fronts on the project will be improved to either a concrete condition or be maintained with the existing decomposed granite. UTILITIES 5 Water: Town of Westlake Sewer: Town of Westlake Storm Water: Combination of bio-swales, detention pond(s), and connection to the existing public street storm water system Duct Bank: A Duct Bank system shall be installed by the Developer throughout the subdivision as required by Town ordinances. The home builder shall tie into the Duct Bank prior to the Final Inspections or Certificate of Occupancy approval. Development Setbacks: The development plan calls for a concentrated development envelope of approximately 25.2 acres generally centered within the 62.5 acre parcel. Along the Solana Boulevard ROW, a 100’ setback is planned. Within the ROW, there is likely to be a 20’ utility easement for storm water detention and utility connections. On the property’s western (Granada) and southern borders (Glenwyck), a 150’ setback is planned. On the south border, there will be an additional 25’ utility and trail easement planned that effectively expands the south boundary setback to 175’. The eastern portion of the property (“Mayor’s Hill”) to the Sam School Road frontage is not planned to be developed other than as part of the Parkland Dedication and a possible public trail extension. TREE MITIGATION Tree Survey: A tree survey of the site was conducted by Kimley Horn in November 2016 through a sampling process approved by Town Staff whereby 10 pre- determined, evenly-spaced, 0.1 acre plots were surveyed. All trees 6-inches in diameter and greater were tagged and counted. DBH (“Diameter Breast Height”) was measured according to City of Westlake ordinances. The results of the survey determined that there were approximately 105 Protected Trees per acre on the East Side of the sample area, and approximately 162 Protected Trees per acre on the West side of the sample area. Tree Mitigation: The development plan has been carefully designed to minimize grade and tree disturbance other than for the creation of the private street and utility systems and some grading and clearing of selected lots. Further, an investigation has been conducted of a “floating post-tension steel concrete slab foundation” that would be required of all builders to allow for minimal impact to tree root systems near each building envelope. 6 A tree mitigation plan is also proposed based on the following initiatives: • Replanting requirements in the common areas and street ROW’s through a formula of caliper inches of approved hardwood trees, or per 30 linear feet of street frontage of the common area • No mitigation shall be required of any individual lot. Each lot shall plant at least two 3.5” caliper trees from an approved hardwood tree list. If existing native trees are preserved in the front or street-side side yards, they can be utilized to satisfy the tree planting requirement on the lot. • Designation of a 100% wildlife natural preserve (non-disturbance classification) in the 150’ setback areas that border on Granada, and Glenwyck Farms (other than a 25’ wide water line and trail easement cut- through to Dove Road) • Planting of pine trees in the portion of the Solana Boulevard median that fronts the project, in a configuration and size consistent with the proposed Entrada program • Environmental enhancements that may include the following: o Investigating rainwater collection systems that would be encouraged on each home to create a first source irrigation option o Where possible, bio-swale installation to reduce storm water runoff • In addition to the above components of the Tree Mitigation Plan, two alternatives are proposed to the Town to further address mitigation: o Alternate A - Commitment to fund and install improvements to the Parkland Dedication area fronting on Sam School Road that could include options such as:  Dedicated trailhead parking spaces as part of the existing adjacent parking lot  Wood stairway built into the “Mayor’s Hill” (see attached illustration)  Passive fitness stations on the “Mayor’s Hill”  Picnic area on the “Mayor’s Hill” o Alternate B – Commitment to deed land to the Town that fronts on Sam School Road that can be used for any municipal purpose. In this case, it is assumed that a municipal use would be exempt from the cumulative PD 1-1 coverage test. ADMINISTRATIVE Project Consultants: Environmental Alpha Environmental Geotech Alpha Environmental Site Plan Sage Design Group Civil Engineering Kimley Horn Survey Kimley Horn Tree Survey Kimley Horn Market Study Residential Strategies THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPATIBILITY PART 1 – ASSESSMENTS “Office development is the most frequently overbuilt and fluctuating property type. Therefore, it is highly possible that office zoned land further from the SH 114 frontage could be considered for residential rezoning.” Population and Demographics Assessment – Over 50% of the Town’s population is age 45-64 as of 2010 (the “Grandparent Effect”) with a high labor participation rate (2-earner couples) and is highly educated. A concern raised in the Plan is the demand for high quality, low maintenance housing for this aging segment. Existing Conditions Assessment – Concern regarding heightened demand for storm water detention due to future vested office development with high impervious surface areas. Forest Knoll will represent significantly less impact in terms of surface water impact. Development Suitability – The site is part of the 5% slope designation that is sensitive to development and building height. Forest Knoll’s small lot, low density footprint will represent significantly less slope disturbance and building mass versus an office development. Transportation & Circulation – While Solana Boulevard carries approximately 5,000 cars/day with a capacity for up to 36,000 cars/day, the Town’s 2-lane roads are insufficient for current demand. Forest Knoll will represent a significantly lower traffic impact than the vested potential right to develop office buildings on the site. Infrastructure Capacity – Although residential water usage is high in Westlake, it is still below standard office demand. Forest Knoll, with its proposed water conservation plan, will reduce potable water demand versus alternative development options. PART TWO – GOALS AND PRIORITIES “The notion of Westlake as a commercial center, serving a tributary population of over 200,000 people is dramatically different from the pastoral identity that currently prevails and is perhaps the greatest planning challenge going forward.” Citizen Priority Statements – Derived from community comments at public workshops: • Maintain views of a largely undeveloped foreground as Westlake grows • Preserve the sense of balance between residential and commercial development by promoting continuity of development forms • Maintain a continuity between the character of future smaller lot development and the dominant larger lot development of Westlake by a consistency in landscape, design quality, and general visual character of development as seen from the street. • Promote a continued use of natural forms in, and non-structured means of, storm water management and detention facility design. The Knolls at Solana Public Art Proposal August 2017 Wilbow Corporation is a great believer in public art. Our founder, William Bowness, has a keen interest in art and has amassed one of the largest collections of Australian art that exists today. With the Town of Westlake’s renewed commitment to a community public art program, being led by Robin McCaffery of Mesa Design, Wilbow would like for The Knolls at Solana to be an early participant in the public art program. Wilbow proposes the following terms: Donation: Wilbow will make a contribution of $10,000 for public art to the Town of Westlake to be designated toward an outdoor sculpture. Wilbow would welcome matching funds to the extent they are available. Location: At a location within the boundaries of the 62.5 acre parcel, to be selected by either the Town of Westlake Public Art Committee or by Town Council. Wilbow recommends a location in the public-access area of the open space near the Sam School frontage. Competition: Wilbow encourages the concept of a public art competition. The competition should be managed by the Town of Westlake Public Art Committee. Maintenance: To the extent the final artwork will require maintenance, Wilbow recommends the Homeowners Association (“HOA”) associated with The Knolls at Solana be required to fund and provide maintenance. Timing: Based on the current development schedule, it is expected that home construction at The Knolls at Solana will commence in early 2019 with first residents expected in late 2019, early 2020. Ideally, the artwork would be complete and installed by the end of 2019. Wilbow funding would occur at time of land development commencement. • Create meaningful and purposeful buffers between single-family, lower density, residential uses and non-residential development that link activities while protecting the residential areas from encroachment • Preserve and promote the single family character of the Solana area as commercial PD’s develop • Encourage the gathering of required detention into major environmental amenities for the Town • Promote water conservation and reduce water usage • Provide park and recreation opportunities that serve the needs of Westlake’s present and future population such as dog parks and playgrounds • Provide recreational opportunities that are more undeveloped passive open spaces that serve less intense and contemplative activities, such as an arboretum or natural preserve PART THREE – THE HOUSING PLAN “Finally, the older population of Westlake will face life transitions over the next few years, but they desire to continue residence in their Town. This means that other high price point housing options are needed in the housing inventory of the Town.” Key excerpts from The Housing Plan section of the Comprehensive Plan: • The Commercial 2 District is meant to be a land use density transition from highway fronting commercial use to landscape dominated residential use • Currently, Westlake generally offers one type of housing product: large lot or acreage home sites in communities that generally attract affluent mature professional households • It is not that Westlake must offer a residential product for every budget and household type, but a wider spectrum of high-quality housing types will broaden the appeal of Westlake for executive decision-makers • The introduction of product types appealing to older households will allow Westlake’s current mature professionals and empty nesters to remain in the community and downsize to a more suitable product; perhaps a product that is lower maintenance but not lower quality • Product types could be priced over $800,000 or $1 million, but would come in lower maintenance forms such as villas and small-lot detached homes designed for busy lifestyles and convenience without sacrificing quality • Product types appealing to the buyer (age 65+ households) include higher density (townhomes, villas, and garden residences), higher security, and lower maintenance typologies. The ideal size of these projects is approximately 15 to 35 acres, making them ideal for small parcels north of Dove Rd., as transitional between lower- density, single-family development and commercial development 7 Disclaimer: This Development Plan is not intended to be, and does not constitute, a binding agreement by either party, nor an agreement by either party to enter into a binding agreement, but is merely intended to specify certain of the proposed terms and conditions of a Development Plan or Agreement contemplated herein. 100’ BUFFER EXISTING TRAIL SOLANA B L V D . DETENTION AREA 150’ BUFFER GRANADA PHASE I GLENWYCK FARMS NOTES: 1. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT MEASURED FROM THE EXISTING LOT GRADE TO THE MIDPOINT OF THE HIGHEST PITCHED OR HIP ROOF ABOVE. 2. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. THE LAYOUT AND INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. PRIVATE STREETPRIVATE STREETPRIVATE STREETBROKEN BEND DR. GATED ENTRY 100’ BUFFER 150’ BUFFER25’ UTILITY ESMT. & TRAIL ESMT. AMENITY AREA DETENTION AREA FITNESS CENTER SAM SCHOOL RD . SOLANO B L V D . GATED ENTRY PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN - EXHIBIT C June 15, 2016Westlake, Texas LAND USE SUMMARY AREA ANALYSIS OVERALL PROPERTY BOUNDARY 62.5 ACRES OPEN SPACE & AMENITY CENTER AREAS 37.2 ACRES RESIDENTIAL AREAS & ROW’S 25.3 ACRES PERCENT OPEN SPACE 59.5% DENSITY ANALYSIS TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS (80’X125’ MIN)65 LOTS LOT DENSITY 1.04 LOTS/ACRE LOT CHARACTERISTICS MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,274 SF AVERAGE LOT AREA 13,900 SF MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS FRONT (TYPICAL LOT)80 FEET (AT BUILDING LINE) FRONT (CUL-DE-SAC/ELBOW LOT)50 FEET (AT BUILDING LINE) MINIMUM FRONTAGE AT ROW 40 FEET REAR 78 FEET SIDE 135 FEET MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 28 FEET 2 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: Robert D. Burton, Esq. Winstead PC 401 Congress Ave., Suite 2100 Austin, Texas 78701 Email: rburton@winstead.com The Knolls at Solana DESIGN GUIDELINES Adopted: WILBOW-KNOLLS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Texas corporation By: Printed Name: Title: Adopted by WILBOW-KNOLLS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Texas corporation, in accordance with that certain Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for The Knolls at Solana, recorded in under Document No. ________________, Official Public Records of Tarrant County, Texas (the “Declaration”). In accordance with Section 7.02(c) of the Declaration, these Design Guidelines may be amended from time to time by the ACC (as defined in the Declaration). 3 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 Introduction Any notice or information required to be submitted to the ACC under these Design Guidelines hereunder will be submitted the ACC at 4331 N. Central Expressway LB13 Dallas 75204, Phone: [___________], Fax: [___________]. Background The Knolls at Solana is a master planned community located in Tarrant County, Texas. Lots x through y, Block A and (insert lots and blocks from Plat), (hereinafter “The Knolls”) a subdivision in Tarrant County Texas, according to the plat Recorded under Document No. _________________, (the “Property”), are subject to the terms and provisions of that certain Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for The Knolls at Solana, recorded in the Official Public Records of Tarrant County, Texas (the “Declaration”). Capitalized terms used but not defined in these Design Guidelines shall have the meaning subscribed to such terms in the Declaration. ACC and Review Authority Article 7 of the Declaration includes procedures and criteria for the construction of improvements within the The Knolls community. Section 7.01 of the Declaration provides that no Improvements may be erected, placed, constructed, painted, altered, modified or remodeled on any Lot, and no Lot may be re-subdivided or consolidated with other Lots or Property, by anyone other than Declarant, without prior written approval of the ACC. The ACC consists of three (3) members who have been appointed by Wilbow-Knolls Development Corporation, a Texas corporation (the “Declarant”). As provided in Article 7 of the Declaration, the Declarant has a substantial interest in ensuring that Improvements within The Knolls maintain and enhance Declarant’s reputation as a community developer and do not impair Declarant’s ability to market and sell all or any portion of the community. The members of the ACC appointed by Declarant act solely in Declarant’s interest and shall owe no duty to any other Owner or the The Knolls Residential Community, Inc. (the “Association”). Governmental Requirements Governmental ordinances and regulations and the Planned Development zoning for The Knolls are applicable to all Lots. It is the responsibility of each Owner to obtain all necessary permits and inspections. Compliance with these Design Guidelines is not a substitute for compliance with the applicable ordinances and regulations. Please be advised that these Design Guidelines do not list or describe each requirement which may be applicable to a Lot within The Knolls. Each Owner is advised to review all encumbrances affecting the use and improvement of their Lot prior to submitting plans to the ACC for approval. Furthermore, approval by the ACC should not be construed by the Owner that any Improvement complies with the terms and provisions of all encumbrances which may affect the Owner’s Lot. Certain encumbrances may benefit parties whose interests are not addressed by the ACC. All construction must meet applicable regulations of Federal, State, and local requirements, including but not limited to, applicable zoning, building construction codes, fire sub-code necessary for the intended use of any Lot. 4 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 The ACC shall bear no responsibility for ensuring plans submitted to the ACC comply with Applicable Law. It is the responsibility of the Owner to secure any required governmental approvals prior to construction on such Owner’s Lot. Interpretation In the event of any conflict between these Design Guidelines and the Declaration, the Declaration shall control. Capitalized terms used in these Design Guidelines and not otherwise defined in this document shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Declaration. Amendments The ACC may amend these Design Guidelines from time to time. All amendments shall become effective upon publication to the community website. Amendments shall not apply retroactively so as to require modification or removal of work already approved and completed or approved and in progress. It is the responsibility of each Owner to ensure that they have the most current edition of the Design Guidelines and every amendment thereto. Architectural Review Process Submittals Requests for approval of proposed construction, landscaping, or exterior modifications must be made by submitting an application in the form attached hereto as Attachment 1. Timing The ACC will attempt to review all applications and submittals within thirty (30) days. Please allow at least thirty (30) days prior to installation or construction for the ACC to review the related applications. Please be advised that in the event that any plans and specifications are submitted to the ACC and the ACC fails to either approve or reject such plans and specifications for a period of thirty (30) days following such submission, the plans and specifications will be deemed disapproved. Applicant must receive ACC approval before submitting to the Town of Westlake for a building permit. The ACC will provide an approval letter to applicant to show evidence to the Town of ACC approval. Responsibility for Compliance An applicant is responsible for ensuring that all of the applicant's representatives, including the applicant's architect, engineer, contractors, subcontractors, and their agents and employees, are aware of these Design Guidelines and all requirements imposed by the ACC as a condition of approval. Inspection Upon completion of each phase of approved work, the Owner must notify the ACC. The ACC should be notified after the stake out of the building, after completion of framing, and after completion of the approved work. The ACC may, but shall in no event be obligated to, inspect the work at any time to verify conformance with the approved submittals. Furthermore, approval by the ACC should not be construed by the Owner that any Improvement complies with the terms and provisions of any ordinances, requirements, regulations or encumbrances which may affect the Owner’s Lot. 5 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 Architectural and Aesthetic Standards Plan Repetition The ACC may, in its sole and absolute discretion, deny a plan or elevation proposed for a particular Lot if a substantially similar plan or elevation exists on a Lot in close proximity to the Lot on which the plan or elevation is proposed. The ACC may adopt additional requirements concerning substantially similar plans or elevations constructed in proximity to each other. For Example: • Plan can be repeated every fifth Lot (example: Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, Plan D, Plan E and Plan A). • Across the Street: Same plan cannot be placed on a Lot across the street or diagonal from any other plan (example above: Plan B). Brick Color, Masonry Stone, and Wood Trim Repetition It is anticipated that the overall architectural themes within The Knolls may be a cohesive enclave of similar residences particularly as custom homebuilders are expected to construct all the homes within one or more courts within the community. This cohesiveness is good so long as there exists enough individuality between homes to achieve the distinction of custom one-of-a-kind homes. In that regard, repetition of materials such as a range of similar brick colors or stones and repetition of standing seam roofs are welcome. In the design review, there will be discernment of differentiation of massing and window organization and rooflines in addition to exterior materials and colors. The ACC may, in its sole and absolute discretion, deny a proposed brick color, masonry color or texture, roofing material or wood trim for a particular Lot if substantially similar brick, masonry or wood trim exists on a Lot in close proximity to the Lot on which the brick, masonry or wood trim is proposed. The ACC may adopt additional requirements concerning substantially similar brick, masonry or wood trim constructed in proximity to each other. For Example: • Same or substantially similar brick, masonry or wood trim can be repeated every fifth Lot (example: Brick A, Brick B, Brick C, Brick D, Brick E and Brick A). Plan A Plan B Plan C Plan D Plan F Plan G Plan H Plan B Brick A Brick B Brick C Brick D Plan E Plan C Plan A Plan D Brick E Brick C Brick A Brick D 6 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 • Across the Street: Same brick or masonry cannot be placed on a Lot across the street or diagonal from any other brick or masonry (example above: Brick B). Building Materials • All building materials must be approved in advance by the ACC, and only new building materials (except for used brick) shall be used for constructing any Improvements. • All projections from a dwelling or other structure, including but not limited to chimney flues, vents, gutters, downspouts, utility boxes, porches, railings and exterior stairways must, unless otherwise approved by the ACC, be coordinated with the overall design of the Improvement from which they project. • No highly reflective finishes (other than glass, which may not be mirrored) shall be used on exterior surfaces (other than surfaces of hardware fixtures), including, without limitation, the exterior surfaces of any Improvements. • Aluminum and steel windows shall be permitted so long as they are commercial grade quality and selected to achieve the particular architectural effect. Otherwise, Windows shall be high quality and high energy efficiency, such as vinyl or vinyl clad wood insulated glass such as “low- e” specification with or without mullions. Any design that incorporates divided lights, shall have dimensional mullions. Masonry Requirements, Exterior Walls and Finishes • The exterior walls shall have horizontal and vertical articulation or architectural features on all elevations as approved by the ACC. • Unless otherwise approved in advance and in writing by the ACC, the exterior walls of each primary residence shall be constructed of at one-hundred percent (100%) masonry, exclusive of roofs, eaves, soffits, windows, doors, gables, dormers and walls under covered porches, garage doors and trim work. For purposes of this section brick, stone, cast stone, and stucco are considered masonry. Stucco shall be a minimum of ¾ of an inch thick. Up to one-hundred percent (100%) stucco may be used on the exterior walls of Tuscan, contemporary or Mediterranean style homes or modern. The ACC, in its sole discretion, will determine whether or not a home is of Tuscan or Mediterranean style. Wood use shall be very minimal and only as an accent. Stucco shall be three step cement based process. Brick F Brick G Brick H Brick B 7 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 • Unless otherwise approved by the ACC, siding is prohibited for use on exterior walls of a primary residence, except that metal panels of zinc, galvalume or copper like finishes shall be allowed. • Unless otherwise approved by the ACC, exterior wall materials shall make changes at inside corners only. Single wall covering materials and large wall surfaces shall be permitted for modern styles and otherwise relieved by architectural features, wall offsets, and enhanced trim around openings are utilized to limit continuous blank wall areas for historical styles. • Unless otherwise approved by the ACC such as on modern or contemporary styles, walls shall not exceed thirty feet (30’) in length without an offset of two feet (2’) or more unless the wall is broken up by architectural elements such as ornate masonry work, changes in construction material, or openings for windows or doors that are trimmed and recessed a minimum of three inches (3”). • The exterior materials must be authentic and not artificial as reasonably determined by the ACC. There should generally not be more than three exterior materials (including exterior walls, window/door surrounds, accents, etc.). The ACC will evaluate whether additional materials shall be allowed on a case by case basis. • Colors should be appropriate to the architectural style chosen. Colors should be non-invasive and subdued rather than bold and bright other than architectural features approved by the ACC. All exterior materials should comply with one color palate, approved by the ACC, including all exterior paint, brick/stone, trim, mortar, window mullions, balusters, columns, etc.). Color palates should consist of natural earth tone colors, i.e., medium to dark greens, browns, and tans, warm whites, warm greys, bronze hues and black or near black colors. • Unless otherwise approved by the ACC, all chimneys shall be 100% masonry to match the materials used on home. No wood or masonry siding of any kind shall be used on chimneys. All chimney flues shall be screened by a diffuser cap or ornamental clay or metal flue so that the spark arrestor is completely shielded. Chimney stacks protruding through the roof shall be clad in stucco, cultured stone, unit masonry or exposed pipe, subject to ACC approval. • No foundation of a residence may: be exposed more than eight feet (8ft) above final grade along: (a) of the residence visible from any street; or (b) each side elevation of the residence visible from any street. If the exterior of the elevation adjacent to the exposed foundation is constructed of stucco, the ACC will have the authority to require the use of stone, in a color approved in advance by the ACC, to conceal the exposed portion of the foundation. If the exterior of the elevation adjacent to the exposed foundation is brick or stone then the foundation shall employ a dropped masonry ledge so that the brick or stone is carried to the ground plane and hides the foundation. In the event of a dispute as to the front or side elevation of a residence which is visible from any street, the determination of the ACC shall be final and conclusive. Exposed concrete shall be an acceptable finished surface if integral to the materials and color palette of a residence and employed as an integral exterior material beyond just the foundation. 8 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 • All materials for courtyard walls and fencing must be approved in advance by the ACC. Foundations • Construction of each residence shall employ a suspended slab foundation or dropped ledge slab foundation except where a pier and beam or basement is utilized instead. • Walk out basements are allowed. • Poured in place concrete stem walls are allowed. • Exposed concrete foundations are allowed, refer to masonry section above. Lot Coverage The Footprint of a one story residence constructed on a Lot shall not exceed forty-seven percent (47%) of the entire area of the Lot. The Footprint of a two story residence constructed on a Lot shall not exceed forty-three percent (43%) of the entire area of the Lot. Footprint is defined as all areas that are contained within the ground floor air-conditioned space, garages and covered patios of the main residence (excludes open porches, patios, porte-cocheres, or other unenclosed areas and accessory buildings). Square Footage Requirements The minimum air-conditioned living square footage for each residence, exclusive of open or screened porches, terraces, patios, decks, driveways, and garages is three thousand (3,000) square feet for single- story homes and three thousand six hundred (3,600) square feet living space for two-story homes. Two story residences shall have a second story that is 50% or less of the first floor Footprint to reduce the visual mass of the second floor. Refer to Lot Coverage for maximum lot coverage. Aesthetic Appeal The ACC may disapprove the construction or design of a home on purely aesthetic grounds. Any prior decisions of the ACC regarding matters of design or aesthetics will not be considered to establish a precedent for any future decision of the ACC. Siting/Setbacks Unless otherwise approved by the unanimous consent of the ACC, the following setbacks shall apply to each Lot: • Front Standard Setback line: 30 feet. Up to twenty–six feet (26ft) in width of the front façade of the residence may be constructed in front of the standard setback line up to 10ft in front of the front building line, in other words, at a 20ft setback. For lots fronting onto a cul de sac or eyebrow radius, the Front Standard Setback shall be 20ft. Up to twenty–six feet (26ft) in width of the front façade of the residence may be constructed in front of the standard setback line up to 10ft in front 9 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 of the front building line, in other words, at a 10ft setback. Refer to diagrams in the zoning document. • Rear Lot line: 20 feet • Side Lot line: 10 feet Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in these Design Guidelines, eaves, steps, and open porches will not be considered part of the residence for the purpose of the setback requirement hereunder; however, no portion of any Improvement will be permitted to encroach upon another Lot. The ACC must approve the encroachment of any flatwork, i.e. driveway, porch, etc. over the side building setbacks. Driveways constructed outside of the building setbacks shall be constructed to permit unimpeded drainage along side yard Lot lines. The ACC reserves the right to stipulate additional building or Improvement setbacks attributable to any Lot. The ACC further reserves the right to grant variances to the setbacks set forth herein in accordance the Declaration. Any decision for a variance in setback requires a unanimous approval by the ACC. No building permit shall be applied for without first obtaining approval of same plans by the ACC. Such approval letter shall accompany the permit application. Temporary/Accessory Structures Owners will generally be permitted to erect one (1) accessory structure on their Lot provided the accessory structure, such as a pool cabana, garden building, storage building, or home office is approved in advance by the ACC. Accessory structures shall be limited to 150sf. In no event will the total square footage of any approved accessory structure be interpreted to reduce the minimum square footage requirements of the principal residential structure as set forth in these Design Guidelines. Unless otherwise approved in advance and in writing by the ACC, an accessory structure: (i) must be constructed of the same exterior materials as the main residence constructed on the Lot; (ii) must utilize roof materials that match the roof materials incorporated into the principal residential structure constructed on the Lot; (iii) have a pitched roof of the same pitch as the principal residential structure constructed on the Lot; (iv) use paint which matches the color of the trim of the principal residential structure constructed on the Lot; and (v) may not be located nearer than five (5) feet from an interior (side) Lot line subject to Town of Westlake regulations. Temporary storage structures also known as “pods” are not allowed. The ACC shall be entitled to determine, in its sole and absolute discretion, whether a structure or shed on any Lot complies with the foregoing requirements relating to size, height, fence enclosure and construction materials. No accessory structure will be approved unless a principal residential structure has been constructed on the Lot or the accessory structure is being constructed at the same time as the principal residential structure. The ACC may adopt additional requirements for any accessory structure on a case by case basis as a condition to approval. 10 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 All structures on a Lot must reflect consistently the same architectural style and materials as the main residence constructed on the Lot. No temporary or accessory structure may be erected without the advance approval by the ACC. Prohibited Elements The following architectural elements are prohibited within The Knolls unless expressly approved in writing by the ACC: Roofs • Excessively pitched roofs. • Mansard, gambrel or chalet roofs. • Flat roofs. However, low pitched roofs that appear flat shall be permitted on contemporary or modern style residences. Such roofs shall drain to the side or rear such that gutters are discreet from view to the street or parapet walls shall be provided to conceal the drainage. • Roofs that are too steep or too shallow for the style of the home, as determined by the ACC. Design Elements • Unnecessarily prominent chimneys and other roof penetrations. • Vents facing the street or common area. • White or bubble skylights visible to street or common area. • Mirrored glass. • Faux mullion windows Materials and Colors • Wood siding (wood siding accents may be permitted if approved by the ACC). • Cultured stone except for chimney risers unless approved by the ACC. Building Height Unless otherwise approved in advance by the ACC, no building or residential structure may exceed two and one-half stories or twenty-eight feet (28’) in height as measured from the finished front yard lot grade to the midpoint of the highest pitched or hipped roof above. The measurement locations will be chosen by the ACC based upon which points are most restrictive, however the measurement shall exclude grades where walk out basements exist. 11 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 The height limitations imposed above shall not apply to: (i) chimneys and vent stacks, cupolas, or other architectural features that are not intended for occupancy or storage; or (ii) flag poles and similar devices. Views are neither guaranteed, preserved, nor protected within The Knolls. Room Additions Any room additions must be approved in writing by the ACC. Additions to a residence will be considered for approval by the ACC if they meet the following: • All materials used match those of the principal residential structure, including masonry, windows, and paint color, shingles, etc. • Sunrooms will be considered. • Screened Porches must meet the following minimum acceptable standards: • The porch and related improvements must be compatible with the architectural elements of the principal residential structure. Paint colors and materials must match those of the principal residential structure. • Design should reflect consideration for any adverse impact of neighboring properties. • The screened porch shall not encroach on any easement or building line. • Screened porch shall be attached to the principal residential structure or to an accessory structure. • Free standing screened porches are not permitted. • Supplemental landscaping may be required as part of the ACC review. • The roof of screened porch shall be roofed to match the principal residential structure such that it is an integral component of the overall structure and not applied as a lean to addition. Greenbelt/Open Space Lots “Greenbelt/Open Space Lots” shall refer to Lots/land that has not been developed, whether it is owned by the Declarant, the Association or another Owner and is not intended for use as a single family Lot. These areas are to be considered as private property. Lots adjacent to Greenbelt/Open Space Lots must comply with all of the following requirements: • The boundary between the Lot and the Greenbelt/Open Space Lots must be fenced in a manner approved in advance by the ACC. 12 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 • The fence must be at least 4 feet in height and be constructed of “pyrite brown” or flat black wrought iron or other decorative metal of a color and style specified by the ACC. • Backyards must be fully sodded or mulched with hardwood mulch or rock mulch to maintain a natural woodland state. Each Lot shall install at least two 3.5” caliper hardwood trees installed by the Owner from the Approved Plant List. If existing protected trees are preserved in the front yard or street side yard, they can be utilized to satisfy this requirement. • Sheds or outbuildings will not be permitted on any Lot line adjacent to Greenbelt/Open Space Lots. • At no time are Greenbelt/Open Space Lots to be used for ingress/egress or storage. • Greenbelt/Open Space Lots should remain in their natural state. No removal or trimming of trees is permitted except by the Association. Building Massing Primary massing of a single family residence constructed on a Lot should be a reflection of the primary interior rooms within the single family residence. Secondary massing should be a reflection of the secondary interior rooms within the single family residence. The concept is to design homes with simple room lines that reflect the interior spaces that are being housed. Second stories should be subordinate to a larger first floor mass. Roofs and Chimneys The pitch, color and composition of all roof materials must be approved in writing by the ACC. Roof vents and other penetrations shall be as unobtrusive as possible and must match the principal color of the roof unless approved in advance by the ACC. • Accepted Roof Pitch: Roof slope for the main structure and garage shall be approved in advance by the ACC. • Accepted Roof Materials: Roof materials allowed are concrete tile, clay tile, natural slate, standing seam metal roof (allowed only if made of copper, paint grip galvanized unpainted) or where not visible to any street or common area, commercial grade built-up roofing or elastic membranes or other materials with similar materials if approved unanimously by the ACC. Materials should be appropriate to the design style chosen. For Mediterranean or Tuscan styled stucco style homes, a barrel tile roof shall be required or standing seam metal. Roofing materials must be submitted for approval prior to installation and labeled on all submitted elevations. Acceptable colors are natural tones. In addition, roofs of buildings may be constructed with “Energy Efficiency Roofing” with the advance written approval of the ACC. For the purpose of the Section, “Energy Efficiency Roofing” means roofing that is designed primarily to: (a) be wind and hail resistant; (b) provide heating and cooling efficiencies greater than those provided by customary composite shingles; or (c) provide solar generation capabilities. The ACC will not prohibit an Owner from installing Energy Efficient Roofing provided that the Energy Efficient Roofing materials: (i) resemble the traditional roofing components and materials herein or otherwise authorized for use within the community; (ii) are more durable than, and are of equal or superior quality to, the materials used or otherwise authorized for use within the community; and (iii) match the 13 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 aesthetics of adjacent property. An Owner who desires to install Energy Efficient Roofing will be required to comply with the architectural review and approval procedures set forth the Restrictions. In conjunction with any such approval process, the Owner should submit information which will enable the ACC to confirm the criteria set forth in this Section. Any other type of roofing material shall be permitted only with the advance written approval of the ACC. • Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment and pool equipment shall be completely screened from view from adjacent properties or right-of-way. Screening may include landscaping provide the plant sizes are sufficient to provide seventy-five percent (75%) screening within two growing seasons. • Vents: Plumbing vents should be minimally visible from the street as determined by the ACC. If there must be a vent visible to the street then it should blend in color with the roof. In-House Sprinkler Systems All single family residences constructed on a Lot must contain in-house sprinkler systems as required by the Town of Westlake. Exterior Doors and Windows Acceptable Windows: • Aluminum and steel windows shall be permitted so long as they are commercial grade quality and selected to achieve the particular architectural effect. Otherwise, Windows shall be high quality and high energy efficiency, such as vinyl or vinyl clad wood, and insulated glass, such as “low-e” specification. All windows must be wood or vinyl clad or commercial metal. All window brands must be submitted to the ACC for approval prior to installation. Unacceptable Windows: • Aluminum other than commercial plate glass applications. • Bubble type Skylights that are visible from the street Window Details: • Windows may not be of reflective or darkly tinted glass. • All windows must be recessed a minimum of 3” and not “flush” to the exterior of the residence. Doors: • All doors shall be recessed a minimum of 3” and not “flush” to show wall depth. • Doors with mullions should have them placed on the exterior of the glass panes rather than being “trapped” inside them. • Primary entry doors shall vary in design from house to house. If the same door is used on houses within the same block, trim, accents or other architectural enhancements shall be used to create a diverse appearance and maintain the appearance of a custom home neighborhood. Garages 14 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 No carports shall be placed, erected, constructed, installed or maintained on a Lot without the express approval of the ARC and in no event shall any carport satisfy the garage requirement. All garages shall be approved in advance of construction by the ACC. The Improvements on each Lot must contain one or more private enclosed garages, with garage parking capable at all times of housing at least three (3) standard size automobiles. Garage doors shall be made of sectional wood, or be wood clad, or glass and steel. Each garage shall have a minimum width, as measured from inside walls, of 9.6’ per car and a minimum depth for each car of 20’22’. Each three (3) car garage shall have a minimum width of sixty feet (60’) for the 3 garage door front. A minimum of a 3 garage parking spaces and 2 off street parking spaces shall be provided for each home. Aluminum, embossed metal and fiberglass doors are prohibited. Garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of 6” from the plane of the adjacent wall to create more wall depth and lessen the focus on the garage door. Garage doors shall be placed at right angles to the street where possible. If this is not possible then special approval must be given by the ACC. The ACC will take into account the size/shape of the Lot and surrounding landscape. Front facing doors are allowed if located further back on the Lot than the side-entry garage portion and are in a motor court setting. Garages may contain appropriately sized storage rooms, recreational workshops and tool rooms, or servants quarters or guest quarters, if approved in advance by the ACC. Except with respect to detached garages, interior walls of all garages must be finished (i.e., taped, bedded and painted, at a minimum). Each garage shall have garage doors that are wired so as to be operated by electric door openers. The orientation of the opening into a garage (i.e., side-entry or front-entry) must be approved in advance by the ACC. Regardless of whether the garage is visible to a street, every garage shall have its interior walls finished with gypsum board or better material. All garage doors shall remain closed at all times, save and except for the temporary opening of same in connection with the ingress and egress of vehicles and the loading or placement and unloading, or removal of other items customarily kept or stored therein, when a person is in the garage or engaged in yard work, or there is another activity occurring on the Lot which is reasonably facilitated by an open garage door. No garage shall be converted to another use (e,g., living space) without the substitution, on the Lot involved, of another garage meeting the requirements of this section, and the approval of the ACC, and use of parking space in a garage for work areas or storage (including boxes, toys, exercise equipment, furniture; or work benches) to the exclusion of one or more vehicles is strictly prohibited. Driveways, Sidewalks and Parking The design of all driveways must be approved in advance by the ACC. All driveways, sidewalks, and parking areas shall be surfaced with concrete, stone, or pavestone. Concrete shall be exposed aggregate, salt finish or stamped and stained. All driveways, sidewalks and parking areas shall be a minimum of one foot (1’) from any adjacent property line. The design of all parking areas should strive to minimize public view of any vehicles. The use of low masonry walls to screen parking areas, motor courts and to define entry courts is highly 15 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 encouraged. In lieu of a solid masonry wall, masonry columns with living screen between the columns may be used. If the driveway is raised significantly above finished grade or above a street (which will be determined by the ACC is its sole and absolute discretion), the exposed sides of the driveway must be screened with landscaping or low masonry walls approved in advance by the ACC. Driveways must permit entry by standard mid-size vehicles without “bottoming out” in the transition area between the curb and property line as wells as the driveway area between the property line and the garage. Arbors/Pergola/Patio Covers All arbors, pergolas and patios covers shall be approved in advance of construction by the ACC. Arbors, pergolas and patio covers must meet the following: • Shall not exceed 10’ in height. • Be of cedar or better wood that is painted to match the principal residential structure constructed on the Lot or stained (all other materials will be reviewed by the ACC on a case by case basis.) • If roof is solid, it must match the principal residential structure constructed on the Lot. • Lattice on the arbor will be considered by the ACC on a case by case basis. • Support columns should match the architectural character of the principal residential structure constructed on the Lot. • Approved stain color is Behr Natural #501. Behr brand is not required, but color should match. Decks All decks shall be approved in advance of construction by the ACC. Backyard deck additions must constructed of cedar or a better wood that is painted or stained or sealed to match the principal residential structure constructed on the Lot. All other materials will be reviewed on a case by case basis by the ACC. Where decking extends over a sloping ground plane, care should be given to the view below the deck either with supporting foundation walls, landscaping or screening. 16 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 Mailboxes All mailboxes in the property shall be of the United States Postal Service regulations and located in predetermined grouped settings and provided by the Builder or Association. Exterior Lighting THE OBJECTIVE OF THE REGULATION OF OUTDOOR LIGHTING IS TO PRESERVE THE NIGHTIME DARK SKY BY MINIMIZING THE AMOUNT OF EXTERIOR LIGHTING. TO UTILIZE LOW INTENSITY INDIRECT LIGHT SOURCES TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED FOR SAFETY AND SUBTLE DRAMA. TO ACHIEVE OUTDOOR LIGHTING OF PLANT MATERIALS WITH HIDDEN LIGHT SOURCES. THE CITY MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL OUTDOOR LIGHTING REGULATIONS IN ITS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. All exterior lighting must be approved in advance by the ACC. Exterior lighting will be kept to a minimum and shall be subdued and indirect but consistent with good security practices. Such illumination shall be designed and installed so as to light only landscaping, driveway areas and walkways upon a Lot. Indirect sources and horizontal cut-off fixtures are recommended to reduce glare and provide general ambient light. Soffit or tree lights must be shielded or directed towards vegetation so as to eliminate glare and source visibility. Exterior lighting shall follow dark sky design guidelines. No exterior light whose direct source is visible from a street or neighboring property or which produces excessive glare to pedestrian or vehicular traffic will be allowed. Nuisance lighting and or glare must be avoided. Up-lighting shall be limited to lighting landscaping elements and shall be limited to 25 watt incandescent or equivalent lumens. Building walls shall not be illuminated and light from landscape lighting may not illuminate building walls higher than four feet (4’) above grade. Floodlights are prohibited. Exterior lighting in motorcourts and over garage doors may/shall be motion detector activated and not installed higher than 8ft above the grade of the driveway. All light sources must be fully shielded from view from adjacent property or right-of-ways. Light sources of 25 watts incandescent or equivalent may be shielded with frosted or opaque glass. Use of other than white or color corrected high intensity lamps and exterior lights will not be allowed. Sodium, mercury vapor, or bare HID yard lights are not allowed. Exterior Holiday Decorations Lights or decorations may be erected on the exterior of the principal residential structure in commemoration or celebration of publicly observed holidays provided that such lights or decorations do not unreasonably disturb the peaceful enjoyment of adjacent Owners. All lights and decorations must not be permanent fixtures of the principal residential structure without prior written approval of the ACC 17 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 and shall be removed within thirty (30) days after the holiday has ended. Christmas decorations or lights may not be displayed prior to November 15. Air-Conditioning and Other Mechanical Equipment No air-conditioning apparatus may be installed on the ground in front of the principal residential structure or on the roof of the principal residential structure unless screened in a manner approved by the ACC. Ground level air conditioning units shall be installed at street level only. All mechanical equipment, including air-conditioning equipment, shall be located in a side or rear yard only and shall not be visible from streets or Common Areas. No window air-conditioning apparatus or evaporative cooler may be attached to any front wall or front window of the principal residential structure or at any other location where it would be visible from any street, any other Lot or any Common Area. POOL, SPA EQUIPMENT MUST BE LOCATED BEHIND WALLS OR SCREENED FROM VIEW WITH LANDSCAPE TO CONTAIN NOISE. Barbecue Grills Freestanding barbecue grills are permitted only if they are stored and used in the rear yard space of the Lot that is not visible from the street. BBQ grills may also be built into outdoor kitchens and the masonry and other materials shall match the materials used on the residence. Landscape Guidelines Detailed landscape plans for each Lot may be submitted to the ACC for consideration after construction of the principal residential structure thereon has begun, so long as such submission occurs at least ninety (90) days before completion of the residence. Upon written request, however, the ACC may waive the requirement of landscape plans for any Lot if the Homebuilder uses plans previously approved by the ACC for another Lot. There shall be no revisions made to approved plans without submission to, and approval by, the ACC of the revised plans. All introduced vegetation shall be trees, shrubs, vines, ground covers, seasonal flowers or sodded grassed which are commonly used in North Central Texas for landscaping purposes and which are approved by the ACC. An approved list of plants and turf is set forth on Attachment 3. Landscaping in accordance with the approved plans shall be installed within ten (10) days after issuance of a certificate of occupancy with respect to the principal residential structure. Extensions to the time limit may be granted by the ACC for up to an additional thirty (30) days on a case by case basis. The approved plans shall include permanent sodded grass or “ground cover” in all sodded areas. Winter rye shall be considered a temporary measure to reduce soil erosion through the winter season, and shall be completely removed and replaced with sodded grass according to the approved plans. Each Lot shall be landscaped, at a minimum, with: (i) full sodded front, side and backyards yards, (ii) the following number of hardwood shade trees in the yard of each Lot--two (2) per Lot on all Lots other than corner Lots and four (4) per corner Lot (with two (2) in the front portion of the Lot, and two (2) in the side of the Lot adjacent to the street), and ten (10) shrubs sized five gallons or more. The hardwood shade trees required in the front yard of each Lot shall be no smaller in size than 3.5” caliper. After installation, landscaping (including temporary landscaping) shall be properly maintained at all times. Any Owner who wishes to plant one or more gardens upon their Lot must obtain the approval of the ACC of any such garden and must follow applicable requirements as to size of the Lot, visibility of 18 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 the Lot from other Lots, streets or common areas, and such other matters as the ACC may specify in any written approval. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a minimum of two, three and one half inch (3.5”) caliper trees from the Approved Plant List must be planted on each Lot. If existing protected trees are preserved in the front yard of a Lot, they can be used to satisfy this requirement. Landscaping should consist of a combination of sodded turf areas and bed areas containing shrubs and ground cover. Side, front and back yard areas shall be 100% irrigated and 100% sodded where there are no landscaping beds. Large expanses of mulch or bed areas without substantial shrub or groundcover plantings are unacceptable unless the Lot contains a native stand of trees where sodding the entire yard would potentially harm the health of the trees. Stone or gravel mulch with harsh, unnatural or high contrast colors is prohibited. Street scene landscape shall be designed to be harmonious with adjacent Lots and yet thematic in its plant selection. During construction, existing trees shall be preserved and protected to the extent possible for the intended development, as determined in the ACC’s discretion; provided, however, that the ACC may require the removal of cedar trees from a Lot regardless of the size of such cedar trees. Ground cover is defined as a planting of low plants (such as ivy) that covers the ground in place of turf. Rock or stone are not acceptable for use as a ground cover other than in flowerbed or walkway areas. Landscape plans must include vegetative screening for above ground utility connections, such as rainwater, AC, and garbage visible from the street or adjacent properties. Grass should be maintained at a height of no more than two and one-half inches. Mowing heights may need to be altered to prevent scalping in the event of an uneven grade. Grass will be trimmed away from sidewalks, the principal residential structure, planted areas and other obstacles. It is suggested that line trimmers, mechanical edger and chemicals are employed to keep a neat, tidy appearance. Trees and shrubs should be pruned to avoid blocking clear view of signs, address marker, illumination by light fixtures, the flow of air vents and air conditioner compressors as well as pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The ACC reserves the right to require additional landscaping for pools, cabanas and other hardscape elements that may be constructed after completion of the principal residential structure and associated landscaping. Hardscape elements in the landscaping must be in scale with the principal residential structure and associated structures. Sculptures and fountains are subject to approval by the ACC. Notwithstanding any requirements to the contrary, Owners shall comply with all applicable governmentally imposed water use restrictions and shall be granted appropriate relief from any specific requirement set forth in these Design Guidelines that cannot reasonably be complied with, as determined by the ACC, as a result of such water use restrictions. 19 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 The ACC may, upon the Owner’s completion of the installation of landscaping, conduct an on-site inspection of the property to ensure compliance with the approved plan. Shrubs or flower beds or mulch beds shall be located in flower beds along the foundation line of all structures, except where paving is adjacent to the structure, and must extend away from the foundation a minimum of five feet (5’). No more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the landscaped area of a front yard may be covered by grass. In lieu of grass, low water landscapes employing native and climate adapted shrubs, perennials and ground covers and mulches are encouraged. Lawn Furniture, Decorations, and Garden Maintenance Equipment Lawn furniture, including swings/chairs/benches in good repair are allowed on front porches of the principal residential structure, but must be incorporated into a landscape theme if visible from other Lots. Swings and or benches are not allowed on driveways/front lawns etc. unless specifically approved for placement by the ACC. One (1) birdbath of a standard size is acceptable in the rear yard of the Lot without prior written approval from the ACC. Notwithstanding exterior holiday decorations, plastic lawn decorations and artificial plants are not permitted, including pink flamingos, animals, or other plastic designs/statues. Lawn mowers, edgers, wheelbarrows, etc. may not be left out in view of other Lots except when in use. Bulk/bag material (mulch, topsoil, etc.) may not be left out in view for longer than ten (10) days. Irrigation The ACC must approve all irrigation systems prior to installation. On site run off capture and rainwater tanks are encouraged. Lot Drainage Responsibility for proper site drainage rests with the Owner. Adequate provision is made for proper drainage within the Property for each Lot and such provision has been certified by a professional engineer. It is each Lot owner’s responsibility to adhere to the overall drainage plan unless approved in advance by the ACC and the project engineer. Each Owner is solely responsible for correcting any change in water flow or drainage caused by the construction of Improvements on such Owner’s Lot. Upon completion of all improvements to any Lot, the drainage from that Lot shall follow the Drainage Site Map from the project engineer. No concentrated water flow shall be discharged onto an adjacent Lot. 20 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 Discharge onto Common Area Lots shall be approved by the ARC or project engineer. All roof drainage shall be captured and run underground to a street or drainage device or a common area. Roof drainage may also be captured within the lot into tanks for the purpose of supplemental irrigation. Such tanks shall be located in the rear or side yards and screened from view. Fencing All fencing that faces a street shall be decorative metal. See the “Greenbelt/Open Space Lots” Section of these Design Guidelines for fencing requirements for Lots adjacent to greenbelt and/or open space. All fencing should be either masonry or decorative metal. Each post shall have a decorative “cap” on each post. Living plant materials for screening is also allowed. Any side yard fence may be installed by the first homeowner and the subsequent homeowner shall share in cost by reimbursing the first homeowner by 50% of the portion on the common lot line. Retaining walls on the front of a Lot shall be constructed of the same stone used on the single family residence constructed on the Lot thereon. If the single family residence does not contain stone, the retaining wall material shall blend with the residence constructed by the Declarant or Homebuilder to establish uniform stone for interior Lot line walls to be Granbury chopped stone, randomly coursed ashlar pattern or natural grey grout. Pools, Spas and Hot Tub Plans The plans and specifications for each swimming pool, spa and hot tub constructed on a Lot must be approved in writing and prior to construction by the ACC. All applications submitted to the ACC for the approval of plans and specifications for swimming pools, hot tubs or spas must be accompanied by the applicable City permits for the construction of same. Any applications submitted to the ACC, which do not include finalized construction permits from the applicable regulatory authority shall constitute an automatic rejection of the application. Above-ground, movable, or temporary swimming pools are prohibited. Each swimming pool constructed on a Lot must be entirely enclosed with a fence or similar structure which, at a minimum, satisfies Applicable Law. The location, color and style of the fence or enclosure must be approved in writing and in advance of construction by the ACC. The ACC may require that a swimming pool, spa and hot tub constructed on a Lot and associated Improvements be enclosed with a fence or similar structure. Approval of a swimming pool, spa and hot tub and/or associated Improvements by the ACC will not constitute a determination by the ACC that the swimming pool, spa and hot tub and/or associated Improvements comply with Applicable Law or that the swimming pool, spa and hot tub and/or associated Improvements are safe for use. The ACC may require an Owner to install additional screening as a pre-condition to the approval and construction of any swimming pool, spa, or hot tub. No swimming pool, spa and hot tub shall be located in the front or side yard on any Lot. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the ACC, if the foundation or other vertical surface of the swimming pool will extend more than twenty-four inches (24”) above the final grade of the Lot, the exposed foundation or vertical surface extending more than twenty-four inches (24”) above the final grade will be finished in a manner that matches the exterior masonry of the principal residential structure. Application of the terms “front yard”, “side yard”, “foundation or other vertical surface”, 21 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 and/or “final grade” as to a specific Lot will be determined by the ACC in its sole and absolute discretion. The ACC may adopt additional requirements for any swimming pool, spa and hot tub and/or associated Improvements on a case by case basis as a condition to approval. Swimming pools shall be in-ground, or a balanced cut and fill, and shall be designed to be compatible with the site and the principal residential structure as determined in the sole and absolute discretion of the ACC. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the ACC, associated swimming pool, spa, and hot tub improvements, such as rock waterfalls and slides, shall not be over six feet (6’) in height. No pool or deck may be closer than five (5) feet from any Lot line. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the ACC, all maintenance equipment, including chemicals, plumbing fixtures, heaters, pumps, etc., associated with a swimming pool, spa or hot tub may not be visible from any adjacent street or Lot. The drains serving a swimming pool, spa and hot tub must be connected to street drainage systems. No swimming pool, spa or hot tub shall be drained onto property other than the Lot on which the swimming pool, spa and hot tub is constructed. Above ground spas and hot tubs visible from public view or from an adjacent street or Lot shall be skirted, decked, screened or landscaped in a manner which excludes pumps, plumbing, heaters, filters, etc. from view. No swimming pool, spa or hot tub will be approved unless a principal residential structure has been constructed on the Lot or the swimming pool, spa or hot tub is being constructed at the same time as the principal residential structure. Basketball Goals and Sporting Equipment Basketball goals, or backboards, or any other similar sporting equipment of either a permanent or temporary nature shall not be placed on any Lot or street or where same would be visible from an adjoining street or Lot without the prior written consent of the ACC. Permanent goals must meet the following criteria: • the metal pole must be permanently mounted into the ground to the side of the driveway in a full upright position 25’ back from the curb; • the pole, backboard and net must be maintained in good condition at all times; and • poles may not be installed in front of the garage or facing into the street. Portable goals will not be allowed unless the following criteria are met: • the goal must be placed to the side of the driveway and permanently installed to be flush with the ground and maintained at all times in a full upright position 25’ back from the curb; • the pole, backboard and net must be maintained in good condition at all times; • poles may not be installed in front of the garage or facing the street; • landscape barrier, such as small shrubs must screen the base of the goal; • goals may not be rolled into the street or any other public right-of-way; and • goals may not be maintained in front of the garage or facing into the street. 22 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 The ACC shall have the authority to establish additional guidelines for the placement and design of basketball goals, backboards, or any other similar sporting equipment and the same shall be kept and maintained out of view from any street, except in accordance with any such established guidelines. Playscapes and Sport Courts Sports courts, tennis courts, and playscapes or any similar recreational facilities may not be constructed on any Lot without the advance written approval of the ACC. The ACC may prohibit the installation of sports courts, tennis courts, playscapes or similar recreational facilities on any Lot. Playscapes or any similar recreational facilities must comply with all the following requirements: • Must be located where the equipment will have minimum impact on adjacent Lots and be screened from public view. • All playscapes or any similar recreational facilities equipment must be of earth tones colors, i.e., medium to dark greens, browns, and tans. • Bright primary colors will not be permitted. • Views of playscapes or any similar recreational facilities must be reduced from public streets and adjoining units whenever possible. • Playscapes or any similar recreational facilities must not be located any closer to a property line than the established building setbacks. • Trampolines, whether portable or non-portable must be placed no closer than five feet (5') to any property line. • Playscapes, playground equipment and trampolines are prohibited in the front yard. If approved, portable playscapes, including but not limited to, non-permanent and/or inflatable slides, moon bounces, water parks and above ground inflatable pools or kiddy pools (collectively "Portable Playscapes") must be stored in a screened area, the rear of the Lot, or inside the garage when not in use. In no event, shall any Portable Playscapes be visible from or in the front of any Owner's Lot for any period of time exceeding twenty-four (24) consecutive hours. Erosion Control and Construction Regulations The following restrictions shall apply to all construction activities at The Knolls. Periodic inspections by a representative of the ACC or the Town of Westlake may take place in order to identify non-complying construction activities. If items identified as not complying with the regulations are not remedied in a timely manner, fines will be levied. Erosion Control Installation and Maintenance 23 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 It is the responsibility of each Owner to install erosion control measures prior to the start of construction and to maintain them throughout the entire construction process. Silt fencing installed to all applicable standards is required to be properly installed and maintained to protect the low sides of all disturbed areas, where storm-water will flow during construction. The purpose of the silt fence is to capture the sediment from the runoff and to permit filtered, clean water to exit the site. The Owner should anticipate that built-up sediment will need to be removed from the silt fence after heavy or successive rains, and that any breach in the fencing will need to be repaired or replaced immediately. If for any reason the silt fence is to be temporarily removed, please contact a representative of the ACC prior to the removal. Security Neither the ACC, the Association, nor the Declarant shall be responsible for the security of job sites during construction. Construction Hours Unless a written waiver is obtained from the ACC, construction may only take place during the following hours: Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m., and on Saturdays and Sundays from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. or as regulated by the Town of Westlake if more restrictive. Noise, Animals, Children The use of radios, tape and CD players must be restrained so as not to be heard on an adjoining Lot or street. Contractors and subcontractors may not bring dogs to construction sites. Contractors and subcontractors may not bring children under 16 years of age to construction sites. Material and Equipment Storage All construction materials and equipment shall be neatly stacked, properly covered and secured. Any storage of materials or equipment shall be the Owner’s responsibility and at their risk. Owners may not disturb, damage or trespass on other Lots or adjacent property. Insurance The ACC requires an Owner to procure adequate commercial liability insurance during construction naming the Association, the Declarant and the ACC as additional insureds, in an amount to be determined, from time to time by the ACC. Site Cleanliness During the construction period, each construction site shall be kept neat and shall be properly policed to prevent it from becoming an eyesore. 24 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 Owners and Builders shall use a Town approved vendor to remove refuse and shall provide a container for debris and shall clean up all trash and debris on the construction site on a daily basis. Trash and debris shall be removed from each construction site on a timely basis. Lightweight material, packaging and other items shall be covered or weighted down to prevent wind from blowing such materials off the construction site. The dumping, burying or burning of trash is not permitted anywhere in The Knolls. It is imperative that, when moving heavy equipment around, precautions be taken to prevent damage to pavement, curbs, and vegetation. Crawler tractors are not to be operated on paved or concrete surfaces. Mud, dirt and other construction debris that is tracked off site shall be cleaned on a daily basis. Sanitary Facilities A temporary sanitary facility (chemical toilet) shall be provided and maintained for the use of construction workers and shall be screened from view in a manner approved in advance by the ACC. It should be installed on level ground, at the back of the lot unless it cannot be serviced and screened from view. A mock up construction wall shall be used to screen it if located in the front part of the lot. Construction Parking Construction crews shall not park on, or otherwise use, other Lots. No construction vehicle will be permitted to leak oil or otherwise damage or deface any street located within the community. Schedule of Fines Periodic inspections by a representative of the ACC may take place in order to identify non-complying construction activities. Listed below is the schedule of fines which may be assessed. Schedule of Fines Premature Clearing $5000 Construction Without ACC Approval $5000 Encroachment on Adjacent Properties $5000 plus cost of repair Violation of Rules, Restriction or Guidelines $500/day Failure to Install and/or Maintain Erosion Control Measures $1000/day *Greenbelt/Open Space Lot violation $5000 Sign Violation $500 per sign/incident *In the event, the Association or Declarant is required to repair, clean up or provide necessary service to bring the improvement into compliance, the Owner will be assessed the cost of repair, clean up, or service plus an additional 50% for time and service expended. Duration of Construction The principal residential structure residence shall be complete and available for occupancy on or before eighteen (18) months after the commencement of construction and construction activity must be continuous.. Additional extensions shall be determined by the ACC. 25 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 Plan Submittals and Review Fees New residential home construction within The Knolls will utilize the process described in this section. No Improvements may be commenced until the Owner has received a written “Approval” from the ACC. Construction Security Deposit In order to ensure an owner’s compliance with the documents, each owner shall pay to the Association a construction deposit (in an amount established by the Board from time to time) upon the owner’s submission of final plans and specifications for the construction or modification of an improvement under these Guidelines. Currently, the construction deposit for new construction is $25,000 and $12,500 for remodels, additions or expansions. Said funds shall be held in escrow. Upon final inspection by the ACC and compliance with the approved plans and completion of all landscape and site requirements, the deposit shall be returned net of any Association draws as described below. The Association may draw against the deposit to repair or replace damages to Open Spaces, Association owned improvements including gates, curbs, streetlights, landscape and irrigations systems. The deposit may also be utlilized for site clean-up, repairs or replacements to erosion control devices and the like if owner or builder fail to keep the construction site clean or fails to keep mud and silt from the streets and Open Spaces. New or Revision House-Start ACC Application - $2,500 per application Submittal process: Current ACC application completely filled out, plot plan attached (no plans required), and a check per application mailed or delivered to the ACC. Revisions will be charged same as a new submittal. Master Plans ACC Submittal - $500 per package Submittal process: These packages usually occur when a builder enters a community, or changes product. All plans are to be submitted on ledger paper 11x16 or half size sets. Plans must include all elevations, roof pitch, brick/stone/stucco/siding percentages, and dimensional page for house width. Please include a submittal letter explaining the section(s) and specifics of the review. Mail or deliver the plan sets along with a check to the ACC. ***Plans are reviewed in advance by the ACC.*** Additional/New ACC Plan Review - $250 per plan Submittal process: Mail or deliver half size or 11x16 set of plans that include all elevations, roof pitch, brick/stone/stucco/siding percentages, and a dimensional page. Include a submittal letter describing the request along with a check per each plan to be reviewed to the ACC. Variance ACC Review - $250 per variance Submittal process: Variance request letters must include the legal address, street address, and a description of the variance, i.e. measurements, etc. Mail or deliver the letter and any supportive materials (plot plan) along with a check to the ACC. 26 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 ATTACHMENT1 ACC APPLICATION Deliver to: ACC c/o Address Date: Lot: Block: Phase: S ection: Plan #: Bedrooms: Baths: Address: Lot Plan Attached: (Please Circle) Yes/No 1st Floor Masonry % 2nd Floor Masonry % Chimney: (Please Circle) Yes/No Masonry Fiber Cement Fencing Type: _______________________________________________________________________ Stone Manufacturer and Color:_____________________________________________________________________________________ Brick Manufacturer and Color: Roof Pitch: Roof Color:______________ Roof Material: ________________ Paint Color: Fill in the information if different from color above Trim Color: Door Color: Shutters Color: Garage Color: Square Footage of House: House Width: __________________________________ Front Retaining Wall: (Please Circle) Yes/No Deck: Yes/No Patio: _______ square feet Comments: Builder Name/Contact Information: By: Approval Date: ATTACHMENT 2 27 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 ATTACHMENT 3 NORTH TEXAS PLANT LIST The following list should be used as a starting point for selecting plants in The Knolls. Requirements for specific Lots may be more or less restrictive depending on landscape indigenous to the immediate site and the location of the site within the Property. Canopy Trees at Street / Lot: Shumard Red Oak (Quercus shumardii) Live Oak (Quercus virginiana) Chinquapin Oak (Quercus muehlenbergii) Lacebark Elm (Ulmus parvifolia) Cedar Elm (Ulmus crassifolia) Allee Elm (Ulmus parvifolia ‘Emer II’) Texas Ash (Fraxinus texensis) White Ash (Fraxinus americana) Canopy Trees at Open Spaces: Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum) Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa) Lacey Oak (Quercus laceyi) Ornamental Trees: Desert Willow (Chilopsis linearis) Thornless Mesquite ( Mexican Plum (Prunus mexicana) Redbud (Redbud spp.) Yaupon Holly (Ilex vomitoria) Possomhaw Holly (Ilex decidua) Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana) Vitex (Vitex agnus) Crape Myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) Shrubs: Abelia spp. (Abelia) Cast Iron Plan (Aspidistra elatior) Coral Beauty Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster dammeri) Agarito (Mahonia trifoliolata) American Beautyberry (Callicarpa Americana) Apache Plume (Fallugia paradoxa) Autumn Sage (Salvia greggii) Dwarf Wax Myrtle (Myrica pussila) Flame Acanthus (Anisacanthus wrightii) Fragrant Sumac (Rhus aromatic) Pale Leaf Yucca (Yucca pallida) 28 THE KNOLLS AT SOLANA DESIGN GUIDELINES 4843-8343-7883v.2 59948-1 11/1/2016 Red Yucca (Hesperaloe parviflora) Smooth Sumac (Rhus glabra) Texas Barberry (Mahonia swaseyi) Texas Sage (Leucophyllum frutescens) Turk's Cap (Malvaviscus drummondii) Grasses: Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) Big Bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) Bushy Bluestem (Androphgon glomeratus) Eastern Gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides) Gulf Muhly (Muhlenbergia capillaris) Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans) Inland Seaoats (Chasmanthium latifolium) Lindheimer Muhly (Muhlenbergia lindheimeri) Little Bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) Perennials: Black Eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta) Blackfoot Daisy (Melampodium leucanthum) Blue Mist Flower (Eupatorium greggii) Butterfly Weed (Asclepias tuberosa) Cardinal Flower (Lobelia cardinalis) Coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolata) Fall Obedient Plant (Physostegia virginiana) Four-nerve Daisy (Hymenoxys scaposa) Fragrant Phlox (Phlox pilosa) Cedar Sage (Salvia roemeriana) Mealy Blue Sage (Salvia farinacea) Prairie Verbena (Verbena bipinnatifida) Purple Coneflower (Echinacea spp.) Rockrose (Pavonia lasiopetala) Ruellia (Ruellia spp.) Scarlet Sage (Salvia coccinea) Texas Lantana (Lantana horrida) Winecup (Callirhoe involuncrata) Yellow Columbine (Aquilegia spp.) Outdoor and athletic enthusiasts in Denver love The Meadows’ incline, a 200-step outdoor staircase that residents use to get a serious work out. kimley-horn.com 12750 Merit Drive, Suite 1000, Dallas, TX 75251 972-770-1300 Introduction The Knolls at Solana residential tract is a 65-lot subdivision located to the south of Solana Boulevard midblock between Sam School Road and Davis Boulevard in Westlake, Texas. The site will have two driveways, each forming intersections at existing median openings on Solana Boulevard. The East Drive will connect opposite the existing Trophy Woods Road serving the commercial property to the north of Solana Boulevard. The West Drive will connect opposite the existing Campus Circle, a street serving the same commercial property. This memo details the traffic generated from the Knolls at Solana and examines the need for a left-turn lane from Solana Boulevard to each of the proposed driveways. Projected Traffic Volumes The only available existing volumes for Solana Boulevard were collected in 2014 east of Sam School Road. The daily volume on Solana Boulevard just west of SH 114 was 9,411 vehicles per day. Because of the Sam School Road intersection between the counts and the residential site, the traffic volume on Solana Boulevard adjacent to the site is likely lower. The current daily volume is low for a six-lane arterial, but is expected to rise over time with further development in the region. Site-generated traffic estimates are determined through a process known as trip generation. Rates and equations are applied to the proposed land use to estimate traffic generated by the development during a specific time interval. The acknowledged source for trip generation rates is the 9th edition of Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). ITE has established trip rates in nationwide studies of similar land uses. The trips indicated are actually one- way trips or trip ends, where one vehicle entering and exiting the site is counted as one inbound trip and one outbound trip. The generated traffic from the proposed 65 lot subdivision is shown below in Table 1. The projected traffic is further divided between the two driveways, with the more major east driveway serving 43 lots or 66% of the total. The distribution of the site-generated traffic volumes into and out of the site driveways and onto the street system was based on the area street system characteristics, existing traffic patterns, and the locations of the proposed driveway access to/from the site. In general, 80% of MEMORANDUM To:Jennifer RabonWilbow Corporation From:Scot A.Johnson, P.E., PTOE Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date:July 24, 2017 Subject:Knolls at Solana - Westlake, Texas Left-Turn Warrant Analysis Jake M.Halter Page 2 kimley-horn.com 12750 Merit Drive, Suite 1000, Dallas, TX 75251 972-770-1300 the site traffic was assumed to travel to and from the east (i.e., SH 114). The resulting site generated traffic can be seen in Exhibit 1. Table 1 – Site Generated Traffic East Drive Left-Turn Lane The East Drive of the site is the major entrance point to the development. It serves the majority of the lots in the development and is the closer of the two driveways to SH 114. It also is proposed be opposite the major exit point of the office area across Solana Boulevard. The existing median width is the narrowest in the area, allowing for the storage of only 1 vehicle. Furthermore, the intersection is atypical, with two southbound left-turning lanes within the median, indicating a large demand for southbound left-turning movements when the office uses are departing. While the number of westbound left turns into the Knolls development is not large, there is a potential for conflicts between the residential and adjacent office traffic flows. The peak outbound office traffic flow will be occurring at the same time as the peak inbound residential traffic flow. With only one storage position within the median for each southbound left-turn lane, in the afternoon there will potentially be no available spot for the arriving residential vehicle to turn off of westbound Solana Boulevard. Due to this conflict, it is recommended to construct a minimum-length westbound left-turn lane at the East Drive. The lane will provide a useful buffer space to remove westbound left-turning Daily One-Way Trips IN OUT TOT AL IN OUT TOTAL Single Family Detached Housing - Total 65 DU 210 707 14 41 55 45 26 71 Single Family Detached Housing - East (66% of total)43 DU 210 468 9 27 36 30 17 47 Single Family Detached Housing - West (34% of total)22 DU 210 239 5 14 19 15 9 24 PM Peak Hour One-Way TripsLand Uses Amount Units ITE Code AM Peak Hour One-Way Trips 5 (3)4 (12)4 (12)7 (24) 2 (6)11 (7)1 (3)3 11 2 (6)5 22(2)(7)(3)(14) LEGEND:X (Y) X = Weekday AM Peak Hour Turning Movements(Y) = Weekday PM Peak Hour Turning MovementsEXHIBIT 1 Site-Generated Traffic Volumes Knolls at Solana - Westlake NotTo Scale NorthEastDriveSolana Boulevard WestDriveCampusCircleTrophyWoodsRoad Page 3 kimley-horn.com 12750 Merit Drive, Suite 1000, Dallas, TX 75251 972-770-1300 vehicles from Solana Boulevard, reducing the pressure for multiple vehicles to pack into the narrow median. West Drive Left-Turn Lane The West Drive of the site is the minor entrance point to the development, serving fewer lots and being further from SH 114 than its eastern counterpart. There are fewer conflicts at this intersection due to its wider median (approximately 60 feet or 2-3 vehicles), fewer through traffic lanes on Solana Boulevard, and the intersection arrangement is much simpler. The conflicting volume from the Campus Circle connection to the north is believed to be significantly less than that of the office connection at East Drive. With lower traffic demands and a larger maneuvering area within the median compared to East Drive, a westbound left-turn lane should not be required at West Drive. Summary The vehicle traffic generated by the Knolls at Solana Traffic residential neighborhood can comfortably be accommodated via its two driveways to Solana Boulevard. Due to the higher site volumes, the complexity of the intersection, and the higher amount of competing traffic, a left-turn lane is recommended to be constructed at East Drive. A left-turn lane should not be required for the West Drive. END Plan ElEmEnts: Parks, OPEn sPacE, and trails Plan 203 tween neighborhood trail heads (as described in the Town Structure Plan) and bike/ pedes-trian pathways to points of destination, such as shopping, working, and/ or schools. Town trails are meant to reduce locally generated vehicular trips and make the Town more pe-PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN Active/ Recreation Hybrid Passive High Preservation of Open Space/ Landscape Heritage Natural Preserves/ Landmark Landforms Rural Ranch Landscapes Connection Open Space Low Impact/Nature Trails Recreational Open Space Town Trails Neighborhood trails Community Park School Park Neighborhood Park Regional Trails Mini/ Urban Park Town Common/ Public Gathering Low DISCLAIMER: The open space configuration and land area thereof, shown on the Parks and Open Space Plan in no way modifies the open space illustrated by any approved PD Plan or represented by the language/standards of any PD Ordinance. In addition, the open space shown may be either public or private and an open space may not be available to public use or access. This open space configuration and land area is meant to be a guide to the Council in their review of development site plans submitted for their approval, requests by any property owner to amend/ revise any PD plan or PD Ordinance language, request a change of zoning, and/or requests to transfer commercial square footage from one land use district to another are submitted for Council approval (when the legal mechanism for such transfer has been adopted by the Town of Westlake). See Section C of the Implementation Plan for trig-ger points and other policy related information.The recreation and park facilities shown on the Parks and Open Space Plan in no way modifies the language of any approved PD Plan or Ordinance. The location of a public recreation or park facility is to be determined through a cooperative Town/ property owner process which takes place as site plans, requests for amendment of any existing Planned Development Ordinance, a request for rezoning, and/or requests to transfer commercial square footage from one land use district to another are submitted for Council approval (when the legal mechanism for such transfer has been adopted by the Town of Westlake). See Section C of the Implementation Plan for trigger points and other policy related information.Preservation of Open Space/Landscape HeritagePassive Open SpaceHybrid Open SpaceActive Open SpaceThe Parks, Open Space, and Trails Plan(s) is a vision of a connected and integrated natural fabric that preserves the natural assets and pastoral vistas of Westlake while providing the recreational opportunities necessary to serve the present and future population. There-fore, the Parks, Open Space and Trails Plan(s) for Westlake considers passive open spaces, whose primary effect is to preserve, active recreational parks, whose primary effect is to serve the recreational needs of the permanent and daytime population, and hybrid open spaces which have aspects of both preservation and recreation. More specifically, the types of Open Spaces and Trails presented in the Plan(s) include:Passive Open Spaces• Natural Preserves/ Landmark Landforms: Areas of relatively undisturbed landscape (sometimes a restored landscape) for the purpose of maintaining the presence and health of natural systems (such as water flow), tree and other vegetative communi-ties, and ecotone diversity.• Rural Ranch Landscapes: Areas of culturally significant and/ or historic agricultural activities that are part of the identity of Westlake.• Connection Open Space: Open space linkages between other open space areas that preserve the natural mosaic, create a harmonious merger between the pasto-ral and commercial communities, and provide visual continuity of the characteristic vista.Hybrid Open Spaces & Trails• Low Impact/ Nature Trails: Interpretative pathways are means of public access into natural preserves and other open areas where interpretation is offered. Nature trails are low impact, in terms of the disturbance they impose upon natural landscapes, and provide an opportunity for a civilized encounter with the natural condition.• Recreational Open Space: Open Areas used for outdoor recreational or decorative purposes. Recreational Open Spaces are developed open space amenities typically part of a development or a large project.• Town Trails: Primary pedestrian connection routes be-destrian friendly overall.• Neighborhood Trails: Collection networks within neighborhoods that gather household populations onto the Town Trail system. Neighborhood trails are typically privately developed as part of the residential develop-the Parks & oPen sPace Plan Plan ElEmEnts: land UsE Plan 167the land Use Planwith residential integrity, rural identity, town form, and commercial/residential rela-tionships. Therefore, the built characteristics of Land Use in Westlake should be in-fluenced by what Community Type is engaged and what View Condition is affected. Community Type expresses the desired built character of land use that should mani-fest in development of existing entitlements. View Condition expresses the magnitude (density and height) of land use that preserves the vista.Land Use Relationship to View Conditions: The View Analysis discussed in the Frame-work Plan section of this Comprehensive Plan identifies 5 view conditions as follows:1. Vista Point Zone: Sectors of Westlake from which the recognizable views, gen-erally considered typical of the Town, are attained. These are typically northerly views from areas from areas along, and south of, Dove Road. These elevations are generally higher than elevations along Highway 114. Views identified by Planning Workshop participants as characteristic of Westlake’s pastoral, pictur-esque, and rural identity are mostly seen from this zone and the view is toward the north.2. Vista Termini Zone: Areas of Westlake, generally north of Dove Road, where land elevations equal or exceed elevation 690 to 700 ft. above sea level and cre-ate promontory landforms that define the end point of any vista which includes them. In many cases, these are the land related objects viewed.3. Vista Shade Zone: Areas of Westlake, generally along Highway 114 and north of the vista termini (discussed above) that contain land elevations lower than 690 – 700 ft. above sea level and are largely obscured from view by these higher elevations in the foreground of any vista toward them.4. View Shed Zone: Areas of Westlake that are not visually screened or obscured by foreground land elevations and consequently lie within the vista attained from the Vista Point Zone.5. View Corridor Zone: Lineal views, usually along creek ways as they descend in a northerly direction that are attained from the Vista Point Zone. These views host the water bodies and wooded areas that are important visual assets of the Town.The proposed Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan Update builds from the Goals and Citizen Priority Statements as well as the Framework Plan. A key component of the Framework Plan is the View Analysis that expresses the geographic boundaries of citizen prioritization of pastoral, picturesque, and rural views (one of the primary themes and repeated concerns of citizen input). The Framework Plan further divides the 5 View Conditions into 3 Community Types (Pastoral Community, Town Com-munity, and Regional Community), thereby expressing the Citizen Priorities dealing LAND USE PLANDISCLAIMER: The land use districts shown on this map in no way modify the permitted uses and/ or conditions of use (FAR, building height, etc.) specified in any zoning or Planned Development Ordinance approved by the Town of Westlake. These land use districts are intended to guide the Council in their evaluation of site plans submitted for their approval and/ or property owner requests to transfer commercial square footage from one land use district to another when the legal mechanism for such transfer has been adopted by the Town of Westlake. See Policy Section A in the Implementation Document for rates of transfer, trigger points, and other implementation language. Views and Vista Define the Experience of Westlake 1 Ron Ruthven From:Larry Corson <> Sent:Monday, August 14, 2017 11:35 AM To:Tom Brymer; Ron Ruthven; Laura Wheat; Tim Brittan Cc:Chas Fitzgerald Subject:Fwd: Westlake - Solana Land Residential Development ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brad Branch (US - TAX) <> Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:31 AM Subject: Fwd: Westlake - Solana Land Residential Development To: Larry, Please see below: Due to some previous commitments and travel requirements I am unable to attend the P&Z meeting on Monday night, August 14. Please consider this letter/note as support of myself and my wife of the proposed Knolls at Solana, a planned residential community of 65 luxury villa homes located on approximately 62 acres on Solana Boulevard near Sam School Road. It is my understanding and expectation that this project and and related community will meet or exceed the Westlake building standards and provide new and existing residents a unique housing option. We have recently moved into the home we built on Carlyle Court in Westlake which is near this proposed project. I believe it is essential that Westlake and this proposed project should provide differing housing options. I live in a rather large house on approximately 1.7 acres. I am in my mid 40's and anticipate being in my current house for several years, but at some point we will begin our transition to retirement. This transition will include moving to a smaller house with both a smaller lot size and a different level of both amenities and maintenance requirements. A project like the one proposed would be something that we would welcome as this fits with our long term retirement plans and objectives. This would be something that would keep us in Westlake for years to come. Having differing housing alternatives and levels is important in terms of providing the greatest flexibility to the residents of Westlake as our community matures. I have not lived her long, but certainly the level of new construction is high and seemingly focused on larger lot sizes and larter residences. This new project would provide a great balance and a compelling alternative for the residents of Westlake. It's out understanding that the land is currently zoned for office use which could include a parking garage and other elements that would reduce the open space in this area. This is not the type of development that we support. The elimination of the open space associated with this proposed use would require significant changes to the existing landscape and the elimination of far too many trees to make sense to us. Changing the zoning of the property to residential use is a much preferred option. Solana Knolls is a unique development and having only one home per acre density just makes more sense. This will maximize the amount of open space and provide the best option in terms of visual appeal. I wish my travel schedule permitted me to attend in person to stress the importance that we feel in terms of the Solana Knolls 2 project. I strongly recommend each of you to support this proposed development and bring something truly unique to the Town of Westlake. Regards, Brad & Betsy Branch 1702 Carlyle Court Westlake The content of this email is limited to the matters specifically addressed herein and is not intended to address other potential tax consequences or the potential application of tax penalties to this or any other matter. The information transmitted, including any attachments, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited, and all liability arising therefrom is disclaimed. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is a Delaware limited liability partnership. This communication may come from PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP or one of its subsidiaries. 1 Ron Ruthven From:Pacillio, Mike <com> Sent:Wednesday, August 9, 2017 2:41 PM To:Tom Brymer; Ron Ruthven; Robin McCaffery; Tim Brittan; Michelle Lee; ; Wayne Stoltenberg; Alesa Belvedere; ; Rick Rennhack; Carol Langdon Subject:Town of Westlake - Solana Boulevard Zoning Request Due to my business travel schedule I am unable to attend the P&Z meeting on Monday night, August 14. I am writing this letter in support of the proposed Knolls at Solana, a planned residential community of 65 luxury villa homes located on approximately 62 acres on Solana Boulevard near Sam School Road. It is my understanding that this community will meet or exceed Westlake building standards and provide new and existing residents a unique housing option. As a property owner and resident of Westlake since 2005, I believe it is essential that the community have multiple housing options. I live in a rather large house on approximately 1.5 acres in Vaquero. As I age, taking care of a big house and large lot becomes less and less appealing to me. When I downsize in the next couple of years, the proposed villa homes is the product type and location that appeals to me….strict design guidelines, plenty of open space, hike and bike trail, preserved heritage post oak trees, walkable to the restaurants and shops at Solana and soon to be Entrada as well as being a gated community for at least some sense of security….located in my beloved town of Westlake a quick drive to the golf course and social activities my family enjoys at Vaquero. It is my understanding the land is currently zoned for office use which could include surface parking. That type of development would require mass grading and tree removal to accommodate much larger building footprints and surface parking areas that diminish the unique aesthetics of the property. Down zoning the property to residential use is a much preferred option. Solana Knolls is truly one of the most unique developments of its kind in the country having only one home per acre density while providing abundant natural open space to be maintained by the community HOA and a carefree lifestyle for the individual homeowners. I urge each of you to support this proposed development and bring something truly unique to the Town of Westlake. Respectfully, Mike Pacillio 2209 Vaquero Estates Blvd. Westlake, TX 76262 1 Ron Ruthven From:Lawrence Corson <> Sent:Friday, August 11, 2017 1:02 PM To:Tom Brymer; Ron Ruthven; Kelly Edwards Subject:Westlake - Solana Land Support Letter From: Paul Conn [mailto:] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 11:30 AM To: Chas Fitzgerald <> Subject: Re: Westlake community To Whom it may concern: My name is Paul Conn a retired builder of 37yrs,mostly building in Southlake and Vaquero.Unfortunately I will be out of town Monday night when the Town Hall/P&Z meeting takes place concerning The Knolls At Solana.My wife and I are empty nesters and are very interested in building in a villa type subdivision like this,and believe the demand will be high.Many of our friends in Southlake,Trophy Club,and Vaquero are or will soon be looking to down size to a nice,safe,quiet,and affordable area such as this. I feel that a unique subdivision like this is needed,will benefit the city,and will be a great home location for older residents. Thx for your time... Paul Conn ....... Conn‐Anderson Custom Homes Tuscany American Homes Bristol Classic Homes From: To: Subject:Opposition to Case No. Z-06019-17 Date:Monday, August 14, 2017 12:27:27 PM Mayor Wheat and Westlake Town Council members, This letter is to document our opposition to the proposed re-zoning of land asdetailed in Case No. Z-06019-17. We live at 1601 Sleepy Hollow Court in theGlenWyck Farms neighborhood. We have lived in Westlake for over 5 years and are against the re-zoning as during those 5 years Westlake has been slowly losing its unique appeal and value piece by piece. Where we once had Longhorns as a visual reminder of the towns unique appeal, we have construction and disruption to existing residents. Where we once had undisturbed fields and trees we have barrenlandscape making way for commercial properties and high volume townhomes aspart of Entrada. Change is something that we all must deal with however I muststress that the way Westlake goes about deciding and implementing change when ithas an obvious negative impact on the existing residents that have funded theinfrastructure and upgrades to the town is unacceptable. Any new development thatnegatively impacts the well being or financial positions of EXISTING residents must be denied. Additional townhomes (beyond those that have already been approved for Entrada)will have a negative impact on existing residents, town infrastructure, traffic,Westlake Academy, etc. We supported the Entrada development since it would notimpact existing homeowners, AND we are told that those Townhomes were the onlymulti-family dwellings that would be approved for Westlake. We would like you to reject the proposed re-zoning and respect the interests of your existing residents vs. opening up new conflicts to benefit a developer that has nopast or future personal stake in our community. Thank you. Tom and Kristen Ducatelli 1601 Sleepy Hollow Court Westlake, TX 76262 -- Tom Ducatelli cell From: To: Subject:We are opposed to Wilbow"s requested zoning change in connection with the Open Space Land to the North of Glenwyck Farms Subdivision. Date:Wednesday, August 9, 2017 12:41:11 AM Dear Ron Ruthven, Council members and P&Z Board Members: Tim Brittan Liz Garvin Greg Goble Ryan Groce Michelle Lee Sharon Sanden (Alternate Member) Ken Kraska (Alternate Member) Good evening, I am writing on behalf of myself and my husband. We both completely oppose the request to rezone and clear cut open space east of Granada and North of Glenwyck Farms for townhomes. We have been a resident in Glenwyck Farms since 2013 and moved here due to the pristine and beautiful nature of the neighborhood. Westlake offers everything a family could want, ample green space, big lots, parks, running trails, beautiful homes, an amazing school, fantastic neighbors, and a master plan that maintains all of the above attributes. We were happy when the town developed a plan to protect green space. We were aware that the area near us was owned by other interests but were also aware that this was intended for commercial interests and had a 500 ft. area that protected us from other homes. Furthermore, there were tree ordinances that were meant to make clearing that area very expensive. Westlake also had no townhomes and this meant less dense neighborhoods, less traffic and a protection of property value. All of this now seems to be at risk. The development of town homes would severely depreciate our homes since it will be easier to move here and go to Westlake academy. The new state laws may prohibit towns for enforcing tree ordinances so that protection would disappear. Also, there have been well known issues regarding the protection of the 500ft space behind Glenwyck Farms. It has not appeared that the city has acted on behalf of its citizens thus far. I quite frankly see no good reason to allow for rezoning of this land. It will not benefit residents living in Westlake currently to have the above space zoned for residential purposes. The commercial interests who purchased the land knew that it was zoned for commercial reasons and only want to rezone for their personal financial gain. It is not our responsibility to help them out. It is the city’s responsibility to work to the best interests of its citizens. Please do the right thing and maintain this beautiful community that has taken years to position as something unique unlike any other community in the DFW metroplex. We appreciate you taking the time to read this letter, and TRUST you will do the right thing for Westlake as a whole. Our little community is special and worth preserving. Once again, please do the right thing and vote no to zoning change. Sincerely, Michelle and Paul Phillips From: To: Cc: Subject:Re: Comprehensive Opposition Letter in Protest to Wilbow"s Zoning Change Request (Z-06-19-17) Date:Sunday, October 1, 2017 8:17:31 PM By this point i am sure that you have received the comprehensive protests and support letters from westlake residents outlining the very compelling reasons why the zoning change should NOT be allowed on the property which was designated as open land behind glenwyck farms off of Broken Bend. On behalf of my husband (Dr. Bhatia) and myself (Parvinder Bhatia), residents of 1617 Fair oaks drive, we wish to express our concern and protest any attempt to change the zoning. There is no good reason to allow any high density housing in this upscale family community. The reasons to NOT allow the zoning change are compelling and must be listened to. Considering the fact that a majority , if not all , of Westlake residents who are aware of the intended zoning change are opposed to any such zoning change, any outcome otherwise would be contrary to the will and wishes of Westlake residents for whom the town council and committees exist to serve. There are ample other areas where people can have an "urban lifestyle" if they wish to. Sincerely, Parvinder Bhatia Sent from my iPhone On Oct 1, 2017, at 7:19 PM, Mohan, Joseph l. <> wrote: The Mohan family 1806 Copperfield Ct also supports the attached. Let's keep Westlake the amazing community it is. Thanks Mayor Wheat for all you do! On Oct 1, 2017, at 3:23 PM, Stef Mauler <> wrote: Mayor Wheat, Town Council Members, P&Z Commission Members: Attached, please find a letter that reflects our opposition to Wilbow’s Zoning Change Request in connection with the Open Space Land (Z-06-19-17). We appreciate your thorough consideration in this critical matter. Mike and Stef Mauler 1855 Broken Bend Dr. From: Neil McNabnay [] Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2017 11:35 AM To: Subject: RE: Comprehensive Opposition Letter in Protest to Wilbow's Zoning Change Request (Z-06-19-17) Mayor Wheat, Town Council Members, P&Z Commission Members, Tom, and Ron: We understand that the P&Z Commission members have not received our August and September emails, Protest Petitions, and Comprehensive Opposition Letters in opposition to Wilbow’s Zoning Change Request in connection with the Open Space Land (Z-06-19-17). Now that the P&Z Commission members have been assigned Town of Westlake email addresses, I am re-sending my Protest Petition and Comprehensive Opposition Letter to each of you (attached). Thanks! Neil J. McNabnay Head of Litigation – Dallas Principal <image001.jpg>Fish & Richardson P.C. 1717 Main Street, Suite 5000 Dallas, TX 75201 www.fr.com <image002.png> Click to read the article From: Neil McNabnay Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 3:26 PM To: ' Subject: Comprehensive Opposition Letter in Protest to Wilbow's Zoning Change Request (Z-06-19-17) Mayor Wheat, Town Council Members, P&Z Commission Members, Tom, and Ron: Following up on my August 8, 2017 protest to Wilbow’s requested zoning change in connection with the Open Space Land (62.58 acre portion of Lot 1, Block 3 Westlake/Southlake Park #1), please find attached a Comprehensive Opposition Letter detailing the reasons for protest. Thanks! From: Neil McNabnay Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 12:27 PM To: Ron Ruthven <rruthven@westlake-tx.org> Cc: Neil McNabnay < Subject: Protest of Wilbow's Zoning Change Request (Z-06-19-17) Ron: Please find attached my protest to Wilbow’s requested zoning change in connection with the Open Space Land (62.58 acre portion of Lot 1, Block 3 Westlake/Southlake Park #1). Thanks! Neil J. McNabnay Head of Litigation – Dallas Principal <image001.jpg>Fish & Richardson P.C. 1717 Main Street, Suite 5000 Dallas, TX 75201 www.fr.com <image002.png> Click to read the article **************************************************************************************************************************** This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privilegedinformation. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, pleasecontact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. **************************************************************************************************************************** <Protest Petition Mauler 1855 Broken Bend Dr..docx> NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient, please do not read, distribute, or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify me immediately by return email and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer. From: To: Cc: Subject:REZONING REQUEST - GLENWYCK GRANADA Date:Tuesday, August 8, 2017 11:08:24 AM Dear Neighbors and Elected Officials: I appreciate the opportunity to share our experiences of living in Westlake and our opposition to the proposed re zoning of the property abutting our home. Just under a year ago, we made the decision to buy our home at 1806 Copperfield Ct. We had spent the past ten years outside of the United States and were anxious to get back to a country of law, order and trust. Several fellow executives at American Airlines had recommended Southlake as a place with wonderful homes, a strong local government and great schools. As such, when we came in for a long weekend to find our home we were greatly disappointed when after a few days of extensive searching we were unable to find the right fit. Thankfully, on our last day in town, the realtor suggested we expand our search to include Westlake. On our last half day in town we were shown two homes in Glenwyck, and we immediately knew we had found exactly what we wanted. Westlake offered everything a family could want, ample green space, big lots, parks, running trails, beautiful homes, an amazing school, fantastic neighbors, and a master plan that maintained all of the above attributes. As I mentioned previously, we moved from a third world country where neither law or trust goes far, and as such we did unfortunately have a view of "when something is too good to be true, it probably is." When I saw the amazing green space behind our home I could only assume that it would be developed eventually. As such before we finalized the purchase of our home, we did our due diligence and requested a review of the zoning of the property. To our great comfort, after learning that there was indeed a 500' set back, we made the seven figure decision and bought our home. It was with profound disappointment that we only later came to find out about the law suit and proposed rezoning. Our euphoria of finding our dream home and neighborhood came crashing down in one instance. In all honesty, if we had been aware of the rezoning proposal and lawsuit, we would not have purchased our home, nor any, in Westlake. I apologize for the length of this letter, but this is our home, not our house, not an investment but our HOME. More importantly this is our community, and as such warrants a full say. I leave you with a few points to consider as you make your decisions. My job is complicated in that I negotiate complex agreements across the globe. At some point, you reach the point where the commercial agreements are agreed to and you turn things over to the lawyers. That is where things get interesting, lawyers will find a hundred ways of why the other side is wrong. Now please let me clarify, I have no issue with lawyers, quite to the contrary. More to my point is that at some juncture you simply have to trust the other party, particularly when you are building a long-term relationship. When we made the decision to be part of Westlake it was trusting in a community, for the long-term. Now I don't doubt that Blackstone feels they have a strong legal position to develop the property as they see fit, most notably eliminating the setback. Equally, our counsel feels strongly that they cannot. Ultimately however this comes down to trust. Can not just the residents of Glenwyck, but all the residents of Westlake trust in our elected officials? If you rezone our area today, then precedent is set to rezone everywhere. When trust is violated a community breaks down, and if that happens this amazing dream of Westlake breaks down. I understand that ultimately we are talking about property values, but this goes far beyond that. We made a decision to purchase, like everyone before us in Westlake, based in respect for zoning laws that preserve our community. If that trust is broken this town will never be the same. That not only harms everyone's home values, but it violates something far deeper, a sense of common trust and community. Please do the right thing and maintain this beautiful community that has taken years to position as something unique, novel and frankly better. We have the best town in North Texas, who knows maybe all of Texas, so lets not throw that away in one bad decision that would put us on a path to irreparable harm. I appreciate you taking the time to read this letter, and I TRUST you will do the right thing for Westlake as a whole. It is special and worth preserving. Thanks to all you for representing us as elected officials. I know you do not do it for the money, but more importantly to represent the best interests of your neighbors. We owe you gratitude for that, good luck in making the right decision. Thanks Joe, Maria, Francis, Mica, Emily, Pilar, and Sean Mohan **************************************************************************************************************************** <![endif]--> NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient, please do not read, distribute, or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify me immediately by return email and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer. From: To: Cc: Subject:Please deny zoning request to clear cut and level open space land in Westlake Date:Sunday, August 6, 2017 5:48:28 PM Dear Ron Ruthven, Council members and P&Z Board Members: Tim Brittan Liz Garvin Greg Goble Ryan Groce Michelle Lee Sharon Sanden (Alternate Member) Ken Kraska (Alternate Member) I am writing on behalf of myself and my wife. We both completely oppose the request to rezone and clear cut open space east of Granada and North of Glenwyck Farms for townhomes. We have been in Glenwyck Farms since 2009 and moved here due to the pristine and beautiful nature of the neighborhood. We were happy when the town developed a plan to protect green space. We were aware that the area near us was owned by other interests but were also aware that this was intended for commercial interests and had a 500 ft area that protected us from other homes. Furthermore, there were tree ordinances that were meant to make clearing that area very expensive. Westlake also had no townhomes and this meant less dense neighrborhoods, less traffic and a protection of property value. All of this now seems to be at risk. The development of town homes would severely depreciate our homes since it will be easier to move here and go to Westlake academy. The new state laws may prohibit towns for enforcing tree ordinances so that protection would disappear. Also, there have been well known issues regarding the protection of the 500ft space behind glenwyck farms. It has not appeared that the city has acted on behalf of its citizens thus far. There seems to be no good reason to allow for rezoning of this land. It will not help anyone living in Westlake currently to have this be zoned for residential purposes. The commercial interests who purchased the land knew that it was zoned for commercial reasons and only want to rezone for their personal financial gain. It is not our responsibility to help them out. It is the city’s responsibility to work to the best interests of its citizens. Sincerely Yair and Sandra Lotan Professor Chief of Urologic Oncology Holder of the Helen J. and Robert S. Strauss Professorship in Urology UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas Department of Urology 5323 Harry Hines Blvd. J8.122 Dallas, Texas 75390-9110 Ph: Fax: www.utsouthwestern.edu/urology UT Southwestern Medical Center The future of medicine, today. From: To: Cc: Subject:Opposition to Land Rezoning, clean cutting and reduction of open space Date:Saturday, August 5, 2017 10:14:07 AM Ladies and Gentlemen, We are writing to express our ardent opposition to the request to rezone the area to the North of Glenwyck Farms and reduce the setback and clear cut trees in the area. We moved to Westlake in 2006 for the pastoral atmosphere and the beautiful area. Also, we liked the restrictions that required significant space for houses. Most of the houses in the area where we live are have ~ 1 acre (or larger) lots by requirement. This atmosphere appealed to us greatly; we thought the zoning requirements of our community would protect this atmosphere for the future. Unfortunately, we hear that the developer of the property to the North of our property (1814 Broken Bend Drive) wants to build reduce the setback between our properties, clear cut some of the trees adjoining our neighborhood and introduce town homes to the area adjoining our neighborhood. We ask that you deny this request. We feel such a change will damage the ambiance of our property...and substantially reduce the value of our property. In honesty, we can see no value in this request for either current or future residents. Obviously, we can't know the motivation of those who make this request...but our suspicion is the motivation is profit for the developers and builders. We feel this will only be detrimental to current and future residents. Please...just say no. My wife and I will be present for your upcoming meeting to consider this request. We request you consider our points of view before the meeting, and please give us time to express our concerns at this meeting. Please do not contribute to changing the community we moved to for what it is...don't make it like other places in the Metroplex that we don't like or value. Also, could you forward our points of view to Planning and Zoning Board Members: Tim Brittan Liz Garvin Greg Goble Ryan Groce Michelle Lee Sharon Sanden (Alternate Member) Ken Kraska (Alternate Member) We do not have access to their email addresses, but would like for them to know of our thoughts as they consider this request. If you have questions about our thoughts on this matter, please contact us by this email or you may phone us at the number in the signature below. Thank you for your consideration. And please help us keep Westlake - Glenwyck - Granda - the communities we love. Sincerely, Linda & Denny Iker 1814 Broken Bend Dr Westlake, TX 76262 Ph: 1 Ron Ruthven From:Neil McNabnay <> Sent:Monday, August 7, 2017 4:37 PM To: Cc: Subject:RE: Westlake - Solana Land Rezoning Request Larry: Thanks for the additional information about Wilbow’s request for rezoning of the Open Space Land. When we last met, Wilbow was proposing to build 2,000 s.f. residences on ¼ acre lots. Although the square footage is not specified in the Zoning Change Objection package received from the Town today, we understand that Wilbow is now seeking to build somewhat larger residences (3,000 to 6,000 s.f. range) on ¼ acre lots, which will result in even greater density. Whether it is the original plan or Wilbow’s new plan, both plans: 1. Violate the 500ft setback on the North Side of Glenwyck Farms and the East Side of Granada, 2. Result in clear cutting of the Open Space Land, the entirety of which is designated to be open space pursuant to the Town’s Comprehensive and Land Use Plans, 3. Result in the Open Space Land’s ‘knoll” (hill), which serves as a view shed and noise barrier pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, being shaved down, 4. Result in dense housing that inconsistent with the housing in Glenwyck Farms and Granada, and 5. Result in multi-story housing that is positioned to directly overlook the yards of Glenwyck Farms and Granada homeowners due to the fact that the Open Space Land is elevated upwards of 30 feet over the Glenwyck Farms and Granada residences. To address some of your statements below for accuracy purposes: 1. Wilbow’s plan violates the Town’s Comprehensive and Land Use Plans and does not provide more open space than that provided by these Plans because both Plans designate all of the Open Space Land as open space. As we have previously discussed, the bulk of the open space provided by Wilbow’s plan is in an area outside of the Open Space Land and in an “unbuildable” area (as you described it) by the Solana Health Club and not near the 500ft Glenwyck Farms and Granada setback areas. 2. Based on Wilbow’s original design plan, and the new plan, there is significant clear cutting of the Open Space Land. There is no other way to make room for the proposed residences, yards, and streets. 2 3. With respect to the proposal to build Townhomes, when we met, Wilbow proposed 2,000 s.f., residences on ¼ acre lots, and we talked about how the project would be similar to Townhomes in Southlake Town Square. It appears now that Wilbow would like to increase the size of the residences but still build them on small lots, resulting in an even denser development. Also, Wilbow’s request for rezoning seeks to build “primarily” single family residences, which leaves open the door to other types of dense housing in addition to that which is already specifically disclosed. 4. You indicate below that the project is not multi-story housing, yet in the same sentence you acknowledge that the proposed residences will be 2 stories. Multiple stories plus the elevation of the Open Space Land over Glenwyck Farms and Granada means that the proposed residences will be looking into the back yards of Glenwyck Farms and Granada homeowners. 5. You indicate below that the proposed setback for Glenwyck Farms is 175ft, but in the Zoning Change Objection package received from the Town, the proposed Glenwyck setback is designated as 150ft. Please feel free to give me a call. As we previously discussed, we would be happy to further talk with you about respecting the Glenwyck Fams and Granada 500ft setbacks and the potential to build homes consistent with Glenwyck Farms and Granada on the Open Space Land. Glenwyck Farms and Granada residents purchased their properties with the 500ft setback protection built into the price, and to remove it now will result in a property value loss. If the Glenwyck Farms and Granada 500ft setbacks are not respected as a part of Wilbow’s plan, then we must object. Thanks! Neil J. McNabnay Head of Litigation – Dallas Principal Fish & Richardson P.C. 1717 Main Street, Suite 5000 Dallas, TX 75201 www.fr.com Click to read the article From: Lawrence Corson [] Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 11:57 AM To: 3 Subject: Westlake ‐ Solana Land Rezoning Request My name is Larry Corson and I’m the Co‐President of Wilbow Corporation who recently submitted a rezoning application to the Town of Westlake for the 62.5 acre parcel of land in Solana that fronts on Solana Boulevard and Sam School Road. I am also a long time resident of Westlake (14+ years), a former Town Council member and Mayor Pro‐Tem. My kids attended Westlake Academy, and our family has been actively involved in Town activities dating back to the early 2000’s. I care deeply about Westlake and its future. Wilbow Corporation is a private company that has been involved in residential development in DFW for almost 30 years. We completed the development of Granada and its final phase. We have also developed high end communities in Southlake, Colleyville, and Flower Mound. There has been significant inaccurate information disseminated about our land use application and I’d like to correct it. I’d also like to encourage all of you to attend the upcoming P&Z Meeting on August 14 at 6:00 pm so that you can see for yourself what we are proposing and come to your own conclusion as to its appropriateness for the Town and for the site. I have met with many of you since we started this process nine months ago and over that time, we have refined our development plan to take into account comments from Town staff, neighbors, and the market. What is The Knolls at Solana? It is a proposal to create a gated, private street community of 65 luxury villa homes. The home site dimensions are the same as the Villas in Vaquero. The homes have both minimum and maximum size requirements (3,000 and 6,000 square feet). The Design Guidelines were based on the Vaquero Design Guidelines and call for 100% masonry, barrel tile, slate, or contemporary flat roofs, and a high level of architectural articulation. Projected pricing of the homes is $1.2 to $1.7 million. The proposed builders are the same custom builders that have built in Vaquero, Granada and soon to be in Quail Hollow. To be clear, this project, The Knolls at Solana, is not townhomes. It never was and to suggest that Wilbow or Blackstone represented it as such is simply false. The homes are not multi‐story. The Design Guidelines that we have submitted call for the same height limitation as is required at Granada and Vaquero. As a further limitation, the second floor of any home can be no more than 50% of the size of the first floor. Homes at The Knolls at Solana are not proposed to be a 100 foot setback from Glenwyck and Granada residences. In the case of Glenwyck, the setback proposed is 175 feet. For Granada, it is 150 feet plus the public trail zone of an additional 65 feet. The development of The Knolls at Solana does not call for mass grading or clearing of the site. The plan calls for the general topography of the site to be retained with development limited solely to the streets with the streets designed to allow for the topography (the knolls) to be featured prominently. 4 The development plan of The Knolls at Solana calls for 37.2 acres of open space, more open space than what is called for in the Comprehensive Plan that was approved in 2014. Further, the setback areas adjacent to Glenwyck and Granada have been designated as non‐development buffer zones that will be left untouched. I know it is easy to be suspicious of real estate developers. I also know that it is keenly important to each and every one of you that your property values are protected and that Westlake is developed in a manner that is of the highest quality. Come to the meeting on the 14th and we will go into great detail of what is proposed for The Knolls at Solana. And you are welcome to call me directly if you would like to talk privately. My cell phone number is . Thanks, Larry Corson Lawrence A. Corson | Co‐President Wilbow Corporation | www.wilbow.com 4131 N. Central Expressway | Suite 990, Lockbox 13 | Dallas, TX 75204 Office: | Mobile: CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential; intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender and you are hereby instructed to delete all electronic copies and destroy all printed copies. *************************************************************************************************** ************************* This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. *************************************************************************************************** ************************* From: To: Subject:Opposition to Wilbow"s request for zoning change of Open Space property north of Glenwyk Farm Date:Monday, August 7, 2017 10:21:43 PM Dear Westlake Planning & Zoning Committee members, I am the newest property owner in Glenwyk Farm having purchased 1817 Broken Bend Drive on July 26, 2017. Much attracted my family to Westlake in general and the property on Broken Bend Drive in particular. Westlake is the exception among many poor examples of irresponsible development in the 'concrete jungle' that the DFW area has become. It is precisely the respect for open space, responsible control of growth, and the concern for quality of life for its residents that distinguishes our town from ALL others. What a pity it would be to jeopardize our Town's advantage! The Entrada development and plan for high-density housing and retail presented in a lovely architectural design will offer diversity of housing choices without impacting current residents who appreciate and support preserving the open space in question. I understand the need for growth and development in a community; however, adding high-density housing at the expense of the beautiful treed land in Town only detracts from the unique beauty of Westlake. If I wanted to live where intersections are congested, and where vistas are of rooftops not treetops I would live in a neighboring community. Please consider this precedent-setting decision you will be making for your friends and neighbors. Protect what makes Westlake the prettiest and best Town in which to live with a vote to deny a change in zoning. Respectfully, Walt and Judy Havenstein From: To: Cc: Subject:Opposition to Zoning Change Request Z-06-19-17 Date:Thursday, October 5, 2017 11:41:20 AM Dear Ron, and Planning and Zoning Commissioners: In a Town like Westlake growth and development are to be expected, and in fact, encouraged, in my view. Because Westlake is a small town, these decisions affect residents and their homes in a uniquely personal way, and I appreciate your efforts to 'get it right' each time a proposal is brought before you. The current zoning change request seems to benefit a developer over town residents in both direct and indirect ways. As a property owner in both Glenwyck (1817 Broken Bend Drive ) and Vaquero (2211 Cedar Elm Terrace) I have yet to hear of ANY advantage to the Town should 65 villas be built on the only remaining open space in the Solana area. The negatives to the zoning change are significant: 1. Our neighbors in Glenwyck and Granada are directly impacted as beautiful land behind their homes, as well as a significant sound barrier is destroyed. These residents , many of whom paid a lot premium to live adjoining open space , have long understood that the Town's Comprehensive Plan identifies this land as open space, and a 500' setback has been designated. 2. The homes planned are inconsistent with other homes in the neighborhood, and thus other ares in Westlake might be a better fit for high- density homes. 3. There will be more than 300 villa type homes in Entrada, a mixed-use plan. Adding 65 homes in the very same area would make a significant glut in the marketplace resulting in decreased re-sale values for Vaquero villas. Most importantly, the very people, our neighbors, who are most impacted by this zoning request are opposed to the plan as proposed. Our town is small enough that their voices matter, their concerns are the Town's concerns as decisions are made with regard to growth and development in Westlake. Please consider their position, and mine, as you move forward on the zoning change request. Respectfully, Judy Havenstein Sent from my iPad From: To: Cc: Subject:Westlake Zoning Changes Date:Wednesday, August 9, 2017 4:19:31 PM Dear Planning and Zoning Committee and Town Council I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Zoning changes to the 500 foot setback to the North of Glenwyck Farms We purchased our home in Glenwyck in 2015 with a desire to be part of and contribute to the wonderful community of Westlake. One of the major appeals of Westlake was the residential zoning configuration of large lot sizes and green spaces with abundant trees. The configuration fosters a tranquil sense of community that promotes outdoor activity and networking with neighbors while also respecting the privacy and property rights of homeowners. We purchased our home with the knowledge that zoning laws provided a 500 foot setback behind our property which effectively insulated us from any visual or auditory impact of future development. There has been much debate and consternation over the terminology of this "space." I am not an attorney, and frankly could not care less about the distinction between a "green space" vs. a "set back" or whatever other terms have been parsed and warped in the zoning language to subvert the original intent of the zoning laws. The intended purpose of this space is abundantly clear to any honest person with the courage and integrity to look beyond their own political or financial motivation. The clear facts are that the long-standing zoning plan for Westlake definitively specified there to be a 500 ft space north of Glenwyck Farms that was immune to precisely the type of development that Wilbow is currently requesting. I can not comprehend how any fair minded person can deny that to be the intent of the original (and current) zoning ordinances. I can not comprehend how an elected or appointed official who has accepted the fiduciary responsibility to represent the interests of Westlake residents could advocate for or allow the proposed zoning change. I therefore stand with my friends and neighbors to strongly oppose the re-zoning request. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. David Riley, MD MBA 1821 Broken Bend Drive Westlake 76262 From: To: Cc:Tom Brymer Subject:Opposition to Case No. Z-06-19-17 Date:Friday, August 11, 2017 8:01:33 AM Westlake Director of Planning & Development, Town Council, and Planning & Zoning Commission Members, I am writing this letter to express my staunch opposition to the proposed re-zoning as reflected in Case No. Z-06019-17. I purchased my home at 1823 Broken Bend Drive in April 2014. I fell in love the house for two reasons. The floor plan and layout fit our family perfectly and it had this amazing backyard that was completely private. I found out that the beautifully wooded property behind my house was zoned for commercial purposes and there was a 500’ building setback and yard. Thus, when I realized that any development of the property would be on the other Solana Boulevard side of the knoll, I purchased the home notwithstanding the significant lot premium. Since closing on our home, we have found the Glenwyck community to be a wonderful place to raise our kids, our neighbors to be friendly, genuine people who bring great joy to our lives, Walnut Grove to be an exceptional educational environment for our son, and the Town of Westlake government to be an absolute nightmare. In the three years, I have lived on Broken Bend, the Town of Westlake has (a) attempted to put into the Thoroughfare Plan, a road that would abut our back fence line, (b) made an administrative error that eliminated the protection that we enjoyed from development of the Solana OpenSpace property vis-a-vis the 500’ setback and yard, (c) considered allowing Hillwood to build 325 apartments, (d) argued that a “parking lot exception” exists with respect to our 500’ setback and yard that would allow Blackstone to build a surface parking lot up to 10’ off of our back fence line, and (e) finally, support a zoning change request that would not only eliminate our 500’ setback and yard, but would increase overall density on Blackstone’s remaining property by removing the 62.5 acre Solana Open Space property from the restrictive conditions of PD1-1. If this wasn’t enough and for good measure, the Town will also eviscerate the diverse and wonderful animal population that currently makes its habitat in the Solana Open Space property. I say well done because incompetence on this level is rarely found. On February 29, 2016, Mayor Wheat acting on the direction and authority of the Town Council, sent each and every one of the 83 households in Glenwyck Farms a personally signed letter. The salient points of the letter are as follows: "It is important to understand that the newly revised Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Town Council in 2015, designates as Open Space the whole 62.5 acre tract of land of which the Glenwyck Setback is a part. See Attachment B. Although current entitlements on this 62.5 acre tract allow development, the Open Space designation is a signal to future developers that the Town will be pushing for the space to remain open and unimproved should the developer request any sort of zoning change (emphasis added) In the event a future developer does not agree to the Open Space designation and desires to develop the property, it is important to know that the very nature of the Solana Planned Development District gives the Town many strong tools to heavily regulate the manner in which the property can be developed. These tools range from requiring preservation of view corridors, to requiring the preservation of trees, to limiting the footprint and place of any structures and all improvements and to things as simple as the placement of trash cans” Wilbow Development has submitted a request to rezone the 62.5 acre Open Space property into 65 Carillon-like villas that we will call the “Knolls at Solana”. I find it ironic that this name was chosen because the knoll that I enjoy as a property owner, acts as a beautiful view shed and a noise barrier from Highway 114, but Wilbow with the Town’s blessing will shave down the knoll some 20 feet and afterwards, it will represent little more than a bump. I guess the name the “Bump at Solana” did not have the same marketing cache. The Town staff has recommended approval of this project, but I’m certain that is because they were unaware of the written commitment and promises made by Mayor Wheat and the Town Council members as expressed in the February 29, 2016, letter. This project, if approved, does the following: 1. Removes the Solana Open Space property from PD1 and therefore, all of the development and zoning conditions that protect the Town that are embedded in Ordinances 202, 588, and 691 would no longer apply to the property. 2. Blackstone, who has been unwilling to engage with the Town in a comprehensive discussion and solution to their property in PD1, would receive an automatic increase in density because the residences developed in the Bump at Solana would not be counted against the 10% lot coverage ratio. I find it appalling under these circumstances that our Town staff and our elected officials who have sworn an oath to serve the people of this community are jumping all over themselves eager to give Blackstone yet another benefit, for which they are not entitled. 3. Our Comprehensive Plan provides that all 62.5 acres should remain OPEN and UNIMPROVED, yet our Town staff celebrate the fact that Wilbow will dedicate 37 acres as open space, most of it being located on the eastern boundary near Sam School Road. I think it is a grand idea that we build a park on top of giant berm that has nary a tree. We will call it Ugly Hilltop Park at the Bump at Solana. The good news is the Town can save money on park facilities and equipment because no one will ever go. But a wooden staircase to the top of Ugly Hillside Park would make for an exhilarating play experience that will capture the mind and attention of our children for hours, days, and years to come. 4. Tree preservation is really the strength of this zoning request. Our Town staff notes that a tree survey was not submitted, but they believe that the tree mitigation costs would be “several million dollars at a minimum” Wilbow’s plan has a very different vision, one where tree mitigation is completely eliminated within the boundaries of each lot in the project. Of course, the lots themselves cover most of the acreage at the Bump at Solana so therefore, our “strong tool” as Mayor Wheat proclaimed, of tree preservation results in two (2) measly 3.5 caliper trees per lot for a total of 130 measly 3.5 caliper trees. I have a different idea. Force Wilbow to pay the “several millions” that are required under our existing ordinances and plant 1,000 6’ caliper trees in the 150’ buffer zone along the southern and western property boundary so the folks in Glenwyck and Granada can try to forget that the Bump at Solana exists. 5. Completely eliminates the 500’ setback and yard that the residents of Granada and Glenwyck Farms have fought tirelessly to preserve. But, who cares about the residents of Granda and Glenwyck when we have the Bump at Solana, a wooden staircase to the top of Ugly Hillside Park, no view shed, no sound barrier, no trees, no wildlife, and more density for Blackstone. Yep, this deal certainly is an accurate reflection of our Town’s negotiating prowess. 6. While Carillon-like villas sound like a great idea, we should remember that we’ve already approved several hundred of them to be developed in Entrada and let’s not forget that Hillwood has zoning for hundreds of lots, some as small as 6,000 square feet. Thus, we don’t need more density in Westlake and we don’t have a need for Carillon- like villas to be built upon our Solana Open Space property. I have no faith or trust in any member of our Town government, elected or otherwise. Mayor Wheat, you said in writing that you would push for the Solana Open space to remain OPEN and UNIMPROVED if a developer should request any sort of zoning change. Well, Mayor Wheat, either affirmatively voice your opposition to this proposal or every resident of Westlake will know what your written word means, absolutely nothing. Town Council members you don’t get a pass on this one either. You authorized the letter to be sent to the 83 Glenwyck families, so either affirmatively voice your opposition to this proposal or every resident of Westlake will know what your individual written words mean, absolutely nothing. It is completely implausible to me that as a group, you would allow this environmentally sensitive site that is filled with majestic, mature trees and an abundance of wildlife to be completely destroyed by dropping the grade 20’, clear-cutting most of the trees, eviscerating the wildlife population so that Westlake can have more Carillon-like villas built on the Bump at Solana with a ridiculous wooden staircase to the Ugly Hilltop Park. I sincerely hope that the “voluntary contribution” to Westlake Academy of say $10,000 per homesite isn’t driving this terrible decision and if it were, I suspect that the legal notion of a “conflict of interest” would hardly cross anyone’s mind. If you vote to support this zoning change request after giving all Glenwyck residents your written commitment to fight for them, you might well be giving the middle finger to the families that have sued the Town of Westlake to protect their property rights and financial interests, but make no mistake about it, you are also giving a collective f u to the more than 100 families in Glenwyck and Granada who trusted in your ability to do the right thing. If you vote for this environmentally deplorable project, you should immediately resign from your elected positions because you are not worthy to represent this community. In summary, I am vehemently opposed to this re-zoning request, but like most matters with the Town of Westlake, the desires of the residents are generally nothing more than a mere afterthought. Sincerely, Colin Stevenson Filed on behalf of Colin & Melanie Stevenson Planning & Zoning Commission Members Tim Brittan Liz Garvin Greg Goble Ryan Groce Michelle Lee Sharon Sanden (Alternate Member) Ken Kraska (Alternative Member) 1 Ron Ruthven From:Charles J. Hamby, M.D. < Sent:Tuesday, August 8, 2017 11:56 PM To:Ron Ruthven Cc: Subject:Zoning Change Opposition Letter - Open Space Land, North of Glenwyck Farms, East of Granada August 8, 2017 – 23:46 Dear Ron Ruthven, Council members and P&Z Board Members: Tim Brittan Liz Garvin Greg Goble Ryan Groce Michelle Lee Sharon Sanden Ken Kraska I write in OPPOSITION the upcoming Zoning Request from Wilbow in regards to the Open Space Land to the North of Glenwyck Farms Subdivision. I reside and own my primary residence within the Glenwyck Farms subdivision at 1839 Broken Bend Dr. You will undoubtedly hear passionate pleas in opposition, but perhaps I may add an unembellished, pragmatic one – one that should be applied syllogistically and systematically to this zoning change request, as well as any others that come before you. I have had opportunities in my personal investments as well my prior homes to apply for zoning variations and the like – sometimes I’ve won the day with ease…other times, there was the requirement of arduous negotiation to reach eventual dead ends. But in all occasions, I had to submit my zoning changes or variations to a score, or a list of standards that had to be met when confronted by zoning review board members such as yourselves. A couple of cities had more, one had less, but all seemed to have these three essential criteria that I will paraphrase below. The standards I believe should be met for successful variation and change should be: 1.) The variation or change, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 2.) The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return or provide the owner or tenants a reasonable enjoyment of the property if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in its zone. 3.) The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. I believe if the P&Z Board Members apply these three basic standards to the application for zoning change in question, it should fail on all three counts. I believe it is the responsibility of this applicant to definitively sustain arguments demonstrating how they more than meet these three standards—a task that I envisage totally failing if said process is applied. For the first, the character of the neighborhood would irrevocably change from a tranquil, green, placid environment into a condensed, heavily-trafficked one (no doubt you will hear many variants of argument on this point from my fellow members of opposition). For the Second, the owners can definitely use the space for non-residential endeavors as the space permits and yield reasonable returns on their investment. And finally, for the Third, there do not exist any unique circumstances that require a change—this is self-evident. These are the standards that I have been put through in the past, and I believe they are reasonable, high-quality standards that again, all applicants should have to meet. Perhaps you have your own list, codified or otherwise, but these are the ones I’ve encountered with frequency. 2 Again, if applied, this Zoning Change Request should fail. I thank you for your time and service. Sincerely, Charles J. Hamby, M.D. From: To: Subject:Please deny zoning request to clear cut and level open space land in Westlake Date:Friday, August 4, 2017 12:07:07 PM Attachments:image003.png Hello We are the Samargya’s. We currently live in Southlake and made the decision to move to Westlake and build a home in Granada. It should be finished in September. We chose Westlake as it is pretty, open and seems to have a solid plan around its development and maintaining high standards. The Dallas area is a zoning nightmare in that it is turning into one giant piece of concrete with endless strip malls. Housing on top of businesses with no trees or greenspace it all looks the same. Our hope was that Westlake would continue to do smart development to maintain a good balance and not turn our new community into Grapevine. I am writing to you as I was stunned to hear that a business concern in pursuit of the almighty dollar was pursing to rezone and clear cut open space east of Granada and North of Glenwyck Farms for townhomes. Please note my wife and I totally oppose this request and expect you to please protect the interests of your citizens and tax payers in denying it. We hope to also voice our opinion in the upcoming planning and zoning committee meeting and town council meeting. Westlake and its council members have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the homeowners as well as keep Westlake pristine and beautiful. The proposal is wrong in so many ways. First we do not want low end town homes in Westlake. If we must lose valuable green space then nice commercial real estate is preferable as it is presently zoned. And for the life of me why would anyone agree to revoke the 500 foot setback and open space ordinances already agreed, clear cut trees and help some third party make money on townhomes at the expense of all the residents. I am not sure where you live but would you like to wake up to find a townhouse or water tower staring at you in your backyards? Of course not. This rezoning hurts our residents and their property values and anyone else considering Westlake as a home in the future. I would be shocked if the town approves it but apparently many are nervous it is even considering it and causing residents like us to have to write emails and attend meetings. Please protect us as residents and tax payers. We trust you to keep help Westlake develop in the right way and protect us from those looking to make a quick buck and then move on to the next town to build another strip mall or low end housing complex. Many Thanks for your Support, Brad and Debbie Samargya BRAD SAMARGYA VP, Global Head of Learning GFHR Learning and Development Ericsson 6300 Legacy Drive Plano, Texas 75024 Phone 1 www.ericsson.com http://www.ericsson.com/current_campaign Legal entity: LME, registered office in Kista. This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer 1 Ron Ruthven From:Bradley Samargya < Sent:Tuesday, August 8, 2017 9:17 AM To:Tom Brymer Cc:Ron Ruthven; Town Council / Board of Trustees Subject:RE: Please deny zoning request to clear cut and level open space land in Westlake Hi Tom Really appreciate your note and yes I will definitely attend and will listen. Please know that except for moving soon to Westlake I have no ulterior motives here and am just very concerned. We moved to Texas from Sweden recently and are in temporary housing in Southlake hoping to move into our newly constructed house in Granada in September. I don’t know anyone yet from the town or the local government. Please know many current residents are very nervous about Mr. Wilborn and his past ties to the town. He has emailed all of us reminding us of all the many positions he has held in town government which I think is making everyone more suspicious he is trying to push through a zoning request which I do not think is a good idea on his part. I thought you should know this. Two points I would like to make since being contacted by other residents of Westlake on this matter. 1. Many many residents are upset about this issue. Other than the developer who stands to make money, so far I have not heard from one resident taxpayer who thinks this is a good idea. 2. Thre are really two issues here  The first is to me black and white. People have made investment decisions including paying premium fees for lots with trees and woods in the backyard (I am not one) in two neighborhoods. The developers made more money on these lots charging higher lot prices as they have treed back yards and because of the assurance the town protected 500 feet of space behind their homes. No matter what else might enter into this discussion you cannot approve this zoning request as the developer wants to take some of that open space. The town needs to protect its open space. I am sure if any you were in the same situation personally you would be upset as well. I don’t see how the town could possibly approve this change in setback when it does nothing to benefit the residences and in fact adversely impacts immediately those in two of your larger neighborhoods.  Worth a discussion by all of you is over development of Westlake. Plano might be booming but Southlake and Westlake right now are overbuilt and residents are all dropping prices with big inventories of homes for sale. I have talked to realtors and it is a buyers market. Many existing homes are not selling. Why? Developers have overdeveloped with new builds. I think we should all be worried about too much inventory. Why add to it right now as we need controlled growth. Wilborn and Westlake should focus on building out Entrada and Granada as well as we have Quail Hollow and Vaquero. There is so much committed development already in Westlake. I am hearing some disturbing things. Vaquero and Glenwick farms are having issues selling homes now. Check out Realtor.com to see all the homes and how many days on market with reduced prices. Also, I know someone who has bought in Quail Hollow who is now holding off building worried about the future of the development as they were told it was selling fast only to learn this is not true and the builders were reserving lots so they put all construction plans on hold for now to watch the market. Entrada is worrisome to me as progress is slow and there are a lot of properties there to sell. These will compete with this new proposed development as well with all of the existing development. So why does Westlake need to add even more space right now? I think the town needs to focus on completing what it has started and also look to rebalance supply and demand to protect its residents already here.. 2 I really appreciate the fact that in this process we are having an open dialog. It is great you reached out to me and I can converse with all of you. Thanks for listening! Brad and Debbie Samargya From: Tom Brymer [mailto:tbrymer@westlake‐tx.org] Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 2:01 PM To: Bradley Samargya <> Cc: Ron Ruthven <rruthven@westlake‐tx.org>; Town Council / Board of Trustees <towncouncil@westlake‐tx.org> Subject: RE: Please deny zoning request to clear cut and level open space land in Westlake Dear Mr. and Mrs. Samargya, Thank you for letting us know of your views on this matter. I would encourage you to attend the public meetings on this and hear the applicant make their case for this rezoning. This rezoning has literally just been formally “noticed” in terms of legal notice, so there is much to learn. We will put as much information as we can on our Town website and use our Westlake Wire to keep you and others who are interested apprised as to where this zoning change request is in terms of where it is at in the process. While our Planning Director has been reviewing this application, I have not, so I am not yet knowledgeable as to its details. However, I do know that the applicant plans, if rezoning was approved, a villa type product, not town homes. It is my understanding that these villas will be similar to those in the Vaquero neighborhood of Westlake. Also, let me welcome you to Westlake!!! I delighted to hear that you have chosen the Granada neighborhood as your new home. I was with the Town when the land owner for what is now Granada applied for a zoning change to allow residential use there (previously it had the same zoning as the tract you are now concerned about, office commercial). Many of the same issues you are raising about this application were raised regarding Granada. In many cases those issues were raised by the same people raising issues about the case you’re concerned about now. However, it appears by your decision to build in Granada, you feel adequate attention to aesthetics and amenities like trails were attended to when the Granada zoning was granted by the Town Council. Whatever the outcome is of this new case you’re concerned about, I feel certain the same attention to those issues such as adjacency, land use, amenities, and aesthetics will be given here to this case as were given to Granada. If you have further questions, please contact me or Planning & Development Director Ron Ruthven (rruthven@westlake-tx.org). Tom Brymer Town Manager, Town of Westlake, TX Superintendent, Westlake Academy From: Bradley Samargya [] Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 12:07 PM To: Ron Ruthven <rruthven@westlake‐tx.org>; Tom Brymer <tbrymer@westlake‐tx.org>; Laura Wheat <lwheat@westlake‐tx.org>; Alesa Belvedere <abelvedere@westlake‐tx.org>; Michael Barrett <mbarrett@westlake‐ tx.org>; Wayne Stoltenberg <wstoltenberg@westlake‐tx.org>; Carol Langdon <clangdon@westlake‐tx.org>; Rick Rennhack <rrennhack@westlake‐tx.org> Subject: Please deny zoning request to clear cut and level open space land in Westlake 3 Hello We are the Samargya’s. We currently live in Southlake and made the decision to move to Westlake and build a home in Granada. It should be finished in September. We chose Westlake as it is pretty, open and seems to have a solid plan around its development and maintaining high standards. The Dallas area is a zoning nightmare in that it is turning into one giant piece of concrete with endless strip malls. Housing on top of businesses with no trees or greenspace it all looks the same. Our hope was that Westlake would continue to do smart development to maintain a good balance and not turn our new community into Grapevine. I am writing to you as I was stunned to hear that a business concern in pursuit of the almighty dollar was pursing to rezone and clear cut open space east of Granada and North of Glenwyck Farms for townhomes. Please note my wife and I totally oppose this request and expect you to please protect the interests of your citizens and tax payers in denying it. We hope to also voice our opinion in the upcoming planning and zoning committee meeting and town council meeting. Westlake and its council members have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the homeowners as well as keep Westlake pristine and beautiful. The proposal is wrong in so many ways. First we do not want low end town homes in Westlake. If we must lose valuable green space then nice commercial real estate is preferable as it is presently zoned. And for the life of me why would anyone agree to revoke the 500 foot setback and open space ordinances already agreed, clear cut trees and help some third party make money on townhomes at the expense of all the residents. I am not sure where you live but would you like to wake up to find a townhouse or water tower staring at you in your backyards? Of course not. This rezoning hurts our residents and their property values and anyone else considering Westlake as a home in the future. I would be shocked if the town approves it but apparently many are nervous it is even considering it and causing residents like us to have to write emails and attend meetings. Please protect us as residents and tax payers. We trust you to keep help Westlake develop in the right way and protect us from those looking to make a quick buck and then move on to the next town to build another strip mall or low end housing complex. Many Thanks for your Support, Brad and Debbie Samargya BRAD SAMARGYA VP, Global Head of Learning GFHR Learning and Development Ericsson 6300 Legacy Drive Plano, Texas 75024 Phone 1 www.ericsson.com 4 Legal entity: LME, registered office in Kista. This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer 2 building its allowed 10% lot coverage on its more valuable properties by the expressway. The incentives offered by the Town include providing BRE Solana with more square footage to be built beyond the 47,230 s.f. allowed under the 10% lot coverage calculation,1 tree mitigation credits, and relaxation of setback and building height restrictions. To date, BRE Solana has continued to refuse to come to the table. Now that a zoning change request is pending, the Town can finally insist on the BRE Solana Master Plan that is long overdue, one that will keep the subject Open Space Land as open space pursuant to the Comprehensive and Land Use Plans (and preserve the ability of the Town to place a one of a kind wooded Community Park on the North half of the Open Space Land pursuant to the Parks & Open Space Plan). To this end, in a February 29, 2016 letter to the residents of Glenwyck Farms, Mayor Wheat, speaking as Mayor of the Town of Westlake and also expressly on behalf of the Town Council, represented that the Town would “push” for the Open Space Land to remain “open and unimproved should the developer request any sort of zoning change,” just as Wilbow, the developer, is doing now: It is important to understand that the newly revised Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Town Council in 2015, designates as Open Space the whole 62.5 acre tract of land of which the Glenwyck [500-foot] Setback is a part. See Attachment B. Although current entitlements on this 62.5 acre tract allow development, the Open Space designation is a signal to future developers that the Town will be pushing for the space to remain open and unimproved should the developer request any sort of zoning change. In the event a future developer does not agree to the Open Space designation and desires to develop the property, it is important to know that the very nature of the Solana Planned Development District gives the Town many strong tools to heavily regulate the manner in which the property can be developed. These tools range from requiring preservation of view corridors, to requiring the preservation of trees, to limiting the footprint and place of any structures and all improvements and to things as simple as the placement of trash cans. February 29, 2016 Letter from Mayor Wheat to Glenwyck Farms Residents at 4 (emphasis added). Mayor Wheat and the Town Council members should follow through with their promise in their February 29, 2016 letter to “push[] for the space to remain open and unimproved should the developer request any sort of zoning change.” It is not in the Town’s or its citizen’s best interest to continue to make concessions to BRE Solana and get nothing in return. If it was not clear from the beginning, it is abundantly clear now that BRE Solana intends to (1) obtain concession after concession from the Town with the sole goal of maximizing profit on the “flip” of its purchase of Maguire Partners’ Solana office buildings out of bankruptcy, and (2) get out of town. In fact, BRE Solana is already half way out of town on its “flip” as it has already sold (“flipped”) 1 On January 7, 2013, pursuant to the approval of Entrada and Granada, the Town Staff (Eddie Edwards) and Trent Petty (the first Town Manager and now consultant to the Town) calculated the remaining allowed square footage to be built within PD1 after approval of Entrada and Granada. See January 7, 2013 Emails Between Eddie Edwards and Trent Petty, attached as Exhibit 1. Mr. Edwards and Mr. Petty calculated the remaining allowed square footage to be 47,230 s.f. Thus, at most, BRE Solana can build only 47,230 s.f. on the Open Space Land. 3 two of its office buildings. BRE Solana will soon be out of Westlake and on to its next profit maximizing “flip.” In addition to BRE Solana’s refusal to meet with the Town, the proposed zoning change should be denied for the following 8 reasons: 1. The proposed zoning change is not in compliance with the Land Use Plan and the Parks & Open Space Plan of the 2015 Town of Westlake Comprehensive Plan. The requested zoning change is contrary to the Land Use and Comprehensive Plans. The Open Space Land, located within the Open Space Land District of the Land Use Plan, abuts the Glenwyck Farms and Granada subdivisions. The Comprehensive Plan states that: [T]he intent of the Open Space District is to preserve vistas and view corridors and, thereby, preserve the essence of Westlake’s pastoral setting as it experiences increasing amounts of commercial and residential development. Open Space Land Use District is meant to be primarily undeveloped with landmark landforms of the Town remaining in their natural condition, thereby preserving important views as well as natural and rural settings. 2015 Town of Westlake Comprehensive Plan. The proposed dense residential development is inconsistent with the expressed intentions of the Town Council, P&Z Commission, and the Town’s citizens, who approved the Land Use Plan to keep the Open Space Land undeveloped and in its natural state. Accordingly, residential development within the Open Space Land Use District does not comply with the 2015 Town of Westlake Comprehensive Plan. In a red herring argument, the developer argues that it is preserving open space in the Southeast portion of the 62.53 acre property. However, this portion of the property is not designated as open space pursuant to the Land Use and Comprehensive Plans. Moreover, this Southeast portion of the property is “undevelopable” according to the developer’s representative, Larry Corson, and thus, the Southeast portion will always remain as open space. This means that the developer is offering nothing to the Town in return for being able to (1) clear cut the Open Space Land, and (2) shave down, by 20 feet, the knoll (hill) that acts as view shed and noise barrier for the Town. Both (1) and (2) would be devastating to the Town’s citizens and their properties if the Town Council and P&Z Commission were to allow it. Also, the requested zoning change is contrary to The Parks & Open Space Plan that is a part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Parks & Open Space Plan calls for the only Community Park in the Town to be located on the North half of the Open Space Land. In what would be another bad deal for the Town, the developer proposes that the Town abandon its plans for the only, one of a kind, 30 acre wooded Community Park on the North half of the Open Space Land pursuant to the Parks & Open Space Plan and instead have the 2 acre “Mayor’s Hill” with a wooden staircase replace it. Other than the building of a wooden staircase on Mayor’s Hill, which would be an eyesore and a hazard, the Town receives nothing in return because Mayor’s Hill will exist no matter what (again, as the developer’s representative has conceded, this Southeast area is “undevelopable” and will remain as open space). 4 2. The proposed 150-foot setback is contrary to the 500-foot yard setback of PD1-1 and will result in property value loss. The requested zoning change seeks to create a new PD6 that eliminates all of the development regulations of PD1-1. An important development condition in PD1-1 imposes a minimum size of front, side and rear yard of five hundred feet (500’) setback from Glenwyck Farms. Similarly, there exists a 500-foot setback in connection with the Granada subdivision. The development plan associated with the requested zoning change removes the Glenwyck Farms 500-foot yard setback and the Granada 500-foot setback and replaces them with a 150-foot setback. Property owners in Glenwyck Farms and Granada invested substantial monetary sums in their land and improvements in reliance on the Town’s imposition of the 500-foot yard setback and 500-foot setback, with exemplary Glenwyck Farms residents paying multiple 6 figure premiums (each) to purchase their homes that adjoin the 500-foot yard setback. At 150 feet, even for that period of the year when leaves are on the trees, the windows of the proposed dense development will be looking directly into the bedroom windows, living rooms, family rooms, and backyards of Glenwyck Farms and Granada residents. When the leaves are down in Fall/Winter/Early Spring, the view will be clear as you can see all of the way to the knoll (hill) at 500 feet away with the leaves down. Making matters even worse, the requested zoning change proposes the placement of parking lots (and presumably lighting poles) at only 150 feet away from the back yards of Glenwyck Farms and Granada residents (see the red arrows below): As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will recall, the 500-foot yard setback was established in 1992 via Ordinance 202, and the text and history of Ordinance 202 (and its successors 588, 691, and 767) evidence that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer. Four of the most important Town witnesses that have lived and owned the genesis of the 500- foot yard setback in the 1990s confirm that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer. During this time, former Mayor Bradley was Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5 Mayor Bradley led the Town’s negotiations with IBM, the owner of the Open Space Land at the time. Mayor Bradley will testify before the P&Z Commission and the Town Council that he had express and extensive discussions with the President of IBM Realty concerning the fact that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer that is to remain untouched and undeveloped. Mayor Bradley will further testify that the President of IBM Realty believed that the greenspace buffer would provide value to IBM’s properties by preserving open space. The President of IBM Realty also believed that the IBM development would serve as an exemplary development for the Town on how open space was to be preserved and how view sheds should be retained, including the knoll (hill) North of Glenwyck Farms and East of Granada. This is evidenced by the fact that the President of IBM Realty agreed to move 300 million square yards of dirt to create the Mayor’s Hill in order to create a greenspace buffer and view shed that did not already exist. In effect, IBM created a second knoll (hill) to the East. IBM did not need to do this to the North of Glenwyck Farms because the natural knoll (hill) already existed, and it is this natural knoll (hill) that the developer now seeks to shave down by 20 feet. As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will also recall, Trent Petty, the Town’s first Town Manager and current consultant to the Town, likewise confirmed that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer and was treated that way by the owners of the Open Space Land, both IBM and subsequent owner Maguire Partners. As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will also recall, Glenwyck Farms homebuilder Scott Simmons testified at the January 4, 2016 P&Z Hearing (relating to the fix of the typographical error in Ordinance 691) that the Town of Westlake communicated to Glenwyck Farms homebuilders and the Glenwyck Farms developer that the 500-foot yard setback is to remain as undisturbed greenspace and is not merely a bare “setback.” As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will also recall, we had the opportunity to speak with Howard Dudley, former Town Alderman and owner of the land now known as Glenwyck Farms, about the 500-foot yard setback (which Mr. Dudley enacted with the other Town Alderman via Ordinance 202 in 1992). Mr. Dudley likewise confirmed that the 500-foot yard setback is to remain as undisturbed greenspace. In fact, Mr. Dudley indicated that the 500- foot yard setback was specifically designed to preserve the knoll (hill) and trees to the North of his property and create a buffer for his property with respect to future development. Mr. Dudley and the other Town Alderman were quite accurate back in 1992 because the developer’s topography map associated with this zoning change request shows that you get over to the North Side of the knoll at 500 feet out. Moreover, the Town’s communications concerning the existence of the 500-foot yard setback and the fact that it prevents any development within 500 feet of Glenwyck Farms has been memorialized in writing. The Town of Westlake has sent written correspondence to the Glenwyck Farms developer and to Glenwyck Farms residents confirming that “any development” must occur outside of the 500-foot yard setback area. For example, on November 1, 1999, Dennis Wilson, Town Planner, sent a letter to David McMahan at Four Peaks Development, Inc. (the developer of Glenwyck Farms) in which Mr. Wilson confirms that “any development” of the Open Space Land must occur 500 feet away from Glenwyck Farms. See November 1, 1999 Letter from Dennis Wilson to David McMahan, attached as Exhibit 2. This November 1, 1999 Letter from Dennis Wilson, Town Planner, was also distributed to Glenwyck 6 Farms residents, upon which they relied in purchasing their homes. In addition, on February 5, 2009, Tom Brymer, current Town Manager, sent a letter to Pat Cockrum, Glenwyck Farms resident, likewise confirming that “any development” of the Open Space Land must occur 500 feet away from Glenwyck Farms. See February 5, 2009 Letter from Tom Brymer to Pat Cockrum, attached as Exhibit 3. The February 5, 2009 Letter from Tom Brymer to Pat Cockrum is particularly instructive as it makes clear that “any development,” even a gas well pad site, is prohibited within the 500-foot yard setback. In other words, the 500-foot yard setback prevents “any development” within 500 feet of Glenwyck Farms, whether that development is a building, a gas well pad site, or a surface parking lot. The text of Ordinance 202 (and is successors) and the Westlake Code confirm the same. Specifically, while other clauses refer expressly to “setbacks,” the clause that creates the 500- foot yard setback has always referenced a 500-foot “yard.” Here, the Town was its own lexicographer and provided its own definition of the word “yard” in the Westlake Code of Ordinances. According to the Westlake Code, a “yard” is “open space,” and “open space” is greenspace that is “relatively free of manmade structures [such as buildings and parking lots], where water bodies, land forms [such as a knoll/hill], and vegetation [such as trees] predominate”: Yard. The word “yard” shall mean an open space, other than a court, on a lot unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward unless specifically otherwise permitted in this Code. Open Space. The words “open space” shall mean that land area which is relatively free of manmade structures, where water bodies, land forms, and vegetation predominate. Westlake, TX Code of Ordinances. In short, the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer according to Ordinance 202 (and its successors), the Westlake Code of Ordinances, and the Town’s representatives who, for 20 years, represented that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer to the developer of Glenwyck Farms, Glenwyck Farms homebuilders, and Glenwyck Farms homeowners, each of whom has financially relied on the same. If this 500-foot yard setback is removed, then the Glenwyck Farms homeowners that border the Open Space Land will lose the 6 figure premiums (each) that they paid for their homes. 3. The proposed dense development is in conflict with the Westlake Transfer of Development Intensity Ordinance. Pursuant to the expressed intent of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan and to preserve Westlake’s view corridors and scenic topography, the Westlake Transfer of Development Intensity (“TDI”) Ordinance was adopted. The Open Space Land is in a Sending District where permitted development intensity should be transferred to a Receiving District. The proposed zoning change for dense residential development is in direct conflict with the intent of the TDI Ordinance that such development occur in a Receiving District. In fact, the TDI Ordinance is designed to transfer the existing PD1-1 permitted development intensity out of the Open Space Land District. The creation of a new PD6 in place of PD 1-1 with dense 7 residential development intensity within a Sending District is a complete abomination of the TDI Ordinance, which is designed to prevent zoning changes that increase development intensity within a Sending District. The TDI Ordinance could not have been written for a better situation than we have now. BRE Solana owns the Open Space Land, which is in a Sending District. BRE Solana also owns valuable property by the expressway that is in a Receiving District. Thus, BRE Solana can obtain incentives from the Town pursuant to the TDI Ordinance by building its allowed square footage (pursuant to the 10% lot coverage rule) on its expressway properties (all of BRE Solana’s allowed square footage can be built on its expressway properties). The fact that this deal has not already been done is a function of BRE Solana’s refusal to come to the table with the Town to talk about a master plan for its properties. 4. The proposed zoning change does not meet the requirements of the Westlake Code of Ordinances. Ordinance 101-266(i) – The proposed zoning change does not meet the following approval criteria for a planned development: 1. The requested zoning change is inconsistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan (including the Land Use Plan and the Parks & Open Space Plan); 2. The proposed dense residential uses and the configuration of the dense residential uses are not compatible with existing and planned adjoining residential uses because no development is to occur in the Open Space Land, which is meant to serve as a buffer; 3 The proposed dense residential uses, development densities and intensities, and development regulations are not consistent with this article because no development is to occur in the Open Space Land, the proposed development densities are greater than those of the adjacent Glenwyck and Granada neighborhoods, and no development intensity is to occur in the Open Space Land Sending District of the TDI Ordinance; 4. The configuration of the proposed open space serving the proposed development is not consistent with the Town's Open Space Plan because the Open Space Plan shows contiguous open space with no development of any kind except for a community park in this particular Open Space Land District, whereas the configuration of open space serving the proposed development is non-contiguous and randomly spaced among the dense units and also outside this particular Open Space Land District; 5. No amenities of value to persons who are not residents of the proposed residential development are proposed that justify proposed residential densities or intensities in an area that is meant to be undeveloped as Open Space Land; 6. The proposed dense development does not further the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community when the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, 8 designed to preserve view corridors and native pastoral settings, is abrogated with the dense development that wipes out the Open Space Land. Ordinance 102-241 – The proposed zoning change does not meet the following purposes for the creation of a planned development: 1. Superior design of lots or buildings is not accomplished by PD6 with lot dimensions of 80’ X 135’ and dense units that are incompatible with existing homes in Glenwyck Farms and Granada; 2. Increased recreation and/or open space opportunities for public use is not provided by PD6 because existing, contiguous, undeveloped open space is being replaced by noncontiguous open space spread between 65 dense units plus wooden stairs to the top of “Mayor’s Hill,” which is an eyesore and a hazard; 3. Rural amenities or features that would be of special benefit to the property users or community is not provided by the proposed dense development in the middle of existing open space that already provides the rural amenities and features desired; 4. The proposed PD6 does not protect or preserve natural amenities and environmental assets such as trees, creeks, ponds, floodplains, slopes or hills and viewscapes because the existing Open Space Land with dense mature trees, a knoll that provides a sound barrier from traffic on Highway 114, and a sloping hill with viewscape for the Glenwyck and Granada neighborhoods will be destroyed by the proposed dense development; 5. The proposed PD6 does not protect or preserve existing historical buildings, structures, features or places because the proposed dense development will eliminate the existing Open Space Land, which contains the characteristic topography, views, and vistas that are the essence of Westlake’s pastoral setting; 6. The proposed PD6 does not provide an appropriate balance between the intensity of development and the ability to provide adequate supporting public facilities and services because development intensity is not to occur in this Open Space Land District and is to be sent from this area to receiving districts elsewhere in the Town. Ordinance 98-46 – The proposed zoning change is in direct conflict with the following tree preservation principles: 1. Not only will PD6 not protect against the indiscriminate clearing of trees, it will actually promote indiscriminate clearing of trees. Mass clear cutting of trees in this densely wooded Open Space Land is unavoidable in order to develop the proposed dense 65 lots with a 20-foot drop in grade of the view shed which now exists. The top area of the knoll (hill) that will be shaved down by 20 feet is particularly problematic because no trees or vegetation will survive this type of catastrophic soil removal. 9 2. PD6 will not protect and increase the value of residential and commercial properties within the Town because the Open Space Land District, left undisturbed in its natural state, is what protects and increases the value of the residential and commercial properties in the Town. 3. PD6 will not maintain and enhance a positive image for the attraction of new businesses and residents to the Town to the same extent as the Open Space Land District, with a Community Park among the dense trees in its natural state. 4. PD6 will not protect healthy mature trees and promote the natural ecological, environmental, and aesthetic qualities of the Town and will instead destroy the healthy mature trees in this Open Space Land District. This Open Space Land will be clear-cut for an incompatible dense development. 5. PD 6 will not preserve the rural forested character of the Town and will instead result in the annihilation of the last true piece of rural forested land in the Town. This is why the land was designated as Open Space Land. 5. The proposed zoning change does not comply with tree mitigation requirements. In November 2016, a tree survey of the Open Space Land was purportedly conducted by the developer’s consultant, Kimley Horn, wherein based upon a sampling process, trees 6-inches and greater in diameter were tagged and counted. Conspicuously absent from the developer’s zoning change request is a copy of this Kimley Horn survey. In fact, the Town Staff notes the failure of the developer to submit the survey and that the total cost of tree mitigation is “several million dollars at a minimum”: The survey was not submitted as part of this request. Staff estimates that total cost of mitigation would be several million dollars at a minimum. August 14, 2017 Staff Report at Page 89 of the August 14, 2017 P&Z Agenda. One can only assume that the survey is not favorable to the developer, especially because what little is disclosed about the survey evidences that tree mitigation payments to be paid by the developer should be many millions of dollars. In particular, by failing to disclose the Kimley Horn survey, the developer prevents the Town from calculating just how many millions of dollars are owed by the developer (the average caliper inches per Protect Tree is not disclosed). Although the Town was not provided with a copy of the Kimley Horn survey, the developer represents that that the survey determined that there were approximately 105 Protected Trees per acre on the East side of the sample area and approximately 162 Protected Trees per acre on the West side of the sample area. The proposed development will be on the West side of the subject property area. Per the developer’s Land Use Summary, 25.3 acres consists of residential areas and right-of-way that will be clear cut. Based upon 162 Protected Trees per acre and 25.3 acres of development including right-of-way, this represents 4,098.6 trees of at least 6 caliper inches that will be clear cut, not to mention thousands of other trees that are less than 6 caliper inches. Even if one assumes that every tree is only 6 caliper inches (and no more), this would represent 24,591.6 caliper inches. At $100 per caliper inch, this represents a minimum tree mitigation cost of $2,459,160. Of course, many of the trees on the Open Space Land are 12 caliper inches and 10 greater. If the average is just 10 caliper inches, the total caliper inches would be 40,986, and the cost of tree mitigation then rises to $4,098,600. It is reasonable to assume that the tree mitigation cost to be paid by the developer is in the range of $4 to $5 Million. The Town should calculate what is owed by the developer and enforce payment of this amount should the Town decide to allow clear cutting of the Open Space Land. Of course, in pursuit of profit maximization, the developer boldly proposes to pay nothing in connection with tree mitigation. The developer’s proposed zoning change requests that: “No mitigation shall be required of any individual lot. Each lot shall plant at least two 3.5 caliper inch trees from an approved hardwood tree list. If existing native trees are preserved in the front or street-side side yards, they can be utilized to satisfy the tree planting requirement on the lot.” Further, the developer proposes two alternatives to further address mitigation: Alternate A consists dedicated trailhead parking spaces as part of the existing adjacent parking lot, a wood stairway into “Mayor’s Hill,” passive fitness stations on “Mayor’s Hill,” and a picnic area on Mayor’s Hill. Alternate B consists of deeding to the Town land that fronts Sam School Road that can be used for municipal purposes (but the municipal use would be exempted from the cumulative PD1-1 coverage test). The developer’s request, along with Alternatives A and B, are nowhere close to equivalent value for the $4 to $5 Million in tree mitigation that should be paid for the destruction of thousands of mature trees on the Open Space Land that serves as a critical view shed for the Town pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan. The Town Staff appears to repudiate the developer’s request, along with Alternatives A and B, by declaring that “all existing trees removed on individual single family lots shall require mitigation per the requirements of the Code of Ordinances." However, the Town Staff also declares that “trees located in the roadways and utility main locations as shown on the preliminary plat and civil construction plans are hereby exempt from the mitigation requirements of the Code of Ordinances.” This exemption is not in the Town’s Code of Ordinances, and there is no reason why the Town should make such a concession when the developer seeks to clear cut the Open Space Land. 6. The proposed zoning change has a negative financial impact on the Town. The current property tax rate for the Town of Westlake is .13695 per $100 of assessed value. Assuming that each of the proposed 65 units has an assessed value of $1.35M, the total property tax revenue to the Town is $120,174. However, according to various studies, including Jeffrey H. Doorman’s The Fiscal Impacts of Land Use on Local Government (University of Georgia, 2006) and the Cost of Community Services Studies (“COCS”) prepared by the American Farmland Trust, the cost to provide public services for residential land use exceeds the property tax revenue generated. In particular, in the American Farmland Trust study, the median COCS for residential land use is $1.15 for every $1.00 of property tax revenue (in other words, a net loss). Accordingly, approval of the proposed zoning change would likewise result in a loss for the Town. Based on the COCS studies, and confirmed by Mayor Wheat at the August 7th Coffee with the Mayor, the Town’s expenses will increase by more than the $120,174 of property tax revenue such that the proposed residential development will result in a net economic loss for the Town. Moreover, while $120,174 of property tax revenue would be generated, representing 8% of the total property tax revenue ($1,477,116) in the FY17-18 Westlake Budget, $120,174 is August 8, 2017 Via Regular U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid And Email to rruthven@westlake-tx.org Mr. Ron Ruthven Director of Planning and Development Town of Westlake 1500 Solana Blvd. (The Terrace) Building 7, Suite 7200 Westlake, Texas 76262 Re: Protest Petition for Case No. Z-06-19-17; Zoning change request for approximately 62.58 acre portion of Lot 1, Block 3 Westlake/Southlake Park #1 Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission and Town Council: As the owner(s) of the property at _____1821 Broken Bend Drive ________, Westlake, Texas, I (we) are opposed to the requested zoning change. The zoning change request: 1. Violates the 500-foot setback on the North Side of Glenwyck Farms and the East Side of Granada; 2. Results in clear cutting of the Open Space Land, the entirety of which is designated to be open space pursuant to the Town’s Comprehensive and Land Use Plans; 3. Results in the Open Space Land’s “knoll” (hill), which serves as a view shed and noise barrier pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, being shaved down; 4. Results in dense housing that inconsistent with the housing in Glenwyck Farms and Granada; and 5. Results in multi-story housing that is positioned to directly overlook the yards of Glenwyck Farms and Granada homeowners due to the fact that the Open Space Land is elevated upwards of 30 feet over the Glenwyck Farms and Granada residences. I (we) respectfully request that you deny the requested zoning change. Sincerely, Name(s) David Riley______________________ ______________________________ Signature: ______________________________ ______________________________ 1 September 15, 2017 VIA U.S. MAIL and EMAIL TO: rruthven@westlake-tx.org Town Council and Planning & Zoning Commission Members c/o Ron Ruthven, Director of Planning and Development Town of Westlake 1500 Solana Blvd. (The Terrace) Building 7, Suite 7200 Westlake, TX 76262 Re: Protest Petition for Case No. Z-06-19-17; Zoning change request for approximately 62.53 acre portion of Lot 1, Block 3 Westlake/Southlake Park #1 Dear Town Council and Planning & Zoning Commission members: I (we), ________________________________________________________________, reside at _______________________________________________________________. I (we) oppose to the zoning change requested in Case No. Z-06-19-17 and respectfully request that you deny the requested zoning change for the following 8 reasons detailed below: (1) The proposed zoning change is not in compliance with the Land Use Plan and the 2015 Town of Westlake Comprehensive Plan, (2) the proposed 150-foot setback is contrary to the 500-foot yard setback of PD1-1 and will result in property value loss, (3) the proposed dense development is in conflict with the Town of Westlake Transfer of Development Intensity Ordinance, (4) the proposed zoning change does not meet the requirements of the Town of Westlake Code of Ordinances, (5) the proposed zoning change does not comply with tree mitigation requirements, (6) the proposed zoning change has a negative financial impact on the Town, (7) the proposed zoning change is inconsistent with surrounding properties and will result in a loss of property value, and (8) the proposed zoning change is inconsistent with the Town’s Tree City USA Membership and the Town’s Vision Statement. In addition, the zoning change request should be denied for an even more fundamental reason before the Town analyzes these 8 problems with the request. In particular, the property owner, Blackstone (“BRE Solana, LLC”), has repeatedly and stubbornly refused, over the last 3 years, to meet with the Town to discuss a Master Plan for BRE Solana’s properties. Over the last 3 years, dozens of requests for such a meeting have been made by the Town Staff (Tom Brymer, Eddie Edwards, and Ron Ruthven) and Mayor Wheat. As the Town Council and Planning & Zoning Commission members are aware, the Town had an early opportunity to bring BRE Solana to the table when it wanted to build a parking garage at one of the Solana buildings. Despite the fact that BRE Solana continued to refuse to discuss a Master Plan, out of good faith and with the goal of changing BRE Solana’s attitude, the Town allowed BRE Solana to build the parking garage that it wanted. At that time, the Town Staff indicated that BRE Solana would not obtain another favor from the Town, and in particular, a zoning change, unless BRE Solana came to the table and agreed to (1) keep the Open Space Land (the subject of Z-06-19-17) as open space, and (2) build its allowed 10% lot coverage on its more valuable properties by the expressway. The Town has even offered incentives to BRE Solana in return for BRE Solana Pat and Erin Cockrum 1825 Broken Bend Dr, Westlake, TX 76262 2 building its allowed 10% lot coverage on its more valuable properties by the expressway. The incentives offered by the Town include providing BRE Solana with more square footage to be built beyond the 47,230 s.f. allowed under the 10% lot coverage calculation,1 tree mitigation credits, and relaxation of setback and building height restrictions. To date, BRE Solana has continued to refuse to come to the table. Now that a zoning change request is pending, the Town can finally insist on the BRE Solana Master Plan that is long overdue, one that will keep the subject Open Space Land as open space pursuant to the Comprehensive and Land Use Plans (and preserve the ability of the Town to place a one of a kind wooded Community Park on the North half of the Open Space Land pursuant to the Parks & Open Space Plan). To this end, in a February 29, 2016 letter to the residents of Glenwyck Farms, Mayor Wheat, speaking as Mayor of the Town of Westlake and also expressly on behalf of the Town Council, represented that the Town would “push” for the Open Space Land to remain “open and unimproved should the developer request any sort of zoning change,” just as Wilbow, the developer, is doing now: It is important to understand that the newly revised Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Town Council in 2015, designates as Open Space the whole 62.5 acre tract of land of which the Glenwyck [500-foot] Setback is a part. See Attachment B. Although current entitlements on this 62.5 acre tract allow development, the Open Space designation is a signal to future developers that the Town will be pushing for the space to remain open and unimproved should the developer request any sort of zoning change. In the event a future developer does not agree to the Open Space designation and desires to develop the property, it is important to know that the very nature of the Solana Planned Development District gives the Town many strong tools to heavily regulate the manner in which the property can be developed. These tools range from requiring preservation of view corridors, to requiring the preservation of trees, to limiting the footprint and place of any structures and all improvements and to things as simple as the placement of trash cans. February 29, 2016 Letter from Mayor Wheat to Glenwyck Farms Residents at 4 (emphasis added). Mayor Wheat and the Town Council members should follow through with their promise in their February 29, 2016 letter to “push[] for the space to remain open and unimproved should the developer request any sort of zoning change.” It is not in the Town’s or its citizen’s best interest to continue to make concessions to BRE Solana and get nothing in return. If it was not clear from the beginning, it is abundantly clear now that BRE Solana intends to (1) obtain concession after concession from the Town with the sole goal of maximizing profit on the “flip” of its purchase of Maguire Partners’ Solana office buildings out of bankruptcy, and (2) get out of town. In fact, BRE Solana is already half way out of town on its “flip” as it has already sold (“flipped”) 1 On January 7, 2013, pursuant to the approval of Entrada and Granada, the Town Staff (Eddie Edwards) and Trent Petty (the first Town Manager and now consultant to the Town) calculated the remaining allowed square footage to be built within PD1 after approval of Entrada and Granada. See January 7, 2013 Emails Between Eddie Edwards and Trent Petty, attached as Exhibit 1. Mr. Edwards and Mr. Petty calculated the remaining allowed square footage to be 47,230 s.f. Thus, at most, BRE Solana can build only 47,230 s.f. on the Open Space Land. 3 two of its office buildings. BRE Solana will soon be out of Westlake and on to its next profit maximizing “flip.” In addition to BRE Solana’s refusal to meet with the Town, the proposed zoning change should be denied for the following 8 reasons: 1. The proposed zoning change is not in compliance with the Land Use Plan and the Parks & Open Space Plan of the 2015 Town of Westlake Comprehensive Plan. The requested zoning change is contrary to the Land Use and Comprehensive Plans. The Open Space Land, located within the Open Space Land District of the Land Use Plan, abuts the Glenwyck Farms and Granada subdivisions. The Comprehensive Plan states that: [T]he intent of the Open Space District is to preserve vistas and view corridors and, thereby, preserve the essence of Westlake’s pastoral setting as it experiences increasing amounts of commercial and residential development. Open Space Land Use District is meant to be primarily undeveloped with landmark landforms of the Town remaining in their natural condition, thereby preserving important views as well as natural and rural settings. 2015 Town of Westlake Comprehensive Plan. The proposed dense residential development is inconsistent with the expressed intentions of the Town Council, P&Z Commission, and the Town’s citizens, who approved the Land Use Plan to keep the Open Space Land undeveloped and in its natural state. Accordingly, residential development within the Open Space Land Use District does not comply with the 2015 Town of Westlake Comprehensive Plan. In a red herring argument, the developer argues that it is preserving open space in the Southeast portion of the 62.53 acre property. However, this portion of the property is not designated as open space pursuant to the Land Use and Comprehensive Plans. Moreover, this Southeast portion of the property is “undevelopable” according to the developer’s representative, Larry Corson, and thus, the Southeast portion will always remain as open space. This means that the developer is offering nothing to the Town in return for being able to (1) clear cut the Open Space Land, and (2) shave down, by 20 feet, the knoll (hill) that acts as view shed and noise barrier for the Town. Both (1) and (2) would be devastating to the Town’s citizens and their properties if the Town Council and P&Z Commission were to allow it. Also, the requested zoning change is contrary to The Parks & Open Space Plan that is a part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Parks & Open Space Plan calls for the only Community Park in the Town to be located on the North half of the Open Space Land. In what would be another bad deal for the Town, the developer proposes that the Town abandon its plans for the only, one of a kind, 30 acre wooded Community Park on the North half of the Open Space Land pursuant to the Parks & Open Space Plan and instead have the 2 acre “Mayor’s Hill” with a wooden staircase replace it. Other than the building of a wooden staircase on Mayor’s Hill, which would be an eyesore and a hazard, the Town receives nothing in return because Mayor’s Hill will exist no matter what (again, as the developer’s representative has conceded, this Southeast area is “undevelopable” and will remain as open space). 4 2. The proposed 150-foot setback is contrary to the 500-foot yard setback of PD1-1 and will result in property value loss. The requested zoning change seeks to create a new PD6 that eliminates all of the development regulations of PD1-1. An important development condition in PD1-1 imposes a minimum size of front, side and rear yard of five hundred feet (500’) setback from Glenwyck Farms. Similarly, there exists a 500-foot setback in connection with the Granada subdivision. The development plan associated with the requested zoning change removes the Glenwyck Farms 500-foot yard setback and the Granada 500-foot setback and replaces them with a 150-foot setback. Property owners in Glenwyck Farms and Granada invested substantial monetary sums in their land and improvements in reliance on the Town’s imposition of the 500-foot yard setback and 500-foot setback, with exemplary Glenwyck Farms residents paying multiple 6 figure premiums (each) to purchase their homes that adjoin the 500-foot yard setback. At 150 feet, even for that period of the year when leaves are on the trees, the windows of the proposed dense development will be looking directly into the bedroom windows, living rooms, family rooms, and backyards of Glenwyck Farms and Granada residents. When the leaves are down in Fall/Winter/Early Spring, the view will be clear as you can see all of the way to the knoll (hill) at 500 feet away with the leaves down. Making matters even worse, the requested zoning change proposes the placement of parking lots (and presumably lighting poles) at only 150 feet away from the back yards of Glenwyck Farms and Granada residents (see the red arrows below): As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will recall, the 500-foot yard setback was established in 1992 via Ordinance 202, and the text and history of Ordinance 202 (and its successors 588, 691, and 767) evidence that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer. Four of the most important Town witnesses that have lived and owned the genesis of the 500- foot yard setback in the 1990s confirm that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer. During this time, former Mayor Bradley was Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5 Mayor Bradley led the Town’s negotiations with IBM, the owner of the Open Space Land at the time. Mayor Bradley will testify before the P&Z Commission and the Town Council that he had express and extensive discussions with the President of IBM Realty concerning the fact that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer that is to remain untouched and undeveloped. Mayor Bradley will further testify that the President of IBM Realty believed that the greenspace buffer would provide value to IBM’s properties by preserving open space. The President of IBM Realty also believed that the IBM development would serve as an exemplary development for the Town on how open space was to be preserved and how view sheds should be retained, including the knoll (hill) North of Glenwyck Farms and East of Granada. This is evidenced by the fact that the President of IBM Realty agreed to move 300 million square yards of dirt to create the Mayor’s Hill in order to create a greenspace buffer and view shed that did not already exist. In effect, IBM created a second knoll (hill) to the East. IBM did not need to do this to the North of Glenwyck Farms because the natural knoll (hill) already existed, and it is this natural knoll (hill) that the developer now seeks to shave down by 20 feet. As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will also recall, Trent Petty, the Town’s first Town Manager and current consultant to the Town, likewise confirmed that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer and was treated that way by the owners of the Open Space Land, both IBM and subsequent owner Maguire Partners. As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will also recall, Glenwyck Farms homebuilder Scott Simmons testified at the January 4, 2016 P&Z Hearing (relating to the fix of the typographical error in Ordinance 691) that the Town of Westlake communicated to Glenwyck Farms homebuilders and the Glenwyck Farms developer that the 500-foot yard setback is to remain as undisturbed greenspace and is not merely a bare “setback.” As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will also recall, we had the opportunity to speak with Howard Dudley, former Town Alderman and owner of the land now known as Glenwyck Farms, about the 500-foot yard setback (which Mr. Dudley enacted with the other Town Alderman via Ordinance 202 in 1992). Mr. Dudley likewise confirmed that the 500-foot yard setback is to remain as undisturbed greenspace. In fact, Mr. Dudley indicated that the 500- foot yard setback was specifically designed to preserve the knoll (hill) and trees to the North of his property and create a buffer for his property with respect to future development. Mr. Dudley and the other Town Alderman were quite accurate back in 1992 because the developer’s topography map associated with this zoning change request shows that you get over to the North Side of the knoll at 500 feet out. Moreover, the Town’s communications concerning the existence of the 500-foot yard setback and the fact that it prevents any development within 500 feet of Glenwyck Farms has been memorialized in writing. The Town of Westlake has sent written correspondence to the Glenwyck Farms developer and to Glenwyck Farms residents confirming that “any development” must occur outside of the 500-foot yard setback area. For example, on November 1, 1999, Dennis Wilson, Town Planner, sent a letter to David McMahan at Four Peaks Development, Inc. (the developer of Glenwyck Farms) in which Mr. Wilson confirms that “any development” of the Open Space Land must occur 500 feet away from Glenwyck Farms. See November 1, 1999 Letter from Dennis Wilson to David McMahan, attached as Exhibit 2. This November 1, 1999 Letter from Dennis Wilson, Town Planner, was also distributed to Glenwyck 6 Farms residents, upon which they relied in purchasing their homes. In addition, on February 5, 2009, Tom Brymer, current Town Manager, sent a letter to Pat Cockrum, Glenwyck Farms resident, likewise confirming that “any development” of the Open Space Land must occur 500 feet away from Glenwyck Farms. See February 5, 2009 Letter from Tom Brymer to Pat Cockrum, attached as Exhibit 3. The February 5, 2009 Letter from Tom Brymer to Pat Cockrum is particularly instructive as it makes clear that “any development,” even a gas well pad site, is prohibited within the 500-foot yard setback. In other words, the 500-foot yard setback prevents “any development” within 500 feet of Glenwyck Farms, whether that development is a building, a gas well pad site, or a surface parking lot. The text of Ordinance 202 (and is successors) and the Westlake Code confirm the same. Specifically, while other clauses refer expressly to “setbacks,” the clause that creates the 500- foot yard setback has always referenced a 500-foot “yard.” Here, the Town was its own lexicographer and provided its own definition of the word “yard” in the Westlake Code of Ordinances. According to the Westlake Code, a “yard” is “open space,” and “open space” is greenspace that is “relatively free of manmade structures [such as buildings and parking lots], where water bodies, land forms [such as a knoll/hill], and vegetation [such as trees] predominate”: Yard. The word “yard” shall mean an open space, other than a court, on a lot unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward unless specifically otherwise permitted in this Code. Open Space. The words “open space” shall mean that land area which is relatively free of manmade structures, where water bodies, land forms, and vegetation predominate. Westlake, TX Code of Ordinances. In short, the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer according to Ordinance 202 (and its successors), the Westlake Code of Ordinances, and the Town’s representatives who, for 20 years, represented that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer to the developer of Glenwyck Farms, Glenwyck Farms homebuilders, and Glenwyck Farms homeowners, each of whom has financially relied on the same. If this 500-foot yard setback is removed, then the Glenwyck Farms homeowners that border the Open Space Land will lose the 6 figure premiums (each) that they paid for their homes. 3. The proposed dense development is in conflict with the Westlake Transfer of Development Intensity Ordinance. Pursuant to the expressed intent of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan and to preserve Westlake’s view corridors and scenic topography, the Westlake Transfer of Development Intensity (“TDI”) Ordinance was adopted. The Open Space Land is in a Sending District where permitted development intensity should be transferred to a Receiving District. The proposed zoning change for dense residential development is in direct conflict with the intent of the TDI Ordinance that such development occur in a Receiving District. In fact, the TDI Ordinance is designed to transfer the existing PD1-1 permitted development intensity out of the Open Space Land District. The creation of a new PD6 in place of PD 1-1 with dense 7 residential development intensity within a Sending District is a complete abomination of the TDI Ordinance, which is designed to prevent zoning changes that increase development intensity within a Sending District. The TDI Ordinance could not have been written for a better situation than we have now. BRE Solana owns the Open Space Land, which is in a Sending District. BRE Solana also owns valuable property by the expressway that is in a Receiving District. Thus, BRE Solana can obtain incentives from the Town pursuant to the TDI Ordinance by building its allowed square footage (pursuant to the 10% lot coverage rule) on its expressway properties (all of BRE Solana’s allowed square footage can be built on its expressway properties). The fact that this deal has not already been done is a function of BRE Solana’s refusal to come to the table with the Town to talk about a master plan for its properties. 4. The proposed zoning change does not meet the requirements of the Westlake Code of Ordinances. Ordinance 101-266(i) – The proposed zoning change does not meet the following approval criteria for a planned development: 1. The requested zoning change is inconsistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan (including the Land Use Plan and the Parks & Open Space Plan); 2. The proposed dense residential uses and the configuration of the dense residential uses are not compatible with existing and planned adjoining residential uses because no development is to occur in the Open Space Land, which is meant to serve as a buffer; 3 The proposed dense residential uses, development densities and intensities, and development regulations are not consistent with this article because no development is to occur in the Open Space Land, the proposed development densities are greater than those of the adjacent Glenwyck and Granada neighborhoods, and no development intensity is to occur in the Open Space Land Sending District of the TDI Ordinance; 4. The configuration of the proposed open space serving the proposed development is not consistent with the Town's Open Space Plan because the Open Space Plan shows contiguous open space with no development of any kind except for a community park in this particular Open Space Land District, whereas the configuration of open space serving the proposed development is non-contiguous and randomly spaced among the dense units and also outside this particular Open Space Land District; 5. No amenities of value to persons who are not residents of the proposed residential development are proposed that justify proposed residential densities or intensities in an area that is meant to be undeveloped as Open Space Land; 6. The proposed dense development does not further the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community when the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, 8 designed to preserve view corridors and native pastoral settings, is abrogated with the dense development that wipes out the Open Space Land. Ordinance 102-241 – The proposed zoning change does not meet the following purposes for the creation of a planned development: 1. Superior design of lots or buildings is not accomplished by PD6 with lot dimensions of 80’ X 135’ and dense units that are incompatible with existing homes in Glenwyck Farms and Granada; 2. Increased recreation and/or open space opportunities for public use is not provided by PD6 because existing, contiguous, undeveloped open space is being replaced by noncontiguous open space spread between 65 dense units plus wooden stairs to the top of “Mayor’s Hill,” which is an eyesore and a hazard; 3. Rural amenities or features that would be of special benefit to the property users or community is not provided by the proposed dense development in the middle of existing open space that already provides the rural amenities and features desired; 4. The proposed PD6 does not protect or preserve natural amenities and environmental assets such as trees, creeks, ponds, floodplains, slopes or hills and viewscapes because the existing Open Space Land with dense mature trees, a knoll that provides a sound barrier from traffic on Highway 114, and a sloping hill with viewscape for the Glenwyck and Granada neighborhoods will be destroyed by the proposed dense development; 5. The proposed PD6 does not protect or preserve existing historical buildings, structures, features or places because the proposed dense development will eliminate the existing Open Space Land, which contains the characteristic topography, views, and vistas that are the essence of Westlake’s pastoral setting; 6. The proposed PD6 does not provide an appropriate balance between the intensity of development and the ability to provide adequate supporting public facilities and services because development intensity is not to occur in this Open Space Land District and is to be sent from this area to receiving districts elsewhere in the Town. Ordinance 98-46 – The proposed zoning change is in direct conflict with the following tree preservation principles: 1. Not only will PD6 not protect against the indiscriminate clearing of trees, it will actually promote indiscriminate clearing of trees. Mass clear cutting of trees in this densely wooded Open Space Land is unavoidable in order to develop the proposed dense 65 lots with a 20-foot drop in grade of the view shed which now exists. The top area of the knoll (hill) that will be shaved down by 20 feet is particularly problematic because no trees or vegetation will survive this type of catastrophic soil removal. 9 2. PD6 will not protect and increase the value of residential and commercial properties within the Town because the Open Space Land District, left undisturbed in its natural state, is what protects and increases the value of the residential and commercial properties in the Town. 3. PD6 will not maintain and enhance a positive image for the attraction of new businesses and residents to the Town to the same extent as the Open Space Land District, with a Community Park among the dense trees in its natural state. 4. PD6 will not protect healthy mature trees and promote the natural ecological, environmental, and aesthetic qualities of the Town and will instead destroy the healthy mature trees in this Open Space Land District. This Open Space Land will be clear-cut for an incompatible dense development. 5. PD 6 will not preserve the rural forested character of the Town and will instead result in the annihilation of the last true piece of rural forested land in the Town. This is why the land was designated as Open Space Land. 5. The proposed zoning change does not comply with tree mitigation requirements. In November 2016, a tree survey of the Open Space Land was purportedly conducted by the developer’s consultant, Kimley Horn, wherein based upon a sampling process, trees 6-inches and greater in diameter were tagged and counted. Conspicuously absent from the developer’s zoning change request is a copy of this Kimley Horn survey. In fact, the Town Staff notes the failure of the developer to submit the survey and that the total cost of tree mitigation is “several million dollars at a minimum”: The survey was not submitted as part of this request. Staff estimates that total cost of mitigation would be several million dollars at a minimum. August 14, 2017 Staff Report at Page 89 of the August 14, 2017 P&Z Agenda. One can only assume that the survey is not favorable to the developer, especially because what little is disclosed about the survey evidences that tree mitigation payments to be paid by the developer should be many millions of dollars. In particular, by failing to disclose the Kimley Horn survey, the developer prevents the Town from calculating just how many millions of dollars are owed by the developer (the average caliper inches per Protect Tree is not disclosed). Although the Town was not provided with a copy of the Kimley Horn survey, the developer represents that that the survey determined that there were approximately 105 Protected Trees per acre on the East side of the sample area and approximately 162 Protected Trees per acre on the West side of the sample area. The proposed development will be on the West side of the subject property area. Per the developer’s Land Use Summary, 25.3 acres consists of residential areas and right-of-way that will be clear cut. Based upon 162 Protected Trees per acre and 25.3 acres of development including right-of-way, this represents 4,098.6 trees of at least 6 caliper inches that will be clear cut, not to mention thousands of other trees that are less than 6 caliper inches. Even if one assumes that every tree is only 6 caliper inches (and no more), this would represent 24,591.6 caliper inches. At $100 per caliper inch, this represents a minimum tree mitigation cost of $2,459,160. Of course, many of the trees on the Open Space Land are 12 caliper inches and 10 greater. If the average is just 10 caliper inches, the total caliper inches would be 40,986, and the cost of tree mitigation then rises to $4,098,600. It is reasonable to assume that the tree mitigation cost to be paid by the developer is in the range of $4 to $5 Million. The Town should calculate what is owed by the developer and enforce payment of this amount should the Town decide to allow clear cutting of the Open Space Land. Of course, in pursuit of profit maximization, the developer boldly proposes to pay nothing in connection with tree mitigation. The developer’s proposed zoning change requests that: “No mitigation shall be required of any individual lot. Each lot shall plant at least two 3.5 caliper inch trees from an approved hardwood tree list. If existing native trees are preserved in the front or street-side side yards, they can be utilized to satisfy the tree planting requirement on the lot.” Further, the developer proposes two alternatives to further address mitigation: Alternate A consists dedicated trailhead parking spaces as part of the existing adjacent parking lot, a wood stairway into “Mayor’s Hill,” passive fitness stations on “Mayor’s Hill,” and a picnic area on Mayor’s Hill. Alternate B consists of deeding to the Town land that fronts Sam School Road that can be used for municipal purposes (but the municipal use would be exempted from the cumulative PD1-1 coverage test). The developer’s request, along with Alternatives A and B, are nowhere close to equivalent value for the $4 to $5 Million in tree mitigation that should be paid for the destruction of thousands of mature trees on the Open Space Land that serves as a critical view shed for the Town pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan. The Town Staff appears to repudiate the developer’s request, along with Alternatives A and B, by declaring that “all existing trees removed on individual single family lots shall require mitigation per the requirements of the Code of Ordinances." However, the Town Staff also declares that “trees located in the roadways and utility main locations as shown on the preliminary plat and civil construction plans are hereby exempt from the mitigation requirements of the Code of Ordinances.” This exemption is not in the Town’s Code of Ordinances, and there is no reason why the Town should make such a concession when the developer seeks to clear cut the Open Space Land. 6.The proposed zoning change has a negative financial impact on the Town. The current property tax rate for the Town of Westlake is .13695 per $100 of assessed value. Assuming that each of the proposed 65 units has an assessed value of $1.35M, the total property tax revenue to the Town is $120,174. However, according to various studies, including Jeffrey H. Doorman’s The Fiscal Impacts of Land Use on Local Government (University of Georgia, 2006) and the Cost of Community Services Studies (“COCS”) prepared by the American Farmland Trust, the cost to provide public services for residential land use exceeds the property tax revenue generated. In particular, in the American Farmland Trust study, the median COCS for residential land use is $1.15 for every $1.00 of property tax revenue (in other words, a net loss). Accordingly, approval of the proposed zoning change would likewise result in a loss for the Town. Based on the COCS studies, and confirmed by Mayor Wheat at the August 7th Coffee with the Mayor, the Town’s expenses will increase by more than the $120,174 of property tax revenue such that the proposed residential development will result in a net economic loss for the Town. Moreover, while $120,174 of property tax revenue would be generated, representing 8% of the total property tax revenue ($1,477,116) in the FY17-18 Westlake Budget, $120,174 is less也an l% of血e total revenue in血e Westlake Budget ($16,389,867). Thus,血e proposed development is insignificant to血e Town’s overall revenue even if one fails to account for血e COCS. 7.　The 。ro。OSed zonin2 Chan2e is血consistent wi血stl町Omd血管DroI)erties種nd w皿 result in a loss of DrOne教書v va看ue. 皿e proposed dense development is not compatible with exis血g homes in血e a句acent Glenwyck Fans and Granada neighborhoods. Dense development bunt close to血e Glenwyck Fams and Granada neighbo血oods means loss of property value for the Glenwyck Fams狐d Granada residents. 8.　The I)rOロO§ed zon血生Ch種血纏e is inconsistent wi心血e ToⅧ,s Tree Citv USA me血bershiI) and the Town,s Vision Statement. As a member of Tree City USA,血e Town should look for oppo巾mities to preserve trees and open spaces. Here言t is easy for血e Town to do this.皿e Town s血ply needs to deny血e proposed zoning change. The Town has血e oppo血mity to preserve血e Open Space Land, Which is arguably血e last of its kind in血e Town’wi血untouched native trees, W皿ife (including deeD, and a 30 foot knoll (hill)血at acts as a view shed, nOise barrier (from血e expressway), and bu鯖er for血e ToⅧ・ Auso,血e Town’s Vision Statement requires血e Town to preserve land as open space when it has血e ab誼ty to do so (like here): ‘Westlake is an oasis of natural beauty that maintains our open spaces in balance wi血dis血ctive development’trails’and quality of life amenities amidst an ever expanding urban landscape・’’ For血e reasons set fo血herein,血e Town should deny血e requested zoning change to which血e developer and land owner have no entitlement and to which血e developer and land owner have shown no compelling reason to (1) violate血e Town’s Comprehensive Plan, (2) clear cut血e Open Space Land, and (3)血ave血e knoll (hi11) down by 20 feet,血us destroying血e view shed and noise barrier for血e ToⅧ. N劃。(S,二連日品柄/乙高儀高年　「 Si印.a血re(s) : 間 1 September 21, 2017 VIA U.S. MAIL and EMAIL TO: rruthven@westlake-tx.org Town Council and Planning & Zoning Commission Members c/o Ron Ruthven, Director of Planning and Development Town of Westlake 1500 Solana Blvd. (The Terrace) Building 7, Suite 7200 Westlake, TX 76262 Re: Protest Petition for Case No. Z-06-19-17; Zoning change request for approximately 62.53 acre portion of Lot 1, Block 3 Westlake/Southlake Park #1 Dear Town Council and Planning & Zoning Commission members: I (we), ________________________________________________________________, reside at _______________________________________________________________. I (we) oppose to the zoning change requested in Case No. Z-06-19-17 and respectfully request that you deny the requested zoning change for the following 8 reasons detailed below: (1) The proposed zoning change is not in compliance with the Land Use Plan and the 2015 Town of Westlake Comprehensive Plan, (2) the proposed 150-foot setback is contrary to the 500-foot yard setback of PD1-1 and will result in property value loss, (3) the proposed dense development is in conflict with the Town of Westlake Transfer of Development Intensity Ordinance, (4) the proposed zoning change does not meet the requirements of the Town of Westlake Code of Ordinances, (5) the proposed zoning change does not comply with tree mitigation requirements, (6) the proposed zoning change has a negative financial impact on the Town, (7) the proposed zoning change is inconsistent with surrounding properties and will result in a loss of property value, and (8) the proposed zoning change is inconsistent with the Town’s Tree City USA Membership and the Town’s Vision Statement. In addition, the zoning change request should be denied for an even more fundamental reason before the Town analyzes these 8 problems with the request. In particular, the property owner, Blackstone (“BRE Solana, LLC”), has repeatedly and stubbornly refused, over the last 3 years, to meet with the Town to discuss a Master Plan for BRE Solana’s properties. Over the last 3 years, dozens of requests for such a meeting have been made by the Town Staff (Tom Brymer, Eddie Edwards, and Ron Ruthven) and Mayor Wheat. As the Town Council and Planning & Zoning Commission members are aware, the Town had an early opportunity to bring BRE Solana to the table when it wanted to build a parking garage at one of the Solana buildings. Despite the fact that BRE Solana continued to refuse to discuss a Master Plan, out of good faith and with the goal of changing BRE Solana’s attitude, the Town allowed BRE Solana to build the parking garage that it wanted. At that time, the Town Staff indicated that BRE Solana would not obtain another favor from the Town, and in particular, a zoning change, unless BRE Solana came to the table and agreed to (1) keep the Open Space Land (the subject of Z-06-19-17) as open space, and (2) build its allowed 10% lot coverage on its more valuable properties by the expressway. The Town has even offered incentives to BRE Solana in return for BRE Solana Nolan R. Ogden and Erin D. Jewel 1829 Broken Bend Drive, Westlake, TX 76262 2 building its allowed 10% lot coverage on its more valuable properties by the expressway. The incentives offered by the Town include providing BRE Solana with more square footage to be built beyond the 47,230 s.f. allowed under the 10% lot coverage calculation,1 tree mitigation credits, and relaxation of setback and building height restrictions. To date, BRE Solana has continued to refuse to come to the table. Now that a zoning change request is pending, the Town can finally insist on the BRE Solana Master Plan that is long overdue, one that will keep the subject Open Space Land as open space pursuant to the Comprehensive and Land Use Plans (and preserve the ability of the Town to place a one of a kind wooded Community Park on the North half of the Open Space Land pursuant to the Parks & Open Space Plan). To this end, in a February 29, 2016 letter to the residents of Glenwyck Farms, Mayor Wheat, speaking as Mayor of the Town of Westlake and also expressly on behalf of the Town Council, represented that the Town would “push” for the Open Space Land to remain “open and unimproved should the developer request any sort of zoning change,” just as Wilbow, the developer, is doing now: It is important to understand that the newly revised Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Town Council in 2015, designates as Open Space the whole 62.5 acre tract of land of which the Glenwyck [500-foot] Setback is a part. See Attachment B. Although current entitlements on this 62.5 acre tract allow development, the Open Space designation is a signal to future developers that the Town will be pushing for the space to remain open and unimproved should the developer request any sort of zoning change. In the event a future developer does not agree to the Open Space designation and desires to develop the property, it is important to know that the very nature of the Solana Planned Development District gives the Town many strong tools to heavily regulate the manner in which the property can be developed. These tools range from requiring preservation of view corridors, to requiring the preservation of trees, to limiting the footprint and place of any structures and all improvements and to things as simple as the placement of trash cans. February 29, 2016 Letter from Mayor Wheat to Glenwyck Farms Residents at 4 (emphasis added). Mayor Wheat and the Town Council members should follow through with their promise in their February 29, 2016 letter to “push[] for the space to remain open and unimproved should the developer request any sort of zoning change.” It is not in the Town’s or its citizen’s best interest to continue to make concessions to BRE Solana and get nothing in return. If it was not clear from the beginning, it is abundantly clear now that BRE Solana intends to (1) obtain concession after concession from the Town with the sole goal of maximizing profit on the “flip” of its purchase of Maguire Partners’ Solana office buildings out of bankruptcy, and (2) get out of town. In fact, BRE Solana is already half way out of town on its “flip” as it has already sold (“flipped”) 1 On January 7, 2013, pursuant to the approval of Entrada and Granada, the Town Staff (Eddie Edwards) and Trent Petty (the first Town Manager and now consultant to the Town) calculated the remaining allowed square footage to be built within PD1 after approval of Entrada and Granada. See January 7, 2013 Emails Between Eddie Edwards and Trent Petty, attached as Exhibit 1. Mr. Edwards and Mr. Petty calculated the remaining allowed square footage to be 47,230 s.f. Thus, at most, BRE Solana can build only 47,230 s.f. on the Open Space Land. 3 two of its office buildings. BRE Solana will soon be out of Westlake and on to its next profit maximizing “flip.” In addition to BRE Solana’s refusal to meet with the Town, the proposed zoning change should be denied for the following 8 reasons: 1. The proposed zoning change is not in compliance with the Land Use Plan and the Parks & Open Space Plan of the 2015 Town of Westlake Comprehensive Plan. The requested zoning change is contrary to the Land Use and Comprehensive Plans. The Open Space Land, located within the Open Space Land District of the Land Use Plan, abuts the Glenwyck Farms and Granada subdivisions. The Comprehensive Plan states that: [T]he intent of the Open Space District is to preserve vistas and view corridors and, thereby, preserve the essence of Westlake’s pastoral setting as it experiences increasing amounts of commercial and residential development. Open Space Land Use District is meant to be primarily undeveloped with landmark landforms of the Town remaining in their natural condition, thereby preserving important views as well as natural and rural settings. 2015 Town of Westlake Comprehensive Plan. The proposed dense residential development is inconsistent with the expressed intentions of the Town Council, P&Z Commission, and the Town’s citizens, who approved the Land Use Plan to keep the Open Space Land undeveloped and in its natural state. Accordingly, residential development within the Open Space Land Use District does not comply with the 2015 Town of Westlake Comprehensive Plan. In a red herring argument, the developer argues that it is preserving open space in the Southeast portion of the 62.53 acre property. However, this portion of the property is not designated as open space pursuant to the Land Use and Comprehensive Plans. Moreover, this Southeast portion of the property is “undevelopable” according to the developer’s representative, Larry Corson, and thus, the Southeast portion will always remain as open space. This means that the developer is offering nothing to the Town in return for being able to (1) clear cut the Open Space Land, and (2) shave down, by 20 feet, the knoll (hill) that acts as view shed and noise barrier for the Town. Both (1) and (2) would be devastating to the Town’s citizens and their properties if the Town Council and P&Z Commission were to allow it. Also, the requested zoning change is contrary to The Parks & Open Space Plan that is a part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Parks & Open Space Plan calls for the only Community Park in the Town to be located on the North half of the Open Space Land. In what would be another bad deal for the Town, the developer proposes that the Town abandon its plans for the only, one of a kind, 30 acre wooded Community Park on the North half of the Open Space Land pursuant to the Parks & Open Space Plan and instead have the 2 acre “Mayor’s Hill” with a wooden staircase replace it. Other than the building of a wooden staircase on Mayor’s Hill, which would be an eyesore and a hazard, the Town receives nothing in return because Mayor’s Hill will exist no matter what (again, as the developer’s representative has conceded, this Southeast area is “undevelopable” and will remain as open space). 4 2. The proposed 150-foot setback is contrary to the 500-foot yard setback of PD1-1 and will result in property value loss. The requested zoning change seeks to create a new PD6 that eliminates all of the development regulations of PD1-1. An important development condition in PD1-1 imposes a minimum size of front, side and rear yard of five hundred feet (500’) setback from Glenwyck Farms. Similarly, there exists a 500-foot setback in connection with the Granada subdivision. The development plan associated with the requested zoning change removes the Glenwyck Farms 500-foot yard setback and the Granada 500-foot setback and replaces them with a 150-foot setback. Property owners in Glenwyck Farms and Granada invested substantial monetary sums in their land and improvements in reliance on the Town’s imposition of the 500-foot yard setback and 500-foot setback, with exemplary Glenwyck Farms residents paying multiple 6 figure premiums (each) to purchase their homes that adjoin the 500-foot yard setback. At 150 feet, even for that period of the year when leaves are on the trees, the windows of the proposed dense development will be looking directly into the bedroom windows, living rooms, family rooms, and backyards of Glenwyck Farms and Granada residents. When the leaves are down in Fall/Winter/Early Spring, the view will be clear as you can see all of the way to the knoll (hill) at 500 feet away with the leaves down. Making matters even worse, the requested zoning change proposes the placement of parking lots (and presumably lighting poles) at only 150 feet away from the back yards of Glenwyck Farms and Granada residents (see the red arrows below): As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will recall, the 500-foot yard setback was established in 1992 via Ordinance 202, and the text and history of Ordinance 202 (and its successors 588, 691, and 767) evidence that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer. Four of the most important Town witnesses that have lived and owned the genesis of the 500- foot yard setback in the 1990s confirm that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer. During this time, former Mayor Bradley was Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5 Mayor Bradley led the Town’s negotiations with IBM, the owner of the Open Space Land at the time. Mayor Bradley will testify before the P&Z Commission and the Town Council that he had express and extensive discussions with the President of IBM Realty concerning the fact that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer that is to remain untouched and undeveloped. Mayor Bradley will further testify that the President of IBM Realty believed that the greenspace buffer would provide value to IBM’s properties by preserving open space. The President of IBM Realty also believed that the IBM development would serve as an exemplary development for the Town on how open space was to be preserved and how view sheds should be retained, including the knoll (hill) North of Glenwyck Farms and East of Granada. This is evidenced by the fact that the President of IBM Realty agreed to move 300 million square yards of dirt to create the Mayor’s Hill in order to create a greenspace buffer and view shed that did not already exist. In effect, IBM created a second knoll (hill) to the East. IBM did not need to do this to the North of Glenwyck Farms because the natural knoll (hill) already existed, and it is this natural knoll (hill) that the developer now seeks to shave down by 20 feet. As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will also recall, Trent Petty, the Town’s first Town Manager and current consultant to the Town, likewise confirmed that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer and was treated that way by the owners of the Open Space Land, both IBM and subsequent owner Maguire Partners. As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will also recall, Glenwyck Farms homebuilder Scott Simmons testified at the January 4, 2016 P&Z Hearing (relating to the fix of the typographical error in Ordinance 691) that the Town of Westlake communicated to Glenwyck Farms homebuilders and the Glenwyck Farms developer that the 500-foot yard setback is to remain as undisturbed greenspace and is not merely a bare “setback.” As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will also recall, we had the opportunity to speak with Howard Dudley, former Town Alderman and owner of the land now known as Glenwyck Farms, about the 500-foot yard setback (which Mr. Dudley enacted with the other Town Alderman via Ordinance 202 in 1992). Mr. Dudley likewise confirmed that the 500-foot yard setback is to remain as undisturbed greenspace. In fact, Mr. Dudley indicated that the 500- foot yard setback was specifically designed to preserve the knoll (hill) and trees to the North of his property and create a buffer for his property with respect to future development. Mr. Dudley and the other Town Alderman were quite accurate back in 1992 because the developer’s topography map associated with this zoning change request shows that you get over to the North Side of the knoll at 500 feet out. Moreover, the Town’s communications concerning the existence of the 500-foot yard setback and the fact that it prevents any development within 500 feet of Glenwyck Farms has been memorialized in writing. The Town of Westlake has sent written correspondence to the Glenwyck Farms developer and to Glenwyck Farms residents confirming that “any development” must occur outside of the 500-foot yard setback area. For example, on November 1, 1999, Dennis Wilson, Town Planner, sent a letter to David McMahan at Four Peaks Development, Inc. (the developer of Glenwyck Farms) in which Mr. Wilson confirms that “any development” of the Open Space Land must occur 500 feet away from Glenwyck Farms. See November 1, 1999 Letter from Dennis Wilson to David McMahan, attached as Exhibit 2. This November 1, 1999 Letter from Dennis Wilson, Town Planner, was also distributed to Glenwyck 6 Farms residents, upon which they relied in purchasing their homes. In addition, on February 5, 2009, Tom Brymer, current Town Manager, sent a letter to Pat Cockrum, Glenwyck Farms resident, likewise confirming that “any development” of the Open Space Land must occur 500 feet away from Glenwyck Farms. See February 5, 2009 Letter from Tom Brymer to Pat Cockrum, attached as Exhibit 3. The February 5, 2009 Letter from Tom Brymer to Pat Cockrum is particularly instructive as it makes clear that “any development,” even a gas well pad site, is prohibited within the 500-foot yard setback. In other words, the 500-foot yard setback prevents “any development” within 500 feet of Glenwyck Farms, whether that development is a building, a gas well pad site, or a surface parking lot. The text of Ordinance 202 (and is successors) and the Westlake Code confirm the same. Specifically, while other clauses refer expressly to “setbacks,” the clause that creates the 500- foot yard setback has always referenced a 500-foot “yard.” Here, the Town was its own lexicographer and provided its own definition of the word “yard” in the Westlake Code of Ordinances. According to the Westlake Code, a “yard” is “open space,” and “open space” is greenspace that is “relatively free of manmade structures [such as buildings and parking lots], where water bodies, land forms [such as a knoll/hill], and vegetation [such as trees] predominate”: Yard. The word “yard” shall mean an open space, other than a court, on a lot unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward unless specifically otherwise permitted in this Code. Open Space. The words “open space” shall mean that land area which is relatively free of manmade structures, where water bodies, land forms, and vegetation predominate. Westlake, TX Code of Ordinances. In short, the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer according to Ordinance 202 (and its successors), the Westlake Code of Ordinances, and the Town’s representatives who, for 20 years, represented that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer to the developer of Glenwyck Farms, Glenwyck Farms homebuilders, and Glenwyck Farms homeowners, each of whom has financially relied on the same. If this 500-foot yard setback is removed, then the Glenwyck Farms homeowners that border the Open Space Land will lose the 6 figure premiums (each) that they paid for their homes. 3. The proposed dense development is in conflict with the Westlake Transfer of Development Intensity Ordinance. Pursuant to the expressed intent of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan and to preserve Westlake’s view corridors and scenic topography, the Westlake Transfer of Development Intensity (“TDI”) Ordinance was adopted. The Open Space Land is in a Sending District where permitted development intensity should be transferred to a Receiving District. The proposed zoning change for dense residential development is in direct conflict with the intent of the TDI Ordinance that such development occur in a Receiving District. In fact, the TDI Ordinance is designed to transfer the existing PD1-1 permitted development intensity out of the Open Space Land District. The creation of a new PD6 in place of PD 1-1 with dense 7 residential development intensity within a Sending District is a complete abomination of the TDI Ordinance, which is designed to prevent zoning changes that increase development intensity within a Sending District. The TDI Ordinance could not have been written for a better situation than we have now. BRE Solana owns the Open Space Land, which is in a Sending District. BRE Solana also owns valuable property by the expressway that is in a Receiving District. Thus, BRE Solana can obtain incentives from the Town pursuant to the TDI Ordinance by building its allowed square footage (pursuant to the 10% lot coverage rule) on its expressway properties (all of BRE Solana’s allowed square footage can be built on its expressway properties). The fact that this deal has not already been done is a function of BRE Solana’s refusal to come to the table with the Town to talk about a master plan for its properties. 4. The proposed zoning change does not meet the requirements of the Westlake Code of Ordinances. Ordinance 101-266(i) – The proposed zoning change does not meet the following approval criteria for a planned development: 1. The requested zoning change is inconsistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan (including the Land Use Plan and the Parks & Open Space Plan); 2. The proposed dense residential uses and the configuration of the dense residential uses are not compatible with existing and planned adjoining residential uses because no development is to occur in the Open Space Land, which is meant to serve as a buffer; 3 The proposed dense residential uses, development densities and intensities, and development regulations are not consistent with this article because no development is to occur in the Open Space Land, the proposed development densities are greater than those of the adjacent Glenwyck and Granada neighborhoods, and no development intensity is to occur in the Open Space Land Sending District of the TDI Ordinance; 4. The configuration of the proposed open space serving the proposed development is not consistent with the Town's Open Space Plan because the Open Space Plan shows contiguous open space with no development of any kind except for a community park in this particular Open Space Land District, whereas the configuration of open space serving the proposed development is non-contiguous and randomly spaced among the dense units and also outside this particular Open Space Land District; 5. No amenities of value to persons who are not residents of the proposed residential development are proposed that justify proposed residential densities or intensities in an area that is meant to be undeveloped as Open Space Land; 6. The proposed dense development does not further the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community when the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, 8 designed to preserve view corridors and native pastoral settings, is abrogated with the dense development that wipes out the Open Space Land. Ordinance 102-241 – The proposed zoning change does not meet the following purposes for the creation of a planned development: 1. Superior design of lots or buildings is not accomplished by PD6 with lot dimensions of 80’ X 135’ and dense units that are incompatible with existing homes in Glenwyck Farms and Granada; 2. Increased recreation and/or open space opportunities for public use is not provided by PD6 because existing, contiguous, undeveloped open space is being replaced by noncontiguous open space spread between 65 dense units plus wooden stairs to the top of “Mayor’s Hill,” which is an eyesore and a hazard; 3. Rural amenities or features that would be of special benefit to the property users or community is not provided by the proposed dense development in the middle of existing open space that already provides the rural amenities and features desired; 4. The proposed PD6 does not protect or preserve natural amenities and environmental assets such as trees, creeks, ponds, floodplains, slopes or hills and viewscapes because the existing Open Space Land with dense mature trees, a knoll that provides a sound barrier from traffic on Highway 114, and a sloping hill with viewscape for the Glenwyck and Granada neighborhoods will be destroyed by the proposed dense development; 5. The proposed PD6 does not protect or preserve existing historical buildings, structures, features or places because the proposed dense development will eliminate the existing Open Space Land, which contains the characteristic topography, views, and vistas that are the essence of Westlake’s pastoral setting; 6. The proposed PD6 does not provide an appropriate balance between the intensity of development and the ability to provide adequate supporting public facilities and services because development intensity is not to occur in this Open Space Land District and is to be sent from this area to receiving districts elsewhere in the Town. Ordinance 98-46 – The proposed zoning change is in direct conflict with the following tree preservation principles: 1. Not only will PD6 not protect against the indiscriminate clearing of trees, it will actually promote indiscriminate clearing of trees. Mass clear cutting of trees in this densely wooded Open Space Land is unavoidable in order to develop the proposed dense 65 lots with a 20-foot drop in grade of the view shed which now exists. The top area of the knoll (hill) that will be shaved down by 20 feet is particularly problematic because no trees or vegetation will survive this type of catastrophic soil removal. 9 2. PD6 will not protect and increase the value of residential and commercial properties within the Town because the Open Space Land District, left undisturbed in its natural state, is what protects and increases the value of the residential and commercial properties in the Town. 3. PD6 will not maintain and enhance a positive image for the attraction of new businesses and residents to the Town to the same extent as the Open Space Land District, with a Community Park among the dense trees in its natural state. 4. PD6 will not protect healthy mature trees and promote the natural ecological, environmental, and aesthetic qualities of the Town and will instead destroy the healthy mature trees in this Open Space Land District. This Open Space Land will be clear-cut for an incompatible dense development. 5. PD 6 will not preserve the rural forested character of the Town and will instead result in the annihilation of the last true piece of rural forested land in the Town. This is why the land was designated as Open Space Land. 5. The proposed zoning change does not comply with tree mitigation requirements. In November 2016, a tree survey of the Open Space Land was purportedly conducted by the developer’s consultant, Kimley Horn, wherein based upon a sampling process, trees 6-inches and greater in diameter were tagged and counted. Conspicuously absent from the developer’s zoning change request is a copy of this Kimley Horn survey. In fact, the Town Staff notes the failure of the developer to submit the survey and that the total cost of tree mitigation is “several million dollars at a minimum”: The survey was not submitted as part of this request. Staff estimates that total cost of mitigation would be several million dollars at a minimum. August 14, 2017 Staff Report at Page 89 of the August 14, 2017 P&Z Agenda. One can only assume that the survey is not favorable to the developer, especially because what little is disclosed about the survey evidences that tree mitigation payments to be paid by the developer should be many millions of dollars. In particular, by failing to disclose the Kimley Horn survey, the developer prevents the Town from calculating just how many millions of dollars are owed by the developer (the average caliper inches per Protect Tree is not disclosed). Although the Town was not provided with a copy of the Kimley Horn survey, the developer represents that that the survey determined that there were approximately 105 Protected Trees per acre on the East side of the sample area and approximately 162 Protected Trees per acre on the West side of the sample area. The proposed development will be on the West side of the subject property area. Per the developer’s Land Use Summary, 25.3 acres consists of residential areas and right-of-way that will be clear cut. Based upon 162 Protected Trees per acre and 25.3 acres of development including right-of-way, this represents 4,098.6 trees of at least 6 caliper inches that will be clear cut, not to mention thousands of other trees that are less than 6 caliper inches. Even if one assumes that every tree is only 6 caliper inches (and no more), this would represent 24,591.6 caliper inches. At $100 per caliper inch, this represents a minimum tree mitigation cost of $2,459,160. Of course, many of the trees on the Open Space Land are 12 caliper inches and 10 greater. If the average is just 10 caliper inches, the total caliper inches would be 40,986, and the cost of tree mitigation then rises to $4,098,600. It is reasonable to assume that the tree mitigation cost to be paid by the developer is in the range of $4 to $5 Million. The Town should calculate what is owed by the developer and enforce payment of this amount should the Town decide to allow clear cutting of the Open Space Land. Of course, in pursuit of profit maximization, the developer boldly proposes to pay nothing in connection with tree mitigation. The developer’s proposed zoning change requests that: “No mitigation shall be required of any individual lot. Each lot shall plant at least two 3.5 caliper inch trees from an approved hardwood tree list. If existing native trees are preserved in the front or street-side side yards, they can be utilized to satisfy the tree planting requirement on the lot.” Further, the developer proposes two alternatives to further address mitigation: Alternate A consists dedicated trailhead parking spaces as part of the existing adjacent parking lot, a wood stairway into “Mayor’s Hill,” passive fitness stations on “Mayor’s Hill,” and a picnic area on Mayor’s Hill. Alternate B consists of deeding to the Town land that fronts Sam School Road that can be used for municipal purposes (but the municipal use would be exempted from the cumulative PD1-1 coverage test). The developer’s request, along with Alternatives A and B, are nowhere close to equivalent value for the $4 to $5 Million in tree mitigation that should be paid for the destruction of thousands of mature trees on the Open Space Land that serves as a critical view shed for the Town pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan. The Town Staff appears to repudiate the developer’s request, along with Alternatives A and B, by declaring that “all existing trees removed on individual single family lots shall require mitigation per the requirements of the Code of Ordinances." However, the Town Staff also declares that “trees located in the roadways and utility main locations as shown on the preliminary plat and civil construction plans are hereby exempt from the mitigation requirements of the Code of Ordinances.” This exemption is not in the Town’s Code of Ordinances, and there is no reason why the Town should make such a concession when the developer seeks to clear cut the Open Space Land. 6. The proposed zoning change has a negative financial impact on the Town. The current property tax rate for the Town of Westlake is .13695 per $100 of assessed value. Assuming that each of the proposed 65 units has an assessed value of $1.35M, the total property tax revenue to the Town is $120,174. However, according to various studies, including Jeffrey H. Doorman’s The Fiscal Impacts of Land Use on Local Government (University of Georgia, 2006) and the Cost of Community Services Studies (“COCS”) prepared by the American Farmland Trust, the cost to provide public services for residential land use exceeds the property tax revenue generated. In particular, in the American Farmland Trust study, the median COCS for residential land use is $1.15 for every $1.00 of property tax revenue (in other words, a net loss). Accordingly, approval of the proposed zoning change would likewise result in a loss for the Town. Based on the COCS studies, and confirmed by Mayor Wheat at the August 7th Coffee with the Mayor, the Town’s expenses will increase by more than the $120,174 of property tax revenue such that the proposed residential development will result in a net economic loss for the Town. Moreover, while $120,174 of property tax revenue would be generated, representing 8% of the total property tax revenue ($1,477,116) in the FY17-18 Westlake Budget, $120,174 is 11 less than 1% of the total revenue in the Westlake Budget ($16,389,867). Thus, the proposed development is insignificant to the Town’s overall revenue even if one fails to account for the COCS. 7.The proposed zoning change is inconsistent with surrounding properties and will result in a loss of property value. The proposed dense development is not compatible with existing homes in the adjacent Glenwyck Farms and Granada neighborhoods. Dense development built close to the Glenwyck Farms and Granada neighborhoods means loss of property value for the Glenwyck Farms and Granada residents. 8.The proposed zoning change is inconsistent with the Town’s Tree City USA membership and the Town’s Vision Statement. As a member of Tree City USA, the Town should look for opportunities to preserve trees and open spaces. Here, it is easy for the Town to do this. The Town simply needs to deny the proposed zoning change. The Town has the opportunity to preserve the Open Space Land, which is arguably the last of its kind in the Town, with untouched native trees, wildlife (including deer), and a 30 foot knoll (hill) that acts as a view shed, noise barrier (from the expressway), and buffer for the Town. Also, the Town’s Vision Statement requires the Town to preserve land as open space when it has the ability to do so (like here): “Westlake is an oasis of natural beauty that maintains our open spaces in balance with distinctive development, trails, and quality of life amenities amidst an ever expanding urban landscape.” For the reasons set forth herein, the Town should deny the requested zoning change to which the developer and land owner have no entitlement and to which the developer and land owner have shown no compelling reason to (1) violate the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, (2) clear cut the Open Space Land, and (3) shave the knoll (hill) down by 20 feet, thus destroying the view shed and noise barrier for the Town. Name(s): _____________________________________________________________________ Signature(s): __________________________________________________________________ Nolan R. Ogden Erin D. Jewel 1 September 15, 2017 VIA U.S. MAIL and EMAIL TO: rruthven@westlake-tx.org Town Council and Planning & Zoning Commission Members c/o Ron Ruthven, Director of Planning and Development Town of Westlake 1500 Solana Blvd. (The Terrace) Building 7, Suite 7200 Westlake, TX 76262 Re: Protest Petition for Case No. Z-06-19-17; Zoning change request for approximately 62.53 acre portion of Lot 1, Block 3 Westlake/Southlake Park #1 Dear Town Council and Planning & Zoning Commission members: We, Nizar & Muneera Didarali, reside at 1837 Broken Bend Drive, Westlake, Texas 76262. We oppose to the zoning change requested in Case No. Z-06-19-17 and respectfully request that you deny the requested zoning change for the following 8 reasons detailed below: (1) The proposed zoning change is not in compliance with the Land Use Plan and the 2015 Town of Westlake Comprehensive Plan, (2) the proposed 150-foot setback is contrary to the 500-foot yard setback of PD1-1 and will result in property value loss, (3) the proposed dense development is in conflict with the Town of Westlake Transfer of Development Intensity Ordinance, (4) the proposed zoning change does not meet the requirements of the Town of Westlake Code of Ordinances, (5) the proposed zoning change does not comply with tree mitigation requirements, (6) the proposed zoning change has a negative financial impact on the Town, (7) the proposed zoning change is inconsistent with surrounding properties and will result in a loss of property value, and (8) the proposed zoning change is inconsistent with the Town’s Tree City USA Membership and the Town’s Vision Statement. In addition, the zoning change request should be denied for an even more fundamental reason before the Town analyzes these 8 problems with the request. In particular, the property owner, Blackstone (“BRE Solana, LLC”), has repeatedly and stubbornly refused, over the last 3 years, to meet with the Town to discuss a Master Plan for BRE Solana’s properties. Over the last 3 years, dozens of requests for such a meeting have been made by the Town Staff (Tom Brymer, Eddie Edwards, and Ron Ruthven) and Mayor Wheat. As the Town Council and Planning & Zoning Commission members are aware, the Town had an early opportunity to bring BRE Solana to the table when it wanted to build a parking garage at one of the Solana buildings. Despite the fact that BRE Solana continued to refuse to discuss a Master Plan, out of good faith and with the goal of changing BRE Solana’s attitude, the Town allowed BRE Solana to build the parking garage that it wanted. At that time, the Town Staff indicated that BRE Solana would not obtain another favor from the Town, and in particular, a zoning change, unless BRE Solana came to the table and agreed to (1) keep the Open Space Land (the subject of Z-06-19-17) as open space, and (2) build its allowed 10% lot coverage on its more valuable properties by the expressway. The Town has even offered incentives to BRE Solana in return for BRE Solana building its allowed 10% lot coverage on its more valuable properties by the expressway. The 2 incentives offered by the Town include providing BRE Solana with more square footage to be built beyond the 47,230 s.f. allowed under the 10% lot coverage calculation,1 tree mitigation credits, and relaxation of setback and building height restrictions. To date, BRE Solana has continued to refuse to come to the table. Now that a zoning change request is pending, the Town can finally insist on the BRE Solana Master Plan that is long overdue, one that will keep the subject Open Space Land as open space pursuant to the Comprehensive and Land Use Plans (and preserve the ability of the Town to place a one of a kind wooded Community Park on the North half of the Open Space Land pursuant to the Parks & Open Space Plan). To this end, in a February 29, 2016 letter to the residents of Glenwyck Farms, Mayor Wheat, speaking as Mayor of the Town of Westlake and also expressly on behalf of the Town Council, represented that the Town would “push” for the Open Space Land to remain “open and unimproved should the developer request any sort of zoning change,” just as Wilbow, the developer, is doing now: It is important to understand that the newly revised Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Town Council in 2015, designates as Open Space the whole 62.5 acre tract of land of which the Glenwyck [500-foot] Setback is a part. See Attachment B. Although current entitlements on this 62.5 acre tract allow development, the Open Space designation is a signal to future developers that the Town will be pushing for the space to remain open and unimproved should the developer request any sort of zoning change. In the event a future developer does not agree to the Open Space designation and desires to develop the property, it is important to know that the very nature of the Solana Planned Development District gives the Town many strong tools to heavily regulate the manner in which the property can be developed. These tools range from requiring preservation of view corridors, to requiring the preservation of trees, to limiting the footprint and place of any structures and all improvements and to things as simple as the placement of trash cans. February 29, 2016 Letter from Mayor Wheat to Glenwyck Farms Residents at 4 (emphasis added). Mayor Wheat and the Town Council members should follow through with their promise in their February 29, 2016 letter to “push[] for the space to remain open and unimproved should the developer request any sort of zoning change.” It is not in the Town’s or its citizen’s best interest to continue to make concessions to BRE Solana and get nothing in return. If it was not clear from the beginning, it is abundantly clear now that BRE Solana intends to (1) obtain concession after concession from the Town with the sole goal of maximizing profit on the “flip” of its purchase of Maguire Partners’ Solana office buildings out of bankruptcy, and (2) get out of town. In fact, BRE Solana is already half way out of town on its “flip” as it has already sold (“flipped”) two of its office buildings. BRE Solana will soon be out of Westlake and on to its next profit maximizing “flip.” 1 On January 7, 2013, pursuant to the approval of Entrada and Granada, the Town Staff (Eddie Edwards) and Trent Petty (the first Town Manager and now consultant to the Town) calculated the remaining allowed square footage to be built within PD1 after approval of Entrada and Granada. See January 7, 2013 Emails Between Eddie Edwards and Trent Petty, attached as Exhibit 1. Mr. Edwards and Mr. Petty calculated the remaining allowed square footage to be 47,230 s.f. Thus, at most, BRE Solana can build only 47,230 s.f. on the Open Space Land. 3 In addition to BRE Solana’s refusal to meet with the Town, the proposed zoning change should be denied for the following 8 reasons: 1. The proposed zoning change is not in compliance with the Land Use Plan and the Parks & Open Space Plan of the 2015 Town of Westlake Comprehensive Plan. The requested zoning change is contrary to the Land Use and Comprehensive Plans. The Open Space Land, located within the Open Space Land District of the Land Use Plan, abuts the Glenwyck Farms and Granada subdivisions. The Comprehensive Plan states that: [T]he intent of the Open Space District is to preserve vistas and view corridors and, thereby, preserve the essence of Westlake’s pastoral setting as it experiences increasing amounts of commercial and residential development. Open Space Land Use District is meant to be primarily undeveloped with landmark landforms of the Town remaining in their natural condition, thereby preserving important views as well as natural and rural settings. 2015 Town of Westlake Comprehensive Plan. The proposed dense residential development is inconsistent with the expressed intentions of the Town Council, P&Z Commission, and the Town’s citizens, who approved the Land Use Plan to keep the Open Space Land undeveloped and in its natural state. Accordingly, residential development within the Open Space Land Use District does not comply with the 2015 Town of Westlake Comprehensive Plan. In a red herring argument, the developer argues that it is preserving open space in the Southeast portion of the 62.53 acre property. However, this portion of the property is not designated as open space pursuant to the Land Use and Comprehensive Plans. Moreover, this Southeast portion of the property is “undevelopable” according to the developer’s representative, Larry Corson, and thus, the Southeast portion will always remain as open space. This means that the developer is offering nothing to the Town in return for being able to (1) clear cut the Open Space Land, and (2) shave down, by 20 feet, the knoll (hill) that acts as view shed and noise barrier for the Town. Both (1) and (2) would be devastating to the Town’s citizens and their properties if the Town Council and P&Z Commission were to allow it. Also, the requested zoning change is contrary to The Parks & Open Space Plan that is a part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Parks & Open Space Plan calls for the only Community Park in the Town to be located on the North half of the Open Space Land. In what would be another bad deal for the Town, the developer proposes that the Town abandon its plans for the only, one of a kind, 30 acre wooded Community Park on the North half of the Open Space Land pursuant to the Parks & Open Space Plan and instead have the 2 acre “Mayor’s Hill” with a wooden staircase replace it. Other than the building of a wooden staircase on Mayor’s Hill, which would be an eyesore and a hazard, the Town receives nothing in return because Mayor’s Hill will exist no matter what (again, as the developer’s representative has conceded, this Southeast area is “undevelopable” and will remain as open space). 2. The proposed 150-foot setback is contrary to the 500-foot yard setback of PD1-1 and will result in property value loss. 4 The requested zoning change seeks to create a new PD6 that eliminates all of the development regulations of PD1-1. An important development condition in PD1-1 imposes a minimum size of front, side and rear yard of five hundred feet (500’) setback from Glenwyck Farms. Similarly, there exists a 500-foot setback in connection with the Granada subdivision. The development plan associated with the requested zoning change removes the Glenwyck Farms 500-foot yard setback and the Granada 500-foot setback and replaces them with a 150-foot setback. Property owners in Glenwyck Farms and Granada invested substantial monetary sums in their land and improvements in reliance on the Town’s imposition of the 500-foot yard setback and 500-foot setback, with exemplary Glenwyck Farms residents paying multiple 6 figure premiums (each) to purchase their homes that adjoin the 500-foot yard setback. At 150 feet, even for that period of the year when leaves are on the trees, the windows of the proposed dense development will be looking directly into the bedroom windows, living rooms, family rooms, and backyards of Glenwyck Farms and Granada residents. When the leaves are down in Fall/Winter/Early Spring, the view will be clear as you can see all of the way to the knoll (hill) at 500 feet away with the leaves down. Making matters even worse, the requested zoning change proposes the placement of parking lots (and presumably lighting poles) at only 150 feet away from the back yards of Glenwyck Farms and Granada residents (see the red arrows below): As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will recall, the 500-foot yard setback was established in 1992 via Ordinance 202, and the text and history of Ordinance 202 (and its successors 588, 691, and 767) evidence that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer. Four of the most important Town witnesses that have lived and owned the genesis of the 500- foot yard setback in the 1990s confirm that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer. During this time, former Mayor Bradley was Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mayor Bradley led the Town’s negotiations with IBM, the owner of the Open Space Land at the time. Mayor Bradley will testify before the P&Z Commission and the Town Council that he had express and extensive discussions with the President of IBM Realty concerning the fact that the 5 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer that is to remain untouched and undeveloped. Mayor Bradley will further testify that the President of IBM Realty believed that the greenspace buffer would provide value to IBM’s properties by preserving open space. The President of IBM Realty also believed that the IBM development would serve as an exemplary development for the Town on how open space was to be preserved and how view sheds should be retained, including the knoll (hill) North of Glenwyck Farms and East of Granada. This is evidenced by the fact that the President of IBM Realty agreed to move 300 million square yards of dirt to create the Mayor’s Hill in order to create a greenspace buffer and view shed that did not already exist. In effect, IBM created a second knoll (hill) to the East. IBM did not need to do this to the North of Glenwyck Farms because the natural knoll (hill) already existed, and it is this natural knoll (hill) that the developer now seeks to shave down by 20 feet. As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will also recall, Trent Petty, the Town’s first Town Manager and current consultant to the Town, likewise confirmed that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer and was treated that way by the owners of the Open Space Land, both IBM and subsequent owner Maguire Partners. As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will also recall, Glenwyck Farms homebuilder Scott Simmons testified at the January 4, 2016 P&Z Hearing (relating to the fix of the typographical error in Ordinance 691) that the Town of Westlake communicated to Glenwyck Farms homebuilders and the Glenwyck Farms developer that the 500-foot yard setback is to remain as undisturbed greenspace and is not merely a bare “setback.” As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will also recall, we had the opportunity to speak with Howard Dudley, former Town Alderman and owner of the land now known as Glenwyck Farms, about the 500-foot yard setback (which Mr. Dudley enacted with the other Town Alderman via Ordinance 202 in 1992). Mr. Dudley likewise confirmed that the 500-foot yard setback is to remain as undisturbed greenspace. In fact, Mr. Dudley indicated that the 500- foot yard setback was specifically designed to preserve the knoll (hill) and trees to the North of his property and create a buffer for his property with respect to future development. Mr. Dudley and the other Town Alderman were quite accurate back in 1992 because the developer’s topography map associated with this zoning change request shows that you get over to the North Side of the knoll at 500 feet out. Moreover, the Town’s communications concerning the existence of the 500-foot yard setback and the fact that it prevents any development within 500 feet of Glenwyck Farms has been memorialized in writing. The Town of Westlake has sent written correspondence to the Glenwyck Farms developer and to Glenwyck Farms residents confirming that “any development” must occur outside of the 500-foot yard setback area. For example, on November 1, 1999, Dennis Wilson, Town Planner, sent a letter to David McMahan at Four Peaks Development, Inc. (the developer of Glenwyck Farms) in which Mr. Wilson confirms that “any development” of the Open Space Land must occur 500 feet away from Glenwyck Farms. See November 1, 1999 Letter from Dennis Wilson to David McMahan, attached as Exhibit 2. This November 1, 1999 Letter from Dennis Wilson, Town Planner, was also distributed to Glenwyck Farms residents, upon which they relied in purchasing their homes. In addition, on February 5, 2009, Tom Brymer, current Town Manager, sent a letter to Pat Cockrum, Glenwyck Farms resident, likewise confirming that “any development” of the Open Space Land must occur 500 6 feet away from Glenwyck Farms. See February 5, 2009 Letter from Tom Brymer to Pat Cockrum, attached as Exhibit 3. The February 5, 2009 Letter from Tom Brymer to Pat Cockrum is particularly instructive as it makes clear that “any development,” even a gas well pad site, is prohibited within the 500-foot yard setback. In other words, the 500-foot yard setback prevents “any development” within 500 feet of Glenwyck Farms, whether that development is a building, a gas well pad site, or a surface parking lot. The text of Ordinance 202 (and is successors) and the Westlake Code confirm the same. Specifically, while other clauses refer expressly to “setbacks,” the clause that creates the 500- foot yard setback has always referenced a 500-foot “yard.” Here, the Town was its own lexicographer and provided its own definition of the word “yard” in the Westlake Code of Ordinances. According to the Westlake Code, a “yard” is “open space,” and “open space” is greenspace that is “relatively free of manmade structures [such as buildings and parking lots], where water bodies, land forms [such as a knoll/hill], and vegetation [such as trees] predominate”: Yard. The word “yard” shall mean an open space, other than a court, on a lot unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward unless specifically otherwise permitted in this Code. Open Space. The words “open space” shall mean that land area which is relatively free of manmade structures, where water bodies, land forms, and vegetation predominate. Westlake, TX Code of Ordinances. In short, the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer according to Ordinance 202 (and its successors), the Westlake Code of Ordinances, and the Town’s representatives who, for 20 years, represented that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer to the developer of Glenwyck Farms, Glenwyck Farms homebuilders, and Glenwyck Farms homeowners, each of whom has financially relied on the same. If this 500-foot yard setback is removed, then the Glenwyck Farms homeowners that border the Open Space Land will lose the 6 figure premiums (each) that they paid for their homes. 3. The proposed dense development is in conflict with the Westlake Transfer of Development Intensity Ordinance. Pursuant to the expressed intent of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan and to preserve Westlake’s view corridors and scenic topography, the Westlake Transfer of Development Intensity (“TDI”) Ordinance was adopted. The Open Space Land is in a Sending District where permitted development intensity should be transferred to a Receiving District. The proposed zoning change for dense residential development is in direct conflict with the intent of the TDI Ordinance that such development occur in a Receiving District. In fact, the TDI Ordinance is designed to transfer the existing PD1-1 permitted development intensity out of the Open Space Land District. The creation of a new PD6 in place of PD 1-1 with dense residential development intensity within a Sending District is a complete abomination of the TDI Ordinance, which is designed to prevent zoning changes that increase development intensity within a Sending District. 7 The TDI Ordinance could not have been written for a better situation than we have now. BRE Solana owns the Open Space Land, which is in a Sending District. BRE Solana also owns valuable property by the expressway that is in a Receiving District. Thus, BRE Solana can obtain incentives from the Town pursuant to the TDI Ordinance by building its allowed square footage (pursuant to the 10% lot coverage rule) on its expressway properties (all of BRE Solana’s allowed square footage can be built on its expressway properties). The fact that this deal has not already been done is a function of BRE Solana’s refusal to come to the table with the Town to talk about a master plan for its properties. 4. The proposed zoning change does not meet the requirements of the Westlake Code of Ordinances. Ordinance 101-266(i) – The proposed zoning change does not meet the following approval criteria for a planned development: 1. The requested zoning change is inconsistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan (including the Land Use Plan and the Parks & Open Space Plan); 2. The proposed dense residential uses and the configuration of the dense residential uses are not compatible with existing and planned adjoining residential uses because no development is to occur in the Open Space Land, which is meant to serve as a buffer; 3 The proposed dense residential uses, development densities and intensities, and development regulations are not consistent with this article because no development is to occur in the Open Space Land, the proposed development densities are greater than those of the adjacent Glenwyck and Granada neighborhoods, and no development intensity is to occur in the Open Space Land Sending District of the TDI Ordinance; 4. The configuration of the proposed open space serving the proposed development is not consistent with the Town's Open Space Plan because the Open Space Plan shows contiguous open space with no development of any kind except for a community park in this particular Open Space Land District, whereas the configuration of open space serving the proposed development is non-contiguous and randomly spaced among the dense units and also outside this particular Open Space Land District; 5. No amenities of value to persons who are not residents of the proposed residential development are proposed that justify proposed residential densities or intensities in an area that is meant to be undeveloped as Open Space Land; 6. The proposed dense development does not further the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community when the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, designed to preserve view corridors and native pastoral settings, is abrogated with the dense development that wipes out the Open Space Land. Ordinance 102-241 – The proposed zoning change does not meet the following purposes for the creation of a planned development: 8 1. Superior design of lots or buildings is not accomplished by PD6 with lot dimensions of 80’ X 135’ and dense units that are incompatible with existing homes in Glenwyck Farms and Granada; 2. Increased recreation and/or open space opportunities for public use is not provided by PD6 because existing, contiguous, undeveloped open space is being replaced by noncontiguous open space spread between 65 dense units plus wooden stairs to the top of “Mayor’s Hill,” which is an eyesore and a hazard; 3. Rural amenities or features that would be of special benefit to the property users or community is not provided by the proposed dense development in the middle of existing open space that already provides the rural amenities and features desired; 4. The proposed PD6 does not protect or preserve natural amenities and environmental assets such as trees, creeks, ponds, floodplains, slopes or hills and viewscapes because the existing Open Space Land with dense mature trees, a knoll that provides a sound barrier from traffic on Highway 114, and a sloping hill with viewscape for the Glenwyck and Granada neighborhoods will be destroyed by the proposed dense development; 5. The proposed PD6 does not protect or preserve existing historical buildings, structures, features or places because the proposed dense development will eliminate the existing Open Space Land, which contains the characteristic topography, views, and vistas that are the essence of Westlake’s pastoral setting; 6. The proposed PD6 does not provide an appropriate balance between the intensity of development and the ability to provide adequate supporting public facilities and services because development intensity is not to occur in this Open Space Land District and is to be sent from this area to receiving districts elsewhere in the Town. Ordinance 98-46 – The proposed zoning change is in direct conflict with the following tree preservation principles: 1. Not only will PD6 not protect against the indiscriminate clearing of trees, it will actually promote indiscriminate clearing of trees. Mass clear cutting of trees in this densely wooded Open Space Land is unavoidable in order to develop the proposed dense 65 lots with a 20-foot drop in grade of the view shed which now exists. The top area of the knoll (hill) that will be shaved down by 20 feet is particularly problematic because no trees or vegetation will survive this type of catastrophic soil removal. 2. PD6 will not protect and increase the value of residential and commercial properties within the Town because the Open Space Land District, left undisturbed in its natural state, is what protects and increases the value of the residential and commercial properties in the Town. 9 3. PD6 will not maintain and enhance a positive image for the attraction of new businesses and residents to the Town to the same extent as the Open Space Land District, with a Community Park among the dense trees in its natural state. 4. PD6 will not protect healthy mature trees and promote the natural ecological, environmental, and aesthetic qualities of the Town and will instead destroy the healthy mature trees in this Open Space Land District. This Open Space Land will be clear-cut for an incompatible dense development. 5. PD 6 will not preserve the rural forested character of the Town and will instead result in the annihilation of the last true piece of rural forested land in the Town. This is why the land was designated as Open Space Land. 5. The proposed zoning change does not comply with tree mitigation requirements. In November 2016, a tree survey of the Open Space Land was purportedly conducted by the developer’s consultant, Kimley Horn, wherein based upon a sampling process, trees 6-inches and greater in diameter were tagged and counted. Conspicuously absent from the developer’s zoning change request is a copy of this Kimley Horn survey. In fact, the Town Staff notes the failure of the developer to submit the survey and that the total cost of tree mitigation is “several million dollars at a minimum”: The survey was not submitted as part of this request. Staff estimates that total cost of mitigation would be several million dollars at a minimum. August 14, 2017 Staff Report at Page 89 of the August 14, 2017 P&Z Agenda. One can only assume that the survey is not favorable to the developer, especially because what little is disclosed about the survey evidences that tree mitigation payments to be paid by the developer should be many millions of dollars. In particular, by failing to disclose the Kimley Horn survey, the developer prevents the Town from calculating just how many millions of dollars are owed by the developer (the average caliper inches per Protect Tree is not disclosed). Although the Town was not provided with a copy of the Kimley Horn survey, the developer represents that that the survey determined that there were approximately 105 Protected Trees per acre on the East side of the sample area and approximately 162 Protected Trees per acre on the West side of the sample area. The proposed development will be on the West side of the subject property area. Per the developer’s Land Use Summary, 25.3 acres consists of residential areas and right-of-way that will be clear cut. Based upon 162 Protected Trees per acre and 25.3 acres of development including right-of-way, this represents 4,098.6 trees of at least 6 caliper inches that will be clear cut, not to mention thousands of other trees that are less than 6 caliper inches. Even if one assumes that every tree is only 6 caliper inches (and no more), this would represent 24,591.6 caliper inches. At $100 per caliper inch, this represents a minimum tree mitigation cost of $2,459,160. Of course, many of the trees on the Open Space Land are 12 caliper inches and greater. If the average is just 10 caliper inches, the total caliper inches would be 40,986, and the cost of tree mitigation then rises to $4,098,600. It is reasonable to assume that the tree mitigation cost to be paid by the developer is in the range of $4 to $5 Million. The Town should calculate what is owed by the developer and enforce payment of this amount should the Town decide to allow clear cutting of the Open Space Land. 10 Of course, in pursuit of profit maximization, the developer boldly proposes to pay nothing in connection with tree mitigation. The developer’s proposed zoning change requests that: “No mitigation shall be required of any individual lot. Each lot shall plant at least two 3.5 caliper inch trees from an approved hardwood tree list. If existing native trees are preserved in the front or street-side side yards, they can be utilized to satisfy the tree planting requirement on the lot.” Further, the developer proposes two alternatives to further address mitigation: Alternate A consists dedicated trailhead parking spaces as part of the existing adjacent parking lot, a wood stairway into “Mayor’s Hill,” passive fitness stations on “Mayor’s Hill,” and a picnic area on Mayor’s Hill. Alternate B consists of deeding to the Town land that fronts Sam School Road that can be used for municipal purposes (but the municipal use would be exempted from the cumulative PD1-1 coverage test). The developer’s request, along with Alternatives A and B, are nowhere close to equivalent value for the $4 to $5 Million in tree mitigation that should be paid for the destruction of thousands of mature trees on the Open Space Land that serves as a critical view shed for the Town pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan. The Town Staff appears to repudiate the developer’s request, along with Alternatives A and B, by declaring that “all existing trees removed on individual single family lots shall require mitigation per the requirements of the Code of Ordinances." However, the Town Staff also declares that “trees located in the roadways and utility main locations as shown on the preliminary plat and civil construction plans are hereby exempt from the mitigation requirements of the Code of Ordinances.” This exemption is not in the Town’s Code of Ordinances, and there is no reason why the Town should make such a concession when the developer seeks to clear cut the Open Space Land. 6. The proposed zoning change has a negative financial impact on the Town. The current property tax rate for the Town of Westlake is .13695 per $100 of assessed value. Assuming that each of the proposed 65 units has an assessed value of $1.35M, the total property tax revenue to the Town is $120,174. However, according to various studies, including Jeffrey H. Doorman’s The Fiscal Impacts of Land Use on Local Government (University of Georgia, 2006) and the Cost of Community Services Studies (“COCS”) prepared by the American Farmland Trust, the cost to provide public services for residential land use exceeds the property tax revenue generated. In particular, in the American Farmland Trust study, the median COCS for residential land use is $1.15 for every $1.00 of property tax revenue (in other words, a net loss). Accordingly, approval of the proposed zoning change would likewise result in a loss for the Town. Based on the COCS studies, and confirmed by Mayor Wheat at the August 7th Coffee with the Mayor, the Town’s expenses will increase by more than the $120,174 of property tax revenue such that the proposed residential development will result in a net economic loss for the Town. Moreover, while $120,174 of property tax revenue would be generated, representing 8% of the total property tax revenue ($1,477,116) in the FY17-18 Westlake Budget, $120,174 is less than 1% of the total revenue in the Westlake Budget ($16,389,867). Thus, the proposed development is insignificant to the Town’s overall revenue even if one fails to account for the COCS. 7. The proposed zoning change is inconsistent with surrounding properties and will result in a loss of property value. 11 The proposed dense development is not compatible with existing homes in the adjacent Glenwyck Farms and Granada neighborhoods. Dense development built close to the Glenwyck Farms and Granada neighborhoods means loss of property value for the Glenwyck Farms and Granada residents. 8. The proposed zoning change is inconsistent with the Town’s Tree City USA membership and the Town’s Vision Statement. As a member of Tree City USA, the Town should look for opportunities to preserve trees and open spaces. Here, it is easy for the Town to do this. The Town simply needs to deny the proposed zoning change. The Town has the opportunity to preserve the Open Space Land, which is arguably the last of its kind in the Town, with untouched native trees, wildlife (including deer), and a 30 foot knoll (hill) that acts as a view shed, noise barrier (from the expressway), and buffer for the Town. Also, the Town’s Vision Statement requires the Town to preserve land as open space when it has the ability to do so (like here): “Westlake is an oasis of natural beauty that maintains our open spaces in balance with distinctive development, trails, and quality of life amenities amidst an ever expanding urban landscape.” For the reasons set forth herein, the Town should deny the requested zoning change to which the developer and land owner have no entitlement and to which the developer and land owner have shown no compelling reason to (1) violate the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, (2) clear cut the Open Space Land, and (3) shave the knoll (hill) down by 20 feet, thus destroying the view shed and noise barrier for the Town. Name(s): Nizar & Muneera Didarali Signature(s): __________________________________________________________________ August 23 rd , 2017 Via Regular U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid And Email to rruthven*westlake-tx.org Mr. Ron Ruthven Director of Planning and Development Town of Westlake 1500 Solana Blvd. (The Terrace) Building 7, Suite 7200 Westlake, Texas 76262 Re: Protest Petition for Case No. Z-06-19-17; Zoning change request for approximately 62.58 acre porion of Lot 1, Block 3 Westlake/Southlake Park #1 Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission and Town Council: As the owner(s) of the property at 1337 Broken bend Drive, Westlake, Texas, I (we) are opposed to the requested zoning change. The zoning change request: 1. Violates the 500-foot setback on the North Side of Glenwyck Farms and the East Side of Granada; 2. Results in clear cutting of the Open Space Land, the entirety of which is designated to be open space pursuant to the Town's Comprehensive and Land Use Plans; 3. Results in the Open Space Land's "knoll" (hill), which serves as a view shed and noise barrier pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, being shaved down; 4. Results in dense housing that inconsistent with the housing in Glenwyck Farms and Granada; and 5. Results in multi-story housing that is positioned to directly overlook the yards of Glenwyck Farms and Granada homeowners due to the fact that the Open Space Land is elevated upwards of 30 feet over the Glenwyck Farms and Granada residences. I (we) respectfully request that you deny the requested zoning change. Sincerely, Name(s) Printed: Nizar and Muneera Didaral Signature: 1 October 2, 2017 VIA U.S. MAIL and EMAIL TO: rruthven@westlake-tx.org Town Council and Planning & Zoning Commission Members c/o Ron Ruthven, Director of Planning and Development Town of Westlake 1500 Solana Blvd. (The Terrace) Building 7, Suite 7200 Westlake, TX 76262 Re: Protest Petition for Case No. Z-06-19-17; Zoning change request for approximately 62.53 acre portion of Lot 1, Block 3 Westlake/Southlake Park #1 Dear Town Council and Planning & Zoning Commission members: We, _Charles J. Hamby and Beth A. Hamby_, reside at _1839 Broken Bend Dr ; Westlake, TX 76262___. We oppose to the zoning change requested in Case No. Z-06-19-17 and respectfully request that you deny the requested zoning change for the following 8 reasons detailed below: (1) The proposed zoning change is not in compliance with the Land Use Plan and the 2015 Town of Westlake Comprehensive Plan, (2) the proposed 150-foot setback is contrary to the 500-foot yard setback of PD1-1 and will result in property value loss, (3) the proposed dense development is in conflict with the Town of Westlake Transfer of Development Intensity Ordinance, (4) the proposed zoning change does not meet the requirements of the Town of Westlake Code of Ordinances, (5) the proposed zoning change does not comply with tree mitigation requirements, (6) the proposed zoning change has a negative financial impact on the Town, (7) the proposed zoning change is inconsistent with surrounding properties and will result in a loss of property value, and (8) the proposed zoning change is inconsistent with the Town’s Tree City USA Membership and the Town’s Vision Statement. In addition, the zoning change request should be denied for an even more fundamental reason before the Town analyzes these 8 problems with the request. In particular, the property owner, Blackstone (“BRE Solana, LLC”), has repeatedly and stubbornly refused, over the last 3 years, to meet with the Town to discuss a Master Plan for BRE Solana’s properties. Over the last 3 years, dozens of requests for such a meeting have been made by the Town Staff (Tom Brymer, Eddie Edwards, and Ron Ruthven) and Mayor Wheat. As the Town Council and Planning & Zoning Commission members are aware, the Town had an early opportunity to bring BRE Solana to the table when it wanted to build a parking garage at one of the Solana buildings. Despite the fact that BRE Solana continued to refuse to discuss a Master Plan, out of good faith and with the goal of changing BRE Solana’s attitude, the Town allowed BRE Solana to build the parking garage that it wanted. At that time, the Town Staff indicated that BRE Solana would not obtain another favor from the Town, and in particular, a zoning change, unless BRE Solana came to the table and agreed to (1) keep the Open Space Land (the subject of Z-06-19-17) as open space, and (2) build its allowed 10% lot coverage on its more valuable properties by the expressway. The Town has even offered incentives to BRE Solana in return for BRE Solana building its allowed 10% lot coverage on its more valuable properties by the expressway. The 2 incentives offered by the Town include providing BRE Solana with more square footage to be built beyond the 47,230 s.f. allowed under the 10% lot coverage calculation,1 tree mitigation credits, and relaxation of setback and building height restrictions. To date, BRE Solana has continued to refuse to come to the table. Now that a zoning change request is pending, the Town can finally insist on the BRE Solana Master Plan that is long overdue, one that will keep the subject Open Space Land as open space pursuant to the Comprehensive and Land Use Plans (and preserve the ability of the Town to place a one of a kind wooded Community Park on the North half of the Open Space Land pursuant to the Parks & Open Space Plan). To this end, in a February 29, 2016 letter to the residents of Glenwyck Farms, Mayor Wheat, speaking as Mayor of the Town of Westlake and also expressly on behalf of the Town Council, represented that the Town would “push” for the Open Space Land to remain “open and unimproved should the developer request any sort of zoning change,” just as Wilbow, the developer, is doing now: It is important to understand that the newly revised Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Town Council in 2015, designates as Open Space the whole 62.5 acre tract of land of which the Glenwyck [500-foot] Setback is a part. See Attachment B. Although current entitlements on this 62.5 acre tract allow development, the Open Space designation is a signal to future developers that the Town will be pushing for the space to remain open and unimproved should the developer request any sort of zoning change. In the event a future developer does not agree to the Open Space designation and desires to develop the property, it is important to know that the very nature of the Solana Planned Development District gives the Town many strong tools to heavily regulate the manner in which the property can be developed. These tools range from requiring preservation of view corridors, to requiring the preservation of trees, to limiting the footprint and place of any structures and all improvements and to things as simple as the placement of trash cans. February 29, 2016 Letter from Mayor Wheat to Glenwyck Farms Residents at 4 (emphasis added). Mayor Wheat and the Town Council members should follow through with their promise in their February 29, 2016 letter to “push[] for the space to remain open and unimproved should the developer request any sort of zoning change.” It is not in the Town’s or its citizen’s best interest to continue to make concessions to BRE Solana and get nothing in return. If it was not clear from the beginning, it is abundantly clear now that BRE Solana intends to (1) obtain concession after concession from the Town with the sole goal of maximizing profit on the “flip” of its purchase of Maguire Partners’ Solana office buildings out of bankruptcy, and (2) get out of town. In fact, BRE Solana is already half way out of town on its “flip” as it has already sold (“flipped”) two of its office buildings. BRE Solana will soon be out of Westlake and on to its next profit maximizing “flip.” 1 On January 7, 2013, pursuant to the approval of Entrada and Granada, the Town Staff (Eddie Edwards) and Trent Petty (the first Town Manager and now consultant to the Town) calculated the remaining allowed square footage to be built within PD1 after approval of Entrada and Granada. See January 7, 2013 Emails Between Eddie Edwards and Trent Petty, attached as Exhibit 1. Mr. Edwards and Mr. Petty calculated the remaining allowed square footage to be 47,230 s.f. Thus, at most, BRE Solana can build only 47,230 s.f. on the Open Space Land. 3 In addition to BRE Solana’s refusal to meet with the Town, the proposed zoning change should be denied for the following 8 reasons: 1. The proposed zoning change is not in compliance with the Land Use Plan and the Parks & Open Space Plan of the 2015 Town of Westlake Comprehensive Plan. The requested zoning change is contrary to the Land Use and Comprehensive Plans. The Open Space Land, located within the Open Space Land District of the Land Use Plan, abuts the Glenwyck Farms and Granada subdivisions. The Comprehensive Plan states that: [T]he intent of the Open Space District is to preserve vistas and view corridors and, thereby, preserve the essence of Westlake’s pastoral setting as it experiences increasing amounts of commercial and residential development. Open Space Land Use District is meant to be primarily undeveloped with landmark landforms of the Town remaining in their natural condition, thereby preserving important views as well as natural and rural settings. 2015 Town of Westlake Comprehensive Plan. The proposed dense residential development is inconsistent with the expressed intentions of the Town Council, P&Z Commission, and the Town’s citizens, who approved the Land Use Plan to keep the Open Space Land undeveloped and in its natural state. Accordingly, residential development within the Open Space Land Use District does not comply with the 2015 Town of Westlake Comprehensive Plan. In a red herring argument, the developer argues that it is preserving open space in the Southeast portion of the 62.53 acre property. However, this portion of the property is not designated as open space pursuant to the Land Use and Comprehensive Plans. Moreover, this Southeast portion of the property is “undevelopable” according to the developer’s representative, Larry Corson, and thus, the Southeast portion will always remain as open space. This means that the developer is offering nothing to the Town in return for being able to (1) clear cut the Open Space Land, and (2) shave down, by 20 feet, the knoll (hill) that acts as view shed and noise barrier for the Town. Both (1) and (2) would be devastating to the Town’s citizens and their properties if the Town Council and P&Z Commission were to allow it. Also, the requested zoning change is contrary to The Parks & Open Space Plan that is a part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Parks & Open Space Plan calls for the only Community Park in the Town to be located on the North half of the Open Space Land. In what would be another bad deal for the Town, the developer proposes that the Town abandon its plans for the only, one of a kind, 30 acre wooded Community Park on the North half of the Open Space Land pursuant to the Parks & Open Space Plan and instead have the 2 acre “Mayor’s Hill” with a wooden staircase replace it. Other than the building of a wooden staircase on Mayor’s Hill, which would be an eyesore and a hazard, the Town receives nothing in return because Mayor’s Hill will exist no matter what (again, as the developer’s representative has conceded, this Southeast area is “undevelopable” and will remain as open space). 2. The proposed 150-foot setback is contrary to the 500-foot yard setback of PD1-1 and will result in property value loss. 4 The requested zoning change seeks to create a new PD6 that eliminates all of the development regulations of PD1-1. An important development condition in PD1-1 imposes a minimum size of front, side and rear yard of five hundred feet (500’) setback from Glenwyck Farms. Similarly, there exists a 500-foot setback in connection with the Granada subdivision. The development plan associated with the requested zoning change removes the Glenwyck Farms 500-foot yard setback and the Granada 500-foot setback and replaces them with a 150-foot setback. Property owners in Glenwyck Farms and Granada invested substantial monetary sums in their land and improvements in reliance on the Town’s imposition of the 500-foot yard setback and 500-foot setback, with exemplary Glenwyck Farms residents paying multiple 6 figure premiums (each) to purchase their homes that adjoin the 500-foot yard setback. At 150 feet, even for that period of the year when leaves are on the trees, the windows of the proposed dense development will be looking directly into the bedroom windows, living rooms, family rooms, and backyards of Glenwyck Farms and Granada residents. When the leaves are down in Fall/Winter/Early Spring, the view will be clear as you can see all of the way to the knoll (hill) at 500 feet away with the leaves down. Making matters even worse, the requested zoning change proposes the placement of parking lots (and presumably lighting poles) at only 150 feet away from the back yards of Glenwyck Farms and Granada residents (see the red arrows below): As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will recall, the 500-foot yard setback was established in 1992 via Ordinance 202, and the text and history of Ordinance 202 (and its successors 588, 691, and 767) evidence that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer. Four of the most important Town witnesses that have lived and owned the genesis of the 500- foot yard setback in the 1990s confirm that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer. During this time, former Mayor Bradley was Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mayor Bradley led the Town’s negotiations with IBM, the owner of the Open Space Land at the time. Mayor Bradley will testify before the P&Z Commission and the Town Council that he had express and extensive discussions with the President of IBM Realty concerning the fact that the 5 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer that is to remain untouched and undeveloped. Mayor Bradley will further testify that the President of IBM Realty believed that the greenspace buffer would provide value to IBM’s properties by preserving open space. The President of IBM Realty also believed that the IBM development would serve as an exemplary development for the Town on how open space was to be preserved and how view sheds should be retained, including the knoll (hill) North of Glenwyck Farms and East of Granada. This is evidenced by the fact that the President of IBM Realty agreed to move 300 million square yards of dirt to create the Mayor’s Hill in order to create a greenspace buffer and view shed that did not already exist. In effect, IBM created a second knoll (hill) to the East. IBM did not need to do this to the North of Glenwyck Farms because the natural knoll (hill) already existed, and it is this natural knoll (hill) that the developer now seeks to shave down by 20 feet. As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will also recall, Trent Petty, the Town’s first Town Manager and current consultant to the Town, likewise confirmed that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer and was treated that way by the owners of the Open Space Land, both IBM and subsequent owner Maguire Partners. As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will also recall, Glenwyck Farms homebuilder Scott Simmons testified at the January 4, 2016 P&Z Hearing (relating to the fix of the typographical error in Ordinance 691) that the Town of Westlake communicated to Glenwyck Farms homebuilders and the Glenwyck Farms developer that the 500-foot yard setback is to remain as undisturbed greenspace and is not merely a bare “setback.” As the Town Staff, P&Z Members, and Town Council will also recall, we had the opportunity to speak with Howard Dudley, former Town Alderman and owner of the land now known as Glenwyck Farms, about the 500-foot yard setback (which Mr. Dudley enacted with the other Town Alderman via Ordinance 202 in 1992). Mr. Dudley likewise confirmed that the 500-foot yard setback is to remain as undisturbed greenspace. In fact, Mr. Dudley indicated that the 500- foot yard setback was specifically designed to preserve the knoll (hill) and trees to the North of his property and create a buffer for his property with respect to future development. Mr. Dudley and the other Town Alderman were quite accurate back in 1992 because the developer’s topography map associated with this zoning change request shows that you get over to the North Side of the knoll at 500 feet out. Moreover, the Town’s communications concerning the existence of the 500-foot yard setback and the fact that it prevents any development within 500 feet of Glenwyck Farms has been memorialized in writing. The Town of Westlake has sent written correspondence to the Glenwyck Farms developer and to Glenwyck Farms residents confirming that “any development” must occur outside of the 500-foot yard setback area. For example, on November 1, 1999, Dennis Wilson, Town Planner, sent a letter to David McMahan at Four Peaks Development, Inc. (the developer of Glenwyck Farms) in which Mr. Wilson confirms that “any development” of the Open Space Land must occur 500 feet away from Glenwyck Farms. See November 1, 1999 Letter from Dennis Wilson to David McMahan, attached as Exhibit 2. This November 1, 1999 Letter from Dennis Wilson, Town Planner, was also distributed to Glenwyck Farms residents, upon which they relied in purchasing their homes. In addition, on February 5, 2009, Tom Brymer, current Town Manager, sent a letter to Pat Cockrum, Glenwyck Farms resident, likewise confirming that “any development” of the Open Space Land must occur 500 6 feet away from Glenwyck Farms. See February 5, 2009 Letter from Tom Brymer to Pat Cockrum, attached as Exhibit 3. The February 5, 2009 Letter from Tom Brymer to Pat Cockrum is particularly instructive as it makes clear that “any development,” even a gas well pad site, is prohibited within the 500-foot yard setback. In other words, the 500-foot yard setback prevents “any development” within 500 feet of Glenwyck Farms, whether that development is a building, a gas well pad site, or a surface parking lot. The text of Ordinance 202 (and is successors) and the Westlake Code confirm the same. Specifically, while other clauses refer expressly to “setbacks,” the clause that creates the 500- foot yard setback has always referenced a 500-foot “yard.” Here, the Town was its own lexicographer and provided its own definition of the word “yard” in the Westlake Code of Ordinances. According to the Westlake Code, a “yard” is “open space,” and “open space” is greenspace that is “relatively free of manmade structures [such as buildings and parking lots], where water bodies, land forms [such as a knoll/hill], and vegetation [such as trees] predominate”: Yard. The word “yard” shall mean an open space, other than a court, on a lot unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward unless specifically otherwise permitted in this Code. Open Space. The words “open space” shall mean that land area which is relatively free of manmade structures, where water bodies, land forms, and vegetation predominate. Westlake, TX Code of Ordinances. In short, the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer according to Ordinance 202 (and its successors), the Westlake Code of Ordinances, and the Town’s representatives who, for 20 years, represented that the 500-foot yard setback is a greenspace buffer to the developer of Glenwyck Farms, Glenwyck Farms homebuilders, and Glenwyck Farms homeowners, each of whom has financially relied on the same. If this 500-foot yard setback is removed, then the Glenwyck Farms homeowners that border the Open Space Land will lose the 6 figure premiums (each) that they paid for their homes. 3. The proposed dense development is in conflict with the Westlake Transfer of Development Intensity Ordinance. Pursuant to the expressed intent of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan and to preserve Westlake’s view corridors and scenic topography, the Westlake Transfer of Development Intensity (“TDI”) Ordinance was adopted. The Open Space Land is in a Sending District where permitted development intensity should be transferred to a Receiving District. The proposed zoning change for dense residential development is in direct conflict with the intent of the TDI Ordinance that such development occur in a Receiving District. In fact, the TDI Ordinance is designed to transfer the existing PD1-1 permitted development intensity out of the Open Space Land District. The creation of a new PD6 in place of PD 1-1 with dense residential development intensity within a Sending District is a complete abomination of the TDI Ordinance, which is designed to prevent zoning changes that increase development intensity within a Sending District. 7 The TDI Ordinance could not have been written for a better situation than we have now. BRE Solana owns the Open Space Land, which is in a Sending District. BRE Solana also owns valuable property by the expressway that is in a Receiving District. Thus, BRE Solana can obtain incentives from the Town pursuant to the TDI Ordinance by building its allowed square footage (pursuant to the 10% lot coverage rule) on its expressway properties (all of BRE Solana’s allowed square footage can be built on its expressway properties). The fact that this deal has not already been done is a function of BRE Solana’s refusal to come to the table with the Town to talk about a master plan for its properties. 4. The proposed zoning change does not meet the requirements of the Westlake Code of Ordinances. Ordinance 101-266(i) – The proposed zoning change does not meet the following approval criteria for a planned development: 1. The requested zoning change is inconsistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan (including the Land Use Plan and the Parks & Open Space Plan); 2. The proposed dense residential uses and the configuration of the dense residential uses are not compatible with existing and planned adjoining residential uses because no development is to occur in the Open Space Land, which is meant to serve as a buffer; 3 The proposed dense residential uses, development densities and intensities, and development regulations are not consistent with this article because no development is to occur in the Open Space Land, the proposed development densities are greater than those of the adjacent Glenwyck and Granada neighborhoods, and no development intensity is to occur in the Open Space Land Sending District of the TDI Ordinance; 4. The configuration of the proposed open space serving the proposed development is not consistent with the Town's Open Space Plan because the Open Space Plan shows contiguous open space with no development of any kind except for a community park in this particular Open Space Land District, whereas the configuration of open space serving the proposed development is non-contiguous and randomly spaced among the dense units and also outside this particular Open Space Land District; 5. No amenities of value to persons who are not residents of the proposed residential development are proposed that justify proposed residential densities or intensities in an area that is meant to be undeveloped as Open Space Land; 6. The proposed dense development does not further the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community when the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, designed to preserve view corridors and native pastoral settings, is abrogated with the dense development that wipes out the Open Space Land. Ordinance 102-241 – The proposed zoning change does not meet the following purposes for the creation of a planned development: 8 1. Superior design of lots or buildings is not accomplished by PD6 with lot dimensions of 80’ X 135’ and dense units that are incompatible with existing homes in Glenwyck Farms and Granada; 2. Increased recreation and/or open space opportunities for public use is not provided by PD6 because existing, contiguous, undeveloped open space is being replaced by noncontiguous open space spread between 65 dense units plus wooden stairs to the top of “Mayor’s Hill,” which is an eyesore and a hazard; 3. Rural amenities or features that would be of special benefit to the property users or community is not provided by the proposed dense development in the middle of existing open space that already provides the rural amenities and features desired; 4. The proposed PD6 does not protect or preserve natural amenities and environmental assets such as trees, creeks, ponds, floodplains, slopes or hills and viewscapes because the existing Open Space Land with dense mature trees, a knoll that provides a sound barrier from traffic on Highway 114, and a sloping hill with viewscape for the Glenwyck and Granada neighborhoods will be destroyed by the proposed dense development; 5. The proposed PD6 does not protect or preserve existing historical buildings, structures, features or places because the proposed dense development will eliminate the existing Open Space Land, which contains the characteristic topography, views, and vistas that are the essence of Westlake’s pastoral setting; 6. The proposed PD6 does not provide an appropriate balance between the intensity of development and the ability to provide adequate supporting public facilities and services because development intensity is not to occur in this Open Space Land District and is to be sent from this area to receiving districts elsewhere in the Town. Ordinance 98-46 – The proposed zoning change is in direct conflict with the following tree preservation principles: 1. Not only will PD6 not protect against the indiscriminate clearing of trees, it will actually promote indiscriminate clearing of trees. Mass clear cutting of trees in this densely wooded Open Space Land is unavoidable in order to develop the proposed dense 65 lots with a 20-foot drop in grade of the view shed which now exists. The top area of the knoll (hill) that will be shaved down by 20 feet is particularly problematic because no trees or vegetation will survive this type of catastrophic soil removal. 2. PD6 will not protect and increase the value of residential and commercial properties within the Town because the Open Space Land District, left undisturbed in its natural state, is what protects and increases the value of the residential and commercial properties in the Town. 9 3. PD6 will not maintain and enhance a positive image for the attraction of new businesses and residents to the Town to the same extent as the Open Space Land District, with a Community Park among the dense trees in its natural state. 4. PD6 will not protect healthy mature trees and promote the natural ecological, environmental, and aesthetic qualities of the Town and will instead destroy the healthy mature trees in this Open Space Land District. This Open Space Land will be clear-cut for an incompatible dense development. 5. PD 6 will not preserve the rural forested character of the Town and will instead result in the annihilation of the last true piece of rural forested land in the Town. This is why the land was designated as Open Space Land. 5. The proposed zoning change does not comply with tree mitigation requirements. In November 2016, a tree survey of the Open Space Land was purportedly conducted by the developer’s consultant, Kimley Horn, wherein based upon a sampling process, trees 6-inches and greater in diameter were tagged and counted. Conspicuously absent from the developer’s zoning change request is a copy of this Kimley Horn survey. In fact, the Town Staff notes the failure of the developer to submit the survey and that the total cost of tree mitigation is “several million dollars at a minimum”: The survey was not submitted as part of this request. Staff estimates that total cost of mitigation would be several million dollars at a minimum. August 14, 2017 Staff Report at Page 89 of the August 14, 2017 P&Z Agenda. One can only assume that the survey is not favorable to the developer, especially because what little is disclosed about the survey evidences that tree mitigation payments to be paid by the developer should be many millions of dollars. In particular, by failing to disclose the Kimley Horn survey, the developer prevents the Town from calculating just how many millions of dollars are owed by the developer (the average caliper inches per Protect Tree is not disclosed). Although the Town was not provided with a copy of the Kimley Horn survey, the developer represents that that the survey determined that there were approximately 105 Protected Trees per acre on the East side of the sample area and approximately 162 Protected Trees per acre on the West side of the sample area. The proposed development will be on the West side of the subject property area. Per the developer’s Land Use Summary, 25.3 acres consists of residential areas and right-of-way that will be clear cut. Based upon 162 Protected Trees per acre and 25.3 acres of development including right-of-way, this represents 4,098.6 trees of at least 6 caliper inches that will be clear cut, not to mention thousands of other trees that are less than 6 caliper inches. Even if one assumes that every tree is only 6 caliper inches (and no more), this would represent 24,591.6 caliper inches. At $100 per caliper inch, this represents a minimum tree mitigation cost of $2,459,160. Of course, many of the trees on the Open Space Land are 12 caliper inches and greater. If the average is just 10 caliper inches, the total caliper inches would be 40,986, and the cost of tree mitigation then rises to $4,098,600. It is reasonable to assume that the tree mitigation cost to be paid by the developer is in the range of $4 to $5 Million. The Town should calculate what is owed by the developer and enforce payment of this amount should the Town decide to allow clear cutting of the Open Space Land. 10 Of course, in pursuit of profit maximization, the developer boldly proposes to pay nothing in connection with tree mitigation. The developer’s proposed zoning change requests that: “No mitigation shall be required of any individual lot. Each lot shall plant at least two 3.5 caliper inch trees from an approved hardwood tree list. If existing native trees are preserved in the front or street-side side yards, they can be utilized to satisfy the tree planting requirement on the lot.” Further, the developer proposes two alternatives to further address mitigation: Alternate A consists dedicated trailhead parking spaces as part of the existing adjacent parking lot, a wood stairway into “Mayor’s Hill,” passive fitness stations on “Mayor’s Hill,” and a picnic area on Mayor’s Hill. Alternate B consists of deeding to the Town land that fronts Sam School Road that can be used for municipal purposes (but the municipal use would be exempted from the cumulative PD1-1 coverage test). The developer’s request, along with Alternatives A and B, are nowhere close to equivalent value for the $4 to $5 Million in tree mitigation that should be paid for the destruction of thousands of mature trees on the Open Space Land that serves as a critical view shed for the Town pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan. The Town Staff appears to repudiate the developer’s request, along with Alternatives A and B, by declaring that “all existing trees removed on individual single family lots shall require mitigation per the requirements of the Code of Ordinances." However, the Town Staff also declares that “trees located in the roadways and utility main locations as shown on the preliminary plat and civil construction plans are hereby exempt from the mitigation requirements of the Code of Ordinances.” This exemption is not in the Town’s Code of Ordinances, and there is no reason why the Town should make such a concession when the developer seeks to clear cut the Open Space Land. 6. The proposed zoning change has a negative financial impact on the Town. The current property tax rate for the Town of Westlake is .13695 per $100 of assessed value. Assuming that each of the proposed 65 units has an assessed value of $1.35M, the total property tax revenue to the Town is $120,174. However, according to various studies, including Jeffrey H. Doorman’s The Fiscal Impacts of Land Use on Local Government (University of Georgia, 2006) and the Cost of Community Services Studies (“COCS”) prepared by the American Farmland Trust, the cost to provide public services for residential land use exceeds the property tax revenue generated. In particular, in the American Farmland Trust study, the median COCS for residential land use is $1.15 for every $1.00 of property tax revenue (in other words, a net loss). Accordingly, approval of the proposed zoning change would likewise result in a loss for the Town. Based on the COCS studies, and confirmed by Mayor Wheat at the August 7th Coffee with the Mayor, the Town’s expenses will increase by more than the $120,174 of property tax revenue such that the proposed residential development will result in a net economic loss for the Town. Moreover, while $120,174 of property tax revenue would be generated, representing 8% of the total property tax revenue ($1,477,116) in the FY17-18 Westlake Budget, $120,174 is less than 1% of the total revenue in the Westlake Budget ($16,389,867). Thus, the proposed development is insignificant to the Town’s overall revenue even if one fails to account for the COCS. 7. The proposed zoning change is inconsistent with surrounding properties and will result in a loss of property value. August 8, 2017 Via Regular U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid And Email to rruthven@westlake-tx.org Mr. Ron Ruthven Director of Planning and Development Town of Westlake 1500 Solana Blvd. (The Terrace) Building 7, Suite 7200 Westlake, Texas 76262 Re: Protest Petition for Case No. Z-06-19-17; Zoning change request for approximately 62.58 acre portion of Lot 1, Block 3 Westlake/Southlake Park #1 Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission and Town Council: As the owner(s) of the property at 1855 Broken Bend Dr., Westlake, Texas, I (we) are opposed to the requested zoning change. The zoning change request: 1. Violates the 500-foot setback on the North Side of Glenwyck Farms and the East Side of Granada; 2. Results in clear cutting of the Open Space Land, the entirety of which is designated to be open space pursuant to the Town’s Comprehensive and Land Use Plans; 3. Results in the Open Space Land’s “knoll” (hill), which serves as a view shed and noise barrier pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, being shaved down; 4. Results in dense housing that inconsistent with the housing in Glenwyck Farms and Granada; and 5. Results in multi-story housing that is positioned to directly overlook the yards of Glenwyck Farms and Granada homeowners due to the fact that the Open Space Land is elevated upwards of 30 feet over the Glenwyck Farms and Granada residences. I (we) respectfully request that you deny the requested zoning change. Sincerely, Name(s) Printed:___Mike Mauler____ ______________________________ Signature: ______Stef Mauler____ ______________________________ August 8, 2017 Via Regular U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid And Email to rruthven@westlake-tx.org Mr. Ron Ruthven Director of Planning and Development Town of Westlake 1500 Solana Blvd. (The Terrace) Building 7, Suite 7200 Westlake, Texas 76262 Re: Protest Petition for Case No. Z-06-19-17; Zoning change request for approximately 62.58 acre portion of Lot 1, Block 3 Westlake/Southlake Park #1 Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission and Town Council: As the owner(s) of the property at ___________________________________________, Westlake, Texas, I (we) are opposed to the requested zoning change. The zoning change request: 1.Violates the 500-foot setback on the North Side of Glenwyck Farms and the East Side of Granada; 2.Results in clear cutting of the Open Space Land, the entirety of which is designated to be open space pursuant to the Town’s Comprehensive and Land Use Plans; 3.Results in the Open Space Land’s “knoll” (hill), which serves as a view shed and noise barrier pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, being shaved down; 4.Results in dense housing that inconsistent with the housing in Glenwyck Farms and Granada; and 5.Results in multi-story housing that is positioned to directly overlook the yards of Glenwyck Farms and Granada homeowners due to the fact that the Open Space Land is elevated upwards of 30 feet over the Glenwyck Farms and Granada residences. I (we) respectfully request that you deny the requested zoning change. Sincerely, Name(s) _______________________________ ______________________________ Signature: ______________________________ ______________________________ Planning and Zoning Item # 7 – Adjournment Regular Session Back up material has not been provided for this item.